JBrosk89's forum posts

#1 Posted by JBrosk89 (64 posts) -

When I read Alex's initial break on this story, my immediate response was, "Huh, that makes sense."

I am not a backer, I have never even come close to a VR headset. That being said, I think this is an interesting story. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook were Oculus 15 years+ ago. If anyone knows how difficult it is to start a successful company among the giants in Silicon Valley, it's the Facebook guy. That being said, do I agree with Facebook in everything they do? No. Does that vilify them to the point of outright rage and hatred to anything they help fund or buy? No. Facebook is what happens in the fairy tale after the little guy defeats the big guy...the little guy becomes the big guy. VR tech is EXPENSIVE. Would anyone rather if Sony, Microsoft, EA, Disney, Google, Comcast, or Warren Buffett would have bought Oculus? I doubt it.

Every giant comes with baggage and every success comes with hatred. Facebook and Oculus claim that it's less of a buyout, and more of a serious investment opportunity for both companies. Within the last year, we have seen a giant (Microsoft) take a huge uppercut to the chin due to things they said and how cocky they got when developing the Xbox One. So long as Facebook and Oculus learn from Microsoft, rather than repeating similar mistakes, and are honest about the relationship of the companies and how that relates to game development and hardware development/implementation as a whole...I think this could be the big guy helping the little guy succeed story you almost never hear.

Now, I didn't mention Valve earlier as one of the giants I would not rather have bought Oculus...for good reason. I think Valve might be the only company/giant that could have bought Oculus and everyone would be better off. Valve has a nack for taking an idea, not really caring whether or not it was financially successful, and making it great. Look how long Dota 2 was in development. Whether you like Dota or not, its pretty successful. The SteamBox is another example of Valve willing to try something to disrupt the normal order. Sending out 100 completely different development models for public alpha testing? When was the last time you saw Microsoft or Sony let ANYONE behind the iron curtain? If only for the gaming world's approval, I think Valve would have been a "better" buyer...yet even then, I bet there would have been a sizable backlash.

When things change, people get upset. Facebook, Zuckerberg specifically, has been looking for the next big thing. Facebook has furthered, for better or worse, the development of "free to play" games and micro-transactions. The integrated phone idea was clearly a bust, but on the whole, things Facebook touches, whether you personally deem it tainted or not, are successful. If anything, we should look at this as a new player, with really deep pockets, coming into the game we love. Facebook is now in direct competition with Sony...and I am certain the Microsoft VR headset is not far behind. The House that Gates Built is never too far behind the trend, for better or worse.

I do not think people should be upset about other people having knee-jerk reactions. We are a reactionary society...its kinda what we do best. The fact that Facebook and Oculus understand and are willing to directly answer consumer concerns on Reddit, means to me they are listening. Which is more than I can say for most of the other giants I mentioned, Sony being the only other one who has CLEARLY listened and "stuck it to the man" recently. Give it time...the OR is not going to officially come out for years. Now, they have access to nearly unlimited funding, incredibly vast networks of people and developers, and they are now able to reach more consumers than they were a week ago.

Could it go totally shitty and the OR be ruined? Yup...but, you have to save some faith in the Oculus guys, or else why are we even reading this article or members of this site? Time after time we see things we love get bought or remade, and a lot of them are garbage. BUT, some of them are awesome...and the next time something we love gets moved around or announced, we will be equally excited and hesitant as usual. This is that next time...and while I was sorta neutral about VR tech before, now I am interested and hesitant. I don't hate people for being angry...I just wanna give Facebook and Oculus a chance to either screw it up or make it awesome. Who woulda thought the makers of the PS3 would be way more in touch with the gaming community with their followup console than the makers of the clearly better Xbox 360? Examples of success and failure in the gaming world are everywhere...just gotta have some faith, and wait and see.

#2 Posted by JBrosk89 (64 posts) -

@modshroom128 said:

Can't you all see?

343i ruined what made Halo "Halo".

From quick time events to the drone seriousness of the game itself, the company clearly has no idea what made the original halo trilogy so perfect. Since they can't make a "Halo" they just make "generic fps #23485 with slight halo elements left in from last games"

it's disgusting. it's literally disgusting what they are doing to bungie's masterpiece.

I do not think the original Halo trilogy was anywhere near "perfect." Halo 1 was new and inventive, Halo 2 added a much needed multiplayer but lacked in the campaign, Halo 3 was kinda bland all over...basically bringing the same old Halo onto the 360 platform. In terms of greatness, Halo 1 is clearly the best. They will never make a "Halo 2: Anniversary Edition" because no one will buy it, and the same could be said about Halo 3. I think a make over is what Halo needs to remain relevant. Who wants a game where, on earth, you float when you jump?

#3 Posted by JBrosk89 (64 posts) -

If 343 modernizes Halo, in that the physics are much more realistic and the enemies are much more dark, I think this could have the chance to be the Halo game that makes Halo relevant again. If they keep the floaty combat, the idiotic at times enemy AI, and don't add a darker enemy mindset...I think this game will be what Halo is unfortunately known for by many, old. Reach started the "modernization" of a Halo title, keep going in that way 343.

#4 Posted by JBrosk89 (64 posts) -

Sounds cool enough...ME3 had me thinking bout a Kinect...maybe this will be the over the hump push...I am more interested in the DLC, and the idea of connecting to Morrowind...thats pretty sweet.

#5 Posted by JBrosk89 (64 posts) -

I lost Miranda, Kasumi and Legion in my first ME2 character...I wasn't too attached to either so it didn't matter. However, I could see how it might change the overall tone of ME3.

After completing ME3, however, my entire idea of Mass Effect is remarkably darker and less a "yay, we did it." I hope BioWare puts some dlc or another game in the same universe that sort of eases the idea of lost lovable characters. I don't mind losing characters, I hate losing characters that you emotionally invest in.

#6 Posted by JBrosk89 (64 posts) -

I was 5 when he started working for Microsoft...thats crazy to think