TehPickle's forum posts

#1 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

@tehpickle said:

The general lack of love for Binding of Isaac: Rebirth around these parts continues to sadden me.

I haven't even played it yet (recently platinumed vanilla Isaac) but Rebirth might be my game of the year. I'm afraid of the amount of time I'll inevitably put into that thing...

The more I play it, the more I convince myself that it is the game of all the years.

If you liked vanilla enough to get all the achievements, I'm sure you're gonna love it. Dive in, balls deep!

#2 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

The general lack of love for Binding of Isaac: Rebirth around these parts continues to sadden me.

#3 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

@indure said:

I think that the way they are handling map locking is bullshit, but I don't think they are going to change it because the OP is in such a small minority. Jeff brought it up in the Quicklook ... if you are still playing Destiny avidly at this point, why wouldn't you buy the expansion? I feel bad for the OP, but his problem probably only affects 1% of the people still playing Destiny.

I think that's probably true to a good extent, but the game hasn't been out long enough for this sort of defeatist reduction, if I could call it that without sounding like I'm trying to attack you (which I'm certainly not).

Destiny released only 3 months ago at this point. So to accept your premise, we'd also have to accept that it would mean it has stopped selling, which of course it hasn't. At this point any newcomers that want the entirety of just the base game still have to buy the expansion to access it, unless they're willing to take time away based on a convoluted calendar schedule.

That might cause the game to stop selling, in which case your point becomes quite a bit more valid, but at this early stage, Bungie are shafting their players, and said players simply shouldn't be standing for it.

#4 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

@planetfunksquad: I think @humanity made it quite abundantly clear in his initial posts, and it seems to have soared over most everybodies heads. He (or indeed, She) is still having to make the same point over and over again.

To re-iterate: Removing content from a game that's already been paid for is absolutely disgusting, and yes, unethical.

  • Folks respond with 'oh well it's an MMO, so it's expected' - MMOs dont generally remove old content or otherwise restrict access to it. The content no longer being relevant (and by extension, unused) is not the same as removing access to it.
  • Others say 'The original game is no longer the end-game content' - While that is absolutely true, it still doesn't excuse Bungie holding content that used to be accessible to ransom.
  • Or perhaps 'A lot of DLC splits the playerbase. This isn't any different' - Splitting the pool of players is not the same as telling half the playerbase that they flat out cannot play what they used to play as and when they want to.
  • 'The DLC was announced in advance, so that makes it OK' - It's fine to make such announcements, but it's far from fine to do this while hiding the fact that players that don't engage in the DLC will soon enough have a chunk of their game taken away.

Really, no matter how this is sliced, it's bullshit of the highest order. Shame on Bungie for thinking that was even remotely acceptable, and shame on some of the people here for making such easily defeated arguments in Bungie's defense.

Heck, I don't even own this game (PC gamer only atm) and I'm furious on behalf of the playerbase, including those that are too stupid and bloody-minded to even fail to realise that there's a very glaring issue here.

#5 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

I'm really quite amazed by how many folks here are completely missing the point.

#6 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

London could be a really great setting for an Assassins Creed game, but man, am I tired of them!

#7 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

Calling a patch a 'content update' seems kinda gross to me. Ergh, spin.

#8 Posted by TehPickle (554 posts) -

Personally, I absolutely love how terrible the dialogue and voice acting is. It's top grade ham. With this sort of thing, mileage will vary greatly from person to person. I can totally understand why some folks just don't like it. The gameplay in Bayonetta though, is pretty much unparalleled.

It's like, the whole world seems to love the movie Troll 2 in spite of it being atrocious on every conceivable level. At some point all the badness (no matter how much there might be) just becomes sort of transcendent.

#9 Edited by TehPickle (554 posts) -

Spacebase is a prime example of everything that is wrong with Early Access. Double Fine alone has turned plenty of people away from Early Access after realizing that an established company can just abandon a project because the development costs were not going to 100% covered by early access purchases. It also sets a terrible precedent that early access games can just be abandoned at will over relatively minor set-backs, if you could even call it that in this case.

That isn't entirely fair to Double Fine. I'll be up front in saying that that some of their behaviour over recent years has left a rather sour taste in my mouth, but Spacebase's 'development costs not being 100% covered by early access purchases' is misrepresenting the situation quite a fair bit - a very common conclusion that seems all too easy to reach as more and more people get stung by Early Access.

DF did (allegedly) throw a good amount of their own money into the development, on top of the sales they were getting (or not getting) through early access. They hoped for sales that would offset their own costs and make it do-able. It was only when it became more apparent that Spacebase was hemorrhaging all around that it was canned.

While that doesn't really change what ended up happening, I think it's important that the distinction is made, though it wouldn't absolve them of other issues that the project was guilty of.

#10 Edited by TehPickle (554 posts) -
@nophilip said:

It's quite a bit late, but I'm really glad to see Valve taking this step. Early Access isn't a bad idea, but it's caused quite a few problems in its current form.

I couldn't agree more with this.

I'll be interested to see how the guidelines are 'enforced.' I realise that's something of a paradox, but what if a particularly stubborn little upstart developer came along and defended itself with combinations (or indeed all) of:

'We thought we could develop the game with no sales. We still can, we put out a bug tiny bug fix 4 months ago'

'We didn't think our game updates would break save files, every time it happens, it's an accident'

'We believe our game of being in an open field with a building and some trees is gameplay!'

'Our open field with a building and some trees is just the beginning!'

I'll be curious to see how much of this grey area Valve will tolerate before they step in, and how that might vary on a case by case basis.

While I applaud Valve for taking these steps (though I have to admit, it's slightly more /golfclap), I think there's a still a long way to go before it's even remotely safe for the average, less informed customer.

If any of you aren't already aware of it, Jim Sterling has a playlist of interesting examples of Early Access. It's a hilarious, horrifying and very rarely pleasantly surprising look at what developers are allowed to do with EA. Some of these games have since been obliterated by Valve, but I find it fascinating how others continue to 'get away with it' when the lines for what is and isn't 'acceptable' are so very very vague. They also makes me quite passionately angry sometimes too. Worth a look, for sure!