Graham wrote on May 9, 2011, 19:13:
Easy there, Cresty. You said yourself: "So it's going to get linked to people's Facebook profiles? After all, look how fantastic that option was in Starcraft 2." Backing off simply because you were called on it and trying to cover it up as sarcastic exaggeration doesn't become you.
You might want to try to figure out the difference between "linking to a facebook profile" and "Making the next Farmville" ...
You see a lot of people drawing an inaccurate conclusion that Valve is ditching Half-Life-like games (they didn't say anything of the sort) and antipathy (not apathy) towards social gaming. The freak-out it pretty clear from the reaction; you don't jump to "we're looking to involve people more socially" to "ditching Half-Life-like games" without a little panic. /shrug - you don't see it, most likely because it doesn't support your argument.
Oh, I see. Because I feel differently about a subject than you do, my view is therefore of the "Well, you just don't see it because it doesn't support your argument!" variety. I get it.
Are you cold up there? Need a space heater? I hear those ivory towers can get mighty chilly.
You haven't given up on just Half-Life, though, have you? Reading through the comments here on a daily basis it's pretty clear that you've given up on most games. What on Earth DO you play anymore?
Ah, and there comes the personal attack. That only took two posts. Good for you, kid. But yeah, you're right. It's "pretty clear" I have no excitement for any game left at all. I haven't been squealing in excitement about Skyrim, or Mass Effect 3, or the next Assassin's Creed, or Deus Ex Human Revolution, or LA Noire, or Guild Wars 2, or the next GTA. I've imagined all those posts.
As for what I've been playing, let's see. Portal 2, just finished another Mass Effect 2 playthrough and a Red Faction Guerilla playthrough. Working my way through Batman Arkham Asylum AND Alpha Protocol... ehm... Plants vs Zombies and Shatter... oh, and I've restarted Assassin's Creed 2. And of course LA Noire comes out next week, and it'll be awesome to play that, since it's one of the few games my wife can get into. (Which is kind of how I like to play social games. With someone in the same room. That doesn't mean my way is better, it's just different.)
So yeah, you're right. Your incredible reading comprehension has succesfully deducted that I like
no games whatsoever.(hint: If you're going to try to play the ultra, ultra,
ultra-tired "Nobody at Bluesnews like ANY game at all!" card (and really, it got old six years ago), try it with some of the people here who REALLY don't like anything. You look kinda silly kicking at that straw man of yours.)
It's fabulous that you're self sufficient. Perhaps YOU don't get this, but the "ton" of people here is a drop in the bucket, and that drop really holds an antiquated view. The example that you've given with Dragon Age is the nascent form of what will be the future of social integration. They've got to start somewhere, and it's only the truly blind that will insult an artist's first sketch.
I like that last analogy, that's pretty cool. Let's see if I can summarize the entire argument for you:
1) You stated that you don't understand why people here,
AT BLUES, are so upset over the implied (whether legitimate or not) goal by Valve to stop doing isolated single player experiences, and focus on social gaming, whatever form that may take.
2) To which I have explained (or at least tried to) that the large majority of people here,
AT BLUES, are of the kind that enjoy isolated single player experiences. How do I know this? Well, I've been hanging out on this board since around 1999, and in that time we've had many thousands of posters. And most of the ones that hang around tend to be the kind that enjoy the same kind of stuff, that mostly being single player games on the PC that look and feel like an actual PC game. That's really not that hard to infer. Like seeks like, after all. Someone who loves mindlessly grinding Call of Duty on the 360, is going to hang out with other people who enjoy that, of which there really aren't that many around here. That's not to say we don't have any like them here, but in general, the Blues forum audience tends to lean a certain direction.
You ask why this audience feels this way about a certain subject, I replied to explain why I think the audience feels this way.
I have never claimed that we're somehow a massive majority of gamers to which Valve should pay attention. That's what YOU are trying to turn my words into. In my previous post I've even agreed with your "you'll be left behind" argument. here, see?
I do agree that it'll mean we get left behind, however.It helps if you try to keep track of the argument.
It's not just gaming that's becoming social, it's everything that we do.
Yup, great. Is it mandatory to jump for joy, or am I allowed to have my own opinion, and think Facebook and twitter and social media of that kind are kind of retarded? And that Dragon Age's "social integration" serves no purpose whatsoever?
We have a (relatively) new forum for discussing and consulting on all forms of entertainment. Both the Kindle and the Copia app allow people to discuss books as they read them. Demon's Souls offered an amazing social experience in a mostly single player game by letting users leave messages for one another to help or hinder. THESE are creative uses of social, not just your reduction to the vanguard of achievements et. al.
Kindly point out to me where I am "reducing everything to the vanguard of achievements et. al.?" Because I'm fairly certain that I've never actually said that. Again, it helps to keep track of an argument.
Reductio ad absurdum, and a phenomenal example of "stop liking things that I hate".
I've never said that. You're again trying to twist my words into something that they aren't, which is a very poor form of arguing. I've even EXPLICITLY stated that if YOU like it, more power and friends to you. Do you see that part? Here it is:
You enjoy hanging out with your "friends" on facebook, great. More power and friends to you. Again, you're not the target audience
I've never said that we are. You keep bringing that up as some kind of trump card, and you're using it to counter a position I've never taken. I've merely explained why people here AT BLUES are worried (whether justified or not) that one of the last great single player developers on the PC is saying "we're not going to do isolated single player like Portal 2 anymore."
I PERSONALLY don't like social gaming. It's never provided me with a single benefit or even a marginal modicum of extra entertainment above what I normally get out of a game. Last I checked, I was actually free to have that opinion in the good old USA.
and because of this it appears that your entertainment options will be reduced to a more manageable number in the future.
Yup. Which I've never denied. How does that somehow, in your mind, turn into this belief that I'm not allowed to be disappointed by that? I like the game industry when it makes great single player games. I don't like the game industry when it massively shifts to social stuff.
Where you come from, is everyone forced to have the same opinion or something? Must be really dreary living there.
Unless, of course, some developer hears the clarion call of the solitary gamer and wisely attempts to monetize it.
Oh, seeing as how I'm quite certainly not the only one who enjoys good quality single player games, I'm pretty sure that there will always be devs who make the kind of games that I want. And I'm also pretty sure that those devs will make one or two games that I want, then realize they can make more money elsewhere, and then shift their focus elsewhere. And I'm pretty certain that they are perfectly allowed to do so, and I'm also pretty certain that I
AM actually allowed to be disappointed when they do.
It does you absolutely no good at all. This is the worst possible thing that could happen to gaming for you. It's the death of your hobby as you know it, and you'll never derive any pleasure from it again.
Oops, there's that sarcastic exaggeration... but I think I've made my point.
Really? Because so far you've been trying to make a point by bleating about arguments I've never made, and by kicking that little straw man of yours until the poor thing bleeds.
Let me state the argument again for you one more time :
- Valve makes ambiguous statement that they are done with isolated single player games.
- fans of single player games, here at blues, express disappointment over what this might entail. Which is often what we do around here.
- You wonder why people feel that way, since in your eyes, social gaming is the great Nirvana that will bring peace and prosperity to all.
- I explain to you why not everyone feels that way, since if you like single player games, social gaming has zero benefit to you.
- you go off on all sorts of tangents about how nobody cares what the small minority feels, even though I never made that argument.
This is a forum for discussion, and people are actually allowed to have different opinions. It's the forum's first rule, actually.
While you've been a loyal customer in the past, it may be that developers that you've supported will change their business model to something you don't like.
Absolutely. And guess what? It may also be then that those loyal customers... feel bad about that!
OMG?!! It's like the clouds have lifted and true knowledge has rained down onto the world.
You have, however, created a very efficiently deconstructed false dichotomy here. You (and others) are suggesting that a kick-ass (single player) game can't exist in a world where developers are creating new content with a socially connected mindset.
No, I don't think that I've ever really said that. I have, in fact, EXPLICITLY said that if their social focus takes the form of something that I can ignore in my single player games, I have no issue with.
here, let me quote that again: r{If it's strictly an added feature that doesn't cater to the SP crowd, eh, then that's fine.
See? It helps if you actually read what someone says.
This remains to be seen, and I think you're both foolish to a) focus on that conclusion when it has yet to be demonstrated
I'm not really focussed on it. I've just said that I'm worried about it. Which, I'm pretty sure, I'm quite allowed to do.
and b) getting angry at something that hasn't happened yet, and according to a flip of a coin that I just conducted won't happen at all! (My coin flip is just as accurate as your baseless assessment )
I get it. In your world, someone should only worry about something once it's already happened. Okay, fair enough.
In my world, people are allowed to worry over something POTENTIALLY happening, especially on a forum where we often discuss where PC gaming is going, and whether we like that direction or not.
I'm sorry that you don't like it when people don't share your opinion, but that does sort of happen every once in awhile on planet Earth.
As a gamer who enjoys games made by developers whose staff are content and well-paid (I would include those at Valve in this number) I am pleased to see that they are.
Good. More benefit for you, then, and undoubtedly more games in which you can hulk out with your friends.
See how that works? You like it, which is your right.
That said, I think you've reduced this to a single element equation again. While the pursuit of capital may be an auxiliary point, I honestly think that these developers are aiming to create an innovative game experience.
I will agree that that's probably true, since Valve really hasn't ever been one of the main MONEY MONEY MONEY guys. That's really just EA and Activision that I like to rail at. However, EA has infested one of my favorite developers of all-time (Bioware) with their MONEY MONEY MONEY horseshit, and so yeah, when another favorite developer of mine makes some noises in the same direction, I do get a little woried. And whether or not they'll succeed in making a truly innovative game experience, we'll have to wait and see. It's just as likely that their next game will just have (in my eyes) useless facebook integration and other "social" crap that require me to log into three different clubs, or something.
Again, with the understanding that if they decide to do so, there's nothing I can do about it, and I'll just buy someone else's games. For every Bioware that slowly but surely turns into another EA shithole, there's a new developer, Indie or not, that creates the stuff that I do like.
What's more, I think they'll do it too. It may simply come down to optimism versus pessimism. Look at it this way: if it's terrible and people don't like it, the social aspect will find itself dead in the water and we can go back to the good old days of silent protagonists perched behind over-designed weaponry, with nary a pop-up or gamerscore to be seen.
Which is doubtful, since I know full well that the large majority of people, for whatever reason, enjoy the completely meaningless trivia that is "gamerscore."
There is a reason devs are flocking towards the social strata, and that's because that's where the money and the customers are, although I do think that the devs themselves (devs/publishers, whatever) actually have a too simple mindset where they see Farmville and its 900 billion customers and figure that if they just cater to that, they'll somehow get all those people interested in whatever THEIR game happens to be. And as I said before, I don't think there's a ton of overlap in the Farmville crowd vs the Half Life 2 crowd.
q[Graham - signing his post for the very first time!
Hah! Another convert. I'll get Blue to make it mandatory yet, dammit!
Creston