@yummylee: Oh man, that was so fun! Thanks for posting that, I hadn't seen it before.
Oh man, I'm literally teary eyed from that. lmao.
They are people I pay to entertain me. Nothing more.
I could never call someone a friend if they don't know my name. Friendship, as an institution, requires familiarity. It requires camaraderie. And friendship requires a two-way relationship. I'm no more friends with the owners of this site than I am friends with Barack Obama or Hulk Hogan. I supported both of those men in their various endeavors, but not because I wanted their friendship but because I believed in their cause or product.
I was wondering if anyone was having an issue I seem to be having. Or if you've, maybe, heard about it somewhere?
My "DAY ONE" controller that came packed in with the console seems a bit busted. It all looks fine, and it'll work a good amount of the time as well. But it keeps dropping connectivity. I've tried syncing, multiple times. But every time I think I got it to work properly, it'll then drop again.
I thought it might need to stay in the field of view for the Kinect or something. But I bought a second controller and it's working fine. I play at a weird angle from my television and the Kinect can still see me and the controller, I checked. And, as I said, the second controller I bought seems to work fine.
Anyone else? I love the controller itself. And I haven't found anything with a couple of Google searches. So I thought I'd ask and see if it was happening anywhere else before I got lost in a sea of Microsoft Help menus or phone calls. Maybe there's a fix or something?
I only read the opening post, so I don't know if this kind of reply has been suggested. Forgive me if it's redundant.
What I've noticed with Arkham Origins is that the multiplayer component is a polarizing feature. Some people have expressed that they are enjoying it, others not so much. But regardless, it is on the disc and therefore must be part of the critique. And if the reviewer considers it busted or just not fun, the review needs to reflect that. Even if the base game is just as good as Arkham City, even if you take away the thoughts of "innovation" and "more of the same", it added a mode and that mode has been called into question.
I'm assuming of course that the post you made refers to Carolyn Petit's review since that's the lowest one I'm aware of. I'm of a mind that more Arkham, even if it is just more of the same thing that I already loved two and four years ago respectively, is a positive thing. However, they chose to add in this 3 team asymmetrical multiplayer and if the reviewer (be it Carolyn or whoever) found it to be a problematic issue then I'd imagine that is the bulk of the reason that the score was lowered to reflect a product that has some merit but also some busted segments.
For me, I haven't played the Arkham Origins multiplayer component yet. And honestly, I probably won't. I'll play the story, which is what I bought the game for. Then I'll play the combat and predator challenges because those have always entertained me. And really, that's all I wanted. If those are decent, even if they are more of the same, then I call it a win.
As a contrast, this really isn't like Call of Duty though, because those are games that update and keep the same level of consistent quality through all of their modes. You may not like CoD, and I don't particularly care for it, but the story mode is always a certain level of quality and the multiplayer is always a certain level of quality. Now if a Call of Duty had come out and the story segment had been fundamentally broken or had a mode that was promoted but not realized fully, then it might be closer to what Origins is seeing in review now. Or if Assassin's Creed's multiplayer component had left a bad impression when they added it, maybe these would be similar. I can't speak to sports games specifically though as I haven't played one since the 90s. I assume that sports fans want that kind of thing since they turn out in droves year after year to buy them. And like Origins does for Batman, it's giving fans what they want scores be damned.
You know, following Sim City I'd planned to just write off EA. And then those bastards got ahold of the Star Wars license and showed off Battlefront 3. So now I just don't know what to do. My head says forget they ever existed past Mutant League Football, but my heart still loves lightsabers and the pewpew of blaster fire.
I've got a baaaad feeling about this.
You know, sometimes criticism can come from a genuine place. Not that I'm saying Marcus Beer has ever offered constructive criticism. He's as big a tosser as I've ever seen online.
But you can't just dismiss criticism out of hand. Sometimes when several people are saying similar things, even if they're nasty things, there may be something there. Something one needs to work on.
That's not meant to try and justify vitriol mind you. But Fish has made himself a target through his own actions, through his own inability to take even small criticisms with grace, and his willingness to be exactly what trolls love- the kind of guy they KNOW they can get a rise out of.
My point is, you train others how to treat you with every action, every reaction, and every "I'm taking my ball and going home" moment like Fish is doing.
He is wrong though. He, or rather Fez, was promoted by "media leeches" and he ate that part up. And an indie developer is especially beholden to the press. Because often the gamers are buying not only a clever indie game, but supporting a clever indie developer.
One of the problems with publishers at the moment is that they are all chasing those Call of Duty kinds of sales.
That model is simply impossible to sustain in the long run. Publishers should try to accept that only a select few games can go past 4 or 5 million copies in sales.
I think that publishers themselves are mostly to blame for this current situation. Activisions CEO Bobby Kotick is one of the biggest culprits of this kind of thinking in the games industry. Instead of having a variety of games on offer we have a very narrow selection of games (most of which are sequels) in development.
This model has proved very good for shareholders but it does mean that game business is less and less willing to take risks and is trying to avoid risks by developing one sequel after another.
OK first off let me say that this is not wrong. I've been misunderstood a few times over the past week, so just because I'm quoting you doesn't mean I disagree. This is more an addendum, not a contradiction.
With that out of the way, there is another piece to the puzzle you mentioned here. The publishers are pushing very similar games, that much is true. But fans have to take some of the responsibility. When a new or interesting game comes out that isn't part of a known IP, it's difficult to get traction. It's an unknown property sitting on the shelves with literally hundreds of games that are known quantities just by the names on their boxes.
I think not of myself here, but of a younger gamer who isn't as financially well off as myself. A less established gamer. Should that person pick up a new shooter or should they stick with the one they already know they will enjoy? It's certainly not wrong to stick with a CoD or a Battlefield or a Halo when you know you're going to enjoy that experience and you may not be able to buy another game for a few months.
I see how scary it can be for developers to pour their heart and soul into something only to have it sit on the shelves while CoD 97 flies out the door for being plastic and samey.
Not saying this behavior is proper or right, but I understand it. Personally, I try to support the smaller games when I can. But even I didn't pick up Catherine (just to site one example) on launch day. I eventually got it (new copy, not used) and enjoyed it, but it was a crowded market for a weird quirky platform/puzzler to penetrate.
I'd also add a third reason we see so many sequels though. Gaming, at it's core, is perfect for sequential story telling. Like comics, we see narratives that are strongly driven by a main character who we, as the primary participant of these experiences, come to know and love in very intimate ways. The nature of gaming lends itself well to investing in the characters on the screen because we identify with them, especially when we get to make a character or have agency over their decisions like in Mass Effect. It's not a Sheppard doing a thing, it's MY Sheppard enacting MY will into this virtual world. That's powerful. And it's one of many reasons that the sequential nature of gaming is so pervasive.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment