@domiddian: I suppose one could feel that way. Supporting a company that's trying to force people to give them unfettered access to their bank account instead of making quality products.....that could make someone hate all those that support the company.
I don't hate the people that support EA. It makes me kind of sad that people will support them based on their track record. Hopefully they snap out of their stupidity and realize they're reinforcing bad habits of EA and other companies that are looking to take their games in a similar direction.
Eh....be like all the other Marvel movies released in the past 5-6 years, I'll eventually see it after it comes to DVD/Blu-Ray or catch it on Amazon Prime once my younger brother purchases it (the latter is most likely to happen). While the movies are generally entertaining and usually fun to watch, so many steps that have been taken to tweak the story and swap out actors for a few characters has pushed me away from wanting to spend my money and time at the theaters.
@Dragon_Nexus: You have to remember that these games started out with amazing single player campaigns and that multiplayer was an added bonus.
I'm not a fan of multiplayer games much and I much more enjoy a single player game or a co-op game with 1, 2 or sometimes 3 people I know. It's kind of a given that a lot more gamers out there enjoy the multiplayer aspect of these games, so the companies shifted gears. They started to focus heavy on multiplayer and not so much the single player....eventually the single player was pretty much left out.
These companies alienated a small portion of gamers because of it, but they went after the lager dollar - multiplayer. I haven't purchased a Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 2 and for good reason, too. The game shifted away from single player with more of a multiplayer focus. So as you said, why buy a multiplayer game for the paltry single player story mode (if one even exists).
Folks, however, just sometimes recall when games had both - quality single player and decent multiplayer and just wish those times would return.
@mrbojangles25: I understood what you meant when you made the initial comparison about the rape analogy, I just thought it wasn't a good comparison to post out there as others may really take it the wrong way.
The issue stems from both sides, though. We as consumers are just as much to blame for everything due to how we've shown our cards (willingness to spend more) to the companies that sell us stuff.
As it is, that's it in a nutshell. Consumers, though, have now drawn a line in the sand and are finally pushing back. We just have to see where it goes from here.....hopefully it'll be a beneficial thing for consumers.
@mrbojangles25: Wow. This isn't actual physical raping we're discussing here, you shouldn't compare that to microtransactions.
I'd argue that customers are to blame for the extent that this has gone. Customers have shown that we have extra, untapped income we are willing to spend on "extra" things from a game.
One could argue that Expansions started this all, but an expansion is simply an extension of a game. You get more content for a game you enjoy at a usually a lesser price then the actual game sold for. Does that mean expansions should or shouldn't be part of this - it would require a much more in depth look for one to say it does or does not.
PC games back in the day, they used to come in big fancy looking boxes with awesome artwork, jewel case and a user manual. Sometimes extra things would be included for no extra fee. One great example was when Max Payne released, for the $49.99 price tag on the box, not only did you get the box, game and user manual, you also got an awesome mouse pad. Fast forward a bit and finding "extra" things inside games was becoming less and less. However, Collector Editions (CE) of games started showing up and these had those "extra" things. But, these CE came with a higher price tag. People were willing to pay more for inanimate objects that had zero impact on the actual game you play. Devs, here, have now confirmed people are willing and able to spend more than the standard $50 price tag.
Next DLCs start rolling out. Sometimes they cost next to nothing with very little in return and other times they're priced high and give some sort of decent content. Folks were snapping these up because of the lower cost just so they could add something different to their game, even if it was cosmetic. People were willing to pay and the devs took notice.
Mobile gaming starts becoming popular and time restraints are placed on games, along with special in game currencies being tied to the games to allow people to spend real money so they can bypass these time restraints or get special in game items to aid them as they play. People have been gobbling this shit up for years now and it's brought in billions to the gaming companies.
Now you take the fact that people paid extra for CE, DLC and now microtransactions for mobile gaming.....
So yes, customers are to blame for the situation we've put ourselves in. We've shown we have more money then what the games are sold for to spend and that we are willing to spend more on games. As you can see, we're not so much a victim here, but a culprit that has aided devs and allow them to continue to treat us this way they are.
Now you take the situation that EA is in. They have their hands on probably one of the largest story franchises in the world - Star Wars. They make a game that looks great and from my understand, plays great. They charge a premium, full $60 for the game. Certain aspects of the game are "locked" behind a pay wall (not necessarily a pay real money pay wall) that requires in game currency (crystals) to unlock these extras. They then make it take many, many hours of playing the game to earn enough to unlock a very small amount OR spend real money for a chance to get items from a randomized loot box that may or may not get you things you're after.
EA has a spotlight on them and people don't like their money and favorite things getting f'ed with - namely gaming and Star Wars. This is a point now things become interesting. Are regulations required and if so, who will regulate? Will there be any kind of special classification of this - will it be considered gambling or get a new classification with it's own laws/regulations? So much shit is now rolling downhill that it will hopefully be a good thing for customers in the end, but we have to wait and see.
@spartanx169x: The lightsaber fight with Darth Maul was well done. That was the only highlight in the movie for me. I like Ewan McGregor, he's a pretty damn good actor in any movie I've seen him in.....but even playing as Obi-won, his performance was pretty "meh". The only time I felt he actually put emotion into the entire role across all the movies was when he beat Anakin and left him to die: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_YozYt8l-g
Most of the cast, they were all flat with their performances throughout their time in the movies.....even with all the big names in the movies, it was rather sad.
@craftbrood: So you're saying Phantom Menace was better......?
Oh yeah, baby! Phantom Menace was better! You heard it right here! WOOOO! Phantom Menace FTW!
In all seriousness, The Force Awakens was bad and I can't imagine this one being any better. The acting was about as bad as the kid and young adult version of Anakin in the pre-sequal movies.
What's with all the RAM? Granted RAM is fairly inexpensive, but that much isn't needed for gaming. The original 10GB would have been just fine for strictly gaming.
You doing a lot of photoshop or something on that machine? If it's strictly for gaming, you're only wasting money on that much RAM. To me it would be more ideal to keep the extra cash in my pocket or apply it to something else (larger SSD or better GPU, better monitor....just for example).
The acting was sub-par. The story was forced (no pun intended) and how everything played out as it progressed to the end of the movie was too easy to predict and quite frankly, pretty stupid.
This trailer isn't very entertaining. Just a few odd shots provided in the trailer doesn't give much and doesn't give me hope that it'll be any better than the last entry. I guess we wait and see and maybe I'll be proven wrong.
@Sushiglutton: Beta testing isn't for massive makeup work that needs to be done. Beta is when a game is essentially finished, but there are bugs that need to hammered out and a wider testing base is required to track down bugs so the developer can squash as many of them as they can before the game makes an official launch.
Alpha testing would be more in line with what you're thinking. Alpha testing stage is to gather feed back on what they have finished to see if what they have ready, works. Or if things need to go back to the drawing board before more of the game is brought to a finished stage.
The problem here with animations in ME:A is that someone gave the okay for the piss poor animations - it could have been for many reasons or maybe they were just told to get it out the door as it is. From some of the clips I watched of the really bad facial animations, reminds me of the deleted scenes from the Shrek movies. The animations are usually unfinished and some even glitch out wildly and just look down right ugly and this is what the animations in ME:A reminded me of.
It'll take a lot of work to correct....in the end, it won't really matter to me since I don't plan on getting this game. If I do, it'll be a year or two down the road when it's selling for $10-15 and has some major patches done to fix broken things.
neatfeatguy's comments