Nintendo's Ungaming

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

As you say in your article one way to make games accessible to new players is to make failure less punishing. If that's so why don't they just drop the lives system for a checkpoint system in games like mario?

Dottie:

Ka_huna:
So they dont need to pay people to test the game anymore? If it's too hard or broken in places the AI will magic carpet you to the next level? :/

you make a good point this not only defeats the purpose of gaming but it could also make developers lazy idk nintendo is shooting themselves in the foot by abandoning there hard core gamer fans because they will buy games no matter what (I know I will) and the regular people that aren't gamers will stop buying games as soon as money is tight.

Last time I checked we were in an almost global recession and Nintendo was making enough money to make King Leopold II consider moving out of the colonial oppression business.

But are people still going on about this? These threads are starting to make the Escapist resemple the Escapist even less, now we start to resemble a Gamespot comments page, full of "OMG TEH NIN10DOH IZ ROONING GAMEZ 4 US >:("

But before I say 'Shame on you, Shamus for bringing this up again.' I have to agree. If you want a game to be easier for the casual crowd then scatter hint boxes in areas where puzzles may be particuarly hard, and make sure 'teh hardcor gamerz' know what they are so they don't actually trip and bang their head against one and have to complain about it ruining the entire gaming industry.

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. My first reaction when reading about the option to not play the game you've paid for is that it was madness or Sparta or something like that. But good points have been made about increasing accessibility. And about alternative methods of increasing the accessibility of games. Plus, I don't believe gameplay is the be-all and end-all of video games, bizarre as that might sound, and I don't believe we need to convert "casual" players to "hardcores". Plus, if its entirely optional then it doesn't really affect me. Honestly, I'm confused. Gah, I feel like such a fence-sitter. A tired sleepy fence-sitter who can't think.

AmrasCalmacil:

Dottie:

Ka_huna:
So they dont need to pay people to test the game anymore? If it's too hard or broken in places the AI will magic carpet you to the next level? :/

you make a good point this not only defeats the purpose of gaming but it could also make developers lazy idk nintendo is shooting themselves in the foot by abandoning there hard core gamer fans because they will buy games no matter what (I know I will) and the regular people that aren't gamers will stop buying games as soon as money is tight.

Last time I checked we were in an almost global recession and Nintendo was making enough money to make King Leopold II consider moving out of the colonial oppression business.

But are people still going on about this? These threads are starting to make the Escapist resemple the Escapist even less, now we start to resemble a Gamespot comments page, full of "OMG TEH NIN10DOH IZ ROONING GAMEZ 4 US >:("

But before I say 'Shame on you, Shamus for bringing this up again.' I have to agree. If you want a game to be easier for the casual crowd then scatter hint boxes in areas where puzzles may be particuarly hard, and make sure 'teh hardcor gamerz' know what they are so they don't actually trip and bang their head against one and have to complain about it ruining the entire gaming industry.

Yeah and anyone with a brain knows that people in a recession don't have a lot of cash to blow on video games,especially the casual gamer. So at the first sign of anything going wrong money wise they will stop buying video games. casual gamers likely either have other hobbies,or,aren't casual gamers. put one and one together,only "hardcore gamers" are loyal customers in the video game industry and Nintendo is totally ignoring them. This might be working for them right now but it might not in the long run. For some people buying Nintendo's product it could be a total fad. So plz next time think before posting ty

Just turn on a "Cheat" flag, disable the achievements, disable or penalize meaningful stats.

orannis62:

AceDiamond:

WanderFreak:
*Preface: I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, and my post reflects this POV*

Sorry I stopped listening to you because you started using those labels. Labels which I am sick of and serve only to further the image of gamers as misanthropic people with social problems and only try to compare the size of their e-boners. Apparently you can only game if you "earn it". And that you shouldn't try at all or be helped by anything. I suspect you've used cheat codes and strategy guides before, I would be pleasantly surprised if you didn't. I've played games for 19 years, and I don't act like an elitist up my own ass with delusions. Gaming should be accessible to all who wish to play, not just those of us who spent countless hours playing just to get an achievement that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things, or those of us who only think FPS's belong on a certain platform, or those of us who think PC gaming is the alpha and the omega of all gaming.

Time for more reiteration as I drag this back on topic. This "feature" or "bane of existence" or whatever you want to call it is optional and if affects nobody here, least of all anybody who professes to be "hardcore". I do not fear something optional destroying gaming as we know it. And if you are afraid, then I believe it's because you're afraid you might use it.

This is basically how I felt from the beginning, minus the "I've been gaming for 19 years" thing, that's longer than I've been alive :)

But yeah, this whole notion of how the "casual" are apparently going to destroy the "hardcore" is just wearing so thin. Why does everything need to be Us Vs Them?

HobbesMkii:
When I was a kid, not so long ago, we had these things called "difficulty settings." They ranged from "Easy" which was often the easiest setting, and would give you lots of ammo, or health, or lives, or reduce the number of enemies, or types of enemies, or how much damage they did, etc. etc. to "Very Hard" which was often the most difficult setting, and basically did the opposite of "Easy."

And see, if you played a game, and you weren't getting very far, you could go down a difficulty setting, which would make the game easier to play.

That, however, ignores one of the problems pointed out. Look at the basketball analogy on the second page, and watch the video he links to there. The problem is that difficulty levels only make things easier for those who have some idea what they're doing, the "hardcore" (god I hate that term), if you will. If I can't figure out the timing for this jump, or figure out that bosses Achilles' Heel, it doesn't make a difference whether I have 3 lives or 5. This tutorial program might not be the correct response, but at least they're acknowledging that there is a problem.

But the people who will play the new Mario game aren't the same people who play CS. In CS, your going up against actual people and you are not meant to win. Winning in CS says that you have more skill than your opponent, even if no skill was involved. In the Mario game, you are eventually supposed to beat the game, so beating it on your own means that you have reached a certain level of skill. Your not king of the hill, your just on the same plateu as everyone else, and not being able to directly compete against each other means that there won't be any incentive to brag about beating the game unless you have done something that the demo mode won't do for you.

You can hack any game, people have hacked Peggle, but those aren't the same people that the Mario game is targeted at.

NeutralDrow:
I still don't think it's that bad an idea. I guess my faith in humanity is, in a fit of supreme irony, just too great.

While I certainly can't fault the suggestions of making the consequences of failure lower, or making control easier (why do you even need an option to turn that off? Bragging rights?), there is always more fun inherent in playing a game than watching it played. I'm fairly certain my friend would have preferred to make those jumps in Devil May Cry himself, rather than turn to me for help, but as a result I'm also equally certain that he'd never ask for it if he really didn't need it. Considering the stigma that's been attached to the word, I'm hesitant to use it, but "casual" play doesn't always allow for the time needed to master a game. To quote Cracked.com out of context, "Game designers: We're really busy. Lots of us got kids now, and second jobs and mistresses on the side. You want to sell your console games to the millions of people who are lucky to get 30 uninterrupted minutes to play a game? Fix [loading times] first."

So yes, the other suggested options would be nice, but I don't see anything wrong with this one, either. I guess I'm more concerned with peoples' entertainment than whether they truly become "gamers."

Exactly, I think the same thing. No one is going to buy a game and watch the entire thing, but I still consider this to be similar to when friends and relatives ask you to 'get past a bit' for them. Its exactly the same, and no one can attempt to tell me otherwise (if you do, explain why). And you must have known at least one person who would ask such a thing from you, or you might have been one of those people back in the day.

I don't understand why people keep thinking that this is bad because it defeats the purpose of the game. At the end of the day they will not watch the entire game, their sense of accomplishment will grow when they play more and more of games without using the feature, and eventually they will stop using it altogether. I couldn't believe it when I heard someone (not naming names) say that when they use this feature, they will always use this feature. I don't know about you, but I stopped using walkthroughs and cheats an awful long time ago, but I did use them.

And also someone said something about achievements being pointless then. All that needs to be done is to make achievements available to someone who doesn't use the feature at all. Simple. If achievements really did reel in gamers, it can work for the non-gaming community also, if they eventually become interested. But either way people still need to understand that this doesn't apply to them, and it's optional. This isn't the death of gaming as we know it at all.

theultimateend:

Unfortunately if the game sells well they will omit quality gameplay for a play itself game. This will become common and you will find yourself playing nothing because all new games will be mediocre poorly balanced AI driven software.

As it stands there is a note able drop in quality already, it will only get worse considering the sales they still get.

No no, if this feature exists, there won't be a drop in quality, it's the exact opposite. This is how you bring both gaming sides together, you have the difficulty of the game intact while having a feature for those who find it too hard. And also

AceDiamond:

WanderFreak:
*Preface: I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, and my post reflects this POV*

Sorry I stopped listening to you because you started using those labels. Labels which I am sick of and serve only to further the image of gamers as misanthropic people with social problems and only try to compare the size of their e-boners. Apparently you can only game if you "earn it". And that you shouldn't try at all or be helped by anything. I suspect you've used cheat codes and strategy guides before, I would be pleasantly surprised if you didn't. I've played games for 19 years, and I don't act like an elitist up my own ass with delusions. Gaming should be accessible to all who wish to play, not just those of us who spent countless hours playing just to get an achievement that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things, or those of us who only think FPS's belong on a certain platform, or those of us who think PC gaming is the alpha and the omega of all gaming.

Time for more reiteration as I drag this back on topic. This "feature" or "bane of existence" or whatever you want to call it is optional and if affects nobody here, least of all anybody who professes to be "hardcore". I do not fear something optional destroying gaming as we know it. And if you are afraid, then I believe it's because you're afraid you might use it.

Ninja'd by a few days.

Towowo2:
I really doubt that the people who need a leg up now and them are going turn on demo play and just watch the game. I still believe everyone is overreacting to this.

Yeah I agree.

This is seriously a big overreaction.

This isn't going to affect the "hardcore" audience in any way, as they'll play it through normally. And I don't think people are going to WATCH the entire game either. It will be used when they get stuck, but to say no one will ever play a game again because of this is really, a big overreaction.

I suppose some of us forgot that this is entirely optional too.

However, I do agree with the article writer that it may be more...efficient? Beneficial? Well, something...if we stuck to using better hint systems rather than having the game drive itself temporarily. That way, you're still forcing to player to actively input commands.

Revenile:
The problem I have with people's reactions on this is Nintendo said the demo mode won't keep scores, or allow you to save past the demo mode, so something like zelda, you couldn't save after solving the puzzle using demo mode.

That's a good point. Though wouldn't that also be a problem? If you couldn't save after using it to help you out of a stuck situation, then what would you do? In some games, reloading back to your last save means you have to trek through a large amount of content again.

We still need to see how they implement this.

For all I know, they could simply make it so you watch how its done, and then the game reverts back to before you used the "demo mode", meaning you get to do the solution yourself.

ChromeAlchemist:

NeutralDrow:
I still don't think it's that bad an idea. I guess my faith in humanity is, in a fit of supreme irony, just too great.

While I certainly can't fault the suggestions of making the consequences of failure lower, or making control easier (why do you even need an option to turn that off? Bragging rights?), there is always more fun inherent in playing a game than watching it played. I'm fairly certain my friend would have preferred to make those jumps in Devil May Cry himself, rather than turn to me for help, but as a result I'm also equally certain that he'd never ask for it if he really didn't need it. Considering the stigma that's been attached to the word, I'm hesitant to use it, but "casual" play doesn't always allow for the time needed to master a game. To quote Cracked.com out of context, "Game designers: We're really busy. Lots of us got kids now, and second jobs and mistresses on the side. You want to sell your console games to the millions of people who are lucky to get 30 uninterrupted minutes to play a game? Fix [loading times] first."

So yes, the other suggested options would be nice, but I don't see anything wrong with this one, either. I guess I'm more concerned with peoples' entertainment than whether they truly become "gamers."

Exactly, I think the same thing. No one is going to buy a game and watch the entire thing, but I still consider this to be similar to when friends and relatives ask you to 'get past a bit' for them. Its exactly the same, and no one can attempt to tell me otherwise (if you do, explain why). And you must have known at least one person who would ask such a thing from you, or you might have been one of those people back in the day.

I don't understand why people keep thinking that this is bad because it defeats the purpose of the game. At the end of the day they will not watch the entire game, their sense of accomplishment will grow when they play more and more of games without using the feature, and eventually they will stop using it altogether. I couldn't believe it when I heard someone (not naming names) say that when they use this feature, they will always use this feature. I don't know about you, but I stopped using walkthroughs and cheats an awful long time ago, but I did use them.

And also someone said something about achievements being pointless then. All that needs to be done is to make achievements available to someone who doesn't use the feature at all. Simple. If achievements really did reel in gamers, it can work for the non-gaming community also, if they eventually become interested. But either way people still need to understand that this doesn't apply to them, and it's optional. This isn't the death of gaming as we know it at all.

theultimateend:

Unfortunately if the game sells well they will omit quality gameplay for a play itself game. This will become common and you will find yourself playing nothing because all new games will be mediocre poorly balanced AI driven software.

As it stands there is a note able drop in quality already, it will only get worse considering the sales they still get.

No no, if this feature exists, there won't be a drop in quality, it's the exact opposite. This is how you bring both gaming sides together, you have the difficulty of the game intact while having a feature for those who find it too hard. And also

AceDiamond:

WanderFreak:
*Preface: I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, and my post reflects this POV*

Sorry I stopped listening to you because you started using those labels. Labels which I am sick of and serve only to further the image of gamers as misanthropic people with social problems and only try to compare the size of their e-boners. Apparently you can only game if you "earn it". And that you shouldn't try at all or be helped by anything. I suspect you've used cheat codes and strategy guides before, I would be pleasantly surprised if you didn't. I've played games for 19 years, and I don't act like an elitist up my own ass with delusions. Gaming should be accessible to all who wish to play, not just those of us who spent countless hours playing just to get an achievement that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things, or those of us who only think FPS's belong on a certain platform, or those of us who think PC gaming is the alpha and the omega of all gaming.

Time for more reiteration as I drag this back on topic. This "feature" or "bane of existence" or whatever you want to call it is optional and if affects nobody here, least of all anybody who professes to be "hardcore". I do not fear something optional destroying gaming as we know it. And if you are afraid, then I believe it's because you're afraid you might use it.

Ninja'd by a few days.

Except that the only constant in the last 3-5 years of gaming is that the quality is tanking so I'd say unless our sun turns purple one should reasonably expect this new change to be used improperly.

Thank you Shamus, thank you for stating what needs to be said.

As always.

Nintendo is sort of like Hannibal of Carthage. They both knew how to attain victory over their enemies, but they have no idea what to do with it. Nintendo has the largest market share in gaming than any other company in history, yet they aren't turning this new audience into gamers, they're turning them into passive non-gamers. They will get bored watching the game being played for them, that's whats been happening for years as they've looked over the shoulders of their gaming friends.

My dad has been a non-gamer for years, but then my mum bought him an Xbox 360, and at first it was an uphill struggle, but now he can kick my ass on halo 3 any day of the week, and boy does he love to rub it in my face, but he's bloody EARNED that. If my mum got him a Wii, he would still be mostly crap at games, I would still be spawn killing him over and over, and he would get no sense of enjoyment from it.

Eventually, these non-gamers Nintendo are breeding will get tired and walk away. Not only will this hurt Nintendo, but it will hurt any other companies trying to get these people to play their games, as the general attitude will be - "Well, I played games for a while, but it was boring, so I'll never play games ever again..."

They are a fragile new market, and need to be treated with more thought and care than this.

HobbesMkii:

They spent a million dollars to create a pen that would not write upside down, but also in the vacuum of space. The result is the absolute pinnacle of writing utensil technology. They were assured of having no problems when it came to writing beyond the pull of Earth's gravity.

The Soviets, on the other hand, not having a million bucks to blow on pen design, promptly switched from pens to pencils.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Yea i really can't think of any logical reasons for why you would want too spend a million dollars on a new type of pen when you can just use a ordinary pencil instead. Sometimes the most simple solution IS the best one.

theultimateend:
Except that the only constant in the last 3-5 years of gaming is that the quality is tanking so I'd say unless our sun turns purple one should reasonably expect this new change to be used improperly.

If game quality tanks, then the point of this function would be moot, and if the next Zelda game is half-assed because of this, I would be confused. I can't really see this being used improperly, you make the game, then you implement the function with pre-made videos for progression, Midway couldn't fuck that up. If this affects game quality, I could see it being for the better as the developers aren't trying to keep everyone happy game design wise, the function can do that. And if the game quality continues to drop then it wouldn't be the fault of this function.

YurdleTheTurtle:

I suppose some of us forgot that this is entirely optional too.

No one forgot, everyone ignored it for the sake of complaint and argument.

ChromeAlchemist:

YurdleTheTurtle:

I suppose some of us forgot that this is entirely optional too.

No one forgot, everyone ignored it for the sake of complaint and argument.

Actually, the important thing here is that if Nintendo is embracing the demo mode, then they aren't embracing any of the far better and more reasonable methods suggested in the article or in the comments above.

It's not about this bad option we're getting, it's about the much better options we're NOT getting.

Didn't they already do this with one of the Mario games?

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous that Nintendo were allowed to PATENT A.I controlled gameplay.
I mean, seriously, what the hell is wrong with patent offices?

I am surprised Nintendo hasn't noticed that having a game played for you is like someone going "sex is great, here let me show you" and then they bang everyone until they go home and you only got to watch, the person turning to you and say "wasn't that great".

You only seem to get dumber, Nintendo...

Shamus Young:

ChromeAlchemist:

YurdleTheTurtle:

I suppose some of us forgot that this is entirely optional too.

No one forgot, everyone ignored it for the sake of complaint and argument.

Actually, the important thing here is that if Nintendo is embracing the demo mode, then they aren't embracing any of the far better and more reasonable methods suggested in the article or in the comments above.

It's not about this bad option we're getting, it's about the much better options we're NOT getting.

And the Patent abusing, don't forget that. I am not going to get over this for a long while, if ever, there is no focking reason for Nintendo to patent something so simple that you could probably make it within the game in a few weeks of in and out development!!

Nintendo IS the way to help people become gamers...just not with their new stuff. I became a gamer through the NES and SEGA Genesis. N64 honed myself to becoming a hardcore gamer.

Wow... Just Wow...
So all you elitist wankers are sincerely stating a belief that fun should be something you earn?
So because I couldn't beat the big bosses in Spyro when I was a kid, I shouldn't have been permitted to experience and enjoy the rest of the game?

I'm not a casual gamer, I'm not a hardcore gamer either. I'm a gamer, I like to pick up a game and play it. I'm not embarrassed to say that I suck at games, I frequently find myself looking at walkthroughs and my statement about the bosses in Spyro had a degree of truth to it (don't worry, I beat them easily now).

This function is for people who don't enjoy trying again and again to get past a puzzle they just can't figure out, to beat a boss they can't find the weakness of. If those of us who have these problems don't have this new idea from Nintendo to help us, then we'll just go to GameFAQs or get a friend to hep us through it. This isn't the big deal you are making it out to be.

This isn't going to affect the population of the L337 hardcore gamers, because someone who does have the time and inclination to beat a game purely on their own merit would not use this function.

Gaming is about fun people, not achievement, regardless of whether you beat a game 99% on your own or 100% with a walkthrough you've ultimately achieved nothing worthwhile. Don't get me wrong, you will have had fun doing it, and that's important, but unless you are paid to play games (and I know it does happen) you havn't done anything significant, you've just passed time in a way that you found enjoyable.

So you get enjoyment out of being able to beat something without help? Well others of us just want to play the game, when something interferes with our ability to do so sometimes we just want it out of the way so we can carry on having fun. I personally don't find fighting the same boss over and over and over etc. an enjoyable experience, so I am the kind of person this is aimed at (though I must say I'll probably stick to walthroughs so it's at least partially my work).

TL;DR
We don't bitch about the way you want to play games, try showing us the same respect.

If its a patent Nintendo are trying to get then at least the real game systems won't be having this.

Shamus, you're looking at this from the gamers perspective, not the Nintendo business perspective. They want people to complete games, and get through them so that they buy more games. If kids tell their parents, "mom I beat that game! I need a new one" more often, then their sales will go up. And I can't blame them, most of their target audience is either young or inexperienced gamers. (that might be a myth, but you get my point)

I remember when I used to babysit for kids across the street when I was 15, and they just could not figure out some of the simplest things on the N64. I swear, simple patterns like, dodge-dodge-attack (repeat), were beyond their grasp. Sure, they could have been exceptionally stupid between the ages of 7-10, but there still have to be many other kids out there like them. This "demo" feature will help people like them advance the game, but like you said, they won't learn anything from it. It's like the old maxim, "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat fish the rest of his life."

The ethics of gaming will be diminished, but I hardly see this as a threat to gaming itself. Every time a gamer looks up a strategy on a boss fight, reads a Prima guide, or looks up how to complete a maze/puzzle, they are doing nearly the same thing. They give up on figuring it out for themselves, and move on with it. To some extent, this isn't that bad, but it does (in my humble opinion) detract from their achievement in completing the game.

Quote - Clichéd Generic Marine Guy

Hey, doesn't that sound like a certain Spartan anyone?

mattttherman3:
So, apparently using cheats, like infinite lives and invincibility, are not enough for a game you can't beat on your own? This is just another reason for me not to buy a Nintendo Wii, even though they have only patented this demo mode. Practice doesn't make perfect, but it makes better.

If you had actually done some research before forming an idiotic opinion, you'd realize that first-party Nintendo games never have cheat codes.

Stabby Joe:
If its a patent Nintendo are trying to get then at least the real game systems won't be having this.

Both the Wii and DS are real systems, and people like them. Calling them "not real gaming systems" and bashing them in general is just an infantile way of complaining that the systems you bought aren't doing well.

"Waaaaah! Nintendo's doing better than the people I bought from! It's not supposed to work like that! My systems are still better!"

Grow the fuck up.

i have a feeling that yahtzee is going to go ape shit on this one i know it

fletch_talon:
Wow... Just Wow...
So all you elitist wankers are sincerely stating a belief that fun should be something you earn?
So because I couldn't beat the big bosses in Spyro when I was a kid, I shouldn't have been permitted to experience and enjoy the rest of the game?

I'm not a casual gamer, I'm not a hardcore gamer either. I'm a gamer, I like to pick up a game and play it. I'm not embarrassed to say that I suck at games, I frequently find myself looking at walkthroughs and my statement about the bosses in Spyro had a degree of truth to it (don't worry, I beat them easily now).

This function is for people who don't enjoy trying again and again to get past a puzzle they just can't figure out, to beat a boss they can't find the weakness of. If those of us who have these problems don't have this new idea from Nintendo to help us, then we'll just go to GameFAQs or get a friend to hep us through it. This isn't the big deal you are making it out to be.

This isn't going to affect the population of the L337 hardcore gamers, because someone who does have the time and inclination to beat a game purely on their own merit would not use this function.

Gaming is about fun people, not achievement, regardless of whether you beat a game 99% on your own or 100% with a walkthrough you've ultimately achieved nothing worthwhile. Don't get me wrong, you will have had fun doing it, and that's important, but unless you are paid to play games (and I know it does happen) you havn't done anything significant, you've just passed time in a way that you found enjoyable.

So you get enjoyment out of being able to beat something without help? Well others of us just want to play the game, when something interferes with our ability to do so sometimes we just want it out of the way so we can carry on having fun. I personally don't find fighting the same boss over and over and over etc. an enjoyable experience, so I am the kind of person this is aimed at (though I must say I'll probably stick to walthroughs so it's at least partially my work).

TL;DR
We don't bitch about the way you want to play games, try showing us the same respect.

well since the fact is that the publishers now days suck the dick of casual gamers (i am looking at you nintendont) it makes it harder and harder for us its a fact in nature when 1 species becomes dominat the others die off or become there bitch

I find it hilarious that so many people are complaining about this, when the reality is, they don't have to use this feature.

And many of these people use cheats regularly and visit GameFAQs like there's no tommorow.

ChromeAlchemist:

theultimateend:
Except that the only constant in the last 3-5 years of gaming is that the quality is tanking so I'd say unless our sun turns purple one should reasonably expect this new change to be used improperly.

If game quality tanks, then the point of this function would be moot, and if the next Zelda game is half-assed because of this, I would be confused. I can't really see this being used improperly, you make the game, then you implement the function with pre-made videos for progression, Midway couldn't fuck that up. If this affects game quality, I could see it being for the better as the developers aren't trying to keep everyone happy game design wise, the function can do that. And if the game quality continues to drop then it wouldn't be the fault of this function.

Pretty sure I never once accused the product itself of being the reason that it won't be used properly.

But I suppose you needed some reason to get up on that soap box.

Glad to oblige.

theultimateend:

ChromeAlchemist:

theultimateend:
Except that the only constant in the last 3-5 years of gaming is that the quality is tanking so I'd say unless our sun turns purple one should reasonably expect this new change to be used improperly.

If game quality tanks, then the point of this function would be moot, and if the next Zelda game is half-assed because of this, I would be confused. I can't really see this being used improperly, you make the game, then you implement the function with pre-made videos for progression, Midway couldn't fuck that up. If this affects game quality, I could see it being for the better as the developers aren't trying to keep everyone happy game design wise, the function can do that. And if the game quality continues to drop then it wouldn't be the fault of this function.

Pretty sure I never once accused the product itself of being the reason that it won't be used properly.

But I suppose you needed some reason to get up on that soap box.

Glad to oblige.

Thanks, glad you were happy to help.

Well could do that or we could be not be fucking stupid and just bring back cheats and have an EZ mode that turns some games into Prince of Persia remake. There you go problem solved.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here