EXTomar's forum posts

#1 Posted by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

I assume this affects Massively too? If so, that's twice the bummer because they were easily one of if not the best site that specialized in covering MMOs.

Both "Massively" and other sister sites like "WoW Insider" are being coy with what is happening with them and their future.

#2 Edited by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

@grtkbrandon said:

@extomar: What is some evidence you can provide to support this opinion? GTA V, a single player game, broke records. It does have online components, but that is certainly not its selling point.

Do you know how expensive GTA V was to make? And that multiplayer component that outlived the game is what people are playing with as much as anything today.

Not everyone can make a game as big and expensive as GTA let alone any number of other games like Skyrim. Is a producer going to be excited about spending millions on a sword/sorcery action rpg that has a NN hour single player campaign or a sword/sorcery action rpg that is a 4 player co-op game with an aggressive advancement system that has a lot of opportunities for in game purchases? Hell just look at how much multiplayer and how much stuff is being sold in Dragon Age Inquisition.

#3 Posted by EXTomar (5012 posts) -


The issue is that "making video games" is expensive. Making a single player game is an expensive one shot experience with a limited audience. I get the feeling that "single player games" will move into the indie space where it is priced better and more realistically than AAA can support.

#4 Posted by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

Huh, the scuttlebutt a couple of months ago is that the board at Yahoo wants to merge with AOL. If it turns out that AOL is really disappearing then I wonder if the failure to get anywhere on a buyout/merger precipitated this move.

I only know about joystiq from "Massively" and "Wow Insider". Both have been suffering from cut backs in staff but I still like their coverage and will be sorry if they are forced to disappear.

#5 Posted by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

The one thing I think HotS has going for it is that approachability. I have friends who are scared to death of trying to play a Dota 2 match for multiple reasons so they'll never really want to play with me. And frankly I have issues trying to play Dota 2 with some of them because of their temperament. On the other hand if they go "Hey play some HotS with us", I'll jump in and screw around in it and not feel bad either way.

#6 Edited by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

I come from Dota 2 as well and I think the tactic HotS is focusing is a great one: Getting hero levels and kills is helpful but spending effort on goals to boost the team's creeps instead wins the match. But the problem is I have no idea how long term this will work out or even if it is entertaining at high levels of play.

I feel the same as others wondering how long game could run like this because of its "low bar of entry" but I would love to see some sort of one off mode like this (call it "Creep Siege Mode" or something) in Dota 2.

#7 Posted by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

It is simply a matter of not seeing the same thing over and over and over again. It is the same complaint about the "bald space marine" or "brown military shooters" where I would like to look at something different.

#8 Posted by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

The real issue is that Microsoft should have never ever gone with Microsoft Points to begin with. Imagine how "successful" Amazon would have been if you had to buy Amazon Points then buy the item? It would drive people crazy trying to manage a wallet of funny money.

#9 Posted by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

I'm all for R&D and tech and letting companies go wild with this stuff but there are practical, consumer considerations to make for devices like this. Forget the comparison to Kinect where instead I see this as the same "gee-wiz" as Google Glass.

#10 Edited by EXTomar (5012 posts) -

@jadegl said:

I think that some of you may want to read the story about the photo directly from Sophia Loren. So I'm not entirely sure what the point of posting the picture was, and what it was trying to prove, but her own story is that she was afraid that Jane Mansfield was going to pop out of her dress. She wasn't wrong for fearing that based on pictures of that night.

That reminds me of a video that went around produced by a guy trying to show women gawking at men and their pants especially if they can see large it is. What the makers failed to realize is that it was so poorly and ridiculously setup that many women posted they would look and stare at it too because it was obviously fake leading them to find it absurd, funny, or just weird instead of being turned on.

Men and women like to look at things that stimulate them. What many forget is that there are other "stimulation" besides "I'm excited" that get people to stop what they are doing and look.