User information for yonderboyOSLT

Real Name
yonderboyOSLT
Nickname
yonder
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Signed On
October 8, 2005
Founding Supporter
Gold, since April 21, 2020
Total Posts
452 (Amateur)
User ID
23920
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
452 Comments. 23 pages. Viewing page 16.
Newer [  1    8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  ] Older
40.
 
Re: Far Cry 4 PC Graphics Gimped
Jun 20, 2014, 17:42
yonder
 
40.
Re: Far Cry 4 PC Graphics Gimped Jun 20, 2014, 17:42
Jun 20, 2014, 17:42
 yonder
 
Alamar wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 17:37:
Rattlehead wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 11:46:
Eh no loss for me, I pirate all Ubi games anyway, that's my policy. Until they remove fucking Uplay, they are never getting another dime from me.

So go ahead, castrate the game all you want.

We all have our justifications, for the things we do, but I wonder... Do you also have this policy for more invasive, in the way, DRM schemes, like Steam?

-Alamar

Please explain how Steam is *MORE* invasive and in-the-way than Ubisoft. Thank you.
39.
 
Re: Far Cry 4 PC Graphics Gimped
Jun 20, 2014, 17:41
yonder
 
39.
Re: Far Cry 4 PC Graphics Gimped Jun 20, 2014, 17:41
Jun 20, 2014, 17:41
 yonder
 
Verno wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 12:16:
Creston wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 11:19:
Why not just give the PC those few extra options and pieces of eye candy? They do it for their other games. Maybe they just don't sell enough PC copies to make it worth it, but then just say that. Don't try to hide it behind this fable that the failbox can run everything a PC can.

It's just marketing fluff to assuage their sales base. The PC version will definitely have extra options and visual detail. It's not even a concern IMO, Ubi has been doing much better in the port department.

Please look up what they did for Watch Dogs PC graphics to understand why you're wrong.
38.
 
Re: Play PC Titanfall for Free
Jun 20, 2014, 17:31
yonder
 
38.
Re: Play PC Titanfall for Free Jun 20, 2014, 17:31
Jun 20, 2014, 17:31
 yonder
 
I don't understand all the hate for the complete lack of single-player. I saw this as a return to the pure multiplayer game, like Unreal Tournament or Quake 3 Arena. I don't remember a lot of crying about the lack of SP campaigns in those games.

Sure, it was because those games stood on their own with MP only, but... why not apply the same standards to Titanfall?

For the record, I haven't played it, but I do believe in judging a game PROPERLY. Titanfall isn't pretending to be something it's not from everything I can tell (with the exception of pretending to be an Xboner killer app).

Don't like twitch games? That's cool. I used to, but I'm old now, and it really doesn't appeal to me outside of possibly playing with my friends (who are old now too). I remember going to a mega-LAN recently and played UT with a youngster who was somewhere between 15 and 22. We got ANNIHILATED. Back in the day, we were top of the game. Obviously he was much, much better than us, but to be blunt, it's no fun playing against players of that caliber. So... twitch doesn't appeal to me anymore.

But obviously... twitch shooters are still a huge thing. I just don't understand the hate. Mostly tho the above-stated SP-campaign comparisons.

WHY do you think you need a SP campaign? You can play against bots, correct? Then who cares?
13.
 
Re: Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics Return to Steam
Jun 19, 2014, 04:39
yonder
 
13.
Re: Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics Return to Steam Jun 19, 2014, 04:39
Jun 19, 2014, 04:39
 yonder
 
If you guys are going to have such a hard view on Obsidian, you should do yourselves a favor and educate yourselves about Obsidian so that you can have some facts to back up your viewpoint.

Obsidian was (was regarding pre-Kickstarter, cuz that MIGHT change everything) an incredibly odd developer. Most developers have a dynamic relationship with their publishers. Obsidian didn't. They were basically mercenary developers. They usually had concrete development-only contracts with the publishers for usually just one game. They pretty much never had any intentions of staying with that publisher in order to publish more than one game.

This led to some pretty unpleasant developments. With no post-publish support intended, Obsidian had no financial reason, at all, to fix bugs past the publishing date. I'm not saying Obsidian never cared about bugs. They definitely did. But once the publish date arrived... that's it (unless they get a post-release contract for bug support)

Now... bugs and delays happen all the time. But in a normal contract, publishers BASICALLY agree to support the devs until the game is published. If delays are necessary, it's unpleasant and often ends in unpleasantness, but things often get fixed. Basically... a regular contract is "We will pay you until you get the game done, which should be four years from now, at which point we will get the lion's share of the income" whereas Obsidian's contracts were usually "We will pay you until December 17th of such-n-such year at which point we will release the game or have a new contract in place, and after the game we will support the game in-house"

That leads to some incredibly predictable outcomes.

Look at their history.

KOTOR - Lucasarts - Buggy as hell (some game-breaking bugs STILL haven't been fixed.
Neverwinter Nights 2 - Atari - Pretty good, but buggy as hell.
Alpha Protocol - Sega - Need I even say anything?
Fallout New Vegas - Bethesda - Buggy as hell.
Dungeon Siege 3 - Squeenix - Just horrible. Horrible.
South Park, Stick of Truth - Ubisoft - see above about bugginess.
You'll notice a pattern. Publishers, who own the IPs, want a SEQUEL to a great game published on the cheap. Instead of paying more money to the original developers for a top-notch sequel, they hire developer Obsidian to make it under a mercenary contract.
Pillars of Eternity - crowd-financed but published by Paradox - We'll see.

Obsidian makes GREAT stuff. And if they had proper financial support in order to actually FINISH the games before they're released, I'd absolutely love them. But they haven't, yet.

I seriously don't understand the geek love that Obsidian gets. I *HOPE* it's because people incorrectly associate Obsidian with Black Isle. I could understand that. It's wrong, but it's understandable. But if you're judging Obsidian on their current record... you're simply wrong. Or you're okay with horribly buggy games. (And anecdotal evidence that YOU didn't encounter a butt-ton of bugs with their games doesn't mean squat other than you being lucky.)
6.
 
Re: AMD Calls Out NVIDIA; Former NVIDIA Dev Calls BS
May 27, 2014, 10:56
yonder
 
6.
Re: AMD Calls Out NVIDIA; Former NVIDIA Dev Calls BS May 27, 2014, 10:56
May 27, 2014, 10:56
 yonder
 
ochentay4 wrote on May 27, 2014, 10:31:
Jraptor59 wrote on May 27, 2014, 10:08:
Ah, the irony. AMD crippled Tomb Raider for Nvidia. Nvidia didn't even receive the source code to update its drivers till after the game was released. Talk about the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
AMD did not crippled Tomb Raider. In fact Tomb Raider had a lot of problems with AMD cards since the game was rushed to add stupid TressFX and skipped bug crunching and optimizations. So it ran like crap on both sides and worse on NVIDIA sicne TressFX was buggy as hell. After some patches it run great on AMD and NVIDIA.

It saddens me that even at BN fanbois still believe claims like that without putting forth any investigation. Tomb Raider was rushed, not crippled. I honestly thought common sense would be enough to determine that, but apparently not.

While AMD/ATI is far from blameless, most of the corporate shenanigans in the GPU wars have been done by nVidia. The closest thing to *REAL* crippling was done by nVidia in regards to forbidding PhysX from working universally. Turned out to not be that big of a deal, but yeah... that was definitely, to quote the nVidia employee "bullshit" (that's some mature classiness there nVidia employee...).

And don't even get me started on the videocard numbering system, which nVidia is most definitely to blame. AMD's numbering system isn't nearly as flawless as it used to be (it used to be bigger number = better, nothing more, nothing less), but it's still a crapton easier to figure out.

nVidia makes great stuff. But their corporation is terrible.
6.
 
Re: Evening Consolidation
May 15, 2014, 06:32
yonder
 
6.
Re: Evening Consolidation May 15, 2014, 06:32
May 15, 2014, 06:32
 yonder
 
The Half Elf wrote on May 15, 2014, 02:40:
Here is how you sell the Kinect.

1)Remake Star Trek Bridge Commander
2)Have total voice control of the ship
3)Allow a Bluetooth mic or PC mic to work with it as well
4)For extra shit's n giggles be able to do the Picard 'Engage' hand wave.
5)Star Trek Nerdgasm/Ferengi Latinum-gasm

Dear Paramount, your welcome, just allow me to be on the design team.

There are a lot of legitimate AWESOME uses for the Kinect, but MS is too damned stupid to promote it properly and there's no reason to have faith that they'd support game development properly.

There's some talk about an official team-up between Oculus and Kinect and I'm sorry but that would be an AMAZING kill-app for the Kinect (obviously the x-boner Kinect, not the original one). If MS was working on that and NOT promoting it then holy cow... they're even stupider than I give them credit, and they get a LOT of credit.
16.
 
Re: Op Ed
May 13, 2014, 13:36
yonder
 
16.
Re: Op Ed May 13, 2014, 13:36
May 13, 2014, 13:36
 yonder
 
Right now, there are only two established companies that I pre-order from. Paradox and Bethesda. And that's because I routinely play hundreds upon hundreds of hours with each of their games. Yes... Paradox had some severe growing pains, but they're mostly past that at this point, and I hold them to the new standard whereas before I honestly considered it funding a studio to finish a game that was awesome but unfinished. But of course this was back when the ENTIRE studio was a dozen or so people. A grand total of NO ONE else was going to make those types of games so I truly didn't mind.

Of course, this only holds to games by these two studios, not by their publishing parents... obviously.

I so fund a FEW Early Access and Kickstarter games. I think I can count the total number of games funded that way on two hands. And Towns was the closest I came to getting screwed although considering that I consider that a FUN game already... I don't consider that as getting screwed. It wasn't the game they envisioned, but it was still a fun game. I'm okay with that. Tho the Towns 2 commentary rubbed me the wrong way.
13.
 
Re: Go Sports
May 4, 2014, 20:13
yonder
 
13.
Re: Go Sports May 4, 2014, 20:13
May 4, 2014, 20:13
 yonder
 
Quboid wrote on May 4, 2014, 16:52:
Are football/soccer teams owned by Americans given any attention in U.S. sports coverage? Clubs like Liverpool FC, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Arsenal (in part), Sunderland and AS Roma?
To answer your question a bit better than Cutter (I have no idea what Cutter's version of "here" is, for example), ESPN, the #1 sports channel in the US, has been pushing European (mostly British) football/soccer for about four years now, ever since they picked up on the last world cup. Personally, I think their strategy is horrible. I understand WHY they have British commentators talking about British football/soccer, but as an American, I can't understand half of what they're talking about. Not just the terminology (pitch vs field, club vs team, match vs game, etcetera) but the accents as well (there are two different English accents and that old Scottish guy who has, of course, a very thick Scottish accent).
I understand WHY they do it, but if you want to introduce European football (/soccer) to American audiences, do it in a way that is palatable to American audiences.
In 2006, they had one of their announcers commentate on the World Cup, but he had NO experience with calling the games. It was embarrassing. So, after 2010, they went to the extreme on the other side of the pendulum.
The US has had major league professional soccer (/football) for 20 years now. There have to be PLENTY of commentators out there that American audiences would find easy to digest who actually have a clue what they're talking about. Hearing an American voice using soccer (/football) terms like match, club, and pitch would be perfectly acceptable, and a great way to ease Americans into the world's most popular sport.
But ESPN is stupid.

Anyhow... in terms of ratings... soccer (/football) gets about half of the TV viewership of NHL (hockey) games in the US. Roughly a quarter million people watch each regular season MLS game on TV. That's not bad. It's NOWHERE near the NFL, which is an ASTOUNDING 20 million TV viewers per game. If you look at a list of the Top 32 most-watched TV programs in the US last fall, 31 of them were NFL games.

But still... if a quarter million TV viewers per game and the official attention of the #1 sports channel qualifies as "given any attention" then yes, they definitely are.

And to qualify some things I said above... I live in the US, and I don't actually have a problem using correct sports terminology, I'm just pointing out that the terminology combined with the accents makes it tough for Americans to consume. And this is coming from a huge soccer (/football) fan who is fond of British/European cultures and usually has no problem with accents (tho a thick Scottish accent... whew!)
25.
 
Re: ZeniMax vs. Oculus and Carmack on VR Tech
May 1, 2014, 17:09
yonder
 
25.
Re: ZeniMax vs. Oculus and Carmack on VR Tech May 1, 2014, 17:09
May 1, 2014, 17:09
 yonder
 
Quboid wrote on May 1, 2014, 16:35:
I don't think the patent thing is necessarily BS. Carmack does acknowledge that ZeniMax owns the code that he wrote, he's not trying to deflect from that. This suggests that he has written new code that has similarities to ZeniMax's old code, similarities that would be in breach of a patent had there been one.

Are Carmack and Oculus VR using code that he wrote while at ZeniMax, or are they using code that's very similar to code that he wrote at ZeniMax? I don't know what the legal position is if it's the later.

Luckily FB has some experience with the concept of writing "similar code" after the coder has left a partnership.

All that aside... this is going to be ugly, and it's going to be interesting.
3.
 
Re: Minecraft Realms Launches in North America
Apr 24, 2014, 19:15
yonder
 
3.
Re: Minecraft Realms Launches in North America Apr 24, 2014, 19:15
Apr 24, 2014, 19:15
 yonder
 
Okay I'm sorry but I don't understand the specifics of this list. I see... a bunch of Western European nations, some Eastern European-ish nations that are coming along nicely, some financially strong and neutral nations (UAE and Caymans), some non-European nations with strong ties to the UK, and tons of anonymous regions inside countries.

I also see Canada, Mexico, and "North America"

Did they just replace "United States" with "North America"? Or do they mean all of NA? If so, why list Mexico and Canada?

And yes I am American and have some personal bias in wanting to know if my nation is specifically served but seriously, that's a weird list.
13.
 
Re: Elite Dangerous Premium Beta
Apr 10, 2014, 11:55
yonder
 
13.
Re: Elite Dangerous Premium Beta Apr 10, 2014, 11:55
Apr 10, 2014, 11:55
 yonder
 
This site's community is usually utterly awesome and consistent (with a few consistent exceptions), but this utterly baffles me.

$150 and $295 for early (i.e. test) access and hardly a scoff? Two weeks ago, GalCiv3 offered Early Access for 100 bucks that guaranteed you 100% of future DLC and the response was nearly universal disdain.

Sure, the only person who commented on both seems to be Rigs (I really didn't bother doing a full comparison) who *IS* consistent. But still... where are all the GalCiv3 naysayers here?

That being said, I truly wish I could afford this. Oh well... I've been waiting for this game for 30 years. I can wait a few more months.
25.
 
removed
Feb 26, 2014, 17:59
yonder
 
25.
removed Feb 26, 2014, 17:59
Feb 26, 2014, 17:59
 yonder
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Feb 27, 2014, 06:51.
26.
 
Re: THIEF System Requirements - Mantle Support via Post-Release Patch
Feb 23, 2014, 23:49
yonder
 
26.
Re: THIEF System Requirements - Mantle Support via Post-Release Patch Feb 23, 2014, 23:49
Feb 23, 2014, 23:49
 yonder
 
Cutter wrote on Feb 23, 2014, 23:05:
Umbragen wrote on Feb 23, 2014, 21:07:
Damn, I just bought a new system and I'm already dangerously close to the recommended specs. Did I miss something?

Why would you buy something that low end to begin with? if you can't afford it all in one shot, do it piecemal.

I've actually never understood piecemeal computer building. Unless you're buying a piece on mega-sale, then it's going to cheaper in the future. Just save up and buy it all at once. This is assuming, of course, that you're talking about a whole new rig and not just an upgrade or two, which is what I'm pretty sure Umbragen was talking about.
31.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Feb 19, 2014, 03:47
yonder
 
31.
Re: Out of the Blue Feb 19, 2014, 03:47
Feb 19, 2014, 03:47
 yonder
 
I cried the whole time BN was down, including the time that only the comments were down. Then I got paranoid when I forgot Steam's weekly maintenance downtime, I thought there was a major DDOS going on.
13.
 
Re: Pillars of Eternity Slowed by Cash
Feb 8, 2014, 13:44
yonder
 
13.
Re: Pillars of Eternity Slowed by Cash Feb 8, 2014, 13:44
Feb 8, 2014, 13:44
 yonder
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Feb 8, 2014, 12:59:
Cutter wrote on Feb 8, 2014, 12:27:
My bone of contention is these KS' should be coming out with their original plan on schedule and the stretch goals as DLC/expansion stuff later on like Shadowrun is doing with the Berlin campaign. Most of these games all have editors and claim to be iterative enough to warrant several playthroughs so there's no reason not to do it that way.

Uh... I can only say, I massively disagree. If a Kickstart project would pull this stunt I'd revoke my pledge.

Good to see Cutter is in the massive minority. Unless, of course, the Kickstarter backers had that future DLC included as part of their backing.

The closest I can see is "Well, what we wanted was to make a basic, 20 dollar game, but you guys backed us so much that we're going to make a full-on, feature-full 60 dollar AAA game. Thanks!" That's, honestly, the closest I can see that I'd accept.

And I'm confused, doesn't Cutter know how "future DLC" and "several playthroughs" more often than not clash?
7.
 
Re: Beyond the Sideline Football Announced
Feb 1, 2014, 03:29
yonder
 
7.
Re: Beyond the Sideline Football Announced Feb 1, 2014, 03:29
Feb 1, 2014, 03:29
 yonder
 
Quboid wrote on Jan 31, 2014, 23:03:
CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 31, 2014, 22:52:
nin wrote on Jan 31, 2014, 22:23:
All 32 real American football teams with their real players and current rosters.

That can't be cheap.

Yeah. EA holds the NFL license so these guys must obviously be somehow connected to that rotten apple which does not bode well for the whole bunch...

The label 'NFL' is conspicuous in its absence, if they had the license it would be one of the first words in the press release. I doubt they have the proper NFL license but they may have some sort of access. I've known soccer games to have real players but not real competitions - even the daddy, Football Manager, has to fake a couple of competition names (unless you mod it, which they make ridiculously easy to do).

What do they mean by "All 32 real American football teams", are there 32 NFL teams? Are there other leagues? Are there not thousands of American Football teams throughout the country? I know you don't have promotion and relegation like most national soccer leagues but there must be other teams. College football?

The NFL has an anti-trust exemption (just like most other major sports). Further down the list, they talk about "Division I Colleges", so no, it's not college football. NFL is the one and only "real pro" league. And yes, there are 32 teams in the NFL (until they stupidly give LA a team but that's a whole other conversation).

There are "semi-pro" leagues and of course there's "Arena Football" with 14 teams and the CFL (Canadian) with 8 teams.

So, yeah, 32 teams pretty much means the NFL. Or so one would think... But the NFL is also highly covetous of its label and maybe they have a licensing agreement for access to team and player names but not to "the shield" (the NFL logo and name). Knowing the NFL, I wouldn't be terrible surprised if that's the case.
7.
 
Re: SOE's SWG Comment Clarified
Jan 28, 2014, 12:48
yonder
 
7.
Re: SOE's SWG Comment Clarified Jan 28, 2014, 12:48
Jan 28, 2014, 12:48
 yonder
 
KS wrote on Jan 28, 2014, 12:25:
Swg was like City of Heroes -- jammed to the gills with innovative stuff (whether they were technically first or not).

I especially liked the way you could chain and program and play back entire dance performances. Cooler still, you could have several people driven by the same script, all dancing in perfect synchronization. This worked for instruments, too, IIRC, but there was no general note playing (which would have been cooler still but they were probably scared of copyrighted songs).

Entire player towns, with more than just houses, and elected mayors.

"Oh no, kreetles!"

Pretty good character customizer with lots of sliders, esp. face.

To do better: Make speeder travel a lot faster. These huge worlds are not your daddy's MMO anymore.

Maybe true 3D travel depending on milleu. That this isn't standard outside fantasy is so 1997.

And then, of course, SOE told those of us that loved it to take a hike and gave us crap so horribly bad that it shall forever live in the bowels of gaming infamy.

Sorry Sony (not really), I'm still not over what you guys (and LucasArts, to be fair) did to us. I was a merchant/mayor/musician/architect that went MONTHS between fights... name one other major MMO where you could do that. Tears still come to my eyes when I talk about it.
65.
 
Re: Thief System Requirements
Jan 20, 2014, 02:57
yonder
 
65.
Re: Thief System Requirements Jan 20, 2014, 02:57
Jan 20, 2014, 02:57
 yonder
 
Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 01:36:
Sorry, yonder, but you're mistaken. If you're playing a game in a manner that the designers never intended or foresaw, that's emergent gameplay. Doesn't matter if you're exploiting a bug or not.

I'm perfectly comfy agreeing to disagree with the exploit-accepting half of that definition. Just as long as you are aware that, if this community is any decent measure (and it usually is), you're in the extreme minority. Wall-hacks in Counterstrike, for example, are cheats... not emergent gameplay.


Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 01:36:
Skiing in Tribes redefined how the game was played and resulted in many other emergences, such as mine-discing, disc-jumping, mortar-jumping, grenade-jumping, bodyblocking, beacon stopping/jumping, etc. None of these tactics or maneuvers were explicitly designed by the developers and were instead created/discovered by high-level players who needed to innovate in order to remain competitive.

Tribes had TONS of emergent gameplay, that's one of the many appeals. I just don't include the things that later became regarded as exploits, and one of your previous posts included it. In regards to Tribes, that's the only thing I disagreed with.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 01:36:
Look up "emergent" in the dictionary. Note that one of the definitions (and the only one really applicable to videogames) is "arising casually or unexpectedly."

I did, as implied earlier. The dictionary definition wasn't much help:

1. coming into view or notice; issuing.
2. emerging; rising from a liquid or other surrounding medium.
3. coming into existence, especially with political independence: the emergent nations of Africa.
4. arising casually or unexpectedly.
5. calling for immediate action; urgent.

So I looked up emergent gameplay:

Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.

It's properly using the tools you're given to come up with solutions that the designers didn't come up with on their own. Again, I know you disagree, I'm just giving you another example. Is stashing some aces up your sleeve in poker emergent gameplay? By your definition, it seems so. Most of us, I'd think, would vehemently say no.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 01:36:
Also, please tell me how removing manual jumping REALLY limits the openness of the game. Did it allow you to reach places you weren't supposed to go in the original games? I'm going to keep posting the links I posted earlier until people actually click on them:

Um... *YES* it did. That's a superb example of emergent gameplay. But that's not my personal issue with the manual jumping issue.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 01:36:
Everybody in this thread should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pWLqx9Q0UA and then read this: http://community.eidosmontreal.com/blogs/Stealing-Time-Episode-4?theme=thief

Finished watching the video? Good. Now please tell me how the traversal in that game is any more limited than the traversal in the previous games. Hell, the traversal in that video showed more mobility and verticality than any of the previous games ever had. Also note that the player falls off ledges several times in the video.

Happily. You didn't ask, but that "knock the big box down and use the box to climb up to that ladder" thing at about 45 seconds is a superb example of what we don't find appealing. At 2:35, he climbs up some wooden bits and auto-jumps to the next horizontal beam. Later on, he's hopping from beam-to-beam.

Now... I love me some Arkham and Assassin's Creed. But I'd prefer my Thief to be Thief, and not Arkham and AssCreed. Thief is built around tension, and not requiring any skill at all to get from place to place breaks that immersion, and autojumping *IS* "not requiring skill blahblahblah". I'm not saying I want to fall off the beams like a newbie in Super Mario, but I also definitely do *NOT* want something that difficult to be automatic. Of course, now we're talking immersion-breaking and not emergent gameplay, just in case that wasn't obvious.

What we want is "Here's a level, let's see how you figure it out" not "Here's a level, see if you can figure out the solutions we left in the game for you."

What we want is to be able to play it in front of the designers and them say "holy crap, never even thought about that!"

We don't see that concept as being compatible with what is being presented here. At least not FULLY compatible.

Listen... this looks like a superb game. But it's called Thief. If you want the prestige that comes with a historically beloved classic game, then darnit, you deserve the scrutiny. If this wasn't called Thief, people wouldn't be apply (or shouldn't be nearly as much) the same standards. The name invokes the standards.

Look at Sim City. It *MAY* have been an acceptable game (I'm being excessively generous here, just pretend) on its own. But EA insisted on applying the "Sim City" moniker to it. And thusly they got reamed for it. VERY deservedly so.

This game looks fun. If it was called "Bob's Stealy-stuff Simulation" then I think most of it would think something more like "Hey... that looks like AssCreed and Arkham and that kinda game" and less like "Hey... that reminds me of Thief, one of my all-time favorite games".

The comparisons and the wariness are valid.

And, finally, thank you for being mature and quantifying your points-of-view. Yet another reason I love this community. Still think you're dead wrong on the definition of emergent gameplay, but that's fine.
56.
 
Re: Thief System Requirements
Jan 20, 2014, 01:19
yonder
 
56.
Re: Thief System Requirements Jan 20, 2014, 01:19
Jan 20, 2014, 01:19
 yonder
 
Redmask wrote on Jan 19, 2014, 18:24:
Some of you are pretty damned reactionary when you've observed less than 10 minutes of gameplay and none of it firsthand. Take a fucking pill and wait for the reviews then.

Some people actually have the ability to learn from the past and spot patterns. For example, I knew Sim City would be a gigantic turd LONG before it came out. Cuz I'm intelligent enough to be able to figure it out.

Anywayz... I think Jerykk would like an example of emergent gameplay in the original Thief games.

And sorry Jerykk, you're wrong, the Tribes example is an exploit. Exploits are NOT emergent gameplay. If 75 people write down the definition of a word and 74 of them have the same definition, then what is LIKELY the case is that the 1 person's definition is wrong. Not always, but likely. What would be a superb example of emergent gameplay is the solutions people came up with in Black & White. The players were provided with a set of tools and figured out their own way through the levels. Yes, the developers had a pretty good guess what most people would choose, but plenty of people chose methods/paths/solutions that completely surprised the developers.

*THAT* is what emergent gameplay is. Not exploits of bugs.

I think Jerykk would appreciate some SPECIFIC examples of the emergent gameplay that we all loved with the original Thief games.

As for the people saying "They only changed one or two things as far as you know" well... there are plenty of things that it's okay to change. And some that it's not.

If I'm baking a cake and I use half the sugar or cream, it'll still basically be a cake. If I use half the eggs... it won't really be a cake. Eggs are a VITAL ingredient. Sugar and cream are important, sure, but the cake will be mostly fine without them.

People are saying that jumping and things like that are like eggs to a cake. And, in general, I mostly agree with them. Not allowing manual jumping REALLY limits the openness of the game, just as an example. And openness was a huge aspect of the appeal of Thief.

While Thief wasn't quite a "software toy" like The Sims or certain, pre-WoW MMOS (except EVE, kudos to EVE for staying awesome), it was kinda close in many aspects. Many of us old-school Thief lovers see the very specific changes as intentionally moving away from that software toy quality that we enjoyed and moving more towards generic, AAA games.

And for those who buy the whole "It must turn away from the classic Thief lovers in order to appeal to the mass market so that they can afford to make it"... HOGWASH. Put a "hardcore, oldschool Thief" game aside a "modern, AAA, mainstream Thief" game in fundraising and you very well may be surprised. I won't even bother listing all of the major funding examples lately of people HAPPILY giving money because someone is FINALLY able to make the game that they've been dying to buy for years.

Anywayz... yeah... give Jerykk some specific examples (the person who was talking about falling off ledges earlier did so) to illustrate, specifically, what we mean. And Jerykk... I thought about posting the actual definition of "emergent gameplay" as found in many, many places on the internet... but decided not to. Your definition is simply wrong. Not entirely, just somewhat.
13.
 
Re: SOE Going Forward With Unified Subscriptions
Jan 7, 2014, 19:36
yonder
 
13.
Re: SOE Going Forward With Unified Subscriptions Jan 7, 2014, 19:36
Jan 7, 2014, 19:36
 yonder
 
MajorD wrote on Jan 7, 2014, 15:45:
WTF am I missing? $14.99/Month (~$180.00/year); how is that attractive, or even a deal?

With as many games most people have in their libraries, most unfinished and a lot un-played, I just don't see the logic is shelling out $14.99/MONTH to play a game(s). /shrug



It's not to play "A" game, it's to play ANY of their games.

Let's say Sony hadn't annihilated Star Wars Galaxies and it was still an ongoing, fairly unique MMO. Let's say you play that still. Now, let's say you also want to play some EverQuest. Now, let's say there's an upcoming subscription-based MMO that you're really interested in.

In the past, that'd be 3 subscriptions.

Now it's one.

Because c'mon, you're not playing them at the same time...

*THAT* is the value. *IF* you're interested in multiple subscription-based Sony MMOs then it's a great deal.

... but I'm still burnt from SWG... I miss my dancing wookies!
452 Comments. 23 pages. Viewing page 16.
Newer [  1    8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  ] Older