| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
( BG2 scenario already disappointed me a bit back then even if it is one of my favourite games because gameplay with mods is just awesome. ) Maybe i'm just too old for what video games have become  edit: jesus those trailers with crap-metal are so lame | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 27 2009 02:29 Boblion wrote: /prepared to be disappointed ( BG2 scenario already disappointed me a bit back then even if it is one of my favourite games because gameplay with mods is just awesome. ) Maybe i'm just too old for what video games have become edit: jesus those trailers with crap-metal are so lame Same here. Regardless of how good the game ends up being, the development of this game has been enshrouded in so much money-grubbing and PR bullshit that it's absurd. Advertising the game's sex scenes as part of the trailers is just awful. Way to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's an expansion that comes out the day of release? Why couldn't they just have included it in the game instead of making you pay another x dollars for it? | ||
|
mrtspence
Canada15 Posts
It has received nothing but exemplary reviews, looks amazing from the trailers, and features a GORGEOUS orchestral/symphonic score. The metal music was something new, and was a placeholder until they had the score written. Looks like Bioware has done an outstanding job and I look forward to the game. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 27 2009 05:09 mrtspence wrote: The expansion comes free with any new copy of the game. L2Research what you criticize or your bound to look like a whiner. Wrong. The Warden's Keep content is only free for the Digital Collector's Version. Boxed Collector's versions and regular versions have to shell out $7 for it. http://daforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=689524&forum=135 "L2Research what you defend or your bound to look like a fanboy." Yeah, I know someone's going to give me the spiel about it only being $7 dollars and there being nothing wrong with developers wanting to make money and whatnot. Still, it's the idea of it. There was a time when people included stuff like that in games because it just made the game cooler, not because they could make an extra $7 off each customer and whatnot. If it was done by release, it went into the game, plain and simple. There was no "oh, we have enough in the game already, lets charge them for anything else on top of that." | ||
|
DJEtterStyle
United States2766 Posts
On October 27 2009 05:31 TheYango wrote: Yeah, I know someone's going to give me the spiel about it only being $7 dollars and there being nothing wrong with developers wanting to make money and whatnot. Still, it's the idea of it. There was a time when people included stuff like that in games because it just made the game cooler, not because they could make an extra $7 off each customer and whatnot. If it was done by release, it went into the game, plain and simple. There was no "oh, we have enough in the game already, lets charge them for anything else on top of that." You're damn right someone's going to. You and Boblion are a couple negative nancies. Vote with your wallets. The advertising campaign for Knights of the Old Republic, if you'll recall, portrayed the game as some sort of lightsaber-wielding action adventure, basically every ten-year-old's fantasy. Every men's body wash or fragrance or spray uses sex to sell its product. What does that tell you? It must work. You advertise to the lowest common denominator because those are the people who are swayed by advertising. We're smarter than that. We do research before we part with our hard-earned money. And what does your research tell you? It tells me that the game is very likely to appeal to me. Experience tells me that, too. I've enjoyed Bioware's past titles. The game features a nice, long campaign and ships with a toolset, which means plenty of user-created content. Even if I "only" get 20 hours out of it -- that's to say, I don't finish it -- is that worth $47? To me, absolutely. Maybe it's not to you. If that's the case, don't buy it. The same goes for the DLC. Capitalism is a wonderful thing. If people object to the DLC and don't purchase it, EA and Bioware will adapt to produce content that people will purchase. If they can't do that in an economically feasible way, they won't offer it at all. The same thing is going on with Modern Warfare 2. So many PC gamers are indignant over the $60 price tag and lack of dedicated servers. But you know what? I'll bet that the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 sells better than the original. If it doesn't, you can be damn sure that Activision and Infinity Ward will investigate the reasons why and adapt those concerns into requirements for Modern Warfare 3. Capitalism and, indeed, greed give us so many wonderful things that griping about a couple niggling annoyances that you're in no way obligated to indulge makes you sound incredibly whiny and petty, like the guy who bitches about a delicious restaurant not offering free refills on soft drinks. If it bothers you that much, go somewhere else. Gaming is a lucrative industry. There's always something else to play. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
I personally am looking forward to this title. I enjoyed Mass Effect a great deal and this seems like a fantasy equivalent. I also like the fact that the elves are put into a less stereotypical role. Having said that, though, I must admit that I never got to play some of the older legendary CRPG`s. I was considering it, however. As for the metal music, I dislike the song they used (although the part that they use at the end of each trailer actually comes off rather well). That said, I do not mind if game developers use unorthodox music in a game. Sudden Strike, for example, was by itself a unimpressive WW2 strategy game, but the partially electronic (yes, electronic) soundtrack they used was suprisingly good. + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCWi3CAwu9Y&feature=channel EDIT: On October 27 2009 07:30 DJEtterStyle wrote:Capitalism is a wonderful thing. I do not want to derail the topic. All I will do in response to this is quote Nightfreeze`s comment about EVE Online: Beneath its gilded beauty, though, there lies a poorly designed game which rewards the greedy and violent, and punishes the hardworking and honest; and if you think about it, that's a good representation of capitalism. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 27 2009 07:30 DJEtterStyle wrote: You're damn right someone's going to. You and Boblion are a couple negative nancies. Vote with your wallets. The advertising campaign for Knights of the Old Republic, if you'll recall, portrayed the game as some sort of lightsaber-wielding action adventure, basically every ten-year-old's fantasy. Every men's body wash or fragrance or spray uses sex to sell its product. What does that tell you? It must work. You advertise to the lowest common denominator because those are the people who are swayed by advertising. We're smarter than that. We do research before we part with our hard-earned money. The game being advertised to the lowest common denominator implies to some degree that it is also being designed for the lowest common denominator. This is why it concerns me. It doesn't mean I'll definitely dislike the game, but it makes me a bit cautious about dropping 50 dollars for it. On October 27 2009 07:30 DJEtterStyle wrote: And what does your research tell you? It tells me that the game is very likely to appeal to me. Experience tells me that, too. I've enjoyed Bioware's past titles. Incidentally, those very two things are what turn me off to Dragon Age. Nevertheless, to each his own. On October 27 2009 07:30 DJEtterStyle wrote: Capitalism is a wonderful thing. That depends entirely on who you're saying its a wonderful thing for. Tom Phoenix hit the nail on the head. | ||
|
DJEtterStyle
United States2766 Posts
On October 27 2009 08:15 TheYango wrote: That depends entirely on who you're saying its a wonderful thing for. Tom Phoenix hit the nail on the head. This is where your arguments both fall totally flat. People who gripe about capitalism are the ones who never stop to consider all the things it does for us. That computer you're typing away on right now? How fast and inexpensive would it be if, instead of awful, money-grubbing companies designing it and competing for your dollars, we all paid a yearly computer tax and were issued standardized machines from the government, who designed all components and owned the means of production? We'd be lucky to be using fish bowl CRT monitors with Pentium IIs. Would you prefer government-run cafeterias or the plethora of delicious, inexpensive food options we have today? How about a government-made car? It'd make a Kia Rio look luxurious -- and it'd cost three times as much. When businesses compete, you win. It's always been true. Yes, capitalism encourages some unpleasant competitive practices, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see you focusing on the negative. If you want to walk around the world with blinders on, that's your business. Just don't be surprised when, from time to time, someone issues you a reality check, which I'm sure you'll roundly ignore. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On October 27 2009 08:35 DJEtterStyle wrote: This is where your arguments both fall totally flat. People who gripe about capitalism are the ones who never stop to consider all the things it does for us. That computer you're typing away on right now? How fast and inexpensive would it be if, instead of awful, money-grubbing companies designing it and competing for your dollars, we all paid a yearly computer tax and were issued standardized machines from the government, who designed all components and owned the means of production? We'd be lucky to be using fish bowl CRT monitors with Pentium IIs. Would you prefer government-run cafeterias or the plethora of delicious, inexpensive food options we have today? How about a government-made car? It'd make a Kia Rio look luxurious -- and it'd cost three times as much. When businesses compete, you win. It's always been true. Yes, capitalism encourages some unpleasant competitive practices, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see you focusing on the negative. If you want to walk around the world with blinders on, that's your business. Just don't be surprised when, from time to time, someone issues you a reality check, which I'm sure you'll roundly ignore. I don't really see how there is competition nowadays. There are only a couple of developers in the industry and they are all huge. Basicly the video game market is looking like an oligopoly ( =/=! competition ). I think your post was quite funny because in the 90's there were actually lot of different and small developers and tons of small studios. That was real competition. For sure most of the games produced were bad but there were also a couple of gems and each niches of gamers could find its own masterpiece and cult games. Nowadays the old fans of Black Isle don't have too much choices... it is sad when you have to play mods only ( or almost ) just because you can't find some good recent games :/ ( thank you casualisation ) Maybe this game will be good but so far the trailers look terrible. Why the fuck are they saying that it is the "new BG" ? It looks like a gore version of Dungeon Siege >.< | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 27 2009 08:35 DJEtterStyle wrote: This is where your arguments both fall totally flat. People who gripe about capitalism are the ones who never stop to consider all the things it does for us. That computer you're typing away on right now? How fast and inexpensive would it be if, instead of awful, money-grubbing companies designing it and competing for your dollars, we all paid a yearly computer tax and were issued standardized machines from the government, who designed all components and owned the means of production? We'd be lucky to be using fish bowl CRT monitors with Pentium IIs. Would you prefer government-run cafeterias or the plethora of delicious, inexpensive food options we have today? How about a government-made car? It'd make a Kia Rio look luxurious -- and it'd cost three times as much. When businesses compete, you win. It's always been true. Yes, capitalism encourages some unpleasant competitive practices, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see you focusing on the negative. If you want to walk around the world with blinders on, that's your business. Just don't be surprised when, from time to time, someone issues you a reality check, which I'm sure you'll roundly ignore. First of all, your point of view is entirely that of average, lowest common denominator consumer, that shares the average preferences. Does capitalism benefit the majority? Yes. I never implied that it didn't. But to imply that it benefits everyone is flat out dreaming. The majority promoting computers hurt the people who preferred typewriters. The majority promoting cars inevitably hurt the people who preferred horse-drawn carriages. Not everyone benefits from capitalism, and that should be obvious. Secondly, you're fallaciously creating a socialist/communist system as the only reasonable alternative to a capitalist system. No one in this thread even implied that extreme, and there's a whole spectrum of economic systems between complete free-market capitalism (which doesn't characterize the video games market, or any market in the United States for that matter, anyway), and communism. Not to mention there are other factors that lead to entirely different means of distribution. I also never said that there is a better alternative to capitalism in the video games market. I'm just pointing out that there are people who are left unsatisfied by it, and to say they shouldn't be unsatisfied is silly. People have different preferences. Saying that they'd all be better off following the preferences of the majority is stupid. Capitalism is such that those with less common preferences have less options available to them. Less options means that those people will be less happy. What's more, preferences are subjective: you can't say that the guy complaining about soft drink refills in a fancy restaurant has the "wrong" preferences. They're opinions; your's just happen to be more in line with the status quo. That guy being unhappy doesn't mean the system is dysfunctional, but it also doesn't mean his opinion is invalidated. If I don't think Dragon Age is worth the money when I've seen my share of it, I won't buy it. You're correct about that. That doesn't mean I have to like the fact that it doesn't fit my preferences. Strictly speaking, in a capitalist society, it is in my interest to express my preferences in a public venue, and to try and sway people toward my preferences. The former makes my preferences known to the outside world, and the latter potentially increases the fraction of consumers that match my preferences, thus increasing the potential number of suppliers that would cater to those preferences. This is sort of getting to a massive derail so if you think this discussion is worth continuing, we probably ought to do it via PM. | ||
|
mikeymoo
Canada7170 Posts
| ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On October 27 2009 08:35 DJEtterStyle wrote: This is where your arguments both fall totally flat. People who gripe about capitalism are the ones who never stop to consider all the things it does for us. That computer you're typing away on right now? How fast and inexpensive would it be if, instead of awful, money-grubbing companies designing it and competing for your dollars, we all paid a yearly computer tax and were issued standardized machines from the government, who designed all components and owned the means of production? We'd be lucky to be using fish bowl CRT monitors with Pentium IIs. Would you prefer government-run cafeterias or the plethora of delicious, inexpensive food options we have today? How about a government-made car? It'd make a Kia Rio look luxurious -- and it'd cost three times as much. When businesses compete, you win. It's always been true. Yes, capitalism encourages some unpleasant competitive practices, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see you focusing on the negative. If you want to walk around the world with blinders on, that's your business. Just don't be surprised when, from time to time, someone issues you a reality check, which I'm sure you'll roundly ignore. Isn't one of the supposed virtues of capitalism the consumer's right to complain and take their dollars somewhere else, thus forcing the market to respond and improve? There is obviously a good bit of dissatisfaction among gamers here that the gaming industry is a shell of its former self (I'm one of these people). A smart capitalist would realize this and try to find a business model that meets these consumers' needs. Right now, there are not enough companies in the gaming industry doing that. A demand with inadequate supply. Sounds to me like capitalism operating under maximum efficiency. Instead of ranting about what the industry would be like without capitalism (the definition of which you are making hyperbolic) you should use your love of capitalism to propose a business model that would satisfy them. Otherwise, you have no business touting the glories of said capitalist system, as you are not addressing their criticism of it correctly. Rather, you are almost verging on fanboy territory with your angry defense of an obviously underperforming mechanism. And that is most definitely un-capitalist. | ||
|
omgbnetsux
United States3749 Posts
PS - I think the gaming industry is pretty sweet right now and that's all I'm contributing to the tirades. | ||
|
Substandard
Italy270 Posts
If anything you can trust them even more because they only make rpgs and you pretty much know what you get compared to blizzards wider range of genres. Of course it will ultimately come down to taste HOW much you will like the game, but as long as you like rpgs there is absolutley no question that you WILL get your moneys worth out of this game. | ||
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
On October 28 2009 03:13 Substandard wrote: I don't mean to offend anybody but seriously, anybody who doesn't think Dragonage will be a great game is a fool.. . It's an rpg developed by Bioware and they have proven time and time again that all their games become blockbusters similiar to blizzard games. If anything you can trust them even more because they only make rpgs and you pretty much know what you get compared to blizzards wider range of genres. Of course it will ultimately come down to taste HOW much you will like the game, but as long as you like rpgs there is absolutley no question that you WILL get your moneys worth out of this game. AND there's boobs O_O | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 28 2009 03:13 Substandard wrote: I don't mean to offend anybody but seriously, anybody who doesn't think Dragonage will be a great game is a fool.. . It's an rpg developed by Bioware and they have proven time and time again that all their games become blockbusters similiar to blizzard games. If anything you can trust them even more because they only make rpgs and you pretty much know what you get compared to blizzards wider range of genres. So my preferences make me a fool? So I didn't think KotOR, NWN, and Mass Effect were as big as they were made out to be. There are plenty of people who thought Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, and WoW were no good. Blockbusters don't imply they'll meet everyone's criteria for a good game. There's absolutely no linkage there. | ||
|
Substandard
Italy270 Posts
On October 28 2009 03:23 TheYango wrote: So my preferences make me a fool? So I didn't think KotOR, NWN, and Mass Effect were as big as they were made out to be. There are plenty of people who thought Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, and WoW were no good. Blockbusters don't imply they'll meet everyone's criteria for a good game. There's absolutely no linkage there. No they don't. As you say everybody has their own taste and might enjoy a game to a different degree. Still you need to be able to look at a game objectivley. Personally I didn't like WoW that much, it's just not my type of game. Even so imho it's undeniably a great game in it's genre, as are Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. Same with Dragonage, it's not really a very innovative game, you pretty much know what to expect gameplaywise. There simply is no other RPG with such a deep storytelling and character development. If you end up not liking it i'd go as far as to say you just don't like this kind of game. About Mass Effect and Kotor; you really didn't get your moneys worth out of those games? I'm not saying that there aren't things that Bioware could have done better (because there are imho quite a lot), but still both games were great and easily worth their price. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
Also, from the looks of it, the system requirements seem to be quite high. I honestly wonder whether my 3700+ AMD processor can run this well... | ||
|
Substandard
Italy270 Posts
On October 28 2009 04:28 Shauni wrote: Bioware was an amazing company from 1998-2001. After that they slowly made worse and worse products. While KOTOR, Mass Effect, Jade Empire and NWN1+2 were okay games, they aren't even comparable to the Baldur's Gate series. While I look forward to this release, I also frown upon the fact that there are no good games being made anymore. The best RPG made in the past few years - The Witcher - wasn't even developed by Bioware. Also, from the looks of it, the system requirements seem to be quite high. I honestly wonder whether my 3700+ AMD processor can run this well... I agree wholeheartedley that the baldurs gate series is the best rpg series ever by far. No other game ever gave me that many hours of entertainment. But times have changed and graphics standards have risen and it simply is no longer possible to put that much content into a single game ( BG was a heavily text based game with graphics that were simple even at the time of it's release). While personally I would make sommersaults of joy if a BG sequel with the same old graphics engine were to be announced, I also recognize that such a game unfortunatley would only be doomed to failure. The new generation of gamers just wouldn't even give a game like that a chance to prove itself. I know from experience, i've tried to get a lot of friends of mine into the BG series but almost all of em, even some rabid rpg fans, just scoffed at the graphics and after a few hours of halfwilled effort put the game off. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 28 2009 03:58 Substandard wrote: Still you need to be able to look at a game objectivley. Personally I didn't like WoW that much, it's just not my type of game. Even so imho it's undeniably a great game in it's genre, as are Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3. Same with Dragonage, it's not really a very innovative game, you pretty much know what to expect gameplaywise. There simply is no other RPG with such a deep storytelling and character development. If you end up not liking it i'd go as far as to say you just don't like this kind of game. You can't say that it's storytelling and character development is deep without having played the game. For one, it's got an almost unmatchable bar to meet in Planescape: Torment. Granted, I don't need a Planescape Torment level game to be happy, but the point is you can't make objective qualifications without objective data on the game (e.g. real play experience). Which leaves subjective analyses of Bioware's development history, and of whatever PR they've spewed out. On October 28 2009 03:58 Substandard wrote: About Mass Effect and Kotor; you really didn't get your moneys worth out of those games? I'm not saying that there aren't things that Bioware could have done better (because there are imho quite a lot), but still both games were great and easily worth their price. I never said they weren't worth their price. But people always make those games out like they're groundbreaking titles in the RPG genre, and that they're genre-defining hits, when KotOR is really just Baldur's Gate in space. There's a lot of ground to be covered between a game being good, and a game being great. A good game is worth your money--a great game does more than that. It delivers the sense that the developer has something invested in the product more than just their next paycheck; that they care about the integrity of what they've developed and are willing to sacrifice some personal profit to deliver a greater experience. Bioware games post-BG have never delivered that feeling to me, and the PR surrounding Dragon Age does a good job of making it sound like it won't deliver. On October 28 2009 04:41 Substandard wrote: While personally I would make sommersaults of joy if a BG sequel with the same old graphics engine were to be announced, I also recognize that such a game unfortunatley would only be doomed to failure. The fact that Bioware no longer makes games I like doesn't suddenly make their games I don't like worth the price of admission. For one, there are plenty of old games that I have yet to finish that are perfectly satisfying (still crawling my way through Wizardry 8 when I have the time), and some good indie gems show up all the time. Even the mainstream surprises sometimes (while the NWN2 engine was trash, the game itself was solid, and the first expansion was VERY well written). Risen is even looking like it's worth a shot, from the little play I've tried of it so far. To be clear, I haven't said that I dislike Dragon Age, or that I won't give it a try. All I've stated is: 1) Bioware's track record is a lot less stellar than people make it out to be. 2) The development of Dragon Age has been smeared with bad PR--sex cutscenes, staged battle scenes, huge promises, and very little of substance about the game. I'd much rather have had some design docs about the actual rule system underlying the game, or some substantial discussion about the consequences of the decisions you make in the game rather than some over-the-top CGI. Of course, i admit that the latter is much more exciting, but still, some substantive PR is nice. 3) I do have a right to express pessimistic opinions about the game, since, IMO, I've followed a rational train of thought to arrive at them. | ||
| ||
WardiTV 2025
Playoffs
herO vs SpiritLIVE!
Scarlett vs Gerald
Rogue vs Shameless
MaNa vs ShoWTimE
Nice vs Creator
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  35849Sea  4169Calm  2141Horang2 959Mini 940Larva 881EffOrt 812Soma 655ZerO 478GuemChi 412[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games B2W.Neo1206 Beastyqt485 crisheroes352 Hui .326 mouzStarbuck179 QueenE90 Livibee72 Mew2King50 Trikslyr25 ZerO(Twitch)22 nookyyy  20DeMusliM1 |
|
WardiTV 2025
ByuN vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV 2025
SC Evo League
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
Sziky vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs TBD
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
