why wouldnt they just give surplus meat to the employees?

Quote from: Azumarill on May 15, 2015, 10:58:11 PM

Quote from: Maverick on May 15, 2015, 10:51:39 PM

Can't say I'm upset about the decision but I would have given him several life sentences because it's cheaper and he probably wouldn't last long anyway.

what makes you say this? 99% he would have ended up in iso in ADX Florence. no one would have had a chance to murder him there except the guards.

Well, regardless, I still would have probably picked prison.

i agree completely.

Atheism is for neckbeards. Religion is for idiots. Agnosticism is for fedora-tippers. Picking a political party is for the naive. Not picking a political party is childish. What the hell can anyone do right? I swear to god, this is a forum of negatives. It's not about being right, it's about not being unpopular.

good rule of thumb: dont take anything door says seriously, even in serious

EVE is for people who really really like market economies and are willing to shovel a lot of money into a game over a long period of time. It's really good at what it does, for what it's worth

And really, why can't we fucking murder his family for thinking their failure of a son is innocent?

Because that isn't justice.

dont get an iphone unless youre willing to jailbreak. the UI is nice but limited app store+apple being evil makes them annoying.

windows phones have really good customer reviews but have somewhat limited app stores. id recommend a samsung galaxy phone honestly

Quote from: Azumarill on May 15, 2015, 08:08:34 PM

Quote from: Gama Ray on May 15, 2015, 08:04:29 PM

Quote from: Azumarill on May 15, 2015, 08:02:10 PM

its really hard to get excited about anything marvel these days. i guess he looks cool.

At least they're better then Dick Cock (DC)

yeah... not really..

Marvel has Daredevil and Iron Man 1 tho so it wins by default

Justice League... JLU... Teen Titans... Young Justice.. JL: Crisis on Two Earths, JL: War, Batman TAS, Superman TAS, Batman Beyond... etc..

some of the earlier marvel movies were pretty good, but on the whole, the DC universe trumps it in almost every way. animated series, animated movies, comics (DC>Marvel, this is so fucking obvious when it comes to comics).. all Marvel has going for it is a couple good X men cartoons, spider man 1/2, and some of the newer movies.

its really hard to get excited about anything marvel these days. i guess he looks cool.

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on May 15, 2015, 06:08:43 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on May 15, 2015, 06:04:01 AM

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on May 15, 2015, 05:27:31 AM

Quote from: Azumarill on May 15, 2015, 01:10:13 AM

but the devs didn't listen to the competitive community in Reach and H4 and look how that turned out.but the devs didn't listen to the competitive community in Reach and H4 and look how that turned out.

343 did make stupid decisions in that game that should have been left in their heads but they did have a problem that Bungie didn't have. Due to Halo 2 and 3 being different than Reach you're going to have fans from both of those different games. So you're going to have to make a game that plays similar to both types to please both groups.

Or they could have just accepted reach as a shitty prequel and not base their game off it's shitty features.  Including those features in more games just further in-grains them in the series.

Like I said you have fans of two different games that you're going to have to carter to. If 343 made Halo 4 basically Halo 3 you're going to have the Reach fans bitching about it which is going to affect sales. They probably could have done a better job at the game but alienating the Reach fans is not a good developer move.

Hmmm cater to the decade long successful fundamental crowd or the farewell/destiny prealpha alpha game that was heavily criticized for leaving said 10 year fundamental gameplay, dethroned Halo, and had the biggest population drop off until that point...?  hmnnmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

this so much

Quote from: Azumarill on May 15, 2015, 02:56:32 PM

That's funny because the very nature of the CoD games puts players on an uneven playing field from step 1. The idea of progressing to unlock guns/loadouts/perks actually creates a massive schism between players' capabilities based purely on how much they've played.

Which has nothing to do with skill, which is the point. Anyone can get any weapon regardless of how well they play, and given each gun kills in about a tenth of a second, it's still fairly even anyway. It's a reward system that doesn't revolve around being good at the game. A terrible idea? I agree, but most gamers play for fun, and being rewarded is fun, and it sucks when you can't get rewarded because somebody better than you keeps killing you.

Oh woe is me, I'm bad at video games, plz developer make your game more simple and hold my hand so talented players don't crush me!

Quote

The original Halo trilogy, on the other hand, had no such system in place. In each session, every player started out on equal footing (action sack/fiesta gametypes notwithstanding). That reality, along with other mechanics that define arena shooters (weapons/powerups as pickups on the map, small symmetric maps) created a massive skillcap. That doesn't put the new players at a disadvantage by virtue of being new, because the trueskill system matched veterans against veterans and noobs against noobs (in ranked anyway).

Apparently not, since there used to be loads of threads regarding low-skilled players getting matched with high-skilled players, usually on the same team with the latter whining about how the former kept them from winning.

You can thank boosting for that. Bungie never even attempted to crack down on boosters. That's just smart people taking advantage of a broken system.

Quote

The new players had equal capabilities in theory as players with 5k games under their belt. That was still /somewhat/ true in Reach and completely thrown out by the time H4 rolled around.

Yet the players with five thousand games' worth of experience had an obvious skill advantage over the new players, which sucks for the new players. Reach and 4 tried getting around this by altering the gameplay to suit what was more common nowadays, to make the game more accessible to new players.

Which equals more sales because the new players can have fun without getting killed repeatedly.

Which is the point.

It always comes back to money with you, doesn't it? Pathetic.

Quote

TIL no one makes video games to make a good video game, they do it for money. Lovely.

Yeah, why would they put out their products for money? That's just absurd.

Listen, you can have the greatest, most well-designed FPS ever made, and it won't mean shit if it isn't like modern games on the market, because nobody likes change. That's the simple truth. You prefer Halo's old gameplay? Good for you, but Halo's old gameplay won't cut it today. Nobody feels like playing that anymore, save the minority whining about the new gameplay. It won't sell. They won't make money from it, and they need money to continue making games. If they can't continue making games, then they go out of business, and they don't want that.

> nobody likes change
> YOU HAVE TO CHANGE HALO BECAUSE NO ONE WILL PLAY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
make a decision, fool.

Quote

The casuals will play whatever is placed in front of them. History has established plenty of precedent for that. Look at CoD, Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, FIFA, Madden, Assassin's Creed- they will play it, no matter what, because they quite literally don't give two shits about balance.

Mario and Zelda aren't competitive games, though, and neither they nor Pokemon are nearly as popular as they used to be. Neither is AC. I don't have knowledge on FIFA or Madden, I'm afraid.

Pokemon is still wildly popular and has a thriving competitive community. Mario and Zelda games are still Nintendo's bread and butter.

Quote

You can have the best of both worlds when you design a game to appeal to hardcore gamers, because the casuals will play no matter what.

No, they'll play until they start losing, and then they'll quit, likely going over to CoD where they won't get shit on. And then Bungie, or 343, or whoever realizes that a huge chunk of the population is leaving to other games that don't have such a huge learning curve, and they'll change their gameplay accordingly to try to win back the majority.

And then people like you start bitching and crying about how the game is 'ruined'. As though it was made for you and those of your mindset and not the gaming community as a whole.

Except the Halo games didn't start hemorrhaging populations until Bungie and 343 ruined the formula. You are coming at this from a position of fundamental ignorance.

Quote

Halo 2 is a good example- huge skill cap, competitive community loved (and still loves) it, and the casuals ate that shit up.

Of course it was considered superlative - it was the only game in that particular field. Halo 2 was a glitchy mess, but it was all anyone had at the time, so it's rather obvious why everyone played it.

No it wasn't. There were plenty of other good shooters in 2004. Quake, Team Fortress, Goldeneye, Rainbow Six, Unreal Tournament... the list goes on.

Quote

The casuals will quite literally play anything set before them, so pandering to them is pointless. Developers should pay attention to the concerns of their hardcore fans, the ones who know the game even better than the devs themselves, in order to constantly improve the experience of the entire fanbase.

You mean improve the experience of the hardcore fans. The casuals will move away from the game when they realize the game caters to the skilled, and thus we're right back at the problem of dwindling population and dwindling sales, thus necessitating change in gameplay.

That's not true though. You don't have any evidence to back that up. No one left Halo 2 or Halo 3 because they were "too hard." Those games had thriving populations until the very end of their natural lifespans. Reach lost a massive amount of players just months after release. Halo 4 hemorrhaged its population in much the same way.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about. At all.

He'll probably get the death penalty, but I'd personally lock him up in supermax for the rest of his natural life.

Or apparently not, since the older CoD games are still doing fairly well. In some cases better than the new Halo games. I hear MW2 and Black Ops still have a sizable userbase. This is because they're easy to get into and play and don't require a steep learning curve before you can go from kid level play to serious screaming-into-the mic-life-or-death-the-world-hangs-in-the-balance level play. The playing field is meant to be as even as possible so that you don't have a bunch of morons telling the players that suck to stop playing the game.

That's funny because the very nature of the CoD games puts players on an uneven playing field from step 1. The idea of progressing to unlock guns/loadouts/perks actually creates a massive schism between players' capabilities based purely on how much they've played. The original Halo trilogy, on the other hand, had no such system in place. In each session, every player started out on equal footing (action sack/fiesta gametypes notwithstanding). That reality, along with other mechanics that define arena shooters (weapons/powerups as pickups on the map, small symmetric maps) created a massive skillcap. That doesn't put the new players at a disadvantage by virtue of being new, because the trueskill system matched veterans against veterans and noobs against noobs (in ranked anyway). The new players had equal capabilities in theory as players with 5k games under their belt. That was still /somewhat/ true in Reach and completely thrown out by the time H4 rolled around.

And they made more money in doing so than they would have otherwise. That's the thing - the competitive community? Yeah, they're the minority. They don't matter, at least not as much as the casual community, the main demographic that would be buying the game. The ones that would be playing the game. The ones that would rather hate it if they got curbstomped again and again and could never win, while getting told to quit the game.

TIL no one makes video games to make a good video game, they do it for money. Lovely.

The bottom line is: how you want the game to be played means nothing. Your insistence as to what the game 'needs' means nothing. Your k/d? Your ability to exploit the game mechanics to reach advantageous areas? Your understanding of the weapons and how they work? Nothing. Bungie and 343 try to appeal to as many people as possible, and if that means making the game unbalanced so fewer people are getting shit on, then that's what they'll do. They can't appeal to everyone. Some will be disappointed by their decisions. That's unfortunate but unavoidable, and ultimately it doesn't matter as long as they can get as many people as possible to buy their product.

You don't like it. That's irrelevant. And having a circlejerk involving the same half dozen or so people making thread after thread detailing what they want the game to be will never work. That's the exact worst way to handle the situation. The game doesn't cater to you, so what do you do? You find a different game. If you don't like any of the games currently out, well, I guess you're out of luck.

I think the current Halo games suck too, but apparently people still like and play them. They enjoy the changes, and good for them. It'd be retarded for me to try to change it to suit my own preferences at their expense, and it'd be equally retarded to assume everyone would appreciate, or at least be apathetic to, whatever changes I have in mind.

The casuals will play whatever is placed in front of them. History has established plenty of precedent for that. Look at CoD, Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, FIFA, Madden, Assassin's Creed- they will play it, no matter what, because they quite literally don't give two shits about balance. You can have the best of both worlds when you design a game to appeal to hardcore gamers, because the casuals will play no matter what. Halo 2 is a good example- huge skill cap, competitive community loved (and still loves) it, and the casuals ate that shit up. Another example? League of Legends. Absolutely fucking awful and poorly balanced, but it's designed to be highly competitive and there are still 30 million players.

The casuals will quite literally play anything set before them, so pandering to them is pointless. Developers should pay attention to the concerns of their hardcore fans, the ones who know the game even better than the devs themselves, in order to constantly improve the experience of the entire fanbase.

"They claim their labors are to build a heaven, yet their heaven is populated by horrors. Perhaps the world is not made. Perhaps nothing is made. A clock without a craftsman. It's too late. Always has been, always will be. Too late."

In all likelihood, almost all of these are going to be awful. A few years from now, the movie market will be so over-saturated with capeshit that it'll collapse.

it already is oversaturated, the question is: when will the sheeple realize theyve been had?

So I just did some quick math if I spent about 3000 per month that would last me 27 years.

you could live fairly comfortably in an apartment/rented condo in an affordable city for quite some time