Post by: Soulwynd on January 21, 2010, 10:51:12 am
1. Loading Screens.
I probably hate this because I have consoles and I'm old. I'm sorry, but when I started playing games on computers, you had to either program them, or use a k7 to load them up. Remember those days? Well, I was a kid back then. After that, came the 286s and even for a while we had games that would fit in floppy drives, playing on 8mhz computer that... -wouldn't have loading screens- ... You typed in "xcom" or "dagger" in the proper directory (yes, we called them directories back then, kids, not folder) and tada... The game was up. Maybe we'd have some EA or Interplay screen but that was it. No loading screens in between either.
What kills me about games today is that; Any game you play, there will be a loading screen at one point or another. For an example, the first time I started truly hating loading screens was with Morrowind. I'm a daggerfall fan and morrowind... well... There were loading screens for entering buildings and walking around. Of course, with today's computers you wont notice it as much, but at the time, it was awful. It just killed it for me and made me not want to play it anymore. I only came to enjoy it years later when computers got much faster.
I think there's a notable exception for that, when it comes to modern games, and it is Hitman. For any hitman games, even tho they have a loading screen, it zips by so fast you will barely notice it.
The most remarkable examples of loading screen madness would be MMORPGs most of the time. I'm currently playing STO and Champions Online and cryptic did a horrible job with their engine. It's all instanced one way or another and you see loading screens for everything. If you die, you will also see a loading screen, despise the area you are in is already loaded up. Not only that, most of the information needed to get the loading screen moving is online. So if you're having a bad internet day, changing instances and going to an open zone will give you time to pee and maybe go get some coffee. For a heavily instance game, that's madness. It's just poorly thought and designed.
Spoony mentioned bayoneta for the PS3 and he said there were loading screens to -pause- the game. Also 5 seconds loading screens for when you get an item. Takes 5 seconds to load up the picture of the item you got. That's fucked up.
2. Don't insult our intelligence.
I believe us b12ers have a reasonable level of intelligence, even the young ones, and I'm sure you all have noticed how gameplay is being dumbed down. Not only that, but the games are also being made easier too. Lets take the elder scrolls for example, from arena to oblivion, they removed several dozen skills, limited your choices, took away even armor classes, and limited your skill levels. I'm not sure about you guys, but I like complexity, I like challenge when I play something. I like losing when I do something wrong, I like doing intelligent strategies and combos to win, instead of just pressing the same button over and over.
It just makes me feel they are making games for retards. Also, not to say that people who like consoles are dumb in any way, but there used to be a clear difference in complexity and style from consoles to PCs, but today, most games are being made for consoles and then ported to pcs. Either that or being multi-platform. That's resulting in two things. Games that completely ignore the fact you have a keyboard and generally want to do more than press 1, 2, and 3. And games that are poorly ported and are sluggish to say the best. Dragon Age is a clear example of that. They made it seem like it was a next generation rpg, but it was a very very dumbed down baldur's gate. From beginning to end, the general experience of playing that game was the same. There wasn't anything compelling about it. It was just... made for retards. Not that intelligent people can't enjoy it, but it's not very challenging or something that would make you use your head much.
3. That horse is dead already. (Or also, that cow is out of milk.)
I hate it when people start milking older games. Not only they milk it, but they manage to make it not as good as the original. I mean, if you are basing your work on something else, make it -better-, I think that's the whole point. Oblivion, for example, it was sort of enjoyable, but again, it felt like something made for the console and didn't have nearly the complexity of its predecessors. Fallout 3 also comes to mind (and it seems I'm beating the same studio). But there are other examples of studios that basically copy the gameplay of an older game, dumb it down, milk it, flog it, and then deliver something out as it being the next big thing (tm) and when in fact, it's not.
I think this complaint should belong to my point number 2, but it deserves some attention of its own. I don't really mind people not being original, I mean, some games deserve to be looked at and improved. But we have lots of (spiritual) sequels that don't really offer anything new, in fact, they offer less than the game they are based on. I think one of the great exceptions might be GTA, despise the fact I didn't like GTA 4, anyone who has played the original... and even GTA 2... will know the sort of impressive and major improvement it got when it became GTA 3. Sadly, we can't say the same for mostly every other sequel there is.
4. Sorry, but why can't I go there?
Linear gameplay bores me. I'm not saying linear as in, following a story, but linear as in design. It seems some developers really want to undermine your creativity and ability to come up with solutions by giving you a single specific route you can follow. Let's take Portal for example, portal is linear story-wise, you go through the same levels every time you play it, and you get to the same ending always. But what was enjoyable about it was that most levels had huge potential of freedom. You could improvise and do crazy stuff to come to a solution. If you guys check on youtube, you can find some awesome videos of how some people can beat a portal level. Some of them even amazed me. I was like... wow... I never thought of that...
Anyway. Having a linear design not only makes me feel like I'm being forded down a path, but also cuts out re-playability. When you have a game that makes you think "I could have done that different. Lets try it." Then you have a fairly lasting game in your hands.
Also, procedural/dynamic content. It's really sad to see that not enough games make use of that. Lets take Mirror's edge for example. I loved that game... But it lasted 5 hours or so... If they had thought of procedural map generation, wow... I'd be playing it to this day and I'm sure, they'd have people interested in it even today, while I think nobody even mentions it anymore. Not even to complain. Except for me.
5. Military training.
Take most games today. Specially RPGs. They have you kill and kill and kill and kill and then beat the dead people a bit more. Worst yet, they make it seem like it's supposed to be for a greater good. For example, I mentioned I was playing STO and at any given instance, I have to kill, maybe 25, 30, ships. You say, okay, that's not a lot, but consider there, there would be at least 100 crew members inside any of those ships... That's 3000 people killed in a single instance... How many times do we see someone commit mass murder in any startrek show? Zero. In fact, they are most often concerned about it and want to avoid it.
Okay, I'm sure that for some games, like GTA, Borderlands, and prototype, mass murdering is fun. You're meant to be a badass psychopath. But it really doesn't make sense for some games and honestly, it shouldn't be a requirement. It shouldn't seem like you can completely ignore the other side's point of view and simply kill them all to fix it.
6. Oooh pretty.
Too much emphasis on graphics and too little on gameplay. All the current improvements are also towards graphics. People were talking to me about DX11 the other day and I was like... Okay, but how does that enhance my gameplay? ... It doesn't. I mean, it will look prettier, but if people keep making pretty retarded games, they will still be retarded. It seems more like beer ads than games to me.
I don't oppose games looking better but they should also play better and hopefully not take 10gb to install. That's insane. Specially for games that essentially -suck-.
Anyway. I'm done with my rant.
Post by: Cheeetar on January 21, 2010, 10:54:12 am
Post by: Goron on January 21, 2010, 10:58:56 am
Post by: Soulwynd on January 21, 2010, 11:03:53 am
As games get more complex, loading screens have to be there. As the market widens, games are 'dumbed down' to appeal to more.They don't have to be there or more likely, they don't have to be there for such long periods of time. They are there as a convenience for lazy programmers, or more likely, as a convenience for studios that use engines that simply aren't that good. For example, U3 engine loads things really fast because it dynamically loads things. It puts you into game when all the textures you can see are loaded, but it's still loading stuff you can't see.
I have to agree most everyone is retarded, but we don't have to endorse it.
Post by: Keita on January 21, 2010, 11:04:32 am
My main problems are graphics and dumbing down of gameply.
I think that some developers reason that amazing graphics qualify for gamepaly. I mean it's nice and all being able to see the individual strands of hair on a guys head but that doesn't mean that I'm going to forget about the game it's self. An expception is Red Faction: Gurilla. I mean that game looks good on an old CRT TV and the gameplay is excuisite.
I also don't like the fact the games are made a lot simpler. I understand that they're trying to apeal to a wider audiance but the amount of games doing it makes stupid.
These two reasons combined is why my current selection of games I play doesn't go beyond about 2003.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 21, 2010, 11:10:21 am
Just look at Morrowind or Oblivion; only about a dozen characters die due to the bad guy's actions, but the hero kills thousands of people and tens of thousands of moderately-sapient creatures. It would be an interesting game that would be rewarding despite having the player only murder a few hundred beings. Maybe it could be built around the concept of having the player fill an imaginary role, playing that rather than the swordsmanship simulator. I wonder if there is a market for this "play-role" style game.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 21, 2010, 11:39:42 am
7. Warez is faster, has a higher quality, and is more convenient.
Now, this is a huge one. Usually, a torrent downloads much faster than steam, for example. I'm sure it's probably faster for you guys as well. Also, it seems there's a huge commitment for the warez crew to deliver a good working game. They release fixes not one day after someone finds a bit with their crack. That's much faster than any developer bothers fixing things. Alas, they also remove securom most of the time.
I was going to preorder Bioshock 2, which goes against most of my principles for games (and I should know better, every time I preordered something, I ended up regretting it), but then I saw this:
Other Requirements: Initial installation requires one-time internet connection; Ability to save game, earn achievements, receive title updates and online play requires log-in to Games for Windows LIVE; software installations required including Microsoft Visual C++2008 Runtime Libraries, Games for Windows LIVE client, Games for Windows LIVE Client Patch, Sony DADC SecuROM, Microsoft DirectX.
So now I don't want bioshock 2 anymore. I don't think I will even bother full-demoing it. Unless someone I trust with games tells me it's actually good.
Anyway, here we have it, stupid studios (or more likely the publishers) using intrusive methods to go nazi about what you can do with something that is now your property, including pathetic illegal click-wrap terms of use and so forth. Not only that, but the methods of distribution don't seem to be as reliable as a torrent or other p2p methods. Course, there are people who try to do something a bit different, like blizzard with wow updates. You download updates via a built in torrent client and they host a few seed-boxes to help. But otherwise, torrents and better methods of downloads seem to be lacking.
I think they're going all wrong about fighting warez and instead of actually fighting it, they are only giving people more reasons to make use of it.
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 11:49:22 am
1) The thing with the loading screen is weird. First of all "consoletards" only "recently" got loading screens. I remember my NES days (Feck, they arent over, I still use it) when consoles were the ONLY thing WITHOUT loading screens. Granted, most of the loading screens on home computers back then consisted of you staring at the command prompt and the last line you entered for 15 minutes, hoping your computer didnt die on you. edit: but even IN game, on the C64, on the amiga and the PCs after the 8088 generation (I think it was called) there were loading screens. Didnt even "Larry Leisure in the Land of the Lounge Lizards" have his own little loading screen?
I dont know how old you are, but I swear, the main argument people used when they bought a gaming console instead of a full blown computer back then was in fact the "no loading screens" thingy.
I guess there was some point in the evolution of gaming when programmers realized they could stuff so much more eye/earcandy into their games when resorting to accessing the slower data storage once in a while... be it on a console or on a PC. But almost every console prior to the gamecube/PS1 (lets not count the SegaCD or the 3DO and such, shall we) used data storage that was just as fast as the console's RAM, but these days seem to be over now.
Either way, those screens are alright, if they are a necessary evil, but just plain hateable if result of poor coding and optimization.
2) We all hate how games get dumbed down. But I guess that's just because people get dumber. At least it seems so, when I look at the "real world". You know... movies, pop music, advertisements. I barely can watch TV because the constant facepalming sort of blocks my view. Are people really that stupid? To they really buy this shit? It certainly seems so. I barely dare to point out the stupidity in iPhones and their brethren from different manufacturers, even here!
And it seems like a lost cause, call somebody dumb, and they rather feel insulted than to spend a minute thinking about their stupidity. But everybody is stupid in one way or another, the true harm comes when you cant admit this to yourself and hence block out a nice opportunity for personal growth.
So what can we do about it? I try to play indie games. I didnt buy a game for a pretty long time now. I think the last one was Sins of a Solar Empire, because it was cheap, and I still regret it.
3) FIFA, anybody? ;D Ties directly into 2). People are sheep. People buy. I guess some of them do it, because they work 8 hours a day. If I wasted half of my waking hours in a dead end job and spent the other half recovering from it, I probably would buy a lot of shit too, just to convince myself it's worth it. Even FIFA umpteen.
4) Linear gameplay might bore you, but I can imagine a lot of games that could actually benefit from a bit more of it. Why the fuck are there even fast paced shooters that make you look through closets and whatnot for that extra healthpack? Rummaging has no place in a fast game. Might as well perform digital appendectomy on useless small subrooms or deadends / loops in such games.
Half Life 1 is a prime example for a great game with linear gameplay and limited options.
What _I_ hate is:
.) roadblocks that look passable - in games that try to give you freedom. The rubble in FO3 is one of the worst offenders in my book. Soooooo bad, I cant believe it.
.) bad collision detection/hit boxes and/or the level design to go with it. It's 2010, damnit, this should have been obvious after "Ice Climber" ! I dont know why, but I played "Ratatouille". A game for kids (I suppose) in which you play a rat. You know, small furry. Pretty early in the game you come across a dog you have to outsmart someway. Cant remember what you have to do. I think on the left side, theres a small hole in some junk that is piled up. First association "I'm a rat! I'll go through there". Guess what, you cant. Pretty much ties into my prior hatething.
.) unskippable movie scenes. I love my intro, I love my atmosphere. But I want to be able to click it away, because sometimes, you know, I'M FRIGGIN SETTING EVERYTHING UP before I actually play it. Sometimes that includes killing the game and restarting it. Sometimes I like to play a game over and over again, maybe just because I enjoy a 10 minute part of it, somewhere 2 minutes into the game. Whatever the reason might be, nobody should force their friggin videos/logos on me. Common practice for EVERY FUCKING Ubisoft or EA game: find those *.bik files and delete everything that reeks of company logo/advertisement.
But all in all, even when I have a bad day, I can say I dont hate modern games too much... because I wouldnt even touch em with a ten foot pole these days ;D
Post by: Goron on January 21, 2010, 11:52:16 am
they are only giving people more reasons to make use of it.Weakest argument ever.
Security is put in place as a response to transgressions. I find it infuriating yet amusing every time someone displays the outright idiocy to claim that piracy exists because of anti-piracy measures.
And with that- I'm out of this thread.
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 11:55:01 am
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 12:01:04 pm
Piracy doesnt exist because of the anti-piracy measures. It exists because people prove they _can_ crack a copy protection. Most of the time it's not about stealing stuff or enabling people to steal, it's just a hobby, a test of wits. The desire to solve a little puzzle. Well, that's what "hacking" actually means, at least.they are only giving people more reasons to make use of it.Weakest argument ever.
Security is put in place as a response to transgressions. I find it infuriating yet amusing every time someone displays the outright idiocy to claim that piracy exists because of anti-piracy measures.
And with that- I'm out of this thread.
I know I download cracks for all the games I bought because I find it a bit... insulting if somebody tries to install securom/starforce/whatever drivers on my system. Sometimes even without friggin question or notification.
I know, 2 wrongs dont make a right, but heck, I'd love to see EA and Ubi go out of business, so yay, more power to piracy. It's a shame it's affecting all the coders that decided they cant survive if they dont sell out to da man.
edit: and I already pointed it out sometime: every serious gamer these days HAS to pirate (most of) his games, it's his friggin duty. Because your wallet is the only way to express your opinion in the corporate world. Now if you buy a game that you like you not only send the message "YES, this game was good, please, produce more like this" you also send the message "YES, I like to be farked up my digital rear end without lube, and I'm a good boy, watch me bend over", because, well, most of them come with securom or worse.
If you like a game, but dislike the copy protection (gasp, even legitimate customers dont want to put up with this crap!), stealing is the only way to go. Or do you really think they read your emails?
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 12:06:03 pm
Post by: Muz on January 21, 2010, 12:09:26 pm
Dumbing down is fine IMHO, as long as it doesn't detract from gameplay. Blizzard is a master at this. I think all of you forget how hard games can be to pick up sometimes. It's like a pyramid.. everyone starts with a really simple game like Tetris, Solitaire, or Diner Dash, then slowly play tougher and tougher games. Dwarf Fortress is at the tip of this pyramid. It has everything you could wish for, but you have to climb the bottom steps of it to even comprehend. So dumbing down is good, if only because it brings in more people to games in the long term.
Milking things is also natural with capitalism. If you can't get more milk out of it, sell expired milk in the same bottle. They have to make money. Ironically, indie games seem more guilty of this these days. Can't produce anything new, then remake.. or demake. Sell it to your friends and fellow developers. Oh, and charge the fools as high as possible.. the more you charge, the more people appreciate it and think it's high quality!
Look, there's nothing wrong with money. But if you make art for money, nobody's going to touch it. I wish they'd grow up like the movie industry and realize that. But if it's going to flop anyway, they have to sell out.
Graphics are an oddity. About 15 years back, if a game had good graphics, it was a good game. It's a sign that the developer pun effort in the game. Today, every publisher knows that the screenshots are the no. 1 marketing tool. That's why you get a disproportionate amount of effort put into graphics. And too bad these days, good graphics mean a lot of coding effort too.
There are people who play games for the graphics. I'm one of them. Srsly, is fun to blow up stuff, and one reason I bought Medieval: TW2 is to see pikemen get shot with cannons on elephants. It's plain fun. But I do oppose it when you have lots of pretties and the game sucks. Pretties + good gameplay = win.
And I'd add another thing. The ego of indie games. 3 years ago, I could look at TIGSource and agree with half of the stuff shown. Putting aside the compo and IGF, look at it now. What is that? And that and that and that and that! Look at the comments! WTF? Fighting is normal on the Internet, but there's a thick layer of ego growing on indie game communities.
"I agree that A sucks because B said so and B is awesome".
"You like WoW but not my game? My game is better than WoW! You're a child that doesn't understand anything!!"
"10 thousand players bought _____. 10 players bought my game. There are 10 thousand idiots and only 10 smart people."
"I'm making an artistic statement with my game. It is about life. Life sucks. You have the choice of playing my game and realizing the suckiness of your life or not playing it and realizing that you're a loser."
Screw the indie community. There was a time when making games was about getting out games that you wanted to play, not about looking better than everyone else. I play games for fun. Not for innovation, not for art, not for whatever technical BS you put in it. For fun.
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 12:25:44 pm
Post by: lumin on January 21, 2010, 12:33:06 pm
The ego of indie games...there's a thick layer of ego growing on indie game communities.
...
Screw the indie community.
Oh, the irony.
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 12:36:26 pm
If you stick your hand in a hole and get stung by hundreds of ants, you don't take steps to make your hand less threatening to the ants and stick it back in, you just never stick your hand back in the hole.There are people wearing bee beards, and there are companies that stopped using copy protection.
Stardock for instance. But to be honest, I hate the hoops they make me jump through, just to get a patch....
edit: also, fighting piracy doesnt necessarily mean using intrusive copy protection measures. For what it's worth they can fight pirates in the stores as well as on the high seas, just as long they stop being asses about it. 2010, remember? that DVD does NOT need to be in the drive all the time.
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 12:39:48 pm
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 12:40:43 pm
Not using copy protection wouldnt shift the numbers that much, I believe. The few people that would copy games because it became that much easier are probably outweighed by those who would stop pirating because they DID just try to send a message.
the people that just pirated because they didnt want to or just couldnt pay, they would either way.
I say copy protection is a waste of time and money.
oh and:
Quote
(And even then I doubt it, since it's mostly just rationalizing their behavior)I can only speak for myself, but wanna see a picture of my game shelf here? which is FULL of friggin original boxes? (Which I bought, btw, I didnt just steal em ;D) I can send you a screenshot of my folder with backups of nocd cracks to go with them, if you want ;D (the thing about the backup folder actually is a lie. They are so small, I just redownload them, mostly, when I reinstall something, unless it was hard to find)
I mean, something is SERIOUSLY fucked up, when you have to be careful not to launch a game BEFORE you cracked it, because you have to fear it puts somehting ... not exactly beneficial on your harddrive... (at least most of them are so nice not to fuck up your system upon install, but upon initial launch, thus, seemingly deliberately, giving you the chance to actually do something about it)
edit: alright I think I'm done editing now ;D Where's my eloquence when I need it... so many words to express so little.
Post by: Dwarf on January 21, 2010, 01:00:07 pm
It has to end somewhere, and it'll suck if companies win the arms race.
It is impossible to create the perfect copy protection. Physically speaking, the only perfect protection is not to be readable at all.
Post by: The Architect on January 21, 2010, 01:10:32 pm
Spoilered for mild language
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Edit: I was torn between dumbed-down gameplay and mass murdering. Things like the enforced aim assist/sticky reticule any time you try to sit your sights still in MW2 get under my skin. They can take features like that and shove them in the most convenient personal orifice. If I wanted someone to move my aim off of my intended target for me, I'd turn on the existing aim feature that comes with the console or the one in the game settings.
Mass murdering in out-of-place situations is irritating, in all kinds of media. I understand that sometimes red shirts have to die, but a lot of those writing the stories treat any unnamed or unseen person as a non-person.
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 01:13:00 pm
Quote(And even then I doubt it, since it's mostly just rationalizing their behavior)I can only speak for myself, but wanna see a picture of my game shelf here? which is FULL of friggin original boxes? (Which I bought, btw, I didnt just steal em ;D) I can send you a screenshot of my folder with backups of nocd cracks to go with them, if you want ;D (the thing about the backup folder actually is a lie. They are so small, I just redownload them, mostly, when I reinstall something, unless it was hard to find)
Exactly, you can only speak for yourself. One exception does not a rule break. Lots of people may say they do it to send a message, but it's just rationalizing it. If you're going to do it, do it. Just don't pretend you're on some grand quest to rescue the hapless gamer from the big evil CEOs with their cigars and Scrooge McDuck-style money pools.
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 01:27:48 pm
edit: even if you dont have the money to actually buy a game and just steal em because you cant afford them, you can still believe in sending the right message. So you can actually go on a gamer saving quest AND do it for personal gain.
I dont think it's up to you to decide who does it for what reason. It's also quite preposterous to assume I rationalize theft :D
Sure piracy is always theft, and abortion is always murder, it doesnt mean it aint right in some cases.
Post by: The Architect on January 21, 2010, 01:47:47 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 01:50:04 pm
The point I made about our duty to pirate games these days still holds true, no matter if da man listens or not. Even not if you're trying to talk down on me like that.
edit: even if you dont have the money to actually buy a game and just steal em because you cant afford them, you can still believe in sending the right message. So you can actually go on a gamer saving quest AND do it for personal gain.
I dont think it's up to you to decide who does it for what reason. It's also quite preposterous to assume I rationalize theft :D
Sure piracy is always theft, and abortion is always murder, it doesnt mean it aint right in some cases.
The only message you send is "If you make games for PC, they'll be pirated."
I believe that you believe that you're doing the right thing and sending a powerful message that they will listen to, given time, but I know that you're doing neither.
And contrary to popular and immature belief, just because you don't like a rule or think it's unfair, you are not granted the right to violate it.
Post by: Tilla on January 21, 2010, 01:56:58 pm
The point I made about our duty to pirate games these days still holds true, no matter if da man listens or not. Even not if you're trying to talk down on me like that.
edit: even if you dont have the money to actually buy a game and just steal em because you cant afford them, you can still believe in sending the right message. So you can actually go on a gamer saving quest AND do it for personal gain.
I dont think it's up to you to decide who does it for what reason. It's also quite preposterous to assume I rationalize theft :D
Sure piracy is always theft, and abortion is always murder, it doesnt mean it aint right in some cases.
The only message you send is "If you make games for PC, they'll be pirated."
I believe that you believe that you're doing the right thing and sending a powerful message that they will listen to, given time, but I know that you're doing neither.
And contrary to popular and immature belief, just because you don't like a rule or think it's unfair, you are not granted the right to violate it.
That last bit is completely false. It is a citizens DUTY to disobey unjust laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail (Suitably, MLK day just happened)
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 02:02:06 pm
Quote
stuff from ctulhuhowyouspellitnonono, you got me totally wrong.
I dont pirate games. I cba.
All I'm saying is, that it is actually our duty, as gamers, as thinking people. Theoretically speaking. A little mental exercise, if you will. Sure you can stop playing games altogether, if you dont want to put up with this crap.
But that just sends the message you dont like games.
I very clearly remember that the amount of pirated copies of certain games were used to point out how good they are. By the publishers themselves. So at least they get that. Sure, it would NEVER make it into the press that they get the rest of the message, but I believe some of them would actually understand it.
So let me put it this way:
I know that piracy is stealing and its bad for the industry and their consumers. But at the current state of affairs, I think it would be actually the right thing to do, which is a little bit weird.
Better?
edit: also thanks for the wiki link, to the poster above me. Might look out of proportion when it comes to games (just as my abortion comparison) but sometimes you have to exaggerate a bit, to make stuff visible.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on January 21, 2010, 02:10:19 pm
Quote
The only message you send is "If you make games for PC, they'll be pirated."As if console games didn't get copied a lot
Post by: Soulwynd on January 21, 2010, 02:13:33 pm
First of all "consoletards" only "recently" got loading screens. I remember my NES days (Feck, they arent over, I still use it) when consoles were the ONLY thing WITHOUT loading screens.True, I was referring to the cd+ generation of consoles. I never had any slow loading screens on computers back then however. Most things loaded pretty fast compared to nowadays. Perhaps I should have been more specific, I was talking about slow loading screens mostly. You see, I have a ps2 and it's horrible. I rarely even touch it anymore.
The nes and snes games era were good. They were treated with a bit more respect, I think. They were difficult, some were very arcade based, others had some decent level of complexity.
And it seems like a lost cause, call somebody dumb, and they rather feel insulted than to spend a minute thinking about their stupidity. But everybody is stupid in one way or another, the true harm comes when you cant admit this to yourself and hence block out a nice opportunity for personal growth.True. I like some mindless games now and then. But I'm more concerned with the general loss of complexity and strategy required in the games. They don't seem challenging anymore. A fps trend even took away health bars (which weren't all that good to begin with) and replaced it with your view getting redder and then magically healing over time.
Half Life 1 is a prime example for a great game with linear gameplay and limited options.I liked HL1 as well, but HL2, not so much. I end up touching these new games. I need stress relief from work and life in general and old games can only be played so much before they annoy me. I mean, I love x-com and df, but I take breaks from them.
What _I_ hate is:
.) roadblocks that look passable - in games that try to give you freedom. The rubble in FO3 is one of the worst offenders in my book. Soooooo bad, I cant believe it.
.) bad collision detection/hit boxes and/or the level design to go with it. It's 2010, damnit, this should have been obvious after "Ice Climber" ! I dont know why, but I played "Ratatouille". A game for kids (I suppose) in which you play a rat. You know, small furry. Pretty early in the game you come across a dog you have to outsmart someway. Cant remember what you have to do. I think on the left side, theres a small hole in some junk that is piled up. First association "I'm a rat! I'll go through there". Guess what, you cant. Pretty much ties into my prior hatething.
.) unskippable movie scenes. I love my intro, I love my atmosphere. But I want to be able to click it away, because sometimes, you know, I'M FRIGGIN SETTING EVERYTHING UP before I actually play it. Sometimes that includes killing the game and restarting it. Sometimes I like to play a game over and over again, maybe just because I enjoy a 10 minute part of it, somewhere 2 minutes into the game. Whatever the reason might be, nobody should force their friggin videos/logos on me. Common practice for EVERY FUCKING Ubisoft or EA game: find those *.bik files and delete everything that reeks of company logo/advertisement.
But all in all, even when I have a bad day, I can say I dont hate modern games too much... because I wouldnt even touch em with a ten foot pole these days ;D
I really don't like the unskipabble cutscenes as well, same with the hit detection and lack of choices. Oh well.
Weakest argument ever.First of all, the few posts I've seen from you, you did the exact same thing. You went offensive and ran away. That's a sad behavior for anyone who claims to be right about their opinions.
Security is put in place as a response to transgressions. I find it infuriating yet amusing every time someone displays the outright idiocy to claim that piracy exists because of anti-piracy measures.
And with that- I'm out of this thread.
Second of all, I do not believe it's a transgression at all. If you're gonna discuss morals and laws, you need to remember that one is personal, there's no absolute right or wrong, and the other is based on your government and often made and sustained by people with their own agendas and interests. So I do not agree with copyright and if someone tries to get me because of it, I will fight for what I think is right. As should we all.
Third. Even tho this is the internet, I'm not going to just let someone call me idiot just because they don't agree with me. Specially when they didn't even bother to think or read about what I said before replying. I did not say piracy exists because of anti-piracy. I said the methods of anti-piracy makes quite a few people prefer piracy. In fact, there are threads even here about it. But I don't doubt we bumped into it and you ran away just the same going rabblerabblerabble-I-AM-THE-LAW-rabblerabblerabble. You seem just like those christians when you say you think there's no god they go lalalal I'm not hearing, I don't believe you, goodbye heathen!
If you like a game, but dislike the copy protection (gasp, even legitimate customers dont want to put up with this crap!), stealing is the only way to go. Or do you really think they read your emails?We should have everyone email 2k saying "Dear 2K, I'm not buying Bioshock 2 because you are using secuROM."
Not that it would work any. I don't think they realize that securom not only doesn't protect anything but also hurts them. Take stardock for example. Or introversion. They take the stance of never using any sort of protection and everyone takes them with better regard than they do, lets say, sony, atari, or EA. In fact, it seems to me people are starting to hate these big developers.
I also never buy a game I don't like. I can't even use the wallet argument, because honestly, I could buy every game I've ever played 3 times over and gift them to 4 other friends and it wouldn't hurt me one bit.
I'm just not going to endorse crap.
I play games for fun. Not for innovation, not for art, not for whatever technical BS you put in it. For fun.Everyone plays games for their own reasons. I play mostly to relieve stress and because I love games. I mean, the first time I programmed something, 20 years ago, it was a game. I can't blame the indie community for trying to be different or doing something artistic, everyone has their reasons.
Muz has some good points about the indie game community. There's a huge amount of elitism in it where people look down their noses because everyone's "stupid" because they play or buy this or that.I think those people are part of the retards I mentioned. Just in an indie form.
Also, don't delude yourself, pirating games will not send a message to game companies that they should stop fighting it.No, but I did my part by not giving crappy games money. Just like I recycle and try to use economic and environmental friendly things. Not that either will work out, but my conscience feels a bit better with me doing my part.
Not using copy protection might stop the white knight pirates (And even then I doubt it, since it's mostly just rationalizing their behavior) but it won't stop the maniacal cutlass-wielding pirates who don't care, and I can assure you Sins of a Solar Empire is pirated plenty.You can't stop those people either way. But I think the best way is to make a good product. That will increase sales and people who pirated it and liked it, might as well buy it. The second best way is to offer non-intrusive online benefits. Like making an account on their site, logging in with your game and receive free DLC over time. They can verify keys and gives people more reasons to actually buy the game. Of course, pirates can work around it (read Dragon Age) but it's better than going authoritarian about it.
Also. I full demoed Sins, again, I hate stardock games (sad truth most people yell at me about), deleted after a couple days. If it were good, I would have gotten it. *shrugs* I love multiplayer, but I didn't like it to begin with.
Impossible at the moment, perhaps. But you don't need perfection; you just need it to be too difficult to be rewarding. Think of all of the games that no one has cracked simply because they can't be bothered to go through the extreme hassle of passing their powerful protection and get a half-assed reward (like not being able to use online play properly).The more difficult something is, the more rewarding it is. Remember half-life 2 when it first came about? I swear, people had parties when they managed to crack the encryption system.
Spoilered for mild language
As for the spoilers. Well, the problem is, developers throw out biased media, biased reviews, and biased demos. It's kind of like going in the theaters before asking people who went if it was good and then regretting horribly. Except in this case, it's 10 times more expensive and 10 times more biased. You can't even trust review sites anymore. I mean, It's a nice pizza with a cheap bottle of wine and possibly some sex after type of money. Then you ask me, for some games, would I rather have the instant satisfaction of pizza, drinks, and company or would I rather have a game that wouldn't last a week? Pizza wins every single time. If I think a game will last more than a week for me, I buy it.
Theft is always wrong. The only message you can possibly send someone by stealing a commodity from them is that you're selfish and have no regard for them. Pirating is never justified, and theft is always wrong.I don't agree with copyright, therefore I do not believe it's theft.
The only message you send is "If you make games for PC, they'll be pirated."You're out of the warez scene aren't you? It's much easier to pirate and play console games than PCs. No installation required, no chance of virus, no crack needed. Just burn, put it into your modded console and play.
In fact, that general belief of consoles being anti-piracy methods is completely wrong if you have access to certain things.
How it shows up in percentages, I do not know. If the developers get more money from consoles than PCs, I don't know. What I know for fact is that console games are downloaded more than pc games.
There's the whole issue of that a pirated game does not equals a sale as well. You can't claim that to be a loss. If someone didn't have access to a game, they might have not pirated nor bought it.
In the subject of warez and game pricing, I think this might be a good reading:
http://2dboy.com/2009/10/19/birthday-sale-results/
Also, I'm sorry this degenerated to another piracy chatter. -_-
And cthulhu, is everyone's right to even die for what they think is right. You can't stop that, no matter what law you put up there. Governments get overthrown, contested, fixed. Even america, not too long ago you had a civil war, remember? Laws are arbitrary and often get contested and changed. They often fail too.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on January 21, 2010, 02:17:06 pm
The truth is that assholes have forced yet another hassle on the rest of us by being assholes. If there weren't so many selfish assholes in the world, there are a ton of things we wouldn't have to go through in our daily lives. Stop stealing games and support the people who earn their living by making them for you. You don't have the right to bitch about them trying to reap the reward of their hard work, whether they did something the way you like it or not. Anyone who isn't willing to pay the asking price for a game doesn't want it enough to deserve having it, and if you steal it for any reason at all you're just a thief. Nothing glorified, not some kind of idealist or someone who is making a point. You're just a thief and you should be ashamed of it.Actually, if you *stole* the game, the people who made it have already been paid, and it's only the retail store you stole it from that eats the loss. Publishers don't give a shit about people *stealing* their games, because you'd be stealing them from someone who bought it. They've even made the boxes nice and small too, it's like they're asking people to *steal* them. ::)
Trying to label "freely obtaining a costless copy instead of paying some exorbitant sum to an asshole publisher" as "stealing" is slanderous and intellectually dishonest. Torrenting a game doesn't cost its creator anything (which is quite sad, in some cases... it would be wonderful to be able bankrupt Kotick by just sitting and downloading MW2 over and over, or perhaps even just moving it back and forth between two harddrives... >:D), and it doesn't deprive them of anything except some theoretical sum which you may or may not possess, which may or may not have been spent on something as frivolous and overpriced as the newest gilded shovelware from EA. Hell, this thread is "new games are are all shit", and while that's an extremely flawed premise, I don't believe I've played more than a handful of games that were actually *worth* what they cost (or would have cost had I bought them, but the fact that it's trash is quite a bit more painful when you've shelled out $50 for it), and all of those were on steam (not to say I haven't bought horrible trash off steam, things so fucking bad I regret the few dollars they cost to no end >:| ).
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on January 21, 2010, 02:19:37 pm
The main thing I can't get past with DRM / draconian copy protection is that the pirates all have games without it. The honest user has to deal with all the garbage: the system instability and insecurity from the DRM rootkit, the server validation (maybe he doesn't have internet access, maybe the authentication servers go down forever later), the bandwidth traffic and system slowdowns from DRM running, etc.
So they poison their software to stop piracy, but the pirates clean the software within days and happily use their safe version. The honest customer who pays for the game is the only one who gets poisoned.
That seems pretty stupid and wrong to me.
Furthermore, copyright law.
TL;DR: Copyright shouldn't last forever. We need to balance the needs of the author to get paid, and the needs of society to absorb, use, remix, and take inspiration from the work.
Copyright law should provide artists / authors / etc. with the protection neccessary to derive benefit from their work. This is not the same as trademark, which is ostensibly meant to keep fake products with your label from ruining your reputation. But with copyright, if someone knew anyone could steal his work, he would have no reason to create, and we would suffer as a society and a nation.
A copyright that lasts 50 years is perfectly fine for making it so the creator can get his paychecks. Even saying it lasts until he dies is acceptable, though with longevity getting better and better it's probably better to give a clause of "100 years from creation, or until the creator's death, whichever comes first".
The problem is the corporation. A company doesn't die. If anything, it goes bankrupt and its assets are bought by someone else. Or it merges into another company and so does not actually end. And corporations want to derive as much benefit as possible whether it makes sense or not, whether it's ethical or not. Because at the root, a corporation is not a thinking entity (though the law grants it a sort of personhood), and it has no morality. The corporate officers can Nuremberg Defense their way out of any ethical squabbles.
We currently have a really long copyright duration, because of Mickey Mouse. Disney lobbies Congress to extend copyright every time the copyright for Mickey Mouse is about to expire. And Congress accepts the lobbying, pockets it, and votes yes.
Basically it means unless something changes, nothing that was created for hire after Mickey Mouse will fall out of copyright.
But society needs things to fall out of copyright. Our filmmakers need to have free alternatives to big music royalty payments. Our programmers need to learn from the coding practices of their grandfathers. We're rapidly moving toward a culture none of us own, a "don't touch" museum, rather than something that is part of us and fully accessible.
EDIT: I second the point that piracy does not equal theft. It's a new thing, a little like the old theft but different, and we need to label it properly. Calling piracy theft is about as accurate as calling it vandalism or fraud or negligence. It just isn't.
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 02:23:35 pm
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 02:27:09 pm
Heh, to get it back on track:First of all "consoletards" only "recently" got loading screens. I remember my NES days (Feck, they arent over, I still use it) when consoles were the ONLY thing WITHOUT loading screens.True, I was referring to the cd+ generation of consoles. I never had any slow loading screens on computers back then however. Most things loaded pretty fast compared to nowadays. Perhaps I should have been more specific, I was talking about slow loading screens mostly. You see, I have a ps2 and it's horrible. I rarely even touch it anymore.
When I was about 6 years old, we used to load up a game on the C64. The next 15 minutes we would play with our "Masters of the Universe" action figures, checking the screen every other minute if the game was loaded already.
But yeah, games with loading screens in between, they started to surface on the more powerful systems, like the amiga. People just made "bigger" games on them.
I like how they managed to hide the loading screens in "San Andreas" on the PS2. The game had big empty areas like the countryside or the desert, with so little going on it could load the next city in the background, in the meantime. I found that noteworthy, especially compared to vice city and GTA III.
Post by: sproingie on January 21, 2010, 02:38:19 pm
I think my biggest problem with many modern games is the focus on multiplayer. First is the matter that by and large, I cannot stand gamer culture, and second is the fact that you really can't tell a good story in a multiplayer setting. I like games that tell a good story, and I'm perfectly willing to put up with a linear track if it puts me into the story. I do have a bit of a problem with spending $50-$60 for a single story however, and part of the problem there may be that games are still astonishingly expensive to produce due to always needing to keep up with the technology curve. Don't get me wrong, I like nice graphics in a game, but I can't help but wonder what the state of cinema would be like if everyone felt the need to reinvent cinematography for every feature release.
As for piracy, I've done my share (I think I paid for maybe three c64 games in my life), I've done a small amount of it with modern games, and occasionally I've had to warez a copy of a game I've lost or damaged (yay for Steam!). With the latter category, I certainly don't feel any guilt, but I certainly don't delude myself into thinking I'm doing something noble.
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 02:46:23 pm
I think my biggest problem with many modern games is the focus on multiplayer. First is the matter that by and large, I cannot stand gamer culture, and second is the fact that you really can't tell a good story in a multiplayer setting.I see your statement and raise you a System Shock 2 Multiplayer Mod!
What's bad, however, is games that are VERY lacking in single player and excuse that by "it's a multiplayer game".
I think almost every good singleplayer game could benefit from a co-op mode. Good coop games are very rare and very tasty (dont think my pre-edit metaphor was forum-rule-compliant ;D).
Post by: Soulwynd on January 21, 2010, 03:02:49 pm
I know I'm not doing anything noble with piracy, in fact, I avoid it most of the time, except to demo a game I'm considering buying. I think what I consider a least a bit noble is really not endorsing crappy games. It's horrible to dish out 50-60 bucks into a game, which could go to a decent wine, and then find out the game is pure crap. Spore anyone? I pre-ordered it. I cry.
And Cthulhu, the games I don't buy are from people I hope, I really really hope, will never ever make pc games again. Like people who make movie based games.
Post by: Virtz on January 21, 2010, 03:03:51 pm
I see your statement and raise you a System Shock 2 Multiplayer Mod!Multiplayer mod? Didn't the coop come out in an official patch?
And that's the way I played it extensively for the first time. Whatever great storyline and suspence it might've had, it was pretty hillarious on coop. Starting from the fact that the protagonist looked like a blind man, with those black goggle-glasses and constantly holding his hand out in front of him like he wasn't sure what's right in front of him.
Post by: Synzig on January 21, 2010, 03:09:25 pm
console ports.
Post by: fenrif on January 21, 2010, 03:37:25 pm
Why have the ability to connect 4 controllers, if you cant do split screen? Why can't system link work? I cant count the amount of games that've been completely ruined by enforced xbox live.
Also annoying is the combination of churnining out sequels/remakes/prequels, etc, but making the game less fun than those that came before. Usually the game is dumbed down more, buggy, has less gameplay options, etc.
Loading times don't really bother me, and focus on graphics in of itself doesn't either (aslong as the gameplay is good... the two arent mutually exclusive).
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 03:39:57 pm
It was a mod, I think it was incorporated in a later patch, not sure whether official or unofficial.I see your statement and raise you a System Shock 2 Multiplayer Mod!Multiplayer mod? Didn't the coop come out in an official patch?
And that's the way I played it extensively for the first time. Whatever great storyline and suspence it might've had, it was pretty hillarious on coop. Starting from the fact that the protagonist looked like a blind man, with those black goggle-glasses and constantly holding his hand out in front of him like he wasn't sure what's right in front of him.
Sure, the player models looked like ass, but that's because there never actually were any real player models in game. But its just graphics, right? the gameplay worked, and it was great.
Sadly, its kind of rare these days.
Post by: Mindmaker on January 21, 2010, 03:47:21 pm
I prefer playing 10 year old D&D based games than any of the new games.
At least they are complex and offer atmosphere.
When I look at todays RPG and MMORPG genere it just makes me sad, when I think was has become of my favorite genere.
Also hardly any turn based strategy or tactical games come out nowadays.
If I'm looking for a good game I go to the under 10€ section on Steam or look for one of the few good console games for the Wii.
God bless the possibility to download all the great SNES and N64 games on it.
Post by: PTTG?? on January 21, 2010, 03:58:56 pm
Post by: yamo on January 21, 2010, 04:09:43 pm
All th CRPGs these days require THUMBS
I like to sit and fret ..."Should i cast the lightning spell on those archers in the middle...the death spell on that Golem... a Sleep spell on those wolves?...or retreat 5 hexes and try to get one guy out of here alive...hmmmm"
not enough "hmmmm" in today's games
Post by: Cthulhu on January 21, 2010, 04:11:50 pm
I agree with Yamo, I prefer things that give you time to sit and ponder, which is why I suck at FPSes. I play them for a while and start to get good, but I inevitably go back to slower stuff. I am awful at Starcraft, Warcraft, Company of Heroes, and the other twitchy RTSes. I prefer TBSes, but then I get into the problem of not doing enough in a turn. I remember one time in Civ 4 I spent like 20 turns doing nothing but moving a boat around attempting to circumnavigate the globe. Derp.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 21, 2010, 05:20:07 pm
Post by: Puck on January 21, 2010, 05:23:08 pm
Perfect timewaster for a week!
Post by: Muz on January 22, 2010, 12:12:00 am
I know this goes a bit against my annoyance with the elitism of a lot of players, but a lot of these problems are there because they're what people want. Games are too expensive to risk on innovation, which is why every cow that gives golden milk is milked to death and inbred until it's a monstrosity. People buy them, so they keep doing it. Same with the graphics thing. Graphics is what sells games. We're a very small minority, and just because we like something a bit more refined, that doesn't make the other people stupid.
I'd disagree. Innovation is a gamble with good odds today. Remaking a typical game is tougher. You have a guarantee that the game design will be good, but people just aren't attracted to clones. Innovation almost always works as long as you keep it easy to understand. Just about every classic game (except maybe Fallout 2) was innovative when it came out.
Post by: Roundabout Lout on January 22, 2010, 12:23:40 am
What bugs me most is the dumbing down, and improper design choices, usually in an effort to dumb down (i.e. level autoscaling that doesn't even work ala Oblivion.)
I like graphics, because advancements in technology overall impress me, but I don't want them to deter from gameplay. Not one bit. Too bad so much time and effort goes into graphics when the parent corporation is pushing for a release date, leaving no time to make the game fun.
I used to be a console gamer, because there were quite a few good/great games up to the PS2 era. (loading times don't bother me too much, until they become excessive.) I bought into the newest console generation with an Xbox 360, because I loved Morrowind and was excited for Oblivion, which I thought would be better in every aspect. Do ho ho. 20 hours into that game, and I regretted spending hundreds of dollars earned over one whole summer specifically for that game. Almost lost my faith in video games on the whole.
Fast forward, and I somehow discover Tigsource in '08. Reading stories about some game named Dwarf Fortress I just had to then find and play. Never looked at console games the same way again (except for a couple good Wii titles like No More Heroes, and the obligatory party games for friends, or Mario, Metroid, yadda yadda yadda)
Post by: HideousBeing on January 22, 2010, 01:20:09 am
I think the argument for/against drm shouldn't be "is pirating good/bad?" (it definitely leans towards bad IMO, but hey...I'm poor and don't want to buy crappy games), but "is drm actually making the companies any more money?" Besides the negative PR, it's gotta cost a ton of money to stick securom on their game. Since the games are usually cracked before day one anyway, is this even a benefit to them? Seems like wasted money to me.
Post by: sproingie on January 22, 2010, 01:49:05 am
Much as I like a good run and gun (well more like sneak and shoot in my style), I am getting more than a little tired of a genre of games where your sole interface to the world is the barrel of a gun. I don't abhor violence in entertainment by any stretch, but the FPS genre really needs to go the way of side-scrolling platformers.
Post by: Gabeux on January 22, 2010, 02:05:48 am
I agree with everything, mainly with the Dumbed down Gameplay.
I'm playing STALKER Shadow Of Chernobyl [how old is this anyway? got it 2 days ago, gfx looks bad and I can't turn dynamic lighting ON because it kills my computer], and I must say I'm having fun.
I'm playing in 'normal difficulty', but some places require me to think a lot about my tactics, and I love it.
About Dragon Age, I thought I would love that game, but I stopped playing and forgot to uninstall it since 3 months. If it was a movie, I'd fall in love with it, but as a game...it just doesn't make me wanna play it.
What you said about "with new games I have hopes that things will get better, but don't" (with your own words), well...I think like this too..
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on January 22, 2010, 02:56:18 am
Graphics is understandable - everyone wants prettier graphics. In most cases, it's fine, too - making a generic game stand out by improving graphics is a good way. However, lately just about every non-indie game is trying to push itself forward technologically. Everyone wants to make their game look good, and they spend the budgets on hiring artists and visual designers instead of programmers and game designers. This frequently results in games that have great graphics, but that have such low performance on midrange rigs that they feel like the GPU manufacturers were supplying half the budget.
The simplification of gameplay is the side-effect of the rise of multiplatform games, even though there are exceptions in that area. I can't stand it when what could be a great game becomes needlessly simplified to appeal to a bigger audience (I'm looking at Spore, specifically). I see the reasoning behind it, but why can't people make difficulty settings include complexity?
Enforced fake freedom is a staple of "sandbox" games, but thankfully many titles avert this. Though you still see invisible walls here and there, even in games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion, a lot of times the game designers have the brain to remember another great way to prevent sequence breaking, which I remember from as far as Desert Strike:War in the Gulf. 'Tis simple, if the player goes where you don't want him to, crank the difficulty up to 11. GTA IV excelled in that regard, there are relatively few places where you cannot go - this is generally characteristic of the series as a whole.
The DRM is a matter that's been discussed at length here, I see. My view on it is that the best DRM is game quality, and availability/accessibility. If you're making a good game, people are more likely to like it enough to buy it. If the nature of the game is such that a single playthrough would reveal everything the game has to offer, then either release a good demo (if there's a good reason for having a short-ish non-replayable game), or introduce something that can be unlocked, or downloaded, or something. Enforcing DRM on paying customers is just mean.
And the multiplayer tendencies... well, they don't hurt too many genres. FPS games frequently only benefit from a multiplayer focus, but foregoing the singleplayer aspect entirely is never a good thing. Strategy games, on the other hand, were completely devastated by the shift to cybersports. In the wake of Starcraft, every RTS conceived since, with very few exceptions, has strived for simpler and faster gameplay. The biggest gaming disappointment before Spore came in the form of Supreme Commander. With a completely redone economics and balance system, the slow-paced gameplay that was possible in Total Annihilation became useless in competitive matches. The 'Crafts and CnC are having a very disruptive effect on the genre, and I find it very sad.
Post by: mendonca on January 22, 2010, 03:42:22 am
THUMBS
He he he ... never thought of it like that, but yeah, thumbs.
Even a fast-paced game ... take sensible soccer ... ONE BUTTON, EIGHT DIRECTIONS, must be one of the most absolutely perfectly playable games to have graced this earth.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 22, 2010, 11:40:37 am
First of all, the few posts I've seen from you, you did the exact same thing. You went offensive and ran away. That's a sad behavior for anyone who claims to be right about their opinions.lulz,
nah, I just don't bother with public arguments about it anymore. I've discovered two things: one, you can't convince someone that they are being immature because they lack the inherent maturity required to comprehend their own immaturity...
two: I've found many of these same babies can't handle being scolded for being wrong and tend to go heavy on the report button.
So, rather than entertaining pointless arguments I let my thoughts be known then back out. How is arguing over it going to help at all? I know I'm right, and I know that if the people that argue otherwise ever become any bit successful in life (by their own merit) they may realize their success is attributed to intellectual property in some way or form.
You can continue on your delusional crusade to claim pirating is right and justify it all you want while assuming my non-involvement is a sign of concession... I really couldn't care less.
I quote myself.
But I don't doubt we bumped into it and you ran away just the same going rabblerabblerabble-I-AM-THE-LAW-rabblerabblerabble.
I specially like the "you can't convince someone that they are being immature because they lack the inherent maturity required to comprehend their own immaturity..." part. Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) at its finest.
As for the graphics. I do like graphics, but I don't think I care much about them. I specially hate it when they put so much emphasis on the graphics to the point it seems it's all there is in the game and that if you don't have a computer good enough for them, the game goes from crappy to sluggish.
I appreciate they are improving the graphics, but I think they should focus on scalability as well.
Post by: alexwazer on January 22, 2010, 12:32:05 pm
Hey, look what Goron PMed. me. :)
PMs should remain in private. Please edit that last post, that's just childish bickering.
As for the original topic, I hate all the things you mentionned, except the loading screens, which I really don't care about (otherwise I wouldn't play X3). Of these, I mostly hate the dumbed down gameplay and "Oooh pretty" focus, which more often than not come together in a shiny bundle... shiny but usually buggy (bah, that's what patches are for...) It's especially annoying me when I read that games are "simplified" (dumbed down) to reach a wider audience, yet the game has requirements way above what the average Joe has. They basically slap the "dedicated" gamers with 1 hand and casual gamers with the other.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 22, 2010, 12:46:32 pm
To quote yahtzee, short answer no. Long answer nooooooooooooooooooooooo.Hey, look what Goron PMed. me. :)
PMs should remain in private. Please edit that last post, that's just childish bickering.
I'm sorry but if anyone takes anything I said in public into a private fallacy, they will become a public display of stupidity.
And since you modified your post...
I think the problem with "reaching a wider audience" by simplifying it is literally saying this wider audience they are trying to reach is either too unintelligent to grasp complex designs or too unintelligent to grasp the concept of the game with the little time they have.
I can understand games being made for children, but most games are made for teenager and young adults. The kind of public that, even with limited time, should be more than able to enjoy a game that should have been not as simple.
I mean, I work 8+ hours a day, I have to dedicate time to my family, my friends, my girlfriend, the people I care about and also sleep. In between, I like wasting my hours on hobbies and one of them is playing games. I agree with you that it's a slap on the face of anyone who enjoys games. Most of the times I think it's more of an excuse due to their limited time to produce a game and their own inefficiency.
For an example, I used to play City of Heroes and there was a huge deal of chatter about customizing powers, their looks, their appearances. The developers constantly said it was impossible due to how the engine was built. I constantly argued it wasn't hard at all to change how powers are displayed and handled in game. I quit a bit after, but look at it today, they got customized powers. So it just felt more like an excuse for them being too lazy to work through it.
Post by: sproingie on January 22, 2010, 01:35:53 pm
2. Stop throwing around "fallacy" until you've taken at least one college-level course each in logic and rhetoric. The circular relationship of immaturity is asserted as inherent, and not separate propositions. Plenty of self-reinforcing conditions exist like this.
Anyway, I should say something about games here. I think it has to be taken as a given that as the game market grows, it's going to get more segmented. I think what clearly needs to happen is that good free or cheap game engines need to continue to evolve so that "indie" games can still have appeal when their market segment would otherwise wither away. I'm pretty happy with the Neverwinter Nights toolset in that respect, but it's been steadily degrading since then. I think it needs some competition.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 22, 2010, 02:30:04 pm
1. Get a room.1. Check.
2. Stop throwing around "fallacy" until you've taken at least one college-level course each in logic and rhetoric. The circular relationship of immaturity is asserted as inherent, and not separate propositions.
2. Check. You can include a few courses in philosophy as well if you want. Of course, I haven't taken any psychology courses as my major was physics, but you get the point.
I believe he's talking about psychological maturity, not physical. I perceive him as being immature, he perceives me as being immature. I try to explain my point in the subject, he avoids the subject and says his point is, you can't convince someone is immature because they are not mature enough to see it as immature. Ruling out the fact that people -do- become mature psychologically with the interaction with others. I'm sorry, but it's completely against the very definition of psychological maturity as it's not considered inherent, but learned from interaction and observation. Maturity, as far as I know, is related to how to respond to situations, how rational and thoughtful you are in them, how aware of consequences you are, how your decisions affects others, and so on. That's something you learn and you cannot say someone who's being immature cannot change his mind about it if reasoned with. I believe we all had moments when we had to step back, consider the situation and change your mind, or take different actions, or apologize. That's a point where you become more mature at the situation, or people may perceive you as being more mature as well.
I don't consider hit-and-running to be very mature, nor hiding in a PM afterward to be aggressive to say the least. Well, I don't consider exposing it to be very mature of me, but I'm well aware of that and starting to regret it already.
Of course, I'm not all that acknowledged with psychology, so if we have a psychologist around to give a better explanation and if I'm wrong in the definition of maturity, I'm more than fine to back away from the fallacy claim.
Oh well. I hope I will not derange this further away from the main topic.
Oh, hurray, modified post back into topic!
Anyway, I should say something about games here. I think it has to be taken as a given that as the game market grows, it's going to get more segmented. I think what clearly needs to happen is that good free or cheap game engines need to continue to evolve so that "indie" games can still have appeal when their market segment would otherwise wither away. I'm pretty happy with the Neverwinter Nights toolset in that respect, but it's been steadily degrading since then. I think it needs some competition.I loved NWN toolset back in the day. It gave us so many options. That was a game I bought with all expansions and never regretted it. I wish more developers would take that stance. Not only they did that, but they also patched the game for years. I'm not sure how active they still are, but that was impressive back then.
It seems that sadly, the indie part is the one doing games because they love it. Because it was the game they wanted to play. A couple decades ago, the companies making games had people who loved the games they made. They made games they wanted to play. I wonder how many designers and programmers who work in any given game project today are happy with what they are making. The gaming news always have them optimistic and happy with it, but I always have the feeling they are being slightly phony.
Post by: mendonca on January 22, 2010, 03:12:27 pm
A couple decades ago, the companies making games had people who loved the games they made. They made games they wanted to play. I wonder how many designers and programmers who work in any given game project today are happy with what they are making.
One of the rare genuine complete success stories of the game world is Jagged Alliance 2. It has everything. You just get the feeling that the people that made this game knew exactly what a game should be.
Unfortunately it didn't sell, and in a short time the company goes under.
In the capitalist world in which games companies operate, the metric of success is not, "are people still playing this game in 11 years time" (most would do well to last 11 days) it is "units ... units ... must .. shift .. units!!!!"
It would be nice if we could use todays technology coupled with the developers and creativity in the framework that games companies could operate in 10-20 years ago, this is true.
So we either de-couple the games houses from the constraints of the market (like artificial subsidies), or we educate the ignorant masses about the potential beauty of this entertainment genre, thereby shifting the target. I'm not sure which task is more unrealistic. Is this too cynical? Is there hope?
Also I completely agree on the point about reviews, my brain vibrates hurtfully when I try to decipher from the available literature whether or not a new game is any good. I usually just wait four years and see if it is still about.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 22, 2010, 03:38:10 pm
I'm not sure we can shift the targeted audience much. As others have pointed out, studios will keep with what makes money and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. What bugs me is that we still lack a major studio that makes more complex games or that the others will not even consider it. This just reminded me of Overlord and how the news were comparing it with Dungeon keeper. It was disappointing and yet a lot of people bought it and enjoyed it. How many dungeon-keeper-like have we seen in the past few years? I can only think of Evil Genius and when it shipped it was full of bugs and quirks. Then people wonder why things wont sell.
While studios milk some games, others suffer from a massive dukenuken forever syndrome. I'd really love to see a dungeon keeper 3, for example, that took all the aspects of the previous games and enhanced them, adding more options, creatures, choices, visual goodies, etc.
This gave me an interesting idea. Create a survey to try to see what b12ers in general like/dislike/want in games. I might work on that over the weekend if I have some free time.
Post by: sproingie on January 22, 2010, 03:52:57 pm
- Added more maps with varying goals. Cramming everything into "Big Island" and "Holy Crap That's Huge Island" didn't do anything for variety.
- Differented the geniuses a little more, giving each one unique missions.
- Gave henchmen a little personality, and had henchman-specific missions
- Eliminate the use of minions in stealing, using only a point allocation system. Your notoriety would of course affect these points.
- Make AOI's at least slightly interesting, even if it was just to add comic-book still panel "cutscenes" when they succeeded instead of those repetitive and dull radio announcements. Add a "Wall of Infamy" to the Inner Sanctum for you to review your dastardly deeds.
- Removed tourists. Agents are annoying enough to babysit. Actually I would have added a mission or two for dealing with tourists them, with the damn hotels already built and not sucking down half your power budget.
- Streamline building in any of a zillion ways, any of which would have removed the "watching paint dry" factor.
- I could go on and on
Post by: mendonca on January 22, 2010, 04:07:06 pm
I remember getting through a bit of the game, thinking "This is ace! I can't wait to see what else this has in store for me!" then realised that I had pretty much done everything it had to offer.
Interesting, but seemed like kind of a hitting-the-post-in-an-open-goal type scenario.
b) Duke Nukem Forever analogous to Elite 4?
Will Elite 4 even have any relevance to the world when it eventually does get released? (if indeed it does ... David Braben possibly keeps mentioning it only to attract attention to his 'brand')
c) Capitalism: I agree, we operate in a world that is driven by the need for money, so that people can buy toilet roll, bread etc. No problems with the way companies operate as companies are really no more than entities with which to make money.
We probably have to accept that innovative, thoughtful, creative games with real vision will generally only really emerge from bizarre crevices, and may not be immediately obvious, so we will just have to keep looking out for them. (even if that means going to play a 12yr old game for the first time in 2009 because you saw some dude/dudette mention it on a forum)
Post by: Huesoo on January 22, 2010, 04:49:41 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
PEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEH
YPEHYPEHYP
EHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEH
YPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPE
HYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPE
HYPEHYPEHY
PEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYEPHYPE
HYPEHYEPHYPEHYPEHYPEH
YPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHY
PEHYPEHYPEHYPE
HYPEHYPE
HYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHY
PEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHY
PEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYP
EHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEH
YPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPEHYEPHYPEHYPEHYEP
When I first watched the SPORE 30 minute demo I felt a warm fuzzy feeling all over my body, then when I bought the game I had some kiddy shit that you spent 1-2 hours on each level until the space stage that you spend like 10 hours and poof your done. None the less I raged so hard im still raging today.
(Atleast the editor is so fun that ive spent over 100+ hours in it)
Post by: Idiom on January 22, 2010, 06:17:01 pm
It's not necessarily that simple games are bad, but if you're going to go off in an ENTIRELY different direction with a game than it's predecessors, WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU KEEP THE NAME? It's like when they advertise a sob chickflick to be a comedy. Sure, it might be good for what it is within it's own aspects, BUT I came looking for something else entirely and therefore it will suck hard.
Case in future point:
Deus Ex 3 by EA. The guy in charge of Deus Ex 3 didn't even LIKE Deus Ex. They want to remove health kits for regenerating health, discourage level exploration (HALF the original game, subplots, and story!), and make it a linear action shooter.
...and SS3. And every future dead horse beating.
edit:
Is it just me, or are mediocre games scoring higher in reviews than they used to? IE game reviews are giving out on average higher scores than they used to, or at least the spread of scores given has a higher median now.
Post by: sproingie on January 22, 2010, 06:21:31 pm
There have already been several sequels to Elite: Freelancer, X, X2, and X3. Elite 4 is actually going to beat Duke Nukem Forever for the most drawn-out vaporware.
edit: I'll give him one thing, his company did produce Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, so he's capable of producing good stuff. Then again, 3d Realms got Prey out the door too.
Post by: Megaman on January 22, 2010, 07:23:23 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on January 22, 2010, 08:16:09 pm
Evil Genius was so close to being actually fun, but ended up being awesomely tedious instead. Were I doing Evil Genius, I would have:This is an interesting spiritual successor of Evil Genius -> http://www.kongregate.com/games/theswain/mastermind-world-conquerer
I'd be interested in hearing what people think about it. I'm not much a fan of defense games, but thinking back, evil genius was basically a defense game, but had the whole tunneling from DK. I think I like the ability to create and shape my base way too much. Reason why DF is so compelling.
When I first watched the SPORE 30 minute demo I felt a warm fuzzy feeling all over my body, then when I bought the game I had some kiddy shit that you spent 1-2 hours on each level until the space stage that you spend like 10 hours and poof your done. None the less I raged so hard im still raging today.The spore demo and the finished spore just aren't the same game. I'd love to play that demo and just fool around as a creature, without feeling like I'm playing a mini game, but more like a survival game.
(Atleast the editor is so fun that ive spent over 100+ hours in it)
Anyway.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Is it just me, or are mediocre games scoring higher in reviews than they used to? IE game reviews are giving out on average higher scores than they used to, or at least the spread of scores given has a higher median now.I think the gaming media is being really lenient nowadays. Take a look at metacritic for example.
Spore:
Critic Review: 84/100 (74 reviews)
User review: 45/100 (1178 reviews)
Now take a buggy but complex and enjoyable game.
7.62 High Calibre:
Critic Review: 47/100 (4 reviews)
User review: 76/100 (13 reviews)
Of course, the number of reviews are too low to compare, but you can have an idea of what might be going on. If we take a game that I find mediocre but enjoyable, stylish, and fun for example.
Borderlands
Critic Review: 83/100 (58 reviews)
User review: 84/100 (66 reviews)
Now I wonder, how did it score the same as spore by critics? Also note that it didn't get nearly as much attention both from users and critics when it comes to reviews.
When it comes to critics, I only trust yahtzee and spoony. Spoony most of the time as yahtzee likes making fun and he's a HL2 fanboi, which doesn't mean he isn't entertaining.
the golden age of gaming is over, boys. The golden age of making money from them is here, thoughNot necessarily. The amount of companies that went under and got bought the last decade was huge.
Post by: Megaman on January 22, 2010, 10:28:30 pm
Post by: sarack on January 23, 2010, 12:14:53 am
If the developers target consoles and newer gamers, they know that with enough hype and a gimmick or two they can sell anything. The thing is, this audience doesn't care much for puzzles, learning curves or strategy. What impresses them is pretty graphics and really big guns. Therefore the developers, pushed either by their own need for money or insane publisher deadlines take the last game that sold well, slap something new on it and release it just as their deadline looms.
The second, 'wiser' audience, however has a lot of experience with great original games, and so is far too picky. Just about anything developers make will be called a cheap knock-off of some older game. Either that or it's just a cheap console port, or maybe it uses a gimmick that's just a bit too popular at the moment. Any of these things are enough to stop older gamers from buying said game. If the game isn't bought, it doesn't bring in revenue, the developers don't eat. Simple. If people just lowered their expectations, there wouldn't be a 'problem with modern games'. If people just openned their minds, they might find something great.
Just about the only people who make games for the sake of making games these days are either running out of money fast or are only involved in side-projects away from their 'real' jobs.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on January 23, 2010, 01:33:39 am
Post by: Rilder on January 23, 2010, 08:09:35 am
Post by: Muz on January 27, 2010, 05:38:54 am
Post by: Jreengus on January 27, 2010, 07:31:29 am
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on January 27, 2010, 08:16:06 am
Yes, I don't like sandbox games either I get bored quickly (Even DF fell prey to this). When the only limit is my imagination I soon realise how constrictive that limit is.
There is no computer game like this. Every computer game is limited by the design of it's developers unless you can and do mod it.
Post by: yamo on January 27, 2010, 08:28:52 am
When it comes to critics, I only trust yahtzee and spoony. Spoony most of the time as yahtzee likes making fun and he's a HL2 fanboi, which doesn't mean he isn't entertaining.
----------------------------------------------------------
I like the reviews at http://www.outofeight.info/
Post by: Draco18s on January 27, 2010, 11:24:49 am
When it comes to critics, I only trust yahtzee and spoony. Spoony most of the time as yahtzee likes making fun and he's a HL2 fanboi, which doesn't mean he isn't entertaining.
I'm not sure he's a HL2 fanboi, he tore episode 2 a new one. You have to pay attention to what he actually says sometimes. He loved Portal (IIRC, it was the first game he reviewed that he actually said he liked) and Left 4 Dead (but criticized the players for playing like twats, thus ruining the enjoyment he was getting). There are a few games he idolizes (states as such through various forms of innuendo), but has never reviewed directly.
Spoony I've not watched/read/whatever.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 27, 2010, 11:33:12 am
Post by: Draco18s on January 27, 2010, 11:37:40 am
As far as my memory goes, and I'm too lazy to check, I remember his visit to valve and how he had mental orgasms and probably a few physical ones too.
To be fair, everyone who visits valve has those orgasms. Remember the L4D2 Boycott?
Post by: Soulwynd on January 27, 2010, 11:43:24 am
Never even heard of it. Then again, I'm not a l4d(2) fan. I'm not sure why they would have those orgasms, valve has only made 2 decent games and one that should have been given way more attention. The only thing I liked about his visit there was how they assigned people jobs for a game and that's pretty much it.As far as my memory goes, and I'm too lazy to check, I remember his visit to valve and how he had mental orgasms and probably a few physical ones too.To be fair, everyone who visits valve has those orgasms. Remember the L4D2 Boycott?
Post by: Shad0wyone on January 27, 2010, 06:26:58 pm
Well, I think my rantish-thing is over, who would like a turn now?
Post by: sproingie on January 27, 2010, 09:08:50 pm
Post by: Draco18s on January 28, 2010, 10:15:48 am
Never even heard of it. Then again, I'm not a l4d(2) fan. I'm not sure why they would have those orgasmsAs far as my memory goes, and I'm too lazy to check, I remember his visit to valve and how he had mental orgasms and probably a few physical ones too.To be fair, everyone who visits valve has those orgasms. Remember the L4D2 Boycott?
The leaders of the boycott were flown out to Seattle, all expenses paid, to get a preview play of L4D2 at valve headquarters. Afterwards they started encouraging people to buy it (notably valve can track who was part of the official boycott and match that up with who's buying the game--boycotters were preordering at a faster rate than non-boycotters).
Which of course, prompted this series of emails (http://shotgunsunrise.half-lifecreations.com/new/previouslyonflygabe.html). Joe raised the money in less than 3 days.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 28, 2010, 11:03:24 am
Post by: Cthulhu on January 28, 2010, 11:07:10 am
Post by: fenrif on January 28, 2010, 11:14:11 am
AFAIK the L4D2 boycot was because, when L4D1 was released they said they'd be releasing new levels/guns/enemies as free updates like TF2 gets, then in less than a year they were announcing the sequel, which would have new levels/guns/enemies... I'm pretty sure they only released the SDK a month or so before the sequel came out too, so people were pissed about that.
Good example of a game dev fixing something that isnt broken, since L4D2 is nowhere near as fun as the first one due to them messing with the AI director. In the original it was pretty good at keeping you right on the edge of defeat the whole time, but still giving you a chance to win. The second one just throws tanks, witches and specials at you over and over.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 28, 2010, 11:25:51 am
AFAIK the L4D2 boycot was because, when L4D1 was released they said they'd be releasing new levels/guns/enemies as free updates like TF2 gets, then in less than a year they were announcing the sequel, which would have new levels/guns/enemies...I don't know if that's what they have said, since I haven't really checked, but I do remember everyone expecting that.
I guess Valve needed some more money quickly. Or maybe they weren't happy with l4d as it was. But they could have updated it and did weekends like TF2 gets. Lots of people buy it when there are update, at least enough to put tf2 as first in the sale charts on steam for the week. I guess they just wanted to milk the cow, I mean, players, for money.
Post by: fenrif on January 28, 2010, 11:30:08 am
Post by: Soulwynd on January 28, 2010, 11:34:25 am
Might be a perfect example of large developers' bullshit.
Post by: Micro102 on January 28, 2010, 11:44:57 am
I can handle loading screens since Those are what actually allow the game to exist. It's like lag but its giving you something to look at. And faster computers can handle those things.
But i hate the dumbed down games.....The top one on my list being spore....haaaaaaaaaaate it.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 28, 2010, 11:47:44 am
I have a top of the line computer and some games still have huge loading screens. It annoys me to no end.
Post by: Draco18s on January 28, 2010, 12:02:58 pm
That's awesome of them, but then again, people boycotting l4d2 were probably the ones wanting it most, they just didn't want to pay for it.
Oh, they paid for it. Valve was looking at actual pre-orders.
Post by: fenrif on January 28, 2010, 12:20:36 pm
Post by: Draco18s on January 28, 2010, 06:07:44 pm
out of curiosity, how did valve work that out? seems a bit wierd that a relativly small group of people would be pre-ordering the game faster than the other 90 percent of the steam userbase? was it a proportional thing?
Listen to the comment yourself (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/left4dead2/video/6238431/gabe-newell-behind-left-4-dead-2-and-beyond-interview).
Post by: smeej on January 29, 2010, 01:10:50 am
This could be that I haven't gotten a new television in many, many years and use headphones for video games, but I just don't feel that they really add a whole lot to the gaming experience. I will concede that some games really do need crazily precise audio, but they are the minority.
Post by: The Architect on January 29, 2010, 10:24:58 am
The problem is when they act as if putting on a show is a substitute for making a good game, and leave you with some piece of crap that has nothing going for it but nice graphics. Great graphics and audio are fantastic in a game. However, it had better have a lot more to it than that or I won't be pleased.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 29, 2010, 12:13:10 pm
Post by: The Architect on January 29, 2010, 12:19:49 pm
However, it's a racing game. If you have a realistic racing engine, oodles of cars (all you could ever want, really) and tons of well-replicated race tracks, isn't the next freaking step to make the graphics, physics engine, and audio as realistic as possible? As far as I know, isn't the main point of any racing game to replicate the experience of racing to the highest degree possible, and to show those gorgeous cars and hear their revving engines in all their glory?
A racing game would be a rare example of a genre where graphics and audio are the best areas to improve. Unless the driving engine were inadequate, which it isn't.
Post by: Virtz on January 29, 2010, 02:21:47 pm
I'm not sure I see how Dirt 2 only had improved graphics (I'm not a fan anyway, although my roommate loves it. I'd buy Forza 3 if I had the cash for a new game).I've yet to see a game where the effects of crashing a car at high speed into a wall would be adequately portrayed. I think the closest was Carmageddon. I want my realistic car crashes, damn it. >:C
However, it's a racing game. If you have a realistic racing engine, oodles of cars (all you could ever want, really) and tons of well-replicated race tracks, isn't the next freaking step to make the graphics, physics engine, and audio as realistic as possible? As far as I know, isn't the main point of any racing game to replicate the experience of racing to the highest degree possible, and to show those gorgeous cars and hear their revving engines in all their glory?
A racing game would be a rare example of a genre where graphics and audio are the best areas to improve. Unless the driving engine were inadequate, which it isn't.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 29, 2010, 02:30:32 pm
What I meant was. The news about Dirt 2 were all about graphics. Sure there are a few that weren't, but yeah.
I think I'd rather stick to GT4 on ps2 or that other one on pc that was made by a small studio that I haven't played in ages... hm... what was the name...
Post by: sproingie on January 29, 2010, 03:34:55 pm
As far as I know, isn't the main point of any racing game to replicate the experience of racing to the highest degree possible
If you narrowly define "racing game" as "racing sim", yes. The Burnout series takes a different view for a more arcade-ish flavor. Sadly Burnout is an example of EA taking a good franchise (Criterion) and turning it into mediocre pablum. Burnout 3 was the last really good Burnout because it was in the can by the time EA got their paws on it.
Post by: JoshuaFH on January 30, 2010, 03:09:23 am
Post by: SHAD0Wdump on January 30, 2010, 04:02:53 am
He is also found on...
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/
Post by: Muz on January 30, 2010, 04:13:47 am
Post by: Zangi on January 30, 2010, 05:49:40 am
Hey, some people buy games just for the immersion. Those are the people who only talk about the great graphics and sound. There's a lot of them out there, and they don't really give a damn about gameplay, not more than how immersive it is while they do random stuff.
Casual gaming at its finest... >.>
Personally, I hate loading times, who doesn't?
Also... dumbed down games... Spore is a disappointment in that regard... good thing I didn't shell out a dime...
At least we have DF and other free games like Aurora...
Post by: The Architect on January 30, 2010, 10:25:16 am
Without getting into the shortcuts IW took with the attachments and some other attention to detail on the guns (which are fine; the gameplay and representation of weapons are both still nice) I still have to whine about that stupid auto aim that can never be disabled. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen!
You can turn off the main auto aim, the one that is generally useful to most people if you leave it on. I find aids detract from whatever actual chance I may have to test reflexes and skill, so I always have them off. However there is one you can never disable, and I don't have the faintest f*ing clue why. It's the most useless and aggravating feature I've ever had ruin my experience after paying major bucks for a gaime.
Basically it works like this: if you leave your aim/reticule/cursor still for any period of time (fractions of a second) in the vicinity of a moving enemy, the game automatically moves your reticule along in the same general path they are taking (as if to draw attention to them). Basically this seems to be meant to help people with inadequate displays or eye stigmatisms notice the big moving things you're supposed to shoot. What it means to actual gameplay is that you are literally not permitted to let your aim remain still if enemies move in the vicinity. The most obvious problems come from not being able to control your aim when enemies move past your target, or strafe / pinpoint burst on moving groups of enemies or lines of enemies crossing your line of sight, as the game will jerk your aim around (intentionally just a little behind the enemy, so as not to be too much of an advantage for the mentally impaired who rely on it). Keep in mind that this sort of "sticky reticule" that snatches your aim two steps behind the enemy cannot be disabled, and every time you are rushed by a group your aim will automatically be jerked into shooting just behind the closest one (in other words, shooting at f***ing no-one).
TL;DR: MW2 has an aim de-assist that cannot be disabled.
Post by: Kishmond on January 30, 2010, 11:24:10 am
I chose none of the above
Loading screens I don't really like, but I don't mind.
It is true that games are easier, however, I would rather do a quick play through of Mass Effect or something than die dozens of times on one level in, say, Megaman.
I really have no logical excuse why I don't mind 'flogging a dead horse'. If a game is good, and they make something like it, buy it. If it's worse, don't buy it. You aren't forced to play every game out there.
Linear gameplay is sometimes a good thing. Look at Half-Life or its sequel. Anyway most games nowadays are adding in some kind of sandbox mode. It's the hype, or something.
Everything here I can somewhat agree with, but the "Think of all the fake people you're killing" argument just comes across as stupid.
Graphics Above All. Maybe more applicable than any of the others. There are games that have great graphics but are not enjoyable. There are games that have
Post by: Soulwynd on January 30, 2010, 12:05:02 pm
Everything here I can somewhat agree with, but the "Think of all the fake people you're killing" argument just comes across as stupid.I think you should re-read it. It doesn't make sense in a lot of RPGs that could have a more ample gameplay instead of kill 10 people to level.
Post by: Micro102 on January 30, 2010, 12:09:34 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on January 30, 2010, 12:49:37 pm
Post by: Micro102 on January 30, 2010, 01:22:53 pm
My main concern regarding this is that the poll will be messed up ::)
Post by: Soulwynd on January 30, 2010, 02:16:05 pm
At least in fallout 3 it felt more natural, for example, as a byproduct of exploration and trying to get somewhere with your missions.
On the same topic, I hate how every enemy npc in these games are suicidal. I think more games should feature fleeing and then award you the same xp if you let the npc flee. When me and my friends GMed d&d, we did that a lot. We rewarded xp for defeat, not a kill. It also opened a lot of rp opportunities. I wish more computer rpgs would feature that.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on January 30, 2010, 02:24:24 pm
On the same topic, I hate how every enemy npc in these games are suicidal. I think more games should feature fleeing and then award you the same xp if you let the npc flee. When me and my friends GMed d&d, we did that a lot. We rewarded xp for defeat, not a kill. It also opened a lot of rp opportunities. I wish more computer rpgs would feature that.But if they ran away, you'd have to work harder to chase them down and shoot them in the back. And as we all know, then they don't count. :3
Post by: Zangi on January 30, 2010, 08:41:32 pm
You miss the point. :POn the same topic, I hate how every enemy npc in these games are suicidal. I think more games should feature fleeing and then award you the same xp if you let the npc flee. When me and my friends GMed d&d, we did that a lot. We rewarded xp for defeat, not a kill. It also opened a lot of rp opportunities. I wish more computer rpgs would feature that.But if they ran away, you'd have to work harder to chase them down and shoot them in the back. And as we all know, then they don't count. :3
I like that idea of yours Soul. Much more believable in an RP sense... Pretty much annoyed me in a few games...
Post by: Micro102 on January 30, 2010, 08:54:13 pm
Post by: Logical2u on January 30, 2010, 09:40:58 pm
Also, I appreciate somewhat decent AI, mostly since I typically play single-player. An AI that relies purely on strength of numbers or arms isn't interesting to fight against - I'd rather have a foe that allows me to experience several different tactics, without any particular branch being "gimped".
I'm looking forward to Just Cause 2 because the game seems to not take itself seriously at all, and it seems to have a variety of gameplay options, including explosions :P
I've been watching a Mercenaries 2 LP, and really that's a pretty ideal game for what I'm looking for, except for the massive bugs that it has... I mean literally, can you hate a game when it has a line that pretty much goes as follows - "Oh god! I'm dying here!... no blood though... stupid T rating!"
In contrast, Oblivion, in which your playstyle tends to be severely limited unless you like being overleveled and under-equipped, resulting in massacre at the hands of arbitrary bandits. It also takes itself really seriously, to the point of tediousness, and has... AI issues. Geometry issues, for one, along with really broken guard/quest interactions. (I was ambushed by a guy I sent to prison, and then had to kill him in self defence. I was labelled a murderer. So I reloaded, and instead got a guard to be my friend, let the guard kill him, still had the guard attack me, even when I hadn't even tapped the attack button, and then had to convince the guard to stop attacking me, even though I wasn't a criminal...)
Post by: The Architect on January 30, 2010, 10:07:05 pm
I particularly hate AI that cheat. I mean things like the guys who can run and shoot sideways over their shoulders accurately enough to throw your own aim all over the screen in MW2 (giving you damage but making them practically invulnerable, as your aim is thrown when hit and you must stand still and aim down the sight to hit anything, but they can run and sling bullets like a bad movie), or in the old (God bless it!) Mario Kart '64, when any off-screen computer player drove at a randomized optimum speed and recovered from hits or obstacles nearly instantly (not the same rules players had to follow, let me remind you).
TL;DR, writer retarded;poor English: I hate when programmers are lazy, and instead of programming an actually challenging or intelligently-behaving AI they give the NPCs superpowers.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on January 30, 2010, 10:26:26 pm
I think he is saying, that since it will count if they run away, it wont count if they don't run away, which means if you want to kill them, they wont give you exp.No, and spoilered for explanation of the joke:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
@Architect: Most of that came from trying to implement AI without the cpu cycles to make one that could challenge the player when subject to the same rules. It's not just a matter of saving effort, it's making due with technical limitations. Now, I haven't played mw2, and there's no way in hell I will, but are you sure it's not just volume of fire there? The ai attempts to do that because it's stupid, and when it actually succeeds you take notice, while not even realizing it when it misses?
Post by: The Architect on January 30, 2010, 10:36:10 pm
Modern Warfare 2's AI is notorious for its insane ESP abilities and lack of playing by the rules. No, it's not simply accuracy-by-volume; it's actually a matter of the computer running across open terrain 120 meters away from the player and 10 meters below while firing a few scattered shots over the shoulder at the player and hitting them, which flings the player's aim all over the place and bloodies the screen (making shooting the should-be-easy-target impossible). In order to be challenging, the MW2 AI almost always knows where you are, and will shoot when it has a line of fire on you even if that line of fire is through a totally opaque bush or wall of corrugated tin. It takes "irritating" frustration to a whole new level. I much prefer something like Halo's Legendary difficulty, where you simply ceased to be superman and things were naturally difficult.
I don't know why you would say there's no way in hell you would play MW2. Aside from the people who are too elite to play it because it's popular, I can't see why anyone would have any reason not to play such an enjoyable game. Unless you don't have access to multiplayer, in which case it is not worth more than a rental.
The reason it's so popular is that it's so damn good. I bought it because I had played it at a friend's, without knowing it was the most popular game of all time.
Post by: Micro102 on January 30, 2010, 10:47:06 pm
Post by: JoshuaFH on January 30, 2010, 10:49:55 pm
What happened was me driving down a long stretch of road at blistering speed with the camera fixed on a police officer at my side trying to ram me with the suicidal zeal that is commonplace in most games. I get him to crash into a randomly parked car on the side of the road, and I quickly turned the camera to follow him to see what he would do. There I saw it, the policecar breaking all laws of physics by instantaneously recovering from the crash, reversing in benny hill fast motion back onto the road, then hitting mach 1 in order to get right back on my ass in a fraction of a second. It was stupendously retarded.
Post by: Micro102 on January 30, 2010, 10:55:54 pm
Post by: JoshuaFH on January 30, 2010, 10:59:45 pm
Post by: Micro102 on January 30, 2010, 11:01:29 pm
Thing is: police cars are one of the best civilian cars already. Sure, it IS possible to out-speed them, but it requires the rare and fragile racing speed cars that you can only find in a remote corner of the map. However, the racing cars go so stupidly fast that it's literally impossible to drive them in an urban setting with crashing and dying in a ball of flames.New theory: Modern games are made by people reading forums for posts like these.
Post by: JoshuaFH on January 30, 2010, 11:03:46 pm
Post by: Micro102 on January 30, 2010, 11:14:22 pm
Post by: Funk on January 30, 2010, 11:43:27 pm
arfter you got 30% of the way in to the game every goon got a shotgun or a machinegun and thay have 5+men guarding a flowershop ???
if the ai is just hard but fair then it is 10 times better than ai the cheats to make the game hard.
other things that pissme off:
Suicidal Overconfidence
thay go past the point of sanity,gunshot wounds,beaten to within a inch of death thay just keep attcking.
slow ai
all ai's will play smarter if thay moved at full speed a cross cover and to attack or run.
Forced Level Grinding
i have other things to do..
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on January 31, 2010, 01:13:34 am
Post by: Choose username on January 31, 2010, 06:07:21 pm
Post by: Xombie on February 01, 2010, 10:59:13 am
actually they don't even improve graphics since like Crysis, just requirements
even pirating'em soo waste of time :-\
Post by: Mindmaker on February 01, 2010, 11:10:03 am
Brings back childhood memories when games were innovative, diversified and simply fun.
Post by: The Architect on February 01, 2010, 11:32:01 am
Yet, people like it. Because it's just like Ocarina of Time / Majora's mask, sans creativite new gameplay, thrilling adventure, and a fantastic storyline.
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 01, 2010, 12:06:43 pm
Post by: Mindmaker on February 01, 2010, 12:19:53 pm
I found Twilight Princess to be the least original and enjoyable of any Zelda game I'd ever played.
Yet, people like it. Because it's just like Ocarina of Time / Majora's mask, sans creativite new gameplay, thrilling adventure, and a fantastic storyline.
I guess you haven't played Phantom Hourglass yet...
Thats IMO the most unspectacular Zelda.
And no my opinion does not differentiate between handhelds/consoles.
For example The Minish Cap was ingenious.
Still I can't really compare it to Ocarina of Time / Majoras Mask since it have been ages since I played them the last time.
I remember them being better than Twilight Princess, but that might as well be just blurred by nostalgia.
But I agree, there's nothing groundbreaking in Twilight princess, it's just "more of the same".
I'm planning on replaying both of them in the near future, so we'll see...
Post by: Mindmaker on February 01, 2010, 12:28:09 pm
Dammit I suck at editing.
Selfquote ftw.
Post by: Draco18s on February 01, 2010, 01:29:26 pm
I found Twilight Princess to be the least original and enjoyable of any Zelda game I'd ever played.
Yet, people like it. Because it's just like Ocarina of Time / Majora's mask, sans creativite new gameplay, thrilling adventure, and a fantastic storyline.
I guess you haven't played Phantom Hourglass yet...
Thats IMO the most unspectacular Zelda.
My friend played that. IIRC it barely even qualifies as a Zelda game.
Post by: The Architect on February 01, 2010, 03:19:57 pm
Ocarina of Time is like Mario Kart: It's always fun. It's fun to start over 10 minutes after you beat it. It's pure genius, a true tribute to the series. It's long, exciting, captivating, and never repetitive. Majora's Mask isn't a "10/10 forever" in the way its predecessor was, but it's basically the same team making a sequel with several innovative elements, so it's very good.
Twilight Princess felt like it was made for 6-year-old Japanese children. It was inaccessible, simple and unengrossing, though it had some of the good old-fashioned innovation and enjoyment just on the aerial level. One freakin' section.
Even the side quests in Ocarina of Time had the plot, depth and mystery to be feature games themselves. I'm remembering things I forgot now, like the undead desert quest, the family that bore the spider curse, the graveyard, the well...
Post by: Rooster on February 01, 2010, 05:15:36 pm
I'm a frickin cave man. I knew some of those problems existed, but I didn't think about them.
I'm a teenager therefore I have almost no money and I must say I can live without commercial games.
Diablo 3? SC 2? I'll never play them unless a miracle happens and I can afford a better computer.
Even the older games don't work quite as well on my computer. Of those "big hits" I only play heroes 5.
That's it. Nothing else. I don't have money to spend on games. And I don't approve piracy.
I play only freeware or really cheap games.
Why pay when there's a game I'll enjoy a lot more and it's free? Egoboo much?
I really like Geneforge series from spiderweb software. When was the last time I thought about my moral choices in a game? This game caught me off guard and made me find my morality. Sure I still have to cough up some cash, but at least it plays great. I play ADOM for a couple of years and I'm still not bored. Sure it's essentially a hack & slash, but if you go around killing stuff and not thinking you die real quick.
You people like thinking about your game? Games that use electricity aren't a good solution.
I play a lot of card games, and I start enjoying board games. They keep me entertained a lot longer and they have that competetive replayability.
I'm a cave man indeed. I don't play the new games and I don't experience those problems.
Post by: Micro102 on February 01, 2010, 05:50:04 pm
Post by: Sowelu on February 01, 2010, 06:01:39 pm
OoT's gameplay annoyed me (the 3d seemed pretty imperfectly implemented), the plot annoyed me, and the setting drove me all the way up the wall and onto the ceiling. To me, OoT and MM are still "the annoying modern games", and Twilight Princess is what OoT SHOULD have been.
But then, I grew up on the original Zelda.
Post by: The Architect on February 01, 2010, 06:22:42 pm
But you're still quite entitled to it. I didn't find Twilight Princess to be dark at all. In fact it is one of the least dark of the series, and celebrated for being so (which is why parents buy it for their little kids). I still enjoy going back to Ocarina of Time where enemies scare(d) the everliving **** out of me. Remember the undead that sucked the life out of you? Remember the bad guy that was pure evil, the one that finally gave us a face and a background for Ganon(dorf)? The evil murdering wizard! Turning from a kid into a full-grown badass was a huge perk, especially when you got the equipment to be a badass. Fighting gangs of witches, (re)killing the undead, complex puzzles never seen before or since in any Zelda game... what is there not to like?
I think, my friend, you simply harbored a resentment for the new-age, 3D Zelda and you didn't give it the proper attention. Or you're remembering badly. By the time the new ones came out, you'd reconciled enough to enjoy them. But then that's speculation. The point here is that "OoT" is universally considered one of the best, most complex and thrilling games ever invented. Whereas Twilight Princess is generally (judging from online reviews) considered a mediocre disappointment on par with the toon one.
Yes, not having the water temple is a bonus in any game. I didn't finish the game for years because I thought I was permanently stuck there, lol. Had to go find an online guide to get out.
Post by: Mindmaker on February 01, 2010, 06:43:11 pm
You people like thinking about your game? Games that use electricity aren't a good solution.
I play a lot of card games, and I start enjoying board games. They keep me entertained a lot longer and they have that competetive replayability.
Sure they are great... if you actually have enough people to play it on a regular basis.
I'd basically kill to have some people around to play Thud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thud_%28game%29).
Is there a more dwarfenly way to kill a troll, as by hurling your fellow dwarfs at them?
I think not.
Post by: fenrif on February 02, 2010, 11:01:28 am
I really like Geneforge series from spiderweb software. When was the last time I thought about my moral choices in a game? This game caught me off guard and made me find my morality.
It's become a bit of an obsession with modern games to have a moral choice system be part of any game released. Unfortunatly it's very rarely a true moral choice. Most games you choose between doing the right thing, and getting rewarded, or doing the wrong thing and getting rewarded equally.
Not to mention most games nowadays only give you the choice between total psychotic sociopath evil, or complete paragon of virtue good, with no middle ground or shades of grey. :(
Post by: Draco18s on February 02, 2010, 11:31:03 am
I'd basically kill to have some people around to play Thud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thud_%28game%29).
Is there a more dwarfenly way to kill a troll, as by hurling your fellow dwarfs at them?
I think not.
Thud! Is awesome. I beat my aunt my first game (she'd previously played against my sister and won, which really isn't much of an accomplishment as my sister invented a chess move called "the king's chariot" in which you put the knights in front of the king and queen, then move all four of them around as a giant king piece).
Post by: Rooster on February 02, 2010, 02:02:45 pm
I really like Geneforge series from spiderweb software. When was the last time I thought about my moral choices in a game? This game caught me off guard and made me find my morality.
It's become a bit of an obsession with modern games to have a moral choice system be part of any game released. Unfortunatly it's very rarely a true moral choice. Most games you choose between doing the right thing, and getting rewarded, or doing the wrong thing and getting rewarded equally.
Not to mention most games nowadays only give you the choice between total psychotic sociopath evil, or complete paragon of virtue good, with no middle ground or shades of grey. :(
You should deffinitely see what geneforge can do to people. I know I was like the shapers. Wanting to control everything with strict laws, trying to protect people from hurting themselves. But shapers were cruel, and didn't allow freedom. Now I'm a neutral sympatising with the rebels that go "everyone should be allowed power, so kill 'em all the bad shapers" . Rebels do more harm to the world than the shapers, and are frequently doing mass genocide. But if all of this is done to ensure freedom, then I'd rather do that, than deny freedom. In geneforge there's no black or white. There's only grey. Maniac grey, idealistic grey, freedom grey, conservative grey and many more.
In geneforge 2 I was so lost. Nobody really stood out to me. Everyone was equally more or less bad. That's why I'm a neutral vigilante killing everyone that stands in my way. Both sinners and innocents. When was the last time a game made you care about what is right or wrong and not who gives the biggest reward?
Everyone please answer my three questions:
1) Serviles are a sentient race created by the shapers. They are humanoid, capable of thought and feelings. They can hate and love. They feel pain. Do you:
a) We created them, so we owe them. They shall be put to slave work for the good of mankind.
b) Serviles are equals with us in every way. They may have a mind of a child and a tendency for mental unstabilities, and even if that would mean that it's economically bad to do so, they should have an equal share on human resources, and should be cared for.
2)A rogue creature (One that isn't controlled by a shaper and has a free mind) is lying on the road, wounded, do you:
a) Kill it. Put it out of it's misery. All rogues deserve to die.
b) Leave, and do not interfere.
3)A powerfull device is created. It has the ability to give power to everyone without effort. What do you think is the best?:
a)Destroy it. Everyone needs to earn power, and needs humility to ensure that it's not put to bad use.
b)Give power to everyone. Power deserves to be shared.
See the problem with these questions? There are no good answers to them. Each answer is both good and bad. Power without control may seem like a fair idea, but it may only hurt the world when everyone has power. Shapers control every aspect of life and that's denying freedom, but at least it's safe. But you like to have freedom do you? Are other sentient beings to be considered lesser and used as slaves, or as equals? Many years into the future robots are supposedly going to reach such an amount of computing power that they will reach almost sentiency. But they aren't alive. They are just machines. Should they be put to use, or given freedom? This is a highly entertaining series of games, and I hope you try it out. The demos are free at least.
Post by: Draco18s on February 02, 2010, 02:11:01 pm
Many years into the future robots are supposedly going to reach such an amount of computing power that they will reach almost sentiency. But they aren't alive. They are just machines. Should they be put to use, or given freedom? This is a highly entertaining series of games, and I hope you try it out. The demos are free at least.
That will occur in our life times (depending on your age, it will definitely occur in mine), but it won't be our choice as to how it plays out: the computers will take over in every task in which they are capable (and humans will only have better dexterity in some applications for only so long).
We already made the choice on how that will play out in the end.
And we did it willingly.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 02, 2010, 03:30:13 pm
Serviles need not be slaves, but what needs to be done with them depends on their abilities. If they are capable of working of their own will, they can cared for while ensuring minimal economic loss on the humanity's part. If they're machines that are more resilient than humans, they can be put to work in environments and situations dangerous for us, under normal conditions and without slavery.
A rogue creature that is wounded can be healed so that it may keep living, or maybe return you the favor and help you.
The powerful device is a do-or-do-not case, so destroying it is more likely to bring more good to humanity. As long as the device exists, it can be used for personal gain, and there will always be people that don't like being equal with others.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 19, 2010, 12:08:23 pm
Post by: fenrif on February 19, 2010, 12:18:43 pm
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg)
Some highlights include: They're proud you can now install your game as many times as you like, and on as many computers as you like (y'know, like back before they started screwing you with DRM); they know their DRM will be hacked, but they think it'll last long enough to be profitable (It'll be hacked inside of a day, easy) they also think that steam games are cracked too fast
They also dodge the question of "what happens when the servers get shut down?" and basically come off like assholes who use "we love pc gaming!!!111one!" as a cover for "we're fucking our customers, deal with it."
Post by: Soulwynd on February 19, 2010, 12:37:42 pm
Quote
"The real idea is that if you offer a game that is better when you buy it, then people will actually buy it. We wouldn't have built it if we thought that it was really going to piss off our customers."How forcing people to be online and installing drm-virus in your computer is better? If I ever buy any of their games again, they will be cracked before anything else.
Post by: fenrif on February 19, 2010, 12:46:29 pm
Meanwhile the pirated version will be cracked on release day, feature complete, with all the levels intact and available, and doesn't require anything aside from the system requirements to run.
They're intentionally crippling their products, blaming it on the pirates, then crippling it more because noone bought the last DRM-ridden piece of crap, blaming it on pirates again.
Post by: Dr. Johbson on February 19, 2010, 12:55:41 pm
I just dont understand how a company can so completely mis-read its customers. I can only assume that they're just trying to see what they can get away with, gradually weening everyone onto DRM piece by piece untill eventually you'll pay 40 quid for a game, itll work on one machine, for one hour, and all you get is the tutorial level (the rest of the game comes as DLC). You'll have to install 10+ different programs to monitor your computer, make sure you're not running and video capture software (those images are owned by ubisoft/ea/etc) or talking about the game in a negative manner with friends. You'll probobly have to buy some sort of USB dongle too, which will enable you to access the ubisoft network, otherwise you cant save your games.
Meanwhile the pirated version will be cracked on release day, feature complete, with all the levels intact and available, and doesn't require anything aside from the system requirements to run.
They're intentionally crippling their products, blaming it on the pirates, then crippling it more because noone bought the last DRM-ridden piece of crap, blaming it on pirates again.
We live in a fun (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Losing) world.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 19, 2010, 01:02:12 pm
From what I've heard from friends that have both a pc and an xbox, they prefer console games on the console.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 19, 2010, 01:06:17 pm
I just dont understand how a company can so completely mis-read its customers. I can only assume that they're just trying to see what they can get away with, gradually weening everyone onto DRM piece by piece untill eventually you'll pay 40 quid for a game, itll work on one machine, for one hour, and all you get is the tutorial level (the rest of the game comes as DLC). You'll have to install 10+ different programs to monitor your computer, make sure you're not running and video capture software (those images are owned by ubisoft/ea/etc) or talking about the game in a negative manner with friends. You'll probobly have to buy some sort of USB dongle too, which will enable you to access the ubisoft network, otherwise you cant save your games.
Meanwhile the pirated version will be cracked on release day, feature complete, with all the levels intact and available, and doesn't require anything aside from the system requirements to run.
They're intentionally crippling their products, blaming it on the pirates, then crippling it more because noone bought the last DRM-ridden piece of crap, blaming it on pirates again.
Hilarious slippery slope. DRM sucks but it isn't the end of the world. Don't buy the game, don't pirate the game, tell them how you feel with your wallet and maybe they'll ease up if they see people spitting blood and cancelling preorders.
Post by: Draco18s on February 19, 2010, 01:13:55 pm
Hilarious slippery slope. DRM sucks but it isn't the end of the world. Don't buy the game, don't pirate the game, tell them how you feel with your wallet and maybe they'll ease up if they see people spitting blood and cancelling preorders.
See, the funny thing about pirates is that if they play the game and like it, they buy it. Piracy actually increases sales, because they simply wouldn't buy it in the first place if they didn't think it was worth it, which is why they pirate it. Most of them will find a gem they didn't expect and then support it by buying a legal copy.
If piracy somehow simply stopped working overnight you would not see an increase in sales.
Post by: mendonca on February 19, 2010, 01:19:18 pm
If piracy somehow simply stopped working overnight you would not see an increase in sales.
so simply put, yet so true.
Post by: fenrif on February 19, 2010, 01:24:28 pm
Nowadays the pirated version is nearly always better than the retail. DRM doesn't effect pirates at all, only paying customers. The fact that the publishers are willfully ignorant of this speaks loudly of the way videogames are heading.
You cant effectivly vote with your wallet with stuff like this, they'd have to loose hundreds of thousands of people for them to even notice, and even then they're just going to blame it on piracy, or crappy marketing, or the game being just plain bad before they admit people are avoiding their products because of DRM. To even get to that stage you have to convince the millions of uninformed gamers, who dont read up on what goes on in the industry, that this is bad. Most of them will buy the game, find its got crappy drm, and make a few posts on a forum. They still bought the game.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 19, 2010, 01:26:54 pm
Hilarious slippery slope. DRM sucks but it isn't the end of the world. Don't buy the game, don't pirate the game, tell them how you feel with your wallet and maybe they'll ease up if they see people spitting blood and cancelling preorders.
See, the funny thing about pirates is that if they play the game and like it, they buy it.
Statistics?
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 19, 2010, 01:29:35 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 19, 2010, 01:30:21 pm
Hilarious slippery slope. DRM sucks but it isn't the end of the world. Don't buy the game, don't pirate the game, tell them how you feel with your wallet and maybe they'll ease up if they see people spitting blood and cancelling preorders.
See, the funny thing about pirates is that if they play the game and like it, they buy it.
Statistics?
There aren't any, as far as I know. And I doubt you could even collect meaningful data on it.
But everyone I know who torrents games has that outlook (heck, at least one of them won't ever pirate an indie game).
Post by: fenrif on February 19, 2010, 01:35:47 pm
Hilarious slippery slope. DRM sucks but it isn't the end of the world. Don't buy the game, don't pirate the game, tell them how you feel with your wallet and maybe they'll ease up if they see people spitting blood and cancelling preorders.
See, the funny thing about pirates is that if they play the game and like it, they buy it.
Statistics?
There aren't any. Just like theres none to prove the contrary. Pretty much every gamer has a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support his position though.
There have been studies done to show that music piracy increases cd sales however:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html)
Obviously this doesnt apply exactly to games, but it shows that pirates still buy media, which was the point he was making.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 19, 2010, 01:36:49 pm
Go to any piracy site and look at the ratio of leechers to seeders. The first few torrents for AVP3 had over 10,000 people downloading the game but contributing nothing to their peers. Do you think they'll help the developer, if they won't even help their fellow pirates?
Post by: GlyphGryph on February 19, 2010, 01:37:03 pm
Star Control 2?
Soul Calibur 2?
Star Craft 2?
Post by: Soulwynd on February 19, 2010, 01:44:05 pm
Well, I still want to make that questionnaire and see how it goes. At least it should give some data on how us b12ers think about this. I've started it, but I have yet to finish. It's probably gonna end up huge.Hilarious slippery slope. DRM sucks but it isn't the end of the world. Don't buy the game, don't pirate the game, tell them how you feel with your wallet and maybe they'll ease up if they see people spitting blood and cancelling preorders.
See, the funny thing about pirates is that if they play the game and like it, they buy it.
Statistics?
Post by: fenrif on February 19, 2010, 01:50:24 pm
Anecdotes are not evidence. Just because all of your friends are like that doesn't mean a significant number of people are like that.
Go to any piracy site and look at the ratio of leechers to seeders. The first few torrents for AVP3 had over 10,000 people downloading the game but contributing nothing to their peers. Do you think they'll help the developer, if they won't even help their fellow pirates?
Thats good logic. Ever think that maybe people leech untill they have the game, then seed for a while, then stop? so it rotates out? Is it possible that the game has 10,000 leachers because it had just been released, and people didnt have it yet to seed? Nah easier to just assume anyone who ever pirated anything is some sort of sociopathic force of evil.
Course, you seeing something on a website once is kinda anecdotal evidence itself, so you cant really infer that a significant number of pirates are like that, or that it applies to a significant number of games.
I posted you a link that proved people who pirate things buy them too. But as we're ignoring that, my question to you is "why should we help the devs?" Since when is it the responsability of the consumer to ensure the devs get what they want? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If they make good games, their games sell. If their publishers start screwing over their own customers then they'll fail.
The publishers are deliberatly crippling their own products, knowing it has no impact on the pirates, to control their consumers. Then blaming it on piracy when it doesn't sell millions upon millions of copies. Why else would they have limited installations in their DRM? Pirates dont have the DRM to deal with, so why are they telling me i can only install my game 3 times before i have to buy it again?
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 19, 2010, 01:54:16 pm
Anecdotes are not evidence. Just because all of your friends are like that doesn't mean a significant number of people are like that.We have a file sharing net set up by our local ISP. Completely free, high-speed, available on even the cheapest accounts. And there's still one seeder per fifty downloads, at most. People just don't like to run file sharing software and spend traffic on something they'd prefer to use themselves - like online games.
Go to any piracy site and look at the ratio of leechers to seeders. The first few torrents for AVP3 had over 10,000 people downloading the game but contributing nothing to their peers. Do you think they'll help the developer, if they won't even help their fellow pirates?
Post by: Draco18s on February 19, 2010, 02:19:40 pm
Do you think they'll help the developer, if they won't even help their fellow pirates?
You realize of course that just because someone is a "leech" does not mean they're not uploading. In fact, its quite the contrary. Every peer/leech in a p2p swarm is uploading what data they do have, and if they're not they'll be quickly blacklisted (99% of all torrent programs force you to upload and will local-blacklist any peer who is found to be downloading, but not uploading, or at the very least throttle their speed down to a crawl*)
*This is why the first few minutes of a torrent download your download speed is very slow. As soon as you have a full chunk that you can reupload your speed increases dramatically.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 19, 2010, 02:34:04 pm
Post by: Roundabout Lout on February 19, 2010, 04:06:58 pm
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 19, 2010, 04:17:10 pm
Videogame companies try to make money selling videogames
People don't like spending money on games
People with programming knowledge go out of their way, free of charge, to crack a game, and then will allow thousands upon thousands of complete strangers to download his cracked copy, also free of charge, in order to spite the gaming companies?
DRM fiasco ensues.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 19, 2010, 04:18:26 pm
I'm beginning to think that there's a conspiracy amongst various game companies to try and kill PC gaming, so that they can just pump out shitty console game after shitty console game without recourse.
That's what they want you to think!
Post by: Draco18s on February 19, 2010, 04:25:38 pm
People with programming knowledge go out of their way, free of charge, to crack a game, and then will allow thousands upon thousands of complete strangers to download his cracked copy, also free of charge, in order to spite the gaming companies?
Yes. They do.
Post by: Micro102 on February 19, 2010, 05:31:35 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on February 19, 2010, 05:32:46 pm
Of course, it'll be cracked within a week.
Post by: Draco18s on February 19, 2010, 05:37:54 pm
Couldn't they bypass pirating by having a game that can only be ran by accessing a server?
Yes:
I'm pretty sure that's what they're doing with Ubisoft's newest games.
Of course, it'll be cracked within a week.
And of course they will. All you have to do is spoof the client into thinking its communicating with the server when it is in fact not.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 19, 2010, 05:42:13 pm
Couldn't they bypass pirating by having a game that can only be ran by accessing a server?That's what Assassin's creed 2 is doing and it's not going to work.
It works for things like MMOs however, to an extend, as they are supposed to be online games and you make an account to play. For single player games? Not so much.
I'm pretty sure that's what they're doing with Ubisoft's newest games.You mean day. It will probably be cracked before release. The same thing was done with Mirror's edge, except they stepped into a crack detection issue and it took them a bit longer to deliver a fully working crack. A few days after the initial crack.
Of course, it'll be cracked within a week.
Post by: G-Flex on February 19, 2010, 05:44:23 pm
Couldn't they bypass pirating by having a game that can only be ran by accessing a server?
Because everybody loves time-bomb software that will never work again if they ever stop service, and games that fail to work if your internet connection is down.
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 19, 2010, 05:48:59 pm
Couldn't they bypass pirating by having a game that can only be ran by accessing a server?That's what Assassin's creed 2 is doing and it's not going to work.
It works for things like MMOs however, to an extend, as they are supposed to be online games and you make an account to play. For single player games? Not so much.I'm pretty sure that's what they're doing with Ubisoft's newest games.You mean day. It will probably be cracked before release. The same thing was done with Mirror's edge, except they stepped into a crack detection issue and it took them a bit longer to deliver a fully working crack. A few days after the initial crack.
Of course, it'll be cracked within a week.
That's something that mystifies me though, how do they crack a game that nobody has yet?
Post by: Soulwynd on February 19, 2010, 05:50:52 pm
Post by: sproingie on February 19, 2010, 06:01:34 pm
*shrug*. Oh well, I guess someone else gets my money.
Post by: Draco18s on February 19, 2010, 06:05:01 pm
Couldn't they bypass pirating by having a game that can only be ran by accessing a server?
Because everybody loves time-bomb software that will never work again if they ever stop service, and games that fail to work if your internet connection is down.
You mean like Hellgate London? :D
Post by: Micro102 on February 20, 2010, 03:21:28 am
......seems developers now have no choice but to pour tons of money into servers for MMO's :P
Which would be quite nice....I'd love to play a full on war game like stronghold where everyone has individual roles. Or a zombie game where there is a VERY large map with several cities and room for more stuff and the zombies and humans try to drive each other out and there is a way to win and there is permadeath (in the sense that you start over with new stats)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 20, 2010, 03:41:27 am
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 20, 2010, 03:49:01 am
Post by: Cajoes on February 20, 2010, 04:12:59 am
Fast forward to Dawn of War: Winter assault. Three star general on the online community with a fondness for the IG underdog. I decide to give Z another spin.
Aced the first level, and only got stuck on the 18th one, (out of 20)
So.. are games getting dumber, or am I just growing smrter?
Post by: The Architect on February 20, 2010, 04:35:49 am
A lot of old games weren't hard in a good way (like Red Alert), they were hard in a bad way (like finicky controls and cheating AI). Goldan Axe, anyone? It was great on 2-player, but just stupidly hard by yourself due to finicky controls.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 20, 2010, 06:14:27 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 20, 2010, 06:27:44 am
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 20, 2010, 06:52:58 am
Post by: The Architect on February 20, 2010, 07:54:46 am
yes, it's sarcasm.*
*case in point
Post by: Soulwynd on February 20, 2010, 10:35:36 am
......seems developers now have no choice but to pour tons of money into servers for MMO's :PPeople still like single player games and they don't always have internet access when they want to play a single player game.
I believe they should invest in game quality and decent online content. A solid multiplayer mode can guarantee a lot of sales from people who full-demoed. Free downloadable content for people who register in their site should also boost it.
They shouldn't treat actual customers as crap, they should try to please them.
Post by: Micro102 on February 20, 2010, 07:46:10 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on February 20, 2010, 07:55:05 pm
Okay, they're not the same, but the premise is. People are putting their time and money into something, you can't expect them to just leave it unprotected, regardless of how ineffective the protection is.
Part of me hopes they figure out an uncrackable DRM, just to stick it to the Robin Hood pirates, but part of me doesn't, because I'm one of the maniacal cutlass-waving pirates and that would stick it to me too.
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 20, 2010, 08:00:58 pm
Like, with people now forced to buy games, that videogames would then decrease in price since more people are buying them?
Also, I have a question for anyone that might be knowledgeable in the topic: What purpose does region coding serve?
Post by: Micro102 on February 20, 2010, 08:09:08 pm
No matter what I do, someone's going to rob my inner-city quickie-mart. I should just leave the money on the counter and get rid of the cameras.
Okay, they're not the same, but the premise is. People are putting their time and money into something, you can't expect them to just leave it unprotected, regardless of how ineffective the protection is.
Part of me hopes they figure out an uncrackable DRM, just to stick it to the Robin Hood pirates, but part of me doesn't, because I'm one of the maniacal cutlass-waving pirates and that would stick it to me too.
I don't think there is such a thing as an uncrackable DRM, and many people buy games after pirating them to see if they actually like them or not, so why not use that second factor to boost sales instead of using it to prevent something that is going to happen anyway?
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 20, 2010, 08:42:57 pm
No matter what I do, someone's going to rob my inner-city quickie-mart. I should just leave the money on the counter and get rid of the cameras.
Okay, they're not the same, but the premise is. People are putting their time and money into something, you can't expect them to just leave it unprotected, regardless of how ineffective the protection is.
Part of me hopes they figure out an uncrackable DRM, just to stick it to the Robin Hood pirates, but part of me doesn't, because I'm one of the maniacal cutlass-waving pirates and that would stick it to me too.
Great, you're not even selfish, just spiteful.
Post by: Draco18s on February 20, 2010, 08:52:04 pm
Like, with people now forced to buy games, that videogames would then decrease in price since more people are buying them?
What? No! If you find yourself with unstealable goods you're not going to drop the price on them, you'll leave it the same: "more" people will pay that price now that they can't get it any other way.
As a side note: you never spend more on security than half the value of the object being secured (any more would simply be cost inefficient). So yes, it is possible to have "unhackable" DRM...if you're willing to spend an infinite amount of resources.
Post by: thobal on February 20, 2010, 09:06:11 pm
Also, I have a question for anyone that might be knowledgeable in the topic: What purpose does region coding serve?
Region coding exists so a product sold in one market(North America), cannot be exported to a second market (Europe). This is to allow companies to stagger releases. I'm not sure why they would do such a thing, but I'm fairly certain its so they can eventually go back to openly owning slaves like they have for 99.9% of world history.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 20, 2010, 09:10:07 pm
And region codes are meaningless. It's easy to unblock any dvd player.
Post by: Micro102 on February 20, 2010, 09:33:50 pm
Post by: Jreengus on February 20, 2010, 09:44:22 pm
No matter what I do, someone's going to rob my inner-city quickie-mart. I should just leave the money on the counter and get rid of the cameras.
That's a ridiculous analogy. A better one would be along the lines of:
No matter what I do, someone's going to break into my shop when its closed. I should stop paying half my profit to hire men who stand around whilst I'm open glaring over peoples shoulder as they shop, checking any time they take something off a shelf and giving them a full cavity search when they try to leave.
Post by: Schilcote on February 20, 2010, 10:10:38 pm
Anyway, I would have to say that the answer to ALL of the complaints in the OP is...
*drumroll*
Text Adventure Games! They're free, they technically don't HAVE graphics (though they use the most powerful graphics hardware known to man, the human imagination), they very rarely insult your intelligence (most of them will have you pulling out your hair and checking the solutions), and, best of all, they're all free!
And Frotz is highly portable too, meaning that there's an implementation for almost every computing appliance with enough brainpower and a text screen.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 20, 2010, 10:16:38 pm
Of course, people like microsoft aren't happy only making 8 billion a year with game sales. Course, people like EA only make half a billion a year and they put almost as much on stake.
That's another problem. They deal with figures this big and are afraid to fumble. As much as it would be wise to drop DRM, I doubt any big comp will, mostly due to fear nobody will buy their game. They really think DRM is responsible for the sales they get.
Oh Schilcote, I wasn't complaining about lack of games to play, I was pointing out modern games are going towards a very sucky direction.
Post by: Micro102 on February 20, 2010, 10:30:23 pm
And you would think they would learn that DRM does nothing after the SPORE incident.
Post by: Draco18s on February 20, 2010, 10:38:35 pm
And you would think they would learn that DRM does nothing after the SPORE incident.
Hey now, be fair. They should have learned from World of Goo.
"I'm not releasing my game with DRM of any kind." Even turned down a major publisher (forgot which one) because the publisher would have put DRM on it. Stated this up front, months in advance of release.
How long before pirated copies surfaced?
A full week after launch.
Ratio of legal to pirated?
1:10
Compare to Spore:
3 days prior to official launch and, IIRC, 1:300.
Post by: Micro102 on February 20, 2010, 10:57:30 pm
But to be fair world of goo is like a mini-game compared to mainstream games.
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 20, 2010, 11:31:10 pm
Like, with people now forced to buy games, that videogames would then decrease in price since more people are buying them?
What? No! If you find yourself with unstealable goods you're not going to drop the price on them, you'll leave it the same: "more" people will pay that price now that they can't get it any other way.
Well, I was just thinking that since they didn't have to worry about people stealing the game anymore, regular market forces would apply. Since in this case demand is going up, supply would as well, and thus prices would go down.
That is, unless I've forgotten everything my highschool econ class has taught me.*
* very likely.
Post by: Draco18s on February 20, 2010, 11:35:41 pm
Well, I was just thinking that since they didn't have to worry about people stealing the game anymore, regular market forces would apply. Since in this case demand is going up, supply would as well, and thus prices would go down.
Digital content has infinite supply, but the general means of supply and demand don't apply to digital content, otherwise all digital content would be free (any non-infinite number divided by infinity is 0).
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 20, 2010, 11:40:40 pm
But then again, I don't know much.
Post by: Draco18s on February 20, 2010, 11:53:52 pm
Post by: Nilocy on February 20, 2010, 11:56:13 pm
Post by: Micro102 on February 21, 2010, 01:24:04 am
Post by: sproingie on February 21, 2010, 01:37:43 am
Post by: Micro102 on February 21, 2010, 01:43:34 am
Post by: Cthulhu on February 21, 2010, 01:53:03 am
Okay, I just googled it, and apparently it's not as shady as I was thinking, but I still don't want to run around with hundred dollar bills.
Debit cards are fun like that. They're small, you can't spend beyond your means like with a credit card, and if some punk mugs you, you can just call and have the card cancelled. Punk ain't get no bank.
Post by: Draco18s on February 21, 2010, 01:58:16 am
Steam saaales.
That's different, really. If its as a game is coming out (eg. pre-release sale or just-post-release sale) its to drum up interest and catch a few folks who go "well, if it was a little cheaper..." (Valve has this habit of giving everyone the game for free for a weekend and at the same time offer it for less-than-retail to hook people, then give them a steal-of-a-deal if they find they do like it*). If the game has been out for a while then its really just finding old gems and going, "hey! This game is good! And right now its only $5!" and essentially drawing out the life of the product.
*If you think about it, this is how pirates say they--and other pirates--operate. Play for free, pay if its good. Only here, its legal, but the same principle of marketing.
Post by: Nilocy on February 21, 2010, 10:26:51 am
As for the reeling you in sales on steam, I for one like it. Its a win win, I get to play a game for free and if I like it I can pay, if not then I don't bother with it. More companies really really should do this, try before you buy is possibly the best way to not get screwed over when it comes to buying things.
Post by: Draco18s on February 21, 2010, 11:46:06 am
As for the reeling you in sales on steam, I for one like it. Its a win win
I bought Gish and Darwinia/Multiwinia through their one-day sale over Christmas week. Was like $12 for the three of them. Been meaning to buy both of them for ages.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 21, 2010, 12:40:56 pm
Micro, Steam is extremely trust worthy, follow Cthulhu advice about getting a debit card. A lot safer and they usually come with some form of insurance to cover some unscrupulous person if they steal your card.
As for the reeling you in sales on steam, I for one like it. Its a win win, I get to play a game for free and if I like it I can pay, if not then I don't bother with it. More companies really really should do this, try before you buy is possibly the best way to not get screwed over when it comes to buying things.
Most companies don't care about screwing you over. All they want is for you to pay as much as possible for whatever they're hawking, enjoy it enough to buy another one and then do so in a few months. If you don't enjoy the game, at least they got your money and chances are you're the type who'll force yourself to find "the good parts" so you'll end up giving them another chance, and another chance, and another chance, to screw you over and then convince yourself they didn't.
Post by: sproingie on February 21, 2010, 01:11:21 pm
Steam is like digital crack for me. I've got a pile of games I bought on sale that I haven't even played yet.
Post by: Draco18s on February 21, 2010, 01:26:36 pm
All I can say is if you use a debit card, open two bank accounts and put the bulk of your spare cash in the account you don't use a debit card on. Reg E gives you the same liability protections as a credit card, but it's cold comfort when your account is drained while they figure it out.
Steam is like digital crack for me. I've got a pile of games I bought on sale that I haven't even played yet.
I know what you mean. I bough Gish and Dwarwinia and played 2 levels of each (and 2 levels of Impossible Creatures, which I got from a friend).
Now if I could only get Startopia and System Shock 2 to run...
Post by: Sowelu on February 21, 2010, 02:07:45 pm
Also, I have a question for anyone that might be knowledgeable in the topic: What purpose does region coding serve?
Region coding exists so a product sold in one market(North America), cannot be exported to a second market (Europe). This is to allow companies to stagger releases. I'm not sure why they would do such a thing, but I'm fairly certain its so they can eventually go back to openly owning slaves like they have for 99.9% of world history.
I can give a little more info here, too. Different markets pay different amounts for different goods. Look at Region 5 for example...that's Russia, India, Africa, basically all the places that really don't have $20 to drop on a game.
Publishers have the right to charge what the market will bear. In the US it might be $20, in Russia it might be $2. Hey, there's still money to be made. In any case they charge a reasonable price in the US to recoup their costs, and then they have a secondary market too. Cool! If they charged the same amount across the globe, it would either be high enough that Russia could never buy it, or so low that they couldn't make back all the costs of development.
And...if it wasn't for region codes, some jackass in Russia would buy a thousand copies for $2 each, sell them to a buddy in the USA for $7 each, who would then put 'em on the shelves for $15, generating a huge profit from the primary market for the middle-man but very little for the actual publisher/developer.
In short, region codes are what ALLOW publishers to sell in cheap markets. They reduce piracy in secondary markets by the simple virtue of allowing people to buy the product at all. And then, they reduce piracy in primary markets because there's less spill-over from piracy in the secondary market!
Sure, people devoted enough to know how to change their drive's region code won't be stopped, but face it, someone that smart who wants your product for free is going to get it for free no matter what you do.
I think the region code system is an altogether good thing...except that Australia should have been moved to either region 1 or 2. As it stands now, Australia gets the same region code as Mexico, which sucks for Australia because their region gets products pretty late. But there's nothing sinister going on, and region codes are GOOD for consumers in secondary markets.
Post by: fenrif on February 21, 2010, 04:12:05 pm
Being able to buy something cheaply in one market and sell it in another is pretty much one of the foundations of capitalism. Thats how trade works. Do you think an american game company only uses american manufacturing, american programs, and american dvd presses? No, they go where its cheaper, same as any company. But they dont want the consumer doing the same thing.
Whats more, often times all the region locking means is that there will be some games you will not be able to play, because the publisher will decide your region wont like it, so sucks to be you. If you wanna play it you've gotta import a different version of the console you allready own, just to play a few games. This is even stupider nowadays, since the only games that even have region locking seem to be the wierd japanese titles that they'll never sell to europe (culdcept saga, operation darkness, etc)
Publishers have the right to charge whatever they want, and customers are the ones who decide if its too much. Region locking is just another way for the publishers to control the market to their own ends. Depriving the customer of a choice.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 21, 2010, 04:57:01 pm
So, if the 20 bucks game already gets past the sale threshold in the US, any 2 bucks they sell in russia or whatever is profit.
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 21, 2010, 07:46:52 pm
Also, thanks a bunch for explaining that for me Fenrif, that makes more sense. Although I wish that the publishers weren't so hasty in deciding who gets what.
Post by: The Architect on February 21, 2010, 07:53:28 pm
Post by: Micro102 on February 21, 2010, 07:59:22 pm
But yeah steam is a little too good to not get. They accept paypal right?
Post by: Soulwynd on February 21, 2010, 08:22:16 pm
They accept paypal right?They do.
Post by: Nilocy on February 21, 2010, 08:23:36 pm
Micro, Steam is extremely trust worthy, follow Cthulhu advice about getting a debit card. A lot safer and they usually come with some form of insurance to cover some unscrupulous person if they steal your card.
As for the reeling you in sales on steam, I for one like it. Its a win win, I get to play a game for free and if I like it I can pay, if not then I don't bother with it. More companies really really should do this, try before you buy is possibly the best way to not get screwed over when it comes to buying things.
Most companies don't care about screwing you over. All they want is for you to pay as much as possible for whatever they're hawking, enjoy it enough to buy another one and then do so in a few months. If you don't enjoy the game, at least they got your money and chances are you're the type who'll force yourself to find "the good parts" so you'll end up giving them another chance, and another chance, and another chance, to screw you over and then convince yourself they didn't.
Damn fucking right. I can't make a game by myself, so I pay someone else to do it.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 21, 2010, 08:48:50 pm
Micro, Steam is extremely trust worthy, follow Cthulhu advice about getting a debit card. A lot safer and they usually come with some form of insurance to cover some unscrupulous person if they steal your card.
As for the reeling you in sales on steam, I for one like it. Its a win win, I get to play a game for free and if I like it I can pay, if not then I don't bother with it. More companies really really should do this, try before you buy is possibly the best way to not get screwed over when it comes to buying things.
Most companies don't care about screwing you over. All they want is for you to pay as much as possible for whatever they're hawking, enjoy it enough to buy another one and then do so in a few months. If you don't enjoy the game, at least they got your money and chances are you're the type who'll force yourself to find "the good parts" so you'll end up giving them another chance, and another chance, and another chance, to screw you over and then convince yourself they didn't.
Damn fucking right. I can't make a game by myself, so I pay someone else to do it.
Sure you can. You just need an imagination.
Post by: The Architect on February 21, 2010, 09:16:45 pm
Whoosh?
Fweeeeeeeeeeee?
Post by: Micro102 on February 21, 2010, 09:18:52 pm
Post by: The Architect on February 21, 2010, 10:21:39 pm
...Which the next poster obviously missed.
Post by: Micro102 on February 21, 2010, 10:47:58 pm
Post by: Jreengus on February 22, 2010, 06:07:48 am
AMI DOIN' IT RITE?
[/irony]
Post by: Cthulhu on February 22, 2010, 12:55:16 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 22, 2010, 01:01:55 pm
Post by: sproingie on February 22, 2010, 01:24:35 pm
Post by: The Architect on February 22, 2010, 01:35:14 pm
[irony] tags are meta. there's a certain irony in failing to spot that.
So glad I didn't have to say it myself. I figured if that much was lost on some people, the same principle applied as when someone fails to spot obvious irony.
Post by: Huesoo on February 22, 2010, 03:24:13 pm
Post by: Timst on February 22, 2010, 06:21:30 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 22, 2010, 07:05:43 pm
You could use that sweet, old fashioned Irony Mark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark).
Or a new-fangled SarcMark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SarcMark).
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 23, 2010, 04:19:30 am
You could use that sweet, old fashioned Irony Mark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark).
Or a new-fangled SarcMark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SarcMark).
We don't need your corporate punctuation!
Is this review ironic? http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-blood-bowl/62219 (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-blood-bowl/62219)
Post by: Draco18s on February 23, 2010, 09:11:48 am
Is this review ironic? http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-blood-bowl/62219 (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-blood-bowl/62219)
Having played the game, I do agree with the review, but its a shame they didn't play more of the commentary...or better commentary.
The last one they did they only played half of, and the unfunny half.
"Elf beauties are selling Big Moot Sandwiches in the stands!"
"I'm off to get one! Be back in five minutes"
"So you like Big Moot Sandwiches now?"
"No, but I love me a good elf beauty!" (mind, the voice is a character that sounds like an orc)
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 23, 2010, 02:37:37 pm
Post by: Dr. Johbson on February 23, 2010, 02:45:47 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 23, 2010, 03:25:15 pm
So you think it's a horrible game for not sacrificing gameplay integrity to appeal to the mass market and console audiences and that it's graphics are unforgivably atrocious and that while the PC version is much better than the X-Box version that actually counts against it? ???
Not sure who you're talking to, but the game is really quite terrible unless you're playing hotseat with a friend.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 23, 2010, 03:55:54 pm
So you think it's a horrible game for not sacrificing gameplay integrity to appeal to the mass market and console audiences and that it's graphics are unforgivably atrocious and that while the PC version is much better than the X-Box version that actually counts against it? ???
Not sure who you're talking to, but the game is really quite terrible unless you're playing hotseat with a friend.
Well you said the review was accurate. That's what the review said.
Post by: Draco18s on February 23, 2010, 04:18:00 pm
Well you said the review was accurate. That's what the review said.
The flaws in game play that it points out are accurate. The lack of documentation is accurate. The long loading times are...accurate. The inability to customize your team except via campaign mode is accurate.
Not owning a XBucks$360 I can't say for the points specific to it (or the differences between the versions).
Post by: Micro102 on February 23, 2010, 04:56:55 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 23, 2010, 05:02:35 pm
WHy are you talking like it's expensive?
Xbux. XBawks. XBlows. Whatever you want to call it. I don't have one.
Post by: The Architect on February 23, 2010, 05:31:47 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 23, 2010, 06:20:56 pm
The whole console war thing pisses me off.
Post by: The Architect on February 23, 2010, 06:22:01 pm
He was at least slightly kidding.
Perhaps. But there's been so much spouting in this thread that it really needs curbing.
Post by: Dr. Johbson on February 23, 2010, 06:23:44 pm
..Which makes this post kinda useless.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 23, 2010, 06:43:17 pm
I have to add another thing I hate about modern games:
Steam's friendlist breaking down and deleting all my friends and whatnot.
Post by: The Architect on February 23, 2010, 06:54:01 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 23, 2010, 07:11:04 pm
WHy are you talking like it's expensive?
Xbux. XBawks. XBlows. Whatever you want to call it. I don't have one.
A little aggressive, aren't we? No need to insult everyone who managed to save $200, since that's such a monumental task. So damned much more expensive than a computer, what on earth were they thinking!? Damn, a device built almost exclusively for gaming, a computer stripped down to the bare essentials needed to run top-notch games and priced accordingly. What a remarkably retarded idea!
You should really write them a letter about how superior you are.
Heh, consoles don't run top notch games... They runs games designed specifically to work on their outdated hardware and limited hardware. The price is also artificially lowered because they can make it back with exorbitantly priced games. You can call people who understand that whatever you like, but it doesn't change the fact that consoles are single handedly holding back video games both technically and artistically.
Post by: The Architect on February 23, 2010, 07:17:48 pm
Post by: ThreeToe on February 23, 2010, 07:27:33 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on February 23, 2010, 07:32:40 pm
The Architect has been muted for 3 days for being abusive. If you have any more problems with this type of thing, please hit the moderator report button so we can work it out.Thanks.
And thanks whoever reported it. It's annoying to have these fights in my threads. ::)
Post by: Dr. Johbson on February 23, 2010, 07:46:15 pm
I got bored before I could finish Mass Effect 2. I stopped right before I had to go through the Omega 4 Relay. And the game still feels short. I haven't finished the game yet, but I know whatever is in store for me is just not enough. That makes me sad and slightly angry at the same time.
The same thing happened with Dragon Age, though in even less time it took me to get tired of Mass Effect 2. I miss the time where I got bored because of how long the game was, not because I knew the end was coming, and I knew it wasn't going to be very good.
Post by: Sowelu on February 23, 2010, 08:59:16 pm
Post by: dogstile on February 23, 2010, 09:12:31 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 23, 2010, 09:14:53 pm
Mass effect 2's ending is really quite intense.
A friend of mine rage-quit the ending.
But having not played either, I can only imagine.
(I on the other hand rage-quit the ending of Borderlands)
Post by: dogstile on February 23, 2010, 09:27:31 pm
I have a feeling why he might of rage-quit mass effect's ending, but you have to play it to find out, i'm not going to spoil it :D
Post by: Draco18s on February 23, 2010, 09:33:29 pm
I didn't rage quit either. I looked at them and smiled. "Ahhh, a challenge *smirk*
Looked at who?
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 23, 2010, 10:25:29 pm
Great game otherwise, decent controls and polished gameplay.
Borderlands also had a terrible ending, but then it started to get old about the time the crimson lance showed up, and was only on the better end of mediocre to begin with. The random weapons were cool until you realized that they were almost all shit, and the special effects weren't that entertaining ("OH SHIT A MISSILE LAUNCHER THAT FIRES THREE MISSILES IN A SPIRAL AND LIGHTS SHIT ON FIRE?!" *shoots at something with it* *missiles fly past it because lolspiral* *rage*). :|
Ending might have been made worse by the fact I'd been playing STALKER before doing the last two levels, so the controls felt wonky as hell and I just ran past everything. The mouse sensitivity was also much too high even on the lowest setting. Mass Effect 2's was too, but not as badly.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 23, 2010, 10:27:44 pm
Mass Effect 2's end was kind of shitty. An hour or so fighting through collectors and husks, then an obnoxious boss and a cutscene, followed by Mordin randomly dying, with full party loyalty. >:|
Great game otherwise, decent controls and polished gameplay.
SPOILER ALERT
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 23, 2010, 10:41:47 pm
Mordin's death isn't certain, and you know the whole time your team can die. You also know about half an hour in that you're fighting "collectors", and husks showed up everywhere in the first. Both a boss and a cutscene are run of the mill sorts of things for an ending, too. :PMass Effect 2's end was kind of shitty. An hour or so fighting through collectors and husks, then an obnoxious boss and a cutscene, followed by Mordin randomly dying, with full party loyalty. >:|
Great game otherwise, decent controls and polished gameplay.
SPOILER ALERT
Post by: sproingie on February 23, 2010, 11:15:29 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 24, 2010, 12:06:00 am
Ending might have been made worse by the fact I'd been playing STALKER before doing the last two levels, so the controls felt wonky as hell and I just ran past everything. The mouse sensitivity was also much too high even on the lowest setting. Mass Effect 2's was too, but not as badly.
I ran past everything just before the vault too.
Namely because I Was berzerker brik and simply could not hurt those flying fuckers (I died all of once, had 3 or 4 "second winds" due to Shotfun of Awesome and stupid crimson lance, and was firing as much "explosive" damage around (yay, exploding SMG!) as I could to recharge my berzerk mode--to run faster and recover health.
Then I get to the boss and I was like, "No sweat, I can take it" and did. It took less bullets to kill than the "arch guardians" outside. WTF. :|
Note:
Shotfun of awesome was so powerful I could fire it point blank at a red lance dude in his armor-shield and kill him with four to six shells (ammo capacity: 6, burst +600%). Combined with my shotgun-of-infinite-ammo (it regenerated 14 ammo in the time it took to fire and reload a full load of 12) I was unstoppable (except for aforementioned guardians).
Shame that my "I regenerate fucktons of rockets" was in fact, not. Class mod for +6 flat all the time +class mod of +6 ranks towards the Master Blaster skill, +2 ranks of said skill (which comes out to +16 rockets per minute on killing blow) works out to....22 per minute?
Yeah. Buff lasts 15 seconds and regenerated ~1.5 rockets.** And the "flat" bonus rate didn't regen rockets when I wasn't killing things. Ever.
**At "2 rockets a minute" the skill is worthless. You'd need 2 ranks just to regenerate 1 rocket every time you killed something (which it didn't, notably, I was getting my 1 to 2 rockets per kill with the class mod for +6 ranks of the skill--yes, it does allow a skill to go above 5 that way) and at the point at which you can get the skill you're spending 2 to 3 rockets to kill one mook--assuming all three rockets hit. Skill should have been "regenerate 2 rockets per point of skill per kill."
Post by: Cheeetar on February 24, 2010, 12:20:59 am
Post by: sproingie on February 24, 2010, 01:13:15 am
The Way It's Meant To Be Played, My Ass.
Post by: Dr. Johbson on February 24, 2010, 09:17:00 am
Even when I did get an interesting companion, they'd run out of things to say waaay before the end of the game.
Like that damn Garrus. Middle of some calibrating, yeah right. He maybe said two things to me in my entire space adventure. If they are going to make the entire game a recruitment drive you might want to make those you recruit actually have something to say, dammit.
Dammit, dammit.
Post by: Micro102 on February 24, 2010, 12:24:04 pm
My latest peeve with modern games: drivers. New drivers that break old games. The constant days-long hunts on the support fora to see if I'm not the only one with the problem, to find the magic version to downgrade to ... if that's even possible. Trying to play Bioshock on Windows 7 on a quad-core i7 with a GTX260, and that machine should run it like it was pong, but thanks to nvidia's drivers, it constantly hitches and freezes. Same story for Fallout 3 if I do something crazy like ever look at the sky.Do those drivers affect games from Steam? Like X-com? Because i plan on getting that.
The Way It's Meant To Be Played, My Ass.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 24, 2010, 12:35:18 pm
Post by: SkeleTony69 on February 24, 2010, 08:14:53 pm
I am specifically thinking of CRPGs here but when some major(or even indie) developer advertises and then releases their game as a new "RPG" and then it turns out to be like Zelda or Final Fantasy in the mechanics(re: character creation/development, combat, magic use etc.) I get pissed off! Pardon the political analogy here but it is a lot like Fox News claiming to be "Fair and balanced" and constantly 'reporting' on some supposed "Liberal Media Bias"(and no...I am NOT as 'Liberal' as you probably think right now).
I could not care less about graphics in gaming. Most of the games I play feature 2D tiled, top-down and non-animated graphic icons 'blinking' across the screen because these games TEND to have far superior gameplay over the modern games like Oblivion, Dragon Age etc. It is not that I am opposed to or disgusted by fancy modern graphics. it is just that a)The seem insignificant to me(like whether a hamburger you buy at a fast food restaurant comes in a colorful, glittery box or in a plain wrapper) and b)most of the games I have seen that were 'cutting edge' in terms of graphics were crappy in terms of gameplay.
I am not sure where this 'Indie gamers are elitist snobs' idea comes from but I suspect it comes from console gamers who think graphics are of utmost importance and 'don't mind dumbed down games' visiting indie-dominated forums and reading many complaints about those very console games that such gamers enjoy and feeling insulted, in the same way that ultra religious fundamentalists/Creationists visiting scientific/philosophical forums might come away feeling insulted and that all science advocates, humanists etc. think they are stupid.
In both cases I would say the feelings are rightfully so(keep in mind that in terms of gamers I am talking about a very specific type of console gamer and not ALL console gamers).
*Dons flame-retardant suit*
Post by: G-Flex on February 25, 2010, 11:25:36 am
Of course, there's a difference between "graphics" and "poly count"/"how many post-processing filters you're using". Advanced tools are just those, tools, and having extremely technically-advanced graphics doesn't mean squat if there's no reason for it.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 25, 2010, 11:59:08 am
Then again, there are games that manage to stupefyingly misuse ridiculously awesome game design ideas. I won't reach too far back and just set Spore as an example. That was just about the industry's biggest Missed Moment Of Awesome ever. The Movies can count as a close second. Was it really that hard to just let players do whatever they wanted instead of just using fixed scenes?
Post by: Soulwynd on February 25, 2010, 01:05:12 pm
(http://www.game-accessibility.com/pics/wiioneswitch.jpg)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 25, 2010, 02:22:01 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 25, 2010, 02:23:27 pm
I personally think that "graphics are never important" is just as naive a viewpoint as "graphics are always important". Games are often, in part, a work of visual art, and artistic design/style is extremely important for a lot of them, including indie games.
Of course, there's a difference between "graphics" and "poly count"/"how many post-processing filters you're using". Advanced tools are just those, tools, and having extremely technically-advanced graphics doesn't mean squat if there's no reason for it.
Right. All text adventures inherently suck. ::)
Post by: Cthulhu on February 25, 2010, 02:53:21 pm
They're really more of an interactive book than a game.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 25, 2010, 03:06:33 pm
How is that at all inferable from what he said? Aesthetics are important for a lot of games, so text adventures suck?
They're really more of an interactive book than a game.
He basically said games are visual and need graphics. Therefore using his logic all IF and text adventure games are worthless or even not games. Graphics really aren't important at all. You can have a good game that doesn't have any graphics.
Post by: fenrif on February 25, 2010, 03:09:15 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 25, 2010, 03:18:25 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on February 25, 2010, 03:20:09 pm
A lot.
As in, many, but not all.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 25, 2010, 03:28:28 pm
Well what did he say then?
I personally think that "graphics are never important" is just as naive a viewpoint as "graphics are always important". Games are often, in part, a work of visual art, and artistic design/style is extremely important for a lot of them, including indie games.The way I read that, it's "Games are *frequently* visual things, and doing the visuals in a way that's not retarded is itself usually pretty important for those."
Of course, there's a difference between "graphics" and "poly count"/"how many post-processing filters you're using". Advanced tools are just those, tools, and having extremely technically-advanced graphics doesn't mean squat if there's no reason for it.
Although really, you could extend that to interactive fiction too. I mean, imagine if it was setup so that all the text was red on blue or something*. That would be a pretty fucking terrible *visual* design choice, wouldn't it?
*Fuck, just looking at that hurts my eyes... :|
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 25, 2010, 03:30:14 pm
Maybe it's important to us, but it's not important to the people making the games.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 25, 2010, 03:58:22 pm
Art doesn't really factor into it most of the time.:|
>:|
Games *are* art. The same way a song, or a movie, or a painting, or a chimpanzee throwing feces on a canvas are "art". Whether a given instance is actually worth a damn doesn't really factor into whether it's art or not.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 25, 2010, 04:04:30 pm
Post by: fenrif on February 25, 2010, 04:33:50 pm
Off the top of my head those are some games where I know for a fact that the devs were very conscious of the art style they chose for their game.
Games are like movies, theyre collaborative. You have lots of people giving lots of different input. Alot of those people are artists and designers. Sure someetimes the games style and visuals are dictated by the technological limitations, but most major releases have entire divisions of people who are paid to come up with an artstyle for their game. Sometimes they fail, and the game looks crap, but that doesnt mean they dont care, or aren't trying.
Post by: sproingie on February 26, 2010, 03:09:34 am
Ladies and gentledorfs, I present you the future of videogames:
What's with that button thing? That sort of thing is for "hardcore" gaming nerds. Plus it looks like you'd need an opposable digit to use it, and I think you're really being old-fashioned in limiting your market like that.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 26, 2010, 06:47:43 am
TF2, Bioshock, shadow of the collosus, boarderlands, god of war, darksiders, etc.
Off the top of my head those are some games where I know for a fact that the devs were very conscious of the art style they chose for their game.
Games are like movies, theyre collaborative. You have lots of people giving lots of different input. Alot of those people are artists and designers. Sure someetimes the games style and visuals are dictated by the technological limitations, but most major releases have entire divisions of people who are paid to come up with an artstyle for their game. Sometimes they fail, and the game looks crap, but that doesnt mean they dont care, or aren't trying.
Games aren't really like movies. There are a few vague similarities that people for some reason try to hold up as ideals of the medium, but that's part of the problem. Games are not movies, they are games. The thing that makes video games video games is gameplay, interactivity. If you want a movie go watch a movie.
Post by: Draco18s on February 26, 2010, 09:14:11 am
Games aren't really like movies. There are a few vague similarities that people for some reason try to hold up as ideals of the medium, but that's part of the problem. Games are not movies, they are games. The thing that makes video games video games is gameplay, interactivity. If you want a movie go watch a movie.
"Press X to not die!!!"
Lol. Some developers don't get it.
Post by: fenrif on February 26, 2010, 09:51:29 am
Games aren't really like movies. There are a few vague similarities that people for some reason try to hold up as ideals of the medium, but that's part of the problem. Games are not movies, they are games. The thing that makes video games video games is gameplay, interactivity. If you want a movie go watch a movie.
I was pretty obvioulsy talking about how games are made, not how they are consumed. Games and movies are made in very much the same way, and alot of the problems with the game industry are mirrored in the movie industry.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 26, 2010, 11:32:18 am
Post by: Draco18s on February 26, 2010, 12:28:15 pm
One of the books has a character who was too hasty in the morning and forgot to use the RFID tag eraser on his breakfast cereal and because of it he botches a mission and dies (due to security seeing the RFID tag floating in his stomach in a place where there shouldn't have been an RFID tag).
Post by: Cthulhu on February 26, 2010, 12:30:16 pm
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/soulwind/external/20100226.jpg)
Penny Arcade did the "baww thepro band me" comic way better.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 26, 2010, 02:08:50 pm
You've obviously not read or played enough ShadowRun.Saying that to a shadowrun fan is mean. :(
The novels were kind of meh, but it's the best table-top ever. <3
Penny Arcade did the "baww thepro band me" comic way better.Well, if only I liked Penny Arcade... :P
Post by: Cthulhu on February 26, 2010, 02:10:20 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on February 26, 2010, 02:15:02 pm
But you like 8^U ?I have no idea what that means. Googlefu also failed me. It looks to me like a blowjob-ready emoticon.
Oh well, feel free to post any game hate/stupidity related comics here. I'd like to see the one you mentioned.
Post by: Draco18s on February 26, 2010, 02:30:25 pm
You've obviously not read or played enough ShadowRun.Saying that to a shadowrun fan is mean. :(
Not the way I meant it.
Of course, I had no way of knowing either.
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on February 26, 2010, 02:34:21 pm
Also, he writes too much, explains his own jokes, and is a generically unfunny asshole aiming to cash in from gamers more so than fredchan of megatokyo from wannabe otaku weeaboos.
I'd post that VGcats CAD mocking comic but I can't from my phone that captures everything unfunny about CAD and makes it funny.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 26, 2010, 02:45:28 pm
(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/791728635_VJ8Qa-L.jpg)
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 26, 2010, 03:02:07 pm
Post by: Draco18s on February 26, 2010, 03:22:36 pm
Notice he's talking to a literal Strawman.
That particular argument really is a strawman though. If I'm not willing to pay for a game its unlikely I'm actually going to play it. I might torrent it and try it out, and rarely I'll find something that is worth the price tag (at which point I buy it). Most of the time I find things that weren't worth the time it took to torrent.
Demos simply aren't offered any more, and if they are, they rarely showcase a portion of the game worth playing, or are so short you go "that was it?" and don't even consider paying for the full version: you weren't hooked.
DRM on the other hand is a joke. It doesn't matter what the corpers do, it will be cracked, pirated, and distributed to the masses (digital content is like that: if you can read it you can copy it, which of course, goes for printed books too--its just so time consuming to manually a 400 page book by hand that most people won't bother, but fake manuscripts do exist).
Post by: Soulwynd on February 26, 2010, 03:47:14 pm
Post by: The Architect on February 27, 2010, 08:25:36 am
Well there's this, which ties into one of the big complaints on here.
...
Haha. The clearest thing that comic shows is that moral dispute with someone unconcerned with the morality of the action in question is fruitless.
One game I've been disappointed with in many ways is MW2. Best-selling game in history, second-biggest grossing media item in history...
Yet they dropped the ball in so many ways. Their base programming is set to enable all kinds of amazing things, but they limited the options tremedously in all forms of multiplayer (not just online) and prevented all modding. I'd love to see them actually make use of all of the weapon options and effects they programmed. A little bit more care and variety in the attachments would give the game so much more credibility and play value.
Questions for the programmers that seem to come up naturally after a few hours with the game:
So your programming includes all of the basic elements for multiple varieties and models of several guns, and you even include some of them in the single-player missions. Why not use what you've programmed and include them all in mainstream play?
So this weapon comes with certain built-in "attachments", why not reflect that in "Create A Class"?
So you programmed a real laser designator system including spectral effects on smoke, ambients and particulates. Why not utilize that with projection red dot sights?
So you included a few near-realistic varieties of certain attachments to reflect the weapons' different actual available equipment, why not program them properly to match the real thing?
I think all of these decisions were made to create "balanced competitive gameplay", but standardizing everything has really just left the gameplay bland. Why do all of the same attachments come on all of the weapons in a class when some weapons have very profound effective and ineffective possibilities?
It just seems rushed and hackneyed. They could have done so much better...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: fenrif on February 27, 2010, 12:27:25 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on February 27, 2010, 12:41:31 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 27, 2010, 12:52:17 pm
Why fix what isn't broken? A few years and a few billion dollars isn't exactly something you want to gamble with.
I think that he was talking from his perspective, not the shareholders' perspective.
Post by: fenrif on February 27, 2010, 01:13:57 pm
Same goes for the maps (another problem with modern games) Why not include all the maps from MW1, and then the new ones for two? Its pretty much the same engine, im sure porting them over wouldn't have taken much work at all. But of course they might want to sell them as DLC down the line... ::)
Post by: Cthulhu on February 27, 2010, 01:19:52 pm
Post by: fenrif on February 27, 2010, 01:34:50 pm
Army of 2 two had a whole gamemode as DLC, if i remember correctly, EA loves this stuff it seems. ¬_¬
Post by: Micro102 on February 27, 2010, 01:38:02 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on February 27, 2010, 01:42:09 pm
Post by: Jreengus on February 27, 2010, 01:49:26 pm
Yeah DLC is horrible. The dragonage stuff especially since there was a WHOLE CHARACTER as DLC.
I thought the character as DLC was free provided you actually bought the game, so it's more a way to stop people buying second hand or at least make some profit out of it than them trying to get more money off you after you've bought it off them.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 27, 2010, 01:52:51 pm
Post by: fenrif on February 27, 2010, 01:59:51 pm
And yeah, the game publishers hate the second hand market for seemingly no good reason other than the fact that they think noone else but them should make any sort of money from games, ever, for any reason. ::)
Post by: sproingie on February 27, 2010, 03:47:30 pm
Besides, people can just wait for the GOTY edition and it'll have all the DLC anyway.
Then there's Fable 2, which has come out on XBox Live as a series of "episodes". And the first one's free, kid. Now on the one hand, it's a great way to do a seamless transition from a demo to the full game ... but then again I can buy a used copy of it for a third of the price that all the episodes would cost.
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 27, 2010, 03:49:50 pm
Post by: sproingie on February 27, 2010, 03:54:12 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on February 27, 2010, 04:04:18 pm
I'm not just talking about console-specific additions here (although I will murder every single employee of Sony for wheedling "Play as the Joker" to a Playstation exclusive in Arkham Asylum). I mean the new phenomenon of getting extra content for preordering through Gamestop. Obviously, it's only become a noticeable problem since Gamestop monopolized the dedicated electronic-gaming retail market, but it's fucking ridiculous that some customers would get a more complete product just for buying it at a particular store.
Where I think this finally crossed a line of insanity is Star Trek Online. Essentially every vendor, especially the online vendors, offer their own particular "delux" edition for a few extra bucks, that come with additional abilities and bonuses in-game. And we're not talking skins or models here, actual ability bonuses. Think about that. A persistent, competitive multiplayer game where you get extra powers and capability depending on where you got the copy and how much you paid for it. Holy shit.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 27, 2010, 06:39:23 pm
Well now, this is funnier than the comic.Well there's this, which ties into one of the big complaints on here.
...
Haha. The clearest thing that comic shows is that moral dispute with someone unconcerned with the morality of the action in question is fruitless.
He's arguing with a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). That's made abundantly clear by the fact that he's talking to a scarecrow, which is literally a "straw man".
Now, what's funny about your post, is that you apparently missed that crucial element and so proceeded to further condemn the straw man.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 27, 2010, 06:46:52 pm
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but on the topic of downloadable content (especially first-day DLC), what pisses me off even more than paying extra money for more of one game, is when you get a different game depending on how you buy it.
I'm not just talking about console-specific additions here (although I will murder every single employee of Sony for wheedling "Play as the Joker" to a Playstation exclusive in Arkham Asylum). I mean the new phenomenon of getting extra content for preordering through Gamestop. Obviously, it's only become a noticeable problem since Gamestop monopolized the dedicated electronic-gaming retail market, but it's fucking ridiculous that some customers would get a more complete product just for buying it at a particular store.
Where I think this finally crossed a line of insanity is Star Trek Online. Essentially every vendor, especially the online vendors, offer their own particular "delux" edition for a few extra bucks, that come with additional abilities and bonuses in-game. And we're not talking skins or models here, actual ability bonuses. Think about that. A persistent, competitive multiplayer game where you get extra powers and capability depending on where you got the copy and how much you paid for it. Holy shit.
This makes me mad too. Star Trek, Star Trek Deluxe, Star Trek Double Deluxe, Star Trek Steam Double Delux, Star Trek Cool Ranch, Barely Legal Teen Star Trek, Token Black Star Trek, the list goes on.
Post by: The Architect on February 27, 2010, 08:06:51 pm
*O look 5 more minutes of gameplay and a new skin for a character! 50$ please*
Dead Space was the worst example I've ever seen. They were only charging a dollar or two per DLC, but the DLC was so lame... People were dishing out for a changed skin and increased weapon damage. Basically a cheat, I suppose.
The best DLC I've ever seen was for World at War. I think it was too expensive, but the whole evolving zombie mode was magnificent.
I think any competitive game where the developers give players advantages over each other for cash input are garbage, so I'd definitely agree with Cthulhu.
you apparently missed that crucial element
Yes, it looks like you are right.
Post by: sproingie on February 28, 2010, 03:16:34 am
Post by: Micro102 on February 28, 2010, 04:02:51 am
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 28, 2010, 04:15:10 am
I enjoyed the part with the shade tree, the one that makes a copy of your guy but gives him a super-powerful sword. So i had to fight myself who was wearing some of the strongest armors in the game plus a stronger weapon. I had to drink dozens of potions to win that >_>It uses the strongest weapon in your inventory, I think.
Shivering Isles was the best part of Oblivion, aesthetically. It had the same batshit insane charm of morrowind. The design of oblivion was otherwise so... dull, compared to morrowind at least. Because the cities had to be closed off areas, ostensibly because of console memory limitations, if I'm remembering right. So yeah, fuck the 360 and its shitty capacity for fucking over oblivion, closed cities meant poor city design, and no levitate. >:|
The open cities mod included another mod that had leyawiin redesigned to match early concept art. That singlehandedly made it the most awesome city in the game. Which was sad, because it just made all the others look worse compared to it. D:
Post by: Micro102 on February 28, 2010, 04:22:59 am
Post by: The Architect on February 28, 2010, 04:35:16 am
I think they did many things poorly in Oblivion. One that comes to mind is the way random enemies level up equipment. It's pretty lame that you can get Daedric by raiding bandit camps.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 05:49:34 am
Oblivion bored me. I played it for hours, and upped my character way too much on side quests. When I went back to do the main ones they were incredibly unbalanced and clunky. I guess that just killed enough of the fun for me not to finish it. I understand that it's pretty good if you stick to the main plot all the way through without levelling.
I think they did many things poorly in Oblivion. One that comes to mind is the way random enemies level up equipment. It's pretty lame that you can get Daedric by raiding bandit camps.
I could literally go on for hours (ok maybe not hours, but probably over an hour) about Oblivion's flaws without having to repeat myself. I actually managed to finish the main quest and most of the side quests. I ended up just giving up before I could become the leader of the Thieves' guild. It was all just so boring, and generic, and badly written, and badly scripted and badly designed, and horrible. I'm not sure why I even kept playing it as long as I did. Just so I could be completely justified in hating it I guess. This game pretty much destroyed my faith in the games industry by itself.
Post by: Sowelu on February 28, 2010, 08:40:59 am
Then there's Fable 2, which has come out on XBox Live as a series of "episodes". And the first one's free, kid.
Quote from: Apogee
Then there's Wolfenstein 3D, which has come out on the PC as a series of "episodes". And the first one's free, kid.
I thought this was problems with modern games :x
Post by: Micro102 on February 28, 2010, 03:07:45 pm
Oblivion bored me. I played it for hours, and upped my character way too much on side quests. When I went back to do the main ones they were incredibly unbalanced and clunky. I guess that just killed enough of the fun for me not to finish it. I understand that it's pretty good if you stick to the main plot all the way through without levelling.1. you can change the difficulty.
I think they did many things poorly in Oblivion. One that comes to mind is the way random enemies level up equipment. It's pretty lame that you can get Daedric by raiding bandit camps.
2. If you kept bandits with leather armor, it would become extremely boring. One hit killing everything is just annoying. And want to buy something expensive? You can either sell those dozen Deadric pieces of armor, or go kill 1000 bandits and sell those 4000 pieces of armor for the same price.
Post by: The Architect on February 28, 2010, 03:14:34 pm
You came across as somewhat patronizing, Micro. There's no need to explain basic math, and the abstract and arbitrary figures you quoted don't help your point.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 28, 2010, 03:15:39 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 03:15:58 pm
Oblivion bored me. I played it for hours, and upped my character way too much on side quests. When I went back to do the main ones they were incredibly unbalanced and clunky. I guess that just killed enough of the fun for me not to finish it. I understand that it's pretty good if you stick to the main plot all the way through without levelling.1. you can change the difficulty.
I think they did many things poorly in Oblivion. One that comes to mind is the way random enemies level up equipment. It's pretty lame that you can get Daedric by raiding bandit camps.
2. If you kept bandits with leather armor, it would become extremely boring. One hit killing everything is just annoying. And want to buy something expensive? You can either sell those dozen Deadric pieces of armor, or go kill 1000 bandits and sell those 4000 pieces of armor for the same price.
This is exactly what's wrong with Oblivion fans. Nothing can ever be wrong with their beloved game. Don't like the fact that the game relies on a quest compass to tell you exactly where to get at all times? Cover up the bottom of your screen with electrical tape! Problem solved! Nevermind the fact that all of the quests rely on that for you to have any idea whatsoever where to go!
Don't like the fact that bandits with Daedric armor completely breaks immersion? But if they didn't get Daedric armor it would be boring because they'd be so easy to kill! THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS! OBLIVION IS PERFECT AND FALLOUT 3 IS EVEN BETTER!
Post by: Cthulhu on February 28, 2010, 03:21:31 pm
The quest compass isn't the worst thing in the world, some of the instructions in Morrowind were very vague and it took a very long time to figure out where I was supposed to be (Find the mine near Caldera and kill the Telvaani agents? Right on it, bro) but I did notice a distinct disappointment that I wasn't really exploring, just following the blue arrow.
Post by: 3 on February 28, 2010, 03:26:31 pm
Some other games aren't as well-made.
Post by: Micro102 on February 28, 2010, 03:27:16 pm
If your talking about how EVERYTHING IN THE GAME levels up, including the armor in all the shops, the things NPC's everywhere wear, all based on your level, then I can agree that is stupid (don't think difficulty changes those things).
However complaining that those bandits you fought when you had your rusted sword are not the same and you can't just walk through them like a field of flowers is disregardful.
And yes you can ignore the compass, the quests have plenty of information to do them, but don't expect it to be easy when the guy your getting the quest from has no idea where the enemy is either...
I'm not a fan, i played the game and i liked it and there were a billion things that could be better about it. Your just complaining about things that can be solved with a little imagination or the difficulty bar. (quest to easy? click difficulty bar, move mouse right)
Post by: The Architect on February 28, 2010, 03:28:30 pm
Or they could've made more human enemies than bandits and marauders. Maybe the dungeons in the deep wilderness would have scarier monsters, regardless of level, instead of always being tailored to you so there was no feeling of progression.
A perfectly good example of another way to do it. One that would (to me) be much more interesting and viable.
Post by: Dr. Johbson on February 28, 2010, 03:29:29 pm
Post by: 3 on February 28, 2010, 03:30:09 pm
Quote
Your just complaining about things that can be solved with a little imagination or the difficulty bar. (quest to easy? click difficulty bar, move mouse right)
The thing is that the player shouldn't be expected to make their own challenges, not in a formulaic game like in Oblivion. Why do you think the concept of a difficulty curve exists?
Here's another way of putting it: A game is released. A certain item in the game turns out to be hideously overpowered. Your suggestion is that the player takes the reins and simply doesn't use the item. My suggestion is that the developers test their game properly and make sure that everything actually conforms to a standard.
Note that we're not talking about something that can be fixed with a simple patch - such as an item - here. We're talking about fundamental problems with the game's design.
Post by: Micro102 on February 28, 2010, 03:35:11 pm
And when I played the main quest I got up to the town with the church and the scamps and it was just too hard so i went and did some quests to get stronger, which i did.
I enjoyed doing all the quests them coming back with all my new armor and stats and steamrolling everything. I played again and went back a few quests at a time, in which it presented a challenge. I didn't need touch the difficulty bar to enjoy the game.
Post by: The Architect on February 28, 2010, 03:41:28 pm
Your individual points are easily fixed, you need to complain about things that can actually be argued.
...
However complaining that those bandits you fought when you had your rusted sword are not the same and you can't just walk through them like a field of flowers is disregardful.
...
I'm not a fan, i played the game and i liked it and there were a billion things that could be better about it. Your just complaining about things that can be solved with a little imagination or the difficulty bar. (quest to easy? click difficulty bar, move mouse right)
I don't think we need to continue further with this derail. Micro, you may want to just walk away. You've obviously had experience discussing Oblivion with disgruntled fans and players before, and you're answering complaints no one has brought up here. The complaint is that the overpopulation of the world with piles upon piles of monotonous, boring, basic bandit enemies loaded with increasingly impossibly "rare" and valuable gear makes the game bland and boring. Cranking up the difficulty doesn't relieve blandness and boredom; it just makes battles longer. On top of that, no one has complained about the game being too easy.
Quote from: Ioric Kittencuddler
It was all just so boring, and generic, and badly written, and badly scripted and badly designed, and horrible.These are not "individual points that are easily fixed" nor "things that cannot actually be argued". The game was a monumental effort, it had a lot of good elements and features, but in the end the main thing going for it (the sheer massive size) did nothing but exacerbate the problems we've discussed.
The rest of the derail will be spoilered, and I hope others will follow the example or start a new thread if there is more to discuss.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: fenrif on February 28, 2010, 03:50:40 pm
Level up your guy a few times using the wrong skills and you'll be unable to kill anything.
Not to mention how immersion breaking it is that everything is always a challenge to you. You SHOULD be able to wade through level 1 bandits at end game like a field of flowers. Its things like that which make the game world feel alive, which is what bethesda seemed to be aiming for. :P
Post by: Micro102 on February 28, 2010, 03:55:10 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 04:00:51 pm
Post by: The Architect on February 28, 2010, 04:03:31 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 04:09:52 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on February 28, 2010, 04:28:54 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: sproingie on February 28, 2010, 05:20:13 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 05:30:01 pm
I do not like games by a particular vendor so I am going to nail my 95 theses to the door that states in detail how everyone who likes these games is deficient and basically lacking in human qualities. Exclamation points and all-caps will abound, for they reinforce the objective superiority of my view.
Amen brother! Fight the imaginary oppressor! Show them that no mere words or so called reasoned arguments will sway you from the one true path of willful ignorance!
Seriously man, what are you talking about? Are you seriously taking personal offense to the fact that someone has allot of things they don't like about something you like? What purpose does that post serve?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: 3 on February 28, 2010, 05:36:42 pm
Is it wrong to allow a person to change how hard the game is? I don't think so.
Spoiler: Derail (click to show/hide)
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on February 28, 2010, 05:37:45 pm
I doubt we will see a very similar system in the next Elder Scrolls incarnation.Well, TES V: Fallout 3 seemed quite a bit better in that respect. :3
Post by: Siquo on February 28, 2010, 06:07:51 pm
The games I can't stand anymore are the GTA-Clone-Games. All of these games have the same story and the same gameplay, except a different theme and graphics.
You may add to this list, btw:
- All GTA's, starting with 1
- Far Cry 2
- The Saboteur
- Assassins' Creed
- Spiderman (the one with Venom)
- Prototype
- Red Faction: Guerilla
Post by: dogstile on February 28, 2010, 06:30:04 pm
I mean, red faction was a game about blowing up buildings, and far cry was about driving for half an hour to /get/ a mission. GTA was vastly different to both of those games in terms of gameplay mechanics.
Post by: Cthulhu on February 28, 2010, 06:32:15 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 06:35:04 pm
Post by: JoshuaFH on February 28, 2010, 06:47:25 pm
Plus, it's unusual to list GTA 1 as a 'clone', since I don't think it's possible to copy yourself.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 07:08:36 pm
The first and second GTA's aren't even similar to the current GTA's in any way.
Plus, it's unusual to list GTA 1 as a 'clone', since I don't think it's possible to copy yourself.
That's not true. In every GTA game you play a criminal in a large mostly open environment with lots of cars you can steal, people you can kill, gangs you can piss off, and cops who can chase you.
Post by: Jreengus on February 28, 2010, 07:13:26 pm
Post by: dogstile on February 28, 2010, 07:15:21 pm
The first and second GTA's aren't even similar to the current GTA's in any way.
Plus, it's unusual to list GTA 1 as a 'clone', since I don't think it's possible to copy yourself.
That's not true. In every GTA game you play a criminal in a large mostly open environment with lots of cars you can steal, people you can kill, gangs you can piss off, and cops who can chase you.
Oh no! They stuck with a working formula and made it better. Oh, lets add this to the list of things that piss people off. I mean, its obviously a bad thing to stick with whats fun.
Post by: fenrif on February 28, 2010, 07:31:52 pm
San Andreas you could go play arcade games, get a jetpack, etc, loads of fun little things to do.
GTA4 had better graphics, and the pain in the ass relationship system (no i dont want to go bowling and hear you repeat the same dialogue from the last 24 times we went ¬_¬), but lacked most of what made the GTA series fun.
Siquo seems to be talking about sandbox style games as cthulhu said, which is the only common factor between all those games he listed. I guess if you dont like sandbox games then you just arent going to like them no matter what, but i much prefer being able to make my own fun in a game than just following a rail-road.
Also why are you singling out the spiderman with venom in it, siquo? They're all pretty much the same exact game? :S Do you have some irrational hatred of venom?
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on February 28, 2010, 11:21:59 pm
The first and second GTA's aren't even similar to the current GTA's in any way.
Plus, it's unusual to list GTA 1 as a 'clone', since I don't think it's possible to copy yourself.
That's not true. In every GTA game you play a criminal in a large mostly open environment with lots of cars you can steal, people you can kill, gangs you can piss off, and cops who can chase you.
Oh no! They stuck with a working formula and made it better. Oh, lets add this to the list of things that piss people off. I mean, its obviously a bad thing to stick with whats fun.
Either you're being sarcastic for no apparent reason or I have to ask you why on earth you would think this is a good idea. ???
Fenrif, you are also wrong. Most Spiderman games were not really free roaming sand box style games. Just Spiderman 2 for PS2 and a couple other recent ones.
Post by: fenrif on March 01, 2010, 12:50:40 am
Spiderman 2, 3, web of shadows, ultimate, friend or foe... Most of the spiderman games made in the past decade. I kinda assumed he wasnt talking about SNES/genesis games. :P
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 01, 2010, 01:02:34 am
Well yeah, all the modern ones.
Spiderman 2, 3, web of shadows, ultimate, friend or foe... Most of the spiderman games made in the past decade. I kinda assumed he wasnt talking about SNES/genesis games. :P
Or all the PS1 games... Or the game based on the first movie. And actually I'm pretty sure friend or foe wasn't sand boxie from what I've read about it.
Post by: Akhier the Dragon hearted on March 01, 2010, 01:41:08 am
Oh and as a note I "had" starcraft before I owned it and the only reason that I did buy it was because I wanted to show my support for it. Honestly when it comes to the pirating of software as long as it cost something to buy people will find a way to get it for free, it happens with everything in the end. The only games that are not pirated are the ones no one wants.
Post by: Siquo on March 01, 2010, 03:41:35 am
So let's say it's a genre, like RTS or FPS. What is the name of this formulaic dumb genre so I know to avoid it next time?
Btw, I love Spiderman, and Venom (just... not the new one. I want the old one back. The buff guy, not that teensyweensy effing emo Eddie Brock), and the specific name of the specific game (only spidey game I ever played) does not come to mind, but it was a quite recent quasi-free-roamer with nonsense sidemissions such as "races". There were fun ones such as "save the citizen about to fall off a ledge" but after a few times that exact same mission it gets a bit boring.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 01, 2010, 03:53:17 am
Post by: Siquo on March 01, 2010, 04:00:36 am
Quasi-free-roaming, so it's still linear. Nonsensical side-quests. It's all just filler for storyless crap to last longer. I kind of like action games, FPS's first and foremost, but why does every new game have to have this bland GTA-sauce dumped over it until it tastes nothing like the promise it could have been?
And what LGMWV are you talking about? Planetside? BF?
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 01, 2010, 04:37:45 am
How Hard Is It To Understand?!
Quasi-free-roaming, so it's still linear. Nonsensical side-quests. It's all just filler for storyless crap to last longer. I kind of like action games, FPS's first and foremost, but why does every new game have to have this bland GTA-sauce dumped over it until it tastes nothing like the promise it could have been?
And what LGMWV are you talking about? Planetside? BF?
Planetside and BF pretty much match your descriptions perfectly. They're large scale action games with open worlds where you fight things. Those are about the only things each of the games you mentioned share. Honesly I can't understand what you're talking about saying that the all the side quests. I've found most of them I've played to actually be fun. And you know what the great thing about optional side quests are? They're optional! If all you care about is the story and not even the gameplay, then just play through the main story and ignore the side missions.
Post by: Siquo on March 01, 2010, 04:53:22 am
Look, you obviously like the genre, I think it's dumb and bland and kills otherwise promising games. Discussing tastes like that is hardly constructive.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 01, 2010, 05:15:56 am
Nope, you usually need some sidequests to "level up" or something, without which the main quest becomes much harder. Planetside and BF have no "quests", and the multiplayer aspect make them completely different games.
Look, you obviously like the genre, I think it's dumb and bland and kills otherwise promising games. Discussing tastes like that is hardly constructive.
Well, I can't understand what your problem is. Do you just hate anything that doesn't directly progress the main storyline? Also, your assertion that you have to complete the optional side quests is just flat out wrong in most cases. Sure Ass Creed made you do a few of them and is also called annoyingly repetitive, and Far Cry 2 was just crappy in general, Red Faction Guerrilla had several side missions that usually tied in to the man story in some way and were all set in different area with different strategies required to beat them, but none of the GTAs ever do (except 4 apparently) and really, they're a lot of fun most of the time and I don't understand why you can't enjoy them.
Post by: The Architect on March 01, 2010, 05:21:23 am
It's simply an obstinate difference in tastes in some cases. You can't really get anywhere by debate with someone who fundamentally can't enjoy the genre.
That said, some of these games are repetitive, and do break your immersion in the story with their nonsensical sidequests.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 01, 2010, 07:11:08 am
Post by: Siquo on March 01, 2010, 08:18:56 am
Post by: Draco18s on March 01, 2010, 11:11:45 am
completionists
*Evil grin*
Flash game I'm working on I've dubbed "Impossible Dungeon." Completing the game will be easy to do (not trivial, but can be done without finding the vast array of secrets), but 100% completion will be borderline impossible (that is, mathematically possible, and no game logic will preclude it*).
Of course...it will be possible to get over 100% completion as well, but it would require playing the game more than once. ;)
Oh, and I'm actively working to keep it from being "Guide, Dang It (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuideDangIt) possible" (that is, a guide would be of limited use, assuming someone managed to figure it all out their information would be borderline unhelpful to someone else).
My challenge will be making it fun for the casual player.
*By which I mean that doing X will prevent you from doing Y and doing Y prevents doing X. Nothing like that. There are a few "oops, its gone" spots, but not many.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 01, 2010, 12:44:56 pm
Post by: Draco18s on March 01, 2010, 02:11:30 pm
The penultimate "un-guide-able" game would have to be like a very good roguelike. It'd have to simply adhere to some basic rules, but everything else in the game would have to be different every time it's played. Including plot. In a way, it'll have to be what DF Adventure mode is aimed to become.
Oh, no. Not at all. Because this is flash I have a very cruel way to make the game not-random from one play to another:
Every user has their "dungeon" randomized. Once. Ever. Then its the same for every playthrough.
The the single user it will appear to be static and unchanging (this makes the game possible to learn, take notes for, and beat), but as soon as they compare to another user you'll notice the randomization: nothing will match up.
Currently there is a flaw making it possible to map things (at least in the "if you see this, then the puzzle is X" sense), but I don't mind. I plan on randomizing that to a degree as well, but I think its no feasible with my current data structure. It's also a minimum of twice as much dungeon design work.
I suspect that it will take a wiki and a few dozen dedicated players to actually map out the whole game for the 100% completion (the reward is the Infinity Sword (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InfinityPlusOneSword)...and another boss).
Post by: dogstile on March 01, 2010, 02:17:49 pm
The GTA sidequests are ok, it's the "clones" I mentioned that have the sloppy ones. Guerilla had a few different ones, but they were generally attack, defend, destroy or race. Any of the above, and all beatable with one single strategy.
It was still fun. That's the point.
The first and second GTA's aren't even similar to the current GTA's in any way.
Plus, it's unusual to list GTA 1 as a 'clone', since I don't think it's possible to copy yourself.
That's not true. In every GTA game you play a criminal in a large mostly open environment with lots of cars you can steal, people you can kill, gangs you can piss off, and cops who can chase you.
Oh no! They stuck with a working formula and made it better. Oh, lets add this to the list of things that piss people off. I mean, its obviously a bad thing to stick with whats fun.
Either you're being sarcastic for no apparent reason or I have to ask you why on earth you would think this is a good idea. ???
Fenrif, you are also wrong. Most Spiderman games were not really free roaming sand box style games. Just Spiderman 2 for PS2 and a couple other recent ones.
Sarcastic for no reason, i was in a horrible mood when i posted that.
Post by: sproingie on March 01, 2010, 11:11:03 pm
If you just make the game gratuitously hard, like "you stepped in direction X, a trap slices your head off, you die, game over" then well, you've got a hard game no one will want to play.
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on March 01, 2010, 11:29:44 pm
Quote from: sproingie
I can't compare my nethack or angband maps either ... How is randomizing once going to make it fundamentally different than randomizing it every time?
If you just make the game gratuitously hard, like "you stepped in direction X, a trap slices your head off, you die, game over" then well, you've got a hard game no one will want to play.
Like IWBTG?
Post by: sproingie on March 02, 2010, 01:28:11 am
Post by: Cthulhu on March 02, 2010, 01:31:13 am
Post by: Huesoo on March 02, 2010, 09:39:52 am
Post by: Draco18s on March 02, 2010, 10:17:16 am
I can't compare my nethack or angband maps either ... How is randomizing once going to make it fundamentally different than randomizing it every time?
If you just make the game gratuitously hard, like "you stepped in direction X, a trap slices your head off, you die, game over" then well, you've got a hard game no one will want to play.
Nonono. By randomizing it between users you can't make a walkthrough that helps anyone but yourself. And the game isn't out to kill you, so its not IWBTG hard.
It's like The Tower of Druaga.
I just discovered IWBTG recently on youtube ... I always figured the people who actually get through more than three screens have actually programmed an AI bot to play it. It makes Super Asshole Mario look like Desert Bus. As a work of pastiche parody art tho, it's about the most hilarious thing I've ever seen.
The first three screens are quite doable, even on Hard/Impossible mode. Most people just play on Easy so they don't have to repeat everything all the time. In the first three screens there's remarkably little that'll kill you.
Post by: Antioch on March 04, 2010, 08:19:37 am
Post by: Mortesphere on March 04, 2010, 08:37:42 am
Post by: Soulwynd on March 04, 2010, 09:05:54 am
You know what's ironic? The crack allows you to play offline, ubisoft does not.
Post by: The Architect on March 04, 2010, 09:10:24 am
(This is not shameless self-advertisement, just an old game that doesn't do any of the things new games do that piss us off -focus on graphics over gameplay, have bad loading screens, or imitate other games.)
Post by: Draco18s on March 04, 2010, 10:21:21 am
Supcom 2 has been looking really disappointing. I'll be really pissed off if it is what it looks like.
Fewer nukes and more deadly. A friend of mine already has a strategy that is essentially unbeatable.
Well. It's a zerg rush in a game where there really isn't a counter-zerg early game unit.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 04, 2010, 10:24:47 am
Not even the tech 1 turrets?Supcom 2 has been looking really disappointing. I'll be really pissed off if it is what it looks like.
Fewer nukes and more deadly. A friend of mine already has a strategy that is essentially unbeatable.
Well. It's a zerg rush in a game where there really isn't a counter-zerg early game unit.
Post by: Draco18s on March 04, 2010, 01:00:32 pm
Not even the tech 1 turrets?
Teleporting units teleport around them.
Or I should say, high hitpoint, anti-air, strong v. ground, teleporting units.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 05, 2010, 12:35:28 pm
Ass Creed 2 was cracked and released today. 4 days before a steam release.
Fancy DRM can't stop these people. Fancy DRM doesn't allow offline gameplay either.
On the opposite spectrum, I thought the Just Cause 2 people took a step forward against piracy by releasing a demo that is actually worth the time it takes to download it. I still haven't played it, so I cannot give full input, but from the description of the -demo- it sounds almost like a full game on itself, without the main storyline, of course, but with all the free roaming goodness.
Post by: Grakelin on March 05, 2010, 12:42:42 pm
Ahh, the good old days. Games like ET, and Bible Adventures. /nostalgia
No, seriously. Everybody always thinks that the great days of a certain product are over. It's the same with movies, books, and music as well. It's just that it is very hard for us to be able to look back on the past and think of anything but the great experiences. After all, why, except for humour's sake, would we go to abandonia and load up something that sucked?
Post by: Soulwynd on March 05, 2010, 12:53:37 pm
There are a whole lot of old games I play instead of modern ones. X-com, Daggerfall, Orion Burger (And maaaaany other adventure games (flight of the amazon queen, beneath a steel sky, mostly all indiana and all monkey island games), some of which I still haven't finished, they are great to replay after a few years), Darklands, Hardnova, Iron seed, Master of Magic, Reunion, stronghold, jagged alliance, and so on and on.
I never said there aren't good modern games, but the trend they are following sucks.
Post by: Grakelin on March 05, 2010, 12:55:42 pm
Post by: Zangi on March 05, 2010, 01:11:37 pm
Alas, news from the amazing world of piracy.Didn't they boast about it taking at least a week before getting cracked? The crucial time for sales.
Ass Creed 2 was cracked and released today. 4 days before a steam release.
Fancy DRM can't stop these people. Fancy DRM doesn't allow offline gameplay either.
Adding a DRM like that gives people with weak/no justification something to stand by. Fodder that they will eat up ravenously. Hell, it makes it easier for those people to convince others who are on the fence, blank slates that have yet to be colored or too little of it... on the subject.
And then outright saying that it won't be cracked fast enough is like slapping the cracking community and
*Insert oft repeated justifications here from both sides* Its just going to get pirated.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 05, 2010, 01:15:05 pm
But you never go back and play games that suck, or games that are cheap rip-offs of the games you listed. Back in that day, however, those games were all over the place, and it was just as hard to find the gems as it is today.Well, yes. Mostly because it costs one eye and a half to make a next-gen game today. And everyone wants super duper pretty graphics.
Didn't they boast about it taking at least a week before getting cracked? The crucial time for sales.They also made the mistake of releasing a game that wasn't so huge on sales (Silent Hunter 5) with the same DRM scheme. It took them a day to crack it. Assassin's Creed 2 was cracked and released -before- official release.
That's how they slap DRM people on the face.
Post by: Zangi on March 05, 2010, 01:28:55 pm
If only they realize that it doesn't have to be so shiny.... It probably comes with the sell it to everyone mentality that permeates most of the game industry these days.But you never go back and play games that suck, or games that are cheap rip-offs of the games you listed. Back in that day, however, those games were all over the place, and it was just as hard to find the gems as it is today.Well, yes. Mostly because it costs one eye and a half to make a next-gen game today. And everyone wants super duper pretty graphics.
Isn't that whats happening with Activision and Infinity Ward/CoD right now?
Quote
Didn't they boast about it taking at least a week before getting cracked? The crucial time for sales.They also made the mistake of releasing a game that wasn't so huge on sales (Silent Hunter 5) with the same DRM scheme. It took them a day to crack it. Assassin's Creed 2 was cracked and released -before- official release.
That's how they slap DRM people on the face.
... They shot themselves in the knee-cap, twice.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 05, 2010, 01:34:05 pm
If only they realize that it doesn't have to be so shiny.... It probably comes with the sell it to everyone mentality that permeates most of the game industry these days.
Isn't that whats happening with Activision and Infinity Ward/CoD right now?
I know, man. Video games are a secret club and they should only sell to the elite.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 05, 2010, 01:36:38 pm
This made me think it all comes down to one thing. The biggest problem with all of this, at least for me, is copyright. Thanks to Disney company and the other media giants copyright laws have become monstrous. All this obsession with intellectual property has gotten to the point where it's actually holding back the advance of human society, not just video games, not just entertainment media, not just media in general, but even science is affected.
If only they realize that it doesn't have to be so shiny.... It probably comes with the sell it to everyone mentality that permeates most of the game industry these days.
Isn't that whats happening with Activision and Infinity Ward/CoD right now?
I know, man. Video games are a secret club and they should only sell to the elite.
I know man, appealing to a niche is so elitist and should never be done ever merely on principal! Especially those who don't mind bad graphics. Stupid DF and it's stupid elitist ASCII!
Post by: Draco18s on March 05, 2010, 01:37:30 pm
If only they realize that it doesn't have to be so shiny.... It probably comes with the sell it to everyone mentality that permeates most of the game industry these days.But you never go back and play games that suck, or games that are cheap rip-offs of the games you listed. Back in that day, however, those games were all over the place, and it was just as hard to find the gems as it is today.Well, yes. Mostly because it costs one eye and a half to make a next-gen game today. And everyone wants super duper pretty graphics.
Isn't that whats happening with Activision and Infinity Ward/CoD right now?
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-industry-tail-is-trying-to-wag-the-market-dog/
Post by: Zangi on March 05, 2010, 01:50:36 pm
Well, they could... you know... drop the graphics budget down a bit and put that elsewhere... maybe development time?
If only they realize that it doesn't have to be so shiny.... It probably comes with the sell it to everyone mentality that permeates most of the game industry these days.
Isn't that whats happening with Activision and Infinity Ward/CoD right now?
I know, man. Video games are a secret club and they should only sell to the elite.
Or at least to lower the budget overall... so they won't disappoint themselves as much when their sales don't get to where they want it...
@Ioric
Ah, Intellectual Property... I haz patent on cancer strain. You no can research cure, only me can. Hay, that cancer strain look like mine! Stop or I sue!
Post by: LeoLeonardoIII on March 05, 2010, 02:27:59 pm
Step 1: I wants to make GM crops, but I can't patent so I can't make them pay for it.
Step 2: ~LOBBY TIME~
Step 3: Now I can patent my crop. Sell it to a few farmers who want the higher yields, tell them they can't save their seeds and they have to buy new every year.
Step 4: Cross-pollination means neighboring farmers' fields test positive for our GM crop. Time to sue for patent infringement!
Step 5: Just before the patent for Crop A is about to expire, create a slight variation and call it Crop B. Stop selling Crop A, sell only Crop B. Now the farmers are stuck under our new patent for a bunch of years!
I can't wait for them to start selling us air.
Post by: Draco18s on March 05, 2010, 02:36:14 pm
I can't wait for them to start selling us air.
*cough (http://www.amazon.com/Scuba-Tank-Shot-Blast-Catalina-Standard/dp/B001N4K4BW)*
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 05, 2010, 02:41:48 pm
I can't wait for them to start selling us air.
*cough (http://www.amazon.com/Scuba-Tank-Shot-Blast-Catalina-Standard/dp/B001N4K4BW)*
At least they give us a jar to keep it in.
Post by: Huesoo on March 05, 2010, 04:21:25 pm
I can't wait for them to start selling us air.
*cough (http://www.amazon.com/Scuba-Tank-Shot-Blast-Catalina-Standard/dp/B001N4K4BW)*
At least they give us a jar to keep it in.
If we didnt we would have to go through that wretched ARM.
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 05, 2010, 05:47:57 pm
Post by: Draco18s on March 05, 2010, 05:50:56 pm
I suppose if you could genetically modify plants, you could make it so that they can't reproduce by themselves, and the seeds need to be made in labs. That might make the idea of selling them (for ludicrous profit, of course) a bit more sane.
That would be difficult for two reasons:
1) With the exception of vegetables, the edible part of the plant is some part of its reproductive system.
Notably some of these, the edible portion is the seed.
2) No one would buy them.
Post by: Siquo on March 05, 2010, 06:40:22 pm
Bananas!
Intellectual property schmoperty.
Post by: Zangi on March 05, 2010, 06:49:22 pm
I suppose if you could genetically modify plants, you could make it so that they can't reproduce by themselves, and the seeds need to be made in labs. That might make the idea of selling them (for ludicrous profit, of course) a bit more sane.
That would be difficult for two reasons:
1) With the exception of vegetables, the edible part of the plant is some part of its reproductive system.
Notably some of these, the edible portion is the seed.
2) No one would buy them.
1) Who knows what science can do... give it a few
2) What if it tasted.... really good? And/Or has addictive properties?
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 05, 2010, 07:54:17 pm
I suppose if you could genetically modify plants, you could make it so that they can't reproduce by themselves, and the seeds need to be made in labs. That might make the idea of selling them (for ludicrous profit, of course) a bit more sane.
Actually, I think those already exist.
I'm having a hell of a time finding good info on them online though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenocarpy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenocarpy) This is the most I could find.
I remember hearing though about companies converting undeveloped countries to using modern agriculture techniques and then selling them genetically modified crops that don't produce seeds so that they have to keep buying from the company.
Post by: Aqizzar on March 05, 2010, 08:07:04 pm
I suppose if you could genetically modify plants, you could make it so that they can't reproduce by themselves, and the seeds need to be made in labs. That might make the idea of selling them (for ludicrous profit, of course) a bit more sane.
I remember hearing though about companies converting undeveloped countries to using modern agriculture techniques and then selling them genetically modified crops that don't produce seeds so that they have to keep buying from the company.
...Okay, let's get something clear here. The vast majority of genetically modified crops are designed to be sterile, so they're seeds can't spread and reproduce. It has nothing to do with squeezing money out of poor people. It's because countries that can create genetically modified crops require by law that they be sterile, so the seeds won't cross with other crops or spread out of control, xenotransplantation of invasive species being a serious environmental problem.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 05, 2010, 08:08:39 pm
I suppose if you could genetically modify plants, you could make it so that they can't reproduce by themselves, and the seeds need to be made in labs. That might make the idea of selling them (for ludicrous profit, of course) a bit more sane.
I remember hearing though about companies converting undeveloped countries to using modern agriculture techniques and then selling them genetically modified crops that don't produce seeds so that they have to keep buying from the company.
...Okay, let's get something clear here. The vast majority of genetically modified crops are designed to be sterile, so they're seeds can't spread and reproduce. It has nothing to do with squeezing money out of poor people. It's because countries that can create genetically modified crops require by law that they be sterile, so the seeds won't cross with other crops or spread out of control, xenotransplantation of invasive species being a serious environmental problem.
Don't harsh our anticorporate mellow, dude.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 05, 2010, 08:10:53 pm
You can also check the whole Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto) bullshit.
Copyright/patents aren't only detrimental to games, but to everything. People need to be recognized by what they -do- with an idea, not by the -idea- itself.
And Aqizzar, that's the good side of the story and everyone can agree with. The problem is that people do produce those seeds nowadays, even poor countries. So the bad side of the story is, Monsanto & others have patented and copyrighted whatever they could on the subject in most countries. So you're stuck with them.
Post by: Aqizzar on March 05, 2010, 08:13:54 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 05, 2010, 08:16:54 pm
I suppose if you could genetically modify plants, you could make it so that they can't reproduce by themselves, and the seeds need to be made in labs. That might make the idea of selling them (for ludicrous profit, of course) a bit more sane.
I remember hearing though about companies converting undeveloped countries to using modern agriculture techniques and then selling them genetically modified crops that don't produce seeds so that they have to keep buying from the company.
...Okay, let's get something clear here. The vast majority of genetically modified crops are designed to be sterile, so they're seeds can't spread and reproduce. It has nothing to do with squeezing money out of poor people. It's because countries that can create genetically modified crops require by law that they be sterile, so the seeds won't cross with other crops or spread out of control, xenotransplantation of invasive species being a serious environmental problem.
You could well be right but it doesn't really matter what the original reason the plants are seedless is to the poor people whose money is getting squeezed out of them. :P
Post by: darkflagrance on March 06, 2010, 12:51:56 am
The human race got by for thousands of years with no more crop alteration than good old fashioned husbandry, and those underdeveloped nations being strangled by the yoke of megacorporatism had never seen a genetically modified plant until a couple years ago. I fail to see the problem.
Unfortunately, we are not the humans of thousands of years ago, and the environment we live in is now stretched to capacity.
EDIT: What did I just do? I just realized I was on the board for...games?
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 06, 2010, 01:12:01 am
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 06, 2010, 01:33:42 am
Is it just me, or does the word "Parthenocarpy" sound like something dwarves would REALLY want to avoid?
For more reasons than one.
Post by: dragnar on March 06, 2010, 11:43:52 am
Post by: Jreengus on March 06, 2010, 11:48:50 am
Post by: Soulwynd on March 06, 2010, 01:48:06 pm
Post by: Roundabout Lout on March 06, 2010, 05:20:42 pm
Do A, crack it, do C.
This.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 06, 2010, 05:22:08 pm
Post by: Micro102 on March 06, 2010, 06:16:49 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on March 06, 2010, 06:31:25 pm
Post by: Micro102 on March 06, 2010, 07:08:15 pm
Post by: Sowelu on March 06, 2010, 07:12:19 pm
And yeah. Buying something, copying it, and returning it is pretty damn low. That's also a big reason why retail stores don't accept opened products: because people who do that are pricks. Good luck returning something if it doesn't work on your computer or you don't like the DRM; once you open it, they are forced to assume that you copied it.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 06, 2010, 07:17:50 pm
But something else I hate about modern games.
The new no-dedicated-server + match-making trend.
Ie. Most if not all games using games for windows live. There are others too, like what they tried to do with L4D at first, at least on the user side, taking away the server browser and using a match making crap (yes you can use the opengamebrowser or something command in the console, which is less bad). This really ruins MP for me. For example, I bought Guerrilla a while back mostly because what I saw in MP videos, but what they failed to mention was the stupid Windows Live matchmaking. Not only it's -impossible- to play a destruction game, which takes 18 people and believe me, they don't sit there and wait for the room to fill up, but you're usually stuck with retards and jerkoffs, as there's no real ban and it's not like you're in a server that will remember the ban. Modern Warfail 2 is another example of this crap. Bioshock 2 as well, I believe.
I bet a huge part of it is to 'fight' warez by not allowing people to mod dedicated servers to allow warez people.
Simply horrible, thus, no game with match making will ever get my money.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.Not something I would do, it was just a joke and a way to increase C's magnitude.
And yeah. Buying something, copying it, and returning it is pretty damn low. That's also a big reason why retail stores don't accept opened products: because people who do that are pricks. Good luck returning something if it doesn't work on your computer or you don't like the DRM; once you open it, they are forced to assume that you copied it.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 06, 2010, 07:26:29 pm
No dedicated servers means no custom maps, no custom gameplay modes, meaning the community will a) be more willing to shell out for new content that checks to make sure they actually bought it whenever they try to use it, and b) unable to survive once they stop supporting it and release a sequel, in the interest of forcing them to upgrade to the next identical iteration.
Left 4 Dead's matchmaking actually worked, because it did in fact use dedicated servers, it just organized games with lobbies. Which it pretty much had to do, because of the extremely small game sizes and nature of the game. It's not like CS:S where you'd get sixty people on a giant map playing some mod in ten minute rounds for an hour.
Post by: Draco18s on March 07, 2010, 12:03:44 pm
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/03/05/07
Post by: fenrif on March 07, 2010, 04:34:10 pm
So the games been out liek a week or so, and the servers are allready down, making the game unplayable.
Way to make your customers hate you even more ubisoft. :P
Post by: Sowelu on March 07, 2010, 04:51:03 pm
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/)
So the games been out liek a week or so, and the servers are allready down, making the game unplayable.
Way to make your customers hate you even more ubisoft. :P
AHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Post by: Soulwynd on March 07, 2010, 05:16:41 pm
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 07, 2010, 05:22:02 pm
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/)
So the games been out liek a week or so, and the servers are allready down, making the game unplayable.
Way to make your customers hate you even more ubisoft. :P
Yeah, I don't think they'd do this just to be vindictive, so I wouldn't phrase it as thus.
Post by: dragnar on March 07, 2010, 05:28:03 pm
I'm willing to bet someone is DoSing them.And they won't stop til' the DRM is gone.
I find it extremely ironic that currently, the only people who can play Assassin's Creed 2 are the very ones this mess was intended to stop. The pirates game on, while everyone else is stuck waiting.
Post by: Draco18s on March 07, 2010, 05:50:59 pm
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/)
So the games been out liek a week or so, and the servers are allready down, making the game unplayable.
Way to make your customers hate you even more ubisoft. :P
That's hilarious.
Post by: fenrif on March 07, 2010, 05:53:02 pm
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/)
So the games been out liek a week or so, and the servers are allready down, making the game unplayable.
Way to make your customers hate you even more ubisoft. :P
Yeah, I don't think they'd do this just to be vindictive, so I wouldn't phrase it as thus.
The phrasing doesn't imply they're doing it to be vindictive, or that theyre even doing it intentionally. I was just pointing out the outcome.
They spend money to develop/license DRM
They spend money convincing people DRM isnt as bad as it is
They loose money from boycots and word of mouth
And now they're going to loose money from people returning the game that refuses to work a few days after purchase.
I remember reading a comment on slashdot, it was written by someone who claimed to work for ubisoft. He said that they know DRM hurts sales, and that noone in the dev houses want it, but the management at the publisher forces it on them so they can look good for the shareholders. According to him it not only hurts end users, but also the devs themselves (faith in the brand gets lost, repeat customers lost, boycots, etc) and the shareholders who loose out on money for all the aforementioned reasons. The only people who benefit are the publishers who can say to their shareholders "at least we tried something to stop those filthy pirates!"
I'd take it with a grain of salt myself, but its food for thought at any rate.
Post by: The Architect on March 07, 2010, 05:57:22 pm
However, my gut response is "****ing pirates, now we have to deal with this **** because they won't pay for the games!" Am I the only one who feels that way?
Post by: Micro102 on March 07, 2010, 06:00:20 pm
Post by: Cthulhu on March 07, 2010, 06:02:52 pm
On piracy, someone has to budge or the PC gaming market could die. I would honestly rather the pirates budge because the dev/publishers' budging means they'll probably just stop selling to PCs. If piracy died down significantly they might even let up on DRM.
Post by: fenrif on March 07, 2010, 06:09:50 pm
Hmmm the Xbox doesn't have DRMs for obvious reasons, but what security measures do they have? Is it as easy to pirate an Xbox game as it is a PC game?
You have to modify the hardware, either with a modchip or by flashing the firmware of the dvdrom, which is a pretty steep barrier for most people I'd imagine, other than that theres no DRM or anything.
And architect, I certainly don't feel the same way, but I don't blame the gamemakers either, I blame publishers. And I also happen to think that piracy is the excuse for DRM, but its probobly got alot more to do with locking customers into specific systems, and forcing them to re-buy products than it has to do with stopping piracy.
As an anti-piracy tool, anyone will agree that DRM is an embrassment at best. Most DRM is cracked within a day. But it is very good at making sure people wont be able to continue to play the same games for years to come. Its very good at crippling resale of games.
As an anti-piracy method it's piss-poor. As a way of controlling how customers use the product, it's alot more usefull.
Post by: narskie on March 07, 2010, 06:19:38 pm
Toady makes a decent product and those who can donate, do, and therefore he is able to continue. If we applied this model to all games it would solve both piracy and the poor quality of commercial games.
Post by: Micro102 on March 07, 2010, 06:25:18 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 07, 2010, 06:46:20 pm
Thing is, if piracy completely stopped overnight, DRMs would linger for years. And sales wouldn't automagically skyrocket. People who wouldn't consider buying a game they'd otherwise pirate still wouldn't buy it even if they couldn't pirate it. Therefore, if pirates one day disappeared, the players wouldn't feel better for quite a while - which means there's never an incentive to stop pirating as long as non-pirates are kept being punished for not pirating.
Actually, I think it's a case of a Self Fulfilling Prophecy. It probably goes like this:
Company prepares to release new game:"We expect the piracy rate of this new title to be in excess of 70%. Let's install a new DRM in it - it's obtrusive, but it's a necessary evil!"
Game is released, cracked on release day; 90% of players pirate the game due to DRM:"It's just as we predicted! We will have to install an even stricter DRM next time!"
Post by: Soulwynd on March 07, 2010, 06:47:32 pm
Hmmm the Xbox doesn't have DRMs for obvious reasons, but what security measures do they have? Is it as easy to pirate an Xbox game as it is a PC game?The numbers on the sites I know, show that people download a lot more xbox/ps2 games than pc. But yes, as chuthulu said, you need to have your xbox modded in one way or another.
However, my gut response is "****ing pirates, now we have to deal with this **** because they won't pay for the games!" Am I the only one who feels that way?I bet there are more people who feel that way. But my reaction to this crappy drm is to not buy nor full-demo it, as it's not something I intend to buy.
I can't really blame pirates either, they're not physically stealing anything and if they didn't have the piracy alternative, I doubt they would buy the game either way. So it's a horrid excuse for a failing business model. (PS.: It's not failing because of the pirates, It's failing because of a. the market itself. b. game quality. c. despise the gaming market actually showing a growth, the devs grew bigger than the market itself, therefore less profit, more risk.)
I gotta work more on the research quiz I want to pop here on b12, just to see what people do about these things and their reactions to games in general.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 07, 2010, 06:53:40 pm
Post by: The Architect on March 07, 2010, 06:57:17 pm
Post by: Gantolandon on March 07, 2010, 07:03:55 pm
Quote
I still don't agree with it, but I wasn't aware that kind of property and copyright violation was legal anywhere.
Actually modifying consoles isn't considered copyright violation in many countries.
Post by: fenrif on March 07, 2010, 07:07:35 pm
Hmm, now I understand why they do region coding to determine where products can be sold. I still don't agree with it, but I wasn't aware that kind of property and copyright violation was legal anywhere. Shops that publicly provide console modifications?
There are plenty of shops in the UK that do it too, and probobly in most other countries. As gantolandon said, it's not illegal at all (if it is, it's only because the companies lobbied to have your rights taken away).
Region coding has been around for a while, and i doubt its got as much to do with piracy as it has forcing people to pay what the companies want to charge you in your region.
Post by: Nivim on March 07, 2010, 07:53:31 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on March 07, 2010, 08:06:22 pm
Hmm, now I understand why they do region coding to determine where products can be sold. I still don't agree with it, but I wasn't aware that kind of property and copyright violation was legal anywhere. Shops that publicly provide console modifications?It's not illegal here either. You're allowed to modify, provide modifications, or buy modified electric/electronic stuff. They advertise some of it on tv as well, plus it's near impossible to sell a region coded dvd player here, and if you do buy it, the manufacturer is enforced to provide unblock codes. Of course, selling pirated games is illegal, but there are legal uses, such as running backup games. Plus we do have the right to copy/backup/tape anything for personal use here.
I don't agree with buying pirated software anyway. Instead of paying one jerkoff, you're paying a worse jerkoff. It's pretty common here, sadly. In Rio, right in front of one of the major computer shops, people set stands with pirated games/software, and usually, right next to a cop. I think the major problem is the price here, your average person really cannot afford to buy games and software. Buying two or three means a month worth of food if not more.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 07, 2010, 08:21:11 pm
Hmmm the Xbox doesn't have DRMs for obvious reasons, but what security measures do they have? Is it as easy to pirate an Xbox game as it is a PC game?
You have to modify the hardware, either with a modchip or by flashing the firmware of the dvdrom, which is a pretty steep barrier for most people I'd imagine, other than that theres no DRM or anything.
And architect, I certainly don't feel the same way, but I don't blame the gamemakers either, I blame publishers. And I also happen to think that piracy is the excuse for DRM, but its probobly got alot more to do with locking customers into specific systems, and forcing them to re-buy products than it has to do with stopping piracy.
As an anti-piracy tool, anyone will agree that DRM is an embrassment at best. Most DRM is cracked within a day. But it is very good at making sure people wont be able to continue to play the same games for years to come. Its very good at crippling resale of games.
As an anti-piracy method it's piss-poor. As a way of controlling how customers use the product, it's alot more usefull.
For some reason I never thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.
Post by: Micro102 on March 07, 2010, 10:53:50 pm
"Scam" is written all over that.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 07, 2010, 10:59:31 pm
Post by: The Architect on March 08, 2010, 02:09:38 am
Sure, at some level, in some companies, someone (like the notorious Microsoft) may be thinking "How can we control the market and force prices higher than the appropriate market price?", but the real kicker here is that pirates have no positive ground to stand on anyway. Either their theft is the true reason for this software war, or they are the excuse these (in my opinion likely non-existent) conspiring bastards use to forcefully manipulate the market for selfish gain.
As I said, either way the pirates are nothing but enemies to the average gamer. They're no Robin Hoods or righteous crusaders; the best you could say for them is that they are fuel for the fire.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 08, 2010, 03:11:14 am
theftThat's not only libelous, it's quite fucking simply the wrong term.
This has come up before, in this thread even, hell, I think it might even have been directed at you. As I said then: publishers and devs don't care about theft, because they've already sold it to whomever it was stolen from, whether that's a retail store or an individual. What you're referring to is nothing but unauthorized copying, wherein no one is deprived of anything tangible (unless either party involved is on a bandwidth limit, in which case they may be
As was said by someone else: "calling it 'theft' is no more accurate than calling it 'fraud' or 'negligence', it's just incorrect".
Now, to further explain this extremely simple issue: imagine that little timmy has $50. He goes out and buys a video game. Now he has no money. He goes home and downloads a hundred different modern games off the internet. How much money did the publishers of those games lose because timmy, who had no more money to give them after giving them all his money, obtained from third parties free copies of their software?
Spoiler: Answer (click to show/hide)
Post by: Siquo on March 08, 2010, 04:27:45 am
I discovered that to when thinking about spores DRM, 3 installs then it's garbage?That's quite accurate. I bought Spore, but only installed it once. My computer has had 2 reinstalls since then, but I don't really feel like installing or playing that game again, anyway >:(
In the netherlands there's this Unskippable advertisement on Every legal DVD (another reason to get the pirated version...) where you're told that piracy is "like" stealing a car (the precise wording is correct, however, since downloading is legal, only uploading is illegal). It starts with "You wouldn't steal a car". Then I saw this shirt somewhere that made me smile
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
@ Pseudonymous: It is theft when the pirates sell their pirated copies. (well, IMHO). Information wants to be free! And most games nowadays suck anyhow so I don't really need to pirate anymore ;)
Post by: fenrif on March 08, 2010, 04:38:46 am
I think "We want to make a living and be paid for our work" would be another likely sentiment.
Sure, at some level, in some companies, someone (like the notorious Microsoft) may be thinking "How can we control the market and force prices higher than the appropriate market price?", but the real kicker here is that pirates have no positive ground to stand on anyway. Either their theft is the true reason for this software war, or they are the excuse these (in my opinion likely non-existent) conspiring bastards use to forcefully manipulate the market for selfish gain.
As I said, either way the pirates are nothing but enemies to the average gamer. They're no Robin Hoods or righteous crusaders; the best you could say for them is that they are fuel for the fire.
Pirates aren't any enemy to me. They give me back features and usability the publishers are trying to steal from me.
Right of first sale, unlimited installs, being able to copy my games as many times as i choose, being able to mod any of my hardware any way i see fit. These are all things that are my legal rights, but the publishers want to DRM away. This isn't because they're evil demon spawn, but simply because its more profitable to do this. Why release a game that can be installed and resold as many times as the customer wants, when you can force them to rebuy it every few years, and turn the activation servers off when you release its sequel?
DRM doesn't have much to do with devs getting paid for their work. If it did, then the ones that consciously make the decision to avoid DRM would go out of buisness in a flash, funny how they're still around isn't it?
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 08, 2010, 05:03:31 am
I discovered that to when thinking about spores DRM, 3 installs then it's garbage?That's quite accurate. I bought Spore, but only installed it once. My computer has had 2 reinstalls since then, but I don't really feel like installing or playing that game again, anyway >:(
In the netherlands there's this Unskippable advertisement on Every legal DVD (another reason to get the pirated version...) where you're told that piracy is "like" stealing a car (the precise wording is correct, however, since downloading is legal, only uploading is illegal). It starts with "You wouldn't steal a car". Then I saw this shirt somewhere that made me smileSpoiler (click to show/hide)
@ Pseudonymous: It is theft when the pirates sell their pirated copies. (well, IMHO). Information wants to be free! And most games nowadays suck anyhow so I don't really need to pirate anymore ;)
You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg)
I think "We want to make a living and be paid for our work" would be another likely sentiment.
Sure, at some level, in some companies, someone (like the notorious Microsoft) may be thinking "How can we control the market and force prices higher than the appropriate market price?", but the real kicker here is that pirates have no positive ground to stand on anyway. Either their theft is the true reason for this software war, or they are the excuse these (in my opinion likely non-existent) conspiring bastards use to forcefully manipulate the market for selfish gain.
As I said, either way the pirates are nothing but enemies to the average gamer. They're no Robin Hoods or righteous crusaders; the best you could say for them is that they are fuel for the fire.
Wait wait wait... You don't think that corporations are greedy? I mean... really? Any for profit corporation is not about survival, it's about constant growth and expansion. About gaining constantly greater profits. That's basically the whole point.
Post by: Siquo on March 08, 2010, 05:07:47 am
You mean like this?I love the IT-crowd, but never seen that before. That is great! ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg)
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 08, 2010, 05:10:33 am
@ Pseudonymous: It is theft when the pirates sell their pirated copies.Except "theft" refers to a very specific action. It's "copyright infringement", and the crime lays entirely in the fact that the individual in question was not authorized by the rightsholders to produce and distribute those copies.
On moral grounds, the fact that they're charging money for the copy does make a world of difference, however. Someone who uploads a file for others to download free is doing good: they are, at their own risk and expense, providing for others free entertainment, meaning their money may be better spent than going to help Bobby Kotick build a house out of pure cocaine, while doing only the most negligible theoretical damage to the market. Someone who sells a bootleg copy is no better than the cokehead executives at the publishers, a parasite who adds no value while taking a cut for himself.
Post by: Siquo on March 08, 2010, 05:21:33 am
Although my gut feeling sais the same as you: information cannot be stolen if you copy it. Only if I went to the company, took all their sourcecode, and deleted all their copies of the sourcecode, I would've stolen it.
Post by: Cheeetar on March 08, 2010, 05:24:08 am
When discussing the semantics of "theft", there's a lot of fine lines. When I take something that isn't yours yet, but would have been yours if I hadn't taken it, is that theft? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't...
Were that a valid definition of theft, simply not buying the thing would be theft, as my money would have been theirs had I not chosen to keep my money.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 08, 2010, 05:31:20 am
Post by: Siquo on March 08, 2010, 05:55:20 am
Same with timmy and the moneypirates: If timmy spends his 50 bucks on the pirates, the game company gets zilch instead of 50.
So I'm just advocating the "free pirates" as opposed to the "paid pirates".
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 08, 2010, 06:04:54 am
"Timmy" is spending the $50 to buy an authorized retail/digital copy, in the example.
And though we all agree that selling bootleg shit is despicable, it's still not "theft". It's illegal under entirely different laws, for entirely different reasons.
Hell, bootleggers probably hate torrenters even more than publishers do, because if someone isn't going to buy a legitimate copy, why would they pay for an illegitimate one? I understand in third world countries they've got a market, because there's no legitimate market there, while people don't have the capacity or knowledge to get a free copy, or sees the bootleg vendor as the legitimate option.
Post by: dragnar on March 08, 2010, 08:24:10 am
Pirates are a problem, and companies have the right to try to stop them. The problem is, DRM does not stop them, and therefore has no excuse for existing.
Post by: sproingie on March 08, 2010, 10:45:52 am
I do hate those "you wouldn't steal a car" ads in movies. I wouldn't mind one that recognized that since I'm actually watching that ad, I'm a paying ticketholder, so, uh, thanks? My car keys also don't go telling the manufacturer where I am at all times that they might allow me to drive if it suits them.
Anyway, my two yap coins
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It's not just the software world you see this in. The Walgreens stores in my area put these plastic shields over high-theft items, probably based on loss statistics since it often didn't make sense where they went. At any rate, I ended up having to ring for and wait for and ask store personnel to fetch items for me. They put condoms behind the counter, you had to ask for them. Yeah, welcome to the 1970's. Real funny that they put Durex behind Duracell, so out of my concern for the tiny lady who has now twice gotten up on a very unsafe jerry-rigged stepladder, I actually SHOUT out "DUREX EXTRA SENSITIVE 20-PACK, IN THE PURPLE BOX!" She was a lot more mortified than me -- she should be glad I didn't ask for "ultra excitement" or something.
Yeah, I can see those things disappearing just about more than any other item in a convenience store. But when a convenience store makes a purchase INCONVENIENT, people are going to stop shopping there. I went out of my way to avoid Walgreens for months. And when I went back in recently ... there they were on a shelf, not even a plastic shield. I can't imagine they listened to customers, but I bet their sales plummeted.
Post by: The Architect on March 08, 2010, 10:58:29 am
We all know it's about profit (and lost profit), and we all know that the current measures are both extreme and ineffective. However, I believe it's well accepted by everyone except those who pirate or stand to benefit from piracy that it is simple theft, and that it's wrong. Nothing the producers, distributors, management, developers, (or however you want to nitpick the point, have I covered them all?) do makes piracy anything but a crime.
Media isn't an intellectual public property like the wheel, or the process for refining sugar. It's a product that is generated from the work and time of individuals and organizations, and the fact that it is easily duplicated does not make it fair game for redistribution. This is a recognized principle throughout the world, and I do not believe that a half-dozen individuals arguing the contrary here can hope to stand in the face of that reality.
To reiterate: none of the possible schemes, conspiracies, or simple money-grubbing behavior of the origins of media products excuses the theft of said products. FYI, copyright violation is another form of theft and is prosecuted as such, so let's not have anyone else preaching against the syntax as if they were qualified attorneys.
That said, your opinion is your right. I won't be continuing to post on the subject when we obviously will never come to any kind of agreement over it, but I wanted to lay out my viewpoint very clearly for the questionable benefit it might have for those of the opposite opinion.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 08, 2010, 11:22:00 am
Pirate logic: The restrictions they put on the use of this are ridiculous, I'll still get it, I just won't buy it.
Note that the pirates, in their debauchery, have failed to correct their run-on sentence. A shameful pirates.
Post by: Micro102 on March 08, 2010, 11:27:42 am
That won't be Timmy's only $50 and since games are made by different companies, downloading 10 games all made by one company while saving you money for something from another company can be considered theft, because Timmy would have spent money on company #1's games.
Post by: Draco18s on March 08, 2010, 11:42:01 am
As for me, while I recognize that it is theft, I have some pretty buggered morals. Two weeks ago I helped steal an oil tanker and got my share of the loot: (http://forums.dumpshock.com/style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)5000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun).* One of my most favorite Wednesdays so far this year.
*(http://forums.dumpshock.com/style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)35000 split 7 ways. The bear doesn't really know what to do with his cut.
Post by: fenrif on March 08, 2010, 11:45:27 am
words
Just beacuse you keep saying its theft, and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, doesn't make it so. It's not prosecuted as theft, FYI. This is why it's not called theft in court. A lost sale is not the same as theft. Taping a movie off the tv isn't theft. Taking a picture of a painting isn't theft. Writing a tablature of a popular song isn't theft. The media corperations would love to have you belive this of course, but it's simply not true. Theft involves you taking something into your possession deliberatly depriving someone else of that SAME THING. not copying it, not creating a facsimilie, not doing something which leaves that person still in possession of the item. This is simple word definition stuff here guys. A quick google search would clear this up for you... (sorry to keep harping on this, but it really annoys me how the music and movie industries are trying to change the definition of this word to suit their own needs ¬_¬)
You're oversimplifying a complex concept because you want to villify people you dont agree with. Anyone could easily do the same thing to the coorperations who have completely bloated the concept of copywrite to the point that there is no such thing as public domain anymore, and monopololies are easy to maintain. Copywrite was intended to encourage competition and creativity, instead it punishes those things and rewards huge media conglomerates for flooding the market with crap.
Funny how we were talking about how horrible DRM is, and you've turned that into a discussion about how pirates are vile evil sub-human creatures unworthey of life, or whatever hyperbole you're spouting. We simply said that the pirates fix the game ubisoft intentionally broke. I was reading the ubisoft forums this morning, and someone posted a link to a crack, so people could play the game they paid for, and the ubisoft forum drones banned him for posting illegal links, guess you'd agree with that?
As we were saying DRM has very little to do with piracy, and very much to do with producers robbing you of your rights as a consumer. Piracy is a good excuse for this, nothing else.
Pirates arent some faceless amorphous mass of hatred and villany. They're people, just like the publishing execs, and the movie moguls. Different people pirate different amounts for different reasons. One guy may download any and every game that comes out, another may just download cracks to fix his broken games, yet another may download games to test them out (most games don't have demos, are released buggy or broken, and over marketed to the point of blatantly lying about the game itself).
Post by: Draco18s on March 08, 2010, 12:06:29 pm
(most games don't have demos, are released buggy or broken, and over marketed to the point of blatantly lying about the game itself).
*Cough* Spore *cough*
Spore got prettier as demos went on and while they never overtly lied about what the game would offer they didn't let on that the game had changed from the initial demo that got millions excited about the game in the first place. They deliberately showed off stuff the game couldn't do before while making no reference and not showing off the stuff it could no longer do.
Hell, the game supported realistic 3 legged creature movement right up to release day (the creature creator could do it until sometime mid August, IIRC). Though because it was a little buggy they revoked it entirely in a silent update.
Post by: Micro102 on March 08, 2010, 12:56:56 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on March 08, 2010, 01:19:38 pm
Piracy isn't theftFixed for the greater good.
Guys guys. I've learned from previous experience that the piracy vs anti-piracy chatter wont get anywhere. Stick to recent events and things you hate in games. I only brought the piracy subject back up because of the ubisoft drm crap. If we could stick to that, I'd appreciate it.
Meanwhile, I've been playing shadowrun for the genesis. How come nobody has made a fucking decent shadowrun game/mmo in ages? Microsoft took the shadowrun name and put it in the crapper with that stupid xbox game.
Oh, and draco, besides disagreeing with you on copyright/piracy, *highfives* ... Shadowrun rocks. Were you playing 3rd of 4th ed?
Post by: Micro102 on March 08, 2010, 01:26:36 pm
And now it makes me want to play the board game.
Post by: Draco18s on March 08, 2010, 01:46:18 pm
Oh, and draco, besides disagreeing with you on copyright/piracy, *highfives* ... Shadowrun rocks. Were you playing 3rd of 4th ed?
4th.
I like the Xbox version of shadow run. One of the better multiplayer online games.
But it has nothing to do with ShadowRun! The "xbox/PC" game has ressurection and teleportation! Two things you can not ever do in ShadowRun (they're called "holy grails of magical research for a reason, hell, the closest they got to teleportation in EarthDawn--the fourth world--is Metaplanear Shortcut for the meat body; quite litterally you hit up the astral plane in the flesh).
Post by: fenrif on March 08, 2010, 02:01:17 pm
Though thats another problem with modern games: Company buys rights to IP, makes a game that has very little to do with IP which doesn't sell well because of obvious reasons. So the company just shelves it, makes no more games, sues anyone who tries to make their own version (that probobly sticks to what the original IP was about)
Post by: Draco18s on March 08, 2010, 02:15:52 pm
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 08, 2010, 08:22:47 pm
FYI, copyright violation is another form of theftNo, it's not in any way related to theft, and is illegal only because cokehead executives have bribed politicians who, in all likelihood, then spent that bribe money on hookers and blow, presumably in a giant hooker-and-blow orgy sponsored by the aforementioned executives.
Quote
and is prosecuted as suchWell, for one, *obtaining* unauthorized copies isn't prosecuted at all, and is only dubiously illegal (how are you, the innocent consumer, supposed to know whether a given distributor has the right to give/sell you something?), and cracking software protection is only illegal because of the DMCA, which denies consumers their rights of fair use if even the most laughably ineffective protection is put on something. Distributing isn't prosecuted either, except on a large scale commercial racket, and that is presumably only a real concern to law enforcement because of the likelihood a criminal organization is using it for funding. All of the court cases dealing with individuals uploading things to filesharing networks have been civil cases, and all based on spurious evidence brought forth by shady organizations hired by record labels.
Quote
, so let's not have anyone else preaching against the syntax as if they were qualified attorneys.FYI, that's not what syntax means. Syntax is grammatical structure, how words fit together in a sentence. The term you're looking for is either semantics (meaning of words) or rhetoric (how words are used).
Trying to label "copyright infringement" as "theft" is a calculated move by the same PR cokeheads who compared the VCR to the Boston strangler, just like how the credit industry has coined "identity theft", replacing more appropriate terms like "bank/credit fraud", shifting the burden to the victim ("that greedy bastard shoulda been more carful with his identitay! We sure aint gonna pay for not having proper securitay and validation procedures!"). It's a libelous misnomer and nothing more.
Post by: Nivim on March 08, 2010, 08:45:05 pm
Post by: dragnar on March 08, 2010, 08:47:11 pm
Quote
Wait! That is not how we do things around here, buddy. First we have to argue incessantly over semantics. Then one of us has to hurt one or all of us. Also, you're a villain.Lets stop before the last part of the quote becomes true. It doesn't matter what sort of crime pirating is persecuted as, as long as we agree that it is a crime.
The problem is, pirates are impossible to stop, for all intents and purposes. DRM and similar systems are horrible systems that hurt everyone except the pirates. Besides, piracy isn't nearly as large a problem as they seem to be making it out to be. Has a study ever been preformed to see just how many people pirate games anyway? Or how many of those would be willing to buy the games they pirate if they had to? As far as I know, pirates are a very small percentage of gamers. And besides, it seems most people I know pirate music/videos and yet those industries haven't done anything near the scale of DRM to try and stop it. It would be like having to reconnect your ipod to a computer every time you wanted to use it, only being allowed to play each song once without a connection.
Post by: moghopper on March 08, 2010, 08:54:32 pm
Post by: Draco18s on March 08, 2010, 09:12:37 pm
Not to rain on everyones parade, but maybe this thread should get back on track before it degenerates into a flamewar.
can we move on?
Post by: fenrif on March 08, 2010, 09:18:10 pm
And besides, it seems most people I know pirate music/videos and yet those industries haven't done anything near the scale of DRM to try and stop it. It would be like having to reconnect your ipod to a computer every time you wanted to use it, only being allowed to play each song once without a connection.
Interestingly enough, when VHS and betamax and that sort of thing became commonplace the movie and TV industries were aghast. If anyone could record anything they wanted off TV, or copy rented films how were the industries supposed to survive? I once read an article talking about how a high up in the TV industry seriously lobbied to have VHS made illegal because people could record TV shows without not the adverts, which he described as theft. Obviously this didn't pan out like he thought, and both the TV and movie industry seem to be doing pretty well to this day.
Didn't stop them from trying things like DIVX and the like. The recording industry has done a few dodgey things too (I'm sure if you look around you can find some recording exec calling people who own cassete tape decks evil filthy pirates). When napster first came out pretty much every recording exec claimed this would see the end of music as we know it. Did you ever hear how sony tried putting rootkits onto audio CDs in an attempt to stop people pirating them? Or stopping them from working in computer CD drives?
Theres always something to blame. Some new reason that whatever media industry is going to catastrophically fail, spelling the end of entertainment as we know it. Fortunatly it never comes to pass, and it only ever seems to be the middlemen execs who think this way. Unfortunatly they're usually the ones who come up with hairbrained schemes to stop this: DRM, rootkits, DIVX, and lobbying whatever governments they can to change laws in their favour.
So again i reiterate: publishers are what's wrong with modern games. ;)
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 08, 2010, 09:28:43 pm
And that, Sir, is the kind of conviction that actually hurts your side of the argument, and encourages flaming.Nothing I've said is outright untrue, even if
Second and third paragraphs are both completely true.
Fourth, again calling attention to the character of the people behind the strategy to rebrand a civil matter (copyright infringement) into a criminal matter (theft), at least in public perception.
Interestingly enough, when VHS and betamax and that sort of thing became commonplace the movie and TV industries were aghast. If anyone could record anything they wanted off TV, or copy rented films how were the industries supposed to survive? I once read an article talking about how a high up in the TV industry seriously lobbied to have VHS made illegal because people could record TV shows without not the adverts, which he described as theft. Obviously this didn't pan out like he thought, and both the TV and movie industry seem to be doing pretty well to this day.
Quote
Trying to label "copyright infringement" as "theft" is a calculated move by the same PR cokeheads who compared the VCR to the Boston strangler,The actual words he used. Look it up.
Has a study ever been preformed to see just how many people pirate games anyway?Yes, it came to the conclusion that despite the large volume of unauthorized distribution it was almost all being done by a small percentage of the population (so, basically, "hardcore filesharers" who obtain many times their entire income in media, hence forming a striking parallel with the "little timmy" example, especially given that other studies have also shown the people who pirate the most media also spend the largest percentage of their income buying/renting media, and supplement that by obtaining the less important/lower valued media free from the internet), can't remember where it was done though, some European country if I remember right. So, pretty much what you're positing.
Not to rain on everyones parade, but maybe this thread should get back on track before it degenerates into a flamewar.Biggest problem with modern games? Aging gamers. We grew up on shit games as kids, and now we're all jaded assholes who see the garbage of the past in a nostalgic light, and resent modern games for not triggering that too. Sure, there were occasionally gems back then, but overall the quality of games has increased, meaning there's less difference between great games and average games these days, because average is still pretty fucking good. But not even the best are worth the $50-$60 pricetags. Hell, most games aren't worth $20. The only game I've bought in the past year that I haven't regretted spending anything on is SoC, for $5 off Steam. Hell, I've bought games for $5 on Steam that I've regretted wasting my money on. So yeah.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 08, 2010, 09:32:58 pm
It doesn't matter what sort of crime pirating is persecuted as, as long as we agree that it is a crime.We don't agree. I don't agree with copyright, IP, etc. That's the whole point.
But move on everyone, kthx. Or I might have to lock this for a day to let it cool down.
*holds the ruler like a mean teacher*
Post by: dragnar on March 08, 2010, 09:42:02 pm
So again i reiterate: publishers are what's wrong with modern games. ;)Precisely. I once read an article called "The Scratchware Manifesto". My favorite quote from it: "Death to the gaming industry. Long live games."
I don't agree with it completely, big gaming companies can make impressive graphics and massive worlds that indie developers can't match without insane dev times, but they have become flooded with bureaucracy and refuse to make anything truly new.
Biggest problem with modern games? Aging gamers. We grew up on shit games as kids, and now we're all jaded assholes who see the garbage of the past in a nostalgic light, and resent modern games for not triggering that too. Sure, there were occasionally gems back then, but overall the quality of games has increased, meaning there's less difference between great games and average games these days, because average is still pretty fucking good.I disagree. The average quality of games has improved drastically, but the number of outliers in either direction has gone down massively. Most games are good now, but very, very few are truly great. Fewer games stink because production prices are so ridiculous they can't afford to make experimental games. Thomas Edison found "a hundred ways not to make a lightbulb." The gaming industry can't afford those failures due to too much focus on making games flashy, and instead settles for mere torches.
We don't agree. I don't agree with copyright, IP, etc. That's the whole point.I don't agree with a good deal of it, but I think that the developers of a game do deserve some compensation for all the hard work that went into making it. The problem is all the limitations on the game's use copyright law includes.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 08, 2010, 10:08:19 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMuGnFdQ0s
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 08, 2010, 10:10:15 pm
I disagree. The average quality of games has improved drastically, but the number of outliers in either direction has gone down massively. Most games are good now, but very, very few are truly great. Fewer games stink because production prices are so ridiculous they can't afford to make experimental games. Thomas Edison found "a hundred ways not to make a lightbulb." The gaming industry can't afford those failures due to too much focus on making games flashy, and instead settles for mere torches.Well, besides the fact that most basic ideas have been done in one form or another so the only real difference at this point is implementation and details, I think there are a shitton of gameplay experiments. It's just that just about any gameplay you can imagine falls into a number of basic formulas, or is some combination of things that have already been done. If you refine that to gameplay that actually works, the number's even smaller.
Another reason for the perception is probably because to come up with something radically different you have to have to do something that has no (or only an obscure) technological precedent, like Portal. In that case, if something hasn't been done, it's probably because no one's figured out how to do it yet.
The only thing that actively supports the theorized outcome is that someone who's made a successful game is going to have an easier time getting backing to make more, and being human is probably going to recycle what they already did so they have less work to do and more money to spend on something other than reinventing the wheel. Like hookers and blow. :P
;)
Post by: Micro102 on March 08, 2010, 10:11:49 pm
Post by: Dakk on March 08, 2010, 10:17:05 pm
They should remake the old Nintendo games with the new graphics.
Ever heard of the Gamecube/Nintendo Wii?
Post by: Soulwynd on March 08, 2010, 10:33:50 pm
Post by: Sowelu on March 09, 2010, 12:22:05 am
One very important thing to consider about old console games vs. new console games: Japan used to be the primary market. Games were developed in Japan, and ported if they were successful and didn't suck. Why did the Japanese "Mario 2" stay in Japan, and why did Doki Doki Panic get renamed to US Mario 2? Because the original Mario 2 was barely a different game at all, and Doki Doki Panic was one of the best games in its genre at the time. Why was US "Final Fantasy 2" the Japanese "Final Fantasy 4"? Because FFJ2 and FFJ3 WERE NOT VERY GOOD GAMES. They weren't. Lots of bad Japanese games never saw our shores, and primarily-US companies couldn't make up the volume.
Post by: Micro102 on March 09, 2010, 10:29:47 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 09, 2010, 12:15:07 pm
Post by: Duke 2.0 on March 09, 2010, 01:41:38 pm
I will admit the bit at the end is long and kinda terrible. Still, it feels like a good Metroid game.
Post by: Dwarf on March 09, 2010, 02:20:48 pm
So, some console tards (sorry) played COD6 on a PC today.
They complained that the controls were like so hard and you have to press multiple buttons at the same time.
OH MY FUCKING GOD.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE AVERAGE INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL?!
Arghh, I mean, their heads would explode by merely looking at something even somewhat sophisticated like Civilization!
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 09, 2010, 02:23:47 pm
Give credit where it's due though, a game on Sega Genesis called Primal Rage had several special moves (it's a fighting game) that require more keys pressed simultaneously than a modern keyboard can handle.
Post by: Dwarf on March 09, 2010, 02:27:15 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 09, 2010, 02:31:46 pm
Post by: Micro102 on March 09, 2010, 03:05:44 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 09, 2010, 03:12:26 pm
Post by: fenrif on March 09, 2010, 03:14:28 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 09, 2010, 03:20:15 pm
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 09, 2010, 04:20:42 pm
Talking about the dumb generation...
So, some console tards (sorry) played COD6 on a PC today.
They complained that the controls were like so hard and you have to press multiple buttons at the same time.
OH MY FUCKING GOD.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE AVERAGE INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL?!
Arghh, I mean, their heads would explode by merely looking at something even somewhat sophisticated like Civilization!
What? Are you complaining that someone not used to PC controls was having a hard time using a keyboard? You know, some people just like to talk without actually thinking, so I think it's unfair that you'd take a small quote from someone, and then judge them based on it. I say dumb things all the time when I'm not thinking.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 09, 2010, 04:53:50 pm
It's true, though, going from a controller to a keyboard (or vice versa, or even going from one game to another. When I first played COD5 after months of Gears of War, I was throwing grenades around and sprinting at walls like a retard) can be tough. Being annoyed by the difference doesn't make them retarded simpletons that don't deserve to play paragons of depth and complexity like Civilization. You just come off as elitist.
Post by: darkflagrance on March 09, 2010, 05:11:54 pm
Talking about the dumb generation...
So, some console tards (sorry) played COD6 on a PC today.
They complained that the controls were like so hard and you have to press multiple buttons at the same time.
OH MY FUCKING GOD.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE AVERAGE INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL?!
Arghh, I mean, their heads would explode by merely looking at something even somewhat sophisticated like Civilization!
As a dedicated strategy gamer I would probably have trouble playing games requiring me to press multiple buttons at the same time too if I chose to play something as shallow as an FPS.
The really deep stuff in the vein of Civ conversely requires minimal keyboard-related motor skills and more strategic thinking skills. They are not comparable.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 09, 2010, 05:23:42 pm
Video games are a secret club and the unwashed masses are too stupid to share in our glory.
It's true, though, going from a controller to a keyboard (or vice versa, or even going from one game to another. When I first played COD5 after months of Gears of War, I was throwing grenades around and sprinting at walls like a retard) can be tough. Being annoyed by the difference doesn't make them retarded simpletons that don't deserve to play paragons of depth and complexity like Civilization. You just come off as elitist.
Of course, to you, so does anyone else who complains about oversimplification. Seriously Cthulhu, you're sounding like a broken record with your secret club crap. Do you really have nothing worthwhile or new to add to the discussion? Well no, obviously you do have something to add as you've just done, so why can't you add it without the pointless trolling?
Post by: dragnar on March 09, 2010, 05:46:41 pm
Edited to express his point better.Video games are a secret club and the unwashed masses are too stupid to share in our glory.[/sarcasm]
It's true, though, going from a controller to a keyboard (or vice versa, or even going from one game to another. When I first played COD5 after months of Gears of War, I was throwing grenades around and sprinting at walls like a retard) can be tough. Being annoyed by the difference doesn't make them retarded simpletons that don't deserve to play paragons of depth and complexity like Civilization. You just come off as elitist.
Of course, to you, so does anyone else who complains about oversimplification. Seriously Cthulhu, you're sounding like a broken record with your secret club crap. Do you really have nothing worthwhile or new to add to the discussion? Well no, obviously you do have something to add as you've just done, so why can't you add it without the pointless trolling?
Post by: Cthulhu on March 09, 2010, 06:04:25 pm
*Trolling: Disagreeing with the prevailing line of thought in a thread
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 09, 2010, 09:17:58 pm
Yep, and Episode 2 was clearly consolized.What. It was exactly the same as hl2 and ep1.
:|
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 09, 2010, 09:33:19 pm
POST REMOVED: I'm not going to retaliate, even though you too sound like a broken record. I know where this will lead because I've seen it before. It will lead to my being muted for three days for trolling*.
*Trolling: Disagreeing with the prevailing line of thought in a thread
Ok, maybe the definition of Trolling is a bit uncertain. Let's just say you're making comments solely for the purpose of pissing people off.
Yep, and Episode 2 was clearly consolized.What. It was exactly the same as hl2 and ep1.
:|
That is an entirely false statement. They're different games in the same series. Even if your intention was actually to say that EP2 is no more colsolized that HL2 or Ep1 there are several reasons why that's incorrect as well. Ep2 first of all had several area with console style ridiculous bloom where you couldn't see anything because it was glaring so much. They also color coded the enemies, giving combine with shotguns red markings for no apparent reason. The final battle was the biggest thing though with the magic compass. It was also supposed to have infantry but the consoles apparently couldn't handle that so they took them out of all versions.
And before anyone goes ballistic because they didn't read my previous statements I just said that EP2 is sort of consolized, not fully. I'm not saying it's trying to be a Halo clone or whatever psychotic ideas whatever fanatic who's reading this might come up with, it's just taking steps in the wrong direction.
Post by: Micro102 on March 09, 2010, 10:00:41 pm
I thought trolling with trying to gain attention by being annoying/stupid. Disagreeing with everyone is a mind set.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 01:58:27 am
I would like to see the source you got that from.
I thought trolling with trying to gain attention by being annoying/stupid. Disagreeing with everyone is a mind set.
Disagreeing is fine, but saying stuff like "gaming is a secret club" when he clearly doesn't believe that is just what you said trolling is.
Post by: Sowelu on March 10, 2010, 04:12:58 am
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 04:38:01 am
As much as I dislike consolized games, I should point out that the console-game market is...what...four, or was it five times bigger than the computer game market? Console games sell WAAAAY better than computer games.
Yep, because consoles are simpler. The main reason for the consoles' success is the main problem with them.
Post by: Sowelu on March 10, 2010, 04:44:17 am
It's sad, really, but what're you gonna do?
Post by: Siquo on March 10, 2010, 04:51:26 am
Making a new rule for myself: The more marketed a game is, the less I should play it. The problem is that that doesn't always hold true...
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 05:21:58 am
Okay, cool. But realize that we're all in a tiny, niche market, and nobody in their right minds would develop games for us for any reason except "I want to play them myself". And of course, the old yarn of "PC gamers are smarter, more successful, and more willing to spend lots of money" is an outright fabrication because...well, just look at the sales figures.
It's sad, really, but what're you gonna do?
Um, you do realize that what you've just implied is that anyone who does something that doesn't have a large potential profit return is suffering from some form of mental illness right?
Post by: Siquo on March 10, 2010, 05:38:43 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 10, 2010, 07:45:46 am
The main reason for the consoles' success as a gaming market is that for any given game on any given console, the potential market is the entire population owning that particular console, whereas for the PC, only the ones with a specific level of hardware and software can play it, and even then there are frequently bugs and problems that are impossible to test due to vast amounts of differences between systems. And DRM on top of that, of course. And that's not taking the "minor" things like MacOS and Linux into account.
The chief attraction of the accursed consoles is accessibility. Disregarding the multitude of various attachments every console sports, it's really hard to make a difficult-to-control game when the number of control elements on an average gamepad doesn't exceed the number of fingers on an average hand. There are of course PC games with gamepad support, but that's just that, "support", few are actually made with a gamepad as the only input device in mind.
Take IL-2, for example. The remake for the consoles is going to be more arcade-style than the PC predecessor, and I can see why. There's no space on any gamepad imaginable to stick separate buttons or controllers for thrust, roll/yaw/pitch, flaps, trimmers, separate engine start, landing gear, ejection, separate machinegun/cannon/bomb/missile triggers and various radio commands at the same time (I omitted a few, I think). Even the HOTAS systems I saw don't have the required amount of control elements for that, and you can't make the game require one to play it, so you have to simplify.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 10, 2010, 10:47:24 am
And no, putting the unspoken air that permeates this thread (That is, they're dumbing down games for the big stupid retard Philistines that can't possibly understand the complexity of the games I/we play) into words is not trolling. If it pisses you off, it's because you disagree. Of course, half the time on the internet that is the definition of trolling. I've seen people on this forum get accused of trolling for being the only person that disagrees on what a thread is saying.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 10, 2010, 11:51:22 am
Post by: Cthulhu on March 10, 2010, 11:58:31 am
Post by: moghopper on March 10, 2010, 11:58:50 am
Also fuel mixture, prop pitch, and all that crazy nonsense.
And no, putting the unspoken air that permeates this thread (That is, they're dumbing down games for the big stupid retard Philistines that can't possibly understand the complexity of the games I/we play) into words is not trolling. If it pisses you off, it's because you disagree. Of course, half the time on the internet that is the definition of trolling. I've seen people on this forum get accused of trolling for being the only person that disagrees on what a thread is saying.
You may be right, but I think the topic should be dropped. Otherwise this will just get ugly and someone will get muted. Can we please cut it out? For the sake of civility.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 10, 2010, 12:38:39 pm
I just turned off the super-simulator stuff, I don't want to have to go to flight school to learn to shoot Nazis.I find it rather fun sometimes, actually. Even if playing via keyboard. Oh, btw, forgot time compression controls. Those are a godsend on any long boring stretch when you let the autopilot fly. Sometimes I liked to turn off proper ballistics and transform all my weapons into laserguns. My favorite occupation in that mode was sniping engines off bombers from 4 kilometers with a Bf109's nose cannon.
Anyway.
I wonder what would happen if someone made an industry-quality game (say, GTA4-level) and just released it as donationware, like DF? Would the industry at least try to change then, seeing its success?
Post by: Cthulhu on March 10, 2010, 12:47:20 pm
Also, you're assuming this game would succeed. GTA 4's budget was 100 million dollars. That's in USD, not sunshine and rainbows. I suppose it's possible, but I can't see an industry-quality project surviving on donations alone.
Post by: Draco18s on March 10, 2010, 12:54:45 pm
I wonder what would happen if someone made an industry-quality game (say, GTA4-level) and just released it as donationware, like DF? Would the industry at least try to change then, seeing its success?
Unlikely. I mean, look at Linux: free, great support,* very stable. No market share.
*Note: great support and free support are generally mutually exclusive. You can either have linux for free or you can have support for free. But its still better than MS: you get neither for free (last time I had an issue that revolved around a MS product I needed to pay something like $235 just to talk to a tech; notably that same price tag is worth a year of support for Red Hat).
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 01:09:42 pm
"All generalizations are false, including this one" - I don't remember whose sig it is.
The main reason for the consoles' success as a gaming market is that for any given game on any given console, the potential market is the entire population owning that particular console, whereas for the PC, only the ones with a specific level of hardware and software can play it, and even then there are frequently bugs and problems that are impossible to test due to vast amounts of differences between systems. And DRM on top of that, of course. And that's not taking the "minor" things like MacOS and Linux into account.
The chief attraction of the accursed consoles is accessibility. Disregarding the multitude of various attachments every console sports, it's really hard to make a difficult-to-control game when the number of control elements on an average gamepad doesn't exceed the number of fingers on an average hand. There are of course PC games with gamepad support, but that's just that, "support", few are actually made with a gamepad as the only input device in mind.
Take IL-2, for example. The remake for the consoles is going to be more arcade-style than the PC predecessor, and I can see why. There's no space on any gamepad imaginable to stick separate buttons or controllers for thrust, roll/yaw/pitch, flaps, trimmers, separate engine start, landing gear, ejection, separate machinegun/cannon/bomb/missile triggers and various radio commands at the same time (I omitted a few, I think). Even the HOTAS systems I saw don't have the required amount of control elements for that, and you can't make the game require one to play it, so you have to simplify.
All that is just a more complex way of saying what I did.
Cthulhu, you're still just repeating the same drivel. Let me put it this way.
"Video games can only be made one way! The way that appeals to the largest possible market of consumers! If someone likes complex games they're stupid and Elitist! Elitist! ELITISSSSSST!!! Dirty stinking commie, nazi, homosexual, mutant, terrorist, hippie, liberal Elitistssssss!"
Do you see how stupid that sounds?
Post by: Zangi on March 10, 2010, 01:23:09 pm
I wonder what would happen if someone made an industry-quality game (say, GTA4-level) and just released it as donationware, like DF? Would the industry at least try to change then, seeing its success?
Unlikely. I mean, look at Linux: free, great support,* very stable. No market share.
*Note: great support and free support are generally mutually exclusive. You can either have linux for free or you can have support for free. But its still better than MS: you get neither for free (last time I had an issue that revolved around a MS product I needed to pay something like $235 just to talk to a tech; notably that same price tag is worth a year of support for Red Hat).
Well... if the graphics was made of pictures found on the internet or asci... it can be done. It'll just take time.
Oh damn... the M is calling me again... what does she want now?
Whats this? A just called too. Stop harassing me! I don't want to go out with you!
No, I do not want to see big American T... stop asking R.
Combat can be similar to roguelikes.
And hell, you can script events like chase scenes and ambushes too...
And voice? Well, you can bribe your buddies down at the local pub with a few beers... or just use text.
And so we have GTA4: The Roguelike
Post by: Cthulhu on March 10, 2010, 01:30:03 pm
You said Episode 2 was consolized (To indie gamers what "terrorist" is to Republicans) because the combine gave their close combat troops markings to designate them as such. I was dumbfounded when I saw you do that. More importantly, you bring this stuff up constantly, on every video game thread that could possibly warrant it.
Moreover, I never said anything resembling what you just said, even on a deliberately exaggerated basis. I play Dwarf Fortress too, remember? I like complex games, and I'm bothered by excessive streamlining (Automaps, minimal aim assist on controllers, and the like are not excessive. Quest-pointers in games like Oblivion, however, are). What bothers me even more is when people declare a blood vendetta against all things modern, and nitpick the most insane things as examples of game makers trying to sell to a larger market (Which is hardly a bad thing, and it's where the elitist vibe comes from)
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 10, 2010, 02:54:32 pm
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 10, 2010, 03:15:39 pm
Also, for the game industry to become something that produces things more experimental and doesn't need to risk fortunes to deviate from the norm is to become very consumer-based during production.
Now, what I mean by this is that things like demos need to become MUCH more common, and that they be made readily available to potential consumers as easily and cheaply as possible.
Now, what I fully mean is: when an idea is made, small prototypes and demos can be made, and these can be made available to the general public, and data can be collected by the bigwigs financing the production of these, and they can decide more reliably whether a certain idea is worthwhile to produce wholly. I think that if a system like that were set up, then more experimental and unique games could be produced more often.
Now, the way things are now, consumers are forced to either pirate, or if they want to vehemently stick to the law and buy games, then they have to rely on the few reviews that are online or the rare demos before shelling out ludicrous lumps of cash to buy a game, which I think is very harmful to the consumer side, and helps to rationalize pirating.
Post by: Sowelu on March 10, 2010, 03:21:36 pm
I wouldn't do all that much experimental stuff if I was a CEO/shareholder, just from a purely competitive point of view. I mean...So, PC gamers, right? They're always going to be on the lookout for something awesome, and when it comes along, they're not going to ignore it. So you don't really have to worry about reaching out to the community.
And hey, when you have a giant budget, you can take any cool concept you decide to do and really NAIL it. It's finding the concepts that's hard work. So why not wait for other, smaller companies to explore that new ground, and then pounce as soon as they seem to hit something that works? In the absence of something fresh and new, people aren't really going to stop spending money, so you're fine in the meantime. You're fighting for market share, after all, not for an expanded market. (Unless you come out with something like the Wii. That expanded the market enormously...but that's not really the kind of experimental that PC gamers go for, is it?)
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 03:53:50 pm
And you're not repeating the same drivel?
You said Episode 2 was consolized (To indie gamers what "terrorist" is to Republicans) because the combine gave their close combat troops markings to designate them as such. I was dumbfounded when I saw you do that. More importantly, you bring this stuff up constantly, on every video game thread that could possibly warrant it.
Moreover, I never said anything resembling what you just said, even on a deliberately exaggerated basis. I play Dwarf Fortress too, remember? I like complex games, and I'm bothered by excessive streamlining (Automaps, minimal aim assist on controllers, and the like are not excessive. Quest-pointers in games like Oblivion, however, are). What bothers me even more is when people declare a blood vendetta against all things modern, and nitpick the most insane things as examples of game makers trying to sell to a larger market (Which is hardly a bad thing, and it's where the elitist vibe comes from)
You're assuming that anyone who doesn't exactly like something you do is some sort of psycho who thinks video games are a secret club. You don't pay attention to what people are actually saying, only what your assumptions tell you based on some vague general impression. Then you repeat your secret club line.
Firstly, Ioric, why are you being so antagonistic to Cthulhu? He's being civil, and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to reciprocate that civility.
Also, for the game industry to become something that produces things more experimental and doesn't need to risk fortunes to deviate from the norm is to become very consumer-based during production.
Now, what I mean by this is that things like demos need to become MUCH more common, and that they be made readily available to potential consumers as easily and cheaply as possible.
Now, what I fully mean is: when an idea is made, small prototypes and demos can be made, and these can be made available to the general public, and data can be collected by the bigwigs financing the production of these, and they can decide more reliably whether a certain idea is worthwhile to produce wholly. I think that if a system like that were set up, then more experimental and unique games could be produced more often.
Now, the way things are now, consumers are forced to either pirate, or if they want to vehemently stick to the law and buy games, then they have to rely on the few reviews that are online or the rare demos before shelling out ludicrous lumps of cash to buy a game, which I think is very harmful to the consumer side, and helps to rationalize pirating.
I'm being no more antagonistic towards him than he is towards every single person who hasn't agreed with his general outlook and has been labeled (by him)as an elitist lunatic who thinks gaming is a "secret club" that only certain special people should be allowed to have access to. I was only trying to show him just how ridiculous that is by taking a similar stance for the opposite side.
A lot of what you're saying is a lot like how it used to be before it became an industry.
Post by: Virtz on March 10, 2010, 03:54:55 pm
Firstly, Ioric, why are you being so antagonistic to Cthulhu? He's being civil, and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to reciprocate that civility.Calling people elitists and then saying "if it pisses you off, it's because you disagree" is now civil, lol.
Post by: Aqizzar on March 10, 2010, 04:03:37 pm
Compared to Ioric repeating "you're not reading what I'm saying and spouting nonsense" with every post? Yeah, he is being civil.Firstly, Ioric, why are you being so antagonistic to Cthulhu? He's being civil, and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to reciprocate that civility.Calling people elitists and then saying "if it pisses you off, it's because you disagree" is now civil, lol.
A lot of what you're saying is a lot like how it used to be before it became an industry.
Newsflash buddy, it's been an "industry" since about 1982. The problem is your tastes refining down, and you're begrudging people who don't like the games you do because they move the market away from what you like. There was no big meeting at E3 one year to say "hey, from now on, we're only going to make games for stupid people". There have always been crap games, and the focus of game development as a whole has always been to approachability and appeal to a interest of some size, because making a product for a tiny audience is a good way to tank.
You want people to make good games that have no way of returning the cost of development? That's what "indie" gaming is. That's why you're here remember?
As long as I'm dropping in, I'd like to say that the "vote" itself is pretty indicative of the egotism in this thread. I voted for Load Times because loading pisses me off. It's also the only one of the "problems" listed that's even a definable issue, let alone a technical problem.
Post by: dragnar on March 10, 2010, 05:00:00 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 05:19:40 pm
Compared to Ioric repeating "you're not reading what I'm saying and spouting nonsense" with every post? Yeah, he is being civil.Firstly, Ioric, why are you being so antagonistic to Cthulhu? He's being civil, and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to reciprocate that civility.Calling people elitists and then saying "if it pisses you off, it's because you disagree" is now civil, lol.A lot of what you're saying is a lot like how it used to be before it became an industry.
Newsflash buddy, it's been an "industry" since about 1982. The problem is your tastes refining down, and you're begrudging people who don't like the games you do because they move the market away from what you like. There was no big meeting at E3 one year to say "hey, from now on, we're only going to make games for stupid people". There have always been crap games, and the focus of game development as a whole has always been to approachability and appeal to a interest of some size, because making a product for a tiny audience is a good way to tank.
You want people to make good games that have no way of returning the cost of development? That's what "indie" gaming is. That's why you're here remember?
As long as I'm dropping in, I'd like to say that the "vote" itself is pretty indicative of the egotism in this thread. I voted for Load Times because loading pisses me off. It's also the only one of the "problems" listed that's even a definable issue, let alone a technical problem.
Sure... Making pointless insulting sarcastic comments about everyone who doesn't share your views is a lot more polite than pointing out that someone is making pointless insulting sarcastic comments about everyone who disagrees with them. :P
And you, just like Cthulhu, are making up all sorts of crazy things you seem to think people who disagree with you believe. Now I think that a bunch of corporations got together at E3 to decide to screw me over? Cool, I can't wait for you to tell me what crazy conspiracy theory I believe next! ::)
Video game development has become increasingly more about making a product to sell rather than making games to be played. It wasn't like this as much before as it is now. It's not binary. There are multiple levels to this. It's not just last year things were perfect, and this year they suck. It's a progression. Games are becoming simpler and less creative. Like they're devolving back to an earlier state, but with shiny graphics. Why is that a good thing?
Post by: Sensei on March 10, 2010, 05:33:04 pm
I voted for Load Times because loading pisses me off. It's also the only one of the "problems" listed that's even a definable issue, let alone a technical problem.
That's kind of funny- I've always remembered long load times as a thing older games were prone to. To the most extreme, waiting five minutes after switching discs. What newer games are you having loading bothers with?
Post by: Aqizzar on March 10, 2010, 05:57:15 pm
I voted for Load Times because loading pisses me off. It's also the only one of the "problems" listed that's even a definable issue, let alone a technical problem.
That's kind of funny- I've always remembered long load times as a thing older games were prone to. To the most extreme, waiting five minutes after switching discs. What newer games are you having loading bothers with?
Console games are the problem here, but I don't blame developers so much for this. It's mostly just the limitations of laser-disc reading technology. We can fit more information on DVDs than ever on CDs sure, but actually reading that information hasn't gotten much faster. There are ways to get around this with fancy game design, and I'm not a fan of loading the textures while the game is in progress, but I'm no expert on the subject.
On PCs and the more expensive consoles (which more than ever are just gaming-dedicated PCs with proprietary hardware), loading times are gotten around with hard-installation. The problem there is the rapidly exploding content size and installation times. Medieval Total War for instance is 12 gigs, with another gig or two for each expansion, takes the better part of an afternoon to install (and obviously requires a DVD reader to do so), and for all that doesn't look much nicer than 3D RTSs ever have going back Warzone 2100.
Video game development has become increasingly more about making a product to sell rather than making games to be played. It wasn't like this as much before as it is now. It's not binary. There are multiple levels to this. It's not just last year things were perfect, and this year they suck. It's a progression. Games are becoming simpler and less creative. Like they're devolving back to an earlier state, but with shiny graphics. Why is that a good thing?
You know, you'd save yourself a lot of arguments if once, just once you actually pointed to some concrete examples. When exactly was this magical time when game companies, which have always been game companies and always been the prime producers of games, favor design elegance first and market appeal second? When was the big change over between gaming for gamers and gaming for tards? What games can you tell me of demonstrate a clear decline in gameplay quality overtime compared to production values, made by the same producers? What are your actual, definable metrics for complexity versus simplicity, or creativity versus the lack thereof?
I have no doubt you can do so. I have no doubt a case can be made. It's way you just argue on, endlessly repeating the exact same insults and falling-sky whinging about quality, without ever once actually explaining what it is you want, and what it is you're worried about. Just the same empty generalizations over and over.
Also, you'd do well to stop defending your radical insults and oversimplifications as "matching the tone" or whatever and then ignoring the same when it's sent to you.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 06:46:28 pm
If you want a good example of the process look at Bethesda. Specifically the elder scrolls series. Arena was fairly simple and primitive. Daggerfall improved upon everything, but because of it's ambitiousness wasn't very stable. Morrowind was simpler but more stable, and then Oblivion went all out with presentation and accessibility over depth, actually rewriting the lore into something more generic for the express purpose of making it more generic, and removing major features purely to cater to the console market.
C&C is another good example from what I've heard of the recent games, and it's not even just gameplay. I mean Red Alert 1 actually took itself seriously. Now look at Tanya the bleached blond bimbo.
Post by: Aqizzar on March 10, 2010, 07:16:02 pm
C&C is another good example from what I've heard of the recent games, and it's not even just gameplay. I mean Red Alert 1 actually took itself seriously. Now look at Tanya the bleached blond bimbo.
I don't know where you're getting that idea. The original C&C and Red Alert were action-movie all the way too, Tanya included. Only her hair color changed, and it all got a little more obvious, especially with that Commando game. But having played all the C&C's over time, I don't see them declining in complexity at all. I think they've stayed the same, or even got tighter and more rounded if anything. In the early games, infantry were all but useless and factory spam was the deciding factor. Turning infantry into squads instead of individual dudes was something I wished for while playing Red Alert, because it removed a lot of unnecessary micromanagement but still worked out the same in gameplay.
Where C&C has had problems, I believe, is going overboard on the lessons from Starcraft, like the RTS field as a whole has done. Partly it's the rock-paper-scissors unit relationships that all too often are blown out of proportion, although C&C has stayed varied enough in it's unit designs. The other is the ever increasing speed and Korean-reflexes needed to survive, especially in mutliplayer. But I think that's more than just an evolution of the market. When C&C began, computers just couldn't handle "fast" gameplay like that, and multiplayer barely existed, so the focus was on single-player experience out of necessity.
Daggerfall improved upon everything, but because of it's ambitiousness wasn't very stable. Morrowind was simpler but more stable,
I fail to see how Morrowind was in any way more simple than Daggerfall. It had everything Daggerfall had, and a lot more functionality. More spell making, more meaningful (if nowhere near enough) factions and quests, actual area and quest design instead of leaving everything to random generation. And lets not forget the best and most important part of Morrowind, the editor. I think that's a great sign of investing faith in your customers' use of your product.
Oblivion was a trainwreck, I won't dispute, and even Fallout 3 was a step backward from Morrowind, but for a different reason.
I'm surprised that the vote doesn't have an option for my real gripe with modern gaming - downloadable content, and the razor-and-blades model. I get and appreciate the theory, it's no different than expansion packs or even sequels. But the way it's gone from being a chance to expand on a successful product, to a way of optionally buying part of the same game, just pisses me off. Just look at Day One downloadables; clearly a completed product exists and is ready to ship, but you have to pay more to get all of it.
In a way, I'm proving the speciousness of this entire argument. That's the exact same business model that cars, appliances, homes, and God knows how many other industries have always operated on, to excellent business effect. I'm just pissed off that it's being applied to an industry that long spoiled me to getting a complete product options for one price at the door, because the infrastructure to run the videogaming business any other way didn't exist. It's not that there's really anything wrong with the DLC model (except the pricing can get pretty outrageous, and it encourages the "Day One Patch" problem of rushed releasing), I'm just upset about things changing without my say-so.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 10, 2010, 09:03:17 pm
On a practical example. You can say a game cost the publisher $10M to produce. Sold at $50 bucks and considering the reseller profit is probably around 10%, they need to sell at least 222k units to cover their expenses. The problem is, they want to stay in the market, so they actually need to make $20M in return at least, so they can invest in the next game. So they gotta sell 444k units for a $10M game. Anything beyond that is profit. If they don't cross the line between 222 and 444 units, they will probably be stuck with a lower budget game next time around. So, a $10M game that sold 0.5M copies made them $2.5M profit.
Now, the problem is, ubisoft, for example, goes and say a ps3/pc/xbox game nowadays costs them like $30M. At 50 bucks they really want to sell something around 1.5 million units to at least keep in business. Reason why they milk DLC, resale (with drm to make it difficult), blame pirates, yell at reviewers, buy said reviewers, and so on.
Next thing they do is blame pirates, as if they were hurting the market. But nope, the problem is, like someone pointed out, they want to wag the dog due to their production costs. They gotta re-realize that media dependent products were and still are pretty much donation-ware.
Mister Bard sets up a stage, costs him 30 millions and then he expects at least 1.5 million people to show up no matter what and when they don't, he blames everyone else but himself, saying his show is great and that the next one will bring even more people, being a greater show! He also gets mad when someone listens to a record of one of his songs, but wont go to his show. "It's a good song, but Mister Bard, you're not a great performer and I really can't go watch you right now. But you know, I might go to this show later when I can or watch your next one." Then he goes and calls his fan a flamboyant high-sea crew-member, losing a fan, instead of rethinking his methods and actually get people to come to his show.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 09:23:31 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on March 10, 2010, 09:29:33 pm
What I don't get is why otherwise seemingly intelligent consumers are so happy to be ripped off by gigantic corporations who make games they don't even like that much. It just goes against all reason I can think of. ... So what is it that makes people who seem to understand they're being ripped off so desperately defend the industry?
This is the kind of thing where I have to ask, what the Hell are you talking about? Because I really have no idea. A company makes a product and sells it for profit. People want that product and buy it. What about that seems strange to you?
Where are see people go out of there way to buy things they don't like? No, that doesn't make any sense, which is why it doesn't happen. Everyone buys stuff they regret later, because they didn't know what it would be like until they buy it. What are you even asking for here?
I know there's plenty of recrimination about insults, and really don't want to start them again, but it has to be said. That entire paragraph was you shouting, "People buy games I think are dumb and keep the companies that make games I don't like in business. Clearly they must be irrational idiots, because I think those games are dumb but they keep buying them. Does not compute!"
Software production comes with the same problem of any media dependent production. While you can easily put a price on something physical, pricing something that can be copied with little to no expense (ie, movies/music/software/comedy/etc/etc) is a bit more difficult. They are at whim to us but they don't really seem to realize it anymore.
You preface your explanation with an empty call to solidarity in piracy, then explain the logic of basic market principles making a rather obvious defense of anti-piracy measures. Good going. I really not getting how you can understand companies needing to make sales to stay in business, and then begrudge them for trying to make people not get their product for free. There's plenty of rational debate to be had over the efficacy and reasonableness of one method or another of ensuring companies get paid for their work, but you're approaching the question absolutely confident that piracy never equates lost sales, and that companies have no right to call it out or do anything about it.
Post by: narskie on March 10, 2010, 09:50:52 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 10, 2010, 10:22:38 pm
Post by: Aqizzar on March 10, 2010, 10:34:13 pm
As for the piracy thing and my "defense" thereof: Welcome to the real world, where businesses exist to make money selling a product, and will take whatever measures they think are effective to do so that the law allows. Sometimes they make bad decisions, sometimes they over- or under- react. Whaddaya know, they're run by humans. I'm not arguing in defense of anybody, I'm explain what things are and the way the situation works. There is an objective reality to how the gaming-piracy (and software piracy in general) works. So often, especially here, I see it described in a way that has very little to do with the real world, and the "solutions" proposed to the issue, when at all, are usually ridiculous.
I don't know why I subject myself to this, but I have an urgent need to set the facts straight and encourage, rudely if need be, rational observation and understanding of issues. And hey, I can be as wrong as anyone. But don't you dare try to conflate me with the nonspecific evils of your perceived adversaries.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 10, 2010, 10:41:25 pm
Yes, I did defend both sides on purpose. My conclusion is they need to treat pirates as potential customers, revise production costs, price/sale rates, and stop trying to wag the dog. I can't state piracy doesn't equal a lost sale because there simply isn't data on this on games. There is some data on it on music and they point towards piracy equals more sales. But, piracy itself can't be taken as the problem they are facing, simply due to the fact that you also have no data that says every pirated game would be bought if there wasn't the piracy option.
The fact is, they don't have a significant per-unit cost, unlike physical products, they have a development cost and then got to cover it with unit sale. From my perspective, what they are doing is going against acquiring more sales.
Oh, btw, Aqizzar, I'm not anti-industry. I just think they are heading the wrong way and doing the wrong things at the moment.
Post by: Aqizzar on March 10, 2010, 10:51:02 pm
The fact is, they don't have a significant per-unit cost, unlike physical products, they have a development cost and then got to cover it with unit sale. From my perspective, what they are doing is going against acquiring more sales.
Oh, btw, Aqizzar, I'm not anti-industry. I just think they are heading the wrong way and doing the wrong things at the moment.
Very well, I'll take your word for it. I don't understand your argument as much as I thought I did, so let me ask: When you say "what they are doing is going against acquiring more sales", do you mean anti-piracy altogether? Or just specific forms of anti-piracy that have gained popularity among major producers?
I'm as pissed off as anybody by things like unreliable mandatory validation servers, such the ubisoft thing. I don't really understand what "DRM" is or how it works. I suspect a lot of anti-anti-piracy people don't either, and just assume they know that DRM is something really bad.
Believe me, I long for the days when all you needed was to hold onto the CD case for a keycode. Or for that matter, the really old days of asking questions encoded in the manual or something. But obviously those don't work very well. I have thought about this before, and the only genuinely effective method of copy-protection with modern technology is off-site validation like the ubisoft thing, because you can do anything on your own computer without it ever being checked.
You may have noticed a trend there. Off-site validation is the only theoretically solid method of anti-piracy, and the only way to solidly guarantee online validation by the user is if they connect to the Internet, say for multiplayer. That I believe is one reason why more developers focus on multiplayer games over singleplayer attractions, because they're a lot easier to guarantee sales with.
Post by: Sensei on March 10, 2010, 11:28:36 pm
I fail to see how Morrowind was in any way more simple than Daggerfall. It had everything Daggerfall had, and a lot more functionality. More spell making, more meaningful (if nowhere near enough) factions and quests, actual area and quest design instead of leaving everything to random generation. And lets not forget the best and most important part of Morrowind, the editor.
Oblivion was a trainwreck, I won't dispute, and even Fallout 3 was a step backward from Morrowind, but for a different reason.
One of the biggest things cited for Elder Scrolls games becoming less complex is a decrease in the number of skills. But a lot of it really is a good thing- for example, compressing the Long Blade and Short Blade skills into a Blade skill in Oblivion. There were also some rat-useless skills in Daggerfall. My biggest irk in Oblivion (aside from the oft rhythm-based combat) was the lack of any climbing or flying skills. Meant a lot less freedom. But like I said- I sure don't miss Thaumaturgy.
Post by: dragnar on March 10, 2010, 11:33:29 pm
I'm as pissed off as anybody by things like unreliable mandatory validation servers, such the ubisoft thing. I don't really understand what "DRM" is or how it works. I suspect a lot of anti-anti-piracy people don't either, and just assume they know that DRM is something really bad.But... It is "something really bad". Being forced to maintain a continuous internet connection to play an offline game is ridiculous, however the system actually works. Has Ubisoft never heard of laptops? Or say, wanting to play games while on trips? Sure occasional validation is fine, but requiring continuous internet to play an offline game is just plain wrong.
I have thought about this before, and the only genuinely effective method of copy-protection with modern technology is off-site validation like the ubisoft thing, because you can do anything on your own computer without it ever being checked.It isn't effective. Hackers had the DRM cracked on Assassin's creed 2 before it even came out. The pirates can keep playing indefinitely, without an internet connection, while the genuinely paying custyomers can't play their games if Ubisoft's servers go down. DRM wouldn't be too bad if it worked, but it inconveniences the paying customers(to put it lightly) and doesn't effect the pirates at all. If anything it's a fun challenge for the hackers who create the cracks. If I ever buy an Ubisoft game again I will never install it, and instead get a cracked version so I son't have to deal with it. Lots of people won't bother buying it first, so if anything DRM increases piracy.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 10, 2010, 11:40:09 pm
What I don't get is why otherwise seemingly intelligent consumers are so happy to be ripped off by gigantic corporations who make games they don't even like that much. It just goes against all reason I can think of. It's certainly not motivated by self interest, they're actively helping companies rip them off. It's not motivated by any common morality. The corps don't give a crap about them and sometimes even their own employees. EA regularly fires entire dev teams before the game they're working on is even finished and buys up and destroys every smaller dev it can get it's hands on. Ubisoft has ridiculously invasive DRM and constantly disapoints, and Activision is run by an unrepentant asshole who constantly talks about how he's going to screw us over next. So what is it that makes people who seem to understand they're being ripped off so desperately defend the industry?
Because I go by a rational choice method of buying games. If a game looks like something I'd enjoy, I buy it. If I feel, through my nebulous and wholly subjective metrics, that I gained the game's price worth of fun, then I don't care if I was "screwed over" or "ripped off" because I gained more than I lost.
If I can tell I'm not going to enjoy a game enough to justify its price, or if problems with the game related to company shenanigans (Such as DLC, which should totally be on the poll) outweigh my enjoyment, I don't buy the game. It's a simple and elegant system.
Borderlands, for example. Borderlands had problems that made multiplayer virtually unplayable, and also had DLC already in the works on release. Despite that, I greatly enjoyed the time I spent playing it, and I know that I can come back to it any time for more. My enjoyment outweighed the cost and the company shenanigans, so I don't care if they pulled shenanigans in the first place.
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on March 10, 2010, 11:52:28 pm
You can follow whatever "morals" you want but all you are doing is throwing pearls before swine.
Post by: Grakelin on March 11, 2010, 12:02:53 am
I've spent a sizable portion of my lifetime income on video games I could have easily pirated. So it's a bit offensive to me that some companies choose to go in a direction where their mistrust for me is so great that it's easier for me to pirate.
Quite literally. If I want to Play AC2 without an internet connection, guess what the most viable way of doing so is? What a wonderfully poor marketing plan.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 11, 2010, 12:43:44 am
Then allow me to explain. I am not defending anyone. I am attacking the anti-industry arguments (specifically yours and Soulwynd's) as oversimplifications and specious quibbles of taste. Whether or not major game-making companies are trending toward (what you would call) simpler gameplay or predatory business practices is irrelevant to the hollow and egocentric way you define your criticisms. That is what I'm arguing about.
As for the piracy thing and my "defense" thereof: Welcome to the real world, where businesses exist to make money selling a product, and will take whatever measures they think are effective to do so that the law allows. Sometimes they make bad decisions, sometimes they over- or under- react. Whaddaya know, they're run by humans. I'm not arguing in defense of anybody, I'm explain what things are and the way the situation works. There is an objective reality to how the gaming-piracy (and software piracy in general) works. So often, especially here, I see it described in a way that has very little to do with the real world, and the "solutions" proposed to the issue, when at all, are usually ridiculous.
I don't know why I subject myself to this, but I have an urgent need to set the facts straight and encourage, rudely if need be, rational observation and understanding of issues. And hey, I can be as wrong as anyone. But don't you dare try to conflate me with the nonspecific evils of your perceived adversaries.
You aren't teaching me anything except that you refuse to even attempt to comprehend that someone might have the same knowledge as you but feel differently about it. I'm well aware of how the industry works. How the hell do you think I keep complaining about it? Get over yourself.
Post by: Soulwynd on March 11, 2010, 12:55:13 am
Very well, I'll take your word for it. I don't understand your argument as much as I thought I did, so let me ask: When you say "what they are doing is going against acquiring more sales", do you mean anti-piracy altogether? Or just specific forms of anti-piracy that have gained popularity among major producers?Well, I am against copyright/patent/IP altogether, for more reasons than I'm awake enough to explain. But if you manage to google-fu past the copyright crazed people, you can find some insightful text from economists and others on how detrimental copyright/etc is.
Anti-piracy altogether yes, for most media-based content. That's treating your legit consumer as a thief and it doesn't stop piracy at all. On games, you had the whole starforce fiasco a few years ago and today you have ubisoft's new drm. It doesn't work. At best, and this is a huge point, it makes resale more difficult. Someone posted an interesting interview with a game dev who went cursing and yelling at the guy about resale market and how he didn't get his cut from the resale. That's a stupid and unrealistic behavior and I'm starting to believe that DRM in general is more geared towards stopping resale, as it doesn't work at all against piracy. And nope, not even Assassins Creed 2 drm worked, it was cracked and pirated before release.
Instead of DRM, they could offer:
-Online features, such as ranking, new missions, new items, etc
-Better multiplayer (altho this doesn't really stop piracy, it sure helps with sales)
-Discounts for people who register their game online (Oh, so you own 2 of our games, here, 10% discount for the next time you buy one of our games!)
-Shareware/Trial instead of demos (2 days of full gametime so you can test the game instead of a biased demo. It's the reason a lot of people I know go for warez instead of demos to try a game)
-Provide more & better free modding tools (like the source engine)
There are more ideas that could work, but I'm too sleepy to think right now.
But here's what we get, things like:
-Only install 3 times, if things go wrong you gotta beg for your uninstall
-Can only register once and can't transfer account
-Can only play online for a single player game
-Strange things installing in your computer without your consent
They can fight piracy without being jackasses. Fight piracy by offering a better product.
As for DRM, there are several types. It escalated roughly in this order for pc games, both chronologically and in intensity:
-Codes from manuals (started with this bastard, pretty much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Set_Willy#Protecting_against_piracy))
-Product key
-CD must be in the drive to play
-Check for fake CDs
-Check for emulated drives
-Lock the dvd/cd drivers
-Install a virus that constantly checks to see if the game isn't cracked and the cd is in place (aka starforce)
-Number of installs checked next time you're online
-Need to be online to install
-Account based online distribution (steam, d2d, etc)
-Can only play single-player games online (latest)
Some were more effective than others at their time, but nowadays, none are effective. Even with online gameplay, people hack servers, create emulators for mmos, go on and even make a better game.
To throw in my two cents without participating too actively in this debateI've bought most of the x-com games more times than I can remember. I have 3 boxes of the first x-com. Two for pc, one for the psx. Plus I recently bought it from steam.
And note. I already had the game installed when I bought it. But that's just me being fanboish.
Post by: Grakelin on March 11, 2010, 01:05:21 am
If I want to go to the sarcastic route:
I agree with you, man. Civ IV was such a step down from the original Civ. And damn, Mount & Blade was all glitz and glamour. And Company of Heroes? Give me an RTS with some real strategy and complex tactics, like Age of Empires or something.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 11, 2010, 05:37:45 am
Oblivion was a trainwreck, I won't dispute, and even Fallout 3 was a step backward from Morrowind, but for a different reason.Fallout 3 was a good FPS with RPG elements thrown in. Morrowind was a good RPG with FPS elements thrown in. Oblivion did neither very well. Oblivion was a good game, just not when compared to Morrowind. Both Fallout 3 and Morrowind were great games, but they're so different it doesn't make sense to compare the two.
One of the biggest things cited for Elder Scrolls games becoming less complex is a decrease in the number of skills. But a lot of it really is a good thing- for example, compressing the Long Blade and Short Blade skills into a Blade skill in Oblivion. There were also some rat-useless skills in Daggerfall. My biggest irk in Oblivion (aside from the oft rhythm-based combat) was the lack of any climbing or flying skills. Meant a lot less freedom. But like I said- I sure don't miss Thaumaturgy.YES, wielding a claymore is identical to wielding a dagger! Clearly if you can do one you can do both! That scrawny knife fighter should be able to swing the giant fucking sword that's longer than he is tall perfectly! And who ever heard of a spear anyways?
Daggerfall, however, was a buggy clusterfuck of bad design. Though, say, climbing would have been an interesting feature in Morrowind, the linguistic skills made shit for sense, as did most of the character creation options
You can thank the 360 for the lack of flying though, since it couldn't handle open cities. >:O
Post by: Dwarf on March 11, 2010, 06:00:52 am
Games had, have and will always have some kind of Complexity/Playability conflict.
Although I'm on the far complexity side (Hence, DF and similar games), some will not even dream about touching something like Civ (moderately complex) and will happily carry on playing what are arcade games with nice graphics.
I tolerate that but it's something I will never understand.
Post by: Nivim on March 11, 2010, 06:38:21 am
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on March 11, 2010, 06:47:40 am
Oh well...The only time complexity conflicts with playability is when it's poorly thought out complexity. Mostly because the more complex you make something, the harder it is to balance it right so it's not just a random clusterfuck (see: Daggerfall). Dorf Fort is actually pretty good about that; it's complex, but most of that just kind of deals with itself, you do a handful of things and it plays itself, more or less. Its inaccessibility comes from the idiosyncratic ASCII/static tiles, lack of in game instruction, and relative unintuitiveness of controls. Even its interface is very efficient once you know what to do with it.
Games had, have and will always have some kind of Complexity/Playability conflict.
Although I'm on the far complexity side (Hence, DF and similar games), some will not even dream about touching something like Civ (moderately complex) and will happily carry on playing what are arcade games with nice graphics.
I tolerate that but it's something I will never understand.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 11, 2010, 08:43:06 am
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 11, 2010, 09:13:53 am
Post by: Maggarg - Eater of chicke on March 11, 2010, 09:37:45 am
Post by: Cthulhu on March 11, 2010, 10:08:32 am
Alright, alot of information has gone up that I can't really comment on, but I have a question to Aqizzar: Earlier you mentioned something called "Razor-and-blade" selling or something or other. Can you explain what that is to me?
Sell them a razor for cheap, milk them on the disposable blades they have to buy every few weeks.
Post by: Aqizzar on March 11, 2010, 10:16:03 am
Alright, alot of information has gone up that I can't really comment on, but I have a question to Aqizzar: Earlier you mentioned something called "Razor-and-blade" selling or something or other. Can you explain what that is to me?
It's not perfectly applicable really, but I was referring to an old marketing concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebie_marketing), where you try to trick the consumer into coming back and buying something over and over, making money on what's really a minor part of the product. The name comes from the original disposable-blade razor, where you got the actual razor frame cheap, but then got gouged on the blades for it, to make an easy pun.
I see the same kind of model running through the Downloadable Content system like wildfire, especially buyable content made available the same day as the gamebox itself. $5 or less for extra Dragon Age quests, or car skins, song packs, or horse armor, or whatever, doesn't seem like much at any one time, but if you parse it out and get addicted to buying things you can wind up paying twice as much for what would have been one complete purchase not ten years ago.
It's basically the application of the Korean "a la carte" MMO subscription model. Like eXteel or Guild Wars, you get the actual game for a flat fee, if not free, but you have to pay a little bit here and a little bit there for stuff that any rational person in days before high-bandwidth connections would have assumed an inherent part of the game you shouldn't have to buy separately at extra cost. The pricing, availability, and in some cases perceived necessity of extra buying features (I'm looking at you Star Trek Online delux editions) is observably growing. I'm increasingly wary of games that have the same relative amount of content as other games, but ship as essentially bare-bones shells and then charge you extra to own what's really the complete product you should have gotten up front for the original cost or at worst a bundled expansion pack, like it was in the good old 1990s.
Objectively, I don't begrudge anyone trying to make a buck, including video game producers. They've just gotten considerably more brazen and shameless about trying to nickle-and-dime the customer for all you're worth, since the bandwidth and Internet infrastructure now exists to streamline the process.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 11, 2010, 10:19:47 am
Post by: tylor on March 11, 2010, 10:27:18 am
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 11, 2010, 02:13:32 pm
DaggerFall.
Dwarf Fortress.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 11, 2010, 03:35:14 pm
My instinct is to dislike it because it's just another form on control, but it could actually turn out to be harmless to those who don't use it.
Post by: Sensei on March 11, 2010, 03:41:52 pm
Post by: Draco18s on March 11, 2010, 03:54:08 pm
Wait... I thought the entire point of that was that servers are doing the processing, so you can play games your computer normally couldn't run?
That's what they want you to think. In reality you're playing games that you bought, but don't actually own, because they're running somewhere else.
All you did was pay money to have the privilege of playing the game, sorta like pay-per-view movies: you never actually own the film itself.
They are, however, 100% pirate proof*
*Assuming their system isn't compromised in such a way that it is possible to get free games and without paying the monthly fee.
Post by: Huesoo on March 11, 2010, 04:43:08 pm
Post by: quinnr on March 11, 2010, 04:58:56 pm
awesome. Made of awesome!You could use that sweet, old fashioned Irony Mark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark).
Or a new-fangled SarcMark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SarcMark).
Wait, I can't find it on my keyboard.
Post by: Dwarf on March 11, 2010, 05:01:37 pm
awesome. Made of awesome!You could use that sweet, old fashioned Irony Mark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark).
Or a new-fangled SarcMark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SarcMark).
Wait, I can't find it on my keyboard.
You need to buy the SarcMark.
You heard me right.
For money.
Post by: Sensei on March 11, 2010, 05:41:20 pm
You need to buy the SarcMark.
You heard me right.
For money.
Lulzy. I tried to think of a few things to say, but concluded that this is so stupid it is beyond words.
Post by: JoshuaFH on March 11, 2010, 05:54:39 pm
You need to buy the SarcMark.
You heard me right.
For money.
Lulzy. I tried to think of a few things to say, but concluded that this is so stupid it is beyond words.
I think this just means it's the perfect gift.
Post by: Sensei on March 11, 2010, 06:07:38 pm
Post by: narskie on March 11, 2010, 06:18:55 pm
SarcMark pirate! From now on fonts will only be available online, even if you're only writing notes to yourself.
Post by: dragnar on March 11, 2010, 07:15:13 pm
How the heck does anyone think they can sell a punctuation mark?!
Post by: Draco18s on March 11, 2010, 07:34:51 pm
awesome. Made of awesome!You could use that sweet, old fashioned Irony Mark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_mark).
Or a new-fangled SarcMark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SarcMark).
Wait, I can't find it on my keyboard.
You need to buy the SarcMark.
You heard me right.
For money.
Actually...you just buy the hotkey...and probably a little jpg that that hotkey pastes into whatever your editing.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 11, 2010, 07:41:23 pm
Post by: darkflagrance on March 11, 2010, 07:43:40 pm
Post by: Grakelin on March 11, 2010, 07:54:38 pm
Post by: Siquo on March 12, 2010, 06:01:57 am
Post by: moghopper on March 12, 2010, 08:30:08 am
Post by: Sowelu on March 12, 2010, 10:43:51 am
Are they allowed to forward it?
Can they copy/paste something containing the sarcmark?
Can they copy/paste only the sarcmark?
Post by: The Architect on March 12, 2010, 10:53:02 am
If it's intended to be used as punctuation, it's silly to try to control it with a copyright. "NO! NO PERIODS FOR YOU! YOU HAVE NOT PAID FOR YOUR PERIODS!" But, I wanted to quote this guy and I'm tired of elipses... "PAY ME NOW. THEN you can have your periods."
Post by: Draco18s on March 12, 2010, 10:53:39 am
Is someone allowed to reply+quote an email containing the sarcmark?
Are they allowed to forward it?
Can they copy/paste something containing the sarcmark?
Can they copy/paste only the sarcmark?
I don't know. I've never seen it in use and didn't pay for it.
Post by: The Architect on March 13, 2010, 12:19:06 am
Post by: quinnr on March 13, 2010, 12:30:29 am
http://02bd05c.netsolhost.com/SarcMark/GiveAway/giveawayStart.asp
::) ::) ::)
Wow, both computers need the (will be) $2 software to even see it. And it doesn't work on facebook.
The graphical one only works in a few programs. This software is crap.
Post by: The Architect on March 13, 2010, 12:38:50 am
Get Microsoft (and of perhaps Apple) to buy into it and give you a tiny bit of royalty forever when they incorporate it into their software in every operating system, or go find some other way to make money. That's the business advice I would give these people. Of course the first thing you need once this is implemented is to find a way to either distinguish between nice sarcasm and not nice sarcasm, or to decide which one this symbolizes. Does it apply to tongue-in-cheek statements? etc.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 13, 2010, 01:14:54 am
Post by: Draco18s on March 13, 2010, 12:11:39 pm
I like how they say you'll always be clearly understood. In reality, no one will have any idea what that goofy swirl is on the end of your sentences. They'll probably think you're an idiot.
No, see, anyone who can see it knows what it is. :D
Post by: Grakelin on March 13, 2010, 04:12:18 pm
Post by: cowofdoom78963 on March 13, 2010, 04:20:07 pm
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 13, 2010, 04:55:03 pm
Post by: sproingie on March 13, 2010, 06:50:41 pm
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on March 13, 2010, 06:54:21 pm
I was pretty jazzed about OnLive when they demoed Crysis on it. But it looks like the video quality just isn't all that hot after all, the lag problems are pretty much what you expect with FPS's, and then on top of all that, it looks like they expect you to actually purchase the title at retail price AND pay a monthly fee for the privilege of playing it over OnLive. Total deal-breaker. I'll stick with my PC and console.
So basically they sell you single games and then make you pay a monthly fee to play them? Holy generic religious type figure I hope this fails horribly.
Post by: 3 on March 13, 2010, 07:02:17 pm
Post by: Zangi on March 14, 2010, 03:46:49 pm
I also found it amusing that despite their odd adapter/router-box-thing you supposedly use to use OnLive on TVs and such is "extremely simple/costs virtually nothing and as such we can basically give it away", rumours abound that it'll cost extra in itself, so if that's the case you're bascially paying for a relatively cheap console, a potentially highly expensive online service, and the games themselves.
Its also like the recent DRM hoo-haa... Constant internet connection needed!
Publishers will eat this up!
Post by: narskie on March 15, 2010, 12:24:16 am
But taking something that ought to be public use, whether its punctuation, and idea, a gene or economic infrastructure and claiming it's yours or the corporation's and charging others to use it is theft.
Post by: darkflagrance on March 15, 2010, 05:59:28 am
But taking something that ought to be public use, whether its punctuation, and idea, a gene or economic infrastructure and claiming it's yours or the corporation's and charging others to use it is theft.
That's what the Native Americans used to think about land. It's a shame pure greed and government-backed coercion win every time. But is the world better or worse off for it?
Post by: Sowelu on March 15, 2010, 06:21:33 am
Free for a limited time!!!
http://02bd05c.netsolhost.com/SarcMark/GiveAway/giveawayStart.asp
::) ::) ::)
Wow, both computers need the (will be) $2 software to even see it. And it doesn't work on facebook.
The graphical one only works in a few programs. This software is crap.
Uh, it sounds like (I'm not downloading it) they just put it in your local Unicode page (Unicode has some pages reserved for local stuff, like, special symbols you use in your company or whatever, this is exactly what it's made for). Any program that supports Unicode will support their SarcMark stuff, as long as both users have it.
...Or hey, in mail programs, they probably have a way to send a font along with your message. I think that's standardized. If they just make a small font that just contains the SarcMark, then you can type your whole message in something normal, and just press their special key to paste in the SarcMark in the special magic font and it'll work over email regardless of if they have the local unicode page installed or not.
Of COURSE it's not going to be supported on Facebook, or any other website that doesn't support Unicode.
A͢n̷d̴ ̷w̧h͟o͏ ̵su͠p͞p̀o͜rts͢ Un͞įcode̴ t͟o ̶e͢nter ͟t̛ext ͝ơn̛ ͏an̶ on̶li͏ne̕ ̸foru̡m̷ ̢th̡es͏e̡ d̛ąy͜s͘ a͘n̨ywa͠y? ̶ F͝u͢l̡l ̶unic̴od̵e ͡i̡s ͏just ̨ASKI̴N͢G ͏f͟or s̵ome tw̧it́ ̵to͏ come a͞long ̵wit͝h a͝ ̢p͜a̵gef̡u̷l o͏f̷ ͠ZA͡LG̀O͡.
ANY program that has any support for embedded images (and there's a very nice standard for that) will support embedding of images, naturally. And having a macro to paste an image in there is a pretty smart way to implement it.
In short, if your corporation had some symbol that became important to use in everyday conversation and business (like, say, you were some music rag talking about the artist formally known as Prince), this is a great way to implement it and I think they did a good job. The software is almost assuredly NOT crap. The whole concept of trying to make money off of this, however, is pants-on-head retarded.
PS: Z̵̟̫̲̰̲͔͙͖̗̯͔̩̘̱͍̻̞̎ͤ̑͂ͪͮ́ͤ͋ͭ̌ͦ̎̆̿͌̑͢ͅA̶̛̛̰̹͉̠̰̳̱͓͆ͯ͗̆̑͂ͦ̕L̢̍ͦ̎̿ͮ̆̍̇̿̽̅͠͏̩̖͚͍͚̥̯̦̥̪̱̺̩͖͘G̱̻̙̗̪̥͆̄ͦͬͦͬ̚͝Ơ̸̖̼̣̩̯͔̮̭͍̙̪̲͖̗̯̝̠̓ͣͬ͌͠ ̷͓̝̪̭ͦͧͬ͆ͦ̉͢Z̴̠̗͓̼̟͈̜̟̗͎̹̟̫ͨ̅̉͌͂͟͟͝ͅͅA̴ͤ̓̉̾̉̂͒̎̉͗ͭ͂̀̐ͬ͡҉̘͈̥͇̹͉͚͉̩͎̠̖̼̗̝̤̝̞̰̕Ľ̶̨͑ͬ̇̅͐̂́̂ͣ̒ͥͩ̍̅͋͌̌̕͏̧̹̜̘̣̬G͙͕̮̹͇͎̦͈̟̝̱̝̺͍̰͚̀̑ͭ̓̈ͪ̑̑̆̂̒̑́̚̕͘͡O̶͙̦̳̮̯̙͑ͪ̿ͧ̇̔̃̄͂ͣ̕̕ ̸̵̦̮̻̣̲͖͇̘̗ͯͥ͂̄͗̌̂́͌ͦͥ̎͞Z̏̇͆̈ͧ̎ͮ͗̐҉̷̶͇̹̤̗͙͈̣̠͉̼͎͎̝̰̜͉͓͢Ă̢͚̞̣̪͓͖͚̟̥͙̫̪̪̙͚̳̖̪ͬ͋̾̐ͩ́̇̊ͪ̚͘ͅL̸̢͐̾̌ͤ̅ͦ̑̐͝҉̨̞͙̞͈̺͎̪̳G̴̷̤̰̜̣̯̲̝̱͆͊̒̏ͤͯ̎ͭ̑̄̋̔͗̈́̐͆͋̕͞O̶̿̽ͧͩ̀͑͐̑̐̋̔̂͡҉̡̼͔̘̯̻̟̖͚͓͓̮̯̦̕ ̡̡̰̬̪̪̳͇̖̙̣̯̹͔̖̜̏͋̍̑ͮ͋̅́̀͞͞ͅZ͒͂ͭͮA̟͎͓̥͕̞̝̬͕̩̺̰̳̺̹̟ͦ͋ͨ̌ͭ͋̎ͫ̀͐̑̿ͩ̂̀͘L̴̵̡̧͓̩̠̹̦̤̮͙̠ͤ̍͒̚G̸̟͔̯̠ͩ̇̿̆ͦ̏ͬ̂͗̀͝Ǫ̛͋̐́̍̽̒ͨͪ͏͈̤̮̻̥̻̥͔͉̟̣ ͮͦ̾̉̇́̚͡͞͏̳̣̪̩̪̗̲̺̻̼͈̫̗ͅZ̵̯͍̬̖̙̝̲̹̓̐͌ͤ̾̃͐̂ͣͨ̇ͫͯ̚̚͟Ą̵̶̴̬̺̬̳͕̻̘̐͑̌ͩͥ̇̇̎͋̈ͭ͌̌ͦ̇̇ͬͣ̎͘ͅL̬̱̥͓͚̺̩̮̖̭̖̼͕ͨ̅͑ͥ̂ͬ̃̑ͧ̔́͞͠G̨̪̦̻̞͖̺̰̟̲͍̩̬̳͎̤̟ͮ́ͤ̌͂͌͑̌̒ͥO͎̪̯̺͇̲͎̝͕̪̖͌͆̌̈ͩ̐̀̕͞ͅ
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 15, 2010, 06:45:40 am
๒̷̪͈̹̭̫͔̟̟̲̀̆̐͡l̏̍̎̽̄́̆͗͟҉̤͓͎̝̱̻͖͔͖๏̋̓̾ͯ͏̛͓̞̝๏͓͚̫̗͓͚̝ͩ́ͫ̐ͣ̔͐ͩ͝ ๔̛̤̣̮̟̰̇̓ͅ ͙͆ͥͥ̀͛ͧ͡Ŧ̵̧͇̮̺͍ͩ͛̇ͫͭ̍̀̕ͅ๏͓͓̫͐̅̊̑ͤг̛̺͓̟͇̔̓̈́̅̈̓̂͐ ̡͉̙͖͙̲̳̽̇͒͒͡ṭ̫̜ͮ̊̾͠ђ̒ͭ̈́ͫ̈́͋͏̷̛͍̜є̟̤̜̭̜ͤ͑͛ͫ̀ ̴̪͇̱̜̤̥̹̖͊͋̄̈́̎̎ͣ̃͡๒̻̗͈͓͓̦͓ͤͧ̍ͫ͡l̟͍͔̺͎̱̠̻̓ͣ̇̋́͜๏͖̼͇̠͇̦̆̆๏̵̗̻̮ͦ͐̈́ ๔̗̩͔̻̥̃̽̾̃̈́ͤͦ̑͘ ̸̬̰̒ﻮͧ̈̀̏̑ͤ͌̍͏͓̜̩̥̪͔๏͉̤̘̜̲̥ͥ̇̑๔̝̃̈́̅͌ͨ̂̋ͯ!̧̹̟̤͆͟
Post by: Nivim on March 15, 2010, 08:59:08 am
Post by: Zangi on March 15, 2010, 10:25:25 am
Heh. I've always been curious about this thing. Now I know its name!Well... its useful if you want to be in the special club..... 90% of the symbols are errored out and the rest... I don't even know...
๒̷̪͈̹̭̫͔̟̟̲̀̆̐͡l̏̍̎̽̄́̆͗͟҉̤͓͎̝̱̻͖͔͖๏̋̓̾ͯ͏̛͓̞̝๏͓͚̫̗͓͚̝ͩ́ͫ̐ͣ̔͐ͩ͝ ๔̛̤̣̮̟̰̇̓ͅ ͙͆ͥͥ̀͛ͧ͡Ŧ̵̧͇̮̺͍ͩ͛̇ͫͭ̍̀̕ͅ๏͓͓̫͐̅̊̑ͤг̛̺͓̟͇̔̓̈́̅̈̓̂͐ ̡͉̙͖͙̲̳̽̇͒͒͡ṭ̫̜ͮ̊̾͠ђ̒ͭ̈́ͫ̈́͋͏̷̛͍̜є̟̤̜̭̜ͤ͑͛ͫ̀ ̴̪͇̱̜̤̥̹̖͊͋̄̈́̎̎ͣ̃͡๒̻̗͈͓͓̦͓ͤͧ̍ͫ͡l̟͍͔̺͎̱̠̻̓ͣ̇̋́͜๏͖̼͇̠͇̦̆̆๏̵̗̻̮ͦ͐̈́ ๔̗̩͔̻̥̃̽̾̃̈́ͤͦ̑͘ ̸̬̰̒ﻮͧ̈̀̏̑ͤ͌̍͏͓̜̩̥̪͔๏͉̤̘̜̲̥ͥ̇̑๔̝̃̈́̅͌ͨ̂̋ͯ!̧̹̟̤͆͟
Post by: dragnar on March 15, 2010, 10:48:19 am
PS: Z̵̟̫̲̰̲͔͙͖̗̯͔̩̘̱͍̻̞̎ͤ̑͂ͪͮ́ͤ͋ͭ̌ͦ̎̆̿͌̑͢ͅA̶̛̛̰̹͉̠̰̳̱͓͆ͯ͗̆̑͂ͦ̕L̢̍ͦ̎̿ͮ̆̍̇̿̽̅͠͏̩̖͚͍͚̥̯̦̥̪̱̺̩͖͘G̱̻̙̗̪̥͆̄ͦͬͦͬ̚͝Ơ̸̖̼̣̩̯͔̮̭͍̙̪̲͖̗̯̝̠̓ͣͬ͌͠ ̷͓̝̪̭ͦͧͬ͆ͦ̉͢Z̴̠̗͓̼̟͈̜̟̗͎̹̟̫ͨ̅̉͌͂͟͟͝ͅͅA̴ͤ̓̉̾̉̂͒̎̉͗ͭ͂̀̐ͬ͡҉̘͈̥͇̹͉͚͉̩͎̠̖̼̗̝̤̝̞̰̕Ľ̶̨͑ͬ̇̅͐̂́̂ͣ̒ͥͩ̍̅͋͌̌̕͏̧̹̜̘̣̬G͙͕̮̹͇͎̦͈̟̝̱̝̺͍̰͚̀̑ͭ̓̈ͪ̑̑̆̂̒̑́̚̕͘͡O̶͙̦̳̮̯̙͑ͪ̿ͧ̇̔̃̄͂ͣ̕̕ ̸̵̦̮̻̣̲͖͇̘̗ͯͥ͂̄͗̌̂́͌ͦͥ̎͞Z̏̇͆̈ͧ̎ͮ͗̐҉̷̶͇̹̤̗͙͈̣̠͉̼͎͎̝̰̜͉͓͢Ă̢͚̞̣̪͓͖͚̟̥͙̫̪̪̙͚̳̖̪ͬ͋̾̐ͩ́̇̊ͪ̚͘ͅL̸̢͐̾̌ͤ̅ͦ̑̐͝҉̨̞͙̞͈̺͎̪̳G̴̷̤̰̜̣̯̲̝̱͆͊̒̏ͤͯ̎ͭ̑̄̋̔͗̈́̐͆͋̕͞O̶̿̽ͧͩ̀͑͐̑̐̋̔̂͡҉̡̼͔̘̯̻̟̖͚͓͓̮̯̦̕ ̡̡̰̬̪̪̳͇̖̙̣̯̹͔̖̜̏͋̍̑ͮ͋̅́̀͞͞ͅZ͒͂ͭͮA̟͎͓̥͕̞̝̬͕̩̺̰̳̺̹̟ͦ͋ͨ̌ͭ͋̎ͫ̀͐̑̿ͩ̂̀͘L̴̵̡̧͓̩̠̹̦̤̮͙̠ͤ̍͒̚G̸̟͔̯̠ͩ̇̿̆ͦ̏ͬ̂͗̀͝Ǫ̛͋̐́̍̽̒ͨͪ͏͈̤̮̻̥̻̥͔͉̟̣ ͮͦ̾̉̇́̚͡͞͏̳̣̪̩̪̗̲̺̻̼͈̫̗ͅZ̵̯͍̬̖̙̝̲̹̓̐͌ͤ̾̃͐̂ͣͨ̇ͫͯ̚̚͟Ą̵̶̴̬̺̬̳͕̻̘̐͑̌ͩͥ̇̇̎͋̈ͭ͌̌ͦ̇̇ͬͣ̎͘ͅL̬̱̥͓͚̺̩̮̖̭̖̼͕ͨ̅͑ͥ̂ͬ̃̑ͧ̔́͞͠G̨̪̦̻̞͖̺̰̟̲͍̩̬̳͎̤̟ͮ́ͤ̌͂͌͑̌̒ͥO͎̪̯̺͇̲͎̝͕̪̖͌͆̌̈ͩ̐̀̕͞ͅ
I demand to know how this was written! No, wait, I figured it out. That is one weird font...
Post by: Draco18s on March 15, 2010, 11:07:15 am
PS: Z̵̟̫̲̰̲͔͙͖̗̯͔̩̘̱͍̻̞̎ͤ̑͂ͪͮ́ͤ͋ͭ̌ͦ̎̆̿͌̑͢ͅA̶̛̛̰̹͉̠̰̳̱͓͆ͯ͗̆̑͂ͦ̕L̢̍ͦ̎̿ͮ̆̍̇̿̽̅͠͏̩̖͚͍͚̥̯̦̥̪̱̺̩͖͘G̱̻̙̗̪̥͆̄ͦͬͦͬ̚͝Ơ̸̖̼̣̩̯͔̮̭͍̙̪̲͖̗̯̝̠̓ͣͬ͌͠ ̷͓̝̪̭ͦͧͬ͆ͦ̉͢Z̴̠̗͓̼̟͈̜̟̗͎̹̟̫ͨ̅̉͌͂͟͟͝ͅͅA̴ͤ̓̉̾̉̂͒̎̉͗ͭ͂̀̐ͬ͡҉̘͈̥͇̹͉͚͉̩͎̠̖̼̗̝̤̝̞̰̕Ľ̶̨͑ͬ̇̅͐̂́̂ͣ̒ͥͩ̍̅͋͌̌̕͏̧̹̜̘̣̬G͙͕̮̹͇͎̦͈̟̝̱̝̺͍̰͚̀̑ͭ̓̈ͪ̑̑̆̂̒̑́̚̕͘͡O̶͙̦̳̮̯̙͑ͪ̿ͧ̇̔̃̄͂ͣ̕̕ ̸̵̦̮̻̣̲͖͇̘̗ͯͥ͂̄͗̌̂́͌ͦͥ̎͞Z̏̇͆̈ͧ̎ͮ͗̐҉̷̶͇̹̤̗͙͈̣̠͉̼͎͎̝̰̜͉͓͢Ă̢͚̞̣̪͓͖͚̟̥͙̫̪̪̙͚̳̖̪ͬ͋̾̐ͩ́̇̊ͪ̚͘ͅL̸̢͐̾̌ͤ̅ͦ̑̐͝҉̨̞͙̞͈̺͎̪̳G̴̷̤̰̜̣̯̲̝̱͆͊̒̏ͤͯ̎ͭ̑̄̋̔͗̈́̐͆͋̕͞O̶̿̽ͧͩ̀͑͐̑̐̋̔̂͡҉̡̼͔̘̯̻̟̖͚͓͓̮̯̦̕ ̡̡̰̬̪̪̳͇̖̙̣̯̹͔̖̜̏͋̍̑ͮ͋̅́̀͞͞ͅZ͒͂ͭͮA̟͎͓̥͕̞̝̬͕̩̺̰̳̺̹̟ͦ͋ͨ̌ͭ͋̎ͫ̀͐̑̿ͩ̂̀͘L̴̵̡̧͓̩̠̹̦̤̮͙̠ͤ̍͒̚G̸̟͔̯̠ͩ̇̿̆ͦ̏ͬ̂͗̀͝Ǫ̛͋̐́̍̽̒ͨͪ͏͈̤̮̻̥̻̥͔͉̟̣ ͮͦ̾̉̇́̚͡͞͏̳̣̪̩̪̗̲̺̻̼͈̫̗ͅZ̵̯͍̬̖̙̝̲̹̓̐͌ͤ̾̃͐̂ͣͨ̇ͫͯ̚̚͟Ą̵̶̴̬̺̬̳͕̻̘̐͑̌ͩͥ̇̇̎͋̈ͭ͌̌ͦ̇̇ͬͣ̎͘ͅL̬̱̥͓͚̺̩̮̖̭̖̼͕ͨ̅͑ͥ̂ͬ̃̑ͧ̔́͞͠G̨̪̦̻̞͖̺̰̟̲͍̩̬̳͎̤̟ͮ́ͤ̌͂͌͑̌̒ͥO͎̪̯̺͇̲͎̝͕̪̖͌͆̌̈ͩ̐̀̕͞ͅ
I demand to know how this was written! No, wait, I figured it out. That is one weird font...
It's several, actually. It combines Diacritical Marks (U+0300 - U+036F), Greek and Coptic (U+0370 - U+3FF) and Cyrillic (U+0400 - U+04FF).
Also:
Z̬͊̒̌A̰̎̊̉͋͋Ḽ͚͙̫͎̔̽͌̌Ģ̖́ͤͦ̎O̴̟̖̞ͫ ͛t͙͛ͭ͗͆͑̓̓e̻̟̻͐̈́̓̑͠ͅx̯̹̓ͥ͜tͭ͒̄͡ ͙̰͇̱͎͊̽̂͑͂͒̾g̟̻ͦe̺̰̠͉̹̠̪͐ṉ̻̝̲͈̈ͦ̓ͦ̆e̶̹̖r̛̘̯̦̻͛̆̿̅̈̂͐a̯̞̮͈̜ͭͧt̎͝o̸̲͙̊͊̉ͥ̿̎̊r̞͙͔͋̄ͭ̚.̸̮͍͂ ̛̘̬̗͕̲͇̩ͭ̾̄ ͞ḫ͖̞͇̞ͪͫ̉̾̋ͩ̏̀t͙̫̝ͤͬ̅ͫ͗t̰̰̙̻̝͑p̛͎͂̊ͥ͊̃͗̚:̣̺͐ͮͣͭͣ͜/̩͚ͥ̔̔ͭ̈ͅ/̴͔̫̺̹̯̫̉ͦ̌͂̅w̼̪̩͇̭̖ww͛͟.͍͍͖͙̌ͫe̫͕͍̳͕͉͊ͨ̓ͫ̄ͫͭḙ̠͈̱͈̥̻̆ͣe̗̥̙͔̘̲͓͆̌̌̓m͍ͫͅͅͅo̵̥̟̗͈̰ͮ̔.n̸̹̹̘͙̺̤͉ͪ̊ͭé̫t̞̠̭͉̱̎͗ͭ̃͟
.
Post by: Sean Mirrsen on March 15, 2010, 12:16:26 pm
Post by: Draco18s on March 15, 2010, 12:40:19 pm
I̶̦ͪ͆͗ ̲̯̻̞̞͈͉̇͛ṷ͛ͬ̏ͬs̨̜̩̼͉͇͋͊ͦͭ͊͐ḙ̪̮͚̏̊ͬͭ̽̂̿d̐̅̌ͭ̐̇̂ ̘͙̖̳̞̾͘w̱̖̟̫̏̇̋̍ͧ̓ͅẃ̵̤͇̣͈͈ͩͩ̒̚w̟̦̱̺̭̬̓̿̅̅̚ͅ.̭̪̦̯͖͖́t̶̗͔̣̓̈ͮe̬̰̞̺͢x̴̲̘͕͉̲̱̿͒t̠̺̖̭͈ͤo̥̬̺͍̗͙̓͆̉̚z̜̮̘̬̤͈͘o̶̼͕̪̝̲̼̓ͩ̾ͤ̎ͦ͋ṛ.̸͈̣̬̦̰ͭ̍̄̽͐c̠̗ͧͮö̮̲͈͔͓͓́̒́m̞̩͓̦̿͒ͅ. (http://www.textozor.com)ͬ̈̚҉̝̞ ̻̤͊I̗͉̱͚̻̲̞͡t̹̺̼͔̗͉͂̒̇͒ͦ ̭̩̥͗̿̇̋͂̾͛͡ͅĕ̺̳̘̭͚ͬͥ̉ͧͬ̾ṿ̮͕̞͡ḛ̹̯̭̈́̓̚n̮̝̜̣͗̓́̓ͥͦ ̻̟̗͗̊́hͥ͋͘as̷ ̬͔͍ͮ͗A̞̥̥͉̋̐rͨͭ̽͌ͦa̤̠̬͈̒̅ͣ̃̐̒b̏͑̊̿ͩì̷̬̺̗͚̹̝c̼̗̞̥̗̳̲ͬͯ͂ͩ͒̄͆ ̶̖̻̟̾ͯ̏a̻͖̞̺̠̙͛̄̃ͩn̶͕͍͐̃d̢̫͎̗̏͋͆ ̗̞͊͌̆̉L̇͌͋͌̈҉̮̳̼̙e̛̙͚͕̟̅ͥͭ̐e̛̜̠̔̍ͨ̓͋͆t̻͖̥̭̻͌ͩ͌͋̄̽s̵̤̝̯̦͚͂ͪ͌ͧp̖͓̟̠͋́̾ͩͩͩ̑e̡͉͎̟ě͖̎ͩͭk͖̖̬ͭ̈́̄̌̏ͅ ̜̌̇ͯ̅̆̏g̬̻̪̭̝e̘͓̜͎͂͠n͈̱̪̙̎͂͗ę̌r̢̟̹͎͋̉ạ͙̫̣̳͗̇͊ͤ͗̎tǒ̜̘̮̒̓̐r͉̅̐̆̑ͧͣ͂s̖̿ͬ.͕ͩ̄͜
Same algorithm, actually. Hell, same program.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 28, 2010, 11:59:08 pm
I want pc exclusive games, but I doubt I will get any.
Post by: Duelmaster409 on May 29, 2010, 01:14:41 am
Have I said how much I hated console ports? I'm sure I did, but I must say that again.
I want pc exclusive games, but I doubt I will get any.
Dwarf Fortress is a pretty much PC-exclusive game. Of course there's the multi-OS support with the new merge but YOU CANNOT PLAY DWARF FORTRESS ON A FUCKIN' XBOX or anything. This is what makes PCs better.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 01:23:43 am
Post by: Grakelin on May 29, 2010, 01:39:47 am
Post by: jocan2003 on May 29, 2010, 05:12:45 am
Dumbed down gameplay give it 10 year give or take, we will have virtual reality platformed mario bros, wow what a breaktrough...... Come on give me some real challenge, i miss the time where i was using my head and not my god damn thumb smashing the same old button.... Thats what i love with indie, they dont spend 4 year developing visual, 6 month on gameplay and 6 month on QA. They go straight to gameplay and then bug fix. THATS the good cow.
Post by: Grakelin on May 29, 2010, 05:20:13 am
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 09:24:39 am
I don't see an issue with games that are available on multiple systems.Probably because you do not dislike console games. I have a PC as a gaming system because I, of course, do not like console games and I really don't want to be limited to stupid control methods that are most evident on windows live games, ie, most xbox 360 games ported to pc.
I think they should focus more on games that teach you how to communicate using effective spelling and grammar.One to teach people to stop being jerks online would be quite nice too, wouldn't it?
Post by: Grakelin on May 29, 2010, 11:27:37 am
Post by: fenrif on May 29, 2010, 11:33:07 am
Options>Key Configuration
I think he's talking more about the way menu's are implimented (Oblivion and fallout 3 for example), and games that only let you hotkey 4 things because thats how many you can hotkey to a D-pad.
Post by: Grakelin on May 29, 2010, 11:42:38 am
I think Fallout 3 and Oblivion were ported to the Xbox 360, and not the other way around. The menu system wasn't that alien to me as a primarily PC gamer.
Post by: Draco18s on May 29, 2010, 11:51:08 am
Options>Key Configuration
Lololol. Some games made for the XBawks don't have that.
Some examples:
1) Borderlands has no voice control options (why? because it's a cross-platform executable that runs on the XBawks and the PS3 and god everything else too)
2) Lost Planet (the first one) displays all of your new controls as an XBawks controller. You cannot change the controls without first exiting the campaign. Also: all menus are escaped by the B key, because the B button on the XBawks controller does this. THIS CANNOT BE CHANGED EVER. There are no other "back" buttons. A also advances, but the left mouse (thankfully) can do that too.
Post by: fenrif on May 29, 2010, 11:52:41 am
Boarderlands is another one that is a horrible port. Everything about that game is designed to be played on a console, and works pretty poorly on a PC.
There are many more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Post by: PTTG?? on May 29, 2010, 11:55:56 am
Fallout was a bit better, and worked alright on PC without mods, but still became a decent game only with mods.
Post by: Saint on May 29, 2010, 11:57:23 am
Post by: Draco18s on May 29, 2010, 12:02:03 pm
About the warez comment, warez is relitive to the seeds and steam has a static server, it would be hit and miss and steam would be fasted 60% of the time.
This post makes no sense.
1) "Relative." With an "a"
2) Warez? I don't see a recent post about warez (which is an improper spelling of the word "wares" which is an improperly pluralized abbreviation of the word "software").
3) You didn't quote anything. Hence contributing to the confusion. There are 43 pages in this thread, how far back in the conversation are you?
4) "Fasted" is the past tense of the verb "to fast" meaning to go without food.
5) "Statistics" should be plural in this context.
So even attempting to translate your post into real English still leaves me wondering WTF you're talking about.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 12:03:10 pm
Options>Key ConfigurationNo such thing for newer games ports. Menu keys are usually fixed in a very awkward way and you have radial menus most of the time, which were made for controller pads.
Take any recent game that uses "games for windows - live" such as Fuel, Alpha Protocol, Red Faction Guerrilla and so on. Fuel has some horrible menu keys, such as U and I or something similar to move the menu left and right instead of the arrows. Very very annoying.
I might add that I that I hate games for windows live as well, but I will also go on disliking other console games.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 12:06:47 pm
Not only that but his argument is wrong. Torrent uses up to 55% of all internet's bandwidth nowadays. Torrents are way way faster than any static server, unless you're using an isp that tries to block torrent traffic of course.About the warez comment, warez is relitive to the seeds and steam has a static server, it would be hit and miss and steam would be fasted 60% of the time.This post makes no sense.
Post by: fenrif on May 29, 2010, 12:12:33 pm
Post by: Grakelin on May 29, 2010, 12:13:14 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 12:25:12 pm
Torrents ain't faster then usenet. Dunno if usenet is a static server though. Seems like it is.Maybe for you, and that goes about everything speed related online anyway. Usenet is a collection of static servers.
Torrents max my bandwidth and never fall back down. Of course, you need to have it properly set up, making sure ports are open, if you need encryption or not, etc. It's very likely your ISPs do block some torrenting. That coupled with static servers being easier to use, it's understandable to go with them instead.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on May 29, 2010, 12:48:02 pm
The majority of bandwidth is used for streaming video. Torrents are, despite their relative popularity, fairly niche, especially given how few people pirate things to begin with...Not only that but his argument is wrong. Torrent uses up to 55% of all internet's bandwidth nowadays.About the warez comment, warez is relitive to the seeds and steam has a static server, it would be hit and miss and steam would be fasted 60% of the time.This post makes no sense.
Quote
Torrents are way way faster than any static server, unless you're using an isp that tries to block torrent traffic of course.I've always had more trouble just not getting much from seeders/peers, to the point that some things I downloaded left me with share ratios higher than ten before I was even finished downloading. >:|
You run into similar problems with servers, in that the cap is whoever's bandwidth is smaller. With some servers (in my experience sourceforge and steam) you get significantly better speeds with a good connection, though other servers have lower capacity or throttle individual connections.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 04:00:58 pm
Not really. (http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-still-king-of-p2p-traffic-090218/) P2P is responsible for over half the internet traffic in most places, bittorrent being the one that's most commonly used. You also forget that a lot of things use torrents that are also legal. Quite a few of MMOs (WoW for example) and games update via torrent, a lot of them download via torrent. A lot of download sites have torrents available for the legal products. Torrent is also beginning to be used in video streaming.The majority of bandwidth is used for streaming video. Torrents are, despite their relative popularity, fairly niche, especially given how few people pirate things to begin with...Not only that but his argument is wrong. Torrent uses up to 55% of all internet's bandwidth nowadays.About the warez comment, warez is relitive to the seeds and steam has a static server, it would be hit and miss and steam would be fasted 60% of the time.This post makes no sense.
As for the torrent trouble, really depends on your client and the tracker you're using. Of course, your ISP as well. They're best downloaded overnight when traffic shaping has less of an effect. On the servers, I download fast if it allows for file splitting (something getright does, for example), meanwhile, since I can't do that with steam, my downloads there are usually around 10% of my total bandwidth unless it's past 2am or so, when I get 100%.
Post by: xaque on May 29, 2010, 05:06:45 pm
Have I said how much I hated console ports? I'm sure I did, but I must say that again.
I want pc exclusive games, but I doubt I will get any.
Most MMOs are PC-exclusive, but I'm guessing that's not really what you meant.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 05:08:18 pm
Yeah, I play them whenever they come out to see if they actually got better, but they're stuck to the same old formula right now. I meant triple-A single player games.Have I said how much I hated console ports? I'm sure I did, but I must say that again.
I want pc exclusive games, but I doubt I will get any.
Most MMOs are PC-exclusive, but I'm guessing that's not really what you meant.
Post by: Draco18s on May 29, 2010, 05:46:24 pm
Yeah, I play them whenever they come out to see if they actually got better, but they're stuck to the same old formula right now. I meant triple-A single player games.
They are in fact so formulaic that someone made an appropriately named MMO Tycoon game (http://www.vectorstorm.org/get-games/full-games/mmorpg-tycoon/) .
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 05:57:53 pm
I loled. I'm so going to play that.Yeah, I play them whenever they come out to see if they actually got better, but they're stuck to the same old formula right now. I meant triple-A single player games.They are in fact so formulaic that someone made an appropriately named MMO Tycoon game (http://www.vectorstorm.org/get-games/full-games/mmorpg-tycoon/) .
Post by: Grakelin on May 29, 2010, 06:34:10 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on May 29, 2010, 07:46:41 pm
Post by: Draco18s on May 29, 2010, 08:20:44 pm
I loled. I'm so going to play that.Yeah, I play them whenever they come out to see if they actually got better, but they're stuck to the same old formula right now. I meant triple-A single player games.They are in fact so formulaic that someone made an appropriately named MMO Tycoon game (http://www.vectorstorm.org/get-games/full-games/mmorpg-tycoon/) .
It's ok. Not great, but not terrible. However, the game was written in the guy's open source Vector game engine.
Also, he/they are working on a version 2.0 which looks much better, based on the cursory glance I took at the blog.
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on May 29, 2010, 11:28:58 pm
As for the torrent trouble, really depends on your client and the tracker you're using. Of course, your ISP as well. They're best downloaded overnight when traffic shaping has less of an effect. On the servers, I download fast if it allows for file splitting (something getright does, for example), meanwhile, since I can't do that with steam, my downloads there are usually around 10% of my total bandwidth unless it's past 2am or so, when I get 100%.This was on a university line, and varied drastically from torrent to torrent.
It was a proof of concept entry into a contest based around procedural generation, if I'm remembering correctly. It's an interesting little game, but gets boring fast.I loled. I'm so going to play that.Yeah, I play them whenever they come out to see if they actually got better, but they're stuck to the same old formula right now. I meant triple-A single player games.They are in fact so formulaic that someone made an appropriately named MMO Tycoon game (http://www.vectorstorm.org/get-games/full-games/mmorpg-tycoon/) .
It's ok. Not great, but not terrible. However, the game was written in the guy's open source Vector game engine.
Also, he/they are working on a version 2.0 which looks much better, based on the cursory glance I took at the blog.
I've been following the devlog for a while, which is actually pretty interesting at times. Version 2 looks like it'll fun, and significantly more in-depth than the first.
Post by: Virex on May 30, 2010, 09:09:21 am
The majority of bandwidth is used for streaming video. Torrents are, despite their relative popularity, fairly niche, especially given how few people pirate things to begin with...Not only that but his argument is wrong. Torrent uses up to 55% of all internet's bandwidth nowadays.About the warez comment, warez is relitive to the seeds and steam has a static server, it would be hit and miss and steam would be fasted 60% of the time.This post makes no sense.
Realy? Besides myself, the only persons that I know who don't pirate things are my parrents...
Besides that, my problem with modern games is mainly that everybody seems to disrespect the developers, including gamers, publishers, reviewers and the developers themselves. There's no glory in making games any more, unless you're an indie dev living off less then a minimum wage in donations and even then it's hit or miss.
Post by: inteuniso on May 30, 2010, 09:13:04 am
Post by: Zangi on May 30, 2010, 09:55:37 am
Shitty Quality
Noone cares enough to cuff em for it
People will still buy it
Post by: Draco18s on May 30, 2010, 11:24:56 am
Besides that, my problem with modern games is mainly that everybody seems to disrespect the developers, including gamers, publishers, reviewers and the developers themselves. There's no glory in making games any more, unless you're an indie dev living off less then a minimum wage in donations and even then it's hit or miss.
Actually what goes on is that people disrespect the publishers. I and several of my friends, will never ever buy an EA game again. Never. In fact none of us are going to pirate them either because the games aren't worth the time it takes to acquire. Its not about the devs (Will Wright is amazing) but the publisher ruins the ideas. "Oh that's too experimental, we don't want to risk a billion dollars trying that, take it out. Yes, yes, it does look like fun, but we don't know what the consumer thinks about it. Here, why don't you re-read out Manual Of Formulaic Success."
Post by: Grakelin on May 30, 2010, 11:37:36 am
I generally don't know people besides myself and people on the internet that pirate games. A few of my close friends used to buy pirated games back in a third-world country I used to live in, but that was about it. Besides, there everybody bought pirated software, including the teacher, the students, and my dad.
In the Middle-East, they have entire stores like this. I got my copy of Technomage, which was only released in Europe as far as I'm aware, from a store in Damascus in August 2001. It was a great find, even if I did still need to use gamecopyworld to play it (also, it wasn't that great a find because I needed to pirate it again anyways when I went to play it 6 years later).
I think there's a gross exaggeration when it comes to EA Games. The games they make aren't actually of a substantially inferior quality that I wouldn't pirate them.
Post by: Draco18s on May 30, 2010, 11:47:13 am
I think there's a gross exaggeration when it comes to EA Games. The games they make aren't actually of a substantially inferior quality that I wouldn't pirate them.
Most recent title produced by EA that you've played is?
Post by: fenrif on May 30, 2010, 12:02:27 pm
EA is a terrible company, but that doesn't mean that their dev studios don't make good games. Though EA will usually try to besmirch them with DLC and pay-to-play multiplayer and whatever else they can think of.
Post by: Schilcote on May 30, 2010, 12:08:16 pm
I think there's a gross exaggeration when it comes to EA Games. The games they make aren't actually of a substantially inferior quality that I wouldn't pirate them.
Most recent title produced by EA that you've played is?
Most recent title I've played is Spore, and it's an enormous disappointment. Putting aside the stupid download manager that you MOOST EENSTALL to play the game (though at least it doesn't lock you out of your games when you loose your connection), it's a good bit less than what was advertised. While it is a fun game, it's extremely far from the paragon of sandboxy fun it was supposed to be- it takes an hour to get from cell to space, and while you choose the shapes and color of your buildings, vehicles, creatures, and spaceships, that's about it. Just paint. And then you go into space where its near-constant SAEV KIRK'S ROCK FROM ECOD1SAZT0R/P1RAT3S. Fun, yes. Certianly worth ten-twenty dollars. Thirty's a stretch. But fifty dollars? That's just silly. The only games that I paid fifty dollars for and didn't regret it are Paper Mario: TTYD, Pikmin 2, Pokemon XD, and... pretty much every
And then they release the Galactic Adventures pack for another friggin fifty! It's the exact same deal as the main game- a fun, slightly gimmicky weak-sandbox game, worth twenty to thirty dollars. It's an expansion pack, it should cost less than the game itself!
EDIT:
Oh, and my opinion on the thing with EA having good devs; it's a thing that happens often in corporate settings, the company hires an expert, and then management decides they know better than him. Isn't the fact that he would do a better job than the people who are in control the entire point of hiring him?
Post by: Grakelin on May 30, 2010, 12:17:12 pm
They were also the retail distributors of the Orange Box. In case you didn't know.
I won't even mention the games that have been very popular among their fanbase, but universally hated by 'hardcore gamers', because that always seems to be a mistake.
It's not like they're different than any other publisher. Ubisoft ixnayed things like blending into crowds from Splinter Cell Conviction, for instance.
Post by: Draco18s on May 30, 2010, 12:23:46 pm
Dragon age, mass effect 2, skate 3, battlefield bad company 2, etc.
I personally haven't played any of those. I have no interest in...all of them (regardless of production studio). Though I have heard good things about Mass Effect.
Quote
EA is a terrible company, but that doesn't mean that their dev studios don't make good games. Though EA will usually try to besmirch them with DLC and pay-to-play multiplayer and whatever else they can think of.
I think that's basically what I just said: the devs are awesome, upper management isn't.
They were also the retail distributors of the Orange Box. In case you didn't know.
Distributing something is vastly different than having in-house devs. They have no control over the content in the former.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 30, 2010, 12:29:11 pm
Post by: Grakelin on May 30, 2010, 12:45:00 pm
What you're displaying is distaste for the genre, and that is not a good excuse to say a company sucks for producing it. Would you kick down Disney's door for allowing Prince of Persia to exist as a film, and then burn the reel in a fire alongside Beauty and the Beast (you actually might, if you dislike Academy Award winning animations, but who am I to judge)?
What sort of genres do you guys prefer? It is possible you may be filling a niche market. For people who enjoy RPGs (not JRPGS), Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 are great (I didn't like Mass Effect 1 because of the vehicle missions, my friends have told me good things about ME2, however). For people who enjoy a First Person Shooter, Battlefield Bad Company 2 is great (Destructible terrain is fapworthy). If you like skating games, Skate 3 is actually a great choice.
Post by: fenrif on May 30, 2010, 12:51:01 pm
And yeah, complaining about ME or DA because they're like reading a book is a bit silly. Baldur's Gate had actual books to read in-game. That must make it a terrible game, right?
Also: I'm one of the few people who really quite enjoyed the vehicle bits of Mass Effect 1. :P
Post by: Grakelin on May 30, 2010, 01:11:31 pm
Post by: Virex on May 30, 2010, 01:16:34 pm
Besides that, my problem with modern games is mainly that everybody seems to disrespect the developers, including gamers, publishers, reviewers and the developers themselves. There's no glory in making games any more, unless you're an indie dev living off less then a minimum wage in donations and even then it's hit or miss.
Actually what goes on is that people disrespect the publishers. I and several of my friends, will never ever buy an EA game again. Never. In fact none of us are going to pirate them either because the games aren't worth the time it takes to acquire. Its not about the devs (Will Wright is amazing) but the publisher ruins the ideas. "Oh that's too experimental, we don't want to risk a billion dollars trying that, take it out. Yes, yes, it does look like fun, but we don't know what the consumer thinks about it. Here, why don't you re-read out Manual Of Formulaic Success."
All the clamouring about big bad publishers ignores that at heart a game is what the developers thought would be the best they could make of it given their constraints. People always drop a fuckton of hate on a game for all the things that they think could've been better and chatter on about how much a game sucks while ignorign that it's a piece that 100 men worked on for months. If you don't like it, that's your choice and you're free to say it. But stop shouting everywhere how much it deserves to be burned in a blast furnance because the devs failed to meet your excuisit taste.
Post by: Jreengus on May 30, 2010, 01:17:00 pm
Post by: Sir Pseudonymous on May 30, 2010, 01:25:01 pm
I didn't particularly dislike the vehicle bits but the ability to jump made them ridiculous, you could dodge any of the rockets or weird energy balls fired at you easily. It got made even more ridiculous in ME2 when you could fire homing rockets from far outside the enemies range in the vehicle bits.What vehicle bits in ME2?
Post by: Jreengus on May 30, 2010, 01:35:47 pm
Post by: fenrif on May 30, 2010, 01:39:02 pm
All the clamouring about big bad publishers ignores that at heart a game is what the developers thought would be the best they could make of it given their constraints. People always drop a fuckton of hate on a game for all the things that they think could've been better and chatter on about how much a game sucks while ignorign that it's a piece that 100 men worked on for months. If you don't like it, that's your choice and you're free to say it. But stop shouting everywhere how much it deserves to be burned in a blast furnance because the devs failed to meet your excuisit taste.
Without critisism the medium will never grow or evolve beyond what it is. It's a hugely important part of the artistic or creative process.
Not to mention that if someone is trying to sell me something, usually about 8 hours worth of entertainment for 40 quid, I feel completely justified pointing out what I dislike about it. Whats more I encourage others to do the same, it's how I know what to spend my money on.
Post by: Schilcote on May 30, 2010, 01:44:13 pm
All the clamouring about big bad publishers ignores that at heart a game is what the developers thought would be the best they could make of it given their constraints. People always drop a fuckton of hate on a game for all the things that they think could've been better and chatter on about how much a game sucks while ignorign that it's a piece that 100 men worked on for months. If you don't like it, that's your choice and you're free to say it. But stop shouting everywhere how much it deserves to be burned in a blast furnance because the devs failed to meet your excuisit taste.
Without critisism the medium will never grow or evolve beyond what it is. It's a hugely important part of the artistic or creative process.
Not to mention that if someone is trying to sell me something, usually about 8 hours worth of entertainment for 40 quid, I feel completely justified pointing out what I dislike about it. Whats more I encourage others to do the same, it's how I know what to spend my money on.
Buy GMod. 10 bucks (if you have a Source game, if not then buy the Orange Box) gets you literally YEARS of entertainment. Seriously, there's an achievement for spending an entire 365*24*60 minutes in-game.
Post by: Virex on May 30, 2010, 01:47:27 pm
But criticism wasn't the only thing I was pointing at. People tend to forget that games are things people have worked on. Someone is charging you 40 bucks for the game because they worked long and hard on it. If you don't want it, you can of course not buy it. But most people will instead insist that it's an insult to all that is holy to charge a reasonable amount of money for a game they don't like. You're free to say it's to expensive, but for His Noodly Appendage stop getting so worked up about a simple game everybody. If you don't like it there's no need to swear all the heavens togheter.
Post by: Draco18s on May 30, 2010, 01:59:03 pm
Buy GMod. 10 bucks (if you have a Source game, if not then buy the Orange Box) gets you literally YEARS of entertainment. Seriously, there's an achievement for spending an entire 365*24*60 minutes in-game.
GMod is a sandbox that had an illegitimate child with LUA. It's not actually a game.
Post by: fenrif on May 30, 2010, 02:02:14 pm
And that's you're good right. What I'm saying is that such posts are usualy oozing with disrespect and undiluted RAEG to a degree that's usualy uncalled for. Saying that Dragon Age was not fun to play is fine by me (havn't played it yet, but I'm sure I'd probably agree). Problem is that even decent games like Dragon Age get shelled with words that should realy be reserved for Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing.
But criticism wasn't the only thing I was pointing at. People tend to forget that games are things people have worked on. Someone is charging you 40 bucks for the game because they worked long and hard on it. If you don't want it, you can of course not buy it. But most people will instead insist that it's an insult to all that is holy to charge a reasonable amount of money for a game they don't like. You're free to say it's to expensive, but for His Noodly Appendage stop getting so worked up about a simple game everybody. If you don't like it there's no need to swear all the heavens togheter.
I think it's perfectly understandable for someone to get pissed off about a crap game. Most games don't have demos (or if they do they aren't representative of the entire game) and review sites are skewed towards higher scores usually for big name games. If you throw away 40 quid on a game that turns out to be utter crap, why not get angry?
Just because a group of people worked hard on it doesn't mean it deserves respect or to be treated with kid gloves. Especially since it's mostly all a matter of taste. One mans big rigs is another mans dragon age, and vice versa. Remember: a team of guys worked hard on big rigs too, they just aren't as talanted as the bioware guys. Why is it ok to mock or insult one but not the other?
Buy GMod. 10 bucks (if you have a Source game, if not then buy the Orange Box) gets you literally YEARS of entertainment. Seriously, there's an achievement for spending an entire 365*24*60 minutes in-game.
I've had Gmod for years. :P It's a great game, but I got burned out on it a while ago. Might have to load it up and see what new gamemodes are around nowadays.
Post by: Grakelin on May 30, 2010, 02:09:46 pm
Have you seen or played Big Rigs? It's labeled as one of the worst games ever for a reason. Nobody worked hard on it.
Post by: Virex on May 30, 2010, 02:15:29 pm
Just because a group of people worked hard on it doesn't mean it deserves respect or to be treated with kid gloves. Especially since it's mostly all a matter of taste. One mans big rigs is another mans dragon age, and vice versa. Remember: a team of guys worked hard on big rigs too, they just aren't as talanted as the bioware guys. Why is it ok to mock or insult one but not the other?
Because Dragon Age was a pretty decent game where the developers made a set of choices you don't subscribe too, while Big Rigs is a game where the developers most clearly didn't do anything right, including the things they set out to do.
Post by: fenrif on May 30, 2010, 02:39:09 pm
Many games set out to do things and don't get any of them right. Look at Alpha protocol for a recent one. Hundreds of guys probobly worked really hard on it, poured their heart and souls into it, and it's a terrible game. Even good games like Red Dead Redemption can be riddled with bugs and glitches, some of them gamebreakers, is it not ok to rip on them for it?
Also: don't misconstrue me, I love dragon age, I was just using it as an example. :P
Post by: Soulwynd on May 30, 2010, 03:36:22 pm
Unlike Final Fantasy Six, where the game mechanics were perfect and people didn't chatter about useless things all the time.Who said anything about FF6 being good? If "Dumbed-down RPG" is a genre then yes, I hate it.
What you're displaying is distaste for the genre, and that is not a good excuse to say a company sucks for producing it.
What sort of genres do you guys prefer?RPG, multiplayer FPS, Rogue-likes, experimental stuff, and simulators.
And yeah, complaining about ME or DA because they're like reading a book is a bit silly. Baldur's Gate had actual books to read in-game. That must make it a terrible game, right?I think taking the second part of my comment out of the context of the first part much more silly. I said they -focus- on the chatter instead of focus on gameplay to the point it feels more like a book or a movie instead of a game. I didn't say that having chatter is a bad thing, but focusing on it is. Take Daggerfall and your own example, Baldur's Gate. They both had books and chatter, one more than the other, of course, but one was mainly a dungeon crawl and the other had D&D to back it up. (Not that D&D is exactly good, but better than Dragon age's system)
I played DA to the somewhat good finish and wanted to try the bad one, but damn, I don't want to touch that thing again. It's not the sort of game that would make me ever want to go back and play it again. Of course, I've had people argue that's what the publishers want, they don't want games with re-playability so they can simply sell the next one.
Saying that Dragon Age was not fun to play is fine by me (havn't played it yet, but I'm sure I'd probably agree). Problem is that even decent games like Dragon Age get shelled with words that should realy be reserved for Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing.Watered-down RPG describes it pretty well, Saying it's pure crap would be too much, because it's not. It's beautiful with some cool plot twists, but doesn't get past being a watered-down RPG, or a WDRPG for short.
People tend to forget that games are things people have worked on. Someone is charging you 40 bucks for the game because they worked long and hard on it.The devs were paid for it. 40+ bucks is set by the publisher who will be making money out of it for years to come, while the devs had to content with the set payment plus some meager royalties.
I will not buy games with obtrusive DRM, which means Ubisoft will never see my money again. I will also not buy games that aren't worth the money charged for it, in my point of view, which means some devs will get a bad reputation (if enough people feel the same way) and might never make games again. Which is exactly my point. It's called the market. Publishers and developers can whine about it all they want when they're the ones fucking it up and I do want them out of the market. Of course, they wont go down without some screaming, crying, and beating up.
I don't care how hard they worked on it. If I don't like it, they don't get my money.
Post by: Grakelin on May 30, 2010, 03:38:49 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on May 30, 2010, 04:33:19 pm
-I liked the TES series, Daggerfall being my fav, but Morrowind is also a good pick.
-Darklands can be good, but has some horrible flaws.
-Realms of Akania 2 - Startrail was near perfect, plus it is often described as an adventuring simulator instead of a rpg. The problem with it would be that you can't really play without a manual, the ingame help isn't so good and you can get easily messed up. I can tell much about the followup as when I bought it, my cd came fuxored up and I couldn't get past some points. That reminds me I should download it somewhere and play it when I have time.
-Future Magic and Hard Nova, very very old school rpg games, but it was fun when I was young.
-Wasteland, while we're talking about oldies. This made my days when I was 12.
-Most of SSI's D&D games, such as Eye of the Beholder, Champions of Krynn, Pool of Radiance, Al-Qadim, Forgotten realms, Menzoberranzan, etc. Yes, there are a -lot- of them and I recommend them all, specially Dark Sun.
-Albion, besides the 3D bits giving me a headache, it was great.
-Jagged Alliance, if it can be considered a RPG, if it can, include X-com. I mean, they're more like strategy/tactics games with RPG elements.
-System Shock 2, shooter with RPG elements if that's allowed in the list too, if so, include Deus Ex. And what makes Deus Ex different from Mass Effect? Well, in Deus Ex your skills made a difference in the sense you could solve things differently based on your skills, in Mass Effect you pretty much just kill everything in the way.
-Arx Fatalis, love & hate relationship with this one.
-Neverwinter Nights, only the first one. The modding and near-by-the-book D&D made it great. I played it for several years online and bought every expansion.
And then we had this 6 years blank without a complex rpgs released. That's ignoring oblivion and fallout 3 of course, not to say they weren't good, but they were simplified compared with their predecessors. I never managed to finish Oblivion as it annoyed me to tears at points and by the point they had mods that fixed those issues, i couldn't touch it anymore. I might some day, but I play daggerfall every other month, so it's kind of hard to not compare both and feel bleh at Oblivion. Fallout 3 suffered from a similar issue but thanks to modding, I've playing it lately and it has been actually fun. It's sort of interesting how it's acceptable to see someone's brains and eyes blown out, but they removed the more mature events from fallout, such as fucking mother, then daughter, then killing their husband/father as a quest.
So there you have it. 6 years without good rpgs, if you ignore the modding community.
Post by: Schilcote on May 30, 2010, 04:46:46 pm
Buy GMod. 10 bucks (if you have a Source game, if not then buy the Orange Box) gets you literally YEARS of entertainment. Seriously, there's an achievement for spending an entire 365*24*60 minutes in-game.
GMod is a sandbox that had an illegitimate child with LUA. It's not actually a game.
Okay, so it's an "entertainment software". Same damn thing.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 30, 2010, 04:56:39 pm
Post by: Zangi on May 31, 2010, 01:17:28 am
From there, you can see if there is enough 'win' to bother with it or not...
Post by: Grakelin on May 31, 2010, 01:18:40 am
Post by: Zangi on May 31, 2010, 01:23:02 am
-to bother with it or not...
Fine and dandy if you got high speed... and space...
Post by: Grakelin on May 31, 2010, 01:26:51 am
Post by: Draco18s on May 31, 2010, 02:01:17 am
Physics simulators are toys and games. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup-and-ball)
"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction."
"If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge."
GMod is a toy, one that doesn't interest me, and which has scripted games created inside it, none of which interest me. Several of them are even still listed as "occasionally buggy." Read: can crash your game client.
Post by: Soulwynd on May 31, 2010, 03:59:04 am
But creating a rocket propelled, self-guided explosive barrel that attaches balloons on body parts is incredibly fun. Creating radars and guiding systems are nice as well, so is creating hover ships and balloon ships.
I need to reinstall gmod sometime.
Post by: Jreengus on May 31, 2010, 08:19:09 am
Post by: fenrif on May 31, 2010, 08:32:14 am
Though I think I'm missing some fundamental building trick, since my ships always seem to vibrate themselves apart when i try to fly them.
Post by: Haspen on June 09, 2010, 06:48:37 am
Dumbed gameplay, omg... Plague of these days. Before, computers were rare, and to make them 'work', you weren't supposed to be 6 years old kid, but rather someone much older, who knows what to push and what to use to start something. With widespread of consoles, that died.
More dumb people using computer -> more companies making dumb games for dumb people, because dumb people are in majority and thus companies can earn more money.
Remember: They don't make games to entertain you anymore - now they make games to get your money.
Flogging a dead horse: Well, it's much
That's why I stick to emulators and still entertain myself with Phantasy Star IV, Mario or similar games.
That's all for now, I will continue my rant later x3
Post by: Grakelin on June 10, 2010, 04:01:56 am
Post by: Soulwynd on June 10, 2010, 04:20:52 am
Post by: Grakelin on June 10, 2010, 04:26:47 am
I don't really care, it's a free internet, we can all post what we want (within the forum rules), but man, let's at least keep it fresh in here and have both sides of this debate actually talk about new things.
Post by: Schilcote on June 10, 2010, 05:31:03 am
Remember: They don't make games to entertain you anymore - now they make games to get your money.
They always made games to get your money. They did (and still do) make them entertaining because that's the only way to make money in the entertainment industry.
It's the free market. Live it, learn it, love it. It's a very, very, very simple fact of economics; cutting quality for short term profit ALWAYS bites you in the ass. Short-term thinking in general bites you in the ass. For example, a company has a choice: either produce a product that is crap and sell it at a 50% profit margin, or produce a solid product at a 5% profit margin. Company A lasts about a year, Company B lasts for literally hundreds. See, the free market economy is self-regulating. If you don't pull your weight, you don't get your money. A company exists to produce goods and services which it exchanges for notes (dollar bills) of higher value in a positive-sum game. If they try to cheat the system, the system f***s them up by its very nature. Dishonest businessmen are stupid businessmen. Eventually, broke stupid businessmen.
Look at Valve. Every employee of Valve Software knows what he's doing. They PLAY games, not just make them, and they know what the consumer wants. They sell products over Steam for far less than stores because they know that they can sell more units at a lower profit per unit. They make ultra-high quality games that take years to craft because they know that people are willing to pay what the game is worth, and no more.
The TvTropes page for You Fail Economics Forever is a very interesting read. One of the most important explanations of economics is that the free market is a positive-sum game. When you trade money for goods, both parties end up with more than they started with. I'm not going to waste time explaining that here when it's already explained on TvTropes.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailEconomicsForever
Post by: Virex on June 10, 2010, 06:36:53 am
Post by: Schilcote on June 10, 2010, 07:52:34 am
Remember though that our expectations differ from the mean. Almost nobody here is prepared to pay 50 bucks for command and conquer 5, even if it's on the same level as Tiberian sun, while on the market it could fetch a pretty high price. Hell, many of us arn't even willing to spend 50 bucks on Starcraft II, even though that's shaping up to be a pretty good game even by our standards. There's also the fact that the investment needed to develop games we would like (fully immersive world, high complexity, lots of randomness and emergent effects without getting odd results or unfun side-effects, bug-free, low price, no DLC, fully moddable, impressive AI) would probably mean the game couldn't repay it's costs and the development time would probably be far longer then allowable.
Well, it's not like DF is the ONLY game I play. DF is an artifact, something nearly supernatural. You're just not going to get that from a commercial game, and I'm fine with that. Expecting every game you play to be on par with DF is a bit like expecting every car you buy to last ten years and move like a Mustang. Also, "Impressive AI" is just a bit off if you're talking about DF :P.
As you may have guessed, I'm a big fan of Valve. Generally, their games involve shooting at things for a few minutes, then listening to the only clothed woman in a video game since Samus (At least until she got into the zero suit) talk about how you're pwning the Combine for a few minutes, occasionally stopping to solve a physics puzzle. And it's damn fun.
Now look at Spore. I beat up on Spore not because it's a bad game, but because it... well... It pretty much pretends to be Dwarf Fortress, at least in the advertising and magazine articles. Not to mention it's FEEFTY FREEKIN DOLLERS. It's okay. Not good, but okay. Basically, EA said "Look, you can super-duper customize crap in this world and go in a spaceship and be all sand-boxy and crap and do whatever you want!". It doesn't sound quite so impressive as I'm describing it. So I scraped together 50 "U haz wealth" notes from Uncle Sam and sent them to EA, and in return I got 30 gigabytes of boring. Now people are arranging boycotts because they were getting less than they expected, and EA has permanently lost my trust and respect. Actually, they managed to sucker me out of another 50 for Galactic Adventures too. So that's 100 dollars I paid for what boils down to something I could probably write myself. Half-Life 2, by comparison, costs about a fifth as much, and lasts a lot longer.
In my experience, the best PC games are the free ones. For one thing, the only thing you waste if you end up with a bad game is a few minutes of your time. Also, the designers of free games a1. are gamers themselves (see my post before this one) and 2. don't care about getting the product out the door by a certain date. Valve, knowing this, opened up the Source SDK and made HL2's value technically infinite.
Anyway, what is my point. I don't know. I think I'll just shut up now.
Oh, and also, I like DLC. Valve-style DLC that is. Charging customers twice for the same product is a good way to piss them off and loose them (though I think Blizzard's gig with the decorational items you can buy in WOW is a good idea, since it's nothing more than a status symbol).
Post by: Grakelin on June 10, 2010, 07:55:25 am
I like Mount and Blade, though, even though it set me back $34 Canadian.
Post by: Schilcote on June 10, 2010, 08:02:51 am
Post by: Grakelin on June 10, 2010, 08:08:21 am
I can't even go back and play it casually.
Post by: Schilcote on June 10, 2010, 08:19:27 am
My general opinion is that any game that could be played beginning to end by a simple bot and end up looking almost the same as a human player is pretty damn boring. Cell is an okay thing, and I'm sure it'd make a good flash game, Creature is basically "click the mission objectives", Tribe is basically... "click the mission objectives" and Space is basically... get missions and click their objectives.
Post by: Draco18s on June 10, 2010, 10:07:01 am
Actually, they managed to sucker me out of another 50 for Galactic Adventures too.
At least you learned your lesson the second time.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2jxrm8.png)
Post by: Schilcote on June 10, 2010, 10:13:40 am
Anyway, how are you supposed to identify a trend with a single point of data? You need AT LEAST two, and you have to assume that the trend is perfectly linear...
Post by: eerr on June 10, 2010, 01:04:29 pm
I mean, at the very least you can just wait for someone else to buy it, before you get it yourself.
Also, I went on the website and read documents, I literally found documentation that spore wasn't going to be as grand as people thought it would be.
(I knew the jig was up from all the stuff stuffed inside spore.)
Post by: Soulwynd on June 10, 2010, 03:34:27 pm
You can say a lot of things about me, but I've never made a thread devoted to seeing people agree with me.Such a sweet way of distorting what I stated and being an ass again. Let me explicitly state that this thread is meant to let people rant about games whether they agree with me or not. They can rant about the same thing over and over, be it something I don't care about or something against my own rant, if that will make them feel better.
Look at Valve. Every employee of Valve Software knows what he's doing. They PLAY games, not just make them, and they know what the consumer wants.They do? Unless they use some hidden accounts or private setup, all TF2 developer stats are crap. It's like they don't even bother touching it. I also don't want any more HL or L4D games, I hope they know I want that and move to something better, like Portal 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. And ultra-high quality boring games? Such a cute fanboy. =p
Spore.... Man, I regret pre-ordering it so much. Slightly more than I regret buying HL2 crap. I mean, I can see how Spore can be entertaining for little kids and how the creature editor was pretty much the only good bit of it, but so much disappointment due to that early demo.
Post by: Draco18s on June 10, 2010, 03:38:57 pm
Look at Valve. Every employee of Valve Software knows what he's doing. They PLAY games, not just make them, and they know what the consumer wants.They do? Unless they use some hidden accounts or private setup, all TF2 developer stats are crap. It's like they don't even bother touching it. I also don't want any more HL or L4D games, I hope they know I want that and move to something better, like Portal 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. And ultra-high quality boring games? Such a cute fanboy. =p
Oh they have other accounts.
Though I did play a game of Left 4 Dead 2 with Chet Faliszek the other week. Specifically a custom campaign on versus, due to a graphical glitch (Chet was fortunate enough to be one of the two people effected and hopefully they'll be able to fix the problem).
But yeah, they have several accounts, specifically for playing steam games on the steam cloud without anyone knowing. As well as playing things that aren't out yet!
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 03:39:15 pm
Anyways, going to agree on Valve. They walk on water to their fan bois from TF2 and other titles...but in the last three years, TF2 aside, Valve has done nothing but show they're now big dawgs who play by big dawg rules. I.e. they'll make an entire game just to get a licensing deal with EA; they'll promise the sky and deliver mud when it works for them; they'll rehash and re-release titles and they'll sell you operatic movie experiences instead of fully fleshed out games.
Bitter? No. WISER? I hope.
Post by: Virex on June 10, 2010, 04:04:09 pm
Post by: Grakelin on June 10, 2010, 04:11:04 pm
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 04:14:32 pm
They got a lot of fans with HL2, which gave people a thoughtful sci-fi story with their shooter.
Portal showed that Valve was capable of thinking in non-traditional ways and producing a fun, non-traditional game with unique features.
They got a ton of fans when they bought TF, revamped the **** out of it, re-released it as TF2 and have provided ridiculous levels of support for the game since. Seriously, I don't think ANY game has had the level of support and the amount of updates as TF2. And it's all been free.
They created Steam, which, based on your experience, you either love or hate. I love it, simply because when I'm ready, I can get newer games for far cheaper.
L4D was where the company started to change though I think. Their budgets went through the roof, their target market became everyone and major publishers finally started taking them seriously. They had to. Steam by then was going full blast and Valve couldn't be disregarded anymore. They had become players in the industry.
I had never even looked at Valve until L4D. So I had none of the fanboi-ism going in. I would BE a Valve fanboi today if they had supported L4D like they promised. When we asked "Is L4D going to be like TF2, and get supported and updated regularly" the response was "It sure is!"
My ass. And even the stuff they've done with L4D2 has amounted to paying for cinematic campaigns. Lying *** mother-****ers.
I do respect Valve for one reason though, their design. Parts of L4D aside, almost every Valve game does something unique with standard FPS mechanics. In Portal, the Portal gun. In TF2, the classes and all the various ways they allow you to bend or break the rules. In L4D, it was mainly the hunter and the dynamics of wall jumping. Very few people do that well; most do some kind of special effect or vision mode or something that only slightly changes game play. Valve tends to go into the mechanics of the thing and make a lot of changes, so you end up with a lot of variation within the same game.
Post by: Schilcote on June 10, 2010, 04:18:11 pm
they'll make an entire game just to get a licensing deal with EA
Hmm? Which game was that? Licensing deal with EA? I've seriously never heard anything about that.
Also, I'm not a "fanboi". I mainly like the Source engine (which is only 25% Valve's anyway- underneath all that polish it's nothing but Quake) and Half-Life's story. I play their games because I like them, not because I have some irrational affinity to the producer. Believe me, if Valve ever does something truly stupid I'll be one of the first to complain. I don't play Left 4 Dead because it simply does not interest me. Actually, there's a Gmod map called Electric Onslaught which is essentially Left 4 Dead only slightly different and a hell of a lot more fun.
You can say a lot of things about me, but I've never made a thread devoted to seeing people agree with me.Such a sweet way of distorting what I stated and being an ass again. Let me explicitly state that this thread is meant to let people rant about games whether they agree with me or not. They can rant about the same thing over and over, be it something I don't care about or something against my own rant, if that will make them feel better.Look at Valve. Every employee of Valve Software knows what he's doing. They PLAY games, not just make them, and they know what the consumer wants.They do? Unless they use some hidden accounts or private setup, all TF2 developer stats are crap. It's like they don't even bother touching it. I also don't want any more HL or L4D games, I hope they know I want that and move to something better, like Portal 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. And ultra-high quality boring games? Such a cute fanboy. =p
Spore.... Man, I regret pre-ordering it so much. Slightly more than I regret buying HL2 crap. I mean, I can see how Spore can be entertaining for little kids and how the creature editor was pretty much the only good bit of it, but so much disappointment due to that early demo.
There's no need for personal attacks.
It's not like Valve's games are the only ones that exist you know. During playtesting they probably use special dev. copies that don't call in to Steam (for good reason I bet, Steam is nice for getting good deals but the "No connection? NO GAEMS 4 U" is crap, made almost insulting with "offline mode" which does absolutely nothing except make it so that Steam doesn't even try...) and there's the separate accounts mentioned above. Listen to the commentary, it's very interesting. They have it all down to a precise science.
While you personally may prefer another Portal to Episode 3, just as many people have the reverse opinion. There's no need to be all offensive just because someone has different tastes. Let's start a fistfight because I like A1 steak sauce, why don't we?
I don't get the love for valve games. Arn't they exactly the opposite of what a good game should be? Everything's linear and prescripted, the gameplay is mind-numbingly simple, everything's damn easy once you figure out the basics (Except for whit portal, that becomes easy once you've figured out some of the puzzles). There's no freedom to roam, there's no emergent gameplay and for the on-line games the community tends to suck. Only good thing they have is outdated graphics.
Not really. "Linear is bad" is as much of a fallacy as "original is good". Let's see... Super Mario World, Metroid, Super Mario 64, Doom, Final Fantasy, Earthbound, Paper Mario, Super Mario RPG, Super Smash Brothers Brawl's Subspace Emissary mode, Marathon, Super Mario Galaxy, Zork, Planetfall, Bioshock, System Shock... Most of these are pretty generally accepted "good" games, and all strictly "linear". There's absolutely nothing wrong with being "linear". "Linear" basically means that you move forward without making important decisions. It makes it easier to tell a coherent story. Anyway, if you're just shooting at things, who cares? I'm not saying that "nonlinear" games are bad, just that it doesn't automatically make them good either, and certainly isn't a bad thing.
As for "mind numbingly simple"... That's a good description for about 75% of games. Not video games. All games. Go fish, any and all FPS games, rythm games... Just because it's simple dosn't mean it's bad.
The problem is that you're taking industry buzzwords too seriously. I put them in quotes for a reason. They don't really mean anything in terms of game quality. Everything's easy once you figure out the basics? Yes, that's true. Everything.
My ass. And even the stuff they've done with L4D2 has amounted to paying for cinematic campaigns. Lying *** mother-****ers.
Again, when did this happen? I must be out of touch.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 04:24:58 pm
Quote
Hmm? Which game was that? Licensing deal with EA? I've seriously never heard anything about that.
This is mostly conjecture from someone who was a hardcore fan of L4D but....
A few months after L4D released, Valve announced L4D2. And unlike L4D, it had a bbiiiiigggggg shiny EA logo on it, and EA dumped millions into the marketing for L4D2. Valve had already started doing that with L4D (the TV promos) but EA helped them take it to the next level.
It's unclear whether Valve and EA failed to reach an agreement on L4D....or if EA only got interested in L4D after they saw how well it did. (And how well it played in terms of publicity.) Either way, work on L4D stopped almost the minute the game released, because Valve began working on L4D2 immediately. They strung L4D fans along with a few easy to make and publish maps and game modes, and drug their asses on even getting the mapping tools out. Then the L4D2 announcement came, along with their partnership with EA, and most fans read the writing on the wall.
Quote
Again, when did this happen? I must be out of touch.The Passing. Granted, they're giving it some more game modes and a new zombie type....but they really tried to sell us on the cinematic aspects of L4D, which carried over into L4D2. I appreciated the movie experience in L4D....about three times. After that, I tended not to care about the characters (why should I? they're not different) or the subtleties of the dialog people spit out at certain times during game play.
So when I heard the crux of the DLC was just so you could play the L4D characters in L4D2...(and see one of them die for real....) I was just like yeah....compared to TF2, you guys are just jerking us off.
Post by: Virex on June 10, 2010, 04:36:17 pm
Halflife 2 was more linear then a ruler. Also, it had an annoying sidekick and forced you to care for her when you most definitly wanted to blow her head off (only saving grace was that she could kill headcrabs) and don't get me started on the other characters I was supposed to like. The whole "aliens take over the world but are stopped by GORDON FREEMAN"-story was also one gaping plothole and they even hang a lampshade on that at the end of it. The AI was bad, most weapons were bland or done better by earlier games and the game was really restrictive in where you could move. I fail to see how an Bay12er in it's right mind could appreciate it. Oh and it also had 2 more episodes that cost as much as a full game for little more then what free DLC should have provided. >:(
Portal, though sometimes intersting was way short. Glados was annoying as was the endless clamouring about that strange cube thing. The game was, again, very restrictive and linear. There were at most 3 ways to solve a puzle, but usualy it boiled down to repeating the same old patterns over and over.
That only leaves TF 2 as an in my eyes decent, if pretty standard multiplayer game. It is however being dragged down by silly things such as constant changes in how to get items, hat overloads and the fact that someone who has played longer has an advantage because he has more weapons. You're lucky they're not charging you for play time yet, though that's probably not far off.
VAC's ofcourse a scam to ban unwitting people and keep the real cheaters from leaving steam in favour of a honest system. Steam itself requires you to be on-line to play your games usualy, which is also a realy bad kind of copy protection. They generaly overprice the games, which they conceal by having sales. Support's pretty bad as well and it's SLOW compared to starting the game directly. Also, if you get your account hacked or on the bad side of someone with a bit of knowledge you're fawked and you've lost all your games.
Edit:
Quote
The problem is that you're taking industry buzzwords too seriously. I put them in quotes for a reason. They don't really mean anything in terms of game quality. Everything's easy once you figure out the basics? Yes, that's true. Everything.
Ok I've got to stop, I can't hold the facade anymore.
I was just playing the devils advocate, painting the idiocy of how people here always rave on some things lik open worlds and emergent gameplay, which in no way guarantee a good game.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 04:45:29 pm
Quote
Counterstirke has no other gameplay then point a gun at someone and shoot. It also has a horrible community. I don't see how a Bay12er could not hate a company for creating this. Nerd cred doesn't realy cut it when the game itself has little substance...
At the time, it was cutting edge. I don't claim to be a fan, but I give credit where it's due, when it's due.
Quote
HL2
Is this a "one sane man in a world full of crazy people" scenario? Because the sales show that people loved HL2, found it innovative and refreshing. I've never played it, nor will I ever play it, but again, at the time, it was clearly a winner with the average gamer.
Quote
Portal
I don't necessarily disagree. I didn't find Portal terribly awesome either. But at the very least it showed that Valve was capable of bending the rules in a FPS in a way others hadn't. I don't know that it warranted an entire game about making portals but....again, the record shows it did pretty well with most gamers.
Quote
That only leaves TF 2 as an in my eyes decent, if pretty standard multiplayer game. It is however being dragged down by silly things such as constant changes in how to get items, hat overloads and the fact that someone who has played longer has an advantage because he has more weapons. You're lucky they're not charging you for play time yet, though that's probably not far off.
Lol. Your cynicism is really showing here. If Valve were going to charge for TF2 updates, they would have done it about 20 updates ago. I do agree that, in it's quest to expand game play, TF2 throws a lot of noise at you sometimes. Hats. Yeesh. I seriously doubt Valve will ever charge for TF2 updates though. TF2 is their "every man game that is easy to pick up." Charging for updates or to play would most likely lose them new customers. You get a lot of stuff for just $20 with TF2, that's the appeal.
Quote
Steam
I mostly agree here. But I buy into Steam's DRM because it comes with enough perks. I've reconnected with a lot of gaming buddies through Steam and it's our default way to communicate now as a group. Their markups are not that bad though, I don't know where you're getting that. $60 games are $60 games. Games that aren't discounted cost the same as you would find anywhere else. Their deals slash prices to "a night at the movies" cost sometimes. Their package deals, if you really want a package deal, are good buys too. I don't have technical issues hardly ever, and I don't blow my top when a gaming network that supports millions have technical trouble. Shit happens. Customer service though...yeah, I've heard mixed stories there. But I'm not stupid enough to try and load pirated games into Steam, which is what gets half of people caught.
Post by: Zangi on June 10, 2010, 04:51:06 pm
I do wish Valve gave L4D the support they promised it. At the same time, better fix the things that kept me from wanting to play versus.
Plus, I am biased in preference of the original cast.
Well, I don't play any other Valve games. L4D is my go-to game for the 360, at least.
Post by: fenrif on June 10, 2010, 04:53:28 pm
I am disappointed, in the end, with L4D2. Despite having more, it just doesn't... work as well with me.
I do wish Valve gave L4D the support they promised it. At the same time, better fix the things that kept me from wanting to play versus.
Plus, I am biased in preference of the original cast.
Well, I don't play any other Valve games. L4D is my go-to game for the 360, at least.
L4D2 has horrible balance and pacing. They seem to have dicked around with the AI director and ruined the game, for me at least.
In the first one when I played we were always on the edge of our seat. The director was really good at pushing you right to the brink of failure, but not actually killing you. Made for some awesome gameplay. The second one just threw tank after tank after tank after witch at you untill you died. Re-doing the same section for 2 hours isn't fun at all.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 04:58:43 pm
Sadly, that was only about 1 in 3 games, with the other two having a totally inept team playing against you, or rage quitters.
I still pine for some L4D versus occasionally. I really didn't like how worked up the game got me though....or how much you could start to HATE your own teammates when they failed to hold up their own end.
Quote
The director was really good at pushing you right to the brink of failure, but not actually killing you.
I dunno, once I played enough to understand the director, I was less than impressed. It's never been as complicated as Valve made it out to be. It's not even really a concise piece of code. It's a series of scripts and timers, that's all. At least in L4D anyways. Stay in one chunk too long, game checks your party status and difficulty level, spawns zombies. Pass a certain threshold, spawns zombies.
The real panic in L4D set in because people treated the AI director like a person. People would rush through levels afraid 'the director' would get them if they stood still too long. We eventually discovered that in campaigns, you can outlast anything the director throws at you if you take your time, and everyone stays alive. Once we did that, the game was significantly less tense...and levels took about 30 minutes longer.
Quote
Re-doing the same section for 2 hours isn't fun at all.
This is what eventually killed campaign for me. The normal difficulties weren't hard enough...and the higher difficulties resulted in redoing said section for 2 hours. I like a good challenge, but not even I had patience for that. Especially when it's your team, not you, that causes you to fail.
Post by: fenrif on June 10, 2010, 05:09:59 pm
We only played it through once though, too many times spent unable to progress because someone didn't understand how to play, etc. It's also part of the reason why I didn't get it for PC. I had no inclination to play through campaign again, or play through the same levels I'd spent hours on. When they announced L4D2 I just gave up on the whole thing. Especially since quite a few of the early L4d2 trailers were harping on about the new characters, which I couldn't care less about. The game isn't about the characters, it's about the people you play with.
I don't care what zoey or ellis has to say, I care what the guy sitting next to me playing as zoey or ellis has to say.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 05:14:57 pm
The console version of L4D also completely neutered the infected waves. On PC you can display upwards of 100 zombies on the screen at once. On the Xbox....they hard coded it down to about 40. If you think you've been scared on console....you haven't seen anything compared to what gets thrown at you on PC. I tried playing L4D on the Xbox once, and it was so muted and slowed down from the PC I couldn't stand it.
Post by: fenrif on June 10, 2010, 05:24:06 pm
That said versus mode never really appealed to me. Play the same levels again but with real people against you? Jib that. L4D just had no replayability for me. Far too linear.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 05:28:13 pm
Like I said, L4D versus is really, really intense. You know the whole "the director is going to get us?" Replace director with "the other team" and it turns out to be true. In versus, if you sit still, the other team will just respawn, hitting you every 45 seconds to one minute, whittling you down until people start dropping.
L4D versus has the intensity that the director tried for and failed to emulate completely. Planning your strat as the infected, hunting people down...that mad dash for the exit when you're the only one left....yeah. L4D versus was by far better than the campaign in almost every way. Just don't ever play it if you get easily frustrated...because you will get the **** frustrated out of you by the other team.
I've had epic 30 minute games where we literally had to fight tooth and nail against the other team just to pass a single section. I can't recommend it enough if you've never tried it. If Valve had supported L4D the way they had said, I would STILL be playing L4D versus today.
Post by: Zangi on June 10, 2010, 05:29:54 pm
Thats why you don't play expert or at least skip out when things hit the fan, which I admittedly fail to do, being stubborn as heck. More often then not, you find people with no business playing it... playing it.QuoteRe-doing the same section for 2 hours isn't fun at all.
This is what eventually killed campaign for me. The normal difficulties weren't hard enough...and the higher difficulties resulted in redoing said section for 2 hours. I like a good challenge, but not even I had patience for that. Especially when it's your team, not you, that causes you to fail.
I stick to advanced.
And normal... I guess I can't take it seriously in campaign, so I suck a lot more.
Where PUGs tend to shine, even now, some players tend to move quick and fast, someone falls behind and it comes down to... "Screw you guys, I'm going to the safe house" or going back.QuoteThe director was really good at pushing you right to the brink of failure, but not actually killing you.
I dunno, once I played enough to understand the director, I was less than impressed. It's never been as complicated as Valve made it out to be. It's not even really a concise piece of code. It's a series of scripts and timers, that's all. At least in L4D anyways. Stay in one chunk too long, game checks your party status and difficulty level, spawns zombies. Pass a certain threshold, spawns zombies.
The real panic in L4D set in because people treated the AI director like a person. People would rush through levels afraid 'the director' would get them if they stood still too long. We eventually discovered that in campaigns, you can outlast anything the director throws at you if you take your time, and everyone stays alive. Once we did that, the game was significantly less tense...and levels took about 30 minutes longer.
Its more fun going back to the rescue and succeeding.
@Versus, melee storm killed versus for me. Plus PUGs suck here. Tend to go against organized group of players.
All from 360 perspective.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 05:33:28 pm
Quote
Thats why you don't play expert or at least skip out when things hit the fan, which I admittedly fail to do, being stubborn as heck. More often then not, you find people with no business playing it... playing it.
I stick to advanced.
And normal... I guess I can't take it seriously in campaign, so I suck a lot more.
Advanced was still too easy. I could just never find enough committed people to make it all the way through an expert game, so I gave up on campaign entirely. And yeah, after versus....put it this way. Campaign is sugar. Versus is ****ing coke.
I haven't kept up, but didn't they finally implement team matching in the lobby? Too little too late for me...but it would help the PUG problem. PUGs are almost totally worthless in L4D as a rule.
Post by: dragnar on June 10, 2010, 05:37:56 pm
But they achieve the goal of being fun. And that's what counts.I cannot stress this enough. A game is not good because it follows some "superior" design paradigm, but because it is FUN. NOTHING else matters. You can criticize a type of game all you like, as long as it is fun it doesn't matter one bit. The main problem is that the majority of gamers have very low standards of fun, accepting only mildly entertaining games as amazing instead of demanding something truly good.
As for valve, I am very impressed with them for pushing back portal 2's release date. A game should never be pushed out the door before it's finished, but most developers don't give those who actually make the game the authority to decide when they are done and instead release the game at some arbitrary time far before it is ready to be sold.
Post by: Schilcote on June 10, 2010, 05:38:32 pm
Counterstirke has no other gameplay then point a gun at someone and shoot. It also has a horrible community. I don't see how a Bay12er could not hate a company for creating this. Nerd cred doesn't realy cut it when the game itself has little substance...
Halflife 2 was more linear then a ruler. Also, it had an annoying sidekick and forced you to care for her when you most definitly wanted to blow her head off (only saving grace was that she could kill headcrabs) and don't get me started on the other characters I was supposed to like. The whole "aliens take over the world but are stopped by GORDON FREEMAN"-story was also one gaping plothole and they even hang a lampshade on that at the end of it. The AI was bad, most weapons were bland or done better by earlier games and the game was really restrictive in where you could move. I fail to see how an Bay12er in it's right mind could appreciate it. Oh and it also had 2 more episodes that cost as much as a full game for little more then what free DLC should have provided. >:(
Portal, though sometimes intersting was way short. Glados was annoying as was the endless clamouring about that strange cube thing. The game was, again, very restrictive and linear. There were at most 3 ways to solve a puzle, but usualy it boiled down to repeating the same old patterns over and over.
That only leaves TF 2 as an in my eyes decent, if pretty standard multiplayer game. It is however being dragged down by silly things such as constant changes in how to get items, hat overloads and the fact that someone who has played longer has an advantage because he has more weapons. You're lucky they're not charging you for play time yet, though that's probably not far off.
VAC's ofcourse a scam to ban unwitting people and keep the real cheaters from leaving steam in favour of a honest system. Steam itself requires you to be on-line to play your games usualy, which is also a realy bad kind of copy protection. They generaly overprice the games, which they conceal by having sales. Support's pretty bad as well and it's SLOW compared to starting the game directly. Also, if you get your account hacked or on the bad side of someone with a bit of knowledge you're fawked and you've lost all your games.
Edit:QuoteThe problem is that you're taking industry buzzwords too seriously. I put them in quotes for a reason. They don't really mean anything in terms of game quality. Everything's easy once you figure out the basics? Yes, that's true. Everything.
Ok I've got to stop, I can't hold the facade anymore.
I was just playing the devils advocate, painting the idiocy of how people here always rave on some things lik open worlds and emergent gameplay, which in no way guarantee a good game.
Umm... was the whole post a facade, or just the ending bit?
Does this mean I won? (I have a meme/macro lined up for this occasion, but I don't feel like putting forth the effort to make it work)
But they achieve the goal of being fun. And that's what counts.I cannot stress this enough. A game is not good because it follows some "superior" design paradigm, but because it is FUN. NOTHING else matters. You can criticize a type of game all you like, as long as it is fun it doesn't matter one bit. The main problem is that the majority of gamers have very low standards of fun, accepting only mildly entertaining games as amazing instead of demanding something truly good.
As for valve, I am very impressed with them for pushing back portal 2's release date. A game should never be pushed out the door before it's finished, but most developers don't give those who actually make the game the authority to decide when they are done and instead release the game at some arbitrary time far before it is ready to be sold.
I'm Schilcote, and I approve this message.
EDIT:
I also agree with nenjin says below. Still, they probably won't make the same mistake again. Probably.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 05:41:00 pm
As for fun...fun is subjective. Some people find the Sims fun. Some people find Bejeweled fun. Some people find Solitaire with a lot of graphics fun. (Some people find DF fun.) Whether or not something is 'fun' isn't a good question...there is the internet and someone is always going to claim it's fun. The real question is "How fun and for whom is it fun?"
For example, a friend asked me if Arkham Asylum (on Steam at a discount this week) was 'fun.' I said yeah, sure, it's fun. How fun? About 15 hours worth of fun before it becomes repetitive and tedious, just like all games. It was a good experience to have, but not one that I would scream at people to run out and have. I'm so tired of one-shot experiences in gaming, and I'm tired of paying a premium $60 dollars for what amounts to a 20 hours movie experience. Screw that. I want to get games that will stay with me for a long time. So when I ask people if it's fun, what I mean is "is it really fun?" I've been through probably 10 games in the last month alone, and while all were fun on some level....I'm not playing any of them at the moment.
Post by: subject name here on June 10, 2010, 05:47:14 pm
((ps myth rox)
Post by: Soulwynd on June 10, 2010, 08:00:45 pm
There's no need for personal attacks.Not always. But sometimes...
It's not like Valve's games are the only ones that exist you know. During playtesting they probably use special dev. copies that don't call in to Steam (for good reason I bet, Steam is nice for getting good deals but the "No connection? NO GAEMS 4 U" is crap, made almost insulting with "offline mode" which does absolutely nothing except make it so that Steam doesn't even try...) and there's the separate accounts mentioned above. Listen to the commentary, it's very interesting. They have it all down to a precise science.They can't just play in development boxes, otherwise they wont have any idea of how the game behaves with real players. I'm of the opinion they simply don't play it and have play testers tell them stuff.
While you personally may prefer another Portal to Episode 3, just as many people have the reverse opinion. There's no need to be all offensive just because someone has different tastes. Let's start a fistfight because I like A1 steak sauce, why don't we?
The problem isn't the preference, it's the massive generalization your love for valve games caused in the last post. Saying they know what the market wants is far fetched, specially since they acquired fans and keep on hand-feeding said fans (while sneaking a hand in their wallets). Of course, an exception doesn't make the rule, it was just an example of how the only single player game from them I liked was more like an added bonus than an actual game. Don't take what I said as offensive, because I didn't mean it that way, more like a playful way, since you have to agree it was really fanboyish, the only thing missing were some pompoms. =p
lol at the op's poll calling people fruits for not automatically hating all modern games. way to be a homophobe ::)Op here, you can call me Soulwynd and if you knew me one bit, you'd know I make fun of pretty much everything. Even tho sometimes the fun is also meaningful and serious, but in this case it was more because fruits don't hate things, they're flamboyantly gay. As in happy gay, not sleep-with-the-same-sex-gay. Get it?
((ps myth rox)
PS. THIS IS A JOKE.
Fun is very relative. Sometimes you're not looking for fun when you get a game either. Sometimes you look for challenge, some other times a more sandboxy feeling. For example, I think DF can be fun but it's not always. It has other things beyond plain fun that make up for it and I consider it one of the greatest games we have.QuoteI cannot stress this enough. A game is not good because it follows some "superior" design paradigm, but because it is FUN. NOTHING else matters. You can criticize a type of game all you like, as long as it is fun it doesn't matter one bit. The main problem is that the majority of gamers have very low standards of fun, accepting only mildly entertaining games as amazing instead of demanding something truly good.
As for valve, I am very impressed with them for pushing back portal 2's release date. A game should never be pushed out the door before it's finished, but most developers don't give those who actually make the game the authority to decide when they are done and instead release the game at some arbitrary time far before it is ready to be sold.
I'm Schilcote, and I approve this message.
EDIT:
I also agree with nenjin says below. Still, they probably won't make the same mistake again. Probably.
There's also adult fun and childish fun, in a sense, despise there really being no set age to enjoy either/both. I think the market is a bit too geared towards childish fun, leaving out mature themes. For example, I think it will be rare to see another Max Payne-like game for a while. Yes, it wasn't a very realistic game and the story was a very old school private eye thing to the point of being ridiculous. But it dealt with mature themes very openly.
Valve has that luxury with Portal 2 because they're publishing it.I thought they were with EA for boxes still. I wouldn't be surprised if the box publisher of P2 was EA.
Post by: nenjin on June 10, 2010, 08:44:58 pm
http://cheats.ign.com/objects/142/14237322.html
Lists Valve as the publisher. I didn't look that hard, but I didn't see EA popping up anywhere in mention to Portal 2. Besides, "experimental and creative" doesn't exactly describe what EA looks for in a title. :P
Post by: Soulwynd on June 10, 2010, 09:02:46 pm
i wouldn't be surprised about that either.
I'd be surprised if they gave it for free. =p
Post by: Grakelin on June 10, 2010, 09:44:31 pm
I'm a bit confused about what mature elements in Max Payne are explored that haven't been explored since then?
Post by: nenjin on June 11, 2010, 12:17:09 am
Post by: subject name here on June 11, 2010, 12:54:41 am
Quote
Op here, you can call me Soulwynd and if you knew me one bit, you'd know I make fun of pretty much everything. Even tho sometimes the fun is also meaningful and serious, but in this case it was more because fruits don't hate things, they're flamboyantly gay. As in happy gay, not sleep-with-the-same-sex-gay. Get it?
oh okay you're only calling them flamboyantly gay for liking modern games i guess that makes everything okay!
Post by: Xotes on June 11, 2010, 05:19:32 am
Post by: Schilcote on June 11, 2010, 06:45:12 am
The problem isn't the preference, it's the massive generalization your love for valve games caused in the last post. Saying they know what the market wants is far fetched, specially since they acquired fans and keep on hand-feeding said fans (while sneaking a hand in their wallets). O\
Well, exactly. HL2/Portal/TF2 fans ARE their market. They're targeting a specific demographic (medium-hardcore gamers who like either teamwork or story and puzzles), and they even have a computer program on all their customer's computers to spy on them :P. They have an even base of established customers, and the customer base is large enough that they can make a profit simply pandering to these people.
Also, the main reason I talk about Valve so much is because Valve's games are the ones that stick out the most in my mind. In fact, I think the games of the Half-Life series are the only ones I've ever actually played a paid version of (I have Shareware Quake on my Wii, though, which is actually quite easy to control)...
Post by: Draco18s on June 11, 2010, 10:02:27 am
Also, the main reason I talk about Valve so much is because Valve's games are the ones that stick out the most in my mind. In fact, I think the games of the Half-Life series are the only ones I've ever actually played a paid version of (I have Shareware Quake on my Wii, though, which is actually quite easy to control)...
I didn't care about Valve until Portal came along. I even played Narbacular Drop. I only have HL2 because I pre-ordered the Orange Box. I played them, they were fairly decent FPS games with a pretty good story...but nothing to write home about IMO.
I didn't expect to like TF2 too much--never heard of Team Fortress, the "Meet the ____" videos were kind of entertaining, didn't care for competitive FPS--but I've put in almost 634 hours (according to Steam). That's about 7.8 cents an hour (assuming $50 for just TF2 of the Orange Box price). Or slightly more than 3 cents an hour (at the $20 value of TF2 purchased alone).
If I add in the rest of the orange box (some hours seem to be missing; I know my first run of Portal was 7 hours and Steam has me at 2.2 on record, and no hours for HL2:ep1) I push up towards 700 hours. 7.1 cents per hour paid for the entire collection.
I also have just over 303 hours in the L4D authoring tools, and another 367 in the Source SDK (TF2 mapping).
1370 hours of entertainment. 3.6 cents an hour* (every penny well spent).
*4.985 cents, if you don't include the L4D mapping.
Post by: Soulwynd on June 11, 2010, 11:47:34 am
Every time you try to justify your fruit comment, you only dig a hole deeper.You mean, every single -only once- time? There's no hole to dig, It was a joke.
I'm a bit confused about what mature elements in Max Payne are explored that haven't been explored since then?
Give an example then.
I think he means a game with its overall grit and noir value. I can think of a couple games at least that focus on mature themes; the Suffering jumps straight to mind, and the Suffering 2. Nothing quite like Max Payne 2 out there though. Nothing really has it's sense of style or story-telling. The narrative in Max Payne 2 just gets downright odd after a while.Hm, I haven't played those two, are they mainly console games? And yes, Max Payne 2 deals with a self-justified serial killer (max) going deeper into his nuttyness.
oh okay you're only calling them flamboyantly gay for liking modern games i guess that makes everything okay!
Gay is a synonym for happy, Subject. The odds of it being used in that sense nowadays, however, is admittedly highly unlikely.Yes, you have to be flamboyantly gay to enjoy most of the crappy games that are thrown at us. Being anal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xb0gMI7vCU) about it isn't required tho. (See what I did there?)
PS. THIS IS STILL A JOKE. HOVER THE MOUSE OVER THE WORDS TO SEE THAT IT WAS A WORD PLAY.
Well, exactly. HL2/Portal/TF2 fans ARE their market.Aha, if that's what you meant on the post back there, okay.
I think the games of the Half-Life series are the only ones I've ever actually played a paid version of
But man, no wonder why you like them so much, with that small selection of paid games. Assuming you don't fly the black and skully colors of a pirate vessel.
I didn't care about Valve until Portal came along.I played HL1, which was the only one I actually liked enough to not want to kill myself in the middle of the process. I can say the same as you about TF2 which was the reason I got steam to begin with.
I didn't expect to like TF2 too much--never heard of Team Fortress
Post by: Draco18s on June 11, 2010, 12:45:41 pm
I played HL1, which was the only one I actually liked enough to not want to kill myself in the middle of the process. I can say the same as you about TF2 which was the reason I got steam to begin with.
I'm watching Freeman's Mind for that one. I don't really feel like playing something so old, and the machinima itself is clever, adding another layer of enjoyment.
Post by: nenjin on June 11, 2010, 12:54:45 pm
Quote
Hm, I haven't played those two, are they mainly console games? And yes, Max Payne 2 deals with a self-justified serial killer (max) going deeper into his nuttyness.
Yes, Xbox titles. It's essentially the same as Max Payne as far as the story; a man convicted for killing his family, his descent into the darkness of his own nature, his personal choice between good and evil and the blurring of the lines of reality....along with bevy of just plain ol' human suffering. The game is pretty grim. Not spectacularly written, but it's got lots of flavor. (And the Suffering 2 gets ****ing hard after a while.) It also has some of the most bad ass (http://z.about.com/d/compactiongames/1/0/z/Z/1/suffering.jpg) monsters (http://www.thunderboltgames.com/s/reviews/xbox/sufferingttb_3.jpg).
Post by: Soulwynd on June 11, 2010, 12:59:36 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on June 11, 2010, 02:05:37 pm
...I don't really feel like playing something so old...
You are on the DF forums. Dwarf Fortress hearkens back a quarter century in terms of appearance.
HL1 is not that old or bad, and remains worth a play.
Dang. Fixed it.
Post by: Draco18s on June 11, 2010, 02:55:50 pm
...I don't really feel like playing something so old...
You are on the DF forums. Dwarf Fortress hearkens back a quarter century in terms of appearance.
HL1 is not that old or bad, and remains worth a play.
You're quotes are off. You need to remove Soulwynd's quote tag.
ANYWAY. DwarfFortress has a certain appeal for having "1980s" graphics. HL1 I'm just not intersted in playing. I only played HL2 (etc) because I already owned them.
Post by: Grakelin on June 12, 2010, 10:48:18 pm
Post by: Draco18s on June 12, 2010, 11:33:41 pm
Yeah, I know what you mean. I only played Civilization because I went to the store, purchased it, and brought it home to remove the shrinkwrap. I wouldn't have played it otherwise.
...I bought the Orange Box for Portal and Portal alone. I would have gotten it by itself, but my friend convinced me that TF2 would be worth it, and for the pre-order price if $40 I was getting the two $20 games I wanted but got HL2 for free.
That's what I meant.
Post by: Soulwynd on June 13, 2010, 03:16:13 pm
Post by: Draco18s on June 13, 2010, 08:32:35 pm
I feel the incommensurable need to post this. (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2010/06/13/final-fantasy-x-review-part-2/)
You, sir and/or madame, win the internets.
Post by: nenjin on June 13, 2010, 09:17:20 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on June 13, 2010, 09:53:17 pm
It's worth it even if you saw the second part first.
Post by: nenjin on June 13, 2010, 10:35:30 pm
I wish I had just stopped playing at 7 altogether.
Post by: Jacob/Lee on June 14, 2010, 12:49:06 am
Dungeon Keeper to Dungeon Keeper 2 is also a good example, DK had more creatures and they had more special abilities than on DKII.
Post by: Grakelin on June 14, 2010, 01:45:29 am
I agree with games being dumbed down, Fallout 2 to Fallout 3 is a good example. (Don't bitch about them being made by different companies, i'm making a point) In Fallout 2 you had a few more skills than 3, sure, but you could also choose personality traits I believe that also modified things. You could date people on F2 but not F3 etc. etc.
Dungeon Keeper to Dungeon Keeper 2 is also a good example, DK had more creatures and they had more special abilities than on DKII.
To be fair, there are mods that let you date people in F3. One or two of them are actually decent.
They did remove the traits (placing most of those effects into the feat system, which is a carry-over from before). On the flipside, we now get to have appearances other than 'Man with Brown Hair' and 'Woman with Shoulder-Length Black Hair'.
I was always frustrated in Arcanum about how my dude looked nothing like the portrait. Only once (while playing Victoria Warrington) was I able to force myself to imagine her looking like the portrait and not the sprite.
Post by: Draco18s on June 14, 2010, 01:27:56 pm
I was always frustrated in Arcanum about how my dude looked nothing like the portrait. Only once (while playing Victoria Warrington) was I able to force myself to imagine her looking like the portrait and not the sprite.
I think I like Wizardry 8 in that regard: there WERE no 3D models of the characters, all you had were their portraits. But they talked. There were something like 18 different personalities (per gender) that you could choose from, each one had their own take on hundreds of events and would spout them off once in a while (there was one that when you brought him back from being dead was like, "Why'd you do that? I had 72 virgins all to myself!" there was a "hunter" personality for males that was perfect for a canine character, who I ended up using as the "sacrifice" to the demon queen--that is, he got to sleep with her--and his remark was, "For that one night, the hunter was the hunted." Then there was another personality that I gave to a bard who talked in the third person, as if he was the narrator (there WAS an actual narrator too) that was absolutely historical).
Post by: Soulwynd on June 18, 2010, 07:12:38 pm
Meanwhile, I still have Wizardry 8 here, I was wondering if I should reinstall it and have some fun.
Post by: Draco18s on June 18, 2010, 11:39:03 pm
I think this represents very well what MMOs are right now. (http://www.kongregate.com/games/Abra24/grindquest-beta) I really need to get back to making games. *sigh*
I couldn't even figure out the interface. It;s like "WELCOME TO GLODFRAKK: YOU ARE AN EXPLORERER! :D"
Quote
Meanwhile, I still have Wizardry 8 here, I was wondering if I should reinstall it and have some fun.
I've been meaning--and attempted once--to play through Wizardry 6 and then 7 so I could have played the full trilogy with one set of characters. But I never finished; stats were too random and you have to have practically everything max on every character to really succeed.
Post by: Jay on June 18, 2010, 11:57:58 pm
Going to go back in time a tad because I feel the need to mention this...
hopefully not take 10gb to install. That's insane.In the era of
Seriously, I did some math on this subject recently, if you're anal-retentive and won't ever delete anything for any reason, you're still only spending an average of US$0.16 per gigabyte. That's dirt cheap.
Of course, that's based on an actual HDD, and not SSDs, as that would completely skew the result. Flash memory is more expensive. Period. And will likely stay that way for a while.
...
Otherwise, yes. Triple-A games are getting to be copious amounts of eye candy* and dumbed down interfaces**, forgoing gameplay.
*Crysis, Mass Effect 2, Two Worlds, etc.. The list goes on...
**Spore especially, but there's plenty of others
The only two commercial games I have played in the past few months? Borderlands and Freelancer.
Borderlands is just a unique mix of RPG and FPS that hasn't been done before, and I enjoy it.
Freelancer... 10 years later, it's still fun for me. They had the formula right back then... Pretty good graphics for the time, but still had great gameplay...
Otherwise I've been playing Minecraft infdev, Wurm, and Dwarf Fortress.
Do I regret it? Hell no!
Post by: Soulwynd on June 19, 2010, 12:30:23 am
In the era ofThat depends a lot on availability and where you are in the world. 10gb is always a lot (to me at least), it's something slow to install, to download (unless you're some european freak with a 50mb/s link), to move around, and will be slow to load up. You seriously don't need to use 10gb to make a good game and being 10gb doesn't make it good or pretty either.static and contrabandterabyte hard drives, 10GB is nothing.
Seriously, I did some math on this subject recently, if you're anal-retentive and won't ever delete anything for any reason, you're still only spending an average of US$0.16 per gigabyte.
As an example, one terabyte over here equals one month of minimum wage.
Post by: Jay on June 19, 2010, 12:46:19 am
it's something slow to install, to download, to move around, and will be slow to load upInstall: Depends on the speed of the drive in question, and where the data is coming from, along with the efficiency of the installer.
Download: ...Yeah... But if you're getting it digitally, that's the price you pay for not having to worry about a physical disc. (or it's the price you pay for not paying at all, if you're a pirate...)
Move: You don't want to be moving around a commercial game's data much anyway, they tend to add tons of crap to the registry stating where they are.
Loading: Depends on the drive again, and (heavily upon) the game. GTAIV, weighing in at a whopping 15.4GB, loads up in a couple of seconds for me(barring the obnoxiously long unskippable introduction sequence), whereas Garry's Mod, at only 2.2GB, can take upwards of 3 or 4 minutes.
Availability/Price: Well, you've got me there... My point stands if you're in North America, but otherwise, I don't know.
Post by: Soulwynd on June 19, 2010, 02:09:45 am
I have a 500gb portable HD I keep most of the games I want to play again at some time. I make sure to make them all portable if I can. Games that use a shared folder are often harder to make portable, requires some testing first. But you can always throw them into a virtual machine (http://www.vmware.com/products/thinapp/) and say fuck you developers for being so crappy.
Post by: NobodyPro on December 13, 2010, 02:05:06 am
Loved Fable 1, didn't bother with Fable 3.
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2010, 02:21:56 am
Fable 2, nuff said.
Loved Fable 1, didn't bother with Fable 3.
If you played Fable 2 you played Fable 3
I'll admit that Fable 3 probably has one of the best Cinamatic sequences of all videogames (as in it has ONE that is amazing...)... but really that isn't a reason to buy the game. No I am not talking about the Chicken one, though that was good too. I call the sequence "My Albion"
Though good music and good cinamatics does not a good game make.
Post by: Draco18s on December 13, 2010, 09:40:54 am
Fable 2, nuff said.
Loved Fable 1, didn't bother with Fable 3.
If you played Fable 2 you played Fable 3
If you played Fable 1 you played Fable 2.
Post by: Soulwynd on December 13, 2010, 09:53:34 am
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2010, 10:06:26 am
Fable 2, nuff said.
Loved Fable 1, didn't bother with Fable 3.
If you played Fable 2 you played Fable 3
If you played Fable 1 you played Fable 2.
No Fable 2 was quite the step up... or back... either way it was different
Or at least 10 times more different then Fable 3
Post by: Zangi on December 13, 2010, 10:07:42 am
The chicken thing is the best part of Fable 3. Granted that I've shelved it due to gamebreaking bugs...Fable 2, nuff said.
Loved Fable 1, didn't bother with Fable 3.
If you played Fable 2 you played Fable 3
I'll admit that Fable 3 probably has one of the best Cinamatic sequences of all videogames (as in it has ONE that is amazing...)... but really that isn't a reason to buy the game. No I am not talking about the Chicken one, though that was good too. I call the sequence "My Albion"
Though good music and good cinamatics does not a good game make.
Post by: Neonivek on December 13, 2010, 10:14:06 am
Which is a shame because Lionhead had so much potential.
All their games seem amazing on paper, heck even I want Milo, but they fail in execution.
Post by: breadbocks on December 13, 2010, 05:09:29 pm
The scan came up somewhere around "This is a standard Galactic Federation door. If is protected by an energy shield and can be opened by a weak blast."
...
Anyone ever thought of... you know, knocking?
Post by: Draco18s on December 13, 2010, 05:16:11 pm
The scan came up somewhere around "This is a standard Galactic Federation door. If is protected by an energy shield and can be opened by a weak blast."
Ever thought of designing doors that didn't jam open when shot?
Post by: AntiAntiMatter on December 13, 2010, 07:05:21 pm
The scan came up somewhere around "This is a standard Galactic Federation door. If is protected by an energy shield and can be opened by a weak blast."
Ever thought of designing doors that didn't jam open when shot?
Yes. http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)
It's #96
Post by: dragnar on December 13, 2010, 07:51:54 pm
I'd say mass murdering is the biggest problem. I was playing Metroid Prime 3 the other day, and I was scanning like crazy. I scanned a door....you know, those doors are there to keep people OUT. You have to blast them open for a reason.
The scan came up somewhere around "This is a standard Galactic Federation door. If is protected by an energy shield and can be opened by a weak blast."
...
Anyone ever thought of... you know, knocking?
Post by: Shrugging Khan on December 13, 2010, 07:56:52 pm
Linearity.
Graphic-centrism.
are my main problems with modern gaming. I want to be challenged, and free to find my own ways of meeting the challenge...not railroaded into shooting a thousand identical mooks and mobs until the credits roll and tell me to fork over another 60 bucks for the quasi-identical sequel.
Post by: breadbocks on December 13, 2010, 08:06:03 pm
Inside the middle of a spaceship, very near to very sensitive equipment, near important personele? Yeah...I'd say mass murdering is the biggest problem. I was playing Metroid Prime 3 the other day, and I was scanning like crazy. I scanned a door....you know, those doors are there to keep people OUT. You have to blast them open for a reason.
The scan came up somewhere around "This is a standard Galactic Federation door. If is protected by an energy shield and can be opened by a weak blast."
...
Anyone ever thought of... you know, knocking?
Post by: Cthulhu on December 14, 2010, 01:29:18 am
Post by: Dakk on December 14, 2010, 01:37:23 am
Post by: ScriptWolf on December 14, 2010, 04:32:43 am
they have done this with Civ 5, patrician 4, Spore and loads others i forget :P
Post by: Luke_Prowler on December 14, 2010, 04:39:28 am
Post by: Cthulhu on December 14, 2010, 04:50:48 am
Dumbed down gameplay? When were game controls ever complicated? Not every game is Dwarf Fortress level of detailed, heck the stuff they have today is still many times more complex that, say, the nes days.
Nostalgia goggles. Every time I've played one of the "good old games" from my youth I've found it so easy I can't believe it was ever a challenge. They're still good games, though.
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 05:30:19 am
Post by: Luke_Prowler on December 14, 2010, 05:54:18 am
Post by: breadbocks on December 14, 2010, 07:49:14 am
I do own a NES, and they were fun, and they were HARD, but they were fun because they were simple, and they were hard because of Fake Difficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty)Not quite. some of them were, but most were just plain hard. There was nothing "Fake" about Battletoads.
Post by: Ioric Kittencuddler on December 14, 2010, 08:09:13 am
I do own a NES, and they were fun, and they were HARD, but they were fun because they were simple, and they were hard because of Fake Difficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty)Not quite. some of them were, but most were just plain hard. There was nothing "Fake" about Battletoads.
"Fake Difficulty?" Is that like how Ezio will randomly jump off roof's a cliffs in Assassin's Creed when you mean for him to jump onto another roof?
Post by: Mindmaker on December 14, 2010, 08:20:22 am
I do own a NES, and they were fun, and they were HARD, but they were fun because they were simple, and they were hard because of Fake Difficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty)Not quite. some of them were, but most were just plain hard. There was nothing "Fake" about Battletoads.
Well some of the more recent Super Mario titles suffer heavily from "fake difficulty", while the older ones just were plain hard.
I don't remember wrestling with the inaccurate controls, and the confusing camera as much with Super Mario 64 as I did in Super Mario Galaxy 2.
Still upholding this opinion after replaying it on the Nintendo DS some months ago.
Post by: Kitsunin on December 14, 2010, 09:28:49 am
Post by: G-Flex on December 14, 2010, 12:51:48 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 14, 2010, 12:57:15 pm
If entering a password is difficult for you, then the problem isn't the game. It's also not "idiotic" when you consider the actual technological limitations of the time.20 characters in a game where you get killed regularly can take up a lot of time.
And why make it so long? You aren't very likely to crack even a 5 character password by chance.
Post by: Soulwynd on December 14, 2010, 02:07:13 pm
Dumbed down gameplay? When were game controls ever complicated?
Spoiler: This gives me a nerd bonner. (click to show/hide)
And I've seen even more complete controls than that.
Not that I don't appreciate simpler controls when it fits the game. For example, the controls required for TF2 are perfect. What I don't like is when games on the pc are forced to fit into a controller scheme. We like the keyboard & mouse for a reason. As for a more general example, look into hardnova, daggerfall, system shock, realms of arkania, darklands, stronghold, ironseed, twilight 2000. Even Stars! has more fiber than Spore's space age.
And it's not nostalgia goggles, Cthulhu, these examples are games I choose to play over their modern counterparts. I like them -a lot- better. This year I did:
Half way of system shock
Up to the last dungeon of startrail but it got me dizzy and frustrated like always. Plus I know there's a game breaking bug there. >.<
Botched twilight 2000 because I forgot to pick a language for one of the final missions.
explored random dungeons in daggerfall with a character from 1998 or so.
tried hard to find a working copy of Stars! that would hopefully run on vista
Played xcom2 to the end, again. It's almost like a yearly tradition
Played some xcom3, but got pwn3d by aliens
Played flight of the amazon queen and almost peed myself from laughing at old silly jokes
Tried playing darksun, but I must admit, those (1 & 2) are full of nostalgia goggles, I have no patience for that anymore
Not to say I didn't play modern games, I know I played a lot and perhaps should have spent more time doing something else with my free time. >.> ... But I have no doubt that unless I'm really surprised by one of the upcoming games, I will still be focusing on the good oldies for a looong while.
Post by: Draco18s on December 14, 2010, 02:15:49 pm
And it's not nostalgia goggles, Cthulhu, these examples are games I choose to play over their modern counterparts. I like them -a lot- better. This year I did:
Half way of system shock
I attempted System Shock, but apparently I am sans one save file that prevents the game from crashing.
(That is: apparently you need to load a game from a save as when you start a new game the game will crash inside 60 seconds).
Been too lazy to fix it.
Post by: G-Flex on December 14, 2010, 03:06:15 pm
If entering a password is difficult for you, then the problem isn't the game. It's also not "idiotic" when you consider the actual technological limitations of the time.20 characters in a game where you get killed regularly can take up a lot of time.
And why make it so long? You aren't very likely to crack even a 5 character password by chance.
Er, they're generally long because they actually encode information. They aren't "passwords" in the security sense. Of course, how much information depends on the game, and you haven't mentioned one in particular. Generally, the password needs to encode a fair bit of information as well as obfuscate it enough that it doesn't amount to the game asking "SO HOW MANY MISSILES DID YOU HAVE? ENTER NUMBER:".
Post by: Draco18s on December 14, 2010, 04:32:45 pm
Post by: Siquo on December 14, 2010, 04:48:23 pm
Er, they're generally long because they actually encode information. They aren't "passwords" in the security sense.No, it's like a hyper-condensed savegame you're typing in. Faxanadu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faxanadu) had that. If you think loading times are long now, try typing 20 letters with a NES controller.
Post by: breadbocks on December 14, 2010, 04:55:01 pm
On the other hand... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SolveTheSoupCans)Oh god La Mulana...
Post by: Draco18s on December 14, 2010, 05:27:34 pm
On the other hand... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SolveTheSoupCans)Oh god La Mulana...
Just wait until I finish producing my Flash bastardization of Tower of Druaga. "Soup Cans" pretty much describes the whole game.
(And one of the floors is built to be a soup can puzzle, to boot).
Post by: SquidgyB on December 14, 2010, 06:09:37 pm
one thing bugs me;
Quote
loading screens didn't exist back when
wec le mans or robocop on a spectrum. 'nuff said.
agreed on some other stuff though - but it's all crass generalisation. There are good games, there are shit games. Some good games have shit bits, some shit games have good bits.
I see no slippery slope of evil, maybe bar requiring uninterrupted internet connections for single player games. that just takes the biscuit that does.
[insert your own "games are just like..." metaphor here if you like]
Post by: dragnar on December 14, 2010, 07:34:25 pm
...Yes? I would assume the people who actually RUN the place can get through without blasting them. It's the equivalent of busting in the door to get into someone's house. It works, but it's certainly not how the owner gets in.Inside the middle of a spaceship, very near to very sensitive equipment, near important personele? Yeah...I'd say mass murdering is the biggest problem. I was playing Metroid Prime 3 the other day, and I was scanning like crazy. I scanned a door....you know, those doors are there to keep people OUT. You have to blast them open for a reason.
The scan came up somewhere around "This is a standard Galactic Federation door. If is protected by an energy shield and can be opened by a weak blast."
...
Anyone ever thought of... you know, knocking?
Post by: breadbocks on December 14, 2010, 08:09:02 pm
Well Samus certainly isn't considered a hostile.......Yes? I would assume the people who actually RUN the place can get through without blasting them. It's the equivalent of busting in the door to get into someone's house. It works, but it's certainly not how the owner gets in.Inside the middle of a spaceship, very near to very sensitive equipment, near important personele? Yeah...I'd say mass murdering is the biggest problem. I was playing Metroid Prime 3 the other day, and I was scanning like crazy. I scanned a door....you know, those doors are there to keep people OUT. You have to blast them open for a reason.
The scan came up somewhere around "This is a standard Galactic Federation door. If is protected by an energy shield and can be opened by a weak blast."
...
Anyone ever thought of... you know, knocking?
She must be quite trigger happy....
Post by: Sowelu on December 14, 2010, 09:02:38 pm
Post by: Sensei on December 14, 2010, 10:02:31 pm
Post by: breadbocks on December 14, 2010, 10:05:14 pm
The Metroid Prime example is funny because it's been like that since NES days, back when it was just to keep the controls simple. Granted, it STILL doesn't make sense with the lore sometimes, but what's happening is streamlined controls (namely, only moving and shooting, no controller space wasted on an action button), not dumbed-down ones.Thing is? In MP3, there are lots of "Press (A) to interact" things like scanners, buttons, levers, ETC. You'd think for the higher security doors, rather than put stronger blast shields on them, they'd put scanners.
Stupid federation.
Post by: AntiAntiMatter on December 15, 2010, 12:39:18 am
Just because you've been hired to kick the evil monster out of a civilian apartment building, that doesn't mean you have the keys to every door.
Oh course, they'll probably get smashed open anyways...
Post by: Sensei on December 15, 2010, 12:39:52 am
I'd draw a comic of people in various times and cultures shooting their doors, but I can't draw for shit.
Post by: Kitsunin on December 15, 2010, 12:48:29 am
Yeah, I don't mean games where there are actually a lot of different things the password could matter for, I'm talking about like, on the SNES, when they COULD have used a regular saving system, but instead they make you type 20 characters each and every time you game over, and the only possible variable is which of the ten or so levels you are on.Er, they're generally long because they actually encode information. They aren't "passwords" in the security sense.No, it's like a hyper-condensed savegame you're typing in. Faxanadu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faxanadu) had that. If you think loading times are long now, try typing 20 letters with a NES controller.
Post by: Sowelu on December 15, 2010, 04:27:57 am
Post by: G-Flex on December 16, 2010, 02:10:32 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on December 17, 2010, 07:54:25 pm
Post by: Sowelu on December 17, 2010, 07:58:33 pm
Post by: PTTG?? on January 20, 2011, 11:40:00 am
There will be two weapon skills in TES5:Skyrim. Blunts and Bladed, perhaps? No. One and two handed. Because using a hand-axe makes you better at using daggers, rapiers, sabers, and clubs, but not better at using a bigger axe, as it was put so susinctly in the TES5 thread.
This is the problem with modern games.
Post by: Cheese on January 20, 2011, 11:48:16 am
Post by: Soulwynd on January 20, 2011, 12:06:31 pm
There will be two weapon skills in TES5:Skyrim.Yeah, I mentioned that in the TES5 thread. And I was right, they reduced the number of skills and are only talking about their new graphics engine. Hurray, future!
What? Is this a 1 year rant thread?Yup. And hopefully it will last another year!
Sad thing is, I don't even have much to rant about past January 2010. There just weren't any games worth mentioning. At least there were no games that raised my hopes, everything I thought would end up disappointing me ended disappointing me, so no surprises. There were a bunch of games I didn't even bother full-demoing, such as call of duty sequels and more sequels.
One pleasant surprise was Monday Night Combat, for a console based game it is rather fun.
Post by: Draco18s on January 20, 2011, 12:24:32 pm
Anyone seen parasites lately? Good luck using them to reclaim anything.
Post by: TolyK on January 20, 2011, 12:59:23 pm
Actual strategy, very diverse tactics, high customizability (think mechwarrior games), high survivability for each player instead of either a "god-hero-dude" or "pewpew my watergun kills your tank", many different factions that have legitimate reasons. Other stuff.
A (mostly) online space fight game.
Any suggestions on what to add? I have a good idea on what I want to do, but I want input on the design. I'm designing it now, adding data now, making it in the pretty far future.
Oh and I voted for all.
Especially not being able to try everything you can.
This is why df is da best.
EDIT:
Oh, and I hate "good vs evil" shit.
Post by: Darvi on January 20, 2011, 01:08:42 pm
Post by: Cheese on January 20, 2011, 01:10:14 pm
I'm not sure about TES5, after Oblivion. Bethesda look like they're dumbing it down as much as they can, yet I have a feeling it could yet turn out decent
Post by: nenjin on January 20, 2011, 01:21:53 pm
It's an oldschool PSX RPG. You play in the first person the whole game without fail. The graphics are dated. The character, the combat, the action is SLOW..........
And yet there is something magical about this game. There's NO hand holding, none whatsoever. You start the game and literally, you're on your own for what to do next. Sure, the NPCs will tell you what you NEED to do, but not where to go or how to do it.
The game is mostly non-linear. There are no "scripted boss fights" where you MUST defeat an enemy to proceed. The game is completely willing to let you run out into the wild, go into an area far above your ability, and die horribly. 75% of the amazing weapons, armors and items in the game are optional; they're so well-hidden sometimes that you must SCOUR the game looking for them. Every area is riddled with secret passages that you have to put the leg work into finding.
In essence, the game is all about DISCOVERY. It isn't some pre-plotted experience that the devs insisted everyone approach the same way, that everyone has the same epic boss fight and gets the +20 sword of awesome. You can still DO these things, but King's Field 2 leaves the decision up to the player. It says "It's ok if you don't see everything, do everything, acquire everything....otherwise what's the point of playing the game?"
---
Modern games don't believe in this at all. If there's a secret, the player damn well better find it. No player should ever be left to figure something out for themselves. The most modern games will accept is dumping you in a room with obvious puzzle element, a giant neon question mark that no one can overlook. No player should ever have to "wander" to get anywhere, they should always know exactly where they need to go, what they need to do and what they'll get for doing it.
In King's Field 2, I've put in 14 hours easily already, and at one point I realized I was still wearing the crappy starting leather helm. Why? Because I'd forgotten about a chest midway through that contained a better helmet. I also didn't save up the requisite cash to buy a better helmet because there were so many other demands on my money, either. Of course, if I really needed money, I could just sell one of the 10 or so unique game items like keys or QUEST OBJECTS for ridiculous cash. What game even lets you do that anymore? Willingly sell off the "ITEM THAT WILL SAVE THE WORLD." Most games would be like "Fuck no, are you crazy?" King's Field 2 says "I'll give you 15,000 for it. If you want it back, be prepared to pay 45,000."
Granted, some parts of the game are like pulling teeth, compared to today's modern slickness. Yet King's Field 2 does what so many games today fail to....they keep the future a mystery for me. They make me want to explore the world because they haven't illuminated its every corner for my convenience. And it makes me feel like the choices I make are my own.
Post by: Draco18s on January 20, 2011, 01:22:17 pm
I am now planning a game that fixes all the current problems games have.
Actual strategy, very diverse tactics, high customizability (think mechwarrior games), high survivability for each player instead of either a "god-hero-dude" or "pewpew my watergun kills your tank", many different factions that have legitimate reasons. Other stuff.
A (mostly) online space fight game.
Good luck. :)
Post by: Soulwynd on January 20, 2011, 01:30:15 pm
Make it l(awful) vs chaos then. Y'know, government against pirates.It's much more interesting and realistic to make it a contest of power, such as we had and still have in real life. There's no right or wrong, no good or evil. Interests clash, that's pretty common and can be used effectively as a story telling method. I never really understand why certain writers go for 'evil' and don't really bother exploring what is 'evil', they just say; they're evil for wanting power (Or often control) at any cost. That's not evil, that's just not caring. I guess it's easy for people to simply portray something as evil, but that's really childish.
Modern games don't believe in this at all. If there's a secret, the player damn well better find it.I call that Achievement Syndrome. It's basically the psychological method people mentioned around. Give players 'rewards' to keep them interested. It's the reason you can see what's required to acquire a certain achievement.
Post by: TolyK on January 20, 2011, 01:38:08 pm
Make it l(awful) vs chaos then. Y'know, government against pirates.grrrr
I mean, different factions. as in wealthy planets, research planets, communist planets (just kidding, but you get the idea...)
plus mercenaries, pirates, other stuff. all in a giant MMO game.
thanks.I am now planning a game that fixes all the current problems games have.
Actual strategy, very diverse tactics, high customizability (think mechwarrior games), high survivability for each player instead of either a "god-hero-dude" or "pewpew my watergun kills your tank", many different factions that have legitimate reasons. Other stuff.
A (mostly) online space fight game.
Good luck. :)
Yeah exactly.Make it l(awful) vs chaos then. Y'know, government against pirates.It's much more interesting and realistic to make it a contest of power, such as we had and still have in real life. There's no right or wrong, no good or evil. Interests clash, that's pretty common and can be used effectively as a story telling method. I never really understand why certain writers go for 'evil' and don't really bother exploring what is 'evil', they just say; they're evil for wanting power (Or often control) at any cost. That's not evil, that's just not caring. I guess it's easy for people to simply portray something as evil, but that's really childish.
Post by: Draco18s on January 20, 2011, 01:39:27 pm
Modern games don't believe in this at all. If there's a secret, the player damn well better find it.I call that Achievement Syndrome. It's basically the psychological method people mentioned around. Give players 'rewards' to keep them interested. It's the reason you can see what's required to acquire a certain achievement.
And in some cases they don't tell you. My (haha) current development project is a bunch of Soup Can like unlisted "achievements" (cough, stat bonus items) just to be obtuse. They're not achievements like "kill 100 monsters" or "collect 1000 gold" or things like that but nonsensical things, like walking into a wall for 10 seconds or not-killing monsters (on another level).
Post by: ed boy on January 20, 2011, 01:41:40 pm
Modern games don't believe in this at all. If there's a secret, the player damn well better find it. No player should ever be left to figure something out for themselves. The most modern games will accept is dumping you in a room with obvious puzzle element, a giant neon question mark that no one can overlook. No player should ever have to "wander" to get anywhere, they should always know exactly where they need to go, what they need to do and what they'll get for doing it.adding secrets into the game can take a long time and a lot of effort to do. The game developers don't wany to spend hundreds or thousands of man hours developing content that will never be seen, or will only be seen by a small number of players.
Post by: nenjin on January 20, 2011, 01:51:15 pm
Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne was great about this though. Your character is a human made a demon by Satan, because he wants you to become his champion and basically help him achieve dominance over god. Meanwhile, the world is filled with characters who are all trying to seize the ultimate power for themselves, so they can remake creation under the rules they believe in. It's Japanese, so the motivations are like "perfect stillness where everyone becomes one" "every person becomes an island unto themselves" "the strong lead while the weak serve", that kind of stuff. A lot of beliefs without a clear black/white line, where everyone can be just as enlightened as they are misguided, depending on whose point of view you want to take.
That said, I do think there's such a thing as appropriate "pure evil." The toadies withstanding, damn near everything in the Cthulhu mythos is evil in a non-human way. We don't understand the Elder Thing's motivations, or even their goal, but we know that they scare the shit out of us and the stuff they do can be just as amazing as it is horrifying. Cthluhu has never opened his mouth once, yet pretty much anyone that's read the stories knows he's the epitome of evil as humans understand it.
Not really sure where I'm going with all that, except to say that I guess "bleeding heart bad guys" don't necessarily win me over any quicker than "bad guys designed for you to hate them."
Quote
adding secrets into the game can take a long time and a lot of effort to do. The game developers don't wany to spend hundreds or thousands of man hours developing content that will never be seen, or will only be seen by a small number of players.
I think it's a matter of priorities. Are you making a game based on discovery and exploration? Or are you making your standard hack n' slash fantasy game, and 75% through you tell your guys to go back and add some fake doors here and there because these kinds of games have secret doors and chests hidden behind secret doors? In KF2, as in KF1, and KF4, making the player have to actually search for things is a design philosophy.
And to me, bottomline, if your game is amazing, I WILL SEE IT ALL. If your game is a steaming pile of boring, chances are, I'm not even going to see the stuff you intended for me to see. Why do I need to earn achievements, for example, when I already know what it is, what it takes to get it and that it contributes nothing for having done so? The only difference between an achievement gotten and an achievement missed, in most cases, is one is highlighted and the other isn't.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 20, 2011, 02:00:29 pm
So yes, you can make some believable character that can be considered evil by the opposing party and still have people who would take his side. This goes for both sides of that movie.
Post by: nenjin on January 20, 2011, 02:04:52 pm
Post by: The Architect on January 20, 2011, 02:22:44 pm
That's simple logical conclusion, factual and easily established. Either there is an absolute (read "non-debatable", "unchanging") standard, or there is no possible distinction between good and evil. All that is left is "good for me/you/us/them" and "bad for me/you/us/them". At that point, it's purely a matter of viewpoint: time, place, circumstances, and opinion.
Simple example
Absolute viewpoint: Lying is always evil (read as "wrong", "bad").
It may have some good results and truth may have some bad results, but truth is right and falsehood is wrong.
Humanist/modern/non-religious viewpoint: Lying is good sometimes, and bad others. Specific examples are "good" for some people, "bad" for others involved in the same lie. Everything is judged by the motivation and visible results.
We all speak in terms of "good" and "evil", "bad", "wrong", "right". These terms reflect a viewpoint that is no longer prevalent among human beings, and thus lose their meaning in such conversations. To me, it is always wrong to lie, even to tell my girlfriend her jeans look good when they're too tight. It may make her feel good about herself, but it's a lie to tell her something I don't really think.
You are tapping into a huge and fascinating philosophical debate that has raged throughout all of recorded history. Is there Good and Evil, or only what's good for me/you/us/them right now? Was the murderous sneak attack on Pearl Harbor "good" because it pushed the US into a war where they fought "evil" in the form of tyranny, murder, and oppression? Do you judge something by its intent, results, or some kind of universal natural rule that is supposed to be recognized by all mankind?
Another good example is the "family unit" in the USSR. The family was first purged and disbanded by law as a form of private ownership; marriages were called private prostitution and not desired nor acknowledged by the official government. They were "evil", a remnant of humanity's past ignorance and a violation of Communist doctrine. Then, when it was found that there was a natural order to the human family, and that mankind lived and functioned better that way, it was immediately relabeled as "good", desirable, ideal. There was no standard, only "what is good for the motherland right now in our eyes".
Fascinating, isn't it? I've got a very solid and grounded opinion on it, but that is enough of a derail I think :)
Post by: Frajic on January 20, 2011, 02:24:56 pm
As it relates to gaming, the anti-hero has basically been reduced down to a guy who doesn't shave, who shoots first and has a hard time forming close personal relationships. I like a well-written anti-hero that occasionally makes me squirm in my support of them. Very few games actually have protagonists like that though. Renegade Sheperd is close, I guess.Travis Touchdown? I don't know, but I've heard good(?) stuff about him.
Post by: nenjin on January 20, 2011, 02:28:31 pm
Post by: Draco18s on January 20, 2011, 02:39:05 pm
As it relates to gaming, the anti-hero has basically been reduced down to a guy who doesn't shave, who shoots first and has a hard time forming close personal relationships. I like a well-written anti-hero that occasionally makes me squirm in my support of them. Very few games actually have protagonists like that though. Renegade Sheperd is close, I guess.
Book for ya: Dragon Del Sangre.
Main character is a god damn jerk (and an almost immortal dragon to boot) and that's before the human munchy snacks. He's also a CEO of a really big company, so he's well dressed, clean shaven, and handsome (although being able to choose your face and deciding to be a clone of all your favorite actors tends to do that).
So despite being clearly "evil" (not just misguided, but downright morally wrong) you want him to "win."
Post by: nenjin on January 20, 2011, 02:48:07 pm
Ex of a anti-hero I liked: Altair from Assassin's Creed.
He's an asshole. That's....that's just it. He's rude, sniping, condescending....and none of that has to do with his in-game motivations. That's just who he is. And yet over the course of the game, he keeps getting confronted by situations that force him to address the humanity of it all, the cost of the conflict he's involved in. As he starts to care more, the dickishness and need to undercut everyone around him starts to go away. It's one of the more believable anti-hero, and anti-hero story arcs, I've run into in a game.
Post by: Draco18s on January 20, 2011, 02:54:10 pm
Thanks, I'll put it on my list.
Its the first in the series, which gets kinda crappy in the later books. There's also a copious amount of sex.
But hey, for a quadriplegic author I'm not going to complain too much.
Post by: ed boy on January 20, 2011, 03:08:56 pm
Without an absolute standard, good and evil don't exist.I'm going to disagree with that statement. I personally agree with the belief that good and evil do not exist, but the statement above, that definitions of good and evil are either constant or subjective, is incorrect.
That's simple logical conclusion, factual and easily established. Either there is an absolute (read "non-debatable", "unchanging") standard, or there is no possible distinction between good and evil. All that is left is "good for me/you/us/them" and "bad for me/you/us/them". At that point, it's purely a matter of viewpoint: time, place, circumstances, and opinion.
Take, for example, the average age of people in a country. That is not subjective, but it changes. You can define ages as 'old' or 'very old' depending on how they compare with the average. Even if the average age changes later on, the original definition that someone was old was correct when applied to that time.
Post by: Frajic on January 20, 2011, 03:23:47 pm
Thanks, I'll put it on my list.'Nother book on your list: Retribution Falls. A steampunk retro-modern pirate novel, it does pretty much everything right: the characters, the setting, the plot, the relentless pace... check out some reviews, I wholeheartedly recommend it.
Ex of a anti-hero I liked: Altair from Assassin's Creed.
He's an asshole. That's....that's just it. He's rude, sniping, condescending....and none of that has to do with his in-game motivations. That's just who he is. And yet over the course of the game, he keeps getting confronted by situations that force him to address the humanity of it all, the cost of the conflict he's involved in. As he starts to care more, the dickishness and need to undercut everyone around him starts to go away. It's one of the more believable anti-hero, and anti-hero story arcs, I've run into in a game.
Post by: The Architect on January 24, 2011, 11:10:07 pm
I'm going to disagree with that statement. I personally agree with the belief that good and evil do not exist, but the statement above, that definitions of good and evil are either constant or subjective, is incorrect.
Take, for example, the average age of people in a country. That is not subjective, but it changes. You can define ages as 'old' or 'very old' depending on how they compare with the average. Even if the average age changes later on, the original definition that someone was old was correct when applied to that time.
You have certainly taken the core, fundamental premise of the discussion to examine, which is always a good place to start. However: Good and Evil are not comparative statements, as "old" is. They are universal, blanket categories for every action in the human dynamic. Thus they either have a specific definition or none at all. What you have stated is that they are, rather, comparative or in flux, which is to take the side of the argument that no actual definition exists --and thus to state that Good and Evil as such do not exist. It is merely a point of view.
Those are the two possible views: Either it has a specific meaning and standard (which may be unknown, and which we do not need to philosophically agree on), or it is merely a matter of point of view, and Good and Evil do not exist.
Post by: The Architect on January 24, 2011, 11:12:23 pm
It's lost its great power as a story element because it has been used exhaustively, and because most people don't really believe in right and wrong anymore :)
That was the relevance of bringing in the philosophical analysis. Sorry for not clarifying immediately.
Post by: ed boy on January 25, 2011, 04:25:12 am
However: Good and Evil are not comparative statements, as "old" is. They are universal, blanket categories for every action in the human dynamic. Thus they either have a specific definition or none at all. What you have stated is that they are, rather, comparative or in flux, which is to take the side of the argument that no actual definition exists --and thus to state that Good and Evil as such do not exist. It is merely a point of view.Good and evil may be categories (in that an action can be classified into good or evil), but they can still exist in different magnitudes. Killing one person and killing ten are both considered bad things to do, but one is considered a lot worse than the other. They are indeed comparative statements (or, they may be, depending on how you define them).
Those are the two possible views: Either it has a specific meaning and standard (which may be unknown, and which we do not need to philosophically agree on), or it is merely a matter of point of view, and Good and Evil do not exist.
I must also disagree with your statement that if something is in flux, then it cannot have an actual definition.
However, a lot of it seems to come down to how people define good and evil in different ways. They are words that are bandied around a lot, with vague meanings that can be interpreted in other ways, and yet they are used to form the basis for morality systems.
Post by: MouzurX on January 25, 2011, 09:14:55 am
I mean god what is different about CodMW2 than Cod1 in the FPS perspective? almost nothing.
The only really good part is being able to shoot through things.
If you look at that new red orchestra game ... it should be like that 3 years ago already.
Realism gameplay aspects.
Post by: MouzurX on January 25, 2011, 09:18:42 am
Sitting still for 5 sec and then being okay? really? I mean really?
If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.
Post by: Siquo on January 25, 2011, 09:40:23 am
If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.One-bullet-kills are very realistic, but not fun to play in a game.
Post by: MouzurX on January 25, 2011, 09:44:19 am
If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.One-bullet-kills are very realistic, but not fun to play in a game.
I play battleground europe and its fun there.
Operation flashpoint it was fun.
At least think up something better than "sit for 5 sec and you're 100% full" then the whole healthpack +25% thing was better.
Post by: Siquo on January 25, 2011, 09:59:04 am
Post by: Virtz on January 25, 2011, 10:12:49 am
Post by: MouzurX on January 25, 2011, 10:15:46 am
Aka dumbed down
Post by: Siquo on January 25, 2011, 10:44:44 am
Post by: Draco18s on January 25, 2011, 10:58:06 am
Good and evil may be categories (in that an action can be classified into good or evil), but they can still exist in different magnitudes. Killing one person and killing ten are both considered bad things to do, but one is considered a lot worse than the other. They are indeed comparative statements (or, they may be, depending on how you define them).
Ah, but what if those people are evil people?
Post by: TolyK on January 25, 2011, 11:08:42 am
*The head hits the computer, fracturing the skull. A tendon in the brain has been torn!*
Post by: ed boy on January 25, 2011, 11:29:19 am
I used the example of killing people because, in almost every situation killing people is regarded as a bad thing, and killing ten people is regarded as a worse thing than killing one person.Good and evil may be categories (in that an action can be classified into good or evil), but they can still exist in different magnitudes. Killing one person and killing ten are both considered bad things to do, but one is considered a lot worse than the other. They are indeed comparative statements (or, they may be, depending on how you define them).
Ah, but what if those people are evil people?
THat brings up the question of whether terms like good and evil can be applied to people. I personally see it as somewhat of a failing of the english language that "evil person" and "evil action" do not have independent words to describe them.
Post by: Draco18s on January 25, 2011, 11:35:31 am
I used the example of killing people because, in almost every situation killing people is regarded as a bad thing, and killing ten people is regarded as a worse thing than killing one person.
THat brings up the question of whether terms like good and evil can be applied to people. I personally see it as somewhat of a failing of the english language that "evil person" and "evil action" do not have independent words to describe them.
And then there is war. Killing enemy soldiers is OK in war time, isn't it?
After all, they're treated as heros and not murderers when they come home...
There is no way to decide what is "evil" and what isn't from an absolutist standpoint.
Try (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=292) taking (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=293) a (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=294) look (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=309) at (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=310) this (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=313) comic (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=314) strip (http://www.diggercomic.com/?p=315).
Post by: Soulwynd on January 25, 2011, 12:01:41 pm
The fuck they're not fun. Go play Op7, it's horribly addictive. One shot kill on the head, no matter your weapon.If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.One-bullet-kills are very realistic, but not fun to play in a game.
Post by: Draco18s on January 25, 2011, 12:10:10 pm
The fuck they're not fun. Go play Op7, it's horribly addictive. One shot kill on the head, no matter your weapon.If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.One-bullet-kills are very realistic, but not fun to play in a game.
For killing enemies, or for enemies killing you?
Post by: Soulwynd on January 25, 2011, 12:13:40 pm
Both. It's a multiplayer online FPS.For killing enemies, or for enemies killing you?The fuck they're not fun. Go play Op7, it's horribly addictive. One shot kill on the head, no matter your weapon.If i get shot in the leg i should drop to the ground and hardly be able to get up.One-bullet-kills are very realistic, but not fun to play in a game.
Post by: Strange guy on January 25, 2011, 02:55:01 pm
Anyway it is possible for some games to have realism and others not too so I'm not sure why this is ever considered something to argue over.
Post by: DrunkDorfPally on January 25, 2011, 03:50:38 pm
Post by: Draco18s on January 25, 2011, 04:01:40 pm
Other: Lackluster/sucky/nonexistent script/voiceacting. XP
Oh, and if you're going to model a character's eyeballs, don't make them stare blankly off into space (the edge of the screen) when you talk to them, it only makes the poor voice acting worse.
Post by: Roundabout Lout on January 25, 2011, 04:39:22 pm
Should have checked what people were saying about it, it's apparently a direct port from the original Xbox, and it shows with terrible framerate, random crashes, control problems etc.
Not that I have any idea, Steam says the game is unavailable to play. I feel like an idiot for buying it at all.
I HATE lazy ports like this, but it's all too common these days.
Post by: MouzurX on January 25, 2011, 04:41:25 pm
While realistic damage can be fun, reality isn't exactly designed for fun and balance so other ways of handling damage should be the main ones in most games, though I'm not sure I agree with the regenerating health that is so popular right now (I think it only works in some single player games or multi-player with high lethality really).
Anyway it is possible for some games to have realism and others not too so I'm not sure why this is ever considered something to argue over.
True but take a look at red orchestra 2, all reality-features that bring in fun and good gameplay
Post by: Soulwynd on January 25, 2011, 06:47:46 pm
I'm not sure I agree with the regenerating health that is so popular right now (I think it only works in some single player games or multi-player with high lethality really).You cannot regenerate in Op7, nor in NeoTokyo. So I love those games. One life, make the best out of it.
Post by: mendonca on January 26, 2011, 02:46:24 am
Post by: Erkki on January 26, 2011, 06:01:51 am
Graphics above all. Making the games easy enough for the 11 year old coke addict to not need to give up after 5min.
And depending on the type of the game, the hack & slash, the near-epileptic pace. The "shooting gallery" and/or fixed events, and of course no builder after you've played it through.
I guess I'm one of those types who want to sit back with the coffee and enjoy the good chat while playing a game where how quick you click around doesnt matter. Some FPSes at time. Simulations too.
Like this, a 2009 game btw!
(http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/7983/D7DE8D7FA7504DD2AD8AE753C10084FE.jpg)
And extra points if you can do that with/against another human... I hope to, some day, see true multiplayer in DF too!
Post by: Keita on January 26, 2011, 06:30:21 am
Post by: Erkki on January 26, 2011, 06:32:08 am
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=528
Super addictive as a PBEM game.
Post by: Keita on January 26, 2011, 06:33:44 am
Post by: Erkki on January 26, 2011, 06:37:22 am
Post by: KaguroDraven on January 26, 2011, 06:53:47 am
Post by: Strange guy on January 26, 2011, 10:22:56 am
You cannot regenerate in Op7, nor in NeoTokyo. So I love those games. One life, make the best out of it.
NeoTokyo... So much hype for it but I was disappointed- the high damage means combat lasts short amounts of time and the way it favours camping means matches go on a long time, so you spend of your time 'playing' doing nothing. I've got no problems with games where there's no healing and you die quickly in combat, but I can't really enjoy them without a re-spawn (eg Insurgency, Day of Defeat Source, Red Orchestra- though that tends to boil down to grenade spam and vehicle battles).
Post by: Soulwynd on January 26, 2011, 12:23:33 pm
The community that remains is very pro, they sort of drive you to become better as they show you how every strategy you come up with can be countered and horribly fucked up. Not even camping is valid as there will always some ass who will bounce his grenade on the wall near by so it falls exactly on your face.
Now, in Op7, there are a lot of camping maps, but that's part of the fun. That's part of the realism. People take cover and wait there. What you do is try to counter his cover while remaining undetected. That's where thinking becomes way more crucial than what you have in CSS for example, which is simply knowing the map, knowing the chokes, and reflex firing there as soon as you see movement. Very very few maps in Op7 & NeoTokyo have chokes, there's always a way of going behind someone.
Post by: The Architect on January 27, 2011, 02:26:39 am
Sounds like a fun game. Sort of wish I had time for games these days.
Post by: Soulwynd on January 27, 2011, 08:49:39 am
Ah, I'm liking Soulwynd's "Thinking man's analysis of the FPS".Back when I played NeoTokyo, there was a clan that was full of police officers that played it. It was interesting. Mostly because breaching techniques don't always work against a jumping cloaked dude with a P90 and remotely detonated bombs.
Sounds like a fun game. Sort of wish I had time for games these days.
Post by: Nivim on January 27, 2011, 11:13:41 am
Did that image crash your brain? Of course not, since no sane or reasonable person would try to process it, and those with neither attribute would soon* be interrupted by those who are. However, doesn't that particular method of recording information, just the categories, remind you of something? If not my track change?
For my next trick, I sit here wondering how the thought "absolutes like good an evil are general directions. You can't measure a general direction" turned into the above and below post. And there! I have realized the answer with my phantasmal 1/5 ratio of sleep/wake!
*Before they starve to death.
Post by: Soulwynd on February 02, 2011, 08:56:30 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7r9RqWBdl8
Post by: Cthulhu on February 02, 2011, 09:02:00 pm
Post by: Soulwynd on February 02, 2011, 09:05:31 pm
That was funny, but you could do that to any game.True, but the question is, would you agree with the satire's criticism? I do, so It's relevant to me.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 28, 2011, 05:34:23 pm
I can't really say I care for the games they are releasing right now, so if anything, I'm guilty of not giving a fuck about the shit they put out. I'm also guilty of being pro-piracy and anti-copyright but that doesn't mean I don't buy games. In fact I do buy a lot of them.
To make things short;
Ubisoft will never see money from me while they keep up with this needless-always-online DRM bullshit.
Post by: NewsMuffin on July 28, 2011, 05:58:16 pm
Not like people buy games for me or anything, but if I see a deal on Steam or something, sometimes I just can't help it.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 28, 2011, 06:12:52 pm
Hell, it has to be an extremely good game for me to warez anything ubisoft publishes.
Post by: Draco18s on July 28, 2011, 06:31:17 pm
It would have to be a real jewel of a game for me to buy from ubisoft right now.
Hell, it has to be an extremely good game for me to warez anything ubisoft publishes.
Actually the smart plan there would be to buy it AND pirate it. You don't install the purchased copy, but rather the pirated one. Then you get the game, don't have to deal with the DRM, but still paid for it.
Post by: NewsMuffin on July 28, 2011, 06:52:24 pm
But that's so much work!It would have to be a real jewel of a game for me to buy from ubisoft right now.
Hell, it has to be an extremely good game for me to warez anything ubisoft publishes.
Actually the smart plan there would be to buy it AND pirate it. You don't install the purchased copy, but rather the pirated one. Then you get the game, don't have to deal with the DRM, but still paid for it.
That's how I'd do it, ideally. However, in my experience, Steam removes DRM. Unless it's Windows Live Gaming or whatever.
Post by: ggamer on July 28, 2011, 06:53:49 pm
Post by: Draco18s on July 28, 2011, 07:42:03 pm
I think the latest game that adressed those problems was Portal 2. Intuitive puzzels, great gameplay and storyline on multiple levels, a myriad of ways to solve each problem, and Stephen Merchant.
But.
But.
Portal 2 was easy.
They over-playtested it. If people stared at a wall too long they put a sign on it telling them where to go.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 28, 2011, 07:45:21 pm
But that's against the point. I don't want to support their DRM scheme. The only way I can do that is by not buying their stuff.
@NewsMuffin
Steam doesn't remove DRM. Every game that has DRM outside steam either has a notice that it uses 3rd party DRM or switched to Steamworks, which is DRM all the same. Steam games still have Securom and other crap going on.
I think the latest game that adressed those problems was Portal 2. Intuitive puzzels, great gameplay and storyline on multiple levels, a myriad of ways to solve each problem, and Stephen Merchant.I think you confused the two... Portal 2 only had 2 maps which had alternative solutions to the puzzles. Portal 1 on the other hand, was the perfect puzzler, with the twitchy reaction requirement.
Post by: Darkmere on July 28, 2011, 08:23:38 pm
Post by: Draco18s on July 28, 2011, 08:31:33 pm
Hadn't seen the thread before. Just curious, do you realize what you sound like when you rant about how smart you are while calling people retards and using homophobic slurs for everyone who doesn't agree with you? I realize this was made more than a year ago, but wow, way to lay ignorance out in the open like that. Classy.
And who are you addressing?
It's common courtesy to quote an example.
Post by: Darkmere on July 28, 2011, 08:46:39 pm
Hadn't seen the thread before. Just curious, do you realize what you sound like when you rant about how smart you are while calling people retards and using homophobic slurs for everyone who doesn't agree with you? I realize this was made more than a year ago, but wow, way to lay ignorance out in the open like that. Classy.
And who are you addressing?
It's common courtesy to quote an example.
The OP specifically, I suppose. I was reading the first post to get an idea of the thread, and was greeted with loud whining and insults. I sort of agree on a few points, but the phrasing was pretty sad.
Post by: Draco18s on July 28, 2011, 08:49:40 pm
The OP specifically, I suppose. I was reading the first post to get an idea of the thread, and was greeted with loud whining and insults. I sort of agree on a few points, but the phrasing was pretty sad.
And that's why quotes are good. That post is 6 months and 58 pages of thread ago.
Post by: Darkmere on July 28, 2011, 08:54:19 pm
Post by: Draco18s on July 28, 2011, 08:55:49 pm
So, assuming I don't want to read 58 pages of thread to catch up, where would I begin?
Here, (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=48311.msg2482734#msg2482734) the first post since February.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 28, 2011, 09:02:33 pm
Post by: Frumple on July 28, 2011, 09:15:30 pm
Quote from: Forum Guidlines
Do not pick a fight or insult another poster. Do not continue a fight if you feel you have been insulted. Report it to the moderator. If you instead respond in kind, you run the risk of being considered part of the problem.
Despite its prevalence on the internet, bigoted language is frowned upon here. Do not go there.
Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong~
So. Anyone have anything substantial to add to the discussion? At all? Maybe consider locking the thread and letting it die if there isn't, neh?
Post by: Darkmere on July 28, 2011, 09:36:08 pm
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/
Yeah, it's Cracked, but the points are valid. 5 and 4 more directly, though the rest are relevant to the thread. I can't say I've bought anything with that kind of DRM lately though, I assume it's still in warez on release day, or soon after?
Also, it kinda bugs me that "social gaming" (read: farmville) is already being touted as the next big thing. It makes me worry that in the future most games will be some collection of ill-designed crap shoveled out the door every 6 months.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 28, 2011, 09:59:22 pm
I still haven't had a problem with social gaming, as far as I know, since it hasn't really reached the games I actually enjoy. But, ironically, I think I would use your description for most games right now, at least as far as gameplay goes. A lot of them is loaded with story and artistic value but the gameplay is so simple I really can't enjoy that sort of thing.
The DLC trend is starting to annoy me, however. Specially day 0 DLC. Preorder bonuses that you cannot acquire in any other means other than actually preorder or use a 3rd party mod/crack are also extremely annoying. There was an argument that it was akin to a discount or a promotion, but that doesn't sit right with me. I mean, I understand the argument and I think it's valid, but it's still very annoying.
Post by: Darkmere on July 28, 2011, 11:05:32 pm
To pick a common example.... eh, let's say Doom, which was released in 1993.
These were also released in 1993. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1993_video_games) I recognize almost none of them. (Also, I had no idea this existed... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkmere))
I can't justify spending what they say DLC's are worth, but I don't mind waiting on some stuff til GOTY editions to get it all cheap (Borderlands). The only really worth the money DLC's I can think of are Mass Effect 2's.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 28, 2011, 11:26:58 pm
Edit:
Spoiler: List of awesome games from '93 (click to show/hide)
)I agree there are crappy games in every era of video games, the most prominent issue with old games being the interface in my point of view. A bad interface I can handle most of the time (see System Shock as a main example of a cluttered crazy interface on a truly awesome game), but the over simplification of the games in this modern era is quite offensive. I mean, they managed to dumb down DN3D when they made DNF.
I hope people don't screw the new Serious Sam.
Post by: ductape on July 29, 2011, 12:46:47 am
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 02:06:55 am
Post by: Siquo on July 29, 2011, 03:16:29 am
I would rather have kept the flames going. Thanks to going back to the subject, it's 4am and I'm playing Betrayal at Krondor again and I have to work in 5-6 hours.Hardcore! You go, girl! :)
Seriously, that's a good list. 1993 was good for music, too, btw.
Post by: Grakelin on July 29, 2011, 06:01:30 am
Post by: Siquo on July 29, 2011, 06:30:01 am
Post by: Leatra on July 29, 2011, 07:07:03 am
There will always be pirates. It's true there are pirates because they hate companies like Ubisoft but simply, there always will be pirates. In my country, average salary is around 1500 Turkish Liras. There are engineers who get paid only 1000 TRY (Turkish Liras) a month. A new game is around 100 turkish liras and this money can't be spent on games if you don't want to die because of starvation/want to live in a house/etc.
1 TRY = 0.59 USD
1 TRY = 0.42 EUR
So in my country, nobody is going to stop pirating even if devs come into their houses, give them gifts of chocolate, read them poetry. There will always be people like these.
Post by: penguinofhonor on July 29, 2011, 07:26:38 am
And are we still discussing the actual topic? Because if so, I see some improvement happening in modern games recently, mostly with the "games are too easy" thing. There's definitely a market for the classic sort of tough as nails platformer like Super Meat Boy and VVVVVV so people will always have that. And for the rest of games, it is difficult but possible to make a game that's easy to play but hard to master, satisfying casual people who just want to chill and more hardcore people who want to be challenged. It's easier to just make an easy game so most people go with that, unfortunately.
Post by: Draco18s on July 29, 2011, 07:46:56 am
Super Meat Boy and VVVVVV
Which are not Triple-A titles and therefore exempt from the discussion about Bad Things the Game Industry is doing.
Post by: Empty on July 29, 2011, 07:54:33 am
Most of them are full of fluff and not actual content.
I remember back in the day from the pre 16 bit era till the playstation era that games could entertain for weeks.
But nowadays most games can be finished in barely one week.
Post by: Areyar on July 29, 2011, 08:32:44 am
Then buy it if it actually delivers what is advertised/ is still fun after half a week.
Also EA etal. still owe me several hundred Euros worth of entertainment.
Anyone want to illegally buy a secondhand Spore? Barely used! ;P
Post by: Siquo on July 29, 2011, 08:37:22 am
Anyone want to illegally buy a secondhand Spore? Barely used! ;PQFT. Never again.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 11:27:43 am
Well, it's really too bad about Brandon, and I never saw that SMB movie but if you think it's good, I'll take your word for it.That's Grakelin, man. He was being sarcastic. At least I hope he was.
So in my country, nobody is going to stop pirating even if devs come into their houses, give them gifts of chocolate, read them poetry. There will always be people like these.It's the same thing in my country. The publishers wonder why they don't sell over here. I'm sorry, but your game costs 1/5th of the minimum wage. 1/15th to 1/20th if you receive an average salary. It's still a fucking lot. I can eat well for a week with the price they want for a game. If they localized the prices, they would at least receive -something- for what is essentially a product you can copy infinitely with little to no costs.
I don't know what to say about this recent develoent except me losing some respect for Soulwynd.Why is that, oh kind penguin? I know, I know, I shouldn't let people slide off so easily, but it was really late at night. It's the first time I've ever had performance issues. I swear. It never happened to me before... Maybe I should buy some of that trollagra I keep receiving spam-mail about.
And are we still discussing the actual topic? Because if so, I see some improvement happening in modern games recently, mostly with the "games are too easy" thing. There's definitely a market for the classic sort of tough as nails platformer like Super Meat Boy and VVVVVV so people will always have that. And for the rest of games, it is difficult but possible to make a game that's easy to play but hard to master, satisfying casual people who just want to chill and more hardcore people who want to be challenged. It's easier to just make an easy game so most people go with that, unfortunately.
But it is my topic and yes, we're discussing it. I really don't see this difference between casual and hardcore gamers. I don't believe there's such thing. If I had only one hour a week to play games, I would still rather spend it on something complex, engrossing and preferably fun. To me, whenever a developer say they made their game to attract casual gamers, it's just their way of saying they game a crappy game without actually saying it.
It is, in my view, a rather offensive stance. I don't really know why people put up with it. They're pointing at us saying, "You're too dumb to enjoy a more complicated game... Plus you're busy with your two low paying jobs and that part time job at night. So here's some crack so you can enjoy the in 10 minutes you have of freedom tonight."
At least that's how I feel on that issue. It's pure non-sense.
Most commercial games are a disappointing to me.Yes. I know people disagree with me, but I use Dragon Age and Mass Effect as the perfect example of fluff and no content. I spent hours on them, clicking on multiple-choice dialog options with just a little of gameplay in the background. And that little bit was over simplified and suffered from rabid consolitis.
Most of them are full of fluff and not actual content.
I'm sorry, but I don't want an interactive audio-book. I want actual gameplay.
The only thing I find worse than that are the infinitely moronic cutscenes from final fantasy games and the stupid grind between them.
I only know that I'm not buying or pre-ordering anything anymore, I'll first try it out in pirated form.That's my normal instance... But I fucked up and preordered a few games last year... Oh boy did that suck....
Then buy it if it actually delivers what is advertised/ is still fun after half a week.
*kicks homefront on the nads*
Post by: GlyphGryph on July 29, 2011, 11:36:52 am
Quote
Most of them are full of fluff and not actual content.
I remember back in the day from the pre 16 bit era till the playstation era that games could entertain for weeks.
The majority of games in the past that I truly enjoyed where actually rather short, though many had a lot of replayability. I think the original Portal did better than any of them at this though. It was a game that took three hours to beat, and yet I played it frequently for several months.
I found the Pikmin games lasted me quite a while as well, as did the Rock Band games!
Post by: Vibhor on July 29, 2011, 12:36:01 pm
Screw the indie community. There was a time when making games was about getting out games that you wanted to play, not about looking better than everyone else. I play games for fun. Not for innovation, not for art, not for whatever technical BS you put in it. For fun.
I have been looking for this kind of paragraph for ages. MOTHER FUCKING YES!! It may be only vaguely similar to what I want to state but FUCK YEAH!!
So, you play video games for fun? Well guess what? You are doing it wrong. No, you have to play video games for entertainment, just like every other form of entertainment. The "FUN" games usually tend to be shit, in fact most of the "FUN" games use tactics like skinner box and what not to keep you attracted to the screen. There is a huge difference in killing a colossus in SotC and mowing down thousands(Exaggeration) of generic dudes in your next gen FPS. The killing of colossus is frustrating, annoying and sad. See how all those adjectives have almost no semblance to fun? but still there is a sense of satisfaction when you do it, a sense of accomplishment even though you murdered a beast in cold blood. Yes that is not fun, that is entertaining. All the games have to do is to be entertaining, not fun. If every game had to be fun then we wouldn't have killer 7, metal gear solid, silent hill 2. Heck we wouldn't even have SMB(seriously, do you really find jumping on piece of shit and collecting coins to be fun?)
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 12:39:00 pm
Or rather how to make a game that will sell with the least amount of effort.
Problem is that the formula is soo great that it is nearly impossible to sell games without it.
As well since the BIG money is in making videogames for everyone (as they are mainstream now) it means games HAVE to be dumbed down. I didn't mean Streamlined I mean dumbed down.
In otherwords the videogame market no longer supports gamers. It supports casual gamers.
Post by: Saint on July 29, 2011, 01:11:22 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 01:12:58 pm
If someone could advertise and produce the same marketing as a mainstream company and make real games it'd be a godsend.
They would go out of buisness.
ALL gaming companies must bow to the might god "Casual Gamers". Damn those gamers to the deserted island!
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on July 29, 2011, 01:20:41 pm
They would go out of buisness.Disagree there.
ALL gaming companies must bow to the might god "Casual Gamers". Damn those gamers to the deserted island!
A lot of developers have had a lot of sucess with going digital only.
Infact I'd be willing to wager that small indie devs have gone out of business more due to their publishers being pillocks rather than a lack of advertising/CASUALGAMERINVASION.
With triple A developers/publishers pumping out a large amount of copy-pasted games it makes sense that some gamers are drifting away from anyone who are published under the big names and are looking for real indie devs.
Online distributors are great for that. Look at the sucess of Steam or GoG and the indie games on those.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 01:24:01 pm
I mean Mario is a very simple game, but it is a very fleshed out game and is solid.
THE Best example of a the difference between a game that is solid within its own gameplay and one that is weak is the difference between Littlebigplanet 1 and 2
The first game is in many ways more fun because all it had was platforming and thus that was all it could do.
The second game used its gimics soo liberally that it made the game seem like just one GIANT tutorial.
Quote
they turned it into a sandbox game
It was always a sandbox game silly person.
Quote
I'd be willing to wager that small indie devs have gone out of business more due to their publishers being pillocks rather than a lack of advertising
I'd say it is more because most Indie developers are just "gimics" or trying to compete with the kings of the field. I don't want to name any Indie games, as people still like them, but a lot of them are just really average games that throw up indie as not only an excuse to its quality but as a reason to buy it (Though likely because the genres and gametypes they do arn't explored too often)
In otherwords most indie developers go out of buisness for the same reason other companies go out of buisness. They just arn't all that good.
Quote
I've noticed a lot more of the free download games are a lot more complex and a lot harder to learn
That is observer bias... A lot of free download games are just as shallow and easy to learn.
The key is that the ones that become popular are the ones that are deep and complex.
Post by: Mindmaker on July 29, 2011, 01:25:06 pm
ALL gaming companies must bow to the might god "Casual Gamers". Damn those gamers to the deserted island!Well, The Witcher 2 didn't and the whining about it was just glorious.
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on July 29, 2011, 01:30:45 pm
In otherwords most indie developers go out of buisness for the same reason other companies go out of buisness. They just arn't all that good.
Note that I said "rather than". I was implying that it was just between these two factors.
I'm not denying there hasn't been horrible indie games. Infact most of them are just terrible tripe but I was talking about a situation where an indie game was good enough to get a publisher.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 01:33:02 pm
Quote
I was talking about a situation where an indie game was good enough to get a publisher
Ohhh. Well I have no comments on that.
ALL gaming companies must bow to the might god "Casual Gamers". Damn those gamers to the deserted island!Well, The Witcher 2 didn't and the whining about it was just glorious.
And they shall DIE to satiate the Casual god!
Post by: jc6036 on July 29, 2011, 01:42:51 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 01:45:11 pm
However it is the same stance I take with Comedies.
It is by virtue of being super saturated that it starts to become annoying.
Also I don't like Left 4 Dead but that is because I just don't like shooters in general and everytime I played I got killed by really nasty means (such as being sniped from a mile away through two sheets of glass and being killed in a way I couldn't be saved)
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 01:48:53 pm
Wait for it...
He doesn't have a damn publisher.
If a developer has a publisher, it's not an independent developer anymore. Plain and simple. Please either rephrase or rethink your arguments for the last few posts on Indie devs.
Soooo. . .I realize that many of you (bah, who am I kidding. All of you) Dont like "mindless FPS games", and I agree with you on COD, whats your stance on Left 4 Dead? The same? It was actually my favorite before I got into roguelikes, and I still play it ocasionally. Thoughts?I don't know. The first one actually got me addicted for a while. But that didn't last too long and I've slowly come to the conclusion that I hated it. I can't really say what I would do different or what I would like fixed on the game, but I think what got on my nerves was trying to do the challenges and being forced to team up with an incompetent AI when I just wanted to play alone.
Post by: jc6036 on July 29, 2011, 01:50:59 pm
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 01:51:26 pm
Quote
Please either rephrase or rethink your arguments for the last few posts on Indie devs
Uhh may I remind you Soulwynd that "Indie" is a genre of music.
Post by: Darkmere on July 29, 2011, 01:52:02 pm
On the other hand, I have no problem with games including plot as a selling point. I enjoyed Mass Effect despite the clunky interface because the character interaction and worldbuilding was above average, in my opinion. I enjoyed ME2 in part because of that, but I also felt the gameplay was more streamlined but still presented plenty of replayability due to party composition and henchmen skills. I guess my response would be, if you don't like roleplaying elements, why would you spend time ranting about an RPG? I don't ragequit Ocarina of Time because it isn't Doom.
On a different topic, I don't understand the short attention spans of most players. According to steam's achievement tracker for Fallout New Vegas, 30% of the people who bought it never reached level 10. That's a pretty hefty investment to just put down and walk away from, from my perspective. I feel compelled to at least finish once if I've paid that much money for something. Honestly, it seems to reward developers for skimping on the endgame (like Xen, apparently. I'm still working through Half-Life). I think the only game I've purchased in relatively recent memory that I couldn't finish once was Shadow of the Colossus, which I found mind-numbingly boring.
Fakedit: Wow, septuple ninja'd.
I wouldn't take the "rawr mindless FPS" generic hate too seriously, we are on forums for a company that does roguelikes after all. I've never played either L4D but they looked fun. My main issue with those kinds of games is I don't have access to a group of friends to play with, and loudmouth kiddies make me want to drill a hole in my head.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 01:54:21 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indie_game_developersQuotePlease either rephrase or rethink your arguments for the last few posts on Indie devs
Uhh may I remind you Soulwynd that "Indie" is a genre of music.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_video_game_development
May I remind you that you are wrong?
Indie is not a genre. It's a short for Independent. It means a band that has no studio backing them. In the case of games, a developer that has no publisher funding their games.
Post by: freeformschooler on July 29, 2011, 01:56:00 pm
Soooo. . .I realize that many of you (bah, who am I kidding. All of you) Dont like "mindless FPS games", and I agree with you on COD, whats your stance on Left 4 Dead? The same? It was actually my favorite before I got into roguelikes, and I still play it ocasionally. Thoughts?
Oh, I love me a good mindless shooter. Seriously. And I've played roguelikes for a long time. My problem is when a good mindless FPS is worth about $20 or $30 for the quality or the content or both and it gets pushed as a double or triple A $60 game.
Post by: Catastrophic lolcats on July 29, 2011, 01:57:07 pm
snip
You're of course right by defination and perhaps "small development team/low budget" would have been better here.
I just used indie developers because it has become a blanket term for anyone that doesn't produce triple A games or don't have a large amount of finical backing.
The whole Indie thing gets a bit murky in the video game industry now a days. One could even debate that Valve could be considered Independent.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 01:57:36 pm
Quote
Indie is not a genre
How I wish that was always true.
It is stupid and I wish they would stop doing that... but unfortunately you can go to stores that list "Indie" as a genre, you can go to stations that list "Indie" as a genre, and you get videogames that have "Indie" as a genre (DAMN IT SIMS!").
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 02:21:51 pm
Personally, the story should be a bonus to the game, not the main focus. It's alright for the story to drive the game. It's alright for the story to be deep and engrossing. It's alright for the game to even have multiple choice dialogs and give you a fake sense of freedom. I just don't think it's alright when the story overpowers the game play. I don't think it's alright when the game is so focused on story, the game play seems like something the developers forgot about.
I can't give my opinion on ME2, since I haven't played it. The reason I haven't is because ME1 was ... well, everything I've already said about it, so I didn't really want to touch ME2.
@Darkmane & freeformschooler
I also like mindless shooters, but that doesn't really mean they have to be extremely simple and poorly designed. I mean, I like Serious Sam, Doom, Quake, DN3D, etc. I used to play them all and even bought the Serious Sam HD. Even if they had decent level design and required some tactics, in the end they were just reaction based mindless shooters and they did much better than these modern ones.
I have serious hopes for the new Serious Sam tho.
I just used indie developers because it has become a blanket term for anyone that doesn't produce triple A games or don't have a large amount of finical backing.Unless Valve has paid other studios to do games, it is an independent developer. If it has backed up other studios, then it's a publisher/developer.
The whole Indie thing gets a bit murky in the video game industry now a days. One could even debate that Valve could be considered Independent.
I think you should call them small developers. As an example, Introversion is an actual indie developer.
Well, that's their own fault for being wrong and misguided. Just because a bunch of people is using a term wrong, doesn't mean we should adopt it. I sure as hell wont accept indie as a genre simply because, ipso facto, as a genre it can be absolutely anything since it describes a band/developer that has no backing.QuoteIndie is not a genre
How I wish that was always true.
It is stupid and I wish they would stop doing that... but unfortunately you can go to stores that list "Indie" as a genre, you can go to stations that list "Indie" as a genre, and you get videogames that have "Indie" as a genre (DAMN IT SIMS!").
Post by: Matz05 on July 29, 2011, 02:54:38 pm
As if Windows isn't rootkit-and-undocumented-bloatware-laden enough, they think they have free reign to install more... And for what?
A few cases of resale less.
That's the bottom line for them anyway, used games.
It's become so bad these days you could say that "virus-laden" pirated games are SAFER to install and run. Not that I DO, mind you, but it wouldn't be tempting if they didn't put such stupid stuff in.
No matter what you make me "sign" with EULAs and "click-wrap", I OWN the software I BOUGHT. I am not a licencee, subcontractor, or service user. I will copy, paste, backup, dissasemble, reverse-engineer, modify, circumvent, hack, edit, add to, remove from, modify, bend, fold, mangle, or spindle WHATEVER I PLEASE. The ONLY rights you keep are redistribution and/or profit, and that is only while you are willing to do so. (abandoned works with no owner or distributor are moraly a GOOD THING to reproduce to avoid extinction of a work of art. Floppies aren't forever...)
(Oh, and somone mentioned "Christians" on the first page as being straw arguers who will not listen to reason or accept those with other beliefs. While I cannot speak for other sects (most Christians in my area are Catholic), just about all of the Roman Catholic Christians I have met are rather easygoing, tolerant people. I guess you have the misfortune of a lot of nuts in your area.)
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 03:23:36 pm
It's become so bad these days you could say that "virus-laden" pirated games are SAFER to install and run. Not that I DO, mind you, but it wouldn't be tempting if they didn't put such stupid stuff in.I've had this computer for 7 years and I haven't gotten a single virus or malware.
But I've had to uninstall securom more times than I can count.
(Oh, and somone mentioned "Christians" on the first page as being straw arguers who will not listen to reason or accept those with other beliefs. While I cannot speak for other sects (most Christians in my area are Catholic), just about all of the Roman Catholic Christians I have met are rather easygoing, tolerant people. I guess you have the misfortune of a lot of nuts in your area.)
Spoiler: Offtopic spoiler, open at your own risk (click to show/hide)
Post by: Draco18s on July 29, 2011, 03:34:45 pm
Spoiler: Offtopic spoiler, open at your own risk (click to show/hide)
Awesome.
Post by: Matz05 on July 29, 2011, 03:40:53 pm
And while yes, most are what you could call "nonpracticing", I was thinking of the older population that I see going to Church every Sunday.
Even the rule against "bowing to other gods" (actually "putting other gods before Me") does not include harassing the followers of such other ideologies. It is just to say that compromise of good principles to serve other goals (power, prestige, etc) is not permitted.
Plus, Jewish people follow the Commandmants and they don't have a reputation as intollerant? Granted, Christianity most differs from Judaism in the tradition of evangelism...
There are an awful lot of hypocritical "Christians" out there, aren't there?
Maybe most loud, obnoxious hypocrites are Christians, but most Christians are not loud, obnoxious hypocrites.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 03:43:22 pm
Quote
You don't mean "actual Christians", you mean "Fundementalists".
No, that would be who you perceive as a valid target for that kind of criticism.
Which is why the topic needs to change fast, because we have entered the "Religious and religiously atheist bashing" zone.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 03:48:44 pm
Awesome.Yup, it was the comic I thought of when a certain hypocrite douche posted here.
@Matz05
Spoiler: I don't want to derail any further, but (click to show/hide)
Post by: Darkmere on July 29, 2011, 03:55:25 pm
@Darkmere
Personally, the story should be a bonus to the game, not the main focus. It's alright for the story to drive the game. It's alright for the story to be deep and engrossing. It's alright for the game to even have multiple choice dialogs and give you a fake sense of freedom. I just don't think it's alright when the story overpowers the game play. I don't think it's alright when the game is so focused on story, the game play seems like something the developers forgot about.
I can't give my opinion on ME2, since I haven't played it. The reason I haven't is because ME1 was ... well, everything I've already said about it, so I didn't really want to touch ME2.
I guess what I'm not sure about is the medium you're seeking. What game has the balance of plot and gameplay that you find satisfying? Even at that, it's going to be subjective (which is perfectly acceptable) so your answer won't necessarily apply to other people, which is why debates like this come up in the first place.
Put another way, no amount of rabid ranting about Bioshock being a rip of System Shock 2 is going to suddenly make me decide I didn't enjoy Bioshock. Universal acclaim of Shadow of the Colossus doesn't change the fact that I found it dry, monotonous, and completely unfulfilling.
Post by: SquidgyB on July 29, 2011, 03:56:11 pm
I read the first post, formulated something to say about old games and loading times, then realised it all seemed a little too familiar.
Lo and behold I posted my opinion in this thread 7-8 months ago.
To expand on what I mentioned before - loading times have been and will be with us for a long, long time. thing is it's not like they're getting any longer, there's more of an "ebb and flow" with regards to loading times in that they have a relationship between the complexity of the software running and the speed of the loading medium - storage media gets faster and games get more complex and as one outpips the other (in relative terms) loading times go up and down.
Anyhow, like I also said before, there's no black/white divide, there's plenty to love and plenty to hate with both old and modern games.
But DRM of pretty much any sort can really fuck off.
As for milking old games, it's often down to the rights holders. I'm very much looking forward to the new Carmageddon and Deus Ex, but right there is the looming memory of Deus Ex 2 - a prime example of a game losing its way completely in the sequel.
Post by: Draco18s on July 29, 2011, 03:57:26 pm
I guess what I'm not sure about is the medium you're seeking. What game has the balance of plot and gameplay that you find satisfying? Even at that, it's going to be subjective (which is perfectly acceptable) so your answer won't necessarily apply to other people, which is why debates like this come up in the first place.
Can we at least agree that Final Fantasy XIII-3b: Part 2 is actually a 50 hour movie and not a game?
Post by: Matz05 on July 29, 2011, 04:02:25 pm
I recall some commentary on interpretations of that that but never though I would need it, so I didn't remember it.
Recall, however, that Jews find that passage even more sacred than Christians do, and they don't behave like that.
I think it is just the acessibility of Christianity that attracts all the jerks. Anyone can become Christian, other religions have standards.
Post by: Darkmere on July 29, 2011, 04:02:54 pm
I guess what I'm not sure about is the medium you're seeking. What game has the balance of plot and gameplay that you find satisfying? Even at that, it's going to be subjective (which is perfectly acceptable) so your answer won't necessarily apply to other people, which is why debates like this come up in the first place.
Can we at least agree that Final Fantasy XIII-3b: Part 2 is actually a 50 hour movie and not a game?
I've ahm... never played FF anything.
The only JRPGs I've played were Golden Sun and Lost Age, which I thought were phenomenal.
Post by: The Scout on July 29, 2011, 04:03:31 pm
Post by: Furtuka on July 29, 2011, 04:06:34 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on July 29, 2011, 04:09:10 pm
Except cantaloupeople. Screw you guys you taste terrible.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 04:12:45 pm
As well some people here ARE casuals who are THE focus of the gaming market (Note: If you know a lot of games then your not casual... even if you play them only casually.)
Plus then there are people who only just now got into games so their standards ARE modern games.
THEN finally there are people who don't mind modern games becuase they ignore all the cruddy, repetative, samey, follow the leader, graphics above style, and all that games and go for the actual kernals of goodness left in this wasteland we call gaming.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 04:20:57 pm
I think that's why I put personally as the first word in my phrase. It's my opinion and it's a very subjective one. I accept lots of people buy games for the story only and they can praise the story all they want, but the actual gameplay isn't good, no matter how good the story may be. Of course, a compelling story can make you overlook gameplay flaws and the same goes the other way around.
I don't really want perfection, I just don't want the gameplay to be forgotten. Story alone wont make me say a game is good.
For example: Portal 2. I have a lot of criticism about it but the story was so entertaining and fluid that I can overlook that to the point I can say it's the best game of 2011 for me so far. But in fact, it was a dumbed down Portal 1 since they switched the focus from figuring out what to do, to find the white wall and in what sequence should you use them.
I don't think Bioshock was a rip, it was certainly inspired by, but not a rip. I think it's a bad reuse of the franchise, but that's my opinion. As for shadow of the colossus, I agree with you... One of the most boring games I've ever played... I mean, the visuals were great and the sense of size was great... But they took the most annoying thing every game has... Boss fights... and made a game about it. That would never go right.
To expand on what I mentioned before - loading times have been and will be with us for a long, long time. thing is it's not like they're getting any longer, there's more of an "ebb and flow" with regards to loading times in that they have a relationship between the complexity of the software running and the speed of the loading medium - storage media gets faster and games get more complex and as one outpips the other (in relative terms) loading times go up and down.Nope. It's bad programming in most cases. It's just careless, cheap, lets get this over with, bad programming.
Any Hitman game can be used as the prime example of how fast your games could be loading right now.
I am offended that the vote for people who don't have any problems with modern games implies that they have no brainsActually. I used fruit in a hippie sense to imply you are peaceful, thus you don't hate anything. Ie... All is fine man *peace sign, noms on apple*.
I don't think it would even be offensive to vegetarian hippies. I mean, they want to be peaceful, don't they?
Post by: Darkmere on July 29, 2011, 04:33:06 pm
Post by: SquidgyB on July 29, 2011, 04:33:32 pm
Nope. It's bad programming in most cases. It's just careless, cheap, lets get this over with, bad programming.
Any Hitman game can be used as the prime example of how fast your games could be loading right now.
In some cases, yes, not in most. Admittedly you could substitute "complexity" in my original quote with "graphics" but with most modern games it will be the textures being loaded (and yes, a lot of it will be sloppy programming not making use of available resources and placing these assets into memory) but you can demonstrate that it is more down to the hardware clearly by setting up a RAM drive (provided you have enough memory) and loading a game from there - in most cases I've tried this I can load a game in the blink of an eye. won't help you in DF when a world is being generated, but it certainly will when it's being loaded or saved. 5Gb/s vs ~300mb/s makes a huge difference.
Yeah, Hitman loads quickly, but then it doesn't have the graphical beauty of, say, Oblivion, or the sheer amount of high res textures needed for a modern flight sim, for example.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 29, 2011, 04:49:17 pm
It's $9.99 on steam right now, but if you wait for another promo, you might get it for 5 bucks. Even at 10 bucks I think it's worth it.
Yeah, the price on P2 was really steep for a short lived game. I don't feel it's worth that price, but it's still the best new game I've played this year so far.
@SquidgyB
Well, putting anything that depends on something essentially slow on a super fast medium will make it fast. That doesn't prove anything. It doesn't make it more efficient. Hitman loads quickly not because it lacks graphical beauty. It loads quickly because it does so dynamically. Whereas Oblivion garbage collects everything before reloading everything. The only point where Oblivion loads things dynamically, even when there are new textures and objects, is when you're out in the wilderness and you don't usually feel a hitch there. If it did that in scene transitions, it would have had a much faster loading. But alas, it's much easier to simply dump everything and reload only what you need.
Example: TF2 recently switched to dynamic loading. After the first map load, most every other map loads much much faster since it doesn't have to dump the entire thing before reloading everything.
Post by: Neonivek on July 29, 2011, 04:52:45 pm
Quote
I just don't want the gameplay to be forgotten. Story alone wont make me say a game is good
I agree. When a game is all story but no gameplay it makes... well... a movie. I can look the other way to a certain extent for story but you can only be shoved aside so much.
Same with Gameplay and Story. Gameplay can make me look the other way for the story... but like God of War, I can only be pushed too far.
Post by: Grakelin on July 29, 2011, 09:09:52 pm
I am offended that the vote for people who don't have any problems with modern games implies that they have no brains
It's even worse, now, I'd say. I'm willing to let a person I disagree with call me stupid because of our disagreement. It irks me somewhat more to either agree with the OP or not vote at all.
At least Soulwynd hasn't tried pulling the results of this thread as evidence of anything yet.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 30, 2011, 12:04:47 am
Post by: PTTG?? on July 30, 2011, 12:21:50 am
Post by: xDarkz on July 30, 2011, 07:56:18 am
I'm currently playing Eve Online, Dwarf Fortress and Men of War:Assault Squad. Eve Online being the only MMO that doesn't spoon feed you throughout the game (Though, I could be wrong. If you know some, don't be afraid to toss some my way). Dwarf Fortress being well... Dwarf Fortress, and the Men of War series as a more hardcore version of Company of Heroes, so to speak.
My biggest quirk with modern games these days is like Soul had said, it's linearity. Once I play through a game, I'm essentially done with it. There's nothing else to do. Sure I can go back and complete all the ridiculous achievements or whatever else I hadn't done, but seriously? The quality of games now are no where near those of the past. With this amount of technology and equipment, I'd imagined they'd be making games bigger, and better. I'm still perplexed as to why creative, innovative games such as Dwarf Fortress aren't more popular. I'd pay the average full retail price for a game that even comes close to the Dwarf Fortress' quality. It's a shame, a shame.
Post by: KaguroDraven on July 30, 2011, 08:27:03 am
Post by: Gimhalos on July 30, 2011, 09:08:15 am
(Though, I could be wrong. If you know some, don't be afraid to toss some my way).
Anarchy Online, though it's pretty dead (it may just be nostalgia but man I love this game). Ultima Online (private servers). I'd venture to say Guild Wars because the PvP is pretty in-depth.
Post by: V-Norrec on July 30, 2011, 10:00:07 am
As for any dissatisfaction, really the only thing I think that applies at all is the re-releasing of the same game several times. Then again it is those reliable sellers that allow for more experimentation so I can't really complain. On a side-note I'd never pirate a game, I just find it unjustifiable in my preset or any foreseeable circumstances.
Post by: Frumple on July 30, 2011, 10:33:42 am
The first I understand wholeheartedly, though both sides of the conflict are pretty easy to see. The second... I'unno, it starts to irk me. Games of the past aren't really better than games now. In most cases (take it genre by genre), more recent games are categorically better -- oft times in every bloody way, not just in an overall sense -- than their predecessors. It's incredibly hard to make a case that, as an example, C&C (the first one) is better than Dawn of War -- at least not without indulging in willful self-deception. Age of Wonders stacks up and stands tall among Masters of Magic, HoMM, and its ilk. There's examples in every genre, of the greats of now at the very least matching the games that came before them. Sit a person who's never played a game (plenty of third world folks starving while we indulge in our luxuries! There's a good sample size to be had.) in front of the best of a genre in the 80s or 90s and the best of the 00s and 10s, and I'd be bloody willing to lay money (though not much, I'm not exactly well off :P) that the newer ones come out on top.
Not just pulling that out of my arse. I play old games constantly and I love the hell out of them. The greats of video game history are greats. I also, when budget or mooching allows, fire up a new game and, yanno'? If you compare then and now, actually stack a particular old game versus its descendant, you're pretty much guaranteed to find that, point for point, the descendant's won out. Maybe it loses on one or two points, that happens between the greats of their own eras, but in an overall sense, video game design has improved as time has passed. It's still working out its kinks, it's still got problems, and a lot of those improvements have come about simply due to hardware limitations being lifted and plain ol' experience (and shameless idea theft, always a good thing), but overall, the state of the gaming world's better now than it was 20 years ago. I know, and I think most other folks that have actually been playing that long (and longer!) know it too, they're just letting comparatively minor gripes get in the way of the whole picture -- letting a few dead trees spoil their appreciation of the whole forest, and all that rot.
Games have improved more than they've regressed. Overall, things are improving, if roughly and with difficulty. The greats are getting greater, if sometimes harder to see among all the white noise (which has been true forever and ever and ever :-\) and the mediocre are getting less mediocre. The crap is still crap. The industry's maturing and changing. It'll be a while before we see exactly how it turns out.
[/nostalgia rant]
Post by: Funk on July 30, 2011, 10:45:09 am
Post by: ed boy on July 30, 2011, 11:02:39 am
That's been my gaming policy (though the lag time varies a bit) for the past several years, and I can confirm that it's a really good one. It offer the benefits of:
-Even games that were cutting edge at the time can run confortably
-Bugs have been sorted out with patches
-All sorts of extensive and well-developed mods have been developed
-The games themselves are really cheap
-You get to avoid the bad games and play only the ones that have stood the test of time
As it says, the only downside is not being up to date with all the latest fads and memes, but I can attest that that is an incredibly minor consequence.
Post by: Draco18s on July 30, 2011, 11:18:09 am
Post by: Areyar on July 30, 2011, 12:51:22 pm
..., SC2 was great and I'm eagerly awaiting the expansions. ...I don't get it.
When you write SC2, I read StarControl2 or SimCity2000. Both great games, but they don't have expansions AFAIK. So what modern game are you refering to then?
...I'm getting old. :p
Post by: KaguroDraven on July 30, 2011, 12:53:58 pm
StarCraft 2..., SC2 was great and I'm eagerly awaiting the expansions. ...I don't get it.
When you write SC2, I read StarControl2 or SimCity2000. Both great games, but they don't have expansions AFAIK. So what modern game are you refering to then?
...I'm getting old. :p
Post by: TolyK on July 30, 2011, 12:58:17 pm
PORTAL 2 easily stands out ;)
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2011, 01:11:55 pm
Quote
If you compare then and now, actually stack a particular old game versus its descendant, you're pretty much guaranteed to find that, point for point, the descendant's won out.
It depends on the game, but point for point isn't that hard to use against an old game. For example:
1) Graphics: The new one is made with newer graphics... It wins
2) Music: The new one is made with newer music... It wins
3) Interface: The new one is made with a streamlined interface that looks nicer... It wins
4) Comedy: The new one has references made in modern times... It wins
The thing is you have to look at a lot of these from a Style perspective. Gears of wars has BAAAAAD graphics in an artistic sense for example, everything is just outright ugly even when it doesn't make sense for it to be. Okami is a beautiful game thats style matches the game quite well.
Here is the thing about GOOD older games (not the cruddy or mediocre ones) they did the most with what they had.
Post by: Areyar on July 30, 2011, 01:20:16 pm
Ah, not just old then, demented too. :o I have bought that game!StarCraft 2..., SC2 was great and I'm eagerly awaiting the expansions. ...I don't get it.
When you write SC2, I read StarControl2 or SimCity2000. Both great games, but they don't have expansions AFAIK. So what modern game are you refering to then?
...I'm getting old. :p
Not finished campaign yet though; home improvement is eating my freetime (what I have goes to DF, sorry SC2, you lose).
Post by: SirAaronIII on July 30, 2011, 01:20:16 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on July 30, 2011, 01:26:57 pm
Well, if you compare an old game and a new game using something like graphics, you'll have to keep in mind that the old game is, well, old. Maybe the graphics don't look like much now, but what about when the game was released way back in ye olden days?
Yes, I'd like to remind everybody that the main 1980s Legend of Zelda game commercial included videos of the gameplay while some nasally geek said "Look at those graphics!"
Post by: SirAaronIII on July 30, 2011, 01:41:08 pm
Yes, I'd like to remind everybody that the main 1980s Legend of Zelda game commercial included videos of the gameplay while some nasally geek said "Look at those graphics!"It did? Gotta go watch that now...
oh god why
Post by: Soulwynd on July 30, 2011, 02:02:44 pm
My biggest quirk with modern games these days is like Soul had said, it's linearity.I wouldn't say the problem is linearity as much as it is the lack of re-playability. I mean, if we take x-com for example, it has some very linear stuff going on. You have to do very specific things to advance the plot. The difference is that the game has a certain flavor of randomization and surprise that makes you replay it even tho you know you need to down a cap ship and stun the captain in every single gameplay if you want to advance.
Anarchy Online, though it's pretty dead (it may just be nostalgia but man I love this game).It is? I played it for 5 or 7 years. Either one. I think I played a bit last year (or the year before, blurry blurry) and it was full and thriving.
Most of the hate I see comes from two major directions: As reaction to odious business practice from the bigger gaming companies -- who are all too often run by people who know business but don't know games, its culture, or its various quirks, and thus unsurprisingly alienate a great deal of people who self-identify as 'gamers' instead of just playing games from time to time -- and as hardcore (TVTropes Warning!) nostalgia filter (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NostalgiaFilter).It's not nostalgia when you opt to play those games instead of modern ones on a daily basis.
Which I do.
Plus nor me nor anyone has said there hasn't been crap. There has been crap in any era of the games. Yes a lot of things advanced, but a lot of things not only did not, but they pulled back. Said things are what I feel are important in games, which is why I'm displeased with most modern games and find myself picking an older game to play later today. If I don't get that EYE game that is, I think I will most likely keep playing Betrayal at Krondor if so.
So, I'm sorry, I understand there is a lot of nostalgia filter going on for a lot of older games but please, don't let that be a reason of why I may irk you, because I assure you it is not. We just happen to disagree that the newer installment of any given game has improved its predecessor. In some cases it may be true, but most of the times, if I hold a game against its older granddaddy, I pick the granddaddy (Why did that sound so dirty?). If I may give an example of my own, it would be the elder scrolls series. I pick Daggerfall over morrowind and oblivion any day.
Guys, did we really have to erase the poll and replace it with something dumb?Yes. If you really want to know what happened, you can PM me.
Plus it ignores the fact certain points are more important than others.QuoteIf you compare then and now, actually stack a particular old game versus its descendant, you're pretty much guaranteed to find that, point for point, the descendant's won out.
It depends on the game, but point for point isn't that hard to use against an old game. For example:
All the points you mentioned in your example, Neo, are a sure win for modern games. Specially interface. The interface in most old games simply suck. But... The most important point of all... Which overshadows every other point (for me that is)... Would be gameplay. Actual game playing satisfaction. That thing that makes you go "Wow, that took some effort and thought out of me.". Most modern games don't win there.
So I ditch them after playing once and go play a bit of x-com.
Post by: KaguroDraven on July 30, 2011, 02:08:17 pm
Example:God of War 1, by most definitations a rather Linear game. Fun as hell gameplay and a decent story have made me replay it several times.
Post by: Antioch on July 30, 2011, 02:26:15 pm
Post by: Draco18s on July 30, 2011, 02:35:11 pm
How is linearity a problem with 'modern games'? most old games had a lot more linearity.
Compare and contrast:
Final Fantasy XIII
and
Chrono Trigger
Post by: KaguroDraven on July 30, 2011, 02:44:51 pm
I have never played either of those games. Also, it doesn't make much sense to compare a game that I assume is very sandboxy to a game from a series well known at this point for it linearity. Said series used to have more open games, depending on your definition of 'open', but shortly after it started it became a mostly linear series. It's what the fans seem to like.How is linearity a problem with 'modern games'? most old games had a lot more linearity.
Compare and contrast:
Final Fantasy XIII
and
Chrono Trigger
Post by: freeformschooler on July 30, 2011, 02:47:29 pm
How is linearity a problem with 'modern games'? most old games had a lot more linearity.
Compare and contrast:
Final Fantasy XIII
and
Chrono Trigger
Alternately, from the same general era, Final Fantasy VI ("III") which had a highly linear plot for most of the game (the first half and some of the second half), but allowed for some exploration.
On the other hand, in the modern day, Final Fantasy XII, the game before XIII, while being similarly linear to VI also allowed for a lot of exploration and diversion a lot of the time, just like VI.
It really isn't easy to say modern games are very linear compared to old games. We've always had open-world games and linear games (For instance, Adventure vs. Pac Man on the Atari 2600, or Legend of Zelda vs. Super Mario Bros. on the NES, etc etc).
I'm not going to say XIII isn't extremely linear, though.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 30, 2011, 03:22:48 pm
Which was his point.
It's just that Chrono Trigger is an infinitely better experience. In all honesty, even if you disagree with me on everything, give Chrono Trigger a spin, you wont regret it.
Post by: Draco18s on July 30, 2011, 03:28:04 pm
I have never played either of those games. Also, it doesn't make much sense to compare a game that I assume is very sandboxy to a game from a series well known at this point for it linearity. Said series used to have more open games, depending on your definition of 'open', but shortly after it started it became a mostly linear series. It's what the fans seem to like.
Chrono Trigger is a JRPG, with a rather linear plot.
However there are several points where the player can influence the outcome of that story. There are no less than seven different endings (aside from dying in combat). One of those is even walking up to the final boss early and beating the shit out of him (which, I'd like to point out, isn't normally possible).
The levels also don't look like this:
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q89/Feylihn/56088__468x_final-fantasy-xiii-extr.jpg)
Post by: KaguroDraven on July 30, 2011, 03:29:15 pm
Actually, both of those are very linear.Ah, my mistake, fair enough then.
Which was his point.
It's just that Chrono Trigger is an infinitely better experience. In all honesty, even if you disagree with me on everything, give Chrono Trigger a spin, you wont regret it.
Post by: freeformschooler on July 30, 2011, 03:34:26 pm
Actually, both of those are very linear.
Which was his point.
It's just that Chrono Trigger is an infinitely better experience. In all honesty, even if you disagree with me on everything, give Chrono Trigger a spin, you wont regret it.
Ah, I thought he was agreeing. Yeah, Chrono Trigger is indeed pretty linear but it does give you a lot more options for wandering around (though I didn't beat it).
Post by: Draco18s on July 30, 2011, 03:45:54 pm
(though I didn't beat it).
Neither have I.
Post by: Soulwynd on July 30, 2011, 04:13:40 pm
It's epic.
Post by: JoshuaFH on July 30, 2011, 04:26:35 pm
Chrono Cross on the other hand, is a decent game, but it's bashed for not being anywhere near the quality of it's ancestor. I've only played about half of it.
Post by: Trapezohedron on July 30, 2011, 07:41:09 pm
I hate DLCs, especially day 1 DLCs. I mean, it should have been in the game itself, instead of being cut from the main game and packaged in a different box labelled 'DLC'.
However, there are games that actually do it right. For example, LittleBigPlanet's DLCs are great, as none of them are required to play the main game's water features. In fact, you could play the first game's custom watery levels without the appropriate DLC; lacking the DLC just prohibited you from making levels with water and other minor features.
With all that being said, there are some sucky examples, like Oblivion's Horse armor DLC. Seriously now, it was just a bunch of horses in armor, and it cost as much as the other DLCs. I could list a lot more, but it would become redundant if I keep listing, so yeah.
DLCs are supposed to expand the full game, it shouldn't be used as a key to unlock the full game's content.
Post by: Leatra on July 30, 2011, 07:47:51 pm
With all that being said, there are some sucky examples, like Oblivion's Horse armor DLC.Ubersucky!
Modders could do better, and free.
Post by: dragnar on July 30, 2011, 11:28:44 pm
Ditto, it's an amazing game, and I've gone through it many times. There's even a joke ending if you beat the final boss at a certain point.Chrono Cross was... frustrating. On it's own merits? It's not at all a bad game. I'd even call it good. But to anyone who has played Chrono trigger... not only does it not hold up to that standard, it's plot pretty much destroys most of Chrono Trigger's.
Chrono Cross on the other hand, is a decent game, but it's bashed for not being anywhere near the quality of it's ancestor. I've only played about half of it.
Post by: Neonivek on July 30, 2011, 11:48:09 pm
Its plot was weak, it didn't have the same "we are friends" vibe Crono trigger managed, and its fighting mechanics were bad.
It wasn't so bad though. It just was an average game that ridden on the coattails of a great game.
That is I guess one of the important things about plot.
Yes older games couldn't POSSIBLY have the hours of cinamatics and sections between towns like modern games did... but that is the thing. They did everything they HAD to in the minimum amount of time.
What is the best cinamatic in FF8? The DANCE.
Adding more story isn't making the story better it is just adding fodder. If anything the fact that they couldn't put hour long videos between battles was a benefit.
Post by: Vibhor on July 31, 2011, 02:36:39 am
Chrono Trigger is a JRPG, with a rather linear plot.
Anyone else found it hilarious that right after he said linear plot, he explained how the plot wasn't linear? No? Oh well.
Just so that you know, Chrono trigger is more non linear than Oblivion which may come off as a surprise.
Post by: Draco18s on July 31, 2011, 09:38:20 am
Chrono Trigger is a JRPG, with a rather linear plot.
Anyone else found it hilarious that right after he said linear plot, he explained how the plot wasn't linear? No? Oh well.
It's linear-branching, versus the hyperlinear of Final Fantasy.
Chrono Trigger's plot pretty much the same regardless of which "choices" you make, varying slightly for which party members you have with you (which for a good portion of the game is "all of the ones available because you can't get rid of them"). The only variation is in the ending, which all depends on when and how you defeat the Big Bad.
There's only one choice I know of that's even largely relevant. And that's whether or not Chrono sacrifices himself for one of the NPCs (I've been told that letting the NPC dies is a valid choice, I never tried it).
Post by: JoshuaFH on July 31, 2011, 09:53:58 am
Chrono Trigger is a JRPG, with a rather linear plot.
Anyone else found it hilarious that right after he said linear plot, he explained how the plot wasn't linear? No? Oh well.
It's linear-branching, versus the hyperlinear of Final Fantasy.
Chrono Trigger's plot pretty much the same regardless of which "choices" you make, varying slightly for which party members you have with you (which for a good portion of the game is "all of the ones available because you can't get rid of them"). The only variation is in the ending, which all depends on when and how you defeat the Big Bad.
There's only one choice I know of that's even largely relevant. And that's whether or not Chrono sacrifices himself for one of the NPCs (I've been told that letting the NPC dies is a valid choice, I never tried it).
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Draco18s on July 31, 2011, 11:37:23 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But the plot of the game is largely unchanged. Many of those circumstances and variables aren't communicated to the player.
Post by: JoshuaFH on July 31, 2011, 11:41:27 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But the plot of the game is largely unchanged. Many of those circumstances and variables aren't communicated to the player.
I was merely expanding on the previous post, but if you care to elaborate further, I wouldn't mind.
Post by: Draco18s on July 31, 2011, 11:52:32 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
But the plot of the game is largely unchanged. Many of those circumstances and variables aren't communicated to the player.
I was merely expanding on the previous post, but if you care to elaborate further, I wouldn't mind.
Admittedly I'm basing most of this from what I've read about the game and my limited experience playing the game which was probably 5 years ago.
Post by: EmperorNuthulu on July 31, 2011, 12:06:41 pm