xbob42

This is the perfect time for someone to gift me a membership! You know, to make sure the system is working properly!

@huser said:

@xbob42 said:

@NekuCTR said:

@xbob42 said:

@NekuCTR said:

That's cool and all, but time travel literally isn't possible.

Based on our current understanding of the universe, which is constantly changing and shifting. Wasn't the fundamental idea of physics rocked on its heels just a few weeks ago when CERN may have measured a particle traveling faster than the speed of light? Granted, I haven't kept up on that story, but claiming definite impossibilities is something I always find a little silly when we're talking about something we truly barely understand.

Well yeah, we're definitely screwing up the universe to the point that it may some day be possible, but there's a huge leap from altering the laws of physics, and attempting to control an entire theoretical dimension.

Who said anything about controlling it? Flowing through it, being carried along by it in another direction... Who knows how, if at all, such things would work? Maybe it's not as extraordinarily complex as you may think. Maybe all it takes is lateral thinking in terms of dimensions to simply move in a different way, etc, etc. Or maybe time is "used up" like in Stephen King's sort of silly story The Langoliers, where the past is full of nothingness devoured by insatiable beings and the future is sitting there, waiting for the present to hit it and fill it with life.

Or maybe it involves gnomes.

Fair enough, though there remains an obvious reason time travel doesn't and won't exist in any meaningful sense within our existence. The first time machine would likely be FLOODED by all the future timetravelers that want to go back and see it among other key moments in time.

Unless, of course, it works like in waves as it does in Achron (Ahh, bringing things full circle!) and once the time machine leaves the spot it was finished on, it's in another time until it moves again!

Sounds good, but does every third-person game need only 2 weapons and a cover system?

@NekuCTR said:

@xbob42 said:

@NekuCTR said:

That's cool and all, but time travel literally isn't possible.

Based on our current understanding of the universe, which is constantly changing and shifting. Wasn't the fundamental idea of physics rocked on its heels just a few weeks ago when CERN may have measured a particle traveling faster than the speed of light? Granted, I haven't kept up on that story, but claiming definite impossibilities is something I always find a little silly when we're talking about something we truly barely understand.

Well yeah, we're definitely screwing up the universe to the point that it may some day be possible, but there's a huge leap from altering the laws of physics, and attempting to control an entire theoretical dimension.

Who said anything about controlling it? Flowing through it, being carried along by it in another direction... Who knows how, if at all, such things would work? Maybe it's not as extraordinarily complex as you may think. Maybe all it takes is lateral thinking in terms of dimensions to simply move in a different way, etc, etc. Or maybe time is "used up" like in Stephen King's sort of silly story The Langoliers, where the past is full of nothingness devoured by insatiable beings and the future is sitting there, waiting for the present to hit it and fill it with life.

Or maybe it involves gnomes.

@NekuCTR said:

That's cool and all, but time travel literally isn't possible.

Based on our current understanding of the universe, which is constantly changing and shifting. Wasn't the fundamental idea of physics rocked on its heels just a few weeks ago when CERN may have measured a particle traveling faster than the speed of light? Granted, I haven't kept up on that story, but claiming definite impossibilities is something I always find a little silly when we're talking about something we truly barely understand.

@Brodehouse said:

Once again, it's this "all games must stay in one genre forever" line of thought that prevents developers from taking any kind of risks when it matters. Shinji Mikami had to fight tooth and nail to take Resident Evil in a new direction in the fourth installment, and if "that isn't Resident Evil!" had won the day, the gaming world as a whole would be worse off.

You're referencing a bunch of downloadable titles (and Dead Island, whose budget shows through in its flaws and weird bugs) made by small studios (or portions of larger studios). Starbreeze does not have the same structure as Team Meat. If your suggestion is that Starbreeze lay off 90% of the company and make downloadable titles instead, alright. But that's not really feasible, nor is it to suddenly just spend less money on retail games and expect gamers to not be incredibly pissed off. They already think every game on the market is too short, or too ugly, or too simple, or too boring, and demand the developer make it better. 'Make game good' doesn't just happen magically and then the money gets wasted on silly hats, money and time (which is money) are required to iterate and make 'okay' into 'great'.

'All that matters to me is budget'. You can make your own straw man, but it's not the truth. "all it takes to satisfy you is a first-person shooter". No, all that takes to satisfy me is a GOOD GAME OF ANY GENRE. Jeff's article, if you read it, is that he thought the game was looking pretty good. I don't care what genre it is. And then near the end you just turn into a dervish of entitled anger. I don't know if there's any point trying to reason with you. Have your anger, I hope you enjoy it.

All games must stay in one genre forever? Whoever said that? I said I'm sick of STRATEGY games being turned into SHOOTERS. Resident Evil got more action-y, sure, but they didn't turn it into a racing game. Furthermore, it completely reinvented the entire genre it "swapped" to, and was highly regarded as one of the greatest games ever made, influencing even your precious Gears of War in many, many ways. That said, I can still understand the complaints from people who loved classic Resident Evil, because for everything RE4 was... It wasn't really Resident Evil. But considering the series was starting to stagnate and become flop after flop, and they were totally unsatisfied with the "original" Resident Evil 4, they had a plethora of reasons to try something new.

In this day and age, releasing Syndicate as a Strategy game WOULD be something new, releasing another shooter is what's stagnant, the same old bullshit everyone else is doing. Why should I care? Because I can make some guards shoot themselves? In the end it's going to be a shooter with a gimmick. Yeah, I referenced downloadable titles. Is that a problem? They're leading the way in innovation and quality creative design this generation, not the big guys, who are almost entirely playing it safe. Of course, gamers like you who thrive off of shooters see no problem with this, because you get another shooter, even though you could get this same exact shooter without disappointing a bunch of Syndicate fans.

You can be happy with a "good game of any genre," but see, other people have something called TASTE. We like some things, and DISLIKE others. I can't help it if I'm sick of shooters, I don't want to play them anymore. I've played too many in too short a time because that's almost all we're getting. Too much of anything will make you sick of it. You can't "reason" with the fact that I DON'T WANT TO PLAY ANOTHER SHOOTER, so yes, you're correct. I would have LOVED to play a new Syndicate strategy game, though. Do you see why people are angry and/or disappointed? You're trying to reason with me to be happy with something with which by its very design seems like it was created to piss me and others like me off. You still haven't addressed my comment about Gears of War being a flight sim, aside from saying it sells well and it's popular, as if I give a shit about any of that. Would YOU be happy? Cause I tell ya man, it'd be one SWEET flight sim. Oh, wait, you also said that nobody plays Strategy games, does that mean YOU don't? Because you DID say you love games of ANY genre, so a Gears of War flight sim would clearly make you utterly ecstatic, right?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

@Brodehouse: What I mean by "options" is this isn't Syndicate. It has nothing to do with Syndicate except the name. If Strategy games don't sell... Why the fuck are they using the IP? Clearly it's unpopular. Why not just make a new IP? They already are. I'm not going to buy this because I'm done with shooters, and I'm certainly not going to support more strategy-games-turned-shooter-for-no-goddamn-reason.

Nothing about this makes any sense. Furthermore, your example of only games with big budgets selling is completely laughable. Minecraft, Super Meat Boy, Dead Island, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light and many other games are all on budgets only a fraction of the size of their big-budget counterparts (If any exist, since everyone's making shooters.) and they've all become very popular. Of course, because they don't have an inflated budget of half of any mid-sized state's GDP, they can not only sell at a lower price, but they need to sell far less copies to be successful.

Of course, clearly all that matters to you is budget, and another big first-person shooter is all it takes to satisfy you. That's fine, for you, but it's not fine for me. I don't give a shit what the trends are, it doesn't change my tastes. No amount of arguing will justify this kind of stupid shit to me. "Strategy games are unpopular like dating sims so we took an IP that no FPS fan has ever heard of and turned it into an FPS for some reason, which will be great for disappointing the fans of the IP while at the same time using name recognition to not pull in anyone else because they've never fucking heard of it!"

Stupidest goddamn shit I've ever heard.

@Brodehouse said:

@xbob42 said:

"Don't worry, the next Gears-of-War might be a flight sim, but it's gonna be a really good flight sim!"

"But I don't like flight sims either way..."

"Yeah but it's gonna be a really good one!"

The difference being that Gears is one of the best selling games of all-time, and isometric strategy games are about as popular as dating sims and rogue-likes.

The option here isn't isometric strategy game or first person shooter... it's first person shooter or no game at all, and you have to be pretty Goddamn bitter to prefer nothing at all.

Except this is one of a billion first-person shooters. It no longer has any bearing on the Syndicate name for me. Which means my options go from "The only real strategy game of this nature on the market" to "one of a billion first-person shooters."

I'll stick to other genres, I'm done with shooters for a good, long while. Not even interested in BF3 anymore... Also, in one of your follow-ups you talk about a $50 million strategy game; well, maybe that's the problem. A strategy game shouldn't cost $50 million to make at all. Budgets are out of control for the stupidest reasons. Companies need to get their pocketbooks in check and start making (and spending!) money wiser. This "let's throw a shit-ton of money at this game and hope it sells or we'll a) stop making the series b) stop supporting the console in question or c) go out of business!" is just idiotic.

"Don't worry, the next Gears-of-War might be a flight sim, but it's gonna be a really good flight sim!"

"But I don't like flight sims either way..."

"Yeah but it's gonna be a really good one!"

I'd love to watch a judge laugh this EULA out of court, as judges are wont to do.