haggis

This user has not updated recently.

1674 4 40 31
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

haggis's forum posts

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

@magzine said:

@haggis said:

@magzine said:

I'm not arguing it's not one game, I'm arguing that what draxyle originally said is dumb, pointless and baseless. If the servers were up, saving would work fine. The whole game would work fine. That piece of software you bought on the disk would work fine. You can QA and test a game all you want, and they did, and the game. is. fine. The servers aren't. There is only so much load testing and closed beta testing you can do before you just have to flick the switch and wait and see what happens.

Why are you guys arguing with me? You clearly do not know the original scope of Draxyle's argument, and didn't bother to look back to see what he said. I shouldn't have even replied to dumpling because that was evidently a waste of my time, I jsut didn't realize it wasn't the OP.

The problem is that when the servers were up, the saves weren't working fine. They sometimes worked, sometimes didn't. The whole game wasn't working fine. The software on the disk (or the download) didn't work fine. Plus, you know, the game on the disk doesn't work without the servers functioning.

We're arguing with you because we disagree with you, and because we think your comment about the servers and the game being separate products is wrong. Obviously.

It's not obvious, because it seemed as though you were lacking contextual information.

But context isn't important, right?

Also, the server is not a separate product because a server isn't a product in this case. The game is.

prod·uct

/ˈprädəkt/

Noun
  1. An article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

Wow. Doubling down, I see. Server access is part of the product. Without it, the game doesn't work. Period. So, if I download the game and don't buy a physical, manufactured disc, is it no longer a product?

Clearly the product is the software--the combined client and server software. Which is why denying access to one half of it (on the server) means that the product is broken. This isn't a difficult concept, you know.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

#2  Edited By haggis

@magzine said:

@haggis said:

@magzine said:

@atomic_dumpling said:
@magzine said:

@draxyle said:

That about sums up EA for me […].

what was it about the game itself that is not ready to launch? p.s., servers aren't part of the game itself.

You obviously can't have one without the other, so I say they are. Your line of reasoning is outdated, I am afraid.

In a different context, I agree. In this context, I disagree. The servers and the game are two totally separate issues. The game itself is fine (some people might not like some of the mechanics, but it works), but the servers are lacking. It's a matter of resources. You don't hire QA people to test your cash flow do you? QA people to test your marketing people? They're resources. QA and testing affects a product, and servers aren't a product.

I'm sure loadtesting was done, but if there is more demand than they expected, then it's hard for them to really compensate for that.

The problem is that the servers provide basic functionality--like saving your game. And that hasn't been working correctly or consistently. So to say that the "game itself is fine" isn't quite right. And if the servers are down, no one can play at all. EA chose to make the game nonfunctional without the servers. Therefore, when you're paying for the game, you're paying for access to the servers. It's all one product.

I'm not arguing it's not one game, I'm arguing that what draxyle originally said is dumb, pointless and baseless. If the servers were up, saving would work fine. The whole game would work fine. That piece of software you bought on the disk would work fine. You can QA and test a game all you want, and they did, and the game. is. fine. The servers aren't. There is only so much load testing and closed beta testing you can do before you just have to flick the switch and wait and see what happens.

Why are you guys arguing with me? You clearly do not know the original scope of Draxyle's argument, and didn't bother to look back to see what he said. I shouldn't have even replied to dumpling because that was evidently a waste of my time, I jsut didn't realize it wasn't the OP.

The problem is that when the servers were up, the saves weren't working fine. They sometimes worked, sometimes didn't. The whole game wasn't working fine. The software on the disk (or the download) didn't work fine. Plus, you know, the game on the disk doesn't work without the servers functioning.

We're arguing with you because we disagree with you, and because we think your comment about the servers and the game being separate products is wrong. Obviously.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

#3  Edited By haggis

@magzine said:

@atomic_dumpling said:
@magzine said:

@draxyle said:

That about sums up EA for me […].

what was it about the game itself that is not ready to launch? p.s., servers aren't part of the game itself.

You obviously can't have one without the other, so I say they are. Your line of reasoning is outdated, I am afraid.

In a different context, I agree. In this context, I disagree. The servers and the game are two totally separate issues. The game itself is fine (some people might not like some of the mechanics, but it works), but the servers are lacking. It's a matter of resources. You don't hire QA people to test your cash flow do you? QA people to test your marketing people? They're resources. QA and testing affects a product, and servers aren't a product.

I'm sure loadtesting was done, but if there is more demand than they expected, then it's hard for them to really compensate for that.

The problem is that the servers provide basic functionality--like saving your game. And that hasn't been working correctly or consistently. So to say that the "game itself is fine" isn't quite right. And if the servers are down, no one can play at all. EA chose to make the game nonfunctional without the servers. Therefore, when you're paying for the game, you're paying for access to the servers. It's all one product.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

@squigiliwams said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but just imagine how much less EC2 compute power they'd have to buy if ONLY THE MULTIPLAYER CITIES WERE ONLINE.

It's the obvious solution to the server problem, but they wanted universal cloud saves, so ... again, the kind of decision you expect from a committee, not a dev team with any sort of core leadership and vision.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

There's just no getting over the city size in this Sim City. I played 4 for years - the huge map option in SC4 (which was 4 times the size of the standard SC4 map) was really difficult to actually fill up completely and I used to be able to spend weeks and weeks on just one city. I also don't like the new game's aesthetic; I feel that 4 hit the right balance between style and realism. Ultimately I feel that they sacrificed the game's graphical performance, city size and server stability all so they could put a blurb on the back of the box about how the game simulates every Sim in a city. If they had just nixed that silly idea at the start of development we'd have a game that could have been a good successor to 4.

I was really, REALLY hoping that the multiple-city region thing was going to make up for the small city size, but it doesn't look like that's the case. And I'm beginning to wonder if simulating every Sim in a city is worth it for the sacrifices they've made to the overall design. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't look like they've delivered at all. I actually like the aesthetic--but the overarching design decisions look to have been a serious mistake.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

@august said:

@yinstarrunner said:

For the love of God Patrick, don't play Deadly Shadows. Play Thief 1 and 2 first. They're masterpieces, and they have their share of horror elements too.

@haggis said:

So I'm all positive about the game, then I see this over at Gamespot:

"...the City is broiling with social tension as it is ravaged by a plague..."

Okay, okay, let's hope they're not stealing (thieving?) too much from Dishonored. But this sort of thing starts to make me worry.

It's not exactly an original concept and Dishonored doesn't own it. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a zombie-like plague mentioned in Thief 1, and you even go into a part of town that was closed off and quarantined because of it.

Sound familiar?

Not to mention the the game has been in production for about 5 years. The plot and vo were probably laid down years ago.

As I said in my earlier response, it would be foolish to release a game too like Dishonored no matter when the game went into development or where the ideas came from. The fact that so many of us on this thread have mentioned Dishonored, even jokingly, illustrates the point. I don't mind if they're mostly similar (they're both stealth games, so that's a given) but too much similarity is going to be a turn off.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

@haggis said:

So I'm all positive about the game, then I see this over at Gamespot:

"...the City is broiling with social tension as it is ravaged by a plague..."

Okay, okay, let's hope they're not stealing (thieving?) too much from Dishonored. But this sort of thing starts to make me worry.

It's not exactly an original concept and Dishonored doesn't own it. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a zombie-like plague mentioned in Thief 1, and you even go into a part of town that was closed off and quarantined because of it.

Sound familiar?

Yes, but Thief came out fifteen years ago, and Dishonored just a few months ago. And the first Thief game didn't focus its entire story on it.Mostly my comment is connected to my previous one, in which I hoped they'd take and refine the best parts of Dishonored. I'm not saying Dishonored owns the concept. I just don't want the games to be too similar, since they'll be out within a few years of each other. It's not about stealing quite so much as it is about similarity. At some level all games steal from each other in this way. I don't particularly care so long as it doesn't cross this line where it feels like basically the same game, even down to the level of story.

It's not about the origin of the idea. It's just that I just played a game where I was sneaking around killing dudes, and there's a zombie plague. I'd rather not play that game again so soon. Like I said--it makes me worry, just a little bit.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

So I'm all positive about the game, then I see this over at Gamespot:

"...the City is broiling with social tension as it is ravaged by a plague..."

Okay, okay, let's hope they're not stealing (thieving?) too much from Dishonored. But this sort of thing starts to make me worry.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

So much has changed (even in just the last few years) with stealth-action games, so I'm curious to see what they absorb from recent developments and what new stuff they're going to bring to the table. For all its minor flaws, Dishonored really managed to shake things up a bit on the stealth front. Perhaps we might see some refined version of some of those mechanics--verticality, in particular, but also that feeling of speed and precision that the game gives you. Not that I want Thief to be all about first-person platforming, but it was damned fun in Dishonored and I wouldn't mind a different take on it. It's good to see a reboot for the franchise coming to next-gen consoles.

Avatar image for haggis
haggis

1674

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

31

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

Narratives are manipulative. That's what they do. The writer convinces you to feel a certain way about characters by doing things to them--often, quite bad things. The most frequent advice given to writers (of novels, at least) is to basically put your characters through hell. It's all about manipulating the reader into feeling what the writer wants them to. That people complain about this drives me a bit nuts.

Granted, I get tired of seeing authors use sexual assault to induce sympathy for characters. But it's not new, it's not uncommon, and honestly, it works. It's not always treated well, but mostly it is. What sets protagonists apart from non-protagonists is that they take the negative things that happen to them and rise above them. If they didn't, they'd fail. The problem with applying political correctness too much to narratives (whether in video games, movies, or novels) is that it has the effect of flattening stories. It makes them boring. The world isn't politically correct. Politically incorrect things happen to people, and they need to be shown without that filter.

That's not to say things can't be exploitative, but nothing I've seen so far about this game makes me think that it is.