DLC Campaign Impressions [SPOILERS!]

6 Pages
« First
←
2
3
4
5
6
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

DLC Campaign Impressions [SPOILERS!] "The Doctor Who Cloned Me"

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#91 Posted 18 December 2011 - 01:02 PM

LkMax, on 15 December 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

When it was on the 3DR's grip the attitude was "Well, lets just make some crap to pretend we are doing something but never release any game". Yeah, that's awesome either.

Not really. I really believe that 3DR would have finished the game if Take2 hadn't sued. There were finally people put in place to control George Broussard. Those people did not carry over from the GBX-sell and I think the game suffered for it.

Mikko_Sandt, on 16 December 2011 - 04:30 AM, said:

Because people don't want to spend 12+ hours playing a first person shooter just as they don't want to sit through a 4-hour action movie. They have other things to do and other games to play.

Mikko_Sandt, on 16 December 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

There is always an opportunity cost. If you play DNF for two hours, you cannot spend those two hours playing Team Fortress 2. Even a child understands this.

Right, yet people play TF2 for hundreds of hours. I fail to see your point. If the game is 12+ and isn't filled with filler bullshit and it's fun, I'd rather have 12+ than 8+.

Ripemanewone, on 16 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

Im I the only one who can see how tragic it would be to have Bombshell as a major character in a Duke Nukem game? I mean I understand that she may be fondly remembered from a time when DNF was such an enigma but the last thing a Duke game needs is a woman playable character or even sidekick, call me old fashioned but women and ass kicking don't exactly work for me and anytime playing as Bombshell would be (wait for it) less time playing as Duke, equalling less Duke now how could that be a good thing?
If she was along for the ride not so bad, but I'd stick with Dylan when dismembering ET and Bombshell can stick to polishing my gun.

I agree, I hate watching movies where women try to be badass, it's so forced. (Avatar for example, which is a shitty movie but that's beside the point.) The only time I can think of where it worked was Aliens.

The Commander

I used to be a Brown Fuzzy Fruit, but I've changed bro...

#92 Posted 18 December 2011 - 10:18 PM

I find all of Mikko_Sandt comments on length of game play null and void when he has spent 458 hours playing BF2...

It really should be noted that Mikko appears to be one of these people that care more for the MP content in games over SP, where as I care for SP and could care less about MP so therefore games like BF ect do not appeal to me so I would want a SP FPS to be 12+ hours.

necroslut

#93 Posted 19 December 2011 - 04:30 AM

Having a coop mode would probably please both groups to a certain extent, people still play Left 4 Dead.

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#94 Posted 19 December 2011 - 07:15 AM

And I like both MP and SP, but multiplayer can only offer so much. Anybody who spends 500 hours on a single game has a serious problem.

In other news, L4D is a decent series. Really fun with friends, and it's easy enough for non-gamers to pick it right up.

Mikko

Honored Donor

#95 Posted 19 December 2011 - 07:34 AM

Captain Awesome, on 18 December 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

Right, yet people play TF2 for hundreds of hours. I fail to see your point. If the game is 12+ and isn't filled with filler bullshit and it's fun, I'd rather have 12+ than 8+.

The Commander, on 18 December 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

Lol, you idiots still insist on comparing apples & oranges. A multiplayer game is not supposed to have an ending. Single-player games are like interactive movies, stories that you play through. Very few people want to sit through a movie that never ends or read a book that's thousands of pages long. Even with respect to tv shows most people stop watching after the first few seasons (or much sooner).

Commander's post consists of nothing but pathetic ad hominem attacks. I specifically tried to separate the subjective preferences of hardcore gamers from those of the gaming public in general. This is why I referred to statistical facts such as very low completions rates and the relatively small supply of long first person shooters. (Implying that markets are too stupid to supply more long first person shooters is like saying a person fails to pick up a hundred-dollar bill that's lying on the ground in front of him.)

-3

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#96 Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:59 AM

So why are multiplayer games exception to the rule? I'd rather play something that's really long and has an ending than something that never ends and has no closure. And to boot, I've read books longer than a thousand pages, seriously that's baby stuff.

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#97 Posted 19 December 2011 - 11:50 AM

The Commander, on 18 December 2011 - 10:18 PM, said:

I prefer to counter an argument, rather than checking the profile of the owner of the argument and criticize what he does or doesn't in his personal life.

Inspector Lagomorf

Glory To Motherland!

#98 Posted 19 December 2011 - 01:19 PM

Captain Awesome, on 18 December 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

As a writer, I agree with you, but for different reasons - mainly because it's done wrong. As you say, it's forced. It's entirely possible to make women competent characters in stories without turning them into sex objects or vehicles for protofeminism, but Hollywood seems to outright fail at this (even in 007 films, James Bond still has to rescue, usually multiple times, the Bond girl that's trying to be his "equal").

This post has been edited by The Mighty Bison: 19 December 2011 - 01:19 PM

The Commander

I used to be a Brown Fuzzy Fruit, but I've changed bro...

#99 Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:19 PM

Fox, on 19 December 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

I prefer to counter an argument, rather than checking the profile of the owner of the argument and criticize what he does or doesn't in his personal life.

But it is quite known that Mikko really only plays games for MP, not SP.
I have seen him post several times about getting a new game and playing the MP before even trying the SP out.

This to me makes it sound as if he really couldn't care if games had shit or great SP as long as the MP was awesome.
So how can he be one to judge a games SP content if he is only for MP?

This post has been edited by The Commander: 19 December 2011 - 08:20 PM

Jeff

#100 Posted 19 December 2011 - 10:04 PM

Captain Awesome, on 19 December 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

And I like both MP and SP, but multiplayer can only offer so much. Anybody who spends 500 hours on a single game has a serious problem.

I played WoW for over 8000 hours over a 5 year period. I don't do it anymore though. Kicked the habit in January 2011.

Actually, come to think of it. It was over 9000 hours. At least 380 days or more. It was an obsession, addiction, and it was not very healthy that's for sure. I'm glad to have found less addicting things to do.

This post has been edited by Jeff: 19 December 2011 - 10:28 PM

Micky C

Honored Donor

#101 Posted 19 December 2011 - 10:26 PM

Mikko_Sandt, on 19 December 2011 - 07:34 AM, said:

Yeah, because people play Duke Nukem games because they have a big, intricate story, which if gets too long can give people a headache because of it's complexity.

Your analogy with the tv shows further proves my point that if a game or story can maintain its quality, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be longer and keep on going. With tv shows, as ideas get used up and there's not much left after a few seasons, they have to resort to poorer quality stories which don't meet people's standards, so they quit. People just don't stop watching shows for no reason, it's because the quality drops. Anyway games don't so much have a quality problem as a problem of potential repetitiveness. But once again, if a game can have some variety, such as in level design, while keeping it's core gameplay the same, then there's no reason why the game can't be a 15+ hour epic adventure. Duke Nukem 3D had great level variety for example, with numerous different locations. While something like COD, not that I've played all that much, would just be in some war torn city or military base most of the time.

necroslut

#102 Posted 20 December 2011 - 04:27 AM

Micky C, on 19 December 2011 - 10:26 PM, said:

Yeah, people keep playing (or watching) as long as they're enjoying it. Sure, most games (especially shooters) often start feeling stale even before the five hour campaign is completed, others do not. I haven't heard anyone accusing Half-Life 2's 15-hour campaign of being too long.

Inspector Lagomorf

Glory To Motherland!

#103 Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:53 PM

necroslut, on 20 December 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

Yeah, I certainly couldn't beat Half-Life 2 in one day. I've tried. It takes me 2 or 3 at least, and I don't mind that at all. I think it's great to have an experience that's appropriately divided into "acts" where you can pause and take a break. Can't say that about other games.

Mikko

Honored Donor

#104 Posted 22 December 2011 - 01:09 PM

The Commander, on 19 December 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

This is exactly an ad hominem argument. It doesn't address any of the points I've made so far in this topic. Instead of trying to address the points, you attack my character, hoping to prove me wrong that way. Of course, any rational person realizes this instantly and considers your post worthless. Based on the fact that your post got three upvotes, there are at least three super idiots reading this topic. Please reveal yourselves and explain why on earth you'd consider Commander's post upvote-worthy.

(Not to mention you're wrong. I play single-player games all the time.)

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#105 Posted 22 December 2011 - 02:16 PM

I wouldn't say it's ad hominem at all. It's usually an irrelevant negative aspect. Instead, Commander is pointing out a potential bias. It's like someone saying "Nobody likes dark chocolate." and then it turns out said person doesn't really like any chocolate at all.

Mikko

Honored Donor

#106 Posted 22 December 2011 - 02:16 PM

Micky C, on 19 December 2011 - 10:26 PM, said:

Your analogy with the tv shows further proves my point that if a game or story can maintain its quality, then there's no reason why it shouldn't be longer and keep on going. With tv shows, as ideas get used up and there's not much left after a few seasons, they have to resort to poorer quality stories which don't meet people's standards, so they quit. People just don't stop watching shows for no reason, it's because the quality drops. Anyway games don't so much have a quality problem as a problem of potential repetitiveness. But once again, if a game can have some variety, such as in level design, while keeping it's core gameplay the same, then there's no reason why the game can't be a 15+ hour epic adventure. Duke Nukem 3D had great level variety for example, with numerous different locations. While something like COD, not that I've played all that much, would just be in some war torn city or military base most of the time.

This is a fair point but it fails because of at least two reasons:

First, developers cannot tell in advance how good their game is going to be. (I'm sure neither the developers of DNF nor the developers of Daikatana knew how badly their games would score even if at some moment of clarity as they were ready to ship the games they realized that they didn't have the next big thing in their hands.) If they knew adding more content would result in better grades and bigger profits, they'd add more content. However, in the case of a bad game more length would probably make the game worse. Usually game developers and movie directors create more content and film more material than they end up using. They don't see the big picture until everything is done. At this point the budget allocated to a game or a movie has probably almost ran out.

Second, even if people didn't mind spending more time playing one game as long as it's a good game, it'd still make sense to assume that people prefer to play more games rather than less games. So, instead of going for one 16-hour game that scored 90, they'd rather go for two 8-hour games that scored 90 points. Similarly the average customer probably prefers two 300-page books over one 600-page book, assuming identical quality.

necroslut

#107 Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:41 PM

Mikko_Sandt, on 22 December 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

While it's not the same genre and as such not really comparable, games such as Skyrim seem to say different.
But if one 16-hour game and one 8-hour game both get the same score, they probably get it for different reasons, Length probably had some impact on the scores of both games, because length in itself affects how the game (or movie, or book) is. It can be a weakness or a strength depending on how it's used and what kind of game it is in the first place.
If short and good was always better than long and good, then people would only watch short films (which I guess you could argue that Youtube etc is, but that's a different thing), read short stories and play minigames, yet they don't. I haven't heard anyone say "damn, I could have watched two James Bond movies instead of Lord of the Rings extended!".

Kathy

#108 Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:57 PM

Mikko_Sandt, on 22 December 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

Second, even if people didn't mind spending more time playing one game as long as it's a good game, it'd still make sense to assume that people prefer to play more games rather than less games. So, instead of going for one 16-hour game that scored 90, they'd rather go for two 8-hour games that scored 90 points. Similarly the average customer probably prefers two 300-page books over one 600-page book, assuming identical quality.

That's highly subjective.

Micky C

Honored Donor

#109 Posted 22 December 2011 - 05:36 PM

Mikko_Sandt, on 22 December 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

First, developers cannot tell in advance how good their game is going to be. (I'm sure neither the developers of DNF nor the developers of Daikatana knew how badly their games would score even if at some moment of clarity as they were ready to ship the games they realized that they didn't have the next big thing in their hands.) If they knew adding more content would result in better grades and bigger profits, they'd add more content. However, in the case of a bad game more length would probably make the game worse. Usually game developers and movie directors create more content and film more material than they end up using. They don't see the big picture until everything is done. At this point the budget allocated to a game or a movie has probably almost ran out.

Well, your points are valid, however Gearbox must have known the game wasn't going to be fantastic, because they didn't really show much of it. Basically all the trailers were just rehashed versions of other trailers, with bits in different order, some bits sped up, others slowed down, and maybe a one second glimpse of something new. Then, all the demos they showed and released were once again the same thing, and let's not forget that the only people with reasonable access to the demo were the ones that had already preordered the game. Individually, these aren't very suspicious, but when added together, it looks a lot like the tactics of a corporation who has a lousy product, and are trying to cover it up as much as possible. It then stands to reason that if they know it's bad, then they'd know why it's bad, and be able to make it better, or not make it so bad in the first place. Hopefully we'll see this when the next Duke game comes out.

Edit: And Daikatana was before my time, so I'm not sure what happened with that, but I'm under the impression it was delayed several times, and ended up being a quake 2 engine game released in the quake 3 engine era, which I'm sure wouldn't go down well no matter what the game.

This post has been edited by Micky C: 22 December 2011 - 05:37 PM

Mikko

Honored Donor

#110 Posted 23 December 2011 - 04:24 PM

Captain Awesome, on 22 December 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

No. He tried to build a counterargument not by addressing the points I made but by referring to my character. The validity of a statement is of course independent of the person making the statement so me preferring multiplayer games is not only false but totally irrelevant. This is actually a kind of intellectual laziness (or simply intellectual incompetence).

-1

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#111 Posted 23 December 2011 - 04:34 PM

Your avatar is an anime character, that proves your argument false.

The Commander, on 19 December 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

Who uses an argument or what he does in his personal life doesn't affect the validity of the argument. Otherwise, if you wish I can copy & paste all of his posts under my user if that will make his argument more valid.

Besides you cannot indisputably prove that he played SP less than you, that's speculation. Especially considering some games like Bad Company 2 are made for Multiplayer, the Campaing is just an extra.

This post has been edited by Fox: 23 December 2011 - 04:46 PM

Mikko

Honored Donor

#112 Posted 23 December 2011 - 04:41 PM

This is beyond the discussion we've been having so far but anyway:

Micky C, on 22 December 2011 - 05:36 PM, said:

Gearbox probably did realize this but at that point there was little they could have done except restart the project. It was better to just get it done, to get DNF "out of the system" after such a ridiculous development cycle, and focus on getting the next Duke game done right.

The problem with Daikatana wasn't that it was an id Tech 2 game: the game actually looked pretty good. The problem was that it had poor enemy AI, poor sidekick AI (which caused the most trouble), uninspired level design, etc. Of course, like DNF it didn't deserve the kind of extreme backlash it got even if it wasn't good.

This post has been edited by Mikko_Sandt: 23 December 2011 - 04:42 PM

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#113 Posted 23 December 2011 - 04:55 PM

Mikko_Sandt, on 23 December 2011 - 04:41 PM, said:

Of course, like DNF it didn't deserve the kind of extreme backlash it got even if it wasn't good.

Why not? It was promised to be an revolutionary game and the company denied all criticism as false. However it turned out the game was very similar to modern videogames, except for the out-dated graphics (and still takes forever to load).

This post has been edited by Fox: 23 December 2011 - 04:55 PM

ThePinkus

#114 Posted 23 December 2011 - 09:07 PM

Fox, on 23 December 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:

Couldn't tell if you were talking about Duke Nukem or Daikatana at first, then I realised, wait, what you said accounts for both games.

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#115 Posted 23 December 2011 - 09:20 PM

Mikko_Sandt, on 23 December 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

No, it's actually pretty pertinent.

-2

Inspector Lagomorf

Glory To Motherland!

#116 Posted 23 December 2011 - 09:27 PM

ThePinkus, on 23 December 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

Couldn't tell if you were talking about Duke Nukem or Daikatana at first, then I realised, wait, what you said accounts for both games.

Oh Lord, is this going to result in a meme where disgruntled gamers dryly refer to Duke Nukem Forever as "Dukeatana"?

Jeff

#117 Posted 23 December 2011 - 09:50 PM

Quote

With the money that George got from the settlement, couldn't he just buy back the IP and make Duke the way he wanted to. Or is there some legal stipulation in there that says he can't.

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#118 Posted 24 December 2011 - 08:15 PM

Even if there is no legalities holding, Gearbox has to be willing to sell.

Mikko

Honored Donor

#119 Posted 26 December 2011 - 02:45 PM

necroslut, on 22 December 2011 - 04:41 PM, said:

If short and good was always better than long and good, then people would only watch short films (which I guess you could argue that Youtube etc is, but that's a different thing), read short stories and play minigames, yet they don't. I haven't heard anyone say "damn, I could have watched two James Bond movies instead of Lord of the Rings extended!".

(boldfaces mine)

Strawman. Please read my posts before posting.

Helel, on 22 December 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:

That's highly subjective.

Which is why I've used words such as "average", "in general" etc. Pleae read my posts before posting.

Captain Awesome, on 23 December 2011 - 09:20 PM, said:

No, it's actually pretty pertinent.

How the hell is it pertinent? You're ~~basically~~ saying that ad hominems are valid counterarguments. In other words, it'd be acceptable for a person to skip his opponent's argument entirely and instead try to dig up some dirt about him, hoping to "prove him wrong" that way. (This is of course how many politicians act but that kinda proves my point as politicians are idiots.) How far are you willing to go with this? Should academic papers from now on contain ad hominems? Instead of focusing on the arguments, you'd be focusing on the person making those arguments.

Mikko

Honored Donor

#120 Posted 26 December 2011 - 02:49 PM

Fox, on 23 December 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:

Of course the game should be judged based solely on its qualities rather than on what the developers said. By "extreme backlash" I referred to those reviews that gave the game ratings at or below 5/10.