This is why after 4 years of this BS from the majority of developers :
1) I do not pre-order anymore 2) I do not join/pay into Early Alpha, Beta, or really anything other than final release. 3) I do not join/pay into Founders Programs or similar
I WAIT for release and then several reviews before purchasing.
This is why after 4 years of this BS from the majority of developers :
1) I do not pre-order anymore 2) I do not join/pay into Early Alpha, Beta, or really anything other than final release. 3) I do not join/pay into Founders Programs or similar
I WAIT for release and then several reviews before purchasing.
I only pre-order known good products; like expansions or sequels to games I already enjoy. Legion, Rise of Iron, etc.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
I agree with one exception. I do buy Early Access games. I buy them however because the game play I witness on a Lets Play from a player (not a developer) looks compelling to me and I know I can do the same play in a matter of a few mins if I buy it.
I dont buy something unless I can play it. The only exception in about a decade (if not ever best I can recall) was Oculus Rift which I dont regret buying but I do regret having pre-ordered. there was really no need to do that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Simply another case of expectations meeting reality. This is not a developer problem, this is a people problem. People tend to believe what they want, but there are clearly misaligned expectations. I mean take a look at the development team. We're talking about like 10 people. So did people TRULY believe that this was going to be the deepest, most innovative game in the history of mankind? Yes, some did. It was done on a micro-budget. Did people TRULY believe that they would be able to do something earth-shattering on that? Yup!!!! They are responsible for one (1) other game. On top of that, it's not even CLOSE to being as deep or complex as NMS. Did this occur to people? NOPERS!!!!
Just saying, people will rally behind these games and usually end up being disappointed in the end, and their level of disappointment will be directly proportionate to the level of hype that the game gets prior to release. Don't worry, though, there are plenty of other games in the pipeline that will save the industry, CU, SC, COE, Pantheon, so we can all rest assured that the industry will survive.
I think they need to change the name of this turd to " No Man's Game" 30 hours to reach the center when 100s of hours were promised? Sure thats great, if this was earlie alpha and the game cost 10-15 bucks, but this game is being sold as a fully out of beta gold star quality 60 dollar game. On top of that it crashes constantly. What a f*&^in joke!
What sucks is I was really looking foward to this game. Now if they can fix the issues I'll eat my words and buy a copy, but with it being so close to release and the game is still in horrible shape makes me feel like this "might" be a dud.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
Sad but true.
Games that are only playable on completion (launch) are the exception nowadays.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I preordered fallout 4 since I grew up with Fallout on PC but that's my only pre order in the last 10years? With Twitch available so you can preview real gameplay why ever pre order anything?
"why milk the alien cow when you can watch someone else do it"
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
and yet some how with very limited amount of research time I just so happen clearly by mystery of outstanding luck know all the great titles.
how is that stastically even possible? I ask with sarcasm
literally every single solitary Early Access game I have purchased has been outstanding. That is stastically not possible to do randomly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
here is the thing.
1. I just happen to know the titles of all the great early access games 2. every single solitary early access game I personally have purchased has been a gem.
That is statically impossible unless either A. most games are good or B. the ablity to find good games is fairly easy or C. I am just inhumanly good at finding good games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
Sadly, when it comes to Steam, there is a shed load of shovelware, you really have to pick through the mess to find the true gems, but if you have one game flipping unity assets etc. you have a hundred, i wish that was an exageration O.o
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
here is the thing.
1. I just happen to know the titles of all the great early access games 2. every single solitary early access game I personally have purchased has been a gem.
That is statically impossible unless either A. most games are good or B. the ablity to find good games is fairly easy or C. I am just inhumanly good at finding good games
FFS the answer is D. You bought what you thought were good games. They are good games because you like them. Confirmation bias and all that.
Steam does have a shit ton of god awful shitty games that are utter shit. Don't be silly. Just because you like shitty games does not make them not shitty to other people.
My lord why do I keep responding to you? Ah yes.. you are my favorite troll here!
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
I think they need to change the name of this turd to " No Man's Game" 30 hours to reach the center when 100s of hours were promised? Sure thats great, if this was earlie alpha and the game cost 10-15 bucks, but this game is being sold as a fully out of beta gold star quality 60 dollar game. On top of that it crashes constantly. What a f*&^in joke!
What sucks is I was really looking foward to this game. Now if they can fix the issues I'll eat my words and buy a copy, but with it being so close to release and the game is still in horrible shape makes me feel like this "might" be a dud.
What makes you think you should make it your objective to reach the center as quickly as possible? You do realise there are no missions I presume? So I'd guess nobody is telling you to get to the center as quickly as possible. Then the center of what? As others have pointed out, the devs have stated and I saw it myself in a video I've watched on YouTube that there is more than one galaxy, so if you managed to get to the center of one there may be others to explore that could take years.
It always gets me how people like to complain that they reached the "end game" too quickly in a sandbox. I see people talking about how few hours they took get to maximum level in BDO for instance and yet I played that for around four hundred hours before I started to get bored with it and not one of my characters had even reached level 30 by then.
Anyway, the leaked video actually persuaded me to finally pre-order NMS from Steam. I only glanced though it as I don't want to know too much but I could see it was basically exactly what I had been expecting. I guess these people that are disappointed hadn't done much previous research on the game for themselves.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
here is the thing.
1. I just happen to know the titles of all the great early access games 2. every single solitary early access game I personally have purchased has been a gem.
That is statically impossible unless either A. most games are good or B. the ablity to find good games is fairly easy or C. I am just inhumanly good at finding good games
FFS the answer is D. You bought what you thought were good games. They are good games because you like them. Confirmation bias and all that.
Steam does have a shit ton of god awful shitty games that are utter shit. Don't be silly. Just because you like shitty games does not make them not shitty to other people.
My lord why do I keep responding to you? Ah yes.. you are my favorite troll here!
that makes zero sense and doesnt answer the question unfortunately.
The games I picked are widely accepted as the best games in early access. is it just by chance that my tastes match that of the majority of gamers and if it does why are we concerned with outliers?
unless you have an extreem outlier taste in video games one should have zero problem finding good games in early accces
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
Sadly, when it comes to Steam, there is a shed load of shovelware, you really have to pick through the mess to find the true gems, but if you have one game flipping unity assets etc. you have a hundred, i wish that was an exageration O.o
I can't dispute the problem of recycled graphics and assets. It's primarily a byproduct of having freely available assets, engines, etc. However, that doesn't mean that it's automatically horrible. It might be a problem for some, but it's subjective. The point I was trying to make is that, statistically, the majority of "early access" games in Steam have a positive rating which seems to be aligned with what published games have.
I can respect that someone PERSONALLY doesn't like the majority of the early access games, but I would be willing to wager that they PERSONALLY wouldn't enjoy the majority of published games either. It's subjectivity applied to a subject where there are hyper-sensitive pre-dispositions. It's like women drivers. I'll bet you've seen an equal number of horrible male drivers in your life as you have female, but since there is this underlying stereotype that women are bad drivers, you are sensitive to that situation and make more out of it when you are, say, cut off by a woman. "Oh! Yup! Figures! Woman driver!"
I'm just saying that there is no supportive, objective, evidence that early access games are any worse than published games.
You are helping this cancer to become a standard, just like founders pack and "beta" access that are not betas (or alphas) since the game is basically done. It's just paid vip access so you can brag on social media.
Too late is it already the standard. Look at all the early access steam games. Alpha packages by the truckloads.
I cant agree that Space Engineers, From the Depths, 7 days to die, Ark, Rust, StarMade, Kenshi, The Forest, SubNatuca, Standed Deep, Kerbal Space Program just to name a few are 'cancer' to the gaming industry. I personally think AAA games are but that is just me
Just look at Steam, for example, and the epic fuck tons of crap slapped with the "early access" and "indie" labels you have to wade through just to find the few gems hidden in the slag.
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
here is the thing.
1. I just happen to know the titles of all the great early access games 2. every single solitary early access game I personally have purchased has been a gem.
That is statically impossible unless either A. most games are good or B. the ablity to find good games is fairly easy or C. I am just inhumanly good at finding good games
FFS the answer is D. You bought what you thought were good games. They are good games because you like them. Confirmation bias and all that.
Steam does have a shit ton of god awful shitty games that are utter shit. Don't be silly. Just because you like shitty games does not make them not shitty to other people.
My lord why do I keep responding to you? Ah yes.. you are my favorite troll here!
He is dying to have someone respond to him. please feed the troll so he can take over this thread as he has done epic fuck tons of times.
and yes there are a ton of pure Hillary's on steam that I can't shovel out of the way if I tried.
this did not and has not happened in Elite Dangerous
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
You mean the part where right before launch they canned the offline version that was "promised"? Or how the game was panned for being an empty shell of a framework for months? Or how it was criticized for how the DLC was charged screwing over the longer term supporters? Or how the game is generally not in any conversation because it's boring?
Oh nostalgia! Your rose colored glasses make the things I love look so sweet in hindsight.
how does that relate to
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
even remotely that is soooo off point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
this did not and has not happened in Elite Dangerous
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
You mean the part where right before launch they canned the offline version that was "promised"? Or how the game was panned for being an empty shell of a framework for months? Or how it was criticized for how the DLC was charged screwing over the longer term supporters? Or how the game is generally not in any conversation because it's boring?
Oh nostalgia! Your rose colored glasses make the things I love look so sweet in hindsight.
how does that relate to
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
Reaching triple-Elite status in E:D is easily comparable to reaching the center of the galaxy in NMS. Neither of those achievements signal the "end of the game".
Nobody could figure out the "background simulation" for flipping faction control in systems in E:D... until Frontier admitted they were doing it manually. Very well designed.
I have no idea how long it takes to fly to the center of the galaxy in E:D, but I do know it will be an incredibly boring and uneventful journey. Once you leave the inhabited system bubble, there is literally nothing but coloured spheres to look at. No NPC's, no other ships, no life and only barren rocky planets to land on...
this did not and has not happened in Elite Dangerous
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
You mean the part where right before launch they canned the offline version that was "promised"? Or how the game was panned for being an empty shell of a framework for months? Or how it was criticized for how the DLC was charged screwing over the longer term supporters? Or how the game is generally not in any conversation because it's boring?
Oh nostalgia! Your rose colored glasses make the things I love look so sweet in hindsight.
how does that relate to
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
even remotely that is soooo off point
Yeah, no one criticized the game for that because those points aren't even relevant as to why it was broadly panned as a boring snooze simulator. So yeah, not relating to those irrelevant trivialities.
My point does relate to "this did not and has not happened in Elite Dangerous" -- meaning criticized heavily for its gross flaws. It did happen and it's still criticized for it's deep flaws.
I mentioned these specific points for specific reasons and I didnt add other specfic points for specific reasons. I mention the below specifically
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
so that doesnt just mitigate what you are saying it completely negates it and also just so you know. I dont care about MP in NMS nor in ED and as a result I dont care what was said or promised in that area from either game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Yeah, no one criticized the game for that because those points aren't even relevant as to why it was broadly panned as a boring snooze simulator. So yeah, not relating to those irrelevant trivialities.
My point does relate to "this did not and has not happened in Elite Dangerous" -- meaning criticized heavily for its gross flaws. It did happen and it's still criticized for it's deep flaws.
And it's still highly praised for a lot of the things that some people see as flaws... We all know that you can't please everyone.
They've sold a lot of copies and work continues on the game, people that haven't upgraded to Horizons are still getting patch content. What else can we ask for at this point?
It could be better, no doubt about it but time is the limiting factor here and as its only had 3 1/2 years of development it's hard to say it should be like this or like that.
Comments
There are other games on this site that will suffer a similar fate once they release.
1) I do not pre-order anymore
2) I do not join/pay into Early Alpha, Beta, or really anything other than final release.
3) I do not join/pay into Founders Programs or similar
I WAIT for release and then several reviews before purchasing.
I dont buy something unless I can play it. The only exception in about a decade (if not ever best I can recall) was Oculus Rift which I dont regret buying but I do regret having pre-ordered. there was really no need to do that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Just saying, people will rally behind these games and usually end up being disappointed in the end, and their level of disappointment will be directly proportionate to the level of hype that the game gets prior to release. Don't worry, though, there are plenty of other games in the pipeline that will save the industry, CU, SC, COE, Pantheon, so we can all rest assured that the industry will survive.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
What sucks is I was really looking foward to this game. Now if they can fix the issues I'll eat my words and buy a copy, but with it being so close to release and the game is still in horrible shape makes me feel like this "might" be a dud.
Games that are only playable on completion (launch) are the exception nowadays.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
how is that stastically even possible? I ask with sarcasm
literally every single solitary Early Access game I have purchased has been outstanding. That is stastically not possible to do randomly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Are they, statistically, more likely or less likely to be slag than something released on a regular schedule? (not EA). I'd love to see some real data if you have it. Metacritic shows the last 100 PS4 games averaged a score of 66 with only 15 of them surpassing 80. 43 were above 70. So over half were below a score of 70.
On Steam, if I search for Early Access, I get some 400 results. Of those, I get 254 Thumb ups, 107 Mixed, and 39 thumb downs. Now, I'm not sure how the thumbs-up / thumbs-down rating system compares to the numerical system because I wasn't paying attention that day in thumbs-up / thumbs-down class, but feel free to enlighten us on how that equates to "...epic fuck tons of crap..." because you're obviously a subject-matter expert.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
1. I just happen to know the titles of all the great early access games
2. every single solitary early access game I personally have purchased has been a gem.
That is statically impossible unless either A. most games are good or B. the ablity to find good games is fairly easy or C. I am just inhumanly good at finding good games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Steam does have a shit ton of god awful shitty games that are utter shit. Don't be silly. Just because you like shitty games does not make them not shitty to other people.
My lord why do I keep responding to you? Ah yes.. you are my favorite troll here!
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
It always gets me how people like to complain that they reached the "end game" too quickly in a sandbox. I see people talking about how few hours they took get to maximum level in BDO for instance and yet I played that for around four hundred hours before I started to get bored with it and not one of my characters had even reached level 30 by then.
Anyway, the leaked video actually persuaded me to finally pre-order NMS from Steam. I only glanced though it as I don't want to know too much but I could see it was basically exactly what I had been expecting. I guess these people that are disappointed hadn't done much previous research on the game for themselves.
The games I picked are widely accepted as the best games in early access.
is it just by chance that my tastes match that of the majority of gamers and if it does why are we concerned with outliers?
unless you have an extreem outlier taste in video games one should have zero problem finding good games in early accces
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I can't dispute the problem of recycled graphics and assets. It's primarily a byproduct of having freely available assets, engines, etc. However, that doesn't mean that it's automatically horrible. It might be a problem for some, but it's subjective. The point I was trying to make is that, statistically, the majority of "early access" games in Steam have a positive rating which seems to be aligned with what published games have.
I can respect that someone PERSONALLY doesn't like the majority of the early access games, but I would be willing to wager that they PERSONALLY wouldn't enjoy the majority of published games either. It's subjectivity applied to a subject where there are hyper-sensitive pre-dispositions. It's like women drivers. I'll bet you've seen an equal number of horrible male drivers in your life as you have female, but since there is this underlying stereotype that women are bad drivers, you are sensitive to that situation and make more out of it when you are, say, cut off by a woman. "Oh! Yup! Figures! Woman driver!"
I'm just saying that there is no supportive, objective, evidence that early access games are any worse than published games.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
What was it all about ? Were they allowing buyers to select individual items in their pre-order bonus package ?
Kind of like a Cash Shop combined purchase where you can buy ingame stuff before the game even launches ?
I guess that was inevitable, lol
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox
no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well
no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
even remotely that is soooo off point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-24-elite-dangerous-first-triple-elite-player-just-won-10-000
Reaching triple-Elite status in E:D is easily comparable to reaching the center of the galaxy in NMS. Neither of those achievements signal the "end of the game".
Nobody could figure out the "background simulation" for flipping faction control in systems in E:D... until Frontier admitted they were doing it manually. Very well designed.
I have no idea how long it takes to fly to the center of the galaxy in E:D, but I do know it will be an incredibly boring and uneventful journey. Once you leave the inhabited system bubble, there is literally nothing but coloured spheres to look at. No NPC's, no other ships, no life and only barren rocky planets to land on...
no 'game beat' because there is no 'beating' a sandbox
no 'figured all parts of it out' because its actually designed well
no 'got to the center in 30 hours' because you cant
so that doesnt just mitigate what you are saying it completely negates it and also just so you know. I dont care about MP in NMS nor in ED and as a result I dont care what was said or promised in that area from either game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And it's still highly praised for a lot of the things that some people see as flaws...
We all know that you can't please everyone.
They've sold a lot of copies and work continues on the game, people that haven't upgraded to Horizons are still getting patch content. What else can we ask for at this point?
It could be better, no doubt about it but time is the limiting factor here and as its only had 3 1/2 years of development it's hard to say it should be like this or like that.