StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Piss off, all you've done in this thread is bitch about Stark's posting style. You'll either get over it like I did, or continue to be irrelevant.

Stark, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I haven't even been here that long, but all I've seen you do in this particular section of the board is just derail something with your annoying cynicism and bash anyone that disagrees with you.

Alpha Protocol - Reviews suck, anyone who thinks differently is an idiot.
E3 - All these games suck, anyone who thinks differently is an idiot.
Star Wars: Old Republic - Bioware is fucking retarded.
And so on.

The shit gets annoying.

It's mostly accurate though. Once you get past your fanboyishness, you'll probably realize that Alpha Protocol is good, and the reviewers are dumb, that E3 didn't really show us a lot, that kotor and the bioware style of game is sort of boring and has really stupid elements, and so on.

I detect a trend here.

Losonti Tokash wrote:Piss off, all you've done in this thread is bitch about Stark's posting style. You'll either get over it like I did, or continue to be irrelevant.

What? I can't call someone on their bullshit? Everything in this thread became irrelevant by page 2, I'm just continuing the trend.

But to get back on topic, has anyone in this thread actually played the game, its kind of hard to comment on the reviews if none of us actually played the game.

the bioware style of game is sort of boring and has really stupid elements, and so on.

Isn't the primary problem they are all the same game? They reuse alot of plot and charactarization from previous ones. Or are you refering to the inability to do certain features correctly?

Both. There are alot of pretty gross similarities in game design and plot and shit between all of their stuff, as well as a complete inability to incorporate not stupid moral compass shit (why incorporate it at all?), a largely useless traveleable universe, lack of meaningful consequences (unlike alpha protocol), limited options for playing the game, etc.

I mean, all of their games start off with a largely linear tutorial/scene setter, before moving on to a linear exposition engine, before branching out to 3 (sometime 4) major location. You can do these in any order, and nothing will change (exception with dragon age where there is a difficulty difference). In these areas you can do minor sidequest, which have no bearing on the main quest, or anything for the most part. After fucking about for a bit, you will eventually get herded into another linear mission that will lead up to the end game for the main area in question. After you finish all of these main areas, you will then get stuck in a final linear map where your previous actions will have no impact whatsoever.

It's a fucking formula.



So, this rant may have come about because I am playing Dragon Age.

I don't think I've even said KotoR is bad; just that Bioware games are just KotoR Increment, which IS bad. For instance, I was having a chat with Hav (who isn't a nerd enough to keep track of game developers) and I told him about the 'Bioware opening' of fight-hub plot dump area-choose from 3 locations was in pretty much every game.

He said 'no it isn't. Wait, what are Bioware games?' I listed off Jade Empire, KotoR, ME, etc etc and he said 'holy shit, you're right'.

It obviously works, but it's hardly original. That AP (a rushed, broken game by habitual failures of developers) instantly defeats the convo system Bioware has been tuning for ten years is hilarious.

Whiplash wrote:Stark, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I haven't even been here that long, but all I've seen you do in this particular section of the board is just derail something with your annoying cynicism and bash anyone that disagrees with you.

I'm just tired of people being wrong.

Whiplash wrote:Alpha Protocol - Reviews suck, anyone who thinks differently is an idiot.

Actually, my stance on AP is that it's a good game and the idiots are people who simply accept the hopelessly one-sided reviews without ever playing the game. I've had people try to 'convince' me that AP is really a bad game EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T PLAYED IT, and telling me that my counterpoints to their stupid criticisms are less valid than their thrid-hand lies.

Whiplash wrote:E3 - All these games suck, anyone who thinks differently is an idiot.

E3 is stupid and jsut a marketing fair, but that's what it's SUPPOSED to be. Have I -ever- said 'every game at e3 sucks and you're all idiots'? I seriously doubt it, especially this year.

Whiplash wrote:Star Wars: Old Republic - Bioware is fucking retarded.

Huh?

Whiplash wrote:And so on.

The shit gets annoying.

You being wrong gets annoying too.

Artemas wrote:Both. There are alot of pretty gross similarities in game design and plot and shit between all of their stuff, as well as a complete inability to incorporate not stupid moral compass shit (why incorporate it at all?), a largely useless traveleable universe, lack of meaningful consequences (unlike alpha protocol), limited options for playing the game, etc.

I mean, all of their games start off with a largely linear tutorial/scene setter, before moving on to a linear exposition engine, before branching out to 3 (sometime 4) major location. You can do these in any order, and nothing will change (exception with dragon age where there is a difficulty difference). In these areas you can do minor sidequest, which have no bearing on the main quest, or anything for the most part. After fucking about for a bit, you will eventually get herded into another linear mission that will lead up to the end game for the main area in question. After you finish all of these main areas, you will then get stuck in a final linear map where your previous actions will have no impact whatsoever.

It's a fucking formula.



So, this rant may have come about because I am playing Dragon Age.

Don't forget the highly sophisticated morality in the Bioware world is actually based on good and evil points !

Sarevok wrote: Don't forget the highly sophisticated morality in the Bioware world is actually based on good and evil points !

Except Dragon Age, where it's based on... errr.... good and evil points because the NPCs are so firmly split into alignments that they all respond in 100% predictable ways. Alistair likes you if you get the kitten down from the tree, Sten likes you if you set fire to the tree because you like your kitten barbecued, and Morrigan just disapproves.

Vendetta wrote:

Sarevok wrote: Don't forget the highly sophisticated morality in the Bioware world is actually based on good and evil points !

Except Dragon Age, where it's based on... errr.... good and evil points because the NPCs are so firmly split into alignments that they all respond in 100% predictable ways. Alistair likes you if you get the kitten down from the tree, Sten likes you if you set fire to the tree because you like your kitten barbecued, and Morrigan just disapproves.

You sure about that? I don't remember Sten as being on the evil side and more like a non-nonsense kind of guy. Like he'd rather have you ignore the kitten in favour of concentrating on the massive dark force of badness coming your way.

Darkdrium wrote:

Vendetta wrote:

Sarevok wrote: Don't forget the highly sophisticated morality in the Bioware world is actually based on good and evil points !

Except Dragon Age, where it's based on... errr.... good and evil points because the NPCs are so firmly split into alignments that they all respond in 100% predictable ways. Alistair likes you if you get the kitten down from the tree, Sten likes you if you set fire to the tree because you like your kitten barbecued, and Morrigan just disapproves.

You sure about that? I don't remember Sten as being on the evil side and more like a non-nonsense kind of guy. Like he'd rather have you ignore the kitten in favour of concentrating on the massive dark force of badness coming your way.

I'm sure that's what they wanted him to be, but in the context of the moral choices actually presented you by the game, he's basically evil choice guy.

I'm going to close the playground, kids, because the groundskeepers have to wipe the shit off of the monkey bars.

Look, arguing with Stark over video games is like arguing with your penis for failing to become erect; the concept doesn't serve to alter reality and will only supply you with a healthy amount of emotional dissatisfaction when you realize that you are arguing with your dick.

What I mean is, Stark may at times disagree with you on a fairly objective point. You are welcome to leave the thread if you have no reasonable rebuttal. Stark may also at times forget not lean on the smarm and lolspeak. I am welcome to flip the switch on the car battery I will have attached to his testicles, since that is the kind of stuff I'm getting paid to step in for.

In either event, I won't have any G&C thread turn into a discussion about Stark.