10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...


stagnation is more than about popular mechanics, sometimes it because the entire genre has become inward-looking and withdrawn, and sales are flatlining as a result: see traditional rpgs over the last 10 years. you only have to look at the elistist-fanboy uproar when any developer tries to change any of the "traditional" rpg mechanics and try something new these days....

As opposed to the elitist fanboy uproar from shooter fans when a simple weapon gets tweaked? Or when their multiplayer methods are changed? Give me a break.

Video games is a big money industry now. It was only a matter of time before corperate scumbaggery and greed took over as the driving force behind decision making. If you dont like the fact that the shooter genre is unoriginal and mediocre mass appeal spewed out again and again, its not my problem.

Look at Modern Warfare 2. What was that? A tweaked COD4 expansion? Yeah, thats real outward thinking and not being withdrawn there. Total innovation (as opposed to devs just salivating at the sales figures).

Its about money and greed, not about stupid made up "problems" with the RPG genre as opposed to the shooter genre.

if that was the case, shooters wouldn't be looking to become more complex and include more rpg elements, would they? but they are: the genre lines are ever blurring. sure there are lazy developers looking to cash in, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush. progress would perhaps be faster if everyone wasn't changing the almighty dollar, but you have to deal with what is, rather than what could be. it wasn't that long ago that graphics were the most important selling point of games - not so much now...

[Darth Drago]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Gears at least have vehicle combat(even different vehicles) as an alternation and some interesting bossfights.So if they copy gears,they should do it right at least.

Indeed. But since they didn't, it's probably not a big surprise that the shooter fans didn't buy the game in as large numbers as BioWare/EA certainly hoped. The big question is whether they're going to dumb down and shooterize ME 3 even more and maybe even multiplayerize it as a result.  <_<

-It makes you wonder just what were the shooter games that they played to do their extensive research on? Did they actually look at anything beyond third person shooters that used this cover based system? Was it actual research with more than one game? Did they look at First person shooters like Half Life 2 for ideas or stick to TPS only?

I typically don’t like third person shooters, in fact I cant stand them with their over the right shoulder and to the left side of the screen placement perspective they all seem to use for who ever your controlling.

Funny thing how when I was playing ME1 even with all the problems the combat system had, I didn’t even notice I was playing something that used a TPS like system. For me combat flowed more like a first person shooter, if that makes sense to anyone. It was a rare occasion that I noticed I was controlling Shepard on the screen. In most cases when I got killed it was due to the mob mentality or overwhelming odds of everyone attacking me at once in the game or my own mistake like trying to take out a sniper before he gets me.

Yet when I played ME2, all I saw was a TPS game with its ammo system, forced to use cover system and obvious areas in levels designed around that combat system. Every time you saw ammo laying around and/or those waist high barriers you knew you were about to get into a fight there. They might as well have added a counter on the screen counting down “Combat will begin in 5 seconds.” It certainly would have fit in with the “Press B to end mission.” pop ups we saw. Controlling Shepard became more of a chore with ammo hunting to making sure I was positioned behind cover just right trying to avoid the occasional situation with an enemy that could attack me without me being able to return fire. Even the inclusion of the blood or veins covering a good chunk of the screen when you took to much damage screamed TPS at me. In most cases when I got killed in ME2 it was due to cheap shots or the cover system getting in my way or it being buggy.

[brfritos]

haberman13 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

But why do many people seem to like that simple, repetitive, linear cover-based shooting gameplay so much? Mass Effect or not, it gets boring quickly. Especially when there are little to no scripted surprises and nothing.

No clue, delusion?

Console games as a reference point maybe?

I don't think consoles are responsible for this.

I'm a PC user, but from the viewpoint of management and making money, consoles offers a lot of advantages, like automatic updates, auto-patching, easy instalation and the biggest and foremost reason: a very controlled and restricted enviroment for a title.
And you don't need to change your hardware from year to year.

But this exists in PC too, I buy a lot of games on Steam and Blizzard have their own gaming plataform.
So it's more about the developers choice.

Plus there's good games for consoles, like Heavy Rain.

And we need to keep it in perspective, Mass Effect franchising started in 2007 (2008 for me ).
The biggest mistake of Bioware is comparing themselves with Treyarch/Activison, with their Call of Duty series, or Blizzard's Starcraft, forgeting that these games had AT LEAST 10 years to construct a reputation for the titles (we are not talking about personal preference, personally I don't like CoD MW).

Startcraft II almost put the whole sales of ME2 in a pocket in 48 hours!
And only for PC!!!

I think the direction in what ME towards is the issue.

[rant mode on]
The talk about "we need to make money" with clothes DLCs are pathetic.
[rant mode off]
 

[Megami Uzume]

Jebel Krong wrote...

seeing as how me2 sold over 1 million in it's first week, and me1 sold about 2 million in TOTAL i highly doubt any sales figures other than EA/BWs own internals are reliable. 3rd party sources never are because they don't take into account certain stores/regions etc. btw pc sales figures (incl. STEAM, DD etc) have never been released/accounted for anywhere that i have seen.

I don't want to get into an argument or anything, but because apparently the Wall Street Journal isn't good enough...

http://investor.ea.c...INAL_LOCKED.pdf

'Mass Effect 2 – sold through over 1.6 million packaged and digital units in the
quarter for Europe and North America combined'

Of course, they don't mention Australia.

Also, for the record, I'm not arguing anything relative to sales, I'm just saying that this is what they've said.

Modifié par Megami Uzume, 11 août 2010 - 02:23 .

[Jebel Krong]

Megami Uzume wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

seeing as how me2 sold over 1 million in it's first week, and me1 sold about 2 million in TOTAL i highly doubt any sales figures other than EA/BWs own internals are reliable. 3rd party sources never are because they don't take into account certain stores/regions etc. btw pc sales figures (incl. STEAM, DD etc) have never been released/accounted for anywhere that i have seen.

I don't want to get into an argument or anything, but because apparently the Wall Street Journal isn't good enough...

http://investor.ea.c...INAL_LOCKED.pdf

'Mass Effect 2 – sold through over 1.6 million packaged and digital units in the
quarter for Europe and North America combined'

Of course, they don't mention Australia.

... or the rest of the world, or even which countries in europe they count (Poland isn't even on XBL yet), or PC sales, or PC digital sales etc, all of which are more prevalent than even when me1 was released (and not mentioned in that report - they refer to 360 only by name). tbh it doesn't even really matter as long as a. it made money, which it obviously did and b. BW gets to keep making the games for us.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 11 août 2010 - 02:23 .

[Megami Uzume]

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.



They specifically mention digital...



**** it, I don't care. Carry on on your merry way.

[Sparda Stonerule]

I don't see the need for people to rant about clothing DLC. If you do not want them then they add nothing. Some people don't even care about weapons. So they don't buy those. It's not like EA is telling you that you need to buy the content. In fact in most cases it can be said how useless most of it is. DLC's are just extras, and I like extras.



I've seen people say they don't begrudge the company for wanting to make money, but apparently most of you do. There isn't a big sign that says you need the DLC, but there is more incentive to get the DLC that have missions attached to them. Besides I really don't care that they are trying to make money because they say they are trying to make more money. I never heard anyone seriously claim that money isn't a factor. Personally I have more of a problem with schools who say that their main goal is educating people. that's a lie directly thrown into my face. Their goal is to make money, and their function is education. Companies always want to make money or they go under, their function is providing their services they claim to provide.



I never minded DLC, if I like the game enough I'll buy its DLC, if I don't really care for the game then I won't. I know people want everything to be available in the core game, but without DLC the stuff they think should be in game just would never have existed. It injects new life in the games and gives you more options. It has people come back and talk about it more.



Now do I think that DLC is the right way to go for gaming? Not really, I hope it evolves eventually and we get a more accessible way to access new content rather than just paying for it all the time. But for now I enjoy the new content being generated for my favorite games. I understand why not everyone does, because everything about every subject ever is subjective.

[Jebel Krong]

Megami Uzume wrote...

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

They specifically mention digital...

**** it, I don't care. Carry on on your merry way.

yes they mention digital - is me2 available digitally on xbox live? i've never looked, but i wouldn't be surprised, you can buy a lot of the games that way, if you so wish. they also mention me2 on pc in the pc section, but no specific data there (you can assume that's tied into the main figures but it's not clearly defined). they also mention the DLC, but again - no specifics.

and yes, i read the entire report.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 11 août 2010 - 02:40 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Megami Uzume wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

seeing as how me2 sold over 1 million in it's first week, and me1 sold about 2 million in TOTAL i highly doubt any sales figures other than EA/BWs own internals are reliable. 3rd party sources never are because they don't take into account certain stores/regions etc. btw pc sales figures (incl. STEAM, DD etc) have never been released/accounted for anywhere that i have seen.

I don't want to get into an argument or anything, but because apparently the Wall Street Journal isn't good enough...

http://investor.ea.c...INAL_LOCKED.pdf

'Mass Effect 2 – sold through over 1.6 million packaged and digital units in the
quarter for Europe and North America combined'

Of course, they don't mention Australia.

... or the rest of the world, or even which countries in europe they count (Poland isn't even on XBL yet), or PC sales, or PC digital sales etc, all of which are more prevalent than even when me1 was released (and not mentioned in that report - they refer to 360 only by name). tbh it doesn't even really matter as long as a. it made money, which it obviously did and b. BW gets to keep making the games for us.

Ahem, if digital sales isn't PC then I don't know what is. All it says is 1.6 million in North America and Europe packaged and digital units. I don't know if you can't read or you just choose to ignore what you saw.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Megami Uzume wrote...

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

They specifically mention digital...

**** it, I don't care. Carry on on your merry way.

yes they mention digital - is me2 available digitally on xbox live? i've never looked, but i wouldn't be surprised, you can buy a lot of the games that way, if you so wish. they also mention me2 on pc in the pc section, but no specific data there (you can assume that's tied into the main figures but it's not clearly defined). they also mention the DLC, but again - no specifics.

and yes, i read the entire report.

No you can't just download ME 2 for the Xbox 360. I like how you admitted you didn't check but no you can't just download it. They only have a lot of older games available for download. They also never have multi disk games available for digital download because that file size would be horrendously huge.

[brfritos]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I don't see the need for people to rant about clothing DLC. If you do not want them then they add nothing. Some people don't even care about weapons. So they don't buy those. It's not like EA is telling you that you need to buy the content. In fact in most cases it can be said how useless most of it is. DLC's are just extras, and I like extras.

I've seen people say they don't begrudge the company for wanting to make money, but apparently most of you do. There isn't a big sign that says you need the DLC, but there is more incentive to get the DLC that have missions attached to them. Besides I really don't care that they are trying to make money because they say they are trying to make more money. I never heard anyone seriously claim that money isn't a factor. Personally I have more of a problem with schools who say that their main goal is educating people. that's a lie directly thrown into my face. Their goal is to make money, and their function is education. Companies always want to make money or they go under, their function is providing their services they claim to provide.

I never minded DLC, if I like the game enough I'll buy its DLC, if I don't really care for the game then I won't. I know people want everything to be available in the core game, but without DLC the stuff they think should be in game just would never have existed. It injects new life in the games and gives you more options. It has people come back and talk about it more.

Now do I think that DLC is the right way to go for gaming? Not really, I hope it evolves eventually and we get a more accessible way to access new content rather than just paying for it all the time. But for now I enjoy the new content being generated for my favorite games. I understand why not everyone does, because everything about every subject ever is subjective.

No, I'm not ranting about armors, weapons and the mission DLCs.

The Cerberus Weapon and Armor or the Aegis Pack, for example, blends very well in a Vanguard.
Nothing against it.

But the Alternate Appearance Pack is just insulting.

[brfritos]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Megami Uzume wrote...

I don't think you actually read what I wrote.

They specifically mention digital...

**** it, I don't care. Carry on on your merry way.

yes they mention digital - is me2 available digitally on xbox live? i've never looked, but i wouldn't be surprised, you can buy a lot of the games that way, if you so wish. they also mention me2 on pc in the pc section, but no specific data there (you can assume that's tied into the main figures but it's not clearly defined). they also mention the DLC, but again - no specifics.

and yes, i read the entire report.

No you can't just download ME 2 for the Xbox 360. I like how you admitted you didn't check but no you can't just download it. They only have a lot of older games available for download. They also never have multi disk games available for digital download because that file size would be horrendously huge.

Yes, that's right, you download the digital version from EA Store or Steam, not from XBL. 

[Megami Uzume]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

No you can't just download ME 2 for the Xbox 360. I like how you admitted you didn't check but no you can't just download it. They only have a lot of older games available for download. They also never have multi disk games available for digital download because that file size would be horrendously huge.

Actually, I can confirm that for the UK marketplace too. ME1's there, but no ME2.

Speaking of which, the figures for Mass Effect 1 include neither digital distribution on XBox (as the on-demand service was not available until August 11th 2009), nor the PC version. Yeah, I said I'd stop, but I'd realised I'd forgotten about those marketplaces. 

Modifié par Megami Uzume, 11 août 2010 - 03:07 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Megami Uzume wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

No you can't just download ME 2 for the Xbox 360. I like how you admitted you didn't check but no you can't just download it. They only have a lot of older games available for download. They also never have multi disk games available for digital download because that file size would be horrendously huge.

Actually, I can confirm that for the UK marketplace too. ME1's there, but no ME2.

Speaking of which, the figures for Mass Effect 1 include neither digital distribution on XBox (as the on-demand service was not available until August 11th 2009), nor the PC version. Yeah, I said I'd stop, but I'd realised I'd forgotten about those marketplaces. 

I guess the best thing to say is that arguing over sales is ridiculous if you don't have all of the numbers.

[Megami Uzume]

Indeed. They've said what they've said, there's little point arguing outside of what information we've got.

[Sparda Stonerule]

brfritos wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I don't see the need for people to rant about clothing DLC. If you do not want them then they add nothing. Some people don't even care about weapons. So they don't buy those. It's not like EA is telling you that you need to buy the content. In fact in most cases it can be said how useless most of it is. DLC's are just extras, and I like extras.

I've seen people say they don't begrudge the company for wanting to make money, but apparently most of you do. There isn't a big sign that says you need the DLC, but there is more incentive to get the DLC that have missions attached to them. Besides I really don't care that they are trying to make money because they say they are trying to make more money. I never heard anyone seriously claim that money isn't a factor. Personally I have more of a problem with schools who say that their main goal is educating people. that's a lie directly thrown into my face. Their goal is to make money, and their function is education. Companies always want to make money or they go under, their function is providing their services they claim to provide.

I never minded DLC, if I like the game enough I'll buy its DLC, if I don't really care for the game then I won't. I know people want everything to be available in the core game, but without DLC the stuff they think should be in game just would never have existed. It injects new life in the games and gives you more options. It has people come back and talk about it more.

Now do I think that DLC is the right way to go for gaming? Not really, I hope it evolves eventually and we get a more accessible way to access new content rather than just paying for it all the time. But for now I enjoy the new content being generated for my favorite games. I understand why not everyone does, because everything about every subject ever is subjective.

No, I'm not ranting about armors, weapons and the mission DLCs.

The Cerberus Weapon and Armor or the Aegis Pack, for example, blends very well in a Vanguard.
Nothing against it.

But the Alternate Appearance Pack is just insulting.

Heh, well that is your opinion and I understand it. I like the Appearance Pack and there are plenty of people waiting for more. I don't even mind the visors and glasses. In fact I never even liked Jack's eyes, and seeing Thane's memories unravel and only being able to see part of his eyes makes it a bit more, powerful to me at least.

A lot of people like new outfits even if they are purely aesthetic. I mostly got it for Garrus, but I came to love the other outfits. Jack's really does fit her personality. Thane's I happen to like mostly because I think he looks better in red.

[Kavadas]

Darth Drago wrote...

Yet when I played ME2, all I saw was a TPS game with its ammo system, forced to use cover system and obvious areas in levels designed around that combat system. Every time you saw ammo laying around and/or those waist high barriers you knew you were about to get into a fight there. They might as well have added a counter on the screen counting down “Combat will begin in 5 seconds.” It certainly would have fit in with the “Press B to end mission.” pop ups we saw. Controlling Shepard became more of a chore with ammo hunting to making sure I was positioned behind cover just right trying to avoid the occasional situation with an enemy that could attack me without me being able to return fire. Even the inclusion of the blood or veins covering a good chunk of the screen when you took to much damage screamed TPS at me. In most cases when I got killed in ME2 it was due to cheap shots or the cover system getting in my way or it being buggy.

What you desctribed is a level design issue; not a combat mechanics issue.  Though, as you pointed out, Bioware obviously let one dictate the other which was a mistake on their part.

I felt that ME2's combat was a lot better than ME1's when taken by itself but they made so many accomodating design decisions in other areas that it began to erode the combat system itself.

Still though, it was the crappy world designing which undermined the combat system; the blame lies in that.

[haberman13]

Kavadas wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...

Yet when I played ME2, all I saw was a TPS game with its ammo system, forced to use cover system and obvious areas in levels designed around that combat system. Every time you saw ammo laying around and/or those waist high barriers you knew you were about to get into a fight there. They might as well have added a counter on the screen counting down “Combat will begin in 5 seconds.” It certainly would have fit in with the “Press B to end mission.” pop ups we saw. Controlling Shepard became more of a chore with ammo hunting to making sure I was positioned behind cover just right trying to avoid the occasional situation with an enemy that could attack me without me being able to return fire. Even the inclusion of the blood or veins covering a good chunk of the screen when you took to much damage screamed TPS at me. In most cases when I got killed in ME2 it was due to cheap shots or the cover system getting in my way or it being buggy.

What you desctribed is a level design issue; not a combat mechanics issue.  Though, as you pointed out, Bioware obviously let one dictate the other which was a mistake on their part.

I felt that ME2's combat was a lot better than ME1's when taken by itself but they made so many accomodating design decisions in other areas that it began to erode the combat system itself.

Still though, it was the crappy world designing which undermined the combat system; the blame lies in that.

The weapons felt better in ME2 (provided a sastisfyingly powerful feeling), the combat was worse though IMO, ME2 was just too frustrating and monotonous ducking behind walls all the time.  It felt like wack-a-mole more than anything else.  So I agree, the level design was the real problem, combined with the inherent flaws of cover based shooters.

That said, I play on PC, where TPS cover based shooters aren't popular; for good reason (also IMO).

On the DLC note, it feels greedy from a players perspective to dole out "weapons" by charging $2-$10 for them.  I have no interest in paying extra money to get better weapons in any game, much less a single player one where it doesn't matter.

Content based DLC that adds quest/items/zones are awesome, but weapon and armor packs are useless.

[tonnactus]

catabuca wrote...

Anyway, to change the direction of the thread for a moment, some of the disillusion with ME2 comes from people who wish their ME1 LI figured more prominently in this game. I was thinking, a really neat, and easy/cheap way to 'solve' this would have been to make the LI photo in Shepard's cabin interactive. Rather than just looking at it, Shepard could have picked it up and have it triggered a flashback montage of sorts. For example, with some sweet music or whatever you could have seen a couple of scenes from ME1, like the two of you having a conversation, fighting side-by-side, and a short snippet from the love scene. It would really only have meant importing some of the scenes from ME1 and not a great deal of extra work, and would have acted as a nod towards all the shippers of the old LIs. It could 'replay' the montage every time you picked up the photo, so you could do it as many times as you want. Might have been a really quick and simple way to appease a lot of people.

To much costs maybee for them.
And they wanted that people "cheat".Plain and simple.

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

And they wanted that people "cheat". Plain and simple.

And this alone says a lot about the writing in this game. Apparently they didn't even trust their own abilities to write good and proper romances. Instead they had to trash and tear down the LIs from the previous game, to make the new ones look more appealing.

[zazei]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

And they wanted that people "cheat". Plain and simple.

And this alone says a lot about the writing in this game. Apparently they didn't even trust their own abilities to write good and proper romances. Instead they had to trash and tear down the LIs from the previous game, to make the new ones look more appealing.

Well who can really blame them considering the ones they provided for ME2? I wouldn't trust anyone to like any of those characters for who they are either the way the romance goes. Kaidan wasn't the best romance ever invented but who was we going to replace him with? Maybe Jacob, the only romance so far where we the player get to sound and act like a sexual predator from the moment we see him. The other two are not quite as bad and I know many like Garrus and Thane but they still make ME1's relative short romance look like something out of BG2 or Dragon Age in lenght.

I can understand why they tried to force them on us. I see no other reason why anyone would bother otherwise. Only one I managed to do to the end was Samara by accident. I didn't even intend to romance her but somehow did and got the "tragic" scene at the end. >_>

Modifié par zazei, 11 août 2010 - 08:07 .

[Iakus]

catabuca wrote...

Anyway, to change the direction of the thread for a moment, some of the disillusion with ME2 comes from people who wish their ME1 LI figured more prominently in this game. I was thinking, a really neat, and easy/cheap way to 'solve' this would have been to make the LI photo in Shepard's cabin interactive. Rather than just looking at it, Shepard could have picked it up and have it triggered a flashback montage of sorts. For example, with some sweet music or whatever you could have seen a couple of scenes from ME1, like the two of you having a conversation, fighting side-by-side, and a short snippet from the love scene. It would really only have meant importing some of the scenes from ME1 and not a great deal of extra work, and would have acted as a nod towards all the shippers of the old LIs. It could 'replay' the montage every time you picked up the photo, so you could do it as many times as you want. Might have been a really quick and simple way to appease a lot of people.

One of the few things I knew going into ME 2 was that the LI was not going to be recruitable, to ensure their survival for ME 3.  I could accept this and wasn't too bothered about it.

Was I am bothered about is the absolutely bizzare behavior these characters exhibit.  Honestly, could Bioware really not come up with a more rational way to explain why they don't join Shepard?  Forget moving on with their lives, they're totally different people!  Honestly, I think it would have been better to have cut them from the game completely rather than permit the hatchet job done to their personalities.

But nevermind that!  There's all these new hotties ready to throw themselves at Shep!  And one of them's Tali, so it's all good!  /sarcasm.

[bjdbwea]

zazei wrote...

Well who can really blame them considering the ones they provided for ME2? I wouldn't trust anyone to like any of those characters for who they are either the way the romance goes. Kaidan wasn't the best romance ever invented but who was we going to replace him with? Maybe Jacob, the only romance so far where we the player get to sound and act like a sexual predator from the moment we see him. The other two are not quite as bad and I know many like Garrus and Thane but they still make ME1's relative short romance look like something out of BG2 or Dragon Age in lenght.

I can understand why they tried to force them on us. I see no other reason why anyone would bother otherwise. Only one I managed to do to the end was Samara by accident. I didn't even intend to romance her but somehow did and got the "tragic" scene at the end. >_>

Well, to be fair - Samara isn't supposed to be a "complete" romance. And there's only one ending to it. The "real" romances in ME 2 are a bit longer and have a few nice moments. Mostly not my cup of tea, but to each their own. It's probably better to leave the discussion about the romances for other threads though, so that this one doesn't become another combat zone. I do think that in general the writing in ME 2 is nowhere near the quality of ME 1.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 août 2010 - 08:51 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

And they wanted that people "cheat". Plain and simple.

And this alone says a lot about the writing in this game. Apparently they didn't even trust their own abilities to write good and proper romances. Instead they had to trash and tear down the LIs from the previous game, to make the new ones look more appealing.

Not to forget the "amazing" moments when the camera zoomed at mirandas ass when the player just want to talk with her
...
So subtle.

Modifié par tonnactus, 11 août 2010 - 09:36 .

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

Not to forget the "amazing" moments when the camera zoomed at mirandas ass when the player just want to talk with her
...
So subtle.

This game has a not very mature approach in regards to women at times. That Miranda scene, or the way they reduced Kelly to little more than a piece of decoration in the end. Maybe even the way female Shepard talks to Jacob. It feels like it was written for a young male audience. And while that is in fact certainly the case for most games, previous BioWare games never felt the need to be so blatant.