• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Malphisto

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/10/1986

Contact Methods

  • SN
  • AIM
  • PSN ID
  • Skype
  • Xbox Gamertag

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Easton, Pennsylvania
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

2,121 profile views
  1. I have so much to comment on about all this... 1: The guys deciding to make these "reaction" videos to what Joe put up and were deliberately ignoring obvious facts for the sake of justifying their fake outrage just to piggyback off of Joe's channel. View Leeches seeking to generate as much attention for themselves as possible. Fact of the matter is, Joe NEVER at any point in time mentioned anyone by name in that first video he did. So for this one dude to think he's some sort of special snowflake and just "assume" that Joe is "indirectly" responding to him is just straight up asinine. 2: The people crying about SJWs in regards to this whole thing are just ridiculous. At this point, THEY are even worse than the SJWs they're going on about. THEY are the ones who are making this about politics. To my knowledge, the company has said playing female characters is 100% optional. One of the major things so many have been advocating for over the years is MORE PLAYER OPTIONS for our games. Players, regardless of their own gender in real life, like being able to pick and choose their gender in games. So for these Anti-SJWs trying to strong arm the company into taking that option away, its LITERALLY THE SAME DAMN THING THEY ACCUSE OF SJWS... Yeah, that shit's getting really old. They're basically trying to dictate how others should play games and imposing their beliefs on everyone. Such blatant hypocrisy. 3: The "Historical Accuracy" people are at least putting forth a reasonable argument grounded in logic. But at the same time, this is a game. The idea that they would deny themselves enjoying said game just because its not 100% "Historically Accurate" is just crazy. That's like saying games aren't real enough so I'm not going to play them. I mean, seriously? I saw someone make the counter point "Well respawning after you die isn't historically accurate either, so womp womp~" And its true, like if you're really going to get so bent out of shape over something so trivial like that to the point you refuse to play said game, then you need some personal time to reflect on yourself.
  2. The main issue we're facing here is that the industry as a whole is trying to "normalize" this level of corporate bullshit. The top dogs like EA, Activision and Ubisoft have for a very long time tried to establish a sort of monopoly in the market. This has gradually shifted the power/control away from we the Gamers to the corporations. Instead of us being the ones to set the standards for company policy, they do whatever they want and just expect us to deal with it. They spent YEARS conditioning the Gamer Community to be complacent and go along with their agenda. Many will even go out of their way to defend such anti-consumer practices, like the battered spouse living in an abusive relationship. It sucks, dude. Unfortunately, the grim reality here is that the only way to stem the tide of this cancer is for these games to fail... There's no sugar coating it. The games that employ these practices need to crash and burn, lose both player numbers and sales. Its gonna suck. There's gonna be a lot of potentially amazing games that will suffer as a result. Possibly studios too. But that's going to be the only way to correct the imbalance of the situation.
  3. Agreed. Honestly, the issue there is that TF2 was more or less sacrificed for the sole purpose of supporting the crushing defeat of COD last year. Battlefield 1 was the true winner there and releasing the two games so close to one another resulted in one cannibalizing the other. The greater concern now is that EA recently purchased Respawn Entertainment. Now I fear for the future of the franchise... (Personally, I want to see TitanFall having the Titan aspect of the game being more similar to the kind of crazy customization options found in the Armored Core series) COD has the potential to innovate and become more than it is, but it never will. Its sole purpose is to essentially make everyone feel like a badass even when there isn't much thought involved. Its always the same formula for the game design over and over. Honestly, I'd rather the franchise just crash and burn and outright die. Its continued success has been impacting the industry as a whole. And how they're working Loot Box crap now in this newest one is just........dirty.
  4. I am inclined to agree with the above. Coming from someone who was there at the start for the first game and who played all the way through to the Taken King expansion, there are glaring problems with this franchise in general that have yet to be actually addressed or even acknowledged by the companies involved. "Identity Crisis"- Simply put, even from the beginning this series has had a hard time trying to decide what exactly it wants to be. And everyone you speak to about it will all have their own answer to said question. And often what ends up happening is that the game's vague identity makes for a whole host of convenient buzz word rebuttals to anyone posing legitimate issues or concerns with the game. For example, the non-existent Player Progression. The fact that the game itself is 90% designed to revolve around the player spending the vast majority of their time replaying the same content over and over again in an agonizing grind and fight against the game's RNG Loot to acquire Legendary and Exotic items. And then the instant something "new" gets released, all of that time and effort spent grinding is thrown out the window at the drop of a hat as suddenly all of your weapons and armor are rendered obsolete whether or not the newer gear is even actually any good. (You'll always go for what offers the higher damage/armor rating, eliminating any notion of actual freedom of choice in how you want to build your character) A common argument will usually consist of "well that's how they do it in an MMO" which is such a disingenuous response. First, Destiny is not an MMO. The most someone could possibly get away with calling it is MMO Lite. Because there is certainly nothing at all "massive" about it. Second, not EVERY game calling itself an MMO does that. Third, the entire notion itself absolutely kills any justifiable reasoning for playing Destiny beyond beating the main story content which, from personal experience and from what I've seen of others, ranges anywhere between 7-8 hours of playtime for anyone decent at shooters. The same is true for the Raids. Let us assume someone buys Destiny 2 for instance. Beat the main story and then step away until the next DLC is released. Within minutes you'll get weapons and armor dropping from basic enemies that will give you the necessary stats to run that Raid, with the added bonus of having completely bypassed the grind. Meanwhile, recently I finally caved in and decided to start playing Borderlands 2. Holy crap... Its like Night and Day between the two. I have yet to beat the game's main story and already I've seen boss innovation, epic level design, vehicle combat that actually encourages having friends on to ride along with you like back in the good o' days of Halo with the Warthog, a literal wealth of different and unique weapons, an AMAZING story with enjoyable characters, actual variation between the different classes to choose from, an actual reason to explore the map and finding all kinds of tucked away loot damn near everywhere... At this point I've been left wondering to myself if Destiny was trying to more emulate Borderlands 2 or a weird mix between that and Warframe. (Since I recall hearing that Warframe was in fact a source of inspiration for Destiny) But in both regards, even with both highly successful games being readily available for easy research, Destiny failed on both fronts in trying to do what these other games had already accomplished. Argetlahm already brought up the points regarding the gutting of the grimoire, and honestly it didn't ever really reflect on anything experienced in the game anyways. And I read the hell out of that thing. Between that and everything I've seen concerning the ORIGINAL story by Joseph Staten who was the former Lead Writer on Destiny before its initial release, the plot that we see now in the game just flatout pales in comparison to the sheer masterpiece that could have been. And at no point in time was this flawed narrative ever properly seen to by the company. Ever. Others may argue that the story has "improved" over time, but I disagree with that notion because it implies that the flawed narrative was corrected at some point. Which it wasn't. Vanilla Destiny, which acts as the foundation for EVERYTHING else in the series, is riddled with plot holes, horrendous storytelling and an anti-climatic and confusing final boss fight/ending that to this day remains one of the most popular memes on the internet. Zero attempts were made to go back and change any of it. Because that would involve giving the people who already paid for that content free, additional content which they won't do unless they can make money off of it. Which is quite frankly a load of horseshit. You would think that they should feel obligated to provide a COMPLETE game to their players as compensation for continuing to remain loyal even after being sold an incomplete game. Or at the very least, as a means to try and win back those who decided to quit as a result of such. I could easily keep going but I'd rather not test to see if there is a text limit on posts, lol In my opinion, I would hold off on getting Destiny 2. If you haven't played it yet, I can DEFINITELY recommend Borderlands 2 instead. You will definitely be getting your money's worth.
  5. If you are legitimately skipping sections of the game can you even justify the claim that you're even playing the game? We need to learn to draw a distinction here between these two concepts. There is a VERY real difference between an "Easy Mode" for a game and an option to "Skip" entire sections of a game. I don't see it as being an overblown reaction in the least, in fact I'd say my response to the concept is rightfully warranted. The article you presented was the first time I have personally heard of this "Skippable Bosses" argument. At what point did I make such an assumption? And honestly, if said developer gave the player an option to just skip said parts then I should think that said developer clearly doesn't have much faith in their own work to begin with. If the gameplay is really that tedious then the obvious conclusion is that aspect of their game has failed. Offering players a means to simply Skip it is not, nor should it ever be, treated as a free pass to compensate for their own shortcomings. That is just straight up lazy game design. That is something the developer needs to acknowledge and own up to and, honestly, do whatever they can to fix it as I would personally believe they have an obligation to do so for their players. No, it is not reasonable. Why did they buy the game in the first place? There are only two reasons here. 1) To play a Video Game experience. 2) To just see what happens in the story. The second option is no different from watching a Movie or reading a Book. It is likewise no different from simply watching a video of someone doing a Let's Play. Games are much more than that. It is the evolution of Art, combining so many different elements together into a single medium. As such, there is much more to it than simply the story element. Am I saying its wrong to only want to enjoy a game's story without all the other aspects? No. For example, I'm not intending on spending the money to buy the new Awakening the Nightmare expansion for Halo Wars 2. Mainly because I'm pinching my pennies as is. But that doesn't mean I can't still enjoy the story aspect. I went on youtube and watched a video someone put together of all the cutscenes. Yes, this means I effectively skipped actually playing the content. And the simple fact of the matter is that this does not count as me playing the game. The truth of the matter is that this does ultimately spoil the experience for me. Had I actually gone and played the expansion myself, it would have been an entirely different experience altogether. Kinda like if someone were to skip playing BioShock Infinite and just watch all the cutscenes. You're still going to miss out on the actual experience itself. This is also the reason why people don't like spoilers. It ruins the overall experience. It undermines the game design. I believe you missed the point of what I said. The concern stems from the discussion existing in the first place. People are advocating for it, meaning there are people who want it. WHY do people want it? SHOULD people want it? You seem to be dismissing my concerns as nothing more than hyperbole when in reality no, these are legitimate concerns and serious questions I'm presenting. Your accusation likewise doesn't make sense considering I also stated; So where exactly are you getting this idea that I'm saying EVERYONE would use said options? I'll give you that perhaps my "Life is too hard, I give up" analogy could have used some better clarification. Looking back on that, I wasn't trying to imply a suicidal notion with it. I was trying to demonstrate that the psychology itself of bypassing challenges like "Skippable Bosses" is sewing this harmful mentality that its alright to just give up if something is too challenging. One needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here; "What are the potential ramifications of this? How does it impact the culture and industry in the long term?" I realize you tried to respond back to this be presenting the generalized groups of players out there and how not everyone is the same. I get that, and as you can see I had already acknowledged that as well. But that isn't the point I was making. There are two videos here that I feel contribute much to this conversation. Followed up with;
  6. There was something he mentioned in there that really did not sit right with me. "an article arguing for skippable bosses" ...............What? Hold on a second. That sounds like a totally different topic from the one concerning an Easy Mode in games. I didn't even know that was a thing. Are there seriously people out there trying to push the industry into implementing a legitimate SKIP feature for bosses? O_o I know when I voiced my concern in the previous post about the potential impact this debate would have for the future of gaming, I didn't think we were already to that point. Holy Christ on a cracker, THAT is just ridiculous. Like why even play the fucking game at that point? You essentially just spent $60 on a movie you could have just as easily enjoyed via Let's Play video. And hell, if you can skip boss fights why not just go further and implement the option to skip whole stages? Now this is something I stand totally opposed to. This is very potentially harmful to not just the industry, but the culture itself. Being an Indie Dev myself, I've taken great pride in my effort in creating a vast variety of enemy types and challenges. This is an experience I wish to share with players and I derive my satisfaction from their experience. Its no different from when I DM for my D&D group. So as a developer, I simply can't fathom this notion of giving players the option to just "skip" large elements of the adventure. Again, referencing my D&D group, it would be like the party stumbling across the final encounter that is supposed to serve as the climax for the adventure, and out of nowhere the party just "skips" the whole thing and automatically win. No. That is not alright. At that point, why should I even bother taking the time to make the game challenging at all in the first place? Yes, there are players out there who wouldn't simply abuse the Skip Button. But the mere fact its there as an option automatically takes a hit to my motivation as a developer. And yes, I do have the choice to not implement that feature. But what happens when (Because its no longer a question of "IF" anymore...) the game or myself start getting backlash and attacked by these entitled advocates of "Easy Gaming" over me refusing to fall in line with other developers? That is the potential damage/threat this mentality poses to the industry as a whole. The loud, vocal advocates harass, protest and continue pushing until one by one, one company after the next caves in. Till eventually, it becomes just another "expectation" for games to have these sort of features. And anyone who doesn't will be made to suffer for it. Now, I also said this didn't just impact the industry, but the culture as well. Simply put, back in the 90s this conversation would never be happening. Yes, Cheat Codes were always a thing back then. I remember back in Armored Core you could unlock Human Plus that removed the game's limiters for AC weight requirement and using the GNL without having to kneel. But you were still playing the damn game. That was how players could access an "Easy Mode" for said games back then. Again, I have nothing against that. But at no point in time do I recall any of those Cheats allowing you to Skip playing the game. The games got easier for you with said cheats, but just like in Armored Core, it was still very possible for you to get killed. Same with Contra, getting extra lives didn't mean you couldn't still die. You were still EXPERIENCING the game. Easy, Normal, Hard; whatever the preference, Gamers are still always being presented with a challenge. The difficulty of said challenge just changes. But this debate is having a negative impact on the culture. Whatever happened to the mentality that if something is difficult that you take a moment, step away from the game for a bit, then come back and try it again? Is it possible that we're seeing a shift in psychology? That the players themselves are finding it easier to just give up rather than sticking with it and persevering? Is this evidence that our society as a whole is losing the will to fight or the motivation to push through so as to overcome challenges? In the end, I'm left questioning my faith in humanity. Are we evolving and becoming better or are we going in the opposite direction? "This game is too hard, I give up." "This life is too hard, I give up." Its a notion that fills me with dread...
  7. In my opinion, both sides of the debate have valid points. Difficulty Levels have damn near always been a thing for many games. I always play on normal because I'd prefer to play the game as originally designed. For most of these types of games, the difficulty setting will either remove or add elements not originally apart of the base game experience. Easy Mode = Any or All of the following conditions, typically; -Enemy A.I. dumbed down. -Fewer Enemy Encounters. (Less Mobs) -Reduced Enemy Damage. -Permanent Buffs for the Player. Hard Mode = Any or All of the following conditions, usually; -Enemy A.I. on steroids. (More complex with algorithyms designed to attack more frequently and with dynamic behavior, constantly changing patterns) -More Enemy Encounters. (Crap loads of Mobs, often chaining aggro if you're playing in an MMORPG like Mabinogi) -Increased Enemy Damage. -Negative Conditions imposed on the Player. (Your HP used to auto regen? Not anymore~) Normal Mode = None of the above, just the base game without any augmentations. I'm totally alright with this setup. It allows weaker players the opportunity to also enjoy and learn said games and then, if they want to, they can go and increase the difficulty at their leisure. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However... My issue is when this debate starts to impact game development. Case in point, Crash Bandicoot is a Platformer. That Bridge level? I'm still fucking stuck on it. That shit is just flatout hard to do. There is no real way to make that easier for people, not unless you compromise the game's own design. For example, there are at least 2 parts in that bridge level that can and will royally screw someone over. Both involve making jumps across large holes in said bridge. The only way to make this easier is if you legitimately make that gap smaller, thus making it easier to jump over. Which basically defeats the purpose of the game being a platformer. Granted, I suppose you could have two different versions of that level...? Easy Mode has it where said gaps are shorter and Normal Mode has the stage left as is. Personally, I find both sides guilty of being entitled. The Elitists who think they're better than everyone else are wrong for demanding games not have an Easy Mode for people, because why should that even matter to them? Meanwhile, those who think EVERY game SHOULD have an Easy Mode are wrong for thinking that the world has to revolve around them. Both groups are equally as self-centered. And the debate itself is potentially damaging to the industry as a whole. There are games that don't offer a choice in difficulty setting. What happens when said games, in an attempt to cater to those who demand easier experiences, end up designing their games to actually be easy? The gaps in said bridge either no longer exist or are a simple cake walk to get across. This whole matter is a two way street. I'm alright with there being a choice. However, I am concerned about the future ramifications this topic will have on the industry.
  8. For a moment, can we back track to what you were originally saying? The original debate was whether or not this was gambling. You were the one who then tried to change the subject by looking to make this into a matter concerning laws. You have already agreed that it is indeed gambling, as such you concede the debate, correct? I felt it important to reign in the discussion because you were taking it to a whole other place beyond what the original debate was about. Its also why you are seeing an impasse, because I see now that the real issue here is that the previous focus of the argument moved away from what was actually being argued. If you read back through the thread, one can easily see how this happened. Essentially, you presented the notion of it not being dubbed "Gambling" by the law, in order to try and force your point of refusing to acknowledge that it is indeed gambling. It was a straw man argument you were putting forward and that somehow became the central focus of the debate, a debate which was technically already over the instant you contradicted yourself. The rest is just semantics. You are correct, all those things you listed would be counted as such, which is why one is correct in saying something like "I took a gamble on whether or not that burger was going to give me the runs..." That is literally an act of gambling. The whole "law" portion of this debate is an entirely OTHER topic.
  9. No, for the same reason that the Civil Rights Act doesn't actually extend to the LGBTQ Community. It hasn't actually been codified into law because people have just been extending the interpretation of the pre-existing law from way back when to also include those folks as well. Again, the law isn't infallible and most are super out of date and haven't been keeping up with the ever changing and evolving society. Which is why laws often require either being amended or new laws being made. And we determine this through discussions such as this. We can both agree that it does fall in line with the definition of gambling. So it makes sense that we should revisit the current existing laws regarding such to likewise include such. Bare in mind, gambling itself isn't a criminal act that isn't allowed in the country, but there are regulations for it which exist for good reasons. But if we can reason that something does match the concept of such then it should likewise be included. The system which governs our society must be kept updated to make sure it is operating properly. Also... Uhh... Alright... Wait, something isn't quite right about this statement, lol Again, you're contradicting yourself, you're agreeing its gambling but then turning around and saying it isn't. Which is it? XD And if myself and Crazycrab are presenting the literal definition of the word to prove the meaning of said word, then shouldn't that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt? Again, you're making light of this as if it isn't as big a deal as it is, or like you are expecting something more beyond the word's own definition to prove its meaning. If you are trying to say we aren't allowed to present the word's literal definition as evidence then what else are you wanting to see? What is your criteria for what stands as a reasonable argument? (Cause it feels like you're just moving the goal post in this case) Case in point, first it was "prove this is gambling" and now its "prove that this should be a law"... =P
  10. Bare in mind, definitions exist for a reason. I feel as though you aren't paying enough credence to this fact. You subscribe to the doctrine of logic, correct? There should be very little debate on this particular point then. Logic dictates that if something matches the definition for a word then said term is as such given to it. This is simple truth, I think anyone would be hard pressed to try disputing such. And why are you saying you're not the one who needs to be convinced? If your thought process is of the same vein then wouldn't that make you the ideal subject to try convincing? Personally, I find the response to be more like a cop out. You'll accept it if its codified into law, but if you aren't in agreement with it then how does it then become a law? And further on that point, shouldn't the law be based in logical deduction? Basically you are presenting a no win situation simply because you disagree with the notion that such is gambling even though you technically already agreed that it was. So I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought. Debates are a method designed to ascertain truth and reach a mutual conclusion by all parties involved. One side is either right or wrong and the process is intended to discover such. But at this point, your argument merely consists of; -"Who cares about silly definitions~" -"Until someone breaks the non-existent law it will never be a law." -"I'll consider it gambling when there's a law that says so because I'm somehow incapable of determining this for myself." That is essentially what you have presented, which is honestly a rather weak argument. Its somewhere in the same category as "I'm right because I say so" which doesn't actually fly in a real debate.
  11. To be fair, odds are he does visit the forum but just doesn't post for a number of reasons. When someone hits the popularity level that he has, if news got out that he actively responded to posts on here then a number of issues could easily crop up; -It could/would easily attract the Troll Brigade which would no doubt lay siege to this forum and overload our moderation staff. Not to mention the more hardcore trolls who actually know some real dirty tactics. -The forum would explode with people spamming the place with every single person demanding his attention. That's bad news bears, take it from me. You get bogged down by it, it devours your time and eats into your day making it impossible to get any real progress made and eventually you just get so fed up with it that you distance yourself from the whole thing. (Because being the center of attention fucking sucks, especially when you're trying to encourage others to step up and be their own person) -You'll end up having instances where if he responds to one or two people, suddenly you end up with this shit load of others who get jealous and grow bitter over it, creating a whole other slew of problems and drama. Trust me, its better this way. Besides, the Angry Army is more than that. There may be disagreements between some of us here, but ultimately this is a place of like minded individuals who share similar values. And really, Joe's rant is only one part of the equation. REAL Change is never a one man show. We aren't voiceless. You aren't voiceless. Here you are, speaking to us. It is the Law of Causality. Cause and Effect. You heard Joe, you listened to what he had to say. This caused a chain reaction, which would eventually lead you here to make this thread. A single voice can have far reaching effects. The Angry Army isn't just Joe, but we're also part of the equation. By spreading the message, passing on our values and sharing our opinions with others across the Gaming Community, it is akin to making ripples in a pond. The longer you fight, the longer you hold fast to your ideals, will always effect the outcome. Hence the slogan; Never Give Up, Never Surrender.
  12. I mean, it is gambling by sheer definition. Just because the law doesn't define it as such doesn't mean it isn't. For example, TYT covered a similar situation which applies to this one; The Law isn't infallible and most laws are seriously out of date and typically left up to interpretation. This video's topic/debate/conversation is, in my opinion, very relevant here. Because once again, and as Crazycrab has already presented, the actual definition of the term/concept for Gambling does indeed apply to Loot Boxes. Are you always getting something? Yes. But that fact alone doesn't change the meaning of Gambling or the addictive nature associated with it. There is also the sociological ramifications to take into consideration. I've noticed a rise in awareness and "popularity" for Loot Boxes to be tied to the growing cancer of micro-transactions in the Games Industry. It serves to further encourage and perpetuate an ongoing problem that is gradually conditioning society to accept the practice in literally everything FOR literally anything. And now the most recent victim of this harmful trend is the new Star Wars Battlefront. At the end of the day, it will always boil down to "Where do we draw the line in the sand?"
  13. To be fair, gambling does indeed apply to many things. If we're going off of just simple logical deduction. Now whether or not any of such topics SHOULD be a gamble is an entirely other debate. That being said, you're getting a tad off topic. Loot Boxes are indeed a form of gambling, this much is true. Is the practice wrong, though? At that point we start to hit the root of it and ultimately there will be different opinions as this essentially boils down to a matter of personal values. Though, for this particular topic regarding random games being featured, I'd say that its more stupid than anything else? The reaction from others in this thread can serve as evidence enough of that. There is a huge difference between something like random merchandise from Loot Crate and random video games from this. Especially in an age where we are seeing more and more of an aggressive push towards digital downloads, what reason would Gamers have to spend money on this? If they are looking for older games from the NES or ATARI era then that typically means they are looking for something in specific. It would prove faster and more cost effective to simply hunt for those particular titles as opposed to playing slots in this sense for a very low if not non-existent chance of getting what they want. The concept just sounds silly. I can't imagine there possibly being very many actually willing to buy into this.
  14. I'm well aware, the point I'm trying to make is that there shouldn't be such a huge emphasis on graphics. Personally I found the Xbox 360 and PS3 to have already achieved a decent level of graphics. But this constant "chasing the dragon" mentality is just ludicrous at this point. As a prime example let us look no further then the SWB franchise itself. The 2004 game really didn't look THAT much different by comparison and the gameplay experience was friggen amazing. I spent hours upon hours playing the hell out of that game. And that was back on the PS2 and Xbox, mind you. Are the graphics better in the 2017 game? Yes. That much isn't being argued. The assertion though is that it really shouldn't be such a central focus for people. (Because there are people out there who think graphics are everything) I would much prefer developers have a stronger focus on gameplay elements and the overall experience itself which is what you'll actually be doing in said games. Hell, I would still argue that the older SWB games are still superior to the newer ones.
  15. I'm so glad someone made this thread. I saw the video last night and got so pissed off over it that I couldn't fall asleep. Was even considering making this thread myself just to give me an outlet for said rant/emotions. Which speaking of... This crap isn't funny. It has moved far away from being even remotely joke-worthy. Call me crazy, but the rate at which micro-transactions have been aggressively spreading to all manner of other games seems to be dramatically increasing. I think to date, if I'm not mistaken, 2017 has seen an alarming rise in this practice with more and more "popular" franchises introducing them for the first time to the point that its becoming a common topic in the news for at least myself. Let us not forget that Bethesda is once again also trying to implement Paid Mods with their Creation Club shtick and they are apparently doubling down on it this time. It is literally no different from micros, its just not being called that. Jim Sterling put out a new video addressing this topic as well today for his show, but even then he missed a few points that should honestly be getting addressed. The bottom line here is that its all 100% a greed driven practice. There is zero reason for it. Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with concepts such as DLC/Expansions, assuming it isn't just cut content that's being held ransom which happens way more often than it should. But that $60 price tag is no joke. The argument that likes to get tossed around by the brainwashed nimrods, who have been conditioned over the years to just accept whatever is given to them, is that the base cost of games somehow isn't enough for these companies to turn a profit. Bull. Shit. This entire notion was already disproven by CD Projekt Red with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. A game that cost $60, with beautiful graphics, well portrayed and fully voice acted characters and NPCs with a massive open world setting and an award winning story that personally had me crying at the end. (Not to mention plenty of replay value because it even features multiple different endings based on what you do in the game) They were even putting out FREE DLC for it. It was almost like a direct insult to all these other AAA companies out there. I happily paid for both of their expansions which even came with a real life Gwent card game. The other factors that consistently get ignored or overlooked by others, including Jim, is the fact that while the base $60 price tag has remained the same over the years, there is also a shit load more people BUYING said games now all over the world. The Games Industry only continues to grow as the Gaming Community does as well. Its grown so large to the point that now we have legit eSports which back in the olden days was just a friggen pipe dream some of us would fantasize about playing on our Super NES or Sega Genesis. Or Pokemon Red/Blue on Gameboy. More consumers automatically translates to greater return for products being sold. So even though the cost of games has gone up over time, so has the number of sales to compensate. (Not to mention the fact we have Indie Devs out there making amazing games with next to no real funding for them and even they end up making a hefty profit off of sales) And this isn't to say that Jim didn't make an excellent argument, because he did. Especially at the end of his video where he pointed out that literally no one was ASKING for games to cost so much. Yes, the boost to graphics is nice, but I've made the argument in the past that you don't need photo realistic graphics to have an amazing game. Some of the most iconic, legendary games in history paled in comparison to the graphics of today. But that's because their story, gameplay and character elements were all amazing. For example, the old school Final Fantasy 7 was epic. Meanwhile, I'm predicting FF7 Remake is going to just look friggen amazing yet ultimately fail to compare with the original. Because at the end of the day, graphics aren't the only thing that matters. (Ultima III: Exodus for the NES still remains in my Top 10 RPGs of all time) Perhaps even more frustrating are those who try saying that "micros being in games is just the norm now" as if that somehow justifies the practice. It doesn't. If the Gaming Community were to actually come together on these issues and protest this horseshit then yeah, it would stop. Companies are in the business to make money. They are machines with the sole intention and purpose of generating the greatest bottom line possible for products being sold. If they could get away with selling people a game that is literally just a button you press that costs $1 each time you press it, they would. In a heartbeat. The only reason they don't is because that shit wouldn't fly and they would obviously get medieval levels of backlash for it. In fact the ONLY reason that micro-transactions weren't already a thing in every single game we see is BECAUSE said companies are afraid of the potential fallout and damage to their brands/sales. This basically means that the ONLY reason we're also seeing a dramatic rise in these practices across so many games now is because more companies are becoming less and less afraid of us. We no longer strike the fear of God in them with the thunder of our mighty wallets closing. Gamers have always factored into this equation. We have always held the responsibility of establishing and maintaining set STANDARDS for what is or isn't alright. And every time we give these companies an inch, they take a mile. We can't afford to keep losing ground to them. Like, literally cannot afford. Its not as if our economy and minimum wage is improving... Its NEVER too late to change industry trends. This fact remains true no matter how bleak a situation may look. They only want us to believe its some impossible task so as to discourage any efforts made against them. People do change as well. For example, I used to defend Halo 5's micro-transactions because its effectively doing the exact same thing as this game; Free DLC and Maps. But gradually, over time I began to realize just how hollow my accomplishments were in the game. And mind you, I have logged a shit load of hours on H5. But when I went back and played H4? I remembered how much more of a challenge and enjoyment I got from that experience. If I wanted that badass Gungnir Armor then I had to unlock it through personal achievement. And everyone who saw me wearing it would know that yes, I did in fact earn that badass armor. That's called TRUE Player Progression. When you feel like you have actually accomplished a grand feat and the reward is proof of it. It may take a long while to happen. It may require these companies taking it to such an extreme level that even the ardent defenders of these practices among our own kind are just flatout unable to justify their own bullshit anymore, and likewise join together finally to fight back against it. (Hopefully it doesn't need to get to the point of having games that are just buttons you press...) Never Give Up. Never Surrender.