The Player 1 Podcast Topic
- Thread starter GhaleonQ
- Start date
perryfarrell
Member
And that Mike dude who complained about all the kickstarter stuff also saw nothing wrong with Obsidian not getting bonuses because their meta critic score was below 85. Apparently he plays the cynical character that nips any type of idealism in the bud.
A bit silly IMO. I mean, it may get a laugh here or there, but it's just too easy.
How is the Obsidian bonus thing "wrong"? It's a bonusextra. In addition to getting paid. Or is it that the metacric metric is shitty? Like, say they missed their sales goal by $1 and dint get their bonus? Would that also be "wrong"? I am often cynical, sure. But I think that's more practical than cynical. You make a deal, you abide by the deal.
perryfarrell
Member
Well, it seems to me that such deals don't exactly encourage creativity among developers. You get people going for the 'safe bet', for the lowest common denominator, instead of people taking a gamble in trying to realize a creative vision. IMO it's a development that critics should be wary of.
It might not sound fair or useful but I've never seen a developer bitching about bonus payments when they actually do get them. No one says that the system is broken then. They're willing to work under these conditions because they hope they can make additional money and when the contract (they've signed) bites them in the ass, it's suddenly a problem?
There's either something wrong with the fact that bonus payments are tied to Metacritic scores or there isn't. If you're willing to sign the contract and are willing to collect the money when you do get the particular ratings then you're really not in a position to blame the system when it doesn't work out.
I find the constant hand-wringing about Metacritic-tied bonuses to be so bizarre. Its a condition-precedent performance bonus tied to a recognized standard. That kind of thing is common in so many industries. That's just how business works.
The notion that performance bonuses somehow reduce creativity or are 'unfair' is antithetical to the very nature of what they are. If you contract out a large project to a 3rd party, you want to incentivise them to do a really good job. What would be better, the publisher themselves decide if its good enough to warrant a bonus? While I'm sure there are a few Armond Whites of game reviewers, enough devs must trust the Metacritic system enough to base their contracts on it.
The notion that performance bonuses somehow reduce creativity or are 'unfair' is antithetical to the very nature of what they are. If you contract out a large project to a 3rd party, you want to incentivise them to do a really good job. What would be better, the publisher themselves decide if its good enough to warrant a bonus? While I'm sure there are a few Armond Whites of game reviewers, enough devs must trust the Metacritic system enough to base their contracts on it.
I think there are way too many unknowns to immediately side with the "Obsidian got screwed" crowd. Yeah, it sucks that their bonus was tied to something as arbitrary as a meteoritic score, but that contract was obviously signed knowing full well that might be the case.
You would have to assume that the base payment was fair anyway, and that the bonus was just that - a bonus.
You would have to assume that the base payment was fair anyway, and that the bonus was just that - a bonus.
I don't even remember seeing a lot of "Obisidian got screwed", most were simply lamenting the unfortunate situation they found themselves in by missing the goal by one point. It would've been just as bad if they missed their sales target by $1. It's a sad story.
The fact that Bethesda was the one who provided the tech and QA for the game, which were the two biggest issues when it came to the lower scores, wasn't even brought up that often. Or the fact that Bethesda's own games ship in an even worse state and get a pass when it comes to review scores.
The fact that Bethesda was the one who provided the tech and QA for the game, which were the two biggest issues when it came to the lower scores, wasn't even brought up that often. Or the fact that Bethesda's own games ship in an even worse state and get a pass when it comes to review scores.
perryfarrell
Member
Sure, but this is a gaming forum where we are interested in what a game offers to the player. Whether Obsidian got screwed (they did not), or whether this is a good way for publishers to make money (it probably is), is besides the point.
What's best for business isn't necessarily what's best for games (if it were, we should all be Zynga fans).
It's not crazy to think that excessive focus on metacritic scores stifles creativity.
It's the same with movies. If I were a movie reviewer, and noticed that Hollywood directors' pay directly depended on their box office numbers, I wouldn't applaud this development, because it'd result in more dime-a-dozen, lowest-common-denominator type stuff.
nckillthegrimace
Member
Hey Phil, in Kid Icarus you can actually set the game to autofire when you touch the screen. I haven't tried it so I don't know how that works with charge shots, but it's there if you want to try it out.
Also, re:Mass Effect 3, the day one dlc isn't one of those project $10 things. It's $10 on top of the $60 you spent on the game.
Also, re:Mass Effect 3, the day one dlc isn't one of those project $10 things. It's $10 on top of the $60 you spent on the game.
I felt the opposite. Definitely not a Mike fan.
Whimsical Phil
Ninja School will help you
Neat-o! Thanks for the tip. Although, yeah, I wonder how that will affect the charge shot.
I also miss Ford.
famousmortimer
Banned
I can understand not liking someone because they are an idiot, and videogame podcasts have plenty of those. But mike is well reasoned about the things he believes... to not like him because you don't agree with him says more about you than it does about him.
One of the shortcomings of our whole 'subculture' is the lack of ability we have to listen to dissenting opinions. If someone says something negative about something they are a "troll" or a "fanboy" of a competing product. I know it's not going to... but this crap needs to stop if we are going to progress this community of people. It's not exactly inviting.
One of the shortcomings of our whole 'subculture' is the lack of ability we have to listen to dissenting opinions. If someone says something negative about something they are a "troll" or a "fanboy" of a competing product. I know it's not going to... but this crap needs to stop if we are going to progress this community of people. It's not exactly inviting.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Who are you people? Crazy talk.
I'll take someone with a unique and well spoken opinion over someone who was distracted playing MW2 during the show...any day of the week!
I miss Ford but I like Mike. He's an old, curmudgeonly, cheap asshole. There are way too few of those on the podcast landscape.
And yes mik, this is me trying to get a spot on your Ryder Cup team!
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Listened to the new ep today, really enjoyed the show this week, luckily the tech problems did not turn out to be noticeable.
Takamura-San
Member
Angry phil is the best phil.
Whimsical Phil
Ninja School will help you
Takamura-San
Member
Is Dana still game about discussing the end of ME3?
I want to hear what's her opinion of the end. Also would like to hear if Mik's opinion of the criticism is altered after he watches the end.
Whimsical Phil
Ninja School will help you
She's definitely coming back on the show to cover the ending. Between her desire to see everything in the game and taking care of the kid, she's yet to finish it. She's apparently getting close to the end, though.
Takamura-San
Member
Do yourself a favor Phil. Watch her witness the ending. You don't have to see the game, just her face. You will see the closest thing to Ralph wiggum having his heart broken by Lisa in real life. It seems that she's pretty invested in the lore. Just in case have a bottle of jack ready, she will need it.
It will be entertaining hearing you describe how that moment played out, while mik and her discuss how the game ends.
Whimsical Phil
Ninja School will help you
She already knows the "big" event in the ending (she can't resist spoilers), but she is reserving judgment until she sees how everything plays out.
Takamura-San
Member
i'll be her support group partner. let her know.
Takamura-San
Member
If the "big" event is the thing that she knows... then context is going to make it worse. The ME3 spoiler ep is going to be the best ep.
RobbieNick
Junior Member
You only fire when the target box is on the enemy. If you haven't fired on an enemy for over a sec, charge shot.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Thanks, I won't waste any more of my time.
I enjoyed the discussion on Mass Effect 3. Like you, ME2 was my favourite of the series. I am a bit surprised you aren't enjoying ME3 more, though. I thought the first 1/3 of the game was quite well done, with choices of previous games coming back to have interesting consequences. It also offered the most challenged (Grissom Academy on Insanity was a struggle but very rewarding thanks to the improved combat). And at the beginning of the game, your imagination can lead you to think the war map and war readiness ratings actually mean something and will be affected by your actions!
Good episode. It looks like I'll be buying the latest Angry Birds.
Yeah, Mike's seeming dislike of ME3 (or maybe he's just down on it after ME2) came across as tied to his obvious dislike of what Bioware has become more than anything. Likes and dislikes are subjective of course, plus I try to never begrudge anyone of their opinion but I agree with you, ME3 is more of an RPG than 2, a better shooter and spends a lot of time going over what everyone from ME1 and ME2 are up to at the point ME3 takes place. A lot of people seem to hate the ending, fair enough but the other 95% of the game is the best the series has ever been imo and I don't see how you can love 2 but then shit on 3.
Maybe I just misunderstood Mike's opinion on the game or missed his reasoning.
Takamura-San
Member
From what I gather and my personal opinion is that ME3 is a fantastic game tainted by a disjointed and horrible ending.
I wish the cast read some of the complains made by the community. Most of the information that came from the enthusiast media came off as condescending and dismissive of the criticisms that were made about the game. I have yet hear a podcast that had a real conversation about the faults and points that are being brought up by those that dislike the ending.
I appreciated the level headed convo that was taken when it came to the Vita. A device that even with faults can be very promising.
@mik: did you finish the game?
I'm very close. Should be finished by Saturday, I'd think.
I didn't intend for my impressions to come off as shitting on the game, honestly. I still think it's a good game, but it is deflating after how much I enjoyed ME2. Part of that is just wishing that the story points and characters that matter to me were the same ones that matter to BioWare--perhaps unfairly. But in a world where I'm allegedly shaping so much of it, seeing critical members of my crew relegated to cameo roles is a huge letdown. I also think maybe the game/engine is just starting to show its age a little too much for me too. This one looks the best of the three, for sure, but it's starting to look a little creaky--especially character animations.
Takamura-San
Member
If you do, please go to the Spoiler OT and read the google doc pointing out many of the narrative faults that people have with the ending. Maybe Dana can read it too.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/...0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true