crabra comander
Master Member
That's just shameful. Key reason why I didn't get this. One of many, but still.
If you can't make the DLC meaningful enough, or it feels like a punishment for not per-ordering, you failed.
Aliens: Colonial Marines
- Thread starter Sean Hebein
- Start date
That's just shameful. Key reason why I didn't get this. One of many, but still.
If you can't make the DLC meaningful enough, or it feels like a punishment for not per-ordering, you failed.
Solo4114 said:
Good points, Dan. I can't say that I entirely disagree, and I appreciate the discussion. I've made similar arguments in the past, and been shot down for being an old fogey that resists change.
It absolutely is manipulative, but I'm still not so sure that is a bad thing. It certainly works as a business model, and the only reason that is true is because that is how the market votes with their dollars.
Times change, and so does the target audience. Video games also used to be like Pong, and we were perfectly happy with that at the time.
I sincerely hope something innovative comes along, and sells well enough to break the trend. Maybe future generations will get beyond this ADD/ADHD Ritalin mentality that the game industry has been stuck pandering to.
In the meantime, I'm quite content to be the grumpy old fart who, for once, is actually happy with one of these games. For whatever reason, I'm not so jaded this time around that I haven't been able to enjoy this game for what it is, and continue to keep enjoying it.
CB2001
Master Member
But, by acknowledging Alien3, it thereby makes the game a true sequel to Aliens, and a part of the Alien timeline. Besides, as far back as I remember reading about this game, they always planned on acknowledging the events of Alien3, as one game programmer was asked about the possibility of Ripley being in the game, to which he replied that on the timeline of the story, Ripley is already dead (thus, they acknowledged Alien3 as a part of the storyline long before the game's release).
They're in the game aren't they? Besides, there were only three female members in the Sulaco crew (Vasquez, Ferro and Dietrich). It's within possibility that there are other ship crews with one or no female crew members and those that have almost half a crew compliment of female characters (or more).
Did the thought ever occur that maybe Weyland-Yuntai knew that the Aliens were on LV-426, thus called in the Marines as a possible experiment to see how tough a large amount of them could stand up against a marine platoon? Why waste your very own security force and scientists on the Aliens when you are trying to gather information about their abilities against an elite tactical military unit instead, which are non-affiliated and just as expendable as the Nostromo crew was? For all we know, Burke may have sent the coordinates for the Derelict's location to Hadley's Hope at the Company's request (which means that they purposefully may have sacrificed the Colonists to make the Aliens and then sent in the marines as a test to see how the aliens held up, not expecting the atmosphere processor from blowing up. Why else do you think Burke was opposed to nuking the Aliens from orbit, as well as try to get the specimens for shipment home?). We do know that the Company knew about them (as we saw in Alien and, we get an up-close view on how they knew about them in Prometheus) and apparently were lying straight faced about it (i.e. the entire "look at it from our perspective" bit from the board of inquiry scene in the film), so they chose to use the most expendable assets, which were the Colonial Marines. And since the game takes place weeks after Aliens, it's clear that they have an idea on what they're dealing with when it comes to the Aliens, thus, allowing them to begin using their own scientists and their own security force, knowing what to expect when it came to them (unfortunately, they still had no clue what they were doing). Not to mention, Burke himself was a lawyer, just as expendable as the Nostromo crew and the Colonial Marines. You've got to remember, the Mega-Corp of Weyland-Yutani was mainly responsible for most of the situations in the films, so its possible that they've been purposefully caused what the Marines experienced in Aliens and were not as "clueless" as they made themselves appear to be, and were wasting the lives of people they considered expendable at the cost of trying to understand and control the xenomorphs.
I guess it only works well with the T-Rex from Jurassic Park. :lol
Two words. Exclusive rights.
And guess what Hicks wanted to do? Next time you want to involve a group of expendable people, make sure it's not a group that have the capability to wipe the entire species off the planet.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
I can't speak for the case which is Gearbox and AliensCM, but there is a common misconception held by many that DLC is deliberately "cut" from games with the sole purpose of "milking" people for more money. Frankly, I find that accusation disheartening and offensive. (And please note that I'm NOT accusing YOU Jedi2016 of accusing- this is a general statement.) It smacks of an unfair sense of entitlement proposing that people should work and give stuff away for free. (Like working with games isn't really 'work' and thereby not worth paying for... much like what many think about props!)There are people out there that think you get rich making games and I can't stress enough how much that is not true. Most games lose money- even really good ones! Only a small percentage of games turn a profit and they have to carry all the failed investments. It fraking sucks, but that is the nature of the industry because it is such an imprecise art, with no solid toolset to always fall back on. Only a few lucky people rake in the big bucks, as in most industries. Almost every game has to reinvent he wheel to some degree or people are not interested.
Games have set budgets and timelines. For X amount of time and money invested you get Z amount of game. DLC has its own budget and project plan, thereby is sold separately. DLC is an old-school expansion pack split into bite size chunks so that it can be rolled out early. I really wish people would understand that. You can't automatically expect to get the side order of fries for free.
Now, I'm not saying that no one EVER has deliberately cut stuff to sell separately, but it's not a general practice like so many seem to believe. Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox now.
Ever heard of On Disc DLC? The content is made, coded and for all intents and purposes on the game itself.
CB2001
Master Member
Right, but again, you wouldn't waste your own resources when you can outsource and waste others unless you were sure you could control a very dangerous alien species like the xenomorphs. The military would be just another resource that the Company chose to use. Another resource of expendable people.
True, but you have to remember: the reason why Hicks wanted to do what he did was because he was thinking with his emotions. Hudson wanted to bug-out, because he felt it was pointless to go back in for another fight. Vasquez wanted to nerve gas the whole nest. I'm sure the company figured that even with a small number of the unit destroyed, that they'd still have some control over the military unit to not allow for the use of nukes. However, they never took into account the emotional aspect and the will to survive to factor in their "experiments". Think about it: If Ripley, Lambert and Parker hadn't thought about detonating the nuclear core of the Nostromo, there's a good chance that they all would have died and the Nostromo and the Alien being discovered (in fact, there was a reported ending where the Alien killed Ripley near the end of the film, thus leaving it by itself inside the lifeboat). In fact, the company was hoping for it (hence the reason why the had Ash on board, to make sure that the Alien survived). The same may have been true with the events on LV-426 (in which they were hoping that Burke would be the lead authority controlling the only two people in charge: Apone and Gorman, with Gorman probably the most easiest to control since he had the lack of experience that Apone and the rest of Sulaco crew had, but since Ripley played the "military jurisdiction" card because of the deaths of the Marines, it was probably would have been the wrench in the clockwork of the company's plan if it had succeeded). If Ripley hadn't been there, there's a good chance that nuking the site from orbit may have not even been considered. In fact, Burke tried to talk her out of it before saying, "I cannot authorize that", as it was Weyland-Yutani that called in the marines and were responsible for the mission in the first place.
Long story short, it could be possible that the company called in the marines to be used for an experiment on how well the aliens could stand toe-to-toe with well-trained military units, so they have an idea on what to expect when deploying their own forces for further experimentation with the xenomorphs. It just happen to be blind luck that lead to the Alien killing Ferro, crashing of the drop-ship into the atmosphere processor, thus leaving the Marines unable to nuke the site from orbit, but leading to the atmosphere processor's core to be damaged and resulting in the destruction of the complex (before you say that's not possible, remember, Burke himself said it was blind luck that Ripley had been found after the lifeboat had drifted off into an area and found after 57 years).
Last edited:
Yes, and here is an explanation that could account for it. What if a separate team, with a separate project plan and budget, are allocated to make said DLC? It is NOT intended as a part of the game because it is made separately, for development cost than the base game. That it is completed (or partially completed due to a technical necessity as may be the case if we're thinking about the same DLC) at the same time and fits on the disc is irrellevant. Just because someone is making that side order of fries simultaneously to your burger, still doesn't mean it's free. Now, you may think that the base product does not have enough entertainment value to warrant a purchase and you are of course entirely within your rights to not buy it- but that doesn't mean a developer is obliged to give you something from another project and take a loss.
X amount of time and money still makes Z amount of game. More content costs more money to make no matter when it's made or where it is stored. Again, I can't speak for EVERY project... but I really wish more people could understand the truth behind how these things works instead of automatically assuming they are being ripped off.
Last edited:
No. The content is done, on the disc and ready to go. This isn't some in-game currency or some "Pay to unlock all levels even though you can earn them if you play it" type scenario. This is a company deliberately withholding completed game content that is ready to go. Not only have a lot of gamers voiced out about how much they hate it, but the pioneering company of on-disc DLC is re-evaluating the practice.
Solo4114
Master Member
I tend to think it's primarily about selling sequels to games and monetizing DLC.
If you're "hooked" on games, and a new DLC pack comes along with new unlocks, you're more apt to buy it than if it was just "eh, they added a few maps. Who cares?"
Valve's approach to TF2 is interesting to me, and far far preferable. Of course, they've managed to turn a 6 year old game into a money-maker, so it makes sense they'd use their store the way they do. I'm not a huge fan of it, but at least with random drops and crafting you have a shot at getting other stuff. Plus, they tend to release pretty balanced stuff.
To me, though, while it's not my favorite game in the world, one of the best new-ish examples of a great shooter that DOESN'T try to monetize everything and is immediately accessible is the L4D series. You get access to all the guns in the game from the start. you get access to all the levels from the start. The fun is in the playing, not the unlocking.
It's a model that can and does work, it's just that the unimaginative or uncreative are more interested in inserting some metagame thing because they're interested in making the next one-armed-bandit rather than the next great game.
Oh, yes. Many, many times. But the more I think about it, the more ridiculous it gets. Why shuffle so many pieces when those who made them couldn't even get them to fit?
Jedi2016
Sr Member
Capcom is incredibly bad about on-disc DLC. They even came up with a new acronym for DLC.. "Disc-Locked Content", if you can believe that. They caught a HUGE amount of flak for it, and the gamers were right to call them on it.
In regards to ACM specifically, you have to consider that Bug Hunt (horde mode) is absolutely perfect for this franchise. If there's anything besides zombies that horde mode was made for, it's this. I refuse to believe that it didn't come up during the very first meeting all those years ago about "what kind of multiplayer do we make?" There is absolutely no reason except greed to keep it out of the initial release, especially when it was already announced and even priced (and pretty expensive, I might add) before the game even hit shelves. Yes, I know that not all devs do this. But it's my honest belief that Gearbox did, especially when you consider how they've handled this project overall.
In regards to ACM specifically, you have to consider that Bug Hunt (horde mode) is absolutely perfect for this franchise. If there's anything besides zombies that horde mode was made for, it's this. I refuse to believe that it didn't come up during the very first meeting all those years ago about "what kind of multiplayer do we make?" There is absolutely no reason except greed to keep it out of the initial release, especially when it was already announced and even priced (and pretty expensive, I might add) before the game even hit shelves. Yes, I know that not all devs do this. But it's my honest belief that Gearbox did, especially when you consider how they've handled this project overall.
SPS
Active Member
Ordinarily, this would be true. However, with games already being as expensive as they are now, it's not just the burger you're ordering, it's the whole meal.
So yes, complaints seem fair if the fries are missing that should have come with the meal.
All these food analogies have gotten me hungry now...
Before I continue, let me just say that I realise that some companies may not handle DLC in a smart way, pr-wise. On-disc dlc still needs to have its cost supported by income, but maybe they could have forseen that people would find it on there and complain just because of the nature of the customer base. As I recall, the first time it happened was when some game needed to have some parts of a dlc pack pre-prepped on the disc for technical reasons and people to this to mean that it had been cut, when in fact it hadn't
Irrellevant. If 100 people take 18 months to make a game, you calculate X number of sold at $60 to get reasonable return on the investment. DLC means either MORE people for making it (if made simultaneaously) OR a few of those 100 stay and make DLC after the base game has wrapped production. Either way they are an added expense to the base project and must therefore be monetized. That extra cost must be covered. In the case of free dlc, that cost is sometimes eaten by the PR budget if deemed a worthy expense. Also, if you can guarantee millions in sales, it's a lot easier to be "generous" and give away content for free as a gesture of goodwill or whatever.
DLC is extra content costing additional money to make (no matter when it's made) and therfore it should come as no suprise that companies want to be paid for it.
It's odd that people feel differently about games because there are industries where you can pay more for things that probably cost LESS to make just because of a statistic or label.
It's not that simple unfortunately. I can promise you that there are VERY few people that are in the industry to make "one armed bandits" over good games. Almost everyone I have every met have been trying to make that "next great game" that will put their name up there with the legends. Valve can count on X amount of sales with their name alone and so can factor that into their production budget. Also, trying new things and different ways of doing them is necessary, even if you must allow yourself to fail. Gamers are (in general) very demanding of new product and new features, which is one reason cost keep rising.
It's far from an ideal situation and it's incredibly tough to keep alfloat in it but that's the nature of it at the moment. It's just so incredibly complex to explai all the ins and outs of how it works (which, I guess, is one reason so many snap to the "ripoff" theory by default.) with a few rows of text here. Maybe in the future games will have a more defined set of tools to work with so that you don't have to start from scratch all the time.
That said... taking inflation into account, games are actually CHEAPER now than they were in the mid and early 90's! I recall seeing pc games at radio shack way back in 1989 that cost over 50 bucks and 8-bit Nintendo games could cost upwards of $120 (actual price tag) in 1989 over here!
Oh, and apologies for the haphazard sloppy writing here. I'm on a train with my ipad and editing text is freakin' nightmare.
Ok... major derail here now... back to bashing ACM.
Irrellevant. If 100 people take 18 months to make a game, you calculate X number of sold at $60 to get reasonable return on the investment. DLC means either MORE people for making it (if made simultaneaously) OR a few of those 100 stay and make DLC after the base game has wrapped production. Either way they are an added expense to the base project and must therefore be monetized. That extra cost must be covered. In the case of free dlc, that cost is sometimes eaten by the PR budget if deemed a worthy expense. Also, if you can guarantee millions in sales, it's a lot easier to be "generous" and give away content for free as a gesture of goodwill or whatever.
DLC is extra content costing additional money to make (no matter when it's made) and therfore it should come as no suprise that companies want to be paid for it.
It's odd that people feel differently about games because there are industries where you can pay more for things that probably cost LESS to make just because of a statistic or label.
It's not that simple unfortunately. I can promise you that there are VERY few people that are in the industry to make "one armed bandits" over good games. Almost everyone I have every met have been trying to make that "next great game" that will put their name up there with the legends. Valve can count on X amount of sales with their name alone and so can factor that into their production budget. Also, trying new things and different ways of doing them is necessary, even if you must allow yourself to fail. Gamers are (in general) very demanding of new product and new features, which is one reason cost keep rising.
Maybe They should have expected to be called on it and should have (in hindsight) chosen a different path (like just keeping it off the disc and shutting up about it until after release, even if it was done already) but I disagree that it was "right" to call them on it. Extra content costs more to make and therefore needs to be covered financially. Simple as that.
Sadly, no. You are still paying for just the burger, because every 5-6 years the patrons of the diner demand that you buy a new grill that requires double the amount of cooks to operate it. I agree that games cost a lot of money to buy (except the ones I produce... they stay around 10-20 bucks, but then they are niche indie titles without all the bells and whistles) but it's kind of a catch 22 situation. Gamers are incredibly demanding- just look at all the comments above about how ACM didn't look good even in the preview footage! You know what? At one point I believe that the latest Assassin's Creed had close to 1000 people working on it! Every generation it takes more people to make a game- teams seem to double or triple. If you don't keep up, you don't sell and to keep up you need to up the amount of resources and therefore cost of games goes up.
It's far from an ideal situation and it's incredibly tough to keep alfloat in it but that's the nature of it at the moment. It's just so incredibly complex to explai all the ins and outs of how it works (which, I guess, is one reason so many snap to the "ripoff" theory by default.) with a few rows of text here. Maybe in the future games will have a more defined set of tools to work with so that you don't have to start from scratch all the time.
That said... taking inflation into account, games are actually CHEAPER now than they were in the mid and early 90's! I recall seeing pc games at radio shack way back in 1989 that cost over 50 bucks and 8-bit Nintendo games could cost upwards of $120 (actual price tag) in 1989 over here!
Oh, and apologies for the haphazard sloppy writing here. I'm on a train with my ipad and editing text is freakin' nightmare.
Ok... major derail here now... back to bashing ACM.
SPS
Active Member
As has already been commented on, regarding the release of modern gaming titles, here's the things that really bugs me most of all. I understand the argument of DLC and its delivery, but whether it be created at the same time or after the release of the actual game, wouldn't it more or less amount to the same cost for the developer? Which leads me to the following. I wouldn't mind too much paying somewhat of a premium for a game if I knew that I was getting a full and complete package. With certain options, extra weapons as an example, being offered only as an additional cost is most certainly a slap in the face to those who 'only' have the standard game. Expansion packs are obviously a different story, but could you imagine buying a SNES game 15 years ago, only to realise that you have the lack luster version because your parents couldn't afford the addons? Granted, technology was different back then, but that is why I would argue that they worked harder at developing a more complete game. After the release, you simply waited for a sequel. That was it.
On the other hand, I'd also argue that a lot of consumers expect too much sometimes too. Some folks need to stop and think what is actually possible with current technology, development times, financing, etc. I'd comfortably say that too many people unfairly demand too much with certain things.
There's a delicate balance that both developers and consumers need to respect. Either way, perhaps it's not going to be as big as the crash in the 80's, but I feel a big shakeup is on the horizon...
On the other hand, I'd also argue that a lot of consumers expect too much sometimes too. Some folks need to stop and think what is actually possible with current technology, development times, financing, etc. I'd comfortably say that too many people unfairly demand too much with certain things.
There's a delicate balance that both developers and consumers need to respect. Either way, perhaps it's not going to be as big as the crash in the 80's, but I feel a big shakeup is on the horizon...
If you need to hire more people to make it, pay more overtime or lengthen the project, then you might well have to charge for it unless you want to factor it in the PR budget of something. If it exists it cost money to make.
It's just not as simple as "is it on the disc".
What if said content was complete, but kept off the disc and released 3 months later? No one would complain even if it cost 20 bucks instead of 15- just because it wasn't announced or released close to the base game.
The more important question is what it cost to make. Some products have skilled people and so can make more for less, others vice versa. Some games can produce dozens of hours of entertainment for little development cost whereas others cost a million bucks per entertainment minute due to the type of game. Example- RTS games generally cost less to make than FPS games and usually give you at least 3x the game time (at least) but they also sell a lot less copies. DLC can be cheaper to make alongside the base game if some or all of the tool/tech costs werenfsctorednin the base project but you've still got to pay people to make it.
Where does one draw the line as to where a product is "complete"?
Is a game complete if it only has single player? If not, what if the single player content that is present is so extensive and well-polished that there was no time for multiplayer?
I can't think of any other industry where patrons so automatically assume they are being taken advantage of or ripped off as in games. We're talking about an industry where people work so hard and long that they have total psychic breakdowns or get spontaneous nosebleeds at their desks due to the stress. (Boo hoo sob, sob, you choose your own path I know... but it's true. I've been in the ER once myself during crunch in my rookie years.)
Granted there ARE a select few people that DO want to exploit... but they are not the creative ones. One particular CEO comes to mind... not naming names but he's responsible for killing several franchises by over-exploitation and therby putting thousands of developers out of work...
I think the big shakeup is already full underway. The result we're seeing is less mega-budget AAA titles with graphics that are bleeding edge and a lot more niche titles that cater to a select fanbase. That's fine by me because then I can make stuff for people that I know will be appreciated for a reasonable cost without trying to do the impossible and please 5 million people! Five years ago you would not be forgiven if you didn't have a ten million dollar pre-rendered cinematic as the intro to your game but today they are all but gone with a few exceptions... and good riddance too because they didn't pull their gaming weight!
tamplain
Well-Known Member
They're putting the side order of fries on the plate with your burger and charging you if you decide later that you want to eat them.
Solo4114
Master Member
I think the issue is largely one of perception, though. "On-disc" DLC suggests to the consumer that the DLC is already finished, and therefore was part of the overall development. Consumers have no idea about whether the original budget was later extended to do the DLC or what, nor the current state of the DLC (e.g., is it ready to be activated on day 1, or partially in production but the "on-disc" portion is more of a "landing pad" for that when it arrives).
When consumers hear that it's "on the disc" it just sounds like part of the game was held back to make an extra buck.
Remember back in the 90s when games would eventually get "expansion packs"? To me, that's a better way to deliver new content. That's the role that "legitimate" DLC serves today, and I think most people accept it. Maybe the real issue is that companies need to handle the PR end of this better, for example saying "Well, the disc has some stuff prepped on it, in case we get greenlit for additional DLC. We wanted the game to be ready to accept that as seamlessly as possible, but no, the stuff on the disc isn't fully developed. We're on hold for that until we hear from the publisher whether we'll get a budget for that. If there's enough interest in the game, we probably will get the go-ahead."
The problem comes with bad PR when it just looks like something was held back to make a buck when it was already finished, or when the company makes stupid promises about how there'll be TONS of DLC for the game, but that DLC is stupid crap like downloadable wallpapers or ringtones or stuff that really doesn't add to the GAME. (BF3, I'm lookin' at you...)
Let me rephrase.
I actually tend to think that the DEVELOPERS are largely blameless in this. They're given a project to do, and they want to do it well within the budget they're provided. The PUBLISHERS, though, I tend to think are the ones behind the scenes who are trying to make the one-armed bandits. You think the folks at EA or Activision want to make "The next great game"? Horsefeathers. They want to make "The next great cash cow," and I doubt they care how that happens. Sometimes they'll take a risk on stuff (e.g. EA's taking over Brutal Legend after Activision basically dumped it mid-development), but with franchises like Battlefield and COD and such? Nah. They want you addicted.
The problem is that other companies are getting the wrong idea about what gamers LIKE vs. what they BUY. Take Red Orchestra 2, for example. The original Red Orchestra mod and Red Orchestra: Ostfront were straightforward games. Each side had set weapons, there were limited numbers of weapons that could be deployed in a round based on the map in question (e.g., XYZ number of SMGs, ABC number of semi-auto rifles, and the rest are bolt-action rifles), and that was that. You hopped on a server and played a round of the game.
RO2, however, introduced ranks and unlocks. Now, if all that this meant was you get a different skin or whatever for your model, ok, no biggie. But it didn't. The unlocks had both cosmetic and FUNCTIONAL changes, INCLUDING improving the AVATAR'S performance. So, whereas in most FPS games, your avatar always has the same capabilities as everyone else, in this game, a higher ranking meant literally that you could bring iron sights up a fraction of a second faster, or could reload faster or whathaveyou.
I stopped playing because of this. If I'm playing a game, I want MY skill and the other player's skill (and luck) to be the only deciding factors on who wins or loses, not how many hours they've sat at the computer and played as reflected by some RPG-like conceit. Now, I don't think that the guys at Tripwire were planning on monetizing their game on some incremental basis with things like DLC or to hook folks for the next game due out in 18 months or whathaveyou. I think they put it in because "unlock systems are popular, right?"
To me, that's bad game design and it's based on wrongheaded notions about what players "like."
Unlock systems basically suck, in my opinion, or are at best meaningless. I understand the business case for including them if you're headed in that direction, but other than that? **** 'em.
For the big marquee titles? Yeah, that's true. But I think you're also starting to see smaller-scale stuff reassert itself. Partially this is due to business pressures, I think. It's simply infeasible to keep trying to make these huge marquee games. But I think it's also partially due to gamers wanting more variety and not NEEDING all the bells and whistles. Some of that's due to nostalgia and an appreciation for elegant simplicity, but some of it may also be due to a broadening of hardware platforms that can't quite do all the razzle-dazzle stuff that the latest console or PC can -- like mobile devices (android/ipad/iphones).
That plus the kickstarter model will hopefully start to break the stagnation in the industry.
True. The actual cover price for a game hasn't changed dramatically in the last 10 years. And to the extent it's risen since the early 90s, it hasn't risen dramatically. I seem to recall titles back then costing around $40-60 most of the time.
I think that depends entirely on the nature of the product and the genre, and then the quality of the game.
I don't, for example, think anyone felt that the original Mass Effect wasn't "complete." Yet it had no MP at all and, at least upon release, no DLC. It was also HUGE as a game (although admittedly a lot of it was recycled throughout).
Likewise, I don't think anyone felt like L4D had "incomplete" SP even though it was essentially the exact same game in SP or MP. The SP was functional, but it wasn't the point.
Again, I think the danger within the industry is to think that games have some magical checklist that has to be met. I mean, yeah, I expect gamers would be disappointed if some type of game lacked what was commonly assumed to be a feature in the game, but to be honest, if Bioware announced another Mass Effect sequel with no MP....yeah, I really wouldn't care as long as the story and gameplay are good.
That's what I tend to assume. It ain't the creative types. It's always the ****ing suits.
Same here! And frankly, there comes a point where I simply don't CARE how razzle-dazzle your graphics are. I mean, we hit "uncanny valley" issues, for one thing, but on top of that, sure, it looks pretty, but if the game is boring, so what? "Dude! Look at the fire effects! Aren't they cool?!!" Yeah, but the game is BORING, so all those awesome fire effects don't mean squat to me.
Similar threads
