@corruptedevil: attention. If you take a look at their twitter it's pretty obvious what this is all about.
Ares42's forum posts
I'm curious about the ps4 version, but considering I already own and have played a ton of the game on PC already I'd really want to try it before I buy it. Would suck to buy the game again only to realize that it's just an inferior version.
Regarding the whole "money first" things, two wrongs doesn't make a right. We often see the two simplified arguments we see here clash, and they're both wrong.
The reality is that there are plenty of businesses that aren't money first. When someone decided to open let's say your local bakery it probably wasn't because someone analyzed the local market and realized that a great way to earn money there was to build a bakery, it was most likely just some person that wanted to make a living by baking. If they just wanted to make as much money as possible they could've probably done something more profitable, but if they can't make a living through baking they will probably shut the business down rather than change the business. That's not to say money isn't important or a priority, but it's not the core essential part of the business.
The thing with videogames over the last decade (or more) is that it has become an industry driven more and more by people that really are all about money first. They have no passion or "loyalty" for the product they're making, they just want to make as much money as possible. It's what happens to an industry when it grows too fast and becomes dependant on investors rather than being self-sustainable. That's not to say that the game companies no longer have a passion for making games, but they no longer have the ability to set the agenda.
It's easy to think that most businesses are money first because it's generally what's on the day to day agenda, but at the end of the day most businesses have a list of things they will and won't do to make money.
That was a strange read. You're picking apart simplified statements and put up arguments against them, but if you pull the pieces apart you end up agreeing with them.
The only thing I really wanna comment on is "I know that if you are really into a game, the idea that you can’t experience all of it unless you shell out $100 (or more) sucks a big one. But it’s really not about trying to deny you an experience, it’s trying to enable users to spend what they want."
I would say that's a fallacy. If the goal was to enable users to spend what they want then there would be a sliding price-point, like humble-bundles. I would say a more correct way of putting is it makes it possible for people to spend as much as they are willing to spend. I have a problem with how you use the words enable and want. It might be true for a very minor section, but even for the majority of the people that spend money on f2p games I don't think it's about having a craving for being able to spend more money on the game. Or maybe that's exactly that tiny percentage of people that actually do spend money on f2p games.
I'll just reiterate what I said in some other PS4 thread recently, it's the "minor" games that allows PS4 to stay ahead. I own both consoles and while I only have a handful of big hitters on both my PS4 also has a good amount of f2p and cheaper games that are pretty good and I keep coming back to. They basically won the "Geometry Wars" war.
With the upcoming release of the reboot of this series I was reminded that I never got around to playing this game. I remember people going crazy about it, and the open-world collectible fest is straight up my alley, but is the game sorta outdated at this point ? Compared to series like AC, Arkham, Saint's Row and Infamous is Crackdown just a pre-tense of what these series have done better, or does it have something special to it ?
@bisonhero: You can make a "deathrattle" deck that goes well with the card but will be very dependant on drawing it, however it doesn't really fit well into any of the strong decks out there. The problem is that while a lot of deathrattle cards are good, they play into very different playstyles. If you look at the deck fredchuckdave posted it has a lot of good cards but it's spread all over the place, trying to be agro, take board control and nuke all at the same time. It's probably gonna end up failing at one or two of the things and end up being mediocre with the rest.
If you go over the list of cards you posted, they are all popular, but most of them are rarely played with more than one or two of the others.
@mrmazz: Undertaker/Zombie Chow are possibly the 2 best neutral common cards in the game, as we'll soon see.
The problem with Undertaker is that while there are plenty of deathrattle cards that are really good, there are very few decks that will run a lot of deathrattle. At most you usually only see maybe 4-5 deathrattle cards, so the chance for him to get beyond a 2/3 is pretty minor.
Still looks like Dragon Age's clunky combat to me. Not that it's unplayable or anything, but it falls in that realm where it's pretty much impossible to balance due to the range of automation/micromanagement available to you. It just ends up with this situation where it's most likely a complete walkover even if you don't use any of the strategic stuff, or you end up having to depend on it and it gets tedious.
They should really just focus on the singular player character. That's not to say that you can't have any henchmen, but they could've really taken some lessons from Mass Effect, or even gone the even more passive route of something like Diablo. The group combat concept in RPGs just struggles to really work outside the traditional strategy style games.