Howdy, Stranger!

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




Last Active
Favorite Role
Currently Playing
Elder Scrolls Online
  • Our Spoiler Free Red Dead Redemption 2 Review

    Scot said:
    Torval said:
    thunderC said:
    Sovrath said:

    Torval said:

    Good review. It's already preloaded on our PS4. Rockstar is cool about that. I probably won't play until the PC release. The PS4 is my son's gaming box.

    The long travel times I think are part of the detail. Everything on the west coast feels spread out, the states are huge, with lots of space in between places.

    It sounds like a fun place to chill and explore. There are a couple little things that I think would annoy me, like having to kill people when I didn't want to. The exploration sounds amazing.

    Do you have to kill people you don't want to kill?
    No , i could have sworn i read there is a new dialogue system in place when you encounter NPC's in the world. One of the video's you can see on the right , one button is for rob, another is draw weapon then you have 2 buttons that say Escalate & Deescalate (the conversation). But i mean, If you want to play as a Pacifist Buddha Cowboy not sure you will be having a great time, Its a Rockstar game after all lol
    I'm going from this sentence in the article:

    I lost track of how many times I felt like I had to kill someone to get out of something, even if I didn't want to.
    GTA V has a lot of moments like that where the only right way isn't the way you really want it to go down. So, in the end, you do what the game wants from you rather than what you want to do. It's not necessarily a big deal but it's a place where open world and directed narrative clash and it can often feel jarring or confining. Suddenly, you're not in control of your story anymore, the story is.
    I do rather wonder at why for some players and reviewers this is even an issue. It is the wild west not the Care Bear west. Same goes for GTA where you are a member of a gang not a choir boy. You can play Life is Strange if you want everything to be about making nice choices.

    Also one thing I have noticed is reviewers always feel a need to give a nod to the idea that "aren't games where you kill people bad, aren't games with guns bad". Usually not said directly but always a nod to that idea.

    Not sure the west was won with a quite word or two. ;)
    It's an open world game that uses gated linear narrative to direct you through how it wants rather than you. It's an issue because it's where open design meets a wall and has to resort to directed gating.

    The problem is a lack of choice or the removal of choice in an open format. It has nothing to do with the specifics of what choices are removed, but rather that you're given on canned option as a solution. Can the game handle if a key NPC lives or dies when it expects the opposite result? Will it work or break? Do they need to funnel you (the player) through action you wouldn't have otherwise chosen.

    In reality the west absolutely was won with words, and money not murderers. It was the words on land deeds bought with money (or granted by the US government through settlement acts) that won out. Here is a real story of a real cowboy. Most of it is about legalities and money. The gun shooting was a plain murder just like modern times. The shooter was acquitted under suspect circumstances. He didn't go on to shoot the rest of the "CareBears" in his area. He got lucky because big cattle money hated Pete French and wanted his land so they bought off justice.

    Note that Pete and ALL of his ranch hands were unarmed that day while moving the cattle. That's because shooting other people here was rarer 125 years ago than it is today.

    So your weird agenda about guns is just you injecting cheetohead politics into something that isn't there.
  • CCP Reveals Project Nova, a New FPS Game Set in the EVE Universe - MMORPG.com News

    I hope they do it right this time. They should launch on consoles first, but pro-tip: don't make it a last gen exclusive. Who does that?

    This is how they could make a big splash. Launch on Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch with cross-play between all three platforms. Everyone would go ape-shit it would be a big hit even if it's only a mediocre shooter.

    For the first 6 months don't launch on PC, but make it Xbox Cross Play through Xbox Game Pass. That would hook PC players. After that Window and sales die, launch on Steam and other platforms.

    That is how they should launch. Instead, they'll probably play it really safe with an anemic and unremarkable PC launch.
  • Witcher Novelist Demanding $16M in Royalties from CD Projekt Red - MMORPG.com

    Vrika said:
    Iselin said:
    gervaise1 said:
    If CD Project Red's computer games had turned out to be flops would it have OK for them to ask for their money back due to the lack of benefit they received? Notwithstanding the fact they signed a contract of course.
    It's why I have some problems with "best seller" clauses in the 4 or 5 EU countries that have that concept in their copyright law.
    I think the best seller clause works fine with books where one person has done most of the work: Good work should be rewarded.

    But it should not be applied to team efforts. The law does not give Witcher 3'd dialogue writer, engine creator, or whoever created the tool they're using to make their cutscenes an option to ask for more money despite their superb work. Why should the law give one person privilege above others when the game was a team effort by hundreds.
    Because that entire team couldn't come up with an original IP design that would work so they hired someone specifically for that task. They chose an existing published person and borrowed their work to create more ideas.

    You bring up a good point though because those people are likely getting shafted too. I've been a developer for a long time, both full-time and contractual. There are tradeoffs to each, but in either case the tech industry is setup to exploit developer efforts with little to no return except in outlier instances. That is a huge reason behind the birth of Open Source and why it's so popular today.

    The same could be said for most industry where creative meets business. It's very difficult for musicians and authors to get a fair shake as well.

    The business in all these systems share at least one common thread and that is the business relationship is heavily in favor of the corporations compared to the creators. Consider this, content creators will consider getting a 6% return on this a victory. Would those pro-business people consider it a victory if CDPR got to keep 6% instead of 94%?

    And to answer your question, that is why CDPR keeps the 96% of the revenue, to pay all those artists and engineers that make their games. Now the question is do they pay them fairly out of the roughly half a BILLION in revenue they've made so far? Those people could easily be paid a few million each and CDPR execs and corporate revenue would still be deeply in the black. So are CDPR doing that or are they screwing their creative staff over too? It's a good question you asked.
  • Witcher Novelist Demanding $16M in Royalties from CD Projekt Red - MMORPG.com

    SBFord said:
    Torval said:
    mallettjt said:
    Never pay this man. Cd project red is a team with great originality and .ingenuity. Andrzej Sapkowski is a plagiarist who stole all his work from Michael Moorcock. Before he wrote the witcher series he was an editor and translator for science and fantasy who worked primarily on Michael Moorcock's elric of melnibone series. Now i want you google that character name as well as geralt of rivia and tell me the differences. There is not a single strand of originality in Andrzej's body the fact he is despicable person.
    I'm not sure why people find your comment insightful. It's unsubstantiated hearsay, but then again that's as good as facts on the internet, just ask Reddit. Your post is everything wrong with the current group-think echo chamber we've created on the internet.

    What is most disgusting about your post is suggesting justice be delivered based on your subjective moral judgement of that person and their social popularity.

    Was CDPR original when they used his work because they couldn't create an original IP and story of their own, or when they continued to capitalize on a property they didn't create in a game format already established?

    The fact is both parties benefited from the relationship, CDPR much more so financially. They have made tons of money and should renegotiate the contract to be in line with industry standards. It would be stupid for both parties to waste money in court over greed.

    CDPR is making 97% of gross revenue from that IP. It doesn't seem ridiculous that it be 94%. Why wouldn't they renegotiate? It's the kind of thing you'd expect from EA or Activision. This is what happens when big publishers aren't held accountable and gamers give them a pass because they think they're buddies. It's called celebrity attachment; which is perceiving a personal connection with a person who doesn't know you exist. You and CDPR aren't buddies.
    I felt his post was insightful from the context of an ostensibly similar IP. The rest...eh -- that's one person's opinion. The legal case will be fascinating to watch, though I think CDPR would come out looking like the "good guys" if they said something like, "Well, we don't owe you anything else, but we'll meet your 6% anyway." After all, they have a new game coming out soon and they don't want to smear the corporate name by being petty or by getting bogged down in a long legal struggle.

    Either way, I wonder if Sapkowski will file a lawsuit now that the initial overture has been declined by CDPR.
    Good points.

    Offering the 6% would have been the high ground. I'm not sure why they didn't take that because they are known for promoting a fair deal. They have tailored GoG to be the DRM Free fair deal gamer experience. They promote indie developers. They offer a "fair" deal on their DLC approach (see the Witcher 3). Is it really their corporate culture or just marketing bullshit?

    A lot of authors borrow ideas and work from other authors including Tolkien. "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton (now retitled "The 13th Warrior") is a story based on the historical account of a 9th Century Saracen and Beowulf. There are lots of examples. The entire premise of the Lovecraftian society was based on this. Lovecraft and Howard (Conan) directly borrowed from one another and influenced each other greatly.

    Anyone who has watched TV shows and movies for any amount of time knows there are only 7 basic plots (did I borrow that idea?). I feel like its not honest to take shots at "S" even if he did reinvent Moorcock.

    My issue is introducing character moralization to try and decide whether someone should get a fair deal or not. It should be the law and justice. Honestly, I don't like much of anything I've ready about "S" and I don't like The Witcher series at all so I don't really care personally. I think our industry is incredibly corrupt and all parties consistently take the self-serving low ground. I'd like to see more of the right thing done as apposed to backstabbing business as usual.
  • Sony Bows to Growing Pressure & Enables 'Extended Fortnite Cross-Play Beta'

    Well unless that person is Bearzly though right? I mean he beat Dark Souls on it's hardest setting with 9 different controller methods. One was a guitar hero controller. Another was a racing wheel.
    Or Rudeism who built a controller for Overwatch.....with bananas 
    Or twerkingyoshi who beat Dark Souls 3 with a video game fishing rod. 

    Sometimes it is just the player ;)

    Why do you guys avoid the relativity of the issue like the plague in making these jabs?

    I'n sure folks could beat Dark Souls with multiple control schemes, but that doesn't really mean anything in a comparison of two control schemes against one another competitively.

    A dude beat the original Super Mario Bros blindfolded (iirc).  Are we to say that's evidence folks could win a Counter-Strike tournament blindfolded against players who aren't?
    Actually because you don't have any proof for your claim. It's just something that people have come to accept because at some point in time in some context that was apparently true for some people. I'm not seeing that play out in reality. I've watched people play Destiny 2 on the PC with a controller in Crucible and do fine.

    At some point the relative issue is irrelevant, if it's even true. I'm not accepting that at face value and I've seen (watched) gameplay and the anecdotal evidence reinforces that suspicion. Can anyone prove it matters now, especially outside of tournament play with the unwashed masses?

    What's the worse thing that could happen? PS4 players get spanked and humiliated by the PCMR. Or PCMR get humiliated because of all the KBM chest thumping. Either way it will be hilarious!