I'd worry more about the fact that they are seemingly making 4 different versions of the same game. I get that they wanna strike while the iron is hot, but this is exceeding Activision levels of running something into the ground.
Ares42's forum posts
The shtick he used would be annoying in a respectable awards ceremony, but since he was co-hosting a show that featured, among other things, a Twitter rally to "unlock" a 15 second teaser that just showed a logo of a licensed game, the world exclusive reveal of a returning character in a sequel, the world exclusive reveal of two new robots in a sci-fi game, a developer bragging about harnessing the power of next gen to render rustled leaves in the re-release of a game and a bunch of YouTube personalities competing to see who could make the worst skit I thought he was by far the best part of it.
Gaming already has its respectful awards ceremony in the GDC. Let McHale shine a light on how ridiculous the VGAs are.
Don't forget a GOTY award where 3 people were awkwardly brought in front of a camera to hold a thank you speech in front of noone and a good smattering of one-man applauses. Also, fake applause at the end of every trailer that was probably supposed to fade into an actual audience, but instead just ended abruptly.
Without him the show would've been a fart in the wind. I don't understand how anyone even conceptualized that show. I'm just guessing he got presented with a "video game award show" job and then when he showed up he realized what a shit-show it was gonna be. Did he make it better ? not really, but there wasn't really much to ruin there either.
Picked it up yesterday and played through it once. I'm not quite sure if I'd recommend it. It's a fairly short arcade game that you're supposed to play through several times, and while I don't know how random the mines themselves are the set-pieces are the same every time so I doubt I'll play through more than maybe once or twice more. It is cheap though, so maybe.. It was fun to explore the game once, but it sorta lacks the depth of gameplay to warrant replaying. The comparison that comes to mind for me is Spelunky with only 10% of the challenge.
The whole hood thing is just silly, since even when he's wearing the robes he usually doesn't use the hood. There's literally situations where he does the dramatic hood move at the end of a cutscene and like 2 seconds later once in gameplay he takes it off again.
@golguin: I thought it was pretty obvious the whole thing was a build up to the game from the get-go. As soon as I saw them using all the same costumes that they use in the game, and realizing how it timed up against the release date that got pushed just a few weeks earlier. Seemed like the most obvious thing you would do when you're releasing a game based on a tv series like South Park.
Can't really say I agree with the premise here. I don't think microtransactions were ever justified by game price. If they ever were justified it was on their own merit. We have 2 different kinds of microtransactions. One is the one where you buy something in-game that will last forever (like hats) which is somewhat accepted, and the other is when you either just buy time or convenience.
There's no reason the model where you get a game and then can purchase extra stuff in the game can't work even if you payed a good amount for the game. Would it really be terrible if you bought Mass Effect 4 for 50 bucks and it came with one of six classes and you needed to unlock the others at 2 bucks each ? Not that that would ever happen at that price point, but I don't think we should really worry too much about content being locked out. Those types of microtransactions only make game prices drift on a set scale, much like DLC has already done for years.
The type of microtransactions that are actually lucurative to publishers are the ones where you just buy a service, as they are a constant stream of income. They are also the ones that change games as the gameplay gets molded to push you into buying them. However I don't think those have yet been accepted by the traditional gaming audience, even in free games. And even while those kinda games have an audience I don't think the two overlap that well. It's a seperate market that's new and unexploited, but at worst all it will do is divert attention away from more traditional games, not infiltrate and transform them. Basically, what we're seeing is similar to what we saw with Wii and casual/movement games.
I don't eat fries with burgers. A burger on it's own is a fine meal, you don't need the fries. And if you really like fries, why eat them with burgers when there are so many things they go much better with ? If you're one of the people who eats either first, why did you order both if you don't plan on eating them like a meal ?
I used to love competitive multiplayer games, but the invasion of crappy matchmaking systems has completely turned me off them. MM is great for the convenience of getting into games quickly, but you lose the whole community aspect and more often than not it feels like it just screws you over. That's all fine if you play a game where you cycle through new lobbies every 10 minutes, but usually those games have gone the COD instant gratification route with their gameplay which makes things even worse.
If I want to compete with other people I want to recognize their names, I want to know who to watch out for, I want the games to get more and more even as teams get properly balanced, I want things to actually have some consequence and not just be a 10 second experience of "haha, I beat you random guy on the internet".
TWD continues it's tradition of having premieres and finales worth watching while rest of the episodes are pretty mediocre.