How do you ruin a good time? Just ask Bungie.

Before I get too far ahead of myself, let's be completely frank here.  Destiny's loot cave needed to die.  It was nothing more than a way for players to abuse a system set up to provide enemies for the game on a timed basis.  It was NEVER intended to be used the way players were using it, and certainly not to be abused so overtly and so blatantly.  Bungie recognized it incredibly quickly and did the right thing, though I'm sure I'm one of the few players to think so.

Raging began almost immediately once the people using this method of farming for loot lost their precious little toy, and has gone on since.  I've seen everything from people claiming that they're quitting their high level character, to people claiming that this was Bungie's plan all along, just to lure people to play...  ?  Wait, what?   How does that even work?

Whatever.

The mistake that Bungie made, however was in regards to 'nerfing' (weakening to the point of being useless in gamer parlance) the Queen's Wrath gear that you get from doing her missions.  Up until the fix they provided for this, this legendary level equipment would give you materials necessary to upgrade your other armor or weapons, and for anyone that already HAD gear that was higher or maxed out, at least getting the material made it worthwhile for the purposes of upgrading.  Without that as an incentive, there is literally no reason to play these missions, other than curiosity.  Yeah, I'm not that curious.  I was playing them, and I trying to raise my reputation with the Queen, and I may continue to do so, if for no other reason than in the future it's probably going to be favorable for me to do so, with the coming expansion packs.

That's not a good reason to do it though.  It just isn't.  As it stands, there really is no reason for me to do it.  That's just poor planning Bungie.  I expect better from someone with so much experience in online multiplayer games.

I'm still enjoying Destiny, just less so now.

When did we get so cynical?

Maybe a better title would have included something about online trolls, but I think that would have come across as too negative.  Trolls aren't that bad... online trolls are a fucking epidemic.

There's this whole new generation of people that live to argue, and in doing so, they discover the internet and something (wholly predictable) happens to their brains.  They LOSE THEIR FUCKING MINDS with the power of being able to infinitely argue (even if they don't actually have an opinion on a subject) and to remain anonymous to the world at large.

I watch a lot of forums and the fans therein, and without fail, every few months or so, there is at least one new fan that signs up, and immediately wants to tell everyone there why they are wrong for what they think.  Not that they're wrong because they've misinterpreted something, or taken something out of context, or because they have created a set of events in their mind that never happened.  No, they're wrong because they have an opinion that doesn't agree with whatever this Argument Person thinks.  And of course, THEY could NEVER be wrong for what they think...  That's just unfathomable.

I've watched everything from people trying to say that the way we played games in the past was wrong because it was more difficult (I'd absolutely LOVE to know their opinions on Zombiiu and its controls that actually take your eyes off the screen in an attempt to create false difficulty) right on up to someone saying that genres don't actually exist because people have differing opinions as to what makes up said genre...  because that's logic.  [/sarcasm]

It's something of a pet peeve of mine to dismiss the opinions of others.  Their opinions are valuable to them, and when you dismiss and demean them, you are often dismissing and demeaning the person that believes them.  It's rude, childish, and immature to say the very least.  It's completely assholish (not really a word, I know, but you get what I'm saying) at its worst, and it needs to go away.  Unfortunately, the only way to do it is to ignore them.  It truly is a case of the only way to win is to not play the game, because these people don't need a reason to argue or even an actual point.  All they require is a response.

I saw an interesting graphic recently:

This perfectly describes the situation that these people create.  You can't beat them, you can't win, you can only leave them to their game and go play something else, preferably with a new chessboard, because who wants a playing field covered in shit?

Let's get ready to RUMBLE...!

No, not really.

WWE 2K14.  Bought it for my kids - and to be honest, I'm finding myself getting drawn in, but not necessarily in the way you might expect.

The gameplay is what you probably expect - because it hasn't changed much in the past several years.  This is the first game that 2K took over, and aside from some controversy with their cover art contest, they've handled it pretty well.

My kids enjoy playing - but for me, the character creator is where it's at.

I was able to create a mockup of the Winter Soldier from the new Captain America movie, and the game enabled me to use enough layers on his arm to actually make it look like a mechanical arm from the movie.  I had a great deal more freedom than they've given in the past, and I can see some serious potential there for creating some really cool characters.  I haven't even checked to see if they could be uploaded the way some previous games did, but if so, I could spend hours doing that alone.

Of course, I'm a graphic artist, so that explains that.

As far as the game itself - there's no Road to Wrestlemania this time, instead they have offered 30 years of Wrestlemania - and it's kind of a refreshing change.  Not a huge thing, but a nice break I think.  My son has been completing the challenges of Wrestlemania past, and he's having a blast, and I'm having fun watching.  The challenge curve gets pretty demanding at times, and the new counter and kick-out mechanics definitely take some getting used to.  It's definitely all about the timing now, rather than just button mashing.

All in all, it's entertaining, and it's another WWE game.

Going home again... sort of.

Gone Home is a game that recently launched, and while it doesn't have all of the fanfare of a triple-a title, this game deserves your attention.  Especially if you are like me.

What I mean by that is, an older gamer, who remembers games being like wonderlands.  I remember playing old point and click, first person games, before the FPS genre was created.  Games were all about exploration, and discovery.

People created worlds for you to enter and explore, and experience as if you were there, and it was up to you to figure out what you were looking for.  Curiosity drove these games.  It was necessary.

So many games today have no need for curiosity, they shove their narrative down your throat as the player, and while some stories can be enjoyable despite a predominantly linear experience, the need to explore is mostly nothing more than an excuse to find more ammo/gear to move on to the next battle.

Gone home is different, as I suspect, the Fullbright Company is different from most developers.

I will offer no spoilers.  To do so would be tantamount to telling everyone how Breaking Bad ends an hour before the last episode airs.

Gone Home is worth your money, and your time...  provided you are curious enough.

Give them a look.

The (false pretenses) petition...

Microsoft would have you believe a lot of things.

The would have you believe that they only ever wanted what's best for gaming, and not to encompass too many kinds of entertainment at once.  They would have you believe that they care about 'core gamers' and that their recent change of course on the xbox one is how they show this, by listening to what gamers want.  They would also have you believe that THIS PIECE OF SHIT is real.

Take a good look at that petition.  Do you see anything wrong there?  Because I do.  I mean, I've heard of people trying to pull this before, but frankly no one has ever been so blatantly obvious about it.

Let's look at a couple of excerpts:

1. The opening

 
1. Petition by
   David Fontenot
   GA

This was to be the future of entertainment. A new wave of gaming where you could buy games digitally, then trade, share or sell those digital licenses. Essentially, it was Steam for Xbox. But consumers were uninformed, and railed against it, and it was taken away because Sony took advantage of consumers uncertainty.

We want this back. It can't be all or nothing, there must be a compromise.

So, when was the last time you heard a gamer talk/write something like this?  Think about that.  Your average Gears of War/Modern Warfare player doesn't even THINK along these lines.  I know this because I know a lot of THEM.  You know what they were complaining about?  DRM (Unnecessary), Always on connections (Unrealistic), and used games (unpopular).  The text in parenthesis is the actual reaction to the policies that Microsoft was trying to implement.  And the fact is, it wasn't steam for xbox, it was more like big brother/EA origin for xbox, and frankly, no one wants that.  At all.

Okay, another excerpt:

2. Supposed petition signers

Javier Marcano HARLOW, UNITED KINGDOM

I don't want to pay 400 - 500 for a console that essentially looks prettier but does the same exact things current gen does.(SHOT AT SONY) MS was just trying to pave the way towards the unavoidable digital future all consoles will follow, if not this gen, then next generation, being innovative just as they were last generation with Xbox Live. (PRAISE FOR MICROSOFT)  Granted, I didn't agree with all the policies brought forward but at least I understood the end goal and it wasn't as such a big deal for me. They said their stuff straight forward and took the heat while Sony innovated nothing, changed nothing and helped feed peoples fear that change is bad and that it's good to pay again for what you already have and can do. Sony said what people wanted to hear and only later revealed the truth of their policies in small interviews after E3.(PRAISE FOR MICROSFT AND A SHOT AT SONY) Who is the better company? The one that says things upfront in front of the world or the one that lurks in the shadows about the reality of what it's bringing forward?(PRAISE FOR MICROSOFT)  It's sad so many gamers are so short sighted.(YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS FOR NOT BUYING MICROSFT'S OBVIOUS BULLSHIT)

So, after reading this tripe, does anyone NOT believe these guys are getting regular paychecks signed by Microsoft?

Really - they were just being innovative, not greedy?  They were just trying to drag us ignorant neanderthals into the inevitable next iteration of gaming?  How condescending and utterly obvious can you be at the same time?

Yes, Microsoft, we totally believe that petition is real, and I've got ocean-front property right here in Arizona to sell you too.

...continued - because it needs to be.

I would like to continue with the rant I was on in the last update.  Companies that claim to listen to their customers, when they do no such thing in reality.

Next up on the list: CAPCOM

I've been a member of the capcommunity forums for several years now.  Now, to be fair, my time there is centered mostly around the Resident Evil forums, as that is (or at least WAS) the game series that I am most interested in from Capcom.

Many of us, like minded and quite vocal, have begged and pleaded with Capcom for literally years to stop turning Resident Evil into a third person shoot-em up, and get back to being survival horror.  And every time they've countered what we've said, or just out and out lied to us.

Resident Evil 4 was scrapped at the last minute, and according to the powers that be, had to be completely overhauled, because sales would have been lackluster, and the series would likely have died.  That's an opinion.  I happen to have a different one, but that's not even the point of this post.  The point is, a LARGE portion of your fanbase, and some obviously dedicated gamers (Most of the people I'm talking about have all of the RE games, because they do love the series, for the most part) have begged Capcom to stop treating these games like their a clone of Modern Warfare/Gears of War, and stick with the genre that they created in the first place.

It all falls on deaf ears.  RE5, 6, Operation: Raccoon City, and even Revelations are all still stuck on being and action/horror hybrid.

Now - flash forward to now.  Specifically to Dead Rising 3.

Several months ago, perhaps even as much as a year, someone on the Unity forums started a thread asking the question, "What would you like in a new Resident Evil game.  I responded, stating that I wanted an open world Raccoon city (ala Skyrim, in an urban setting) with many of the same type of encounters that you get in an open world RPG, but set within the Resident Evil Universe, complete with the city, and the mansion (which would have been optional to visit) and ultimately the goal would be to get out of the city before the nukes fall.

You know, pretty much what they created in Dead Rising 3, minus the setting that I wanted.  Here's the real problem; now that they've created this world in DR3 - you can bet your ass they will NEVER create in for Resident Evil.  After all, they've already done it, and with zombies to boot.  They don't need to recreate that.  I  mean, why can't you just pretend that DR3 is set in Raccoon City...?

It all falls back to not giving one hot damn about your customers.  I'm just one person.  I don't expect a major corporation to listen to just one man or woman about their upcoming products.  But when you get enough people, that have been loyal to your brand for so long, and they constantly and consistently tell you what they want, and you just and constantly and consistently ignore them - that's when you no longer care about the people that have made you what you are.  That's just disrespectful.

Shame on you Capcom.

Oh, and it seems I'm not the only one that feels that the xbox 1 is likely going to lose this console war.

DRM, as in customers Don't Really Matter?

Let me start with a question, and please know that it is rhetorical.

Do game developers have the right to protect their intellectual property with whatever security measures they want?

The simple answer is, yes.  Yes they do.

The problem is, when your security infringes on what gamers want/expect from their games.  It's a lot like the Patriot act - is it really worth your privacy as an individual to be 'secure'?  I personally don't think so.  I also don't think that the DRM measures that gaming companies are preparing to use (and in some cases, already are using), are even remotely necessary.  And I won't pay for them.
Both of the upcoming next gen consoles are touting their DRM as being a feature (you have to be online to play games), and not what it truly is, an unwanted hinderance.   It's almost as if they aren't listening to their customers, and have a severe disconnect with reality.

Requiring people to always be online to play your games (not to be read 'their own' games), is not the answer here.  You accomplished your goal.  You tested the waters and got the feedback.  Guess what, it was all negative.  The only people that want this is the developers.  The only customers not responding negatively aren't responding at all, because they don't care.  The people that care, are voicing their concerns.  Are you listening?

Logistically speaking, it's not even realistic.  Internet connections drop all the time, and don't even get me started on wifi connections.  I'm talking hardline here.  And I'm telling you, it is simply not worth my time to have to start over because you CAN'T properly support the fact that connections drop, and internet is not a perfect delivery method.  CAN'T.  Not even won't.  CAN NOT.  It isn't feasible.  But we as gamers are just supposed to accept that things are going that way, and it's going to happen no matter what.

I know why the game developers are doing it.  I understand.  Piracy is rampant.  Understand, I have no idea if the steps on that site work, because I wouldn't use them even if I had a PS3 - but that site exists, because people want to know how to do these things.  They want to know how to do these things, because they want games that they can't/won't pay for.  They can't/won't pay for said games, because games are too damned expensive.  I know - anyone in the industry doesn't like to hear that.  Games are too expensive.  That's why I shop at gamestop.  That's why I rarely buy a game for full price, and almost never buy a game on launch day.  There are exceptions, and I'm very selective in who I choose to support.  But I will NEVER support the necessity of an always on internet connection as DRM.  Period.

Electronic Arts no longer gets my money.  After I purchased Command and Conquer 4, and then realized I couldn't play the game I just paid for, I resolved to never pay them for anything else.  By the way, I knew about the always on connection, and I even tried to play by their rules.  But even with my connection, THEIR PRODUCT DIDN'T WORK!  I checked for fixes, tried to patch the game, to no avail.  It wouldn't work... and I was out $20 for no reason other than they wanted to do it that way for security.

Want to know another form of DRM that developers have been tossing around for a bit now?  It's called licensing, and what it means is that you no longer OWN the product you pay for.  That link is about Microsoft Office, but they have their own GAMES for PC team.  How long until that business model is in place for their games as well?  My prediction:  Not very.

One of the things that has ALWAYS bothered me about this conversation is that the developers blame a lack of sales on people buying used games.  Not only is this inaccurate, it's coming from a position of entitlement.  They feel entitled to the money that second-hand games shops are making, because they made the product in the first place...  You know, the one that someone BOUGHT and then SOLD or TRADED IN to the shop.  So tell me, why do the developers deserve to get paid TWICE for the same game?  Is the assumption that the person buying a used game would buy a new one instead for the price YOU are charging?  Because that is an incorrect assumption.  I can't begin to tell you how incorrect that assumption is.  I wouldn't pay your price, unless it was the same as I could get it for used at the second-hand shop.  Your games cost too much.  That's a repeating theme, by the way, in case you missed it.

So, can game companies secure their games in whatever way they want?  Yep.  Does that mean that I'll buy them?  Nope.  Not ever.  I refuse to support something that not only doesn't let me play my game my way, but doesn't even allow it to be 'My Game'.  You will not get my money ever again if you do this.
Period. (Quoting EA about SIMcity)