lolwot's forum posts

#1 Posted by lolwot (254 posts) -

@MideonNViscera said:

@Jace said:

But...even the most expensive pack only takes 2-3 games to unlock. Why would you do that? Shit. He's going to be a statistic in a marketing conference where they can point and say, "See, gamers love to spend money on RANDOM GAME ITEMS THAT EQUATE TO AN HOUR OF PLAY."

This is why I cringe when Jeff encourages people to vote with their wallet. His reasoning is completely valid, but a sucker is born every minute. If suckers have enough buying power, they can really fuck the rest of us over.

So instead of saying, "Vote with your wallet. If you like spending money on random easily-attainable items, please continue to do so." I'm going to say, "Stop it."

So you're pissed about what someone else does with their money. Great perspective there.

How people spend their money will have an impact on how these games are designed in the future. If this micro-transaction model is wildly successful for EA, then it's likely it will become very pervasive. If the other major publishers follow in EA's footsteps, then this sort of exploitative game design could become a new standard rather than just an odd exception.

#2 Posted by lolwot (254 posts) -

@Rolyatkcinmai said:

It's easy to say no to this kind of thing until you think about time spent vs cost. It takes like 90 minutes to essentially accrue what would cost $3. Is your time not worth more than $2/hour?

I'm not supporting it, just saying...

You do realize that the process of unlocking items is intentionally tedious and time consuming to lead people to spending real-world money on virtual items, right? The solution is to have some dignity and self-respect, and not play the manipulative multiplayer mode at all.

#3 Posted by lolwot (254 posts) -

@Lucien21 said:

Mass Effect 3 sales are over 3.5 million. The protesters facebook and charity page numbers about 50,000.

So <1% of people who bought the game are bitching and moaning about it.

No, 3.5 million copies of Mass Effect 3 have been shipped to retailers, not sold to end-users.

#4 Posted by lolwot (254 posts) -

@Torticoli said:

@lolwot: Complaints ? Yes. Demands that the game is changed to accommodate their desires ? Now if that isn't entitlement, what is it exactly ?

Consumers fulfilling their role in a capitalist economy? If Bioware decides to amend the original ending, then they've likely determined that the ending has detracted from their reputation and consumer confidence. There's nothing wrong with offering criticism of a product, even if it was created as a work of art. And if games are a valid art form, then they shouldn't be held on a pedestal and regarded as immune to criticism.

For what it's worth, many fans feel that the ending itself violates the integrity of the series and defeats the purpose of replaying the games. It's up to Bioware to decide whether or not they care to appeal to those fans.

#5 Edited by lolwot (254 posts) -

Complaints about the ending don't show that fans are entitled. They just show that fans are paying attention and thinking critically.

#6 Edited by lolwot (254 posts) -
The ending reduced the once competent, omnipotent antagonists to tools that could be disabled at the push of a button. It's also at odds with some of the themes that are built up over the course of the series. If we could broker a truce between the Quarians and Geth, then why are we forced to assume that all synthetics will inevitably kill organics and the only solution is to "preserve" organics by brutally murdering them and stuffing them into a synthetic shell? It comes across as total nonsense that contradicts all of your choices up until that point.

Unless you're satisfied with that, then why would you protest a new ending?

Also, I've seen a number of game reviewers attribute fans' disappointment to the lack of a "happy, hollywood ending." How do you reconcile that with the widely positive reception to many other high profile games with endings that range from bittersweet to downright bleak? Have you already forgotten the widely positive reception to Red Dead Redemption's ending?

#7 Posted by lolwot (254 posts) -

If you submitted a poorly written essay teeming with internal contradictions, your professor would likely tell you that it needs to be revised. Why shouldn't games be held to the same standard? Why should consumers passively accept a weak ending that doesn't fulfill promises made by the developer and feels tonally inconsistent with the rest of the series after spending $60-$80 on a copy of the game? Bioware is welcome to to staunchly defend their story, but disgruntled gamers shouldn't be branded as entitled whiners for informing Bioware that they won't buy future expansions/sequels if the ending isn't revised. This is one of the few times when I would say a "deal with it" is in order.

#9 Edited by lolwot (254 posts) -
Severus Snape should have the alias... 
Half-Blood Prince.
#10 Posted by lolwot (254 posts) -

Clever Telltale.