"...does little to placate my righteous fury."
Careful, popping righteous fury means you'll pull aggro. =D
Careful, popping righteous fury means you'll pull aggro. =D
Critical Miss: Space Marine
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Untrue!The_Emperor said:
Tech-priests DO experiment. Just slowly and carefully and never quite able to reach the level of the Dark Age of Technology. And usually, their efforts are either branded as heretical or are simply not as good as what humanity used to be able to make.
And then there is always the 'hey look this totally not new or experimental ancient relic i found under my bed' style of uncovering "existing" knowledge.Namewithheld said:
And on that note, there's lot of archeological research going on to uncover archeotech left from the dark age of technology.
Yup!nyysjan said:
Which is why we need a Rogue Trader game. Because Rogue Traders are the few Warhammer 40,000 characters that are both free and powerful. Imagine a Mass Effect style game...in Warhammer 4nnnghhh
I just...came...
This strip made me think. Space Marine isn't really greyish-brown at all - for the most of the game you're looking at bright green and royal blue. The environments are brownish-red, but that's not the colour of the game. Grey-brown is usually a filter that universally affects the game's visuals.
Also, Space Marine also isn't about muscular space marines, it's about power-armoured, super-strength space marines. Plus, it's used the universe of a tabletop strategy game and bought it to life. Not taken an existing, strategy game that was doing fine, and turning it into an FPS. I don't get it. Warhammer already has an FPS anyway, Fire Warrior, so Space Marine isn't exactly the first time the universe has been exploited in an action-game.
And Space Marine is nothing like Gears of War. Gears is about macho-manly-men waving their existential cocks around and being totally rad, shouting obscenities and breaking all the rules as they try to protect, y'know, the Earth, and Space Marine is about ultra-serious, Emperor's-finest, best-at-their-job and bound-to-their-loyalties religious fanatics cleaning the scourge of the universe off of the planet they want because it has a handful of their weapons on it that they'd rather keep.
So really, I don't know where this criticism of the game is coming from. From... out the ether or something? I dunno, I think you just don't want to like it because you're not enjoying it.
Also, Space Marine also isn't about muscular space marines, it's about power-armoured, super-strength space marines. Plus, it's used the universe of a tabletop strategy game and bought it to life. Not taken an existing, strategy game that was doing fine, and turning it into an FPS. I don't get it. Warhammer already has an FPS anyway, Fire Warrior, so Space Marine isn't exactly the first time the universe has been exploited in an action-game.
And Space Marine is nothing like Gears of War. Gears is about macho-manly-men waving their existential cocks around and being totally rad, shouting obscenities and breaking all the rules as they try to protect, y'know, the Earth, and Space Marine is about ultra-serious, Emperor's-finest, best-at-their-job and bound-to-their-loyalties religious fanatics cleaning the scourge of the universe off of the planet they want because it has a handful of their weapons on it that they'd rather keep.
So really, I don't know where this criticism of the game is coming from. From... out the ether or something? I dunno, I think you just don't want to like it because you're not enjoying it.
I would love a poster of Erin and Sharon making out on top of a copy of pikmin in the World of Warcraft... or if thats TOOOOoooo MUuUCH TO ASK FOOOooooOOOR... then maybe a poster of a seagull making Cory his wife, huhuhuh, I still laugh when I remember that comic.
My friends used to use Blue... my poor goblins...
My friends used to use Blue... my poor goblins...
Ideas...how bout "Spice Effect"...have a button or a shirt with the Garrus saying "I'm in the middle of some calibrations"...I loved that one
In response to the strip and the commentary I will say that I don't think there is much in the way of so called "fogeyism" involved here. Certain kinds of features have become connected to a style of gameplay directed at the lowest human denominator currently being catered to by game companies. Certain types of features tend to show that the developers are aiming for that crowd nowadays and thus have become popular examples of "what is wrong with a game".
Really, it's easier to point towards the features that have been associated with industry trends than to be politically incorrect and just flat out say that your getting tired of the industry designing games for morons. Doing so directly generally results in flame wars, because by definition the problem is a LOT of people being in the gaming community at a
level where they do not belong. The gaming industry is doing what they do because of the numbers, and the money to be made off of them.
It's easier to go off about regenerating health, cover base mechanics, and similar things than to say "Gears Of War is stupid, and it and those games that are imitating it bring the wrong people into the hobby, creating a self perpetuating cycle of degeneration and rot". You attack the components, and your less likely to slot people off.
I've never been a shooter fan, but the basic arguement on this front is of course that things like cover, regnerating health, and similar things have created games that anyone who wants to put the time in can beat. The games being made easy enough to atract players with constant self-validation. You rarely see games nowadays where a player is simply going to be unable to progress because they aren't good enough, no matter what they do. In an enviroment where anyone who wants to can beat a game, it destroys a lot of what made gaming worthwhile to begin with. This can be applied to a lot of differant types of games nowadays, not just shooters.
As I, and other people have pointed out, shooters are generally not "hardcore" despite what a lot of people might want to claim, they are basically farmville for a differant audience. The quintessential non-violent player, or bored housewife, can sit down and play "Farmville" with no real challenge or chance of getting stuck, and chat with all of her similar friends as she does it. Your typical "shooter" is the same thing for a more active/violent crowd, no real challenge overall, and typically a robust multi-player component and community for the same kind of socialization through the games.
Where I think your correct is that we really do need to see the indirect criticism stop, and see these kinds of issues addressed far more directly. Of course in the end it all comes down to the gaming industry itself balancing things out for the betterment of the medium.
Ideally, there would be enough games of various types out there for everyone, but that's generally not what we're seeing. It's possible to make games for "serious" gamers, but such games are expensive, take hard work, and while they turn a profit, it's not overall as profitable to producing an easier, cheaper, product that appeals to more people. Shoveling out social networking/browser based games, shooters, and iPhone apps are what the industry is increasingly focusing on because of the money to be made. The attempt to define shooters as "hardcore" is also part of this, because really that's kind of what the industry wishes was true. As time goes on, look at the current climate for RPGs, with companies like Bioware claiming they are "losing relevency", when really their bottom line is that they realize they can make more money and develop games easier by simply adding storylines and cinematics into what is otherwise a straightforward action enviroment.
The point is that what we're generally seeing is people trying to be diplomatic, even I tend to mince words on the subject a lot more than I probably should.
As far as people who otherwise hold to these ideals changing their position for "Space Marine", well, it's no secret that a good liscence can carry an otherwise mediocre product. Truthfully the guys at "Games Workshop" have been kind of dumb when it's come to marketing computer games through the years. The whole "macho space marine" schtick was pretty much their bag for a long time, and inspired tons of games when they hardly developed their own. Now that we see the original inspiration it can be kind of embarassing on some levels, but fans of the original source material everyone else was copying are going to appreciate it for that.
Truthfully, I think Games Workshop should have learned their lesson years ago when "Blizzard" developed Warcraft as a Warhammer liscence, and then turned it into a massive success (after a name change) after Games Workshop passed on the project. Really, the THQ RTS games are one of their few major, stand-alone successes.
Honestly I've been of the opinion for a while that what Games Workshop needs to do is simply come out with a computer based version of their tabletop game, with all the figures/rules/etc.. present in the game, and where people can actually play a turn-by-turn game of warhammer/40k with their armies of choice via computer. This is neither here nor there though. I always figured they never bothered to try this and have gone the route they have largely because they feared that if they went computer-based people would stop playing/buying the physical products.
Really, it's easier to point towards the features that have been associated with industry trends than to be politically incorrect and just flat out say that your getting tired of the industry designing games for morons. Doing so directly generally results in flame wars, because by definition the problem is a LOT of people being in the gaming community at a
level where they do not belong. The gaming industry is doing what they do because of the numbers, and the money to be made off of them.
It's easier to go off about regenerating health, cover base mechanics, and similar things than to say "Gears Of War is stupid, and it and those games that are imitating it bring the wrong people into the hobby, creating a self perpetuating cycle of degeneration and rot". You attack the components, and your less likely to slot people off.
I've never been a shooter fan, but the basic arguement on this front is of course that things like cover, regnerating health, and similar things have created games that anyone who wants to put the time in can beat. The games being made easy enough to atract players with constant self-validation. You rarely see games nowadays where a player is simply going to be unable to progress because they aren't good enough, no matter what they do. In an enviroment where anyone who wants to can beat a game, it destroys a lot of what made gaming worthwhile to begin with. This can be applied to a lot of differant types of games nowadays, not just shooters.
As I, and other people have pointed out, shooters are generally not "hardcore" despite what a lot of people might want to claim, they are basically farmville for a differant audience. The quintessential non-violent player, or bored housewife, can sit down and play "Farmville" with no real challenge or chance of getting stuck, and chat with all of her similar friends as she does it. Your typical "shooter" is the same thing for a more active/violent crowd, no real challenge overall, and typically a robust multi-player component and community for the same kind of socialization through the games.
Where I think your correct is that we really do need to see the indirect criticism stop, and see these kinds of issues addressed far more directly. Of course in the end it all comes down to the gaming industry itself balancing things out for the betterment of the medium.
Ideally, there would be enough games of various types out there for everyone, but that's generally not what we're seeing. It's possible to make games for "serious" gamers, but such games are expensive, take hard work, and while they turn a profit, it's not overall as profitable to producing an easier, cheaper, product that appeals to more people. Shoveling out social networking/browser based games, shooters, and iPhone apps are what the industry is increasingly focusing on because of the money to be made. The attempt to define shooters as "hardcore" is also part of this, because really that's kind of what the industry wishes was true. As time goes on, look at the current climate for RPGs, with companies like Bioware claiming they are "losing relevency", when really their bottom line is that they realize they can make more money and develop games easier by simply adding storylines and cinematics into what is otherwise a straightforward action enviroment.
The point is that what we're generally seeing is people trying to be diplomatic, even I tend to mince words on the subject a lot more than I probably should.
As far as people who otherwise hold to these ideals changing their position for "Space Marine", well, it's no secret that a good liscence can carry an otherwise mediocre product. Truthfully the guys at "Games Workshop" have been kind of dumb when it's come to marketing computer games through the years. The whole "macho space marine" schtick was pretty much their bag for a long time, and inspired tons of games when they hardly developed their own. Now that we see the original inspiration it can be kind of embarassing on some levels, but fans of the original source material everyone else was copying are going to appreciate it for that.
Truthfully, I think Games Workshop should have learned their lesson years ago when "Blizzard" developed Warcraft as a Warhammer liscence, and then turned it into a massive success (after a name change) after Games Workshop passed on the project. Really, the THQ RTS games are one of their few major, stand-alone successes.
Honestly I've been of the opinion for a while that what Games Workshop needs to do is simply come out with a computer based version of their tabletop game, with all the figures/rules/etc.. present in the game, and where people can actually play a turn-by-turn game of warhammer/40k with their armies of choice via computer. This is neither here nor there though. I always figured they never bothered to try this and have gone the route they have largely because they feared that if they went computer-based people would stop playing/buying the physical products.
I reviewed space marine for a site I write for and despite being a massive 40k nerd I did point out the game, despite being very well made and quite a lot of fun really is just a mish mash of games I and everyone else has played before.
I ***** and moan about grey n brown shooters all the time too but I'm super excited to play Gears 3 this week. My issue isn't that they exist but that SO MANY exist and the reason behind so many being made isn't "we wanna do a great game that is like this" it's "well that other game sold well and it was like this... we wanna sell well too sooo... let's do it as well?"
And then we get 20 shitty gears clones that no one buys because they're shitty gears clones.
The reason I complain about these personally is that the sheer limitless potential of game design across the board is mind blowing but because of the fucked up business side we get so very very few original interesting games anymore that aren't super low budget or indi titles or so very very high budget and well marketed that they can't fail.
The problem is the lack of the middle ground game that may not be perfect but at least tries to do new interesting things or substantially unique takes on existing things. That game is less and less frequent now and instead we get 100s of "meh" games with "meh" ideas because it's now more than ever apparently too god damn risky to dare try anything but what has proven successful. The whole situation is fucked up.
I ***** and moan about grey n brown shooters all the time too but I'm super excited to play Gears 3 this week. My issue isn't that they exist but that SO MANY exist and the reason behind so many being made isn't "we wanna do a great game that is like this" it's "well that other game sold well and it was like this... we wanna sell well too sooo... let's do it as well?"
And then we get 20 shitty gears clones that no one buys because they're shitty gears clones.
The reason I complain about these personally is that the sheer limitless potential of game design across the board is mind blowing but because of the fucked up business side we get so very very few original interesting games anymore that aren't super low budget or indi titles or so very very high budget and well marketed that they can't fail.
The problem is the lack of the middle ground game that may not be perfect but at least tries to do new interesting things or substantially unique takes on existing things. That game is less and less frequent now and instead we get 100s of "meh" games with "meh" ideas because it's now more than ever apparently too god damn risky to dare try anything but what has proven successful. The whole situation is fucked up.
Huh. I found Space Marine to be an extremely colorful game and very unlike most other shooters... unless someone else can tell me of another third person title where you can seamlessly switch between blasting foes at a distance one moment to brawling them beat-em-up style the next. In fact, I have to wonder if the comic's author and I played the same game because his critique is way off the mark.
