surc posted:

I actually am down with the witcher lore, I am a nerd so I read and enjoyed the books, just gently caress potions and all the other poo poo they put in that you have to get past to actually play the game. If I'm always going to want the benefit of the potions, don't make me have to spend a bunch of time not really playing the game to set them up beforehand. Along the same lines, too many fetch-quests that didn't feel like they fleshed out the story. Don't make me do pointless poo poo to get to the meat of your game, just so your game is bigger. Give me the good parts so that I enjoy the whole experience. I will probably buy and enjoy at least some of Witcher 3, I am excited for it to disappoint me.

Mash posted:

the witcher series might not be very good, but you know what other games suck? all of them

all games are bad

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Ragg posted:

Mods actually dealing with fake rear end gamers? I don't believe what I'm seeing.

Tender Bender posted:

I feel you bro but I also wanna ask how long it took you to set up potions because I remember it taking like five seconds to mix them and another five seconds to drink them.

Also fetch quests kinda suck but I can't think of many that were actually pointless, the sidequests and flavor npc's all kinda owned. I haven't played it in a while though so if I'm just not remembering the poo poo parts of the game that's my bad. On the other hand I do remember the grindiest, dumbest most boring fetch quest in the game that I hated myself for doing, while I was doing it, but the conclusion to that chain owned. It's the dude that wants the harpy feathers.

Ekster posted:

never played TW1 or TW2 but don't you get to save some woman from an attempted rape and she rewards you with sex or some poo poo

cause japanese games right ugh

01011001 posted:

potions didnt take too long to set up but you are pretty much always gonna pick the +hp regen and +damage ones because they have clear benefits and no drawbacks and take barely anything to make which is pretty lame, and yeah they only last like 10 minutes

Ekster posted:

never played TW1 or TW2 but don't you get to save some woman from an attempted rape and she rewards you with sex or some poo poo

cause japanese games right ugh

qnqnx posted:

[at the telephone] "Hello, is this Games? We have two escaped inmates itt, they can't stop talking about gay problematic stuff and if you don't come pick up them I'll shoot them both in the head with a double barreled shotgun"

elf help book posted:

lol

Zoq-Fot-Pik posted:

elf help book posted:

Yeah, it's a pointless thing to spend money on... for most people. For others, I think it genuinely enhances their experience. I think they genuinely care about the game enough that they want a chance to personalize it for themselves. They want to be able to show that they care about that game more than others by putting more money into it, and getting a small thing from spending that money that makes the game a little bit more unique for them.

elf help book posted:

check out this actual games post


IAP is popular among developers because there's a certain kind of audience that is more likely to pay more money for a game that is based on that type of payment method. But there's also an audience that sees through that kind of thing and/or just never saw the appeal in a game with that type of progression, and they're more likely to put more money into games that aren't dependent on IAP. If literally all gaming companies eventually go full IAP for whatever reason, it's only a matter of time before one developer rediscovers the audience who never wanted to deal with IAP to begin with--then that developer makes serious bank off those gamers with a one-time payment game, every other developer copies that developer to get in on some of that money, and the great circle of life continues.

In reality, you can misuse either method. There have always been companies that aren't as concerned with making a quality product as they are with finding the easiest and simplest method of getting more money, and plenty of game companies have "tricked" people into putting money into their bad games before IAP ever existed. IAP just happens to be big right now because it wasn't even a feasible source of income a few years ago. Developers are still in a frenzy to compete with each other to figure out the best way to take advantage of it, and the market as a whole hasn't lived with the concept long enough for customers to become familiar with how samey these games actually are. It's still new and exciting for both sides, but that's going to fade some with time. IAP will probably still be big in the future, but it will seem more normal that it's as prominent as it is, and people will be more familiar with how developers can misuse it. It's just like how there's still plenty of games based on movies that profit mainly due to recognizability, but most gamers don't worry about them because they already know they're probably mediocre.

In reality, though, there is nothing inherently bad about the concept of IAP. I get the impression that a lot of people who are against it take that standpoint based on the idea that they should have the full game now, that their experience isn't complete unless they have everything the game could feasibly have to offer, but I think it's just a matter of moving past that mindset. If you don't need to 100% every game you play, and particularly if you don't even need to finish every game you play, then IAP opens doors to a market full of games where you have more flexible spending options, where you only pay for as much of a game as you want to have. I remember when Final Fantasy IV: The After Years came out, and I only bought the first three episodes or so. I didn't see it as spending twelve or so dollars on a game I didn't get to finish; I saw it as being able to spend only a small portion of the full fifty-dollar price to play through whatever amount of content was good enough for me.

Actually, that's how it already is with the bad IAP games you're talking about. If you play a game that you become disappointed with because you discovered that it's pay-to-win, well, hey, you had a free game that you got to play until you figured out you didn't want to play it anymore. If you spent a few bucks on it before figuring that out, I assume you did so because you enjoyed the game on some level. At least you didn't have to pay fifty bucks for a full game you ended up hating. You can say that this means developers are relying on "mistake money" and that's a lazy thing to do, and maybe you're right; but that's ALWAYS been the most popular method of making a profit in all areas of marketing, and it's never stopped good developers from making actual quality games as well.

It seems to me like the most successful games are going to be the ones that offer a good, full game either for free or for a low price, and they provide optional content that would definitely be considered overpriced if you take it only as standalone content. They're not mobile games, but specifically the two games I have in mind that follow this method are Team Fortress 2 and Path of Exile. Both games are great, well-balanced, plenty of content for people who never want to pay a dime, but people who REALLY love the game also have the option of showing their love by spending tons of money on dumb crap. They draw in a big player base full of people who like it not only for being free, but for actually being a good game, and once this player base gets big and passionate enough, they can convince larger and larger numbers of people to spend hundreds of dollars to buy the possibility that they will get an in-game article of clothing to make their character look more less more stupid.

Yeah, it's a pointless thing to spend money on... for most people. For others, I think it genuinely enhances their experience. I think they genuinely care about the game enough that they want a chance to personalize it for themselves. They want to be able to show that they care about that game more than others by putting more money into it, and getting a small thing from spending that money that makes the game a little bit more unique for them. But that's just for the tiny playerbase where they have the disposable income to afford it and it's personally worth it for them to do so. For everyone else? Hell yes it's stupid that you spent a hundred dollars on an in-game fedora you didn't actually want, what the hell are you even doing. Don't blame the developers for being manipulative, that was your own drat fault. Make sure you understand what you're going to be getting for your money before you buy it, and don't pay unless you actually want it. And don't blame the people who bought it because it WAS something they wanted.

That got kind of harsh at the end, but my point is basically this: It's okay. It's all gonna be okay. IAP will probably get bigger, but it's not going to replace the types of games you like playing. In fact, the games you like playing will probably get even better due to the lessons learned from all this IAP experimentation. Just do your best to stay an informed, responsible customer, and you will be fine.

Mach2 posted:

It enhances the game to spend five grand on a shiny fancy dragon egg in your stupid Facebook game? We have that in the real world, except a half-million-dollar car actually has a function and is hella rad, whereas spending a comparable amount in microtransactions gets you absofuckinglutely nothing.

elf help book posted:

i didnt write that post, please go find it in games and respond to it there and also stay there gently caress you

Mach2 posted:

I didn't assume you did, I was just ranting about how unbelievably stupid that whole concept is

Is that seriously from the Games forum though? That isn't some paid-for shill post from a gaming news site? Holy poo poo

elf help book posted:

check out this actual games post


IAP is popular among developers because there's a certain kind of audience that is more likely to pay more money for a game that is based on that type of payment method. But there's also an audience that sees through that kind of thing and/or just never saw the appeal in a game with that type of progression, and they're more likely to put more money into games that aren't dependent on IAP. If literally all gaming companies eventually go full IAP for whatever reason, it's only a matter of time before one developer rediscovers the audience who never wanted to deal with IAP to begin with--then that developer makes serious bank off those gamers with a one-time payment game, every other developer copies that developer to get in on some of that money, and the great circle of life continues.

In reality, you can misuse either method. There have always been companies that aren't as concerned with making a quality product as they are with finding the easiest and simplest method of getting more money, and plenty of game companies have "tricked" people into putting money into their bad games before IAP ever existed. IAP just happens to be big right now because it wasn't even a feasible source of income a few years ago. Developers are still in a frenzy to compete with each other to figure out the best way to take advantage of it, and the market as a whole hasn't lived with the concept long enough for customers to become familiar with how samey these games actually are. It's still new and exciting for both sides, but that's going to fade some with time. IAP will probably still be big in the future, but it will seem more normal that it's as prominent as it is, and people will be more familiar with how developers can misuse it. It's just like how there's still plenty of games based on movies that profit mainly due to recognizability, but most gamers don't worry about them because they already know they're probably mediocre.

In reality, though, there is nothing inherently bad about the concept of IAP. I get the impression that a lot of people who are against it take that standpoint based on the idea that they should have the full game now, that their experience isn't complete unless they have everything the game could feasibly have to offer, but I think it's just a matter of moving past that mindset. If you don't need to 100% every game you play, and particularly if you don't even need to finish every game you play, then IAP opens doors to a market full of games where you have more flexible spending options, where you only pay for as much of a game as you want to have. I remember when Final Fantasy IV: The After Years came out, and I only bought the first three episodes or so. I didn't see it as spending twelve or so dollars on a game I didn't get to finish; I saw it as being able to spend only a small portion of the full fifty-dollar price to play through whatever amount of content was good enough for me.

Actually, that's how it already is with the bad IAP games you're talking about. If you play a game that you become disappointed with because you discovered that it's pay-to-win, well, hey, you had a free game that you got to play until you figured out you didn't want to play it anymore. If you spent a few bucks on it before figuring that out, I assume you did so because you enjoyed the game on some level. At least you didn't have to pay fifty bucks for a full game you ended up hating. You can say that this means developers are relying on "mistake money" and that's a lazy thing to do, and maybe you're right; but that's ALWAYS been the most popular method of making a profit in all areas of marketing, and it's never stopped good developers from making actual quality games as well.

It seems to me like the most successful games are going to be the ones that offer a good, full game either for free or for a low price, and they provide optional content that would definitely be considered overpriced if you take it only as standalone content. They're not mobile games, but specifically the two games I have in mind that follow this method are Team Fortress 2 and Path of Exile. Both games are great, well-balanced, plenty of content for people who never want to pay a dime, but people who REALLY love the game also have the option of showing their love by spending tons of money on dumb crap. They draw in a big player base full of people who like it not only for being free, but for actually being a good game, and once this player base gets big and passionate enough, they can convince larger and larger numbers of people to spend hundreds of dollars to buy the possibility that they will get an in-game article of clothing to make their character look more less more stupid.

Yeah, it's a pointless thing to spend money on... for most people. For others, I think it genuinely enhances their experience. I think they genuinely care about the game enough that they want a chance to personalize it for themselves. They want to be able to show that they care about that game more than others by putting more money into it, and getting a small thing from spending that money that makes the game a little bit more unique for them. But that's just for the tiny playerbase where they have the disposable income to afford it and it's personally worth it for them to do so. For everyone else? Hell yes it's stupid that you spent a hundred dollars on an in-game fedora you didn't actually want, what the hell are you even doing. Don't blame the developers for being manipulative, that was your own drat fault. Make sure you understand what you're going to be getting for your money before you buy it, and don't pay unless you actually want it. And don't blame the people who bought it because it WAS something they wanted.

That got kind of harsh at the end, but my point is basically this: It's okay. It's all gonna be okay. IAP will probably get bigger, but it's not going to replace the types of games you like playing. In fact, the games you like playing will probably get even better due to the lessons learned from all this IAP experimentation. Just do your best to stay an informed, responsible customer, and you will be fine.

The Sharmat posted:

That depends on your build really. On my spell guy I'd use the + to vigor regeneration ones a lot for example. I think only using Swallow + Rook is players being stupidly loss averse and not realizing that a reduction to sword damage doesn't matter if you're setting everything on fire

elf help book posted:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3663376

01011001 posted:

armor is subtractive (X damage - Y armor = amount dealt) so i wouldnt count on it being worth a drat

01011001 posted:

even at higher levels 10% is not much. i wanna say you tend to cap out at like 40-50 armor so thats what, 4-5 damage less you take per hit?

Borsche69 posted:

I tried to get a bunch of smart gamers to play a pile of poo poo, and they called me a fag and said the game sucked. Now I'm desperately posting on Imp Zone for approval.

Borsche69 posted:

I tried to get a bunch of smart gamers to play a pile of poo poo, and they called me a fag and said the game sucked. Now I'm desperately posting on Imp Zone for approval.

The Sharmat posted:

yeah and add that over the four or so solid hits it takes to kill you, you end up with essentialy 16-20 extra HP. What's the regen rate on Swallow? Like 1 every five seconds or something? I think if you've got high armor, given how long fights last, Tiara might be better. I'd have to actually test it though.

wait looking it up Tiara apparently reduces damage so yeah gently caress it, swallow is better.

Zoq-Fot-Pik posted:

Dianetics posted:

I hope the next Zelda will have titties in it.

Contra Calculus posted:

Action Tortoise posted:

Who's the power ranger villain?

The Sharmat posted:

That depends on your build really. On my spell guy I'd use the + to vigor regeneration ones a lot for example. I think only using Swallow + Rook is players being stupidly loss averse and not realizing that a reduction to sword damage doesn't matter if you're setting everything on fire


it's in TW1. TW1 has a lot of dumb sex stuff in it. TW2 has sex stuff in it but it's generally not dumb and there's less of it than in TW1