New Testingstan

Oxymoron wrote:Temporarily solving the hunger problem by eating the Rich ?

We can eat babies instead. They aren't going to put up nearly as much of a fight.

I hear we can grow fake meat in vats now. Algae beef for everyone.

adr wrote:I already used a dictator, though. Meh, I probably won't use that anyway.

There's always serial killers/mass murderers: Dahmer, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, et al.

well fuck EA then

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012 ... -games.ars

7 whole quests

Who cares its like 1%

And get used to it, if they could put goblins in xboxes to break used disks they would

i tried looking through Painrack's Btech thread

FUCK

have you seen his posts in other gaming threads

he dresses up like a jedi in skyrim

i think painrack is a very disturbed person

who the fuck wants to be Obi-wan in the prequels

he whines a lot and does nothing useful

he's less useful than KATZ

i had an idea where they at least could put some cool trinket in the boxes of games if they want to overprice them

like i saw this ad for "the old republic" that said if you bought it you got a special colour crystal, but it was in-game so who gives a fuck. but it would be sweet if you got a real crystal or something that had some relation to the game

and, like, with the new zelda you got a music cd with some pretty sweet music, so that was cool, but of course you could just download that, but maybe next time they can give a necklace with a small replica of a sword featured in the game or something, so it will be given more meaning as you play

also it should be quality stuff and not crap

if i had the means to physically distribute games i would totally do that, i think it would be cool for those who like the games

Star Trek Online did that with the Collector's Edition. In addition to a nifty little concept art booklet, they had 10 day timecards (more useful back when it was pay-to-play obviously) as well as a nifty die-cast commbadge of the style used in the game. I don't know what the size of the commbadges they used in the series were exactly, but these actually look large enough you could see them being used in the show or a movie. So that was pretty swell.

whats a lol is super fat editions of games often come with usb sticks branded in some way

and they're always USELESSLY SMALL usbs

starku wrote:whats a lol is super fat editions of games often come with usb sticks branded in some way

and they're always USELESSLY SMALL usbs

That's a shitty "reward" to have.

I mean die-cast pins aren't exactly gonna get you laid or anything, but it's not like they promise any utility outside of maybe cosplayers which we all know don't exist within the Trek fandom.

lol Aly-san still buys CDs

lololololol

also does anyone on TEO proper want to discuss game design y/n

is anyone on teo able to separate design elements from 'i like this game' and 'i dont like this game'

i mean veef you playing a bunch of old games and being able to talk about what is neat and what is lame makes you instantly top percentile of objectivity

TEO isn't even able to separate what they do or do not like from what is genuinely good or bad. I mean, most people are like that, but TEO has it to an even worse degree.

starku wrote:
i mean veef you playing a bunch of old games and being able to talk about what is neat and what is lame makes you instantly top percentile of objectivity

we'll see how objective i can be come March

cuz dudes are already playing the Japanese version of Armored Core 5 and they're saying it's only 10 missions long :v

What makes a game "good" or "bad" though? In an objective way? Honest question.

I mean, to me, a game's purpose is to provide entertainment, and so if it does that makes a "good" game. But "is it entertaining" seems like an entirely subjective question.

There is some obvious stuff, like clearly unintended bugs, game crashes, and so on. But as long as it's stable with things generally working as they should, what makes it objectively bad?

And then of course, there are the patches. Yeah, bad bugs on a game's release are shitty, but if someone comes along months later, having just gotten the game after most patches have rolled out and say they like it, how does that figure? The game, by that point, has had the bugs ironed out and the player-come-lately wouldn't have experienced them (having patched up before playing) so those bugs would not have detracted from that person's enjoyment.

yes some people are just unable to discern the difference between 'enjoy something' and 'something is good'

like

you

don't be like Cube in the fucking testing mechwarrior thread

"have fun"

:frogout:

dude he said 'if a game works why are fundamental bugs, errors or failures objectively bad'

i think he's pretty much over the edge

the cutest part is when people like that ask with wide eyes 'how can anyone be objective'

ps the answer is 'not be you'

i mean i have fun playing fucking Digital Mission VF-X

it sure ain't a good game

but it's playable so whatever

stupid nostalgia

i play like every dw game out

they still suck and have whole reams of fundamental flaws

my enjoyment of the repetitive mashing of button x doesn't change any of that

i guess i'm just not I'M A JUGGALO WOOP WOOP

Thats not what he aid Dan. He said as long as it's generally stable or if someone comes along months later after it's been fixed and played it for the firat time, it's not bad for them.

But games like Skyrim that are busted on release and will be forever are objectively bad.

so if the game 'generally works' ie the buttons work and there are pictures on the screen and little messages

but quest scripting is fucked, there are dozens of semi-random game-ending bugs, the fundamental mechanics are stupid, the setting bland or whatever

its all good right??? fun! no 'objectively bad' elements because you had some quantum of enjoyment

except for y'know all of those indisputable problems

dynasty warriors has no bugs, very few glitches, and is stable (should be been polished for 20 years lol) but it's still fundamentally broken with lazy mechanics and all kinds of dumbness so saying it isn't 'objectively bad' is fucking dumb

maybe people should just accept they have no standards

for my part i have certainly accepted this :V

starku wrote:so if the game 'generally works' ie the buttons work and there are pictures on the screen and little messages

but quest scripting is fucked, there are dozens of semi-random game-ending bugs, the fundamental mechanics are stupid, the setting bland or whatever

its all good right??? fun! no 'objectively bad' elements because you had some quantum of enjoyment

except for y'know all of those indisputable problems

dynasty warriors has no bugs, very few glitches, and is stable (should be been polished for 20 years lol) but it's still fundamentally broken with lazy mechanics and all kinds of dumbness so saying it isn't 'objectively bad' is fucking dumb

maybe people should just accept they have no standards

for my part i have certainly accepted this :V

I don't consider any of that to be stable. Game ending glitches especially, why hello FO:NV

But I'm not sure what makes a game objectively good or bad either.