Jump to content

nocoolnamejim

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About nocoolnamejim

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Profile Information

  • Xbox Gamertag
    Armandos
  • PSN Online ID
    Soulshade

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. If only this was a year ago this announcement would be greeted with applause.
  2. So.... Now that Obsidian's bribe from Epic to have a year's worth of exclusivity is over and I've bought the game at half the price on GoG, I'd like to revisit this topic.... And to reiterate how weird (and frankly utterly absurd) the argument to have "no player choices on romance options in order to expand player choice is". Yes, over a year later I'm revisiting this forum to tell Obsidian both how much I hated your decision to give the Epic store a timed exclusive for a FULL DAMNED YEAR was and also how much I hated your decision to remove romance options for "player choice" (tran
  3. lol Fair enough. I'm guessing though that while some people are single-issue passionate, just because we're on a gaming forum and you don't see their passion on other subject doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
  4. The Syreen Commander Talana? Given that the ending of the game features the protagonist waking to her face, and then fast forwarding to telling their mutual grandchildren about their story I would consider it fairly important. Ironically for the anti-romance faction, it's a fairly thinly done romance for sure. But hard to argue that it wasn't important to the game given she ends up committing her race to joining the New Alliance of Free Stars then marrying and having children with the protagonist.
  5. But does this automatically mean that it's a good thing to have in a game? I would argue that many people seek things in games they cannot have in real life. It's escapism after all for many players. Firing guns and killing terrotists in a game might be more appealing to a player who wants to escape and office job for some time than it would for a Navy Seal I guess. So survival specialists actually like survival games? So... if you've had you fair share of romances in real life you might not be that much interested in romances in games compared to people who lack that experience. I kno
  6. Its a good thing when The creators aren't interested in implementing it The narrative doesn't support it in a way that isn't contrived The development of romance options would take resources away from creating other interesting role playing opportunities The development wouldn't support the creation of romances within the scope of the project in general I'm sure there are more reasons we could come up with. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for a well implemented and thought out romance or romances in a RPG, but that doesn't mean it has to be present in the game anymore than, s
  7. Why on earth would a lack of romance OPTIONS be considered a good thing? It's literally less role playing in your role playing game? The key word is of course optional. Have romanceable characters but not a requirement. If players decide that they don't like any of the options, they're free to friend zone them all. This is making a pretty important role playing decision for everyone.
  8. No, people who pre-order Anno 1800 on Steam are getting it on release day. It's actually a better deal than what I suggested earlier (which was giving people Steam keys that don't activate until a year after release). The Outer Worlds was in the top 3 most wishlisted games on Steam. Private Division could totally have demanded something like this from Epic and gotten it. It's some kind of compromise, but I'm not sure it's a great one from a customer standpoint. It's offshoring the developer's risk at the expense of the customer. In return for the game being available in a timely ma
  9. Having exclusives does the precise opposite of forcing competition and innovation, except for competition on buying exclusives, which is nothing the consumer benefits from. Competition happens when several stores offer substitutable products. Then the consumer can pick one over the other because the overall package appeals to them the most. Well aware of all of that. Check out some of the other posts I've made. I definitely agree that, in the short term, the way Epic is choosing to "compete" only benefits them and not the end customer.
  10. It does not, unless by "more competition" you mean "more games going exclusive." In fact, the SMART move by Valve would be to immediately tank any and all projects it has going to improve Steam and funnel that money into getting exclusives themselves. I mean, there's literally no feature Steam can implement to have me buy TOW with them before the exclusivity year is up, so why would they try? In fairness, Epic has stated that they intend - at some point - to stop buying exclusives and HAS put out a roadmap towards adding new features to try and draw closer to parity with Steam. Cle
  11. It does not, unless by "more competition" you mean "more games going exclusive." In fact, the SMART move by Valve would be to immediately tank any and all projects it has going to improve Steam and funnel that money into getting exclusives themselves. I mean, there's literally no feature Steam can implement to have me buy TOW with them before the exclusivity year is up, so why would they try? In fairness, Epic has stated that they intend - at some point - to stop buying exclusives and HAS put out a roadmap towards adding new features to try and draw closer to parity with Steam. Cle
  12. I think Sterling did a fairly balanced take there. In the short term, there's absolutely nothing good for us, the customer, with regards to the Epic Game store. To call it "threadbare" would be generous. (Lacking even a shopping cart feature? lol) Publishers and developers taking a game to Epic exclusively can make sense from a financial standpoint, but it blows from a customer experience standpoint. A game launching there is objectively worse than a game launching on Steam because of all the missing features like cloud saves, mod support, forums, etc. In the long term, yes, it could b
  13. The point missed in your tale is that other people still had the OPTION to go to their preferred place to get the game when Steam was not liked, unlike now with the Epic Store. With your analogy, it would be like if Steam were the ONLY place you could get your games in its infancy when it had problems because it had bought out the game from every Gamestop and other store, everywhere, and there would be no PC copies available to buy for a year.
  14. I did include the feature comparison between Steam and Epic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just bashing on Steam here. But there IS a belief out there that Steam has not innovated as much as they could/should because they have not had to. One example for me personally is in customer support. They lack any sort of phone number for people to call to get customer support. Admittedly that could get expensive, but it sure would have helped with a recent situation I had. (Long story. I'll spare the details.) But for a company that made an estimated $4.3 billion dollars in revenue in 2017, the
×
×
  • Create New...