[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What about this, the first one was so so and competed against Infamous.[/quote]
The first one sucked. It wasn’t even a good time waster since damn near unlimited power makes everything non risk and boring after a while. Blending into the crowd still can’t beat what Assassin’s Creed did with it.
Infamous had a great lead character, a decent comic book look, and a slow ramp up of abilities so you weren’t some God-like creature right out the gate.
[/quote]
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What about this, the first one was so so and competed against Infamous.[/quote]
The first one bored me to death. Never finished it.[/quote]
I sold it right back to Gamestop. Definitely not worth keeping or caring about. Infamous at least had you care about the character.
The graphics weren’t all that hot for all the hype either.[/quote]
I agree but been reading up that the creators took all the crap out this time, they listened to game players. It had potential. Hell you cant rent games any more, fucking block buster basically closed down here in South Houston.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What about this, the first one was so so and competed against Infamous.[/quote]
The first one bored me to death. Never finished it.[/quote]
I sold it right back to Gamestop. Definitely not worth keeping or caring about. Infamous at least had you care about the character.
The graphics weren’t all that hot for all the hype either.[/quote]
I agree but been reading up that the creators took all the crap out this time, they listened to game players. It had potential. Hell you cant rent games any more, fucking block buster basically closed down here in South Houston.[/quote]
Blockbuster declared bankruptcy and is largely no more. Netflix killed it.
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
Was Infamous 2 any good? When I saw they changed the look of the main character to the guy from Uncharted and changed his voice actor I thought it would suck. I know they changed the look back, but I thought the game would probably suck if they were originally going in that direction.
[/quote]
Infamous 2 was actually a better game. The character was the same lead as the first so if there was any discussion of changing him, it didn’t get far because they were working on this one almost since the first was released.
It was a fun game…and for me, that says something.
The best addition to the game was this ability to use your electricity like spiderman’s web and sling shot yourself to other buildings.[/quote]
They did change the voice actor used for Cole between inFamous 1 and 2. At first I didn’t care for the new guy doing Cole’s voice but by the end I got used to it.
inFamous 2 was overall a better game than 1, but the good ending pissed me off. I still need to replay 1 and 2 with the evil choices.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What about this, the first one was so so and competed against Infamous.[/quote]
The first one bored me to death. Never finished it.[/quote]
I sold it right back to Gamestop. Definitely not worth keeping or caring about. Infamous at least had you care about the character.
The graphics weren’t all that hot for all the hype either.[/quote]
I agree but been reading up that the creators took all the crap out this time, they listened to game players. It had potential. Hell you cant rent games any more, fucking block buster basically closed down here in South Houston.[/quote]
Blockbuster declared bankruptcy and is largely no more. Netflix killed it.[/quote]
Sign of the times. Streaming will kill piracy as soon as they figure out a way to sell a ‘domestic- theatrical’ experience.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What about this, the first one was so so and competed against Infamous.[/quote]
The first one bored me to death. Never finished it.[/quote]
Infamous at least had you care about the character.
[/quote]
This right there. And I had a blast playing Infamous. Great story telling, loved the Karma system – reminded me a bit of Mass Effect good and evil decisions – and I was still longing for more after finishing the game.
Sign of the times. Streaming will kill piracy as soon as they figure out a way to sell a ‘domestic- theatrical’ experience. [/quote]
I wouldn’t go as far as say it will kill it - some people will always take free over paying even a minimal fee if given the opportunity.
[/quote]
True- but piracy is rarely ‘free’: it comes down to convenience/ being the first to see a new release. Physical rental stores are gradually being phased out now by streaming. The gap between theatrical and rental releases has narrowed (I remember a time when it was six months from screen to rental; now it’s less than three).
streaming won’t kill piracy. There are people who rip stuff off of stream and post it online to download. The quality is always worse, but that’s probably because of the stream more than anything.
Although I’m not sure with gaming. DRM never works but Diablo 3 which is primarily a single player game is going to have servers and all the data is on the servers. You’ll have to be signed into their servers just to play the game by yourself. I think that’s what gaming companies are going to go for. Games you have to be online at all times and connected to their servers at all times. I’ll bet they will introduce advertising before you can play a game eventually too.
This is a jewel in an age of overhyped, polished turds; too bad I can’t play the shit out of it for another week or so.
You can buy it with steam, GOG, or as a non DRM protected installer or a combination. For peanuts.
As a old school veteran, let me say it’s the closest, well-made, modern adaptation of ‘Dungeon Master’ and ‘Lands of Lore’ (forget EotBeholder) you can hope for.
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
streaming won’t kill piracy. There are people who rip stuff off of stream and post it online to download. The quality is always worse, but that’s probably because of the stream more than anything.
[/quote]
Once it gets to the point where movies are officially available to stream online within weeks of a theatrical release (or even simultaneously)…the option will be there to pay for the higher quality version vs. watching the pirated inferior copy for free. The quality of a pirated movie is because it is usually recorded in a theater. Very rarely will pirate movies come from a studio master copy.
The main reason that people download new releases is because it affords them the convenience of watching a new release in the comfort of their own home. It comes down to accessibility and convenenience. When they make the official releases as accessible and as convenient as the pirates do, the only people who’ll plump for the pirated version are those who wouldn’t pay for the movie anyway and simply don’t want to be left out in a Monday morning movie conversation over coffee.
It’s not just about streaming: it’s also about the illegal DVD trade, which operates on the same principles as streaming. Most pirate DVDs are burned from streamed copies.
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
streaming won’t kill piracy. There are people who rip stuff off of stream and post it online to download. The quality is always worse, but that’s probably because of the stream more than anything.
[/quote]
Once it gets to the point where movies are officially available to stream online within weeks of a theatrical release (or even simultaneously)…the option will be there to pay for the higher quality version vs. watching the pirated inferior copy for free. The quality of a pirated movie is because it is usually recorded in a theater. Very rarely will pirate movies come from a studio master copy.
The main reason that people download new releases is because it affords them the convenience of watching a new release in the comfort of their own home. It comes down to accessibility and convenenience. When they make the official releases as accessible and as convenient as the pirates do, the only people who’ll plump for the pirated version are those who wouldn’t pay for the movie anyway and simply don’t want to be left out in a Monday morning movie conversation over coffee.
It’s not just about streaming: it’s also about the illegal DVD trade, which operates on the same principles as streaming. Most pirate DVDs are burned from streamed copies.[/quote]
I didn’t know what you were talking about at first, but I’ve seen some tv episodes on the internet to download that had been ripped off of websites that put them there to stream a week before they aired on tv. They’re called webrips. I kind of doubt movies will move in that direction unless they can keep it from being ripped. The quality will be better on the webrips than from filming in a theatre.
I would personally pay at or even slightly above theater prices for same-day viewing of new release movies in-home.
I find theater chairs ruin my back for days. My Sumo furniture keeps my chubby like Alcatraz. So, if’n I can watch, say, Avengers 2 on my TV (everyone’s using a big screen as their monitor in this situation, I presume), then I’ll drop a ten-spot on it.
Fuck, I’ll by popcorn from GoWaiter.com or something just to make the price more unbearable.
Theaters will eventually die out. I give them maybe another 30 years, if that. One day kids will only read about them in…inter-neuron world internet data centers every human will have implanted.
Why would you spend more money to watch a new movie at home? The whole point of going to the theatre is to watch the movies on a big screen with great sound. Would you really want to see Avengers for the first time at home on your little tv?
