As long as devs/publishers don't restrict essential game content to microtransactions--i.e., I can't progress in the game unless I buy something with real money, or I need to buy DLC that clearly should've been part of the main story, or I have to grind unreasonably--then I really don't care whether or not games contain microtansactions. That goes for multiplayer too--no pay-to-win. Regarding the grind, notice I said "unreasonably": the grind has been part of RPGs, in particular, for decades.
Cosmetic add-ons, or equipment packs? Time Savers? Cool. If consumers want to spend their own money to enhance a commercial product they've already bought, that's their choice.
@TechSin I wrote a version of these comments on the IGN site; I'll write an expanded version here. If you think B2S choices and control inputs don't matter, try these:
- Have Jodie fail every QTE as she runs the "Black Sun" gauntlet. Note the ending. Compare it to any Beyond or Life ending.
- As Aiden, choose a violent or passive approach in "Like Other Girls," and choose which way Aiden acts in "The Dinner." Note either's effect on "The Dinner" ending,
- Fail to complete any or all of the rescues in "Homeless" and "Navajo." Note the subsequent game endings.
- Examine the requirements for the "A Better World" and "Saved All" trophies. Earn them (if you choose to). Note the game endings.
- Fail the ritual in "Navajo."
Now, here's where role playing comes in. If you're consistent with your character concepts for Jodie and Aiden, then your player control inputs drive the endings. Even if you just randomly make inputs--or make none at all--the endings change.
Some say the endings are just shuffled cut scenes. But those cut scenes--who's in them, and which future is shown-- represent the choices Jodie and Aiden made, and what the results are. The player makes those choices via control inputs. The player must extrapolate links between their control inputs and Jodie's fate, and the future.
I'm not going to discuss narrative structure, character development, thematic flow, or variations in Aiden's power--this post is long enough already.
I understand completely why many gamers and critics dislike B2S. But many negative critiques aren't borne out in reality if players simply pay attention and use their imagination in the game. But yes, as Henry James said, "There is no substitute for the liking." If you just don't like the game, then that's that.
@gotenks0709 Ben's snarky sarcasm always entertains, but his review reveals an almost alarming inattention to detail, narrow perspective, short attention span, and shallow insight. At least he's not alone--more than a few critics sneered at B2S as the narrative structure, character development, thematic flow, and control input scheme soared over their heads and into the stratosphere--no, to infinity and beyond (with apologies to Buzz Lightyear). Oh, and he devotes the first minute of a 5:44 review to comma usage in game titles. His comments reveal more about his condescension towards those he discusses games with, or maybe his limited conversation skills, than they do about colon usage. Of course, he's sarcastic and snide in his reviews, so maybe we can attribute these failings to tone. For instance, Rush Limbaugh admits he says outrageous things sometimes for their entertainment value. Ben is right about the clunky multiplayer though. That's something at least.
Looks as if it'll be a great hybrid: Gears of Mass Effect. Humans' last stand against an alien foe is always an effective trope, as is underground enemies spewing forth from holes. Although these holes aren't on the home world, true. And ya gotta love Bungie's version of Adepts and Vanguards empowering ammo and generating massive, smashing shock waves. Both devices seem exciting here. Although it's derivative, this game should be fun.
Examine the statistics Activision released regarding Call of Duty play. Add in statistics for Halo and Gears of War. If the "common sense" theories about violent games were valid, then platoons of crazed video gamers armed with automatic weapons should be slaughtering innocents in droves. They aren't.
Violent games, and violent media in general, affect perceptions of violent behavior But parents are responsible for controlling what content their minor children see, and even if they can't always control access, they're still responsible for helping children respond to such content in a socially responsible manner. Parents won't always succeed, but they must act nonetheless.
My oldest son (33) put it this way: "You weren't the best parents, but you weren't the worst either. When you said 'Don't watch MTV until I say you're old enough,' then we didn't. And you made sure we didn't.'"
We'll always be confronted with people like Adam Lanza, but developers and retailers of violent video games aren't responsible for his behavior. Ultimately, parents aren't either. But no-one has a better opportunity to intervene. Parents: Do your jobs.
@bj91x Agreed. Digital downloaded and streaming video are very convenient, no doubt. But my personal video library, my archive, is on Blu-ray, for all the reasons bj91x says. You can tell the difference, and you don't have to be a videophile to see it. Watch a Blu-ray version of Planet Earth and then a downloaded/streaming version. The quality differential is clear.
@Lowri001 I sgree completely about the TV series as a video narrative. Fantastic. Brilliant. I used to teach film studies too. I'm talking about authorial gimmickry. I'm not talking about Martin giving us ponies and rainbows; that'd be just as cheap, and probably cheesy too. If he proves me wrong, great. I'll be thrilled. But I've heard his own fans describe him as a sadist, and sadists inflict pain for pain's sake and their own enjoyment. Perhaps his fans are misusing the word. Again, I'll hold my final judgment in abeyance until I see more.
Ryderych's comments