Jump to content
kozzy

Angry Joe LOVED Pillars Of Eternity

Recommended Posts

@Osvir: Oh definitely agree, it really really wouldn't exist. Neither would the absurd amount of old school graphiced up side scrollers thats come out in the past 5 years or so. I was just trying to point out what he was for whatever reason failing to notice. Not saying its the best point but you know, when someone says look, its a tree and your all 'the **** you talking about birds for' I just start feeling the need to go no... no its a tree man.

 

@Stun: Yeah, though a lot of that has to do with the fact mario existed. There just wouldn't be those clones. Hell as Osvir pointed out are gaming market would look vastly different. The whole industry kinda shat its self back then, consoles back then almost single handedly dragged it outa its gutter. So yeah theres hundreds of copycats on Mario... there wouldn't be if it never existed though lol... and who knows wtf games would look like now and days with out Nintendo and Sega.

 

Either way wasn't my point to argue his point for him, I frankly don't entirely agree with either of you just felt the need to try and clarify... can ya tell I don't have much to do atm? Needs to be end of march already, times a slow SOB.


Def Con: kills owls dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If that's what he's saying he's comedically wrong. There's a bajillion Mario copy-cat games for Wii and other platforms. The vast majority of them generate ridiculously high sales.

 

 

He's saying "if there wouldn't have been a Super Mario game until today". Meaning there wouldn't be a Super Mario success to copy-cat/emulate/imitate/simulate/rip-off. It's a hypothetical question that would require a lot of analytical research, thinking, history study. It's like saying "What if there had never been a Legend of Zelda series until now?" or "What if there had never been a Final Fantasy series until now?" or even "What if there had never been a Baldur's Gate series until now?". It's a question with no real answer (a.k.a. "I need to put myself in an advantageous position by asking a BS question-card") because there's no end to the possibilities what would've happened. What sort of consequences would a non-Super Mario past look like etc. etc. it's an extremely difficult question to even hypothetically answer with too many variables. 

 

A better example would be Angry Birds, which was an "original" concept and released more in our recent timeframe, and sold an immense amount. Why? Simple designs, easy to understand and easy to get into, easy to laugh about and easy to pass time with, and easy to "conquer" with a neat scaling difficulty per level/progression.

Edited by Osvir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If that's what he's saying he's comedically wrong. There's a bajillion Mario copy-cat games for Wii and other platforms. The vast majority of them generate ridiculously high sales.

 

He's saying "if there wouldn't have been a Super Mario game until today". Meaning there wouldn't be a Super Mario success to copy-cat/emulate/imitate/simulate/rip-off. It's a hypothetical question that would require a lot of analytical research, thinking, history study. It's like saying "What if there had never been a Legend of Zelda series until now?" or "What if there had never been a Final Fantasy series until now?" or even "What if there had never been a Baldur's Gate series until now?". It's a question with no real answer (a.k.a. "I need to put myself in an advantageous position by asking a BS question-card") because there's no end to the possibilities what would've happened. What sort of consequences would a non-Super Mario past look like etc. etc. it's an extremely difficult question to even hypothetically answer with too many variables.

 

Osvir, he claimed games didn't sell as well back then.

 

But yeah. Angry Birds is an excellent example.

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for going so off-topic here but if you really want to know about Joe's preferences etc. I suggest you watch his Dragon Age: Inquisition review. It is the only (?) RPG he has reviewed in the last year so it should give at least some idea of his taste. Just don't wander into the comment section, it's full of whining fanboys (I don't think it's even the right word to describe).

Since Joe seems to like the game, the worst he can do is give it some publicity. It all depends on the actual quality of the game at launch. He's not going to praise if if it's full of bugs and doesn't work properly (AC:U). I can't see this game selling as well now as games like Skyrim though, but I'm sure this game will have audience past the IE fans. This game looks like something Bioware has failed to deliver to some people after DA:O, excluding the graphics, which might turn off some shallow people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you watch his Dragon Age: Inquisition review. It is the only (?) RPG (??????) he has reviewed in the last year so it should give at least some idea of his taste.

 

Fixed.


Qu'avez-vous fait de l'honneur de la patrie ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking there is such a thing as the "average gamer" who doesn't like X is part of the problem.

Not really. I am sure that there is a formula to make RPG 's successful for the average gamer.as in, there must be a specific mixture of (complexity of) story, graphics, action etc. which will most appeal to as large a group as possible. And that group and that mixture will then count as the average,which is not what this specific game is designed for. This specific game is designed for a specific audience, and people like Luckmann, Stun and me want to reserve this type of game as it is and not have it become more average.

 

That said, glad the game is getting good press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thinking there is such a thing as the "average gamer" who doesn't like X is part of the problem.

Not really. I am sure that there is a formula to make RPG 's successful for the average gamer.as in, there must be a specific mixture of (complexity of) story, graphics, action etc. which will most appeal to as large a group as possible. And that group and that mixture will then count as the average,which is not what this specific game is designed for. This specific game is designed for a specific audience, and people like Luckmann, Stun and me want to reserve this type of game as it is and not have it become more average.

 

That said, glad the game is getting good press.

 

I really don't understand the logic how a game can go from:

 

made for a niche => mainstream likes it => loses qualities that made it niche => becomes even more mainstream

 

If mainstream likes a niche game, then it means that the niche game has to stick to its guns and what made it special. Otherwise they lose customers (even mainstream customers) because it will no longer be the type of game that people liked. 

 

Especially since we are talking about Obsidian who does not have some publisher telling they have to become more "mainstream". 

 

If you ask me, you are all overreacting and are overprotective of the genre. Right now what we need are more isometric strategy games, not less. And if some of them are more streamlined and mainstream-y we win in the end anyway, because the larger the genre becomes the more games there are, including the very-very grognardy type. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gives a f*** about a game being a mainstream or a niche? If it is fun to play enjoy it. And there is no reason why a CRPG can't become a succesful game if it is a good game.

 

I tthink that people only consider this as a niche genre  because some stupid big publishers almost made the CRPG  genre exctinct a decade ago  but as a result many fans got disappointed (look at Metacritic ,how many people are furious aboug DA:I just because they expected something like DA:O?).

 

As long as big companies will continue to push ****ty AAA games that might be beautiful but are boring, empty and buggy like AC:U and Watchdogs, and small companies will continue to create gems like Divinity Original sin and southpark the stick of truth the balance will slowly shift to favor the content rich games.

 

Alas the 3D revolution did create many good games, Dragon age inquisition is a modern action RPG just as Mass effect was and it is a very good game and the Mass effect series was amazing and Skyrim was amazing. The fact that you like the original form of Isometric RPGs doesn't mean that you must hate any of the modern RPG franchises.

Edited by barakav
  • Like 1

troll.gifseatroll.gificetroll.giftroll.gif

An ex-biophysicist but currently Studying Schwarzschild singularities' black holes' Hawking radiation using LAZORS and hypersonic sound wave models.

 

My main objective is to use my results to take over the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really don't understand the logic how a game can go from:

 

made for a niche => mainstream likes it => loses qualities that made it niche => becomes even more mainstream

 

If mainstream likes a niche game, then it means that the niche game has to stick to its guns and what made it special. Otherwise they lose customers (even mainstream customers) because it will no longer be the type of game that people liked. 

 

Especially since we are talking about Obsidian who does not have some publisher telling they have to become more "mainstream". 

 

If you ask me, you are all overreacting and are overprotective of the genre. Right now what we need are more isometric strategy games, not less. And if some of them are more streamlined and mainstream-y we win in the end anyway, because the larger the genre becomes the more games there are, including the very-very grognardy type. 

 

 

Do we have to bring up Dragon age 2 again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys may be too good for him, but he has 2 mil subs and if he says the game is good that will equal more sales.  Also protip: the guy reviews tons of RPG's.  Trust me when I say he may look sort of dumb and goofy, and may have a hard time starting out, but he will figure out the mechanics, and he will be just as good at the game once he has a understanding of them as any average "hard core CRPG" fan is likely to be.

 

Stop crapping on my CRPG elitism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thinking there is such a thing as the "average gamer" who doesn't like X is part of the problem.

Not really. I am sure that there is a formula to make RPG 's successful for the average gamer.as in, there must be a specific mixture of (complexity of) story, graphics, action etc. which will most appeal to as large a group as possible. And that group and that mixture will then count as the average,which is not what this specific game is designed for. This specific game is designed for a specific audience, and people like Luckmann, Stun and me want to reserve this type of game as it is and not have it become more average.

 

That said, glad the game is getting good press.

 

I really don't understand the logic how a game can go from:

 

made for a niche => mainstream likes it => loses qualities that made it niche => becomes even more mainstream

 

If mainstream likes a niche game, then it means that the niche game has to stick to its guns and what made it special. Otherwise they lose customers (even mainstream customers) because it will no longer be the type of game that people liked. 

 

Especially since we are talking about Obsidian who does not have some publisher telling they have to become more "mainstream". 

 

If you ask me, you are all overreacting and are overprotective of the genre. Right now what we need are more isometric strategy games, not less. And if some of them are more streamlined and mainstream-y we win in the end anyway, because the larger the genre becomes the more games there are, including the very-very grognardy type. 

 

I think this is a good point. A niche is a distinct segment of the market considered to be small and thus underrepresented. If PoE is distributed to a large segment of the common market (not just the niche) and the average consumer appreciates/enjoys the product, then there is no longer a reason for saying the product only moves in a distinct and small market. That is, if PoE sells well and is well received, then games like PoE should no longer be considered niche games. (Note: this only means IE-esque games are no longer niche if you think PoE is sufficiently IE-esque.) I'm not saying this will happen, only that should it happen, PoE will no longer be niche. I'm not sure why that would upset anyone. Unless they have an ingrained bias against "mainstream" anything, or if they think the mainstream is an unchanging constant that couldn't possible suit their tastes. i.e. they're too unique to ever be mainstream.

 

If a developer thinks: "Oh, this sold well! Lets change the formula and streamline our game, to... retroactively appeal to the market we already... won.. over?" then they're clearly misguided. That said, I don't think this is what goes through the minds of anything but caricatures of game developers (even with Origins->2).

 

To add a comment briefly to Stun: You seem to be asserting that appreciating certain complex games requires a baseline of intelligence that much of the gaming population is lacking and that there's less mental demand when playing and enjoying flappy birds or wii sports than there is when playing and enjoying a game with nuance and complexity at it's core (whether in mechanics or story). The second seems true, but I'd also note that markets and populations change. Compare: The number of educated adult gamers from the 80s/90s to the number of educated adult gamers now. I'm betting the latter is larger. I honestly don't know how many gamers enjoy complex intellectual games, but I have to imagine the number is rising, as many of those gamers who started off playing goofy platformers at a young age are now educated adults/young adults. For example: people who were born when the original BG was released are now ~17. Around the age I was when I really fell in love with the complexity of the IE games (again, of both story and mechanics).

Edited by Rahkir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "I don't want a mass of casual gamers to like this game, because of the dumbed down stuff they like" sentiment is understandable, BUT... it's kind of a glass half-empty/half-full situation with "should we care how this type of person reviews the game?"

 

Sure, tons of people think RPGs are too "hardcore" or difficult, or that reading lots of text is bad, etc. But, if those people (in general, as a group, not every single individual one of them) look up to this Angry Joe and his reviews, then why wouldn't it be a good thing for him to objectively review this game well, and maybe encourage them to stop assuming an RPG needs to be DA:I to be good for them, and that they might actually enjoy a game like PoE?

 

It's not like I think everyone's just going to change their minds overnight. But, a lot of the time, people decide things through sheer stubbornness. Someone played 5 minutes of Baldur's Gate way back when, got frustrated with it, and now they won't even give any IE games the time of day. It's not that they legitimately hate everything about that kind of game. They just have decided it's not worth their time.

 

I know that those people (and people like them) exist, and I'd much rather they exist in a world alongside the encouragement to reconsider their views, than alongside a void of no encouragement to do so. Heaven knows there's enough encouragement to dumb stuff down, and there's enough "Obviously this game sucks because ISOMETRIC! LOLZ!", etc., ideology floating around. Why wouldn't we be happy that there's something to counter that floating around?

 

The real enemy is arbitrary decision-making. Better to simply lack an opinion, than to have one without purpose. Just like with Angry Joe. Why just decide "Pssh, his review is dumb and we shouldn't care about it." Then stop caring about whether or not people care about it... sheesh.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really don't understand the logic how a game can go from:

 

made for a niche => mainstream likes it => loses qualities that made it niche => becomes even more mainstream

 

If mainstream likes a niche game, then it means that the niche game has to stick to its guns and what made it special. Otherwise they lose customers (even mainstream customers) because it will no longer be the type of game that people liked. 

 

Especially since we are talking about Obsidian who does not have some publisher telling they have to become more "mainstream". 

 

If you ask me, you are all overreacting and are overprotective of the genre. Right now what we need are more isometric strategy games, not less. And if some of them are more streamlined and mainstream-y we win in the end anyway, because the larger the genre becomes the more games there are, including the very-very grognardy type. 

 

 

That's not how it works. people are talking about future games being more mainstream and the original niche games no longer being produced, and it happens like this: Game A is made for fanbase A, this is a niche game and a relatively small fanbase. Mass appeal leads to both Fanbase A and Fanbase B (a much larger fanbase, lets say "mainstream gamers" for simplicity) being interested in and buying Game A. So, the people who produced Game A now take their new expanded fanbase into consideration, and when a large majority of their fanbase (this would be all those people from Fanbase B who have outnumbered and drowned out the voices of Fanbase A) say that combat is too unforgiving or that the story is too complicated or that more resources need to be allocated toward graphics, the producers of Game A may come out with a new game, Game B, that is nothing like Game A because it is more profitable to cater to the larger fan base.

 

The problem here is that Fanbase B already had a bunch of games that they enjoy, in fact most games are made to cater to the majority because of profitability. So, when a company makes a game catering to a small fanbase, it is natural for that fanbase to want future installments or similiar releases which aren't changed by the desires of a totally different fanbase that already has a million other games being catered to its particular tastes.

 

 

Alas the 3D revolution did create many good games, Dragon age inquisition is a modern action RPG just as Mass effect was and it is a very good game and the Mass effect series was amazing and Skyrim was amazing. The fact that you like the original form of Isometric RPGs doesn't mean that you must hate any of the modern RPG franchises.

 

DA:I, Mass Effect, and Skyrim are "very good" or "amazing" games in your opinion, you're stating this as if it's an undisputable fact. Not one of those games interests me much. I don't feel that I "must" hate modern RPGs and I don't judge AAA titles simply for being produced with a ton of money, but not one of those is suited to my particular tastes, so I don't enjoy them. It has nothing to do with them being mainstream (apart from the fact that my preferences are clearly not aligned with the majority).

 

I think this is a good point. A niche is a distinct segment of the market considered to be small and thus underrepresented. If PoE is distributed to a large segment of the common market (not just the niche) and the average consumer appreciates/enjoys the product, then there is no longer a reason for saying the product only moves in a distinct and small market. That is, if PoE sells well and is well received, then games like PoE should no longer be considered niche games. (Note: this only means IE-esque games are no longer niche if you think PoE is sufficiently IE-esque.) I'm not saying this will happen, only that should it happen, PoE will no longer be niche. I'm not sure why that would upset anyone. Unless they have an ingrained bias against "mainstream" anything, or if they think the mainstream is an unchanging constant that couldn't possible suit their tastes. i.e. they're too unique to ever be mainstream.

 

 

 

If a developer thinks: "Oh, this sold well! Lets change the formula and streamline our game, to... retroactively appeal to the market we already... won.. over?" then they're clearly misguided. That said, I don't think this is what goes through the minds of anything but caricatures of game developers (even with Origins->2).

 

I think my response to Sonntam pretty sums up my response to this as well. There's a clear logical path from a niche game attracting the attention of mainstream gamers and future releases from the company that released said game being drastically different.

 

To anyone saying that those of us differentiating ourselves from mainstream or casual gamers are being elitist, poisonous, or vile: I can only speak for myself, but I am not in any way trying to suggest that my tastes are superior to anyone else's. There really is no point in arguing about who has "better" taste, and I honestly don't think mine are superior to the tastes of others. So, when I say "casual gamers," I don't mean it in a derogatory sense, it is simply a label that fits. To give a very small sample, I love the Baldur's Gate games and the first Fallout games and I really enjoyed Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall to an extent. I like all sorts of games, but my primary genre of interest is isometric, party-based RPGs with solid story, gameplay, and some choice and consequence. I don't like Skyrim or The Witcher 2 or Fallout 3 and I shouldn't have to apologize for my tastes, nor should anyone else, so I won't.

 

Whether it's some big publisher, or Obsidian, or some indie dev, there will always be the potential for massively increasing profits by attempting to target a considerably larger market than you've been able to target in the past. It's reasonable, given the history of this genre in particular, for its fans to state clearly that they are concerned with any notion of pandering to anyone outside the core fanbase who takes an interest in the game. These forums show the diversity in the tastes of even the core fanbase, and I certainly don't want to see future games built on the success of PoE changing because the PoE fanbase is flooded with people who liked one or two things about it, or even really loved it, but really, really wish there wasn't so much dialogue, or that there were more cinematic cutscenes, or that combat should be easier, and the list goes on and on.

  • Like 2

"Forsooth, methinks you are no ordinary talking chicken!"

-Protagonist, Baldur's Gate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not how it works. people are talking about future games being more mainstream and the original niche games no longer being produced, and it happens like this: Game A is made for fanbase A, this is a niche game and a relatively small fanbase. Mass appeal leads to both Fanbase A and Fanbase B (a much larger fanbase, lets say "mainstream gamers" for simplicity) being interested in and buying Game A. So, the people who produced Game A now take their new expanded fanbase into consideration, and when a large majority of their fanbase (this would be all those people from Fanbase B who have outnumbered and drowned out the voices of Fanbase A) say that combat is too unforgiving or that the story is too complicated or that more resources need to be allocated toward graphics, the producers of Game A may come out with a new game, Game B, that is nothing like Game A because it is more profitable to cater to the larger fan base.

 

The problem here is that Fanbase B already had a bunch of games that they enjoy, in fact most games are made to cater to the majority because of profitability. So, when a company makes a game catering to a small fanbase, it is natural for that fanbase to want future installments or similiar releases which aren't changed by the desires of a totally different fanbase that already has a million other games being catered to its particular tastes.

Imo, if you apply this scheme to PoE it would miss one thing which is important in its particular case: developers' preferences. They knew what kind of games they want to make, Kickstarter helped them to find fanbase of games of this type to fund it. All debatable design decisions Josh made since then aren't going from wish to "broad the audience", but because Mr. Sawyer genuinely thinks it'll make the game better (maybe he's even right, we'll see that yet). There was no "targeting fanbase A/B/C" in this case to begin with, and I sincerely hope there won't be for sequel or expansions.

 

So, again: why would anyone care how mainstream gamers will like PoE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not how it works. people are talking about future games being more mainstream and the original niche games no longer being produced, and it happens like this: Game A is made for fanbase A, this is a niche game and a relatively small fanbase. Mass appeal leads to both Fanbase A and Fanbase B (a much larger fanbase, lets say "mainstream gamers" for simplicity) being interested in and buying Game A. So, the people who produced Game A now take their new expanded fanbase into consideration, and when a large majority of their fanbase (this would be all those people from Fanbase B who have outnumbered and drowned out the voices of Fanbase A) say that combat is too unforgiving or that the story is too complicated or that more resources need to be allocated toward graphics, the producers of Game A may come out with a new game, Game B, that is nothing like Game A because it is more profitable to cater to the larger fan base.

 

The problem here is that Fanbase B already had a bunch of games that they enjoy, in fact most games are made to cater to the majority because of profitability. So, when a company makes a game catering to a small fanbase, it is natural for that fanbase to want future installments or similiar releases which aren't changed by the desires of a totally different fanbase that already has a million other games being catered to its particular tastes.

 

IMO you are not looking at this correctly, I think that most developers don't generally change their games for the worst unless a short sighted greedy publisher forces them to (EA\Activision).

 

If what you typed was true than Obsidian would have already left the RPG bussiness creating only generic teenage FPS with RPG elements. It is more profitable to create both games that appeal to the majority and games that appeal to a certain nische and not to kill the nische related genre by creating an hybrid, and considering that there are so many majority based games and that they cost a lot more to produce  while most of them eventually fail I don't think there is a chance that the POE franchise (if it will  ever become one ) will become dumber or more action oriented if this is what you mean (a la D:A?). It is a big gamble to turn against your devoted fan base even if the game succeeds .

 

Furthermore I don't think that people that will enjoy P:E will want the game to become dumber. Just to appreciate such games you have to be able to understand the mechanics and to get into the story. The casual stupid COD gamers who don't want to waste any mental effort on playing will not be interested in such games, but there are many strategy fans and some MMO fans that plays deeper games and might love this one and won't try to push it to dumber directions if they will join the fan base.

 

Angry Joe for instance is a great fan of the CIV series and of the Total war series. Those games do attract intellectual people and some of them do watch his reviews.

Edited by barakav

troll.gifseatroll.gificetroll.giftroll.gif

An ex-biophysicist but currently Studying Schwarzschild singularities' black holes' Hawking radiation using LAZORS and hypersonic sound wave models.

 

My main objective is to use my results to take over the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angry Joe for instance is a great fan of the CIV series and of the Total war series. Those games do attract intellectual people and some of them do watch his reviews.

 

His evisceration of Total War: Rome 2 was brilliantly epic. 

 

 

As a Total War fan, and having been let down by Creative Assembly for the state of its release, this video was quite cathartic. The Creative Assembly engaged in some really good dialogue with Joe and their fans in reaction to this video in their official forums, and to their credit --CA really did improve the game with their free Emperor Edition overhaul.

  • Like 3

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it's some big publisher, or Obsidian, or some indie dev, there will always be the potential for massively increasing profits by attempting to target a considerably larger market than you've been able to target in the past. It's reasonable, given the history of this genre in particular, for its fans to state clearly that they are concerned with any notion of pandering to anyone outside the core fanbase who takes an interest in the game. These forums show the diversity in the tastes of even the core fanbase, and I certainly don't want to see future games built on the success of PoE changing because the PoE fanbase is flooded with people who liked one or two things about it, or even really loved it, but really, really wish there wasn't so much dialogue, or that there were more cinematic cutscenes, or that combat should be easier, and the list goes on and on.

I absolutely don't want dialogue cut and combat made easy, but if people bought the first game and then wrote, "You know, I LOVED PoE, but it could do without so much of that story thing" it would be silly for the developers to read that as: "You know, I LOVED PoE, but I wouldn't buy PoE2 unless you cut it out with that meaningful narrative shtick." If they loved it the first time, they'd probably come back for seconds if you gave them more of the same. If the devs change their design philosophy, it's probably for other reasons, unless they're simply misguided.

 

If the only driving force behind every developer was profit, there would be no niche games. If game devs only cared about maximizing profit at any cost, they'd be looking to make the next goat simulator, or a nintendo-esque game, or an FPS. Top selling video games are dominated by casual party games, competitive FPS's, and viral phenomenon (mine craft, flappy bird, etc.). There would be no Pillars of Eternity. There probably would have been no Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment. This is a quandary in any sort of art. No doubt Selena Gomez makes more money than Beardfish or Porcupine Tree or even a "popular prog band" like Rush (e.g. Peart is triple Gomez's age and only has a slightly higher net worth), but that doesn't make progressive rock less important or worthwhile than pop, and I doubt that Geddy Lee sits around at night thinking about how he can be more like Taylor Swift. The same is true of game devs who care a lot about what they create; Sawyer probably doesn't strive to be more like Notch or Dong Nguyen simply because they made a lot of money. The most important thing for a creator who sincerely cares about his creation is rarely profit.

 

If a company produces a unique and interesting first game and then decides to drop their past design philosophy to make greed paramount, it's probably not because an outside fanbase comes in and posts on forums or writes reviews. Take the Risen series as an example. I personally thought Risen 1 was a polished and enjoyable game with an interesting world, the second one was a shiny turd with pirates *sparkles*. Risen 1 sold well and received moderate to favorable reviews, but I doubt it brought in a bunch of people who really loved it except they wanted worse combat and more pirates. So why did Risen 2 change? Maybe the dev's got greedy and wanted to cash in on the popularity of pirates. Maybe one of the devs had a long standing pirate-fetish and finally got to live out his dream of crafting a piratey rpg. So on and so on. The same with DA to DA2. The concept for the story of DA2 was interesting and I thought maybe it could work when it was in its conceptual phase, but I highly doubt the story decision was made because a bunch of people got on a forum and said: "You know what DA:O needs? A spatial constant and temporal progression. Cut that epic story business out and make it like a slice of life anime where the second episode is a solid twenty minutes of our characters doing their laundry." Blaming design philosophy changes on the influx of a new fanbase is an overly simplistic view of game development, and pretty much assumes that game devs are either idiots or money-fiends.

 

On a side note: I really love almost all games. I'm an avid gamer and have been since I was a small child. I love western RPGs, JRPGs, CRPGs, SRPGs, open world games, linear games, reactive games, casual games, complex games, simple games, platformers, 4X strategy, adventure games, action games, visual novels, hack 'n slashes, side scrolling beat 'em ups, rhythm games, arcade games, party games, turn based games, active time battle games, board games, card games, fps (usually only co-op like the original halo on legendary or borderlands) and so on and so on. I recognize that they each have their place and I absolutely loathe the homogenization of art, but I also recognize that the gaming options present today are so vastly varied and broad that there must be developers who create games as an interactive art form, not as a money-grab. Even if sometimes money is necessary. A good example of that necessity is the Riddick franchise. A horror movie prequel was filmed, made some money and allowed the story driven Chronicles of Riddick to be developed. Unfortunately that barely broke even, so the story never continued into trilogy that would detail the underverse and the history of the Necromongers and so on, but many years later a new Riddick was made (serving as merely an hour and a half of action with little story), was a box office hit, and now it's possible that the writer's original trilogy might see the light of day before Vin Diesel loses all of his muscle mass. Point being: whether or not Obsidian is willing to make a money-grab with PoE2 probably has very little to do with a new fanbase making posts on a forum. I also desire their design philosophy to be similar with PoE2 because games of its sort are few and far between, but ultimately the choice of content is that of the creator, and if they want to do something different with PoE2 I would understand. Being an artist myself, I would never demand that someone create something simply because they're good at it and I like what they make. (Emphasis being on the second conjunct; I might demand someone create a device or some such if it would prevent an atrocity and they were the only one capable of such a feat. But that's neither here nor there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Angry Joe for instance is a great fan of the CIV series and of the Total war series. Those games do attract intellectual people and some of them do watch his reviews.

His evisceration of Total War: Rome 2 was brilliantly epic.

 

 

As a Total War fan, and having been let down by Creative Assembly for the state of its release, this video was quite cathartic. The Creative Assembly engaged in some really good dialogue with Joe and their fans in reaction to this video in their official forums, and to their credit --CA really did improve the game with their free Emperor Edition overhaul.

Agreed. TW ROME 2 is now the game it should be at the release. I enjoy it and trusted CA with my money buying blindly DLCs :D

 

CA also delivered Alien Isolation which was a good game and only made me wish even more for that canceled RPG project from Obsidian...

 

I like watching AJ for the comedy factor and while I dont always agree 100% with his points I see where is he coming from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien Isolation is the best damn thing that happened to Alien since Alien itself. Yeah I don't like AlienS, sue me :p !


Qu'avez-vous fait de l'honneur de la patrie ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien Isolation is the best damn thing that happened to Alien since Alien itself. Yeah I don't like AlienS, sue me :p !

 

I haven't played Isolation yet but the criticisms I have read about is that you spend too  much time sneaking around and avoiding Aliens than you do killing them, is this is valid ?


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alien Isolation is the best damn thing that happened to Alien since Alien itself. Yeah I don't like AlienS, sue me :p !

 

I haven't played Isolation yet but the criticisms I have read about is that you spend too  much time sneaking around and avoiding Aliens than you do killing them, is this is valid ?

 

It, uh... it was a stealth survival horror game. I don't know how "too much sneaking, not enough killing" is even a conceivable problem for such a game.

  • Like 5

jcod0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallout3_Thumb_04.jpg

 

Never forget.

Yeah, ok so what? A guy can't have different opinions and like modern sandbox RPGs or appreciate achievements in multiple game genres without being dismissed as a console shill or representative of the dumbing down of modern games?

 

Angry Joe's favorite game of all time is the original X-Com, which in case you forget, is a hardcore turn based, isometric squad combat game with deep strategical elements and high difficulty.

 

 

Watch this review of the new X-Com if you still doubt his PC master race sensibilities.

  • Like 1

"Things are funny...are comedic, because they mix the real with the absurd." - Buzz Aldrin.

"P-O-T-A-T-O-E" - Dan Quayle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...