The Videogames Tab

No, I did not realise that. So, does that make it just as good? What happened to Sakurai's vision for Smash Bros? Or George Lucas' vision for Star Wars? What was your point exactly? It's still crap compared to the original even if it's made by the same person.

My point is that you don't seem to know much about a game whose players you hilariously describe as 'scrubby plebs'. In fact, describing any game's players as 'scrubby plebs' is pretty funny in 2017.

If you can articulate the ways you feel Greene's original mod is better, then great.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

You're right, I don't know much about it. I was just being elitist because I'm arrogant and it makes me feel good about myself to lord over others the fact that I played the original back in the day and tons of people are celebrating a bunch of clones and remakes without ever having tried the original. It makes me a little mad when I see the overwhelming success of an obviously inferior game just because it's in a more accessible and generic format. Because the original was modded from a hyper realistic war simulator and most people don't have the patients or skill to get good at it, or even the brains to unpackage and install a mod. So they get a fisher price version (and in this case I'm not talking about the original creator's second attempt at his vision, but rather the rip offs) and tote it as this great new thing. It just pisses me off a little.

But normally I don't care that much about what all the ignorant plebs do. But why do you praise such an obviously inferior game? Is it the arcady and more simple version that you prefer over the more complex realistic version because it's more accessible and/or you don't care for realism that much? Or have you not even played the original in all it's glory?

Why is Battlegrounds 'obviously inferior'? Just because it's not based on a military sim or is it all because of some tiresome elitism on your part?

Tiresome elitism. I haven't played both. I only played the original. I loved it, and so did everyone else. It was so popular servers were jam packed. Then.... Voila! Suddenly a new game with the same basic concept minus the realism appeared. And who was now advocating it? People who hadn't even played the original. And, even better, it wasn't so hard to install.

Oh... it was his "original vision." That's why all the gear looked exactly the same as Arma and Dayz, because it was original to him? All that changed were the mechanics. What a vision! The mechanics... improved? It became easier to aim, easier to move, because "easier is better." For plebs with no skill or dedication.

Did you play the original Tacitus? Did you even talk about the original when you praised the new version? Did you talk about how it was "better" than the original?

Yeah, it's "just" elitism. That is the convenient old baseless argument that people say to defend a beloved game they enjoy but never questioned.

I say it is not as good. Do you say it is? I guess "originality" doesn't count for anything, and you can't even admit that your argument of "original vision" was refuted. So what's "quality" anyway? Hey, if you like a game it's "great!" right?

That's the thing with mods, and I've been using them since 2001 - Once something new comes along, lots of people jump ship. Same thing happened to Greene's DayZ servers when the new ARMA came out. He followed his friends there and came up with the Battle Royale mod.

Something more realistic does not equal better. You want a realistic game where 100 people drop on an island and fight to the death? Great, keep playing it.

Because he wanted real weapons? He's a gun nut.

Maybe ARMA's weapons are realer?

Nope. ARMA's totally not my thing.

I bought ARMA 2 purely to play DayZ, and stuck a ton of hours into it, but barely touched the base game. Here's the thing - Some people don't find military sims at all engaging. Battle Royale may very well be better (in whatever way you choose to quantify it) than Battlegrounds and, you know what, I'm fine with it and fine with never knowing what I'm missing.

Anyway, why should I have to talk about the original? I was aware of it but I've got no desire to play it, neither do I have the want to download King of the Kill, Greene's first post-ARMA game. Apparently it's even more accessible than Battlegrounds, so I'd advise you to stay far away. People might even be having fun with it. I know, right?

Refuted? So he's gone from working within the constraints of a game he has no editorial control of to being in charge of a hand-picked team where he has the final say? I'd think he'll be a lot closer to realising his vision that way, don't you?

That's the thing with subjectivity. People tend to think the things they like are great, including the everyone who ever installed Battle Royale.

I'm sorry that you feel Greene's second mod isn't getting the recognition it deserves, but the vast majority (if not all) of the longer online articles I've read about Battlegrounds talk about Greene's journey. Throwing around words like 'pleb' towards anyone who's not experienced the game you love isn't a great look.

I said I refuted your argument, and obviously logic is not your forte. Your premise was that it was closer to his original vision, and I gave examples of how someone trying to create their original vision did not equate better. So it being closer to his original vision is refuted as a premise for battlegrounds being better than the original mod. All that is to say just because he now has more creative room to move around does not mean the new game is better.

Can we find common ground and agree on that at least?

I think the original mod was better. Not because it is more realistic, but because it is more skill based. The creators of arma were better at creating game mechaics than this modder who could not come up with his own concepts, but stole them from a movie and other games like arma and dayz.

The new game is plebian because it is more accessible and easier without having anything more to offer. If some people like it more because it's easier we can both agree that being accessible or realistic are not criteria but personal preference. I hope we agree on that. I never said the original was better just because it's more realistic. To paint that as my argument is a straw man.

Taking issue with the word pleb is irrelevant to the argument. Why target that? Focus on the real issues.

Concerning the issue of "original vision" lets not forget it's an unoriginal rip-off of the movie Battle Royale. What I said about the borrowed graphics has nothing to do with the gun designs. That was an assumption on your part. I am talking about the copy/pasted graphics for models of characters, terrain, gear, vehicles and everything else. He could have designed his own helmets and backpacks but instead reused the ones already existing from Arma and Dayz because that's easier and he's not original. It was fine as a mod because it was a mod, but now he makes it his own game and sells it profiting off other people's ideas while still using their exact graphical models. It's plagiarism. My argument about that was a counter to your point about it being his original vision.

I don't know if the original mod was better than the new game. I never said it was. I don't prefer realism in every game, but I love hyper realistic games. I do think it is really disrespectful when a remake lacks certain essential aspects and is heralded as original without credit to the original being given.

Edit: Sorry, I did say it was, but maybe I am wrong. I haven't played it so I probably shouldn't say, but it doesn't look as good. I really loved the mod and the new game looks tacky. I want the original to get it's fair credit.

I said 'actual vision', not 'original vision'. What he's got in his head as the culmination of his work.

You're getting hung up on a word I didn't say.

Oh, and paying contractors for their work isn't plagiarism.

The real issue here is that you're hurt that the cool thing you like isn't getting talked about as much now that another thing is getting talked about a whole lot. You think the other thing is worse than the cool thing you like, despite not having played it. People who like the other thing are scrubby plebs because they've not paid their dues to the cool thing that you like.

Meanwhile, millions of people are having fun with the other thing that you don't like and I hope you can find it in your heart to have fun with the cool thing that you like. Everyone wins, don't try and turn it into a battle.

I'm giving up even pretending that anything you or I have said matters in the slightest. Video games.

According to Steam, I've got two hours invested in Getting Over It With Bennett Foddy.

I'm betting at least an hour of that is the game sitting idling while I give my monitor the bird. Both hands.

The game's brilliant at what it sets out to do, and I have no patience for it. From the man behind QWOP, I expect no less.

Sorry I brought it up guys.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

GIANT SQUIRREL!

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Which base was that?

The powerline farm pictured. I'd just never wondered West of Concord! (The content bredth is a great feeling, given VR's dearth. Looking forward to some of the more bespoke interiors / set ups on an action and story front, but just finding this shelter in the rain was great )

Gonna start getting into performance mods soon to ensure I can hit the city depths without constant 'reprojection' (the software trick which fakes half the frames to keep you at 90fps, but looks pretty torrid). Full texture swap first, then hopefully the shadow trick will get an update...

Ah, yeah, Abernathy. I wandered there pretty early because I always stray off the path in the beginning of these games, but I expect what happened to you is pretty common: you naturally head down the road and there's not too much reason to come back and explore near the beginning unless you're specifically looking around for new places.

Yeah I ended up getting bogged down off East with that ludicrous scrubland farm, and all the mini-sights around it. Then got stuck in down South. Good to point my nose in a different direction and find stuff

The plan is definitely to Mad Max these Northern camps before heading into town when more frames abound. I just need someone to hack the game so Rifts can place walls reliably... (Currently I'm just slapping down plants and turrets in errant directions )

Re: "scrubland farm." The Slog?

I'm playing through all the Metal Gear Solid games before new year.

After being surprised at how short MGS1 is - I can remember spending days on it 20 years ago - I'm now half way through MGS2. To have a game of such cinematic scope arriving in the early days of the PS2 still blows my mind.

I mean, it had a 9 minute trailer.



Peak Kojima.

The first one the Minuteman guy asks you to help. (I'm terrible with names ). Up the hill from the power armour on the train. Not much more than a shack, some tatoes, and some over-sized bed-bugs...

(I will make it a heaven of wood, mud and inappropriate clothing tho )

Multiple stories 'tower' above you in VR in a pleasing way. Definitely gives more motivation to build something grandiose

Oh man, I hadn't even thought about the custom structure thing with VR. Though I dunno how well you can mod this stuff, particularly the stuff that lets you go over your budget, with the increased spec requirements. Might require a whole system update just to really take advantage of that.

I'm already pondering saving for a post-price-drop 1080. Pondering mind