[VG]Reagle wrote on Aug 29, 2010, 04:04:
You all sound like a bunch of fucking babies.

welcome to planet earth

You all sound like a bunch of fucking babies.

FiLTHY_SNiPER wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 11:08:
I hate the argument against this game saying there's not enough to do in the city outside the missions. The city is just a set piece for a linear cinematically driven experience.
That's like saying in Modern Warfare 2, in the snow mobile level, I should have been able to stop, get off my ride and go squirrel hunting.
So I guess Mafia 2 would benefit more from not having a giant city to create more immersion, and instead a strangely blocked off or invisible walled 100x smaller version of a city?
It's fucking stupid.

I haven't played very much of the game yet, but the atmosphere is through the roof.
From the sound of it though, it seems the original game is a far more immersive and fruitful experience.
I'll make up my own mind once I'm finished Mafia 2.

When you build a large sandbox type engine then fill it up with a large city with NPCs, it shouldn't be a surprise that some people probably expect sandbox gameplay. People had similar complaints about Prototype and Infamous, another pair of "sandbox" games where sandbox only applies to the actual game setting and not the gameplay.

I think it's a credit to the game that people want to stick around and have more to do in it. I wouldn't be offended by that if I was a developer, I'd be looking for a way to keep them coming back in Mafia 3.

FiLTHY_SNiPER wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 11:08:
That's like saying in Modern Warfare 2, in the snow mobile level, I should have been able to stop, get off my ride and go squirrel hunting.

"We have to find the inte... SQUIRREL!"

I hate the argument against this game saying there's not enough to do in the city outside the missions. The city is just a set piece for a linear cinematically driven experience.
That's like saying in Modern Warfare 2, in the snow mobile level, I should have been able to stop, get off my ride and go squirrel hunting.
So I guess Mafia 2 would benefit more from not having a giant city to create more immersion, and instead a strangely blocked off or invisible walled 100x smaller version of a city?
It's fucking stupid.

I haven't played very much of the game yet, but the atmosphere is through the roof.
From the sound of it though, it seems the original game is a far more immersive and fruitful experience.
I'll make up my own mind once I'm finished Mafia 2.

I still think there is a lot to like about this game, such as the look, the sound and the atmosphere. Some of the humor is a really nice touch as well. But in my opinion it really does fall short on game play, I found the action sequences in the original Mafia more satisfying than what I've played through so far in Mafia 2. 4/10 is well short of the mark however, If I was feeling generous I'd say this game is maybe worth 8/10.

Jerykk wrote on Aug 27, 2010, 01:21:
Oh, I don't diaagree. But that seems like more of a problem with people than with piracy. Many things can be exploited and abused for selfish reasons. For example, the lack of a return policy for opened PC software. Is there a good reason for that? Sure. People could just buy the game, play it and then return it. But it also means that companies can get away with shoddy software that's either broken or crappy. Capitalism has upsides and downsides, as does Communism. Same applies to piracy. Nothing is inherently right or wrong.

The simple solution is for every game to have a demo, really. That works so well on Xbox Arcade, it would work well for games as a whole (for good games anyway).

Still, I hope you understand I can't support your method because the vast majority of people abuse it.

about halfway through Mafia 2 and while the city they have created is nice to look at, It just doesn't feel like there is enough game there to go with it.

After reading reviews that said the same thing - I just assumed it was going to be riddled with tons of pay for DLC.

Still going to get it though.

The actual value is the damn market price. Which YOU do not get to decide.

Now you're contradicting yourself. If consumers didn't decide the value of any given product, then wouldn't companies charge exorbitant prices for everything? After all, consumers have no choice. They must buy everything at the asked price.

Oh wait, that's not how it actually works. If consumers don't agree with a product's pricing, they don't buy it. Eventually, the price is lowered until consumers start buying it. Therefore, consumers do decide the value of a product. The difference between you and I is that I determine the value through first-hand experience, whereas you decide based upon marketing, third-party opinions, etc.

But as usual, you aren't going to provide a logical rebuttal to anything I just said because you can't. Such is the nature of self-righteousness.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people would never pay for it, or wait for a $5 Steam sale, even if they liked the game and got many hours of entertainment out of it.

Oh, I don't diaagree. But that seems like more of a problem with people than with piracy. Many things can be exploited and abused for selfish reasons. For example, the lack of a return policy for opened PC software. Is there a good reason for that? Sure. People could just buy the game, play it and then return it. But it also means that companies can get away with shoddy software that's either broken or crappy. Capitalism has upsides and downsides, as does Communism. Same applies to piracy. Nothing is inherently right or wrong.

This comment was edited on Aug 27, 2010, 01:32.

Old_Geezer wrote on Aug 26, 2010, 16:23:
First of all, I apologize to everyone for actually talking about the game. I hope I don't annoy anyone by ignoring the piracy/anti-piracy war that's going down here.

Now then, onto the post: I thought the original Mafia was a masterpiece. I'd go so far as to say that it was absolutely brilliant in fact. After playing through a half-dozen or so "missions" in Mafia II, I'm scratching my head and wondering how the hell this game is getting so many rave-reviews. Am I the only one who thinks this game is a tedious snooze-fest? I've never played a game with so much filler and so little actual meat! Drive here, drive there, change your clothes, blah blah... I have nothing against a "cinematic" experience in a game, but this game is loaded with cut-scenes and the majority of interactiveness involves banal bullshit. I'm half-expecting, at some point, to be told to push "E" to sit on the toilet and push "F" to wipe my ass. To anyone who has finished this game (which I doubt I'm going to do) I ask: If you whittle away all the cut-scenes and all the "gameplay" parts where you're driving from point A to point B, changing your clothes or otherwise doing monotonous things, would there actually be an hour's worth of action (where you either shooting, sneaking, beating-up or otherwise enjoying the main-course rather than the salad and bread filler)?

The game is gorgeous to be sure, but I've gotten so bored with it that I'm debating whether or not to just drop it. Is the second half of the game a million times more exciting than the first half? Please tell me it is!

The early segments in the WW2 era lack a lot of real missions, to be honest. The later missions are much longer and include a lot more shooting, driving and such. Despite still loving the game for the experience I had some misgivings early on, but it all came together quickly.

I replayed Mafia just before Mafia 2 was released and for the most part I enjoyed it. It had some really fun and challenging missions for sure. I'm now about halfway through Mafia 2 and while the city they have created is nice to look at, It just doesn't feel like there is enough game there to go with it. All the cut scene watching makes you feel kinda disconnected from the game world and story.
Lots of tedious tasks to carry out, most entertaining part so far for me has been the demo mission and that sold me on pre-order.

Edit: I'm a made man!

This comment was edited on Aug 26, 2010, 18:54.

First of all, I apologize to everyone for actually talking about the game. I hope I don't annoy anyone by ignoring the piracy/anti-piracy war that's going down here.

Now then, onto the post: I thought the original Mafia was a masterpiece. I'd go so far as to say that it was absolutely brilliant in fact. After playing through a half-dozen or so "missions" in Mafia II, I'm scratching my head and wondering how the hell this game is getting so many rave-reviews. Am I the only one who thinks this game is a tedious snooze-fest? I've never played a game with so much filler and so little actual meat! Drive here, drive there, change your clothes, blah blah... I have nothing against a "cinematic" experience in a game, but this game is loaded with cut-scenes and the majority of interactiveness involves banal bullshit. I'm half-expecting, at some point, to be told to push "E" to sit on the toilet and push "F" to wipe my ass. To anyone who has finished this game (which I doubt I'm going to do) I ask: If you whittle away all the cut-scenes and all the "gameplay" parts where you're driving from point A to point B, changing your clothes or otherwise doing monotonous things, would there actually be an hour's worth of action (where you either shooting, sneaking, beating-up or otherwise enjoying the main-course rather than the salad and bread filler)?

The game is gorgeous to be sure, but I've gotten so bored with it that I'm debating whether or not to just drop it. Is the second half of the game a million times more exciting than the first half? Please tell me it is!

Well this is a first... cleaning toilet urinals in a video game. Honestly, I never thought I'd see the day!

nothing ...

This comment was edited on Aug 26, 2010, 14:23.

Jerykk wrote on Aug 26, 2010, 00:41:
Secondly, the people you describe obviously don't ascribe to my moral values. I pay what I feel a game is worth. If I play a game and love it, I'll pay full price (sometimes even more). If I think it's just decent, I'll wait for the price to drop. If I hate it, I won't buy it at all.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people would never pay for it, or wait for a $5 Steam sale, even if they liked the game and got many hours of entertainment out of it.

Even the ones who, like you, pay money for the game they like would often find justifications to pay less than full price even if they loved the game.

People are selfish shits, in other words, which is why nothing relies on the honor system you propose. You realize this, I am sure. I am also sure your comment will be something about how "well I am not those people," but the point is that the ability to do that is still hurting PC gaming because most people never pay a dime.

Syd wrote on Aug 25, 2010, 21:52:

kxmode wrote on Aug 25, 2010, 20:33:

Syd wrote on Aug 25, 2010, 08:33:
Some day you will ache like i ache.

Like your achy breaky heart?

aren't you the guy that said starcraft 2 was isometric ? lmfao

I'm rubber you're glue!

Tanto Edge wrote on Aug 26, 2010, 11:17:
Like Jerk says:

The only thing you can do is keep saying "YOU'RE WRONG!" ad nauseum.

The lifeblood of forums. If you ever thought these threads were anything but...

btw, ascribed really doesn't mean what you keep using it as.
Please stop. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition%3A+ascribed
I'd like to maintain that Bluesnews readers are a higher level of troll

Games are worth whatever they're worth when I buy them.
Like Jerk says: if I like it, I'll buy it.

That has nothing to do with the puppies.

What are you blathering about? The value of the game depends on the experience the consumer has when playing it.

No, that's the value to you.
The actual value is the damn market price. Which YOU do not get to decide.



You are so fucking insane it hurts my head. You're the only person here I give actual insults to. You get all offended when I do, but you're sick in the head. You're honestly completely bent. It's mindboggling that you don't look in the mirror and realize this.

I'm somewhat convinced you tortured puppies as a child because you were bored and hell, they're just animals, who cares? If someone misses it they can just buy a new one.

No you creepster, you pay how much the person that owns it is charging. If you do not feel it is worth what they are charging you wait. And while you wait you do not play it.

You can regurgitate the same claim as many times as you want but you're not actually providing any reasoning for it. Like I said, if the publisher and/or developer gets the same amount of money from both the pirate and the non-pirate, why does it matter when the game is actually played? It certainly doesn't matter to the publisher/developer. They still see the same amount of profit.

Please try to support your argument with something more substantial than "YOU'RE WRONG CUZ I SAID SO!!!1!"

But Customer A got the value of the game when it was full price, yet he didn't pay for it until it wasn't full price.

What are you blathering about? The value of the game depends on the experience the consumer has when playing it. The game's asking price is completely irrelevant. A game that costs $20 is often more enjoyable than games that cost $60. As such, I'd have no problem paying more than the asking price for it.

For example, I bought Psychonauts directly from Double Fine for $30. I could have gotten the game for under $5 elsewhere. However, I was willing to pay $30 because that's how much I felt the game was worth. Are you honestly telling me that if everybody did things like this, the industry would suffer?

A game would come out and no one would buy it. Why? Because they're waiting for the price to fall while they play it anyway. Of course, the net result is the price would NEVER fall and the honest customers get screwed.

Two problems with that argument:

First of all, your knowledge of economics is severely lacking. Less demand + high supply = lower prices. If nobody buys a game at full price, the price will inevitably drop until people do buy it.

Secondly, the people you describe obviously don't ascribe to my moral values. I pay what I feel a game is worth. If I play a game and love it, I'll pay full price (sometimes even more). If I think it's just decent, I'll wait for the price to drop. If I hate it, I won't buy it at all.

You're making the flawed assumption that I always wait for games to hit the bargain bin before buying them. This is incorrect. If my primary goal was to save money, I wouldn't buy games at all. But I do buy games because my primary goal is to reward developers for the games they make. The better the game, the greater the reward. Logical stuff, really. If everyone ascribed to this philosophy, there would be fewer crappy games and marketing would be a much smaller factor in a game's success. Games would be judged on quality above all else.

Your actions, and failure to realize they're wrong, makes you a dictionary definition.

Funny that you mention "wrong" and "dictionary" in the same sentence. If you look up "wrong" in the dictionary, do you see a description of my actions? No, I didn't think so. Do you really not understand that morality is subjective? That different people hold different values? This argument should provide sufficient evidence of that. If morals were absolute, we'd have nothing to argue about.

I'd ask you to provide a more compelling argument but I already know that's not going to happen. It's impossible, really, because your argument consists of inherently subjective beliefs. The only thing you can do is keep saying "YOU'RE WRONG!" ad nauseum.