xbob42's forum posts

#1 Posted by xbob42 (551 posts) -

People saying they "never felt misled because I stay informed" are completely missing the point of a false advertising suit. You staying informed protected you from false advertising, that doesn't mean the false advertising didn't exist.

#2 Posted by xbob42 (551 posts) -

@jejoma said:

I'll always remember that one podcast where Patrick was like "open the flood gates," concerning Early Access, and Brad was like, "I think this will be bad in the long term."

I think holding up Kerbal Space Program and a few other games as an argument for keeping Early Access as is, actually makes a better argument against it. If so few quality titles have come about because of the system, it's kinda not worth for me, as a Steam user, to have to sift through all the garbage to find what I'm looking for. I think Kerbal Space probably would have succeeded anyway no matter what it was labeled as.

This implies that the majority of games on Steam are good. This implies that the majority of games on ANY gaming platform in existence are good. Going by the logic on display here, you'd have to come to the conclusion that gaming as a whole isn't worth it because there's so much garbage out there.

Most video games are terrible, boring things. The few we all get excited for? That keep us coming back? They're a drop in the bucket of produced games every year. That's not the point, though.

The point is that you having the mildly inconvenient experience of sifting through a few extra games per day does not outweigh the benefits of early access. There's plenty of good stuff out there, Necrodancer, Nuclear Throne, Endless Legend, Rust (Currently mid-rebuild, but still good), Day Z, Gang Beasts, Planet Explorers (I love this one), Project Zomboid, Wreckfest, Prison Architect, Massive Chalice and plenty more.

Maybe you disagree with something I listed. Good, because that brings up my next point: You're not the arbiter of quality.

I like lots of games other people don't like, I like lots of games other people do like, if we start weeding out "bad" games, then we lose out on games only some people think are bad. The same goes for Early Access. I don't give two shits what you think is good, I don't come to you for review information, like you don't come to me for review information. Allow me to make my own decisions, and present me with as many games as you reasonably can. I, SOMEHOW, will manage to survive and pick out the ones that seem most interesting to me.

It's like people forget that Steam has always had crap not everyone wants to play, Bad Rats hit before early access, folks. Steam doesn't vet by "quality," as that's totally subjective, nor should they ever try. Leave that to specialty (digital or physical) retailers, not mega-storefronts.

Early access is easily one of my favorite parts of Steam. Watching a game go through development, whether I participate in early access or not, is completely fascinating to me. Seeing the huge changes that go through is incredible, and opening up a game that recently got a patch that changed almost everything is something I've been wanting to experience since I was a kid. Dungeon Defenders 2 just got a patch where they overhauled the entire gear system -- and I couldn't be more excited!

I say open the flood gates even wider. Maybe add an extra filter for those who seem to literally get physically injured from having a few extra items on a list per day.

#3 Edited by xbob42 (551 posts) -

@probablytuna said:

Even if they did, it's not going to change much since I doubt it'll affect older systems and would only be a feature on future iterations and I'm not going out to buy a new 3DS just to play region-free games (unless they can unlock it through a patch but that seems highly unlikely). They should've had it unlocked at the start and just let the publishers control whether or not to region lock their games.

You're thinking small-beans. This is more of a looking-forward picture, making all future (theoretically) consoles and handhelds region-free instead of region-locked, which is antiquated garbage.

#4 Edited by xbob42 (551 posts) -

@vincentvendetta said:

But one cannot change the creation, he cannot change objective elements inside of it, only its vision.

Yes, yes he can. He can and he has. Welcome to the internet!

@meatball said:

Why are you so angry? Do you have a stress problem?

Who said I'm angry? I emphasize words and swear a bit, you know, human communication. We're on Giant Bomb, where half the podcast is YELLING AT FULL VOLUME AND SWEARING LIKE THIS AND SHIT, so you should be able to communicate like that without some silly comment like this.

Also, what is the purpose of your reply? We're having a discussion here, quit trying to be a wise ass and discuss!

#5 Edited by xbob42 (551 posts) -

@vincentvendetta said:

Man, reading the comments on this articles in the veins of "Fuck artistic intent, I want to play games MY WAY and no one's gonna stop me" just makes me laugh.

"How come people don't take video games seriously?" Because if you don't, why the fuck should the rest of the world?

Mmm, that false equivalency is so tasty. I also watch movies my way. I read books my way, I enjoy my entertainment HOW I LIKE TO ENJOY MY ENTERTAINMENT.

Jesus Christ, it's not a hard concept. It's entertainment, not civil engineering. There is no "right" way to do it except how you want to do it.

It's like people who refuse to ever experiment with house rules in board games because it's not the "intended" way to play. People who turn fun into work. If you want to do it, fine, but don't ever tell me how to enjoy my entertainment. It's obnoxious as hell.

Also, who gives a fuck if "the world" takes video games seriously? Insecure children and manchildren are the only ones who have that conversation.

#6 Posted by xbob42 (551 posts) -

Seriously, if you want to change the aspect ratio because you don't agree with the game's artistic vision, you might as well play scenes from a movie in random order or skip major chapters. Sure, artistic excuses might be flimsy, but if this is how the creator wants you to experience its work, then we should judge it as it is. If we're talking about pure technical tweaks... fine. It reminds of when I watched Eraserhead and the DVD asked me to change the lighting of my television, saying that the blacks you normally see aren't true blacks.

Also, if you think super letterbox is weird, have you heard about 1:1?

That's all a crock of bullshit. I'm not "judging a game as is," I'm enjoying my entertainment how I want to enjoy it. The idea that we "have" to play it the intended way is patently absurd. A game is NOT a movie, stop making movie comparisons. There's no way to experience the game entirely as intended because the player exists.

@yummylee said:

Oh come off it, The Evil Within is obviously a horror game, in that it deals in themes of horror. Just because it's never effectively scary doesn't negate it from being a horror game. RE4 is also still a horror game, as are the Dead Space games, even though most I'm sure don't find them to be especially scary.

Effective scares are the ONLY metric by which I determine a game to be horror. To me, Evil Within is a pure action game, like RE4, which was basically a fucking action comedy. I wouldn't even say Evil Within deals with "themes of horror" so much as "psychological intrigue."

#7 Posted by xbob42 (551 posts) -
@meatball said:

It also seems to me that, as with other things that carry this aspect ratio, you're best looking at it as a case of being able to see more to the sides than the top and bottom being carved off.

Except that's patently untrue because this is a VIDEO GAME. Black bars in film is because there's no way to fill in those black bars with more information, you're seeing literally what they filmed.

In video games, they can just render where the black bars would be, there's no excuse to ever have them there aside from performance or bullshit "artistic intent."

This is 100% proven by the fact that when you use Flawless Widescreen... You see just as much on the sides AND more on the top and bottom. It fills the entire frame and you get more useful information.

Also, I don't accept the FoV argument, the FoV is so zoomed in it's uncomfortable and nausea-inducing even for a lot of people not normally affected by it. The black bars only add to that sensation. It's unpleasant, and not in a way that enhances the experience. Also, since it's not a horror game in even the vaguest sense of the word, the entire argument about it adding to scaring you is total fucking nonsense.

#8 Posted by xbob42 (551 posts) -

The black bars look like shit. They don't feel like they add tension to the game. They just feel like they're detracting from the player experience.

Precisely how I feel. It's also not a very tense game. It is at the start, then it quickly just turns into RE4 but with less combat encounters and more cutscenes.

#9 Posted by xbob42 (551 posts) -

@jetimus: What we're supposed to say is "Don't make your games look like movies, stop trying to copy other forms of media. It's lame." Or "I don't buy this excuse, you're having technical issues and it's better for marketing to say "cinematic" and "we're having issues." isn't it?"

It's not the biggest deal in the world, it's video games after all, but that doesn't preclude them from any sort of criticism.

#10 Posted by xbob42 (551 posts) -

I see that "But it's more cinematic!" is becoming this generation's "HD development is hard". Disappointing.

Bill O'Reilly would be proud of the insane spin developers are putting on the fact that these consoles aren't very powerful. It's a feature!