|
Post by malice on Aug 25, 2010 13:03:35 GMT -5
After-post Edit: Wow, I might've let myself loose with this post. Beware the rant.
Corporate machines DO NOT stop milking things until they're bone dry. It's a time-tested proven fact. If they think they can make a single penny, they will do whatever it takes to do so.
Just look at how every time an video-gameable movie comes out a horrible video game accompanies it. Their market: Idiots. I am not joking or exaggerating, they are literally marketing to people who don't do their research and don't know anything. They are relying on the fact that parents don't think games are important enough to learn about, and so just buy their kids stupid awful games in an attempt to appease their brats.
I ran into a woman from my church who was looking to buy a game for her kid. However the game he wanted was not low-priced enough for her (Nothing wrong with that, games are very expensive) so she jumped over to a game that vaguely resembled the other in her eyes. The game she ended up getting didn't even exist on my radar, which means it was very likely bad.
Her story is paralelled across industries commonly as consumers just don't wan't to work hard enough to save themselves money. They'd rather blow the cash and get back to whatever meaningless busy-ness occupies their lives.
Bad movies get made and prosper as people go to the theater without first checking whether it's worth the money. Also each person values their money differently, some would legitimately rather spend $20 at the theater to see a bad movie than they would do anything else in their heads. Horrible cheap products sell right off the shelves.
"Quality" just isn't in most current marketing models. After all, if your job is to market things, you need to do your best whether or not the product is worth it. And isn't the mark of a good advertiser that they can sell you shit and you'll smile about it? Like a defense attorney who must defend a guilty client, businesses have evolved to the point where they're their own ecosystem. Each feeds off the other and they try to grow off every aspect of life. Business is American fungus.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Aug 25, 2010 15:02:02 GMT -5
Having worked in the corporate world, and specifically in publishing, I can tell you flat out that you're wrong. Large corporations absolutely make a consideration of how much value they're giving customers for their dollar. Admittedly, its not done altruistically for most companies (but even then, there are exceptions), its done as a matter of developing and maintaining customer loyalty, but it still exists.
Whenever people bitch about the evils of "corporate America" I wish Soviet Russia still existed so I could send them there for a quick visit.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Aug 25, 2010 15:50:06 GMT -5
Doubt it. It's hard to write that much and be 100% wrong, I'd welcome the free trip out of the country (I have yet to get out of the country). I passed up a shot at Morocco cuz it was expensive (and a little scary), so maybe what I need is a free trip that I don't have a choice in.
You may have worked a job that gave you an inside look, but every job I've worked for someone else has been on the bottom end of the organization. There's a nearly-universal disconnect between the top and the bottom, and there's also a disconnect between provider and consumer.
In order to validate even half of what I've said I need only to be a consumer. I am dissatisfied, I see others around me dissatisfied, and I see why they're dissatisfied. It's echoed in the posts in this thread. It's not original, controversial, or mine to say "This sucks." It just sucks, and if someone doesn't know it they're not paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Aug 25, 2010 16:43:18 GMT -5
You're being awfully one sided. A huge part of the problem is that the consumer (and while we're on the subject, the general "workers" in most corporations) have a tendency to want too much. We've become a society that demands everything in exchange for the absolute minimum effort on our own behalf.
When it comes to any product, its quite simple. If you don't think its a quality product, don't buy it. I knew X Men Origins: Wolverine was going to suck... so I refused to pay for it. TWF did the same with The Last Airbender. The fact of the matter is that companies are responsive to public demand, but just like politicians, they don't respond to polls or general discontented grunting. Corporations respond to the bottom line. If you're feeling like a product isn't high quality, but it remains on the market year after year after year, instead of blaming the corporations, take a look at your fellow consumer.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Aug 25, 2010 17:06:02 GMT -5
You're being awfully one sided. A huge part of the problem is that the consumer (and while we're on the subject, the general "workers" in most corporations) have a tendency to want too much. We've become a society that demands everything in exchange for the absolute minimum effort on our own behalf. When it comes to any product, its quite simple. If you don't think its a quality product, don't buy it. I knew X Men Origins: Wolverine was going to suck... so I refused to pay for it. TWF did the same with The Last Airbender. The fact of the matter is that companies are responsive to public demand, but just like politicians, they don't respond to polls or general discontented grunting. Corporations respond to the bottom line. If you're feeling like a product isn't high quality, but it remains on the market year after year after year, instead of blaming the corporations, take a look at your fellow consumer. I know, I agree, and I kinda tried to say that in my first post. I research things before I buy them, I try not to waste money on lousy products. However I have no money, and even when I do it's not that much. So what I buy or wouldn't buy doesn't make much of an impact. I understand that if people weren't as stupid about their purchases then corporate wouldn't sell them the garbage they're pawing for, but corporate makes the first move as often as not. Also keep in mind that while they may concern themselves with "quality" of the product, they're actually talking about "what people will buy". I don't blame them. There's nothing evil about it (Although in my opinion the dudes who pay themselves 600 times what their employees make, or commit fraud AFTER they've made so much money they don't need money anymore... are evil pricks who I'd happily flay if I could get away with it), it's just an entity with a single purpose seeking out that purpose. You end up with a lot of single-purpose "organisms" feeding off of us (We are multi-purpose) and each other. We are always at a disadvantage, because we have multiple things on our mind while they only have one. One of my favorite quotes from Bruce Lee talks about how dangerous a determined fighter is. It goes something like: "If you are fighting someone who has decided that he is going to bite your nose off no matter what you do to him, he's probably going to do it." The point is that the fewer goals you have the more likely you are to achieve one. If my goal is to take your wallet, no matter what I have to do to get it and no matter what you do to me, then I have a very good chance of success. You have more than your wallet to worry about, they don't. It's not evil, just effective to a point of feeling evil (And bad for those of us with more on our minds).
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Aug 25, 2010 17:23:05 GMT -5
Your point about companies using "quality" as a term for "what people will buy" is pretty much true, in my experience... but when it comes to entertainment, how else do you determine what is "quality"?
Ultimately, I just don't have a problem with people buying crap. I mean, I'll sit here and tell them its crap, but hey, if people want to see Twilight movies, Hollywood has no business deciding not to make them.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Aug 25, 2010 19:02:43 GMT -5
Your point about companies using "quality" as a term for "what people will buy" is pretty much true, in my experience... but when it comes to entertainment, how else do you determine what is "quality"? I think many people have asked that question and come up with as many answers as you did, which is why we have a bunch of crap. I don't have an answer, but there are some things in entertainment where you can measure "quality" outside of sales. Movies are bad turf for it though, so if you don't mind I'll jump back to games. If your game has a ton of technical problems (think: making it past the start menu is considered an accomplishment) then you should not release it. You've got it right though, it's hard to sell something to tasteless people and know whether you've made a good product. If someone is willing to eat anything, how do you know what they prefer to eat? Consumers suck almost as badly as the tubes feeding them, but the difference is that a tube has one purpose and will always serve that purpose. It doesn't evolve at all. We can work on the consumers though. Sadly no one feels like putting that much work into a bunch of ungrateful, overfed bastards who don't have taste even in their mouths. The only real comfort is that people could evolve, a tube can't.
|
|
|
Post by Beacon on Sept 6, 2010 10:55:41 GMT -5
Am I the only one that thinks this looks kind of cool in spite of the train wreak the comics have become?
I mean, sure comic book games tend to be either really great or really terrible just like any other licensed product … and the bad tend to be the majority. However you have to give them points on originality at least. Who would have thought that there would be a Spider-Man game where you can play as the Noir and 2099 versions of the character as well as the classic one. Granted, Black Costume Ultimate Spidey is a rather uninspired fourth choice (why not 1602 or Spider-Girl or something?) but I have a DS so I only get the first three Spider-Men anyway.
That’s the other thing. I have to respect them for putting out different trailers for the different game systems so you know what you’re getting instead of only posting the best looking one and then sneaking in a bunch of half-assed versions for the buyers of other systems.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 6, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5
Am I the only one that thinks this looks kind of cool in spite of the train wreak the comics have become? Depends on what you mean by "kind of cool" I guess. There are aspects of it that are vaguely interesting, but its certainly nothing I'm going to get excited about. Since I generally don't buy or play any of the Spider-Man games (Friend or Foe being the exception, I got that one for my kids), this one isn't exceptional in that I just don't care...
|
|
|
Post by Beacon on Sept 6, 2010 12:41:13 GMT -5
I’m not saying I fell an overwhelming urge to rush out and buy it this second (the adorably cute Lego Batman was the last time I thought that about a comic game) but it looks better than people are giving it credit for.
Granted it could still be terrible. I bought a used copy of Friend or Foe for ten bucks and felt I paid too much. Then again, the Ultimate Spider-Man game – despite some flaws* – comes close to being exactly what a superhero game should be.
*Particularly the awkward Venom controls and the obligatory race levels.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 6, 2010 12:44:45 GMT -5
Well, by that definition, sure, it seems "kind of cool." I guess if I were the kind of guy who played Spider-Man games, I'd be as likely to buy this as anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Beacon on Sept 17, 2010 21:56:45 GMT -5
I picked up the DS version at Target (along with the Batman: Brave and the Bold game) the other day because they were running a pretty good sale on them and the IGN reviews were pretty good (7.5 isn’t great but they tend to be pretty hard on licensed products to begin with)
I like that this is its own game (complete with its own exclusive bosses) instead of a watered down version of the consuls. I don’t think I’m really missing much by not having Ultimate Spidey since he Amazing rendered him redundant anyway.
I was a little reluctant when I heard about the whole “advancement” part of the game. What’s the point of playing as Spider-Man if you only get some of his powers to start out with? As it turns out Amazing and Noir still feel like Spidey (though Noir’s initial lack of wallcrawling took some adjusting to). So far the “advancement” part of things has mostly revolved around making the Peters stronger or tougher and learning combos that would have been overwhelming if I’d started with them anyway.
2099 thought … wow is Miguel disappointing. How did they think it was a good idea to take the webslinging away from the first incarnation of Spidey to have organic webs? Instead he gets around by slowly and awkwardly gliding in a level that seems to have noticeably faster opponents.
I also really hate the mini-game at the portals that you have to suffer through to change Spider-Men.
The voice acting was a pleasant surprise.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 18, 2010 7:42:53 GMT -5
Small correction. Mainstream Peter Parker was the first Spidey to have organic webbing... The Venom Symbiote (black costume, whatever you wish to call it) had it.
|
|
|
Post by Beacon on Sept 18, 2010 10:30:12 GMT -5
Small correction. Mainstream Peter Parker was the first Spidey to have organic webbing... The Venom Symbiote (black costume, whatever you wish to call it) had it. Yes, but it was decades into his publishing history and it wasn’t really “his” webbing; it was a symbiote. (Or I could just admit I forgot about that ;-) ) Either way the point stands. Comic Miguel has organic webs as part of his powerset but the gliding is the result of a costume modification. Game Miguel can glide from the start but can’t fire webs (though I assume he’ll get the upgrade eventually) and that just feels a little off.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 18, 2010 11:34:32 GMT -5
It's a truly minor thing, but as a geek, I have to nitpick. Plus I'm a child of the black costume era (one of the first comics I ever owned was Spidey in the black suit)
|
|