Because modders don't have to go through certification and the patching process. They don't go through rigorous compatibility and bug testing. Its just a completely different process. Mods usually involve tweaking existing code and using existing assets to find workarounds for very specific things rather than completely building things from the ground up.
RedRavN's forum posts
I have always had a weird fascination and love for crysis 2. I just love the gameplay especially on the hardest difficulty. I also think the lost planet games are cooler than people give them credit for. I even enjoyed the third lost planet game. Medal of honor airborne is also a really cool ww2 themed shooter that is more tactical than most people think. I really like the ability to drop into a large open level anywhere you want and attack the objectives in interesting ways.
Im generally willing to forget a lot of weaknesses like a bad story or characters as long as the gameplay holds up. If the gameplay is fun and challenging thats enough to keep my interest.
I just don't see Jeff, Brad, or Dan finishing this game regardless of how high quality or interesting it is. So I doubt we will hear about it much in the game of the year discussion. This does seem like a game that Patrick would get into and really enjoy so maybe he would finish it.
This is an epic, character dense rpg with a lot of interacting systems and mechanics. I found Dragon age origins to be a great game that became fantastic as I invested more time into the game. A real rpg like this is a slow burn and it requires some amount of patience and reading ability to understand the world and stuff. You could finish the COD:AW campaign like 3 times before you're out of the opening introductory areas in DAI. Its just not going to be to everyones taste. I thought mass effect 2 was brilliant in that it was a game that had some of the scope of a real rpg but also was enjoyable in bite sized chunks if you wanted. That said, I'm glad to hear that DAI is not like ME2 and that it is as epic and uncompromising as it should be. Not every game needs a huge action set piece every 30 minutes to be engaging to me.
Battlefield 4 is a game that I think a lot of people skipped out on at launch. The game is in a way better state than it was at launch now. I have a lot of fun playing it. Its kind of hard to beat the combination of fast gameplay, tactical elements, cool ballistic model, changing maps and 64 player count. There's just always amazing things and cool firefights happening in BF4. Like sneaking into a base with a silenced pdw and putting mines on the enemy vehicles and knifing the enemy while your main allies push in from the other direction. Or shooting something with a smaw rocket sitting on the side of a little bird. A lot of times its just tense firefights as 2 teams push into each other with tons of gunfire and grenades and rockets going off. It can also be satisfying to revive a bunch of teammates after they all die in a fight. As of now I think its the best competitive multiplayer game released this year, still better than titanfall or COD advanced warfighter to me.
@yi_orange: Sure I agree that blizzard didn't invent new genres or really make anything mindblowingly unique, but older blizzard games had tons of innovation that made them very new feeling. For example, warcraft 3 was just another rts on a superficial level but there were things about that game that were very special. For example, the hero system was very special at the time of release, blending rpg mechanics with rts gameplay. The way the story was told was unique for an rts. The multiplayer matchmaking and such was way ahead of its time. Units having meaningful upgrades that gave them more abilities was also very new.
There were action rpgs before diablo 2 but none that played as good as that game, not even close. It was a huge jump in terms of fundamental mechanics from the ground up. Same thing happened with WOW.
I think that blizzard has been historically great at taking a type of game and then refining it to perfection, revitalizing and making something old seem so modern. However, I feel like recent blizzard games have lost that quality in a lot of ways. Their games used to reinvent the wheel in a good and inspiring way. Now their games just seem familiar and expected. Like overwatch doesn't seem like a class based multiplayer shooter that is going to redefine that type of game for the next decade. It just seems familiar, expected, and frankly derivative of other games. But I dunno, maybe some people who play more of these games are seeing some exciting things here and I'm missing the point. But as of now overwatch is not exciting to me.
Don't really see this as being all that inspired. It seems like a new version of super monday night combat almost exactly. Not really into the art style here. Its a weird mix of random asian and egyptian designs with robots and fantasy stuff. There is too many artistic ideas and it seems like a lot of stuff just thrown at the wall. At least stuff in TF2 felt like it belonged in the same universe.
I'm sure this game will be polished and have a nice interface but I feel like I've already played this game. Blizzard games lately have been feeling safe, designed to appeal to as many people as possible, and made to separate your money from your wallet. Is this the same developer that made a game like warcraft 3, starcraft and diablo 2? Those were games that felt unique and had very interesting and novel design elements that redefined their respective genres. Also, they had a unified and strong artistic sense that made you feel like you had entered a fully realized and immersive world. Moreover, they were games driven by narrative and characters.
Overwatch just seems uninspired by comparison from what I've seen. Maybe their are some good competitive elements to this game but it seems artistically and gameplay wise very bland to me.
I think dice and EA have made good on fixing up battlefield 4 to the point where its a damn fun game. There are no other multiplayer games like the battlefield series that can offer the kind of experience that these games offer. Lets be honest, bad company 2 was great and battlefield 3 is an amazing game that is still top shelf today. There are some things about BF4 that are way better than any other battlefield. For example, the variety of weapons and the amount of customization. Some of the gadget changes make for better class balance. The latest patch made soldier movement feel a lot better and made smart changes to the grenades. The Rush game mode has been improved so it doesn't suck.
But there are still serious problems with the spawn system in certain game modes. There are more balance issues. There is head glitching and issues with getting stuck on the geometry in certain cases. The hit detection remains slightly less precise and laggy.
BF4 is absolutely amazing in the conquest game mode. The game seems more balanced and made for this mode. People have been so down about battlefield since BF4's rushed launch. If hardline launches in a better state I think it will be an amazing game.
Just think about all that has been written about this subject. Think about just this very forum thread. Take all the time combined composing posts, rebuttals, diatribe, drivel. Think about all the time wasted to the asinine subject. Sadly, time had to be wasted discussing this issue, and it is infuriating when you think off all the other troubles in the world.
But think of all that time you spent playing games instead of nursing that seal cub back to health. I dont feel like i've wasted my time writing down my opinions.
@beyondstrange: " That is the foundation of GamerGate: a personal issue that no one should be concerned with." I disagree with this statement. It stops being a personal issue and becomes a public issue when you have a developer have a sexual relationship with several journalists who then write favorable articles and reviews. Then she slandered people and tried to cover up the truth which ended up getting out anyway. That is corrupt and wrong. In what universe is that an acceptable thing to do?
This incident is what caused "gamergate" to spring up. It was supposed to be about a lot of angry gamers upset with certain elements of the games press. A lot of people with too much time on their hands had their worst paranoid suspicions concerned. It had nothing to do with harassment or keeping women out of the industry or any of those things. At first the media was silent until about a week in there was mass slander over the place. It was an attack on "gamersgate" to destroy their credibility and destroy the message and intent that they had. Even Patrick Klepek who seems like a level headed cool dude was sending out vicious tweets directed at those folks, like they were all a bunch of misogynistic animals. I dont think that is fair for the most part. Now some of this was justified considering some crazies latched onto it and used it as an excuse to harass. Horrible exchanges happened on both sides. There was nothing initially negative about gamersgate at all. Whats wrong with shedding light on ethical issues? The end result is you get some more objectivity and more transparency about things. Doesn't seem so terrible does it? The problem is that the media controls the message and since this was damaging to them they buried the entire movement under a wave of nonsense and misdirection. Most people even think this is some sort of social or political movement which is absurd.
The games industry has a deep seated issue with transparency and "inbreeding" between developers, press and publishers. Its worse than any other media industry and worse than its ever been. Consider that in order to get a pre release copy of shadows or mordor you had to agree to a vast list of bullshit including "not mentioning lord of the rings" "only positive things about the game" etc. So to get a copy to show the game on release or before you basically had to become a shill. I want to hear a persons opinion on a game not watch an advertisement for the publisher. This is the kind of stuff gamersgate is about or should be about. The fact that zoe quinn is female does not excuse her or make any criticism of her harassment. Please don't point your finger at me collective internet media. For the record I thought depression quest was brilliant despite not being much of a game and I have no problem with opinion related content and subjective critical reviewing. The aspects of social or political content in the media seems like a different issue to me. But maybe to people who are actually involved with any of this gamersgate stuff that has become an aspect of the movement. But i'm pretty sure when it began it was not about that stuff.
I like that giantbomb has been open about how they do things. This site is an example of how to do things the right way.
Nobody wrote a review. Nobody. There is literally no proof of the impropriety you speak of that is at the foundation of gamergate. None. Try again.
Perhaps. Its hard to know what's true and what isn't on the ol' internet. Its not even zoe in the first place that was committing impropriety, its the writers who wrote reviews for a game made by the person they had a relationship with. allegedly. I'm fascinated that this whole boondoggle was initially focused on her more then the people in the media that knowingly did unethical things. Again, none of this might very well be true. Anyways, I dont think this is about zoe specifically or any one person. To me gamersgate is about things that have been brewing for a while and a lack of trust people have in the games media. I don't think it's fair to say this is all just paranoid silliness. These issues will continue to fester and get worse unless the games media becomes an unquestionable wall of corruption or some positive change is made. The issues that underline gamersgate are going nowhere. There is plenty of real evidence of unethical practice in the industry. The industry just needs to step in and say, "we acknowledge that some of this stuff is happening and we know you want things to be different so we are going to try some new things." So far they never own up to anything, even when a publisher is caught doing something shady. Maybe you think there is no impropriety in the industry?
I wrote this, I deleted it, I wrote it agian then cut it into a txt file and read another page of comments.
I don't agree with harassment, racism, bullying or doxxing. I also don't believe in non equality feminism. This makes me part of #GamerGate. When I go deep, when I spend 15 hours a day on twitter playing both sides what do I find? I see the third teir of game journalists and devs throwing racist, sexist insults out to regular gamers. And guess what? the people sending the insults are followed by Jeff Gerstmann, Brad Shoemaker, Patrick Klepek and Vinny Caravella. These tweets go unanswered from anyone in games media and if any attention is brought to them they are conveniently deleted only to live on archive.today where few will ever see them again.
There was an issue before "GamerGate" that involved Quinn and that was terrible and its disgusting and sad that it happened.It opened a can of worms. I don't believe GamerGate was even about Quinn so much but about the fact that there were strange ethics practices going on. It caused a lot of people to take a look at the games media and if you think that's bad. If you really think that having people watch a site to make sure they are doing right by the consumer is bad? I don't know... I just...
I think the saddest part is how the Staff appears to be in some sort of bubble where they only see the retweets of their friends about these issues. Pretty early on Patrick muted me on twitter because I calmly asked him questions he wasn't prepared to answer. I reached out to him on tumblr (as I have before) and received no response. I see in this letter and from a lot of people on the "other side" about how they wan't dialogue but I guess that is just a mask of good faith? The first real mention of GamerGate on the site comes not as a "This is a complicated issue, both sides may have made a mistake and we honestly can't make an opinion at this time" it's a "no. you are wrong. We saw the stories that made up facts and only showed one side and now we stand on their side"
As I posted the chart before a very tiny part of GamerGate has been about Quinn and Sarkeesian. Especially as time moves on. The only thing that has increased is the net of media coverage and the amount of people involved. The only reason you can really think this is still going on for thousands of men and women who are Pro GamerGate is because you wont have the dialogue because you wont "Listen and Believe"
I feel like a criminal because I'm not allowed to want people to be kind and honest and when I ask for people to be kind and honest I get told I'm a shitlord pissbaby who isnt kind and insults people with lies.
Addressing your bolded parts, because you are either mis-remembering unintentionally or intentionally. The "GamerGate" movement started out of slut shaming Zoe Quinn and was kicked off by that ex's rant. There was no "GamerGate" before this. It was, and always has been about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, women in this industry and the people who are fine with women being in the industry. It was not and has never been about ethics from the start. The ethics part of the movement was purely astroturfing, to give GamerGate a better public face. Because you can't build a movement based off of harassing women. (Or, well, you can)
Do not pretend otherwise.
The Info Leak about Quinn happened on August 15th. Yes there was as I said "terrible and disgusting" things that happened because of that. Guess what? I and many thousands of other people were not involved with that.
On August 27th Adam Baldwin coined the hashtag "GamerGate"
Less than 24 hours later somewhere around 12 different gaming sites all in unison posted "Gamers are Dead" articles, many somehow linking Anita into the mess.
And since then there has been almost zero attention paid to Quinn at all by GamerGate as a consensus. You don't see us all thunderclapping death threats... that was the media, the scared... sad media.
I say again: This was entirely sprung around whining about Zoe Quinn. The ethics end of it was made to sucker reasonable people into thinking this was somehow legitimate.
So all these claims about ethics and integrity in the media are all illegitimate and the people that are upset are all suckers? None of this has much to do with zoe quinn, she destroyed her reputation on her own. It has absolutely nothing to do with Anita S. who has been doing everything she can to be tangentially related to this whole thing for media exposure. The whole movement has been about the games media since day 1, and no amount of slanderous accusations from the media is going to change that. How is the overt and non-transparent response from the media not a crude and insulting method of controlling "the message" that gamersgate was about? There have been people writing all sorts of compelling things about media ethics who have had their reasonable opinions devalued and thrown away because they are part of the collective boogyman that the media itself created. There is nothing illegitimate about people upset that a developer could sleep with a journalist and then get her game reviewed like it was no big deal. As far as I'm concerned all the journalists involved in that should be fired.
The media has a collective interest in making sure it is not well known how things actually work. Games media is probably the most incestous medias out there. The relationships between publishers, media and developers have become too close. When an overtly abusive example of this relationship came up people that take this serious were upset. As the outrage grew it was promptly buried under a tidal wave of bad press so now everyone thinks the gamersgate people were a bunch of misogynist trolls (which some were but not even close to the majority). The message is now effectively silenced. Its funny you use the word legitimate when its been a couple months of non-sense aimed specifically at destroying any legitimacy gamersgate had. There were thousands upon thousands that had legitimate and rational grievances which are all still viewable on reddit and 4chan but you think that it was all whining about zoe quinn?