You see no value in purchasing games so how would your opinion ever have traction for someone who does?

You seem to conveniently forget that I do buy the games I like. Of course, whether or not you believe me is a whole other matter but that isn't really my concern.

You can setup a shitty little third party server but you can't clone the WoW experience - relatively stable server platforms, millions of players and so on.

I think the MMO experience is inherently shitty regardless of server, so this is a moot point for me.

Who are you to judge what their intent and goals were when designing the game?

Um, I'm the consumer. For an example of developers compromising their artistic integrity, refer to the Bioshock postmortem on Gamasutra. They state very clearly that they drastically changed the game in order to appeal to a greater market. Similarly, why do you think so many former PC developers have jumped ship to console? Why do you think so many PC franchises have become console franchises? Why do you think R6 turned from a realistic, tactical shooter into an arcadey console shooter? Why do you think Bioware focuses on console action RPGs rather than traditional cRPGs, despite their Black Isle heritage? Why do you think Deus Ex 2 was designed (and dumbed down) for the Xbox instead of the PC, where it's core fanbase was? Why do you think FO3 is Oblivion With Guns instead of a turn-based cRPG? Why do you think we will never, ever see a game like Planescape: Torment again?

Honestly, if you can't see how business interests compromise artistic integrity, you must be blind.

The Witcher has the most basic, dumbed down combat I've ever seen in an RPG and several of those games are console ports.

It's a good thing RPGs aren't focused on combat, huh? The most important part of any RPG is meaningful choice and consequence. The Witcher has that in spades.

As for the console ports, they were all platformers, a genre that works well on consoles. If a game's genre isn't best suited to the PC, I don't care if it's a port. Conversely, if a game is best suited to the PC, like shooters, strategy games or RPGs, I sure as hell don't want it to be a console port.

We won't even mention the bug ridden mess that was STALKER where users had to downgrade patch revisions just to avoid crashes and design mods to overcome basic gameplay flaws.

Oh yes, STALKER had many flaws. However, despite all that, the game had great atmosphere. Keep in mind that I mentioned that I praised these games. That doesn't mean they were flawless. It just means that the good far outweighed the bad.

Practice what you preach, though I suspect you didn't buy any of those either so it doesn't matter I guess.

I do. I've bought all the games I mentioned except for The Witcher. I'm waiting for the Expanded Edition, which I'll buy at full price despite the fact that I already possess and have beaten the game.

This comment was edited on Sep 11, 01:48.

Which point?

If you can't figure it out from my last 5 posts or so, then I'm wasting my breath repeating it.

I'm not talking about ports here.

Bullshit. You are ALWAYS harping on about console ports and the controls that goes with them. This whole thing started with the FC2 port.

Anyways, I've said my bit and I think my points are pretty clear. I'm much too busy at work and shouldnt even have taken the time to make the posts I did.

----------------------------------------------------
Trackmania United Forever, Bionic Commando Rearmed, GRID

PSN= Puscifer73 • Trackmania= puscifer604
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

Thanks for making my point.

Which point? My point is that you should design a game around the optimal control scheme. M&KB for shooters, gamepads for platformers.

If you design a shooter for the console and design it to play the exact same way on a PC instead of tuning the gameplay and controls, that's the developers failing, not the consoles or the control schemes.

I'm not talking about ports here. I'm talking about limitations imposed by inferior controls. It's like designing a fighting game around a 2 button control scheme. Sure, it can work, but it will never have as much potential as a fighting game designed around 6 buttons.

Shooters like Quake, Tribes, etc, (anything that requires great speed and accuracy) simply don't work with a gamepad. This is not to say that gamepads are inferior for everything. They are just inferior for shooters. And strategy games. Or anything that requires quick and precise aim. Or hotkeys.

Games are made to make money, sooner you can wrap your head around that, the happier you will be.

So I have to embrace the devolution of gaming because it makes people money..? Interesting logic.

The biggest difference is that newer games don't have the luxury of rose-colored analysis.

Thing is, I've played most of the older games I refer to in recent months, often for the first time. Nostalgia isn't a factor. I'm not saying old games were perfect. I could easily point out all the various issues they had, both major and minor. However, they were great where it really mattered whereas new games are only great in superficial respects, like presentation.

They work equally well on the PC if you have a gamepad.

Thanks for making my point.

M&KB is the superior control scheme for shooters. This is not debatable.

I agree. Doesn't mean they can't work for consoles too.

If you forsake the PC platform and instead design a shooter for a console...you are limiting the potential of the game

No. If you design a shooter for the console and design it to play the exact same way on a PC instead of tuning the gameplay and controls, that's the developers failing, not the consoles or the control schemes.

That is greed.

Games are made to make money, sooner you can wrap your head around that, the happier you will be. Sooner you grow up and get in the real world, the sooner you will figure it out. The world revolves around people spending money and making money.

It's up to the developer/publisher to properly design the games for each platform, whatever platform. Constantly making broad generalizations about specific platforms dilutes your arguments which, in my opinion are misplaced.

----------------------------------------------------
Trackmania United Forever, Bionic Commando Rearmed, GRID

PSN= Puscifer73 • Trackmania= puscifer604
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

Wouldn't those fall under your category of dumbed down console ports seeing as the lead platforms were for consoles and control is designed around the gamepads?

Not at all. Those are all platformers, a genre suited well to consoles. They work equally well on the PC if you have a gamepad.

Making an FPS on a platform and tuning the controls for that platform is common business sense, not greed.

M&KB is the superior control scheme for shooters. This is not debatable. Therefore, shooters are best designed for the PC where M&KB are standard. If you forsake the PC platform and instead design a shooter for a console, you are limiting the potential of the game for the sake of more profit. That is greed.

The Witcher has the most basic, dumbed down combat I've ever seen in an RPG

I disagree with that. There were MANY options of how to play combat, which weapons to use against which enemy types, 4 or 5 magic schools, having to pay attention to combat and react to keep your combos going.

I'd say that's far deeper than say Baldurs Gate, which does the above, but you watched combat unfold, pausing every now and then to change targets, use an item, cast a spell etc.

STALKER indeed was a mess, and still is. Hardly a good example for Jerykk on how to make a game right. Myself I'm currently trying yet again to play through un-modded simply because the game saves will NOT load with any mod installed at the moment. Playing the start area for about the 10th time.

----------------------------------------------------
Trackmania United Forever, Bionic Commando Rearmed, GRID

PSN= Puscifer73 • Trackmania= puscifer604
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

You're wasting your time Verno - Jerykk is second only to Assley in arguing with you until you're blue in the face...



------------------------------------------------
http://theslip.nin.com/
"The Bellic boys! Taking over your town, assholes!"

I certainly hope it's just you because it's a completely illogical mentality. Player != quality of game.

Quality of game determines value to an individual. Why would your opinion matter if you don't value a product? You see no value in purchasing games so how would your opinion ever have traction for someone who does?

Um, yes we can. There are tons of pirate WoW servers.

You can setup a shitty little third party server but you can't clone the WoW experience - relatively stable server platforms, millions of players and so on. Most of the third party servers can't even run the instances properly, let alone provide a substitute experience.

How about a game that isn't completely generic and inferior to its single-player equivalents in every regard?

MMO's don't have singleplayer equivalents, it's a whole other genre. Generic and inferior is your opinion and you're obviously in the minority considering the exploding popularity of MMO games.

When you're willing to compromise your artistic integrity to make more money than you need, that's greed. Making an FPS on a platform with an inferior control scheme? Greed. Dumbing down a game so it appeals to the lowest common denominator? Greed.

Compromising their artistic integrity? Who are you to judge what their intent and goals were when designing the game? Who are you to say that consoles shouldn't be allowed to have FPS games just because they have an analog stick instead of a mouse? You really are full of yourself to so arrogantly assume you know what every game and developer in the universe wants and needs.

Better get those diapers ready because I've praised quite a few modern games in various threads around here. Portal, HL:EP2, TR: Legend, TR: Anniversary, the PoP games, STALKER, The Witcher, Penumbra... the list goes on and on.

Way to completely contradict your above answer. The Witcher has the most basic, dumbed down combat I've ever seen in an RPG and several of those games are console ports. We won't even mention the bug ridden mess that was STALKER where users had to downgrade patch revisions just to avoid crashes and design mods to overcome basic gameplay flaws. Practice what you preach, though I suspect you didn't buy any of those either so it doesn't matter I guess.

True, because of the game's overall greatness, they were rather easy to overlook. The biggest difference is that newer games don't have the luxury of rose-colored analysis.

Exactly. As I recall, Fallout (or maybe Fallout 2) was very buggy. But here we are like 10 years or so later and people praise the hell out of the games. Peoples imaginations fill in the blanks.

2008, if a game isn't PERFECT Jerykk and others rip them to shreds and point to Fallout and Tribes. Need I remind people that Tribes was fairly broken out of the box too, but still fun.

----------------------------------------------------
Trackmania United Forever, Bionic Commando Rearmed, GRID

PSN= Puscifer73 • Trackmania= puscifer604
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

TR: Legend, TR: Anniversary, the PoP games

Wouldn't those fall under your category of dumbed down console ports seeing as the lead platforms were for consoles and control is designed around the gamepads?

Making an FPS on a platform with an inferior control scheme? Greed. Dumbing down a game so it appeals to the lowest common denominator? Greed.

Making an FPS on a platform and tuning the controls for that platform is common business sense, not greed.

Failing to properly tune gameplay & controls for each specific control method is the developers failing and has fuck all to do with the platform. I've played good FPS/TPS games on consoles, I've also played what should have been good games with shitty controls...on ALL platforms, including PC.

You have valid points, so do we. But you really do contradict yourself a lot, whether you see it or not and agree with it or not. You also make very broad sweeping generalizations about consoles, console games, and console players completely failing to recognize the real problems which really has little to with the platforms themselves, but rather the developers inability (in some cases) to tune the controls properly for each platform or to make use of available control options (keyboard + mouse on PS3).

A good game is a good game, regardless of the platform it is on.

----------------------------------------------------
Trackmania United Forever, Bionic Commando Rearmed, GRID

PSN= Puscifer73 • Trackmania= puscifer604
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

To be fair, Jerykk's downloading and purchasing habits don't invalidate his opinion. I hope that he pays for any game that he plays for more than an hour or so, but that is between him and his conscience. It really isn't relevant to his opinions.

I do think that he is too stuck in the past, while viewing it through the rose-colored glasses that make everything older seem better than it was. Many of us older gamers do that, honestly. Fallout, for example, was great, but it had many annoyances. True, because of the game's overall greatness, they were rather easy to overlook. The biggest difference is that newer games don't have the luxury of rose-colored analysis. The same holds true with many other old games he holds in high regard. I have often looked at his criticisms of modern games and thought to myself how some of the exact same criticisms can be made about older, classic games if one decided to focus only on the negatives.


This comment was edited on Sep 10, 15:52.

Frankly your opinion on game quality is entirely meaningless because you're a pirate but that's just me.

I certainly hope it's just you because it's a completely illogical mentality. Player != quality of game.

People like you can't pirate an MMO, there's one reason right there.

Um, yes we can. There are tons of pirate WoW servers.

How about an ongoing revenue stream?

How about a game that isn't completely generic and inferior to its single-player equivalents in every regard?

As a side note, wanting to make more money is not the same thing as greed.

When you're willing to compromise your artistic integrity to make more money than you need, that's greed. Making an FPS on a platform with an inferior control scheme? Greed. Dumbing down a game so it appeals to the lowest common denominator? Greed.

I'd shit myself if you said anything positive about anything other than Stardock, ever.

Better get those diapers ready because I've praised quite a few modern games in various threads around here. Portal, HL:EP2, TR: Legend, TR: Anniversary, the PoP games, STALKER, The Witcher, Penumbra... the list goes on and on.

Again, what does that have to do with the quality of games?

Frankly your opinion on game quality is entirely meaningless because you're a pirate but that's just me.

MMOs are derivative crap. I really wish they would all just disappear. Again, why make an MMORPG when you can make a much better single-player RPG? Oh, right, greed. Everybody looks at WoW and says "Hey! We want that kind of cashcow!"

The pirate asks why they make MMO's? Oh that's just grand. People like you can't pirate an MMO, there's one reason right there. How about an ongoing revenue stream? There's another one. I agree that MMO's are derivative but that's the nature of that genre, each builds on the last game or expansion. Besides, it's already the largest segment of PC gaming which means people like you and I are in the minority.

As a side note, wanting to make more money is not the same thing as greed. Who are you to say how much money they should be allowed to make mister pirate? It's a delicious bit of irony when the guy who is stealing calls someone else greedy.

How exactly am I "trolling" FC2? Is it because I don't think that killable NPCs is a big deal? I've stated in numerous threads that I think FC2 has potential and I've never, ever said "This game is going to suck."

All you do is troll PC gaming man, give it a rest already. You can dance around the semantics of what you said but all you do is bitch and whine about how PC games suck because they're not as good as games from 10 years ago. If Stardock games are so amazing then go play them and stop dumping on every other game for not fulfilling your nostalgia needs of old games.

I'd shit myself if you said anything positive about anything other than Stardock, ever.

This comment was edited on Sep 10, 13:43.

No one likes a person who complains about a free meal.

Again, what does that have to do with the quality of games?

If game production budgets weren't 20 million dollars then perhaps they would be more willing to take a risk.

Maybe if they focused on gameplay more than graphics, their budgets wouldn't be so high? I know, it's a shocking idea. Remember Sins of a Solar Empire? It sold 500,000 copies. By AAA budget standards, that's an utter failure. Except Sins only cost $1 million to make. It's called smart business. Don't always try to make a game that appeals to everyone. Focus on a target audience and fill a niche that the big publishers won't touch. You expect me to pity all these developers and publishers because they want every game to sell 10 million units?

Half of the projects at PAX for the PC were MMO games, how do you design meaningful choices in that genre?

MMOs are derivative crap. I really wish they would all just disappear. Again, why make an MMORPG when you can make a much better single-player RPG? Oh, right, greed. Everybody looks at WoW and says "Hey! We want that kind of cashcow!"

Now, don't you think you've trolled FC2 enough?

How exactly am I "trolling" FC2? Is it because I don't think that killable NPCs is a big deal? I've stated in numerous threads that I think FC2 has potential and I've never, ever said "This game is going to suck." Remember, just because people disagree with you doesn't make them a troll.

By that logic, I could argue that you lower your standards to help justify the $50 you waste on games that aren't very good (like Spore).

No one likes a person who complains about a free meal.

I like to think of being "jaded" as simply expecting games to have at least the same depth, challenge and sophistication that they had a decade ago. That said, if I praise a new game, there's a very good chance that the game doesn't suck.

They sell more copies by making it more accessible, meaningful choice doesn't mean anything if it isn't enjoyable. If game production budgets weren't 20 million dollars then perhaps they would be more willing to take a risk. Maybe if more people like you bought the game instead of torrenting it then they might have some leeway to take risks. Many developers sit on the razor's edge of making and losing money and basically just hope to continue the next project.

Finally, you have the advent of consoles taking on many of the capabilities of the PC. Unfortunately memory remains a constraint and their video capabilities are well below an average gamer videocard. This prevents many developers from going through with "meaningful choices" or "complexity" as the entire market is shifting towards cross-platform games. It's easy for you to say "well make the PC version with a different team" but you aren't the one who has to pay a staff of 30+ to do so.

Half of the projects at PAX for the PC were MMO games, how do you design meaningful choices in that genre? Honestly it sounds to me like you aren't really a PC gamer anymore anyways, you might as well just give up. You can sit around lamenting that there is no Baldur's Gate 3, that you can't murder some anonymous quest NPC, that the dev's didn't let you have skill stat progression in your FPS or you could just attempt to enjoy the games for what they are.

Now, don't you think you've trolled FC2 enough? The game comes out in a month and we can all judge for ourselves.

This comment was edited on Sep 10, 08:24.

And now you are saying it's "not a big deal" for these kinds of features to be in FC2.

So it's either a big deal, or not a big deal...you contradict yourself.

No, I don't contradict myself. As I stated before, NPC death and its repercussions are largely a moot point because, in the context of FC2, you can just load your last save and make sure he doesn't die. That's not a meaningful choice. It's not something you have to think about. When your buddy dies, you reload. Problem solved.

An actual meaningful choice is that you choose to play as one of these NPCs from the start of the game. In doing so, you potentially alter the storyline and you will never receive the sidequests from the NPC you are playing. This is a choice with long-term consequences and it is a choice that the player must make. To me, this is a much more interesting and thoughtful mechanic than "If an NPC dies, he can't give you sidequests."

And then most likely complain that they didn't have the choices and consequences, and if you found out they were once in the game, then you'd harp on that as being dumbed down for cross-platform development.

Wrong again. FC2 isn't an RPG. FC1 wasn't an RPG. The developers have never claimed FC2 as an RPG or an RPG/shooter hybrid. I'm not expecting the game to be an RPG/shooter hybrid so I'm not expecting meaningful choice and consequence.

Conversely, Bioshock was originally supposed to be an RPG/shooter hybrid in the vein of SS2. The developers stated as much, so this wasn't an unreasonable or unfounded expectation on my behalf. Then Ken Levine started throwing around the words "meaningful choice" in all the interviews, demos, etc. Again, this reinforced my expectations of meaningful choice. Needless to say, Bioshock did not have meaningful choice. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

I'd respect his opinion more if he wasn't an admitted pirate who manages to find just enough wrong with a game to avoid a purchase but just enough right to play it and criticize it.

Ah, yes, because the way I obtain my games bears so much relevance to the quality of the games themselves...

By that logic, I could argue that you lower your standards to help justify the $50 you waste on games that aren't very good (like Spore).

I have to agree. No offense Jerryk, but you are without question the most jaded, negative PC Gamer I have ever come across. It seems if it isn't 10 years old it sucks according to you. Which is cool; I just know not to trust any review of any game by you newer than a decade!

I like to think of being "jaded" as simply expecting games to have at least the same depth, challenge and sophistication that they had a decade ago. That said, if I praise a new game, there's a very good chance that the game doesn't suck.

This comment was edited on Sep 9, 23:22.

I'd respect his opinion more if he wasn't an admitted pirate who manages to find just enough wrong with a game to avoid a purchase but just enough right to play it and criticize it.

And then most likely complain that they didn't have the choices and consequences, and if you found out they were once in the game, then you'd harp on that as being dumbed down for cross-platform development.

I have to agree. No offense Jerryk, but you are without question the most jaded, negative PC Gamer I have ever come across. It seems if it isn't 10 years old it sucks according to you. Which is cool; I just know not to trust any review of any game by you newer than a decade!