Your Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming

[Keep]

Civilisation

Is crap.

Haha ok, lemme back up. I played a LOT of Civilisation II back in the day and I LOVED it. If you'd asked me two weeks ago what are some of the best games ever, I'd (hopefully, despite not having played it/thought of it in ages) have named it.

But about two weeks ago, I was mulling it over and I realised actually I don't like what it's doing at all and...it's like the opposite of nostalgia. It's like your favourite teenage music - "Man I used to love this, but I don't now and honestly I never really should have".

I KNOW RIGHT? Civ-goddamn-ivilisation!


I think it's mainly to do with how it understands the nature of progress, and culture, and religion, and philosophy, and art, and all those parts of history that aren't just straight-up war-mongering conquesting (and even its notion of war-mongering conquesting, to be honest, is a little bit silly).

[b0rsuk]

Civilisation
Is crap.
(...)
I think it's mainly to do with how it understands the nature of progress, and culture, and religion, and philosophy, and art, and all those parts of history that aren't just straight-up war-mongering conquesting (and even its notion of war-mongering conquesting, to be honest, is a little bit silly).

These are things that made me keep distance from Civilization - but I played Master of Magic, for example.

- It's silly that each turn is 50 years, BUT somehow a scout unit can be away from home for hundreds of years ! Without hibernation or anything !
- I also dislike Civ's perception of science and discovery. That it's somehow linear and should occur in the same order. It's based too much on history. There should be more speculative fiction, because I can supposedly make choices, right ? How about alternate history, alternate science, alternate discovery ?
- Same people every time. Napoleon, Lincoln, Einstein, Hitler... You'd think circumstances would play a role. No, it was just destiny, these people were destined to show up.

In short, by pretending to be more realistic, the game ends up having more glaring issues.


We where all forced to play Halo at one point or another because after Halo every other God damned FPS tried to be Halo.

Which is really sad, because Halo didn't succeed due to its marvelous (?!) design. I agree with people before me. I hate this kind of cloning games without understanding. Half Life wasn't successful because it had a great story - it was banal. It was because of its storytelling techniques. It had excellent execution. If you want to rip off a game, at least copy the right things from it.

[outoffeelinsobad]

The camera for Neverwinter Nights 2 was fine

I can honestly say that I never had a problem with it. I played through the game with four friends while LANing and none of them had a problem with it either. This was shortly after release and before any patches that may have adjusted the camera. It was only months later when reading stuff online that I saw the trend of people speaking about their horrible experiences with it.


Far Cry 2 was good

I suspect people playing the game wanted something else. Driving around a giant sandbox while having gunfights was exactly what one should have expected from the game. Parts that players did not desire (checkpoints) were easily avoided had the player put a bit of thought into playing. You get out of the game what you put into it - the same can be said for Crysis.


Stalker: Clear Sky was a fine entry in the series

Granted, I did play this many months after release, so I may have missed the worst of the bugs. I enjoyed the new faction mechanics and the feel of the world.


Empire: Total War was a great game

I played this from day one and put over 240 hours into it. While the battle AI left something to be desired right out of the box, it eventually improved. No it's not as good as the average human player, but few AI are. And yes, I did play every Total War game before this (barring expansions for Shogun and Rome).

Hear, hear. Played through NWN2 twice, never had any troubles with the camera. And Mask of the Betrayer was probably the 2nd best RPG I've ever played. Far Cry 2 is a bloody masterpiece. Clear Sky gave me more wasteland to shoot through. Empire: Total Way kicked my ass. I'm terrible at strategy games though, so that last bit can be taken or left as one sees fit.

[sabrage]

Indie games are too episodic for me.
There's a few noteworthy exceptions (Limbo, Gemini Rue) but by-and-large I've found that the episodic format of video games has put me off of ever finishing them. I understand that it's a lot easier for a small developer to create a coherent whole of a video game a la Zelda, but the fact remains that most of these games have nothing more than a glorified level select screen connecting their levels. I think there's some games, especially racing games, that this format works very well for, but when it comes to a single-player experience I look at a screen like that as a list waiting to be crossed off. Even Bastion, which works hard at its narrative and is a starkly linear experience, has this level select mentality that really puts me off of it (and I even enjoy the combat.) Does that make sense? I think the best example of this executed right is Amnesia. Every part of the game is logically connected to the last, and there's no tonal inconsistency between the levels. They all flow together perfectly.

My point is that this structure ruins any sense of progression outside of "one more level off the list." There's no exploration to be had because each level is self-contained. It really has nothing to do with immersion; I guess I just prefer that unified structure because it encourages better level design. Consider Cave Story against the game it is most frequently compared to: Super Metroid. Whereas Metroid has a unified world map that allows you to travel from one side of the game to the other at your leisure, Cave Story has a series of teleporters to take you to each new area. While Castlevania, another similar game, has teleportation rooms in a similar fashion, you actually have to explore the castle to find them and they're used as a measure of convenience rather than a way to further the story and present a new area.

I'm not really sure what other conclusions to draw from this; I feel like I have this massive backlog of indie games that I'll never be able to complete because this structure simply isn't that interesting to me. I've actually restructured my priorities in light of this: I'll stick to my Shadow of the Colossus, STALKER and Arkham Asylum, thank you very much.

[squirrel]

I know it sounds a noob and even offending question, but seriously, do any one of you once have murderous intent after playing a violent game (not necessary shooter game, not even action game, but any game that involve killing)? I mean, be honest, we all have enemies in real life, but bound by legal systems we cannot... let's say we cannot eliminate those threats. And after playing those games, would you get a feeling, "hey, killing enemies is what kind of big deal? I really dont know?"

[Flint]

No, because I can tell the difference between reality and virtual worlds.

[sabrage]

No, because I'm not a psychopath.

[Althea]

No, because I'm not goddamned stupid.

[Shane]

Nope but actually I have been surprised at my lack of frustration when having to retry a section over and over or when suffering through an obtuse gameplay system. Anyway, games really make me feel anything.

[Althea]

Episodic Content and Games Are The Best Kind... In Theory
Games are, largely, a costly thing to get into. Whether it's a manshooter that's six hours long or a space sim that's thousands, you often pay £10, £20, £30 for a game that you're not certain you'll like. How many of us have dropped £25 on a game only to find it's crap or not worth that amount of money to us, yet have spent £5 on a game that's been excellent?

Episodic content is, in my opinion, a great idea. With episodic games, you pay a smaller price for less of a game, which means your purchases are less of a financial gamble, but it also lowers the development cost somewhat. This also means the publisher/developer is taking less of a risk, prices will obviously be lower which increases the potential number of customers, and further episodes may be more likely. If you look at Bethesda's implementation of it with regards to their DLC, you've got some relatively expensive DLC that adds a lot of content to the game and it works really well.

Obviously, it doesn't work for every genre. Strategy will largely not work in such a manner unless it's more like DLC and it adds into the base game (i.e. you buy a cheaper base game and it's supplemented with mini-expansions), and RPGs would likely have to have longer episodes, but for shooters, racers and adventure/action games, it could beautifully.

[b0rsuk]

Matchmaking sucks:

Best teamplay and most enjoyable matches usually happen on dedicated servers. That's because each dedicated server is a community of sorts. Likeminded players tend to cluster around certain servers. Players who enjoy 32 players on a map designed for 16 players will go to server A. Players who use microphones to coordinate team efforts (rather than spilling insults, small talk and socializing) will go to server B. Matchmaking makes that impossible. There's nothing to crystallize a community around.

Playing against people of equal skill can be a bad thing. You don't get better by playing against average people. Computer players, musicians, and athletes all get better by playing with people better than themselves. If you see someone doing much better than you, you will probably do your best. Yes, sometimes getting **** kicked out of you is a good thing. Unless you just want to relax on a couch...

Even an ego admin is better than no admin. Cheating, foul language, racial slurs, abusing bugs... or perhaps you just want to try an interesting map or server setting. A nice admin can help with that. And if he's a jerk, find a better server. A jerk admin will attract jerk players anyway. With matchmaking, all you're going to get is some kind of automated system.

[Nalano]

+1 to all of those, so... +3 in total.

I don't want fair. The only thing that tells me "you want fair" is ladders, which tend to go hand-in-hand with matchmaking. No, throw everybody at me, and I'll know I'm doing better when I win more often than I lose. To me, matchmaking equals pain, because when I inevitably get to the higher tiers, everybody and everything is a major fucking ordeal and nobody will countenance losing because it may knock them into lower brackets.

Juggling the high rank as proof of one's skill (for one's ego) is then put at cross-purposes with playing the game for fun, and then down that path lies poisonous activities like smurfing, cheesing and endlessly searching for exploits to better one's record.

[mpk]

+1 to all of those, so... +3 in total.

I don't want fair. The only thing that tells me "you want fair" is ladders, which tend to go hand-in-hand with matchmaking. No, throw everybody at me, and I'll know I'm doing better when I win more often than I lose. To me, matchmaking equals pain, because when I inevitably get to the higher tiers, everybody and everything is a major fucking ordeal and nobody will countenance losing because it may knock them into lower brackets.

Juggling the high rank as proof of one's skill (for one's ego) is then put at cross-purposes with playing the game for fun, and then down that path lies poisonous activities like smurfing, cheesing and endlessly searching for exploits to better one's record.

I remember playing ranked games in the Laserquest Sunday Club back in the day (when this were all fields). Me and two of my mates were three of the top 10 members, and sometimes we managed to sneak into the top 5 (leagues were updated weekly). Cant for the life of me remember their names, but the top three players never changed, unless one of them missed a week. Quite often they'd team up, stand back to back and fight everyone else, just to consolidate their own positions. Was vastly unfair and annoying when I were a lad, and it's just as bad now.

The closes analogy I have now is in EVE, when PvP has got to the stage where people wont commit to a fight if they don't have overwhelming numbers. Everyone is so risk averse, it takes all the fun out of it.

Also: smurfing I know about, but what the hell is cheesing?

[Nalano]

Also: smurfing I know about, but what the hell is cheesing?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheeser

[Wrongshui]

Health bars should start at 0% and increase to 100% at which point you die. And be called peril bars instead.

It would explain why hiding behind cover makes you feel better.

[Nalano]

Health bars should start at 0% and increase to 100% at which point you die. And be called peril bars instead.

It would explain why hiding behind cover makes you feel better.

It would make things like artillery or snipers awkward, tho. "I'm okay I'm okay I'm okay I'm dead"

[b0rsuk]

Another problem with matchmaking: you need separate accounts for your desktop PC and your gaming laptop.

What you are describing is more of an issue with stats, not matchmaking per se. Of course, what you measure is what you get. We can't really use the word "play" or "player" in relation to people who seek to maximize their game stats. They are usually anything but playful or fun-loving. We need a better term. "Serious cats" perhaps ?

[CWalker]

Health bars should start at 0% and increase to 100% at which point you die. And be called peril bars instead.

It would explain why hiding behind cover makes you feel better.

Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway did something similar to that, if I remember correctly as you took fire the screen darkened until eventually it reached a point that a bullet hit you, and that was game over.

[Batolemaeus]

The closes analogy I have now is in EVE, when PvP has got to the stage where people wont commit to a fight if they don't have overwhelming numbers. Everyone is so risk averse, it takes all the fun out of it.

I'd say, though, that this is an entirely different problem. People are generally risk averse, but the extreme end stems from the fact that hundreds of people can appear from nowhere within seconds due to the prevalence of titans, making every engagement impossible to calculate. Killboards might play a role, too, but the fact that even small roaming gangs looking for a brawl regularly get jumped via cyno means people don't engage unless they feel extra safe.

[mpk]

I'd say, though, that this is an entirely different problem. People are generally risk averse, but the extreme end stems from the fact that hundreds of people can appear from nowhere within seconds due to the prevalence of titans, making every engagement impossible to calculate. Killboards might play a role, too, but the fact that even small roaming gangs looking for a brawl regularly get jumped via cyno means people don't engage unless they feel extra safe.

Well, that too. I've heard that small-scale PvP still exists within the faction warfare corps, but I'm officially a PvP retiree now.

Mibbe if they nerf titan bridging, the possibility of "safe" small gang PvP will return, but I doubt it.

[b0rsuk]

Many so-called sequels are just remixes and should be named as such.

I'll use Heroes of Might and Magic as an example. HOMM1 was original. HOMM2 clearly built upon and improved HOMM1. HOMM3 built upon and improved HOMM2. The remaining 3 games don't build upon or improve. They just shuffle some stuff around, change rules, reorder creatures. They mostly focus on improving animations, textures, models.

Official names:
Heroes of Might and Magic (I)
Heroes of Might and Magic II
Heroes of Might and Magic III
Heroes of Might and Magic IV
Heroes of Might and Magic V
Might and Magic: Heroes VI

Accurate names:
Heroes of Might and Magic (I)
Heroes of Might and Magic II
Heroes of Might and Magic III
Heroes of Might and Magic: Axeoth remix
Heroes of Might and Magic: Nival remix
Heroes of Might and Magic: Black Hole remix

Don't let game publishers to brainwash you. By accepting official names, you are accepting an implicit assumption that later games are automatically better. It's just a marketing trick. You need to develop critical thinking. Music fans who have their favorite artists or bands have no problem with this notion. Many of them don't simply hail every last release as the best ever. No, they have their favorites. Sometimes a band will keep producing good releases over and over. Other times it will have some good releases, and bad ones. And there's a logical explanation for why earlier albums (quite often the 1st cd) are better than later ones. It's because earlier albums are the cause for later ones. If, say, Metallica was mediocre and derivative from start, people wouldn't care about the second cd.

Music fans have no big problems with comparing earlier and later releases of the same artist of a band (game developer). But video game fans ofter are like "OMG ! Latest ! Therefore best ! Shiny !"

[Nalano]

If, say, Metallica was mediocre and derivative from start, people wouldn't care about the second cd.

Ahh, Metallica. Living proof that lackluster latter-day sales aren't necessarily due to rampant wanton internet piracy.

[Althea]

I disagree. I think the name defines the game as much as anything. The Heroes of Might & Magic series is quite niche and in terms of major releases the only one of its kind. I don't know about the differences between 3 and 4, but 5 & 6 are linked by the same world. Ubisoft moved onto another iteration (i.e. 5) and a new world in order to differentiate their products from the original ones.

I agree with your point in that More Recent =/= Better, but I don't think that's anything to do with a series or its iteration, it's to do more with the developer/publisher at the time, because some numbered games (TES V, for example) are clear improvements over their previous version.

[Subatomic]

I think TES V is an interesting example, because almost nobody calls it by that name. It's most prominently just called "Skyrim" both by its players and in marketing material, almost as if the name of the series it belongs too was something unimportant. Compare that to other game series, where much more emphasis is put on the <title><number> format with perhaps a sub title beneath it, which nobody really uses. One could argue the former way gives the title a bit more independence within a series in that it doesn't necessarily have to strictly adhere to some vague "spirit of series X". Or it's just a marketing ploy to avoid the sequelphobia of some players... "Oh no, part 5 of a series? I'll never get into that." "<title> 5? Everyone knows a series gets worse with each iteration, so number 5 must be abysmal!"

[Althea]

TES is one of those series that doesn't get called by its name, largely 'cos they subtitle it. Dark Messiah Might & Magic gets called Dark Messiah, Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes is often called Clash of Heroes, Fallout: New Vegas is often New Vegas and so on.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

I think more games should be remixes, and fewer sequels. Many have themes or worlds that are worth revisiting, but plot continuity is often a hinderance. Deus Ex comes to mind, as does Portal.

[Smashbox]

I think more games should be remixes, and fewer sequels. Many have themes or worlds that are worth revisiting, but plot continuity is often a hinderance. Deus Ex comes to mind, as does Portal.

Agreed - movies don't seem to have this problem. It's not weird to do a Hollywood remake. And game sequel justifications are usually ridiculous.

[Xercies]

Yes more things should probably go the Bioshock/Final Fantasy route, the name there as a series/game definer but the story and themes are totally different.

[thegooseking]

Speaking of Final Fantasy, I think FFX had good voice acting; it was just the awkward pauses between the lines that were annoying, which was really not the actors' fault.

Since this is a thread for less conventional views...

[Xercies]

I thought FFX was a fantastic game and it made me cry at the end.

[sabrage]

I thought Blitzball was the best part of FFX.

[Roufuss]

I thought Blitzball was the best part of FFX.

Don't be silly.

We all know this was the best part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5FTJxfV3pc

[Xercies]

Ok heres a new one from me. I hated Civ 4, it was a very boring game, the stack combat made it even worse.

[Serenegoose]

Don't be silly.

We all know this was the best part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5FTJxfV3pc

But that part was fine! If I recall it, they were being deliberately ridiculous and forced in order to balance out some bad stuff that's happened and instead of just succumbing to the glums they decided to do something that made themselves seem stupid, so they'd have no choice but to laugh at themselves (and thus relieve some of the tension). Which is what happens, right?

[eRa]

Ok heres a new one from me. I hated Civ 4, it was a very boring game, the stack combat made it even worse.

The alternative in Civ V is better in some ways, worse in others. I was somewhat excited when I first heard they'd do away with the "Stacks Of Doom". But even after all the patches, the AI still can't deal properly with single unit combat. It's a lot better in a human-vs-human situation but multiplayer was never a huge side of Civ (for me anyways).

[sabrage]

Don't be silly.

We all know this was the best part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5FTJxfV3pc
It makes me sad that I knew what part you were talking about before I even clicked the link. This is also, of course, the one part in a hundred hour game that my mom chose to walk in on...


But that part was fine! If I recall it, they were being deliberately ridiculous and forced in order to balance out some bad stuff that's happened and instead of just succumbing to the glums they decided to do something that made themselves seem stupid, so they'd have no choice but to laugh at themselves (and thus relieve some of the tension). Which is what happens, right?
I look at people who defend this scene the same way I look at anyone that defends Tim & Eric: with derision. But I think the entire story of FFX is bullshit, so there's not much point in arguing its finer points with a fan.

[b0rsuk]

Each time you press the "Uninstall game X" button you should be given a (skippable) questionnaire.

It is a very good moment to get some feedback from the player. Is there anything he doesn't like about the game ? What ? What could be improved, and how ?

Of course, a lot of devs or at least publishers don't care about customer satisfaction once they have their money. But people who do care, should use such questionnaire on "Uninstall".

[augustuskent]

Portal 2 was average
I played Portal and it was great, unique, etc - but a sequel? Nope, I shudder at the idea, the demos of it were uninteresting, the idea was done!

Dragon Age sucks.
Played it for a good few hours, was never pulled in to the lore. The combat was stale, the companions were annoying, the story was bland. It was typical fantasy, and it wasn't executed with a hint of originality or flair.

JRPGs and Turn-Based games are crap.
No place, sorry, its just stale - I haven't enjoyed turn based games since Pokemon red.

Skyrim lost that loving feeling.
I don't know if people going from Morrowind to Oblivion experienced this, but I was absolutely entrhalled by Oblivion for hundreds of hours, Skyrims lost that loving feeling with me. It is sad.
Originality is one thing, execution is another.
Sure there are heaps of games that have unique or interesting ideas, but they fail in the game department. If you can't make a good game from a good idea, its not a good idea or a redesign is needed.

[DigitalSignalX]

Each time you press the "Uninstall game X" button you should be given a (skippable) questionnaire.

This actually happened once, but for the life of me I can't remember what game it was. At the time I can remember thinking what a superb idea this was that no one ever implements, and submitting something to effect of "great game, just done playing it and thanks very much for asking."

[Amalgamated Biscuit]

A mouse and keyboard is is not necessarily better than a gamepad for 1st/3rd person shooters. Just because a mouse is easier to use than a thumbstick doesn't mean it's more fun. I get more satisfaction from making a shot with a gamepad than I do just pointing and clicking.

Slightly related to this, I think a nice Wiimote or Lightgun style pointing device could make a great Pc peripheral.

[Althea]

Considering this is how I view Fallout, it probably counts as Less Conventional

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4297/falloutmap.jpg

[Nalano]

Your view, Unrav, is slightly off.

Vault 15 isn't safe at all!

[Althea]

Your view, Unrav, is slightly off.

Vault 15 isn't safe at all!
Yes, I realised that after I did it :p

And nor is the cave outside Vault 13, now I think about it...

[Nalano]

Yes, I realised that after I did it :p

And nor is the cave outside Vault 13, now I think about it...

And nor is the town, considering Tandi got kidnapped from it.

[Flint]

And nor is the town, considering Tandi got kidnapped from it.
Not to mention the big radscorpion cave outside it.

Probably the only safe haven (outside Vault 13) in the Wasteland is the Brotherhood of Steel bunker. And even they won't let you in until you've practically embraced radiation poisoning in a death trap.

[squirrel]

The Game Industry needs to cease releasing shooter games for at least a year.

The industry has been flooded of shooter games, both first person and third person shooters. This is not healthy, because other genres with potential are overshadowed. Someone please forces the developers to stop releasing shooters for at least a year. No they dont have to quit shooter development, but let's have a year free of shooters so that developers and publishers would see the profitability of other kind of titles.

[Roufuss]

but let's have a year free of shooters so that developers and publishers would see the profitability of other kind of titles.

If the other genres were as profitable as first and third person shooters, the industry would be making those, instead.

As long as people continue to buy first and third person shooters, the industry will keep making them. And your average person isn't going to stop buying them, judging by sales numbers.

[Smashbox]

It's like saying the food industry should stop frying things for a a whole year so that everyone can learn to eat better.

[Nalano]

It's like saying the food industry should stop frying things for a a whole year so that everyone can learn to eat better.

Well, Bloomberg did ban trans-fats (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-04-trans-fat-ban_x.htm).

[deano2099]

If the other genres were as profitable as first and third person shooters, the industry would be making those, instead.

As long as people continue to buy first and third person shooters, the industry will keep making them. And your average person isn't going to stop buying them, judging by sales numbers.

But, there's an argument that says, in an industry as young as this one, the consumer doesn't know what he wants. Skyrim is fascinating as it had CoD-level marketing despite being entirely different, and you had tons of people suddenly waking up to "this is like nothing I've ever played before but it's great".

Don't forget, there are people out there that ONLY play CoD and maybe FIFA. That's all the 360 under the TV is for. They only bought CoD in the first place as they played it at a mate's or word of mouth or whatever. So I think there's a point here. If they couldn't get their yearly fix of it, a good number of them would try something else, and might well enjoy it.

[It's like, I don't really go for classic literature, for the greats or what-not - I read my Star Trek tie-ins, pop-science and a bit of Ian Banks if I'm feeling high-brow or a pretty and well-read girl wants to know my favourite author. I'm not going to change, I've tried 'harder' books but struggled to enjoy them as much. But if you told me I could only say, read Penguin Classics, for a year, I have no doubt I'd find some stuff in there I really liked].

[Outright Villainy]

I don't like Stalker. I've put around 10-15 hours into Shadow of Chernobyl (with mods), and maybe twenty minutes of Call of Pripyat, and I really just can't get into them at all. I like the idea of them, certainly, but these are games which live and die by their mood, and I'm gettin' nothin' off em. It's a shame really, I feel like I'm missing out, but I find the gameplay just really boring.

[Flint]

I agree, although my only experience so far has been Shadow of Chernobyl. A lot of people talk about how amazing the atmosphere etc is in the game but I can't get anything out of it, it just feels... flat. Plus the awkward translation really kills the mood even further for me. The gameplay isn't all too interesting either, and eventually I gave up on the game after several hours of trying to love it as much as others do. I do love the game as an idea but the execution felt really thin and lifeless to me.

[Outright Villainy]

@ Flint: Incidentally, may not be to your tastes, but Metro 2033 has a simply wonderful atmosphere, it was much more up my street. I know they're very different games since Metro is much more linear, but that dark Russian mood is just done so much better in Metro. I loved it.

[thegooseking]

I think I'd go further than what I just said in the comments on that BioShock Infinite post and say:-

Difficulty is a product of making things interesting far more often than interest is a product of making things difficult.

I think a lot of people say they want more difficult games when they actually want more interesting games, and while the two might be related, they're not the same thing at all.

[fiddlesticks]

That's an interesting proposition, could you make a concrete example? I can understand why many think making a game more difficult would make it more interesting, but I don't see how making it more interesting leads to it being more difficult.

[squirrel]

Last Liquidate All Large Publishers to Let The Game Industry Start Over Again.

There has been frequent discussion about developers, even for those being independent, are relying on publishers' funding and those cash house are unwilling to take risk. The result is remakes and sequels/prequels flooding all over the market. So let's do this, liquidate all those large publishers and remove property rights over those large franchises, so that values of those IPs go to zero, forcing developers and new publishers to develop new IPs.

[sabrage]

I gave up on the game after several hours of trying to love it as much as others do.
Your problem is trying to shoehorn someone else's perception of a game into your own. I use recommendations and reviews as a baseline to decide if a game interests me or not, but I try to enter each game with as clean a slate as possible. If I go in thinking about the way that somebody else loves the game, my experience is forever tainted towards their viewpoint (and doubly so if I disagree.)

[Grizzly]

Last Liquidate All Large Publishers to Let The Game Industry Start Over Again.

There has been frequent discussion about developers, even for those being independent, are relying on publishers' funding and those cash house are unwilling to take risk. The result is remakes and sequels/prequels flooding all over the market. So let's do this, liquidate all those large publishers and remove property rights over those large franchises, so that values of those IPs go to zero, forcing developers and new publishers to develop new IPs.

The problem is by liquedating all the big publishers, you are left without their massive piles of money. Thus everyonewill be forced to make new IPS which look and play exactly like the old games first, to buff op the bank accounts.

Besides, quite a few big publishers are willing to take risk. But they are not willing to take too much risk, with too much depending on their current resources. But there are plenty off new IPs that came out in recent years, some more sucessfull then others, but the sequels are needed to keep the bank accounts healthy.

[Althea]

Last Liquidate All Large Publishers to Let The Game Industry Start Over Again.

There has been frequent discussion about developers, even for those being independent, are relying on publishers' funding and those cash house are unwilling to take risk. The result is remakes and sequels/prequels flooding all over the market. So let's do this, liquidate all those large publishers and remove property rights over those large franchises, so that values of those IPs go to zero, forcing developers and new publishers to develop new IPs.
Stop smoking drugs, it's bad for you.

[Batolemaeus]

That's an interesting proposition, could you make a concrete example? I can understand why many think making a game more difficult would make it more interesting, but I don't see how making it more interesting leads to it being more difficult.

What's difficulty? Tedious grind like in the Final Fantasy games that require you to endlessly level up characters?

A lot of the games that are said to be difficult are actually just based around repetition to reach a level where your character wins.

I'd say difficulty is a result of challenges that require you to either learn something or think about something. Some puzzles in Portal are difficult because you have to think pretty hard in unusual ways. That game is also extremely interesting.

So, what interests us? It's all about stimulation, something new to wrap our heads around. A new challenge, so to say. In that way, difficulty and interesting design are actually synonymous.

[sabrage]

A lot of the games that are said to be difficult are actually just based around repetition to reach a level where your character wins.
That's not entirely true; the repetition is a product of the difficulty, not the difficulty in and of itself. A segment can still be "difficult" even if you beat it on your first try; offhand, successfully landing a parry against a Blue Eyes Knight in Demon's Souls on my first try (an instant kill, by the way) felt incredibly satisfying due to the split-second timing required, and by no means made subsequent encounters with the same enemy any easier.

By that same token, repetition is not synonymous with difficulty. The Assassin's Creed series is a sterling example of this axiom. Grind isn't really a good example of difficulty as you define it either; in, say, Super Meat Boy, you repeat a segment until you beat it. In Final Fantasy, you run up against a difficult enemy, and then you go and defeat easy enemies over and over until you have the right skills to continue. The boss might be hard, but the grind is not (though it is tedious.)

[Keep]

I'd say difficulty is [having to] learn something

I'm cutting up what you said but I would definitely agree with that. Wow.

Grinding is difficult if you're impatient. Twitch-gaming is difficult if you're arthritic. But these difficulties aren't real, and they definitely aren't fair.

But difficulty being ignorance-needing-to-learn? YES.

[Batolemaeus]

Grind isn't really a good example of difficulty as you define it either; in, say, Super Meat Boy, you repeat a segment until you beat it. In Final Fantasy, you run up against a difficult enemy, and then you go and defeat easy enemies over and over until you have the right skills to continue. The boss might be hard, but the grind is not (though it is tedious.)

You got a point, I should've specified that I meant rpgs where you just grind up a character until your character (and no you) gets through an obstacle. However, I did not define that as difficulty. It's not really a challenge, but a very simple thing:

1. Level up
2. Defeat Boss
3. Profit

This whole discussion is complicated by the fact that difficulty has a rather broad definition including things that are "hard" but no-brainers.

[Roufuss]

The result is remakes and sequels/prequels flooding all over the market.

You really need to understand that these games flood the market because *these games sell* and that *other games do not.*

Publishers aren't a charity, and they are going to make what sells. There are tons of new IPs and risks that every major publisher took in 2011 and, for the most part, nobody bought them.

[Nalano]

You really need to understand that these games flood the market because *these games sell* and that *other games do not.*

New IPs and indies sell, too.

However, people feel willing to spend $50-$60 to buy sequels and prequels and remakes and reboots because they know those IPs. It's a price point issue: The publishers feel they need to charge $50, and the only games that sell at $50 are the ones that are recognizable and safe. Y'know: "I bought MW2 because I liked MW."

[sabrage]

However, people feel willing to spend $50-$60 to buy sequels and prequels and remakes and reboots because they know those IPs. It's a price point issue: The publishers feel they need to charge $50, and the only games that sell at $50 are the ones that are recognizable and safe. Y'know: "I bought MW2 because I liked MW."
Well, the flip side side is that games released at lower price points are viewed as "budget" titles and therefore automatically of a lower quality than a full-priced game. While that's sometimes the case, I think it's the main reason Clover games went largely ignored last generation. (This is largely only a problem on consoles, Steam is doing just fine)

[Nalano]

Well, the flip side side is that games released at lower price points are viewed as "budget" titles and therefore automatically of a lower quality than a full-priced game. While that's sometimes the case, I think it's the main reason Clover games went largely ignored last generation. (This is largely only a problem on consoles, Steam is doing just fine)

I think Steam has blown away that misconception.

And I mean blown it the fuck away.

[sabrage]

At least for digital distribution, but you also need to consider that people using Steam have the power of the internet and its reviews at their fingertips. At Best Buy or Gamestop, a lot of people shop off impressions alone. The fact is that a highly-rated but obscure budget title like Okami, The Red Star or Earth Defense Force will fly completely under most people's radars.

Steam also does a great job of throwing up new releases on the front page. Budget titles on consoles can only dream of the kind of market saturation that Steam provides. Compare that to Xbox's Indie Game releases, which are hidden behind roughly 17 sub-menus.

[Nalano]

At Best Buy or Gamestop,

Gamestop sells PC games?

[sabrage]

I bought Amnesia at Gamestop a few months back.

[Nalano]

I bought Amnesia at Gamestop a few months back.

Were you looking to buy Amnesia or was that the only game they had in stock?

[sabrage]

I specifically went to Gamestop because a friend told me they had it in stock. Haven't set foot in the place since, and wouldn't have if I didn't know they had what I wanted. I can't really say that I know the state of their PC selection.

Best Buy, on the other hand, had The Witcher 2 in stock and another copy to replace the first bent copy they gave me the first time around.

[ffordesoon]

I loved Alpha Protocol. That alone is against prevailing sentiment. :P

Oh, here's a semi-controversial one: I don't mind easy games, and in fact think a lot of games could benefit from not trying to provide some sort of artificial "challenge".

And a really controversial one, possibly to the point of blasphemy: I think the dialogue - and I mean the actual written dialogue, not the voice acting, which is far worse - in Fallout 3 is pretty much on par with the original Fallout, and maybe even a bit better than it. No idea where Fallout 2 fits in, as I've barely played it, but I imagine that Chris Avellone helps a lot.

Oh, and I also think the graphics of Fallout 1 are dull as dishwater, and that the interface is much clunkier than the Bethesda Fallouts by a mile.

Oh, and I HATE click-and-drag menus, and honestly have no idea how anyone could find them remotely enjoyable.

How am I doing? Is that unconventional enough?

[Nalano]

I specifically went to Gamestop because a friend told me they had it in stock. Haven't set foot in the place since, and wouldn't have if I didn't know they had what I wanted. I can't really say that I know the state of their PC selection.

Best Buy, on the other hand, had The Witcher 2 in stock and another copy to replace the first bent copy they gave me the first time around.

I'm trying to lead you (in a rather circuitous way) to the point that Best Buy has a bigger selection of games than a dedicated games store, and it sells them alongside washing machines and New York Giants-themed cup warmers. Neither should be considered particularly important in the world of PC gaming. Gamestop hardly orders enough games to cover pre-orders, stocks practically none on shelves, and is slowly dying as a company - as all brick & mortars are wont to go.

Meanwhile, Direct Download services have a majority of all games sales, and Steam in particular, comprising the vast majority of online sales, has a plurality. And all this is a roundabout way of saying that judging worth from price is not only dumb as a concept - for, by that logic, if $60 games are AAA, $80 games are AAAA! - but not even followed.

[Wizardry]

And a really controversial one, possibly to the point of blasphemy: I think the dialogue - and I mean the actual written dialogue, not the voice acting, which is far worse - in Fallout 3 is pretty much on par with the original Fallout, and maybe even a bit better than it. No idea where Fallout 2 fits in, as I've barely played it, but I imagine that Chris Avellone helps a lot.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2hs80v7.jpg

[Nalano]

And a really controversial one, possibly to the point of blasphemy: I think the dialogue - and I mean the actual written dialogue, not the voice acting, which is far worse - in Fallout 3 is pretty much on par with the original Fallout, and maybe even a bit better than it. No idea where Fallout 2 fits in, as I've barely played it, but I imagine that Chris Avellone helps a lot.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CsC-G6TTraw/TCsdivE3MLI/AAAAAAAAA-g/pcOFFevm2ek/s1600/ant-fo3-fawkes.jpg

[ffordesoon]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2hs80v7.jpg

I'm not sure what the problem is, unless you're saying "middle-aged guy" is redundant and kind of silly. Which it obviously is. There are plenty of worse quotes you could have picked from F1 and F3.

[ffordesoon]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CsC-G6TTraw/TCsdivE3MLI/AAAAAAAAA-g/pcOFFevm2ek/s1600/ant-fo3-fawkes.jpg

There we go. That's a much better example. However, it doesn't really address my point, because that's a perfectly average line of dialogue out of context. I never said F3 didn't have some stupid moments where it robbed you of choice, nor would I argue that the writing as a whole is better. F3's writing is substantially worse, mainly because of the limitations of voice acting. I'm talking specifically about the dialogue and how clunky and declarative a lot of it is, not the context in which it's said.

Oh, yeah! Voice acting? Generally not a fan. I appreciate what it does, but text is so much less restrictive, for like a hundred reasons, the limitations of recording among them. I think only main characters should be voiced, really. As in Fallout 1, funnily enough! :D

That is, I think, why the voice acting in F1 is so good. They had the ability to concentrate their recording efforts on fewer characters, and so those characters feel less thin and more alive than Bethesda's characters.

[Nalano]

There we go. That's a much better example.

You don't get it.

Moira. Three Dog. Vance. Lyons. Your father.

It's not just the railroading. It's that you are surrounded by idiots, who have idiot motivations in an world that revolves around its own idiocy. You are met by people who have an astounding lack of understanding of themselves, of their environment, of the world. They ought rightly to be dead, and if you were just you would put them out of their ignorance. Because nothing makes sense, nobody comes off as human, let alone intriguing or intelligent. You cannot write good dialogue if everybody is crazy stupid.

And they don't even do crazy stupid well. I watch FLCL. I watch Lucky Star. I like crazy stupid. This is just stupid.

[ffordesoon]

Oh, I'm absolutely not disputing any of that. In terms of world-building, motivation, and the less tangible aspects of games writing and writing in general, F1 has F3 beat. My point is simply that the spoken dialogue isn't exactly George V. Higgins-level in either game; they're both pretty tin-eared to me, albeit in different ways. It's a fairly shallow point, really. Bit like saying an attractive woman's eyes are a bit too far apart.

Hmm, is that a sexist analogy? I'm honestly not sure... :?

[Nalano]

they're both pretty tin-eared to me, albeit in different ways.

I'm not going to say that Fallout 1 was classic literature. I will say that proper characterization - with believable motivations and an internally consistent world - goes a long way to making dialogue readable. Fallout 1 was far more readable than Fallout 3. With Fallout 3, there was nothing I could really consider saying in response to these idiots - especially Three Dog - aside from WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU and SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[ffordesoon]

That's fair, I think.

I am curious, though. I confess that it's been a long time since I played F3, so I could be looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but you keep saying the characters are idiots, and I can't recall enough about the game to remember why that is. I'm not disputing it, because I remember coming away from a lot of interactions feeling like I'd just been bullshitted somehow, but do you mind providing specific examples?

And let's skip the bit about computers staying on after the apocalypse, assuming you were going to mention that. Not saying it isn't a valid complaint (and, to be honest, a bit of a missed opportunity storytelling-wise, but I'm not going to get into that right now); I'm just more interested in less widely-reported examples of stupidity.

[sabrage]

I'm trying to lead you (in a rather circuitous way) to the point that Best Buy has a bigger selection of games than a dedicated games store, and it sells them alongside washing machines and New York Giants-themed cup warmers. Neither should be considered particularly important in the world of PC gaming.
I'm not contending that. However, a large portion (I have no figures, but I would guess a majority) of game transactions take place in-store, for consoles. The concept of a "budget" title for PC is entirely different anyways, due to pay-what-you-want models, bundles and Steam.

Anyways, Serious Sam 3 was $30-40 when it came out, and lord knows nobody bought that.

[Nalano]

I am curious, though. I confess that it's been a long time since I played F3, so I could be looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but you keep saying the characters are idiots, and I can't recall enough about the game to remember why that is. I'm not disputing it, because I remember coming away from a lot of interactions feeling like I'd just been bullshitted somehow, but do you mind providing specific examples?

And let's skip the bit about computers staying on after the apocalypse, assuming you were going to mention that. Not saying it isn't a valid complaint (and, to be honest, a bit of a missed opportunity storytelling-wise, but I'm not going to get into that right now); I'm just more interested in less widely-reported examples of stupidity.

Moira asking you to break your legs and get irradiated so she can "study the effects." A shadowy man asking you to blow up a town centered around an atomic bomb, just because it's there. A town centered around an atomic bomb. People acting like it's hard to filter irradiated particles from water. Installing a water purifier in a tidal basin. It's been two hundred years and the primary means of food is looting from stores. Nobody farms. There are four bandits per potential target. There's a thriving slave economy despite no food sources. People care more about collectors' items than food. People care more about mad science experiments than food. People care more about superhero costumes than food. Three Dog acting like "fighting the good fight" against oppression means something to the two dozen people within range of his radio station. You convince the Enclave to destroy itself twenty minutes after you discover the Enclave exists. The Brotherhood of Steel openly fighting a war of attrition when they're supposed to be a tiny organization with strict rules about induction and expecting it to end well. Put everybody together and you don't have enough to last two generations without inbreeding. Vampires. Just vampires. Just about every major plot point was ripped clear off the first two games, but without any rhyme or reason.

And that's just off the top of my head.


I'm not contending that. However, a large portion (I have no figures, but I would guess a majority) of game transactions take place in-store, for consoles.

Who's talking about consoles?

[ado]

I think it's clear at this point that Bethesda can't write a good game. I'd argue that they can't even make a good one, but that's just me...

Anyways, they're a quantity over quality developer even in the storytelling department.

[Althea]

I think it's clear at this point that Bethesda can't write a good game. I'd argue that they can't even make a good one, but that's just me...

Anyways, they're a quantity over quality developer even in the storytelling department.
As I've said before - If you buy a Bethesda game for the story, you're doing it wrong. They are not and have not ever (at least since Morrowind) been a story-based developer.

The TES games are ones in which you make your own stories, your own adventures and your own fun. The storylines are there to either facilitate/aid you (Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood et al) or to provide some form of progression through the game - there are places/items/characters that you cannot/won't meet without the story pushing you there, but they're generally a minority.

[ado]

As I've said before - If you buy a Bethesda game for the story, you're doing it wrong. They are not and have not ever (at least since Morrowind) been a story-based developer.

The TES games are ones in which you make your own stories, your own adventures and your own fun. The storylines are there to either facilitate/aid you (Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood et al) or to provide some form of progression through the game - there are places/items/characters that you cannot/won't meet without the story pushing you there, but they're generally a minority.

I'm no fan of Bethesda so I'd paraphrase your comment and say that if you buy a bethesda game you're doing it wrong. Period. :P

I'm tempted to go on a anti-bethsoft games rant but I'll spare you fine people.

[Shane]

I'm no fan of Bethesda so I'd paraphrase your comment and say that if you buy a bethesda game you're doing it wrong.

Despite the disappointment Skyrim was, it still is one of the most enjoyable games I played this year and its success is not unwarranted.

[hamster]

I don't like the way dialogue is signposted in games. You got the little zoom on the guy and the subtitles and it just feels wrong. Another thing, i suspect, is the way the dialogue is played. Doesn't seem like sound emitting from the game world but something broadcasted straight into your ears - it has no direction. I would also like dialogue to be more realistic. Conversation in real life is really more of a back and forth, with interruptions and fillers rather than 1 guy spewing out a whole paragraph of stuff in one go just so the other guy can respond with another dialogue. I would prefer it if dialogue choices weren't so specific so you could have that sort of back and forth exchange between the player and NPC that typifies authentic real world conversation.

[J Arcane]

I really wish I'd played Arkham City with the subtitles off.Some of them weren't even right. And it felt wrong, obtrusive, having them there.

[fiddlesticks]

I would prefer it if dialogue choices weren't so specific so you could have that sort of back and forth exchange between the player and NPC that typifies authentic real world conversation.
I enjoyed the way Deus Ex handled conversations. Rather than having you select every single line of dialogue, the game only lets you make the important decisions and then automatically bases the subsequent exchange on your response. The Witcher and Alpha Protocol used a similar system, from what I remember. It reduces player input, but it also makes conversations flow a lot more naturally.

[hamster]

I enjoyed the way Deus Ex handled conversations. Rather than having you select every single line of dialogue, the game only lets you make the important decisions and then automatically bases the subsequent exchange on your response. The Witcher and Alpha Protocol used a similar system, from what I remember. It reduces player input, but it also makes conversations flow a lot more naturally.

I really hated AP's convo system. You were timed and it's sort of weird because it categorized your response in terms of tone. Which is not the way people approach convos cognitively in real life lol. Or at least I thought it felt very alien to me compared to the more conventional dialog trees that categorized responses by subject matter.

[Nalano]

I really hated AP's convo system. You were timed and it's sort of weird because it categorized your response in terms of tone. Which is not the way people approach convos cognitively in real life lol. Or at least I thought it felt very alien to me compared to the more conventional dialog trees that categorized responses by subject matter.

As a game mechanic it was interesting and new and I'm glad they tried it .

That said, it didn't exactly work out superbly for every situation.

For a game mechanic that was new but not nearly as interesting, do you remember the ridiculous diplomacy minigame in Oblivion?

[zookeeper]

I really hated AP's convo system. You were timed and it's sort of weird because it categorized your response in terms of tone. Which is not the way people approach convos cognitively in real life lol. Or at least I thought it felt very alien to me compared to the more conventional dialog trees that categorized responses by subject matter.

While being timed was quite annoying at times (maybe it's just because I'm used using dialogue as break times, i.e. I'm going to let the dog out because I know that the game will sit there, patiently awaiting my input), I found that it really make me act more in the moment, without giving me the time to figure out which dialogue option will give me the result I want.

However, there were occasions where what the character said wasn't really in line with what I wanted. This was even more of an issue with LA Noire, which used a somewhat similar idea of choosing the general direction of the conversation rather than specific lines. I can't think of an AP example off the top of my head, but in LA Noire I wanted to express some doubts about a person's story and instead ended up yelling "I know you're involved!! I know you did it!!! Stop lying to me!!" Not what I had intended at all.

[Nalano]

However, there were occasions where what the character said wasn't really in line with what I wanted. This was even more of an issue with LA Noire, which used a somewhat similar idea of choosing the general direction of the conversation rather than specific lines. I can't think of an AP example off the top of my head, but in LA Noire I wanted to express some doubts about a person's story and instead ended up yelling "I know you're involved!! I know you did it!!! Stop lying to me!!" Not what I had intended at all.

I just attributed that to bad, schizophrenic writing. I mean, you went from "we're just going to ask some questions, sir," to "I'M GONNA BREAK YO FACE OFF WITH MY DICK" to "you've been very helpful, sir."

[zookeeper]

I just attributed that to bad, schizophrenic writing. I mean, you went from "we're just going to ask some questions, sir," to "I'M GONNA BREAK YO FACE OFF WITH MY DICK" to "you've been very helpful, sir."

LA Tourettes.

[ffordesoon]

As a game mechanic it was interesting and new and I'm glad they tried it .

That said, it didn't exactly work out superbly for every situation.

Alpha Protocol's conversation system was the least broken and most interesting mechanic in the game, and I really, really, really wish someone would copy it and attempt to improve upon it. Granted, it didn't always work as well as it should have, but it was a very smart way to mimic real life conversations, and you often got interesting results out of not knowing which option to pick.

Prime example? To avoid spoilers, I'll just say "gelato shop" and leave it at that.

I agree with you, Hamster, that choosing your response based on tone isn't how we approach conversations in real life, but you do have to remember that it was a game focused on espionage - the fictional kind more than the real kind, to be fair, but espionage nonetheless. A big part of espionage is the skillful manipulation of people. The game does only a so-so job of explaining this, but the conversation system wasn't meant to simulate natural conversation. It was instead meant to simulate a spy's moment-to-moment conversational manipulation of others in an attempt to achieve a desired result. In that, I think it was a success.


For a game mechanic that was new but not nearly as interesting, do you remember the ridiculous diplomacy minigame in Oblivion?

Oh, you mean the worst persuasion system ever in an RPG? Yes, I remember that. I still wonder who the hell designed that, and why it was ever considered a good idea. Granted, it's not that different from Bioware's vaguely onerous "affection meters", but at least those make sense as an elegant system, however sociopathic the implications (which is actually Bioware's modus operandi in general, and the thing I like least about their games). "Better gift = more affection" is a simplistic way to measure something as complex as affection, but it's not based in outright lunacy like that... color wheel... thing. I mean, their responses didn't even make sense! What could my character possibly be saying to them that makes them go, "I like that! A lot!" That's like something the dog from Up would say!

See? I can be mean to Bethesda too, just like all the cool kids! ;)


However, there were occasions where what the character said wasn't really in line with what I wanted. This was even more of an issue with LA Noire, which used a somewhat similar idea of choosing the general direction of the conversation rather than specific lines. I can't think of an AP example off the top of my head, but in LA Noire I wanted to express some doubts about a person's story and instead ended up yelling "I know you're involved!! I know you did it!!! Stop lying to me!!" Not what I had intended at all.

Oh, God, LA Noire. So aggravating, that game. It's Phoenix Wright for jerks with no sense of humor. If they were going to do it the way they did it anyway, they might as well have just had "Truth" and "Lie" as options, because "Doubt" is where the whole game falls apart:

"YOU KNOW MORE THAN YOU'RE TELLING, TWELVE-YEAR-OLD RAPE VICTIM! TALK, OR SO HELP ME, I'LL HAVE HALF THE FORCE IN HERE LICKETY-SPLIT!"

"I-I don't..."

"FUCK YOU, YOU DON'T! THE TRUTH WILL OUT! THE TRUTH WILL OUT! TELL ME WHAT NEED TO KNOW OR I'LL CUFF YOU TO YOUR DAMN HOSPITAL BED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!"

"Y-you're scary, mister..."

"I'M SCARY!? NO, FIVE TO TEN IN THE STATE PEN IS SCARY! AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL GET IF YOU DON'T TELL ME WHERE TO FIND YOUR RAPIST, YOU LITTLE RAT! AND A SMACK ON THE MOUTH!"

You know? It's bizarre that literally nobody in the game mentions that you're a complete psychopath. I was honestly hoping it would turn out Phelps was the killer, because that was the only way the rest of the game made any kind of sense.

[Althea]

Steam needs to be more user-friendly
I don't mind Steam. I might even go so far as to say I like Steam. As a user, there's certainly a number of benefits to it, and given the choice of any form of DRM, I would perhaps say Steam is even my preferred form. But I still think it needs a number of new features, and this is just one of them:

The ability to 'tailor' your download.
This is aimed more at games with DLC/bonus content. You should be able to decide whether to download the DLC or not if it is not contained within patches. So, to give some proper examples, I should be able to download New Vegas without any of its DLC, and I should be able to download Magic the Gathering DotP 2012 without the bonus content like soundtracks et al.

With a game like The Witcher, this feature could shave gigabytes off a download, as anyone who has installed the EE from disc could probably tell you, if the feature went so far as to allow you to choose your language packs and so on.

[ffordesoon]

^This. Thisthisthis.

[Oshada]

I seem to recall that LA Noire's Doubt option was originally called Force. They shouldn't have changed it if they didn't bother to change the recorded lines along with it.

[ffordesoon]

Seriously? Well, hell, that explains it. Well, a little bit. There are ways to force a confession out of people that don't involve shouting "YOU KILLED HIM, MRS. GOOSEBERRY! YOU! YOU! LIAR!" every single time. But Doubt makes zero sense. Unless that's just the way Brendan McNamara "doubts" people. Which would kind of explain why Team Bondi went under.

[Winehouse]

Even I do agree with you on this,.

[thegooseking]

The Ken Levine interview (again) made me think about this.

Game tech R&D should focus on reducing the cost of current quality to the developer, rather than increasing the quality and the cost.

Simply because a game that costs less to make can afford to appeal to more specialised interests, and I'd rather (as much as I do like Mass Effect et al) have a game made for people like me than a game with shinier graphics that has to make a load of compromises to appeal to everyone. I'm not sure my reasons for wanting this are really less conventional, but enough people complain about graphics tech being stalled as it is that I think the solution might be.

[Althea]

That's fairly sensible. Games are costing more and more, but with less and less content. Instead of focusing on the gameplay or getting the visuals right, companies seem to be more interested in adding 3D, multi-monitor support and so on despite only a small percentage of gamers using them. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who uses those features, but often they come at the expense of other features/polish/delays.

There's a lot of games that look good/great on efficient engines, such as Relic's latest game Space Marine, and developers should be taking lessons from them.

[ffordesoon]

I keep telling people I know that a developer should make a game that's up to modern standards gameplay-wise, but with the graphics of Deus Ex. The first Deus Ex, I mean. Then spend all that time you would've spent on graphics making more content and giving the player more options.

So I agree.

Also, how is the Source Engine not perfectly adequate for 95% of games? I mean, sure, it may not have the most mips on the most maps, but it still looks fantastic.

[zookeeper]

While I agree that top-tier games (you know the ones I mean, not necessarily the ones that should be top tier, but the ones that sell 18 bazillion copies) focus entirely too much on style over substance, I wonder what exactly it is they spend all their time working on? Thanks to cross-platform releases, the stupid fast pc hardware advances of 10ish years ago have ground to a halt (by comparison anyway) and console hardware isn't going anywhere fast. So theoretically all the time that used to be spent optimizing performance for the latest and greatest cards and planning for resolutions that don't even exist yet should be going into gameplay, no? But that obviously isn't happening, so where is it going? Is all their time spent trying to wring the last little bit of gpu power out of an xbox?

I feel like if we're not getting the latest in pc-crippling, orgasm-inducing graphics (which I really don't care about), then we should be getting the best in game design and writing (which I do care about). Instead we seem to be stuck with nice, but not eye-melting, visuals and gameplay that's reminiscent of shoving a spoon too far into your nose.

I guess it doesn't really need to be an either/or thing, but there should be quality in there somewhere.

[Okami]

I completely and utterly hate Saints Row the Third and consider it one of the worst games ever made. It's utterly baffling to me, how anyone could consider it a good game.

I bought it after reading high praises for it here on RPS and I couldn't believe how bad the game was. Bad shooting, bad running, bad driving, bad visuals, bad mission design. Keep in mind, that this has nothing to do with it's subject matter, it's immatureness or it's bad taste - I've got no problems with any of these things.

SR3 was the biggest game purchasing mistake I've made in my whole life - and I've bought a lot of bad games over the years. But none made me as angry as this game. I wish I could somehow permanently remove it from my steam list. Just seeing it in that list is depressing to me. It'd almost be worth to create a new steam account and re-buy every single game except Saints Row, just to remove this stain from my life.

[Nalano]

SR3 was the biggest game purchasing mistake I've made in my whole life

If all you lost in your entire life is fourty bucks, count yourself lucky.

[Derbefrier]

hello just found out RPS had forums and this thread is interesting so i thought i would post
GTA3 & GTA4 are not that great
The only thing fun about these games is running around aimlessly killing cops and running over civilians. The stories where lame the characters forgettable and the mission structure got boring really fast.

I like linear games more than sandbox games
this probably explains my distaste for the GTA games. the problem i have is that with sandbox games the developers try to fill the world with enough content to justify a big sandbox it just gets boring and repetitive really fast. like most of GTA's missions boil down to drive here kill some guys then drive here kill some more guys blah blah blah.


FPS have gotten boring ( with the exception of Serious Sam 3)

maybe its because there are so many of them and they are all pretty much the same i am just sick of all these COD type games but serious sam 3 was a breath of fresh air for me i really enjoy the shit out of that game. the frantic running around trying not to die to the hordes of enemy's is quite a bit different from the usual scripted Michael bay FPS we have seen the past few years.

leveling and weapon unlocks and stats have killed competitive FPS gaming
it seems everyone is too worried about their k\d ratio or leveling up some shitty gun than about actually winning matches. it also imbalances gameplay making games less about skill but who has the best unlocks or players are sitting out of cap zone because they dont wanna die since it will have a negative impact on thier stats. its not about the team anymore its not even about winning its all about the individual and his ego it sucks.

thats all i can think of for now but it almost time to leave work and go home and play some vidya games!!!!

[Althea]

CDProjekt RED's constant re-releasing of The Witcher is getting annoying

It's like... why bother buying it on release day? The Witcher 2 had a few patches to add/remove features (including registration), then there was The Witcher 2.0, and now there's going to be The Witcher 2: Enhanced Edition. It's getting ridiculous, because it's putting up barriers to both purchasing and playing. Why bother playing it when the next version is just around the corner? That's two major versions in less than a year!

Yeah, it's good they're adding features and fixing things (Steam users may disagree - heavily so), but at what cost? In my own case, it's pushing back my playthrough as I'm putting it off to get the next new features because they want to put it in a big release, and thus change the gameplay et al?

[Okami]

If all you lost in your entire life is fourty bucks, count yourself lucky.

It was 49€ to be precise - bought it on european steam. Also I didn't say it was the only mistake I made, just the biggest. And with all the other bad games I've bought, I was at least able to sell them or just throw them in the trash and then forget about them. Can't do that with a steam title, it just sits there in the list, silently, staring at me, reminding me of it's awfullness every time I open up steam.

[Althea]

It was 49€ to be precise - bought it on european steam. Also I didn't say it was the only mistake I made, just the biggest. And with all the other bad games I've bought, I was at least able to sell them or just throw them in the trash and then forget about them. Can't do that with a steam title, it just sits there in the list, silently, staring at me, reminding me of it's awfullness every time I open up steam.
So don't leave your Steam library on "All Games", then. Put it on Installed.

[Nalano]

It was 49€ to be precise - bought it on european steam. Also I didn't say it was the only mistake I made, just the biggest. And with all the other bad games I've bought, I was at least able to sell them or just throw them in the trash and then forget about them. Can't do that with a steam title, it just sits there in the list, silently, staring at me, reminding me of it's awfullness every time I open up steam.

.

^-- See that?

That's the world's tiniest violin.

It's playing a heart-wrenching tune for you.

[Okami]

Hey, first world problems are problems too!

[sabrage]

CDProjekt RED's constant re-releasing of The Witcher is getting annoying

It's like... why bother buying it on release day? The Witcher 2 had a few patches to add/remove features (including registration), then there was The Witcher 2.0, and now there's going to be The Witcher 2: Enhanced Edition. It's getting ridiculous, because it's putting up barriers to both purchasing and playing. Why bother playing it when the next version is just around the corner? That's two major versions in less than a year!

Yeah, it's good they're adding features and fixing things (Steam users may disagree - heavily so), but at what cost? In my own case, it's pushing back my playthrough as I'm putting it off to get the next new features because they want to put it in a big release, and thus change the gameplay et al?
Why bother complaining when it's free fucking content?

[Althea]

Why bother complaining when it's free fucking content?
What does free have to do with it?

I'm criticising CDProjekt RED's business practices. Whether the content is free, paid for, red, yellow, blue, pink or alien is irrelevant.

[sabrage]

I feel like you and R-F simply open your mouths to incite as many negative responses as possible.

[Althea]

I feel like you and R-F simply open your mouths to incite as many negative responses as possible.
You have seen the title of this topic, yes? Less Conventional. Even looking at CDProjekt with the intent to criticise them is less conventional in PC circles, just as it is with Valve.

Well, I'm sorry if I've offended you by thinking CDProjekt (RED) aren't King Midas and that everything they touch isn't actually gold, nor do I think the sun shines out of their arse.

[sabrage]

"Less Conventional Views on Games" not "Pull something out your ass and throw it at the wall"

[Althea]

"Less Conventional Views on Games" not "Pull something out your ass and throw it at the wall"
You're thinking of Duke Nukem Forever there.

[sabrage]

I find Duke Nukem Forever a lot less tiresome than your contrarian-all-the-time attitude.

And just like that, we're back on topic!

[Althea]

I find Duke Nukem Forever a lot less tiresome than your contrarian-all-the-time attitude.
Someone has to be on the opposing side, or at least be unafraid to criticise those who generally escape criticism.

[sabrage]

Someone has to be on the opposing side, or at least be unafraid to criticise those who generally escape criticism.
It's not annoying because I disagree. It's misplaced and bizarre, and your reasoning never really holds up.

The Witcher games have enough variation in outcomes to warrant repeat playthroughs. The promise of free content is not a barrier to entry. Nobody says "You mean I'll get even more for my money? Fuck that!"

[Althea]

The Witcher games have enough variation in outcomes to warrant repeat playthroughs. The promise of free content is not a barrier to entry. Nobody says "You mean I'll get even more for my money? Fuck that!"
Again, it's nothing to do with it being free. It's nothing to do with the outcomes, even.

It's the fact they keep releasing major versions of the game with gameplay changes that affect how the game controls and develops. If you play The Witcher 2's release version, you will not have the same experience (or even game) as someone who has The Witcher 2: Enhanced Edition. It's annoying because - if you're like myself and you play games over an extended period of time usually once or twice at most - it means you miss the new content or that the game constantly changes so when you go back to it, it's different.

That is what annoys me. Whereas other developers would take the advice and apply it to the sequel, CDProjekt (RED) have shown no signs of such attitudes and instead completely change things for the sake of it.

This will also be the third time The Witcher 2 has been re-packaged and resold in the space of a year. Little excessive, don't you think?

[sabrage]

If the game is constantly improved upon (and there was a lot of backlash at launch for Witcher 2) and released at the same price to all consumers, I will never see it as a bad thing. Post-release support is one of the PC's greatest strengths; just because Ubisoft forgot what market they're targeting doesn't mean that we should criticize other publishers who know what they're up against (though I take it CD Projekt hasn't heard your complaints, specifically.)

[Chevy]

This will also be the third time The Witcher 2 has been re-packaged and resold in the space of a year. Little excessive, don't you think?

It's not being resold, though. It is continuing to be sold, with new content. All the old copies will get the new content, too. Right?

[Althea]

If the game is constantly improved upon (and there was a lot of backlash at launch for Witcher 2) and released at the same price to all consumers, I will never see it as a bad thing.
Alright, let me put this another way. The Witcher released to a lot of positive feedback, but was hamstrung by poor performance, questionable voice acting (in English) and so on. So, CDProjekt RED - roughly a year later - released The Enhanced Edition, which had a lot of fixes, improvements and so on. This was a good thing, because the game got even better reviews, became prominent in the market again and generally was better for it.

The Witcher 2 released a year and a half(ish) after The Witcher: Enhanced Edition and had its own set of problems. Instead of listening to the feedback from The Witcher/The Witcher: EE and playing it safe, CDProjekt RED went ahead and changed practically everything. This bit them in the arse, and about 5 months later CDProjekt released The Witcher 2.0, which was to The Witcher 2 what the EE was to TW1. Two or so months after TW2.0's retail release, CDProjekt announced The Witcher 2 EE, which will be another round of content, fixes and tweaks, including more of what should be included in the upcoming 360 release.

Do you not see where this is going? Instead of focusing on the bugs/issues, they're constantly overhauling things. It shows they've got little faith in their product and that they're not happy with it. This is not something that inspires confidence, in my opinion.

There's nothing wrong with post-release support, but if you want to make your project look good then don't spend a year adding/removing features constantly and re-releasing new versions. It looks like you've released it too early.


Post-release support is one of the PC's greatest strengths; just because Ubisoft forgot what market they're targeting doesn't mean that we should criticize other publishers who know what they're up against (though I take it CD Projekt hasn't heard your complaints, specifically.)
Ubisoft are a different kettle of fish. They haven't forgotten the PC market, they never have. Have they acted like dicks? Yes, of course they have. I'm probably their strongest supporter on this site (or one of them) and I'll criticise them until the cows come home, but I don't blind myself with hatred for their DRM. I've used it enough times to have a good idea of how it works/affects the end-user, rather than just going NO IT SUCKS without even experiencing it.


It's not being resold, though. It is continuing to be sold, with new content. All the old copies will get the new content, too. Right?
It's being resold in the retail environment. The Enhanced Edition will be the THIRD version of the game to have a retail release within a year. Those who already have it will get the new content for free, but it doesn't change the fact it's being resold in certain environments.

[PeopleLikeFrank]

It's being resold in the retail environment. The Enhanced Edition will be the THIRD version of the game to have a retail release within a year. Those who already have it will get the new content for free, but it doesn't change the fact it's being resold in certain environments.

If someone who bought it before the new version isn't forced to buy it again, it's not being resold. It's continuing to be sold, with new content. Someone who buys the EE without already owning it isn't "re-buying", and someone who already owns version 1.0 isn't buying anything at all.

[Chevy]

A person would have to be silly to buy it again at retail, when the version they have already will be patched with the new content. So, the repackaging is only for people who don't own the game already.

[deano2099]

It's the fact they keep releasing major versions of the game with gameplay changes that affect how the game controls and develops.
Do we know that? Yes, the last big patch changed the combat system to make it a bit less clunky but other than that it was basically free DLC. I didn't see anything in the EE announcement that suggested this one is anything more than another round of free DLC.

I'd probably also point out that CDPR are a fairly small company, and had they not released the game when they did, they'd have probably been in trouble. It's only the fact that it's sold really well and justified a console version that means we're getting this stuff.


This will also be the third time The Witcher 2 has been re-packaged and resold in the space of a year. Little excessive, don't you think?

No, actually. I think more games should do this - as an alternative to DLC for a new revenue stream I like it, and it kills the obsession gaming has with only liking things released in the last month.

[hamster]

You can turn off automatic update on Steam for specific games so you can play Witcher 2 without those pesky patches that improve balance and add content.

[Althea]

Do we know that? Yes, the last big patch changed the combat system to make it a bit less clunky but other than that it was basically free DLC. I didn't see anything in the EE announcement that suggested this one is anything more than another round of free DLC.
Well, yes. They've mentioned - at least - changes to the targeting system.


I'd probably also point out that CDPR are a fairly small company, and had they not released the game when they did, they'd have probably been in trouble. It's only the fact that it's sold really well and justified a console version that means we're getting this stuff
CDProjekt RED are not small, especially when you consider their parent company is rather large in Eastern Europe. They're still working on The Witcher 2 and two new titles (one of which is The Witcher 3), so no, I'd not term them small.


No, actually. I think more games should do this - as an alternative to DLC for a new revenue stream I like it, and it kills the obsession gaming has with only liking things released in the last month.
The latter only applies to the console. The PC is much more of a slow-burning market, in my opinion.

Some of the above posters have termed it stupid if people rebuy the game. Why is it stupid? I hardly think it can count as stupid if someone's rebuying it to avoid having to download gigabytes of updates in order to play the most recent version of the game, either due to a slow/unstable network connection or something else. The game is being resold, remarketed, whatever you want to call it. The content in the edition is being updated (guide, manual, etc), the version of the game you get in the box is being updated and so on. It's not slapping a new label on it, it's changing the actual contents.

[Chevy]

I said silly, not stupid. And if someone doesn't want to download gigabytes of data to play the new version for free, and don't want to pay money to buy it at retail, then they can still play the old version!

I honestly can't imagine the person who would rather spend 30 dollars for the new version than download a couple of gigs for free.

[Althea]

I honestly can't imagine the person who would rather spend 30 dollars for the new version than download a couple of gigs for free.
Because we all have uncapped broadband, right? Because we all want to download gigabytes of data at <500KB/s in order to play a game each time we install/reinstall/update?

There's reasons for buying the updated version of a game.

[Chevy]

Because we all have uncapped broadband, right? Because we all want to download gigabytes of data at <500KB/s in order to play a game each time we install/reinstall/update?

There's reasons for buying the updated version of a game.

That's fair enough. I didn't think about the need to redownload.

[Nalano]

Because we all have uncapped broadband, right? Because we all want to download gigabytes of data at <500KB/s in order to play a game each time we install/reinstall/update?

There's reasons for buying the updated version of a game.

Jeez. I have a very shared connection to cable broadband, and I still get 1-1.5mb/s. The last ISP I had that was capped was on a college campus, and while that admittedly sucked, the university wasn't in the business of giving me free movies, music, games and porn.

[Althea]

Jeez. I have a very shared connection to cable broadband, and I still get 1-1.5mb/s.
Well, good for you, Nalano. I'm sure we're all the wiser for you sharing details about your location's superior infrastructure.

[Nalano]

Well, good for you, Nalano. I'm sure we're all the wiser for you sharing details about your location's superior infrastructure.

That's the humor of it: Cable gets worse the more people that are on it. Also, that post was meant to be a "damn, I'm sorry to hear that."

[b0rsuk]

Duke Nukem 3D (the one released between DooM and Quake) was mediocre.

- boring enemy design. No memorable enemies. Combinations of enemies don't make for different challenges like in DooM II, because their abilities are not interesting.
- levels designed for looks and to resemble real world places, not to play well. I end up not remembering DN3D levels except the first one, but I remember levels from DooM1 and 2, Quake, Hexen, Heretic.
- Duke has primitive sense of humor. In contrast, Serious Sam has made me laugh on several occasions. The woman is protesting against blowing the Sphinx up. Sam: "Okay, I'll blow it up really carefully."

To wrap it up, I wasn't disappointed by Duke Nukem Forever because I don't consider Duke Nukem 3D to be a remarkable game in the first place. It was a game of gimmicks which very rarely contributed to gameplay. Oh, you could shoot clocks. You could piss in urinals, or pay a stripper to see her boobs. In a way I'm pleased, because Duke fans have stopped talking about how great game it would be. Unreal, and Unreal Tournament was doing variety much better. I still preferred id Software games at the time, but I enjoyed Unreal and UT when I wanted some fancy toys.

[Althea]

I Liked Driv3r And I Miss It
Driv3r wasn't that popular for... a variety of reasons. But I liked it (I believe I had the Xbox version, but it might have been the PS2 version), and I spent many hours in it. I'd drive around Miami, blow stuff up, jump off the ramp on top of the parking block near the quay and so forth.

I don't know what it was that I liked, it's been years since I played it (although I have the PC version kicking around somewhere), but I found the variety of cities and cars to be refreshing (unlike the GTA series' single cities, except for the top down ones) and I just enjoyed being able to choose the car I started with, the city I was in and so on.

I miss it, I do. I think it did the realism thing better than GTA IV has since attempted to do, and whilst I'm no doubt looking at Driv3r through the rose-tinted spectacles and over half a decade of distance, I still have fond memories of it.

[thegooseking]

You know how enjoyment of games is subjective and that's terrible? Well, it gets worse than that.

What qualifies as filler vs. actual worthwhile content is subjective.

I think there is a lot of filler in HL2, but I can totally see someone else appreciating it more than I do. Conversely, I also think there's a lot less filler in the Mass Effects than people say there is, but I can still understand why they say it.

What happens when a game is designed is that the designers make decisions about what's important and what's unimportant, and the more closely that matches what you think is important and unimportant (which is, of course, relative and subjective), the less filler you will perceive. It's not entirely subjective, because the designers can still be outright wrong about what's important, but there's a lot of room for differing preferences within the area of what's right. Importance is kind of like morality (in fact some would say importance is part of morality): there are certain things we can all agree are important, and certain things we can all agree are unimportant, but a whole load of things in the middle that are far less universal.

You can sort of fold that into the argument on game length, as well. A longer game is better than a shorter game only when it's not mostly filler, but that depends on whether what the game thinks is important and what you think is important are the same.

[ffordesoon]

Huh. Good point.

[Keep]

What qualifies as filler vs. actual worthwhile content is subjective.

Iunno. Very true in that the developers may have different aims to you, and one man's filler is another man's favourite.

But I would think it's got an objective meaning stronger than "the emphases I don't emphasis". There's plenty of filler that fit my tastes and so I never noticed it as such (or when I did, I immediately forgave it out of fondness), but that doesn't change the fact that it was filler.

"Content whose removal wouldn't affect the story/flow/mechanics/other important elements"?

[arathain]

What qualifies as filler vs. actual worthwhile content is subjective.



MMOs make this hugely clear. What's grind for some is enjoyable for others. This was often a problem in City of Heroes when power-levelling exploits would be discovered- newer players would make level 50 in a very short time, and then look around and wonder where the game was. Well, experienced players might say, you just skipped it all.

I liked hurtling around the city, running missions, and seeing just how much trouble my hero could manage, or finding a team and steamrolling stuff. For others, that's repetitive grind.

[NathanH]

Sometimes people are just objectively wrong, though, and claim to like grind even though they obviously don't.

[deano2099]

Yep, 'grind' or 'filler' used to mean something in regard to MMOs, where you were literally killing the same things in the same place over and over to make an XP bar grow slightly. Not killing almost the same thing, or similar things, or the same thing in different places for different quests, or the same thing with slightly different abilities, but the exact same experience.

Slowly it devolved into 'anything in the game you don't like', because all games repeat mechanics in variations, if you don't enjoy one of the core mechanics, the thing can feel 'grindy'.

[NathanH]

I will define "grind" as "doing identical things many times in order to achieve some goal such that, if given the option of reaching the goal without doing the things, you would take it". I will define filler as the same thing, just replacing "identical things many times" with "things". Because my definitions are universally awesome, you will all accept them without debate...

[Nalano]

Slowly it devolved into 'anything in the game you don't like', because all games repeat mechanics in variations, if you don't enjoy one of the core mechanics, the thing can feel 'grindy'.

I certainly get that vibe. Sorta the gaming equivalent of calling any poster you disagree with a 'troll.'

[Theblazeuk]

I agree as nothing in HL2 was filler to me. Not that much in ME either aside from the side-quests, which at least were optional filler.

[deano2099]

I certainly get that vibe. Sorta the gaming equivalent of calling any poster you disagree with a 'troll.'

Or calling someone 'entitled' without explaining why they're not entitled to something. There's probably a proper name for it, but it's sort of a fallacy mixture of ad hom and a call to false authority. It's faking objectivity in a subjective discussion. Maybe we just need to reclaim the world 'grind'...

My go-to example is always the leveling content in WoW pre-Cataclysm. When that game launched, it was heralded as brilliant, finally an MMO that replaced the 'grind' with proper quests! Review scores were outstanding, the game was beloved. Cut to five years on, the 1-60 content is now a 'grind' and just something you have to do to get to the good stuff. Now, it's a given that videogames in general and MMOs specifically had moved on a lot in those five years, so comparatively that content now seemed a bit dull. It's a fair criticism. But you can't have a world where there's an objective definition of 'grind' if gameplay can move into that category when touched by nothing more than the passage of time.

[Nalano]

Or calling someone 'entitled' without explaining why they're not entitled to something. There's probably a proper name for it, but it's sort of a fallacy mixture of ad hom and a call to false authority. It's faking objectivity in a subjective discussion. Maybe we just need to reclaim the world 'grind'...

Get over it. Honestly. The definition of "entitlement" is the guarantee of benefits based on one's rights. I think we can all agree that such a word does not define the relationship between a customer and a company except when expressly stipulated by a legal contract. Not an assumed contract.

As such, it is not an "ad hominem" fallacy - honestly, who the fuck bandies that term about? - nor is it libel to say that a person is "acting entitled" when his words imply entitlement when no such right or guarantee exists. If you wish, we can call them "whiners," "spoiled brats," and "exactly the sorts of fans that destroy good works and burn out good writers with their constant bitching" but I prefer to say that they're acting entitled.

Now, if you want a word that's definitely been abused left and right, there's always "elite."

[deano2099]

I prefer to say that they're acting entitled.

And like 'grind', if you use the word specifically to mean what it originally meant then it works. The problem is it gets thrown about so much it's now utterly devalued. You'd as well work out the difference between the 'grind' in a Korean F2P MMO and that in WoW, as you would someone that feels 'entitled' to a game that works and someone that feels 'entitled' to free updates and DLC for all their games forever.


As such, it is not an "ad hominem" fallacy
Sure it is. It's an attack on the guy behind the argument, not the argument itself. That's not to say it can't inform the discussion, but it doesn't engage with it. If someone says "I think I should have X" then they are, by definition, "acting entitled" to X. Explaining why they're not or should not be entitled to X is constructive. Calling them 'entitled' doesn't really help matters - you may as well just repeat their original statement in a dismissive or sarcastic tone. As you say, it's the equivalent of calling them "whiners" or "spoiled brats", which are equally ad hominems. They might also be, and often are, true, mind you.

[Zephro]

No it isn't an ad hominem, Nalano is totally on the money with this one.



Explaining why they're not or should not be entitled to X is constructive.
As Nalano pointed out here, and was pointed out elsewhere, you're only entitled to something if you've entered into an agreement/legal contract with some party. As this is basically never the case it shouldn't need explaining and ought to be perfectly obvious.

Can we just use the word properly and move on.

[SanguineAngel]

No it isn't an ad hominem, Nalano is totally on the money with this one.


As Nalano pointed out here, and was pointed out elsewhere, you're only entitled to something if you've entered into an agreement/legal contract with some party. As this is basically never the case it shouldn't need explaining and ought to be perfectly obvious.

Can we just use the word properly and move on.

That is not entirely correct. There are a number consumer rights too, to which companies who provide services OR products are bound. They may differ between services and products, mind. Games in particular often fall into the grey area here, which is where a lot of bad feeling seems to be generated. Frequently, the term "entitled" is bandied about when people refer to such things. That is a miss-use which I think might be what deano is getting at.

[Zephro]

True I did forget to mention consumer rights.

[sonson]

World in Conflict is the most perceptive game regarding the themes of 9/11, whether by chance or design

World in Conflict is eighty percent cities and towns. Beautifully rendered cities and towns, replete with suburbs, pinewood churches, homely suburbs and peaceful high streets, dotted with benches and bus stops and pleasant parks. Towns which, like in real life, are about community centres which are organised around municipal and economic centres.

In order words, WIC offers all of the warmth and contentment to be found in the peaceful industry of an afternoon spent with Simcity. In which other games do you so frequently encounter Burger bars, Office blocks, community entertainment centres and neat little rows of houses? WIC offers the same giddy thrill that comes from observing a model worldin miniature.

Then it gets blown up.

At the start of the map your men had began creeping across a quietly prosperous town on the pacific seaboard. By the end you inherit a flattened and blistered blackness, a landscape of faintly recognisable civilization pockmarked with craters and twisted metal.

In so brilliantly accomplishing this transformation, WIC eloquently says some very prescient things about the contemporary west that many other games have been slow to comment on. The majority of games set during periods of conflict use the tropes of horror and fall back on nihilism to tell their tale. Like so many films and books, they overwhelmingly focus on the tragedy and violence and extremism which overwhelm individuals in battle, placing them in a fantastical and otherworldly landscape which, thankfully, has little relevance for most of us. War is something foreign, something we read about, watch films about, play computer games about even, that’s all.

By building up a level of complicated, detailed and intricate civilization that we all recognise, and then turning it into a playground for armageddon, WIC establishes war in the historical tradition of the destroyer of civilization. WIC is not men getting shot in the face; WIC is losing your car, losing your home, losing everything you’ve ever worked for and built up, Insurance claims which can’t be honoured. WIC displays more than anything the delicacy of all of our complex social, economic and cultural networks and their futility in the face of primal forces. It serves as a reminder, in the post 9-11 world, that war has lost none of it’s terrifying potency to fundamentally ruin all that we have achieved and all that we know in one swift instant. It is thus a true war game, a game which upholds the quiet dignity and intricacy of humanity, and the barbarity inherent in it’s swift destruction.

In a moment of quiet brilliance, one of the cut scene’s in WIC see’s a Colonel plot his regiment’s advance across one of those Tourist Information “You are here” signs you find in most town centre’s. That’s WIC’s conceit framed in an instant-a sad and elegant commentary on the ease with which familiarity, ingenuity, and peaceful civilization are so easily consumed by war.

[deano2099]

No it isn't an ad hominem, Nalano is totally on the money with this one.


Saying "you're not entitled to it" is fine. Saying "you're acting entitled" is changing the argument from the topic to the person making the argument.


Can we just use the word properly and move on.
If entitlement is purely a legal term then saying anyone is 'acting entitled' if they're doing anything short of taking legal action to get what they think they're entitled to, is clearly the wrong usage of the word.

[Theblazeuk]

The definition is of a legal or just right, so it does seem to have a certain degree of subjectivity there. But you are all entitled to your opinions. In both contexts.


World in Conflict is the most perceptive game regarding the themes of 9/11, whether by chance or design


I think....by design.

Surprising how few games take advantage of this approach though. One of the reasons zombie games/movies/TV shows have always found an audience I think.

[squirrel]

Why We Have to Sit / Stand in Front of a Set of Screen(s) to Play?

Bound by currently existing technology I guess.

But what if we can walk around to play, not bound by one screen? I mean, like alternative reality game, but with new video game technology we can do something not ordinary human can do. Like I can race through an explosion and still survive. Or of course, if you want to make the game more complicated, you can set rule that a certain function of your body will be damaged by such explosion and cannot be used in game before recovery.

This sound unconventional but at the same time it is not. To begin with, I believe military would be very interested in developing such technology. Virtual training is already a good use. The most horrible live exercise accident I heard was the one by the US Army for preparation for 2003 Invasion of Iraq. A M1 tank accidentally rolled over two infantries!! Those two poor souls, of course, were killed in an instant. With such technology, those unfortunate accidents would forever be history.

[victory]

Yep, 'grind' or 'filler' used to mean something in regard to MMOs, where you were literally killing the same things in the same place over and over to make an XP bar grow slightly. Not killing almost the same thing, or similar things, or the same thing in different places for different quests, or the same thing with slightly different abilities, but the exact same experience.

Slowly it devolved into 'anything in the game you don't like', because all games repeat mechanics in variations, if you don't enjoy one of the core mechanics, the thing can feel 'grindy'.Grind in its current common meaning is a subjective term, but not an arbitrary sign of dislike like you say it is. I don't see anyone using it to describe tasks they find very challenging, for instance; a player calling something a grind implies that the player sees their success in the task as guaranteed provided they just spend enough time.

[thegooseking]

Ok, here's one.

This generation's console dominance of the gaming market was broken by one of the events most hated by PC gamers.

I am, of course, referring to EA buying BioWare. If they hadn't, Mass Effect, which was previously published by Microsoft, might have remained Xbox-exclusive, which in turn would have led to the Xbox being a stronger platform, which would have slowed the resurgence of PC gaming.

I'm not saying EA buying BioWare was the sole reason for the increasing strength of PC gaming, but I do think it was the lynchpin, as it were. It's funny to think that a lot of good came from an event that's attracted so much rage.

[jnx]

Ok, here's one.

This generation's console dominance of the gaming market was broken by one of the events most hated by PC gamers.

I am, of course, referring to EA buying BioWare. If they hadn't, Mass Effect, which was previously published by Microsoft, might have remained Xbox-exclusive, which in turn would have led to the Xbox being a stronger platform, which would have slowed the resurgence of PC gaming.

I'm not saying EA buying BioWare was the sole reason for the increasing strength of PC gaming, but I do think it was the lynchpin, as it were. It's funny to think that a lot of good came from an event that's attracted so much rage.

So you claim that PC was made stronger by a multiplatform game? Doesn't sound all that logical.

[johnki]

We need more "games" like Dear Esther.

Take a minute, let it sink in, spit your soda out, shout at your computer, sigh, done? Okay.

So, I think we need more games like Dear Esther. Frankly, the term "game" has a really, really broad definition, and it gets broader as the years go by. We need more games that provide something a bit different for other people who aren't so interested in hardcore games, or games that tell a story in more symbolic ways, given that games have the power to do that. Games that further the way we think about emotional responses. And frankly, not enough of them exist.

I get that the gamer group is quite an elitist bunch when it comes to the definition of games, but it's alright to expand a bit.

[gwathdring]

So you claim that PC was made stronger by a multiplatform game? Doesn't sound all that logical.

I disagree that EA buying Bioware specifically strengthened PC gaming, but I think multiplatform gaming does. Keeps the PC in the loop, without requiring as big a PC-centered commitment. Sounds good to me.

It also allows for shitty ports, but I've played plenty of ports that were after-the-fact, cash-ins for a console exclusive title

[Eight Rooks]

We need more "games" like Dear Esther.

Take a minute, let it sink in, spit your soda out, shout at your computer, sigh, done? Okay.


Wait, this is the anti-majority view for PC gamers? I thought we were supposed to be yay, indie experimentation, stick it to the man at any cost, etc., etc.? More seriously, I think the writing in Dear Esther is badly overdone purple prose and that restricting the player to trudging very slowly along a fairground ride is a very questionable design decision, but even so I still think the industry needs more people making games along these lines. I wasn't aware that was in any way unconventional, unless you're a fervent Call of Duty/manshooter fan to the exclusion of all else.

[johnki]

Wait, this is the anti-majority view for PC gamers? I thought we were supposed to be yay, indie experimentation, stick it to the man at any cost, etc., etc.? More seriously, I think the writing in Dear Esther is badly overdone purple prose and that restricting the player to trudging very slowly along a fairground ride is a very questionable design decision, but even so I still think the industry needs more people making games along these lines. I wasn't aware that was in any way unconventional, unless you're a fervent Call of Duty/manshooter fan to the exclusion of all else.
Yeah, pretty much everything I see regarding games like that is about how they're not really games, and they aren't worth money, blah, blah, blah. To be fair, it's more when I see games by companies closer to Tale of Tales (which, to be even more fair, after reading some of the head guy's quotes, considering he's essentially half the company, I really don't want to buy their stuff either) but I've seen it in regards to Dear Esther quite a few times, and I think it's kind of sad.

And to be yet even more fair, you can hardly call Dear Esther experimental, unless you're strictly talking the story and the emotional response to the story. It's just finally reaching a certain territory that needs to exist.

[Finicky]

Mass effect is one of the worst games I've played, each part can be argued to be very sub par, and imo the sum of its parts is even worse.

*Some of the worst ever in gaming : AI, shooting mechanics , UI
*Really awful story with no character exposition before main chars are killed off, dumb fan fiction quality dialog, half the 'lore' is in text entries in true bioware fashion and ALL of it is generic uninteresting tripe. Most 'B' budget rpgs have a better story than this.
The pacing is awful too. (already starts when you get to the citadel, what is supposed to be exposition to get you to care is just boring fluff)
*planets = 5 mins in UDK terrain tool + a sky box, literally... couldn't even be arsed to use the smooth tool where the terrain is glitchy to drive on (as if they'd even tested if it's suitable to drive on)
*rest of the environments = corridors, endless copy paste of the same few assets and sown together by cutscenes and
elevators.
*ue3 at its worst : non functional self shadowing taken out in a patch as a 'fix', 128x128 textures everywhere, terrible uncanny animations , pre pseudo GI implementation UDK build.

Only redeeming thing about the game is that it's in space... which seemingly caused everyone in the world to drop their standards for everything about videogames, just for this game.

The second game was a massive improvement in every aspect (ai less retarded, shooting much better and no longer just a dnd diceroll point and click thing, UI less asinine, lighting and graphics improved, level design improved MASSIVELY as was planet design) and for some bizarrre reason THAT is the one people hate on.

I think of the things listed only the merit of the story is up for arguing, the rest is undeniably true. This game greenlit bioware to stop trying completely and the improvements of the second game getting dismissed pushed it home.

A controller is trash for racing games, 40 ish degrees non deadzone NON LINEAR (fiddly) movement both ways is a really poor range for steering yet most people seem more than content with it.
Going to chalk that one up to very few people having used a proper wheel for racing games.

I absolutely HATE rpg elements in non-rpgs.
It never ever adds anything to the gameplay and is usually used as an easy substitute for rewarding gameplay (don't need rewarding gameplay when people are happy with fake positive reinforcement as reward).
E.G I much prefered red faction Armageddon giving the player new weapons quickly as you progress through the story, rather than slowly giving the player NO FUN ALLOWED weapons in guerilla that you can slowly upgrade to become more sandboxy.

This whole 'i'm going to shit on your enjoyment until you jump through a bunch of hoops and do a lot of chores to unlock bagspace/ways to get around/un-shit or re-fun your weaps and abilities' needs to go away.

CS lasted me for 7+ years of rewarding gameplay, everything was unlocked from the start.
BF3 lasted me for 100 hours, the last 50 basically being a grind to unlock all the shit that needed unlocking before I decided none of it was half as entertaining as it should be. Prime example of shallow gameplay being padded by rpg elements and theme park gimmicks.

Most people seem happy to chase that carrot over and over so I guess I'm fairly alone there.

To end on a positive note :
Divinity II (DKS edition, not the launch one) was a neat game, if only because it showed that GameBryo can be a capable engine that can run a solid and polished game without jank, bethesda should take notes. Few people seem to like it.

[Nalano]

Mass effect is one of the worst games I've played

I don't know what game you played if you think that there's no character development, or that the lore can only be understood in text form. I'm inclined to think it's not Mass Effect, since you say the main characters are "killed off."

[Finicky]

I don't know what game you played if you think that there's no character development, or that the lore can only be understood in text form. I'm inclined to think it's not Mass Effect, since you say the main characters are "killed off."
Asari matriarch, they make a big fuss about this character everyone should care about, then make her pop up without introduction and instantly give her an overly dramatic (and ridiculous) scene where she dies but gains self control just long enough to tell you about the nefarious plans of the bad guys.
All the while trying to sell it as a big and sad event that you the player should care for ever so much.
The playable characters are always just that, character templates, a set of values in an mmo character select screen where you pick background lore, they never grow and are never interesting and never become people.

I uninstalled the game after the matriarch bit since it was a bad game and the poor storytelling did nothing to redeem it.

And yes, all bioware games have 90 percent of the background lore in codex and text entries with most of the dialog ingame being flavor bits or short term bollywood drama and babbys first moral choices by mattel.

[Nalano]

Asari matriarch, they make a big fuss about this character everyone should care about, then make her pop up without introduction and instantly give her an overly dramatic (and ridiculous) scene where she dies but gains self control just long enough to tell you about the nefarious plans of the bad guys.

Whatever gave you the idea she was a main character?

[deano2099]

they never grow and are never interesting and never become people.

I uninstalled the game after the matriarch bit since it was a bad game and the poor storytelling did nothing to redeem it.


You barely got halfway through the game, if that (depending on if you did Feros first and how much of the Citadel you did). So how do you ever know if they ever develop or not?

[MoLAoS]

Perhaps my most common yet still controversial opinion is that Starcraft and Starcraft 2 style RTS games are stupid. I just hate them. Easily solved build orders, comparatively, its still complex, small numbers of units, boring resource management, many custom games were amazing though, way too much APM based micro.

Another controversial SC opinion:
Managing 1 unit per building in queue is not macro, its micro, but with economics.

I cannot wait for the day when RTS games get more sim quality, small amounts of AI for units such as targeting priorities and just less clicking on the same units multiple times a second. Also having much less single big fight then steamroll style.

[coldvvvave]

Main theme of Planescape Torment( and Metal Gear Solid 3 but who cares) has a very strange similarity to a main theme of Speed movie with Keanu Reeves and a bomb on the bus.

[Shooop]

Half-Life 2 was a good game but an absolutely horrible FPS.

- The story and that one puzzle with the crane was top-notch but the times where you were shooting enemies was a chore. The weapons lack any real feeling of power and most shootouts became just a duel where whoever had the bigger gun and more health wins. The small enemies like the Manhacks were nothing but a nuisance by being hard to hit.

- Jumping puzzles when you can't see your feet is the worst idea ever in video game history.

- Being forced to just stand still and listen to people talk is basically the same thing as a cutscene. This happens way too many times.

[SirKicksalot]

Total Biscuit sucks and it's horrible how influential he is.

There's something wrong with people who like two or more of these things: zombies, Portal 2, Reddit, Total Biscuit, Yahtzee.

[Davkaus]

I like all of those things. :(

[SirKicksalot]

http://www.abload.de/img/reggiefils-aimeiusek.jpg

[Mohorovicic]

I could make that list 10x longer, but I won't.

I will agree wholeheartedly on TB instead. I mean, at least doing a let's play takes effort through playing through the entire game, editing all the parts, keeping it interesting and/or funny, whatever.

All TB does is play a game for twenty minutes and talk over it. No humour, very little insight, mostly obvious statements. It's just: I play some game and commenting.

He could at the very least be controversial, but he's not. Why is he a self-proclaimed "cynical brit" anyway? Has he ever actually been cynical, ever?

[Winged Nazgul]

He could at the very least be controversial, but he's not. Why is he a self-proclaimed "cynical brit" anyway? Has he ever actually been cynical, ever?

He is totally not a biscuit, either! False advertising IMO.

[Nalano]

There's something wrong with people who like two or more of these things: zombies, Portal 2, Reddit, Total Biscuit, Yahtzee.

I didn't like you anyway. >:C

[SirKicksalot]

He could at the very least be controversial, but he's not. Why is he a self-proclaimed "cynical brit" anyway? Has he ever actually been cynical, ever?

Not sure if this (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34966117&postcount=166)counts as controversial. It counts as dickish though.

I know your history lol

[jnx]

Not sure if this (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34966117&postcount=166)counts as controversial. It counts as dickish though.

I know your history lol

Well it was largely due to that conversation that they actually added the FoV slider in a patch so that sensitive people like me could actually play the game.

[Tritagonist]

All TB does is play a game for twenty minutes and talk over it. No humour, very little insight, mostly obvious statements. It's just: I play some game and commenting.
Perhaps it's not exactly the highest level of games journalism (for whatever that term is worth), but I like it. I've bought a lot of smaller games I wouldn't have otherwise known about because he highlighted them in a way that game me a good idea of what to expect from a game. Though I'm not saying you couldn't make similar videos with a lot of humour and 'insight', I don't need that in the type of introductory videos he makes. I'm not watching game-related videos on YouTube for the sake of it, but to get an idea of which games I might enjoy actually playing myself.

[magnus1969]

Wait, this is the anti-majority view for PC gamers? I thought we were supposed to be yay, indie experimentation, stick it to the man at any cost, etc., etc.? More seriously, I think the writing in Dear Esther is badly overdone purple prose and that restricting the player to trudging very slowly along a fairground ride is a very questionable design decision, but even so I still think the industry needs more people making games along these lines. I wasn't aware that was in any way unconventional, unless you're a fervent Call of Duty/manshooter fan to the exclusion of all else.

At the risk of repeating myself; I liked it, does it make me a bad person?

[magnus1969]

Half-Life 2 was a good game but an absolutely horrible FPS.

- The story and that one puzzle with the crane was top-notch but the times where you were shooting enemies was a chore. The weapons lack any real feeling of power and most shootouts became just a duel where whoever had the bigger gun and more health wins. The small enemies like the Manhacks were nothing but a nuisance by being hard to hit.

- Jumping puzzles when you can't see your feet is the worst idea ever in video game history.

- Being forced to just stand still and listen to people talk is basically the same thing as a cutscene. This happens way too many times.

Face meet palm/ Room ambience meet sigh/ Head meet desk.

[Mohorovicic]

At the risk of repeating myself; I liked it, does it make me a bad person?

It makes you a good person, but a bad human being

[magnus1969]

And another controversial thing, there's not really much that I don't like.

[deano2099]

Anyone that, without a hint of irony, refers to themselves as "Total Biscuit" deserves nothing but contempt to be honest.

Although 'Yahtzee' is only slightly better...

[fiddlesticks]

I don't particularly care for Total Biscuit, but every now and then he releases a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sYp-eggD1Q&feature=context-shows&list=SL) that makes me wish more gaming journalists had the same kind of integrity. And he does do a good job of introducing his viewership to more obscure titles, instead of constantly hyping the AAA stuff.

Yahtzee on the other hand hasn't really done anything worthwile in years. Even he seems to be a bit tired of his own gimmick, considering his more recent reviews are generally a lot more mellow than his older work. Which reminds me, has anyone read his book? Is it any good?


And another controversial thing, there's not really much that I don't like.
Well, that is probably why you're on an Internet forum.

[magnus1969]

Well, that is probably why you're on an Internet forum.

I don't know, I really find it difficult to elaborate on such things.

[Kadayi]

Total Biscuit sucks and it's horrible how influential he is.

There's something wrong with people who like two or more of these things: zombies, Portal 2, Reddit, Total Biscuit, Yahtzee.

Kind of in agreement there. I must admit I'm generally left singularly nonplussed by much of what he says tbh. Less odious than someone like Jim sterling to be sure, but another 'telling it like it is' type nevertheless, and equally prone to asshattery.

I'm not a huge advocate of fandom on the whole though. Certainly there are people whose opinions I often find agreeable, but never to the point where in I don't evaluate everything they say and weigh it up accordingly (I thought Jim completely misread the comments by the take 2 guy for instance). If you commit to fandom you're effectively renouncing your personal opinion in a way and that's just an abhorrent act to my mind.

[Protoman]

There's something wrong with people who like two or more of these things: zombies, Portal 2, Reddit, Total Biscuit, Yahtzee.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI)

[Eight Rooks]

At the risk of repeating myself; I liked it, does it make me a bad person?


even so I still think the industry needs more people making games along these lines

so ...no? On the one hand, the writing's plagued by the usual academic's love of twenty-dollar words where a five would have had exactly the same effect or better, the story holds no surprises or deep meaning, the pace is artificial and I find it frustrating, and the storytelling is arguably significantly flawed. On the other hand, Mister Briscoe's unquestionably very talented (and that's coming from someone who deeply disliked Mirror's Edge), I have no problem with the concept and I would like to see more developers attempt something similar. I'm not sure why any of that would indicate I'm in favour of hunting down everyone who disagrees with me.

(That'd be more for, I don't know, Bioware or Square Enix zealots, maybe.)

[RakeShark]

Here's one:

Deus Ex is not the best game ever made. Sid Meier's Pirates! GOLD is the best game ever made.

[Mohorovicic]

I don't think that many people consider Deus Ex the best game ever made. It's widely accepted as great, but not the best.

That honor goes, of course, to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

[DragonOfTime]

I don't like the source enginge. It just feels wrong to me. It's not that I don't like the games, I absoluely love some games made on the source engine, but I really don't like the enginge itself.

I don't mind always-online DRM. As long as it isn't a secret, you know what you buy. If you don't have an internet connection, don't buy the game. After all, who doesn't have a proper internet connection these days?

This last one is slightly console related, so I will keep in mind that I'm dealing with inferior individuals, but I don't get all the complaints about online passes. Is it really that much of a hassle to type it in? We PC gamers have had CD keys for ages. They are there to fight the used games market, which is perfectly understandable from a distributor POV, after all, they don't get their cut from those sales. What I don't get is why they don't do it the PC way and tie the entire game to one account, instead of only doing it to the online parts.

Bonus positive opinion: I love both Dear Esther and TRAUMA

[Xercies]

I don't like the source enginge. It just feels wrong to me. It's not that I don't like the games, I absoluely love some games made on the source engine, but I really don't like the enginge itself.

I agree just dabbling it makes me realise its a horrible engine to use to make anything! UDK and Unity are just light years ahead of it.

I think the greatest video game ever made hasn't been made yet there hasn't been one video game that has done storyline with gameplay right yet and until that happens there is only good games not great games.

[Mohorovicic]

I have never - ever - played an UE3 game that didn't have issues. As far as I can tell, the engine is complete and utter garbage and only utilized because Epic is practically giving it away.

[Hypernetic]

Counter-Strike was old and boring 10 years ago.

I don't care about Minecraft and I think Notch is a pompous douche bag.

[DaftPunk]

I don't think that many people consider Deus Ex the best game ever made. It's widely accepted as great, but not the best.

That honor goes, of course, to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.


How can people even decide which game is the greatest one,when i have so many favorites,in which i put over 100 hours each! :D

[coldvvvave]

I have never - ever - played an UE3 game that didn't have issues. As far as I can tell, the engine is complete and utter garbage and only utilized because Epic is practically giving it away.
What about Mirrors Edge?

[Mohorovicic]

Anamorphic.

[DaftPunk]

I think every game should have at least one parsnip in it.

[deano2099]

What I don't get is why they don't do it the PC way and tie the entire game to one account, instead of only doing it to the online parts.

Because a massive portion of the console users don't have their machines hooked up to the internet (I think I read 30% of 360s had never been hooked up to the net - I imagine the proportion that don't have a regular connection is even higher given it doesn't even have Wifi)

[Shooop]

Face meet palm/ Room ambience meet sigh/ Head meet desk.
Three points meet zero counterpoints.

If you want to call your game a FPS you'd better have decent shooting in it. Half-Life 2 did not.

[Casimir Effect]

I kind of like Total Biscuit. It's good that someone with clout is out there promoting the smaller titles and refusing to put a single numerical score to a game. Also, as the FOV fight over The Darkness 2, the guy can get things done which benefit the majority.
The only real problem I have is that too often he dismisses games after revealing he hasn't played them much: not a bad thing for the typical gamer to do, but when you speak to hundreds of thousands of people (many of whom follow your word the the letter) it can be irresponsible. Especially as his first impression series is often just 30mins of gameplay, which he will often fuck up and not understand what is going on (for example, his review of Capsized makes it sound like he doesn't really like the game yet in recent reviews he praises it).


I have never - ever - played an UE3 game that didn't have issues. As far as I can tell, the engine is complete and utter garbage and only utilized because Epic is practically giving it away.
Every engine has issues, especially if you're being particularly strict. The UE3 engine may have some issues but it's given some fun games over the years and allowed quite a few indie devs to realise their dreams in a form which doesn't look like something a PS2 shat out.

[Shooop]

Every engine has issues, especially if you're being particularly strict. The UE3 engine may have some issues but it's given some fun games over the years and allowed quite a few indie devs to realise their dreams in a form which doesn't look like something a PS2 shat out.
I went over this in a RPS comments section before - yes UE3 has been used for some good games but the engine itself is problematic. I'd really like to see developers using other engines instead like Crytec's and iD's.

It's a mixed bag. Here's hoping 4 isn't as much of a mess and just as easy for devs to use.

[Nalano]

Three points meet zero counterpoints.

This is a thread about iconoclastic opinions.

Pretty much everything here has a million counterpoints that need not be stated, because those counterpoints form the majority position.

[augustuskent]

Dragon Age 2's combat rules (puts fingers in ears) NANANANANANANNANANANANNANANANNANANA

[Casimir Effect]

I went over this in a RPS comments section before - yes UE3 has been used for some good games but the engine itself is problematic. I'd really like to see developers using other engines instead like Crytec's and iD's.

It's a mixed bag. Here's hoping 4 isn't as much of a mess and just as easy for devs to use.
For my part every UE3 game I've ever played has been stable.
I'd like to see other engines experimented with because it'd make for a broader aesthetic in gaming. But I don't know the intricacies of working with the Cryengine or Frostbite or IdTech to know how feasible this is, especially for smaller companies. The price of licensing these engines could be a huge obstacle too, whereas I imagine the Unreal engine is comparitively cheap. Hell, I'd love to see CDProjekts REDengine being used for more things as that has a style of its own and is gorgeous.

Epic also got a leg-up on the competition through its Make Something Unreal contests, which has helped garner the goodwill of the indie community.
Ultimately I'm just happy that the Source engine isn't used much. That's my irrational dislike.

[Eight Rooks]

Okay, here's a few of mine (PC-oriented, rather than consoles).

Bioshock 2 is a better game in every respect than Bioshock.

Deus Ex was plainly ugly from the moment it was released, and the writing is laughable.

No Bioware game bar Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 2 has any kind of good writing in it (and those two are pushing it as it is).

Speed runs, glitches, exploits and the like are not reason to celebrate emergence and player agency: they simply mean a game is broken.

Virtually none of the "classic" point-and-click adventures (to say nothing of their descendants) are clever or funny.

Despite having one of the best stories in the medium, Max Payne 2 is a mediocre game at best (if markedly better than the original).

Grand Theft Auto IV is the best game in the franchise by a huge margin, and the surreal asides in every game before it weren't funny and actively worked against any sense of immersion (or place, or atmosphere, or whatever you want to call it).

[Ciergan]

I think Dreamfall is vastly overrated. I wouldn't mind the nonexistent gameplay so much if the writing wasn't so turgid and aimless.

[augustuskent]

If Mass Effect 2 didn't have Miranda I would rate it better, because I wouldn't be so distracted.