altairre's forum posts

#1 Posted by altairre (1473 posts) -

@hassun: Just saw the costumes and most of them are pretty bad imo. The Laura alt is the worst one by far though. Officer Chun-Li is decent and one or two others are alright but I like it when alts have a different theme and that's not really the case here. Like what was the thought process going from Laura's default to this thing?

#2 Posted by altairre (1473 posts) -

The secret behind getting good at fighting games is that there is no secret. You just have to put in a ton of work (how much depends on the game) and the grind can be frustrating for new players. The biggest hurdle is getting over that initial hump which is why not many players stick with them. If you're reading tutorials and watching videos you're on a good path though and it is extremely rewarding once you feel that you're improving. Can't wait to get my hands on KI myself, unfortunately I'll have to wait for the PC version.

#3 Posted by altairre (1473 posts) -
#4 Edited by altairre (1473 posts) -

@blakdeth: First thought was "that looks like Eva Green" so good job.

#5 Posted by altairre (1473 posts) -

@humanity said:

@bananasfoster: How would freezing time when you're in a conversation or putting you into a more cinematic mode take away from the experience? They don't need all those complex AI subroutines working in the background when you're talking to someone and 90% of the screen is their, quite poorly modeled, face. So, yes thats exactly what I want, canned cinematic conversations that possibly have a few more graphical touchups going on to pretty up the models. Hell, do it like Rage did it, whatever as long as it doesn't break a ton of shit why wouldn't you do it that way? I can't remember the last time I talked to an NPC and saw someone walk by in the background and thought "wow, the immersion, only in a Bethesda game." More often than not something would break, or the camera wouldn't find a good spot and I'd be looking at an NPC from the ground up, no clipping into their chin, and likewise I'd think "only in a Bethesda game."

Then we've settled it. What you want isn't Fallout. That's fine. But taking piss on a game that is doing something, albeit something that you don't want, EXCEPTIONALLY well is just childish.

It's actually not childish, it's called criticism. If your amazing AI subroutines cause your game to break on a regular basis then maybe it's not worth it for some people and it's totally valid to point that out. I'm still enjoying the game so far but I just had a quest completely break on me. The character I was supposed to talk to bugged out and remained in his combat stance looking for an enemy that wasn't there. I couldn't talk to him to continue my quest. Quitting and reloading the game didn't help either. The character was just wandering around aimlessly. I left the game running hoping that it would eventually work itself out and it did but it took over 15 minutes. That's just one example. My weapons have disappeared multiple times now, which I could only fix with a reload, the camera bugged out to the point that I couldn't see anything, characters glitched to positions where I couldn't reach them, dogmeat got stuck on terrain during a quest for which I needed him. If that's the cost for your ambition, maybe scale it back a little.

#6 Posted by altairre (1473 posts) -

@devise22 said:
@altairre said:
@devise22 said:
@altairre said:

Guess Jeff agreed with me, not only calling out the issues but also taking off a star for the console versions. Good on him.

Sure. I just don't know what people are expecting Bethesda to really do. At the end of the day, the consumer takes a hit here.

Bethesda has always made janky games that let you marvel at how "much" game can exist. It isn't just them who do this. Open world RPG's of this size and scale trade on this exact concept. If people are saying "these glitches are unacceptable." The solution isn't Fallout 4 but not buggy. It's Fallout 4 without half it's features but not buggy. If we push these developers to go down the direction of tight strong presentation with minimal bugs it means their development time will be spent more on QA and less on new features, new ideas, and larger worlds/more things.

People need to ACCEPT the reality that game development of this scale is a give and take. Why couldn't Destiny release with all the content it had up to this point at launch? Because they would of had to delay the games launch. We as a gaming audience are so bloody entitled it's almost scary. I'm not saying games shouldn't be tight or filled with minimal bugs and run as hoped. Of course they should. But I don't think every single game has to be that.

I recognize that tighter games come at a price to content, variety, freedom. I enjoy tighter games that do that. But I also recognize that the crazy amazing jank filled world of open RPG's isn't possible in todays society without the jank. It just isn't. Not unless someone develops a game for 20 years. But no publisher is waiting that long. There is no chance a big AAA studio is ever going to get the type of investment needed to make a game the scale we are looking at with open world RPG's and make it jank free. No chance.

Let's not confuse things here. Destiny didn't launch with the content it has up to this point due to mismanagement and the fact that they scrapped the entire story one year before release. Desntiy's scale at launch was extremely limited and you could see that it was cobbled together as best as they could. That's not something you just shrug off with "eh, game development is complicated, what are they all whining about".It's really not a good comparison.

Furthermore, to speak of entitlement at a time where games launch flat out broken, have overpriced DLC (Batman is a good example for both) and intrusive microtransactions is pretty funny to me. Yes there are people that complain about literally everything but that has always been the case and shouldn't overshadow valid criticism. Let's not forget that there are companies that do all that stuff quite well (for example the Hearts of Stone DLC that offers 10-15 hours of quality story content for 10 bucks). It is not entitled to expect a certain quality of a product you pay money for because if you use that argument you shut down any criticism right away which is never the way to go.

In my humble opinion you have to find a balance between your ambition and between what actually works out and is possible under the restrictions of the current systems. Now, there are always trade offs you have to make but if you reach a point where it is as apparent as it is with Bethesda games and in this case Fallout 4 then maybe scaling some of the things back isn't the worst decision. Apparently it affected Jeff's enjoyment of the game so much that he felt the need to allocate a significant part of his review to it and lower the rating for the console version. The ambition couldn't make up for that. Keep in mind that there is a difference between a bit of open world jank and serious technical difficulties.

I was only highlighting the Destiny example because I believe it was probably possible even with the mismanagement for that game to launch with more content. However how much of that content would of been as bug free as Destiny was at launch, I think would be the important question. That game did suffer serious mismanagement though there is no denying that.

However my issue with entitlement isn't that there isn't valid criticism, it's that people feel their criticism should/has to be answered. People have a very hard time in the games medium accepting realities that exist in other mediums. The reality that, "maybe this just isn't for them." Jeffs review is but one, how many others looked past ALL the issues to give good scores? How many millions are lining up in stores or downloading or playing Fallout 4 right now who are going to completely overlook/not care about those issues? Do you think it will be a larger number than those who complain about the issues?

If it is then for the time being you have your answer. The consumer has spoken. They don't care enough about the problems to stop purchasing and enjoying the content. Ergo, the content being made works for the people who enjoy it. Which means those who strive for more perfection from a development and frame rate stand point should look elsewhere. Plain and simple. I mean Jeff may of docked a star on the console versions, but during the quick look and the game he never outright doesn't recommend the game to people on consoles. He only notes that it's tough to recommend. Meaning he knows there will be those who have issues with it, and he himself had issues with it. But how deep do those issues go? Would he be bold enough to state he wouldn't play the game outright because of those issues? If that answer is no then again you have another point. If a major part of the games audience notes, even complains and critiques the issues but would still rather play the game versus not play it as is, then what the game is doing is still evidence that people do enjoy that type of ambition even at a cost.

Saying "this game isn't for you" is not a valid way to shut down criticism because you can frame that argument in a way that applies to every game ever made. It's not productive and furthers no discussion. I don't know where you get the idea that people criticising something are saying "this is the only way it can and should be" because clearly it is not. You can only hope for something to change for the better if you highlight and call out the issues you think it has though and I actually do think that people are slowly turning on the idea of broken and unfinished games. Look at Ubisoft's reaction to last year's game, look at the reaction to Arkham Knight, look at the implementation of steam refunds. You are right that, in the end, the consumer is the one who decides where things are going and I'd say that we've definitely seen a reaction this year. We'll see what happens to Fallout and Elder Scrolls in the future. Again, I'm not here to try to explain to people why they shouldn't enjoy Fallout 4, I even said that I would buy it myself, I just dislike the idea of talking those down that do not like and do not accept how the game turned out by waving them off with "it's a Bethesda game what do you expect" or "this game just isn't for you".

#7 Edited by altairre (1473 posts) -
@devise22 said:
@altairre said:

Guess Jeff agreed with me, not only calling out the issues but also taking off a star for the console versions. Good on him.

Sure. I just don't know what people are expecting Bethesda to really do. At the end of the day, the consumer takes a hit here.

Bethesda has always made janky games that let you marvel at how "much" game can exist. It isn't just them who do this. Open world RPG's of this size and scale trade on this exact concept. If people are saying "these glitches are unacceptable." The solution isn't Fallout 4 but not buggy. It's Fallout 4 without half it's features but not buggy. If we push these developers to go down the direction of tight strong presentation with minimal bugs it means their development time will be spent more on QA and less on new features, new ideas, and larger worlds/more things.

People need to ACCEPT the reality that game development of this scale is a give and take. Why couldn't Destiny release with all the content it had up to this point at launch? Because they would of had to delay the games launch. We as a gaming audience are so bloody entitled it's almost scary. I'm not saying games shouldn't be tight or filled with minimal bugs and run as hoped. Of course they should. But I don't think every single game has to be that.

I recognize that tighter games come at a price to content, variety, freedom. I enjoy tighter games that do that. But I also recognize that the crazy amazing jank filled world of open RPG's isn't possible in todays society without the jank. It just isn't. Not unless someone develops a game for 20 years. But no publisher is waiting that long. There is no chance a big AAA studio is ever going to get the type of investment needed to make a game the scale we are looking at with open world RPG's and make it jank free. No chance.

Let's not confuse things here. Destiny didn't launch with the content it has up to this point due to mismanagement and the fact that they scrapped the entire story one year before release. Desntiy's scale at launch was extremely limited and you could see that it was cobbled together as best as they could. That's not something you just shrug off with "eh, game development is complicated, what are they all whining about".It's really not a good comparison.

Furthermore, to speak of entitlement at a time where games launch flat out broken, have overpriced DLC (Batman is a good example for both) and intrusive microtransactions is pretty funny to me. Yes there are people that complain about literally everything but that has always been the case and shouldn't overshadow valid criticism. Let's not forget that there are companies that do all that stuff quite well (for example the Hearts of Stone DLC that offers 10-15 hours of quality story content for 10 bucks). It is not entitled to expect a certain quality of a product you pay money for because if you use that argument you shut down any criticism right away which is never the way to go.

In my humble opinion you have to find a balance between your ambition and between what actually works out and is possible under the restrictions of the current systems. Now, there are always trade offs you have to make but if you reach a point where it is as apparent as it is with Bethesda games and in this case Fallout 4 then maybe scaling some of the things back isn't the worst decision. Apparently it affected Jeff's enjoyment of the game so much that he felt the need to allocate a significant part of his review to it and lower the rating for the console version. The ambition couldn't make up for that. Keep in mind that there is a difference between a bit of open world jank and serious technical difficulties.

Edit: I read your previous post and I don't think it's true that only poor Bethesda gets called out for it. Unity, The Masterchief Collection or NBA did as well just to name a few. Not only that but looking at the sales numbers of AC Syndicate indicates that people actually weren't pleased with how Unity turned out. Only after the positive word of mouth spread did those numbers increase, pretty much the exact opposite to last year. Syndicate also scaled back a bit to ensure (mostly in the graphics department) to ensure a smoother experience and honestly, it is a better game for it.

#8 Posted by altairre (1473 posts) -

Guess Jeff agreed with me, not only calling out the issues but also taking off a star for the console versions. Good on him.

#9 Posted by altairre (1473 posts) -

They actually do owe them. They're the reason why they have the jobs they have.


I can't believe you're actually using that argument.

#10 Edited by altairre (1473 posts) -

@leejunfan83 said:
@animateria said:
@leejunfan83 said:
@fear_the_booboo said:

@demoskinos: It is not that. As a consumer, I'm perfectly fine with Bethesda level of jank because nobody make games on that scale. I'm not talking only about the size of the world but also about the number of systems interacting with each other.

The Witcher 3 does not even come close in my opinion. The world is much more static which is easier to keep bug-free.

Bethesda can "get away with it" because the scale of interactions is unmatched by any game. People that love those games love them for that and can accept that it come with some issues.

Jeff knows this but it doesn't matter to him.

Yes, Jeff knows this... However, this is not a good excuse to use over and over again to put out a janky unpolished game with the same issues as previous iterations.

It is the reality of video games. A digital medium that relies on programming. Games are more and more complex and that is why we see more bugs and jank. it's understandable for an oblivious consumer to expect perfection blindly, but to have seasoned game journalist who have access to companies and developers behind the scenes is inexcusable to me. Instead of coming off as entitled and indifferent to the realities of game development. We tend to forget what video games actually are. There isn't many pieces of software whether it be operating systems or what ever that release bug free , so why do we expect games to be perfect? For perfection games will have to be put on 10-20 year dev cycles and there will still most likely be bug. Either that or games should lower their scope and ambition and play it safe. It's a lose lose situation either way. I just hate the irresponsible approach that certain game journalist have towards the issue. Instead of implying and assuming why not offer more behind the scenes interviews and bring us closer into the realities of game development.

Because as a reviewer he reviews the game as a finished product. It is not his job to care about why certain things didn't come together. It is not his job to make excuses for the developers. I also don't like the strawman of "you want games to be perfect". That's not what this is about. A certain amount of jank in these games is unavoidable but if you have a buggy mess with a ton of technical issues (the game is hitting 0fps at times in the Xbone version for fuck's sake) then it's absolutely okay to criticise that because they're asking you to pay full price for it. It's actually downright insulting to call that "entitled". You're fine with the state of the game and think that it's unavoidable? That's cool but don't call people irresponsible because they don't agree with you or because they are experiencing issues that you do not. If it affects your enjoyment while you're playing it then it deserves to be called out. Period. Bringing those who are interested closer to how game development is a good thing, I agree with that, but that's not something that you (should) need to know to judge the quality of a game.