I don't always read the community spotlight, but when I do I always find something(s) I missed that makes me laugh or I otherwise enjoy; so thanks for putting it together every week!
And also thanks again for mentioning my fan app, I still have some things in store for it I'm working on!
@vinny: If I had to choose I'd rather the separate feeds instead of just one. But I'm biased and wrote my own code to watch multiple videos at the same time.
The online stuff (with friends at least) is nowhere near as complicated as these guys make out. SOS flares are for playing with randoms only! Playing with friends is pretty straightforward once your'e all in the same session. The cut scene thing is dumb though.
This. Like yes it needs to be improved, but they exaggerate it so damn much. Just start a session and give them the session codes. Done.
@benpack@unastrike@brad You can go into settings and turn on an option to let the host choose who can join the quest (you'll get a popup telling you someone wants to join then you'll go into your join requests and either accept or decline them).
I continue to wish they would just use these categories to talk with each other about why they love the games they love with no end goal of a site wide list. I love the parts where they talk through the things that drove them towards the games they loved through the year. It's interesting and probative. The parts where they start tearing down games and getting agitated when games might not make the end list is not interesting. Worse, the end list is not worth that agitation. The resulting list is not nearly as useful as the individual lists they create, and especially the reasons behind those individual lists. The very process of agitation and wearing each other out makes it a useless list of exhausted, frustrated compromise.
Have the fun discussion part. Forget the damned list.
I mean, I like to hear people critique games for their flaws as much as praise what they do well. But. This year's Best Game category really left a lot to be desired. I mean, most of this years categories have been pretty bad (on average), but ho-boy did the best game one just go to a whole nother level. Like "I am no longer interested in listening to another GOTY category ever again" levels. The only way I ever bother again is if they make big changes.
They need to cut the best style or best looking category, same game should not win both.
I think that's silly. Graphics and Style are two different things and one game can do both of those things well enough to win both categories.
I kinda disagree, I think the reason they have two categories is because they really aren't supposed to overlap. Normally style is something that is used in place of graphics because they aren't going for graphics, and why cuphead really should have won one or the other. But not both. If anything I think it has weak style because it is just copying one-for-one the old cartoon style of movies and shows.
Nonsense, Best Style takes in the visual and audio and whatever other nebulous factors that make a game really stand out. There's no reason a game couldn't have the best Look and then also combine that with whatever else and take Best Style.
I mean it shouldn't have because it's a much better Second Place choice but it's totally eligible.
I just think the two categories are different enough it would be extremely difficult for a game to do both well enough to win them both. Personally I just don't think cuphead has much style, I think it has a beautiful cartoon-style animated look; but I don't see much style from it outside of copying that old cartoon look.
They need to cut the best style or best looking category, same game should not win both.
I think that's silly. Graphics and Style are two different things and one game can do both of those things well enough to win both categories.
I kinda disagree, I think the reason they have two categories is because they really aren't supposed to overlap. Normally style is something that is used in place of graphics because they aren't going for graphics, and why cuphead really should have won one or the other. But not both. If anything I think it has weak style because it is just copying one-for-one the old cartoon style of movies and shows.
@shiftygism: This will probably be my last reply on the topic, because you seem to just not understand what pay-to-win is. But just to clarify my knowledge. Yes, I watched the GB quick look and NO I did not get my information from what was said by Dan and Vinny; because GB doesn't have the best track record in providing factual information. It is not why I come to GB. But, I can watch the video and see how the cards and systems behave. I can watch other videos, like the gamespot stream of the "preorder" state of the game, (aka how EA would have liked to have the game behave) and also see how the cards and systems behave.
Like I said, I think the progression is shit. It was super shit in the "preorder" period where EA tried to do every scummy move in the book to try and sell crystals and it only got slightly better after they tried to "tweak the numbers". Before I guess tweaking the numbers again, and again.
@shiftygism: You are right, I have not played it myself because I don't support shit publishers. I highly enjoy gaming and I avoid publishers that treat me like shit. Especially in 2017 when there are too many way better games and publishers/developers I can be supporting instead. But Giant Bomb had hours of coverage of BF2, and I watched a number of streams. So I'd say I understand the progression pretty decently. Or at least the progression as it was just before and at launch. I haven't followed it since.
And just because EA rolled back a number of changes, doesn't mean they still don't deserve to get trashed on for their shitty initial implementation. The only reason you have the "better" progression now is because people bitched about it for you.
@shiftygism: Sure you're right, we never really did debate the progression. I said it was shit, you said it was fine, and I'm fine leaving it at that. I don't think either of us is going to convert the other.
Also, continue finding new straw-men to debate pay-to-win with. There is a pretty clear definition of what pay-to-win is and battlefront clearly fell squarely into it.
Micro-transactions, here to stay? Sure, I can agree with that. But like I said, they are there because it's their game, they can do whatever they want. It isn't a matter of "we need these to stay profitable" it's "we want these to maximize our profits". And in EA's case that always means at the expense of the player. And that's the real problem with EA and battlefront.
It isn't a game I can look at and go "Yea, this was made by a really passionate team that had a vision, really wanted to nail that vision, that really care about games, and that wanted to make something great for people to enjoy." All I can see when I look at games that come out of EA is "This is a game where a bunch of (probably) passionate low-level developers and designers had to shit all over their vision and passion to make all the upper-level executives happy about the profits and growth and making-that-money-at-all-cost. Let's make them do the least amount of work and charge the most we can, and design it to encourage spending as much as possible to rack in the most profit. Cause at EA, all we care about is ourselves, our growth, and our quarterly profits. Fuck the people buying our games and supporting us, and fuck all the passionate designers/developers/QA/etc that work for us that just want to make a great game they can be proud of. They haven't released a great game in probably a decade or more. It's the same regurgitated shit every year with better graphics and sound and marketing.
ev77's comments