Creston wrote on Sep 30, 2010, 13:31:

PropheT wrote on Sep 30, 2010, 12:53:

Creston wrote on Sep 30, 2010, 10:45:
Baryshnikov, go back to ballet.

Because what you're saying is complete, utter, 100% horseshit. For 60 dollars, gamers expect a GOOD game that WORKS, and that gives a good amount of value for money.

Actually I think what he's saying is 100% spot on accurate. You can see it on message boards when games are announced, and you can see it in game reviews exactly like he says.

Take Torchlight for example. Everywhere I read about it certain forum readers said "No MP, no buy" and a number of review sites docked it (85 was pretty accurate, as Nikolay said) because of no MP... And that game was $20.

The hardcore gamers that just love gaming only expect a good game that works for $60, but the average ones don't. The press doesn't.

I would like to point out that :

A) Torchlight sold VERY well
B) So well in fact, that both a sequel AND a MMORPG version are being made.
C) The dev made a nice chunk of change on it.

So, ehhh. no. Sure, there's always going to be cockwallets who bleat that every game MUST have MP and 200 hours of content etc, but they're an exception. Not a rule.

Creston

apples and oranges

Creston wrote on Sep 30, 2010, 10:45:
Baryshnikov, go back to ballet.

Because what you're saying is complete, utter, 100% horseshit. For 60 dollars, gamers expect a GOOD game that WORKS, and that gives a good amount of value for money. Whether that's through the intensity of the experience or simply through game length. (I always thought the first modern warfare was a good length, even if it was only six hours or so.)

That's it. I doubt there's anyone that expects hundreds of hours of gameplay and FMV and mp and all that shit. You're building a straw man the size of the former fucking Soviet Union here. If a game OFFERS it, hey, great! Fantastic. I'll happily buy it. But I don't EXPECT it. These days I'm happy if the game works, is fun, and is 8 to 10 hours or so.

That said, there's nothing wrong with making niche games. If you make a good game, you can make a good living off niche games. Men of War was pretty awesome.

Creston

u mad? u sound mad.

Kosumo wrote on Jul 8, 2010, 01:52:
agpc, can I ask, why is it you think an employer may not employ you due to playing computer games? In what field could this be a danger? (and if it is, and you are a gamer, you should not be doing it.)

Have you worked in the corporate world? Hiring usually comes down to a hiring manager, and they have all sorts of pet peeves. There are many folks in hiring positions who look down on video gamers because they perceive video games to be a waste of time, and therefore assume those who play them will waste time at work. I have had meetings with people who laugh about employees that play games like world of warcraft. Jokes about wizard hats and the like.

Agent.X7 wrote on Jul 8, 2010, 01:29:

PropheT wrote on Jul 8, 2010, 01:25:

JohnBirshire wrote on Jul 8, 2010, 01:06:
Sissies. Afraid someone will confront you in real life and make you back up your message board crap talk?

Anonymity online is of utmost importance.

No.

But a 5-second free background check yields information on family and friends, too. You can do a lot with that little bit of seemingly insignificant information.

Yes, because of the thousands of John Smiths on the planet, you will know exactly which one to look up.

I see, so they are implementing a system which makes it easy for people with uncommon names to be harassed or tracked online, but very difficult for the John Smiths. Well that makes it just fine, right? I mean, lets say certain nationalities are more likely to be harassed due to their uncommon last names. No lawyer in the world would take that case, right?

I guess the Perlachevski's of the world will just have to deal with it while the John Smiths will troll with unbridled abandon!

Draugr wrote on Jul 8, 2010, 00:45:

on the contrary, if everyone who didn't to use real ID didn't buy the game, then ~100% of the people playing the game would be using realID, which means their system was a success, if people just buy the game (btw , I see it for 60 bucks, not 70, but I don't know where you're looking or where you live, of course. nor would I even if I had your name :)) and don't use the system then wouldn't it prove that it is something their isn't interest in? That's the way I look at it.

In terms of receiving feedback from outside of the forum, it's never been required to put feedback through the forum (though in the past and presently that has been the predominant venue for such things) and I imagine that is something they will improve upon,(as it already exists.)

I don't know about you, but if I have a tech support issue I post it on the forums. None of these games have a call center if your game doesn't work properly. Sure, you can try and use e-mail, but I have never had success with this route. Usually you get a form response that doesn't properly address your problem. Also, it takes much longer. Often times, other users/gamers solve your problem for you instead of a company employee. However, I will not be posting my real name on a gaming forum because I do not want potential future employers eliminating me as a potential future employee because I play a computer game.

Whether 100% of users use realid or not is irrelevant to my point. I am stating that its likely the only way Blizzard backs down on this issue is if they see a threat to their bottom line. They have sales targets they want to meet to appease the shareholders of Activision. If this issue does wind up creating a huge backlash and Blizzard does not meet those sales targets, they will reverse course on this decision. The only other way I see it being changed is if something tragic happens and the media latches onto the story.

I doubt that many people will refrain from purchasing Blizzard games due to this realid decision, but I also know I sure as hell won't be buying SC2 or Diablo 3 if they do not change their minds. Blizzard is the 9001 pound gorilla in the PC gaming world and I think they have finally become too big for their britches.

Yeah Blizzard has been making bad decisions over the past year, but this one takes the cake. I was already on the fence about whether to buy SC2 given its $70.00 price tag, but after this there is no way I will buy a Blizzard game in the near future. I value the ability to post feadback about balance issues in a RTS game WITHOUT having to disclose my real name on the internet. This move, even if well intentioned, creates an appearance of impropriety with respect to collecting consumer information.

Really the only way Blizzard will change their mind is if enough people decide that they don't want to buy games from a company that makes decisions like this. Given that its opt in, I seriously doubt any governmental entity will intercede over the privacy issues. However, someone at Blizzard made a really bad decision and I will speak with my pocket book since using the forums to voice my displeasure could result in potential future employers (who don't exactly look highly on gamers) choosing not to consider me because I play a computer game.

If I were a female gamer, I would be disillusioned with Blizzard to say the least.

WHODATHUNKIT????

I usually take the side of software developers and publishers, but to punish folks who actually purchased the game while Pirates are happily playing seems, oh I don't know, RIDICULOUS????

Ah, little troll. Got your ass handed to you, so now you pretend you were just joking. LOLZ!

5 year old retard.


Nope. The only reason I posted was to goad you - Creston - into responding, and it worked. You got trollolololololololed.

Boom, head shot. 20 seconds of your life you cant ever get back. For future reference, its better to ignore trolls than respond to them. Welcome to the internets lolz.

HaHa I knew I could goad you into responding, Creston. 10 seconds of your life you will never get back!

lolz

So many whiners. Its a good game. If you don't like the DLC, don't buy it. You can always go back to your precious Baldurs Gate 2.

The reason they put DLC in is that people pirate the game. I know the financial well being of the companies that create these games might cause inconvenience, but honestly you have to suck it up or make your own games without DLC.

I did enjoy this game compared to all the other new mmo's that have come out - it was a bit too buggy, so I canceled. I will try it out again though.

This game had a terribly clunky engine which made large scale pvp a lag fest. It was based on the idea of large scale pvp, so go figure.

Creston, I find your internet rage amusing. Other than that, your opinion is meaningless to me.

Even if there was an option to turn the nuke guy in, I did not pursue it because at that point I found the story up to that point to be contrived and not entertaining or fun at all. The characters were lifeless and boring. So I stopped playing.

Mass Effect - now that is a great game with an interesting yet original storyline.

Waaah, mommy, the game wouldn't even let me turn Burke in!

Do you always act like a child when someone disagrees your opinion, or is that merely the internet personality you have developed for yourself?

Also, I thought The Dark Knight was completely and utterly overrated so if you guys want to get your panties in a bunch over that, be my guest.

Its not just the random stranger asking you to nuke a town aspect, that was one example. I didn't think the part of the story that takes place in the original containment unit was the least bit believable, nor were any of the characters particularly compelling. Perhaps you can turn in the nuke guy, but either way the fact that he comes up to a random stranger and asks them to nuke a town - I don't consider that believable story telling.

I didn't like the story up to that point, so I stopped playing since it appeared to be a story driven game. That has no bearing on my love of PC games, but your petulant tone is duly noted.

I just couldn't get into this game. The story telling was not compelling. When some random stranger guy came up to me and wanted me to nuke the first town, I was like "Why isn't there an option to turn the dude in and let them hang him? Why would this guy come up to a stranger asking him to set off a nuke?"

After that, I stopped playing. Does the story telling get better?

I don't have any experience working at an entertainment company, nor do I know how to program games or use any kind of computer language of any sort.

I am, however, willing to help THQ cut costs by setting up coding stations similar to the sweatshop model, where you have row upon row of tables all in one room with everyone stationed so close to one another that they can smell eachother's various bodily functions. People who complain get fired, unless they are essential to the project. We wait until the day the game goes gold to fire those guys.

Would I make an ideal candidate for management at THQ?

The first mobile base claim is directly refuted by their own game in the same universe - Red Alert 3. You can roll your main building structure across water and land and place turrets and buildings anywhere as allies and soviets. As empire, you produce nodes that can be placed anywhere on the map, and you also have a mobile base structure as well. Pretty funny that they would make this claim since the same company has already accomplished this feat.

As an avid C&C guy, it would bother me if they created an RTSMMORPG. All I care about are automatch online games, I don't want to have to level characters or units.

Sorry Blue, eventually the squirrels will figure it out. I have yet to encounter a bird feeder that squirrels won't inevitably defeat.

Just buy more bird seed and resign yourself to the fact that squirrels are our bird feeder overlords.