U Mad, Gamers?

[Mokino]

@Pseudonym - actually, the new XCOM deviates from the old formula quite a bit. It only resembles the old games in a fairly superficial manner. It's heavily streamlined and simplified compared to UFO Defense. There was a lot of complaints of consolization even by posters in this very forum.

@Fixer - the new Tomb Raider is really good from the hour I've played of it. My only concern is that it might not be terribly long. It's looking like one of those high quality 6-10 hour affairs. Lara's character is handled a lot better than the previews make it seem too (the previews are mostly all from the first hour of the game.)

@Lautaro - Yahtzee and TotalBiscuit are both entertainers, not serious game reviewers and sadly many are taking them to be the latter. Both have made careers out of nitpicking every little fault they can in games and, TB especially, loves to try and turn small controversies into major things just to generate hits. The point is that you can rarely take either at face value, but sadly many gamers do.

Gamers these days have become a very cynical bunch and I partly blame entertainers like the above mentioned for it. They try and make the old days sound like some sort of golden age of gaming. Which isn't true at all.

The older gaming crowd yearns for the days when their niches (back when gaming itself was a niche) were catered to instead of the mainstream. They strongly dislike the mass appeal games that have changed the face of gaming. The companies are only doing what they have always done: produce the games that will bring the greatest profit. The industry hasn't really changed that much; it's the gaming community that did. The industry has always pandered to the sectors that made them the most money. Those sectors have merely changed over time due to technology and mass appeal.

Then you have the younger generation, the "Facebook generation" who crave attention and will jump onto any bandwagon presented before them. This is the group that made the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy big. This is the group that are the bulk of the rally against DLC and online DRM. They latch onto the topics brought up by the older gamers and create a snowball effect. They are a giant group of mostly young and immature people with little business sense who believe the customer is always 100% right so anything wrong with a game is completely due to greed from the evil corporation.

[Nurizeko]

Also as a side point I wonder how much more 'meh' the gaming industry can become before civilization just says "fuck it" and we end up with people like the crew of the Enterprise-D scoffing at how their ancestors used to sit in front of flashing light boxes instead of going outside/to the holodeck and participating in physical hobbies.



P.S. My preference for a DDC and game manager is with Steam, but only because I think it is a better platform for managing my games and game buddies/groups etc.

Not to mention it has a wider variety of titles available on the store, I suppose origin might make sense had I a ton of EA/origin titles but I actually seem to have next to none.

If only Valve would make and release HL2: Episode 3...

it's like they've given up on serious game development.

[Thorno]

Then you have the younger generation, the "Facebook generation" who crave attention and will jump onto any bandwagon presented before them. This is the group that made the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy big. This is the group that are the bulk of the rally against DLC and online DRM. They latch onto the topics brought up by the older gamers and create a snowball effect. They are a giant group of mostly young and immature people with little business sense who believe the customer is always 100% right so anything wrong with a game is completely due to greed from the evil corporation.

Citation... needed.

[Gorb]

Citation being the comments for any online gamer articles these days

[Thorno]

But I want graphs and essays.

[Lautaro]

@Mokino: holy generaliztions, Batman!

So the people that are against DLC and DRM are attention whores from the "Facebook generation", right? why ask their motives or talk to them if we have Mokino to analize them and reduce a huge group of people to a paragraph.

[Mokino]

Lautaro, I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just saying the issues grow so big due to that generation's penchant for activism (both good and bad.) Many times a lot bigger than they should. When a ME3 ending controversy becomes bigger than 3rd world issues, there's something wrong with the world.

And there is a definite segment of that group that do it merely for attention, whether they just need the attention or think they can be the next Yahtzee and make money from it.

Edit: what I meant is that the issues are usually raised by a cynical older gamer but its the social media generation that makes the topic become widespread.

[Infidelicious]

The sky is violet and everybody who disagrees with me is deluded.

Except you can just... not engage with that person.

You said you liked XKCD Here's a classic.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Stop wasting your time.

The 400th argument over Origin V. Steam with supporting graphs and a statement from the attorney general isn't actually increasing the quality of discussion on the board... you're actually just having the 400th retread argument where people flail at each other and call each other hypocrites and corporate shills in so many words. No matter how good your sources are, or how perfectly you've worded your thesis... you're not going to suddenly change anyone's mind. Because the 20 or so active posters left here are entrenched in their opinions on everything.

Also as far as the conceit of this thread, all hobbies are a hotbed of discontent and bitching and moaning. Because when people are passionate and invested in things they take perceived slights very personally. Watching Soccer/Football is a hobby, and people literally throw blows about it. People riot after basketball games, Pitchfork.org exists. The idea that video games should somehow be above all that is laughable.

[Nurizeko]

Gamers these days have become a very cynical bunch and I partly blame entertainers like the above mentioned for it. They try and make the old days sound like some sort of golden age of gaming. Which isn't true at all.

The older gaming crowd yearns for the days when their niches (back when gaming itself was a niche) were catered to instead of the mainstream. They strongly dislike the mass appeal games that have changed the face of gaming. The companies are only doing what they have always done: produce the games that will bring the greatest profit. The industry hasn't really changed that much; it's the gaming community that did. The industry has always pandered to the sectors that made them the most money. Those sectors have merely changed over time due to technology and mass appeal.

Then you have the younger generation, the "Facebook generation" who crave attention and will jump onto any bandwagon presented before them. This is the group that made the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy big. This is the group that are the bulk of the rally against DLC and online DRM. They latch onto the topics brought up by the older gamers and create a snowball effect. They are a giant group of mostly young and immature people with little business sense who believe the customer is always 100% right so anything wrong with a game is completely due to greed from the evil corporation.

You might have well just said "just take what you're given and stop complaining you clapped out old dinosaurs, you're out of touch and influencing the young sheeple".

It would have been shorter and taken less time to write and read. :P

Older gamers complain because there is a distinct decline in quality and providing for customer demand. Younger gamers complain because they're people and they expect quality as well.

---------------------------------------------
Put it like this: Would you think it unreasonable for a customer to complain that they purchased a, lets say radio, that is of poor quality and dysfunctional or or low performance but marketed and sold as cutting edge and top of the line?

Say those customers used to purchase radios from that company that were built well, functioned well for years and had plenty of useful and good features which worked well together in that package?

Say that the newer shitter radio was of the same brand as the prior ones, would a customer be right to point out that they are concerned the company is losing it's way and is besmirching the good name of the brand it inherited from prior models?

What if that company sells the radio in parts, and the antenna is aquired by a seperate 'DLC' like purchase, or you're stuck on one station unless you buy the station dial?


Sure one can just not buy that radio, and many do, my game purchases have decreased because I simply don't buy a game I feel is not worth it, despite having a prior link to the series and love for it.

But am I wrong to point out the perceived failings by the developer/publisher?

Gaming is interesting in that there is such a strong loyalty and criticism and passion all round from customers, but it is one of the few industries where there is so much calls even from inside the customer base to just STFU and take what they get.


There are industries with standards that if breached can lead to scandals, even ending up in national press.

But in gaming some people seem to think you basically have to embrace the shoddy practices by some developers and publishers, or at least buy the game and keep quiet.

------------------------------------------
Cinema. Half the fun of cinema is people debating if any given movie is good or not, worthy of it's franchise predecessors. It's fine for people to like a movie, and for some not to, for people to criticise and praise without it turning into WW3.

I guess it goes to show the passion in gaming that debates and arguments about games and the industry around it can create.


All this just because someone said something about EA in a thread for the new Sim City.

RN is an open forum for anyone who follows the rules to freely discuss and debate. That means some times opinions and ideas aren't going to gel and be universally shared. When I don't feel in the mood to discuss something, when I don't want to debate it, I don't. I do something else.

I think this is an important point for some people here if they're feeling especially 'invested' in the topic.

If you want to bring up points and opinions, make them politely and as impartial and dispassionate as you can for the sake of the thread. For those who don't want to deal with differing points of view, don't bring up/participate in the topic, or even simply skip over and avoid posts and users in that thread you don't want to interact with.

[Misiok]

http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/7/4075...bling-features

EA disables some non-gameplay(apparently)affecting-features in SimCity 5 to make it playable. While they might not look important, those are the features that were brought up as a reason as to why SC5 is kept a social game that has to be always connected to their servers.

This is one of recent examples as to why gamers are mad, and why should they not be.

Also, I completely agree with Solid Mattic and he posted pretty much what I'd like to post.

[Lautaro]

@Misiok: well, if gamers weren't mad in the first place, EA shouldn't have to fix the problem quickly (and radically like this) so I think that gamers's anger gets shit done.

I hope the rage continues so they be forced to include an offline mode and maybe increase the size of the cities. I think I'll buy it then.

[Gorb]

Except you can just... not engage with that person.

You said you liked XKCD Here's a classic.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Stop wasting your time.

The 400th argument over Origin V. Steam with supporting graphs and a statement from the attorney general isn't actually increasing the quality of discussion on the board... you're actually just having the 400th retread argument where people flail at each other and call each other hypocrites and corporate shills in so many words. No matter how good your sources are, or how perfectly you've worded your thesis... you're not going to suddenly change anyone's mind. Because the 20 or so active posters left here are entrenched in their opinions on everything.

Also as far as the conceit of this thread, all hobbies are a hotbed of discontent and bitching and moaning. Because when people are passionate and invested in things they take perceived slights very personally. Watching Soccer/Football is a hobby, and people literally throw blows about it. People riot after basketball games, Pitchfork.org exists. The idea that video games should somehow be above all that is laughable.

Yes, but if I give up, the terrorists win. Do you want the terrorists to win?

Joking aside, I love this forum. I love being on here. I'm not going to give up just because people want to ruin threads about how EA destroyed their childhood. If that makes me a condescending asshat in the process, well, I've dealt with worse. I just find it funny that I get a better reaction on a forum dedicated to the most vitriolic gaming environment known to the Internet (Heroes of Newerth) than I do here on certain issues.

Some of us actually want to enjoy some of EA's game, and I find the attitude against EA to be preventing any constructive discussion of said games. Which is the whole premise being tackled in this thread, only Akranadas was far too sensible to centre it around a singular company and instead made the situation generic. Which is true, as someone else pointed out that as Relic's fan forum we seem to give Relic far more bitterness than other communities do.

[Mokino]

@Nuri, except that I'm also one of those old dinosaurs as you put it. I'm not a fan of the way gaming has changed (I really miss my space sims and adventure games as well as real RPGs,) but you can't deny the "sheeple" effect in regards to a lot of the modern controversies. It just takes one internet celebrity to critisize something and you get a legion of people jumping on.

What if that company sells the radio in parts, and the antenna is aquired by a seperate 'DLC' like purchase, or you're stuck on one station unless you buy the station dial?

Then you are not buying a "radio" by definition. Sorry but that argument doesn't really work, imo. It's more like you buy a radio and then they sell you the CD and USB attachments separately. The radio is still perfectly usable out of the box.

Gaming is interesting in that there is such a strong loyalty and criticism and passion all round from customers, but it is one of the few industries where there is so much calls even from inside the customer base to just STFU and take what they get.

I'd argue automobiles are similar. A lot of people have crazy loyalty to a particular make and won't even look at competing products.

I wasn't saying customers should be happy with a lot of these practices at all. Just realize that many are blown way out of proportion due to the nature of the internet. At the same time, there's a general air about the internet where people are far more likely to complain/criticize than laud the good side of any particular product.

And yes, the current Simcity fiasco (and Diablo 3) show that always online DRM is a bloody joke.

EDIT: @Lautaro, the city size is currently due to technical restraints. They'll have to do some serious engine optimization as apparently the current build can chug pretty poor on medium-high PCs.

[Nanaki]

The reason why its so poorly optimized is that its currently designed to simulate the lives of every individual sim... When you have 200K+ people that starts to eat up a lot of resources. I liked Simcity 4's method much better, where a vast majority of the population was abstracted but you had the option to create and watch specific 'sims' if you desired to.

[Mokino]

It's not simulating every individual citizen still (you can't actually follow citizens around like you could in 4 as they are constantly deleted and recreated by the game engine.) What the game is simulating heavier is resources and how they interact. It's crunching a ton of numbers compared to SC4 (which is why the game is bottlenecked more by processors than video cards, unlike a lot of modern titles.)

Though I think the performance might be caused by the game not properly discarding agents when they are no longer needed. EA was talking before about how scaleable Glassbox is, but I think that Maxis screwed up in some way.

EDIT: \/ Not really actually. The game likes to randomly cull sims you're following eventually.

[FriendlyFire]

You can follow citizens around to a much greater degree than in SC4. SC4 had a handful of individual sims you could assign and track, but the new SC models all the agents throughout the world. Yes, some simplifications are made so that the game is actually playable in realtime, but it's a lot finer grained than any previous SimCity. This is also the bit I like the most about the whole game.

But once again, this should be in the SimCity thread.

[Paladin]

Okay my opinion on the whole state of gaming at the moment.

Games are being designed the wrong way around. Instead of making great games and earning money from selling a great experience, big name studios are looking how to make a profit and then building the game around that.
A lot of crap comes with it. We also have the marketing push and manipulation, hype, all of the media collusion and outright lies.

In my opinion, the creator of Braid explains everything that's wrong with the mainstream games industry in about five sentences in his interview in "Indie Game: The Movie".

"What [big] game companies do, is create highly polished things that serve as large of an audience as possible. The way that you do that, is by filing off all the bumps on something--if there's a sharp corner, you make sure that's not gonna hurt anybody if they bump into it or whatever. That creation of this highly glossy commercial product is the opposite of making something personal. Things that are personal have flaws; they have vulnerabilities. If you don't see a vulnerability in somebody, you're probably not relating with them on a very personal level."

Billy Crudup's character in Almost Famous manages to express much the same thing, almost incidentally to a point he's trying (badly) to make, about halfway through the film (At 1:02:14, to be precise). "See, I grew up with these guys, but I can't play all that I can play. I'm past them, as musicians, but, the more popular we get, the bigger their houses get, the more responsibilities, the pressure, you know? The harder it gets for me to walk out on them. Then you forget. Forget what it's like to be a fan. You hear it in... in bands all the time. It doesn't sound like music anymore. You know? It sounds like... lifestyle maintenance, or something. I used to be able to hear... the sounds of the world. Everything. To me, it sounded like music. And... now I don't hear it... anymore."

He's talking about music, but it applies to all art. Art is personal. It's about someone trying to communicate with you on a deeper level, trying to say something that is meaningful to them in the most effective way. When the primary driving concern in the creation of a piece is profit, or even popularity--when what you're worrying about as you make each decision in the process of that creation is whether other people will like it, particularly when you've been successful and reached millions at some point, and now that's in the back of your head, that you have to create for those millions--you're no longer really talking.

When you have a conversation with someone, when you're really communicating on a deep level, it's coming from your heart without much (Or ideally any) censoring by your higher consciousness. You're saying what you feel and what you mean, not worrying about whether they're going to like or dislike what you have to say. When you're out with a group and you start talking, and you're worrying about being popular or unpopular with the group, you start saying what you think they want to hear, not what you have to say inside.

Works that aren't motivated by a personal need to express one's self are not art. Artists don't start out making art in order to pay the rent. They start out making art because they can't not make art. They have something to say and they have to say it. They're driven to it. When the drive to create your next piece comes from a need to pay the bills, you lose your voice and it stops being art.

It's always been a bit of a balancing act for people who become successful at any art form. It's why there are so many bands who make one good album and fade away. Why so many writers manage one brilliant breakout novel and then slide downhill into obscurity with all their subsequent works. Some can manage to not worry about whether their next piece will be popular or make money and just keep listening to that inner voice, but most can't.

When it comes to things like film or games, the waters become even murkier. So much money and so many people are required to make "triple A" level works. Almost no one can manage to swim in those waters and manage that many people, and bring their vision to life without having it ground down by everyone else involved. You have a few exceptions, a few great filmmakers who can manage to be a tyrannical drill sergeant and get everyone marching to their tune, while simultaneously shielding the work from the corrosive influence of investors. But that's something that only a tiny, tiny minority of people can accomplish.

So you end up with impersonal films, and you end up with impersonal games.

[Mokino]

The only time it works is when you have a major cult of personality around one or two central figures at a company, and that can backfire horribly (see the Brad Wardell/Elemental:War of Magic or the Age of Reckoning mess.) It's a very, very dangerous way to run a company as the company will have issues surviving when that person inevitably leaves for some reason or another or makes a huge cock-up. It becomes a company of "yes men" and that one person's vision might be so flawed as to not even produce a great game.

The days of games being a single person's vision are gone and they're not likely coming back. It's something relegated to the indies and the kickstarters (and kickstarter is a huge risk for customers since very few have come to fruition.) At the same time, though, I want to argue against the people making games not having passion for their work. The games industry is shit except for the those on the top, so obviously most of the folks who work in it are very passionate about what they do. A programmer, for instance, can on average make a lot more money working on productivity software than games.

[Akranadas]

I don't remember dragging any thread off topic, at least not more than anyone here but apparently going off topic is ok when people are talking about nice things instead of bad ones. And your examples are some kind of reductio ad absurdum because I'v never said something similar.

And I don't see why I'm forced to keep a balance with what I say, if I want to talk about something I dislike I'm not obligated to mention something good just so I don't hurt the feelings of the developers or publishers (which are not here to be offended in the first place) like I'm some sort of politician trying to find some artificial middle ground. That's the job of a reviewer, I'm just a guy in a forum like you.

Relicnews is not affiliated with any gaming studio what so ever, expressing your dissatisfaction to the point where all you are talking about dissatisfaction does very little to get your point across to those who actually would need to hear that opinion in order to do something about it. We're just a humble community of gamers who came here for Relic and stuck around because we liked the place, the Gaming Lounge itself rarely has anything to do with Relic.

You really have a problem with opinions different to yours, don't you? You are not forced to see those entertainers and reviewers if you don't like them... and you clearly have very little memory (or you are too young) if you think that they changed something, complaining is part of gaming because people that care usually complains when something changes in a bad way only that now we have the Internet so everything is more visible.

And the last part of that quote reeks of conformism and mediocrity, being happy with what you got (at least in gaming) is saying: you can have my money without innovation,it doesn't matter if you remove features of the game and then sold them to me by separate because I'm a sheep and I'll be happy with what you give me. Oh come on!

That's nonsense, developers don't take risks because that's the nature of their bosses: milk a proven formula until it's dead. And that formula works because there's not enough people voting with their wallets and making noise about it, demanding something better.

What are you saying here exactly, that my opinion on entertainers posing as reviewers for video games isn't valid, didn't you call me out for saying I have a problem with opinions different to my own. I don't have any issue with opinions different to what I share, I wouldn't be here if that was the case, your opinions on the state of the gaming lounge is just as valid as my own and I haven't said otherwise so I don't quite understand your point. Entertainers like the ones I mentioned are worried about their bottom dollar, making youtube videos is their life style and their source of income so of course they are going to go for topics and styles that attract more hits in order to generate more cash, it's silly to not believe so. Complaining has changed over the years because video gamers have a bigger voice now and ways to express it through the likes of twitter, youtube and facebook; it's not just about awesome little forums anymore.

I'm not saying that at all Lautaro, you are now putting words into my mouth. If you don't like the look of a game or its not including the features you want then simply don't buy it; vote with your wallet. Don't buy the game knowing what it is then complain when it doesn't have X or Y because it's really on you as a consumer to make informed decisions on your purchases, not matter the value of them - you don't rush out and buy a car or house, you do research first to see if its right for you and value for the money you are paying for it, why should we treat video games no different? If you want innovation, go support those who are innovating by buying their game, if you don't like what Activision is doing, don't buy their game. So simple.

We live in the age of kickstarter now, where any garage game developer can come up with the video game concept and put it forward to the masses and be successful. It's clear that developers are taking notice of this with Double Fine and Obisidon making their own kickstarter projects and getting a good bit of cash because the gamers who want those games are willing to pay someone to make it. The big publishers are always going to be there, but you don't need to buy every Simcity, XCom or Call of Duty that comes out, if you want innovation you do have to look beyond the large titles. You can't blame them for going where the money is, they are corporations with responsibilities to their shareholders, where as in the Kickstarter world you are the shareholder of the videogame/developer on there so you can demand a better product because you are investing in the game/developer.

Did I miss something? why do I have to share only opinion that makes you feel warm inside? maybe I want a discussion, maybe I want to talk about the source of the problem with many games today, you say it's my option to not talk about it, well I say it's your option to not read my posts if you don't like them.

If you want have a discussion about whats wrong with video gaming today then make a thread about it, don't hijack someone else's thread and start the discussion because they may have wanted to talk about what the thread was originally about. They put work into creating a thread to talk about what they wanted with like minded individuals, but then someone comes along and changes the entire tone and topic to be more about their own personal crusade (it's happen here already with the now, Simcity dislike talk above), instead create your own topic - you can do that - and talk with others like yourself who see that issue with gaming (it's what I did here) without needed to hijack someone else's thread; its common curiosity really.

[itchy01ca]

Relicnews is not affiliated with any gaming studio what so ever, expressing your dissatisfaction to the point where all you are talking about dissatisfaction does very little to get your point across to those who actually would need to hear that opinion in order to do something about it. We're just a humble community of gamers who came here for Relic and stuck around because we liked the place, the Gaming Lounge itself rarely has anything to do with Relic.

So, again, you're trying to tell us not to have a dissenting opinion. Again, I will tell you that we are allowed to have those opinions and share those on this forum, unless you're telling us we're trolling (which is actually possible, for some people) or that only specific people are allowed to share opinions, which is actually allowed under the forum contract you signed, but not very practical or fair (but hey, life ain't fair).

I can see where you're coming from with all the negative stuff. It sucks. I would rather talk about positive stuff, but you've basically created a self-fulfilling prophecy in your own thread. It's not really your fault, but again, you posted a question and you got your responses.

[Gorb]

There is a difference between expressing your dissatisfaction and turning an entire thread into a vehicle for your dissatisfaction.

Please stop twisting Akranadas' words. It's kinda irritating.

[Akranadas]

So, again, you're trying to tell us not to have a dissenting opinion. Again, I will tell you that we are allowed to have those opinions and share those on this forum, unless you're telling us we're trolling (which is actually possible, for some people) or that only specific people are allowed to share opinions, which is actually allowed under the forum contract you signed, but not very practical or fair (but hey, life ain't fair).

Where did I say that? Show me that exact phrase please because I sure as hell never said no one could have a negative opinion about anything. I never said anyone having negative opinions and sharing it on these forums are trolling, and I never said specific people are only allowed to share opinions. You sir, are putting words straight into my mouth in order to create controversy about something I have never said and it would be much appreciated if you ceased doing that straight away and apologised for doing so, thank you.

I stated, in the section you quoted - Relicnews is not affiliated with any gaming studio what so ever, expressing your dissatisfaction to the point where all you are talking about dissatisfaction does very little to get your point across to those who actually would need to hear that opinion in order to do something about it.

Did you notice that I never said anything regarding the points you have raise in response? If you are dissatisfied with a game, post your opinion (I've always said that) but when you become so passionate with your dissatisfaction that all you post about is that dissatisfaction then maybe your feedback is better suited being directed towards the relative parties?

[itchy01ca]

Please stop twisting Akranadas' words. It's kinda irritating.

I know it is. I don't think I was twisting his words, just pointing out that people are going to express their opinions when you ask a question. Which is perfectly viable and legit.

[Gorb]

You were twisting his words. There's no "thinking" about it.

Also, it would be convenient if you didn't ignore parts of peoples' posts that are inconvenient to you.

[itchy01ca]

Also, it would be convenient if you didn't ignore parts of peoples' posts that are inconvenient to you.

I could, but I only have a certain amount of time in the day to actually post on these forums. Kids, work etc. mean that, yes, I could probably counter or at least include every point made about every post, but some of that is superfluous to the point. I don't mean to ignore entire points, but my time is limited. I can't control that.

[Starblade]

I don't mean to ignore entire points, but my time is limited. I can't control that.

If you don't have the time to read entire posts you should probably not respond until you can. You are not the only one with a job or children on these forums.

[itchy01ca]

If you don't have the time to read entire posts you should probably not respond until you can. You are not the only one with a job or children on these forums.

Oh I read the entire post. Now responding to it, is a different story. I guess I could go and counter every point but again, that word superfluous. It might be a great point, but if im talking about something else, why would i include it.

[Gorb]

Because it undermines the arguments you are making, and ignoring it weakens your position in the eyes of others.

[Fixer]

When it comes to things like film or games, the waters become even murkier. So much money and so many people are required to make "triple A" level works. Almost no one can manage to swim in those waters and manage that many people, and bring their vision to life without having it ground down by everyone else involved. You have a few exceptions, a few great filmmakers who can manage to be a tyrannical drill sergeant and get everyone marching to their tune, while simultaneously shielding the work from the corrosive influence of investors. But that's something that only a tiny, tiny minority of people can accomplish.

When it comes to artistic vision certainly.

Even in a group of developers though, I don't think there's someone that honestly sat down and said. "Hey, do you know what would make our game better? Putting in a barrier to progression unless you pay with real money." or "What it we cut out a vital story component and made it day 1 on disc DLC?"
That's a purely revenue based motive there.

Thankfully today's Penny Arcade is surprisingly relevant.

[Gorb]

I never really understood the whole fuss about From Ashes. Certainly, I can see how people view it as important . . . but as I'm able to complete the game with no loss of levels, war assets or other such measuring sticks, I would never call it "vital".

[Fixer]

Mass Effect is different things to different people. Some people see the battle as a challenge to be overcome and enjoy the satisfaction of beating the game like any other FPS.

Others loved the storyline, the characters, and the universe..

The ME2 threads on this forum theorising about the motivations of the Reapers, history and which choices were the better ones were testament to that.

This is why from Ashes sucks. This isn't like Zaeed and his mission, he was a incidental character who had no real connection to the main plot. Having him or not having him didn't give any new insight to the Reapers, Cerberus or affect the main plot. It was his own story.

From Ashes has a character from an extinct race that has long been theorised about, who's last act saved this cycle, who have insight into the Reapers we don't and have faced the situation of their possible complete extinction. Javek interacts with Liara and the rest of the crew, gives the ONLY foreshadowing or arguments about ME3's ending before we reach it.

This is not an optional self contained story. This is part of the main plot cut out and locked behind a paywall. It's the equivalent of Empire Strikes back with all of Yoda's scenes cut out unless you pay an extra $10.

[Gorb]

I didn't feel like the main plot was diminished. It is obviously a more important story than Zaaed's backstory/loyalty mission (though the content is comparable, in my opinion), however it is a story nonetheless. Your ingame actions do not suffer by not playing it. Your experience as a player may be improved by using it . . . but this goes for all DLCs.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been nearly as much of a problem if it'd been released at, say, Day 30.

[Nurizeko]

This one is also interesting Fixer.



Actually by the looks of it, it seems to be a bit of a theme for the last few PAs.

[Nurizeko]

This one is also interesting Fixer.



Actually by the looks of it, it seems to be a bit of a theme for the last few PAs.

[Gorb]

Mass Effect, halfway through second playthrough. Once, complete, of ME2. Up to Priority: Earth on ME3 because I never managed to go through with the ending even after the EC came out. Nothing to do with the ending itself, merely circumstances.

(should be able to do it now my PC is fixed though)

Not sure at all how relevant this is, given that it's patently obvious I'm familiar with the games. The only things I'm not familiar with any any of the ME3 SP DLC packs (Omega, Leviathan, From Ashes, Citadel), as well as Lair of the Shadow Broker and Kasumi (?) from ME2.

Tell me, how do you define something that has no impact on the mechanics of the game as "vital"? Is this not just your opinion?

EDIT: Misiok, why did you delete your post? I'm replying to you, directly

[Misiok]

Sorry Gorb, I wrote the message, then left the screen for about 30 minutes and when I clicked on 'reply' there were a bunch of new posts that pretty much touched on what I wanted to wrote, so I just deleted it :P

I didn't see your post (the 135 one) when I deleted it, sorry.

I asked that because I and probably a lot of people that got issues with the trilogy (the ending, the 'From Ashes' DLC thing and so on) because we were very engaged in the games, spent way more than we probably should hours in the games, replying them and reading up on lore, so I was just curious if you were one of us, since you said you never really understood the whole fuss about that particular day 1 DLC. I wanted to say that it was such an aggravating problem to us (well, not really a problem, more like a slap in the face from Bio/EA saying 'pay up, bitch, take it and leave it) because we felt (with righteous anger!) that it is an important character that does pretty much what Fixer said. Wanting loyal fans to pay for that, well, was kinda a very dick move.

And yeah, I know that Day 1 DLC isn't necessarily cut out content to monetize later, but in this case, it really felt like it was. It felt like that because the ME games were like a bunch of interactive, albeit very cliche too, books/stories you took part in, easy to get engaged into it, and then you start feeling personal about it, it was also thanks to Bio's very good characters (God damn Garrus, that part in ME3 when you just hanged out, it was pretty brilliant).

So yeah

[Gorb]

Oh, I can understand peoples' issues with the ending. I don't agree with some of them, but I can understand all of them.

DLC, to me, is a different matter. Not only is it developed independent of the main game during a time when assets cannot be put into the main game (mac_bug posted an excellent image a long while back demonstrating the process), but it is completely optional.

I mean, Lair of the Shadow Broker, I've heard, is a fantastic DLC that scores highly in every aspect. I haven't played it yet, and my ME2 experience (which I sunk 45 hours into in my first playthrough) was not diminished as a result. It may be enhanced with that DLC, but it stands out on it's own without it.

That is why I don't class such DLC, including From Ashes, as "vital". Or "price-gouging", etc.

[Mokino]

Javik was obviously planned out during development. That can't be denied with how well he's integrated with the game's script (and that some of his assets are on the game disc.)

However, he also wasn't originally intended to be released day one. The insert that came with my ME3 CE said he'd be coming "soon." I believe Bioware even said something to the effect that they managed to get the content finished and certified a lot faster than they'd predicted. He didn't actually add THAT much to the overall plot or feel absent if you played without him (I did on one playthrough just to see if the game actually felt incomplete without it. It didn't to me.) Still, I actually wish he'd been a preorder bonus for all players and the CE had been given some extra missions or maybe the first SP DLC free when it was released as some developers have done.

[Paladin]

When it comes to artistic vision certainly.

Even in a group of developers though, I don't think there's someone that honestly sat down and said. "Hey, do you know what would make our game better? Putting in a barrier to progression unless you pay with real money." or "What it we cut out a vital story component and made it day 1 on disc DLC?"
That's a purely revenue based motive there.

Part of my point regarding film and game development at the high budget end of things is that you not only have 200-1000 people working on a game, you also require investors, and those investors will expect to be able to dictate certain terms in order to ensure they get a return on that investment.

But yeah... Art doesn't need to be just one individual's vision, but it needs to be personal, and that means everyone involved, or at least everyone with creative control, needs to share a vision. That can be one person, it can be five people. I could see as many as ten maybe managing to hold a coherent vision between them. Beyond that, it will fall apart. When you get up to the really big studios' level of personnel, there's just no way in hell that many people can share the vision and really understand the message.

[Caesar]

Except you can just... not engage with that person.

You said you liked XKCD Here's a classic.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Stop wasting your time.

The 400th argument over Origin V. Steam with supporting graphs and a statement from the attorney general isn't actually increasing the quality of discussion on the board... you're actually just having the 400th retread argument where people flail at each other and call each other hypocrites and corporate shills in so many words. No matter how good your sources are, or how perfectly you've worded your thesis... you're not going to suddenly change anyone's mind. Because the 20 or so active posters left here are entrenched in their opinions on everything.

Also as far as the conceit of this thread, all hobbies are a hotbed of discontent and bitching and moaning. Because when people are passionate and invested in things they take perceived slights very personally. Watching Soccer/Football is a hobby, and people literally throw blows about it. People riot after basketball games, Pitchfork.org exists. The idea that video games should somehow be above all that is laughable.

<3<3<3<3<3<3<3

It's also worth noting that, while a hobby for many, PC gaming is not all that serious of a hobby compared to various other things. If you're outraged over something, just don't buy it/engage it and go elsewhere. If you can't get what you're looking for elsewhere, you're not entitled to that thing anyway, so suck it up, be a man, and move on.

[itchy01ca]

If you can't get what you're looking for elsewhere, you're not entitled to that thing anyway, so suck it up, be a man, and move on.

No. This hobby does require a bit of money. Not the tons and tons that model trains or skiing/snowboarding does. PC hardware isn't the cheapest stuff on the market either though. A GOOD gaming PC can run you 2000 bucks, at least. So yea, I feel i have the right to my opinions about certain things, and i feel that other people might benefit from those opinions. This entire blow up about sim city.. caused by gamer anger, legitimate gamer anger. What would happen if we all closed our mouths and said nothing? Nothing would happen and things like this COULD (not would) get worse.

[Gorb]

My "good gaming PC" just cost me £450. It maxes Crysis at my resolution which means I can basically play any game I want (as I don't have something like BF3 which is the only modern equivalent I think that could tax my performance).

Also, not paying for a product doesn't have to involve words. If you bought the game, then you would be understandably miffed. But you haven't even bought the game. Also, the SimCity thread is the other thread, not this one.

[itchy01ca]

My "good gaming PC" just cost me £450. It maxes Crysis at my resolution which means I can basically play any game I want (as I don't have something like BF3 which is the only modern equivalent I think that could tax my performance).

Depends on where you buy, what you buy, what kind of specs you want etc. Yea, mine only cost 700 bucks, and that was using parts I already had. As I said, not a very expensive hobby, but it would all depend on specific wants and opinions on what is good.

lso, the SimCity thread is the other thread, not this one.

Ok. Move that whole quote of mine to mean Diablo 3 then :P Oh and those other Ubisoft games that were always-on DRM (and now aren't.) On second thought, is there an "official" reason why ubisoft opted out of always-on DRM?

[Mokino]

They said the decision was based purely on player feedback, though I suspect the woes with Assassins Creed 2 were part of it. Ubi's trying to be better to PC gamers than they've been in the past.

The angry mob sadly probably won't accomplish a thing in regards to SimCity. It didn't do a thing to Diablo 3 and it likely won't here either.

[itchy01ca]

The angry mob sadly probably won't accomplish a thing in regards to SimCity. It didn't do a thing to Diablo 3 and it likely won't here either.

Probably not. Even with some of the "mainstream" (yahoo, consumerist etc) press picking this up, I don't see much changing..with EA or Blizzard. I can see smaller companies getting the picture though..

[Nasarog]

Not mad at all. Just won't give my business to shady companies. I also stopped buying games on release. I wait a couple of months. Haven't been disappointed with this newish tactic (for me) yet. Simcity would be a perfect example of that.

[Gorb]

Depends on where you buy, what you buy, what kind of specs you want etc. Yea, mine only cost 700 bucks, and that was using parts I already had. As I said, not a very expensive hobby, but it would all depend on specific wants and opinions on what is good.

So why say $2,000? For £1,300 I could get an insanely good computer. I'm talking an Core i7, 16GB of 2100MHz RAM a couple of hard drives and still have £800 to shell out on something ridiculous like one of those new GeForce Titan cards.

Hyperbole is dumb. You didn't say it wasn't an expensive hobby. You made a point of emphasising how expensive PC gaming can be. I called you on it.

Back on track about "not saying anything" vs. "letting publishers get away with it", as I said - and others have said - vote with your wallet. People complain that I spend too much effort trying to force people to agree with me. Well, I'm complaining that people spend too much effort trying to convince other gamers that their opinions are better than everyone elses'. Vote with your wallet, and let others vote with theirs.

At the end of the day, it's their money they're wasting, and if they're not learning (and funding the publisher in question) then you're wasting your time to begin with!