Show Navigation
Notices by PlatinumKatie (katiekats@community.highlandarrow.com), page 6
-
Katie's getting worked up about online opinions TM again >.>
-
You, nor I, know if any future piece of media will be 100% good, 100% bad, or somewhere in-between, until it's out.
And the only way you can truly properly judge out when it's out, is going in as unbiased as possible.
It could be good. It could be bad. I don't know. You don't know.
But give it a friggin chance before assuming the worst, like so many others have done. Because if you always expect it to be shit? It will end up feeling so to you, even if it's great. On the flipside, if you expect it to be great? You'll defend it to the last because you need it to be.
After all, that's how bias and validation works.
At the end of the day, I don't know if this stuff will be good, no one does, until it's out.
So please god give it a chance to even come out before you assume it's going to crash and burn.
-
Jeez, I just...
I hate everything CD Projekt Red has put out, but I'll still give Cyberpunk a CHANCE because hey, maybe it'll be good.
I'm really at wits end seeing so many people look at a completely new product and assume the worst.
Then they get their hands on it, entirely expecting it to be negative, and then yeah they end up believing it is. Because that's precisely the validation they want.
I don't wish to come across as a hill to die on defender of a game I've not even played yet.
So to reiterate, I DON'T KNOW IF THESE THINGS WILL BE GOOD.
But you, you don't know either.
All anyone can know, is that if you go into it with a biased mindset, if you go into it subsconsciously seeking validation for your thoughts on it. You'll get that. Because you'll never give it a chance. You're stacking the odds against it before it's even out.
People did this with Andromeda, totally wrote it off because of some wonky animations showing in gifs.
It's a pretty good game, there's legitimate criticisms to be made, but it's pretty good.
But people wrote it off. Huh, why's that? OH RIGHT, because after seeing those gifs, everyone got into their heads it was a shit mess of a game to laugh at because "lol SJW Bioware"
That's precisely why you saw people deliberately make clowns in the character creator, then go "this game is shit my character looks like a clown" without recognizing what they themselves did.
Cos they were biased against it from the start.
-
@postmesmeric
At the very least, it looks alright. To me it looks really good. It's clear a fair bit of effort is going into it, and yknow what? Just because "Oh no Bioware isn't making an RPG!" yeah, they're allowed to not be, they're allowed to branch out.
There's already a game informer article out full of details, if the E3 conference was a bit naff for ya, that goes on about the way the game is split up into the hub being singleplayer, so the choices, changes, typical RPG story systems, still go on there, so those who like their RPGs still might be interested.
Look, it might not be good, who knows. I certainly genuinely don't. I like what I've heard so far personally, but hey, it might be good, it might be bad.
And I apologize to come across so defensive, I don't mean to sound harsh, am just trying to pose the other side since apparently no one else is.
Cos everywhere I friggin look there's such blatant pessimism. Saying it's gonna fail. Saying it's gonna be totally shit. And Bioware is completely ruined and done in.
And yeah, yknow what? if everyone goes in with the implicit bias of expecting it to be awful? It will fail. But that won't be based on if it's good or not, that'll be because everyone got it in their minds that it would be crap, and went in with that mindset.
That's precisely what happened with Andromeda. People thought it was rubbish, because they went into it with a biased mindset, and thus only looked at things that confirmed their own bias.
...Sorry to rant, and sorry that you're the one I've kinda went off at here Alex my friend, it's not anything against you personally, your comment is just the latest in a long line that's got to me. I just see all this pessimism everywhere, that's only ever going to lead to people not giving it a chance, even if it's good.
It might end up crap. It might end up great. It might end up meh.
But it deserves a CHANCE and the constant naysaying isn't giving it that.
-
@maiyannah
I really don't know what they were thinking with that.
-
@maiyannah
yeahhh...
As I mentioned, it was bad for not showing the differing perspectives as it went from class stories to just Side VS Side.
The...gay planet for the gays, definitely didn't help it's case.
Lana and Theron, dare I say it, did this better (...arguably by extension Koth did too but Koth is horrific) because they actually develop since you're going on adventures with them in different places, from before KOTFE when you first meet them, and during KOTFE.
FARRRR from perfect, but better than "have a homosexual fling on one planet and then never ever reference it again."
In a perfect world they would go back and alter the original class companions romances...but they didn't.
-
@maiyannah
It'll never go back to class stories either, and that's...such a shame.
The next expansion they've already talked about how it's going back to Empire VS republic.
Which is good, yes. But...the class stories were so great for seeing all the different perspectives of how people interact within that, depending on who you are. Purely Empire VS Republic didn't have that.
We can see that sort of stuff from the earlier expansions like Hutt Cartel.
-
@maiyannah
Hehe.
Needs to be a cyborg lass repeatedly asking her if she can 'fix her cybernetics' in private, off to the side :v
-
@maiyannah
*nod nod* SWTOR was good for this...but then SWTOR sort of...ditched the whole thing, so. :c
-
That Jedi Fallen Order thingy...
I just wanna be a baddie.
Let me go dark side and you've my interest.
I much prefer the Empire/Sith viewpoint during that sort of thing.
-
I understand the dislike for EA.
But there's quite a "I can't stand EA's cringey tryhard relatable to gamers stuff during their conference"
That's ALL OF E3.
-
@maiyannah
"People like Spiderman 2 right? Lets get that guy in. What do you think Mr Raimi?"
"ALRIGHT SO, WE GET THE DEADPOOL GUY, HE'S WACKY AND LOVABLE. THEN KUNG FURY WAS A HIT, THATS DRAG THAT IN. WHAT ElSE DO PEOPLE LIKE? MOTHERFUCKING JAWS, THATS RIGHT, SHARKS, I WANT AN ORDER OF SHARKS. NAZI VIKINGS? ARYAN VIKING RACE. WAIT HM, FINE, SPLIT EM, NAZIS -AND- VIKINGS. THEN LETS PUT EM ALL IN THE GODDAMN BERMUDA TRIANGLE. I WANNA ON MY DESK, STAT."
"...Of course Mr Jameso-I mean, ahem, Mr Raimi."
-
@gameragodzilla
Dismantled your own devils ad argument with the last sentences there :P
That's the thing. Might be growing pains yes. But how do devs find out what they're good at, without trying?
Maybe CD Projekt, while crappy at RPGs (:v) are the fucking BEST at football management games. No one knows that unless they try.
-
As I mentioned the other day.
Developers making a very different style of game, when they slap the title of a series on to it? I can understand the annoyance of.
I really liked Andromeda, and think a lot of the complaints are un-justified. I do however understand those who said "I'm a fan of the original trilogy, and this wasn't close enough to it for what I wanted." Because it is different in many ways to the former Mass Effect games.
Same with Fallout 76 if that's really really different. It's fair for a Fallout fan to say "not my sort of thing, because it's not what I like Fallout for."
But when a game isn't in a series, it's just a different type of game from that developer, and you're immediately against it, that confuses me. The whole logic of "how dare they make this type of game!"
I don't feel developers should be tied down to a specific genre. I appreciate they have their 'niche' per say they do particulary well. But I don't feel they should be streamlined into just doing one thing.
Imagine a world in which only one developer made RPGs. Only one developer made FPS. Only one developer made point and click. Those genres could never be mixed, and if you didn't like the way that one dev does it, your only choice was to accept you'd never play that genre.
That's essentially the end-game of what those who say "[Company] should never make anything other than their current series!" advocates.
-
@gameragodzilla
Yeah that's the thing. Andromeda you can play offline sure, because the multiplayer is totally split from the singleplayer. There's not a singleplayer co-op mode.
With games like this...it's designed around grouping up.
Yes you can play singleplayer, but....you are being 'the weird one' per say to do it, so I don't really expect for that to be built around, and understand that it isn't.
When I play WoW, I play it singleplayer quite a lot. I still have to be online for it. Yeah, kinda naff for me. But it's 100% understandable cos it's mainly built to be a multiplayer game. One could argue I'm 'doing it wrong' per say.
So games like this? They're basically MMO-Lite. So I kinda get it.
Plus lets be honest, if you played it, you're probably gonna have internet most of the time anyways, and the discussion of "well sure but when it's discontinued..." relies on you still playing it years and years after.
And yeah, I recognize you do that with older stuff, the earlier Dooms for example. But you're a huge fan of those.
These games just...aren't too designed around that, and one has to adjust their mindset accordingly. If you can't that's 100% fine! They just mightn't be for you.
-
@gameragodzilla
Well it's always online so sucks to be you? :c
But the main 'hub' is singleplayer and is meant to alter a bit based on choices n such.
And there's no PVP implemented at launch, so as far as I know, while you'll see other places in the 'main gameplay zone' as such, you're under no obligation to play it multiplayer.
-
Between me going against trends, Liz actually investigating games before following hate trains, and George...being George.
This is the Highland Arrow Contrarian Zone. :P
-
@gameragodzilla
I'd argue that they show them, because fans of that -do- watch E3, or at least watch the trailers on youtube, read up about it on something like IGN after. They're just not rooted enough to go comment about it on reddit n stuff.
And I mean, even if they were, why would they? They'd be immediately downvoted into the ground.
As for Anthem...I like what I've heard so far, so I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm not saying it'll be perfect, but it's up my street, per say. The conference itself was apparently a bit wonky (tho again that's from comments on r/games so...) but the actual information and gameplay trailer stuff that's come out of it, is enough to interest me.
A lot of people seem to be going against it purely because it's something different, and I just...they can't just keep producing Dragon age and Mass Effect yknow. Believe me I'd love if they only made Dragon Age, it's a series close to my heart. But we seem to live in a culture in which branching out from what you generally make is seen as a bad thing, unless you're indie.
-
@gameragodzilla
Exactly. It's fair to dislike them. But the thought process of "I don't like them thus no one must" is odd to me.
When...yeah...as you say, they sell like hotcakes.
r/games have been pessimistic as hell about everything that came out of that.
-
I don't personally like the Battlefield games, or Battle Royale stuff.
But people clearly -do- like them. They're very popular right now.
A lot of people seem to have this mindset of "well me and my friends don't like them, so no one can."
Which directly conflicts with the fact that...they're pretty damn popular.
I wouldn't touch Fortnite or PUBG with a ten-foot barge pole, but I'm not gonna go around saying they clearly don't have a fanbase. Because they pretty friggin obviously do.
PlatinumKatie
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the