I'm sorry to mention this once again, but it brings up such a good point in many of things. ME3, people were entitled to a good ending because they showed consumer loyalty and the games throughout were relatively good. They had paid for what they expected to be an epic conclusion to perhaps one of their favorite series of games, and I understand that. Fight for what you deserve in for what game you deserve it in.

But with the advent of the new Kinect Star Wars, I keep seeing people going nuts over how stupid it is and how it “killed” star wars. But here's the thing. This is all in one game, that you don't have to buy. It doesn't continue the story line, and you can see how it's aimed at someone of a younger audience (Seeing the KID on the front of the case). And if you couldn't put two and two together, consider the rest of games on kinect. There are very few , if any, games targeted at the same audience as hardcore Star Wars fans.

Another problem is how people act like it kills Star Wars. They seem to think that a guy covered in black can't break it down once in a while. It may sound like I'm joking here, but I'm not. They act as though if he does, then he's ruined forever for doing something the player doesn't want him to do. You cannot define how he acts.

Bringing up ME3 again, the series defines itself as a story about people trying to save Earth from the reapers, and okay. But tossing all of their hard work back in their face as if it never mattered? That's something to be upset about. But complaining about how a game has a mini game where famous characters from a game dance? You never even had to buy the game, as it pretty much advertised itself as for younger kids.



With the picture above, I'm also saying that...why can't there be a bit of comedy in games? I'm sure the developers weren't aiming to destroy your childhood memories. They probably saw it as a bit of a goofy, or funny thing. Now if they start dancing in the actual storyline and acting really goofy, I can see that being a bit of a problem. But as a side dish, that you didn't even have to buy because it advertises itself as FOR KIDS , then what do you have to complain about? That an evil villain danced?

If I had a problem with this, then I would be anti-just about everything. Because of stuff like fan-fictions that ruin how I view amazing characters (Back when I was heavily into KH, fan-fics ruined it).

And yeah, if I had the chance (And kinect), I would probably go and play this game, because I get a kick out of it. I find it humorous.

Warning: This blog is full speculation. I am in no way saying Kickstarter does this or anything of the sort.


Let's say, a Rollercoaster Tycoon 4 kickstarter project occurs. Someone wants to revive an amazing, yet dead, franchise. The support for that would be pretty strong seeing how popular the first three were. It promises new HD content, more building options, better AI, etc. etc. That sounds like it fixes everything in number three. So, like an ordinary gamer, you feel like supporting an idea that you can agree with. But on the game's release, you notice problems like

- Screen Tearing
- Bad AA management
- Constant crashes
- Insane difficulty
- Etc

So what do you do now? Nothing, you're left with a dead product. Essentially, you donated money to bring a game into existence, so you can't really ask for a refund back. And if you claim it as false advertising...well...you bought the game without it ever being released yet! It was only an idea and you supported it. It's different when someone buys Mass Effect 3 and hates it and wants a refund. Because they specifically bought the game and expected it to be good. All of the things EA/Bioware said about it could be considered false advertising. But with RT4's case, it wouldn't be like that, because you DONATED money to the project and got a game in return. Not only that, but you donated and got the game before it was even established as a public game.

In a time where people are against the corporations producing games because they're evil...you actually want to support that? If everyone would have paid for ME3 before it came out, you mind as well have torn another half of the content out. “But they're indie companies!” Not all of them have to be (Double Fine) and indie companies can be just as bad. Notch's rate of improvements to minecraft was much slower than Jeb's, sadly. Yeah, notch started it. But then it got annoying with how he went on vacations a lot more than he did work on his actual project. Yes, minecraft was still good. But it was still taking advantage of the customers, and later Minecraft revised the ToS to say that you would indeed have to pay for different versions of it (When it originally stated it wouldn't require for you to).

You can say developers are bad nowadays. I can see that somewhat. But then when you go and donate $10-$100 to a company for a promise that they're going to release a great game, you're really stretching it. While companies can do it for good, I'm sure there will be ones there to abuse the system. Donating to random companies on Kickstarter for an explanation of what it will be is like buying a good they show on TV. Have you ever used to Robo-Stir? It doesn't work. The snuggie? Blankets work too. Sham-Wow? They can't absorb worth a crap.

I realize that no company has done this yet to a really bad extent, and the chances of it occuring are low unless people keep giving companies money with pinky promises that they'll get a good product.

I love TF2 with a passion, in fact, I've racked up over 430ish hours on it and occasionally turn it back on. So when people start hyping a game said to have team-based objectives, I get kind of excited. No other game to that point had reached TF2's level of gameplay. Nothing really made you feel like a team and had the most balanced weapons imaginable. But what game was being hyped?

Brink.
Oh, and it was nothing like I expected.


When I first got into a game, my eyes started watering. They cluttered my HUD with so many tiny little icons and do-hickeys that I couldn't see five feet in front of my face. They gave all of the different classes objectives to do, but the problem was, it was set to where every class had a different objective, but all it consisted of was going somewhere and holding the action button. You mind as well have everyone on the same objectives if it's that easy.

TF2 did well because: All characters were distinguishable, each class had it's own weapons, each class had a role, and they were balanced. Brink, had none of this. You can't see a character and think “Oh, that's a medic” or “Oh, that's a spy”. You just see him and think “Oh, well, I guess I gotta kill this enemy.” The problem with that is, no one knows who the priority target is. In TF2, if a heavy and medic team up, everyone gangs up on them because they're an obvious threat.

Another downside to Brink, again, is being similar through all of the classes. Each class has access to the same guns. wat. Again, by doing this, you make working as a team so much harder. That, and no class distinguishes. For example, the reason I've played TF2 so much, is because sometimes I feel like being a spy, while at times I feel like being a heavy. They all had their own play styles and in a way they all felt like their own game. But Brink offers none of that, making each character use the same everything while the only variation that exists is what you do in terms of an objective.

Brink tried to drum up excitement by showing off the SMART feature a lot, and it wasn't even that practical. There were times I needed to navigate, but I wasn't using it as much as the producers said it'd come in handy. I'd use it a few times in a game and I could do pretty well, so it wasn't like I was horrible at it, therefore I sucked. In all honesty, the problem with it is that the scoring system works off of objectives and kills, so why do parkour?

The storyline was the most half-assed thing I've seen in a while. Games 10 years ago called it “Offline multiplayer”, and they were bots. But no, this time they tried to tie in the word “Story” into it and it lost all credibility. That was as much of a story as my big toe. All it did was offer offline multiplayer, which is NOT a story, but a deathmatch or assault.

Brink with it's lack of differentiation throughout the game, horrible story mode, useless parkour system, and such, really drove the game down to probably my worst disappointment of all time. A game that claimed to be the next TF2 had a lot to live up to, and dropped way below anyone's expectations, and is now sitting in Gamestops everywhere, in the bargain bin.

I'm not trying to be a douche hating on Daniel's story or anything, in fact I agree with the points he made saying how it isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. The fact of the matter is that there's a lot of hatred on ME3's ending, and some of it is well deserved. I'm not saying harassing Jennifer Hepler will change anything, but simply being vocal can help a lot.

A lot of people got on the guy who complained about ME3 to the FTC saying he was going too far. But right now, in the current games industry, I wouldn't say he's going too far. Mass Effect's series promised choices, which were never really relevant as the game goes ahead and dictates to everyone that whatever choices they pick are only valid in the game it's played in. I haven't played ME, but I have read up a lot on the controversy. From what I've heard, ME1 let you vote for a council member, and in 2, they automatically choose one they figured you may have voted for. That's kind of crap.

You might say, “Big deal who cares”. But I do. This is the first step to a company shoving garbage down your throats. If you support good game developers such as Valve, and then support games that were made cutting corners, other companies might hop on that band wagon. If a company finds out that they can use public domain stock photos in their games without gamers being upset, I'm sure a lot more would! And that itself is not bad, unless it escalates. If it gets to where developers really start to drag this out further and cut more costs, I can't help but feel like I wouldn't be able to play video games anymore. It's starting to feel like hollywood, cutting corners and butchering what could have been good.

The case and point, is that if we don't tell EA/Bioware that this is bullshit, then they're going to keep on. And other companies will follow suit, and eventually we'll have games that are literally just copied and pasted onto our screens. And I don't want that, I want new content that works, is thought out, and allows for what it advertises.

If anything, I'd like for more people to be vocal, and I don't care how much. Send EA and Bioware emails that you don't want to be treated like sacks of money.

I recently got a 360 for the first time ever, and my friend's letting me borrow Deus Ex. I played it for a bit before on PC, but grew sick of how poorly my PC handled it, so I stopped. But now, I can play it a lot better, although with a worse controller (I love my Keyboard and mouse, and I hate analog stick controllers for FPS/TPS). But I've been playing through, and one thing more than any gets on my nerves.

When Deus Ex was first being advertised, they brought up the different forms of gameplay. They said there were 3: Stealth (Don't get noticed), Adaptive (Use the environment to your advantage), and Aggressive (Shoot everything you need to). The problem is, the last two...are pretty much obsolete.

If you really get into adaptive, it essentially means look for air ducts and move around boxes and fridges to your advantage. The problem is that air ducts are usually predictable, as they'll have one entrance 100% blocked off by enemies. So then you think, “Oh well, if they're going to completely block off my path, then there's probably an air vent around here somewhere.” To make an example, when you first get to china and have to get into the penthouse. There are 4-5 guards blocking off the obvious entrance, with an airduct slightly farther to the right of it. And if you decide to move stuff around to your advantage, it's either very limited or very cheating. The carrying augmentation costs 1 praxis point and allow you to move whatever you want. Essentially, you could run through the game, smashing anything that moves with a vending machine, and you'd be pretty safe with doing so. The vending machines would work as cover and a weapon.

Aggressive is what really gets me. I'm pretty bad at stealth, so I try my best, and most of the time, I at least make someone get suspicious of activities going on. The problem here is that aggressive won't work nearly as well as the other two. For one, there's a limited supply of ammo. In detroit, there's one guy selling weapons, and he has limited inventory. So at first, that's kind of okay. But then scenes come like when you face the bosses and are forced to unload all of your bullets into them. Then you walk away with a lot less. The second downfall to playing aggressively, is that if you do, you miss out on heavy experience gains. If you go through a part of a level without alerting anyone, you get Ghost for 500 exp. If you don't set off alarms, you get Smooth Operator for 500 exp. But killing a person gives you 10, and knocking them out only provides about...30? And with the limited praxis points in the game, you're probably going to want to get the most exp so you can augment completely.

Don't get me wrong, I love Deux Ex HR. But I just feel like if you make seperate ways to go about handling things, you should also make it a bit more balanced and fair, so that someone who's amazing at stealth gets about the same benefits as someone who has to kill or knock out a few people along the way.

I'm switching it up a bit and makng a full blog out of just audio, of me talkng. My laptop's keyboard is a bit messed up, and i figure this to be much easier anyway. I realize it's probably gonna disqualify me from being on the front page, but I don't think that that's what matters. I think these topic-specific blogs are meant just more for us to get our opinion out.

Browser Games: Good ol' RS