Jump to content
Awoo.

Square Enix/Marvel Games


AlphaRuby

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Marcello said:

But, that's good... Sony buying exclusivity for Spider-Man sucks, but, they should make it clear that you're missing out on content if you're getting other versions. 

I mean if you’re looking at this purely from a cynical business perspective sure it’s “good” to make that distinction, but to a consumer no, it’s not good that they’ve made other versions obsolete artificially, while still selling them for the exact same price. That’s shitty, and should not be praised in any capacity. It’s always dumb when 3rd party games do this exclusivity shit, and always fucks over consumers more than anything  
 

If you’re taking this argument to refer to the literal acknowledgment of that version having exclusive content and them making that known, well I mean, no shit they should make that distinction, but I’m talking about the bigger picture issue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jango said:

he, or any other Jimmies around the whooooole world, complained or gotten pissed at these big big companies, because in the end: they will aaaaaalways have more money than you. Fin.

I notice how in your bait-and-hook story, you conveniently leave out all of the times where companies have been hailed with backlash so badly that they have had to answer to feedback in such cases as EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, Capcom, etc.

The whole ideal of trying to discourage productive protesting against slimy company ventures is asinine,  especially when it has been shown to eventually work plenty of times.

Also, why you're trying to discourage consumers pushing for being treated decently is beyond me, but the remedial fanboy white-knighting for the "poor big companies" is really getting annoying and predictable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jango said:

Little Jimmy had a Xbox. He went to the nearest GameStop with his dad to buy the newest "Avengers" game. Upon arriving there, little Jimmy immediately noticed something peculiar while looking at the games' boxes side by side. The PlayStation one had a biiiiig label that said "Spider-man" was only available on this version. His father then explained that he couldn't afford another videogame console and little Jimmy had to settle with the Xbox one. Understandably disappointed, however, little Jimmy learned a valuable lesson about capitalism on that day. He would years later write a very bold comment about that event on his Twitter page, only to learn that nothing really changed since then, no matter how much he, or any other Jimmies around the whooooole world, complained or gotten pissed at these big big companies, because in the end: they will aaaaaalways have more money than you. Fin.

I like how you can't even wait until a thread gets on the next page before you again spout pretentious shit like this as if everyone should consult with you before saying something.

 

 

 

 

Do you think it's profound, acting like people complaining about business practices they don't like whenever something like this happens is something so absurd they shouldn't even bother and be mocked when they do? Because, again, when you say stuff like this it actually just makes you look like an idiot. In this generation alone there have been several major policy reversals by Microsoft and Sony in response to heavy consumer backlash; Microsoft in particular practically being a completely different company than they were prior to 2015. Particularly nasty shit punishing people who bought used games by Electronic Arts and Ubisoft from the last console generation was driven right the hell out of the industry after years of complaints.

Hell, for someone so far up Crash's ass, you'd think that before posting any of that drivel above you'd have thought of the significance that one of the first fucking things that Activision announced about the new Crash game was that it wouldn't have microtransactions after the ones you insisted wouldn't be in the CTR remake were patched in (which you then immediately started defending) and it dominated the discussion of the game from that point on. Why would Activision do that, Game Industry Expert Jango™, if "nothing really changed since then, no matter how much he, or any other Jimmies around the whooooole world, complained or gotten pissed at these big big companies"? Activision is one of the, if not the single, biggest publishers in the industry and the game would have sold well regardless. Surely they could have told people to just get bent while pocketing the extra money; relying on you to drown out discussion trying to talk about it instead.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, KHCast said:

If you’re taking this argument to refer to the literal acknowledgment of that version having exclusive content and them making that known, well I mean, no shit they should make that distinction, but I’m talking about the bigger picture issue 

They're literally stuck in a catch-22 with that logic. Either they put it on the box to make the distinction that there would be content exclusive to this version of the game, and there's complaints about how blatant it is, or if they didn't, the situation would be turned around to call out how there's foul play at hand because Sony aren't making it clear to Xbox and PC users that they're losing out on content by playing their versions.

It is still good to make that distinction known to the consumer because you're giving them the full information, and letting them make a decision on their own merit as to if they want to get the PS4 version, get the other versions knowing the lack of content, or not get the game at all due to the missing content. Especially given how fucking shitty this entire scenario is where they've cut Spider-Man out of the other versions, it would absolutely be critical to inform regular users who might not be as savvy when it comes to chasing information during a pre-release cycle, and allow them to decide if they wish to get the game, knowing they aren't getting the full content they're supposed to be getting.

The bigger issue should be the notion of the Spider-Man DLC being exclusive, the effects it has, and how shit it is in general, not calling Sony and/or Square out for every single tiny thing related to the situation at hand, because again - this isn't a new thing, this has existed since the PS4 started getting exclusive content. 

In fact, Sony has been doing this since 2010, if not earlier. I've got PS3 games advertising the exact same kinds of exclusive content. Batman Arkham Asylum has exclusive Joker Challenge Maps, Assassin's Creed games have always had PS exclusive missions since the earlier games, and so on so forth.

This isn't a new thing, and frankly to me - it should be on the covers, because it's a very vital piece of information that should directly go towards informing those that don't know about the exclusive content, and letting people make an informed decision in regards to which version they wish to get, or even if they wish to get the game at all if they want to make a stand against this bullshit.

And just as a reminder, since Crash has already been brought up here before, he makes a good example for my next point - remember when Crash Team Racing: Nitro Fuelled decided to slyly add in microtransactions a few months after the game released? Remember how there was a massive uproar about how it was done to slip through the ESRB's ratings systems?

That's because Activision knew full well how many people would probably stop and think twice upon discovering the Games as a Service model and microtransactions that CTR: NF was pedalling all throughout last year, and that's almost definitely why they held off on putting the Microtransactions in, so they could get the game rated without having the warning about the microtransactions plastered on the back. 

So to me, that's exactly why these kinds of things should be stuck on a front label, even if they try to word it as "exclusive content", it's more information to give to unsuspecting players, especially those on Xbox and PC who might not be aware of the exclusivity deal. I know if I'd off-handedly heard about Spider-Man being in the Avengers, picked it up with that in mind without researching it further, and then discovering I'm screwed because I got the wrong version, I would be absolutely livid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said they shouldn’t do it. I’m saying it just makes it all the more obvious, like all the other 3rd party exclusive things, other versions are getting the finger while still needing to stump up the same amount of cash for less. Which to that, garners a fuck you, from me. Is it a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation? Yeah, but that’s no one but these publishers fault for creating these situations in the first place 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always nice to see that unlike Spider-Man’s exclusivity, throwing down on Jango isn’t exclusive to any particular thread. C’mon people, everyone is entitled to mark their opinions or wit without the need for being pacified in return. You’re pretty much arguing on the same side anyway. He isn’t saying it’s good, he’s just saying it’s there and there are better (or worse) things to discuss. 

Anyway, what confuses me is that I thought Spider-Man was supposed to be a DLC character that unlocks later on? Or is it included as a base game unlockable? This doesn’t make it any better of course, but I just wondered.

I’m not going to pretend that I understand the capacity to what his inclusion will be beyond the looter multiplayer element anyway. If he was missing from a story mode or single player campaign (which disappointingly I don’t think is this games focus anymore), then I’d understand the outrage a touch more. 

Fact is, if Sony announced any other character (like Quake, for example) as the exclusive bonus character, then the ferocity of this outrage just wouldn’t exist at all. It’s literally because it is Spider-Man.

This is interesting because the base argument is supposed to be about content missing from certain versions of games. I wouldn’t say him not being in it makes it any more or less complete if he turns out just to be a throwaway extra character. besides, a lot worse done has been done by publishers in other titles. It’s still a crappy practise, don’t get me wrong... but one character (despite his obvious popularity) is not the be all and end all. If there were exclusive missions and/or main levels missing from one version of the game over the other... then I’d be inclined to be a lot more annoyed. 

Spider-Man is just the figurehead of the argument. Square/Sony knew this, and journalists fuelled the flame and gamers took to the bait.

At the end of the day this is also strategic publicity to get pundits talking about Marvels Avengers. Good press? Bad Press? It doesn’t matter. It will sell, money will be made, consumers be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude makes a pretentious ass post in response to me about how complaining won’t do anything, and somehow  we’re being told how to behave. That’s snark, not a opinion. There’s a difference. What he thinks is worth discussing more does not give him rein to be some mocking jackass every time people bring up a issue with Microtransactions, 3rd party exclusives, general corporate bullshit, etc

 

Also, no if it was Quake, it’s still one version getting more content over another while all versions are being sold for the same price. Still shitty in a game ripe with monetization, advertisement tie ins, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Son-icka said:

Always nice to see that unlike Spider-Man’s exclusivity, throwing down on Jango isn’t exclusive to any particular thread. C’mon people, everyone is entitled to mark their opinions or wit without the need for being pacified in return. You’re pretty much arguing on the same side anyway. He isn’t saying it’s good, he’s just saying it’s there and there are better (or worse) things to discuss. 

If he believes this he should have brought one of those better things up instead of being condescending. 

59 minutes ago, Son-icka said:

Anyway, what confuses me is that I thought Spider-Man was supposed to be a DLC character that unlocks later on? Or is it included as a base game unlockable? This doesn’t make it any better of course, but I just wondered.

I’m not going to pretend that I understand the capacity to what his inclusion will be beyond the looter multiplayer element anyway. If he was missing from a story mode or single player campaign (which disappointingly I don’t think is this games focus anymore), then I’d understand the outrage a touch more. 

Fact is, if Sony announced any other character (like Quake, for example) as the exclusive bonus character, then the ferocity of this outrage just wouldn’t exist at all. It’s literally because it is Spider-Man.

This is interesting because the base argument is supposed to be about content missing from certain versions of games. I wouldn’t say him not being in it makes it any more or less complete if he turns out just to be a throwaway extra character. besides, a lot worse done has been done by publishers in other titles. It’s still a crappy practise, don’t get me wrong... but one character (despite his obvious popularity) is not the be all and end all. If there were exclusive missions and/or main levels missing from one version of the game over the other... then I’d be inclined to be a lot more annoyed. 

Spider-Man is just the figurehead of the argument. Square/Sony knew this, and journalists fuelled the flame and gamers took to the bait.

At the end of the day this is also strategic publicity to get pundits talking about Marvels Avengers. Good press? Bad Press? It doesn’t matter. It will sell, money will be made, consumers be damned.

Hawkeye is the first new hero being added and he's going to come with his own campaign/missions. I imagine most heroes will at least release with missions that explain their history/what they've been doing during the Terrigan outbreak. 

We don't know to how much content will be exclusive to Playstation owners just yet but I still think it's fair to call it shitty practice. If you don't care or it doesn't affect you, you don't have to comment on how other people feel about it at all. 

And yeah, of course people are angrier that it's Spider-Man. He is one of the most beloved characters in the world. It's not shallow to want to play as him in a game who's sole artistic point for existing is banking off of fanservice. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there other than nobody really cares about Quake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quake was just a random marvel character that I picked off the top of my head. Anyone could count - but Spider-Man being Spider-Man is exactly the point I am making. Players care about this well known character. Quake? She’s more in the minority of people caring. 

To the point, mostly I’m trying to address the issue of a single character that won’t be in multiplayer? Is this a big deal?

Unless I’m misunderstanding something here (and please feel free to correct me), because I’m taking the position of we have the Avengers (hopefully still with their own campaign - to whatever capacity this is...) then your have the live service online multiplayer looter element, which worryingly seems to have be becoming the focus of this game now. 

If this is a game that comes with new characters either in game or DLC unlockable that include specific story and or level content for single and multiplayer game functions (like with Hawkeye as you mention)  then yes, that is pretty shitty for a fraction of console owners to miss out.

But if this is a game that includes additional downloadable avengers that are just additional characters/skins with their own move sets and abilities specifically for online multiplayer... Then I personally don’t really see much of an issue here. Plenty of games of various genres have been doing this sort of thing for generations with exclusivity deals (eg. The Soul Calibur Series, as one example).

Also I presume from the responses that Spider-Man is actually in the game from day one then? Because I thought you had to purchase him separately as DLC next year? In which therefore he would fall in the “not base-game extra content”... just extra DLC content on one console - not that that is any better). 

That’s kinda what I’m trying to get at here and/or find out. That way I can Hulk out and be mad properly or remain in Bruce banner mode. 
 

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Dude makes a pretentious ass post in response to me about how complaining won’t do anything, and somehow  we’re being told how to behave. That’s snark, not a opinion. There’s a difference. What he thinks is worth discussing more does not give him rein to be some mocking jackass every time people bring up a issue with Microtransactions, 3rd party exclusives, general corporate bullshit, etc

Also, no if it was Quake, it’s still one version getting more content over another while all versions are being sold for the same price. Still shitty in a game ripe with monetization, advertisement tie ins, etc

No no no, the problem is quite the reverse in that everyone tells him how to behave when he has an opinion or makes a remark about his beliefs on a topic. There’s not really any malice in his posts which I think are often misconstrued.

Dude’s views fall in line with everyone else most of the time which is what makes it all the more ridiculous.

At the end of the day, he is allowed to say the conversation isn’t worth having as much as people that want to have the conversation will continue to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Son-icka said:

At the end of the day, he is allowed to say the conversation isn’t worth having as much as people that want to have the conversation will continue to do so. 

If you well and truly believe that the conversation isn't worth your time, or effort in having - if you truly believe that it doesn't deserve attention, then the answer is simple - stay out of it and don't waste your time.

But if your point is to come in and not only attempt to shut down the conversation in a way that talks down to people (I.E - making up some strawman story for no good reason), but also doing so in a manner that typically is on the side of the companies pulling this shit due to the franchises involved - which as many people tend to point out - came up last year with CTR, and is now coming up now, then you don't have a leg to stand on. If this conversation wasn't worth having, you wouldn't be taken a side on it, you would be pointing out the flaws of the argument, and pointing out why the argument is silly on both ends, but you sure as hell wouldn't be sitting making nonsense excuses for corporations and the shit they pull.

He isn't the judge of what conversations and debates have value. It falls apart even further when the arguments to such are factually proven incorrect on numerous occasions, to which other people have pointed out how people calling out this bullshit, and having these uproars actually inspired real world change. And as much as I don't tend to bring up the debates that have happened in other topics - I can specifically recall this literal exact attitude coming up in the past about how outrage is worthless, and nothing changing, and the many people that debunked that.

This isn't the case of showing your views, this isn't the case of respectfully giving your opinion, it's quite literally creating a factually incorrect strawman that doesn't bother researching similar cases in the past and understand the situation at hand, and then trying to use said strawman to pretend that the situation being debated is worthless in value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Son-icka said:

Always nice to see that unlike Spider-Man’s exclusivity, throwing down on Jango isn’t exclusive to any particular thread.

Yes, it is amazing how Jango acting this way about discussions he thinks are dumb happens in multiple threads regarding multiple topics. What makes you think that's worth defending I'm much less sure about.

 

3 hours ago, Son-icka said:

No no no, the problem is quite the reverse in that everyone tells him how to behave when he has an opinion or makes a remark about his beliefs on a topic. There’s not really any malice in his posts which I think are often misconstrued.

Dude’s views fall in line with everyone else most of the time which is what makes it all the more ridiculous.

At the end of the day, he is allowed to say the conversation isn’t worth having as much as people that want to have the conversation will continue to do so. 

No, he's not. If he wants to try approaching these discussions without being a condescending dick and then when called on it pretending he's just speaking about things generally instead of targeting the people in the thread who are talking about the exact same things he's mocking, then he should try doing that instead. Since this is far from the first time he's done this, and not even the first time he's done this without even pretending to allude to "better things to talk about" that you magically gleaned from his post, it's a lesson he should have learned already.

 

 

Anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Son-icka said:

Quake was just a random marvel character that I picked off the top of my head. Anyone could count - but Spider-Man being Spider-Man is exactly the point I am making. Players care about this well known character. Quake? She’s more in the minority of people caring. 

To the point, mostly I’m trying to address the issue of a single character that won’t be in multiplayer? Is this a big deal?

Unless I’m misunderstanding something here (and please feel free to correct me), because I’m taking the position of we have the Avengers (hopefully still with their own campaign - to whatever capacity this is...) then your have the live service online multiplayer looter element, which worryingly seems to have be becoming the focus of this game now. 

If this is a game that comes with new characters either in game or DLC unlockable that include specific story and or level content for single and multiplayer game functions (like with Hawkeye as you mention)  then yes, that is pretty shitty for a fraction of console owners to miss out.

But if this is a game that includes additional downloadable avengers that are just additional characters/skins with their own move sets and abilities specifically for online multiplayer... Then I personally don’t really see much of an issue here. Plenty of games of various genres have been doing this sort of thing for generations with exclusivity deals (eg. The Soul Calibur Series, as one example).

Also I presume from the responses that Spider-Man is actually in the game from day one then? Because I thought you had to purchase him separately as DLC next year? In which therefore he would fall in the “not base-game extra content”... just extra DLC content on one console - not that that is any better). 

That’s kinda what I’m trying to get at here and/or find out. That way I can Hulk out and be mad properly or remain in Bruce banner mode. 
 

Exclusive content locked to certain consoles has been going on for a long time, and people have hated it for just as long. There's not that much to it. There's nothing for you to 'understand'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wraith said:

Exclusive content locked to certain consoles has been going on for a long time, and people have hated it for just as long. There's not that much to it. There's nothing for you to 'understand'. 

I’m not going to lie, as much of a douche move this is on Sony/Square’s part... I actually thought there was a lot more to it than that - this is the impression the internet outrage has given me on this topic anyway. It’s crap for sure - but I certainly feel like I care a lot less about it now in that case.

So it’s just shitty companies pulling the same shitty practises as per usual? Sorry, I know it’s always going to be a conversation worth having, but... ugh.
 

9 hours ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

If you well and truly believe that the conversation isn't worth your time, or effort in having - if you truly believe that it doesn't deserve attention, then the answer is simple - stay out of it and don't waste your time.

But if your point is to come in and not only attempt to shut down the conversation in a way that talks down to people (I.E - making up some strawman story for no good reason), but also doing so in a manner that typically is on the side of the companies pulling this shit due to the franchises involved - which as many people tend to point out - came up last year with CTR, and is now coming up now, then you don't have a leg to stand on. If this conversation wasn't worth having, you wouldn't be taken a side on it, you would be pointing out the flaws of the argument, and pointing out why the argument is silly on both ends, but you sure as hell wouldn't be sitting making nonsense excuses for corporations and the shit they pull.

He isn't the judge of what conversations and debates have value. It falls apart even further when the arguments to such are factually proven incorrect on numerous occasions, to which other people have pointed out how people calling out this bullshit, and having these uproars actually inspired real world change. And as much as I don't tend to bring up the debates that have happened in other topics - I can specifically recall this literal exact attitude coming up in the past about how outrage is worthless, and nothing changing, and the many people that debunked that.

This isn't the case of showing your views, this isn't the case of respectfully giving your opinion, it's quite literally creating a factually incorrect strawman that doesn't bother researching similar cases in the past and understand the situation at hand, and then trying to use said strawman to pretend that the situation being debated is worthless in value. 

6 hours ago, Tornado said:

Yes, it is amazing how Jango acting this way about discussions he thinks are dumb happens in multiple threads regarding multiple topics. What makes you think that's worth defending I'm much less sure about....

...No, he's not. If he wants to try approaching these discussions without being a condescending dick and then when called on it pretending he's just speaking about things generally instead of targeting the people in the thread who are talking about the exact same things he's mocking, then he should try doing that instead. Since this is far from the first time he's done this, and not even the first time he's done this without even pretending to allude to "better things to talk about" that you magically gleaned from his post, it's a lesson he should have learned already.

Anything else?

*laughs* XD

Sorry, this has gotten more out of hand. I just get a bit riled when I see him get hit upon unnecessarily. I really don’t agree the majority of that above. But it’s ok. Whatever.

To be simply honest, where I align with Jango is just that this is the same old Capitalism argument. I’m not saying don’t have it - but I am also saying we should be allowed to have a opinion or view to state how utterly dull it makes topics if we feel it’s warranted. There’s nothing wrong with this, irregardless of how right or wrong you feel that is.

If we stay out of an argument or don’t express anything then what’s the point of the forum at all? The reverse Is true on your end. I could try to drive the conversation away from something I feel is meaningless, but if people are still going to talk about it... then they are going to talk about it, fill your boots. BUT It’s not about defending publishers in the slightest, don’t make it that. Because it isn’t.  

Personally, I think some read too much into Jango’s posts anyway. He’s trying to be witty rather than offensive and I always feel he pulls the short straw here. I suppose what I read as inoffensive obviously rubs others the wrong way, that’s why I feel the requirement to jump in sometimes.

 

ANYWAY - On the subject of Avengers... a much bigger issue for me is what the single player campaign will be like. I heaped big praises from my initial play-through of this last year... but I’m actually feeling less inclined to buy it now (not because of Spider-Man) because of the move towards the live service element being a focus. Totally not interested in this type of thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Son-icka said:

I’m not going to lie, as much of a douche move this is on Sony/Square’s part... I actually thought there was a lot more to it than that - this is the impression the internet outrage has given me on this topic anyway. It’s crap for sure - but I certainly feel like I care a lot less about it now in that case.

So it’s just shitty companies pulling the same shitty practises as per usual? Sorry, I know it’s always going to be a conversation worth having, but... ugh.

It's nice and all for you that you aren't as annoyed by, nor care that the consumers being treated like crap like most people are, but the ideal of "So what? It's been around for years so who cares?" is a highly unproductive stance to have and applied to other certain matters is just downright despicable.

The best thing to do in a case like this, is just not participate if that's truly your stance. Cause you're not going to win an argument with that mentality given the fallacies behind it, and the fact that it's better to raise these concerns, because as history has shown, eventually the big guys do crumble under pressure when they're put out to task when the consumers give enough of a shout and action enough. It's happened to a great deal of big companies, and people have no reason to have their stance belittled when factually, it is a policy that needs to go.

2 hours ago, Son-icka said:

Sorry, this has gotten more out of hand. I just get a bit riled when I see him get hit upon unnecessarily. I really don’t agree the majority of that above. But it’s ok. Whatever.

To be simply honest, where I align with Jango is just that this is the same old Capitalism argument. I’m not saying don’t have it - but I am also saying we should be allowed to have a opinion or view to state how utterly dull it makes topics if we feel it’s warranted. There’s nothing wrong with this, irregardless of how right or wrong you feel that is.

The problem with this cyclical way of thinking is that, like Jango's extremely bad take, it eschews mentioning vital facts. IN your case, you tend to dance around the fact that Jango always instigates these sessions, trying to look high and mighty, and does indeed resort to outright disrespecting people of opposing views. What's worse, he doesn't pay mind to even research or properly back his points; special mention goes to his annoying diatribes against Iizuka, thinking the man to be responsible for everything wrong with Sonic and not even having the foresight to realize that the man is responsible for Sonic Mania actually being better than it originally would've been, once again, just opting to try and paint the man as some devil who supposedly weakened Sonic Mania. Others have already gone into his escapades regarding Crash and Activision in general.

To sum it up, Jango comes off as a foolish bully, trying to prove fundamentally flawed opinions, through belittling those who don't agree with him or his viewpoints, and in turn, he ends up getting rightfully called out for crappy behavior and incorrect facts. If he would actually learn from these encounters then maybe he wouldn't constantly find himself on the receiving end as you imply.

2 hours ago, Son-icka said:

If we stay out of an argument or don’t express anything then what’s the point of the forum at all? The reverse Is true on your end. I could try to drive the conversation away from something I feel is meaningless, but if people are still going to talk about it... then they are going to talk about it, fill your boots. BUT It’s not about defending publishers in the slightest, don’t make it that. Because it isn’t.  

Personally, I think some read too much into Jango’s posts anyway. He’s trying to be witty rather than offensive and I always feel he pulls the short straw here. I suppose what I read as inoffensive obviously rubs others the wrong way, that’s why I feel the requirement to jump in sometimes.

The issue here is that you're mistaking freedom of speech with freedom of consequence, criticism, or just getting called out for what you say. Oh yes, Jango is absolutely free to state his opinion, but he isn't free of the repercussions that acting terribly would land any person into.

His exchanges of this manner aren't productive to discussion an often bring them to a halt and for such flimsy reasoning to. And trying to defend him for that isn't really helping the matter. If anything, it potentially encourages him to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2020 at 12:42 PM, mayday2592 said:

Why would Kamala wear armor? It seems it wouldn’t work well considering her ability is all about shape shifting.

Because MCU pandering aesthetic. That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Son-icka said:

I am also saying we should be allowed to have a opinion or view to state how utterly dull it makes topics if we feel it’s warranted. There’s nothing wrong with this, irregardless of how right or wrong you feel that is.

Okay. I see there's been some confusion here about how open for discussion this matter actually is. This is me, Tornado, speaking as an SSMB moderator; where responding to a report is the only reason I came back in this thread to begin with yesterday about a game I don't care about:

On 8/4/2020 at 7:34 AM, Jango said:

And I'll pretend I'm surprised that Sony struck that exclusivity deal with Square, and that it was impossible to predict that if Spider-man was ever in this game, it would be a PS exclusive

On 8/17/2020 at 8:19 PM, Jango said:

Little Jimmy had a Xbox. He went to the nearest GameStop with his dad to buy the newest "Avengers" game. Upon arriving there, little Jimmy immediately noticed something peculiar while looking at the games' boxes side by side. The PlayStation one had a biiiiig label that said "Spider-man" was only available on this version. His father then explained that he couldn't afford another videogame console and little Jimmy had to settle with the Xbox one. Understandably disappointed, however, little Jimmy learned a valuable lesson about capitalism on that day. He would years later write a very bold comment about that event on his Twitter page, only to learn that nothing really changed since then, no matter how much he, or any other Jimmies around the whooooole world, complained or gotten pissed at these big big companies, because in the end: they will aaaaaalways have more money than you. Fin.

This shit, that he drops in the middle of a discussion between people in this thread on this forum talking about the same thing, is not acceptable. This shit, which you helpfully pointed out that he gets dogpiled on for doing in multiple threads, is something he has been warned about doing before. This shit, where he frames himself as the arbiter of whether a discussion that is already going on should have been cleared with him beforehand, is something he does with enough frequency that he did it twice on the same page of a thread. This shit is something he knows is going to rile people up because when people get mad at him for doing it, he retroactively claims to be talking about "the internet" or "on Twitter" instead of "the people on this forum who are talking about the same thing."

 

 

It does not matter whether you think it should be fine. It does not matter whether you think he's actually trying to talk about something else when he posts stuff like that. It does not matter whether you think he has a point with what he is saying. If he wants to make the points about things you claim he's actually making, he can make those points without telling people discussing things in the threads he walks into that their discussions don't matter; writing a flowery story whose point is "hurr durr cry some more corporations won't change anything." Then people would only respond to the merit of his point instead of the deliberate tone he injects to try to get people to stop talking about it at all. If he's not interested in talking about those things at all when he enters a thread about the game, he can post about the things he wants to talk about instead. People can have multiple conversations at once about something like this.

 

Quote

If we stay out of an argument or don’t express anything then what’s the point of the forum at all? The reverse Is true on your end. I could try to drive the conversation away from something I feel is meaningless, but if people are still going to talk about it... then they are going to talk about it, fill your boots.

I've seen plenty arguments on the internet about whether this is a pro-consumer or anti-consumer move. Leading off your posts with "I'm shocked people even thought this wouldn't happen" or having your entire post be "nothing will change no matter what you say about it" isn't attempting to have a discussion at all even if the base point was something he could defend.

Even if saying that these complaints won't make much difference was the only point Jango wanted to make, he could have easily gotten it across without all of the backlash as something like "with the increased commonality of competing consoles, I don't think this is something that will change in the near future" or something to that effect instead of what he actually said. But, and this is the important part: He didn't. Instead he marched in and said "nothing you ever complain about will ever change so don't bother" in the middle of a thread currently discussing the matter; an argument which is both targeted at the people discussing it for no reason and with a basis that can't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

 

Quote

BUT It’s not about defending publishers in the slightest, don’t make it that. Because it isn’t.  

I'm glad you think you understand the inner workings of Jango's mind, but you don't actually speak for him so you don't get to make this determination on his behalf. And since Jango has absolutely gone to bat for publishers for skeevy moves like this before, which is exactly why he gets shit whenever he brings this stuff up in other places, I have to wonder how in tune your radar is with his thoughts to begin with. If he wants to clarify what he really meant, the onus is on him to do so.

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Absolutely 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the core of one's argument boils down to "corporations don't listen to critique or backlash", I think it's important to look at it from a much broader perspective than current events - because when you do, you realize that absolutely isn't true. Think about how hard many of them tried to push the idea of paid online passes to combat used game sales. Think about how some of them tried to dummy out content that was literally still on the disc and tried to sell it back to you as paid DLC. Think about how many of them tried to implement thinly veiled gambling into their games and got so much mainstream and legislative attention that the practice is basically poison for most companies that try it after the fact. Hell, just to drill in the rampant fucking hypocrisy going on here, Microsoft tried to among things, make it impossible to play their console without connecting to the internet every day or two for an anti piracy check, and were rightly raked over the goddamn coals for it - and Sony was among the people giving them flak for it.

Make no mistake about it - these practices are dead or dying BECAUSE people raised a stink about it. BECAUSE they got caught and called out for it. And mark my words, if people just accepted it as inevitable and shut their mouths, most if not all of these things would still be happening today. To accept asshole business practices as normal on the basis that they have no obligation to change isn't just spineless defeatism and needless corporate apologism, it's also anti-vaxxer tier denial of basic, observable facts. And although it feels corny as hell to use an old quote word for word: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

I mean, I guess it's fair game to argue whether Sony will buckle before the game even releases, but if it happened with an entire console I'd say there's precedent for that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Sony never caves on this consumers making their stance clear on these kinds of things dissuades other publishers from trying it. It might even dissuade Sony themselves from doing it again in the future. All in all it's good to shit on these things as aggressively as possible, so I don't get why anyone would be against it. It's not like we're drowning out actual discussion about the game in this thread. An big open beta was up over the weekend and nobody actually had anything to say about it outside of the statuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wraith said:

An big open beta was up over the weekend and nobody actually had anything to say about it outside of the statuses.

I actually was meant to share my thoughts about the beta over the weekend at some point, since I actually enjoyed it, for what I got to play of it at least, before my PS4 randomly died on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

I actually was meant to share my thoughts about the beta over the weekend at some point, since I actually enjoyed it, for what I got to play of it at least, before my PS4 randomly died on me.

I don't have any fun stories about it bricking my PS4 like you but I thought it was really bad. Thought the Spider-Man conversation was more important so didn't bother talking about it in much detail, but yeah. I could see updates and patches turning it into something enjoyable but right now it's kind of a mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wraith said:

I don't have any fun stories about it bricking my PS4 like you but I thought it was really bad. Thought the Spider-Man conversation was more important so didn't bother talking about it in much detail, but yeah. I could see updates and patches turning it into something enjoyable but right now it's kind of a mess. 

For what it was, I liked it. I don't think it's something I could have a super ton of fun with by myself, after completing the campaign missions, but playing it co-op (for the incredibly short time I got to) was rather fun. I played as Hulk the most, and it was just really fun getting some upgrades, juggling some enemies, and so on.

But that said - yeah - it may or may not have been the cause of my PS4 getting bricked. I still need to determine if the beta itself did that, or if the hard drive was failing beforehand, but still. 

That said, I have to say my biggest complaint is easily performance. It just does not run very well on any console. Even on PS4 Pro, I was hitting like 25-30fps, and even in online games, the screen would freeze for seconds at a time to render and catch up with the current place. 

Honestly, under normal circumstances, I would be avoiding this at all costs on the PS4 due to the awful performance it provides. I think the only reason you should consider it if you enjoy it is if you're already intending to get the PS5/Xbox Series X ASAP and therefore can take advantage of the free upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s a lot of potential for the idea, it’s just the game kinda feels like it’s desperately trying to fit in with the “popular” kids with all its trend chasing that I really think didn’t need to be here as it just brings down the experience more than helps it. A more polished linear narrative experience along the lines of Spider-Man PS4 with light multiplayer elements would have been the ideal, but what we have now is a, frankly embarrassing mess, from its level design and repetitiveness even in combat situations, to its looter style elements clearly trying to follow on titles like Destiny and Anthem, to its long list of performance issues even on Xbox One X (the version I played). It just doesn’t feel like all that fun or memorable a time. Just like more or the same cynical AAA type games we’ve been getting, which sucks big time since again, there is potential underneath all this. But for now, it’s average/below average for me. Not the worst thing ever, but...not that great either. There are certainly better Marvel games imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

For what it was, I liked it. I don't think it's something I could have a super ton of fun with by myself, after completing the campaign missions, but playing it co-op (for the incredibly short time I got to) was rather fun. I played as Hulk the most, and it was just really fun getting some upgrades, juggling some enemies, and so on.

But that said - yeah - it may or may not have been the cause of my PS4 getting bricked. I still need to determine if the beta itself did that, or if the hard drive was failing beforehand, but still. 

That said, I have to say my biggest complaint is easily performance. It just does not run very well on any console. Even on PS4 Pro, I was hitting like 25-30fps, and even in online games, the screen would freeze for seconds at a time to render and catch up with the current place. 

Honestly, under normal circumstances, I would be avoiding this at all costs on the PS4 due to the awful performance it provides. I think the only reason you should consider it if you enjoy it is if you're already intending to get the PS5/Xbox Series X ASAP and therefore can take advantage of the free upgrade.

That was one of my biggest problems, playing it on the base PS4. The game just doesn't run well, which combine with the subdued artstyle, overuse of particle effects, the camera and the unreliable nature of online games to create an insane lack of clarity. Everything just turns into a jittery mess really easily unless you're playing in one of the HARM rooms. It makes digging into the combat beyond mashing kind of a crapshoot with specific timings being thrown off and enemies teleporting around.

Taking missions on solo alleviates this somewhat, but it just doesn't feel like the game is intended to be played that way since your CPU partners don't follow up with your attacks and are slow to help you with objectives. This may very well be a game designed for next gen, and I could see it playing a lot better on it, but then why go through with this release at all when the game is in this state? If they had held off we might have had a PS5/XSX title worth talking about at launch. 

It wasn't a total loss. I found the missions that took place in bigger, more open areas to be a decent time. A good amount of space to screw around with your movement abilities and look for loot. A lot of the smaller missions seemed pretty brief and samey to me though, and there isn't a ton of variety in enemies or how you approach them so I can't see myself grinding it intensely like I would a competitive game. 

I'll play the last open beta this weekend and give my final word on it, but it feels like it needs a lot of work. Thankfully, the nature of this title means it'll get that, but I don't see a reason not to just wait and pick this up on sale down the line in that case. I'd be having a better experience for less upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another issue is that the writing in general is kind of mixed. There's a lot I like about it, I find the stuff about Hulk, Bruce Banner, Kamala, and the setting in general pretty interesting, and I loved a lot of moments like Kamala exploring Tony's old Avengers keepsakes, and geeking out about it, but on the other hand, you have Tony Stark sounding like Deadpool inside of a metal suit (I know it's Nolan North, and I don't blame him for the delivery, as much as I blame the script), and characters like Thor and Widow were just kind of there to me.

Also it's laughable how obvious it is that Cap is still alive. Like oh yeah, I totally believe you designed a full character to be used solely in co-op, plus one very tiny combat sequence in the campaign.

I do have to admit, I'm still going to pick it up around the launch window, because I did enjoy my time with it, although I also have to admit that a huge part of that is simply due to the fact that it's one of the few PS5/Xbox Series X games I'm interested in, and getting the upgrade would give me a decent co-op experience to play on there (Assuming Overwatch or something doesn't work on it, idk how multiplayer only games will work in terms of BC on PS5). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next gen version should solve a lot of problems. If I was getting a PS5 around launch I might have considered it. 
 

The story is..fine but it's not the setup I would have gone with. I think they should have shaken the Avengers lineup up a lot for this iteration. Copying the movies so closely just invites comparisons on how it looks, sounds, and feels and this game just comes off as an imitation of those a lot of the time. The stuff that they came up with on their own like Kamala is great, and I like how they're using the Inhumans in this compared to the shows/comics, but it just makes me wish they had pushed for more characters we've seen less of on the whole. 

I don't consider the writing in Marvel stuff all that great anyway so I wasn't expecting much. This game isn't as story focused as I was expecting either so even if I don't like it that much it should be easy to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.