Saves got too big for the ps4 to useWhat's "Great Fury Geyser of PS3 Skyrim" all about?
Saves got too big for the ps4 to useWhat's "Great Fury Geyser of PS3 Skyrim" all about?
It may be my mood making me seeing stuff, but is "since the core game is good they can get away with" becoming an actual thing?
Yes, a AAA package along with AAA quality is what people want. Why wouldn't they expect both? It's not a Beta release. It's not half price.
What's "Great Fury Geyser of PS3 Skyrim" all about?
Since when did not having both quality and quantity become a thing we are supposed to accept out of $60 offerings?
Skyrim PS3 was straight up broken.What's "Great Fury Geyser of PS3 Skyrim" all about?
Bethesda launched Skyrim PS3 with a game breaking bug that ballooned the save file after a lot of hours of play and caused the framerate to go to 0 fpsWhat's "Great Fury Geyser of PS3 Skyrim" all about?
yet, once again it will dominate the FGC and it will be the most played fighting game this gen most likely.
Problem is too many people want quantity at the expense of quality. Most devs don't control their release schedules. So they have to make a choice, especially if they are being hamstrung and rushed. They need to choose whether to pack their game full of content at launch at the expense of fine polishing and general quality, requiring rapid patch support, or they can choose to only include the content they know they can have polished and working in a near flawless state for launch and then patch in the content they didn't include at launch later for free after it is finished.Quantity and quality aren't mutually exclusive things. We've been buying quality and quantity together in fighting games since the mid 90's.
Because when I look for measured and reasonable discussion, I browser the user reviews section on Metacritic.
I was under the impression that it is not such a straight dichotomy. As in variation and extra width in gameplay modes and player options can allow for extra quality.
On one hand, due to the quality of the multiplayer game, I don't think people who want that game specifically are being "ripped off" by $60. People who only play multiplayer, all day, all the time, are obviously going to get way more than their money's worth.
On the other... it is dishonest to pretend that a fighting game release today is just like every other purely multiplayer esports client. And only "casuals" want more content because they're too dumb to understand what the game is.
If anything it's the other way around. Fighting game releases have been getting more and more robust, with greater amounts of both single and multiplayer content and features. Even freaking Pokken Tournament has a single player mode which gives people a lot to do for a lengthy amount of time.
So taken as an overall package, no, I don't think the SFV backlash is just a sign of some shallow desire for quantity over quality. Compared to its peers within the genre and the standards of recent releases, SFV is a bare product for the price it is being sold at - bare for the full audience, not by the standards of one very specific type of player.
Also the fact that more content was promised down the road must be weighed against the fact that people buying in now don't know what the quality or value of that content will be. In this sense, the backlash against SFV may end up being a good thing - since Capcom has already started acknowledging there is an issue, and adjusting plans for what kind of features to include in updates.
If this was going to be his conclusion, why the sensational article title? YES, when people pay $60 for a game, they want more than bare bones and a good core. They want the package to be largely complete when they buy it, not 6 months from now. And they certainly aren't unreasonable to expect that features core to the genre for 20 years to suddenly be absent. WE WANT BOTH, NOT EITHER OR.
Yes, a AAA package along with AAA quality is what people want. Why wouldn't they expect both? It's not a Beta release. It's not half price. Weird thing about the bolded part of the quote is that it has been true in every generation of gaming. Since when did not having both quality AND quantity become a thing we are supposed to accept out of $60 offerings? Did I miss a memo? Should I blame Ttianfall? Killzone?
Obviously, a mixture of quantity and quality is the best choice for a game, but quality is definitely preferred if you only one is present imo. I would much rather play something like most Platinum games rather than another Open-World collectathon with bleh design.
The FGC is a drop in the bucket compared to mainstream users. SFV's "service model" will be an unsupported abject failure if it doesn't get sales beyond the hardcore.
Let's check Steam: already out of the top 10 in the best sellers list, with 40% approval. 30th best selling video game on Amazon, with a 2/5 user rating. Stuff like Fire Emblem and games that haven't even been released yet are selling better. This is a disaster of a launch. Whoever made the decision to launch now and in this state, Capcom Pro Tour or not, is a fucking idiot.
Really, which part included them saying that versus CPU wouldn't be in the game, or that the prologue story fights were 3 or 4 fights per character with brain dead aiBuy it in 6 months then. Don't act like Capcom pulled a bait and switch when they've been transparent about the entire process in how they would be handling content prior to release.
I think the fact of the matter is simple. Capcom could've waited longer to appeal to the mainstream audience, but burn the game's FGC appeal in the long run by having it miss major tournaments.
Or they launch the game now, appeal the FGC and hardcore fans, and potentially sour the mainstream audience and newcomer players.
They were stuck between a rock and a hard place and that's all it comes down to. No matter what a segment of the audience would be alienated. They can maybe regain some ground with updates down the line, but first impressions are important so they're probably counting on hardcore fans to spread that word of mouth later on and view long-term potential as greater in the grand scheme of things. It seems Capcom's acquired so much bad will over the last few years that it may be an obstacle, unfortunately.
I feel like while I'll just get the game cheaper later on and when it's more feature-rich, there are some things being left out at launch that just make me scratch my head. Lack of an arcade mode or a 1-on-1 Player VS CPU custom match in VS Mode are big omissions. So I feel stuff related to that is worthy of criticism. There should be a balance but the scales are tipped more toward the FGC at launch, to the expense of most else.
Ironically despite their claim they wouldn't do a Super version or anything, I still feel the gates are open for a SFV: Goty/Complete Edition some point down the line...
It was more a rhetorical question rather than one I needed an answer to yea. It's just...it seemed so disingenuous a statement on its face I felt compelled to read the article only for him to form a conclusion different from the premise laid forth by the title. Yea, people want quality AND quantity. Yes, that's been the expectation since the NES was the most powerful gaming system on the market. The only thing that has changed is that companies are now more willing to attempt to sell us half finished games at full prices and dare the market to not buy. They are more willing to sell us locked content on disc that would have once been free unlocks.Are you familiar with the term clickbait?
Buy it in 6 months then. Don't act like Capcom pulled a bait and switch when they've been transparent about the entire process in how they would be handling content prior to release.
They did pull a bait and switch by not detailing the story prologue structure, and not referring to arcade mode or vs AI at all. Plus some of the in-store demos are something that's not in the game, vs AI in best of 3 matches.Don't act like Capcom pulled a bait and switch when they've been transparent about the entire process in how they would be handling content prior to release.
On point.
With video game sales being so front loaded, Capcom made a terrible business decision.
They sacrificed this game for the FGC basically.
It's admirable in some respect, but if I were a Capcom stockholder, I would be furious.
Casual gamers aren't gonna jump in en masse in six months after the terrible online impressions.
Already own it, thank you very much.Buy it in 6 months then. Don't act like Capcom pulled a bait and switch when they've been transparent about the entire process in how they would be handling content prior to release.
This too. A lot of the lack came as a surprise to everyone. Kids out here are trying to act brand new.Really, which part included them saying that versus CPU wouldn't be in the game, or that the prologue story fights were 3 or 4 fights per character with brain dead ai
This. The very least they could have done is matched the launch content of SFV's predecessor that released in 2008. They could have completely ignore the progress made in the genre over the last 8 years. But they didn't. The game isn't just "light on content", it lacks basic staples of the genre that almost every other fighting game, AAA or indie, has.
I think the fact of the matter is simple. Capcom could've waited longer to appeal to the mainstream audience, but burn the game's FGC appeal in the long run by having it miss major tournaments.
Or they launch the game now, appeal the FGC and hardcore fans, and potentially sour the mainstream audience and newcomer players.
They were stuck between a rock and a hard place and that's all it comes down to. No matter what a segment of the audience would be alienated. They can maybe regain some ground with updates down the line, but first impressions are important so they're probably counting on hardcore fans to spread that word of mouth later on and view long-term potential as greater in the grand scheme of things. It seems Capcom's acquired so much bad will over the last few years that it may be an obstacle, unfortunately.
I feel like while I'll just get the game cheaper later on and when it's more feature-rich, there are some things being left out at launch that just make me scratch my head. Lack of an arcade mode or a 1-on-1 Player VS CPU custom match in VS Mode are big omissions. So I feel stuff related to that is worthy of criticism. There should be a balance but the scales are tipped more toward the FGC at launch, to the expense of most else.
Ironically despite their claim they wouldn't do a Super version or anything, I still feel the gates are open for a SFV: Goty/Complete Edition some point down the line...
the problem is no one on the fucking internet can react to things like a rational human being
there are issues with the way they launched the game. but the hyperbole thrown around from people who are upset just destroys any real discussion
I agree. Not everyone wants just a graybox training room as the only alternative to online. Well, there is that unbalanced survival mode and lackluster story mode!Having a negative reaction to being blindsided by capcom deciding on not including a standard feature of a fighting game at launch (and not communicating that properly, plus seemingly not even having any plans to include it in the first place until all the backlash) is not "valuing quantity over quality."
The reaction being disproportionate was what I was trying to get across in the several Street Fighter V threads I argued against.
The game isn't a 0/10 game. The game shouldn't have been delayed to accommodate a minority of the playerbase. Street Fighter V wasn't a scam perpetrated by Capcom to steal people's money.
It just launched without two modes it should have, and that's bad, but it isn't a travesty of a game by a long shot. It certainly shouldn't have inspired 10+ threads on the subject.
I think if, say, this exact game was released completely by Sony and Capcom wasn't even involved the backlash wouldn't have been this severe. Capcom has a large section of the gaming populace's ire so it's unsurprising to me what should have been a minor backlash became so massive.
The game should of have had 2 characters as having more than 2 ruins the quality.
SF sales have never been that frontloaded though. Those games always have insane legs.
Depends on the PG game. Vanquish would and should have used a multiplayer mode, as it's ultimately a bang bang game, you need competitive mode. Bayonetta is like DMC, hardcore players will spend dozens of hours trying to master each style and make combo videos. If Binary Domain could do it, as forgettable as it was, then so should have Vanquish. There's no reason not to.