43 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 43. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 7, 2012, 15:48 |
Beamer |
|
|
You're messed up, dude.
Just reread anything I said and question why you argue with everything.
The 90s were huge for indies. The 90s as a whole. Yes, by the end it had changed, and yes, it was a gradual change, but if someone wins 5 straight lotteries than loses the 5 more you don't say it was an unlucky 10 turns.
And I don't see how anyone can doubt that indies were more popular then. Yes, Minecraft is big, but what other indies come close to Duke, or Doom, or Quake? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 7, 2012, 11:31 |
ASeven |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Jul 7, 2012, 11:04:
ASeven, you said " Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them."
I claimed indies were never more popular than the 90s. Doom, Duke3D, Quake, etc., all indie. You said I'm wrong to classifiy them as indie because they were bedroom programmers and publishers already had control over them.
Point out where I said something you didn't.
Do I need to give you a dictionary so you can read the definition of "most"? Do you have problems understanding what that word means? Or are you just baiting and being the apologist you usually are?
And yes, by the 90s there were two groups, the devs under a publisher and the devs going the shareware group. Early 90s they were even but by the mid 90s shareware was giving way to publisher control. The difference between publishers back then and now is that publishers back then knew that the best way to make devs do their best work is to keep them in the bedroom programmer environment. In fact most of these devs simply coded the game and offered it to the publisher that would give the money to publish it. And this was on the microcomputers like the C64 and Spectrum. On the consoles most, if not all devs, were under publishers or the console manufacturer.
It's as if you didn't live in the 90s and are only trying to spout bullshit and revisionism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 7, 2012, 11:04 |
Beamer |
|
|
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 16:23:
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 15:36:
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:53:
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 10:10:
When people say "indies are more popular than ever before" can we conclude that they weren't alive in the 90s?
Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? All indies.
Why are indies popular again? Distribution makes them easy to sell, pricing and humble bundles make them easy to buy, rudimentary graphics (in almost all cases) make them easy to make, and mobile/tablet has made simple games incredibly popular (which often turns into a gateway, for devs, to somewhat deeper games.)
Neither were you born there if you use the term indie to classify them. Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them. It isn't hard for me to back this up, I have all the magazines of that period. The shareware wave was also technically indie but with too many differences of today's indie's mentality which is, stay far away from publishers as possible. THose shareware programmers back then had the opposite attitude.
And saying indies are popular due to current distribution models is like saying gas is popular due to the current distribution model it has for vehicles, you are stating the plain obvious that nobody denies. And the truth is, indies are becoming more popular than mainstream regardless of the distribution methods which should tell you something about your dear publishers.
Wait, so GT had control over Doom and Duke Nukem?
Seriously?
How about you stop putting words in my mouth and how about start reading what you reply to and stop inventing bullshit I didn't write or infer?
ASeven, you said " Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them."
I claimed indies were never more popular than the 90s. Doom, Duke3D, Quake, etc., all indie. You said I'm wrong to classifiy them as indie because they were bedroom programmers and publishers already had control over them.
Point out where I said something you didn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 7, 2012, 02:17 |
nin |
|
|
Dmitri_M wrote on Jul 7, 2012, 02:12:
nin wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 14:09:
I don't feel like every game has to be flashy and have a multi million budget. I get just as much entertainment and fun for smaller games.
And I can easily see how people would say "boy oh boy oh boy this is a return to gaming of old screw the publishers!" because that's how it used to be. There was nothing wrong with it then, and there's nothing wrong with it taking a turn that way (or wanting it to take a turn that way) now.
I read your post without making any presumptions regarding the yaw, pitch, height above sea level or azimuth - of your nose.
Thank you, kind sir! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 7, 2012, 02:12 |
Dmitri_M |
|
|
nin wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 14:09:
I don't feel like every game has to be flashy and have a multi million budget. I get just as much entertainment and fun for smaller games.
And I can easily see how people would say "boy oh boy oh boy this is a return to gaming of old screw the publishers!" because that's how it used to be. There was nothing wrong with it then, and there's nothing wrong with it taking a turn that way (or wanting it to take a turn that way) now.
I read your post without making any presumptions regarding the yaw, pitch, height above sea level or azimuth - of your nose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 7, 2012, 00:57 |
Teddy |
|
|
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:55:
nin wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:49:
Dmitri_M wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:41:
This whole indie gaming is the salvation of gaming is overblown. Most are too simplistic. Unless you consider remakes of old arcade games to be a return to early 2000s late 90s gaming.
I imagine you sticking your nose up in the air, as I read that...
Yeap. Sorry Dmitri but you sounded like a bonafide hipster just then. 
Is this sarcasm, or do you honestly not know what a hipster is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 21:18 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 16:23:
How about you stop putting words in my mouth and how about start reading what you reply to and stop inventing bullshit I didn't write or infer? And by "infer" you mean "imply". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 16:23 |
ASeven |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 15:36:
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:53:
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 10:10:
When people say "indies are more popular than ever before" can we conclude that they weren't alive in the 90s?
Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? All indies.
Why are indies popular again? Distribution makes them easy to sell, pricing and humble bundles make them easy to buy, rudimentary graphics (in almost all cases) make them easy to make, and mobile/tablet has made simple games incredibly popular (which often turns into a gateway, for devs, to somewhat deeper games.)
Neither were you born there if you use the term indie to classify them. Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them. It isn't hard for me to back this up, I have all the magazines of that period. The shareware wave was also technically indie but with too many differences of today's indie's mentality which is, stay far away from publishers as possible. THose shareware programmers back then had the opposite attitude.
And saying indies are popular due to current distribution models is like saying gas is popular due to the current distribution model it has for vehicles, you are stating the plain obvious that nobody denies. And the truth is, indies are becoming more popular than mainstream regardless of the distribution methods which should tell you something about your dear publishers.
Wait, so GT had control over Doom and Duke Nukem?
Seriously?
How about you stop putting words in my mouth and how about start reading what you reply to and stop inventing bullshit I didn't write or infer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 15:36 |
Beamer |
|
|
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:53:
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 10:10:
When people say "indies are more popular than ever before" can we conclude that they weren't alive in the 90s?
Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? All indies.
Why are indies popular again? Distribution makes them easy to sell, pricing and humble bundles make them easy to buy, rudimentary graphics (in almost all cases) make them easy to make, and mobile/tablet has made simple games incredibly popular (which often turns into a gateway, for devs, to somewhat deeper games.)
Neither were you born there if you use the term indie to classify them. Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them. It isn't hard for me to back this up, I have all the magazines of that period. The shareware wave was also technically indie but with too many differences of today's indie's mentality which is, stay far away from publishers as possible. THose shareware programmers back then had the opposite attitude.
And saying indies are popular due to current distribution models is like saying gas is popular due to the current distribution model it has for vehicles, you are stating the plain obvious that nobody denies. And the truth is, indies are becoming more popular than mainstream regardless of the distribution methods which should tell you something about your dear publishers.
Wait, so GT had control over Doom and Duke Nukem?
Seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 14:38 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
Dmitri_M wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 12:54:
That's how I feel about most of the guys saying World of Goo, Super Meat Boy and Crayon Physics equal Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenshield or Quake. I know that's a terrible comparison but it's the first thing that pops into my head when I read people claiming these small new titles are the second coming.
Some exceptions I can think of are Mount and Blade which I got a lot of value out of, hmm, maybe Frozen Synapse? I guess ArmA is indie too..Galciv?. But seeing a little indie title showing up on steam get comments sections flooded with "boy oh boy oh boy this is a return to gaming of old screw the publishers!" is laughable.
How does saying I want good high budget titles make me a hipster? I want a return to large publishers with budgets who give a damn about producing good AAA titles. I'm not arguing for the "little man" while wearing a sideways green commie hat and playing something simplistic stupid on my ipad.
Some of the kickstarter projects with their larger budgets show promise as having real depth being more than just indie platformers\puzzle games.
I actually agree with you, and that's probably why I'm so happy about the kickstarters that I've contributed to. I'm really hoping for some good games to come out of that. I like the little simple ones sometimes when I just want to kill a little time, but they don't really hold my attention like I'm hoping Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, Grim Dawn and the other KS games will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 33. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 14:09 |
nin |
|
|
I don't feel like every game has to be flashy and have a multi million budget. I get just as much entertainment and fun for smaller games.
And I can easily see how people would say "boy oh boy oh boy this is a return to gaming of old screw the publishers!" because that's how it used to be. There was nothing wrong with it then, and there's nothing wrong with it taking a turn that way (or wanting it to take a turn that way) now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 12:54 |
Dmitri_M |
|
|
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:55:
nin wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:49:
Dmitri_M wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:41:
This whole indie gaming is the salvation of gaming is overblown. Most are too simplistic. Unless you consider remakes of old arcade games to be a return to early 2000s late 90s gaming.
I imagine you sticking your nose up in the air, as I read that...
Yeap. Sorry Dmitri but you sounded like a bonafide hipster just then.
That's how I feel about most of the guys saying World of Goo, Super Meat Boy and Crayon Physics equal Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenshield or Quake. I know that's a terrible comparison but it's the first thing that pops into my head when I read people claiming these small new titles are the second coming.
Some exceptions I can think of are Mount and Blade which I got a lot of value out of, hmm, maybe Frozen Synapse? I guess ArmA is indie too..Galciv?. But seeing a little indie title showing up on steam get comments sections flooded with "boy oh boy oh boy this is a return to gaming of old screw the publishers!" is laughable.
How does saying I want good high budget titles make me a hipster? I want a return to large publishers with budgets who give a damn about producing good AAA titles. I'm not arguing for the "little man" while wearing a sideways green commie hat and playing something simplistic stupid on my ipad.
Some of the kickstarter projects with their larger budgets show promise as having real depth being more than just indie platformers\puzzle games.
This comment was edited on Jul 6, 2012, 13:04. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 11:55 |
ASeven |
|
|
nin wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:49:
Dmitri_M wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:41:
This whole indie gaming is the salvation of gaming is overblown. Most are too simplistic. Unless you consider remakes of old arcade games to be a return to early 2000s late 90s gaming.
I imagine you sticking your nose up in the air, as I read that...
Yeap. Sorry Dmitri but you sounded like a bonafide hipster just then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 11:53 |
ASeven |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 10:10:
When people say "indies are more popular than ever before" can we conclude that they weren't alive in the 90s?
Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? All indies.
Why are indies popular again? Distribution makes them easy to sell, pricing and humble bundles make them easy to buy, rudimentary graphics (in almost all cases) make them easy to make, and mobile/tablet has made simple games incredibly popular (which often turns into a gateway, for devs, to somewhat deeper games.)
Neither were you born there if you use the term indie to classify them. Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them. It isn't hard for me to back this up, I have all the magazines of that period. The shareware wave was also technically indie but with too many differences of today's indie's mentality which is, stay far away from publishers as possible. THose shareware programmers back then had the opposite attitude.
And saying indies are popular due to current distribution models is like saying gas is popular due to the current distribution model it has for vehicles, you are stating the plain obvious that nobody denies. And the truth is, indies are becoming more popular than mainstream regardless of the distribution methods which should tell you something about your dear publishers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 11:49 |
nin |
|
|
Dmitri_M wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:41:
This whole indie gaming is the salvation of gaming is overblown. Most are too simplistic. Unless you consider remakes of old arcade games to be a return to early 2000s late 90s gaming.
I imagine you sticking your nose up in the air, as I read that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 11:41 |
Dmitri_M |
|
|
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 10:10:
When people say "indies are more popular than ever before" can we conclude that they weren't alive in the 90s?
Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? All indies.
Why are indies popular again? Distribution makes them easy to sell, pricing and humble bundles make them easy to buy, rudimentary graphics (in almost all cases) make them easy to make, and mobile/tablet has made simple games incredibly popular (which often turns into a gateway, for devs, to somewhat deeper games.) This whole indie gaming is the salvation of gaming is overblown. Most are too simplistic. Unless you consider remakes of old arcade games to be a return to early 2000s late 90s gaming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 10:23 |
Verno |
|
|
Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 09:27:
Verno wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 09:21:
In retrospect we should have seen this coming, as PHJF pointed out they were making huge changes very late in the beta cycle and it was obvious the game was not ready or tested for release. Yeah, basically I was planning on getting it until the beta. The beta made me think, "I guess I will go ahead and wait a bit before buying this." Later, it was clear I wouldn't be playing it any time soon.
The funny thing is that I don't really regret the purchase itself, I just feel like the game could have been something really awesome and they missed the mark. The advent of the RMAH paid for my copy of Diablo 3, a copy of Guild Wars 2 and a nice dinner out. I'd readily give it all back to them if the game itself were more fun though  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Zelda BOTW, Dark Souls 3, Watch_Dogs 2
Watching: Fences, Black Sails, The Expanse |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 10:10 |
Beamer |
|
|
When people say "indies are more popular than ever before" can we conclude that they weren't alive in the 90s?
Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? All indies.
Why are indies popular again? Distribution makes them easy to sell, pricing and humble bundles make them easy to buy, rudimentary graphics (in almost all cases) make them easy to make, and mobile/tablet has made simple games incredibly popular (which often turns into a gateway, for devs, to somewhat deeper games.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 09:27 |
Mr. Tact |
|
|
Verno wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 09:21:
In retrospect we should have seen this coming, as PHJF pointed out they were making huge changes very late in the beta cycle and it was obvious the game was not ready or tested for release. Yeah, basically I was planning on getting it until the beta. The beta made me think, "I guess I will go ahead and wait a bit before buying this." Later, it was clear I wouldn't be playing it any time soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 6, 2012, 09:21 |
Verno |
|
|
Mr. Tact wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 09:05:
Yes, it is a H&S game. Yes, it is all about finding the next set of loot. You can make both of those true and still have either a bad game, an okay game, or a great game. Blizzard made an okay game. We expect Blizzard to make games that are better than okay.
Exactly. It's especially frustrating because they had a huge framework to base the game on so it's not like they needed to reinvent the wheel or something.
In retrospect we should have seen this coming, as PHJF pointed out they were making huge changes very late in the beta cycle and it was obvious the game was not ready or tested for release. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playing: Zelda BOTW, Dark Souls 3, Watch_Dogs 2
Watching: Fences, Black Sails, The Expanse |
|
|
|
|
| |
43 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.
|
|
|
|
Twitter 
