Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 6
Results 126 to 134 of 134
  1. #126
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    PSN ID
    martin_blank
    Posts
    617
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    8,484 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    well, let me start off with this: have you played GTA5?
    Yeah, about seven hours. Love the mechanics. Really love them. The environments, stellar. The visuals and art direction, amazing, especially for PS3 and representing a very, very large game world. But the narrative elements, I just do not care, no motivation, and about an hour of dialogue chatter even messing around in the game world, I have to quit playing. I just can't take it.

  2. #127
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,261
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,268 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    it's pretty simple. if you buy the disc version of BF4 on PS3, you will need that disc to play the digital version of the BF4 on PS4.

    if you get the PS3 version as digital, then you don't need anything for the PS4 version and I assume that you can keep both versions but can only play one of them at a time as both of the versions will be tied to your primary account.

  3. #128
    PSU Live Streamer
    YoungMullah88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte
    PSN ID
    xShadow__WoIf | YoungMullah88
    Posts
    14,649
    Rep Power
    114
    Points
    36,128 (1,800 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Dang it, I was planning on trading the ps3 version after I downloaded the ps4 digital copy

    Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

  4. #129
    Super Moderator
    Admartian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New Zealand
    PSN ID
    admartian
    Age
    27
    Posts
    13,119
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    44,817 (0 Banked)
    Items ArsenalVitaUser name styleSteamPS3 Slim
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by sanfordmay View Post
    Movies, there was a big scandal about that maybe 20 years ago. Studios sending second and especially third tier film critics on junkets to screen films. Resort hotels, free food and drinks, deluxe treatment, they watch the film and then write the review. 99% good reviews. Sony, as a matter of fact, was a prime offender in that debacle, but then there was always the top tier of film critics to count on. They didn't take those trips and refused to review films the studios wouldn't screen locally. Problem is, there's no top tier in games critics. Few years ago Ubi sent a bunch of games press to Venice to preview an AC game. Because part of the game was set in a fictional, historical Venice, they had to see real, modern Venice in order to properly consider the game, right? Around the same time Capcom sent games press to, get back, Monaco, to look at the fall line up. You know, major JAPANESE games publisher sends minimum wage, no benefits, basement-dwelling blogger kid from CLEVELAND, USA to THE FREAKING PRINCIPALITY OF MONACO to drink and gamble and hang with, ah, hmm, call them very well liberated gorgeous European girls, and maybe check out some new video games, and that kid is going to write anything negative about those games he saw? The ones he doesn't even remember seeing but, hey, he's got the press kit so he'll bang out 400 words on the spectacular upcoming retail slate from good old Capcom. Only 400 words because it's hard to write much with that bad a hangover.

    Anyway, I'll spare you the entire litany of games press sins, but the reform of games journalism is sort of a quiet crusade of mine. Very quiet crusade. Practically inaudible, as I doubt I'll ever really do anything about it since it's not likely to put my kids through college or keep a roof over their heads until they get there. But my favorite piece of games journalism remains Bow, $#@! (http://www.alwaysblack.com/blackbox/bow$#@!.html) because, though he's no Kingsley Amis, nor even a Martin Amis, the guy can write and the piece was reasoned, heartfelt, socially relevant and had nothing to do with any developer's or publisher's PR agenda for that year. Bow, $#@! became pretty much the gold standard for the so-called "new games journalism," and for a minute there I expected maybe a nascent renaissance. But the new games journalism turned into, more or less, Pitchfork record reviews. Meaning, lots of lovely, elegant and deeply descriptive adjectives pulled nearly at random from various thesauri and, alas, bearing no illustrative relevance to the subject at hand. Not even as metaphor. Not even at a stretch. I hate tech spec style game reviews full of jargon and lingo but I hate Pitchfork record reviews more. I figure I read English pretty well and I have no idea what their writers mean. I've got this theory Pitchfork is some front for a Cold War era espionage agency and they never got the word to close up and come home. Those aren't record reviews, those are encoded communications between deep cover international field operatives.
    Great insight mate. Wish I could rep.

    I usually like to read reviews that show enthusiasm, but not try-hard hyperbole that was that IGN-preview of GTA5. I dare say, it's not hard to ask people to just give us a quick run-down on any technical issues (e.g. if a game is crapping out, crashing, frame hiccups etc) and a good description of what the game is about.

    I prefer reviews that don't get into story, even a little bit. I like and prefer to discover that myself, heck even movie trailers ruin plots these days, and while game reviews/previews aren't quite as bad, there are some that get over-excited and just spill too much without getting into detail (in either case, they've already spoiled it and may as well have gone into detail in the first place ).

    Good luck with that revolution, god knows almost the entire gaming community will (or rather, SHOULD) be behind a more transparent, and real press.

    #IndieStation4 and proud of it.

  5. #130
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    PSN ID
    martin_blank
    Posts
    617
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    8,484 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by admartian View Post
    Good luck with that revolution, god knows almost the entire gaming community will (or rather, SHOULD) be behind a more transparent, and real press.
    The problem is a real press in the real world has to generate revenue. And I know SOME gamers care enough to read and patronize an online or paper publication better focused on journalism than regurgitating agency hype. I'm just not sure ENOUGH gamers care to keep such a venture afloat. Kotaku and Joystiq make tons of money for Gawker and -- who owns Joystiq now? AOL still the parent? -- but any time I read Joystiq I feel like I'm reading a photocopy of a press release. Any time I read Kotaku I feel like I'm looking at pictures of pretty cosplay girls. Because I am looking at pictures of pretty cosplay girls. Which is all well and good but it's not games journalism. Yes, there are other sites, but they aren't anywhere near out front like the bloggy twins. Besides, they're flawed in other ways. Recently Ben Kuchera of Penny Arcade gave Beyond: Two Souls a negative review and a bad quantitative score without even finishing the game. Okay, I suppose, the negative comments, as long as he admitted he didn't finish the game and he did admit that. But scuttle the score. You can't contribute to score pool if you don't finish the game, unless the game is just so technically broken you can't reasonably finish it. Some guy from a smallish PlayStation site called him out for what really is bad criticism practice and Kuchera went crazy on the guy, personally insulting him, laughing at the guy's status among the gaming press. Well, Ben, what exactly is your status among the gaming press? You do a games column on website that's part of an online comic strip empire. Ben's a pop culture writer, no doubt. But he's not press. He's not a journalist. He's an entertainer, not a professional critic. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course, but if you're an entertainer it behooves you to know you're an entertainer and not a serious journalist and you shouldn't try and wield make/break power over other people's creations. Penny Arcade deciding the fate of a progressive video game is like letting Charles Schultz's Peanuts dictate the whole of civilized culture. Except Peanuts would make a far better lasting cultural standard than Penny Arcade. But Schultz knew that ultimately, no matter any nuance and allusion, he drew a newspaper comic strip.

  6. #131
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    PSN ID
    martin_blank
    Posts
    617
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    8,484 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    it's pretty simple. if you buy the disc version of BF4 on PS3, you will need that disc to play the digital version of the BF4 on PS4.

    if you get the PS3 version as digital, then you don't need anything for the PS4 version and I assume that you can keep both versions but can only play one of them at a time as both of the versions will be tied to your primary account.
    I'm more worried about transferring campaign game saves, and more worried about that for Black Flag than BF4. I know BF4 online stats and ranks and whatnot will transfer.

  7. #132
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    PSN ID
    martin_blank
    Posts
    617
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    8,484 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMullah88 View Post
    Dang it, I was planning on trading the ps3 version after I downloaded the ps4 digital copy

    Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
    Yeah, EA saw you coming a thousand miles away.

  8. #133
    Forum Elder
    Venger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    PSN ID
    LordVenger
    Posts
    2,670
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    2,897 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by sanfordmay View Post
    That goes a ways to proving my point. When MW shipped World at War was at least a year into development and only a year from shipping. There wasn't time to strip out COD3's multiplayer from WW and implement MW's multiplayer architecture. Not unless the WW multiplayer teams had worked on MW, not unless they'd been designing into WW something similar to MW multiplayer long before MW shipped.

    Activision seriously considered handing all of MW2 to Treyarch and shuttering Infinity Ward. That's recorded in court documents. There's no way Activision would have devised that as a strategy for their showcase franchise unless they knew Treyarch could do it. Because they'd done significant parts of it before.

    This isn't something I can prove with a Wikipedia link. But consider it's well known Activision holds their developers close and they tell them how they're going to do things. For a long time there was a lot made of the so-called competition between IW and Treyarch over the COD franchise. A lot of that is so much noise. It better suited Activision if they worked together more, so they worked together. It's also notable the more Treyarch has had to with COD the better the multiplayer has become and the wider multiplayer audience reached. Activision went to war with Infinity Ward and acted like they didn't need them. Not out of hubris or foolishness, but because they really didn't need them.
    There was a rumor that IW managed to essentially get a contract locking out all of Activision's other studios from making COD games set after WW2. I think they got Vietnam forward and if they had been allowed to stay intact Activision's other 2 studios working on COD games would still be rehashing WW2. Activision couldn't allow that once it saw the profit potential of more modern COD games. I suspect Activision immediately set out to sour the working relationship and look for the slightest violation of existing contracts so they could get out of that deal. That's likely a better explanation for why they felt gutting one of their premier studios was a good idea. With that deal intact they wouldn't have been able to make either of the Black Ops games nor Ghosts. And that's several billion dollars in profit.

  9. #134
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    PSN ID
    martin_blank
    Posts
    617
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    8,484 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Venger View Post
    There was a rumor that IW managed to essentially get a contract locking out all of Activision's other studios from making COD games set after WW2. I think they got Vietnam forward and if they had been allowed to stay intact Activision's other 2 studios working on COD games would still be rehashing WW2. Activision couldn't allow that once it saw the profit potential of more modern COD games. I suspect Activision immediately set out to sour the working relationship and look for the slightest violation of existing contracts so they could get out of that deal. That's likely a better explanation for why they felt gutting one of their premier studios was a good idea. With that deal intact they wouldn't have been able to make either of the Black Ops games nor Ghosts. And that's several billion dollars in profit.
    Well, to speculate on a rumored contract, but, yeah, a provision in a contract providing IW sole and exclusive control of post-WWII-era COD games but requiring IW meet development milestones and if failing to do so would grant Activision rights to use any means they deemed necessary to put the project back on schedule, that would've allowed Activision's other studios in the door.

    The bottom line is IW was the sort of studio that wanted to maintain full creative and development control for their games, and call release-to-manufacturing dates "when it's done." Like Epic. Now Epic entered into various publication agreements that left them beholden to publishers over certain IPs to varying degrees, but they never sold themselves lock, stock and barrel to a publisher. Lot of money to be made had they done so, but they wouldn't do it. IW sold the whole farm to Activision 2003. That's fine. Everybody wants the big house and custom-built Porsche. But in exchange for that house and that car, you trade some things. Not your creative soul or anything so grand, but absolutely you trade away sovereignty over your creations. All creatives give away at least some control over their creative output. But sell yourself to your publisher or distributor and it becomes exponentially harder to hang onto control of your projects, contracts or no contracts.

    IW's job is to make great games and Activision's job is to make money for shareholders and if mediocre or compromised games do that better than great games then so be it.

    I can't blame IW's founders for selling to Activision and taking all that money. I certainly would have considered it and very well may have done it, too. But I can blame them for taking all that money and still behaving like they could do as they did when Activision held only a minority stake. If that is in fact what they did.

    Whatever, it's an interesting story. I wish someone would do a book on it. It's way more interesting than yet another spin on the Steve Job's story, if only because at the time of his death most of Steve Job's life story was already known, has been known for 20 years, and all there is to do now is rehash and aggregate and try and separate mere rumor from fact. But the Activision/IW story, the real story or as close as any outsider can get, isn't, not in my opinion, known.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.