62 replies to this topic

[x_byakugan_x]

Here's on of my IT GOES BOOM failures.

[CakeCom]

Was kind of funny.

Finally got It Goes Boom, was a cunt.

[Shaggy]

poor byakugan was so close nt bro lol

[Kalanit]

i like both Seven Souls Online
Spirit Tales
MechWarrior Online
Carte: Online TCG
google plus games
facebook games
online games

Edited by Kalanit, 17 February 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[Spowis]

Battlefield 3, Chopper combat is fun.

[Scoty]

Out of those two, Battlefield 3 by far. However, it feels closer to being Bad Company 3 than Battlefield 3. DICE have watered it down so much to cater for noobs, they've went from being one of my top devs to one I have no care for.

[CakeCom]

Somewhat irrelevant, but back to the EA Argument.

EA is now only publishing games that have multiplayer as a feature.

I don't care if you work for EA. If you're partnered with EA. If you're paid by EA to say good thing about EA.
That is bad.

That is just so, so bad.

If every game publisher in the world had followed that philosophy, we wouldn't get great singleplayer experiences like Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Portal (1), etc.
EA's paving a path, that once again, if everyone follows, will help ruin the video game industry.

Imagine if ALL video game publishers joined this idea?

We'd be FUCKED. The only singleplayer games would be indies and that may SOUND fine in theory, but some of the best singleplayer experiences were published by big-time names.

Just look at Assassin's Creed 2, Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil 4, etc.

Even Knights of the Old Republic was a great singleplayer experience.
So now EA won't publish KOTOR3 if it doesn't feature multiplayer in someway?

Fuck EA. Fuck 'em hardcore.

(Back on topic, Battlefield 3 is definitely the superior choice, despite EA being fucknuggets. It's a beautiful game and plays like a dream. It has tons of problems, but many positives to go along with them. MW3 is MW2 thrown into a microwave and cooked for 60 seconds.)

[The_Con-Sept]

Multi player should just be a side project as an added bonus. I know too many gamers who skip single player games because they need that constant testosterone fix. Even if the game is a multi player only game they won't buy it (Warhawk and Counter strike). Why? Because it doesn't have a story mode. It doesn't matter how much they cost to them but if there is no campaign mode they don't touch it.

The every day gamer seems to be easily distracted by anything. Sleeping dogs is a perfect example of just how fast you can get confused in a story line because gamers don't pay any attention to small name drops. Even though you spent a good amount of time with that character.

I know this sounds like a completely derailed argument but what I am trying to say is that multi player games are becoming rather boring. Resident evil 6 might have a fresh new idea where you can take over enemies in someone else's game but I hope it's not another left for dead clone.

Every shooter I buy doesn't seem to change much. Not even Starhawk. It's point and shoot. Fighting games is about how you juggle people in the air without them getting up.

We need a new multi player experience. I am going to try that Tokyo jungle game to see if it is any different than say a .... I don't know. I was talking to a friend back in the day about a game where you create a monster and just fight other monsters online until you are the last one left. You create alliances with random people and betray them until the number 1 spot has been filled. As you kill characters in the game your monster grows at random. The more you win the bigger your monster becomes. Depending on how many you took out determines your size. If you took out the top player you would still only gain 1 level as to where the second top player would still be a great challenge to defeat because you cheap shifted the main leader. The world would reset after a winner was finally the only one left standing. It would start all over again. But sadly that game won't ever exist.

We need something new. And not flying body kills. Something completely new. And that is something hard to master but I am bored with everything already.

[way2lazy2care]

EA is now only publishing games that have multiplayer as a feature.

That depends on what you consider 'multiplayer'. SSX had multiplayer, but it's primary multiplayer feature was just async multiplayer like mirror's edge, which is essentially a leader board with replays attached to the game.

I'm not even sure this is bad so long as it doesn't affect the quality of the single player game. I'm not really sure about the logic behind this argument. You are essentially arguing for less content. I don't understand why that would be great in any situation. It's there for people who want it and avoidable for people who want to avoid it.

And I will say, multiplayer modes can surprise you. Conker was primarily a single player game, but Conker: Live and Reloaded had one of the most fun multiplayer modes I've ever played. It was actually so good I stopped playing single player because I was too busy playing multiplayer. Chaos theory's multiplayer mode was one of my favorite multiplayer experiences ever. Uncharted 2-3 were both solid, but they both had multiplayer (I didn't play multiplayer, but the single player was still good). You brought up AC. The AC2 expansions (both solid games) had a pretty interesting multiplayer mode; the games didn't suffer for it.

You are claiming the same fallacy you did with DLC; that removing multiplayer will increase the quality of the single player experience, which is not always the case.

It is a choice between A+B or just A more often than it is a choice between A+B or A+C.

So now EA won't publish KOTOR3 if it doesn't feature multiplayer in someway?

Wat? There aren't even rumors about KOTOR3 other than that obsidian would like to do it.

We'd be FUCKED. The only singleplayer games would be indies and that may SOUND fine in theory, but some of the best singleplayer experiences were published by big-time names.

A lot of indies are pushing multiplayer too. Turns out a lot of people like interacting with other people.

I still don't understand why you blanket a publisher with judgement rather than judging games on their individual merits.

edit: I'd understand if you judged developers more than judging a publisher. At least then you have an idea of the skill level of the people contributing on the product. Publisher just makes very little sense. EA publishes over a huge number of developers that all have widely ranging skill sets/specialties.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 28 September 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[CakeCom]

http://massively.joy...ne-with-gaming/

Sorry it's obvious you don't keep up with gaming news Way2, here ya go mate.

Now try to talk about it like you know what you're talking about.

*Edit* Having multiplayer isn't a bad thing.

Solely investing into games with multiplayer tacked on is.

It's forcing developers who might have otherwise not have multiplayer so they could focus on Singleplayer to tack on some shitty gametype that no one's gonna want to play.

Edited by CakeCom, 28 September 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

http://massively.joy...ne-with-gaming/

Sorry it's obvious you don't keep up with gaming news Way2, here ya go mate.

Now try to talk about it like you know what you're talking about.

*Edit* Having multiplayer isn't a bad thing.

Solely investing into games with multiplayer tacked on is.

It's forcing developers who might have otherwise not have multiplayer so they could focus on Singleplayer to tack on some shitty gametype that no one's gonna want to play.

That article doesn't say anything about multiplayer. It's about cloud gaming and internet/social services.

[The_Con-Sept]

What he is trying to point out is that if a game doesn't have an online mode of any sort then ea won't even green light the project. Tokyo jungle has an online leader board but I find it to be a waste of internet space to be honest. It's a single player/local multi player game. But the multi player on it just makes the difficulty rise. So because Tokyo jungle doesn't allow you to connect to another player online they wouldn't even consider Tokyo jungle for launch. Because it's passive multiplayer. A game like motorstorm RC might be considerable to ea but not pixel junk racers.

Also EA has been hit up again with yet another claim that they are recycling games. Maybe you have some insight on the FIFA 13 Wii version? Is FIFA 13 on the Wii just a port of FIFA 12?

Edited by The_Con-Sept, 06 October 2012 - 04:26 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

Also EA has been hit up again with yet another claim that they are recycling games. Maybe you have some insight on the FIFA 13 Wii version? Is FIFA 13 on the Wii just a port of FIFA 12?

Idk what they did on Fifa 13, but I worked on Fifa 12 for the wii. Like I've always said, I don't really care who publishes the game. I care about whether or not the game is worth it. If it's not I don't buy it and move on.

edit: I'm not sure why my position is being misconcieved as "EA is great." My position is, and always has been, that they're a publicly traded game publisher/developer. Like all publicly traded game developers/publishers, they will do good and bad things. I will not let that stop me from buying good games released by anybody; EA definitely has the talent and the track record to at least be capable of releasing great games. I judge games on an individual basis and don't by games I take issue with regardless of publisher or developer and buy games that I find to be of good quality regardless of publisher or developer.

I don't see why that is so controversial.

Edited by way2lazy2care, 08 October 2012 - 08:00 AM.

[Skyy4Life]

personally im a fan of mw3. im not saying i dont like bf3, cuz i think its a sick game, but i like mw3 better. mw3 is much faster pace gameplay for multiplayer, that what i like about it

[CakeCom]

I don't see why that is so controversial.

Because you're supporting a company that is on the fast track of turning the gaming industry into a pile of shit.

People think gaming is getting bad now, with yearly CoD/Bf3 releases and Gears of War clones but EA could solely make this much, much worse if people continue to support them when they do things that are just plain wrong.

[Original Sin]

Because you're supporting a company that is on the fast track of turning the gaming industry into a pile of shit.

People think gaming is getting bad now, with yearly CoD/Bf3 releases and Gears of War clones but EA could solely make this much, much worse if people continue to support them when they do things that are just plain wrong.

People think gaming is getting bad now, because they're blinded by their rose tinted glasses of the past.

Gaming is fucking amazing now. It's an exciting time to be apart of it. But if all you're going to do is look at the negatives then that's all you'll ever see.

[Original Sin]

Seriously. How the hell do I keep double posting!?

Edited by Original Sin, 08 October 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[way2lazy2care]

Because you're supporting a company that is on the fast track of turning the gaming industry into a pile of shit.

No I'm not. I'm quite clearly not supporting anything but good games. You are mistaking my passivity toward them for support because you believe the only valid position is attacking them. As I'm not a child, I have no reason to attack a company whose most general offense is making bad video games. If my standard for attacking something were that low I'd be too exhausted to actually lead any sort of meaningful life let alone be able to play any games period.

Do agree with OS as well.

[Skyy4Life]

Because you're supporting a company that is on the fast track of turning the gaming industry into a pile of shit.

People think gaming is getting bad now, with yearly CoD/Bf3 releases and Gears of War clones but EA could solely make this much, much worse if people continue to support them when they do things that are just plain wrong.

i think gaming has come a long way from what it was.
alot of companies are a little more worried about graphix than the game, but over all
i think gaming right now is at a hell of a badass point.

[CakeCom]

http://news.cnet.com...own-24-percent/

I dunno man

I know nothing came out in September Except 2+ triple A games but this is a bad sign for gaming.

If this continues, I'll be blaming EA and Activision till the day I die.

Mainly Activision tbh, but EA is also contributing to the bs fairly regularly.