EXTomar's forum posts

#1 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

Frozen should be an easy no brainer since that movie has done absurdly well for Japan even being released later than many other regions. But which SE character to cross over in I couldn't say...

Beyond more fun settings, what I would like Square-Enix to do is embrace what Traveler's Tales has done with LEGO games. To clear a world/solve its problems you should be restricted in who you can take along and what you can do but once it is "unlocked" you should be able to take in whomever you want. The LEGO games have shown how fun it is go in a "free roam" mode with whatever characters you want. If you want to take Jack Skelington into "Under The Sea" then go for it.

#2 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

There is weak collusions across the entire Japanese economy between private and public sections. This works great for the 80s. Not so much in the 90s when the economy stagnates while the rest of the world grew. That is the famous "Lost Decade" where so many private businesses where too fat and spending way to much money in operation relative to what they were taking in but none of them were allowed to fail due to those CEOs knowing the right people in the banking system and in government. The entire "circle jerk" kept things locked for a decade where business supported politicians who kept banks at bay and the politicians got the support they needed from the businesses while damaging the economy on the whole for the regular main street Japanese family (maybe a cautionary tale for the US?).

Sony is in that same system but in today's modern banking governance it is a little better where they aren't allowed to perpetually loan and finance whatever Sony wants but they also won't put pressure on Sony either. This allows them to march up to "the line" and although they haven't gone over "the line" that isn't exactly the best place to be to adapt or react.

Back to Microsoft, it should be noted one of the things killed along with 18,000 jobs is a bunch of periphery XBox stuff which I think is a good idea. This is time, money, and energy they should waste right at this moment where if it isn't going into making a game better then they probably shouldn't fund it. And just like it was pointed out in the Jimquisition thread, it is fine to correct things but acting like everything is according to plan is an outright lie and it is a message no one believes which is the real issue when it comes to the question of perception. No one is going to believe the 18,000 they are getting rid of will really fix anything if they pulled the same fire/rehire crap they pulled in 2008. No one is going to believe anything has changed unless the new CEO brings in new management across the top of the board including Entertaining and Consumer Products. The emperor has no clothes where saying things like "our growth potential is huge" makes people roll their eyes because in some areas they are so far behind any minuscule growth is technically "huge".

#3 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -


*sigh* It doesn't matter if it is easy or fast. It is bad design to offer the player "a choice" when it turns out all of the options but one or two are correct. Forget Heroes of the Storm or LoL or whatever for a moment and lets go with a simple example of the issue: If you have a hero that functions on Agility stat and they have a "gem" slot that offers +Strength, +Agility, and +Intelligence, what exactly is the "choice" or "option"? Nothing has been added or customized but instead it becomes a time/money/currency sink. Getting back to Heroes of the Storm specifically, there are gems/relics/artifacts/whatever that lend themselves more to one role over another. Why would a "Nuker" select an option that is "+HP"? Why would a "Tank" select "+Mana Regen"? And before you say "Well they may need it that way in some matches...", then that would mean the basic hero stats and performance are borked "out of the box" and unplayable until you earn enough gold to fix it. How fair is that?

Allowing the player to make a bad choice, even if it is cheap to fix is not a favor or adds flavor to the game and just seems to aggravate teammates. So again I ask, who wants to play with a guy who has a Nova that is slotted wrong? How fast will teammates yell at him when the game goes bad and they look at their Nova's gear and see he isn't nearly so maxed out?

What I would rather see Blizzard do is take from Diablo 3 and WoW and use that Talent system instead. Using Nova as an example again, lets say her "E" slot is a "Stealth" so instead of offering gems/relics/whatever that mess with HP regen, damage modifiers, death reduction, etc. that need to be leveled, how about customizing how Nova goes in/out of Stealth instead? Any teammates or opponents know that Nova has stealth but is it the Stealth with utility to "stalk and scout"? Or is the Nova with Stealth that allows Nova to be "ambush and assassinate"? Or is the Nova with Stealth that allows her to brawl but can disengage and fade from combat? That would be a more interesting set of choices to make depending on team comp instead of "+Damage" or "+Skill Damage".

#4 Posted by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

I do wonder if it is easier to just buy a new car and license it instead of trying to convert an old one.

#5 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

Its not customization though. It is the same thing problem they had in World of Warcraft which created systems of bunch of "false choices". Depending on the hero this is only going to be one option that really works with the rest being less optimal or junk. Why bother asking the player "which one of these choices do you want?" if it turns out there is only one selection that makes sense?

I'm glad they got rid of a lot of that crap in World of Warcraft. I didn't realize how much "baggage" these things were until they were gone and how much more time you spend on drilling and fighting instead without it. I'm glad it isn't Dota 2.

I understand the appeal of such systems because it is an "alternative advance" system but it seems too often to end up as an issue instead. Who is going to want to play with someone with Nova with the wrong stuff slotted?

#6 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

As one analyst put it: Everyone in the market knows that Microsoft used to point and laugh at IBM saying how the only innovative thing that dinosaur could do is buy companies and collect their patents and customers. Everyone in the market knows now that best thing Microsoft does today is buy up companies and collecting their patents and customers.

For more than a decade now, high profile product after high profile product has failed sometimes specularly. Microsoft does okay because of their corporate support and business lines rake in so much money. For all of his issues, the big thing Balmer did right is build business units to maximize any revenue they had access too. This does no favors for the individual consumer nor does much of the tech actually translate easily into consumer products. The most innovative thing Microsoft has created in the last decade was the entire XBox line and a lot of that was bought out and re-purposed and it still has issues. Now it is a sunk cost situation where to abandon it now is too costly but to keep it going isn't that profitable either.

Sony has been a shell of its former self due to multiple issue where a major one is that it is a Japanese company that easily gets into situations where it ends up heavily leveraged. On the one hand that means they are fairly secure because they are "too big to fail" but that also means the poor practices management makes stay around because they are not failing.

In either event, if you want to see innovative companies you should look towards Samsung and Google because although they are huge corporations they are build in such a way to be much more agile than Sony who is hamstrung and Microsoft who is a plodding dinosaur.

#7 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

If it is an "ante", I'd rather have it work like Hearthstone. If you want to play ranked/arena you need to have invested enough time or money to buy in and it does nothing to further to modify performance or the next match you play. That is not what is going on here where instead it is forcing the player to make configuration choices. It is "unlocked" at later levels but it is still a "choice that seems optional but is really required". It doesn't matter if it is cheap or easy to build up but it is another thing one has to explain to new players, another thing you have to worry about if your teammates do correct, another thing to worry if you or your teammates have advanced enough to compete, etc. instead of actually playing the match.

Or another way to look at it is that LoL did a lot of things to streamline and simplify the game which it should be commended for doing but the way the runes work is one thing that flies counter to this streamlining. If Blizzard wants to go for an easy to play, streamlined, goal oriented PVPE style MOBA ,then they really should avoid using "seems optional but required" things like this.

#8 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

@kidavenger said:

Have any of you actually played League? Runes were the easiest thing to acquire and even if you stacked all of one particular type you'd be looking at a less than 5% boost to a particular attribute.

They gave the game an interesting flavour and something to theorycraft, it was never an issue and I'm glad Blizzard is allowing for some character customization.

I've asked a question question in the Lol/Dota 2 thread where no one really has an an answer: What purpose does runes exist? As a Dota 2 player it seems kind of a mystery to me since it serves no game purpose. If it was meant to speed up the game then there are fairer was to do that. If it is meant to constrain or equalize the early game then there are clearly easier and more straightforward ways to do that. What seems to be a problem is that it screws up new and casual players who don't understand or forget about it. The only thing I could determine is that best it is an "ante system" and at worst it is just a blatant money grab by introducing an artificial sink. It doesn't matter if it is easy to "buy" because it seems extraneous and mandatory to throw currency in.

#9 Edited by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

It should be noted that people are giving flack to Sterling saying he should give "equal time" and complaining about the PS4. The key this time is Sony make moves that promised one thing but delivered another.

As mentioned in the by others and explicitly in the video, the XBox One isn't a bad system but the decision making all over the place is disappointing some ways and infuriating in others. If people can't say "I really want Microsoft to stop doing that" without being accused of irrelevant stuff then what can critics do?

#10 Posted by EXTomar (4986 posts) -

Sony didn't do us a favor by releasing the PS3 as a $600 box. Nor did Sony do us a favor failing to secure whatever they needed to make the PS3 controller. Nor did Sony do us a favor when they finally did.

Did Microsoft do us a favor by confusing messaging, weird design decisions, spending money on tv shows, a more expensive box and other goofs? Did Microsoft do us a favor by fixing each of these? People talk about "Microsoft having the guts to fix things" but that is just business. What would take "guts" is saying "We gambled on these things and they did work out. For anyone who bought our products counting on these features we are sorry" but we'll never see either of them say.

So how about this instead? If Microsoft and Sony or whoever avoids making and marketing weird decisions then we as consumers can avoid this whole thing about how much contempt we should hold against them.