So I was thinking this game looks pretty cool and everybody seems to of given this game rave reviews but I dunno. I also remember people saying the same things about Braid and I found the obtuse puzzles more troublesome than fun. Really my question is if I didn't like the puzzles in Braid would I like this? I read Brad's review and he mentioned that some of the later puzzles aproach Braid like complexity so that kind of makes me a bit iffy, especially considering this is a $15 investment.
Deathawk's forum posts
Like the general consensus says, this will not work. Valve has no obligation to show anything, or even to reveal that the game is in the works. They no good and well that when they announce Half-Life 3 they'll have enough fans that'll eat it up that they can afford to piss off a few hundred gamers by not playing into their demands.
I have to side with Alex here, even when the Simpsons was a new game it was always a bizarre mess. It was so out of place for the franchise. Say what you want about game's such as Virtual Bart or Itchy and Scratchy the game, but at least they made sense within the universe. Marge using a vacuum cleaner to pummel her enemies to death is every bit as bad and exploitative, as those lame Bart Simpson T-shirts were.
If you knew me, you'd know I buy a lot of used games. Now before you go and call me evil or anything, you should know that most of the games I buy used are several months, if not years, old. Really it's only when I can get a decent value out of buying it used.that I do so As such I have a unique opinion when it comes to online passes (the hot button issue of the day.) I don't mind them, if there was a game coming out that new is $60 then I don't see the sense in paying $55 for it and not supporting the publisher. I think online passes work because they support new game sales while not punishing players who pick the game up later use (Because let's be honest most online games are dead six months after release anyway). Still I can't help but feel this is a slippery slope. Take for example Batman Arkham City, the new purchase incentive for that game is a piece of the single player game, ditto with Kingdom of Amalur. Right now both developers have said that the content for both games was always intended to be DLC, but I'm just worried it won't be long before a publisher puts something that's not DLC behind an online pass? Companies should be especially concerned with this, because when you lock away something other than multiplayer behind an online pass, you're no longer just incentivising new purchases, you're turning your back on latecomers.
Hopefully this means Ubisoft is done with dumb and obstructive DRM, but I worry that this is just the exception. Something like "Well the console version didn't sell, so let's try anything to make money of this."
Ok? LIke the disk knows that it is not new and locks itself? .... On consoles they cant force people into playing online , if they do then heck just go for a PC then
I guess you're right. Potentially games could require unlock keys but that seemingly wouldn't be on a system level. My next thought would be that this might mean that the new system would require a code to activate achievements, which wouldn't be too "anti-used" for gamestop. Heck, I might not even care if that's what's going on.
So Kotaku ran a story today about the next Xbox. It's generally uneventful except when they mention the possibility of an "anti-used game" aspect to the system. This would be terrible if it is true, and would just be another case of people who buy used games being treated like second class citizens. To be clear if this was true it would also most likely mean: A) You couldn't rent a game B) You couldn't borrow games from a friend and C) That once a game was out of production it would be impossible for new gamers to ever play the game unless they chose to digitally re-release the game.
This just furthers my upcoming dread for next generation.