By your logic, people can never be happy about a primarily good event if it had any negative side effects. For instance, if a chemical plant is polluting the water in your area and getting people sick, you couldn't be happy about it getting shut down, because there were probably some totally innocent employees of the plant who lose jobs as a result. The thing is, that is a ridiculous standard; clearly you can be happy about a good event but lament any negative side effects.
It's pretty crazy that some people don't understand the concept of saving themselves from annoyance and hassle. If you can accomplish activity X in location A or location B, but in location A someone is going to harass you and waste your time (and the time of the people in line in front of you), why would you not start doing activity X in location B instead? This doesn't seem like a difficult principle.
They aren't "scary," they are super annoying. Why would I choose to be annoyed when I have multiple options available where I am not? But yeah, keep clinging to your terrible, dying retail chain, and I'll keep using my superior options, and you (or your mommy) can tell me who was right in 3 years when GameStop shuts down completely.
I mean I know many people on here dislike digital, but it undeniably has taken over a much larger share of game sales than it had even a few years ago. (See https://www.statista.com/st... That trend is clearly hurting a company reliant on the physical games market like GameStop. I agree that their policies don't help; if you are sticking with physical, there ar...
This. And their upsells are so painfully written for people who have no understanding of video games (presumably parents buying gifts are the target of these), I.e. "Do you want to go ahead and make sure you have everything by paying for the DLC" "Do you want to make sure you get the full experience by paying for a strategy guide?"
It's amazing to me how, in the age of Amazon and the death of brick and mortar, the owners/decision-makers for physical ...
There's probably no better press for a game than great reviews from most sites and negativity from Polygon. (See, for example, The Last of Us).
I'm glad they didn't try to call this Recrashtered.
This was a great strategy ten years ago.
I think the "standing up" aspect people are seeing is that they didn't want Epic exclusivity, but they did want to release on all platforms including Epic, but Epic refused. So basically Epic was pressuring a small studio not only with the inherent risk assessment I discussed before, but also that they'd lose one marketplace to sell the game if they did not take the exclusivity deal.
This is actually another distinction from the typical scenario: you don&#...
I guess the solution I'd really like to see is a dedicated series to historical combat and one to modern/near future combat. That would be a good balance between what we had in the late 90s-late 2000s, where almost everything was WWII, and the period I just criticized (late 2000s-mid 2010s) where everything was modern or future-focused. They could easily revive the Medal of Honor brand for one of these, particularly since it was a WWII series anyway until around 2010 when publishers decid...
Fair point, but it's not quite the same as a major development studio turning down a deal with Sony/Microsoft so that they can be on PS4 and XONE, instead of just one of the two. For an indie studio, the upfront money has to be far more tempting, in that one game is far more likely to be make or break for a small studio than it is for a larger one (unless the larger studio is already in trouble for unrelated reasons). So an indie studio with an exclusivity offer from Epic that comes with ...
Inevitably there's a game that was actually a broken mess that the same reviewer gave a 7.
Exactly, having BF:BC, BF:BC2, Battlefield 3, and Battlefield 4 all doing modern combat wasn't enough. I need at least six modern combat games for every one set in a historical era.
It's so obviously 3 for me that I find it surprising that this is such a debate.
So basically the timeline goes like this:
-Insomniac primarily makes exclusive games for PlayStation and has a ton of success.
-Sony shows interest in buying, but Insomniac wants to own their own IPs and reach a "broader audience."
-Insomniac puts out Fuse on all platforms, and Sunset Overdrive exclusively on Xbox.
-The so-called "broader audience" fails to materialize.
-Insomniac goes back to making PlayStation exclusives and h...
It's almost like people are assuming for the sake of this question that you could still play all of these games. You know, since people are talking about the games they would like to play again. No one is claiming that they are actually playing these games.
Your comments show that you don't understand the premise of what people are talking about, or more likely that you are pretending to not understand. We are talking about what games we'd play again if we could-therefore, it's implicit in this hypothetical that servers would be available for now delisted games like MAG, etc. You clearly understand this.
Although Resistance 2 was easily the weakest link in the series campaign wise, the co-op was years ahead of its time, and it never gets acknowledged for it. Had that game been on 360, all the major gamesites would have treated it like Borderlands.
I mean, both of these games are available for PS4, where they run significantly better than on PS3.
You: illogical emotional appeal that obviously ignores what people are happy about and attributes malice where it clearly does not exist.
Me: thought out, rational response putting the situation in perspective.
You: "Just stop..."
Seems about right.