What do you guys do on xbox 360?

#91iedahGPosted 2/3/2013 4:48:13 AM(edited)
That still doesn't invalidate the huge amount of great indie game which the consoles simply do not get.

Again thats your opinion and the majority of gamers would disagree with you.
Post video links of 10 "great" indie games somewhere on these boards and I bet people will laugh at half of them.


If anything, most indie games tend to be unusual and innovative, especially the succesful ones. I can't honestly think of many good indie games which were simply clones of existing games and didn't bring much new to the table.
Free to play games. Lots of them were retail rip offs that fell flat on their faces. Ea even fell in the trap and are now suffering financially for it.



You just made a couple statements I disagreed with, or just thought they were wrong.


You were going on rants about how Pc controls were superior and stuff . It was typical PC fanboy knee jerk reaction.

Art style is part of graphics. Just because some of the current MOBA games have similar art style to WoW doesn't mean it's a feature of the genre.

Alot of them use that artstyle, that was my point.
Go google it. All of the top f2p and moba strategy games use wows art style. Its not arguable. PC games look this way so people with low end machines can access them, that and the developers are armature.

And saying that because you control one unit it requires less skill is just plain wrong. It might require a different skill, but it's really arguable which genre takes more skill and it will vary from game to game.

Both games have heros with special moves, healing powers, and end game attacks. The only difference is one takes the micromanagement off of your hands.
It takes less skill period.


While that is true in most f2p games, the business model in blacklight is actually very fair. AFAIK there aren't any weapons exclusive to paying users, and the ones you start out with are perfectly usable.

Yeah I heard the same BS about APB and planet side 2. In the eyes of the fans these games dont have balance issues. Theres is no such thing as a fair free to play shooter, it would defeat the purpose of the bushiness model, no exceptions. The entire intensive is you need to punch in your credit card number to buy that super gun or reduce your grind by 500 hours so you can get that super gun faster.

I was exaggerating. You can't really claim an individual game is objectively bad because you don't enjoy the genre.

Pointless and misleading statement.
Arma sucked balls by the way, should of been flight sim instead.


I don't really get what you mean by 'being geared towards neckbeards'. It's an action FPS, a relatively well balanced one with a hint of realism.
Its old and mostly its the disgruntled and old gamers that like old games, thats all that is.

And what's so wrong with PC having old school games? More variety is better, you don't really get those on the consoles outside the x360 arcade/ps store.
Nothing.
The point is thats the majority of what PC has to offer but most gamers dont want to play the same freaking game for 20 years straight.


Is not really all that much like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. other than the everpresent gloom and destruction?
Its better because it has mods, lots of mods.


Compared to games like natural selection 2, it had tons of marketing.

No it dosent.
Natural selection is just a ok game. Its the reboot of what started off as a hl mod, it was never destined to be a big hitter from the start.
---
(\__/)
(='.'=) --" Make things easy for people, not difficult."
#92MastadiPosted 2/3/2013 6:10:54 AM
Again thats your opinion and the majority of gamers would disagree with you.
Post video links of 10 "great" indie games somewhere on these boards and I bet people will laugh at half of them.


It's kinda funny how you complain about my use of opinion, yet you use it a lot yourself.
And it's not just my opinion. There are plenty of indie games that have been warmly received by both critics and gamers alike.

Free to play games. Lots of them were retail rip offs that fell flat on their faces. Ea even fell in the trap and are now suffering financially for it.

Free to play does not mean bad. Free to play with a bad business model might be bad to play for the majority that doesn't want to spend money on the game, but if done right, it can prove beneficial to to both the dev/publisher and the gamers. And most indie games are either completely free, or you just have to purchase the game itself.

You were going on rants about how Pc controls were superior and stuff . It was typical PC fanboy knee jerk reaction.

They are superior in certain games, just like gamepads and arcade sticks are in others.

Alot of them use that artstyle, that was my point.
Go google it. All of the top f2p and moba strategy games use wows art style. Its not arguable. PC games look this way so people with low end machines can access them, that and the developers are armature.


It is arguable. The only similarities between a game like LoL and WoW in terms of art style is the fact that they both use relatively low detail models, and the bold colours used in both games. Even DotA 2 uses a style dissimilar from WoW.

Both games have heros with special moves, healing powers, and end game attacks. The only difference is one takes the micromanagement off of your hands.
It takes less skill period.


Micromanagement is not the only skill required in strategy games. If you make a mistake in a typical RTS and some of your units die needlessly, it usually isn't that great of an issue. In MobAs, a single death could and quite often makes a difference between winning and losing a game. Additionally, MobAs require a lot more teamwork and coordination on higher skill levels.

Yeah I heard the same BS about APB and planet side 2. In the eyes of the fans these games dont have balance issues. Theres is no such thing as a fair free to play shooter, it would defeat the purpose of the bushiness model, no exceptions. The entire intensive is you need to punch in your credit card number to buy that super gun or reduce your grind by 500 hours so you can get that super gun faster.

Try it. Play the game without buying anything and see how you're doing. If you're any decent at FPS games, you shouldn't have much issue reaching quite high on the scoreboards with the default loadouts.

Pointless and misleading statement.
Arma sucked balls by the way, should of been flight sim instead.


That sure is objective.

Its old and mostly its the disgruntled and old gamers that like old games, thats all that is.

I still fail to see how a game implementing old school mechanics in a modern way is a bad thing for anyone. Older games get to play what they like, while newer ones can enjoy the modern rendition of a classic game.

Nothing.
The point is thats the majority of what PC has to offer but most gamers dont want to play the same freaking game for 20 years straight.


Great, which is why the indie scene is great for people who seek new and unique experiences.
---
I would use a nude male mod with equipable underwear just so I can enchant a pair of magical boxers. - Nexus_Nocturnal.
#93MastadiPosted 2/3/2013 6:11:33 AM
Its better because it has mods, lots of mods.

I don't really see any mods which really affect the atmosphere of either game. Fallout will always have it's 50s vibe, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. will be S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Entirely subjective.


No it dosent.
Natural selection is just a ok game. Its the reboot of what started off as a hl mod, it was never destined to be a big hitter from the start.


It had bloody TV ads. NS2 got lucky if it got mentioned on a game review website.
And I don't see how it not being designed to be a 'big hitter' has any effect on the point I was making. It's a fun game, but is often overlooked simply because of lack of marketing, as is often the case with many indie games.
---
I would use a nude male mod with equipable underwear just so I can enchant a pair of magical boxers. - Nexus_Nocturnal.
#94dave_is_slickPosted 2/3/2013 6:24:51 AM
TC creates topic, never posts again. Topic reaches nearly 100 posts.

http://thebest404pageever.com/swf/successful_troll.swf
---
Clementine is my baby. I will fight anyone to the death if they say otherwise!!
#95Luthor_Posted 2/3/2013 6:27:10 AM
Some people prefer consoles and some prefer PC's.

I don't get why people are always arguing.
---
*jumps out of bush and throws spear*
-GorillaOnRoof
#96WeejiezPosted 2/3/2013 3:07:11 PM
capnovan posted...
play Dragonborn


This. Made. My. Day. LOL
---
Toschemarathons.com
"The cruellest thing you can do to an artist is tell them their work is flawless when it isn't"~Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw
#97iedahGPosted 2/3/2013 5:50:17 PM
t's kinda funny how you complain about my use of opinion, yet you use it a lot yourself.
And it's not just my opinion. There are plenty of indie games that have been warmly received by both critics and gamers alike.


You know whats even funnier? PC fanboys getting butthurt over comments and wanting to start and win arguments just so they can put someone down and get satisfaction from it.
I know what alot off what I said was opinion so you stating this is just redundant and pointless.


Free to play does not mean bad. Free to play with a bad business model might be bad to play for the majority that doesn't want to spend money on the game, but if done right, it can prove beneficial to to both the dev/publisher and the gamers. And most indie games are either completely free, or you just have to purchase the game itself.

No. Free to play usual means a game couldnt survive in the retail market or it had a short life span.
Free to play is usually a resort for keeping a game afloat, hence their ridiculousness overpriced digital items being sold separate in cash shops.
They lack content and in the majority of cases they are bad games.

They are superior in certain games, just like gamepads and arcade sticks are in others.
That wasent what you were getting at. You even said PC allows you to use game pads along side with the Superior mouse and keybord. Admit it, you jumped the gun fanboy.


It is arguable. The only similarities between a game like LoL and WoW in terms of art style is the fact that they both use relatively low detail models, and the bold colours used in both games. Even DotA 2 uses a style dissimilar from WoW.


Now you are just dancing around he argument. Dissimilar? Dota looks just like wow, just different characters.
Low details and flamboyant colors is WoW,
Micromanagement is not the only skill required in strategy games. If you make a mistake in a typical RTS and some of your units die needlessly, it usually isn't that great of an issue. In MobAs, a single death could and quite often makes a difference between winning and losing a game. Additionally, MobAs require a lot more teamwork and coordination on higher skill levels.

This does nothing to address what I said.
Let me dumb it down for you.
mobas and fantasy RTS games are basically the same thing.
-Moba has pawn units, heros, and a home base with a citadel/power structure
-RTS has pawn units heros, and a home base with a citadel/power structure
-Moba only requires you to manage a single hero.
RTS requires you to manage a single or group of heros and everything else.

It requires more skill because its basically the same game with more management to do.
---
(\__/)
(='.'=) --" Make things easy for people, not difficult."
#98iedahGPosted 2/3/2013 5:51:20 PM(edited)
Try it. Play the game without buying anything and see how you're doing. If you're any decent at FPS games, you shouldn't have much issue reaching quite high on the scoreboards with the default loadouts.

That dosent change the fact that paying players get a unquestionable advantage over those who play for free.
Just because you killed a long sword users with a boot knife dosent mean you had a fair fight.

That sure is objective.


Yeah and....

I still fail to see how a game implementing old school mechanics in a modern way is a bad thing for anyone. Older games get to play what they like, while newer ones can enjoy the modern rendition of a classic game.

Because most older games played the way they did because that was the best technology could do at the time.
Now we have the technology to add dynamic behavior to characters and give them fluid transition animations. Cheaply made games cant do this and thats why alot of them "keep it old school".


Great, which is why the indie scene is great for people who seek new and unique experiences.


To bad those who do are rare cases.
Go look at the games you listed. All of those games suck.
Tribes used to be decent when it had the football and rpgs mods and the crap ton of vehicles, now it just sucks.



I don't really see any mods which really affect the atmosphere of either game. Fallout will always have it's 50s vibe, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. will be S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Entirely subjective.

Then you obviously never modded fallout because my game didnt have a "50s" vibe after installing the lush jungle, environmental over haul and custom weapons/enemy mod.
My sisters Skyrim is a sandy hot desert filled with raptors, triceratops and half naked nords and mortal combat charcters with spears running around killing green dragur .
When using mods there is no static vibe for Bethesda games.

It had bloody TV ads. NS2 got lucky if it got mentioned on a game review website.
And I don't see how it not being designed to be a 'big hitter' has any effect on the point I was making. It's a fun game, but is often overlooked simply because of lack of marketing, as is often the case with many indie games.
The TV ads were nothing ad they only ran for a couple of days.


Skyrim had TV ads, constant gaming site articles, huge billboard advertisements, countless youtubeshort films, and there were even pictures of dragonborn painted on the side of 14 story buildings. Bethesda could of showed zero gameplay videos all the way up to release and Skyrim still would of been a huge marketing success.
Again it dosent matter how "overlooked" a game is because word of mouth can be just as effective as advertisements.
---
(\__/)
(='.'=) --" Make things easy for people, not difficult."