Disqus - Latest Comments for davidkidd

Re: Why Skyrim is Overrated

David Kidd — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:11:02 -0000

... and that'll do.

Thread closed.

Re: Why Skyrim is Overrated

David Kidd — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:47:38 -0000

Your comments were deleted because you have a pattern of attacking people, not because you disagree. If you can't tell the difference, then this isn't the place for you.

Re: Why Skyrim is Overrated

David Kidd — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:22:34 -0000

> Im not here to say people cant critisize...

Yet you've done so numerous times, like in most of the words in the rest of your comment. Any more attacking comments will be deleted.

Re: Why Skyrim is Overrated

David Kidd — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:20:51 -0000

Mikem3971: Tim's played the game. He's cited some major and minor bugs and issues, all of which are "noticeable". And just because they aren't "game ending" doesn't change a thing. By your logic, a car stuck in reverse is okay because, hey, at least it drives.

In other words: read Tim's post, stop putting words into his mouth, and think more about the implications of what you're saying.

Re: Small Worlds (And Why I Don't Like MMORPGs)

David Kidd — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:46:13 -0000

I don't know of any MMOs that have been doing anything like this -- can you give me an example?

As a side note, I think Bartle's profiles are mostly atheoretical, and if they have a use, it's that they're descriptive categories of players who actively play MUD-like games (of which most MMORPGs are). I'm talking about something much, much broader than this.

Re: Retreading the Path

David Kidd — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:24:52 -0000

I suspect 'engagement' is probably what you're talking about, and I agree that novelty isn't the best way to keep people engaged (almost by definition).

That said, I think the novelty of The Path makes it worth a shot -- there's no other game like it -- but the mechanics (in the sense you're referring to) aren't notable or interesting. I'd say its most engaging qualities are the aesthetics and narrative, which isn't for everyone.

And just to be clear, I'm hugely interested in game mechanics and systems, just not exclusively -- i.e. I don't want to shoot myself in the head if, say, a game is engaging in other ways.

Re: Retreading the Path

David Kidd — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:27:58 -0000

Yeah, The Path isn't really like The Graveyard, and I'd agree that the latter would struggle to live up to any definition of game.

The key point here, though, is that we don't *have* a definition for what The Graveyard is, but it's superficially closer to a game than anything else.

The Path is most certainly a game by the definition you've provided, though (that said, the game elements are by far its worst quality). But if you wanted to 'blow your brains out' after playing The Graveyard, then you should probably steer clear.

(And depending on how you define 'fun', I don't think it's either necessary or sufficient for a definition. Some games can be harrowing, sad, upsetting, monotonous or frustrating, but that doesn't make those games *not* games. I'd say 'fun' is a preference, albeit a very common one.)

Re: Death to Online

David Kidd — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:19:03 -0000

While I fully appreciate a good rant, I'm not sure I'm following. What was "unfathomably naive" in my piece? What don't I "get" about 'your' industry? Be specific, man!

Re: AI is About More Than Just Combat

David Kidd — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:06:45 -0000

That's an interesting point, actually. Darklands, one of the best (if not the best) RPGs ever made, used a similar technique -- when you enter a town or interact with an NPC, the game switched to contrived, prose-based sequences that let you choose which action to take. It kind of 'wrote away' the AI and, to me, made the game much more alive than if it were populated with the 'Coke machine' NPCs you find in MMORPGs.

That said, solid AI, in the way Tim's describing here, would still trump it.

Re: The End of Hit Points

David Kidd — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:33:17 -0000

> BTW, why do you get so few comments? I've been lurking for quite a while, and your writing is brilliant. You and your blog deserve much more attention.

Thanks for the kind words, Kogie, but we do get a lot of comments -- we just delete the ones that don't compliment us. (Your $50 is in the post.)

Re: Do Any Games Have Good Voice Acting?

David Kidd — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:52:33 -0000

I think your average AAA console game tends to have better voice acting -- all the Call-of-Gears-of-Halo-alikes are pretty spectacular. But it also depends on what you mean by effective. You could argue that Mario's and Luigi's happy and anxious chirps are as effective as Patrick Stewart in Oblivion.

I'm not sure I agree that voice acting is some kind of panacea for immersion, though.

Re: Why Roper has to Go

David Kidd — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:07:56 -0000

> Trashing someone's professionalism is pretty damn personal, he's calling him out by name and doing more than just saying he doesn't like his work.

But a distinction can be made between professional and personal characteristics. If this is the crux of your argument -- that there is no distinction -- then you and Tim probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye, because Tim *is* making that distinction.

> Consumers that publicly demand anyone be fired are pushing themselves into the business in an inappropriate way.

I'm not convinced on the 'inapproriateness' here. I'd ordinarily agree with you if it was unclear what people's respective roles were and who might be responsible, but that's not the case here. Bill stood up in front of everyone, beat his chest, and said *he* was the person directly responsible. In this context, although it's extreme, it's not at all unexpected for consumers who desperately loved the game to call him out.

> The requirements for thick-skin in the games industry have gone exceedingly high lately and that's a barrier to entry that really isn't necessary.

Game developers absolutely should grow a thick skin, just like authors, artists, musicians, filmmakers and other kinds of creators. The entire industry gets off lightly in comparison.

> How would you react to someone you've never met demanding you be removed from your current employment?

As magazine editors and journalists, we get this all the time.

Re: Why Roper has to Go

David Kidd — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 06:44:20 -0000

Hi Rog!

> making it personal with one of the devs is beyond cheap.

Nah, that's not what's happening here. Tim's bringing Bill's professionalism into question, not him as a person. It's not a personal attack.

> Seriously, it's like the elitist person who gets a cold burger at McDonalds and demands the guy at the counter be fired.

Come on, man. That's the second bad analogy you've made. An appropriate one would be if the manager of said McDonald's mandated that all burgers be cold, and then proclaimed that the implementation of the cold burger edict was his decision, and his alone. I don't think it's unreasonable to call the manager's professional judgment into question if you get served a cold burger when you were expecting a hot one.

Re: Open Beta, My Arse

David Kidd — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:58:54 -0000

Update: beta is now open to everyone.

Re: Light Cycles

David Kidd — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:37:20 -0000

I totally agree. I think that whatever made the original cool probably won't be the same thing that makes the new one cool...

Re: Gamer Funded Gaming?

David Kidd — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:04:36 -0000

if you have a sterling reputation, good PR and great games, it can be a very useful economic plan.

In the case of successful companies, such as Valve, wouldn't existing funding models work as well, if not better? What reason would Valve have in asking for micro investments from its customers, when they would buy the full game anyway? Better to use its reputation to secure funding elsewhere, and then reap the full benefits from the sale.

Re: Will SWTOR Run Out of Things to Say?

David Kidd — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:29:09 -0000

Immersion is important, sure, and it's something MMOs seriously lack (though I would argue that the biggest immersion-breakers in MMOs are other players, and it's hard to work around that...). But, aside from the insane commercial overhead, voice acting will just get in the way of running missions, and any attempt to put a 'ready check' in there would break the immersion anyway. You're adding something to increase immersion, but to make it work, you need to break the immersion? Doesn't make sense.

This isn't about the merits of voice acting, it's about how it works within a traditional MMO model. And despite the hyperbole, I don't see SWTOR straying too far from the traditional MMO model.

Re: Why Don't More Women Make Games?

David Kidd — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:39:46 -0000

By selectively quoting and misquoting the article, you undermine your point. The actual quote is:

"There's evidence to suggest that this is because women simply aren't interested in such high-level abstract subjects, and are drawn away to other subjects during their education and subsequent career."

So, by referring to evidence, I would say this is rather the opposite of the kind judgmental 'sexism' you're suggesting (even though it may be a subjective interpretation).

And 'high-minded' isn't mentioned anywhere in that sentence. 'High-level' is mentioned, and it's a perfectly reasonable term to use in this context.

Re: New New New Games Journalism

David Kidd — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:48:40 -0000

Some general thoughts on scores and objectivity.

I'm not opposed to scores, I just haven't found them particularly useful in game reviews. To use the motoring analogy, we can apply a score to a range of meaningful things, like speed, handling, fuel consumption, etc. They can be benchmarked, weighed up, and then factored into a final judgment by a reviewer. There are fuzzy things around that -- style, aesthetics, comfort -- but you can still point to some key features that can be objectively scored.

With games, it's not so easy. You can benchmark framerate or stability, but those are pretty ordinary quality control issues. Beyond that, I don't know of any meaningful factors that can be crunched into a number.

It's because of this that I don't put too much stock in the Score. Because it's a number, it masquerades as something objective, but it's really just the reviewer distilling their intrinsically subjective judgment into a scale of 'buy/don't buy'. And that's ok. People like it. Advertisers love it. It's the most profitable type of gaming editorial, which counts for a lot. But I don't value* it very much. It's of minor importance (but not unimportant).

Lastly, just to be clear, I'm not saying we can't ever score games objectively, or that we should stop looking for ways to do it. And I don't just mean slapping a number on something like 'gameplay'...

* That said, I do think aggregates of subjective ratings (Gamerankings etc) are quite interesting.

Re: Grinding is for the Weak (But That's OK)

David Kidd — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:28:21 -0000

"Modern MMOs feature player driven economies and if there wasn't economic incentive to grind, no one would do it."

I agree that grinding can be a form of labour (and thus important to an economy), but I disagree that all grinding activities can be defined this way. Grinding -- that is, performing repetitive tasks, which are quick to master, offer incremental rewards, and pose a minor challenge -- can simply be a fun activity for some people. Further, grinding need not be linked to MMOs at all.

"I can only imagine you want MMOs to be a fun action games, full of kicking and punching with guaranteed progress and no limitations on player freedom."

The first 11 words of that sentence are correct.

Re: test

David Kidd — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:39:08 -0000

test reply