glitch2424's forum posts

#1 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

[QUOTE="DrRockso87"]

Personally, I disagree. I think games should be priced for however much developers/publishers think games deserve to be, not based on what content can maximize a person's fulfillment of that purchase. For example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and its campaign can be completed in 6 hours with endless hours of multiplayer, special ops, etc. However, Skyrim boasts over 200 hours of content without multiplayer. Does Skyrim not deserve to sell for $60? Certainly sold plenty of copies at that price.

Another point is, what if someone purchases a game but only for the single-player and doesn't care about multiplayer? Should they be given a $20 discount since they're only interested in the single-player?

Basically, what I'm saying is I think it's good too if games lower their prices because they'll attract more sales but I don't think any particular game deserves to cost more than another just because it has more content/multiplayer (unless it's on PSN/XBLA).

gamenerd15

Sorry I should've elaborated. I'm sure you know there are games that are 10-20 hours long, and then there are games 30+ hours long (there are few games that are inbetween that time length). Games that are 10-20 hrs long should be worth 40, and those others should be worth full 60. There are also few single players games that you mentioned that are more than 100+ hours in length (the bethesda games are one, and so are some atlus games).

Also I respectfully disagree with that logic - you should pay what you get. If all games (like the 12 hour uncharted games, with a mulitiplayer that nobody even plays) continues getting the 60 dollar treatment, it just looks bad. I see plenty of "people like me" that wait for a price drop or wait till a new game gets on craigslist before they buy the game. It's just how it is. And I'm by no means a cheap person, either, and do I love games (and game development) to death, and I do wish more games cost different prices for their quality and quantity. Now, here's some logic to think about: why do some breads (or other food products) of different quality and quantity cost more than others? Why do some clothes cost more than others? Why do some computer mice cost more than others? Now, why do ALL games (great quality and bad quality alike) cost the same? Think about it.

The price of a game should not depend on how many hours of playtime one receives. It should be judge into how much effort was put into the product. Take the games Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time vs Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2. Tenkaichi 2 has a story mode that is 40 plus hours long while the Sands of Time is only clocks in around 10 to 12 hours. Prince of Persia is the better game because of care tha put into making the game. Tenkaichi is repetitive and gets old quickly. A more current example would be Uncharted vs. Dynasty Warriors. Are you really suggesting that it is ok for Dynasty Warriors to cost $60, but unfair for Uncharted to cost the same amount? Dynasty Warriors is as repetitive as can be. Yes, it takes hundreds of hours to finish the game a 100%, but the gameplay is extremely shallow. Uncharted has high quality production values and enough incentive to play the game multiple times. The enemies do not just stand there and do nothing as you keep hitting them again and again. Uncharted is obviously a better game despite not being as long as Dynasty Warriors. Experience is greater than how the length of a title. If length is the main factor a person chooses to purchase a one title over another, then he or she does not value gameplay all that much.

Uncharted may not be a good example on your part, actually, b/c I personally think uncharted is one of the most shallow games ever created. I (and I think a lot of my friends) will agree to WATCH a let's play of uncharted 3, rather than play it. THAT's how shallow that game is.

You do have a point though - it really depends, like i SAID, on quanity AND quality. I don't think you read that part. I also love it how some people on the forums look foward to insulting another (ie, implying I don't "value" gameplay) if they don't agree with their opinions. Please just stop that, the backlash is not needed.

It really depends on quantity and quality, and so far no one has argued why games ALL cost the same. All games should cost differently - this is seen in other products like electronics (ie, cameras, computers) and clothing (ie, peacoats vs hoodies). What's the difference? That the price is "sticky" (economics term)? It's absurd, and developers can easily lower down their price if they wanted distributors to do so. Anyway, I'm not checking back on this forum. This is something for you gaming "kiddies" to think about.

#2 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

I think this just goes to show that the 40$ price tag is just the perfect price people are willing to pay for games - at least the single player ones. 60$ is just way too much to pay for a single player game - I think the last game that came out at 40$ at or near launch was portal 2, and before that 3d dot game heroes. I bought both of those. I think game sales will go up if single player only games came out at 40, and those will multiplayer attached were priced at 50/60$. Just one of my hypotheses.

DrRockso87

Personally, I disagree. I think games should be priced for however much developers/publishers think games deserve to be, not based on what content can maximize a person's fulfillment of that purchase. For example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and its campaign can be completed in 6 hours with endless hours of multiplayer, special ops, etc. However, Skyrim boasts over 200 hours of content without multiplayer. Does Skyrim not deserve to sell for $60? Certainly sold plenty of copies at that price.

Another point is, what if someone purchases a game but only for the single-player and doesn't care about multiplayer? Should they be given a $20 discount since they're only interested in the single-player?

Basically, what I'm saying is I think it's good too if games lower their prices because they'll attract more sales but I don't think any particular game deserves to cost more than another just because it has more content/multiplayer (unless it's on PSN/XBLA).

Sorry I should've elaborated. I'm sure you know there are games that are 10-20 hours long, and then there are games 30+ hours long (there are few games that are inbetween that time length). Games that are 10-20 hrs long should be worth 40, and those others should be worth full 60. There are also few single players games that you mentioned that are more than 100+ hours in length (the bethesda games are one, and so are some atlus games).

Also I respectfully disagree with that logic - you should pay what you get. If all games (like the 12 hour uncharted games, with a mulitiplayer that nobody even plays) continues getting the 60 dollar treatment, it just looks bad. I see plenty of "people like me" that wait for a price drop or wait till a new game gets on craigslist before they buy the game. It's just how it is. And I'm by no means a cheap person, either, and do I love games (and game development) to death, and I do wish more games cost different prices for their quality and quantity. Now, here's some logic to think about: why do some breads (or other food products) of different quality and quantity cost more than others? Why do some clothes cost more than others? Why do some computer mice cost more than others? Now, why do ALL games (great quality and bad quality alike) cost the same? Think about it.

#3 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

I think this just goes to show that the 40$ price tag is just the perfect price people are willing to pay for games - at least the single player ones. 60$ is just way too much to pay for a single player game - I think the last game that came out at 40$ at or near launch was portal 2, and before that 3d dot game heroes. I bought both of those. I think game sales will go up if single player only games came out at 40, and those will multiplayer attached were priced at 50/60$. Just one of my hypotheses.

#4 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

World of Goo, hands down. Charming, funny, moving, inventive, addictive.

#5 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

PSN games:
Pixel Junk Monsters
Lumines Supernova (highly recommended!)

PS3 games:
Portal 2 (it's good, but people don't really realize that the gameplay devolves into trial and error most of the time)
Xcom (only played the demo, but it's damn good)

Non-ps3 games:
World of Goo (highly recommended)
Advanced Wars (pretty hard game - haven't beat one yet).
Final fantasy 10 (on PSN soon apparently - probably the most tactical pure RPG I've played, and simply one of the best RPGs)

#6 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

[QUOTE="DoctorWho88"][QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

Your complaints about Uncharted could be used for any franchise. A character does not have to hav 50 billion different moves to make things interesting. If you played Prototype 1,, then you will see that making characters have a bunch of different moves might actually hurt the overall game. From your standpoint, I could say that all Sidescrolling Mario games are the same. It is just run, jump, run jump. The developers just changed the platforms in each level to force you to use the same two mechanics differently. I could also say that F-zero is crap because I all you do is accelerate and boost. The developers only changed tracks around to force you to use those two moves differently. Every game has only a few core mechanics it uses over and over again. The rest is always up to level design. I could argue that the whole first person shooter genre is crap because all you do is run around and shoot enemies. The developers only changed the structures in each level forcing you to use those attributes differently. Welcome to the world of video games. Hi my name is Lauren. I will be your tour guide.

If Little Big Planet played like a Mario game, then there would not have been the possiblity any type of creation tools to make levels. Each level in a Mario game was built around the way Mario moves. When giving creation tools to people that do not understand programming, you cannot have the main character have tight control because then you have to limit what kind of platforms people can create as well as how characters respond to them. Media Molecules wanted to make the possibilities of creation endless, so they gave the main character a bit of a floaty in order for it to react to different types of objects. Anyone from watching gameplay footage of the first game can tell that it was not meant to be a Mario game at all. It is fine to not like the game, but to criticize it because it does not play like a Mario or Rayman is being unfair. Your complaint against Little Big Planet would be akin to saying that a hamburger tastes bad because it does not taste like a hot dog. Hamburgers are not supposed to taste like hot dogs because they are their own thing. Little Big Planet is its own game. It is not a Mario game. If every platformer played like Mario, then the genre would be pretty stale. Why would want to play a knock off of something else? Why not play the real thing?

I did read what you wrote and my comment still stands. How many apps or games are released on smart phones a day? Probably a good bit. How many people actually continue to play smart phone games again and again. Sure, there are some good ones out there that might bring people back again and again. There is also a reason most of those games only cost a dollar. Games purchased for smartphones are bought on impulse. Xenoblade is not talked about simply because it came out on the Wii in 2011 in Europe and 2012 in North America. The interest in Wii pretty much died after Donkey Kong Country Returns came out in November of 2010. People came back for the new Zelda, the system has been dead since early 2011. Even Nintendo failed to Mention Mario Party 9 at E3 that year. Since the Wii was branded as a family system, RPG players did not look to the machine for a fix. Nintendo of America also stated on numerous occasions that it had no plans to release Xenoblade in the USA. When Nintendo finally did release the game, it was only available to purchase at Gamestop and Nintendo's website. Xenoblade did not have a proper release like every other game. Nintendo basically did not have faith in the game at all and only put out limited quantities to appease people.

gamenerd15

Well this is a heated debate

Not really. I was just responding to what the poster said. Why bother posting a response at all if you are not going to go into details? The poster had criticisms against a few games, and I tried to answer them. I could have been a bit nicer about it, but the poster's criticsm against Uncharted could be used for any game, so it does not hold that much weight. If a person believes that a game is not good because it uses the same core mechanics over and over again for the entire franchise, then I would say that this person should just quit playing games as a whole. He or she is going to find that sequels do tend to use the same core mechanics as the original game. This is due to the fact that the original game is where everything was put into place. Developers are not going to start from scratch for every iteration of a franchise. I cannot think of one franchise that does not reuse some mechanics in its sequels. I would love to know if such a franchise exists.

Ugh, big wall of text. I'll put it nice and sweet:

1) That statement that you can use that for any franchise is false. Mario always did something differently, and the 2d and 2.5d mario games feel totally different in terms of control and gameplay type. Super mario 1 (SM1) was very basic run and jump, SM3 added ALOT more powers that totally changed up the gameplay (eg, flying?), which added more room for tranversal and degrees of freedom. SMW added yoshi and different controls as well to how mario flies and handles (eg, running up walls, floating, fence climbinb [where mario will be hanging middair on a gate], sucking up things with yoshi [ie, totally eliminating a sprite from the field-of-view only to reintroduce the sprite as bullet back into the game world]). Same with Halo series, a big relevant shooter. Halo 1: innovative interms of gameplay mechanics, such as introducing unique weapons that act differently, and reintegrating melee attacks and vehicle handing in console games. It was the first to introduce a really EXCELLENT AI that made the player react instead of getting reacted to, making all the game mechanics mentioned above all the more significant. Halo 2: introduced dual wielding, and the "innovative" regenerating shield that changed the flow of combat, and a higher jump that introduced some platforming elements. Halo 3: refined all the rest of the gameplay mechanics, including how you CONTROL dual wielding. Hi, I'm a REAL game designer, and I'll be your guide that will show you how to REALLY analyze games, instead of using a general statement "ohhh that argument can be used for any game!".

2) I don't know why you're still trying to convince me LBP is fun when TO ME it's not. This topic is done, and my arguement still stands that the jumping mechanics are not tight. NOTICE my arguement was about the mechanics, NOT about the identity of the LBP series. Got that? Good.

3) I don't know what you're even argueing there. I guess you're trying to "educate" me there, but my arguement still stands that Xeno Chronicles was not talked about enough. Got that?

Also, the argument about uncharted pretty much still stands. Like the 2 great examples above (Super Mario series and Halo series), you'll notice for sure how each entry in the series FEELS different in terms of control (ie, game mechanics of the player - notice how I did not even delve into game design). Now contrast Uncharted with the series mentioned, and you'll see that uncharted 2/3 added nothing significant except a cinematic movie boost. Of all honesty you know some things about gaming, but simply don't go in depth enough. Son, I've been playing games almost my entire life, and I also design, and until you can stand back and see how I analyzed the games above (which took literally ~2 minutes - i literally picked the 2 frachises that game to mind first), then come back to me and we'll have a REAL arguement (not sure if I should use the word son or not, just cuz you said your name was Lauren, and I beleive that is a female name - ummm no offense if you're a guy :/ ). I'm done here, if you truly did read this post than maybe you'll be smart enough not to post back.

And @DoctorWho: I know eh? ;) As bad as this convo sounds, it's really just a battle between 2 keyboard warriors, b/c admittedly at this point this is what we both are.

#7 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

Add me up, sparks24.

I'm mainly looking to get the trophies and probably have more incentive to play contracts.

#8 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

Most overrated:

LittleBigPlanet - it's just a boring game, with poor control (floaty physics) and lack of challenge.

Mass Effect 3 - disappointing compared to the previous 2. ME1 had great plot and universe development, ME2 had great characters. ME3 offered NOTHING.

Uncharted 2/3 - Have you tried playing the single player again? It's just boring, and the gameplay is simply not more than what Uncharted:DF offered back when it first came out (those of you who are level-minded will agree with me, ESPECIALLY if you played DF).

Heavy Rain - If I want to watch a movie, I go to the theatres.

Portal 2 - honestly, people don't notice this, but the way interaction with the enviroment is limited (ie, grey vs white blocks) makes the game turn into a trial and error type of game (ie, it leaves open-ended puzzles out of the equation). Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game, but it totally sucks the replay value out of the game. Once a puzzle is finished, the magic is completely gone.

COD [treyarch games] - W.A.W and Black ops are significantly choppy/unbalanced compared to the infinitiy ward games. Really bad.

MGS4 - though a great game, it does NOT deserve a 10/10. At most, an 8.

Persona 4 - this has one of the worst gameplay pacing ever. The game is designed in such a way (ie, limited days that's constantly getting thrown in your face from day to day) that you're forced to either do long periods of monster grinding OR long periods of NPC talking to max out your time. Overall, 8/10. Just b/c it's a JRPG with a solid story/ decent battle system doesn't mean it should be highly rated. Game design counts too, and this game's design just lends itself to be an only decent experience. Like I said, 8/10, not 9 or 10/10.

Most underrated / Not played or talked about enough:

Xenoblade Chronicles - highly rated, but not played/talked about enough. Excellent game AND experience (music/world/gameplay is amazing).

World of Goo - in terms of indie games, all I hear about is super meat boy, braid, and limbo, and bastion - but honestly, in terms of fun, addictive gameplay, and also in terms of atmosphere and mature story telling, this game is on the top of my list (indie AND non-indie).

gamenerd15

If you think Uncharted 2 and 3 played like the original, then you are not very smart. The gunplay felt a lot tighter in sequels. The rapid fire guns did not feel like they had substance in the first game. The stealth combat made melee combat a lot better. There was a lot more variety in location instead of just running through a jungle and caves. There was also more variation in the types of bad guys that were fought in the Uncharted sequels. Not every gun fight was fought in a square like area. Not every bad guy was fought on an even level playing field.

Little Big Planet is not supposed to be a Mario type of platformer. It might not be your type of game, but it is not boring. The jumping is supposed to be floaty. The developers purposely built the game that way.

How is Xenoblade and World of Goo underrated? Those games received high marks around the web. The reason World of Goo was not talked about was because it was on Wiiware. A lot of people that owned the Wii never went online with it due to Nintendo's restrictive nature and lack of Ethernet Jack support. Xenoblade could been talked about more if Nintendo actually had solid plans to release the game instead of claiming that it would never see the light of day in America, but then finally making it available in limited quantities.

1) Uncharted's gameplay hasn't actually changed much, believe it or not. Do some more analyzing. All the devs did was throw different types of enemies at you (ie: those with shields, so you'd HAVE to aim at their feet). It's the same with the climbing mechanics, they just forced you to scale buildings/structures differently. That all aside, shooting, cover, and climbing mechanics are IDENTICAL to that DF. Also, enemies are bullet sponges, making the gunplay very weak. Open your eyes.

2) LBP was boring TO ME. Holy shoot, that is my opinion (and actually most of my friends' opinions as well). Also, if you're a fan of platformers AT ALL, floaty physics is a terrible idea. What you want in platformers is total control.

3) I mentioned in the subsection title that "not played or talked about". Please learn to read. I'm aware of all those facts, and also WoG was released on the smartphones and steam, therefore it should be talked about more than it should be. However, I do acknowledge one thing, and that is that I have the european version of xenoblades actually (not the actual hardcopy...but that's another story), so I guess others haven't had the opportunity to own and play it like I have, so that's my mistake.

#9 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

Most overrated:

LittleBigPlanet - it's just a boring game, with poor control (floaty physics) and lack of challenge.

Mass Effect 3 - disappointing compared to the previous 2. ME1 had great plot and universe development, ME2 had great characters. ME3 offered NOTHING.

Uncharted 2/3 - Have you tried playing the single player again? It's just boring, and the gameplay is simply not more than what Uncharted:DF offered back when it first came out (those of you who are level-minded will agree with me, ESPECIALLY if you played DF).

Heavy Rain - If I want to watch a movie, I go to the theatres.

Portal 2 - honestly, people don't notice this, but the way interaction with the enviroment is limited (ie, grey vs white blocks) makes the game turn into a trial and error type of game (ie, it leaves open-ended puzzles out of the equation). Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game, but it totally sucks the replay value out of the game. Once a puzzle is finished, the magic is completely gone.

COD [treyarch games] - W.A.W and Black ops are significantly choppy/unbalanced compared to the infinitiy ward games. Really bad.

MGS4 - though a great game, it does NOT deserve a 10/10. At most, an 8.

Persona 4 - this has one of the worst gameplay pacing ever. The game is designed in such a way (ie, limited days that's constantly getting thrown in your face from day to day) that you're forced to either do long periods of monster grinding OR long periods of NPC talking to max out your time. Overall, 8/10. Just b/c it's a JRPG with a solid story/ decent battle system doesn't mean it should be highly rated. Game design counts too, and this game's design just lends itself to be an only decent experience. Like I said, 8/10, not 9 or 10/10.

Most underrated / Not played or talked about enough:

Xenoblade Chronicles - highly rated, but not played/talked about enough. Excellent game AND experience (music/world/gameplay is amazing).

World of Goo - in terms of indie games, all I hear about is super meat boy, braid, and limbo, and bastion - but honestly, in terms of fun, addictive gameplay, and also in terms of atmosphere and mature story telling, this game is on the top of my list (indie AND non-indie).

#10 Posted by glitch2424 (897 posts) -

[QUOTE="tjoeb123"][QUOTE="Xions-Fursy"]That might be the case, but honestly it deserves more than that. I understand that JRPG's are basically a niche market especially in the states at this point but it looks to be not only one of the few of this gen but a very well made one as also.JRPGmaniac

I actually liked the demo (at least the 1/2 I played), except for the fact that you're playing as a f***ing 10 year old. That, I hate.

Eh.. actually Oliver is 14 years old not 10, but anyway if the age of the char u play in a game is your main concern then I doubt this will change your mind also that means u r not fan of classic JRPGs & Studio Ghibli movies because if u were u wouldnt give a sh1t what age the main char is.

Doesn't that say a lot about the game that you HAVE to be a fan of JRPGs/studio ghibli in order to enjoy it? :/

I played the first part of teh demo, and I can say that the combat system is very lackluster. It's not engaging, and it's not even at least slow-turnbased tactical. I was hoping for this game to be good, but who knows maybe the story saves teh gaemplay. I'd have to play teh rest of the demo later tonight, but otherwise the combat system (which I only assume is half of the entire game) is pretty boring. Fun to look at it, but boring