Well, that's good.
LikeaSsur's forum posts
I feel as though if I say anything but Bernie Sanders, the internet will crucify me. So Bernie Sanders because he is perfect and infallible.
Also, @darthorange: Your links from George Pateki on for the Republican party all lead to George PAteki's website, just thought you should know and I'm a bit saddened it took until the third page for this to be pointed out. People are really giving the other side a fair shake!
@likeassur: I had this exact same conversation on these forums not that long ago but no, it's not as simple as factually improving a game's controls. You may like the way Dark Souls controls, I may hate it. You may like Barret's character, I may think it's a lazy stereotype. Neither one of us are objectively wrong.
Okay, so you singled me out in this entire thread to say "Neither of us are objectively wrong" because...why, exactly?
And just because something is "history" doesn't mean it's immune to criticisms. You may think that Square has some sort of obligation to keep Barret the same because of history but people still have every right to say the character sucks, if that's how they feel.
I never said it was immune to criticisms, making me think you're reading what you want instead of the words I'm actually typing. I do think Square is obligated to keep Barret's character intact, and if people think he sucks, fine, shout it from the top of every skyscraper in New York for all I care, but don't try and say "He should be changed in the remake" as well. That's my issue with this whole thing
And yes, you just saying "they don't need to change for you" to those criticisms IS lazy.
You know, at this point, fine. I'm lazy, big deal. I think I've justified my side pretty well. If you think I'm lazy because of that, I don't know, go talk to someone else about it, I guess. Like you said, neither of us are wrong, so why continue to bicker?
@likeassur: Okay, I was done discussing this but this defense is just so tired and nonsensical.
Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say I was making a forum post about some new game and I said "this game controls like shit, the combat feels terrible and the control scheme is completely unintuitive."
And then let's say your response was "the developer should not have to change their game because you don't like it." That is an insane way to respond to someone criticizing a game, right?
No one is saying Square HAS to change anything. They can very easily and likely will say "nah, fuck you, we're keeping it how it is." But using that to try to dismiss someone else's criticism of a game because you don't agree with it is just lazy.
First of all, this isn't a comparable analogy, and I know you know that: criticizing a game's control scheme and game feel is a completely different beast than criticizing its content and characters. Controls can be tightened and factually improved, to a point where they can be as good as they can. Characters, though? There's no guidelines for them, so what worked for them in the 1990s is what you get, and the criticisms should be directed toward the game on the PS1 and not what the remake will or won't be.
There's also the matter of keeping history intact. Yeah, some of the stuff in VII is dated, but it's still a pretty important touchstone in gaming history and should be kept in its original state as much as possible. Saying "They should change Barret because he's a negative portrayal/the crossdressing sequence is transphobic, it should be rewritten" is like saying "They should rewrite Uncle Tom's Cabin because the black characters in it are stereotypical." Just because something is being remade does not mean it has to change to match modern day values. So again, Square-Enix should not have to rework the remake to appease naysayers about its content.
Finally, I'm the lazy one when people are criticizing Barret without actually knowing his character? If all they see is a gun-toting, potty-mouthed black guy, that's their problem, not Square's.
@dudeglove: Your entire conspiracy theory is banking on the implication that you know exactly what every company is doing with their pre-order money, and I'm going to take a very risky guess and say that you actually have no idea. So what, before release day, my $60 are all put into the "bloated marketing budget," but after day 1, it magically goes anywhere but? Give me a break. Besides, I didn't know marketing was suddenly sleazy. Man, it's like they're in it to make money or something. What a crazy idea!
Also, wow do you buy into crazy ideas easily. Because I pre-order, I'm hurting Giant Bomb? Come on, man. I don't appreciate the assumption that I'm some mad idiot who doesn't know what video games are. Guess what, I already know whether or not I want to buy a game before Giant Bomb ever Quick Looks it, if they ever do, save for some crazy out-of-the-way indie title I never would've heard of otherwise. How do I do this? Because of everything I said before. I know what video games are, and I don't need Giant Bomb or any other website to tell me Assassin's Creed II, Left 4 Dead 2, Super Smash Bros. for the Wii U, or Majora's Mask 3D is going to be good.
Oh, and there is a point to pre-ordering: I want it on day one and I want a physical copy (because what's the point of buying digital when it costs the same?) and if I get a cool Retro Lancer skin or a boost to my starting ingame currency, then sure, why the heck not? I didn't pay any more for it.
Finally, me contributing to an "unfinished product" is probably a lot of bull. What you're thinking of is Kickstarter or Indiegogo, where people just scream "I have an idea, and I need money for it!" By the time I get around to pre-ordering a game from Gamestop, I'd be willing to bet it's a lot more finished than you think, so again, who/what is my pre-order hurting? Am I really so bad for pre-ordering GTAV when I know Rockstar, and their track record with that series, or should I have waited for the gaming websites to tell me what I had already known?
So you're right, pre-orders are not killing the industry. I dare say it's probably not even impacting it in any way that you've mentioned. If the game was going to sell anyway, what difference does it make when they got their money?
@dudeglove: It's almost as cute as you not being able to use words to counter me, and instead using super reductive pictures. If you've actually something to say, say it, otherwise you just wasted my time.
Stop preordering games because of some lame cosmetic item you will likely never use. Stop agreeing to purchase an item before you even know of it;s quality.
Here's the thing: I don't live in a bubble. Games don't suddenly pop into existence. There's teaser trailers, launch trailers, gameplay trailers, the name of the publisher, developer, basically everything I need to know what kind of game it is and whether or not I'd want it, because I do the sensible thing of comparing a new game to similar titles as well as taking the developer's track record into account and decide by then if I'm going to buy it or not.
So I do pre-order, and shove off if you think I'm committing some cardinal sin. I was going to buy the game anyway, why crucify me because I bought it before it came out? On top of getting the game on day 1, I also got some cool little thing as a "thank-you" for pre-ordering, so what exactly am I doing wrong? Nothing? I'm gonna go with nothing.
What do I think? I think it's way to early to say whether or not video games do or do not "cause" anything, because we just don't know yet. Sure, that article was published, so there's some certainty that the results are good, but to what degree? How reliable is the study? Is it externally valid? What were the measures, what were the results? On and on, and I'm willing to bet the final results weren't in such a landslide that OP can make such a one-sided claim as he did in the title.
To illustrate my point that we just don't know yet, I finally utilized my university's database and I found thesestudies which seem to go against OP's title, all of which are also very recent. So as in most sociology/psychology studies, the most we can definitively say is "I don't know, maybe it's kinda true?" or, to put it more professionally, "more research is required."
Sure, hidden/alternate endings are fine, just give it closure instead of ending on a cliffhanger or making it apparent that there are still loose threads.
To this day, only the Drakengard series has done bad endings right in that they are all alternate endings, but one doesn't necessarily tie into another; they're all separate events.