|823 posts found|
[Column] General: Crowfall’s Disappointing Move
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
3/25/15 5:11:32 PM
Comparing it to which color one thinks (or could argue) is better is a bit of a false equivalency, in part because the genre itself is deeply rooted in social interaction and roleplay. As such, an avatar is directly linked to the emotional response tied to the player (what keeps them emotionally invested in the outcome of the game and character itself). There is some pretty concrete reasoning involved for why gender options matter for this genre and target audience, almost objectively so.
Gender locking itself has come to have a fairly negative connotations with this genre as well. Its some what of a taboo, even if its only for certain races... the presence of such a restriction will still cause a negative reaction. It probably would have been better for them to not include those classes/races altogether, especially if they felt few would actually play them.
Either way all these are just opinions and dialog, at the end of the day it just comes down to the simple fact that the players will vote with their wallet.
[Column] General: Crowfall’s Disappointing Move
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
3/25/15 3:30:23 PM
Crowfall was on my radar, but not anymore.
Its quite simple, I also will refuse to play a mmorpg that gender locks to avoid the development cost associated with it. Some genres you just dont do that, especially when it comes to westernized content.
Some of you might not find this a big deal, some people will. Gender locking for this genre is not something I think anyone should support or give a free pass on, though some leniency can be given at least for the fact that its not across the board genderlocking.
This is why Yoshida gets my money.
General Discussion « Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
3/21/15 5:42:15 PM
Personally, the best balance in gear acquisition I can think of comes from the early days of WoW. This was back when blue and purple items were incredibly rare. In order to get the best gear to stay competitve the player had 4 great options:
1. Random loot drops that could be found anywhere in the game. (example, killed a random mob while going from one location to another, purple staff dropped...was incredibly rare and on par with best gear at the time.)
3. PvP rewards (ranking up with PvP points or currency to earn or win gear sets)
4. Raid Dungeons
You still got recognition for each accomplishment based on the look of the item.
The worst thing you can do in a mmorpg is pigeon hole players into one kind of gameplay to get gear as one of the strengths of the genre is that it can hit multiple modes of play, solo or team play, pvp or just personal adventures in the game. No one should be valued more than the other.
With FF14, I would like to see some of the same. Gear or items that could happen from events, gambling at the golden saucer, earning faction points/rank, npc factions, crafting, and levelmetes. For collectors, each one will be a good time sink to get all the best items they can, thus a better armory system is probably needed.
[Hardware Review] General: The Alienware Alpha: Our Review
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
12/21/14 6:25:01 PM
There's certainly a market for this kind of hardware. I have been building my own PCs for awhile now but constantly find myself wanting something with a smaller profile and lower power consumption. I wouldnt be surprised if electricity cost (depending on where you live) continue to rise, and with more space due to having a smaller footprint, you can have a bit more option in terms of placement and over all desk/entertainment center.
Nothing has backfired, at all.
Fact is the game is well funded because people chose, as in freedom of choice, to donate via ship purchases to the development of a game they strongly want to see get made.
Fact is that each milestone in funding opens up new development goals. It employs more artist, more programmers, more interest in the genre itself.... you know the genre that was almost dead prior to all of this.
One of my pals bought just about every ship available, while I personally think it was a bit overboard, it was his money and he had enough of it to give for something that makes him happy, and yes he is happy. He has also spent a large sum giving out ships to people, thus increasing those interested in the game. He knows it doesnt give him any serious advantage, or that its going to make him unique. He does it because he wants to support something he feels strong about. As a result, he has been able to drive down to the Santa Monica offices and get to spend some time in their studio, as well as meet Chris Roberts. He was able to not only be inspired but learn quite a bit in regards to his own personal career path. All the more power to him... and if he some how gets burned or let down at the end of it all...then he learned a life lesson. Thats reality.
We make choices freely and live by them. People are making the choice to fund this game through the ship donation mechanic. It works for all parties involved. There should be no issue unless you are just jealous or angry at its success, which isnt really much of a larger issue as much as it is a personal one.
With enough funding, it also keeps the studio from being part of a bigger publisher. Don't forget, Chris Robert's last studio Digital Anvil was burned and gutted by Microsoft back in the day. Publishers are one of the worst parts of this line of work, they make you reliant on their money while they dictate the nature of the game, and often get rid of the devs that made it happen after its "done", they force dlc, they force drm, they generally do more damage than good and keep the studios dependent upon them to the point where they cannot be independently funded.
So there is more at stake here than just funding the game, but rather it sends the message to EA, Activision..and all those other middle men out there that they are not needed nor can they control the goods and services found in this particular industry. This is something I would gladly support, especially if you know your game history and the role publishers have played in reducing the type of content you receive as well as the studios that exist today.
[Column] General: Should Games Make Political Statements?
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
12/05/14 9:29:51 PM
The problem is that its not a slight difference in ideology at play, but something far more drastic. One can literally call it cultural marxism.
When you politicize an industry or the products, the art, the message, then it in turn becomes a target for the opposite political thought. Instead of having games being open, they end up turning into two distinct camps with different target audiences.
Do we really want games to be propaganda?
Most of those I have seen on the GamerGate side are fine with people creating different games that they wish to experience, however it becomes a big problem when its not about making new games to fit different content, but to SHAME and attack people do like whats currently available. See the cultural marxists and activist are not advocating creating their own games, but instead forcing whats present to change. They attack developers who do not fall in line with their "great leap forward" mentality. We literally are facing those who wish to police thought and content.
Its become dangerous, a bit too close to whats happened in the past with marxist and radical thought. We are not dealing with differences of opinion or diversity, we are dealing with a type of artistic fascism.
If those critics choose to shame or attack content they dont like, and people respond with criticism back they are labeled misogynist, hatemongers, oppressors. If your name is visible, emails are sent to your work place trying to get you fired, censorship happens on a massive scale. Just on reddit alone, tens of thousands of comments were deleted because they wouldnt allow criticism of the radical feminist critique. They allow no freedom of thought, oppose critical thinking and have openly mocked objectivity in reporting. For those opposing gamer gate, its more about their emotions and confirmation biases, not fact, not objective information.
This is worse than Jack Thomson, its cultural marxism under the guise of social justice (a term created by the fabian socialist) and radical feminism.
Fun response found on TY: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B36HtAZCIAA8Ngv.png:large
Video in which opposition says anyone who disagrees with the agenda should just die (shows the radical element thats trying to control the narrative via social justice and radfem): http://www.hitbox.tv/video/316600
Originally posted by rpmcmurphy
What would waking up the publishers really do or mean in real terms? If anything they forced themselves to become a middle man. Now we can have a direct developer to consumer relationship, which while it has its own set of cons to go along with its pros, its much better for gamers and developers. A successful game for example can help the studio grow and fund their next project (this also means keeping developers employed, many get laid off right after a project with the current system).
I wouldnt say they are industry leaders, nor have I made that claim. I did say though that Chris Roberts is an industry icon that pulls in some top tier talent. Theres a difference, and I do think its relevant. Regarding Elite, yes thats great too and what they are doing is feeding into SC and vice versa. Remember this was considered an uber niche market here, most publishers wouldnt even fund such projects. So every success SC makes in both funding and public perception also boosts the appeal of Elite, and what Elite does goes right back into the appeal of SC. Both are essentially growing the market and pushing the boundaries on both ends. I'm not trying to say that its CIG thats doing all the heavy lifting, but that their success and how they are going about it matters quite a bit. Without SC I doubt Elite would have the kind of attention or appeal it does now, but thats a good thing when looking at the bigger picture.
Agreed, the crowdfunding campaign just blew me away in terms of scope and capability. The direct developer to community interaction and the social network they are building around it is top notch, its a breath of fresh air. We get to see them get creative and build a community though secondary forms of content. Its really setting the bar high while also normalizing that kind of developer to consumer interaction. CIG can really branch out into many different areas if the community is set up right. We kind of see this with Steam and a major reason why I believe its done so well.
While I do not follow Star Citizen like many of its eager fanbase, I do see the importance in what its doing. Its a bit sad to see some bash SC for doing something that can potentially impact the industry in a significant way.
Some things to consider.
Chris Roberts is a gaming industry icon who has certainly earned his recognition. After Microsoft (as a game publisher) tore his game studio apart (digital anvil) he went on to produce films. Some films he produced include the Punisher, Outlander and Lucky Number Sleven. So how is this relevant to Star Citizen? Simple. Knowing how to spend money and manage large projects is a skillset tied directly to that field. This skill set makes the management of Star Citizen something we generally do not see in the games industry.
With his bad experiences tied to publishers, and often the freedom they take away as well as their amazing ability to mess up a good project, he went about making Star Citizen with the intent of keeping the publisher OUT OF IT. Basically giving them the big ol middle finger. So how is this relevant? Because the publisher is one of the greater evils in the game industry, they do more harm than good...both to the consumer and to the developer. They know games cost a lot to make, so you have to go to them to fund your project, but see they take all the benefits too leaving you as a developer with very little reward for making a successful game. This means you are constantly reliant on them, and the negative influence they have on creativity is huge.
Quite frankly, if Star Citizen succeeds, and it also shows it can raise funding for AAA level titles... it will be a huge blow to the face of third party publishers. It could start something much more open for AAA game development, something we really havent seen in a long long time.
Additionally, his combined abilities tied to both the film and game industry, Chris Roberts is able to pull in some top tier talent. For example, the concept artist has also done work on the latest Gaurdians of the Galaxy flick. The HUD designer is also the same guy who designed the HUD in Iron Man. Rarely do we see film talent and game development merge like this.
Chris bridges two worlds in the entertainment industry and the people whose careers exist in those worlds. With game development he brings additional entertainment, like the first attempt at a game art centric reality TV show (Next Great Starship). As 3d artist, this is especially something to appreciate. Many high end sponsors also believe in what he is doing, including but not limited to Wacom and Autodesk. A wacom cintiq is a professional tool, with tablet based monitors ranging between $1000-3500, and Autodesk software which is by far some of the most expensive in the industry. They wouldnt give this stuff away just for anyone.
Emerging technology also plays a huge part in all of this. Everything from the adoption to PBR (phsycially based rendering) to hardware like the Oculus Rift. What success SC has will echo across multiple fronts, even if you do not play or plan on playing SC...it will have some impact on the games and hardware you consume.
Thus you can see why people are eager to "throw" money at something they believe in. It really isnt a ponzi scheme or some great scam. If Roberts just wanted to keep making good money, he could have continued to produce films. I believe him when he saying he just wants to create the worlds he always imagined...and with where technology is now, we can do things we could only dream about in the past. The market will react to the demands of the consumer, and by showing the demand and showing theres money in the demand, it becomes much more likely to be reality.
Feature wise, its doing pretty well... but how its executed is questionable. I also found the game hard to play due to what I can only describe as a lack of quality and interesting design choices. I think between when the game was announced and the time everyone got to play it, the bar went up in terms of expectations for quality.
Blizzard wouldnt stoop that low... Zenimax on the other hand...
I just realized...Nexus looks like a giant BLUE BALL...
Seems appropriate given the circumstances...
Pfttt already level 10 and I reserved all the best names in the game so far.
Game works fine! Its the smoothest launch ever!!!
Can you explain the difference between PVP and PVE servers?
General Discussion « WildStar
5/30/14 10:58:49 PM
The more important question is...how many contested zones are there? If there are one or two, thats not so bad, even for pve players.
The review is spot on. ESO is one of the worst MMORPGs I have ever played, its just one big failure in game design. The one thing I respect and feel they did good on, which is refreshing, is to not litter every bit of empty space with randomly roaming enemies... instead there are pockets of enemies.
This game doesnt have a future outside of a f2p business model. Give it a couple of years and chances are high Zenimax will shut it down to cut cost.
I play all my games on max settings, but what you think looks good is subjective. What you not looking at is the technical aspects which make up the assets being presented. I could take a poorly made asset, toss into a game engine, apply some post effects like DoF and Bloom..and bam some would say thats great looking art. The problem is they are getting "amazed" by some processing effects, nothing more. There are some parts of the asset making process you WONT see directly... like the rigging. Characters (players, enemies, npcs) are rigged with a kind of virtual bone system. These are then animated and that gives you everything from walk cycles to neutral poses..ect. You can see when these are bad/poor when the animation comes across as poor. Some assets are more obvious, trees are a great example of poor work.
What you are probably not used to seeing is a heavy use of normal and specular texture maps, which are applied on SOME assets. These make textures look shiney, the normal maps give the illusion of depth. Some of these would be great...if they were not projected onto existing geometry like the skin of a persons body (as a form of armor replacement).
Anyways I digress, tired of beating this dead horse. I cant expect everyone to understand, only frustrating when those who dont have the gall to say someone else is wrong despite not knowing why.
Originally posted by ohioastro
Its apparent you have no idea what I was talking about nor its subject matter, either that or you just chose not to employ basic reading comprehension.
It has NOTHING to do with aesthetic or "style". If you read my post you would have gathered that by now. Its clear however that you are responding based on sentiment and limited knowledge based around assumption... I highly recommend avoiding that.
Additionally, in regards to realism... who said anything about realism? In game development, scale, scope and quality are very important parts of what sets up the visual design process. If the scope is small (smaller towns, less people, less character animation or npc behavior..ect) then the quality of assets, the scale of their behavior, can go up. If the scope is large, and you have sprawling cities, then the quality of individual assets and behavior can go down. The reason for this is cost... cost as in cpu/gpu cost.
With ESO, the scope and scale are SMALL, everything is actually being instanced with players occupying the same space but in different instances. As such the quality can actually go UP, but this wasnt done.
Originally posted by gelraen
1. The fallacy of your response is simply this... you said "ART STYLE", where as I did not. Art style is different from the actual quality of assets and the art being made. So it says to me that you might not understand the difference. A good example could be Bioshock Infinite... it has a clear style thats actually very good, which means its had a decent art director involved. Individual assets however were often very poor, lots of mirrored textures which create odd patterns and sloppy UV work.
2. As an artist who makes such content, I can speak to the objective nature of whats done poorly. What I did say was absolutely objective, yet because I dont think you understand the technical side or even what to look for, in your mind its subjective. This is in part because you do not seem to know the difference between art assets and art style.
The art is not good. Meaning the assets are either poorly made or had minimal effort put into them. They have poor use of tiled textures, theres a lack of individual assets including that which involves actual clothing, weapons and armor. Environment art is very poor. Cities and towns are a small handful of assets duplicated all over the place while also keeping it small in both scope and scale. This is 2014, no need for a 4-5 huts to = a grand city anymore. Lack of dynamics in cloth, npc behavior, rigging and animation, silhouettes for character types, environment variation and design... its all done to such minimal levels that having a $200 million dollar budget makes NO SENSE AT ALL. This is objectively poorly done work. There, again, is no excuse outside of cutting corners, to have all the armor get pasted onto the characters body as a type of skin. It tells me the artist dont understand the importance of silhouette based design, which is even more important for this particular genre.
So regarding the art, no I dont think its a subjective interpretation. I am objectively pointing out whats actually done poorly, intentionally poor or unintentionally poor.
Regarding customization... theres objectively very little outside of picking the order of character and weapon skills, as well as gear styles. You cant change the color of the gear, its usually the same asset with a slight variation every 6-10 levels. Most players really start looking the same, and with only 4 character classes...you will see the same class based skills used over and over, especially since they limit the player to 5 (alternating) slots.
3. Now when I say "I think the ESO has an identity crisis of sorts", that is clearly basing that particular paragraph as subjective. Notice the word "think". I go on to explain my rational and reasoning why it is so.
4. Regarding that last bit about why you think it might turn some mmo players off... because its more of a solo/single player game... I think thats also wrong due to the fact that as a mmorpg, it doesnt do very well, and as a single player rpg, it also doesnt do very well. The point being it manages to do neither very well, so what you have is a mediocre game in both areas. It misses out on much of what made the single player franchise great, game play wise. The single player has such few options available to them, and very little in the way of both surprise as well as what to spend their money on. Theres no mod community to add to it or make it unique. From a multiplayer point of view, they lost what makes a lot of mmorpgs great, especially with grouping, social features and both visual and gameplay progression.
Thus point #3, the identity crisis. Theres an old adage that works really well in this case, it goes something like this: "the person who chases two rabbits catches neither".
Finally, I'll end with a video that can showcase to you the difference in quality as far as art and design go, the difference between doing as little as possible and trying to do as much as possible for this particular generation.
For $150, I expect a nice box, with an art book and maybe a sound track inside, plus some statue or other collectors piece. I cant see it being worth it for just some digital content, though I wish the game wasnt f2p. Would rather pay to play or at least have the Guild Wars business model.
I am glad some are easy to please, and in a way thats more of a blessing than a curse. For others, its not so easy.
That said, I wish more people would explain WHY, with specifics, its a great game. Too often I think people dont even know why they like stuff or what makes it "great". I would argue that its not a great game, that its actually a very poorly made game. Even poorly made games can be enjoyed by some, but I dont think that changes the status of the game itself.
I think the ESO has an identity crisis of sorts, its trying to be a single player game in a multiplayer world, and it generally tends to do neither of them very well. How can anyone be immersed when you take a quest in which everyone else is doing it as you are doing it, and yet the NPCs are oblivious to the army of clones all doing the same thing. A great example of this bad design is this one quest where you have to follow an NPC and see what hes up to. Eventually you enter into a locked house and have to fight whatever he was doing inside... but it was locked.. so why then would it make sense to have a dozen players already inside killing the enemy which is tied to YOUR quest. Really bad design.
Is the animation and art good? Objectively? No. They chose to cut cost by texturing the naked "skin" of most characters. Chest armor for example is just a texture on your body, not an actual piece of armor (as in Mesh). This is kind of expected maybe for a game back in 2004, but its 2014 and theres no excuse for that other than trying to cut cost. Animations are really really bad, stiff, lifeless, very minimal. Whats the purpose of money? Time sink? Well only for bag space and horses, and if you got the collectors edition well the horse is just 1 gold.
I think they had the potential to make a great game here, but whats painfully obvious, I would hope to most people, is that they neither had the talent, experience or even time to make the game good. Sure it can be entertaining while its still fresh and new... but once you realize how recycled and minimal the entire game is, then really its kind of hard to be impressed by anything. They tried to be different, which is good, but they didnt do it well.
So enjoy it, but if you think its a great game, try to explain why its great..and not just with sentiment.
Originally posted by keithian
Your apparent hostility to anyone and anything that doesnt confirm your bias has been noted.
Lesson number 1, dont tie your self esteem to a video game/brand/company. It is silly, since as a result you end up defending it as though you are defending yourself.
That said, perhaps you are not understanding what content entails. In the patch intent list, only a small fraction of that is content. If you bothered to look at most of the complaints people had with ESO, you would know that its not the content thats bothering them... its the numerous design choices and bugs. Coincidently (i think not) that is the vast majority of what the patch intent list covers.
The simple FACT is that this list is about intent. It was Blizzard's "intent" to have player housing back when WoW was in beta, they even had the instances in major cities setup for it (though blocked) and when it came to execution it never happened. By ESO expressing intent that touches on the frustration of the players, they are in fact delaying the exodus from the game. Its a common practice, you need to give the frustrated players something to chew on, some "hope" to keep them from dropping it entirely. That is what is being done. You can be in denial all you want, and if it makes you feel better all the more power to you.
Additionally, I never said they were rushing anything, those are your words and lack of reading comprehension that has come to that conclusion. What they are doing is trying to create hope and or the impression of some form of communication that development is occurring. The general practice, btw, is that once a game goes live...the development team either gets moved onto another project or is let go...with a live team, much smaller than the original team doing the rest. The reason for this is to cut cost and generate profit. You need to assume that whatever resources they have had going into the game will not all be there post launch.
I dont think ESO will break the pattern of most mmorpgs which generally means huge losses to player base in the 2-3 month post launch period, the trend of losing subs has never been reversed based on what we have seen. Final Fantasy just released the game, which was smart and thus they broke that pattern. Will ESO have to do the same or will it be f2p soon enough? I'm putting my money on fp2 in order to recoup the rediculous $200 million dollar budget of the game.
Dont agree? Well then only time will tell. The odds would not be in your favor if so.