Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Anthem Developer Stream Replay - Javellin Customization - MMORPG.com

2»

Comments

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    Aeander
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,482
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Aeander
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,482
    edited November 2018
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    AeanderOG_Zorvan
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,782
    Looking with interest at this possible Warframe/Division/Destiny clone.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,482
    edited November 2018
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    Let's take your 100 costumes with 900 more in the cash shop nightmare scenario at face value. Not only is this an objective improvement over 100 costumes in totality (in the same way that a Fighting Game with 20 characters and another 5 as DLC is better off than the same game with 20 characters in totality), you haven't demonstrated how the base games have been impacted or how the past age was better.

    We didn't have Warframe in the "golden age" before microtransactions. We didn't have Path of Exile. Or the Witcher 3. Or Monster Hunter World. Or Nier Automata. Or Persona 5. Or God of War 2018. Or Spiderman 2018. Or XCOM 2. Or many, many, MANY other high quality games.

    Before you address the above, I'm fully aware that not all of these have fashion or even microtransactions in mind. But some of them do, and they all reflect upon a thriving gaming industry. Most of the best games ever made have been made within the last 5 years. Hell, lately, a game can be one of the best games of all time and still not be the game of the year because the industry is producing that many landmark titles in rapid succession. Meaning, that unless you favor a genre that is currently in a dead or diminished state (like MMOs or horror games), gaming has actually improved remarkably, and we're all too focused upon the negative to acknowledge the positive.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    Let's take your 100 costumes with 900 more in the cash shop nightmare scenario at face value. Not only is this an objective improvement over 100 costumes in totality, you haven't demonstrated how the base games have been impacted.

    We didn't have Warframe in the "golden age" before microtransactions. We didn't have Path of Exile. Or the Witcher 3. Or Nier Automata. Or Persona 5. Or God of War 2018. Or XCOM 2.

    Before you address the above, I'm fully aware that not all of these have fashion in mind. But some of them do, and they all reflect upon a thriving gaming industry. Most of the best games ever made have been made within the last 5 years. Hell, lately, a game can be one of the best games of all time and still not be the game of the year because the industry is producing that many landmark titles in rapid succession. Meaning, that unless you favor a genre that is currently in a dead or diminished state (like MMOs or horror games), gaming has actually improved remarkably, and we're all too focused upon the negative to acknowledge the positive.
    I can tell you one thing: If it's the best game ever it's not because they have 1000 costumes.
    Aeander
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,482
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    Let's take your 100 costumes with 900 more in the cash shop nightmare scenario at face value. Not only is this an objective improvement over 100 costumes in totality, you haven't demonstrated how the base games have been impacted.

    We didn't have Warframe in the "golden age" before microtransactions. We didn't have Path of Exile. Or the Witcher 3. Or Nier Automata. Or Persona 5. Or God of War 2018. Or XCOM 2.

    Before you address the above, I'm fully aware that not all of these have fashion in mind. But some of them do, and they all reflect upon a thriving gaming industry. Most of the best games ever made have been made within the last 5 years. Hell, lately, a game can be one of the best games of all time and still not be the game of the year because the industry is producing that many landmark titles in rapid succession. Meaning, that unless you favor a genre that is currently in a dead or diminished state (like MMOs or horror games), gaming has actually improved remarkably, and we're all too focused upon the negative to acknowledge the positive.
    I can tell you one thing: If it's the best game ever it's not because they have 1000 costumes.
    And I can tell you another. That best game ever is not worse off for having the art department make 1,000 costumes on top of the rest of the game.
  • ItstimetodealItstimetodeal Member UncommonPosts: 284


    I think even EA knows this is their last shot. Hopefully they make good use of it.



    Last shot for what? Are you actually trying to say that EA is going to close down?
    Nah they won’t close but I’m sure they will
    be less likely to invest in these types of games. They have been steadily crashing for awhile now and another big lack luster blow could mean change. They’ve already lost preorders from
    just about everyone I know personally and that says a lot. I won’t touch this until likely a
    month in if reviews and everything turn out well which im pretty sure they won’t so.
    Dude who are you?  How have you become so important that losing preorders from you and "people you know" says a lot? 
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    Let's take your 100 costumes with 900 more in the cash shop nightmare scenario at face value. Not only is this an objective improvement over 100 costumes in totality, you haven't demonstrated how the base games have been impacted.

    We didn't have Warframe in the "golden age" before microtransactions. We didn't have Path of Exile. Or the Witcher 3. Or Nier Automata. Or Persona 5. Or God of War 2018. Or XCOM 2.

    Before you address the above, I'm fully aware that not all of these have fashion in mind. But some of them do, and they all reflect upon a thriving gaming industry. Most of the best games ever made have been made within the last 5 years. Hell, lately, a game can be one of the best games of all time and still not be the game of the year because the industry is producing that many landmark titles in rapid succession. Meaning, that unless you favor a genre that is currently in a dead or diminished state (like MMOs or horror games), gaming has actually improved remarkably, and we're all too focused upon the negative to acknowledge the positive.
    I can tell you one thing: If it's the best game ever it's not because they have 1000 costumes.
    And I can tell you another. That best game ever is not worse off for having the art department make 1,000 costumes on top of the rest of the game.
    That's where you're wrong. Your mistake is that you think those extra 900 costumes are "on top of the rest of the game." That takes development time to do.

    Look at it this way. Think of the best single player RPG and their customization options. Now compare that reasonable quantity to the outrageously over the top quantities that on-line games feature. Why do you think the difference is so pronounced? I'll wait...
    Aeander
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,482
    edited November 2018
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    Let's take your 100 costumes with 900 more in the cash shop nightmare scenario at face value. Not only is this an objective improvement over 100 costumes in totality, you haven't demonstrated how the base games have been impacted.

    We didn't have Warframe in the "golden age" before microtransactions. We didn't have Path of Exile. Or the Witcher 3. Or Nier Automata. Or Persona 5. Or God of War 2018. Or XCOM 2.

    Before you address the above, I'm fully aware that not all of these have fashion in mind. But some of them do, and they all reflect upon a thriving gaming industry. Most of the best games ever made have been made within the last 5 years. Hell, lately, a game can be one of the best games of all time and still not be the game of the year because the industry is producing that many landmark titles in rapid succession. Meaning, that unless you favor a genre that is currently in a dead or diminished state (like MMOs or horror games), gaming has actually improved remarkably, and we're all too focused upon the negative to acknowledge the positive.
    I can tell you one thing: If it's the best game ever it's not because they have 1000 costumes.
    And I can tell you another. That best game ever is not worse off for having the art department make 1,000 costumes on top of the rest of the game.
    That's where you're wrong. Your mistake is that you think those extra 900 costumes are "on top of the rest of the game." That takes development time to do.

    Look at it this way. Think of the best single player RPG and their customization options. Now compare that reasonable quantity to the outrageously over the top quantities that on-line games feature. Why do you think the difference is so pronounced? I'll wait...
    Those costumes don't spontaneously exist at launch, making this a faulty comparison. And your argument only holds water if you don't select the best/biggest online games to compare to the best single player ones.

    I can compare the best single player RPG's to the most content dense MMOs. The Witcher 3 launched with a metric fuckton of content but so did WoW, GW2, and ESO. All three games have accumulated large cash shops while also piling on tons of actual content.

    Guild Wars 2 has given me content on a comparable map scale of the Witcher 3 for free over 6 years (to say nothing of the paid expansion content), and that has been supported in large part by those 1,000 costumes.

    ESO produces so many paid expansions at such a high frequency that I personally think that they need to slow the fuck down. 

    Or in a direct apples to apples comparison, Path of Exile (a more online-oriented ARPG) has used many paid costumes to produce far more content than Diablo 3 (a game with far more of a single player leaning and fewer skins) has. 
    Iselin
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    Let's take your 100 costumes with 900 more in the cash shop nightmare scenario at face value. Not only is this an objective improvement over 100 costumes in totality, you haven't demonstrated how the base games have been impacted.

    We didn't have Warframe in the "golden age" before microtransactions. We didn't have Path of Exile. Or the Witcher 3. Or Nier Automata. Or Persona 5. Or God of War 2018. Or XCOM 2.

    Before you address the above, I'm fully aware that not all of these have fashion in mind. But some of them do, and they all reflect upon a thriving gaming industry. Most of the best games ever made have been made within the last 5 years. Hell, lately, a game can be one of the best games of all time and still not be the game of the year because the industry is producing that many landmark titles in rapid succession. Meaning, that unless you favor a genre that is currently in a dead or diminished state (like MMOs or horror games), gaming has actually improved remarkably, and we're all too focused upon the negative to acknowledge the positive.
    I can tell you one thing: If it's the best game ever it's not because they have 1000 costumes.
    And I can tell you another. That best game ever is not worse off for having the art department make 1,000 costumes on top of the rest of the game.
    That's where you're wrong. Your mistake is that you think those extra 900 costumes are "on top of the rest of the game." That takes development time to do.

    Look at it this way. Think of the best single player RPG and their customization options. Now compare that reasonable quantity to the outrageously over the top quantities that on-line games feature. Why do you think the difference is so pronounced? I'll wait...
    Those costumes don't spontaneously exist at launch, making this a faulty comparison. And your argument only holds water if you don't select the best/biggest online games to compare to the best single player ones.

    I can compare the best single player RPG's to the most content dense MMOs. The Witcher 3 launched with a metric fuckton of content but so did WoW, GW2, and ESO. All three games have accumulated large cash shops while also piling on tons of actual content.

    Guild Wars 2 has given me content on a comparable map scale of the Witcher 3 for free over 6 years (to say nothing of the paid expansion content), and that has been supported in large part by those 1,000 costumes.

    ESO produces so many paid expansions at such a high frequency that I personally think that they need to slow the fuck down. 

    Or in a direct apples to apples comparison, Path of Exile (a more online-oriented ARPG) has used many paid costumes to produce far more content than Diablo 3 (a game with far more of a single player leaning and fewer skins) has. 
    I don't think we can have any kind of meaningful discussion about this if you won't even admit that customization options are over-produced (and pushed as ever so cool) like crazy in online games simply because they can be easily monetized. I thought everyone knew that.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,482
    edited November 2018
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    All this emphasis on customization (AKA things we can monetize like crazy) in this and most other so-called AAA online games is a pretty good indicator of just how shallow and derivative games have gotten these days.

    I mean... some of that has always been fun up to a point, but there is one and only one reason why it's so heavily promoted. And that reason is not awesome game play.
    That's patently false. Increased customization is often an indicator of increased depth in a game, not decreased. Or are you going to tell me with a straight face that XCOM's aesthetic customization is an example of shallowness on its part? How about Warframe's? 

    The only thing that in depth aesthetic customization actually reflects is an expansive pool of loot drops and/or increased value of character identity to match that. And for this type of game, that's a good thing, even if it is easily monetizable.
    Yeah... no. There's the game you play and then there's the barbie dress-up part. One is the core game and the other is optional fluff.
    Yeah... no. "Barbie dress up" as you so eloquently put it is part of the game. It is a part of the player experience. You might not value that part, but others most certainly fucking do. It's part of roleplaying, and if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have gear skins in any RPG. After all, your raid drop doesn't have to look any different from starting gear to be stronger.

    In fact, why don't we all go back to text-based MUDs. We don't need all these new-fangled visuals diluting our gameplay experience.
    You must have missed the "fun up to a point" part of my post or just decided to ignore it. The point is that developers are overdoing the shit out of it simply because it's the easiest thing in the world to move over to the cash shop without players shouting P2W.

    It's something that used to be there but in balance in games before every game started monetizing this shit. Then the fucking fluff just exploded.

    Are you saying 100 costumes and or dyes are not enough and you think games are better because now there are 1,000 instead of 100 with 900 of them in the cash shop? Give your head a shake dude.
    Let's take your 100 costumes with 900 more in the cash shop nightmare scenario at face value. Not only is this an objective improvement over 100 costumes in totality, you haven't demonstrated how the base games have been impacted.

    We didn't have Warframe in the "golden age" before microtransactions. We didn't have Path of Exile. Or the Witcher 3. Or Nier Automata. Or Persona 5. Or God of War 2018. Or XCOM 2.

    Before you address the above, I'm fully aware that not all of these have fashion in mind. But some of them do, and they all reflect upon a thriving gaming industry. Most of the best games ever made have been made within the last 5 years. Hell, lately, a game can be one of the best games of all time and still not be the game of the year because the industry is producing that many landmark titles in rapid succession. Meaning, that unless you favor a genre that is currently in a dead or diminished state (like MMOs or horror games), gaming has actually improved remarkably, and we're all too focused upon the negative to acknowledge the positive.
    I can tell you one thing: If it's the best game ever it's not because they have 1000 costumes.
    And I can tell you another. That best game ever is not worse off for having the art department make 1,000 costumes on top of the rest of the game.
    That's where you're wrong. Your mistake is that you think those extra 900 costumes are "on top of the rest of the game." That takes development time to do.

    Look at it this way. Think of the best single player RPG and their customization options. Now compare that reasonable quantity to the outrageously over the top quantities that on-line games feature. Why do you think the difference is so pronounced? I'll wait...
    Those costumes don't spontaneously exist at launch, making this a faulty comparison. And your argument only holds water if you don't select the best/biggest online games to compare to the best single player ones.

    I can compare the best single player RPG's to the most content dense MMOs. The Witcher 3 launched with a metric fuckton of content but so did WoW, GW2, and ESO. All three games have accumulated large cash shops while also piling on tons of actual content.

    Guild Wars 2 has given me content on a comparable map scale of the Witcher 3 for free over 6 years (to say nothing of the paid expansion content), and that has been supported in large part by those 1,000 costumes.

    ESO produces so many paid expansions at such a high frequency that I personally think that they need to slow the fuck down. 

    Or in a direct apples to apples comparison, Path of Exile (a more online-oriented ARPG) has used many paid costumes to produce far more content than Diablo 3 (a game with far more of a single player leaning and fewer skins) has. 
    I don't think we can have any kind of meaningful discussion about this if you won't even admit that customization options are over-produced (and pushed as ever so cool) like crazy in online games simply because they can be easily monetized. I thought everyone knew that.
    The argument is not whether or not they are overproduced. I'll grant that they are. The argument is whether or not this has a detrimental effect on the game proper. And that is far from black and white, because this is one of the best ways to fairly produce long term content expansion and give a game legs for far longer than it otherwise would. 

    But where I will call something overproduced is solely in regards to the quality of the aesthetics themselves. League of Legends has many skins, but there is always a prevailing feeling of regret in older skin purchases because so little effort is put into their quality compared to newer ones. I would rather have 100 of the best modern costumes in that game than a storefront clogged with 1,000 recolors and no real refunding/exchaning/updating of those older costumes to match the quality of the new hotness.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    Aeander said:
    Iselin said:
    I don't think we can have any kind of meaningful discussion about this if you won't even admit that customization options are over-produced (and pushed as ever so cool) like crazy in online games simply because they can be easily monetized. I thought everyone knew that.
    The argument is not whether or not they are overproduced. I'll grant that they are. The argument is whether or not this has a detrimental effect on the game proper. And that is far from black and white, because this is one of the best ways to fairly produce long term content expansion and give a game legs for far longer than it otherwise would. 

    But where I will call something overproduced is solely in regards to the quality of the aesthetics themselves. League of Legends has many skins, but there is always a prevailing feeling of regret in older skin purchases because so little effort is put into their quality compared to newer ones. I would rather have 100 of the best modern costumes in that game than a storefront clogged with 1,000 recolors and no real refunding/exchaning/updating of those older costumes to match the quality of the new hotness.
    But you misunderstood my original post to begin with. I didn't say that Anthem is shit because they have customization options (although games do take a development hit when too much time goes into that, but that wasn't my point) but the fact that they are choosing to promote those options over promoting its game play with a 45 minute stream is symptomatic of what the industry wants to push and also makes me wonder why they're not showing 45 minutes highlighting the actual game play.

    Like what are they actually trying to sell me... game play or pretty colors?
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 4,482
    Iselin said:
    But you misunderstood my original post to begin with. I didn't say that Anthem is shit because they have customization options (although games do take a development hit when too much time goes into that, but that wasn't my point) but the fact that they are choosing to promote those options over promoting its game play with a 45 minute stream is symptomatic of what the industry wants to push and also makes me wonder why they're not showing 45 minutes highlighting the actual game play.

    Like what are they actually trying to sell me... game play or pretty colors?
    They've done both, actually. There are expansive streams on the gameplay proper, and one can even find video of the mechanical side of customization if one looks for it.

    And the mechanical customization also looks pretty solid, if I might add. Two of the abilities on each Javelin can be completely swapped out for different ones, alongside a Support Gear to help your team. And that's before even getting to the loot.

    Anyway, gameplay streams of a pre-release game are a difficult subject matter. You run the risk of spoiling the story or inventive map designs, which could be subject to change, before the game even releases. Think of how much more breathtaking the Coral Highlands in Monster Hunter World would be if they hadn't shown it off so extensively.
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,840
    I think the play with EA is to allow high level of customization so they can monetize certain colors/texture maps/decals, and develop as little game functionality as possible. 

    4 player, 4 javelins. I haven't seen the skill/weapon system but I highly doubt they're going to be deep and layered (I'm open to being surprised though). 

    The more dry the game is, the more bored people get, the more they'll buy some customization just for the hell of it. -Jeff from Analytics  :D
    Raging Demons for all flowchart "Kens". This is a metaphor.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,654
    I think the play with EA is to allow high level of customization so they can monetize certain colors/texture maps/decals, and develop as little game functionality as possible. 

    4 player, 4 javelins. I haven't seen the skill/weapon system but I highly doubt they're going to be deep and layered (I'm open to being surprised though). 

    The more dry the game is, the more bored people get, the more they'll buy some customization just for the hell of it. -Jeff from Analytics  :D
    I'm glad someone else gets it. I was beginning to wonder :)
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
Sign In or Register to comment.