4386 réponses à ce sujet

[KingRanger]

Versus-XIII wrote...

Legally PS3 can get ME1 but it will have to do something like Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2.That wont be cheap.

Legally no it can't. 

[xXljoshlXx]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

It is a significant marketing advantage, mind you.

true.. ill never buy a game if it has a low score maybe rent but never buy o and mass effect could have a seperate co op mode?

[Solaris Paradox]

hamtyl07 wrote...

think of it like this you play co-op to a point like in a batlle sequince  or other combat situation but when it came down to descisions the game would go into a single player mode where you could make custom choices then after the dialog you get rejoined with the ppl you are playing through with or if they want to make it real simple just remove the choices and just play through the combat........but then again what would be the fun in that

That's the problem point, isn't it? The whole dialogue-and-exploration section would have to be re-structured to compensate. But don't mistake challenge for impossibility. If BioWare really wanted to pull it off, they could, and they would. Might mess it up a few times along the way, but eventually they'd nail a good setup.

[Batman90]

KingRanger wrote...

Because something is "critically-Acclaimed" that means about as much as a pile of steaming ****.

If something is "critically-acclaimed," that implies that the game has certain objective quality that is generally agreed upon by the gaming community.

And just because one system has more of these so called acclaimed games doesn't make it better.

/facepalm

When a system has more critically-acclaimed games than another system, the chances for a consumer feeling content with the system are naturally going to be higher than the other system.

That's why critically acclaimed games matter.

Critics give their opinions nothing more.

Critics judge based on objective quality (Or, at least, they're supposed to).

For you to put some kind of weight into that as a cause for one system being better or worse... That is just beyond idiotic.

No it isn't. It would be beyond idiotic to not take in to account the number of generally believed-to-be quality games when purchasing a console (Because that would just be being an ignorant consumer).

If you didn't like L4D, and you gave it a good review, you should be fired. 

If you can't comprehend the idea of "liking a bad movie" or "disliking a good game," then you must be mentally challenged.

[xXljoshlXx]

KingRanger wrote...

Versus-XIII wrote...

Legally PS3 can get ME1 but it will have to do something like Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2.That wont be cheap.

Legally no it can't. 

 
Hes right we(ps3 ppl) cant get mass effect legally what your proposing is like another game

[hamtyl07]

KingRanger wrote...

Versus-XIII wrote...

Legally PS3 can get ME1 but it will have to do something like Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2.That wont be cheap.

Legally no it can't. 

i will start out by saying im not an expert but i know enough to say that yes legally they cannot get me1 i would give an example on why but like i stated im not an expert so dont quote me on this but simply put if you have intelctual rights to something another company cannot take that away from you

[Batman90]

Why should anyone try and prove you wrong? You have simply stated your OPINION.

And opinions aren't the holy grail of debate avoidance. The opinion that is stronger, being backed-up with evidence and facts, is naturally going to be superior to the one that isn't. It would be retarded to say that the guy who goes around shouting "WELL IN MY OPINION MONKEYS ARE MOON MONSTERS LALALALA" can't be told he's wrong because "it's his opinion."

[xXljoshlXx]

Funny thing is im posting here like i actually played ME1 or ME2 lawl i only have Ps3 which is why im happy its coming to ps3i would get a xbox360 if i could...

[Mass Effect Alpha]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

Mass Effect Alpha wrote...

MMORPGS are the antithesis of that. They are shallow by nature to allow for the all important social gaming that's become the cancer of the RPG world.

The irony of this quote is that "social gaming" was what gave birth to the RPG genre in the first place. It used to be done on tabletops with groups of three or more people, you know. Single-player electronic games came later.

Frankly, I'd like to see one of these single-player RPGs get a good multiplayer mode. Imagine Mass Effect 3 with a three-player online co-op mode where you can invite friends to directly control your squadmates. Ah, but that would be AWESOME.

Indeed it is ironic. I was a D&D player myself when I was a kid and it was fun.
However I have always also loved sinlge player experiences. I don't need my friends around to read a book anymore than I need them to be inside an RPG with me. The addition of others besides yourslef can easily lead to complications fast. Without  a unilateral player entity  making decisions that move the game forward you can easily loose the most important parts of games like this which would be the sense of immerision a single player RPG allows. This is especially true when player B decides he wants to be an jerk and skip a cutscene or shoot somebody you're trying use persuasion on, or just talk while something is going on. How is a player who is into the game suppose to appreicate the idle banter of  an alien cities market place or the subtle changes in the music as you move from area to area. Not so easy when other people are talking to you.

Modifié par Mass Effect Alpha, 21 août 2010 - 01:42 .

[xXljoshlXx]

Mass Effect Alpha wrote...

Solaris Paradox wrote...

Mass Effect Alpha wrote...

MMORPGS are the antithesis of that. They are shallow by nature to allow for the all important social gaming that's become the cancer of the RPG world.

The irony of this quote is that "social gaming" was what gave birth to the RPG genre in the first place. It used to be done on tabletops with groups of three or more people, you know. Single-player electronic games came later.

Frankly, I'd like to see one of these single-player RPGs get a good multiplayer mode. Imagine Mass Effect 3 with a three-player online co-op mode where you can invite friends to directly control your squadmates. Ah, but that would be AWESOME.

Indeed it is ironic. I was a D&D player myself when I was a kid and it was fun.
However I have always also loved sinlge player experiences. I don't need my friends around to read a book anymore than I need them to be inside an RPG with me. The addition of others besides yourslef can easily lead to complications fast. Without  a unilateral player entity  making decisions that move the game forward you can easily loose the most important parts of games like this which would be the sense of immerision a single player RPG allows. This is especially true when player B decides he wants to be an jerk and skip a cutscene or shoot somebody you're trying use persuasion on just talk while something is going on.

I would prolly do that just to make  Player A mad....

[KingRanger]

Batman90 wrote...

KingRanger wrote...

Because something is "critically-Acclaimed" that means about as much as a pile of steaming ****.

If something is "critically-acclaimed," that implies that the game has certain objective quality that is generally agreed upon by the gaming community.

And just because one system has more of these so called acclaimed games doesn't make it better.

/facepalm

When a system has more critically-acclaimed games than another system, the chances for a consumer feeling content with the system are naturally going to be higher than the other system.

That's why critically acclaimed games matter.

Critics give their opinions nothing more.

Critics judge based on objective quality (Or, at least, they're supposed to).

For you to put some kind of weight into that as a cause for one system being better or worse... That is just beyond idiotic.

No it isn't. It would be beyond idiotic to not take in to account the number of generally believed-to-be quality games when purchasing a console (Because that would just be being an ignorant consumer).

If you didn't like L4D, and you gave it a good review, you should be fired. 

If you can't comprehend the idea of "liking a bad movie" or "disliking a good game," then you must be mentally challenged.

Oh you're one of those people. You think that critics are like the ones that make the world go around. I love guys like you. You think you speak for the gaming community. You don't. You speak for yourself.  Just because a system has games critics like, doesn't mean the gamers as a whole are going to like those same games. That's like saying if a movie is critically praised, it must some how be good and will make tons of money at the box office. Critics judge based on their own personal opinions. You can dress it up any way you like. It doesn't change that they are human, and judge based on their own likes and dislikes. If a person thinks a movie is bad, they probably don't like it.

[Charles Brasa]

I've lost the post I was going to quote...

Anyway... Renegade Z (I think it is), I agree with you when you say that it isn't good for Microsoft. Sure. But that's what I've been saying: I don't work for Microsoft and I think none you do either. If we were on a forum of the workers of Microsoft, then it would make some sense people screaming they were betrayed (even though I do not agree with that idea either).

[Batman90]

KingRanger wrote...
Oh you're one of those people.

No I don't. I said critics give an accurate idea of what the game is going to be like and that the higher the score is the more likely it will be good. I didn't say "overrated" and "underrated" games do not exist.

You think that critics are like the ones that make the world go around. I love guys like you.

Except I don't.

You think you speak for the gaming community.

Except I don't.

You don't. You speak for yourself.

 

And I speak for the objective facts that I used in my arguments, i.e. the PS3 has a higher quantity of critically acclaimed games than the 360 does and that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360.

Just because a system has games critics like, doesn't mean the gamers as a whole are going to like those same games.

It just means that gamers as a whole are likely to like those same games.

That's like saying if a movie is critically praised, it must some how be good and will make tons of money at the box office.

You're now pulling stuff out of your ass, because what I said isn't comparable to that at all. I'm well aware of the fact that some of the worst movies of all time are among the best-selling movies of all time.

Critics judge based on their own personal opinions.

And a good critic bases his opinion on logic and objective fact. Your point?

If a person thinks a movie is bad, they probably don't like it.

That doesn't mean they can't like it. For example: I liked the video game Stretch Panic, back on the PS2, even though I understood that it was a poor game with repetitive structure (That involved "grinding" for points in order to unlock bosses), a terrible camera, and frustrating gameplay mechanics. Those are all things that are "bad" regardless of opinion; there is no possible way you can argue that a wonky camera that is near-uncontrollable that  tends to "wander off" only after mere seconds of remaining idle is "good," and if someone were to say that camera was "good" then that person would be crazy/masochistic, and that's the kind of objective quality I'm talking about in video games.

Was the game's objective quality bad? Yes, but the quirky style and atmosphere appealed to me, and thus I enjoyed it. Another example of being able to like something while knowing that its objective quality differs is the concept of something being "so bad it's good." I'd argue that the cutscenes in the CD-i Zelda titles, for example, were so bad that they were enjoyable. Enjoyably bad, that is.

Modifié par Batman90, 21 août 2010 - 02:24 .

[hamtyl07]

notthing beats seeing about 600+ qoute boxes

[xXljoshlXx]

hamtyl07 wrote...

notthing beats seeing about 600+ qoute boxes

So true

[DetailedSubset]

I hope this goes off topic it's getting boring and would probably be better for everyone's blood pressure if it got locked down.



Here I'll start: who here had a Nintendo 64?

[Batman90]

DetailedSubset wrote...

I hope this goes off topic it's getting boring and would probably be better for everyone's blood pressure if it got locked down.

Here I'll start: who here had a Nintendo 64?

I had two.

Edit: No wait, I only had one.

Modifié par Batman90, 21 août 2010 - 02:38 .

[Renegade Z]

Batman90 wrote...

Why should anyone try and prove you wrong? You have simply stated your OPINION.

And opinions aren't the holy grail of debate avoidance. The opinion that is stronger, being backed-up with evidence and facts, is naturally going to be superior to the one that isn't. It would be retarded to say that the guy who goes around shouting "WELL IN MY OPINION MONKEYS ARE MOON MONSTERS LALALALA" can't be told he's wrong because "it's his opinion."

There are a few inconsistencies with your example.

1. It's blatantly obvious that Monkies are from Earth.

2. Of course he can be told he's wrong because it's a fact that monkies are from Earth. Hardly leaves room to assess an opinion. Only a retard would do so yes.

but as for critically-acclaimed games being "likely" to be good. That all depends on the consumer buying the game. Not everyone is going to like what a critic is going to like. Unless there is an international poll held about which games fan think are the best then it's still up in the air as to which games are truly quality. I think you're pulling random facts out of your arse for the convenience of making your over-priced bluray player look superior.

By the way, you are officially a fanboy, fighting so hard to prove your opinions. Fail, fail, fail. Opinions are flawed in themselves if they aren't proven to be indisputable fact. Can you literally prove that every gamer on the planet views the games you listed as "quality" titles? No, then it's your opinion regardless of how much you try to twist and misconstrue "critically acclaimed".

Modifié par Renegade Z, 21 août 2010 - 02:40 .

[hamtyl07]

Batman90 wrote...

DetailedSubset wrote...

I hope this goes off topic it's getting boring and would probably be better for everyone's blood pressure if it got locked down.

Here I'll start: who here had a Nintendo 64?

I had two.

i have one its right next to my VCR in a storage shed somewhere i sure do miss the 90's

[xXljoshlXx]

hamtyl07 wrote...

Batman90 wrote...

DetailedSubset wrote...

I hope this goes off topic it's getting boring and would probably be better for everyone's blood pressure if it got locked down.

Here I'll start: who here had a Nintendo 64?

I had two.

i have one its right next to my VCR in a storage shed somewhere i sure do miss the 90's

I had one or two  favorite game on that system  hands down is ocarina of time

[hamtyl07]

xXljoshlXx wrote...

hamtyl07 wrote...

Batman90 wrote...

DetailedSubset wrote...

I hope this goes off topic it's getting boring and would probably be better for everyone's blood pressure if it got locked down.

Here I'll start: who here had a Nintendo 64?

I had two.

i have one its right next to my VCR in a storage shed somewhere i sure do miss the 90's

I had one or two  favorite game on that system  hands down is ocarina of time

the day the came out with the rumble pack i bought one for each of my controllers

[Renegade Z]

Charles Brasa wrote...

I've lost the post I was going to quote...
Anyway... Renegade Z (I think it is), I agree with you when you say that it isn't good for Microsoft. Sure. But that's what I've been saying: I don't work for Microsoft and I think none you do either. If we were on a forum of the workers of Microsoft, then it would make some sense people screaming they were betrayed (even though I do not agree with that idea either).

Not at all, but I hope to be fortunate enough to work for them one day. Lots of money to be made.

[xXljoshlXx]

hamtyl07 wrote...

xXljoshlXx wrote...

hamtyl07 wrote...

Batman90 wrote...

DetailedSubset wrote...

I hope this goes off topic it's getting boring and would probably be better for everyone's blood pressure if it got locked down.

Here I'll start: who here had a Nintendo 64?

I had two.

i have one its right next to my VCR in a storage shed somewhere i sure do miss the 90's

I had one or two  favorite game on that system  hands down is ocarina of time

the day the came out with the rumble pack i bought one for each of my controllers

I never got to play a game with the rumble packs wish i couldve tho

[Renegade Z]

Juromaro wrote...

waaaaahhhhh *cry* *cry* oh noes PS3 players get to play a game and have the content that we had for a year already *cry* *cry* oh noes they might get exclusive stuff *cry* *cry*. Really? you people cry over everything, grow up and realize that Bioware is a BUSINESS not a cater to you and you alone company. If it's not Dragon age 2, it's ToR, if it's not that its PS3 player getting the chance to play a great game that we've been playing obsessively since release. Go cry moar .

You're way way off topic, friend. Lol We're not even on that anymore. That was a good amount of pages ago.