I'm kind of disappointed that Witcher 2 isn't on that list, as that is my choice.
RandyF's forum posts
A bad port on PC that comes to mind would be Dead Island which is, in many ways, a broken, unplayable mess, not to mention that to change weapons you have to open a radial menu, which on the PC is a huge pain. Another that comes to mind is the still-ever-janky GTA4 PC version which still gets crap framerate to this day on high-end machines. Resident Evil 4 which treated the mouse as an analog stick is another one (along with no graphical options for people with lower-end PCs). Brink, in which the graphics could literally not exceed low settings for a good while, but yet the framerate was still horrible, not to mention the match-making being impossible.
There's plenty of example of bad PC ports. I play games on every system equally, but I can see how PC gamers would be upset over rushed ports with bad optimization. That said, having played Space Marine on PC (at least the demo), it ran buttery smooth and the controls were fine.
I did it because I can afford $5 a month right now, which might not be the case later or at all for some people. It is pretty cheap, but at the same time, there hasn't been too much content. They can't really lock away free users from most of the stuff, but at the same time, the past year has only really had the Happy Hour for subscribers (and the occasional thing here and there).
They don't really have a schedule or any other features except the Happy Hour right now for subscribers. If they post an article and said "Here, this is what you will be getting" then I'm sure more people would be willing to sign up. The subscription has been out for a year and there really isn't that much to show for it. They're just now getting around to talking about better subscriber content. But really, the future of subscriber content is up in the air and is still anyone's guess. We know we have the Jeff Gerstmann Hall of Fame, and... that's about it. Happy Hour is being changed, Dave and Vinny's PC game thing isn't set in stone, and the only real subscriber bonuses we know for sure we're getting (or have already) are HD content, set-top box support, and mobile sites. That may be enough for some, but I don't use any of those except for HD.
I do really enjoy all of their content, though, and am glad to give them $5 a month. I have that to spare. Like it has been said, it's more of me supporting what they're already doing than getting the bonuses the subscribers get.
We don't even know what the DLC is yet. I have a hard time getting upset over something I don't know about. And, as it's been said before, this is relatively cheap for a modern release. Lest we forget that Call of Duty charges $15 per piece of content.
I'll make up my mind about it once they announce what it is, but first impressions are that it's relatively cheap. I don't know why it's getting hate already.
I just hate the term "gamer." The argument about "chesser" or "boarder" or whatever that was brought up is perfect. It can be applied to anything. Are people who are way into movies called Moviers? Filmers? No, because it's stupid. We are people who enjoy playing video games. Lumping us into the category "gamers" makes us kind of sound like hippies. I am a person that plays way more video games than the average person and knows way more about video games than the average person (most of us here, if not all of us, do) and I would never call myself a gamer. Not because I don't think I "deserve" the title, but because I think it sounds stupid.
I think that girl was just trying to be nice by trying to relate to your hobby. Then again, I hate getting my haircut because for some reason the small talk with the stylist just irritates me. Plus, I'm lazy. I'm getting off topic now.
I, myself, have played a fair amount of Call of Duty. It's not my favorite game and not even my favorite shooter, but I enjoy it. And I can tell you that I am none of those things you listed about people who play it (except that I don't think Axe Body Spray smells all that bad). But I can understand your frustration. The ignorance about our hobby can bother me sometimes, but I try not to let it get to me too often.
The part where Dr. Ray says that a lot of the negative feedback was due to player's expectations really pisses me off.
"Oh, you don't like the same four environments over and over again, enemies who literally appear out of thin air to make the game longer, and a storyline that consists mainly of 'Hawke: The Errand Boy?' What did you expect!? We tried something different! Do you want us to make the SAME GAME!?"
Poor decisions that are different than the first doesn't automatically mean that it's better because it's different. If you want to change it up, improve on what you have and put in some new, good ideas. Not that I despise Dragon Age 2, but don't blame the consumer for the lackluster response.
@TaliciaDragonsong: I agree with you for the most part. I was just saying that, at this point, so few MMOs are coming out today that an MMO fan, such as myself, doesn't really get to be choosy. If people are sick of WOW, there's really not that many alternatives out there. In the case with me, you could be so desperate for an MMO that's different that you wouldn't care what setting it was in, you're just super bored of WOW. I can see someone who enjoys fantasy more than sci-fi still play Star Wars because they think what that game does is better than Guild Wars. Since those are really the only two games coming out in the foreseeable future, if you don't like one of them, you might play the other one anyway even if you don't like the setting because you're so hungry for a new MMO experience. I, for one, prefer sci-fi much more than high fantasy, but am still looking forward to Guild Wars 2 because it just seems like the more interesting game.
But I agree that if one setting just kicks in your gag reflex that you might just ignore both and wait for something else to come down the line. I'm just saying that they're not two completely different audiences and that we can compare them. It was mainly to defend the original poster for making this topic. I don't think it's pointless. It just sparks a discussion.
I don't see any harm in comparing the two. It's a question of what you're most excited for. I also disagree that they're targeting different audiences. They are MMOs that are persistent worlds, heavily story focused, and will require a heavy time commitment. With so little meaningful MMOs coming out lately, I can definitely see these two competing. I mean, Tabula Rasa, Champions Online, Star Trek Online - they all had different settings but were still crushed under the behemoth that is World of Warcraft, which is traditional high fantasy. They're not targeting "sci-fi" or "fantasy" crowds, they're targeting "MMO" crowds.
That said, definitely looking forward to Guild Wars 2 more. It seems like Guild Wars 2 is looking at the current MMO scene and is trying to change it. For the most part, MMOs have been pretty much the same thing since WOW (which really was just kind of a refined Everquest anyway). No one has really come in and shook up the formula, and that's what it seems like ArenaNet is aiming to do. The Old Republic, to me, looks like WOW with lightsabers. And while that's fine, I'm just bored of it. Also, no subscription fee doesn't hurt.
There was no reason for that review to be taken down. The developer was out of line. However, that review was painfully, offensively unfunny with (from what I can gather from most people's comments) completely inaccurate claims about the game. It is possible to be satirical and have your facts straight at the same time.
So, ultimately, I think the video should be left alone, even if it was cringe-worthy.
EDIT: I should mention that I've never played Terraria or Minecraft and have no affection toward either one.
I understand the need for publishers to have an online pass for their games, but I, personally, think it sucks. There's nothing wrong with buying a used game, and I think it's crappy to lock content away for those people who do decide to buy it used. Not everyone can afford a new game on launch day, and it's a real shame that publishers have to resort to these kinds of things. I firmly believe that the consumer has a right to choose how and where to buy things. Not to mention that Mr. Joe Gamer who talks into a Gamestop and picks up a copy of Madden used because it's cheaper won't know about the online passes, and he'll be screwed when he gets home. It's not something they show on the box (at least not with the games I've bought recently, including Mortal Kombat).
I just believe it's silly that I can go and buy an old, used book or movie and get the same content out of those items as I did on launch day (except maybe the digital downloads for movies that's been happening recently) but game publishers somehow think they're better and require this crazy scheme to get people who do buy cheaper games to fork out more money anyway.
This is coming from someone who always buys their games new. I'm just not really sure I agree with this whole online pass thing, but I do understand why they do it.