Neoseeker : News : DICE changes mind on Battlefield 3 colour grading option
Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
oni_hero Oct 28, 12
quote Airwalked
You see where i'm going with this? your argument is invalid. It's like not buying a house beause it has pink doors..
It's more like not buying a house because it has pink doors, and the city/town/neighborhood/that old guy who sold you the place won't let you change out the doors and forces you too look at the eye sores that are your baby pink doors that reflect the sun light and burn your eyes, causing you to stagger out into traffic and get hit by that truck deropping off that guy down the street's large odd package that you suspect is some sort of mass delivery of porn.

Wait what were we talking about? Anyway it is just foolish for them to go "Our blue tint is our "Artistic" vision and we won't compromise!" It's a lighting effect not some amazing feature or artistic tool that if changed would ruin their vision for the game. unless the blue *bleep*ing floating light is that damn important to them.
0 thumbs!
^
Aulis Vaara Oct 28, 12
Airwalked Well that's nonsense. And a poor comparison anyway. The reasons why you play a game are not black and white. There are so many battlefields that you can easily play another for the same gameplay, there's only one Borderlands series with the same graphics style. With older games to go back to, the pro's of the game no longer outweigh the con of a poor colourscheme. Which, by the way, is something that's more than a little annoying to some people, a bad colourscheme can actually hurt to look at for some.

As for not buying a house because it has pink doors in it: that's a bad decision because you can just replace the doors, but the whole point is that DICE doesn't allow you to change the colourscheme. So these things are not alike at all. i.e. your argument was invalid.

Also, shitty music and too dark environments are perfectly valid reasons NOT to buy a series, if those are things that bother you enough to take away your enjoyment of the games. It just means you have a different taste than the target audience. And having your own taste is a very good thing.
0 thumbs!
^
Airwalked Oct 28, 12
^ Are you sure shaunybaby? A blue tint put you off playing a game you say you really enjoy playing? I Mean really?

Using your logic i'd never play borderlands because it has gay cartoony graphics, best get it traded in! along with call of duty because it has shit music, and gears of war because everything is dark..

You see where i'm going with this? your argument is invalid. It's like not buying a house beause it has pink doors..
0 thumbs!
^
shaunybaby Oct 27, 12
I barely play BF3 because of the tint, wouldn't be a problem from me if it was sporadic usage, but it's not, it's all the damn time. I'd rather play BFBC2(even though is dead majority of the time) because they refuse too change the colour filter.

The ironic thing is, I actually love playing the game and would probably spunked money at all of the dlc they had released.
0 thumbs!
^
Aulis Vaara Oct 27, 12
I'm not saying Mass Effect 3 was a bad game, it was not. And there are things the the extended endings did right. I'm just saying that they didn't release them for free from the goodness of their hearts, and that they even kicked the fans who wanted to win with conventional means after giving them an ending that in itself was satisfactory to them. Not exactly the actions of a benevolent game developer.

For Mass Effect being a good game. Well, it's a good sci-fi shooter (or action adventure if you prefer that). All other elements are shallow or poorly done. It's not even an RPG anymore, and that's quite a jarring genreshift for the last game in a trilogy, especially one with savefile transfer and thus world consistency. There was no good reason to do this.

Would I have hated the endings either way? Well yes, if you wrote them like this I would. And there's nothing wrong with that. I like my endings to make sense in universe. You can't have Shepard beating the odds in every game up until the last moments and then say "oh, sorry. Can't be done here." It just doesn't fit with the rest of it. And the whole "victory through sacrifice"-thing was nonsense too. The only sacrifice we made was on Virmire in Mass Effect 1. In 3, people just died once in a while and I didn't even feel bad about it. I really wanted to love this game, I loved the other two, but it just doesn't begin to live up to the other two.
0 thumbs!
^
Airwalked Oct 27, 12
^It may be cheap enough oni, but it's still bullshit. Mass effect 3 was a great game you just have to ignore all the cheap money grabbing tactics. -.-
0 thumbs!
^
oni_hero Oct 26, 12
See sorry, to me you just seem like a person who would have hated them either way.

that so called "Most important character(like you said arguably, which honestly not really, he adds little to no story other than his initial backstory cutscene.) isn't really a necessary add on to the game as playing without him doeesn't hurt the gamea all that much. And really Whopping? it's ten bucks. Multiplayer is a decent, yet boring addition, but no one forces anyone to buy those packs for cash, all the packs I bought I earned from earned credits.
0 thumbs!
^
Aulis Vaara Oct 26, 12
quote oni_hero
How do you figure Mass Effect 3 falls into that. They gave out free dlc to try and fix the way that fans felt about the ending. That seems to be an anti money move to me.
Yet arguably the most important character in the game was day one DLC for a whopping ten bucks, which it wasn't worth in the slightest. Multiplayer was tacked on so they could sell upgrade kits for real money. The revised ending still lacked a final confrontation with Harbinger (which made no sense in the first place) and in the added ending where the player can say "up yours" to the catalyst, the next cycle wins with the crucible anyway, according to word of god.

And the extended ending IS about money, Maybe not directly, but the added press and their "listening to the fans" showcases them as a company that cares about its fans, leading to more sales. In secret, they slap their fans (if any are left) in the face.
0 thumbs!
^
oni_hero Oct 26, 12
quote tricolor
TL;DR The developers of BF3, ME3, and D3 all had their heads up their asses and ended up completely blowing off fans of past games in the genre for more upfront $
How do you figure Mass Effect 3 falls into that. They gave out free dlc to try and fix the way that fans felt about the ending. That seems to be an anti money move to me.
0 thumbs!
^
Machienzo Oct 26, 12
I for one am astounded that DICE chose to let the news settle for a few days BEFORE they decided they were against it. Considering the positive buzz it brought about for the game, you'd think they'd have seen its potential to win over some lost fans (lets be honest, someone somewhere probably had a big problem with the color grading). The whole situation does stink of EA/DICE milking the publicity it got. However, I cannot disregard the poor practice by PR by suddenly deciding (seemingly last minute) that "actually, we changed our minds and decided we don't want to".
Last edited by Machienzo :: Oct 26, 12
0 thumbs!
^
lKasHl Oct 24, 12
quote millzbryan
I am so very tired of people defending the game developers. You should get what you want, and companies that respond to that attitude will be know for that. This is a market that they should be diving into. People want more than the run of the mill game out of the box. I've grown as a gamer and i find myself saddened by the lack of luster that developers are producing nowadays.
There are alot more constraints in game development than just customer perception and demand.

Deep down, most if not all devs want to produce the highest quality and most innovative games possible, problem is to do that they have huge capital requirements and no way to raise funds until they deliver a product (with the exception of kickstarter, which is why there has been so much innovation in that market). So then they call onto publishers for funding which brings in constraints on innovation since pubs want to minimise risks and maximise return like any big corporation, leading to devs being forced to regurgitate what has been successful previously (COD as an example).
0 thumbs!
^
Aulis Vaara Oct 24, 12
CD Projekt establishes its identity by being awesome to its fans. Bethesda establishes its identity by making good sandbox games and allowing the fans to improve them. EA establishes its identity by greed and ruining franchises and gamestudios. Blizzard's identity is endless balancing wars.

Clearly modding does not prevent having a good identity.
0 thumbs!
^
Reflekt Oct 24, 12
Except, in the real world where you don't have control over the majority of everything, you don't always get what you want.
-1 thumbs!
^
millzbryan Oct 24, 12
I am so very tired of people defending the game developers. You should get what you want, and companies that respond to that attitude will be know for that. This is a market that they should be diving into. People want more than the run of the mill game out of the box. I've grown as a gamer and i find myself saddened by the lack of luster that developers are producing nowadays.
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -
Newsletter
Latest News
Latest Inhouse
Intel Core i7 5960X Review OCZ RevoDrive 350 480GB Review AMD A10-7800 Kaveri APU Review Seagate Enterprise Capacity 3.5 HDD v4 6TB Review Cooler Master Nepton 280L Liquid Cooler Review Fractal Design Core 3300 Mid Tower Case Review
(0.2967/mc/web6)