Activision may try to buy GGG

"

Flauros wrote:

"

jikavak wrote:

Hole scheet,that reminds me of that one horror movie with giant rabbit running around murdering people.They were scary and cute at the same time.Also had a lot of slow-mo running rabbits.

image

isn't that the monty python killer rabbit?I was talking about a whole movie based solely on giant murderer rabbits.
Edit:seems like I missed the "s" in rabbits in my first post,sorry about that.

"

jikavak wrote:

isn't that the monty python killer rabbit?I was talking about a whole movie based solely on giant murderer rabbits.
Edit:seems like I missed the "s" in rabbits in my first post,sorry about that.

Night of the Lepus? I think it was MST'd.

Yep,turns out it was "Night of the Lepus".Thanks you sir.

Ask Barney Stinson, he'll give you the right percentage. :)

"

xxnoob
The state of the industry at the time was radically different from now. They actually had to make good games to be successful.

You must be really young, because most games back then were worse than zynga facebook shovelware games. And lots of companies got away with it because there was a lack of information.

But if you're a gamer and you are looking at 2012, and you see D3, PoE, and T2 and you aren't in heaven, then something is wrong. Politics have become a team sport in the US, can we not turn videos games into the same thing?

It's been how long since the last great isometric hack'n'slash came out? And now we're faced with three at once?! I weep tears of joy.

"

Chancellor wrote:

"

xxnoob
The state of the industry at the time was radically different from now. They actually had to make good games to be successful.

You must be really young, because most games back then were worse than zynga facebook shovelware games. And lots of companies got away with it because there was a lack of information.

But if you're a gamer and you are looking at 2012, and you see D3, PoE, and T2 and you aren't in heaven, then something is wrong. Politics have become a team sport in the US, can we not turn videos games into the same thing?

It's been how long since the last great isometric hack'n'slash came out? And now we're faced with three at once?! I weep tears of joy.

I'm torn with this one. noob is right on one hand -- a lot of triple A titles are shit. They really are. They're gorgeous, aesthetically amazing, ten-hour-long pieces of shit. Not all, but a lot. And since I suppose the gap between 'movie' and 'game' has shrunk considerably, that's not entirely surprising.

But on the other hand, Chancellor makes a great point -- this is a wicked year for ARPG gaming. Also, plenty of successful games way-back weren't all that good either. Plenty of games in general weren't, but I remember when PC titles on the shelf in my local game store not only outnumbered all other platforms, they were occasionally *the only* platform on offer. Sure, big game companies release buggy crap today and expect that to be okay, since they can patch post-release, but I can think of quite a few late 80s to early 90s PC games that released incredibly buggy, sometimes unplayably, and you were screwed. There was no easy internet access to hunt down solutions, for a start. At most you could take the damn game back and hope for an exchange.

Heck, pc game unreliability is part of why I became a console gamer the moment a decent console came out. You didn't have to worry about memory issues, graphics card problems, sound card conflicts, all that...but one could argue that is less about the game and more about finicky hardware. Either way, I am slightly more inclined to side with noob simply because when a game was successful in the D1 era and before, it was typically a very good game, not just technically but in other respects as well.

The same cannot be said today.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

Either way, I am slightly more inclined to side with noob simply because when a game was successful in the D1 era and before, it was typically a very good game, not just technically but in other respects as well.

The same cannot be said today.

Uh, yes it can. Do you think all the millions of people buying games you don't like think they're bad games? Or, alternately, do you think there is an objective definition of what it means to be a "good" game?

Those are both pretty nonsensical ideas, but they're the only explanations I can come up with as to why you'd think successful games aren't "good" today.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

Either way, I am slightly more inclined to side with noob simply because when a game was successful in the D1 era and before, it was typically a very good game, not just technically but in other respects as well.

The same cannot be said today.

Uh, yes it can. Do you think all the millions of people buying games you don't like think they're bad games? Or, alternately, do you think there is an objective definition of what it means to be a "good" game?

Those are both pretty nonsensical ideas, but they're the only explanations I can come up with as to why you'd think successful games aren't "good" today.

The implication, as ever, is that *I* could not say that. Nitpicky!

Anyway, it's not a matter of which games I like or dislike. That you'd assume I meant that is really quite insulting. Plenty of games I like are critical failures, plenty of games I dislike are 'good' games. I'm speaking mostly from the point of view of games today that cost a great deal to make, market, hype...and then release buggy, much to the dislike of the gaming community at large. Or turn out to be very short -- God of War III comes to mind, as a simple example there. I neither liked or disliked Mass Effect 3, since I didn't play the series (tried 1, wasn't my cuppa tea), but the backlash against the ending of that title was all over the net. For many, that made it a not-good game, if you will.

I never said successful games aren't good today. I said, and again I'm a bit insulted that you'd misread something so obvious, "when a game was successful in the D1 era and before, it was typically a very good game...the same cannot be said today."

That is NOT the same as me saying "successful games aren't 'good' today" at all. If you want to reword it to "successful games aren't as typically "good" today as they were then", then that I'd naturally agree with, since it's just rewording me.

I think the millions of people buying certain successful games are definitely less than satisfied with said games than say, the hundreds of thousands of people who bought certain successful games in the aforementioned era. Mind you, we didn't have the internet then, so the vocal minority, now such a strangely potent force, wasn't exactly very vocal.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

...That is NOT the same as me saying "successful games aren't 'good' today" at all. If you want to reword it to "successful games aren't as typically "good" today as they were then", then that I'd naturally agree with, since it's just rewording me.

Yes, that is what I meant. Apologies for over-reducing while paraphrasing.

I was going to say "I guess what I was saying doesn't so much apply if you were only speaking about your taste", but it seems you do in fact believe it to be true more broadly after all?:

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

I think the millions of people buying certain successful games are definitely less than satisfied with said games than say, the hundreds of thousands of people who bought certain successful games in the aforementioned era

Based on what? I mean, you say this and then immediately construct the counterargument, so if you know you don't have the evidence of the vocal minority then to go on, what are you going on?

What I think is important and way, way too often skipped over in comparing people's experiences in games then and now, is that it isn't just the games that have changed. We have changed. Sixteen years ago when Diablo was released, we were all sixteen years younger, and had had sixteen years less experience with games - both of those things are huge, even if that puts you at what, around 18 years old then? The games don't actually have to have gotten worse in any significant way for us to react differently - we have collectively higher standards now, same as someone who drinks a lot of wine will see flaws in bottles that a less trained person will be perfectly happy with. I don't think there's much value in saying that a particular bottle is more deserving of its success just because it receives less complaints from kinder judges.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

...That is NOT the same as me saying "successful games aren't 'good' today" at all. If you want to reword it to "successful games aren't as typically "good" today as they were then", then that I'd naturally agree with, since it's just rewording me.

Yes, that is what I meant. Apologies for over-reducing while paraphrasing.

I was going to say "I guess what I was saying doesn't so much apply if you were only speaking about your taste", but it seems you do in fact believe it to be true more broadly after all?:

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

I think the millions of people buying certain successful games are definitely less than satisfied with said games than say, the hundreds of thousands of people who bought certain successful games in the aforementioned era

Based on what? I mean, you say this and then immediately construct the counterargument, so if you know you don't have the evidence of the vocal minority then to go on, what are you going on?

What I think is important and way, way too often skipped over in comparing people's experiences in games then and now, is that it isn't just the games that have changed. We have changed. Sixteen years ago when Diablo was released, we were all sixteen years younger, and had had sixteen years less experience with games - both of those things are huge, even if that puts you at what, around 18 years old then? The games don't actually have to have gotten worse in any significant way for us to react differently - we have collectively higher standards now, same as someone who drinks a lot of wine will see flaws in bottles that a less trained person will be perfectly happy with. I don't think there's much value in saying that a particular bottle is more deserving of its success just because it receives less complaints from kinder judges.

The reason we have high standards is because we were spoiled with quality before.

And that doesn't mean old games are flawless and it doesn't mean there hasn't been improvement over the years, but there's a shit load of money going into development of games that are released incomplete, buggy and overall shitty, tainting successful titles and disappointing the fans that made said titles successful. They're sold for $60 and still make a good profit.

To me this can only mean that the general video games audience today are immature in the sense their standards are low (they don't know any better) and foolish.

Which is why I am against Diablo 3, because it's another game to the pile of games that represent how fucked up the industry is.

It's alright to make money, but it's not alright to scam consumers for their money.