• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Zukkoyaki
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:34 PM)
Zukkoyaki's Avatar

Originally Posted by wesleyshark



The ending is not locked behind lootboxes. Why do people keep pushing this falsehood?

Because a comment on the Eurogamer review said so and TB made a video about that comment.
wesleyshark
Banned
(10-17-2017, 03:34 PM)

Originally Posted by Durrzerker

They just regurgitate something they heard on the internet without checking if it is true. I absolutely blazed through Act 4 without opening a single loot box or even grinding at all on Nemesis difficulty. All you have to do is dominate the Orcs that attack your Fortress while you were defending it and they are more than sufficient to help you fend off the next invasion.

I'm still in act 2 but it definitely seems like I'll be plenty stocked up by then, as I'm already amassing a pretty nice army so far just from running around and dominating every captain I run into lol. Already have a few legendary orcs and I haven't even laid siege to the first fortress.
Sami+
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:36 PM)
Sami+'s Avatar

Originally Posted by wesleyshark

So you played Shadow of War then?

I don't see how you can deem a game as being a piece of shit solely based on knowing that there are optional and inconsequential lootboxes, without having played the actual game itself to judge how it is.

No, I don't intend on supporting the publisher and it bothers me that an otherwise fine developer has to put this kind of garbage in their game.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on how optional and inconsequential they are - to me, they're not. It affects the game design, full stop. I don't agree with that and I won't be buying it because of that. I assume people who feel the same still talk about it because they don't want to see this kind of practice implemented in other games that they care more about. Speaking personally I'd be pretty crushed if the next From Software or Yoko Taro game had systems like this.

Edit - If I can be truly honest, I've been a "whale" before with two mobile titles and I've seen first-hand how difficult it can be if you like a game to resist getting caught in the machine that is intentionally designed to psychologically "catch" you. That's why I flatly reject the entire concept.
FairXchange
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:39 PM)
FairXchange's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sami+

No, I don't intend on supporting the publisher and it bothers me that an otherwise fine developer has to put this kind of garbage in their game.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on how optional and inconsequential they are - to me, they're not. It affects the game design, full stop. I don't agree with that and I won't be buying it because of that. I assume people who feel the same still talk about it because they don't want to see this kind of practice implemented in other games that they care more about. Speaking personally I'd be pretty crushed if the next From Software or Yoko Taro game had systems like this.

That's fine, you're clearly entitled to boycott the game. Just know I haven't spent a penny on loot boxes, and they have not once felt required or needed in my 25 hours with the game so far. You might be missing something you'd otherwise enjoy, but chose to dislike for one reason or another.
CecilRousso
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:40 PM)
CecilRousso's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zoz

An opinion about something that is appreciated trough experience coming from someone who doesn't experienced it.

I read that as that you're still only thinking about the effect of this when you play Shadows of War, and not the bigger picture, which is what I'm having my opinion about.

Originally Posted by Zoz

However, I can totally understand your point against lootboxes, I also don't think it's a good idea in paid titles. The difference is that I just don't instantly turn away from a game because of it. And in Shadow of War's case it's basically a non issue that most people keeps repeating because "reasons" and youtubers.

As I said in my previous post, I'm not sure that I would completely turn away from a game with loot boxes, if it's a game that's appealing enough to me. And I'm not one of those that completely boycotts a game because of it. But I do put games lower on my priority list when they include things I don't like. That's the case of Shadows of War, that went from a maybe to, I don't know, free weekend? $5? Something like that.

And it's not an non issue, when it's something that is gaining more and more foothold in our games. It's really not that difficult to think not only about this game, but about the next game also. As I said before, there's no further step for lootboxes in singleplayer games, that will not be really bad for us.
PIMPBYBLUD
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:43 PM)
PIMPBYBLUD's Avatar
I just finished the Shadow or Mordor on Sunday and it was really great. I wasn't a LOTR fan so it helped me understand the world better than the movies did for whatever reason. Maybe because I was engaged in the gameplay. Fun game, I'm going through the DLC now. I'm sure I'll pickup SOW when it's on sale.
Zoz
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:48 PM)
Zoz's Avatar

Originally Posted by CecilRousso

I read that as that you're still only thinking about the effect of this when you play Shadows of War, and not the bigger picture, which is what I'm having my opinion about.



As I said in my previous post, I'm not sure that I would completely turn away from a game with loot boxes, if it's a game that's appealing enough to me. And I'm not one of those that completely boycotts a game because of it. But I do put games lower on my priority list when they include things I don't like. That's the case of Shadows of War, that went from a maybe to, I don't know, free weekend? $5? Something like that.

And it's not an non issue, when it's something that is gaining more and more foothold in our games. It's really not that difficult to think not only about this game, but about the next game also. As I said before, there's no further step for lootboxes in singleplayer games, that will not be really bad for us.

Dude, I totally understand you, really. I just don't think that I not playing Shadow of War (and that's a game that I was really willing to play) will make any difference.

So, I'm just enjoying it. If any day a full blown paid game require additional MT to be playable, I'll not buy it too. It's just that is not the Shadow of War case.
sheaaaa
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:49 PM)

Originally Posted by Sami+

No, I don't intend on supporting the publisher and it bothers me that an otherwise fine developer has to put this kind of garbage in their game.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on how optional and inconsequential they are - to me, they're not. It affects the game design, full stop.

How do you know if microtransactions/lootboxes affect a game's design if you haven't played said game?
wesleyshark
Banned
(10-17-2017, 03:52 PM)

Originally Posted by Sami+

No, I don't intend on supporting the publisher and it bothers me that an otherwise fine developer has to put this kind of garbage in their game.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on how optional and inconsequential they are - to me, they're not. It affects the game design, full stop. I don't agree with that and I won't be buying it because of that. I assume people who feel the same still talk about it because they don't want to see this kind of practice implemented in other games that they care more about. Speaking personally I'd be pretty crushed if the next From Software or Yoko Taro game had systems like this.

Edit - If I can be truly honest, I've been a "whale" before with two mobile titles and I've seen first-hand how difficult it can be if you like a game to resist getting caught in the machine that is intentionally designed to psychologically "catch" you. That's why I flatly reject the entire concept.

Still don't see how you can say an entire game is a piece of shit if you haven't played it.
Mikey Jr.
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:53 PM)
Mikey Jr.'s Avatar

Originally Posted by wesleyshark

Outside of gaf, and maybe reddit, that roar is more of a whisper. Lootboxes aren't going anywhere, whether you love em, are indifferent about em, or hate em. The bulk of gamers either don't care or dabble in buying them.

Legit, 70% of the casuals probably wont even beat the game! Lootboxes won't affect them in the slightest.
CecilRousso
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:54 PM)
CecilRousso's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zoz

Dude, I totally understand you, really. I just don't think that I not playing Shadow of War (and that's a game that I was really willing to play) will make any difference.

So, I'm just enjoying it. If any day a full blown paid game require additional MT to be playable, I'll not buy it too. It's just that is not the Shadow of War case.

I hope we understand each other, but you started out saying that you don't think my opinion is a good one ;).

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can play either, so if you're enjoying the game, continute to do so.
RichiRamjag
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:55 PM)
RichiRamjag's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sami+

No, I don't intend on supporting the publisher and it bothers me that an otherwise fine developer has to put this kind of garbage in their game.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on how optional and inconsequential they are - to me, they're not. It affects the game design, full stop. I don't agree with that and I won't be buying it because of that. I assume people who feel the same still talk about it because they don't want to see this kind of practice implemented in other games that they care more about. Speaking personally I'd be pretty crushed if the next From Software or Yoko Taro game had systems like this.

Edit - If I can be truly honest, I've been a "whale" before with two mobile titles and I've seen first-hand how difficult it can be if you like a game to resist getting caught in the machine that is intentionally designed to psychologically "catch" you. That's why I flatly reject the entire concept.

Your opinion is based on zero experience with the game though. Iím rarely one to bash an opinion, but you really have no call to tell people whoíve actually experienced the game how you disagree just because you disagree. If you just donít want to support games with lootboxes in general, then do you, but you cant really provide any perspective on how it affects the game overall.

I mean, I dislike microtransactions too, but calling it a piece of shit is a bit hyperbolic considering.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
(10-17-2017, 03:57 PM)
Hero_of_the_Day's Avatar

Originally Posted by sheaaaa

How do you know if microtransactions/lootboxes affect a game's design if you haven't played said game?

Their very existence has an effect on game design. To believe otherwise is to believe that a company made a product they aren't going to try and sell you.
BernardoOne
Banned
(10-17-2017, 03:58 PM)

Originally Posted by Hero_of_the_Day

Their very existence has an effect on game design. To believe otherwise is to believe that a company made a product they aren't going to try and sell you.

In the vast majority of cases, microtransactions are tacked in after the fact, not part of the main game design.
Sami+
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:01 PM)
Sami+'s Avatar

Originally Posted by sheaaaa

How do you know if microtransactions/lootboxes affect a game's design if you haven't played said game?

Originally Posted by wesleyshark

Still don't see how you can say an entire game is a piece of shit if you haven't played it.

If they did not affect the game design then why would they exist in the first place? There needs to be a reason to incentivize their purchase in the first place.

But I apologise for being crass and get what you're saying. Saying it IS shit is reaching, although that is how it looks to me. Based on the gameplay I've seen pre-release, the presence of lootboxes, and my experience with the first game... well, I honestly think it looks kind of shit. To me.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:01 PM)
Hero_of_the_Day's Avatar

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

In the vast majority of cases, microtransactions are tacked in after the fact, not part of the main game design.

Should that idea make me feel better or worse?

I mean, look at Forza 7. There is absolutely no way anyone can possibly believe that the changes made in that game from previous games wasn't a result of microtransactions. Of course this stuff effects the game. If it's done well, you don't see it. But, you have to know that it's still there.
sheaaaa
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:04 PM)

Originally Posted by Hero_of_the_Day

Their very existence has an effect on game design. To believe otherwise is to believe that a company made a product they aren't going to try and sell you.

If someone can play smoothly through a game in its entirety without spending on microtransactions/lootboxes, then factually they have not affected the game's design.
Springy
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:06 PM)
Springy's Avatar

Originally Posted by sheaaaa

If someone can play smoothly through a game in its entirety without spending on microtransactions/lootboxes, then factually they have not affected the game's design.

That'll be a bit tricky to define. When does a grind graduate from smooth to not smooth?
Sami+
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:06 PM)
Sami+'s Avatar

Originally Posted by sheaaaa

If someone can play smoothly through a game in its entirety without spending on microtransactions/lootboxes, then factually they have not affected the game's design.

You could play smoothly through Forza 7 pre-patch without spending money, but that doesn't change the fact that the design of the game was altered to accommodate their presence. Same with Battlefront II - you could just grind it out and level up without spending a single penny if you are so inclined, but the entire system was still designed around the fact that you could spend money if you weren't.
FairyEmpire
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:07 PM)
FairyEmpire's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hero_of_the_Day

Should that idea make me feel better or worse?

I mean, look at Forza 7. There is absolutely no way anyone can possibly believe that the changes made in that game from previous games wasn't a result of microtransactions. Of course this stuff effects the game. If it's done well, you don't see it. But, you have to know that it's still there.

It seems that both Shadow Of War and Forza 7 are often misinterpreted thanks to (wrong) early reports. In Forza 7 you actually earn more credits than you did in Forza 6. Microtransactions are an issue, but 6 showered you with credits without them, 7 does even more so. I don't see how it was built around MTs any more than 6 was.
BernardoOne
Banned
(10-17-2017, 04:11 PM)

Originally Posted by Hero_of_the_Day

Should that idea make me feel better or worse?

I mean, look at Forza 7. There is absolutely no way anyone can possibly believe that the changes made in that game from previous games wasn't a result of microtransactions. Of course this stuff effects the game. If it's done well, you don't see it. But, you have to know that it's still there.

Forza 7 is literally more generous than Forza 6 was, so what is this "previous games" argument about?
sheaaaa
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:11 PM)

Originally Posted by Sami+

You could play smoothly through Forza 7 pre-patch without spending money, but that doesn't change the fact that the design of the game was altered to accommodate their presence. Same with Battlefront II - you could just grind it out and level up without spending a single penny if you are so inclined, but the entire system was still designed around the fact that you could spend money if you weren't.

And both of those sound like games that have had their design affected by microtransactions/lootboxes, so they should (and I think in Forza's case) have been pilloried.

My issue is with you saying 'it affects the game design, full stop', not having played the game for a second. There are, fortunately, games in which microtransactions seem to be entirely optional, something to be forgotten in the corner for anyone who just wants to play through the game. From what I've read about Shadow of War, that seems to be the case here.

Originally Posted by Springy

That'll be a bit tricky to define. When does a grind graduate from smooth to not smooth?

That's a fair point. To each his own I guess. My personal barometer is if I can complete a game 100% without even considering microtransactions, but that threshold would vary for each person.
wesleyshark
Banned
(10-17-2017, 04:12 PM)

Originally Posted by Springy

That'll be a bit tricky to define. When does a grind graduate from smooth to not smooth?

I would say that grind graduates when a game purposefully makes you frustrated that you're spinning tires and also constantly throwing hints at you to buy some MTs to ease that frustration.

SoW isn't one of those games.
osnameless
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:17 PM)

Originally Posted by wesleyshark

You do not need to spend a penny over the $60 base game price to see everything the game has to offer, full stop.

Lootboxes are absolutely and entirely optional. The "true ending" is for folks who want to keep playing beyond the ending of Act III, and can be achieved by just playing the game.

Originally Posted by BernardoOne

You don't need to pay a single cent for anything to get to the true ending.

Originally Posted by bugulu

As I understood it, and kindly correct me if someone else reading this is more knowledgeable.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...e-endgame-4823

  • You need high-level orcs to defeat the enemy in Shadow Wars. In the article above, the preferred way is to have level 55+ orcs in your army to defend your forts. I don't see any need to buy loot boxes for this, as I'm not even into act 3 yet and am level 55 at the moment. It's not a huge grind to level up your orcs as there's a gem that increases their levels by five when you dominate them. And shunning and dominating them again gives them a level increase.
    Lootboxes does have an advantage in this though which shouldn't come as a surprise. There's a loot box which you can buy for four legendaries, and I suppose they'll be your level too. But it's absolutely not necessary and something you can do in-game.
  • Upgrading your fortress shouldn't be too troublesome. The highest level walls cost quite a bit, but if you make a habit of killing every silver orc, you're bound to be flowing in both gems and the in-game currency.

Thank you so much for taking the time and making things more clear.

So it seems it is a matter of over-grinding, which I suppose won't be an issue, since I immensely enjoyed the combat from the first game, and so far it seems like it is largely the same.
GamePlay Johnny
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:17 PM)
GamePlay Johnny's Avatar

Originally Posted by Springy

That'll be a bit tricky to define. When does a grind graduate from smooth to not smooth?

You're right, it's a question of personal preference so there are clear cut definitions. Most games have cycles of effort and reward, and the game design challenge is to reward the player often enough to keep him engaged, but not so much that the rewards lose meaning. Some games have too much grinding for my taste but other people find them just right. However, there are some cases where the imbalance is too clear to ignore.

I think the career mode in NBA2K18 is a clear case of a developer purposely creating an an economy where effort is barely rewarded. There's no way that a game designer in his right mind would consider it optimal. From what I'm reading here about SOW, it seems like it's nowhere near as bad.

I would like to know if people who beat the game feel like in-game stuff would have cost the same if it was not possible to purchase currency with real money.
The ๖ۜBronx
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:40 PM)
The ๖ۜBronx's Avatar
Some opinions – around loot boxes and endgame - from the /r/games impressions thread on Reddit:

Lootboxes (I feel like I gotta touch on them in order to round out this) are just...there. You get a ton of in game currency to play with so if you're inclined to buy them you could get all you wanted without dropping any actual money into the system. Even then, I don't think they're actually needed. People keep saying "its grindy if you don't!" but I don't really know what they mean by that. That they have to go out and kill/recruit orcs on their own? Well, yeah. But that's kind of the point to the game. If that feels grindy to you, then I don't know why you are playing in the first place. The main appeal is what you seem to want to skip.

I've completed the entire game, including the endgame act 4. Compared to its predecessor, it's better in every way: story, combat, orcs, variety, setting, fun, skills, etc etc etc. The new mechanics were very fun to me, the fortress assaults rarely got boring for me, they were usually frantic and engaging. (Note* I played on the hardest difficulty, definitely worth it).

Overall, I've been loving the hell out of it and can't wait to go home and play some more. Also to touch on the lootbox thing, I've never felt any desire to buy them and if you want to get them, you probably don't enjoy the core gameplay so it's kind of weird.

I'm 63 hours in and on the third stage (of 10) of the Endgame content. This is an absolutely amazing game. Everything about it is bigger and better than SoM. More skills, more orcs, more missions, better collectables, better story, ect. Only gripes are a few graphical issues (fidelity is bit lower due to the larger scope), some dialogue bugs, and a leveling slog at the very end.

[...]

Lootboxes serve basically no purpose except a minor one. I currently have 800 'gold' (the premium currency). You get 500 free for a story mission, and 50 a day doing a simple challenge. For reference, the most expensive gold thing is 600. The only thing I've gotten are boxes gained through ingame currency. They cost 1500 each, and by the time you reach the endgame, if you didn't grind/buy fortress upgrades, you have about 120,000. Silver boxes have Epic Orcs (one epic trait), another orc, and a training order. I've gotten double epics, multiple Legendaries, and multiple Epic/Legendary training orders in Silver boxes. And, you can get all those (except Training Orders, the only worthwhile thing in boxes) in game. So the 'paid' lootboxes are absolutely worthless and non-intrusive.

Chuck them on the pile of "loot boxes don't dampen enjoyment of players" along with the rest.
Obliterator
cousin investments
(10-17-2017, 04:49 PM)
Obliterator's Avatar
That's a very good performance there. I'd have to imagine WB is really happy with this. Add in Injustice 2 and WB is having a very strong year in sales
Voidwolf
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:53 PM)
Voidwolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by A Serious Man

There was a 10 page thread of people gloating about how their righteous stance on loot boxes had killed their hype for the game. I think it's reasonable to assume some of them expected the game to suffer from the controversy.

Just like Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2. I look forward to reading of Star Wars' success.
LordRaptor
Member
(10-17-2017, 04:54 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Voidwolf

Just like Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2. I look forward to reading of Star Wars' success.

I guarantee you that you are not going to see steamspy figures showing the surpising success of Destiny 2 or Battlefront 2
Gaz_RB
Banned
(10-17-2017, 04:59 PM)
The game is fun but pretty much identical to the first game. The Pokťmon aspect is kinda cool though.

Glad it's doing well. I've pretty much given up the fight on micro transactions in my $60 games. I've realized that I really have no problems ignoring them, for better or worse.
Human Trashcan
Banned
(10-17-2017, 05:00 PM)
This isn't even a particularly good game AND it's setting a really bad precedent for more games to follow (though I'm aware it's not the first one to do this). We deserve all the shit we get shoveled apparently.
Voidwolf
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:02 PM)
Voidwolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

I guarantee you that you are not going to see steamspy figures showing the surpising success of Destiny 2 or Battlefront 2

You're telling me I won't see Steam numbers for a Battlenet and Origin release? Well damn.
Conkerkid11
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:11 PM)
Conkerkid11's Avatar

Originally Posted by DR2K

What a shame, wonder what the consensus will be when lootbox becomes more prevalent towards the later half.

I'm 30 hours in and nearing the true ending. I don't see how they could matter at all, considering you just keep levelling up, so anything you get from boxes would get replaced just like that.

Dunno what the hell that article was talking about.
RichiRamjag
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:15 PM)
RichiRamjag's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gaz_RB

The game is fun but pretty much identical to the first game. The Pokťmon aspect is kinda cool though.

Glad it's doing well. I've pretty much given up the fight on micro transactions in my $60 games. I've realized that I really have no problems ignoring them, for better or worse.

I just try to stick with ones that donít force me into them or impede on the game. The majority of impressions said that was not the case here and now that Iíve played it, I agree. Personally, I donít care. If it gets worst in the next games, then I simply wonít buy it.
Evo X
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:17 PM)
Evo X's Avatar
This game is crazy addicting. I've already put 18 hours into it. Can't remember the last time I played a game that much in such a short period of time.
bugulu
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:17 PM)
bugulu's Avatar

Originally Posted by The ๖ۜBronx

Some opinions Ė around loot boxes and endgame - from the /r/games impressions thread on Reddit:







Chuck them on the pile of "loot boxes don't dampen enjoyment of players" along with the rest.

I think that's quite a good sum up of the whole situation.
The loot boxes are essentially just there. You can purchase them if you so wish, or you can choose not to purchase them, you're fine either way.
Zoz
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:21 PM)
Zoz's Avatar

Originally Posted by CecilRousso

I hope we understand each other, but you started out saying that you don't think my opinion is a good one ;).

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can play either, so if you're enjoying the game, continute to do so.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. And you should really try the game!

Originally Posted by bugulu

I think that's quite a good sum up of the whole situation.
The loot boxes are essentially just there. You can purchase them if you so wish, or you can choose not to purchase them, you're fine either way.

Honestly, the only thing I didn't like about the game is how convoluted the quests are handled trough the various game maps. IMO it would be way better if as soon you finish a region, you don't had reason to come back instead of fort conquering/defense. But no, you need to go trough a confuse menu to chose another quest and discover where is located. It's just painful and dumb.
wesleyshark
Banned
(10-17-2017, 05:22 PM)

Originally Posted by Human Trashcan

This isn't even a particularly good game AND it's setting a really bad precedent for more games to follow (though I'm aware it's not the first one to do this). We deserve all the shit we get shoveled apparently.

It's actually a pretty great game. Been having a blast with it.
Thornton Reed
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:26 PM)
Thornton Reed's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhantomThief

So now you need to have an intention to play a game before you can criticize one of its aspects?

Do I need to get a Samsung tablet before I can judge its ability to explode in your pocket as well?

Do I need to have an Apple iPhone before I can say that no 3.5mm jack is a dumb and customer unfriendly decision?

Nah, I dont. So your argument is bs.

to be fair to the points i've bolded, yes you do to both
hooijdonk17
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:29 PM)
hooijdonk17's Avatar

Originally Posted by Thornton Reed

to be fair to the points i've bolded, yes you do to both

And you couldnt be more wrong.
PhantomThief
Banned
(10-17-2017, 05:29 PM)

Originally Posted by Thornton Reed

to be fair to the points i've bolded, yes you do to both

Why?
RichiRamjag
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:31 PM)
RichiRamjag's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhantomThief

Why?

Good critique often comes from a place of knowledge and experience with a subject (not saying expertise, mind you). Without either, youíre either regurgitating what youíve heard or talking out of your ass. I wouldnít want someoneís opinion on a movie they havenít seen either.

Even still, youíre free to post what you like, but donít be surprised if people keep highlighting the fact that you havenít played the game.
hooijdonk17
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:35 PM)
hooijdonk17's Avatar

Originally Posted by RichiRamjag

Good critique often comes from a place of knowledge and experience with a subject. Without either, youíre either regurgitating what youíve heard or talking out of your ass.

Do you need experience with sticking a finger into your eye socket to know its bad for you? No. Sometimes knowledge and common sense is enough to not be talking out of your ass. That you need first yand experience in a thing to have a valid idea about it is a fallacy. Oncologists cure cancer without getting it.
Thornton Reed
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:35 PM)
Thornton Reed's Avatar

Originally Posted by PhantomThief

Why?

how do you know until you've experienced said things. You can never be fully sure.

I thought the no headphone jack was going to be a deal breaker. Turns out after a week it didn't bother me in the slightest.

And in terms of the MT's in this game you've not played it or experienced it to understand it fully.

That's just me. I like to personally experience something before i pass judgment.
RichiRamjag
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:35 PM)
RichiRamjag's Avatar

Originally Posted by hooijdonk17

Do you need experience with sticking a finger into your eye socket to know its bad for you? No. Sometimes knowledge and common sense is enough to not be talking out of your ass. That you need first yand experience in a thing to have a valid idea about it is a fallacy. Oncologists cure cancer without getting it.

Weíre talking about an opinion on an entertainment medium though, not the cause and effect of hurting yourself. Donít be daft. This was really a silly post.

I can give my opinion on a movie I havenít seen because of common sense? Please.

Originally Posted by Zoz

So much hyperbole. Playing a game is a experience, how do I judge an experience without experiencing it? It will be the same to judge a food without eating. Yes, you could do so by the appearance and the smell, but it will never be complete and comprehensive as tasting it.

Exactly. Iím not sure how someone could make that comparison, read what they wrote, then click post.
Maffis
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:36 PM)
Maffis's Avatar
Now I haven't bothered with the post-game stuff, but the main game can be played just fine without even thinking about the market stuff. Kind of weird they even have it. Seems like something that must have come long after development had started because the main game does not need any boxes at all.
Zoz
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:38 PM)
Zoz's Avatar

Originally Posted by hooijdonk17

Do you need experience with sticking a finger into your eye socket to know its bad for you? No. Sometimes knowledge and common sense is enough to not be talking out of your ass. That you need first yand experience in a thing to have a valid idea about it is a fallacy. Oncologists cure cancer without getting it.

So much hyperbole. Playing a game is a experience, how do I judge an experience without experiencing it? It would be the same than judge a food without eating. Yes, you could do so by the appearance and the smell, but it will never be complete and comprehensive as tasting it.
BernardoOne
Banned
(10-17-2017, 05:40 PM)

Originally Posted by hooijdonk17

Do you need experience with sticking a finger into your eye socket to know its bad for you? No. Sometimes knowledge and common sense is enough to not be talking out of your ass. That you need first yand experience in a thing to have a valid idea about it is a fallacy. Oncologists cure cancer without getting it.

Knowledge is aqquired through research and studying, both things PhantomThief didn't do, he only spouted bullshit he saw in the internet without actually knowing how the game plays.
Papo Swing
Member
(10-17-2017, 05:55 PM)
Papo Swing's Avatar
Too bad this devolved into Microtransaction conversation nonsense even though many of the posters that are actually playing the game have said that the loot boxes have not affected their game, they haven't been tempted to buy them or they don't lock the ending.

I wish people would get off their soapboxes on this one. I wish they would instead call out the liars that furthered the narrative with lies like the ending thing.

As I've always said. Don't like loot boxes? Don't buy them. No one is forcing you it seems the game did not suffer from them like others.
PhantomThief
Banned
(10-17-2017, 06:00 PM)

Originally Posted by Thornton Reed

how do you know until you've experienced said things. You can never be fully sure.

I thought the no headphone jack was going to be a deal breaker. Turns out after a week it didn't bother me in the slightest.

And in terms of the MT's in this game you've not played it or experienced it to understand it fully.

That's just me. I like to personally experience something before i pass judgment.

Let me put it as simple as possible.

I dont need to taste poop to know something is poop.

So your argument falters.

Thread Tools