I was reading something somewhere somewhat recently about how the death penalty was not cost effective due to the expensive and lengthy appeals process (the author was from the USA). What struck me about the argument was that by factoring in the appeals process, they had accepted that the process should be there. I would ask: why? Why should there be a way for the convicted to escape their punishment? And before anyone thinks I'm trolling for some moral debate about whether governments have the right... oh you think there is a "right"? I don't think anyone would have the right or get the right or get it right at all. None is more right or correct or valid than any other. I don't deal in such absolutes because they don't really exist. Just a food for thought experiment.
Plus I'm using this post to introduce a new category for my posts. In future there will likely be more, especially if I take to posting about every stupid thing that occurs to me as I try vainly to avoid thought because thought just leads to thinking and I do too much thinking particularly upon subjects I'd rather not think about and most people seem not to think at all anyway...
So, new category, others potentially joining it in the future include (but not limited to): Literature (as in books), Film (as in movies) and actually I think it's just the two at the moment. I find there's no point in talking politics, especially since my location may not match up with the entirety of my audience (if I even have one). I'll try to curb my parenthetical remarks.
Thursday, 25 April 2013
Waiting impatiently
For the morons at Adsense to realise that when they reject an application for "copyrighted material", they could be doing the applicant a huge favour by pointing out exactly what material is leading to the rejection. I've removed all links from my NCT posts, but if links are the issue, how does anyone post anything at all? Are you only allowed to post bland and boring updates about your life as if it's somehow news the world needs desperately? With such strict standards, how does anyone - including you - make any money from their blogs?
So congrats, Adsense, you're fascists.
So congrats, Adsense, you're fascists.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Progress
So I might be getting a jump on this whole world domination thing, did have to use a different browser but soon I should have ads. Now I just need to gather more minions. The modern world seems so confusing and frightening; I don't like it. Anyway, working on playing through a new game which, when reviewed, might garner me more attention. That seems to be what everyone is doing these days, trying to get the attention of others, as if it somehow validates their existence. Just look at reality TV, or better yet, don't. Not that my condemnation will stop you, of course. But when it all crumbles around you, I'll be there to say "I told you so".
What was I on about? Game review in process of being, or becoming; those weird types of phrases can be difficult to cram in sometimes. Also I will be trying to pace myself, since I've had a few ideas for posts. I don't want to do them all in a week and then have nothing to write about for months. If any of you have been paying attention, you'll recognise that basically describes most of the history of this site... Corrections to that behaviour are pending. And this stupid thing is telling me that I'm spelling words incorrectly. There will be a post about that sometime in the future, so hold your breath.
EDIT: Apparently my "share to Google+" counts as a comment and a +1, I don't see why. This stuff makes no sense to me.
EDIT: Apparently I'm hosting copyright content, and since I have no idea what it is, I guess I won't be putting up ads, so no money and no world domination.
What was I on about? Game review in process of being, or becoming; those weird types of phrases can be difficult to cram in sometimes. Also I will be trying to pace myself, since I've had a few ideas for posts. I don't want to do them all in a week and then have nothing to write about for months. If any of you have been paying attention, you'll recognise that basically describes most of the history of this site... Corrections to that behaviour are pending. And this stupid thing is telling me that I'm spelling words incorrectly. There will be a post about that sometime in the future, so hold your breath.
EDIT: Apparently my "share to Google+" counts as a comment and a +1, I don't see why. This stuff makes no sense to me.
EDIT: Apparently I'm hosting copyright content, and since I have no idea what it is, I guess I won't be putting up ads, so no money and no world domination.
Sunday, 21 April 2013
New World
There might be some crap showing up on here in the near future, mainly because of all this newfangled "social networking" thing that everyone seems to going for. As much time as I spend in front of a computer, I understand very little about them. I understand people even less, which is usually OK because I hate them, but now my hope is to exploit them for profit (marginal profit at least). So there may be new "gadgets" and things floating around, plus I might add some imagery or colour to the layout. Also, I'll need to come up with a more varied approach, I've established my three Rs (rants, reviews, ruminations) but have really only talked about games so far. I'll attempt to remedy that.
But rest assured that you probably understand all this techno-stuff better than I do.
But rest assured that you probably understand all this techno-stuff better than I do.
Rewarding Gameplay
Achievements, aren't they fantastic? No?
I find that for the most part that achievements in games are either stupid or far too easy. When reaching a certain point in the story of a game is an "achievement", the game creators have very low expectations. Or they're struggling to find something to label as an achievement because achievements are the thing you do at the moment. I find them either too straightforward or frustrating to accomplish. Some times there are some in the middle there, when it does take some skill and effort to attain. As an example, the challenge mode achievements in Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. You have to get into the right rhythm for combat as well as know how to build up points. Granted the best method for gaining points in the combat challenges is to just have really long combo multipliers, which is simple but can be difficult in practice. Or maybe I just suck at it.
There are too many examples of the "reach this point in the story" achievements to cite here, so I'll assume you know what I'm talking about. If not, why are you reading about games if you don't play them? There are of course those that are a reward for some banal or random task, such as what I've heard about World of Warcraft which has an achievement for catching fish, even though fishing is just some idle thing that your character can do.
On the other hand, some games like to provide the players with a glut of achievements. Currently Killing Floor has 209 achievements, a large portion of which are for completing maps on different difficulty levels. Given that there are four levels for which there are achievements, they are a simple solution for the developers, but also rather annoying. At least they're annoying to me, I look at the list and think: "I don't want to play the game that much."
But I think this raises the most pertinent point: do players really want to achieve this? I suppose before the advent of in-game achievements, players would make up their own to brag to others about. Now the developers can decide for you. Except of course for the fact that many achievements are easily attained. So people will still find absurd applications of their time that add up to something worthy of bragging about; it's just that some of those things will have the equivalent of a boy scout patch to prove that they did it.
Which is why we still have leaderboards. Achievements aside - leaderboards show just how fast or skillful you are. Except of course where they don't. In the aforementioned Batman games, the number one position for challenges is usually held by someone who apparently earned about a trillion points in a millisecond. If that confuses you, they cheated, obviously. I've seen several leaderboards topped by obvious hackers, so we know that you really suck and couldn't accomplish that.
So, most achievements are pointless or they can be gained by cheating... is there a point to them? I think it depends on what use they are put to. In the first Mass Effect, achievements were awarded for various skill uses or character uses, but the achievements had an effect on actual gameplay: allowing access to certain skills that weren't available for your character class, health regeneration, faster skill cooldown and such. In Alpha Protocol you were awarded "perks" depending on your actions during gameplay that assisted is similar ways: faster skill cooldown, extra points for levelling up your skills, so forth. They meant something to the gameplay, rather than just being arbitrary awards for doing whatever.
I can't think of many ways that achievements could be put to actual use, other than those I've already cited. This is just a bit of rambling about a somewhat nonsensical subject. Gamers were always making up their own achievements anyway, even arcade games were about attaining a high score and getting your name (or initials) onto the scoreboard, even if most of them ended up being POO or ASS. I think that demonstrates just how seriously gamers take the issue.
I find that for the most part that achievements in games are either stupid or far too easy. When reaching a certain point in the story of a game is an "achievement", the game creators have very low expectations. Or they're struggling to find something to label as an achievement because achievements are the thing you do at the moment. I find them either too straightforward or frustrating to accomplish. Some times there are some in the middle there, when it does take some skill and effort to attain. As an example, the challenge mode achievements in Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. You have to get into the right rhythm for combat as well as know how to build up points. Granted the best method for gaining points in the combat challenges is to just have really long combo multipliers, which is simple but can be difficult in practice. Or maybe I just suck at it.
There are too many examples of the "reach this point in the story" achievements to cite here, so I'll assume you know what I'm talking about. If not, why are you reading about games if you don't play them? There are of course those that are a reward for some banal or random task, such as what I've heard about World of Warcraft which has an achievement for catching fish, even though fishing is just some idle thing that your character can do.
On the other hand, some games like to provide the players with a glut of achievements. Currently Killing Floor has 209 achievements, a large portion of which are for completing maps on different difficulty levels. Given that there are four levels for which there are achievements, they are a simple solution for the developers, but also rather annoying. At least they're annoying to me, I look at the list and think: "I don't want to play the game that much."
But I think this raises the most pertinent point: do players really want to achieve this? I suppose before the advent of in-game achievements, players would make up their own to brag to others about. Now the developers can decide for you. Except of course for the fact that many achievements are easily attained. So people will still find absurd applications of their time that add up to something worthy of bragging about; it's just that some of those things will have the equivalent of a boy scout patch to prove that they did it.
Which is why we still have leaderboards. Achievements aside - leaderboards show just how fast or skillful you are. Except of course where they don't. In the aforementioned Batman games, the number one position for challenges is usually held by someone who apparently earned about a trillion points in a millisecond. If that confuses you, they cheated, obviously. I've seen several leaderboards topped by obvious hackers, so we know that you really suck and couldn't accomplish that.
So, most achievements are pointless or they can be gained by cheating... is there a point to them? I think it depends on what use they are put to. In the first Mass Effect, achievements were awarded for various skill uses or character uses, but the achievements had an effect on actual gameplay: allowing access to certain skills that weren't available for your character class, health regeneration, faster skill cooldown and such. In Alpha Protocol you were awarded "perks" depending on your actions during gameplay that assisted is similar ways: faster skill cooldown, extra points for levelling up your skills, so forth. They meant something to the gameplay, rather than just being arbitrary awards for doing whatever.
I can't think of many ways that achievements could be put to actual use, other than those I've already cited. This is just a bit of rambling about a somewhat nonsensical subject. Gamers were always making up their own achievements anyway, even arcade games were about attaining a high score and getting your name (or initials) onto the scoreboard, even if most of them ended up being POO or ASS. I think that demonstrates just how seriously gamers take the issue.
Friday, 19 April 2013
Excuse the mess
Don't know what I was thinking with the previous post. I was half asleep when I came up with it, seemed funny at the time. Might convince myself to add in some general game-related posts in the near future or sooner or later. Just ignore the previous post, even though I could delete it I think exploring the pointless should be recorded for posterity.
Introducing: The Adventures of General Fatman and Captain Starboy
CS: Starboy to command.
GF: Fatman here.
CS: Sir I've encountered a large asteroid on your flightpath.
GF: Good, I was getting hungry.
CS: It's largely silicate sir.
GF: You insubordinate cur, I was passing stones long before you were born.
CS: I was thinking about your health, sir.
GF: Listen lickspittle, I've got to show off my new look to Admiral Hotpants. The bastard thinks he's going to win the next catwalk medal. I cannot allow that.
CS: We all support you sir, but the asteroid?
GF: Very well, what's the forecast?
CS: Looming chance of showers.
GF: That will wreak havoc with laundry, I suppose I'll need to machine dry.
CS: Very good sir.
GF: Get back here, it's almost dinner time.
GF: Fatman here.
CS: Sir I've encountered a large asteroid on your flightpath.
GF: Good, I was getting hungry.
CS: It's largely silicate sir.
GF: You insubordinate cur, I was passing stones long before you were born.
CS: I was thinking about your health, sir.
GF: Listen lickspittle, I've got to show off my new look to Admiral Hotpants. The bastard thinks he's going to win the next catwalk medal. I cannot allow that.
CS: We all support you sir, but the asteroid?
GF: Very well, what's the forecast?
CS: Looming chance of showers.
GF: That will wreak havoc with laundry, I suppose I'll need to machine dry.
CS: Very good sir.
GF: Get back here, it's almost dinner time.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Some thing maybe
A while back I considered writing proper game reviews (as opposed to the rants that have so far appeared) but obviously didn't get to it. It was supposed to be a way to potentially generate page views and seemed like an idea at the time as I had three brand new games; normally I don't acquire games until they're much cheaper and therefore not new anymore. A major setback was that I had no idea as to the format the reviews would follow. So if you see some proper reviews here in the near future they will:
1. Likely be for games that aren't quite new
2. NOT use a rating of 1-5 or 1-100 or any numerical value
3. Be thoroughly opinion based, so you will have to read them, don't expect a concise summary
They'll probably be in sections relating to gameplay, story, graphics - the usual stuff, but no point scores. Point scores are misleading - that's how you end up with something like Metacritic, one gives 50 another gives 100 you get an average of 75 and it doesn't tell you that one person hated it and another prostrates themselves in supplication to the gods who allowed their puny existence to be enriched buy their marvellous grace. Or something. Not to mention that the standard now seems to be that 90-plus is great, 80-plus is OK and 70-plus is crap - which the astute among you will notice completely ignores the purpose of a percentage rating.
Thinking of general game related crap - why the hell are we still seeing four-player co-op as some sort of standard (think Left 4 Dead, Dead Island, and so many others involving some kind of dead). I know it arose from consoles having four controllers, but even on consoles these days you can't play these games on the same machine. So why four-player, not six or ten? Or more? If you're gearing up for a new system that you hope will last longer than the current generation consoles, maybe expand your thinking a little?
Side note, just linked to Metacritic because I thought it was time I learned how to hyperlink, so I just wanted try it out. You can visit them if you want, I won't be offended. I recommend you read the user reviews, they can be more helpful than the "official" reviews that come, of course, from people being paid to talk about games and who didn't have to buy their own copy to play it. Most of my frustration stems from having paid money for entertainment that doesn't entertain. Because I'm poor, but also angry and a little entitled.
And I'll try to avoid swearing in my reviews (if I do any reviews, this is still hypothetical) although really, they're just words. Books are full of them, do you hate books? If you do, remember I'm talking about the idea of books, not about some specific books that may be complete garbage. I recommend Ira Levin's This Perfect Day, for commentary on what society thinks is acceptable.
Where was I? Games, maybe later.
1. Likely be for games that aren't quite new
2. NOT use a rating of 1-5 or 1-100 or any numerical value
3. Be thoroughly opinion based, so you will have to read them, don't expect a concise summary
They'll probably be in sections relating to gameplay, story, graphics - the usual stuff, but no point scores. Point scores are misleading - that's how you end up with something like Metacritic, one gives 50 another gives 100 you get an average of 75 and it doesn't tell you that one person hated it and another prostrates themselves in supplication to the gods who allowed their puny existence to be enriched buy their marvellous grace. Or something. Not to mention that the standard now seems to be that 90-plus is great, 80-plus is OK and 70-plus is crap - which the astute among you will notice completely ignores the purpose of a percentage rating.
Thinking of general game related crap - why the hell are we still seeing four-player co-op as some sort of standard (think Left 4 Dead, Dead Island, and so many others involving some kind of dead). I know it arose from consoles having four controllers, but even on consoles these days you can't play these games on the same machine. So why four-player, not six or ten? Or more? If you're gearing up for a new system that you hope will last longer than the current generation consoles, maybe expand your thinking a little?
Side note, just linked to Metacritic because I thought it was time I learned how to hyperlink, so I just wanted try it out. You can visit them if you want, I won't be offended. I recommend you read the user reviews, they can be more helpful than the "official" reviews that come, of course, from people being paid to talk about games and who didn't have to buy their own copy to play it. Most of my frustration stems from having paid money for entertainment that doesn't entertain. Because I'm poor, but also angry and a little entitled.
And I'll try to avoid swearing in my reviews (if I do any reviews, this is still hypothetical) although really, they're just words. Books are full of them, do you hate books? If you do, remember I'm talking about the idea of books, not about some specific books that may be complete garbage. I recommend Ira Levin's This Perfect Day, for commentary on what society thinks is acceptable.
Where was I? Games, maybe later.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Dishonest
Over the weekend, I made the seemingly rational choice to purchase an new game to play, to break the monotony essentially. The mistake however was that I purchased Dishonored [sic](yes, that is not how you spell it). I was sold on the promise of player choice and the opportunity of engaging in a stealth based game - something I've not really seen or tried since Thief: The Dark Project. This is not a stealth based game, this is a serial killer training simulator.
Hyperbole aside, one might think that in a stealth game where there is an achievement for not killing anyone and for remaining undetected, that one would be able to actually do either of those things. Without resorting to swear words, let me just say that in this instance, it actually is an achievement to accomplish these. Because you will spend a ludicrous amount of time replaying short sections and quick loading or reverting to the most recent auto save. I used one restart and a couple of auto saves in the first sequence (escaping from prison) and that gave me a sense that perhaps it wasn't beyond my abilities - limited though they may be sometimes. However after spending 4 hours attempting the first mission trying to be undetected and non-lethal, to be told that I was detected, even though I'm certain I wasn't and moreover that it won't even tell you when you were detected so perhaps it was in the early stages, perhaps it was during the constant retries of sneaking past the 10 or so guards in a tiny section of the map who were looking for me even though they hadn't seen me, I've decided to use swear words:
Fuck this game. Fuck the people who made it so shitty. Fuck the people who sold it as something that might be enjoyable. Fuck you for every time I had to slaughter those who spotted me even though they didn't and fuck you for charging people money for this frustration-fest.
Hyperbole aside, one might think that in a stealth game where there is an achievement for not killing anyone and for remaining undetected, that one would be able to actually do either of those things. Without resorting to swear words, let me just say that in this instance, it actually is an achievement to accomplish these. Because you will spend a ludicrous amount of time replaying short sections and quick loading or reverting to the most recent auto save. I used one restart and a couple of auto saves in the first sequence (escaping from prison) and that gave me a sense that perhaps it wasn't beyond my abilities - limited though they may be sometimes. However after spending 4 hours attempting the first mission trying to be undetected and non-lethal, to be told that I was detected, even though I'm certain I wasn't and moreover that it won't even tell you when you were detected so perhaps it was in the early stages, perhaps it was during the constant retries of sneaking past the 10 or so guards in a tiny section of the map who were looking for me even though they hadn't seen me, I've decided to use swear words:
Fuck this game. Fuck the people who made it so shitty. Fuck the people who sold it as something that might be enjoyable. Fuck you for every time I had to slaughter those who spotted me even though they didn't and fuck you for charging people money for this frustration-fest.
Friday, 30 November 2012
Crap Effect
Finally I decided to buy Mass Effect 3 and I thought I'd take this opportunity to share with my audience (i.e. me) my initial impressions of the game:
It sucks.
I don't know how often the damn servers go down, but it is apparently frequent enough for there to have been several months backlog of forum posts complaining about it. I am aware that most people started complaining about the ending almost immediately (haven't got anywhere near that myself), and apparently Bioware responded with a free DLC to extend the ending - and you need to access the EA servers to validate this FREE extra content. You also need to be constantly connecting to their servers for cloud storage and every time you return to the main menu; in my case this has been frequent, as I took the opportunity to try the multi-player while the servers were running, only to have the game crash once after I tried to make my first character and twice more after I'd managed to play - not finish - for a few minutes and losing all the XP and credit I had earned...
Incidentally, multi-player seems to be necessary for you to have a chance at getting the best ending in the single player... WHY? I don't object to the notion of multi-player, and what little I was able to play of it so far seems like fun. But why make it a critical part of the single player story? Does Bioware hate people who like to enjoy a story based game that they can play on their own without being subjected to forced contact with other entities?
I will suggest that yes, Bioware hates their customers; how dare they pay money and expect to be able to play the game on their own! The very idea is absurd.
I haven't advanced very far into the single player either, but so far it's not really engaging me like the previous two did. Perhaps there was a shift to focus on the multi-player at the expense of the single player, in which case I might not care that I can't save the whole galaxy because it's not worth fighting for. Certainly doesn't seem worth paying full price for as yet - I'm glad I didn't.
ADDENDUM
Reaching the extraction for the first time on a silver challenge to have the game crash seems to be part of an ongoing attempt by the game to make me want to kill everyone involved in its creation. This is not a new experience; the game crashes randomly during play, even in single player. I now hate Bioware for this garbage that they seem to enjoy unleashing upon their paying customers. Never buy anything from them ever again, it will enable you to maintain your sanity, if only a little.
ADDITIONAL ADDENDUM
As far as the single player is concerned - meh. Most irritating point was the fight against Kai Leng on Thessia - a boss fight that you are meant to lose. So if you die, you fail; if you win, or at least deplete his shields, he knocks you on your ass and then leaves you crawling out of the rubble. Stupid idea. As for what I imagine was the issue with the ending - would you rather have another stupid boss fight? Did you not like the idea of being able to make a choice other than where to aim your gun?
And multi-player - EA obviously feels like they haven't made enough money or that they're running over budget, because the servers are unreliable at best, and waiting five minutes for the main menu to load up after waiting five minutes trying to load the multi-player means that it's quicker and easier to Ctrl+Alt+Del and click "end task". Whoever is in charge of those servers - you're doing it wrong.
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL
Must connect to servers to access online content like single player DLC and FREE multi-player DLC, which it can't validate at the moment even when it can connect to the servers. This game came out in March and you incompetent morons still haven't fixed it, and this constant connection is required as a countermeasure to piracy which only irritates your paying customers because the pirates find a way around it anyway. You make a profit off of what you sell and you think you're losing money to piracy? You're driving people to it, at least a pirated copy is playable.
And back to the single player... what an ending that was incredibly stupid (only seen the "synthesis" ending so far). I wonder if there was a different set of writers involved. And all of those decisions that added up over the series amount to maybe one mission relating to it in ME3. And there are still only three endings? I suppose you can have a variance in the final battle depending on the resources and assets you've acquired, but only three endings? Plus they were lying when they said you could carry over a save from ME2 where Shepard died, because I couldn't. Probably because everyone died in that one, Garrus and Tali seem to be essential for the story in ME3.
Stupid as it was though, I've seen worse. Anyone ever play Fahrenheit (AKA Indigo Prophecy)? Also had three endings, which branched from decisions made right near the end of the game, rather than a summation of all activity up to that point. And there was a mechanic in play where you had to keep the characters from becoming too stressed, but when it comes time for a decision with one character - leave with his girlfriend or stay and work the case - you must leave with the girlfriend, otherwise it's game over, go back and make that decision the way you were supposed to. And the first scene requires hiding the bloody knife, only to have a requirement that you find it again as the detective... Why bother? (Plus it wasn't even finished when it shipped).
I know programming and coding must be difficult, but when the supposed professionals make so many mistakes, it seems like they're never learning anything.
FREE EXTRA CONTENT
So if you killed the rachni queen in Mass Effect, you didn't kill it for the purposes of Mass Effect 3. Also, if you recommend Anderson as Councillor, that only endures for Mass Effect 2, as he returns to the navy and Udina becomes Councillor. Again, for the purposes of Mass Effect 3. Way to kill the illusion of agency, Bioware. I don't want to know how many more "choices" turn out this way; why bother? And going to all this trouble with the rachni results in them providing one of many, many assets for the war effort, meaning that it could have been left out if the rachni queen died. But then again, the mission features Grunt, which also means that he's probably another one of those "must survive Mass Effect 2" characters. Weird, considering that you didn't even have to let him out of the tank in the first place. That would make for an awkward conversation...
MORE FREE EXTRA CONTENT
Random crashes, connection issues, poor writing, these things we start to expect from big game developers, because they suck at their job and the publishers don't give them enough time or resources to fix their many, many mistakes. But at some point in the development of Mass Effect 3, they decided that the PC version should play like a console game and designated the space bar as the all-in-one button. Use space for sprinting, dodging, taking cover, vaulting cover, activating objects, picking up objects and reviving teammates. The PC keyboard has lots of keys, guys. You don't need to make it like a control pad.
And on those rare occasions when the multi-player servers are working, there is this odd chance occurrence of placing you in a game that doesn't match your search parameters; like placing you in a gold level game when searching for bronze or silver. The AI has enough BS on its side, you don't need to make it tougher than it already is.
EVEN MORE FREE EXTRA CONTENT
I cannot overstate the nuisance of the EA server problem. If it's an issue with the servers being overloaded then EA only has themselves to blame for forcing the game to re-validate itself and all DLC every single time it starts up. Why should anyone pay you for the privilege of not being able to play the game when they could play it for free AND gain the satisfaction of denying you a sale? I have validated my copy of Mass Effect 3 at least 50 times since I purchased it, and the only DLC I have for it are FREE! If I haven't already mentioned it, I'll say it here - the only money you lose to piracy is the money you spend on anti-piracy measures. The pirates will find a way around your copy protection, and they were never going to give you their money in the first place.
And Origin? You want to keep a larger slice of the profit for yourself yet you don't want to spend all that outlay and preparations for support that others go to (let's face it: they envy Steam). Origin prices aren't cheaper, they still have the same mark-up, but more of it goes to EA, and less goes to the customer.
Also of note is the behaviour of game publishers compared to other industries. White goods, electronics, vehicles - all are sold (new) with warranties; games, we get the End User License Agreement. Nowhere is there any mention of the responsibility of the publisher to ensure their product works and is supported - all we have is some bitching about piracy and how everyone paying for their games should expect less for their money. If publishers are under no obligation to provide a functioning product, I don't see why the customer is under any obligation to pay for it.
In conclusion (because it would just be even more complaining about the same topic if it continues):
FUCK YOU, ELECTRONIC ARTS!
MUST HAVE LAST WORD
My previous conclusion bears some revision - all of a sudden there are no connection issues and I can play at any time of day. Hooray you might think, but no. The game can't stop crashing every 5-10 minutes, so a further FUCK YOU to the people responsible for not fixing this game even though it's been out for 10 FUCKING MONTHS - you are worthless and incompetent, and I hate you.
Die in a fire.
It sucks.
I don't know how often the damn servers go down, but it is apparently frequent enough for there to have been several months backlog of forum posts complaining about it. I am aware that most people started complaining about the ending almost immediately (haven't got anywhere near that myself), and apparently Bioware responded with a free DLC to extend the ending - and you need to access the EA servers to validate this FREE extra content. You also need to be constantly connecting to their servers for cloud storage and every time you return to the main menu; in my case this has been frequent, as I took the opportunity to try the multi-player while the servers were running, only to have the game crash once after I tried to make my first character and twice more after I'd managed to play - not finish - for a few minutes and losing all the XP and credit I had earned...
Incidentally, multi-player seems to be necessary for you to have a chance at getting the best ending in the single player... WHY? I don't object to the notion of multi-player, and what little I was able to play of it so far seems like fun. But why make it a critical part of the single player story? Does Bioware hate people who like to enjoy a story based game that they can play on their own without being subjected to forced contact with other entities?
I will suggest that yes, Bioware hates their customers; how dare they pay money and expect to be able to play the game on their own! The very idea is absurd.
I haven't advanced very far into the single player either, but so far it's not really engaging me like the previous two did. Perhaps there was a shift to focus on the multi-player at the expense of the single player, in which case I might not care that I can't save the whole galaxy because it's not worth fighting for. Certainly doesn't seem worth paying full price for as yet - I'm glad I didn't.
ADDENDUM
Reaching the extraction for the first time on a silver challenge to have the game crash seems to be part of an ongoing attempt by the game to make me want to kill everyone involved in its creation. This is not a new experience; the game crashes randomly during play, even in single player. I now hate Bioware for this garbage that they seem to enjoy unleashing upon their paying customers. Never buy anything from them ever again, it will enable you to maintain your sanity, if only a little.
ADDITIONAL ADDENDUM
As far as the single player is concerned - meh. Most irritating point was the fight against Kai Leng on Thessia - a boss fight that you are meant to lose. So if you die, you fail; if you win, or at least deplete his shields, he knocks you on your ass and then leaves you crawling out of the rubble. Stupid idea. As for what I imagine was the issue with the ending - would you rather have another stupid boss fight? Did you not like the idea of being able to make a choice other than where to aim your gun?
And multi-player - EA obviously feels like they haven't made enough money or that they're running over budget, because the servers are unreliable at best, and waiting five minutes for the main menu to load up after waiting five minutes trying to load the multi-player means that it's quicker and easier to Ctrl+Alt+Del and click "end task". Whoever is in charge of those servers - you're doing it wrong.
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL
Must connect to servers to access online content like single player DLC and FREE multi-player DLC, which it can't validate at the moment even when it can connect to the servers. This game came out in March and you incompetent morons still haven't fixed it, and this constant connection is required as a countermeasure to piracy which only irritates your paying customers because the pirates find a way around it anyway. You make a profit off of what you sell and you think you're losing money to piracy? You're driving people to it, at least a pirated copy is playable.
And back to the single player... what an ending that was incredibly stupid (only seen the "synthesis" ending so far). I wonder if there was a different set of writers involved. And all of those decisions that added up over the series amount to maybe one mission relating to it in ME3. And there are still only three endings? I suppose you can have a variance in the final battle depending on the resources and assets you've acquired, but only three endings? Plus they were lying when they said you could carry over a save from ME2 where Shepard died, because I couldn't. Probably because everyone died in that one, Garrus and Tali seem to be essential for the story in ME3.
Stupid as it was though, I've seen worse. Anyone ever play Fahrenheit (AKA Indigo Prophecy)? Also had three endings, which branched from decisions made right near the end of the game, rather than a summation of all activity up to that point. And there was a mechanic in play where you had to keep the characters from becoming too stressed, but when it comes time for a decision with one character - leave with his girlfriend or stay and work the case - you must leave with the girlfriend, otherwise it's game over, go back and make that decision the way you were supposed to. And the first scene requires hiding the bloody knife, only to have a requirement that you find it again as the detective... Why bother? (Plus it wasn't even finished when it shipped).
I know programming and coding must be difficult, but when the supposed professionals make so many mistakes, it seems like they're never learning anything.
FREE EXTRA CONTENT
So if you killed the rachni queen in Mass Effect, you didn't kill it for the purposes of Mass Effect 3. Also, if you recommend Anderson as Councillor, that only endures for Mass Effect 2, as he returns to the navy and Udina becomes Councillor. Again, for the purposes of Mass Effect 3. Way to kill the illusion of agency, Bioware. I don't want to know how many more "choices" turn out this way; why bother? And going to all this trouble with the rachni results in them providing one of many, many assets for the war effort, meaning that it could have been left out if the rachni queen died. But then again, the mission features Grunt, which also means that he's probably another one of those "must survive Mass Effect 2" characters. Weird, considering that you didn't even have to let him out of the tank in the first place. That would make for an awkward conversation...
MORE FREE EXTRA CONTENT
Random crashes, connection issues, poor writing, these things we start to expect from big game developers, because they suck at their job and the publishers don't give them enough time or resources to fix their many, many mistakes. But at some point in the development of Mass Effect 3, they decided that the PC version should play like a console game and designated the space bar as the all-in-one button. Use space for sprinting, dodging, taking cover, vaulting cover, activating objects, picking up objects and reviving teammates. The PC keyboard has lots of keys, guys. You don't need to make it like a control pad.
And on those rare occasions when the multi-player servers are working, there is this odd chance occurrence of placing you in a game that doesn't match your search parameters; like placing you in a gold level game when searching for bronze or silver. The AI has enough BS on its side, you don't need to make it tougher than it already is.
EVEN MORE FREE EXTRA CONTENT
I cannot overstate the nuisance of the EA server problem. If it's an issue with the servers being overloaded then EA only has themselves to blame for forcing the game to re-validate itself and all DLC every single time it starts up. Why should anyone pay you for the privilege of not being able to play the game when they could play it for free AND gain the satisfaction of denying you a sale? I have validated my copy of Mass Effect 3 at least 50 times since I purchased it, and the only DLC I have for it are FREE! If I haven't already mentioned it, I'll say it here - the only money you lose to piracy is the money you spend on anti-piracy measures. The pirates will find a way around your copy protection, and they were never going to give you their money in the first place.
And Origin? You want to keep a larger slice of the profit for yourself yet you don't want to spend all that outlay and preparations for support that others go to (let's face it: they envy Steam). Origin prices aren't cheaper, they still have the same mark-up, but more of it goes to EA, and less goes to the customer.
Also of note is the behaviour of game publishers compared to other industries. White goods, electronics, vehicles - all are sold (new) with warranties; games, we get the End User License Agreement. Nowhere is there any mention of the responsibility of the publisher to ensure their product works and is supported - all we have is some bitching about piracy and how everyone paying for their games should expect less for their money. If publishers are under no obligation to provide a functioning product, I don't see why the customer is under any obligation to pay for it.
In conclusion (because it would just be even more complaining about the same topic if it continues):
FUCK YOU, ELECTRONIC ARTS!
MUST HAVE LAST WORD
My previous conclusion bears some revision - all of a sudden there are no connection issues and I can play at any time of day. Hooray you might think, but no. The game can't stop crashing every 5-10 minutes, so a further FUCK YOU to the people responsible for not fixing this game even though it's been out for 10 FUCKING MONTHS - you are worthless and incompetent, and I hate you.
Die in a fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)