Developers That Rub You The Wrong Way

Anaklusmos

New member
Jun 1, 2010
283
0
0
Outcast107 said:
Vibhor said:
Outcast107 said:
I knew as I said that someone would come up and say "YOUR WRONG AND HAVN"T EVEN PLAY IT!"

Sorry if I have a different opionion from you sir. But Its the same fucking game 12 years ago. The very same. Nothing new at all. Gather min/gas, build/turtle your shit. The campaign is fun, but "RPG" aspect is pretty lame. All thats different is their online. Thats it.

Also Relic, a AWESOME RTS company tries to do things different with each game. And they do it pretty well.
RPG?
Its an RTS.
You are hating an RTS game for being an RTS. Are you even sure that you are playing the right genre?
If you still think your complaint is valid then what do you think about this complaint?
"Dragon age 2 sucked because it did not have gun and was the same level up, collect equipment, hire party member bullshit that bioware releases."
Have you play the SP yet? Please tell me if you did. Cause in the Story, you can make two decision on who to help. Like save a human colony, or destory it due to them being infected by zerg. Why have this choice if it isn't going to play out in the next game? Or use points you get to buy a few different units. So it has a few "RPG" elment in choice making. Next time you try to quote me , do your reseacher.
You can though. If you help Nova then you can research Ghost technology which means you can build Ghosts and if you help Tosh you can build Spectre units. If you help the Colonists (save them) you gain Zerg research, the points of which can be used to research different upgrades and different buildings or units. Or if you get Protoss research same rules apply. The reason it doesn't play out in the next game is because the decisions you make have no influence upon the next game/expansion. Because the next game is about the Zerg, so I don't understand why Jim Raynor helping Spectres would influence how Kerrigan destroys planets.
 

Outcast107

New member
Mar 20, 2009
1,965
0
0
Anaklusmos said:
Outcast107 said:
Vibhor said:
Outcast107 said:
I knew as I said that someone would come up and say "YOUR WRONG AND HAVN"T EVEN PLAY IT!"

Sorry if I have a different opionion from you sir. But Its the same fucking game 12 years ago. The very same. Nothing new at all. Gather min/gas, build/turtle your shit. The campaign is fun, but "RPG" aspect is pretty lame. All thats different is their online. Thats it.

Also Relic, a AWESOME RTS company tries to do things different with each game. And they do it pretty well.
RPG?
Its an RTS.
You are hating an RTS game for being an RTS. Are you even sure that you are playing the right genre?
If you still think your complaint is valid then what do you think about this complaint?
"Dragon age 2 sucked because it did not have gun and was the same level up, collect equipment, hire party member bullshit that bioware releases."
Have you play the SP yet? Please tell me if you did. Cause in the Story, you can make two decision on who to help. Like save a human colony, or destory it due to them being infected by zerg. Why have this choice if it isn't going to play out in the next game? Or use points you get to buy a few different units. So it has a few "RPG" elment in choice making. Next time you try to quote me , do your reseacher.
You can though. If you help Nova then you can research Ghost technology which means you can build Ghosts and if you help Tosh you can build Spectre units. If you help the Colonists (save them) you gain Zerg research, the points of which can be used to research different upgrades and different buildings or units. Or if you get Protoss research same rules apply. The reason it doesn't play out in the next game is because the decisions you make have no influence upon the next game/expansion. Because the next game is about the Zerg, so I don't understand why James Raynor helping Spectres would influence how Kerrigan destroys planets.
That's why I said its pointless to try to have RPG elements in the game. If it not going to be something that hurts/helps me later on rather then just "Do this for this unit to use and we will never speak of this again." It just pointless.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Bioware are really starting to rub me up the wrong way. Not because any of their games are bad as such, but because of the constant assertion that 'they're brilliant storytellers',when they're really not.

What Bioware are good at is characterisation. They give their characters a little more life than your average developer. But good characters =/= good story. In fact, they've been recycling the same story for years now- A once forgotten evil appears and ravages the land/galaxy. Your character, a member of an elite unit, has to travel around, assemble a team, and ultimately defeat it, all the while deciding whether to be a nice guy or an arse.

KotOR: The Sith have appeared once again and are taking over the galaxy. You play a Jedi who has to confront Darth Malak, who is leading their takeover attempt, all the while deciding whether to be Light Side or Dark Side.

Jade Empire: The dead have appeared, and are taking over mythical China. You play a warrior monk who has to confront the Jade Emperor, who is responsible for their return, all the while deciding whether to be Open Palm or Closed Fist.

Mass Effect: The Reavers have appeared once again, and are attempting to take over the galaxy. You play a SPECTRE agent who has to confront Sovereign/Harbinger the Reapers responsible for their return, all the while deciding whether to be Paragon or Renegade.

Dragon Age: The Darkspawn have returned once again, and are attempting to take over/slaughter Thedas. You play a Grey Warden who has to confront the archdemon responsible for their return, all the while deciding whether to be a douchebag or not.

Obviously there's a bit of variation here or there, but the narrative is practically the same for each game, and for a studio praised for their storytelling abilities, it's not even a particularly original narrative. When they start using narratives other than "threat from beyond comes to take over the world", and actually start experimenting with storytelling techniques in a way which justifies their hype, I'll start supporting them again. As it is, they're a studio who make games with unremarkable gameplay and overrated, contrived stories.
This is more or less how I feel about Bioware, too. I like the gameplay in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins, and in the rest less so. The big narratives are really nothing to write home about.

I think the characters are good for what they are. They don't feel as independent or credible as, say, the characters in Planescape: Torment, Prince of Persia:SoT, or Witcher games. (Example: we have no idea how the characters in Mass Effect 2 relate to each other because the game never really shows us.) And they aren't as entertaining as the characters in Psychonauts. The aim seems to be to strike a happy medium between the two extremes, and Bioware seems to be pretty good at that.

They are very good at some things, though. Some of the loyalty/recruitment missions in Mass Effect 2 are inspired. And the whole experience is very polished - none of the gameplay, UI or difficulty issues that affect all the other games I mentioned here. So they're pretty good. It's just that they could be so much better haha.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
OhJohnNo said:
blizzaradragon said:
Another is the bastards behind Metroid: Other M (my brain refuses to remember them for the massive murder they did to that series). Seriously, you have to be pretty damn incompetent to ruin a series that is already so amazingly good and has the ground work already laid out for you. Its proof that almost all Nintendo protagonists shouldn't talk.
That would be the original creator of the Metroid series, directing Team Ninja.
That guy's like the George Lucas of video games haha.
 

Gorilla Gunk

New member
May 21, 2011
1,234
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
and really like their efforts to represent gay characters in games.
This is one of the things I hate about Bioware the most. It's like they got the weird secretary who reads yaoi and writes Twilight slash fiction in her spare time to handle all the gay characters in their games because everybody else was just too damn manly and heterosexual to deal with it. Appreciate the effort Bioware but that's all it is, an effort, a horribly misguided effort and I wish they'd stop or get an actual, real-life flesh-and-bone homosexual on their writing staff because they obviously don't know what they're doing.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Gorilla Gunk said:
Kahunaburger said:
and really like their efforts to represent gay characters in games.
This is one of the things I hate about Bioware the most. It's like they got the weird secretary who reads yaoi and writes Twilight slash fiction in her spare time to handle all the gay characters in their games because everybody else was just too damn manly and heterosexual to deal with it. Appreciate the effort Bioware but that's all it is, an effort, a horribly misguided effort and I wish they'd stop or get an actual, real-life flesh-and-bone homosexual on their writing staff because they obviously don't know what they're doing.
I agree with you that most of the gay romances aren't very well handled, but really only because most of the romances aren't well handled. I just give them props for doing it at all given the general state of the representation of gay characters in games.
 

speakeasysyn

New member
Aug 19, 2010
47
0
0
Bioware: DLC...

My DLC wasn't actually working. I paid money for it and got a piece of shit.

Valve: Buying/Trading items

It's not a BAD idea, but when people are practically stripping for you to trade their shit for you shit, it gets annoying and pulls away from the game.

Square Enix:

When they re-release a game because the profit on the original sucked, THAT annoys me....

Also, their cutscene quality in comparison to their game play quality. They should just make movies instead of video games.
 

pixiejedi

New member
Jan 8, 2009
471
0
0
Gorilla Gunk said:
Kahunaburger said:
and really like their efforts to represent gay characters in games.
This is one of the things I hate about Bioware the most. It's like they got the weird secretary who reads yaoi and writes Twilight slash fiction in her spare time to handle all the gay characters in their games because everybody else was just too damn manly and heterosexual to deal with it. Appreciate the effort Bioware but that's all it is, an effort, a horribly misguided effort and I wish they'd stop or get an actual, real-life flesh-and-bone homosexual on their writing staff because they obviously don't know what they're doing.

HA! That is funny considering I'm pretty sure Mike Laidlaw, the writer for at least DA2, but could be other, is indeed a homosexual himself.

OT: I have to say Valve, I get sick of the whole high horse thing fans are about them. Several people have mentioned DNF and said that Valve isn't like that. The argument isn't so extreme. There needs to be balance between time and quality. A lot of times things can get better with a deadline. Portal and Portal 2 are good, but when I hear reviewers say things like "I feel honored to have gotten the opportunity to review this game" about it makes me annoyed. I didn't like Half Life, at all.
 

Hijax

New member
Jun 1, 2009
185
0
0
Gorilla Gunk said:
What developers rub you the wrong way?

Going to get flamed for this but: Valve. Like their games but they take too damn long to make them. Not asking them to release a new game every year but L4D2 came out in 2009 and they've only released 2 bits of DLC for it, and both were mediocre at best. Hell, they both used the exact same last stage. Most developers can manage that many DLC's in a year. They strive for "perfection" and as Duke Nukem Forever taught us, the longer you take to make something "perfect," the crappier the final version will be. And their relationship with console gamers as been shaky at best. I suspect they just do it for profit, which it seems a lot of mostly PC developers do. 'We want everybody to enjoy our games!' Yeah, right. Don't get me started on the console release of TF2, which they are partly to blame for. Placing all the blame on MS for that is just stupid. And I hate how they've been put up on this pedestal to where nobody can ever say anything bad about them. "But they made Half-Life!" that doesn;t excuse them for doing shoddy business and making half-baked promises they never intend to follow through on. "We're going to release some community maps as DLC for the consoles!" B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

I have some other major developers I'm not suppose to say anything bad about because they made X and X was a great game so that excuses them from any criticism ever but I'm tired now and don't feel like writing anymore.

So again, what developers do you dislike for one reason or another?
I really hate to be the obligatory angry fanboy revenge guy, but here goes:
You say they take too long to make their games, and cite Duke Nukem as an argument that this is a bad idea. This is a good argument, or would be, if it weren't for the fact that none of the problems that exist in duke nukem(or at least, none of the problems caused by the long development time) exist in most valve games.

See, what (i am guessing) happened to DNF was what is sometimes called the Feature Creep. Everyone on the team kept going "Oh, wouldn't it be cool if Duke could do this, [insert feature here]?", and they kept adding it because, hey, the ideas were pretty cool. The long time was spent adding a load of features that weren't thought up as a coherent whole, and they drowned out any merit the actual game might have had.

Valve, however, spends the long development cycles polishing their games. And while i'd be lying if i said i didn't want the games to come out more often, i'd much rather wait my ass off than get anything less than the excellence i've come to expect of valve.

As for the Xbox thing, this is actually the truth, as far as i know. It is literally against the terms of the agreement between microsoft and the developers to release free DLC(including patches), and furthermore it's not supported within the system, as far as i know. What, you'd rather pay for you patches?

Also, the thing about them not linking consoles in general is a valid point. But if you're actually saying that it's wrong for them to want more money, then i'm sorry, but their job is to make money. And if you're saying that the marketing department shouldn't lie about their true motives, then i'm sorry, that is also pretty much their job.
 

Blue_vision

Elite Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,276
0
41
9thRequiem said:
As much as I love them, Mojang, for not testing their patches sufficiently. Yes, Minecraft is still a beta. Doesn't mean you can get away with some of the damage their patches have done (eg, 1.6). I think they've just not transitioned to a "proper" development company, but it still frustrates me.
I will second this. Also because I get the feeling that the team's already made millions off of Minecraft, they figure they can do very little to actually improve the game. Seriously, the last notable game update was way back at the end of October: everything since then has just been little details that could take a full team maybe a day to complete, without breaking the game every single patch.

Not that they have an imperative to keep adding to the game, but with the amount of stuff that minecraft could still have in it, I'm a bit dismayed at how little work they're getting done. But, perhaps they're just making the transition and will improve in efficiency as time goes on.
 

Halo Fanboy

New member
Nov 2, 2008
1,118
0
0
Quantic Dream. Mainly the lead's pretentiousness, his inability to design a game or even write for a game. A couple of others on my mind: Ninja Theory, That Game Company, Tale of Tales and Lionhead. I dislike those guys more for their comments on other games and their own games than I dislike any of their work.
 

Arluza

New member
Jan 24, 2011
244
0
0
Pandalink said:
Arluza said:
Lionhead for everything Fable related.
In what way? The Fable series is an excellent one.
I actually hope to work for Lionhead in the future because of B&W and Fable.
in short;

Too short of games, horribly unbalanced weapon choices, horrible NPC interactions, lack of customizable features in game, stupid bullshit DLC (Black Dye, for example), bland story, Black and White choices in 'ethical options', horrible endings in all Fable games.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Recently, DICE. I understand that EA is responsible for a bunch of PR bullshit, but DICE has been making a bunch of shoddy design decisions. I'm looking at you Battlefield Heroes, with your "Free2Play" approach meaning free to play if you like losing. There is no fucking balance in that game at all.
 

Gorilla Gunk

New member
May 21, 2011
1,234
0
0
Hijax said:
Gorilla Gunk said:
As for the Xbox thing, this is actually the truth, as far as i know. It is literally against the terms of the agreement between microsoft and the developers to release free DLC(including patches), and furthermore it's not supported within the system, as far as i know. What, you'd rather pay for you patches?
Never said I wanted it for free. I would have paid for a TF2 map pack. A lot of people would have. Valve just didn't want to bother with it. They were too focused on making hats.

And patches are free. I've never had to pay to get an update for a game on Xbox unless you count the monthly subscription. Are there really people who believe that?
 

Juk3n

New member
Aug 14, 2010
222
0
0
ValVe - their fanbase is the MOST hardcore, geeky, fanboyish and loyal. The should have 10 times the amount of communication with their fans than they do.