Like I played Oblivion, explore, see same dogs/imps every 2 yds

How is this a computer thing? The stagnation in some genres is not really hard to see... Just look at Microsoft saying "hey there is gonna be Halo 4 and a remake of the first game".

Some big budget games are still fine by me in PC and consoles, and indie gaming has some awesome titles.

The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Playing it native (no mods), the game is average at best.

lol@GOTY

PC game sales charts are quite high if you think of what's being said in this thread and what's in reality.

No it's not making as much money as consoles but it's a different animal, modding adds a great value to the games and people do it for free. Case in point: Oblivion, that game is just average without adding 500 mods.

Maybe you could think of Warcraft 3, people still buy it because of DOTA, you don't have this kind of long term value in console games.  Again it's a different market, and it's not going away.

Sorry but I'm not buying Ben's data and reasoning, or anyone in EA's free to play deparment.

I tried his Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield Play 4 Free games being a fan of the series, but they're not Battlefield games.

They are just dumbed down game lacking plenty of basic features that any multiplayer title should have, and plenty of BF games features... Like a freaking server browser. I have seen fan-made mods with server browser, but looks like it's too hard for them.

They don't let you see the server list because people will figure out how empty those games are and quit opening their wallets to buy whatever is the next "tier" of weapons that have more bullets, are more accurate, and deal more damage, and that's the big reason behind the BF:P4F creation, those EA Pay 2 win games aren't doing as well as they would want you to believe. 

Just stick to normal retail games, EA's F2P titles are garbage.

I guess the thing that saved Oblivion from being a so-so game was user made content.

Try to play it without any mods and it's as bland as possible

It's their credibility as devlopers that is dying. You can only get so far with those lifeless eye-candy games they've done recently. They must go back to their roots, analyze what was good in their old games and start improving from its models, and not devolve and have to improve a game from square zero, as if it was made in 2002.

I never understood the appeal behind the Fable games... The first one felt like a mockery of the games with decisions with them being meaningless (killing your sister doesn't make much of a difference in the world) plus too black and white. I never knew bad people could grow horns, it's like the game never decided if it wanted to be serious or not, and in the end it just becomes a joke of itself.

The npc interaction was so shallow and artificial you could hear the gears when you spammed the emotes.

Hell a indie game like Mount&Blade felt more deep in the decisions than Fable. You could approach a caraven and charge money or kill them. If it was Fable, the options would be offer your horse to help them your food and gold, or rape, then torture them and feed them to their own dogs, and get horns or a halo as the only consequence...

oh and there's some evil-meter-number that you can easily revert by throwing money at some  shrine or so.

SE is not dying but they havedn't produced a very good game in a while. They must get their priorities checked and try looking at the market instead of sticking their head where the sun doesn't shine and expect people to just hand over money for names. The same thing is happening with shooters kind of.

Perhaps because the game isn't going to get many A+ reviews and the first one wasn't excellent as well.

Originally posted by snippy64

 

---

Originally posted by Routver
Sorry but why are customers supposed to be okay with a game being poorly optimized for PC? Some companies can do ports fine, so I don't think we should just give away free passes to a pretty much well established company. This forgiving attitude will only promote more crappy ports in the future.

---

It's not a 'port'. Why are you calling it one? I don't think you understand what the word even means.

Please provide a list of online multi-player games where console and PC players exist in the same space.

Blame the other guy, he said that the game was intended for a PS3 therefore the controls are better fit for a controller rather than mouse+keyboard. So yes it is kind of like a port in that regard, which can be quite sad considering there's no "main" version.

The only two names from EA that can produce genuinely great stuff are BioWare and DICE. I'm not surprised.

Sorry but why are customers supposed to be okay with a game being poorly optimized for PC? Some companies can do ports fine, so I don't think we should just give away free passes to a pretty much well established company. This forgiving attitude will only promote more crappy ports in the future.

Originally posted by justandulas

Originally posted by Routver

I found the way they used the classic vendor system for player sold items utterly hilarious.

Do eastern MMO developers even play the games they make? Or other MMOs? Because that system is a steaming pile of shit. I thought one would have figured that out by now.

 

It sure can be fixed, but it's weird as hell how can any developer worth their salt be blind to this.

 According to the head developer for FF14

A) He hasn't touched another game since FF11 hit the market because thats all he plays (and you wonder why FF feels so outdated..)

 

B) He literally didn't try his own product (FF14) until it was in OB. Which explains alot..

SE won't change a thing or admit they screwed this up, they just come off as a company that loves the smell of their own farts. I thought 13 was bad, but they stunned me with how horrible 14 was.  I bet they don't even have the arrogance to address the poor reviews this game is receiving. If it is being received poorly by FFxivcore.com then the game has no chance. It would be as if MMO-champion rejected WoW because cata was just awful (not saying it is just an example)

It's like some japanese developer said (I think he was from Capcom), that Japan is years behind in gaming. He's spot on.

Some of the problems that are present in this game were already solved by other titles, more than five years ago.

I found the way they used the classic vendor system for player sold items utterly hilarious.

Do eastern MMO developers even play the games they make? Or other MMOs? Because that system is a steaming pile of shit. I thought one would have figured that out by now.

It sure can be fixed, but it's weird as hell how can any developer worth their salt be blind to this.

I never understood what was the big deal with Oblivion. It was as bland as you can get.

Try FreeSpace 2, can't go wrong if you're looking for space combat.

Sonic 3 & Knuckles

Zelda A Link to the Past

Metal Gear Solid

Grim Fandango

Little Big Adventure 1 & 2

Half-Life 1 & 2

Mafia

Chrono Trigger

System Shock 2

Deus Ex

Final Fantasy VI

Dungeon Keeper  & DKII

No One Lives Forever 1 & 2

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl

Prince of Persia: Sands of TIme

Looks like you were expecting something that is far from being the point of the game.

L4D games are totally into team based gameplay, akin to Battlefield series or Team Fortress 2, but instead of two teams with equal weapons/vehicles or classes, it's about survivors versus the infected with their own strengths.

In short, it's about working together  to survive. It's not about being as scary/atmospheric as Silent Hill or so.

The versus part is the most fun for me. It's all about planning ambushes (as infected) or learning what to do under pressure as a survivor. It's pretty chaotic since players can make some hard challenges in ambushes, it is pretty entartaining, you learn strategies as you watch infected players use different approaches with each part of the map, that you can try to mimic later on.

Making a successful attack on survivors requires a lot of coordination, but once you pull it off, it's quite awesome. The biggest problem is how you need a good team for a lot of fun, playing with lots of players who don't use a mic for example might suck since voice communication is really needed for it, and you might find yourself being mauled a lot playing against a better coordinated group. The game experience will vary according to how organized your team is.

Infected are quite weak, but this is to balance the game, you need to attack together to deal some damage. That's why at first the game can be quite rough to new players, you don't really know what to do, will often try attacking alone  the survivors (which is totally useless versus a team who knows what they're doing), and plenty of times you'll learn how to plan your ambushes as infected after being ambushed yourself during a survivor round, realizing good places for setting up attacks and so on. I think the game is deeper than it meets the eye.

I think the second game was released a bit too soon, and it could have waited some time for more changes, but oh well I still have fun with it.

Well bottom line that's L4D2 in a nutshell. You are a fan of team-based FPS, you'll probably enjoy it, if you're looking for a F.E.A.R.-esque game, or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (I loved the first game, but it's a different genre kind of), L4D2 has none of it.

Those guys were silly, they should have approached it from the egyptian side.

Oh wait they have a naval blockade too, but nevermind, it will be probably be overlooked because this doesn't sell well.