OT: They shouldn't be allowed to ruin some franchises

[Kerensky]

Yup, they shouldn't be allowed to ruin some franchises indeed.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/jagge ... -in-action

What a disappointment.

[impar]

MWTactics?
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/02/14/mechw ... ervations/

[VonHob]

I thought that I saw that some guys in their spare time were rewriting X-Com like the original as a free / low cost download with the original turn based fun. There's a utube video of it somewhere. Think that it's supposed to be coming out soon.

Is it me, or are the old games just, so much better than the constant FPS that seem to come out all the time now?

I still prefer Civ 2 rather than the overblown and ugly civ 3,4 ...

Maybe I'm just an old Volksturm myself!

[VPaulus]

I thought that I saw that some guys in their spare time were rewriting X-Com like the original as a free / low cost download with the original turn based fun. There's a utube video of it somewhere. Think that it's supposed to be coming out soon.

I think you're referring to Xenonauts.
http://www.xenonauts.com/

[bebro]

There's also this: http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/News

It's not really X-Com, but a free TBS in the same tradition. Though the 3d maps might not be everyone's cup of tea...

[KeldorKatarn]

Yep, JA... those guys were total morons anyway. They actually had a poll in their forums about whether or not to make it turn based or plan-and-go. The vast majority went turn based.

Guess what. They cleaned up the forum and anounced that they'd go plan and go after all.
Then in an interview video one of the devs actually went ahead and said that it has to be 3d and that a 3d engine is no good for tile based combat which was why they couldn't do turn based... the most idiotic excuse I have ever heard.

I won't say anything about the publisher since my employer is working with those...

[VonHob]

Xenonauts, thats the one. Basically looks much like the original x-com which was great.

Hopefully more developers will start to consider how good some of these old games were and stop focussing on endlessly better graphics, poor gameplay and always FPS!

[VPaulus]

Xenonauts, thats the one. Basically looks much like the original x-com which was great.

Hopefully more developers will start to consider how good some of these old games were and stop focussing on endlessly better graphics, poor gameplay and always FPS!

... And lousy corridor FPS, with no soul.
Even the fps genre is decaying, thanks to CoD. I miss NOLF and a lot of other good FPS.

[VPaulus]

My sentiment exactly. I dunno if I'd even vote it that high though.
And shipping WITH DLC already available? That's just bad taste I'm sorry. DLC at release should be baked into the game.

Take a look at ME3. Day one launch and you've already a DLC. From my understanding M$ tried to sell it before ME3 was even released.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/22/mass- ... ollectors/
Can a moderator use rude language?

[Kerensky]

My sentiment exactly. I dunno if I'd even vote it that high though.
And shipping WITH DLC already available? That's just bad taste I'm sorry. DLC at release should be baked into the game.

Take a look at ME3. Day one launch and you've already a DLC. From my understanding M$ tried to sell it before ME3 was even released.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/22/mass- ... ollectors/
Can a moderator use rude language?

It's a little long, but you will enjoy this British fellow and his thinking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0vrJ-y2zM

Personally, I will still buy ME3 (because I've never played any ME games, and I want to try them) but I just won't buy the semi-mandatory DLC. I'll just visit youtube to see what extra dialogue/missions I missed.

[pipfromslitherine]

Day zero DLC gets planned in, usually from the very start. It's budget (and usually team) is seperate from the main game. I think people getting worked up about it somehow think that the game gets finished, and then the DLC pulled out of it. But that just doesn't happen. If nothing else it would be a nightmare to try and extract it cleanly so it could slot back in.

To put another way - without its seperate revenue stream, it wouldn't exist. I do see how it's possible to see this in a poor light, but it does seem to require a pretty negative view of the developers.

I've played all the ME's, and they are great, without buying any DLC. But some people love it - that's the beauty .

Cheers

Pip

P.S. Not sure if this thread might have a better home in the General forum? Would be easy to move - what would people think?

[VPaulus]

I like it here, in spite being OT. But if others agree with you, PiP, I've no objection at all.

As for the DLC, yes I confess I usually see AAA developers through a negative prism. Still think like Kerensky, that DLC should be only release after the main game release and to complement it. In the "good old days" we had expansions, and they were truly expansions. Instead of expansions, nowadays we've is DLC, with doubtful quality content.

As far is it concerns ME, I still think the first one was better than the second one. In spite of all the defects (less RPG), I've also enjoyed to play ME2. It's pure sci-fi and I need it.
I'll buy ME3 too, even when I've no hope in being as good as the first one.
If you want to play it correctly, Kerensky, you'll have to play ME, ME2 and only after ME3. That to fully understand the story arc.
I was almost giving to temptation, to play the two again before playing ME3.
One thing I still say about ME franchise, it has iMO, one of the best ever game soundtracks.

[Rood]

Well one franchise that isn't being ruined is Diablo, was luckily to get into the beta for Diablo 3 and been playing almost every spare minute since.
The gameplay is very smooth and really fun, more than Diablo 2 (which I still play on and off aswell).
There are some server issues (login and public games) and some interfaces issues and a few bugs here and there in the beta but on the whole it seems it's gonna be a real winner when - finally - it's getting released.

[impar]

Well one franchise that isn't being ruined is Diablo, was luckily to get into the beta for Diablo 3 and been playing almost every spare minute since.

You sure?
Blizzard tells gamers to lower expectations for Diablo III

[huertgenwald]

Well, Rood, i think you're rather lonely with your notion about D3!
Especially since Beta 13 i presume, it'll be a complete desaster !

[Kerensky]

Well, Rood, i think you're rather lonely with your notion about D3!
Especially since Beta 13 i presume, it'll be a complete desaster !

The thing is, they aren't worried about making the best game they can. They are working to make the best SELLING game they can.
Stripping out long promised features to ease development of the console port?
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3967597741
Removal of all mechanisms for party management and custom game creation in favor of a system that randomly (and most important automatically) throws players together?
Yup.

Turning the awesome diablo 2 chat lobby into this abomination? Yea, the horrible window crammed into the bottom right corner there. But then since when do Console games have chat lobbies?
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4079619445
http://i.imgur.com/HW6tU.jpg

So as much as dedicated gamers are losing out in this, such players are going to be the minority in Diablo 3. They are making their product appeal to as vast as an audience as they possibly can, and are setting up the game to maximize use of the RMAH (stripping away all elements of the game that can't be monetized and sold on the Real Money Auction House) to produce steady income post release.

Good business? No doubt I'm sure. Good gaming? Not so much.
But that's okay, I plan to be a seller not a buyer in Diablo III. I'll make MORE than enough money to pay back the purchase price of the game and that will ultimately mean I basically was playing Diablo III for free (minus time investment).

So... what right would I have to complain about how they designed their game. Given I expect to play it for free, and even make more money by playing it too? I doubt I'll make enough money to quit work, but it'll be a nice little bit of extra to throw around. At this point, they are making decisions purely on 'what will generate maximum $$$' (cutting out features, improving console port viability, dumbing down game play and skill selection options to get mass appeal).
That sucks for gamers, but you know what it's their game, they can do whatever they want with it and people will buy it up. A person is smart, people are stupid. *shrug*
If we were really smart and wanted to protest the direction Diablo III is going in, we would vote with our wallets and not buy the game. And I am absolutely certain a few smart people will do just that, out of protest for what they see as a ruined and monetized game. Good luck getting that message to the MILLIONS of people who will just buy up the game like they buy up any random game you can find all over Steam or at a game store.

Ultimately in this case, how would you define ruining a franchise?
If it's a worse game but makes more money, is that really ruined? The ultra minority of people who are destroying the Diablo III forums with their complaints are just that, the ultra minority. The WoW forums look the same way, if all you did was read the forums, you would think it was the worst game in the history of the WORLD. But as loud as these people are, they ultimately represent such a tiny minority. They just seem to be a majority, until you see there are at most, ABSOLUTE MOST, maybe 1000 or 10,000 of these people on the forums. That sure sounds like a lot of people with complaints and issues, but compared to millions (still ten million in WoW, even after the disaster of an expac Cata was) who are silently playing the game?

[VPaulus]

I think I'll pass on Diablo III.
Loved Diablo II. In fact it was DIablo II that made me return to computer games after a few years of absence.
For the same style there will other good contestants like Grim Dawn:
http://www.grimdawn.com/index.php
The best games I'm expecting this year, are coming from small and indie developers.

[Kerensky]

I think I'll pass on Diablo III.
Loved Diablo II. In fact it was DIablo II that made me return to computer games after a few years of absence.
For the same style there will other good contestants like Grim Dawn:
http://www.grimdawn.com/index.php
The best games I'm expecting this year, are coming from small and indie developers.

Anyone who is actually smart (smart meaning they are paying attention to what's going on in the gaming world at large and not having their heads buried in development of their own title) will rush their Diablo clone out RIGHT $%^&ING now (I'm looking at you Torchlight 2) because first of all, the people who are DYING to play Diablo III will want something similar to Diablo III to throw their money at to get their 'fix' and burn some time before Diablo III comes out. And then once Diablo III finally hits, all of these games are going to have no chance except to get labeled as a cheap Diablo III knock off by the gaming community at large. Regardless of the fact that their development process actually started long before Diablo III's release date. But people don't care about that, all they'll do is compare it to Diablo III.

[VPaulus]

If it's a worse game but makes more money, is that really ruined?

It depend in the angle which you want to look into. The way I see, certainly it ruins. More and more the numbers are on the side of the casual player, who sits in the couch, with a gamepad in the hand playing in a large TV. These new generation of players (not so new) are being feed and be the whole and sole focus of the AAA gaming industry. So that's why we've more than ever such uninteresting games, most are becoming just interactive movies or corridor shooters.
I was a casual player until 10 years ago. Suddenly I've becoming one of those minorities that you referred, and now called hardcore players. The irony is that I didn't change the way I choose my games or how I do played them. It's how the industry gaming becoming essentially an entertainment industry, that changed my position in the gaming scale.
However I'm quite positive... The indies and the small developers are offering better products has they have never done before. They are carrying, IMO, the computer gaming flag, while the video games are left for the AAA. It's OK, as long it's profitable. And it seem that's what's been happening lately with a lot of indie and small studios titles.

[VPaulus]

Anyone who is actually smart (smart meaning they are paying attention to what's going on in the gaming world at large and not having their heads buried in development of their own title) will rush their Diablo clone out RIGHT $%^&ING now (I'm looking at you Torchlight 2) because first of all, the people who are DYING to play Diablo III will want something similar to Diablo III to throw their money at to get their 'fix' and burn some time before Diablo III comes out. And then once Diablo III finally hits, all of these games are going to have no chance except to get labeled as a cheap Diablo III knock off by the gaming community at large. Regardless of the fact that their development process actually started long before Diablo III's release date. But people don't care about that, all they'll do is compare it to Diablo III.

You know that's not so bad. The same it happened with Diablo I and Diablo II. And some of those studios who produced those "clones", are nowadays "prospering" and producing more interesting games and sometimes even extending it. For example Larian Studios
I still say always the same. If a game is good, it will always have all the chances of selling and be profitable. And with it, initiating it's own franchise.