It would certainly be weird, after their recent games were so story-driven. You can’t tell a good story, if you need to always keep the end open for possible expansions.
Did they? Mass Effect and Dragon Age began under EA, which a lot of people would argue are pretty good.
Also, what does EA do, that’s so bad? As far as I know, they’re really hands-off, so they don’t really meddle in the development, like what we’ve heard from Bobby Kotick.
Before EA, Bioware’s RPGs had some personality and took risks trying new shit. Since Mass Effect, they’ve been especially formulaic, toned down, and sanitized for a larger audience.
EA makes good looking, (usually) well polished games meant to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible, and when you have spent years playing games with a distinct style you can very easily see this shift once EA acquires a studio. Either you’re never going to see those games again, or they will become the most watered-down, generic version of the studio’s greatest IPs.
The one thing I can recall where it was known that EA had little to no involvement in development of one of their own games was when DICE made the first Mirror’s Edge. It was merely a AA game and the execs didn’t think much about it one way or the other during development; and then it became a huge hit so they started getting involved with the sequel. Which was shit.
when you have spent years playing games with a distinct style you can very easily see this shift once EA acquires a studio
Like I said, what does EA do exactly in these cases? People from Bioware themselves said that EA doesn’t interfere with them, and they’re making their own choices:
Are you familiar with the US foreign policy proposed by Theodore Roosevelt? “speak softly and carry a big stick”
EA may speak softly, but they carry a big stick. Bioware has clearly catered to EA, intentional or not, and their games have suffered from it.
Mirrors Edge was not a success either, btw.
DICE marketing director Martin Frain initially projected Mirror’s Edge to sell a total of three million units be sold across all platforms.[56] According to Electronic Arts, the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions had combined sold over one million units by February 2009.[57] In October 2010, a court document pertaining to the legal conflict between Electronic Arts and Edge Games revealed that Mirror’s Edge had sold over two million units, with over 750,000 of those units having been sold in North America.[58] EA revealed the game had sold around 2.5 million units by June 2013.[59]
It took them 5 years to reach their initial projected sales, and that’s after combining every available edition. That’s a commercial failure.
They did still chase it with followup games, btw.
This was followed by Mirror’s Edge 2D, a browser game adaptation by The Fancy Pants Adventures developer Brad Borne.[41] A prequel to the game, also titled Mirror’s Edge, was released for mobile devices in 2010.[42]
Catalyst was going to be included, as it was shown at E3 in 2013 and 2014. And delay, delay, delay, all the way into 2016. Catalyst was quite literally EA chasing the money, because Mirrors Edge has only really gotten recognition long after its release – in terms of sales, and it’s availability on Steam really helped solidify it’s presence as a cult classic. The game of course was received well, it just didn’t sell (not much marketing and it’s not a game of the era, so to say, it is not an action heavy shooter game). So now after 8 years of letting this IP rot in development hell they said oh we can add some MTX and make another one, hm, let’s make it open world that’s what gamers like these days. It was actually decided in 2015 that it would be open world, since that wasn’t seen in any of the 2014 promotional. So 1 short year, since June 2016 is the games release.
Nah, I enjoyed parts of Catalyst but it’s a shell of its original. Dying Light and Ghostrunner are almost closer spiritual successors in regards to expanding on mechanics. The gameplay was the same but without any actual dynamics (gunplay wasn’t great in ME but it breaks up and gives variety), the writing was predictable and just really not that great, and that leaves new additions… Which you just avoid because it’s an open world and you only have running tools at your disposal. The mechanics of the game are horrible as well, inputs get dropped all the time it’s a huge problem. There’s just so little about the game that’s designed well, which is insane, because the game still accomplishes scratching the itch of Mirrors Edge, just very poorly.
No, what made Mirrors Edge great was the passion. It was a tight knitted and mechanically rewarding. These levels so carefully designed. Catalyst’s paths do not have the same care, they are just rushed together and it shows during the gameplay and how one path flows and the others are just ways you can go. There’s no depth and attention.
The developers freedom to pursue that passion was the very same thing that allowed Bioware to create the games they wanted to make (and like Bad Company 2’s story with DICE before dropping it entirely for multiplayer only).
BF3 may be a fine game, and 4, but you surely understand that they are copy pasted formulas that explicitly are not impassioned. What made Bad Company beloved was its improvements over the previous iteration along with its differentiation from MW2, on top of having a fair single player story. What made Mirrors Edge beloved was its direction and its gameplay. For both of these, these IP’s to EA became no more than how many zeroes they can generate. It’s a pattern with EA, from Mass Effect to Need for Speed to sports games to Battlefield. Once you have a formula you wait for it to be profitable to sell it again.
Mirrors Edge was received well but sold poorly. They tried to profit on some spinoffs, failed, 4 years later sort of began development and turned Catalyst into another open world microtransaction game without any of the heart that made Mirrors Edge work. Battlefield was mediocrely received until it did something better than CoD, then they focused on repeating that over and over, leading to BF3 and 4 and 2042, with the only “unique” Battlefield even available now being Battlefield One. Before Battlefield, it was Medal of Honor.
EA is a plight. I don’t know how you can say it’s not that bad and shift blame to the developers, that their games are their decisions. It’s just unequivocally untrue. Of course Bioware doesn’t have execs breathing down their necks, the execs are selling the game Bioware pitches to them - Mass Effect now with MTX. In that interview they literally even say, “EA wants to buy a company to do something well, if they ruin Bioware then they won’t get money. We make the games we want to make. They give input absolutely but we make our game.” Oh, and he mentions games, Shadow Realms, which never even came out because it was cancelled in 2015. And this is a video from 2013, so it may not have even been 2 years before this video with the timestamp you like is literally proving the point of the person asking the question (Q: Will Bioware be affected by EA’s acquisition; A: No, Bioware makes the games we want to make, EA wants money, EA gives input, Bioware makes the games we want to make) 2 years later, EA: Yeah, you can’t make that.
All that aside, I’m not really sure what the point of the video is supposed to prove… These people don’t even work there anymore if I remember right (head Bioware all jumped ship, no? I may be misremembering)? EA has the big stick. If you devs don’t follow them, you won’t be a dev at EA anymore. The devs at EA are inherently trapped because you cannot expect your game to be made unless it is within the expectations of the publisher, and thus you see the problem. When you pitch to EA, your creative work is already compromised. You think Bioware made the game they wanted to make with Andromeda? Anthem? Psh, Shadow Realms?
EA bought Bioware in 2007/8. EA killed Bioware in under 10 years and is now playing with its corpse. Literally 5 years after the acquisition is this video, the game of which he’s referencing 2 years later is cancelled and 2 more after that Andromeda releases. I really, really think you have mischaracterized EA and their relationship with their studios. EA is very hands off, yes. But they speak softly to you. And they carry a big stick.
You, too, would compromise your passion when working for this studio. It is actually impossible not to, by design.
I lived near EA’s SF studio for many years, that’s really honestly the main reason I even bothered to reply with something this lengthy. I know many former devs part of studios both made with and acquired by EA. It’s insane, they would be a great company to work for in so many ways. But their business practices ruin all of that. The last 20 years of EA being awful are true, just because you can point to BF2BC and say how could they be bad, you can also point to Madden Fifa and SWBF2. EA perfected this practice of seeping out the creatives from the studios long, long before Bioware was bought out.
You are pretty much just rambling, so I don’t really know what you want to say sometimes.
I never said EA was good, I only ever doubted how EA supposedly just kills their game studios. From all the evidence I’ve seen, they are pretty hands-off with studios like Bioware or DICE, so a lot falls on the devs themselves, if the games are subpar.
You mentioned Anthem, like if that was the game Bioware wanted. No it wasn’t, because apparently the most fun part of the game, the flying, was a suggestion from an EA exec.
Then for Mass Effect Andromeda, EA offered to delay the game again, before it’s release, but Bioware didn’t want to. Why? Must have been EAs big stick. That game also doesn’t have MTX
How is EA chasing money with Mirrors Edge, if they make a sequel, when it took years to barely make money? I’d say that’s the exact opposite. The game also has no MTX.
The point of the video I linked is that the people from Bioware actually say EA doesn’t dictate what kind of games they have to make. Bioware makes what they want. Even if this video is already 10 years old or if the people don’t work there anymore, why would this change? The only reason I could see this change, if the games just continue to underperform constantly, like what’s happening with Bungie at the moment.
Why do you think EA was the reason for cancelling Shadow Realms, pretty far into development? Do you know something others don’t? Don’t just say it’s obvious, because it’s EA.
You also mention how EA destroys or all the passion or creativity from their dev studios, but how are they doing that? You never explain that part, although you make it seem very obvious.
I think the reason why a bunch of these studios that were bought either go under or release sub-par games is much more simple, and it’s not directly EAs fault. After they are bought, management leaves, because they just got tons of money, or they might have a contract, which says they must stay for a few years, but after that they’ll leave anyway. Now there’s nobody left who made the original games, so the studio declines. It’s not like EA can do something against this, unless they make the devs sign some kind of slave contract, where they can never leave the game studio.
Bioware cancelled Shadow Realms because Mass Effect and Star Wars MMO was more profitable.
"Today I’m sharing some important news about Shadow Realms and our BioWare Austin studio. We’ve made the decision to not move forward with development of Shadow Realms. We fully recognize that this news is disappointing to some of our fans, so I want to explain more behind this decision.
"While the team did amazing work on the game concept and we got lots of great feedback from our fans at events and through other game testing, right now there are other projects for the team to work on within the BioWare studios for the coming year and beyond. We’ve got an incredibly talented team here at the Austin studio, and they are excited and already deep on new projects within the BioWare family, ones that will make some great BioWare games even better.
"These include additional ongoing enhancements to the award-winning Dragon Age: Inquisition, as well as the next game in the Mass Effect series and other new IP. But the biggest focus for our team in BioWare Austin will be on Star Wars™: The Old Republic™. As every Star Wars™ fan knows, this is a massive year in the Star Wars universe. We have some great plans for expanding this epic game this year, and look forward to sharing the news about those plans with our players in the coming weeks.
Read between the lines. EA canned it so the studio would give us Andromeda and more Old Republic. Oh but sure, “it wasn’t EA’s decision”.
Maybe Bioware just wasn’t happy with the game, it happens all the time. Bioware also cancelled two games in 2013, looks like they were just doing a lot. So, possibly they were just stretched too thin with all those different projects. The founders also left Bioware shortly after Mass Effect 3. Who knows if they were the driving force behind the game, and after they left it didn’t really go anywhere.
There are tons of different explanations, but of course it’s all EAs fault. From what I’ve read, working for EA is actually really great, and people seem to love it. That doesn’t really gel with the soul-sucking image you try to paint. In the early 2000s they were actually garbage, with the whole EA spouse thing, but they have apparently massively improved since then.
Also, while this isn’t really evidence for anything, we’ve had actual stories that some publishers forced some type of game on a developer, like Redfall or possibly Fallout 76. Personally, I just think stories like these can’t stay hidden forever and will eventually make it out into the open, like the Anthem flying stuff.
It definitely could be, it just seems like there’s a pattern of fallen leaves surrounding EA. Also, EA is great to work for, that’s why they are so bad. I know that sounds silly, but I mean that in the sense of they offer the developers so much and all the dev needs to do is add a little MTX here and there.
Then all they need to do is do it again, but maybe follow something that’s trending. Then see if maybe the full game could be cut into pieces, to sell as DLC. Then see if you can implement more MTX, maybe this time add some smoke effects that you can pay to change the color of.
That said to your point, NFS Heat has MTX that were so bad and hated that EA again like with SWBF2 got the message and didn’t include MTX in Unbound. I wouldn’t really actually mind them too much in a way but it’s also somewhat more of a core aspect to the game that having it is just so… Odd.
But that’s the thing about EA. Why did it happen again. Why didn’t they keep the message they got the first time from SWBF2. Or Andromeda with $100 payment options for a lootbox system to get you to spend more.
These were all before Heat released, and EA still was fine with doing it again.
And don’t even get me started on The Sims. They have broken and killed so many copies of sims games for people that there are cracks specifically to circumvent patches. They don’t want people playing older games so they delist them, release a patch to break it (I’m not even joking, The Sims Medieval), and the user has to move on or never the game they paid for again. It’s cruel.
So maybe a tree is just a tree. Or maybe it’s a pattern that’s ebbs and flows and EA toes the line of what they can get away with nickel and dimeing players before they throw a fit, all while leaving studios to rot while the IP they bring to EA is marionetted every 8 years, 3 if it sells well.
Not only does this behavior always return, but it encourages other companies to follow suit – and moreso when you learn that all these executives just swap between companies and EA owned 20% of Ubisoft for a edit:decade wasn’t deleted before I posted 6 years ('04-'10).
So those are some examples of what EA does, and I’m critical because they are good to work for, and their force in the gaming industry should not be the monolith of MTX but the big stick that delivers AAA games instead of junk that destroys a developers vision and standing with the gaming community while we beg for EA to get it through their thick skulls that games are better when you put passion into them. Anthem having flying be the best part of the game suggested by EA is like the bare minimum of what a leading studio should be accomplishing.
One last point that should indicate EA’s behavior is how they treated Star Wars games. When the mouse was breathing down their neck, they came out with Star Wars Squadrons without a single hint of microtransactions. The mouse was so peeved from the SWBF2 that EA wouldn’t dare add MTX.
And yet they don’t give that respect to their small studios. Bioware doesn’t get that pass. Dice doesn’t get that pass. Respawn doesn’t get that pass.
Destroyed Sim City franchise, made The Sims 4 a DLC hellhole, made Mass Effect 3’s shitty ending, maybe the mishandling of Battlefield 2042 and Battlefield 5?
Other things I could think of is releasing Origin and pulling their games from the Steam store. Other than that, I don’t really follow gaming news enough to list more, nor know enough to determine if everything I already listed are caused by EA.
I guess if a game is bad, it’s EA’s fault, but if it’s good, it’s all because of the dev.
What about Mass Effect 1 and 2, EA had already bought Bioware at that point. What about other Battlefield games? People always rave about Bad Company 2 or maybe 3 and 4, but how come EA only chose to interfere after 20 years?
So, one thing that’s funny is the one instance that popped into my head was when an EA exec actually recommended a feature that ended up making Anthem better (but also possibly worse?). There’s a famous story of how they were requested to add flying to the game, which added tons and tons of work and a good portion of dev time. But arguably was the best part of anthem. Unfortunately, they were unable to salvage it as we saw.
the absolute shitshow every Battlefield has been since they were purchased by EA
That would mean basically no good games for almost 20 years, which I can’t believe. Even Bad Company 2, BF3 and 4, apparently beloved games in the franchise, are terrible?
Look, I barely play EA games, I just think that they aren’t the sole or even major reason a bunch of their dev teams have turned to shit.
Nuance is lost. Simplistic narratives are everywhere - and there’s nothing simpler than blaming the big boogeyman for everything. I’m not saying that they haven’t made mistakes and aren’t to blame for a great many things, but not every time and everywhere for everything.
Talented people fail to make a career in gaming. Idc how many mines his daddy owned, he’s not going to make a good game. Although we should encourage him to do it. Making games would obviously waste the time he uses to harass people.
Fortunately in the US I trust that their First Amendment has some teeth. If that were happening in most other countries, I’d be seriously worried that this senator might succeed with his evil plans.
Another thing, the first amendment doesn’t protect against violent or criminal speech, like terrorist threats/advocacy, threats towards individuals (bodily harm, sexual assault, murder, etc.) things which there is no shortage of anyway on Steam and they have every right to force the platform to moderate this, on the count of it being against the law.
Public space would be a place like a national park or the sidewalk. These forums are owned and operated by a private company, they’re private spaces and can be moderated however the company sees fit. Same thing for Twitter or Facebook or Lemmy.
A senator has the right to tell them that they need to do a better job at moderating their platform if there’s reasons to believe they’re letting people threaten violence or incite criminal activity.
Alright that’s still a weird ruling to someone outside America though because something like a shopping mall or a parking lot are public spaces here too as well as anything that is openly visible on the internet. Which makes a lot of sense.
@Kecessa speaks unclearly when saying “public space”—the term they are thinking of is usually “public forum.” source
The rules around what constitutes a true public forum and what the public forum doctrine even means are fuzzy, but in all cases the term refers to a space owned or created by the government.
Thus, a shopping mall, parking lot, or internet forum, being owned by a private company, is not a public forum and can’t really be defended on the basis of the public forum doctrine.
See the US section, the use of the term “public space” in this conversation is acceptable as the term “public” is used in opposition to privately owned and not public in the sense that it’s open to the public like a mall is.
.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space
The government cannot usually limit one’s speech beyond what is reasonable in a public space, which is considered to be a public forum (that is, screaming epithets at passers-by can be stopped; proselytizing one’s religion probably cannot).
Think of it like your house. You can ask people to leave if they say something you find offensive. That is not infringing on their free speech.
If the owner of a shopping mall wants to ban the word banana, they can ask anyone who says it to leave. That is also not infringing on their free speech. That’s because shopping malls are not owned and operated by the government.
I think you’re misunderstanding the use of the term “public” here.
A mall is a public space in the sense that people can go, but it’s not a public space in the sense that it’s not operated by the government, it’s a private space.
I’m using the term public space in the governmental sense, not in the publically accessible sense. If you use that definition of public I’m pretty sure even in your country you can get censored and kicked out of a mall and moved off its surrounding property (the parking around it), because it’s privately owned. Once on the sidewalk you’re on public property though so you can do whatever you want as long as it respects the law.
Also, talking about Europe as a whole is wrong since different countries can still have different rules on the subject.
A shopping mall is absolutely not a public space, and if youre shouting slurs into a megaphone, or even just harassing random shoppers with your crazy beliefs, you are definitely going to be dragged out by security. And or/have the cops come to remobe you. I hope you understand how badly you just disproved your own point.
I don’t get how kids can be unsafe because of other kids being dumbasses. I guarantee the majority of the hate symbolism and speech on Steam’s forums, is from people under the age of 18. Kids are fucking little shits. Especially when they have no supervision, like on the Steam forums.
Teenage nazis when not moderated or taught otherwise will grow up to be adult Nazis, and have the very real possibility of spreading their hate to others when not moderated. It may seem trivial like something to hand-wave away, but many of these people complaining about woke games will grow up to be hateful republicans like the ones currently trying to take our rights away. It’s not a laughing matter.
I feel this is a bit disingenuous. The original Steam forum post said:
when straight comin out.
Calling that even a complaint is beyond me, and mocking the poster seems unnecessary. I don’t understand the intention behind this new title. As purely a joke against that forum post, I guess, but are they trying to mock straight sexuality?
If I can express my sexuality if I’m gay, why refuse that same ability if I’m not? Maybe I’m interpreting too much into it, but I don’t find it funny. I like it when people can be proudly and openly gay/trans/bi, but I don’t see why I can’t also be proudly straight. Or in other words, this game now gives me the message “if you are not LGBT, it’s not for you” which I guess is fine if that’s what they want.
you know “straight pride” is in the same category of thing as “male pride” and “white pride”, right? it’s a homophobic thing to invoke. nobody cares that you’re part of the hegemonic sexuality group, it’s not something to be proud of.
The only reason “gay pride” exists in the first place is in reaction to oppression. The straights have in no way been suppressed, and “straight pride” is nothing but a backlash to gay liberation.
Maybe we have a different view on what pride means, but I see no reason to be ashamed of being straight, the same I see no reason to be ashamed of being white, the same I see no reason to be ashamed of being gay, the same I see no reason to be ashamed of being black. LGBT+ inclusion is not the same as straight exclusion. Gay pride, from what I understand, at its core is about being proud of yourself and not having to hide your ethnicity. That goes both ways, and I sure as hell would feel like I’m being shamed for being straight in this game. Not a great message is it?
Like I’m genuinely trying to understand here. How is shaming straights helping gay pride?
Sorta. They’re pointing out the fact is the default is straight, if you want to scream it at people well that’ll cost you some money.
It’s dumb, super petty and ultimately inane as are most identity politics. I get the point to an extent but anything to either extreme gets a bit grating and irritating.
but I don’t see why I can’t also be proudly straight
Ignoring all the power dynamics reasons why this is nonsensical, what does straight pride look like to you? What exactly are you being denied in terms of self-expression or inclusion?
its ok to vilify straightness hope this helps. you are not oppressed in any way for being straight lmao. this is the “complaining about anti-white racism” of misunderstanding sexuality power dynamics. queer people are telling you to shut up and you’re doubling down on your chauvinism, consider touch-grass you suck!
Yeah and that behavior is how the queer community loses straight allies.
When you require people to vote in your favor for your personal safety and survival, maybe don’t throw shit in their face. At some point they’ll say “fuck it, you’re on your own.”
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the Straight moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Gays’ great stumbling block in their stride toward freedom is not the Super Straight or the Super Happy Fun American, but the Straight moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes they can set the timetable for another person’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Gay to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
If you never leave the online world then the only oppression you can know is being called mean words. That’s the only way these people can justify what they’re saying. Dang, someone called you a cissy and you don’t get a little ‘straight’ title in a game? Awesome! Hope this brutal oppression keeps going!
Then you should probably leave every game, because you can probably find some dumbfucks that argue about this everywhere. There are less than 30 people posting on this Steam discussion linked.
Honestly then… it probably didn’t warrant a response that will only bring more attention to their whining and more people rushing in to “support the cause”
Nobody normal complains about politics in games, what people complain about is poor writing and US cultural idiosyncratic defaultism in games. Perhaps if ESA members hadn’t laid off the lion’s share of adult writers in the room to hire cheap, overwhelmingly ignorant, uneducated and straight out of college dev teams with a superiority complex, we could get good narratives. There’s a reason why everyone and their mothers keeps harping about indie games now, that’s where the laid off talent went, they make independent games now. But it’s cheaper to take “journos” to Disneyland than keeping a roster of devs with 10+ years experience. In the past, there was already a backlash on journos for their habitual prostitution to the companies they cover but that message was quickly erased in favour of “gAmErS aRe MiSoGyNiStIc”. Now, most traditional game news outlets are owned by a handful of holding companies, and most of their articles are AI generated drivel by, you guessed it, people not holding journalism degrees. Gaming journalism has become the off ramp of untalented and incompetent language/social science majors who are too inept to actually find a job in their field. That’s why we get this level of shitty journalism, because technically, they really don’t know what being a journalist is, from the ethics standards to the reporting without inserting personal bias. No self respecting journalist chooses covering hatsune miko’s latest release when there are so many conflicts in the world that need covering, so we get Felicity, Mars and Bruno, English major extraordinaires, who end up on a dead end career with wages capping at below 40k pounds per anum that justify their lack of journalistic ethics by “It’s the perk of the profession since we don’t get well paid”.
There were more articles covering game character sexuality than the mass lay offs of the last two years that left entire families without sustenance. Then people are surprised that orange nazi cheeto gets elected by the dumb yanks? The megaphone holders for social issues have room temp level IQ. When was the last time that a “game journo” or major dev from a AAA outlet seriously addressed relevant issues like social inequality or poverty? Do yourself a favour and compare the google interest in the topics “transgender”, “hunger”, “unionization” and “lay offs” and tell me that it isn’t by design that an issue that affects an infinitesimally small percentage of the population has so much air time in comparison to an ongoing genocide and hunger crisis in the global south. I guess rich white teen problems are more serious than brown people dying. The bourgeois left has set back the class struggle for 100 years. Enjoy the hard right turn of modern western society.
Edit: Jason Schreier is a good example of how to conduct yourself, he mostly keeps his private ideas to his social media but his work focuses on more relevant issues to a majority of the population.
Both GPT4 and Gemini estimate a 3:2 ratio between articles addressing video game character sexuality and those addressing lay offs and unionization in the games industry.
I won’t continue this discussion because “Schreier’s politics come out in his writing as well as social media. The drum he’s been beating for a long time has been about labor and unionizing.” is basically what I wrote on Schreier using more words, which indicates you’re more interested in being a confrontational than engaging in an honest discussion on the topic. Enjoy the Cheeto for 4y.
If you want to talk about an honest discussion, consider the sample set you plugged into your search. You didn’t go through two years of articles on VGC or GameSpot. You plugged indiscriminate search criteria into an AI. We just had a discussion a few days ago about how mainstream media is not covering major gaming news, but if you’re reading gaming news outlets, it’s been layoffs for the past two years dominating the news. Gaming news outlets would have very little reason to ever use the word “hunger”, for instance, and “transgender” would apply to far more articles than those about fictional characters.
Ai, google trends in english, what else does one need? Even after I gave precise google trends inputs so that the observations are reproducible? Your reply proves my point yet again. Peace.
I see you have a 10 days old account. I can’t imagine why you had to create a new one… This one won’t last long, ironically you can go to r/gamergate and feel accepted.
Yes yes, whatever illusion you created in your head to make me some kind of monstrous being because I dared question the ubiquitous distortion of the class message in favour of bourgeoisie invented flags. I’m also the boogey man on my free time. It’s funny, all the replies I got fit just in line with the ones I’d get in r/conservative every time I shared climate change evidence.
But of course you’re DARED question the distortion of the class message… By complaining about diversity in video games…?
The funny thing is how everything you said so far would fit in a conservative forum, reddit or otherwise. It seems that’s where you have you go to find people agreeing with you. Should make you think (but it won’t)
You must be salty, coming back two days after. Did you practice the perfect answer in the mirror?
At least now it’s not ChatGPT! Anyway, I’m sure Bernie is not going to be bitching about too many blacks and gays in videogames (he’s not an incel after all), so I’ll assume this is yet another non argument.
What point have you raised? You bitched that there is too much diversity in games and used an LLM as proof. You mentioned a few games that had failed… So? Concord failed when overwatch was a success, with much more diversity. Hades, Persona, final fantasy rebirth, Hogwarts legacy … Those are the games I played in the past few months with much more diversity than your examples, and successful. The likes of you claimed those games were doooooooooomed and then proceeded to shut up when people played them.
Then started telling that those who disagree with you sound like redditors and conservatives and send a Sanders video. How can you complain about red herrings if everything you do is rant and go on tangents?
You’re also the one who somehow couldn’t shake this conversation for your brain and had to come back. If that’s not a sad fucking life, I don’t know what is. What a sad, miserable existence you have you have, really.
I can’t say I enjoyed this conversation even though at least I could laugh at you a bit.
The original comment is still available. At no point did I complain about diversity in games, I complained about incompetence in games and lauded indie games. I see you’re having a Quixotic moment and are arguing with a figment of your imagination. In fact, one could argue my point is the exact opposite, clumsy amateurish depictions of diversity do not do the importance of the topic justice. I understand not everyone can be as talented as Naughty Dog (Amy Henning is the GOAT) but at least something passable would be desirable. Keep fighting windmills.
I’d even consider the possibility he’s right, but not for reasons that support his argument.
Games and media present transgender and minority groups in an unobtrusive way, and bigots create 17 articles complaining about their basic inclusion for the sake of “DEI”.
On the other hand, how is doom even on the list? This isn’t a ‘most influential games’ list. Surely the 10th best game in 2024 isn’t Doom 1993? Their scoring system (Quality 60%, Importance 15%, Hotness 15%, Playability 10%) makes sense to me, but how they assign those scores is baffling.
Take doom and doom eternal for example:
Doom 1993: Q 8.41 - I 9.99 - H 6.81 - P 6.81
Doom eternal: Q 8.00 - 7.45 - H 6.09 - P 8.45
How is cardboard enemies, simplest damage mechanics, story made of 2 still pictures and exposition text, and single axis camera control higher quality than any modern shooter? And in what universe could a 30 year old game be called hot??
I don’t have strong feelings about level design. I think the levels I enjoyed the most were in other episodes. If this is about the keys I’m neutral about them, I like exploring everywhere anyways so I’d just collect them on the way. I don’t know what else to say
I feel the same way for smb. It has historical importance but it’s not up to the quality standards of today. I like the digital movement, feels better than the analogue stick in nwerer games
I’m a massive nerd for level design, and in my mind massive sprawling (especially proceedurally generated) maps/levels are a scourge on modern gaming.
I don’t think it’s hugely controversial, but I view E1M1 as possibly one of the best levels ever designed. But then again I also view Doom as more like a dungeon crawler RPG that just happens to be first person and real time, so who knows?
I think I also tend to be more into simpler games than ones with too many bolted on systems, which might also be why I tend to favour older ones (or indie ones).
Maybe that’s the point? Newer Doom games aren’t especially top tier FPSs, and you can find better examples of them (Bioshock (not so modern anymore), the alien-dinosaur-robot spaceship thing, and probably others). So they don’t make the list, and then Doom holds the classic place and genre defining status. (Hexen and Strife were never gonna make the list).
I agree that Super Mario Bros could do with a new lick of paint (and think Nintendo has given it more than a few of them) to bring it up to par. Doom, I’m less sure needs updated graphics, but I don’t think it’d hurt if it kept everything else the same.
(Favourite Doom levels are probably E1M8, E2M9, and some D2 and TNT and Plutonia levels I can’t call to mind off the top of my head.)
I’ve come to the conclusion I’m incredibly biased on this matter and also that you’re entitled to your own opinion, and appreciate that you’ve responded kindly and patiently.
I see, I don’t consciously think about the map/level design when playing something so my opinion of doom comes from its mechanics and presentation, both of which are lacking in comparison to what indie boomer shooters have today.
find better examples of them (Bioshock
I don’t know if I played it wrong or something but I really didn’t like bioshock 1. It lasted like twice as long as it was fun and as time passed enemies just got spongier. Ammo is super scarce in the beginning and super common at the end. Shooting not very satisfying. The existence of the elemental gun. Bioshock 2 was much better imo
pcgamer.com
Ważne