Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Things You Hate About Today's Gaming.

Aug 28, 2012#1

Gilgamesh

Simple list of things that occur in today's gaming world that just didn't seem to be an issue back in the day:

DLC - I mean I understand it and sometimes it can be great, but can you imagine having played Final Fantasy 1 and not having access to the Red Mage class because you didn't pay an extra $10? Or the Ultimate Weapons/Omega bosses not being challengeable, even though they were already on the disk because you didn't buy an -unlock key-? I preferred my DLC when it was called an expansion pack and actually added alot of content. Bethseda can sometimes get this right, sometimes not.

Glitches - Games today are obviously going to be glitchier than their predecessors due to being MUCH more complex, but when there are consistently game breaking glitches on release of a game and never being fixed through patches I just find it lazy. ESPECIALLY when the community releases a patch that fixes all the issues.

Forced Co-Op - Most of the time this is just for achievements and what-not but even still, it can be highly annoying. Thankfully this isn't something that's quite a massive problem just yet but in Co-Op obvious games, it really sucks that the AI on your partner usually is dumber than a rock.

Opinions?

Aug 28, 2012#2

Ravenpoe

Terrible pc ports. As a mainly pc gamer (though I do own all the consoles) this makes me rage.

Hyper realism in graphics that translates to making everything brown. This is mostly a problem with shooters.

EA. Just... fucking EA.

Terrible, archaic, game breaking DRM. Also, see above.

Forced multiplayer. That is, obviously single player games that have multiplayer forced into them because the execs heard that multiplayer games sell more.

EA again.

And finally, games that have major features or characters that can only be gotten by pre-ordering at a certain store. Or multiple stores, making you choose which one you want.

Motherfucking EA.

Aug 28, 2012#3

sixpackshaker

...that I am so broke that I can not buy 2+ games a month like I did when I first graduated from college 18 years ago

... damn 18 really?

Aug 28, 2012#4

Cheesy1

Lazy storytelling. I swear it's gotten worse lately.

Also, Kinect anything. Seriously, just stop it.

Aug 28, 2012#5

Gilgamesh

Oh motion gaming for sure. I remember when we would imagine what future motion gaming would be like. The Power Glove was so bad we thought it'd get better in the future... it didn't.

Aug 28, 2012#6

Bubble181

Not quite gripeworthy yet, but I'm sure it'll be soon....3D.

For now though:

1. Always-online for games that aren't focussed on (or even include) multiplayer. Yes, I can accept being always-online for WOW. No, I don't want to be always-online for Solitaire.
2. Co-op shoehorned into what-used-to-be SP games. Especially grating in games where it's blatantly obvious and the whole "Single player" campaign is a 2-player campaign with some bot next to you. Less obnoxious in a FPS (though even there...) but really horrible in RTS (Red Alert 3 for example).
3. Complete and utter conformism in all AAA titles. Yes, there's plenty of artistry and new ideas (some great, some horrible, whatever) in indies. But all AAA games can be classified in, what, 4 genres? And even in their genre, they're all the bloody same. Whether it's all MMO's being WOW clones or all shooters being Call of Duty, there's really a drought as far as different games go. Even the ones that look like they might be interesting stick far too close to "security".
4. Linked to that, the exploding budgets for graphics, voice acting and marketing make experiments impossible. It also means other parts of the game suffer.
5. Bad ports can be a killer...
6. My personal lack of time and motivation to play like I used to.

Aug 28, 2012#7

Jay

I'm going to need a few hours to write this one.

Aug 28, 2012#8

Azurephoenix

- Half assed lazy writing
- EA (may they die in a fire)
- Always online nonsense
- Needlesly cramming multiplayer into a game when the focus should be single player
- Too much emphasis on fancy graphics/physics/technodoodles while not enough on good gameplay
- Oppressive DRM that makes it more inconvenient to buy the game than to pirate it
- Multiplayer games without LAN support (I'm looking at you Blizzard... you bitch... You used to be cool)

That's all I got for now... I may think of more as the day goes on.

Aug 28, 2012#9

Tress

An over-reliance on multi-player games. You see, I like people. The folks I encounter at random during my day are, for the most part, pretty decent. The people online are mouth-breathing twits who should be forcefully sterilized. I don't want to deal with them. So nothing pisses me off more when I hear a good concept for a game and I get all excited, only to find out it's multi-player only. Or, more often, the multi-player side of the game is what the developer spent 80%-90% of their time and resources on, and the single-player modes were an afterthought. It should be a 50-50 split.

I also hate the death of turn-based strategy as a genre. There are a few good titles here and there, but RTS dominates the genre to an absurd degree.

Aug 28, 2012#10

LordRendar

Most of the things I hate about gaming were already mentioned, so I wont repeat them, but I hate that the Spaceflight genre is as good as dead, I miss using a Joystick.

Also,just because you can upgrade your guns,dosnt make it a FPS/RPG hybrid.

Aug 28, 2012#11

sixpackshaker

I miss Leisure Suit Larry games, the Al Lowe ones, not the crap they put out in the last couple of years.

I miss combat flight sims in general.

Aug 28, 2012#12

SpecialKO

Aside from other things already mentioned, the idea that $50/60 is a default fucking price regardless of how much content there is, or how long it takes, or the pace with which its delivered. It's not even the $50/60 tag so much as how there's an idea of default pricing at all.

Aug 28, 2012#13

Bubble181

It's funny how I don't think I remember anyone ever saying "I wish I could have more contact with unknown people during my gameplay. I'd love people from across the world to be able to drop in on my game unannounced."

Not that there's anything wrong with multiplayer, but... I don't know anyone who'd want it to be in all games, always, everywhere.

Aug 28, 2012#14

Gilgamesh

sixpackshaker said:
I miss Leisure Suit Larry games, the Al Lowe ones, not the crap they put out in the last couple of years..

I'm guessing you're excited over the Kickstarter project then?

Aug 28, 2012#15

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
I miss Leisure Suit Larry games, the Al Lowe ones, not the crap they put out in the last couple of years.

I miss combat flight sims in general.

You know that he just did a Kickstarter to remake the first one, right? There is talk of doing more if this one sells well.

Aug 28, 2012#16

Bubble181

Gilgamesh said:
I'm guessing you're excited over the Kickstarter project then?

AshburnerX said:
You know that he just did a Kickstarter to remake the first one, right? There is talk of doing more if this one sells well.

You know you're not allowed to claim "ninja" if there's more than an hour between the posts, right?

Aug 28, 2012#17

AshburnerX

Bubble181 said:
You know you're not allowed to claim "ninja" if there's more than an hour between the posts, right?

Aug 28, 2012#18

Squidleybits

Optimization...really?

Aug 28, 2012#19

ThatNickGuy

1) Over designed characters. I even have this problem in great games like Arkham City. There's just so many gratuity done in character/costume design that it doesn't just border ridiculous, but far surpasses it. It is very possible to keep it simple and practical while still looking cool. This goes hand-in-hand with females over-sexualized in games, but that's a problem in more than just games (comics). For example, when Ed Brubaker and Darwyn Cooke redesigned Catwoman's costume to what you see now, such as Arkham City, it was meant to be practical. Hell, she was always depicted as having the zipper actually zipped all the way up. The way she's depicted these days (both in comics and games), she has it zipped all the way down to her naval. How the hell are her tits not falling out?

Then again, the men aren't much better. Gears of War, I'm looking at you.

2) Cutscenes. Some games are worse than others, but if I'm spending more time watching than playing, then it's not a game. If I'm sitting there with my chin resting on my hand, controller resting on my lap, and thinking to myself, "Gee, this would be fun to play," then you can bet I won't be playing it for much longer. Biggest sources of this for me are things like the last couple of Final Fantasy games, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Devil May Cry 4. Numerous others, but those are the ones I point out the most with this.

3) Stupidly Expensive DLC: Once in awhile, I'll check the Team Fortress 2 store to see what they have for hats and such. Mostly out of curiosity. And I just can't fathom why anyone would spend any more than $0.99 on something like that. Yet they charge upwards of $5 a freaking hat. I can buy a REAL hat - well, a cheap one - at Walmart. Why in the fuck would I spend the same for a digital hat for one frigging game. Hell, I can spend that money buying a full game on my phone. I said the same thing when I tried out Playstation Home (basically a glorified chat server). There were various articles of clothing that sold for $10 or more. To say nothing of the homes or apartments, which were at least $15 or $20, I think. It's ridiculous. Yet, the scariest thing about all this is...people actually buy it. I've seen numerous people wearing TF2 hats that are listed in the store for $5 or more. And these are sometimes hats that were released that day.

4) A Lack of Collections: We've had some HD remakes of some games, but I don't understand why they don't just take those original games as they are and release them on one disc. Can you imagine a single disc with all the Final Fantasy games, from 1 all the way to 10? Given the BluRay's space, it wouldn't surprise me they could fit them all on one disc (maybe two). Instead of releasing a buggy remake of the Silent Hill games, why not just throw in the original PS1 game and the PS2 games all on one disc as is? The whole idea of collection of older games is to see their progression. That's why I loved having the old Sierra collections, like King's Quest, Space Quest, etc. You could see from the very beginning the progression of how each game and its technology improved.

5) The Sims: This is part of my "fuck you, EA" but there's something about The Sims that always bothered me: they're up to The Sims 3 now, yet they've released the same expansion three times so far. Pets has been released for Sims 1 through 3. Ditto for Vacation or Hot Date. They're basically the same thing with a few different bells and whistles every time.

Of course, I might be pissed because they've yet to make a Sims 3: University. That was my favourite expansion of Sims 2.

6) EA Sports Games: Speaking of shit that's barely changed. Of all the games that could not only easily just be digital, but free-to-play, this is it. Instead of having baskets and baskets full of used copies of last year's game, why not release it digitally and charge DLC for updates and such? The most hardcore are going to buy it, anyway. At least then, I wouldn't have to see stacks of NHL '07 and up in the used bins.

7) Digital Copy Same Price as Physical: Seriously, this one just pisses me off to no end.

Aug 28, 2012#20

Chad Sexington

Agh so much. I've basically quit playing video games, partly due to time constraints, but also more and more I am forced to decide: is the disappointment/frustration worth my money? And I keep coming up with: no. I have a Companion Cube tattooed on my wrist, though, so I basically have to defend Portal to the death as the best game ever, even when they release Portal 5: FIFA (Master Chief Edition) where the companion cube is the ball.

Specific things I hate:
Linearity. There's a good image out there somewhere with a map layout from the early 90's and all it's mazes, and a map layout from a current shooter: it's a straightline with points marked "Cutscene".

Cutscenes: Fuck you.

Alright, I'll elaborate: in StarCraft, there were like 3 cutscenes per race, they were kinda cool, animation that, as a kid, made go "Whoa that's basically realistic!" and short. Now it seems like cutscenes are hours, and some games are just entirely cutscenes. I quit playing Metal Gear 4 because I couldn't with stepstepstep- I HOPE YOU DON'T NEED TO PEE FOR THE NEXT 45 MINUTES- stepstephidefromadude- OH WHAT NOW MORE TALKING ABOUT KILLING AND HOW IT'S BAD AND NOT GOOD. I rented the first F.E.A.R game, and after the opening cutscene, you're dropped into this sketchy building... you spend ten minutes climbing up and getting JUMP SCARES (it wears off after the second one), and then when you reach the roof, you get hit in the head with a wooden plank and there's another cutscene.

Morality: I suppose this is a limit of programming and time, but holy crap. It's just too binary. And then the 'different' endings are so extreme: everyone is dead because of you, or everyone found true love and nothing has ever gone wrong since.

Sandboxes: if you say it's a sandbox... I think Saint's Row 2 is like the perfect sandbox game. I can go anywhere and do anything, and that is basically unqualified. I can do whatever the balls I want. I can look like anything, wear anything, use anything, murder a person, help a person, spray a person with sewage... But games advertise themselves on their 'sandbox' qualities and then just suck suck suck and are filled with limits. Prototype, for instance, made you gain certain upgrades or abilities, whereas with SR2 you could go anywhere you wanted, you just risked being on rival gang turf.

I'll probably come back to this, but I'ma go cook dinner.[DOUBLEPOST=1346197311][/DOUBLEPOST]

ThatNickGuy said:
7) Digital Copy Same Price as Physical: Seriously, this one just pisses me off to no end.

+1 000 000 000

Aug 28, 2012#21

Frank

I share a lot of the complaints here, but to the people complaining about EA's DRM? Ubisoft friends, Ubisoft Uplay and GFWL are much worse than Origin (and Origin is PC AIDS).

Aug 28, 2012#22

Frank

Chad Sexington said:
Morality: I suppose this is a limit of programming and time, but holy crap. It's just too binary. And then the 'different' endings are so extreme: everyone is dead because of you, or everyone found true love and nothing has ever gone wrong since.

Obsidian games are almost all there is where it comes to doing this right. Oh, also CD Projekt Red.

Aug 28, 2012#23

Bubble181

Frank said:
I share a lot of the complaints here, but to the people complaining about EA's DRM? Ubisoft friends, Ubisoft Uplay and GFWL are much worse than Origin (and Origin is PC AIDS).

Yeah, I hate EA for a lot of reasons, but DRM-wise, they might actually be the least of the three Prime Evils. Uplay and GFWL really are that bad. Of course, both of those and Origin are all three always-online DRM in the guise of "player connectivity", "cloud sourcing", "better service and support", "more regular updates" and "continued support", which are all nonsense and none of which requires an always-online secondary program running next to your game.
Battle.net 2.0 isn't that far behind, though at least it doesn't have a client.

Aug 29, 2012#24

bhamv3

I don't have a problem with DRM. I understand companies need to take measures to protect their intellectual property. I do have a problem with DRM that is intrusive, stupidly designed, or outright harmful, and hurts the legitimate paying customer without inconveniencing the pirates or reducing piracy.

I don't have a problem with DLC. I understand that DLC can be a good way to offer additional content, should the player want it. I do have a problem with DLC that is designed to nickel and dime customers to death, or obvious money grabs that add little value to the game experience. Soon all the meat will be DLC and the base game will be nothing but bare bones, and I don't feel like paying 60 bucks for bare bones.

I don't have a problem with multiplayer. I understand that the game experience may be enhanced when playing with someone else. I do have a problem with multiplayer shoehorned into a game or a series that really doesn't need it. I do have a problem with developers focusing on the multiplayer aspect of a game at the expense of the single player experience.

I don't have a problem with bugs and glitches. I understand that games are growing more complex, and that optimizing games for every single possible computer configuration, including video cards, RAM, CPU etc, is probably not a feasible task. I do have a problem with games released in a state of obvious beta (or even obvious alpha), with the company doing little to nothing to fix it afterwards. Instead they rely on fan patches. This includes crappy ports.

I don't have a problem with companies wanting to make money. I understand the bottom line is ultimately what keeps a company in existence. I do have a problem with companies trying to pass off unscrupulous moneymaking attempts as "adding value" for customers. No, installing Origin does not add any value to my gaming experience.

I don't have a problem with lengthy development times. I understand that a late game is only late until it's released, while a bad game is bad forever. But Half-Life 2: Episode 3 needs to be fucking released already, Valve!!!!!!

Aug 29, 2012#25

redthirtyone

ThatNickGuy said:
6) EA Sports Games: Speaking of shit that's barely changed. Of all the games that could not only easily just be digital, but free-to-play, this is it. Instead of having baskets and baskets full of used copies of last year's game, why not release it digitally and charge DLC for updates and such? The most hardcore are going to buy it, anyway. At least then, I wouldn't have to see stacks of NHL '07 and up in the used bins.

This. I'll never understand why these Madden idiots are so willing to plunk down 60 bucks every August for this year's version which is JUST like last year's version, except a feature or two & roster updates. At least this year they added voice commands via Kinect on the 360, which is something. But honestly, MAYBE if you add enough features you could ask 20 bucks.

My thing, as I mentioned in my Ubisoft thread, is the gimmicks they throw in for achievement hunters to ensure added hours played. The first I remember was the Lambdas in HL2 (or whatever version the Orange box was). Find them all, get an achievement. Uh-oh, game's over & I didn't get the acheevo, gotta go back & look for the one(s) I missed. Then there were the pigeons in GTA4 (I actually DID this one). The orbs in Crackdown, the gears in GoW, Riddler trophies, dog tags, computer intel, golden film reels, etc etc. Fuck it. I've decided that I'll get what I can get on my ONE playthrough, and IF I'm 98% complete, I might go back and complete the set.

Aug 29, 2012#26

Necronic

Honestly I hate the gamers the most. They're the ones creating demand for crappy MMO after MMO. They are the ones that push for graphics over content. They're the reason I won't ever see another Turn Based Tactical Combat game, or another Dungeon Keeper, but I will definitely see another "open ended" Bioware game or another round of "Will Wright creates garbage but gets called a genius."

Aug 29, 2012#27

Tress

Necronic said:
Honestly I hate the gamers the most. They're the ones creating demand for crappy MMO after MMO. They are the ones that push for graphics over content. They're the reason I won't ever see another Turn Based Tactical Combat game, or another Dungeon Keeper, but I will definitely see another "open ended" Bioware game or another round of "Will Wright creates garbage but gets called a genius."

Aug 29, 2012#28

Frank

Necronic said:
Honestly I hate the gamers the most. They're the ones creating demand for crappy MMO after MMO. They are the ones that push for graphics over content. They're the reason I won't ever see another Turn Based Tactical Combat game, or another Dungeon Keeper, but I will definitely see another "open ended" Bioware game or another round of "Will Wright creates garbage but gets called a genius."

http://www.jaggedalliance.com/en/

Aug 29, 2012#29

AshburnerX

redthirtyone said:
My thing, as I mentioned in my Ubisoft thread, is the gimmicks they throw in for achievement hunters to ensure added hours played. The first I remember was the Lambdas in HL2 (or whatever version the Orange box was). Find them all, get an achievement. Uh-oh, game's over & I didn't get the acheevo, gotta go back & look for the one(s) I missed. Then there were the pigeons in GTA4 (I actually DID this one). The orbs in Crackdown, the gears in GoW, Riddler trophies, dog tags, computer intel, golden film reels, etc etc. Fuck it. I've decided that I'll get what I can get on my ONE playthrough, and IF I'm 98% complete, I might go back and complete the set.

The Lambdas really shouldn't count for this... finding a Lambda was a reward in itself, as you would always find health, armor, or ammo at a Lambda catch. You wanted to find them all because finding them all had a tangible effect on helping you finish the game. That they made it an achievement (which doesn't DO anything for you usually) really isn't that dastardly.

Aug 29, 2012#30

ThatNickGuy

Totally there with you on achievements redthirtyone. I don't mind so much if it's a sandbox-style game where you can keep playing after you've finished. Or being allowed to restart with all your previous upgrades.

Although, with that said, that reminds me of another major pet peeve of mine:

Achievements/Trophies, but no In-Game Rewards: Jesus Christ, this pisses me off. Remember with GTA III, where for every 10 (or 20?) hidden packages, there'd be something new waiting for you back at your hideout? Or getting some sweet rewards for finishing a side mission? These days, you'd be lucky to even get a trophy for all the hard work. I mean, look at the latest Spider-Man game (Amazing Spider-Man). A crapload of side stuff to do, including a bunch of comic book pages to collect. It gives you XP, sure, but it's easy to max out everything halfway through the game (same as many games if you do the side missions). After that, what's the point aside from the trophy? Oh, extra costumes? Sorry, you have to do OTHER stuff for that.

I think part of the problem these days is that most games have some sort of RPG levelling system. So all the side stuff gives you experience to buy upgrades rather than earning them through side missions. But you would think that they would still reward you with some fun stuff for taking the time to play the game longer than just finishing it.

Aug 29, 2012#31

Necronic

Frank said:
http://www.jaggedalliance.com/en/

From what I understand the new JA is pretty terrible. All I want, really, is for someone to take the existing JA2, with the 1.13 mod improvements (including the AI), and then allow for dynamically generated world maps etc that could be 10-100 times larger than the maps we have in JA2.

Shouldn't be hard. I would pay a lot of money for that.

Aug 29, 2012#32

Frank

I never played it. It was all I could find for new turn based tactics.

That link should have had a question mark behind it.

Aug 29, 2012#33

Tress

Here are some of my favorite games of all time:
Ogre Battle
Ogre Battle 64
FF: Tactics
Dragon Force
Brigandine

They all have three key elements in common: highly customizable armies set in a rich fantasy setting, complex turn-based combat, interesting stories. To my knowledge, there are exactly ZERO games like those on the market nowadays*.

*I don't own a handheld (3DS, Vita, etc.) and never will, so I don't pay attention to those formats. I want these games on a PC or console, dammit.

Aug 29, 2012#34

PatrThom

Going to wax independent here, and since I rotate through games pretty rarely, much of this is going to be about things I hate on principle.

When I buy a game, I want it to do what it says on the box for as long as I own both it and a machine capable of running it. Requiring me to be always online during play means that someday your game is going to go belly-up and I will no longer be able to play it. I don't care how successful you are, if I like your game enough to be still playing it 15 years from now, It needs to still work, dammit. Obviously I don't complain about this with MMOs, since they are pretty much defined by their online experience, but for games with no online content, this is quite a peeve.

The same thing goes for intrusive DRM. It's not my fault if your authentication server goes down or your company goes bankrupt. It's also not my fault if I decide to upgrade my computer to an OS which is incompatible with your 3rd party DRM provider. Your game should still work.

Nonskippable cutscenes are a real drag also. The same thing goes for tutorials which add nothing to the game after your tenth playthrough. Just give me the option to skip the tutorial and get a flat 1200xp or something rather than having to sit through the painfully slow hand-holding of the intro process.

The whole "We'll fix it later in a patch" attitude needs to die. Again, I want what's in the box to do what it says on the box when I take it out of the box. I understand there will be unforeseen issues which will be addressed in upcoming patches, but they had better be things that nobody could see coming, or critical game balance issues that were missed due to the sheer impossibility of testing every configuration, and not "Oh hey, we added an entirely new chapter that you couldn't access because it was broken at launch." The same sort of attitude applies to DLC. Any DLC should expand the play experience, not "fix" it. It's one thing to purchase an expansion pack later. Fan feedback can inspire a dev team to add some pretty awesome stuff after the fact, but DLC should not be something you "unlock." I realize the difference between virtual content and physical content, but if 25% of the disc is taken up by stuff that I have to pay extra for later, just take it off the disc entirely and put it on another disc labeled "expansion pack 1" and sell it separately.

Also, character design should take a back seat to storyline. 'nuff said.

--Patrick

Aug 29, 2012#35

Necronic

And storyline should take a backseat to game design.

Why we accept games with blatant, crippling design flaws (Will Wright) is beyond me.

Aug 29, 2012#36

Covar

Tress said:
Here are some of my favorite games of all time:
Ogre Battle
Ogre Battle 64
FF: Tactics
Dragon Force
Brigandine

They all have three key elements in common: highly customizable armies set in a rich fantasy setting, complex turn-based combat, interesting stories. To my knowledge, there are exactly ZERO games like those on the market nowadays*.

*I don't own a handheld (3DS, Vita, etc.) and never will, so I don't pay attention to those formats. I want these games on a PC or console, dammit.

Disgaea.

Aug 29, 2012#37

Frank

Necronic said:
And storyline should take a backseat to game design.

Why we accept games with blatant, crippling design flaws (Will Wright) is beyond me.

Are you just talking about Spore?

Aug 29, 2012#38

Tress

Covar said:
Disgaea.

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the one obvious exception. And since I only have a 360 and a Wii, that option is not available to me.

Aug 29, 2012#39

GasBandit

Bad console-to-PC ports, and PC games hampered so they can also be run on consoles, is pretty high up on my list. Ridiculous price points as well. I was only able to shell out 59.99 (x2!) for guild wars 2 because I rationalized it as an mmo that doesn't have a subscription fee.

I don't mind DLC done right (see Borderlands 1), but zero day DLC and other DLC that is PLAINLY necessary for the full original game experience drives me mad.

Games for Windows Live requirement is almost always an instant veto/no sale these days. As is Origin. If it ain't steam or GOG it's a hard sell to me (obviously games that self-distribute like GW2 and Minecraft are exceptions).

Less a matter of principle, I can hardly find time to play single player games any more, so I grumble a lot when a good game comes out with no multiplayer (Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs).

Aug 29, 2012#40

PatrThom

Oh, and speaking of multiplayer, what I hate is when they shoehorn multiplayer into a game. Not the way you're probably thinking, though. I'm talking about games that have single/multi capability, but which have quests/missions/whatever where you absolutely have to have more than one player in order to hold down enough trip plates, pull two (or more) levers, or even just do something stupid like give the final boss alternating immunity to fire/ice and then make it so no single character can learn both. The minimum number of players needed to finish the game should be ONE. Otherwise the front of the box (or the download page) should tell you, "Multiplayer only!"

--Patrick

Aug 30, 2012#41

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Oh, and speaking of multiplayer, what I hate is when they shoehorn multiplayer into a game. Not the way you're probably thinking, though. I'm talking about games that have single/multi capability, but which have quests/missions/whatever where you absolutely have to have more than one player in order to hold down enough trip plates, pull two (or more) levers, or even just do something stupid like give the final boss alternating immunity to fire/ice and then make it so no single character can learn both. The minimum number of players needed to finish the game should be ONE. Otherwise the front of the box (or the download page) should tell you, "Multiplayer only!"

--Patrick

The ultimate gotcha. A bajillion levels with no hint that 2 players are required for the "good" ending.

Aug 30, 2012#42

Terrik

GasBandit said:
View attachment 7860

The ultimate gotcha. A bajillion levels with no hint that 2 players are required for the "good" ending.

I can still hear the music. Endlessly looping.

Aug 31, 2012#43

Necronic

Frank said:
Are you just talking about Spore?

Actually I was thinking of Peter Molyneux in both cases and trashed Wright instead. Spore was pretty horrendous though.

He's such a prime example of what's wrong with the industry. He started with Dungeon Keeper and Populous, both of them, without a doubt excellent games. Then, somehow, he ended up making Fable/Fable2, both of which are terrible games at their core. There is almost no balance in them. There's little variety, complexity, or challenge in the combat. All of that is thrown to the side for a thin veneer of "YOU CAN GET WIFE!"

Compared to Dungeon Keeper it's a massive step back.

Aug 31, 2012#44

Azurephoenix

Necronic said:
Actually I was thinking of Peter Molyneux in both cases and trashed Wright instead. Spore was pretty horrendous though.

He's such a prime example of what's wrong with the industry. He started with Dungeon Keeper and Populous, both of them, without a doubt excellent games. Then, somehow, he ended up making Fable/Fable2, both of which are terrible games at their core. There is almost no balance in them. There's little variety, complexity, or challenge in the combat. All of that is thrown to the side for a thin veneer of "YOU CAN GET WIFE!"

Compared to Dungeon Keeper it's a massive step back.

I figured you meant Peter Molyneux lol. Did you enjoy Black and White at all?

Aug 31, 2012#45

Bowielee

Peter Molyneux's only real issue is that he promises more than he can deliver. I'd say that Black and White, Fable, etc... aren't bad games at all, there's just no way they could live up to the hype that Peter Molyneux builds up for them.

As far as gaming conventions that I want to just completely die is Quick Time Events.

Aug 31, 2012#46

Azurephoenix

Bowielee said:
Peter Molyneux's only real issue is that he promises more than he can deliver. I'd say that Black and White, Fable, etc... aren't bad games at all, there's just no way they could live up to the hype that Peter Molyneux builds up for them.

As far as gaming conventions that I want to just completely die is Quick Time Events.

I actually have to agree with Necronic about the Fable games... I thought they were terrible.

Aug 31, 2012#47

GasBandit

I liked Black and White, except for the creature dynamic. And I was the biggest dungeon keeper fanatic on the face of the earth (somehow I don't think you guys are surprised). I gave the fable series a pass, though, based on what other people said.

Aug 31, 2012#48

Jay

That's just the way he is.

For example... look at this Bro Fist.

Mr. Molyneux wanted to deliver a great bro fist. He promised a great bro fist.

He seemed to be genuinely interested with a big smile on his face and trying to please the other person with an availability of two different hands for this great bro fist.

You can clearly see and cannot deny he is open for different approaches to his bro fist game.

And thus in conclusion to this bro fist example... while he promised a great fist bump but he barely hit the mark.... leaving you wanting.... just like his games.

Bro fist if you approve.

Aug 31, 2012#49

Necronic

I never played Black and White, although I heard good things. Fable is my main concern though. That game got more attention and made more money than Dungeon Keeper could have ever hoped to in it's wildest dreams. It was a wild success, even though it was a pretty poorly made game.

But that's what gets rewarded because that's what people (console gamers) buy, so that's what will be made in the future. This isn't the designers fault, this is the market's fault.

That's one of the reasons I'm always pretty generous to computer game designers, they serve a niche market and have the freedom to really pull out the stops and create art. Even if the game doesn't live up to it's hype (Diablo 3), I'm just happy that they are out there trying to keep that genre going.

Aug 31, 2012#50

bhamv3

Black and White was good, I found, but got increasingly bad as the game went on. The last level was incredibly buggy. I think most of the rave reviews came from people who played the first few levels only.

Aug 31, 2012#51

Bowielee

Azurephoenix said:
I actually have to agree with Necronic about the Fable games... I thought they were terrible.

I wasn't a fan of the first two fable games, but I actually think Fable 3 was a great game.

Aug 31, 2012#52

PatrThom

I actually liked Black and White...except for the creature. I thought it would've been an absolutely amazing game if they hadn't forced you to have that creature.
I swear he spent more time chained up at my castle, watching my town for me, than he ever did fighting.

Bowielee said:
As far as gaming conventions that I want to just completely die is Quick Time Events.

Also, QT events? How the Hell did we not mention QT events yet???

QT events need to die. Someone needs to pass a law. If I wanted to play DDR, I would've bought DDR, not SoulCrushRacer XVI or whatever.

--Patrick

Aug 31, 2012#53

Bowielee

PatrThom said:
I actually liked Black and White...except for the creature. I thought it would've been an absolutely amazing game if they hadn't forced you to have that creature.
I swear he spent more time chained up at my castle, watching my town for me, than he ever did fighting.

Also, QT events? How the Hell did we not mention QT events yet???

View attachment 7890

QT events need to die. Someone needs to pass a law. If I wanted to play DDR, I would've bought DDR, not SoulCrushRacer XVI or whatever.

--Patrick

Um.... go back a few posts.

Aug 31, 2012#54

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
Um.... go back a few posts.

I know! I was sympathizing! I was amazed it took as many posts before QTE finally got a mention.
(Also, I forgot to hit reply to include your post. This has been fixed)

--Patrick

Aug 31, 2012#55

GasBandit

I, for one, am appalled at how small and inanimate female breasts are in games nowadays.

Aug 31, 2012#56

Hailey Knight

bhamv3 said:
Black and White was good, I found, but got increasingly bad as the game went on. The last level was incredibly buggy. I think most of the rave reviews came from people who played the first few levels only.

This was my experience. Cool at first, and then got worse and worse. You barely get to feel like a god before you're put on an invisible timer. And then if you do depend on your creature, you get fucked over for it on the final level.

Aug 31, 2012#57

GasBandit

Heh, meanwhile gods like me who completely neglected their creature had their "completely fucked over" moment in the MIDDLE of the game (the return to the storm-shattered first world) but breezed through the end.

Sep 2, 2012#58

Yoshimickster

I was born in the 90s, when the emergence of CGI gaming was taking place. This was the age of the CGI plat-former, and had the best games for it's medium. Nowadays...eh. Most of the plat-formers today just seem to mesh together, being about shooting sneak-attacks and shooting sneak-attacks. Where are the fun adventures about mascot characters who fight randomly evil villains? Other than the franchise games, CGI platformers don't feel as good as they used to be.

Sep 4, 2012#59

Necronic

Wait.....aren't all games CGI?

What am I missing here

Sep 4, 2012#60

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Wait.....aren't all games CGI?

What am I missing here

He means rasterized sprites of 3-d rendered objects, like Donkey Kong Country or Killer Instinct. Their models were rendered originally as 3d objects but then made into 2d sprites because the hardware of the time couldn't handle displaying/animating the models on the fly. In the 90s, "CGI" in games usually referred to objects rendered not in real time to be played back as a movie... like the FMV cutscenes in final fantasy 7. Ironically, the actual 3d gameplay was not labeled "CGI," just the cutscenes.

Sep 4, 2012#61

Yoshimickster

Sorry for the confusion, I'm always not sure if I call it "CG" or 3-D gaming. It confuses me a tad.

Anyway, there hasn't been a new 3-D platformer game that has really wowed me like back when I was a kid. Even as good as the Mario Galaxy games were, they still didn't give me off the satisfaction I got from playing games like Midievil, Spyro, or especially Super Mario 64. Super Mario 64 didn't try to rub the 3-D in our faces like games today do, they still worked hard to make a good game. Don't get me wrong I'm not hating on new 3-D platformer games but they just don't feel like they've advanced the genre much in years.

Sep 4, 2012#62

Gared

Going back to the point of hating the gamers more than the games themselves, the thing that irritates me the most is the insane amount of whining about power levels and balance and, most importantly, the fact that no one seems to see a character type more powerful than their own and say "Wow! That's awesome, I want to be able to do that!" Instead they see something more powerful than they are and say "That's OP, you have to nerf it down to what I can do!" And all we're left with is a pile of mediocre crap.

Sep 4, 2012#63

GasBandit

A safe word for stuff like Mario 64 is "3D polygonal rendering," I would normally have said 3D would be enough but now that we actually HAVE games that project in 3D... one has to be more specific.[DOUBLEPOST=1346785757][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gared said:
Going back to the point of hating the gamers more than the games themselves, the thing that irritates me the most is the insane amount of whining about power levels and balance and, most importantly, the fact that no one seems to see a character type more powerful than their own and say "Wow! That's awesome, I want to be able to do that!" Instead they see something more powerful than they are and say "That's OP, you have to nerf it down to what I can do!" And all we're left with is a pile of mediocre crap.

Heh, I often reference this phenomenon by saying "I'm scissors. Paper is balanced. NERF ROCK."

Sep 4, 2012#64

Gared

Also, sometimes, people really do need to learn how to play a game before going and bitching that someone else is obviously cheating and/or their class is OP. I know I used to hate it when the normal response to a gaming question was "L2Play n00b" but I have to admit, after I took some time to actually learn to play various games (WoW, Skyrim)... I never really had an issue with one element being "waaaaay OP."

Sep 4, 2012#65

Covar

Gared said:
Also, sometimes, people really do need to learn how to play a game before going and bitching that someone else is obviously cheating and/or their class is OP. I know I used to hate it when the normal response to a gaming question was "L2Play n00b" but I have to admit, after I took some time to actually learn to play various games (WoW, Skyrim)... I never really had an issue with one element being "waaaaay OP."

Related: people bitching about a class or element being OP in a single player or PvE situation. WHO THE FUCK CARES YOU WHINY SHITS!

Sep 4, 2012#66

Yoshimickster

If you wanna talk about gamers, the only ones I seem to know are only into those damn Call of Duty games. I love a good FPS game as much as the next guy, but there are other FPS games out there. And some of which have well written single player modes!

Sep 4, 2012#67

Gared

Covar said:
Related: people bitching about a class or element being OP in a single player or PvE situation. WHO THE FUCK CARES YOU WHINY SHITS!

Yesssss.... one of the reasons D3 pissed me off so, so very much. I know the game allowed multiplayer play, but if they sold 11 million copies, and only (at peak, before they changed the way public games were reported) 60k people were playing public games, then a) constantly nerfing the shit out of classes in order to balance things for the .5% of the player base that was playing multiplayer was incredibly stupid; and b) it was fucking co-op! You are actively hurting yourself by bitching that one type of character was more powerful than another, when you're all working together, you whiny dick fucks!

Sep 4, 2012#68

Covar

whiny dick fucks is a pretty accurate definition of a vast majority of self-labeled gamers.

Sep 5, 2012#69

checkeredhat

Chad Sexington said:
Morality: I suppose this is a limit of programming and time, but holy crap. It's just too binary. And then the 'different' endings are so extreme: everyone is dead because of you, or everyone found true love and nothing has ever gone wrong since.

I love the Fallout games, but they're pretty awful for that. I have to give them credit though, the Pit was pretty good.

Sep 5, 2012#70

AshburnerX

checkeredhat said:
I love the Fallout games, but they're pretty awful for that. I have to give them credit though, the Pit was pretty good.

Morality works pretty well in New Vegas. Karma is your main determiner of whether you are good or evil, but very few acts are unambiguously considered good or evil, except murder, theft, and charity. However, you almost NEVER get Karma for doing a faction mission, unless you do it like a god damned hero (such as not killing the guys strung up in Nelson and instead saving them) or being an utter villain (leading someone to dinner for the White Glove Society).

It's equally viable to be a heroic supporter of the Legion and a villainous supporter of the NCR, just as long as you don't kill a shitload of Fiends (because clearing them out will give you so much Good Karma you will never be able to get rid of it).

Sep 7, 2012#71

Frank

Alright, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but playing LA Noire has put this asshole directly into my God damn sights. Fucking logo screens when you boot up a game. Typical PC game today:

- EA Something, check out how we changed our logo to sort of go with the style of the game.
- Original console developer of game, check out how long we managed to make our dumb logo animation sequence, isn't this awesome. This will probably never be skippable because we are narcissists.
- Plays best on Nvidia (always a solid fuck you to people with ATI cards, since this means the developers probably put little effort in letting ATI develop drivers), check out how we added something from the game you'd like to be playing now (Fuck you Borderlands). Also never skippable.
- Developer that did the sloppy as shit PC port logo, also undeservedly unskippable.
- Legal mumbo jumbo
- Title screen loading screen (FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK, we're going on 19 minutes since I booted up the game)
- Unskippable title screen animation as the game automatically checks server for authentication of some sort or to check to see if you have DLC or some or other bullshit installed.
- Title screen.....FINALLY.

Time elapsed since you double clicked on the game icon on your desktop or in your Steam list: Incalculable, you died of old age long before getting to play the game.

Sep 7, 2012#72

Jay

I usually boot up games and alt tab to post on the forums.

In the next few days, I'll post my epic rant. I feel playing mediocre games again will only help me build my rage.

Sep 7, 2012#73

Azurephoenix

Jay said:
In the next few days, I'll post my epic rant. I feel playing mediocre games again will only help me build my rage.

Play through the Mass Effect 3 ending again... that should provide ample rage. Oh, and fire up Dragon Age 2 and weep as the hack job story and ridiculous fight animations flay your senses!

Sep 7, 2012#74

Jay

Mass Effect 3..... GOD DAMNIT

Sep 7, 2012#75

CynicismKills

Tutorial levels and hand-holding NPCs.

Sep 7, 2012#76

GasBandit

Social media integration. GAH.

Sep 7, 2012#77

Jay

This is fucking bullshit.

Sep 7, 2012#78

Gared

GasBandit said:
Social media integration. GAH.

Oh yeah, because I want everyone on my FB friends list to know that I've spent 10 hours playing a video game, racking up various ridiculous achievements...

Sep 7, 2012#79

ThatNickGuy

No kidding. A remake of a game being sold for $50? That is bullshit.

The Reward tier thing? Yeah, that too. But $50 for the game? Ain't worth it.

Sep 7, 2012#80

Hailey Knight

CynicismKills said:
Tutorial levels

Thiiiis.

I hate when games make me play through a bunch of "learn how to play" BS parts. I can figure it out as I go, and if I can't, I can read the manual. I don't need the hand-holding.

I was almost shocked when my new Nintendo games like Mario and Kid Icarus didn't tell me how to fucking jump and shoot.

Sep 8, 2012#81

Bowielee

To be fair, the only reason that older games didn't have tutorial levels was because they had a printed manual.

However, even then, unless you cared about the backstory flavor text, nobody read them anyway.

Sep 8, 2012#82

Gilgamesh

Ugh, Squad Based games in non-turn based genres.

Just ugh.

Sep 8, 2012#83

AshburnerX

Gilgamesh said:
Ugh, Squad Based games in non-turn based genres.

Just ugh.

Unless it's multiplayer and you each control a squad/member of a squad. Then it works.

Sep 8, 2012#84

Bowielee

I don't know, I thought Republic Commando had pretty good squad mechanics.

Sep 8, 2012#85

Gilgamesh

I guess for me, unless it's an RPG, I don't want to play more than one character. Especially if it's first person (Also I specifically didn't mention multiplayer as, yes it would work that way but if not, then no).

Sep 8, 2012#86

Bowielee

Republic Commando worked well because it simplified the interface to context sensitive commands. Want that door blown? Point your reticle at the door and push the "squad member do something" button. The squad member in combat actually had pretty decent AI, particularly considering how old that game is now.

Sep 8, 2012#87

Frank

I too really enjoyed Republic Commando. It was a squad game that didn't require silly micromanagement, nor did it hold your hand and treat you like a fucking idiot (Recent Call of Duty's for example).

Sep 9, 2012#88

Silent Bob

Co-op. A fun concept in theory. The reality, however, is dragging through levels with douchebags who think they're awesome.

Sep 9, 2012#89

Hailey Knight

I really wish co-op hadn't been forced into Resident Evil. RE4 was great except for having that whiny brat around. So then RE5 and RE6, we have to have someone else around, and if you don't get a competent human player, you're stuck with the idiot AI.

Sep 9, 2012#90

AshburnerX

At least in RE6 they can't die and force you to re-do a section.

Sep 9, 2012#91

Frank

Quotemander Prime said:
I really wish co-op hadn't been forced into Resident Evil. RE4 was great except for having that whiny brat around. So then RE5 and RE6, we have to have someone else around, and if you don't get a competent human player, you're stuck with the idiot AI.

True Story. There's a section in RE5 where Sheeva gets caught in a cage and Chris has to climb this tower to raise it. While I was climbing the tower, I remember watching AI Sheeva use up all the assault rifle ammo we had on the shell of one of those shell guys who try to Little Shop of Horrors you. All of it. She just kept shooting the shell. The worst.

Sep 9, 2012#92

Jay

I didn't mind RE5 despite thinking that the way they went about things since RE2 has sucked a dick... it still was interesting... my issue was GFWL eating up my friend and I's save for the last 5 hours. We never touched the game since. How do you fucking fuck up saves for your fucking clients? How? How do even look at yourselves in the eye at work and go... should I even be breathing this air for being the fucking worst fucking programmer in the fucking world?

FUCK GFWL.

Sep 10, 2012#93

ScytheRexx

Really my biggest issue with today's gaming is the same issue I have had for awhile. Publishers.

It's almost impossible for a company to exist on it's own these days. They can't make the capitol to be independent, so they have to get people to invest. If the game flops the investors dump them and it's over. The game becomes a hit and the investors start looking for buyouts, leading to them being bought, whether they like it or not, from places like EA or Activision to then be milked.

Look at most game companies. They all work under publishers that roped them in cheap because they had a decent game in the past. They work them for a few years on something and then torpedo them if the game is not favorable. So many good companies have been ground into dust. Even Blizzard was never safe from this, because who knows what happens when the WoW milk well starts getting dry and Kotick does not get his seven digit bonus. We could have another Origin, Westwood, or Sierra.

I was reading a New York Times article a few days ago about Valve and their philosophy. Gabe Newell admitted that EA has been attempting to purchase them for years even up to this day, preparing to throw down $1 billion to take them over. The only reason he has been able to hold out is because they (Valve) actually have control of the company and can make that choice, rather then some investors looking for a cash-in. He even said that if things did get bad enough that they either had to close doors or sell off, he would rather close the doors. I respect that greatly.

I give major props to companies that attempt to still work without publishers, because I know how hard it can be in this industry.

Sep 10, 2012#94

SpecialKO

ScytheRexx said:
Look at most game companies. They all work under publishers that roped them in cheap because they had a decent game in the past. They work them for a few years on something and then torpedo them if the game is not favorable. So many good companies have been ground into dust. Even Blizzard was never safe from this, because who knows what happens when the WoW milk well starts getting dry and Kotick does not get his seven digit bonus. We could have another Origin, Westwood, or Sierra.

While I generally agree, I will point out that far more indie developers fail than don't. I'm guessing what you're trying to point out is the willingness of EA and Activision specifically to take a hand in the development of games, hurting the development direction as the developers scramble to catch up to the boss' expectations, and then dump all the blame on the development studio when a poorly-coded chimaera of the original game intent fails to sell more than 3-4M copies.

Sep 15, 2012#95

Yoshimickster

Not sure if I mentioned this, but games that are hard as fuck unless you play co-op. Resident evil five anyone?

Sep 16, 2012#96

AshburnerX

Difficulty in general is an issue. Most games are ether...

- Too hard for all the wrong reasons: Bad controls, cheap enemies and AI tricks, poor camera control, badly designed levels.

OR

- Too easy because they don't want to frustrate kids and poor players.

The only game that I've ever felt has gotten difficult right is Godhand. It gets easier if your doing poorly but it ramps up if your doing well so you always feel the challenge is at just the right point it needs to be for a given time.

Sep 16, 2012#97

LordRendar

Sep 16, 2012#98

Yoshimickster

What is the consensus on 2-D platformers with 3-D graphics? I'm on the fence personally.

Sep 16, 2012#99

CynicismKills

I don't let graphics determine how I feel about a game. If I did, there's no way to appreciate old classics compared to modern games. I have a friend who refuses to play anything cel-shaded, which means he's missed out on some amazing experiences in Wind Waker, Jet Grind Radio, Borderlands, etc.

Sep 16, 2012#100

ThatNickGuy

Yoshimickster said:
What is the consensus on 2-D platformers with 3-D graphics? I'm on the fence personally.

I don't mind them. There's been quite a few good, modern 2-D platformers with modern graphics.

My problem is that now, there seems to be TOO many of them being made.

Sep 16, 2012#101

Yoshimickster

ThatNickGuy Exactly, especially those New Super Mario bros games(played one, played em all). Don't get me wrong they are fun Mario games but what bothers me about them is that games don't NEED good CG graphics in order to be good games. In fact, if they did some good 2-D graphics again that would be a cool. And not just Paper Mario style, like straight up good animation. If they can afford CG animation they can afford 2-D animation.

Also, what is up with all the gold coins in the new game? Does it affect game-play in ways different from previous games?

Edit: I just looked up what happens when you get 9,999,999 coins. That...that is a let down. Still looks like a fun game but I at least expected something different than that.

Sep 16, 2012#102

Jay

Mount & Blade has 2005 graphics... at best. And I've logged more hours in it than any other game combined other than WoW.

Replayability > 5 hours FPS games.

Sep 16, 2012#103

Ravenpoe

I've spent all day playing FTL. This is what the graphics look like.

Sep 16, 2012#104

Far

My credit card was maxed out and my pledge for FTL didn't go through

So badly wanted to play it, guess I'll just have to wait for the actual release.

EDIT: Oh shit, it is out now!

Sep 16, 2012#105

Yoshimickster

Ravenpoe said:
I've spent all day playing FTL. This is what the graphics look like.

SO BEAUTIFUL! And only 9 bucks!

Sep 16, 2012#106

SpecialKO

Anyone know if there are there any plans to bring it to iOS?

Would love a game like this on my commute.

Sep 16, 2012#107

Ravenpoe

It really is an awesome game. If I get boarded, I'm fucked. My crew can't fight for shit.[DOUBLEPOST=1347836484][/DOUBLEPOST]

SpecialKO said:
Anyone know if there are there any plans to bring it to iOS?

Would love a game like this on my commute.

I dunno, but it seems like it would play great on a tablet.

Sep 16, 2012#108

Bowielee

ThatNickGuy said:
I don't mind them. There's been quite a few good, modern 2-D platformers with modern graphics.

My problem is that now, there seems to be TOO many of them being made.

I'd kill for a Viewtiful Joe on current gen hardware.

Sep 16, 2012#109

Yoshimickster

Viewtiful Joe I will admit meshes perfectly with its CG. Especially since a lot of the game-play involves close-up visuals. Now if only Capcom wasn't run by a bunch of MORONS and didn't CANCEL CLOVER we would still have great 3-D side scrollers like this. I still haven't beaten that game, even though I've had it for years.

Sep 17, 2012#110

Jay

Ravenpoe said:
I've spent all day playing FTL. This is what the graphics look like.

Grabbed it, played an hour of it. Loved it.

Then Mantis bastards boarded my ship and started killing my crew. I stopped playing for the night.

Tonight I play again.

Any tips for the game?

Sep 17, 2012#111

bhamv3

Psht, you're all graphics whores. I play Dwarf Fortress. Its graphics look like this:

In case it wasn't obvious, this is the outdoor entrance to my walled fortress, with the main approach lined with weapon traps. The surrounding environment is grassy and forested, though the trees inside my fortress walls (and near the outside of my walls) have all been cut down. There are staircases on the inside of my walls, leading up towards the ramparts, where my archers have 360 degree visibility to shoot at attackers. The pools of stagnant water near my fortress have all been paved over, so people don't accidentally fall in, for example when my soldiers are fighting a goblin siege. The trade depot is just inside the front entrance, while someone's discarded sock lies just outside the southern wall.

Sep 17, 2012#112

Gilgamesh

bhamv3 said:
Psht, you're all graphics whores. I play Dwarf Fortress. Its graphics look like this:

View attachment 8086

In case it wasn't obvious, this is the outdoor entrance to my walled fortress, with the main approach lined with weapon traps. The surrounding environment is grassy and forested, though the trees inside my fortress walls (and near the outside of my walls) have all been cut down. There are staircases on the inside of my walls, leading up towards the ramparts, where my archers have 360 degree visibility to shoot at attackers. The pools of stagnant water near my fortress have all been paved over, so people don't accidentally fall in, for example when my soldiers are fighting a goblin siege. The trade depot is just inside the front entrance, while someone's discarded sock lies just outside the southern wall.

Sep 17, 2012#113

Jay

I'd love Dwarf Fortress but I simply can't get over the graphics. Just.. do something... give me some pixels. At least at the NES level.

Sep 17, 2012#114

Ravenpoe

Jay said:
Grabbed it, played an hour of it. Loved it.

Then Mantis bastards boarded my ship and started killing my crew. I stopped playing for the night.

Tonight I play again.

Any tips for the game?

Stay out of Mantis space. Those fuckers love to board, and mantis have the strongest attack of the races.

If you upgrade your blast doors, you can delay them. Try to funnel them to your med bay (preferably level 2 medbay) and fight there. Don't try opening the air locks, they'll bust down everything before they suffocate.

If you have a bomb teleporter, you can target rooms of your own ship. Some of the bomb types are made to damage personnel and not hull.

Also, upgrade your sensors to level 2. Being able to see the enemy crew is awesome, and you get the most scrap if you kill the crew and not the ship.

Sep 17, 2012#115

Jay

MORE TIPS

Are drones worth it?

Sep 17, 2012#116

Ravenpoe

Jay said:
MORE TIPS

Are drones worth it?

They can be. If you get to the fifth sector, you unlock an engi ship that's outfitted with a drone bay and ion cannons. I had a pretty good experience launching attack drones to whittle down an enemy while the ion cannons kept their shield and weapons locked down. Drones seem like an all or nothing, though. Go big or go home. On the plus side, I don't feel bad about sacrificing anti personnel drones to take down boarders. And if you can find a schematic for boarding drones... Those are amazing.

Sep 17, 2012#117

GasBandit

What made me run screaming from dwarf fortress wasn't the graphics, I can deal with ascii - it was the interface. The whole thing is just so damned unintuitive.

Sep 17, 2012#118

LordRendar

Jay said:
MORE TIPS

Are drones worth it?

Grind.Stay in a sector as long as possible.

Nebula sectors are your friends.choose it over civ/friendly space.Gives you more time to grind

Always return the crewmember to his station after fighting/repair/firefighting.They gain xp,which give bonuses to the station they are at.

I love drones.You get more bang out of your buck from 1 drone then a missle.Stunlock the enemy ship with an ion cannon and let your drones do the rest.

Sep 17, 2012#119

GasBandit

LordRendar said:
Grind.Stay in a sector as long as possible.

Did somebody say GRIND?

Sep 18, 2012#120

Draxo

/rant mode on.

The 'graphics are all and story and game play can take a back seat' approach to game creation.
The over-abundance of copy and paste shooters. (I freaking hate shooters.)
Leading on from above: the entire 'gotta copy whoever was successful' approach to games(and especially MMOs) that means we get the same crap all year every year.

EA and those like it.
Intrusive DRM.
Arrogant Developers. I'll sum this one up with a blizzard quote. 'They didn't like our game? Gamers don't know what fun is.'

And last but not least.
The gamers themselves. Especially the fact that every time someone tries to get a bit of unity to nake things better, a segment of these dumb Fs will start attacking the community as if the developers have a gun at their head arguing for crushing their own consumer rights and their own market of games as if if their fellow gamers win a case or whatever that they'll stop getting their copy pasted generic boring shooter every 3 months.

I think half the problem is that 13 year olds with no life experience, understanding of the issues or even their own money to argue on behalf of ('parents wallet wtf!') have just as much voice as the working adult who has seen the devolution of the industry first hand who gets slim pickings every year when they used to have an abundance of good games to play.

yeah i'm an old school RPG gamer, and the crap graphics fest RPGs aimed at weaboo's that get spewed out these days is nearly unplayable to me. (note: if you enjoyed FF13 or star ocean the last hope or whatever, don't feel like i'm attacking you.. just venting. if you like it fine, but I havent enjoyed a FF since 9. I feel kind of abandoned here.)

Gared said:
Going back to the point of hating the gamers more than the games themselves, the thing that irritates me the most is the insane amount of whining about power levels and balance and, most importantly, the fact that no one seems to see a character type more powerful than their own and say "Wow! That's awesome, I want to be able to do that!" Instead they see something more powerful than they are and say "That's OP, you have to nerf it down to what I can do!" And all we're left with is a pile of mediocre crap.

Gotta go with this. Its been my bane in more than video games: ever since the internet got involved in D&D the 'every class must be balanced' crap has seen more nerfing to my immersion in these games than anything else. Its why I love AD&D, an RPG from pre internet whining days. A high level wizard would F you up and he should do. Waving around a sharpened chunk of steel is -never- going to be equal to throwing fire and lightning, teleporting and being invisible. It can't. It shouldn't. When I roll up a thief I don't expect to be the powerhouse the wizard is at high levels. But I have my role, my concept and its not like I ever stop being useful in a group as long as the group works together. Everyone is good at different things and i'm happy with that. Example f what I mean: overbalancing based on the 15 minute combat day means half the spells that could be useful in immersive 'real life' applications have had their duration changed to 1 round/minute a level which means that for example, you cant get a potion of eagles splendor to make a good impression at the kings court for the next hour. Its had its duration reduced to a few minutes for the '15 minute combat day'. because a bunch of people whined on some internet forums and others joined in. So you get game systems these days balanced around 'balance' whines.

/rant off

Maybe more to come later.

Sep 18, 2012#121

Yoshimickster

My biggest problem with today's gaming are the core games of the Pokemon franchise. These games haven't had any real innovation in years and the fact that people hate the new games because of something as stupid as artwork is idiotic. Five generations of the game and the most innovation the series has had is using more than two pokemon at a time. Yes because having three people on a screen fighting enemies is different from every RPG that ever exist-OH WAIT! Are these games still fun? Eh, yes and no. Will I buy a new one? Hell no. Maybe if they actually change-up the core gameplay mechanics but until then I'll play new RPGs that aren't needlessly out-dated.

No offense to any Pokefans, but this series hasn't progressed very well in my opinion.

Sep 18, 2012#122

Far

Other than wanting to keep the series on handhelds I can't for the life of me figure out why they haven't made a giant 3d version of the pokemon journey. The one they did on the gamecube was not what I'm looking for. One where you go into the forests/caves/water and actually see the little beasts roaming around. They know how they should all act and interact with each other. That whole universe screams mmo or skyrim level of immersion/adventure.With an mmo, legendaries would be tricky to handle though, which is why I think just a straight single player roaming game is the way to go.

I know combat has always been turn based but I think a shift to real time would be interesting as well.

I kinda feel like it's something nintendo has been planning for when/if they start to lose ground just because they know it will be a safe bet and clean up.

Sep 18, 2012#123

Yoshimickster

Far said:
Other than wanting to keep the series on handhelds I can't for the life of me figure out why they haven't made a giant 3d version of the pokemon journey. The one they did on the gamecube was not what I'm looking for. One where you go into the forests/caves/water and actually see the little beasts roaming around. They know how they should all act and interact with each other. That whole universe screams mmo or skyrim level of immersion/adventure.With an mmo, legendaries would be tricky to handle though, which is why I think just a straight single player roaming game is the way to go.

I know combat has always been turn based but I think a shift to real time would be interesting as well.

I kinda feel like it's something nintendo has been planning for when/if they start to lose ground just because they know it will be a safe bet and clean up.

Pokemon pretty much has always gave the impression that they were leading up to something big, especially in the cartoon(what the fuck does the damn GS ball DO?!). And so far they have yet to truly deliver.

The MMO idea has always been cool, and would probably work better financially than that annoying "You have to buy both games to beat it properly" deal. Don't expect anything of this caliber to happen any time soon though.

Sep 18, 2012#124

SpecialKO

Yoshimickster said:
Pokemon pretty much has always gave the impression that they were leading up to something big

Sep 18, 2012#125

drifter

Far said:
Other than wanting to keep the series on handhelds I can't for the life of me figure out why they haven't made a giant 3d version of the pokemon journey. The one they did on the gamecube was not what I'm looking for. One where you go into the forests/caves/water and actually see the little beasts roaming around.

Just in case you haven't seen it:

Unfortunately, it's just a fan render.

Sep 18, 2012#126

Yoshimickster

What I would like is something explaining the TRUE history of Pokemon. Because I will not believe Blastoise is something that evolved . That thing is the product of some form of genetic engineering that's for sure(seriously though, wouldn't that be awesome if that was true?)

Now this may sound weird but my major problem with the Mario games...is the continuity. For the love of all things dark and pure WHERE THE HELL DID THE KOOPA KIDS COME FROM?! They're Bowser's kids right? WELL WHO IS THEIR MOM?! Sub-complaint: Donkey Kong. In Donkey Kong Country the Donkey Kong in that is supposedly Donkey Kong Jr. Yet in Donkey Kong vs. Mario, the Donkey Kong Mario fights is apparently the Donkey Kong from the original games. So...are the Mario games based in the past? Is the world in Donkey Kong Country a world where Kongs rule the land and Toads and humans have died out?! YOU BASTARDS! YOU BLEW IT ALL UP! IT WAS THE MUSHROOM KINGDOM ALL ALONG! DAMMIT, DAMMIT ALL TO HELL!

And yes I am aware of BrentalFloss's hilarious theory.

Sep 18, 2012#127

bhamv3

Yoshimickster said:
What I would like is something explaining the TRUE history of Pokemon. Because I will not believe Blastoise is something that evolved . That thing is the product of some form of genetic engineering that's for sure(seriously though, wouldn't that be awesome if that was true?)

I think "Arceus created everything" is as much of an explanation as we're likely to get.

Sep 18, 2012#128

Yoshimickster

bhamv3 said:
I think "Arceus created everything" is as much of an explanation as we're likely to get.

And then what created Arceus maaaaaaaaaaaan? And if so...why would it make a universe where its creations could capture it? If this is true than this thing is the dumbest god ever.

Sep 18, 2012#129

Hailey Knight

Yoshimickster said:
What I would like is something explaining the TRUE history of Pokemon. Because I will not believe Blastoise is something that evolved . That thing is the product of some form of genetic engineering that's for sure(seriously though, wouldn't that be awesome if that was true?)

Considering some Pokemon are practically gods, it's likely they did it. All of it.

I'm pretty sure Pokemon Conquest is some history though; Pokemon being used for war in ancient times.

The 3DS is capable of providing a full 3D polygon Pokemon world, if Nintendo wants to make it happen on a handheld. I really hope they do. Even my wife, who's had zero interest in a 3DS, says that would get her wanting one.

Sep 18, 2012#130

Yoshimickster

On the topic of Pokemon does anyone else fear its a controlled Eutopia? Think how easy the terrorists are dispatched. Its creepy....

And yeah Quotemander Prime a true 3-D Pokemon game would be neat. Maybe give a Chrono Trigger vibe.

I'd also like to know how the hell 100 percent of Hitmonchan are male. That...that is impossible. They are fully evolved animals there is no way that there wouldn't be two different sexes in the species. The only logical conclusion as I've said before is genetic engineering.

Sep 18, 2012#131

bhamv3

Pokemon of different species can breed with each other. Ditto can breed with every Pokemon, other than unique legendaries. The breeding matchups for other Pokemon depend on their "egg groups", ie their genetic compatibility.

This has led to some strange combinations of Pokemon in the same egg group, which is the origin of the HOT SKITTY ON WAILORD ACTION meme.

Sep 18, 2012#132

Hailey Knight

Yoshimickster said:
Maybe give a Chrono Trigger vibe.

Chrono Trigger was top-down; more advanced graphically than Pokemon, but when people say they want a 3D Pokemon, they mean with polygon graphics, a camera you can rotate, etc. Stuff many have come to expect out of a modern video game.

Sep 18, 2012#133

Jay

Sep 19, 2012#134

Yoshimickster

Quotemander Prime said:
Chrono Trigger was top-down; more advanced graphically than Pokemon, but when people say they want a 3D Pokemon, they mean with polygon graphics, a camera you can rotate, etc. Stuff many have come to expect out of a modern video game.

Right, right....is it weird that when I think of more innovative gameplay than Pokemon I think of a game realeased a YEAR before Pokemon? My comment on the game being and has been dated still stands.

And yeah if they made a Pokemon game like that that would be FUCKING RAD!

Sep 19, 2012#135

Hailey Knight

Yoshimickster said:
Right, right....is it weird that when I think of more innovative gameplay than Pokemon I think of a game realeased a YEAR before Pokemon? My comment on the game being and has been dated still stands.

And yeah if they made a Pokemon game like that that would be FUCKING RAD!

Chrono Trigger was also a SNES game while Pokemon came out on the original Gameboy. It's like comparing a NES game against a SNES; the latter will likely be superior.

Sep 19, 2012#136

AshburnerX

I think it's a bit unfair to claim they haven't done anything. They've done a SHITLOAD to balance the games between generations, including adding in new element types (Steel and Dark), simplifying stats, and just adjusting what attacks do and how much damage they do, as well as introducing attacks with new, interesting ways to affect the battlefield. That's the real thing they do each generation: balance the fuck out of everything for the official tournaments. They also add lots of fun things to do each generation, like the contests (which I miss).

No... the real problem with Pokemon? Their continued use of stats and mechanics they don't explain in game and you have no way of knowing how to manipulate without dumping the fucking rom. Effort Value should have been a readable stat 3 generations ago and they should explain how it works at the VERY START of the game so you can train your Pokemon the way you want. They also need to make it so the GTS actually works, instead of being full of people looking to trade a lvl. 5 Magikarp for a Legendary. Perhaps adding in a weighted trade system so you can't clutter the system with trades you'd never make.

Sep 19, 2012#137

Hailey Knight

While I agree that EVs should be viewable, I don't think there's anything you can do about them once you fuck them up.

That said, at least we can now see what personality affects which stats based on color coding in the stats menu on Black/White.

Sep 19, 2012#138

AshburnerX

I think a way to improve it would be to allocate the stat bonuses based on a weighted scale and just let people gain more EVs if they made a mistake. This way you can save EV training for the end of the game, instead of something you HAVE to consider if you want to use your starter in your team.

Sep 19, 2012#139

Yoshimickster

Quotemander Prime said:
Chrono Trigger was also a SNES game while Pokemon came out on the original Gameboy. It's like comparing a NES game against a SNES; the latter will likely be superior.

True true, but I still feel the RPG game-play was lax even for a Gameboy game. I mean hell...HAVE YOU SEEN THE ORIGINAL BATTLE BACK-GROUNDS?!! What? Couldn't make some easy black back-grounds? Huh? Really? The battery and memory seriously couldn't handle a back-ground for Pokebattles? Well Game-freak while I sympathize I feel you should've waited at least a few more months to release it to develop a better battery and memory. I am glad we had this imaginary chat.

And on the topic of Steel and Dark I don't really feel it changed the game that much. I mean yeah they were new stats, but to me its just adding to more things that are weak or stronger against other things. Its neat design-wise sure but gameplay wise it personally leaves me feeling flat.

Sep 19, 2012#140

Hailey Knight

I hate to ask this, but were you alive back when the original Gameboy was a thing? There really wasn't anything they could've done without cluttering up that tiny square anymore than the Pokemon pixels themselves already did. Looking back, I'm amazed I stared at that screen for so long without my eyes falling out. Just a glance at the virtual console Gameboy games you can download to the 3DS, I don't see anything that doesn't look atrocious nowadays, even the Mario games.

Sep 19, 2012#141

Yoshimickster

BEHOLD-

Look at those Easter Island heads! Simple, easy designs. THAT-is the kind of graphics I'd have like to see in a G-1 Pokebattle back-ground. Like maybe a rock or something in the back or fore-ground. Hell, it could be the same back-ground! A simple black blotch in the back-ground, maybe a line cloud. I know the game-boy graphics are bad by today's standards but they could have stilled worked on it a smidge.

Sep 19, 2012#142

AshburnerX

I'm more amazed I used to carry that thing around. It was like lugging around a Soviet-made cellphone.

Sep 19, 2012#143

Hailey Knight

There's no room on that screen already without making it cluttered. Even worse when you consider the evolved versions of those two and how much space they then take up.

Sep 19, 2012#144

Yoshimickster

Quotemander Prime said:
There's no room on that screen already without making it cluttered. Even worse when you consider the evolved versions of those two and how much space they then take up.

I disagree. There is a white box to the left of Charmander of the top monster, you could maybe put in a small object in there. You could also maybe put like a rock or some grass there. And maybe a cloud made of light lines behind the top Pokemon, maybe in the corner of the screen. And last but not least put a happy little tree, and that'll be our little secret.

AshburnerX said:
I'm more amazed I used to carry that thing around. It was like lugging around a Soviet-made cellphone.

I had a Game-boy pocket. It was Red, my favorite color. Best Christmas ever.

Sep 19, 2012#145

Hailey Knight

Yoshimickster said:
I disagree. There is a white box to the left of Charmander of the top monster, you could maybe put in a small object in there. You could also maybe put like a rock or some grass there. And maybe a cloud made of light lines behind the top Pokemon, maybe in the corner of the screen. And last but not least put a happy little tree, and that'll be our little secret.

Any of those would've cut off Kangaskhan's head.

Sep 19, 2012#146

Yoshimickster

Couldn't they

Quotemander Prime said:
Any of those would've cut off Kangaskhan's head.

Couldn't Kanghaskhan's graphic just over-lap it? He could be the top layer.

Sep 19, 2012#147

bhamv3

There are EV-reducing berries in the games, in case you screw up your EVing.

Bear in mind though that, generally speaking, EV training is only necessary if you want to get into the competitive scene. EV training (or, heck, natures) is largely unnecessary to enjoy the single-player game.

Sep 19, 2012#148

Hailey Knight

They couldn't even animate the damn things.

I really think you're overestimating the Gameboy's display and pinning frustration for a lack of change on a 15 year old franchise against its beginnings... because they didn't put in a pointless rock or tree that would be partially-obscured by several of the Pokemon sprites as it was? It's ridiculous.[DOUBLEPOST=1348113980][/DOUBLEPOST]

bhamv3 said:
There are EV-reducing berries in the games, in case you screw up your EVing.

Bear in mind though that, generally speaking, EV training is only necessary if you want to get into the competitive scene. EV training (or, heck, natures) is largely unnecessary to enjoy the single-player game.

This is true; and I figure anyone who's going to bother with it is probably keeping track anyway. One of the few useful functions for the bottom screen on Pokemon Pearl/Diamond/Platinum was the counter app. I never used it for anything besides EVs, but it worked great.

Sep 19, 2012#149

Yoshimickster

Quotemander Prime said:
They couldn't even animate the damn things.

I really think you're overestimating the Gameboy's display and pinning frustration for a lack of change on a 15 year old franchise against its beginnings... because they didn't put in a pointless rock or tree that would be partially-obscured by several of the Pokemon sprites as it was? It's ridiculous.

Well I am a ridiculous man, but I still feel they could've put a little something there. Guess we'll just agree to disagree then.

I remember in Ruby and Sapphire the Pokemon had these "abilities" that they'd have always on during a match. I always felt...conflicted about them. I mean, other than not activating them they are basically just normal effect abilities.

Sep 19, 2012#150

bhamv3

Abilities are interesting, I find, because they're another way to differentiate between Pokemon that might be quite similar otherwise. For example, Infernape and Blaziken are both fire type starter Pokemon, with a secondary fighting type, and both have good stat distributions. But Infernape gets the abilities Blaze and Iron Fist, which make it a decent Pokemon, while Blaziken gets access to the ability Speed Boost, which increases its speed at the end of every turn. This means that after just a few turns, Blaziken is capable of outspeeding pretty much everything in existence. Coupled with its high attack and powerful moves, Blaziken can basically sweep through the opposing team all by itself. Contrast this to Infernape, who's strong, sure, but not a game breaker.

Blaziken is considered by the competitive community to be an Uber, meaning the highest tier of competitive Pokemon, the tier that contains Arceus and Mewtwo and Rayquaza. Infernape, on the other hand, is pretty much never seen in that tier.

Sep 19, 2012#151

Yoshimickster

DAMN! I knew Blaziken was cool, but DAMN!

Also, what is the actual deal with shinys? Are they just a way to trick the player to capture the same Pokemon twice or is there actual power difference?

Sep 20, 2012#152

bhamv3

Shininess was introduced in Generation 2 (Gold, Silver, Crystal). In those games, a Pokemon's shininess was determined by its Individual Values (IVs for short), which were a set of numbers, randomly generated when the Pokemon apeared, that affected a Pokemon's stats. If the IVs were a certain value, then the Pokemon was shiny. The result was that shiny Pokemon tended to be slightly above average in terms of statistical power, but not super powerful. Notably, there was one shiny Pokemon that was always catchable in the games, the famous Red Gyarados.

For Generation 3 onwards, shininess was no longer linked to IVs or the Pokemon's stats, instead it was determined almost entirely randomly (it has to do with your trainer ID number, a secret ID number, and the Pokemon's personality value, all of which are randomly generated, so for all practical intents and purposes it's random). This means that shininess in the later generations has no connection to the Pokemon's power.

Sep 20, 2012#153

Yoshimickster

So what was originally a cool idea to make certain Pokemon have different abilities than they normally would have or be more powerful....are now just the effect of lazy pallet swapping. And I remember Red Gyarodos, he was my favorite ! He was a Gyarados- BUT RED!

Sep 20, 2012#154

Frank

Capcom.

I hate Capcom.

Mega Man Legends 3. Mega Man Universe. Mega Man Online. All cancelled.

iPhone game.

It looks absolutely horrendous from the 3 seconds of gameplay they barely managed to squeeze into that.

Sep 20, 2012#155

Yoshimickster

I've lost all faith in Capcom the moment they booted Clover just so they could get the Okami and Viewtiful Joe franchises. Fuckin' dicks. Also they still haven't realeased Miles Edgeworth Ace Attorney Investigations 2. GIMME MY GAME ASS-HOLES!

Sep 20, 2012#156

AshburnerX

Yoshimickster said:
I've lost all faith in Capcom the moment they booted Clover just so they could get the Okami and Viewtiful Joe franchises. Fuckin' dicks.

Capcom already OWNED all those franchises. Clover was just a semi-independent group of Capcom employees. Everything Clover did was financed entirely by Capcom and thus they owned it.

Capcom shutdown Clover because Clover games, while critical darlings, weren't selling. Okami and Godhand were sales flops and Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble and Viewtiful Joe: Double Trouble also tanked. They also shutdown the studio because all three of the studio heads resigned when the old guard at Capcom become less open to new ideas and simply too hard to work with. This foreshadowed Inafune and Okamoto's departures in the years to come.

If you want to play Clover games, pick up stuff by Platinum Games. It's virtually everyone who worked at Clover, but under a new company that doesn't work with Capcom anymore.

Sep 20, 2012#157

Frank

Platinum though has been a shadow of Clover sadly.

Sep 20, 2012#158

Yoshimickster

AshburnerX said:
Capcom already OWNED all those franchises. Clover was just a semi-independent group of Capcom employees. Everything Clover did was financed entirely by Capcom and thus they owned it.

Capcom shutdown Clover because Clover games, while critical darlings, weren't selling. Okami and Godhand were sales flops and Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble and Viewtiful Joe: Double Trouble also tanked. They also shutdown the studio because all three of the studio heads resigned when the old guard at Capcom become less open to new ideas and simply too hard to work with. This foreshadowed Inafune and Okamoto's departures in the years to come.

If you want to play Clover games, pick up stuff by Platinum Games. It's virtually everyone who worked at Clover, but under a new company that doesn't work with Capcom anymore.

Kinda worded that wrong, I meant to say it bugs me that Capcom just booted the original creators and they can make content to said franchises with-out the original creator's consent or insight. Its why I won't buy Okamiden for what it represents even if it is as good as I hear.

Sep 20, 2012#159

AshburnerX

Yoshimickster said:
Kinda worded that wrong, I meant to say it bugs me that Capcom just booted the original creators and they can make content to said franchises with-out the original creator's consent or insight. Its why I won't buy Okamiden for what it represents even if it is as good as I hear.

Again, the creators weren't booted. They left, willingly, because of the corporate culture of the company. They could have stayed and possibly made more of those titles but they jumped ship. But it was always their choice to do so.

Sep 20, 2012#160

Yoshimickster

AshburnerX said:
Again, the creators weren't booted. They left, willingly, because of the corporate culture of the company. They could have stayed and possibly made more of those titles but they jumped ship. But it was always their choice to do so.

Arright, good point.

I can still hate them for not bringing Miles Edgeworth 2 over right? How could it be that expensive to translate it Capcom? The Ace Attorney series is regular part of gaming pop-culture, it would sell. It wouldn't be record breaking but it would sell.

Also, to Level 5....you can take as long as you want with releasing the Professor Layton games. Still haven't beaten Diabolical Box.

Sep 20, 2012#161

Hailey Knight

Yoshimickster said:
Well I am a ridiculous man, but I still feel they could've put a little something there.

To me that's the kind of perspective that made George Lucas stuff every empty corner of Mos Eisley with CGI critters and droids in the Star Wars special edition.

Sep 20, 2012#162

sixpackshaker

A wretched hive of scum and villainy should not be filled with a bunch of WHIMSY!

Sep 20, 2012#163

Yoshimickster

Quotemander Prime said:
To me that's the kind of perspective that made George Lucas stuff every empty corner of Mos Eisley with CGI critters and droids in the Star Wars special edition.

Hey I'm not bad! And even if I was I at least wouldn't replace the Marrowak ghost with Haden Christiensen that's for sure.

Sep 21, 2012#164

Ravenpoe

When it comes to design, I strongly feel that less is more. You want focus on your primary attribute and characters, without a bunch of useless stuff cluttering that view. Attention to detail is important, but proper detail does not draw attention to it. Pointless detail does, and it detracts from the experience.

Sep 22, 2012#165

Yoshimickster

All-right you guys win. Especially since I realize its ironic for me to realize that me wanting more is weird since my artistic endeavors are mostly minimalist. Though I'd still like at least a cloud in the back ground....

Jan 26, 2013#166

Frank

Hey, Necroing this thread because stuff still pisses me off. Here's something I've been thinking about. In Fallout 3, and by proxy Fallout NV (real 3), it's what, 200 years since the war and no one has thought to fucking sweep up the house they live in? No one? Every building is full of rubble and mess and dirt and gross.

No one has decided, in two centuries, that maybe with a day or two of effort, they wouldn't be living in a rubble strewn hell hole?

Jan 26, 2013#167

bhamv3

Frank said:
Hey, Necroing this thread because stuff still pisses me off. Here's something I've been thinking about. In Fallout 3, and by proxy Fallout NV (real 3), it's what, 200 years since the war and no one has thought to fucking sweep up the house they live in? No one? Every building is full of rubble and mess and dirt and gross.

No one has decided, in two centuries, that maybe with a day or two of effort, they wouldn't be living in a rubble strewn hell hole?

I believe there are mods that address this exact issue. For example, the Fallout Overhaul Kit cleaned the Citadel up, the justification being one of the most advanced military forces in the Capital Wasteland probably wouldn't live in a pigsty.

Jan 26, 2013#168

Jay

SimCity 5 from what I read so far. Perfect example why EA are scumbags.

Jan 26, 2013#169

LordRendar

Explain please.

Jan 26, 2013#170

Hailey Knight

My guess is a lot of micro-transaction bullshit a la The Sims.

Jan 26, 2013#171

Gilgamesh

I think he means how Sim City 5 will require you to be online at all times, even though it's a single player game.

Jan 26, 2013#172

Yoshimickster

Facebook games. Nuff said.

Jan 26, 2013#173

CynicismKills

Gilgamesh said:
I think he means how Sim City 5 will require you to be online at all times, even though it's a single player game.

This, and apparently the closed beta is suffering from Diablo 3 opening night syndrome.

Jan 26, 2013#174

Jay

Gilgamesh said:
I think he means how Sim City 5 will require you to be online at all times, even though it's a single player game.

Quotemander Prime said:
My guess is a lot of micro-transaction bullshit a la The Sims.

LordRendar said:
Explain please.

CynicismKills said:
This, and apparently the closed beta is suffering from Diablo 3 opening night syndrome.

http://imgur.com/a/8gNl2#0

Jan 27, 2013#175

Terrik

Welp so much for that.

Jan 27, 2013#176

Tress

Jay said:
http://imgur.com/a/8gNl2#0

That's fucking terrible. Even for them.

Jan 27, 2013#177

bhamv3

"Ah ha ha ha! The gamers gave us money, but they don't get to play a game in return! It's basically free money! We should've thought of this YEARS ago!"

Jan 27, 2013#178

Silent Bob

I'm not a fan of games like Batman: Arkcam Asylum, Arkcam city, Assassin's Creed, etc...

Although the story is interesting and fun the first time around, these types of games are way too easy and clearly designed for the PS3/ Xbox 360 generation (who want or have no desire for any sort of challenge).

Jan 27, 2013#179

AshburnerX

While I do enjoy Assassin's Creed, I've always felt like the game would be more interesting if you could set up an ambush in advance. Sure, you can trigger your followers to jump a guy in a certain area or put down some proximity mines, but I'd like more trap options and more control over when, where, and how my followers jump a guy.

Right now it just feels like a one many army playing with his food.

Jan 27, 2013#180

Hailey Knight

Silent Bob said:
I'm not a fan of games like Batman: Arkcam Asylum, Arkcam city, Assassin's Creed, etc...

Although the story is interesting and fun the first time around, these types of games are way too easy and clearly designed for the PS3/ Xbox 360 generation (who want or have no desire for any sort of challenge).

But killing people in AC is so satisfying.

Even though I'm a fan of these games, I know what you mean. AC feels like I don't need to figure anything out at all since MMO-style icons will tell me where everything is. I was actually happy when I got lost in AC3 and had to sort out where I was and what to do, because that never happens in that series. Likewise, my favorite parts of the Arkham series are the rooms when there's a bunch of guys and I need to sort out how to take them out one by one without getting filled with bullets, as when Batman's brawling, you can take on 30 guys at once and not get hurt.

I turned off the hints in The Walking Dead and don't use the quest directions/icons in Skyrim so those games can be more enjoyable.

Jan 27, 2013#181

Ravenpoe

Brawling in Arkham Asylum/Arkham City isn't meant to be treated like a fight for your life. It's a puzzle in how to take down all of the guys in the flashiest, batmaniest way possible while achieving the highest combo score.

Jan 27, 2013#182

Silent Bob

Ravenpoe said:
Brawling in Arkham Asylum/Arkham City isn't meant to be treated like a fight for your life. It's a puzzle in how to take down all of the guys in the flashiest, batmaniest way possible while achieving the highest combo score.

To each his own. I'm more of a fps fan.

Jan 27, 2013#183

Ravenpoe

Oh, I'm not saying everyone should like those games, I was more responding to Quotemander.

I'm not a huge fan of FPS games, though some of them I find really fun.

Jan 27, 2013#184

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Silent Bob said:
To each his own. I'm more of a fps fan.

Silent Bob said:
I'm not a fan of games like Batman: Arkcam Asylum, Arkcam city, Assassin's Creed, etc...

Although the story is interesting and fun the first time around, these types of games are way too easy and clearly designed for the PS3/ Xbox 360 generation (who want or have no desire for any sort of challenge).

Surely you can't be serious.

Jan 27, 2013#185

Silent Bob

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
?

Surely you can't be serious.

Serious about what? That I find it more fun to play Battlefield 3 over Arkcam City?

Jan 27, 2013#186

Gilgamesh

ThatGrinningIdiot! said:
?

Surely you can't be serious.

Yeah he kind of double standard-ed that didn't he?

Silent Bob said:
Serious about what? That I find it more fun to play Battlefield 3 over Arkcam City?

That you claimed to like more serious games than the Xbox360/PS3 gen when FPS is all about that gen. Which current gen FPS like Battlefield 3 are all about mindless zero skill.

Jan 27, 2013#187

PatrThom

Silent Bob said:
the story is interesting and fun the first time around, these types of games are way too easy and clearly designed for the PS3/ Xbox 360 generation (who want or have no desire for any sort of challenge).

On a related note, I'm tired of games that require you to replay them until you memorize the relevant fixed patterns. For instance, I kinda like DDR. It's enjoyable on the lower levels where it's just a test of your reflexes. But when you turn up the difficulty, it's no longer a matter of how quickly you can translate what's on screen into your footwork, instead it's just a test of how many times you have played that song/level so you could memorize the moves.

--Patrick

Jan 27, 2013#188

ThatNickGuy

Jay said:
http://imgur.com/a/8gNl2#0

Fucking hell, it's Diablo 3 all over.

I was honestly and legitimately excited when they first announced the new Sim City. As soon as they said that it required a constant internet connection, all my interest evaporated into nothing.

Jan 27, 2013#189

CynicismKills

Silent Bob said:
To each his own. I'm more of a fps fan.

But FPS games are so by-the-numbers at this point they're practically a Madden franchise. I understand if you don't care for the brawler/stealth genre, but disliking them for your reasons and then preferring the most pandering, shallow genre on consoles short of sports games is kind of hypocritical.

Jan 27, 2013#190

Ravenpoe

In fairness, there are some good, quality, high-skill shooters out there.

Jan 27, 2013#191

CynicismKills

On the same page, some of the stuff you can do in Assassin's Creed is definitely not easy. Catching the almanac pages, for one, or protecting your caravans/escaping high threat from guards. Generally you've gotta be quick on your reflexes to get those things done without failing miserably.

Jan 27, 2013#192

Gilgamesh

Ravenpoe said:
In fairness, there are some good, quality, high-skill shooters out there.

Yet he used Battlefield 3 as an example.

Also CynicismKills hit it right on the head.

Jan 27, 2013#193

Gared

Thing I hate: People who don't even bother to try to figure things out for themselves before asking in general chat. The inanity over on PoE's open beta is insane. "How do I walk forward?" "Is this a good gem?" "Where to I go?" "What quest comes after the first one?" "Are there active skills?" "What's the currency?" "How do I get back to town?" "What's the best build for x class?"

Fuck's sake people, play the fucking game for yourselves. Give it a try for 5 goddamn minutes before whining on the chat channels.

Jan 27, 2013#194

Silent Bob

Gilgamesh said:
Yet he used Battlefield 3 as an example.

Also CynicismKills hit it right on the head.

Sorry bout that, insert obscure indie, hipster game here _________.[DOUBLEPOST=1359326504][/DOUBLEPOST]

CynicismKills said:
But FPS games are so by-the-numbers at this point they're practically a Madden franchise. I understand if you don't care for the brawler/stealth genre, but disliking them for your reasons and then preferring the most pandering, shallow genre on consoles short of sports games is kind of hypocritical.

Wait what's wrong with Madden games now? Shallow? It's a video game, bub. Not exactly productive quality time... I just like a challenge or have fun with my friends. Yes, my preferred games are Halo, Battlefield, and Madden with a bunch of friends. How exactly am I shallow because of it?[DOUBLEPOST=1359326787][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gilgamesh said:
Yeah he kind of double standard-ed that didn't he?

That you claimed to like more serious games than the Xbox360/PS3 gen when FPS is all about that gen. Which current gen FPS like Battlefield 3 are all about mindless zero skill.

Not multiplayer. Not at all.

Whatever, I really give zero craps in all honesty. I find Arkham City to be horribly boring and easy. Sue me.

Jan 27, 2013#195

LordRendar

As long as someone enjoys a game,it fullfills its purpose.Dosnt matter if it is a jewel of storytellin, a genre changing blockbuster hit or
a 13th release of the same game,with updated graphics. You buy what you enjoy.Your enjoyment wont lessen just because someone else dosnt like your type of game.

Jan 27, 2013#196

Silent Bob

LordRendar said:
As long as someone enjoys a game,it fullfills its purpose.Dosnt matter if it is a jewel of storytellin, a genre changing blockbuster hit or
a 13th release of the same game,with updated graphics. You buy what you enjoy.Your enjoyment wont lessen just because someone else dosnt like your type of game.

The thread title, if I recall, is "Things you hate about today's gaming". I don't see why I'm getting ganged up for expressing the type of games I hate about today's gaming...

I also hate God of War type button mashers. I suppose that's still in the realm of Arkham City.

Jan 27, 2013#197

Frank

If you play God of War as a button masher, it's probably why you don't like those games.

Jan 27, 2013#198

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Your criticism of those games you listed is better applied to the FPS genre.

Jan 27, 2013#199

Tress

Gared said:
Thing I hate: People who don't even bother to try to figure things out for themselves before asking in general chat. The inanity over on PoE's open beta is insane. "How do I walk forward?" "Is this a good gem?" "Where to I go?" "What quest comes after the first one?" "Are there active skills?" "What's the currency?" "How do I get back to town?" "What's the best build for x class?"

Fuck's sake people, play the fucking game for yourselves. Give it a try for 5 goddamn minutes before whining on the chat channels.

Related: I have a friend who won't play a game until he's read up about how to play it/beat it/get everything. He also won't play multiplayer games against us, his own friends, unless he has some sort of advantage. It's like people won't let themselves be challenged or possibly lose.

Jan 27, 2013#200

Dei

Gared said:
Thing I hate: People who don't even bother to try to figure things out for themselves before asking in general chat. The inanity over on PoE's open beta is insane. "How do I walk forward?" "Is this a good gem?" "Where to I go?" "What quest comes after the first one?" "Are there active skills?" "What's the currency?" "How do I get back to town?" "What's the best build for x class?"

Fuck's sake people, play the fucking game for yourselves. Give it a try for 5 goddamn minutes before whining on the chat channels.

Or at the very least use the internet. I mean damn people.

Jan 27, 2013#201

Bowielee

Jan 27, 2013#202

Gilgamesh

Silent Bob - Noone's coming down on your not liking Arkham. We're tagging on the fact that you claimed it was easy and today's gamers can't handle difficulty. Then you talk about current gen FPS (which are the crux of easy bro-gaming) as your example of something you like.

If you can't see why it'd be easy to poke a hole in your logic, well I dunno what to tell you.

Jan 27, 2013#203

Hailey Knight

CynicismKills said:
On the same page, some of the stuff you can do in Assassin's Creed is definitely not easy. Catching the almanac pages, for one, or protecting your caravans/escaping high threat from guards. Generally you've gotta be quick on your reflexes to get those things done without failing miserably.

Eh... depends on the game. AC1 and AC3 have challenge guard escapes, but the Ezio games made it way too easy. The carriage stuff is pretty forgiving as well. And then Ubisoft is good at coming up with shit that's difficult without being fun, like catching flying pieces of paper, or arranging assassins in a tower defense, or doing side missions for money you don't need for a pointless investment mini-game in a town you only have to go to for quests. Da Vinci flying missions ... ugh.

And yet I buy each entry in the series. I think AC3 will be the last one. I don't like where things are headed since the lead guy left after AC:Brotherhood.

Jan 27, 2013#204

Jay

Quotemander Prime said:
Eh... depends on the game. AC1 and AC3 have challenge guard escapes, but the Ezio games made it way too easy. The carriage stuff is pretty forgiving as well. And then Ubisoft is good at coming up with shit that's difficult without being fun, like catching flying pieces of paper, or arranging assassins in a tower defense, or doing side missions for money you don't need for a pointless investment mini-game in a town you only have to go to for quests. Da Vinci flying missions ... ugh.

And yet I buy each entry in the series. I think AC3 will be the last one. I don't like where things are headed since the lead guy left after AC:Brotherhood.

I liked AC3 but I felt Conner was bland as fuck. Also the whole American Revolution appeal was MEH to me.

I loved the homestead stuff however and the combat was far more interactive.

I severely missed GOOD missions however, you know, the kind where you planned ahead to get to your target? Yeah, barely any of that.

I hated the concept of "optional objectives". Kill 5 guys, including one by jumping on him within 10 seconds. Fucken bullshit.

Oh and final mission is why the game went from GOOD to Adequate. I hate quick time events and this was the mother of them all.

Oh and the hunting stuff was neat as well, a bit like Red Dead Redemption.

Naval Battles are AWESOME.

Crafting and inventory is complete SHITE.

Didn't bother with MP.

Jan 27, 2013#205

T

The_Khan

That there isn't more Okami.

Jan 27, 2013#206

Hailey Knight

The_Khan said:
That there isn't more Okami.

Gods yes.

Jan 28, 2013#207

Frank

The shitty Ace Combat, Assault Horizon is available on Steam suddenly. The good Ace Combats (EVERY SINGLE OTHER ONE) are not.

Jan 28, 2013#208

Bowielee

Quotemander Prime said:
Eh... depends on the game. AC1 and AC3 have challenge guard escapes, but the Ezio games made it way too easy. The carriage stuff is pretty forgiving as well. And then Ubisoft is good at coming up with shit that's difficult without being fun, like catching flying pieces of paper, or arranging assassins in a tower defense, or doing side missions for money you don't need for a pointless investment mini-game in a town you only have to go to for quests. Da Vinci flying missions ... ugh.

And yet I buy each entry in the series. I think AC3 will be the last one. I don't like where things are headed since the lead guy left after AC:Brotherhood.

Are you referring to Enzio as the "lead guy", or do you mean the developer? I honestly don't know why everyone hates Desmond so much, and I actually preferred Altair over Enzio. I do realize that I'm way in the minority, though. Anywho, the entire point of the series is that the protagonists will keep changing as they move through the generations.

Jan 28, 2013#209

AshburnerX

Jay said:
I severely missed GOOD missions however, you know, the kind where you planned ahead to get to your target? Yeah, barely any of that.

I only ever had to plan ahead for a SINGLE mission... and it was a mission for the Hunting society. Remember that stupid bobcat chase? Yeah, I said fuck that and just put a proximity mine in the canyon near the start of the chase. Started it and he runs right into it, blowing him up and making him do cartwheels.

Never felt so satisfied.

Jan 28, 2013#210

Jay

AshburnerX said:
I only ever had to plan ahead for a SINGLE mission... and it was a mission for the Hunting society. Remember that stupid bobcat chase? Yeah, I said fuck that and just put a proximity mine in the canyon near the start of the chase. Started it and he runs right into it, blowing him up and making him do cartwheels.

Never felt so satisfied.

I used the whip thing, managed to get him on the 3rd try. You can't beat his speed anyways.

Yet another quicktime, RUN RUN DUCK RUN JUMP DUCK RUN DUCK RUN RUN event.

There were a shitload of these in the game.

Jan 28, 2013#211

fade

Things I hate:
Other players' attitudes toward newbies: Look, I just got here, and I don't have time to play 10 hours a day. I'd love to play with other human beings, but I don't have the time to figure out how to micromanage the stats and carry around 11 sets of equipment. I just want to play. I'll figure things out, but slamming me to the ground and "LOL NOOB"ing me doesn't help. On the same note:

Grinding: This is a game, not a job. It's supposed to be entertaining. Worse still is the attitude from other players that I'm not entitled to play or complain unless I've spent 47 precious hours holding down the left mouse button to kill mobs that are 15 levels beneath me for that 0.01% chance they'll drop the thing I'm looking for. Gee, golly-gosh, that's fun.

Ease: How about a game that isn't so easy I could sleep through it? It's no fun unless there's actually a chance I could fail. How about an actual penalty for death on MMOs? On that note, how about a difficulty setting that doesn't go from "babies could do this with their eyes closed" to "the villains will come out of the tv and rape your actual physical body" in one step.

Jan 28, 2013#212

Jay

fade said:
How about an actual penalty for death on MMOs?

I miss Asheron's call...

Jan 28, 2013#213

CynicismKills

No thanks on death penalties in MMOs, losing 6+ hours of xp in EverQuest wasn't my idea of fun.

Jan 28, 2013#214

Gilgamesh

You know what I hate? Game series that are great in the first 1-2 because they're near perfect. Then ruined by the 3rd-4th because the developers feel like they have to keep adding more mini-games, more gadgets, more stats/requirements, etc.

A simple example would be 1-3rd Gen Pokemon vs Newer Gens. Sure you don't have to be familiar with every single statistic like weather/temperment etc, but in all honesty, it pushed me away from the games that I liked (the first couple gen) because it got overly and unnecessarily complex.

Jan 28, 2013#215

Bubble181

fade said:
Ease: How about a game that isn't so easy I could sleep through it? It's no fun unless there's actually a chance I could fail. How about an actual penalty for death on MMOs? On that note, how about a difficulty setting that doesn't go from "babies could do this with their eyes closed" to "the villains will come out of the tv and rape your actual physical body" in one step.

I agree with all three of your points, but certainly this one. I like having a bit of a challenge, that doesn't depend on hyperkinetic reaction speed and doesn't think do-it-again-stupid is good game design. Most "easy" modes seem made for my nine year old self, most "normal" modes are too easy at some points with usually some weird-ass difficulty spikes, and most "hard" or worse versions seem to assume you have the time to replay every game 25 times.

Anyway, I prefer modular difficulty settings - separate settings for, for example, campaign and tactical battles in Total War, or separate dificulty sliders for your own resources, build speed, etc, and that of the enemy,...

Jan 28, 2013#216

GasBandit

I think I posted this the first go-round, but I hate social media integration and I hate F2P with Pay-2-Win. Also, I hate timewasting easter egg hunts to artificially inflate playtime (Yes, looking at everybody's favorite, Assassin's Creed) that taunts you with a non-full "completion" percentage.

But most of all... I HATE GAMES FOR WINDOWS LIVE.

Jan 28, 2013#217

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
Are you referring to Enzio as the "lead guy", or do you mean the developer? I honestly don't know why everyone hates Desmond so much, and I actually preferred Altair over Enzio. I do realize that I'm way in the minority, though. Anywho, the entire point of the series is that the protagonists will keep changing as they move through the generations.

Was referring to Connor. I'd have preferred a Desmond game, to be honest.

And I know the point is for protagonists to keep changing, but I would like them to be memorable, interesting, captivating, etc. Ubisoft probably could've done that if they had wanted Connor to be the main character, but it feels like the hero of their game was the American Revolution, and as I said, I don't care. I'd rather that have been the setting than the game's purpose.[DOUBLEPOST=1359416151][/DOUBLEPOST]

Gilgamesh said:
You know what I hate? Game series that are great in the first 1-2 because they're near perfect. Then ruined by the 3rd-4th because the developers feel like they have to keep adding more mini-games, more gadgets, more stats/requirements, etc.

A simple example would be 1-3rd Gen Pokemon vs Newer Gens. Sure you don't have to be familiar with every single statistic like weather/temperment etc, but in all honesty, it pushed me away from the games that I liked (the first couple gen) because it got overly and unnecessarily complex.

On one hand, yes, on another, you're giving Nintendo too much credit. The weather, season, day/night, and a bunch of other factors give the illusion of complexity when they actually affect very little.

The temperament stuff, yeah, that's complicated, however, that was introduced in Gen 2. The only thing Gens 4 and 5 have done to it is make it more visible to the casual player (i.e. highlighting stats in blue and red to show the effects of that Pokemon's nature).

I think a better example is, again, Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft just keeps adding weird, pointless shit (investments, flags, tower defense). I adore the naval combat in AC3, but it should be its own game, not thrown into Assassin's Creed.

Jan 28, 2013#218

Frank

EA, and their mouthpieces in the developers they control

http://www.shacknews.com/article/77584/dead-space-3s-pc-port-defended-by-its-executive-producer

Dead Space 3's PC port defended by its executive producer

by Timothy J. Seppala, Jan 28, 2013 11:45am PST
Related Topics – Dead Space 3, Electronic Arts, PC, Visceral Games, Dead Space Series
Last week, a report suggested Dead Space 3 wasn't getting more than a bare-bones port for its PC release. While developer Visceral Games has rarely offered enhanced PC versions of its games, many other developers are taking advantage of DirectX 11 and new hardware to deliver a higher fidelity experience for PC gamers.
Even publisher Electronic Arts has been aggressively pushing PC development, with Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 being notable examples. When asked about his decision to not make a PC optimized version of the game, executive producer Steve Papoutsis went on the defensive.
"It's confusing to me that this question even comes up," Papoutsis told us. "It's by no means any less important to us; it gets a lot of attention. The PC is a very different platform. As developers, you want to deliver an experience that's as similar as possible on different platforms.
"In Dead Space 2, I felt we made some great strides in terms of controls, responsiveness and even the visual improvements we got into it. We continue to evolve our games as we develop them, but we certainly don't target PC as something that's going to be significantly different. We aren't trying to create disparity in the experience that our gamers enjoy; we want to make sure everyone's having that same experience.
"At our studio, we've always made console games," he pointed out. "The biggest thing is we want to make sure the quality of the experience is consistent across all platforms so we don't have one userbase saying it's better on their system."
On PC, Dead Space and Dead Space 2 could easily hit 50 and 60 frames per second, and featured advanced rendering options for better shadows and anti-aliasing. While we don't expect that to change for Dead Space 3, the decision to not make a fully optimized PC version nonetheless sticks out.
"The fact that we're allowing you to control the game with a mouse and keyboard immediately makes the game feel different," Papoutsis said. "Working with the community, we found some people wanted to map the controls a little differently because of disabilities and we supported that [in Dead Space 2]. It's a confusing question and I hope my answer brings a little bit of light to it. We seem a little bit discredited for the amount of effort that goes into it, quite honestly.
"We want it to be great on all systems, that's our approach."

Jan 28, 2013#219

GasBandit

All I gotta say is Game Grumps better have gotten paid by EA for the bit they did on Dead Space 3. PAID.

Jan 28, 2013#220

Frank

THEY'RE ALLOWING US TO CONTROL THE GAME WITH A MOUSE AND KEYBOARD.

HOW DARE PEOPLE SUGGEST THEY'RE HALF-ASSING THE PC PORT.

Jan 28, 2013#221

Jay

So what, it won't be in DX 11? What year are we in again?

Jan 28, 2013#222

Frank

2005, where the industry has stuck since the release of the 360.

Jan 28, 2013#223

CynicismKills

Frank said:
THEY'RE ALLOWING US TO CONTROL THE GAME WITH A MOUSE AND KEYBOARD.

HOW DARE PEOPLE SUGGEST THEY'RE HALF-ASSING THE PC PORT.

Yeah, that's hilarious. I bet the controls are going to be wonky as fuck, too, and nowhere near as good as on the controller. Either make it work or just don't release it.

Jan 28, 2013#224

Ravenpoe

CynicismKills said:
Yeah, that's hilarious. I bet the controls are going to be wonky as fuck, too, and nowhere near as good as on the controller. Either make it work or just don't release it.

That's ok. They'll claim it's that way because they couldn't do blah blah, and some modder will fix it all in 20 minutes.

Jan 28, 2013#225

SpecialKO

Not really surprising. The PC ports for the first two games were reportedly pretty half-assed (but ran smooth as butter given they were also more or less straight ports). It's just not something Visceral has been good at, and EA is apparently not interested in bringing in another studio to do it.

Jan 28, 2013#226

Hailey Knight

I thought the PC version of Dead Space 1 was a lot smoother than the PS3 version. The controls felt more comfortable to me. If nothing else, I liked that saving your game on the PC was something done in-game, whereas on the PS3 version, like all PS3 games, you get blinked out to the PS3 file screen. It's jarring for a game that tries to keep its immersion strong, so much so that your health bar is integrated into your character's image, and yet not in a vague way like the old Resident Evil games.

Jan 28, 2013#227

bhamv3

Gilgamesh said:
You know what I hate? Game series that are great in the first 1-2 because they're near perfect. Then ruined by the 3rd-4th because the developers feel like they have to keep adding more mini-games, more gadgets, more stats/requirements, etc.

A simple example would be 1-3rd Gen Pokemon vs Newer Gens. Sure you don't have to be familiar with every single statistic like weather/temperment etc, but in all honesty, it pushed me away from the games that I liked (the first couple gen) because it got overly and unnecessarily complex.

I feel like pointing out that if your goal is to play Pokemon for fun, then there's really very little stopping you from playing the later gens the same way you'd play the first generation games. Building a balanced team and hitting your opponent with "IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE!" attacks remains just as viable for getting through the game as ever. The stuff about natures, stats, weather, etc are really only necessary for hardcore competitive players.

I mean, I definitely get your point, but I don't think Pokemon would be the best example of it. Assassin's Creed would've been a better example, I think. By the time Revelations came around, Ezio was a walking arsenal who bought out and renovated three cities, collected every single thing there was to collect in Renaissance Europe, and was a master of tower defense.

Mar 3, 2013#228

Frank

Every time I read, or God fucking forbid hear, someone refer to a sidescrolling or topdown shooter as a shmup, I want to reenact a scene from Scanners on them, only with a gun, instead of rad mind powers.

it's this one, in case you didn't understand what I meant.

Mar 3, 2013#229

AshburnerX

... shmup's been the term since the mid 90's. This is nether a new or recent thing. The one that pisses me off is "bullet hell shooter".

Mar 3, 2013#230

Bowielee

I've honestly never heard the term shmup ever in my life, where does that term come from? shoot-em-up?

Mar 3, 2013#231

AshburnerX

Bowielee said:
I've honestly never heard the term shmup ever in my life, where does that term come from? shoot-em-up?

Yep. That's exactly it.

Mar 3, 2013#232

bhamv3

AshburnerX said:
... shmup's been the term since the mid 90's. This is nether a new or recent thing. The one that pisses me off is "bullet hell shooter".

Bullet hell refers to a completely different genre of game, doesn't it?

Mar 3, 2013#233

Frank

AshburnerX said:
... shmup's been the term since the mid 90's. This is nether a new or recent thing. The one that pisses me off is "bullet hell shooter".

And it's been awful since then. Shmup is the worst word in gaming culture, right next to entitled.

Mar 3, 2013#234

AshburnerX

bhamv3 said:
Bullet hell refers to a completely different genre of game, doesn't it?

It's more of a sub-genre. All bullet hell games are shmups, but not all shmups are bullet hells.

Mar 3, 2013#235

CynicismKills

Bullet hell games are terrifying, I don't know how people play them without crying themselves to sleep.

Mar 4, 2013#236

GasBandit

Yeah, a bullet hell game is more like a maze game than a schmup. With walls that move. And are made of deadly bullets.

I don't care for them either, myself.

Mar 4, 2013#237

SpecialKO

GasBandit said:
Yeah, a bullet hell game is more like a maze game than a schmup. With walls that move. And are made of deadly bullets.

See that description there makes them sound awesome.

They are not awesome.

Mar 4, 2013#238

Bowielee

SpecialKO said:
See that description there makes them sound awesome.

They are not awesome.

But it's accurate. Bullet Hell games are all about knowing your hit box and the pattern of enemy bullets.

Mar 4, 2013#239

SpecialKO

Bowielee said:
But it's accurate. Bullet Hell games are all about knowing your hit box and the pattern of enemy bullets.

Of course, but that sentence is more enjoyable to read than the actual games.

Mar 4, 2013#240

Yoshimickster

Game of the year editions. The perfect way game companies can say "Hey consumer! You know that DLC that YOU have to pay extra for? Well we just released a version that comes with that DLC, AND it costs the same as the original game!" I will find whom ever made this dick move and EAT THEIR FLESH! Or just continue being an angry nerd ranting on the net, whichever consumes less time...but not flesh.

Mar 4, 2013#241

CynicismKills

I love GotY editions, since I never buy day-one anymore.

Mar 4, 2013#242

SpecialKO

Yoshimickster said:
Game of the year editions. The perfect way game companies can say "Hey consumer! You know that DLC that YOU have to pay extra for? Well we just released a version that comes with that DLC, AND it costs the same as the original game!" I will find whom ever made this dick move and EAT THEIR FLESH! Or just continue being an angry nerd ranting on the net, whichever consumes less time...but not flesh.

I'm actually pretty okay with this. GOTY editions come out because they made enough money on the initial game release and subsequent DLC releases that anything more is just gravy, so they're willing to give it all away for a reduced price a year down the line. It's the exact same reasoning behind the "Greatest Hits" versions that came out in the last console generation.

Sure, I get being grumpy if you bought everything up front, but you also got to play the game and the DLC a year earlier than the guy who sat back and waited for the GOTY. That seems a decent trade-off.

Mar 4, 2013#243

CynicismKills

Hell, at one point my brother traded his copy of Borderlands 1 in for the GotY edition because it was cheaper than buying all the DLC. I wish stuff would go Greatest Hits/GotY more often.

Mar 4, 2013#244

bhamv3

Yeah, I'm happy waiting and getting the GotY editions. Waiting for Skyrim's, at the moment.

Mar 5, 2013#245

Yoshimickster

Clearly I'm the minority on this, but I don't care. I still find it irksome.

Mar 5, 2013#246

Bubble181

By buying Day One, you get far more "newness" - you can learn and play with other people exploring for the first time, you can see new things, learn new things. If you buy the GotY edition, odds are there are at least 12,500 walkthroughs, best-builds, cookie-cutter builds, cheats, etc out. Everybody already knows what happens. Nobody cares that you just took down the Imperial Black Dragon of Doom - everybody knows that's just the end boss for Act II and that he's very weak vs poison.

I think it's a fair trade-off. If you're willing to wait a year to buy it, because you do'nt haev time for games all the time anyway, it's good. It's the same - b ut less pronounced -as bargain bins. Or big holiday sales. I won't - and don't - spend $50 on pretty much any game, unless it's CD Projekt Red - and eve there, it's more a show of support than because I want to play right away (still haven't played through the Witcher 2 but bought it as pre-order

)

Mar 5, 2013#247

Necronic

GasBandit said:
Yeah, a bullet hell game is more like a maze game than a schmup. With walls that move. And are made of deadly bullets.

I don't care for them either, myself.

Is a bullet hell shooter the same thing as a cave shooter?

Mar 5, 2013#248

fade

I usually wait about a year (or more) to buy a new game. When I see a new one I like, I think, "see you next year, baby".

Mar 5, 2013#249

Ravenpoe

Yoshimickster said:
Clearly I'm the minority on this, but I don't care. I still find it irksome.

This works in the same way that games being cheaper a year after their release works. If you buy a game at launch for $60, are you then upset when it drops to $40 in a year?

Mar 5, 2013#250

Hailey Knight

Ravenpoe said:
This works in the same way that games being cheaper a year after their release works. If you buy a game at launch for $60, are you then upset when it drops to $40 in a year?

For a lot of games it doesn't even take a year.

Then for some Nintendo games the price never seems to drop.

Mar 5, 2013#251

AshburnerX

Quotemander Prime said:
For a lot of games it doesn't even take a year.

Then for some Nintendo games the price never seems to drop.

Nintendo keeps it's game prices artificially high because they say that a bargain price makes people think it's not a great game, at least in the eyes of the non-gaming parents. I think they are lying and just keep them high because it adds a few dollars.

Mar 5, 2013#252

Necronic

Not sure what was funny about my post. I vaguely remember there being something called a cave shooter which had ridiculous amounts of bullets. I googled it and all I could find was that there is a developer for bullet hell games called CAVE, so maybe that's where I heard the name.

I remember playing this one SNES game called g-force or something like that that was an early bullet hell game. It wasn't so much that there were an insane amount of bullets, but that the attacks could come from all sides of the screen so you couldn't jus sit on the back of the screen. I remember really liking it, but it was a definite kick in the balls.

Mar 5, 2013#253

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Is a bullet hell shooter the same thing as a cave shooter?

I'd never heard that term before, but doing a little googling revealed to me that CAVE is a company that makes arcade games that I'd classify as bullet hells. I think it's a "kleenex vs tissue" issue.

Get a load of this crap around 30 seconds in.

Mar 5, 2013#254

Gilgamesh

How the fuck is that fun?

Mar 5, 2013#255

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
How the fuck is that fun?

As I said, I don't care for it, myself.

Mar 5, 2013#256

Gilgamesh

I'm pretty sure that's a tiny niche market.

Mar 5, 2013#257

Necronic

That's a bit insane....

But I think that the trick is to not think of t as a shooter, but as a fast paced hand eye coordination game, like snake, with a thin skin of a shooter on toP of it.

Mar 5, 2013#258

CynicismKills

Gilgamesh said:
I'm pretty sure that's a tiny niche market.

It's a niche, but it's mainly big in Japan. Look up the Touhou series of games for a really strange experience.

Mar 5, 2013#259

Frank

It's niche in Japan too.

Mar 5, 2013#260

CynicismKills

Frank said:
It's niche in Japan too.

Yeah, I should have clarified that. The Touhou games, for example, are all fan-made and none are really made by a dev company (or they weren't, I'm not sure now). The whole thing's centered on girls with magic powers and has spawned all sorts of crazy fan-made projects (manga, short animations, more games, etc).

Mar 12, 2013#261

Frank

When DLC things are called "packs". My hate is completely irrational. Hey, this new game I like has 10 different DLCs at launch, there's the Winning the Game Win Pack and Plus One Extra Super Ammo Pack and With This Gun You Might As Well Have Just Put In An Invincibility Code Pack.

When I see the words pack in DLC, or some sort of microtransactiony thing, I just get filled with rage. All I can think of is: Fuck your stupid fuck game and it's stupid fuck packs right up their stupid fuck asses.

Shit like this: http://www.destructoid.com/microtransactions-coming-to-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-248467.phtml

Mar 12, 2013#262

Azurephoenix

Firepower pack!!!

Mar 12, 2013#263

sixpackshaker

Azurephoenix said:
Firepower pack!!!

For some reason when I read that I think...

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

Mar 12, 2013#264

Azurephoenix

sixpackshaker said:
For some reason when I read that I think...

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

Well that just makes you totally awesome! The Terminator rules!

(I suspect that's not the first thing Frank will think of though)

Mar 12, 2013#265

GasBandit

At least they don't call them "Combo Pak" with a P-A-K like in grocery stores.

Mar 12, 2013#266

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
When DLC things are called "packs". My hate is completely irrational. Hey, this new game I like has 10 different DLCs at launch, there's the Winning the Game Win Pack and Plus One Extra Super Ammo Pack and With This Gun You Might As Well Have Just Put In An Invincibility Code Pack.

When I see the words pack in DLC, or some sort of microtransactiony thing, I just get filled with rage. All I can think of is: Fuck your stupid fuck game and it's stupid fuck packs right up their stupid fuck asses.

Shit like this: http://www.destructoid.com/microtransactions-coming-to-call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-248467.phtml

One of those 'packs' includes the ability to take more screenshots.

..........

I have no words.

Mar 12, 2013#267

SpecialKO

Ravenpoe said:
One of those 'packs' includes the ability to take more screenshots.

..........

I have no words.

That's a little odd, but it seems clear that what you're really paying for is the extra slots. I'm not sure why they wouldn't include the screenshot thing in a client upgrade, since they're not even really what that DLC is for.

Mar 12, 2013#268

Gilgamesh

Azurephoenix said:
Firepower!!!

Forums