I just love how I'm being calm and you're freaking out, apparently shifting into a mocking tone randomly makes your point stronger. Destroying artistic vision...uh I've been seeing quite a lot of artistic vision in ME3 so far so...yeah, I'm cool with it.Zeel said:
Poll: Are We Entitled?
- Thread starter Toilet
- Start date
It's a case by case basis for me. Neither extremes are good.
I don't like the idea of "put up or shut up". It gives an air of complacency for me, although of course it's not that simple. Complacency may be an extreme word for it. But the gaming industry does have its problems, personally I see them with the retail and the publishers.
Self entitled people on the other hand are also annoying. Just because you paid for a game, you are not entitled to make your xbox puke rainbows out of its CD drive. People who make a big deal out of certain flaws as if they got burned should not have bought the game. Not in this day and age anyways.
In regards to DLC, I feel I should be entitled to everything that is on disc before launch, HOWEVER...
I am personally fine with things like skin packs (just for example, the art team doesn't really have anything to do after the game is certified really, so it makes sense to put something like that in, as it brings more money, it gives something for the artists to do, and it's not really an impact to the story). Some people draw the line at different areas, but for me it would be things like game-modes, levels/missions, things that buff you/make the game easier and characters. I think if it's on the disk, it should come with the game.
Despite that though, people are always going to consider gamers to be spoilt because for reasons unknown to me, people who say they will boycott the game buy it anyways.
I personally go for what I think is worth it. If there's something I don't like about the game, I will wait until it goes on sale... if I don't forget about buying it that is. I don't think it's worth more than a minor comment really, and if the internet is already in an uproar... well I don't think I feel the need to make my voice heard via email or over forums really. I rely on my wallet to do that. However if everyone just silently stopped buying games, what the hell are the devs/publishers going to do? They will probably beg you for answers, after their game bombed. I think the pre-emptive complaining has some advantages for the developers.
I don't like the idea of "put up or shut up". It gives an air of complacency for me, although of course it's not that simple. Complacency may be an extreme word for it. But the gaming industry does have its problems, personally I see them with the retail and the publishers.
Self entitled people on the other hand are also annoying. Just because you paid for a game, you are not entitled to make your xbox puke rainbows out of its CD drive. People who make a big deal out of certain flaws as if they got burned should not have bought the game. Not in this day and age anyways.
In regards to DLC, I feel I should be entitled to everything that is on disc before launch, HOWEVER...
I am personally fine with things like skin packs (just for example, the art team doesn't really have anything to do after the game is certified really, so it makes sense to put something like that in, as it brings more money, it gives something for the artists to do, and it's not really an impact to the story). Some people draw the line at different areas, but for me it would be things like game-modes, levels/missions, things that buff you/make the game easier and characters. I think if it's on the disk, it should come with the game.
Despite that though, people are always going to consider gamers to be spoilt because for reasons unknown to me, people who say they will boycott the game buy it anyways.
I personally go for what I think is worth it. If there's something I don't like about the game, I will wait until it goes on sale... if I don't forget about buying it that is. I don't think it's worth more than a minor comment really, and if the internet is already in an uproar... well I don't think I feel the need to make my voice heard via email or over forums really. I rely on my wallet to do that. However if everyone just silently stopped buying games, what the hell are the devs/publishers going to do? They will probably beg you for answers, after their game bombed. I think the pre-emptive complaining has some advantages for the developers.
Because a) it took a lot longer than two weeks and b) nothing in terms of ripping content out, figuring a way to redesign it so it actually works, then figuring out a way to patching it in is ever simple.Zeel said:
In fact, where did you even get that time block of two weeks in the first place? It was not mentioned in the article at all.
I said so far, I assumed you knew I was talking about the demo because, well, what else would I talk about. Insulting my tastes, nice, that clearly shows how tolerant and unbiased you are and clearly you are not a rabid fan haterZeel said:
Oh yeah...seven games in ten years, one made by a different company and one that was a remastering of the first game for only 40$...yeah Mario's got nothing on that. I guess this is the part where I pointlessly try to remind you that people have different opinions and how I thought that the dialogue was excellent and how the kid nearly made me cry and how Cerberus is a bunch of amoral phycopsthic terrorists who only had an enemy mine array ment with shep for the collector incident and would clearly continue to operate against the alliance and council in the future, but by know it'll just go in one ear and out the otherZeel said:
Please re-read the articles (plural), instead of skimming over them. I'll give you a hint, the key terms to pay attention to in the articles are "March", "Late 2009" and "November".Zeel said:
And just because you used a scale tool in one program also translates to adjustment of AI, path finding, updating animations to account for the new size (since she's larger than regular characters, but smaller than the regular golems, animations have to be tweaked for syncing to other sizes), the original time spend ripping the character and resources out, then having to deal with integrating it back in along with updating the gameplay scripts to handle existence or non-existence of the character resources. Add in a couple weeks of testing to verify it doesn't trip over the other content, integrated or not.
But please tell me how I'm wrong and it's just a simple model scale with your many, many years of game developing experience over my own.
Toilet said:
To put it bluntly I think the consumers are entitled to control of their own product. The problem with EULAs is they have never been challenged properly, and most of the lawyers that could successfully fight it are under retainer from the game companies... at least to the point of not being able to take cases against them due to a conflict of interests even if they aren't actively used.
I also believe that core gamers are entitled to better treatment from the gaming companies. Right now we're seeing a classic example of a group of artists and developers selling out. When the potential amounts of money get big enough, the people who made creators popular are usually forgotten in pursuit of the allmighty dollar, irregardless of whether those creators would have been anything without the support of their fans and financing.
The game industry is in the same place right now as a lot of the singers and songwriters from the 1960s and 70s, guys who started out caring about causes and the art, but eventually betrayed all of that for money and became exactly what they were originally rallying people against. The rock star telling their fans that he "doesn't owe them anything" for getting them that far has become a hated stereotype for a reason, and today that's the gaming industry in a nutshell.
While a lot of money can be made from harcore RPGs, and deep gaming experiences, more money can be made from derivitive casual garbage. Especially if they can convince people that isn't what it is. Today the "shooter", first or third person, is roughly the equivilent of Farmville, but aimed at a differant audience, and comes along with the illusion that it's serious gaming. Sort of like how you might have a group of serious rockers with a message turn to soulless, but high selling, bubblegum crap that convinces the people listening that it's still serious rock.
The thing about selling out though is that the new audience of course takes itself seriously, and doesn't see itself as being in some way flawed. They want to see themselves as what the previous audience was like. You'll rarely see a shooter player who puts hours and hours into something klike "Modern Warfare" and similar games admit he's not a serious gamer, and only plays casual games. People like that are why you see an effort to turn everything into a shooter, brawler, or other kind of shallow action game with "serious" seeming graphics implying it's a serious game when at it's core the game itself is well... bubblegum.
Today the industry takes the "we don't owe you anything" attitude towards the people that made them, because like rockers who have sold out, they are making tons of money, and don't care because from their position at the top of the world with seemingly no end in sight, they don't care and feel they don't really need those people anymore, and there is nothing they can do about it anyway. With guys in the game industry like Bobby Kotick zipping around in their private jets, it's easy to see why things have turned out like they have.
See, saying that the game industry DOES owe the people that enabled it to get to this point is meaningless, because it's not like I can actually force them to do anything. All the old guard can really do is score a symbolic point here and there and make the guys we're targeting feel like crap in short doses, but their huge piles of cash quickly assage any such feelings, and they just increasingly shut us out so they don't have to look into a mirror any more than absolutly nessicary.
In theory, there is a big enough industry for all kinds of games to be developed. On paper there is no reason why you can't have casual game development on one hand, and people still developing elaborate, extremely deep and non-casual RPGs and similar kinds of games on the other, in amounts sufficient to keep that audience happy. In reality however the gaming industry has gotten to the point where nobody wants to moderate returns, in exchange for a solid game that appeals to the serious gamers, when for a similar amount of money they could squirt out another casual game, hype it as being something hardcore, and make much larger piles of money. Everyone pretty much leaves the serious game design to someone else, agreeing on principle, but deciding they are going to take the huge piles of cash. The few hold out developers aren't producing on a level sufficient for the demand, and are becoming fewer and furhter between. Many indie companies start out with the intention of making serious games, but wind up becoming victims of their own success and selling out... big companies gobbling indie and small developers and turning them into more soulless fodder is big source of discussion in the industry. Not to mention the growing realization that a lot of "indie" games are not really "indie" but are made to seem that way, being developed by big companies if you follow a long, and frequently convoluted path... leading to the rather cynical question/discussing topic as to whether "indie" has ultimatly just become another genere. Tons of games that look like something that were put together by a few guys as a labour of love were carefully constructed to appear that way, when it really isn't the case, it's a marketing technique similar to mass producing stuff for tourist traps that looks like it's handcrafted but isn't (ie your shell and driftwood display bought on the beach of a small island you vacation on, that actually sports a made in china sticker on the bottom).
I know many will disagree with me, but these are my thoughts, and what I think. I just hope I've articulated it well.
These thought processes on the subject are one of the reasons why I am so brutally critical of the gaming industry on so many levels throughout my posts.
Didn't you hear? Zeel's been in game development for eleventy billion years.ThriKreen said:
He's the father of past, modern, and future game development.
A lowly mortal such as yourself should not dear question him.
And yet I thought it was good, funny things these "opinions". Also hiding from cyborg zombies during an invasion and then running for an evacuation shuttle = should be killed..........K.Zeel said:
BTW drop Halo, Bungie only made 5 of the games, ODST being the only one without it's own engine, and you just brought up to insult me anyway, like attacking my tastes would strengthen your point.
You mean the one that you were running away from on account of it being blown up. I fail to see how common sense works there, espically since husks were in between him and it. Oh, so you just have no self control...that makes sense actually. Well bedtime for meZeel said: