This game is phenomenal. I do not like "remastered" graphics because I think it makes the games look like butt, but I would pay 15 bucks just to play through the original again.
Pixels suggest a form and allow your imagination to complete it. High resolution art with low details just looks sparse, flat, and untextured and uninteresting. As an artist, it's almost objectively bad. In an art class any instructor would tell them to add texture to create visual interest. But because the only thing that matters to nerds is resolution numbers, people want "high res"...
What Sony did with DriveClub is borderline criminal, in my opinion. I don't believe you should be able to advertise games and content for your upcoming system in order to get people to buy it and then not actually provide that game in the state that you promised. That, to me, is very much false advertising.
My feelings on The Witness are exactly the same as Alex. I really want to play it and figure out what it's all about but I know that I just don't have the patience for it.
I see people say this, but the thing about the WItness is that it's not REALLY a game that requires a ton of patience.
It's true that I'm a very patient person, but I have not felt like I had to use it at all. I've been frustrated exactly once, and it drove me to look up an answer. I was immediately glad I did because I NEVER would have figured it out.
Rather than not play the game, I would just say "know yourself". Get a guide, try not to use it, and just have fun. Maybe even give yourself a hard limit where you say, "If I can't figure something out in an hour (or 15 minutes, whatever) I will look up the answer."
@austin_walker I'd love to see that article on the Witness that you mentioned starting. My own perspective is that The Witness has a lot of commentary about religion, from someone I get the distinct impression is an atheist. That eventually began to bug me as I listened to the audio clips.
Though, I do like the New-Agey Buddhist stuff in the game.
I'm of the exact same mindset as you. I am not enjoying some of the atheistic viewpoints of The Witness, but the thing is... with as much as I've played of that game... there is definitely a *thing* that would, intentionally or not, undermine any strictly atheist interpretation of that game. I don't fully understand it yet because I haven't had enough time to play, but there are a FEW hooks in that game that I am really, really interested in.
The bottom line is that there are a bunch of people who are saying the game has no story, and I think those people are just missing it because the game doesn't explain it to you with a voice over.
I'm SHOCKED that Vinny doesn't like The Witness. I thought it would be up his alley. I LOOOOVE that game.
Ironically, Austin and I have 100% diametric views about games, art, and pretty much everything else. It's funny to hear him talk about The Witness because everything he seems to potentially dislike about that game and it's philosophy is 100% why I couldn't wait to play it after the interview Ryan and Brad did years ago and it's why I love the game now.
I think Jonathan Blow is one of the few developers out there who GETS video games right now.
@bananasfoster: Hey I PROMISE I'm not trying to start a flame war here - but you do realize that's what most journalists/critics are right? Not many movie reviewers have made movies themselves. Not many journalists who are reporting on the presidential race have run for office themselves. GB themselves have not made a game, and in fact have made lots of assumptions or claims aboout game development that are straight-up wrong. We love them anyway, but they are not exempt from mistakes.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, and you're only talking about people who BRAZENLY make false claims. But... I don't even see that as rampant in gaming at all, in fact there's very little TO make false claims about, because this industry is in the middle of a boom where many types of approaches to games are being tried. So, in my view, all we are really talking about here is a broadening of the gaming audience, which will naturally come with new perspectives and ideas. Is this a bad thing? I find the idea of gaming 'experts' a bit flawed, it's just too young of a medium for anyone to claim they are too much of an expert.
Well, I don't want this to become a flame war either, so I can only sum up my position with this: You know how Jeff always talks about douchebag "Vape culture" people? A HUGE chunk of people who write about games on the internet, usually ones who strongly identify with the indy scene, are that, to me.
@bananasfoster: I too hate those intrusive articles; when they show up on my desktop unannounced, full screen; Austin's voice suddenly blasting through my headphones, screaming at me to read them. Hopefully someone comes up with a plugin to keep them from just randomly clicking themselves when I visit the front page of giant bomb dot com.
Oh man now I want a plugin that actually gives an alert like that when a new editorial shows up, like someone else said they get buried too easily, I'm sure there's some clip of Austin yelling on the Beastcast that someone can use.
Well, I'm eating my hat at the moment. Greg Kasavin talking about game development is very much something I would like to read. Stuff from actual developers, artists or designers I am very much interested in. I thought it was going to be a bunch of "academics" from the "I don't know how to make games but I'm way into them so I just tell other people what I want" school of gaming journalism.
@bananasfoster: Okay so your problem is when a lot of people are passionate about a thing you don't like? It seems to me like you don't see what's so special about the things those op-eds are talking about, which is fine. But why shouldn't those articles get published by sites that want different perspective than the mainstream? As I said before, IGN, Gamespot, Gametrailers, and GameInformer are the actual establishment. Those outlets are much older and more entrenched than places like Polygon and Kotaku.
Also if you want ZMF, he has an outlet already. If you want mainstream game coverage with none of the "navel-gazing," IGN and Gamespot have you covered. If you don't want to read a "hoity toity" piece that gets published to GB, then continue to use the site like the freelance thing never happened or wait a few days for the next article.
Oh, I am well aware of my options. I will give it a shot once, but I have no intention of reading these. And if they become intrusive, it might drive me from the site entirely.
I liked what Austin said about accepting pitches from the community, but it sounded like he was just saying that because he was getting lots of people asking. If it winds up just being a site for Austin's friends to soapbox... I'm out.
BananasFoster's comments