@ShadowStyleB: Probably got bumped because of the update and then launched up to the popular list because of the number of comments it already had. They need to fix that moving forward. If anything, it strikes you as odd plus people most likely don't care about what happened next in this particular story anyway.
Jackson should've just backed out of it if he had any pride for what he did with the LOTR and respect for the book (The Hobbit). Clearly New Line Cinema saw The Hobbit as just another cash cow and not only did they milk it til it bled, they put make up on it, taught it stupid tricks and paraded it all over town. The whole thing was stretched and changed beyond recognition to the material it was based on. All they managed to accomplish was take artistic liberties to the highest level and in the worst possible direction.
@quis89: Relative to what's already out there, yes it's terrible. I'm just calling a spade a spade. But like I said, the game wasn't exactly aiming to set a new gold standard for graphics in the first place.
Why make a graphics comparison for this game? Graphics isn't exactly the major selling point for this game, and understandably as a result it looks dated (more like terrible really) across all platforms.
@yggy: Sales driven companies are pretty much self-explanatory. If you had a company would you produce and market something that doesn't sell? Most likely not. So yes, something that sells is bound to be produced--steadily even increasingly if the market dictates so. Thing is, it's a democratic set up where ultimately you have choice on which to buy and support as a consumer. Like I've been saying multiple times now, buy what you like and let others buy what they want. Your line of thought that "Just because something sells doesn't mean it deserves to be produced. Just because people like it doesn't mean it deserves to exist" is flawed and just as undermining as the statements I'm questioning. See, why impose what you want to see out there onto others who want to see differently? If you really think strongly that these DLCs, etc should be rid off, it wouldn't just because you think that way, and neither am I saying it will stay as a thing forever--it all depends on the market. Don't get me wrong, I hate them too but whatever other people want to pay for with their own money (which, in turn, continues to be produced because of it) is none of my business and you can always ignore the things you don't like.
We're digressing but what I said is pretty much it--buy what you like--no one's forcing you to buy anything--and let others do the same. Simple as that
@yggy: He didn't say any of that though. None. Again (and this is getting tiresome really) you missed what is being said in the article. To quote: "It's not that games like this are bad, but they limit your ability to interact with the game world, so the story can unfold the way the storyteller wants it to unfold," he said. "You have very limited ability to express yourself; it's about how do you accomplish a predetermined path to get to the next plot point." and "Every choice in a game like this has been pre-scripted and handwritten by a designer somewhere, and the effects of that choice have been predetermined by the developers," he said. "There's very limited stuff that players actually get to do" He's criticizing these games for being linear. And again, there's nothing wrong with game's gameplay funneled in and crafted to have a defined experience in order to achieve telling a specific story. Had these games been marketed to give you unlimited choices on how to run and finish the game and they played out just as they originally did then fine, let the pitchforks out. But no, they played as they were intended to be played. And these were well received games at that.
Please re-read the article.
True, you can be dismissive on things. It's also expressing yourself after all. But being dismissive on something very relative is kinda stupid actually and this is one of them. Imagine two guys in a room arguing who's religion is the right one. It's pointless and wouldn't resolve anything. People like this kind of games because they do. And that's that.
And I'm sorry, studios will still produce games like these because they sell. Just wait for the games you like to come out and let other people worry about the ones that they like regardless if it's any different than yours. Like I said, it's not that hard.
@yggy: I agree everyone can say what they want, even preference in video games. But the operative word in what I said there is "should." It undermines everything else that steers away from what he thinks "should" be the case.
And I think you kinda missed the article a bit. To quote: ". . . games like Uncharted, Heavy Rain and Telltale's The Walking Dead do not make the most of games as a medium." and "Games shouldn't aspire to be movies, Spector said. "If all you want to do is show off how clever you are, get out of my medium!" he said. "Go make a movie or something, because that's what you should be doing." He's calling these games out plain and simple. Basically, these games fall short of being a game because of what they are (linear). And my point is how is that so exactly when appreciation of these things is relative. Calling out one game for being out of your preference is one thing; saying people who make them ought not to and just make movies instead (when all the while so many people enjoy them, myself included) is another and not to mention very dismissive.
I don't think anyone, whatever their accomplishments may be, are in any position to call out which styles games should take. It's a genre of it's own, which by these games' sales indicate, enjoyed and patronized by so many people. He kinda sounds like a rapper criticizing a jazz artist for being a jazz artist. What's the point (if there's even any)?
It's actually kinda sketchy in my opinion. I mean, why question something so relative? You can't win that argument because someone's preference will never trump someone else's different preference. And no one is shoving these games in anybody's throat anyway. If you want to play em go buy them. If you prefer an open world experience, buy games that give you that experience. It's not that hard.
I'm actually surprised by the reaction of many people about this too. I'm referring to "games shouldn't be movies" and all that as if there's a standard on what games should be or shouldn't; or what is enjoyable and what isn't. I mean, these games are what they are and what's wrong with it? At the end of the day, the standard of whether or not a game is a good one is if you enjoyed playing it and that's it.
NIckEs' comments