PlugMonkey Comments

Page 1 of 74

  • How Left4Dead changed my life for the better

  • PlugMonkey 30/09/2014

    @bobomb

    BUT it gates that with a vast array of tactical options. you're not reliant on your gunplay in every situation; positioning, movement, team work and situational awareness are equally important.
    I think that's kind of my point. If you want a great console PvE team game, don't start with the precision focus of L4D. Maybe start with the vast tactical options of EDF. You end up building something that just wants to be a different game.

    I haven't played 2025, but 2017 required a very different sort of precision, plus precision weapons were only one small part of a diverse strategy.

    When I killed you with friendly fire it was less likely to be because you and my target were a few pixels apart, it was more likely because my gun fired 35 exploding bouncy balls.

    I loved 2017. You've clocked 450 hours on 2025? I'll have to check that out.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 30/09/2014

    @bobomb

    i agree, but i don't think left 4 dead is fundamentally tied to mouse and keyboard to that extent.
    I think aspects of it were.

    I think the problem with L4D was a combination of the precision, the importance of covering each other, and the friendly fire.

    In Counter Strike, snap aiming and headshots are important, but the gameplay is about how well you can pull them off vs. your opponent. As long as we're both using the same control system, it all balances out. If we both take a few tenths longer or miss a few % more, it doesn't change the overall dynamic that much.

    In L4D, I need you to shoot the thing that's eating my face. If you take a few tenths longer, more of my face gets eaten. If you miss a few % more, you shoot me in my face, and I die.

    That's the part I think you can't really do anything about. You suggest a good auto-aim implementation, but then you're under less pressure to do the careful aiming yourself, and then run and gun becomes the optimum strategy, and then Cerberus starts bagging your game.

    And then there's the finales, where you have nowhere to run. If Expert finales are the ultimate test of your ability to cover each other precisely, is that challenge still achievable? If you automate the aiming or tone down the friendly fire, what do you replace that challenge with? Can it ever truly be exactly the same game?

    Whether or not you like the game, L4D is a great study in game design. All of its elements work in near perfect balance. It's also a great study in how easily that balance can be upset. I don't think they ever quite got it back on Xbox.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 30/09/2014

    @bobomb

    in which case i would give the developers a stern wrap on the knuckles for not re-balancing the game correctly for console!
    I agree to an extent, but as I said to Widge, I don't think that's always entirely possible. It's like 'lightgun' games on the Wii. You can just about do House of the Dead, but Point Blank wouldn't work at all. Ultimately, you need to make a different game.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 30/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    It's the definition you keep banging on about, and it's wrong.

    For all that irrelevant nonsense you've just posted, the experience can change with the input device. It can change drastically. And any designer worth their salt will tell you that something that can drastically change the experience MUST be a part of the core mechanics.

    Just like with the Wii, or Guitar Hero, or countless other examples that have proven that the input device is an often overlooked part of the core mechanics of a video game. It's one of the 'rules'. It can't not be. Copy and paste as many Wikipedia articles to me as you like, you'll still be wrong, and I'll still have proven you wrong. Nintendo sold 100 million systems off the back of this being true.

    If you don't want to accept that, and want to stick to your narrow, useless, broken, misinterpreted, misunderstood definition, that's fine. Instead you'll just have to accept that the experience can be drastically change without your 'core mechanics' changing, as has been proven, and so the 'core mechanics' as you define them are irrelevant to this discussion about the experience. According to you, they don't have to change for the experience to change, so why bring them up? You can love Virtua Tennis and hate Wii Sports Tennis. Same 'core mechanics' as you narrowly define them, totally different experience. Honestly, my cat could understand this. I'm not going to explain it again.

    The reason I liked L4D and you didn't isn't that I'm a moron or you're a moron, it's that for various reasons we had totally different experiences.

    You missed out on L4D. I'm sorry about that. Between you playing a bad port or getting too much help from your group of elite players, you missed the learning process that contained all the fun. That's a shame, but then again, the L4D community was an awesome bunch without all the usual hyper aggressive asshats online is full of, and that might have been because it turned off chaps like you. So maybe it's a blessing.

    Right. Now, assuming you have the faculties to read this far, you can now ignore everything I've just written and reply with whatever ineffectual abuse or self congratulatory nonsense you like. It won't make me any less right. The great likelihood is it will continue to prove the opposite, so have at it, champ.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Lol! So stop banging on about the 'core mechanics' then! That's your hangup, not mine!

    Just to recap for anyone arriving late: I've said the input device changes the experience. I also suspect the balancing may be different, and this also changes the experience.

    You, with your superior intellect, have determined that the input device and balancing don't fall into your definition of 'core mechanics'.

    Now, if you can just explain how that rules out it changing the experience, you might have made your first actual point!

    I'll start holding my breath.

    *hup*
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    I say the core mechanics do change. Whether you agree or not is semantics, the experience definitely changes. If you can't see that, then there really is no hope. Not that I'm holding out any. You're intent just to troll, and that's fine.

    When you speak to a developer and you mention the words core mechanics, the first thing that pops in his mind, as per definition, are the rules (i.e. the mechanics, the structure) around which a game is built.
    That starts with the controller. How can it not involve the controller? I don't think I can explain this any more clearly. How can the "core mechanics" not involve "how it controls". The mind boggles.

    If you speak to a developer and they don't consider what the input device could, should or will be when they're designing their game, they're not much of a developer.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Don't play along, just have a chat. Although the shit throwing was fun.

    and I am not talking about input precision.
    That's a shame, because I am talking about input precision.

    A controller can entirely change a game. Virtua Tennis would be no fun with a Wii-mote, and Wii Sports Tennis would be no fun with a Dreamcast controller. How do the core gameplay mechanics differ? They don't. They're both exactly tennis. Don't ever try to tell me the input device isn't an integral part of the game. There is nothing more core.

    The games played differently for the different controllers. The PC game was all about precision. If you wanted to shoot, you'd stop and crouch else you were spraying preciously scarce ammo everywhere. So you didn't run and gun, you moved by-sections, "with the discipline of a special-ops team". Running and gunning got you killed.

    Now, I can't say for definite whether they tweaked the Xbox aiming, or the reticle sizes, or the hit boxes, or the weapon damage, or the friendly fire, or the ammo count, or what, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have to tweak something to make it play well on a pad. Very surprised. I just don't see how you could play the way the PC game was balanced without the input precision you're so determined to disregard.

    Maybe there were no tweaks though and it was just a environmental thing. Maybe we stopped and aimed because that's what the controller lent itself to. Or what sitting up straight at a desk instead of spread out on the sofa lent itself to. Maybe that gave us a better chance vs run and gun whereas on a pad it gave you a worse chance. Maybe all things were equal and it just felt nicer! All of these things can profoundly affect a game experience.

    Whatever the reason, you played a lame run and gun shooter that sucked, and me and Rick Lane played an intense tactical shooter that rocked. In my experience of talking people's ears off about L4D, the reason for that difference of opinion is generally either a) too easy or b) Xbox version.

    And that's how they're different. This?

    - Are there still waves of enemies (incl. zombies, witches, tanks etc.) you have to deal with: yes or no?
    - Do you still have make it towards a safe haven: yes or no?
    - Is there still 4 player co-op: yes or no?
    Well, this is how they're the same. But then that could be about Dead Island or Killing Floor or COD Zombies.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @bobomb

    See, that's fair enough. I didn't get on at all well with the console version either. I've no idea why it reviewed so highly and wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

    Why not just say that though instead of strenuously avoiding the question and claiming there can't possibly be any difference?
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Poor sod, ran out of intelligent arguments...
    Well, it's nice we can agree that I at least started with intelligent arguments, although in hindsight that was probably where I went wrong. Like bringing a knife to a bun fight.

    The bizarre thing here is that you're the only one trying to 'win', and yet somehow you're still losing. How do you do that?

    Seriously though, the game doesn't play anywhere near as well on Xbox. If you ever get the chance to play it as the designers intended, I'd recommend it. If you still don't like it, fair play to you.

    That's really all I ever came to say.

    Cheerio!
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Well, that's me bested. If the introduction of a wikipedia article simplifies it thus, then it must be true.

    It turns out the input mechanic isn't a part of the 'rules' after all, and therefore L4D is functionally identical to paintball and a snowball fight. Darts is archery. Golf is the same as tiddlywinks. After all, how you interact with the game mechanics is irrelevant.

    Good job, skipper. I'm proud of you.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Playing L4D on console or PC does not fucking alter the game's core mechanics.
    Yes it does. Of course it does. It has a completely different control input. You can't get a more core mechanic than that. Every single interaction with the game goes through that interface. It's like playing Tekken on a keyboard.

    You're coming across as a ludicrously aggressive and competitive individual. No wonder you would find a sublimely co-operative game boring, even if you weren't playing an inferior port.

    What on earth do I have to 'deal with'? You're the one that missed out. It's no skin off my nose, sport.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Lol. Yeah, I'm sure you did, mate. Maybe you're just too awesome?

    Seriously though, quit attacking me and my goldfish like attention span for five seconds: did you play it on console? I tried it on Xbox as a few of my friends don't have PCs and we very quickly went back to Battlefield.

    Something about it just didn't translate well at all. Much like CounterStrike before it.

    People not liking L4D generally comes down to one of two things - playing it on easy, in which case it's really short and boring, or playing it on console.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @Widge

    I think you design a game differently from the ground up depending on if it's for kb&m or gamepad.

    I don't want to get into major a controller argument - they both have their merits - but as a general rule if there is high team damage, and my friend is going to try and shoot an enemy in the head, and that enemy's head is currently biting at my head, I want that friend to be aiming with a mouse!

    L4D was all about pinpoint accuracy. I find the best console/control pad shooters tend to be more about twitchy reflexes.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Oh, I see. You got yourself an armchair ride, and ruined the game for yourself that way instead. Fair enough.

    Getting carried will have the same effect as dropping the skill level. Sounds like you skipped the journey and went straight to the destination.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 29/09/2014

    @-cerberus-

    Boring? Repetitive?

    Lol. I think somebody played the game on the easy settings and ruined it for themselves...

    Oh wait, 'last-gen'?

    Did you play it on console? Yeah, it kind of sucked on console. It wasn't a very good port.
    Reply -1
  • Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor review

  • PlugMonkey 26/09/2014

    Cool. Sold! Reply +1
  • Yes, Triad Wars is free to play, but is it pay to win?

  • PlugMonkey 24/09/2014

    @scuffpuppies

    Well, yeah. Games born of trying to fill a gap don't generally fare as well as games born of inspiration. Just look at Medal of Honor.

    I think it's a bit early to judge though. There might be more to it than just ticking a box in SqEnix's portfolio.

    F2P is generally a fair bit cheaper to get something to market for, so maybe it was a budget thing seeing as Sleeping Dogs wasn't a megahit. Or as someone else said on here, maybe they see it as an opportunity to expose more people to the brand.

    It's just about possible that United Front were really keen to make a massively multiplayer gang crime game, and F2P was just the best model to support the gameplay they wanted to explore. They must have talked about multiplayer at some point while developing Sleeping Dogs. This could simply be the product of those discussions.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 24/09/2014

    @scuffpuppies

    Those companies also see big movie tie ins under the old payment model as licenses to print money. They're also the ones owned by shareholders and therefore profit orientated, and hence focused on what the formula for printing money is.

    That doesn't mean they don't also make great games from time to time - after all, that ultimately is the most reliable formula.

    The point is that this isn't a F2P issue, it's a big publisher issue. Sometimes they get the formula wrong and things end up buried in the desert. This has always been the case.

    What I think they're going to learn pretty soon is that if they want to make money in F2P, they're going to need to make great games even more often, because everyone gets to play it before they decide to spend.

    You can't win on hype and marketing any more. F2P is all about the game, and I quite like that aspect of it tbh.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 24/09/2014

    @azic

    Just either make it a subscription based game or don't bother.
    I find subscription based games are incredibly poor value, as I only play a few hours a month.

    If World of Tanks was subscription only, I wouldn't play it. I don't play enough to be worth £8 or £10 per month, every month. In fact, I would never have even tried it. As it is, I can top up £10 and it lasts me 6 months or so and I've played it off and on for years. It's one of my favourite games of all time. I could bend your ear about it for hours.

    The cancer on gaming is all the bloody prejudice and moaning from people who, for the most part, haven't ever really played the games they moan about (except maybe a few minutes to confirm their prejudice).

    There's nothing wrong with F2P. Many of the games that use it are excellent. Some aren't, but that's just as true of 'traditional' payment models. If anything, F2P games have to rely on quality even more than 'traditional' games, what with them taking no cash up front. Marketing and hype won't make you rich any more.
    Reply +1
  • Blizzard will wipe Heroes of the Storm accounts one last time

  • PlugMonkey 23/09/2014

    @Moz

    king and supercell are still far worse you can hardly play their games without spending crazy money for very little return
    So everyone says, yet somehow I've managed to get to level 375 of Candy Crush without spending a penny.

    (I have however done innumerable poos. Badoom! I'm here all week.)

    My experience of Hearthstone was that I had two options: pay-to-win and pay-per-play, and I ended up deciding to do neither.

    Kaprikawn spent 130 quid. Fair play to them. But if a player was reported doing that in a 'free' casual game, this place would go ape mental.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    @Kaprikawn

    Blizzard are the masters of getting money out of people and making it seem reasonable.

    I've spent ~£130 on Hearthstone, and don't regret it.
    They certainly are. A free game where you've spent £130? That's the very definition of evil when King or Supercell do it.

    It seems to be a very different kettle of halibut if the game is aimed at core gamers instead of casual ones...
    Reply +2
  • New lighting tech debunks moon landing conspiracy theories

  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    @Cirius-Moonlite

    Mir doesn't count its not on the moon but why isn't it on the moon?
    Why would it be on the moon? It's a barren floating rock that's a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot further away than the much more useful space station they built instead.

    The reason we haven't been back to the moon since 1972 is either MASSIVE INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, or that it's a bloody long way away and there's nothing remotely interesting up there.

    Hmm. Which to chose?
    Reply +1
  • Kickstarter updates Terms for successful-then-cancelled projects

  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    @Faramis

    Having spent all weekend playing Wasteland 2, I'm not sure I can entirely agree...
    Reply +3
  • Bastard of the Old Republic

  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    This article is one of the all time classics. Reply +1
  • Planetary Annihilation review

  • PlugMonkey 16/09/2014

    Too much Real Time Efficiency these days and not enough Real Time Strategy.

    Someone needs to take the economy back out of these games. It's completely taken over.
    Reply +1
  • Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham first Lego game to get a season pass

  • PlugMonkey 12/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    Firstly, Iím not Ďchampioning DLCí. Iím saying to judge each game on its individual merits, while also explaining some of the technical and logistical considerations. Having a neutral perspective on something is not Ďchampioningí.

    Secondly, Iím not actually professionally involved at all. Iíve never made any or been involved in making any day 1 DLC. I do have a better view of the landscape, however, so I know why people do it. Unsurprisingly, itís the same reason any commercial decision is made: thereís demand for it.

    It matters because we've reached the point where companies are actively degrading the base games, stripping out the most desirable content for sale as DLC, and I don't think that's healthy for the medium in the long term.
    Some are. Most arenít, imho, but that isn't the point. The point myself and my brother Monkey are trying to make is that the production timescale and/or presence of DLC on the disc are NOT useful indicators of whether this is the case.

    Right now I could cut planned content from my game, and as long as I hold it back long enough and force you to sit and wait while you download the damn thing, people will sing my praises for doing DLC Ďrightí. Meanwhile, if I use the projected DLC revenue to secure increased funding, and use that funding to create great value additional content that couldnít exist otherwise, people will hammer me into the ground just for adopting an efficient production schedule and more convenient delivery method. It's crazy.

    The resentment of on-disc DLC is entirely rational, as it demonstrates an active decision to withhold content to milk the player.
    Ultimately, my point is that this statement is incorrect. You are basing your decision on an incomplete picture of the process, but if I try to explain the process better, you basically accuse me of bias. I have no reason to be biased. I have no ulterior motive. I only want people who play games to have a better idea of how they are made, so that they can make better consumer choices.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 11/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    Nope, you'll just have to believe me, I'm afraid. Or not. It's entirely up to you.

    It's the answer to the question though. Or one of them, at least.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 11/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    Really? Any title worth its salt will still be offering entertainment from the core content alone during that time.
    Well, my good man, that rather depends on how intensely you play it, doesn't it? It may take you and me a couple of months (or sometimes, years) to meander our way through the average single player game experience, but there are plenty of gamers out there who will chew through the same thing in a week or less. Itís very hard to sell DLC to someone if their copy of the game is already in CEX.

    Now, answer me this: who do you suppose is more likely to buy extra content for their games in the first place? The sedate meanderers like you and me, with our massive backlogs of unplayed games? Or the Hungry, Hungry Hippos who munch through a game in a weekend?

    You're contorting yourself into some quite impressive knots to justify a rather shoddy business practice.
    Lol. No. Iím telling you what the sales figures say. On single player games, DLC expansions sell more in the first two weeks after the main game release than at any other point. Above you will find my personal interpretation of why this is the case, but it is the case.

    DLC is released when it is released because that is when the demand for the DLC is highest. Maybe not from you, but still, that is when most people who buy DLC buy their DLC. If they didnít want it then, they would wait, like you do. Itís not going anywhere. But they donít.

    The whole thing is entirely driven by demand and you, and lots of other people like you, need to learn that there are people in this big, wide, wonderful world who arenít you. Releasing DLC on day one means everyone can have it when theyíre ready. For some reason, you think these other players either donít exist, or that they shouldnít have it when theyíre ready because it offends you.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 10/09/2014

    @FireMonkey

    Lol. If I wasn't me, I'd think you were and alt of me. ;)

    Well spoken, for what good it'll do. All completely, totally and 100% true.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 10/09/2014

    @Darren

    Well, 'wring' and 'tempt' feel like fairly opposite ends of the money extraction spectrum to me. Push vs. pull. Forcing money out of you vs. getting you to throw it at them.

    It is waving a carrot, but they only have a carrot. The gamers have the stick. And my god, do they not need much reason to start swinging!
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 10/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    The issue is that the game and the DLC is are both made at the same time, as proven by the latter's inclusion on the disk.
    The Lord of the Rings movies were all made at the same time. So you should get them all for the price of one. Right? Peter Jackson is deliberately withholding content to milk the cinema goer? You think that is a rational position?

    No, because that's obviously not how budgets work. If there's no projected revenue for some content, there's no budget for the content, and so there's no content. Jackson got the budget for three films because he was going to get the revenue for three films. Not having any money to pay your staff isn't a logistical reason?

    Now ask yourself why Peter Jackson chose to make all three films at the same time instead of making one and then reassembling the entire team to make another, and you'll know why some developers make the DLC at the same time as the main project.

    (That's without even going in to when the DLC's target audience wants the DLC - which is during the first 2 weeks after release.)

    I know this goes against your gut feeling, and I know I'll get negged for this, but there is no logic to your position. Only gut feeling. If you hate these developers, you also have to hate Peter Jackson.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    No I have never said DLC in general so not sure where you get that
    Srsly? I may have picked it up from this:

    While admittedly I hate the DLC culture
    the stink of DLC we have to deal with
    The DLC rot is bad enough for us
    That wasn't about DLC in general? I'm sure you can see how I might have got the impression you generally don't much like it...

    If you didn't dislike DLC in general, why would you object so strongly to DLC for kids specifically?

    I don't have a bias for or against DLC, which is why I don't see anything wrong in selling it to kids.

    You can see that, surely? You have to think it's bad before you can think selling it to kids is worse. You have to have a negative general bias to project along, and I don't.

    This DLC looks alright, so I think this DLC might be alright, rather than it being automatically tainted with the general stink and rot.
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    No, your argument seems to be about DLC in general. DLC is bad, and therefore DLC for kids is worse.

    I have no general DLC opinion. Some of it is good, some of it is less good, just like everything else in life. I'd like to be talking in terms of specifics, but no one else is willing to look past general prejudices.

    Honestly hope you are a dev otherwise your view on exploiting young children is quite depressing as a consumer.
    That's one of the most random things I've ever read. You hope I'm a dev so at least my views are rooted in pure evil? And therefore that's OK?
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    Because they've (potentially) got a really good value game and (potentially) really good value DLC. (Nobody is bothering to check).

    The mere presence of DLC is not a rational thing to hate. It's not. No matter how much you hate it, which is obviously very, very much. There's still no rationale to it.
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @Darren

    And this is my 3rd favourite logic gap. How on earth does a games company 'wring money' out of you? There's no monopoly, no cartel. This isn't the big energy companies freezing grannies to death because they have no alternative.

    Video games is a fiercely competitive, consumer led industry where we, the consumer, call every one one of the shots and anybody who doesn't make us pleased enough goes bust.

    If another 35 quid's worth of DLC exists for a game it's because someone who isn't you is being made happy by it. There is no other reason it could possibly exist, because there is no way to force anything on anybody. The consumer pulls, the developer has no way to push. The developer has no power in this relationship at all.

    It's weird that people can't see that.
    Reply -6
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    I don't agree with counting hours either. If that's the metric we use, the result is padding. It's just an illustration. Rate content anyway you like, I still don't see how adding more to what's there makes what's there worse. I don't see how what's being added is automatically a 'rip', completely divorced from what it is or how much it costs.

    Anyway, people are banging on about 'stink' and 'corruption' and 'exploitation' without having any logical basis to it. I've pointed out there's no logical basis to it. There really isn't anything else to discuss.

    You're quite welcome to take an irrational hatred to something - I do it all the time - just so long as you know it's irrational. Now you do, so everything is in order.
    Reply -5
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    But in my example why is Game B fleecing and Game A not?

    Again, I understand the gut feeling, but I can't get my head round the logic. No-one questions what is in a game, hackles only get raised at what isn't or what gets added later.

    We all end up sounding like our parents in the end. ;)
    Reply -4
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    This is the other bit of the logic I can't fathom:

    Game A offers 25 hours of gameplay for £40.

    Game B offers 30 hours of gameplay for £40, and an additional 4 hours of DLC gameplay for £5.

    Game A is perceived as being better value than Game B.

    Conclusion: The absence of additional content drives value for money, not the presence of content.
    Reply -7
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @Optimaximal

    That's true actually. Once you don't have a disc, you can't have something that was 'already on the disc', and the nagging discomfort disappears.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @jayolad

    And I can completely understand the gut feeling. But the logic still drives me crazy. ;)
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @monkeychris

    The difference being it's day one DLC and if the download is any more than a 1MB file to unlock them, I'd be surprised.

    That's like having the police station, hospital and houses in the box and having to pay to use them.
    This is the bit of the anti DLC logic that I can never fathom:

    The fire station and the police station Lego sets are made at the same time, designed to be used together. If you buy the fire station and then want the police station, you have to walk to the shop to get it. (Edit: Or wait for the postman - an even closer analogy). There is no way to save you the inconvenience of the walk to the shop.

    The game and DLC are made at the same time. If you buy the game and then want the DLC, you have to wait for it to download. That, you say, would be fine.

    Or, they could save you the wait, and just put it on the empty space on the disc. Only that makes it a rip off.

    Conclusion: It's the inconvenience of the download that makes it value for money.

    /headexplodes
    Reply +3
  • Teens react to the NES

  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @Merdalor

    Is this like how pulling your handbrake without holding the button down speeds up wear? Only it speeds it up from wearing out in a millennia to a few centuries, so no-one cares. Bear in mind I also read my comics without gloves on. :eek:

    At least someone is acknowledging I haven't been imagining things for 25 years.

    Next time I'll try the compressed air pump and see if that does the trick.

    Edit: Lol. Who'm I kidding? I've been straight on ebay for a pair gamebits to open the carts. What metal polish do you use? lol

    I want to make it clear this is because you've told me I can make my collection 0.5% more shiny. Nothing to do with corrosion. Honest.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @The-Bodybuilder

    They didn't even say anything bad. They were all, like, super excited.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @Bruh

    What exactly about my dad's Dinky cars or toy soldiers was it you think out foxed me? I had my mum's old Dansette as a kid to play records on. I still use my grandad's old coffee pot today!

    The issue is that technology from my parents' generation to mine had barely moved an inch compared to me vs. kids today.

    (Also, I still keep my MegaDrive plugged into my TV and play it regularly. Great games are great games.)
    Reply +5
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @bad09

    I know I do.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @penhalion

    I don't know. All I can tell you it that it worked, and it still works.

    What I want to know is where this bullocks myth that it didn't work came from. Was this on QI?

    At worse you had to simply wipe the contacts off with a dry cloth.
    Well, yeah. Or, at best, blow on them. ;)
    Reply 0
  • Editor's blog: About the Destiny review

  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @Ajent

    There was an open Beta available to EVERYONE.
    An even better point.

    Missed the beta? Why not read a review of the beta? The internet is full of them. The beta provides a much better foundation for a review than the final game on a closed server would anyway.

    As sly deceptions go, it's not a very convincing one.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @dogmanstaruk

    We don't.
    Exactly.

    Alternatively, if you think do, just wait a few days! It's not like you have to make a decision today or miss out forever.
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @WhiteUmbrella

    what appears to be a spin article written on behalf of the publisher ... why that might have been done is anyone's guess.
    I'm anyone. My guess is they just agree with each other.

    You can't review an online game until it's online. Even if they'd been a reviewers' server, EG wouldn't post the review until they'd tested it in the wild, so why would they object to there not being a reviewers' server?

    Rather than poking fingers as shadows, why don't you tell us how you would solve this problem?

    The consumer message seems pretty clear to me: if you're unsure, wait a few days and read the review you've just been told is coming soon.
    Reply +11
  • Sometimes I wish more games were just a vertical slice

  • PlugMonkey 06/09/2014

    @mega-gazz

    Really? I see an industry that is providing more incredibly good value, top notch entertainment than I can find time to experience.

    I guess I'm just a glass-half-full kind of guy.
    Reply +2