[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40785199]1) except that's entirely untrue and it's just for EA titles, and is pretty much identical to how bf3 was handled on the consoles.
2. because who needs competition??? why can't all games be on a single digital distribution system?[/QUOTE]
Is there really anything they're offering that Steam isn't though?
Besides it's not like Origin has forced steam to do new things. Valve does it because they're a good company, not because they NEED to keep ahead of their competition. Their competition just doesn't even try to compare. It's a rare case of a monopoly being a good thing.
Basically, Origin is there to get a cut of the delicious monies on the PC distribution market. They aren't there because they thought "Hey we can provide a better service for our customers than Steam, why don't we take our games off and improve on our own system!"
And in this case "monopoly" is synonymous with "standard".
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;40785336]Is there really anything they're offering that Steam isn't though?
Besides it's not like Origin has forced steam to do new things. Valve does it because they're a good company, not because they NEED to keep ahead of their competition. Their competition just doesn't even try to compare. [b]It's a rare case of a monopoly being a good thing.[/b][/QUOTE]
having monopolies is awful, regardless of what they're monopolizing. having competition is better than not having competition. monopolies are also illegal, so there's that.
a publisher has every right to not have their game on steam, regardless of their reasoning. i never see people complaining about valve's games being steam exclusive, but alway see people bitching about battlefield or something being an origin exclusive.
also lol
[quote]Valve does it because they're a good company,[/quote]
no, they maintain and promote steam because they're a company. they aren't allowing publishers and developers to host their games on steam with a ~30% cut from sales out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it to make money and shit, just like any other company.
[editline]25th May 2013[/editline]
clarification: i know that steam isn't a monopoly, because there's shit like gmg, gog, origin, etc, i was just addressing that bit of jc denton's post
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40785415]having monopolies is awful, regardless of what they're monopolizing. having competition is better than not having competition. monopolies are also illegal, so there's that.
a publisher has every right to not have their game on steam, regardless of their reasoning. i never see people complaining about valve's games being steam exclusive, but alway see people bitching about battlefield or something being an origin exclusive.
also lol
no, they maintain and promote steam because they're a company. they aren't allowing publishers and developers to host their games on steam with a ~30% cut from sales out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it to make money and shit, just like any other company.[/QUOTE]
Yeah monopolies are illegal alright but that doesn't stop them from existing. See: Internet Service Providers. And if the competition (if you can call it that) provides no competition, does it really count?
Valve has kind of earned the right to keep their own games on their own distribution system since
1. It's the largest
2. It pretty much popularized the whole thing
3. It provides better services than all the other systems
I wouldn't be bitching about battlefield being an origin exclusive if origin even TRIED to match steam in terms of the features and sales it has. But it doesn't and to me it just looks like some cheap money grab while giving the finger to people who would like to also play Battlefield X on steam.
Can you imagine the nightmare if every developer ever said "I want our own distribution platform on PC!"
It would be terrible. Please install these 30 distribution systems and keep them running if you want to play these games. Have fun keeping track of them all, or having a complete and comprehensive friends list! Yeah Steam isn't perfect but it's damn well good at what it's made for and all the other competition pales in comparison.
I love the "companies are in it to make money, that's why they're a company!" thing because while that's true, companies are also in it to provide a good service to their customers at a reasonable cost. Which steam does amazingly well and which other companies fall short on. Publishers and developers choose to use steam as their platform because it's a good service that will aslo get their game more attention to boot. Also because of it's ease of updating. Steam isn't a ruthless cutthroat company out to kill all other competition, besides dominating the P.C. distribution market and taking a few steps into branching out into V.R. and consoles, they aren't really trying to step on anyone else. You cannot deny that Valve as a company is one of the more sincere and user-oriented companies out there.
[QUOTE=Dead Madman;40755119]The first one did too though? You play a girl who was trained to become a runner after your father died and you seek the guy who framed your sister for a crime - I'd consider that a story[/QUOTE]
It was the mom that died, not the dad.
Please let this be an Xbox one exclusive ^__^
[QUOTE=Doodle313;40786284]Please let this be an Xbox one exclusive ^__^[/QUOTE]
I hope to god you're kidding.
nice boxart
this better not be like that time i pre ordered battlefield 1943 for the pc
[QUOTE=smallfry;40777738]I hope Mirror's Edge 2 has machine pistols.
[video=youtube;CT0yOoBrnTA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT0yOoBrnTA[/video][/QUOTE]
I kind of want bullet time in ME2 after seeing that video.
[QUOTE=kaze4159;40777768]Man, you can say the gunplay was clunky and horrible all you want
But fuck me it was satisfying to steal that cop's gun and shoot the runner cops
Those fucking tasers man[/QUOTE]
IMO i think the gunplay was great in mirrors edge and the sole reason it was good was because it wasnt a shooter, and thus didn't have the same approach to gun wielding. they felt valuable as a tool, whereas in other games you just feel like a walking camera with a floating gun and arms that pumps out a billion rounds a second.
some of the most satisfying experiences I've had in a game using a gun were in mirror's edge because they actually understood how to make guns feel like a tool rather than being the single mechanic of an entire game.
Drop-kicking the Shotgun SWAT guy off the construction building was immensely satisfying. If you did it right, he even had a special falling animation.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j4bSrs_mww[/media]
8:05
I hope this game doesn't improve on guns but gets rid of them. Have more missions in more areas with less combat, but working around enemies would be fun.
i want free roam.. less gunplay and interior parts. i wanna be FREEEEEE!
really high up in the buildings like the first mission. mmph.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;40797595]I hope this game doesn't improve on guns but gets rid of them. Have more missions in more areas with less combat, but working around enemies would be fun.[/QUOTE]
I like combat, but in the way that you simple defeat enemies by forcing them into hand-to-hand. The gun combat is unsatisfying, it's much more fun to be the pacifist with a fist.
[editline]27th May 2013[/editline]
The game needs more ways to disarm, hell just more animations for disarm would cut it for me.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40799456]I like combat, but in the way that you simple defeat enemies by forcing them into hand-to-hand. The gun combat is unsatisfying, it's much more fun to be the pacifist with a fist.
[editline]27th May 2013[/editline]
The game needs more ways to disarm, hell just more animations for disarm would cut it for me.[/QUOTE]
From what I've seen people either want way more combat or not at all... I honestly think that for a parkour game, the no-combat option is better for the future of this game. When you think about it, parkour isn't about combat, or punching guys in the face...
[QUOTE=Brt5470;40797595]I hope this game doesn't improve on guns but gets rid of them. Have more missions in more areas with less combat, but working around enemies would be fun.[/QUOTE]
I think the first handles gunplay just fine. Generally uninteresting but still an option if you feel the need to use it.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40755306]This delights me a lot. I was just thinking the other day about if and when DICE were gonna pause their Battlefield production line and do ME2.
It's a pretty run-of-the-mill framing device for the rooftop freerunning that doesn't really connect properly to the potentially amazing game world. There were lots of little traces of interesting world lore exposition that were mentioned but never really expanded upon, such who the runners work for, the city's claimed transformation into a 1984-esque dystopia, the November riots, and so on.
After the first 10-20 minutes the game narrative stopped being about "running" and focused only on the things directly concerning the murder-mystery plot, which is a shame because I'd love to have seen that game world properly fleshed out. I hope the sequel can do that.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't Mirror's Edge set in the same world as Battlefield or something? (I haven't played any of those games, so I wouldn't know which one) I remember reading one of the little scrolling news stories in an elevator on one level and it had something that described the events of one of those games' single player campaigns from a journalistic point of view
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40761975]this has never happened, and never will happen
[b]god, pc gamers have no trust in anybody and assume the craziest things.[/b][/QUOTE]
Yeah man, I hate it when people make generalized assumptions...
[QUOTE=saming;40813300]From what I've seen people either want way more combat or not at all... I honestly think that for a parkour game, the no-combat option is better for the future of this game. When you think about it, parkour isn't about combat, or punching guys in the face...[/QUOTE]
well lucky for you mirrors edge isn't about recreational parkour, huh
The original had a great balance of exploration/non combat areas but once you're alerted of course you have to get past security. They had a winning formula the first time, add batons and different varied ranged weapons and you've got a GOTY.
[QUOTE=Impulse101;40755156]Mirror's Edge's gameplay was solid and all and it's one of my favorite games but TBH the story is pretty laughable.[/QUOTE]
agreed. i actually spent more time in the time trial section than in the story mode because the gameplay was damn good
There should also be less elevators.
And buttons in general.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
