kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Before I even watch this, I am going to say that the answer should be a resounding, "Fuck no, bugs shouldn't be ignored when reviewing modern game releases, especially if it's game-breaking bullshit. If game companies don't want bad reviews for their games, then game companies shouldn't release broken roach motels. Period."

Now, to actually watch the video...



Again, as usual, I mostly find myself agreeing with them. You can't ignore that shit. Also, I don't mind the idea that was brought up of a follow-up review, as long as said follow-up doesn't completely supersede the original review. It's fair to say that a game is better now, but it's also fair to leave the original review intact, just to call out and shine a spotlight on the ever shitty practices of the modern video game industry. Even if a game on release comes with a day 1 patch to fix most of the issues that may have been in the review copies that were sent out to reviewers, it was still the case that the game companies thought it was a good idea to send out broken copies to reviewers, so the reviewers should report as such.

That said, the idea put forward by Ian that some games will "pass you by" if you don't get them at or near launch because of online crap or whatever... that's utter bullshit, in my opinion. If a game is so time-sensitive as to be mostly irrelevant just a few months or a year later, then... well... bugs or not, that game really wasn't worthwhile to begin with, and it's no loss whatsoever to me if I "missed out" or whatever. Simple as that.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to worry about any of this shit anymore. Even the "might miss out on online games" issue doesn't bother me, because, aside from very rare, occasional, nigh nonexistent outliers, I have no interest in playing online games at all.

(EDIT) Oh, and what about the issue of games that get demonstrably worse after patches? I think maybe those should also receive update reviews, especially if the "worse" part was actually new, unwanted, disliked features and not merely bugs. (/EDIT)

(EDIT 2) And here is a comment under that video:

"As someone in the industry, we basically say this, if you want to review a game before release, you cannot complain about bugs, especially since you wanted a prerelease copy, and in most cases that means an unfinished product, But you can disclose them in your review. One of the reasons alot of publishers dont want reviews up before a games release is because they expect a reviewer to quickly go over the 0day release, to see if any of the complaints they had are gone or even in some cases, if new problems arise. Alot of gamers like to say games are getting more broken on release. In reality games are becoming more and more complex, and in recent years alot of publishers are demanding that developers dont share any new libraries of tech releases, meaning alot of the same mechanics have to be reprogrammed again and again."

In other words, the same old "Baaaawwww, modern games are different now, more complex now, so don't be so hard on us poor, widdle developers, it's the reviewers fault or it's the publishers fault, not our fault at all ever, waaaaaaah!" bullshit that you typically see these days. In many cases, yeah, sure, it's executive meddling that fucks over a game, through no (or little) fault of the developers... but in just as many cases, it's simply that the developers themselves were indeed shit and that's why the game is shit. (/EDIT 2)
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
Embedded tweets behind cut )

This is the game I'm talking about. It's free to play (with a microtransaction store that I had absolutely zero intention of ever using), so if you want to give it a shot, you'll lose nothing except time (82 minutes in my case). Like I said above, the game was shaping up to be an amazing experience... but then I got randomly disconnected from the server for no apparent reason and was booted out to the main menu, and when I logged back in I was in the town hub. This utterly annihilated any and all interest I have in ever trying this game again.

Seriously, FUCK this online-only horseshit to hell and back and then to hell again, where it should forever remain, since that's where it came from to start with. This is why I never bought and will never buy Diablo III. But I thought I'd at least give Path of Exile a chance, given that it was free and I'd heard good things about it. If it had an offline option, I actually might be willing to pay money for it, given that what I did play of it was pretty great. But if I can only play online, with the ever looming threat of being randomly disconnected and booted out of the game for no good reason, then Path of Exile can fuck off and die for all I care.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
"Following the departure of Hideo Kojima from Konami, the publisher has taken over the Metal Gear reins and announced Metal Gear Survive. A multiplayer shooter that seems to have very little to do with what Metal Gear is about."



Wait, hold on, you mean that Konami is still trying to make video games? I thought they gave all that up to get into mobile bullshit and pachinko horseshit. ¬_¬

So... multiplayer-only Metal Gear, huh? Yep, that sounds about as terrible of an idea as multiplayer-only Legacy of Kain and online-only Shenmue.

Rest in piss, Konami. Stick a fork in them. They're done.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
Shit like this is why I almost completely avoid multiplayer games, in particular, and modern video games as a whole, in general.

And Ubisoft is seeking to punish players who exploit these glitches? Well, hey Ubisoft, how about you don't have glitches like this in your shitty fucking game to begin with? Then maybe players wouldn't be able to "exploit" them. I think perhaps that consumers should punish Ubisoft by not buying these broken turds that they have the gall to call video games. Will such a thing ever actually happen, though? No, because most players have their lips too firmly secured to the sewer pipe to pull away now.

Also, bugs or not, these big online multiplayer games are all too often seen way too much as "serious fucking business," both by the creators of the game and by the playerbase of the game, to be even remotely fun, at least for me. And, so, that's why I avoid them like the plague.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
"Another Kain bites the dust"

Yeah, Pat ranting about this on Twitter is how I first heard about it.

Anyway, I am gobsmacked... gobsmacked, I say... that this thing didn't come on like gangbusters. Oh wait, no I'm not. At all. Damn thing didn't even make it out of beta. This is basically one of those "and nothing of value was lost" sort of things, to me at least. (EDIT) Oh, and all the people in the comments under that Polygon article bawwing about how it's so terrible that the developers have lost their jobs and whiny waah and all that shit... fuck off. Just fuck right off. I'm not responsible for them. Yeah, sure, it's bad when anyone loses their job, but given that their job at that point was to make this shit, it wasn't too worthwhile a job in the first place, now was it. So yeah, it was a good thing that this game was cancelled. Good riddance, indeed. Oh, and the people in the comments there hoping that Square Enix will sell the Legacy of Kain franchise to Blizzard can also fuck right the hell off. Fuck Blizzard and fuck Square Enix both. (/EDIT)

As such, since this stupid bullshit has failed, like it was pretty much always destined to fail, in my opinion, instead of hoping that maybe now they'll start working on a proper LoK game, I'll simply say that the series had a good run, and requiescat in pace and all that. But as far as I am concerned, Legacy of Kain has been dead since Defiance, when lead writer Amy Hennig jumped ship to Naughty Dog (and has since left them for Visceral Games to work on Star Wars stuff, apparently). Anyway, the chances of anyone seeing another LoK game at this point is probably slim to none. Or, perhaps I should clarify... the chances of anyone seeing another good, or at least halfway decent LoK game at this point is probably slim to none.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Note: His actual Angry Rant only goes until around twelve or so minutes in, so it's not nearly as long as that 29:35 length might indicate. I stopped watching when it cut to him and Other Joe just fucking around or whatever.

He basically says the game is good, as far as the bare bones basics of the gameplay is concerned, but is lacking content. He says it should have been labelled "Early Access." In short, he's saying some, but not all, of what a lot of other people who are complaining about this game are saying about it. He didn't give the game nearly as much shit or get nearly as angry about it as I was hoping he would, though.

Because Angry Joe is a reviewer (perhaps even, dare I say it, a professional one [not to be overly insulting to him to call him such]), I no longer hold it against him that he still buys this shit (though why he needed to buy the Collector's Edition to review [or... not review, as is apparently the case, and I have no idea what he's talking about when he says he's working on a Street Fighter game, maybe it's in a video of his I haven't watched], I don't know), even though he should know by now how the modern video game industry rolls. He is, I suppose, performing a service by letting people know about this shit.

The problem, of course, is do people actually listen to what he says? I'm not sure, given that lots of people in the comments are being fanboy apologists and/or reputation management drones about the whole thing and are shilling the fuck out of the game, even despite all the bullshit surrounding it.

In semi-related news, I couldn't even finish watching the SBFP Friday Night Fisticuffs video for SFV. (Which, in my not so humble opinion, should have been a Saturday Morning Scrublords video. ¬_¬ But then, they only use that label for games that they, themselves, actually find to be bad or stupid or whatever, and apparently, at least from what I watched of it, they think SFV is great.) I got as far as Pat saying "This game is so good. It lived up to everything that I always wanted it to be." Then I just had to sigh and close the tab. For what little it's worth, they were using a pre-release copy provided to them by Capcom, as they say at the beginning, but still...

If, and only if, I could get SFV in another Humble Bundle with a bunch of other games for $15 or less at some nebulous point in the future, then maybe I would buy such a bundle (but even then, I wouldn't be buying such a bundle for SFV). Otherwise, what I have seen of this game is incredibly underwhelming, enough so that I wouldn't even pay $5 on Steam for it, by itself. I am apathetic at best about Street Fighter V, and actively antipathetic at worst. And this will likely be the last post I make about it, unless something else comes up concerning it that happens to catch my attention.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
...and is currently sitting at an aggregate 4.2 user rating on Metacritic (for the PS4 version)[1] and a 44% "Mixed" user rating on Steam.

Yeah. How about that.

/me idly goes back to not giving a shit about Street Fighter V.

(Adding the asinine anti-singleplayer trend tag here, since Street Fighter V is retardedly online-only, but this is another case where I wish that I had originally made the tag be "asinine anti-offline trend" instead, since that's more what it's actually about, but I have linked to it too much in other posts to change it now.)

[1] - And notice how I didn't even mention what the aggregate score from the professional critics was, because I haven't given a shit about those guys for a very long while now. (Not that user ratings are all that much more useful on that site either, mind you, but still, in this case, I think it's not entirely out of line.)
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)

Here's a list:
10. Assassin's Creed: Syndicate
9. Need for Speed 2015
8. Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide
7. Heroes of Might and Magic VII
6. Batman: Arkham Knight (PC)
5. Halo 5: Guardians
4. Rainbow Six: Siege
3. Mad Max
2. Infinite Crisis
1. Star Wars: Battlefront

It's pretty bad when there were so many shitty games released that he had to do two separate top 10 lists just to cover them all. And several of the ones on this list are games that he said could have and probably should have been in the "worst" list as well, but he just didn't include them there for whatever reasons.

Also, more of the games on this list were on there due to DLC microtransactions and other such modern video game industry bullshit, instead of simply because they were terrible games in their own right, so if anything, this list for me is probably the more relevant of the two lists.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
Here is an article, written back in August of 2015, that I found while doing searches for "video game industry crash," after writing a comment in response to [livejournal.com profile] owsf2000's newest post about the state of the video game industry. I think it's a pretty good article, and one that I could have (and indeed probably already have) written myself.
kane_magus: (kanethumb1)
(EDIT) They've already updated the installer for the Double Dragon games to make the Galaxy client actually optional. Why this wasn't the case already, and why the Galaxy client was originally hidden in the installer for these games, I don't know (though I have theories as to why, and I'm sure you can guess what they are), but there you go. As for why the Galaxy client is still required for multiplayer and why LAN play isn't possible, GOG says "Galaxy is necessary for multi so that you can play with people from GOG or Steam as it offers Cross-Play multiplayer. As for LAN not being available, that's up to the devs." So... if LAN play had been possible in these versions of the games (and the store page for the games says "Double Dragon Trilogy supports local 2-player co-op," which implies that it does), but now is not possible... yeah, that still makes no sense to me. In any case, I'm still not going to be buying anything else from GOG, at least for a while, until this "non-optional" Galaxy client issue is more properly addressed and sorted out. (/EDIT)

The new GOG Galaxy client, which they claim is "fully optional," is apparently being non-optionally included and installed with some games, according to some of the reviews for those games, such as Double Dragon Trilogy (which is part of the current sale, and which was one of only two things, along with Mortal Kombat 1+2+3, that I had even remotely cared about in that sale, though now I won't be buying anything at all from them). And, apparently, if you uninstall the client because you didn't want this "optional" client forced upon you, then the multiplayer in these games no longer works.

With this and other recent bullshit, CD Projekt is really starting to go down the tubes, joining the rest of the game industry which was mostly already down there.

(I really wanted to change my "asinine anti-singleplayer trend" tag to be a more accurate "asinine anti-offline trend" tag, but I've already used the former too many times as a hardcoded link in previous entries to change it now. In this case, it's not the singleplayer that is broken because of the online bullshit, but the multiplayer, as apparently offline LAN games in those Double Dragon games do not work, with or without the client.)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Right here is a very good example of why Fable III was the last game in the Fable series that I cared about (and even it was a fairly big letdown from the far superior Fable II).

"The free-to-play model will follow a system similar to that of League of Legends." Ugh... just... just... fucking ugh. Seriously, Lionhead? Seriously? *facepalm+headdesk* If I'd actually had even a little bit of interest in this new Fable game up to this point, this news would have been almost as disappointing to me as the news that the new Legacy of Kain game was a "free-to-play PVP multiplayer game" or that the new Shenmue game was a "social game" or whatever the fuck. Fortunately for me, I didn't, so... yeah. *shrug*

Anyway, requiescat in pace, Fable series. Like many other once-decent series, your time has passed. Your first three games are still pretty good, though, I guess.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Remember Shadow Realms? That "4v1 asymmetrical online RPG" thing that I had some tiny amount of interest in, until I found out it was going to be a "4v1 asymmetrical online RPG"?

Yeah, as the headlines says, it got canceled. Imagine my utter astonishment at this news. *eye-roll*
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
*weary sigh*

I guess this is just the age we live in now, where releasing unfinished, broken games is the norm, rather than the exception. Glad I was already determined not to buy this game anyway, thanks to the online only bullshit.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
I agree with the majority of this article. The only real points of contention I have are with his unwarranted personal dig against ("non-celebrity") Wil Wheaton at the beginning, and his assertion that more agency to punish other players should be given to players, rather than less. I mean, he freely admits that humans are assholes, and they are, but he also says that players should be allowed to police themselves (as opposed to having punishments handed down from on high by the game developers or mods hired by them or whatever), as if he didn't know full well that said players, tending toward asshattery as they are generally wont to do, wouldn't abuse the living hell out of such a system. It's one thing to promote individual accountability, but another thing entirely to hand assholes the tools to be even bigger assholes.

For example, he praises the invasion system in Dark Souls as, apparently, a good example of how this sort of thing is done right. Well, I personally feel that the invasion system in Dark Souls is by far the very worst thing about that game series, and it is why I have played through almost the entirety of Dark Souls 1 completely hollow (and thus impervious to player invasion). There are no downsides to this for me, as I am similarly entirely uninterested in summoning in other players to help me (since they can often be even bigger encrusted dickholes than the invaders who are actively trying to kill you). If I go human at all, it's only to kindle a bonfire, and then I immediately throw myself off the nearest cliff, just so that I can become hollow again and thus don't have to deal with other random assholes showing up and briefly ruining my otherwise singleplayer game. The only reason I don't just go offline entirely is because I at least like to see the player messages strewn about, though roughly even half of those are likely to be liars and trolls anyway. It's also why I'm hesitant to buy and play Dark Souls II, since in that game you can still be invaded even if you're hollow, albeit more rarely.

In any case, as I've said many times before, this sort of shit, generally speaking, is why I almost never play multiplayer games at all, ever.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
"We're still going to look at how to do [an offline mode]. You know, It's not off the table. We just can't promise it, and that's caused a lot of people to get very angry. I am always upset when people are [angry]—especially when they've backed us—but we had a vision and we're trying to stick as closely to that vision as possible, which is to do something new."

If they can't promise it, then why the hell did they, you know, promise it? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because I already know full well why they promised it: they wouldn't have gotten enough funding and the Kickstarter would have failed otherwise.

(Disclaimer: I did not watch that 20 minute interview at all.)
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)

You know, in case you're one of the few on my LJ friends list who isn't also on [livejournal.com profile] owsf2000's, for whatever reason, or else otherwise missed it. Essentially, he sums up most of the reasons why I give almost no fucks whatsoever about modern video games anymore.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
As they fucking well should. Of course, the way Braben is talking, he makes it seem more like he's magnanimously extending a bothersome and unnecessary boon to the peasants rallying at his castle gates with torches and pitchforks, rather than admitting that it was a thing they should have been doing in the goddamn first place. Oh well, better late than never, I suppose.


On an semi-related note, and speaking more in general than about Elite: Dangerous in particular, I've never understood this relatively recent concern that game devs have with "splitting the fanbase" of their game. This was something that came up with Diablo 3 as well. All these game devs lately are claiming that the game is online-only because they don't want to "split the community." (It's a bullshit reason, of course, since the real reason it is online-only is for DRM reasons, but let's ignore that for the moment.) Here are my questions about this. Let's say you have 100 people who want to buy your game. Out of that 100, 25 want offline singleplayer, and 25 want online multiplayer and 50 want both (the actual split may be different in one direction or another in reality, obviously, but let's go with this for now, just to simplify things). Tell me how, exactly, alienating the 25-75 that want offline singleplayer by removing offline singleplayer altogether is somehow "uniting the community," huh? Tell me how, exactly, including an offline option is somehow "splitting the community." The ones that wanted offline only would have never been a part of the multiplayer "community" anyway. Or are you truly saying that you're fine with 25-75 customers total, when you would have had 100 customers had you included an offline option? More money is better than less money, right?

But, okay, now back to reality. First of all, many of those who wanted offline only are likely going to buckle under and still cravenly buy the damn game anyway, even without it, no matter how much they might complain about it, so there's that bit out of the way. Second of all, what these game devs are really saying is that they don't care that they're fucking over the people that wanted offline singleplayer, just so long as they stick it to those damn, dirty apes who pirate their game or, worse, sell their game in a used game store. I guess the real question is do they think that the money they'll lose by people not buying their game because it doesn't have an offline option (such as myself) is less than the money they'll lose by people pirating their game (assuming that the pirates don't find a way to hack around the DRM anyway, which is not inconceivable) or selling their game used? Looks like the answer so far is that these game devs really don't care that they're angering and alienating legit potential customers by removing features just to inconvenience pirates and used game buyers/sellers (who, in the eyes of these devs, are probably indistinguishable, anyway).

kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
(EDIT) And here is the Rock, Paper, Shotgun version. They seem to be a bit more willing to take Frontier to task over this, as opposed to PC Gamer, which just seems to be more interested in reporting as is, rather than editorializing about it. And the comments under there are just as negative to this overall as they are at PC Gamer, which is nice, though there are still a few idiots trying to defend the indefensible there as there are under the PC Gamer article (probably the same idiots, it wouldn't surprise me). (/EDIT)

"Those who have already been playing the game online in the Alpha and/or Beta phases, regardless of whether they backed the project via Kickstarter or purchased access to Alpha and/or Beta through our online store, are not eligible for a refund."

So, essentially, if you're someone who has actually played the unfinished game, such as, let's say, one of those people who were colossally idiotic enough to pay $150 to play the game early[1], then you are apparently shit outta luck for getting a refund if you wanted one now that Frontier Developments has revealed that they've been lying to you all along about including an offline mode, which might have been the main/only reason you backed them in the first place.

I hope someone files a damn class action lawsuit against these assclowns, I honestly, truly do. Then again, they've probably got one of those horseshit "you can't sue us" clauses hidden in their EULA. So completely glad I dodged a bullet by not backing this shit. Also glad that I didn't go for the higher-tier "pay us more and we'll let you test our game early" tiers on the KS projects I have actually backed in the past as well, or that I usually completely ignore the beta invites and such even if that sort of thing was included in my pledge level.

I didn't even bother to read the comments under this one, but I'm sure there are still idiots down there even now trying to defend the patently indefensible.

[1] - Remember the days when testers actually got paid to test games and didn't have to pay to test them? We're living in bizarro world now.
kane_magus: (The_Sims_Medieval)
Of course he's going to say that. Doesn't make it true, and I'm still not buying his game explicitly because of it.


kane_magus: (Default)

July 2017

23 45 678
9 1011 12131415
16171819 202122


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 02:50 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios