JE Sawyer Formsprings #9

[UncannyGarlic]

the reviewers of this game can eat shit. i smell conspiracy. Todd fucknut Howard paid reviewers to give NV a low score and say things like "fallout 3's story was better" so he can say "they" do fallout better than Obsidian.

"Hey guys, I've got a great idea! Let's license a Fallout game to Obsidian to appease the old fan base! But wait, there's more! What if we pay reviewers to give it bad reviews so that we look better and the game sells worse!"
"Uhh, won't that hurt our bottom line?"
"Who cares, we'z be crizaz yo!"

Translation: Given Zenimax's love of money, they wouldn't pay money in order to make a product which they are licensing and producing look bad, hurting both its sales and the brand image, just to make Obsidian, who they had no obligation to license the brand to in the first place, look bad.

 

[Anarchosyn]

the reviewers of this game can eat shit. i smell conspiracy. Todd fucknut Howard paid reviewers to give NV a low score and say things like "fallout 3's story was better" so he can say "they" do fallout better than Obsidian.

"Hey guys, I've got a great idea! Let's license a Fallout game to Obsidian to appease the old fan base! But wait, there's more! What if we pay reviewers to give it bad reviews so that we look better and the game sells worse!"
"Uhh, won't that hurt our bottom line?"
"Who cares, we'z be crizaz yo!"

Translation: Given Zenimax's love of money, they wouldn't pay money in order to make a product which they are licensing and producing look bad, hurting both its sales and the brand image, just to make Obsidian, who they had no obligation to license the brand to in the first place, look bad.

How does any of that make any sense at all?

What was that? "Logic and reason," you say? Humm.. something to consider.

 

[gumbarrel]

The fact people assume most players dont care about writing makes me kind of irate, even more so because it is probably true.

What makes me irate is people who generalize, based on anecdotal evidence at best.

Just look at your own comments. "Shooters for kids, blah-blah-blah".

It's the same as anti-gaming smugs, who think that games in general are for kids. Which is bullshit, since the average gamer is like 30 years old and statistics back that up.

I see the same shit when people whine against WoW. "ZOMG A GAME FOR KIDS LOL", when in reality, the average WoW player is 28 years old.

And i know what your argument will be: "But they only think games are for kids because of these shitty games that corporations make that target the lowest common denominator, unlike [insert classic game from the 90s here]".

And that is wrong. Even if all games were like Fallout 2 or XCOM or whatever, anti-gaming smugs would still think it's nothing more than entertainment for kids and old fat people who still act like kids.

Stop generalizing is all I ask

And your conpiracy thing is just...silly at best

 

[mobucks]

It is,

And the conspiracy shiz makes no sense from a bizness standpoint, I just hate todd howard that much (where does this hate come from? a comment he made during F3 development about "monkeys with typewriters" <---An excuse for the game's writing!)

Can i just say the generalizations arent meant to be an attack on anyone here, or their gaming preferences, I enjoy all games, from compelling deep gameplay of a sim/strategy, to mindless shooting on wii.

My RFS is because, the best selling games dictate how the market is moving. Everyone wants to sell the next Modern Warfare. So the game suits want every game to cater to that market. No Fair!

That market:

Doesnt like getting killed, ever, hense why in every FPS these days, you don't have health, you just "hide" for a second and get full health again.

Fallouts approach to this, is to put 300 stimpacks, per room, per floor of every "dungeon"

Whom are they catering to with a design decision like that? Not me in the minority.

 

[gumbarrel]

Doesnt like getting killed, ever, hense why in every FPS these days, you don't have health, you just "hide" for a second and get full health again.

Oh, so you LIKE getting killed, what?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

no.

he's talking about challenge and the presence of an actual threat in getting your ass handed to.

 

[mobucks]

Oh, so you LIKE getting killed, what?

Oh man i love bein PUNISHED by games.

Save early, save often <----- used to be because games were hard. Now it applies more to game stopping bugs if anything.

 

[Korin]

My RFS is because, the best selling games dictate how the market is moving. Everyone wants to sell the next Modern Warfare. So the game suits want every game to cater to that market. No Fair!

It's plenty fair, because the market is the majority. Modern Warfare was also a great game.

That market:

Doesnt like getting killed, ever, hense why in every FPS these days, you don't have health, you just "hide" for a second and get full health again.

This is another sweeping generalization. How health is handled in a lot of games now is the evolution of an archaic system. It's the same thing that happened to lives and continues. They weren't necessary.

There's a difference between challenging a player and punishing them simply for the sake of punishment and tedium. If regenerating health is too easy, I'd say play MW2 on veteran in Favela. Regenerating health isn't god mode.

Fallouts approach to this, is to put 300 stimpacks, per room, per floor of every "dungeon"

Whom are they catering to with a design decision like that? Not me in the minority.

No and why should they? The majority of the gaming market isn't masochistic. Most people play video games to enjoy them and probably to most people being killed every 2 minutes isn't what they qualify as enjoyment.

I can beat any game on the hardest difficulty. Do I want every game to be insanely difficult all of the time though? No, because when I get home from work I usually want to relax and enjoy the experience.

The enjoyment of most games doesn't hang on how difficult it is but how enjoyable the experience (story, quests, interface, music, etc etc).

 

[gumbarrel]

no.

he's talking about challenge and the presence of an actual threat in getting your ass handed to.

I know that

And it's bs that they don't want challenge, because they have a little thing called MULTIPLAYER, which is 10 times the challenge of any single player experience you could have with the game.

Hence why those games have easy single player - it's just something they put to hook you in, so you could waste time on multiplayer.

My RFS is because, the best selling games dictate how the market is moving. Everyone wants to sell the next Modern Warfare. So the game suits want every game to cater to that market. No Fair!

I sure hope you are against democracy then, because this is basically like that, just not enforced by the law. Majority gets what they want, minority sucks the big one.

 

[Korin]

they have a little thing called MULTIPLAYER, which is 10 times the challenge of any single player experience you could have with the game.

This. No single player experience will be as challenging as a live, thinking human being. Of course, that probably isn't a valid comparison here, because Fallout doesn't have multiplayer.

 

[TheGM]

They might be live but the jury is still out on the thinking part.

 

[gumbarrel]

they have a little thing called MULTIPLAYER, which is 10 times the challenge of any single player experience you could have with the game.

This. No single player experience will be as challenging as a live, thinking human being. Of course, that probably isn't a valid comparison here, because Fallout doesn't have multiplayer.

The point here is, that the Modern Warfares and Halos don't have any real incentive to make the single player game challenging, because they rely on the multiplayer experience a lot more.

While games like New Vegas do have that incentive, though it's not as strong as you would hope to.

We are at the point where devs like Bioware and Bethesda can almost guarantee that their games will sell, so the incentive to make it challenging and keep players in to the game for 20 extra hours isn't really there anymore.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

This is another sweeping generalization. How health is handled in a lot of games now is the evolution of an archaic system. It's the same thing that happened to lives and continues. They weren't necessary.

There's a difference between challenging a player and punishing them simply for the sake of punishment and tedium. If regenerating health is too easy, I'd say play MW2 on veteran in Favela.
Regenerating health isn't god mode.

Regenerating health changes the dynamics of the gameplay, though. It's not simply a matter of not having to lose time to search for medikits; with the old system you had to survive every fight taking as little damage as possible, with regenerating health all you need to do is survive the fight.

No and why should they? The majority of the gaming market isn't masochistic. Most people play video games to enjoy them and probably to most people being killed every 2 minutes isn't what they qualify as enjoyment.

I don't know why developers don't make the PC invulnerable and the enemies unable to attack, then. That certainly would avoid any kind of frustration.

And it's bs that they don't want challenge, because they have a little thing called MULTIPLAYER, which is 10 times the challenge of any single player experience you could have with the game.

Completely different kind of experience, and there are a lot of gamers that can't use/don't care for multiplayer.

 

[Brother None]

I don't know why developers don't make the PC invulnerable and the enemies unable to attack, then. That certainly would avoid any kind of frustration..

We're pretty much already at that point with games like BioShock.

 

[gumbarrel]

[quote="Stanislao Moulinsky] Completely different kind of experience, and there are a lot of gamers that can't use/don't care for multiplayer.[/quote]

Sure, but that's the crowd that plays the Modern Warfares and whatnot, those are the people willing to play easy to swallow campaigns, so they could just play multiplayer after that.

Hell, a lot of people don't even play the single player in Halo. They just go for the multi and that's all for them.

And If they didn't like challenge, they wouldn't be playing multi at all.

Hence why that generalization was bs. Like most generalizations.

 

[Tel Prydain]

[We are at the point where devs like Bioware and Bethesda can almost guarantee that their games will sell, so the incentive to make it challenging and keep players in to the game for 20 extra hours isn't really there anymore.

Are you kidding?
I've hardly started the main plot and I've put 78 hours into it.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Regenerating health changes the dynamics of the gameplay, though. It's not simply a matter of not having to lose time to search for medikits; with the old system you had to survive every fight taking as little damage as possible, with regenerating health all you need to do is survive the fight.

Not every game had health packs either, I seem to remember GoldenEye not having any body armor (no health packs in the game) on 00 Agent mode and some levels took more than 10 minutes (I think Caverns was close to 20) to beat. It also changes the multiplayer dynamic greatly when people don't have to worry about health packs. That said, I enjoyed the hell out of playing Modern Warfare online on my buddy's PS3.

 

[gumbarrel]

[We are at the point where devs like Bioware and Bethesda can almost guarantee that their games will sell, so the incentive to make it challenging and keep players in to the game for 20 extra hours isn't really there anymore.

Are you kidding?
I've hardly started the main plot and I've put 78 hours into it.

What game are you talking about?

 

[Guiltyofbeingtrite]

I beat the entirety of MW2 on Veteran and yes, auto-health isn't god mode, but you could still shoot one guy, hide, heal, shoot the next. i died a ton of times but it still didn't always require new tactics. Same thing with Gears of War.

Both Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were great console shooters with ZERO health packs, just body armor, iirc. You had to complete the entire mission and couldn't even save during it. Both of those sold very well and 13 year old me played the hell out of them. If modern game companies brought back health they'd sell just as well.

 

[mobucks]

The first 2 brothers in arms were BRUTAL on the Realistic difficulty. No health/body armor, no checkpoint saves.

Then hells highway had hide n heal. Poop.