It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
orcishgamer: Hardy harr harr
avatar
Roman5: The Dead Space 3 Saga: EA edition
What game is that clip from?
avatar
orcishgamer: Hardy harr harr
avatar
Roman5: The Dead Space 3 Saga: EA edition
LOL. So the response to YET AGAIN being slapped down because you YET AGAIN jumped the gun and panicked like Chicken Little is more 'Durrrr...hey, someone else did something making fun of EA...watch it!'

This is what we all love about you : your varied posting topics.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by Crassmaster
avatar
timppu: What if they are e.g. new weapons or vehicles? Useless or not?

Just watching e.g. the list of over 20 separate DLCs for Borderlands 2 makes me feel "Ok, I'll wait for GOTY edition then". I shouldn't be obliged to wade through over 20 different DLC descriptions and try to make up my mind which of them I "really need" and which are completely "useless". At least for me if it not so simple to tell what the DLC means for the base game, from a vague one line description.

To give an example, would the double-barrel shotgun in Doom 2 have been completely useless, if it had been sold as a separate micro-DLC? I bet the game can be completed even without it, so does that mean double-barrel shotgun is completely useless in Doom 2 and no one should buy such DLC?

I even find the idea quite contradictory that they would make so much DLC that is completely useless and irrelevant. If they are so useless, why do they feel people would want to buy them anyway?
avatar
orcishgamer: Dude, it's pretty obvious which DLC is the story based DLC. Also, if you're really that lazy, you can always buy the season pass, then you get all the stuff you wanted anyway without waiting for GOTY.

Many like cosmetic stuff, there's dozens of pieces of costmetic stuff already in game for each class, but some fans want more. And you know what? That's fine with me, they're funding Gearboxes next, good title, voluntarily, and they feel like they're getting something good out of it.

If you can't spend 2 minutes either looking up DLC, actually reading the descriptions, or you know, just ask people who the game (here or elsewhere)... well fuck, that's longer than it took you to park and walk into the store to buy the game, guess you didn't want the game that badly anyway.

There's legitimate issues with some DLC, whining about "oh noes the list is too long" is not only curmudgeon but actually just makes legitimate complaints blend into the general "gamer whining" and get ignored.

avatar
orcishgamer: So should I put that down on the "Roman5 was wrong and now is trying to distract people by bitching about EA" list?

Jesus dude, the reviews are coming in, Dead Space 3 is turning out good (for the definition of "good" that made fans of the previous two happy). When do you ever STFU and realize everything new isn't complete crap? Aren't you like in your early 20s or some shit? You act like a grumpy 60 year old wishing for some glory days of gaming which, having lived through them, I can assure you never fucking existed.
Orcish, please do not try to put words into my mouth

I never commented on the quality of the game, who knows, maybe Dead Space 3 will turn out to be an actual good game? I certainly hope so

What I was commenting on was the absolutely disgusting approach to DLC in this game, EA's attitude and the general way of how this release is being handled, aka EA telling us: "This game must sell 5 million or you can fuck off"

Of course, it's not as bad as when Bioware took out crucial story parts out of ME3 and then EA sold it as day 1 DLC separately but it's still rather revolting and there are legitimate reasons for people to be upset here
avatar
Roman5: Of course, it's not as bad as when Bioware took out crucial story parts out of ME3 and then EA sold it as day 1 DLC separately but it's still rather revolting and there are legitimate reasons for people to be upset here
I believe that none of the DLC in Bioware was a "crucial story part." I believe that the only story-related DLC in Mass Effect 3 was Leviathan and Omega (neither essential nor first day) and "From Ashes," which introduced a somewhat uninteresting teammate who was in no way essential to anything unless you're trying to create a Wikipedia article about the Protheans or something.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by BadDecissions
avatar
orcishgamer: If you can't spend 2 minutes either looking up DLC, actually reading the descriptions, or you know, just ask people who the game (here or elsewhere)... well fuck, that's longer than it took you to park and walk into the store to buy the game, guess you didn't want the game that badly anyway.
I'm pretty sure I used much more time and effort than 2 minutes to get any kind of view of the DLCs for e.g. Saints Row 3 and Batham Arkham City. I would rather count it in days than minutes.

I don't see reviews for separate DLCs as I see for the base games, so it isn't just about googling for the reviews either. It is stupid having to find reviews for several micro-DLCs, just for one game. And this is also made just worse because some feel certain DLCs even make the game worse (e.g. in Saints Row 3). So I am supposed to become some kind of expert on which tiny pieces I should gather together, just to obtain _one_ game.

EDIT: I think BadDecissions reply to Roman of Mass Effect 3 DLCs is a good example, which DLCs are "essential" and which are not. Does it say in the DLC descriptions "This is a non-essential/essential DLC, so you shouldn't/should get this.". Or is it just a matter of opinion which DLCs are "essential"? Did someone really come into those conclusions in two minutes, by just reading the short description for each DLC from EA's marketing material? Is the conclusion that none of the ME3 DLCs are worth it, for anyone?

It is not about just one game. More and more games come in lots of tiny pieces, and I for one cannot really tell by just reading a description whether it makes sense to get a DLC which offer e.g. new vehicles and weapons. Are they are cosmetis change, or not? Would Doom 2 be the same game if it didn't have the double-barrel shotgun?

The obvious solution is to wait for GOTY editions, even if it makes some people bitch "you are not supporting the game industry because you waited for the cheaper GOTY edition blaa blaa blaa...". That also takes care of the nickel-and-diming problem of games with lots of micro-DLCs.

So just to be clear: I personally don't see a problem, as long as I have the option of waiting for the GOTY edition. I'll also steer clear of games with micro-payments, I don't support nickel-and-diming models. They are an example of what I don't want the gaming market to be heading to, so better not support it.
Post edited February 11, 2013 by timppu
avatar
timppu: EDIT: I think BadDecissions reply to Roman of Mass Effect 3 DLCs is a good example, which DLCs are "essential" and which are not. Does it say in the DLC descriptions "This is a non-essential/essential DLC, so you shouldn't/should get this.". Or is it just a matter of opinion which DLCs are "essential"? Did someone really come into those conclusions in two minutes, by just reading the short description for each DLC from EA's marketing material? Is the conclusion that none of the ME3 DLCs are worth it, for anyone?
That wasn't quite what I meant. Roman5 was complaining that crucial parts of the story had been removed; when I said that the DLC wasn't essential, all I meant was that it wasn't crucial to the story; Mass Effect 3 is a perfectly coherent game whether you buy the DLC or not. Whether the DLC is worth buying (by virtue of being fun to play, not because it's crucial to the plot) is indeed subjective, and going to depend on individual preference.
Post edited February 11, 2013 by BadDecissions
avatar
timppu: EDIT: I think BadDecissions reply to Roman of Mass Effect 3 DLCs is a good example, which DLCs are "essential" and which are not. Does it say in the DLC descriptions "This is a non-essential/essential DLC, so you shouldn't/should get this.". Or is it just a matter of opinion which DLCs are "essential"? Did someone really come into those conclusions in two minutes, by just reading the short description for each DLC from EA's marketing material? Is the conclusion that none of the ME3 DLCs are worth it, for anyone?
avatar
BadDecissions: That wasn't quite what I meant. Roman5 was complaining that crucial parts of the story had been removed; when I said that the DLC wasn't essential, all I meant was that it wasn't crucial to the story; Mass Effect 3 is a perfectly coherent game whether you buy the DLC or not. Whether the DLC is worth buying (by virtue of being fun to play, not because it's crucial to the plot) is indeed subjective, and going to depend on individual preference.
There will always be people who insist any DLC released when the game comes out or shortly after is "cut content." They don't understand game development, which is fine, consumers probably shouldn't.

In the end it comes down to perception and I do think these companies are shooting themselves in the foot more than they realize with the perception of charging for stuff that should be in the main game.
avatar
BadDecissions: That wasn't quite what I meant. Roman5 was complaining that crucial parts of the story had been removed; when I said that the DLC wasn't essential, all I meant was that it wasn't crucial to the story; Mass Effect 3 is a perfectly coherent game whether you buy the DLC or not. Whether the DLC is worth buying (by virtue of being fun to play, not because it's crucial to the plot) is indeed subjective, and going to depend on individual preference.
avatar
StingingVelvet: There will always be people who insist any DLC released when the game comes out or shortly after is "cut content." They don't understand game development, which is fine, consumers probably shouldn't.

In the end it comes down to perception and I do think these companies are shooting themselves in the foot more than they realize with the perception of charging for stuff that should be in the main game.
When it comes to situations like the ME3 one, I think: would BGII have been the same if Haer Dalis, Aerie or even Minsc were DLC characters? The answer is no. Sure, they weren't essential, I could perfectly finish the game without them. But them being there was part of the game. When before it was all part of the package, now things like that are considered "extras" I have to pay extra for. Things change, that's life, just don't ask me to like it.

I can accept DLCs that add some extra stuff to a game that has been a success. We focus on making a game, it's released and whatever is done later becomes DLC. It's a lot harder for me to swallow that a game has been developed without some ideas that were ready because they wanted to sell them separate.
avatar
P1na: When it comes to situations like the ME3 one, I think: would BGII have been the same if Haer Dalis, Aerie or even Minsc were DLC characters? The answer is no. Sure, they weren't essential, I could perfectly finish the game without them. But them being there was part of the game. When before it was all part of the package, now things like that are considered "extras" I have to pay extra for. Things change, that's life, just don't ask me to like it.

I can accept DLCs that add some extra stuff to a game that has been a success. We focus on making a game, it's released and whatever is done later becomes DLC. It's a lot harder for me to swallow that a game has been developed without some ideas that were ready because they wanted to sell them separate.
Yes but the game had a lot of characters in it already. You're comparing it to removing Minsc rather than comparing it to adding a new character to BG2, because you have a predisposition to view it as money gouging.

Which is fine. Again, companies should care more about perception than reality and focus on what gamers see this stuff as.
avatar
P1na: When it comes to situations like the ME3 one, I think: would BGII have been the same if Haer Dalis, Aerie or even Minsc were DLC characters? The answer is no. Sure, they weren't essential, I could perfectly finish the game without them. But them being there was part of the game. When before it was all part of the package, now things like that are considered "extras" I have to pay extra for. Things change, that's life, just don't ask me to like it.

I can accept DLCs that add some extra stuff to a game that has been a success. We focus on making a game, it's released and whatever is done later becomes DLC. It's a lot harder for me to swallow that a game has been developed without some ideas that were ready because they wanted to sell them separate.
avatar
StingingVelvet: Yes but the game had a lot of characters in it already. You're comparing it to removing Minsc rather than comparing it to adding a new character to BG2, because you have a predisposition to view it as money gouging.

Which is fine. Again, companies should care more about perception than reality and focus on what gamers see this stuff as.
Indeed, they really should worry more about how they come across. I can't help but see it as them making an 80€ game, of which I'm allowed to get part of for only 60; or them not polishing their games as much as they used to back in the day.

It's the same as how SC allowed LAN games and spawn installs, yet SCII requires always online DRM. Things have changed, and not all change is for the better. I just have to put up with it.
avatar
orcishgamer: I hope I didn't sound like I was offering proof, simply evidence and I believe the feelings of the developers, especially given that they profess to prefer the style of gaming most here prefer, are pretty relevant to the subject.
If we were to believe developers "feelings" then Alone in the Dark 5 would have been the best in the series (and a landmark in video games history, DNF would have been worth the wait and ME3 would have had a complex endings. Lying or not, you can hardly expect developers to say "bad things" about their games, IMO better evidence would have been reviews

And concerning Viceral I would say they don't exactly have a a spotless track record so far, between a day one annoying bug in Dead Space 1 PC that they never bother correcting (I lost 4 hours of gameplay thanks to it), the story DLC for DS2 they never released on PC or the fact that if you want to have all the available, non DLC, guns in dead space mobile you have to grind by playing the game 3-4 times in a row or buy credits with real money.
avatar
FraterPerdurabo: What game is that clip from?
I am not sure if you are joking, being sarcastic or serious... in case it's the later then it's a clip from Dead Space 3
Post edited February 11, 2013 by Gersen
avatar
orcishgamer: I hope I didn't sound like I was offering proof, simply evidence and I believe the feelings of the developers, especially given that they profess to prefer the style of gaming most here prefer, are pretty relevant to the subject.
avatar
Gersen: If we were to believe developers "feelings" then Alone in the Dark 5 would have been the best in the series (and a landmark in video games history, DNF would have been worth the wait and ME3 would have had a complex endings. Lying or not, you can hardly expect developers to say "bad things" about their games, IMO better evidence would have been reviews
You seem to be claiming the developers opinions on a subject are worthless because you can disagree or they can be "wrong" (for some definitions of wrong). That doesn't make unimportant information. Seriously, if you're going to take a bunch of blogger's opinions under consideration why in the heck would the statements of the actual developers not be worth reading or considering.

I never implied, as I see it, that their statements were anything remotely like fact, nothing more than their views, which incidentally seem to agree with a completely separate (from their views) mounting pile of evidence and other views.
avatar
orcishgamer: You seem to be claiming the developers opinions on a subject are worthless because you can disagree or they can be "wrong" (for some definitions of wrong). That doesn't make unimportant information. Seriously, if you're going to take a bunch of blogger's opinions under consideration why in the heck would the statements of the actual developers not be worth reading or considering.
I never said it was "worthless", just that it was subject to caution, more than most other sources for a simple reason...they are the developers, they worked on the project for years, their continued employment/salary will depends directly or indirectly of the sales of the game (and in general saying bad things about a product you worked on and that your employer sells is never a good idea), they are by definition the least "independent" and more likely to be biased source you can find.

So yes, when it comes to this sort of thing I tend take opinion of a bunch of bloggers/game sites before those the actual developers; as the former are more likely to be more "objective" (unless of course they recently received a full shipment or Doritos and Mountain Dew...).
Just played the first hour of this and it was pretty amazing. Great action, same creepy junk future atmosphere mastery, spot-on PC version with great graphics.