Bay 12 Games Forum

I'm going to wait until the released version. I have really low expectations about this game anyway. It's not really a good game from what I have heard anyway.

They should have tried going with real-time combat. It's not like I'm not fond of turn-based combat but there are games where this works well (like, video games with D&D rules) and there are games where this doesn't work. And then there are turn-based games which shouldn't be turn-based in the first place AND were developed by companies who don't have any idea about turn-based combat.

So, yeah. My expectations are low.

If the increase in sales came from people genuinely wanting these things (although I doubt that's the case with DRM since it offers the consumer nothing) I do not see a problem. They are just putting a product on the shelf for people to buy if they so wish. In a fair market enviroment, the COD MW100 would sell because people genuinely want it. I think the biggest issue is unfair manipulation of the thought process through false reviews, those lying and vague trailers etc which is all to common in the game industry. It is more common than the movie/book industry, where finding a negative review of a blockbuster just after release is not very hard.

That's the reason why I never preorder anything and I always wait to check people's opinions (not reviewer's) and REAL gameplay videos (that is, videos recorder by people playing it, not the devs or reviewers) before I buy any games. I think everybody knows not to trust gameplay videos coming from the devs itself and trailers don't tell anything about the game anyway.

Also, most big company devs love to lie (mostly because executive meddling kills their ideas, but still), so I tend not to really listen to them. I avoid overhyping and that's probably why I enjoyed Spore. Man, that was actually a good game. If you didn't hear anything about it before and bought it just because the cover looked cool and the price was %95 cut, the game would make it to your top 10 games of the year list. The seller said the disk was "legitimate enough not to be corrupted or have viruses or anything but you'll need a crack" so I'm sure nothing wrong with that guy.

Guys,

It's doesn't matter even a little if the companies are being evil and unethical bastards. If a product is selling, they will make more of it. If Call of Duty is still selling, they will make the 100. CoD game if it keeps selling. They understand ONLY one language and here it is:


If they do stupid things like DLCs and DRM, and if see an increase in the sales, they will think "Look! Moar people are buying!" According to them, it justifies anything they are doing because (DRM + DLCs + overhyping = more sales = success) is the formula these guys are using.

Yes, companies are exploiting the "consumers" (that's what we are) and extracting cash from them like milking a cow. We should be aware of it and be critical of games they are developing. We can't stop them from doing it because they think differently than us (click if you dare). They see us as mindless money bags (aka consumers) and if we don't show them that we are people capable of buying what we really want rather than accepting anything they throw at us, they will keep seeing us as consumers. They are businessmen. They see games as products and they see gamers as consumers. Don't act like every company is able to think like an indie dev.

Now, most people (if not all) in this forum already knows this and most of us don't throw money at these greedy companies AND then come here to complain like a bunch of fucking hypocrites (RIGHT GUYS?). I can't say the same thing about the majority of gamers though. And companies tend to care more about the majority because (more consumers = increased sales)

So, in conclusion, bitching isn't gonna change things.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/17/ironfell-is-the-cutest-most-unfair-mmo-of-today

I'm not sure why RPS is practically advertising these kinds of games lately, but I thought it was relevant to the thread.

A lot of people honestly believe its perfectly okay to pay for an advantage in games.  Pay 2 Win games are becoming acceptable for gamers, and this enrages me to no end.  Even the smallest purchasable advantage in a multiplayer game annoys the hell out of me. 

I honestly can't figure out why it became so acceptable though.  I don't understand why the majority doesn't think the same way I do.  Part of me is paranoid that F2P games will become the standard, rather than the exception.  I know there will always be some games and developers that won't embrace the F2P models, but I'm sure its ruining a generation of child gamers out there who can't understand the difference between skill and money and have no concept of fair play.

Heh, I thought I was the only one who thought like that.

Quote from: Criptfeind on January 22, 2013, 10:01:53 pm

Quote from: Neonivek on January 22, 2013, 09:46:31 pm

No, but you never know what lies beyond the lable.

Quote from: Neonivek on January 22, 2013, 08:44:24 pm

You can research recalls to see if the meat is safe.

So. A liar. Or you change you mind dramatically over the course of two minutes.

Not either. A meat can be researched safe but end up unsafe.

I had a game where exactly that happened.

To be fair, I gotta agree with Neonivek on this one. It happened to me with Skyrim. Games are interactive, they are not like music or movies which you can experience like how everyone else experiences, by listening/watching it. On the other hand, games are different. It has nothing to do with being a bad researcher.

I dont support these big company, i dont buy game but i do play them. Do the math.

I'm following the same road too. Why would I buy a game that punishes the honest purchasers while people who play it without paying for it are playing it without any restraints? I might as well stop being a honest purchaser.

Yeah, it sounds like a stupid excuse to justify something. But I'm not going to throw money at a company and then complain about them. I'm not a hypocrite.

Quote from: Leatra on January 22, 2013, 03:09:17 am

If it wasn't for the new indie companies that's getting popular nowadays, I would say PC gaming is doomed. We are not doomed... yet. We still have some good years left.

I don't think I agree with you on this one though, it's pretty stable as it is right now, I am talking about the market of course.
Major companies capitalise on high-investment, high-return titles, usually through 'mainstream' titles or even their own franchise.
Indie developers still intend to make money, or some, very few of them, develop games just because they want to, and they will nonetheless still make games that target niche market.
They won't just, magically disappear out of thin air in a few years.

Of course, indie devs will always be here and we still have good "mainstream" AAA games (Dragon Age, Far Cry 3, Mass Effect, etc) to play. But if mainstream games become more... mainstream and "casual", and if the next generation of gamers turn out to be what I'm expecting, indie devs might feel crushed under the dominance of big corporations.

I still have hope though. Thanks to things like Kickstarter and all that.

I went through the entire thread, and the author of this game made it very clear several times that there will be NO fantasy elements, i.e., no imaginary creatures or innate abilities.
Also, I've noticed that people were basically saying, 'hey, this may or may not be considered 'fantastic', so can we have it in game?' with things that are clearly fantasy element.
I am baffled at how immature people can be at times.

Hey, don't look at me like that. If you were talking about me, it's not my problem if you can't tell sarcasm. Do you think I want aliens and shape-shifters in this game? [sarcasm] Well, yeah. It would be cool. Maybe a little Cthulhu stuff would go well too. [/sarcasm] But I know stuff like that won't be in this game and I'm okay with it. [sarcasm] What do you think I am? Immature? Pfft. [/sarcasm] I gave those examples to show how subjective the word "fantasy" is. People tend to count having fictional civs as being a "fantasy" thing. We are going to have fictional civs but it still won't be fantasy.

I think we can say "THERE IS NO SPELLS AND DRAGONS AND ALIENS AND SHIT" as a short version. That covers most of the fantasy stuff.

Ah, why we are talking about this issue this much? Let's just call it "there won't be unrealistic stuff in this game" and be done with it.