The official forums claim they have two in the works that are pretty far along. The dev team claims they'd like to do a major update each month, and I think they'd be able to get around a bum publisher (it's digital distribution, after all) and push some updates.
auburok's forum posts
Seems like they fixed it. I'm not too sure how it works. At first I thought it was kill based, but my girlfriend plays as Voltar and usually doesn't pull as many kills as me (Leon), and she's almost neck and neck with my rating. I think it's mostly wins, though there might be influence from something else.
Leon. Finally, I can put my years of playing Castlevania endlessly to use killing other players with melee ranged attacks. Leon's a carry in the beginning, but it's not so bad. I try to push his damage output and then slowly trickle in to his other skills once I've reached full basic attack damage potential. I like Lonestar as well since he's the ultimate turret defender.
No idea what you're talking about.
@auburok said:Lol, what a cunt, make sure to let Seanbaby know you're pasting his shit.
Wow. You're an idiot. Stop reading shit that's "farfetched" to you then, dipshit. I'd rather have people worth discussing with, not a blue-collar dolt. Stuff your fauxhawk'd head in your patch-raked comics, drink a vault or whatever you greasy kids drink to escape oppression, and get some alone time on 4chan. People like you shouldn't be allowed to have free time to begin with. You always waste it on getting stuck in ponzi schemes, and falling asleep at the grill.
Edit, rather than post again:
Yeah, I'm not even going to touch Nintendo. People have nothing but praise for them, and I stopped keeping up with them after my DS collected dust. While I was playing them, though, they did manage to at least retool things like Zelda and Mario pretty often, either totally changing their gameplay, or art style. The only thing that seems to be mostly a rehash is Smash Brothers, and that's, so far, a once a console title. I really don't have experience with Nintendo anymore to really include them in my observation, though. The only thing I wish they did was take more control of their Metroid series. I played Other M for a bit, and was pretty disappointed.
This thread is a fucking mess and I imagine it won't be long until it's locked. Anyway on topic you mention stagnation and claim Call of Duty is causing this yet you don't mention the fact that Nintendo has leaned on 3-5 franchises for the past 20 years. There has been a Mario Kart on the last 3 Nintendo platforms and I wouldn't be suprised if there was one on the Wii U and frankly I see nothing wrong with this because generally these are good games. The fact of the matter is that the games industry is primarily sequel driven however these sequels usually provide the revenue for more innovative products and a lot of the time the sequels themselves are good, this year for example we've had Portal 2, Mortal Kombat, Dead Space 2, The Witcher 2, all sequels, all fantastic games. And this is no different to the film industry, there's always going to be terrible romcoms and bad spoof movies but this isn't stagnation, this is just the top layer of the industry, the real crazy, inventive stuff doesn't get as much publicity and it never will because it doesn't appeal to a majority (except for outliers like Inception).
I don't really mean stagnation in sequels, so much as what developers think of "new and exciting concepts" of a game. A lot of the time, they are handing us a FPS shooter that either has a gimmick if it's a new IP, and the gimmick potentially makes it a lackluster experience like Haze (which is partially the fault of not living up to the hype of being the potential "halo killer" it was supposed to be). There's plenty of sci-fi or modern shooters coming out. So far, the one that potentially suggests it pushes the envelope (at least in concept) is Dust. I wouldn't mind these games so much if they had some sort of plot interaction with the player, or a different perspective rather than white super (or space) marine. Sequels are good, when they are warranted and not just a cash in, but these are usually because they have a great plot interaction like Mass Effect, or method of story telling, like Dead Space and Portal.
Bleh, the film industry. I don't think games are as stale as film, yet. We've got a lot of work to do to get there.
@auburok said:Haha. Tool.Someone who makes way, way more money than you do.Stop posting.
That's not what I'm saying. Do you buy and HDTV just to watch standard definition television? Same principle. The tech's out there for immersible, compelling experiences. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with WW2 or modern shooters. They're just old ideas with no real tweaks. A Call of Duty game that would surprise me? Play from a viewpoint that's not American/European.
If old games are so great, why not just play them instead?
@auburok said:No need to apologize. I'm glad to have a well constructed opinion from someone else.
Sorry for going back a few pages, but I really want to discuss this point. What do you actually think word of mouth is? Yes, sometimes it is someone saying "Well it has a 92 on metacritic". But in the context of the post before it, it was clearly meant to mean someone saying "Yeah I've played it it's awesome" or "Dude waste of $60 it was so buggy". Pre-ordering a game and getting a bad one is a risk, unfortunately, and you accept that risk by getting the game for slightly less, or for getting extra stuff included in it, or a cool collectors box or some DLC or some other shit. Some gamers (such as myself) are VERY VERY skeptical when it comes to game purchases. I have only pre-ordered two games in my life; UFC Undisputed 2010 (which I cancelled cause I was happy with 09 and still play it now), and Catherine, which I just did yesterday and still feel hesitant about. I pre-ordered Catherine because I played the demo, watched the QL of the demo, watched some of the QL EX (didn't want to spoil ANYTHING), and saw the words "Persona Team" in the description. If I get it and hate it, it's my fault for buying into the hype.\ But I think I'm digressing from my point. Word of mouth is a huge seller of games, especially post-release. I bought NHL '11 because my friend is obsessed with it, and I played it with him and enjoyed it. I bought Borderlands because everyone I knew who owned it loved it. I bought Heavy Rain because of reviews, and I was glad I did. I bought SSFIV based on reviews, and I was glad I did. I haven't regretted a game I bought based on reviews in a while, but that's because I read tons of user reviews and watch game content before I buy. Call of Duty fans are gonna buy Call of Duty games. Final Fantasy fans will buy Final Fantasy games. I will buy Uncharted games because they're Uncharted games. The internet (which didn't exist in this facet in the past) is a GREAT tool for word of mouth. User reviews, Let's plays, message boards, and the like have made making an informed opinion SO much easier than it was in the past. I bought so many bad N64 games because I didn't know better. I've only bought a few Ps3 games I've completely regretted (Eternal Sonata and Resistance). This is a good time for gaming information. In terms of your point about innovation being stifled, the market will always control what comes out and who gets to make games on a high budget. If you think CoD is crap, don't buy it. If you think a game is great, BUY IT NEW. Let them know how much you enjoy it. Thanks to games like the Battlefield series, we got Mirror's Edge, which was original (and in my opinion, AWESOME). New games that aren't sequels do come out and do sell well if they're good enough. Half of giantbomb bought Persona 4. Dead Space sold tons of copies and became AAA. Super Meat Boy and small indie games sell and get followings now. Don't be so pessimistic. Gaming is pretty good right now. CoD is not the devil. Free Earl.
I agree, the internet helps in many situations, but sometimes it doesn't. The hype machine is a direct consumer force, and it was not nearly as powerful before the internet. I only bought Assassin's Creed 1 because of reviews, both from other gamers and published journalists, and it didn't seem like until the second game came out that they noticed the glaring flaws of the first. I almost feel like people were so blinded by a half-hashed out game that they were convinced they didn't waste their money. Sure, I eventually bought Dead Space by word of mouth, but it was also word of mouth that kept me from it in the first place: "Resident Evil 4 clone."
I probably didn't run in to purchasing as many bad games as before because renting games was so inexpensive before, but I also had a lot less influence from hype, as you had to rely on magazine subscriptions or GameSpy (which was heavily PC based at the time) or later IGN to get any sort of hype for a game. Easily, the best way to prevent me from unwittingly supporting games I didn't want was the local Play & Trades. They let you play any game that's currently out before you buy it. Saved me a lot of money, and spared me the thought of giving my money to game mills.
As for your tips for purchasing: I already do that. I don't buy Call of Duty. I buy new, and in some cases, I buy two of them new. I donate to Indie developers and ask how I can help them out, as I imagine is sucks when the only person coding, making art, and creating music for your game is you. Not really much more I can do to attempt to support the games I'd like to play. I'm not really pessimistic, as I didn't pack up my hobby and head back east, so to speak; I'm looking for discussion.
Yeah, I've noticed that, too. Especially your last point. At the end of the day, even if I can get people to play games, or find people that already play games, getting people to have an intelligent conversation about the hobby is difficult.
@auburok: Couldn't agree more on all of your points, although, I find it bittersweetly ironic. I grew up wishing everyone around me played video games more. Now I sign in to facebook and EVERYONE is talking about Call of Duty all year round. It's frustrating. but I mean, I guess it's a step in the right direction.
I don't have much game industry knowledge (aside from reading websites like Giantbomb) so most of my experience about trends and such comes from music scenes, but it's an identical situation there.
I think it comes down to the fact that 95% of the population are afraid of trying things that are new - it's hard to see that changing anytime soon unfortunately. The other ironic thing I've is - I find nothing's changed from 10+ years ago - because at the end of the day you still need to put in
effort to find decent games and decent gamers to play or converse with! :D
Worst Topic of 2011, worse than all of KaosAngel's topics put together.Solid "C" for effort, on your part. The world's bigger than GiantBomb, so a random forum name drop means about as much as having an "inside source" on an untrue rumor. Thanks for stopping by. I value your input.
Most of what you've said I've covered in other replies, so I'm not going to bother copying and pasting all of that again, sorry. I've met plenty of indoctrinated fans. I'm not responsible for you meeting any. Lucky you, if you actually haven't. You must not live near a college. I hope you're not taking personal offense to my opinion of over saturation of generic FPS experiences to heart because you play a lot of them. Apparently if I bitched about too many open world games, it'd probably strike a nerve with you, too.
Most of the time, reviews don't do a damn thing to make sure you're getting a game you'd enjoy. Many critiques are public forms of mental masturbation. Absolute shit to one person isn't truly so for the next, is it? Let's see if I can make it palatable for you: If a review steered me away from Bad Company 2, such as, oh, this one:
Now, I'm genuinely concerned about single-player, and bugs, and I don't buy the game and subsequently ignore it. It goes on the backlog, possibly never really reaching my hands if I don't feel like $20 is worth it. Coming back to reviews months after the fact isn't a normal occurrence. Maybe a recommendation to play it if you've liked destructible envrionments ala Red Faction 1 and 2 and never touched a DICE game before might be stupid to you, but it's not like it hurts. You imply that everyone has money to burn on games they're not sure they'd like. That, to me, is idiotic. If you feel this post is so non-threatening, you could have made it less conspicuous. I'm reading a rebuttal, not an open-minded opinion.
There's no denying the appeal of Bad Company 2's multiplayer. DICE is still expertly nailing down what it pioneered all the way back in 2002, and the experience remains far from stale. However, poor design in the single-player makes for a campaign that's not only lacklustre throughout, but cripplingly buggy at times as well
Here's an easy one that made a few articles: MaXplosion, for iOS by Capcom. Originally the game Twisted Pixel pitched to Capcom, only to get turned down. Not only had 'Splosion Man already been released, but they made no effort to improve on the initial pitch they were given. Who knew that that Capcom must have had the idea of an exploding experiment using self-combustion to get through levels and kill scientists? Call the kids; that's a unique gaming experience.
And lastly could you give an example of this:
games blatantly copying indie studio games without any idea how to expand the concepts presented.
what is it about nerds that causes them to instantly flail about and attempt to clumsily deflect any sort of criticism about their precious video games? hey, guess what, even if the industry wasn't some stagnant, dead vampire (it is), and video games were consider to be the highest of art (they aren't(unless i be smokin' a bowl)), you people would still be unbearable, unlikable manchildren that constantly disappoint your parents and loved ones. so sit back, calm down, and stop trying defend an industry that would rather fleece your last dollar for some pants DLC than take the risk of making an actually good game.Amen. I didn't expect this sort of backlash. It's almost as if I was taking the food out of their children's mouths with any insinuation that the video game industry could liven up a bit and actually be compelling, rather than wring me for cash.
@auburok: While the overall audience has grown lots since 'the good old days' and lots of this influx are 'onedimensional gamers', the likes of whom bought a 'Halo Box' or 'CoD Box' or 'Madden Box' and not a 'my hobby are videogames' console, the 'nerd gamer market' didn't shrink either. There's more diversity than ever. Bigger games than ever. And more small innovative games than ever. The giving is good. It's gotten lots better. It will only get better. That's how I see it. You see a problem. At worst, I see an opportunity for further 'nerd gamer market' growth. Got a 'non-gamer' friend who bought a PS3 recently. Not into gaming much. Doesn't buy many games. Maybe one or two a year. He got PSN Plus though. Checking out the free games. Flatrate gaming services in the vein of PSN Plus could be a huge opportunity for the industry to grab the more casual market and pull them over into the core. That model is all about editorializing content. The industry can shape the casual experience and have lots of positive impact this way, if they editorialize well. I would be surprised if Microsoft doesn't announce a similar flatrate gaming service tomorrow. An XBLA Plus if you will.
I respect your opinion, and agree a flatrate service would help a ton. It might cut out a ton of risks associated if it was just an all inclusive deal.
Your being awfully stereotypical, I'm gay, so why do I play games when I should be walking around town in my pink jeans. These people exsisted before this, Xbox live just gave them voice.I don't mean to stereotype, but you have to admit they aren't exactly pushing big money on your demographic. Also, are you saying the people I'm referring to were given a voice, or homosexuals? If you meant the latter, Xbox Live gave homosexuals of either sex a "voice" just in the past year. Before then, it wasn't okay. Proof?