Poll: Is the internet ruining games? Please read before voting
- Thread starter ShadowPen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ruining games? Hardly. Giving games a 2nd chance? More than likely. Believe it or not, games are extensively play-tested, for bugs and glitches and things like this. So while a small minority in the office might complain, he might have just been the only sane one in a room of people who have an odd concept of fun game controls. So patches allow people to fix their mistakes. However some people do abuse this, and become lapsy in their work.
See: Bully Scholarship Ed.
As for DLC. While I'm sure Capcom aren't saying "No" to the chance at scoring an easy buck. DLC can't be released on the Xbox without Microsoft putting a price tag on it. This is why Valve refuse to update The Orange Box with the class updates, because Valve want to give it out for free, yet Microsoft aren't letting them.
Finally, if your trying to say, being able to play Online with people from around the world. Makes a game bad, then your sadly mistaken. Games such as Counter Strike and Team Fortress would have never lifted off the Ground as well as they have without online play, yet these games are recognised as phenomenal multiplayer games on the PC. With games such as Halo and CoD4 being so universally known to Gamers everywhere as excellent Multiplayer experiences. No doubt without the Multiplayer, these games would have died out fast. No matter how good the Story is, it can only be played a few times before it gets repetitive.
See: Bully Scholarship Ed.
As for DLC. While I'm sure Capcom aren't saying "No" to the chance at scoring an easy buck. DLC can't be released on the Xbox without Microsoft putting a price tag on it. This is why Valve refuse to update The Orange Box with the class updates, because Valve want to give it out for free, yet Microsoft aren't letting them.
Finally, if your trying to say, being able to play Online with people from around the world. Makes a game bad, then your sadly mistaken. Games such as Counter Strike and Team Fortress would have never lifted off the Ground as well as they have without online play, yet these games are recognised as phenomenal multiplayer games on the PC. With games such as Halo and CoD4 being so universally known to Gamers everywhere as excellent Multiplayer experiences. No doubt without the Multiplayer, these games would have died out fast. No matter how good the Story is, it can only be played a few times before it gets repetitive.
The glut of new gamers is ruining games. Blase titles like Bioshock get lavished with praise by media outlets like G4 and rake in huge profits for the companies that keep churning them out while creative, interesting titles from smaller developers go largely unnoticed because small companies can't compete with companies like EA to buy good reviews and air time. The kicker is that mainstream gaming media considers graphics to be one of the top selling points, often more than game play. I remember a time when most reviews ignored graphics because everything looked blocky and pixelated and developers had to work with what they had to make games appealing.
I agree with the sentiments about DLC. It's only a good thing if the DLC is actually new gameplay, not cosmetic changes to characters (unless that stuff is free). New levels for games like Oblivion, more songs for Guitar Hero/Rock Band, and things like that might be worthwhile. I'm not paying money so I can alter the colors of a character's outfits, even if it lets me make Ryu's gi neon pink.Balraw said:
EDIT: I do agree with the OP as far as single player goes. There are too many games that offer a single-player campaign, but it's piss-poor and boring because the developers spent all their time designing cool maps for online play. Look at Timesplitters 3, hilarious single player experience with an awesome multiplayer setup. Perfect example of how to do both well.
Yes, and no.
Games are released early not because the companies themselves want to release an incomplete or buggy product, but because the money used to develop the game (in most cases) is given to them by the publisher, so it's the publisher that pushes them to release the game early, because they want a return on their investment as fast as possible. And it's better that we have the chance to get games patched, than not get a game patched at all, possibly ruining a could be good game.
On the other hand, online activation is the devils work, I mean, they never think about the people that for one reason or another can't do this, me for example, steam will not except connections from proxies, and due to the fact that I'm in student accomodation at the moment, I'm behind one. *Shakes fist in the air*. (I even tried bloody tunneling, but to no avail :/)
Games are released early not because the companies themselves want to release an incomplete or buggy product, but because the money used to develop the game (in most cases) is given to them by the publisher, so it's the publisher that pushes them to release the game early, because they want a return on their investment as fast as possible. And it's better that we have the chance to get games patched, than not get a game patched at all, possibly ruining a could be good game.
On the other hand, online activation is the devils work, I mean, they never think about the people that for one reason or another can't do this, me for example, steam will not except connections from proxies, and due to the fact that I'm in student accomodation at the moment, I'm behind one. *Shakes fist in the air*. (I even tried bloody tunneling, but to no avail :/)