View Single Post
Old 09-19-2006, 11:14 PM   #28
Rust_Lord's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by ZagFel
I saw the screenshots and the video. Either way, arguments about the video still apply because they're both promotional media. Also, your confusion about the content of the screenshots proves that the final product will never meet expectations. For example, another user could have counted the number of Mon Calamari cruisers in the shot and used that to generate a (false) approximation of the Executor's power.
I never saw the video and as I indicated in above posts I wouldnt have a problem with it if I saw/heard the disclaimers they gave. I am sure that they will advertise their product accurately if they are already clarrifying what they show. I wasn't confused about the screenshots, I only interpreted it from what I saw and read from others posts that the Executor was already damaged since it would take a while to destroy if at full 'health'. Whose expectations will not be met? Mine? Im going to receive the game with a fairly open mind, but there will undoubtedly be things I would change, its not going to be able to please everyone, I just didnt want any hideous imbalances. Your right about the Mon Cals and the executor but it depends on the person and what conclusions they want to draw...Those mon cals could in fact be the 10th wave of ships to have a go at the executor and if that was the case people would know it was alot tougher than what was shown. Since we dont have access to the values of ships from promos we only go on what we see, thats why the devastating barrage is hard to misinterpret.

Originally Posted by ZagFel
It's not redundant. It would have been if I had written "tactical component of the ground component." Either way, that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not bombardment is a large enough part of the game that it would convince people to purchase it.
...Tactical component as compared to what...strategic component? Bombing runs are available in galactic conquest as well, if you consider that the strategic component but the whole tactical V strategic thing this been discussed ad nauseam in other threads and I dare not revive it for sanity's sake. We'll just have to agree to disagree me thinks. Which reminds me, not at all trying to ridicule you, im curious as to what you deem a primary support ability? ...reinforcements? The bombardment may be but one feature/ability amongst many of the game but any one feature can be imbalancing to the game overall. Likewise for the sake of one feature or unit, it can be enough to influence people to buy it or not buy it. Its hard to say which way it would go because while gamers would love a devastating weapon they also want balance and dont necessarily want to be on the receiving end of it. This raises another point which I probably should have mentioned and that was whether or not if the exaggerated barrage was race specific or not. Since it wont be in the game its academic but hypothetically if each race had such an ability then its not as bad, they can both blast each other into the stone age but its still only going to come down to who can purchase a run first. If its only available to one race/faction then its more of a concern.

Originally Posted by ZagFel
This contradicts your previous argument that exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games. It also hurts your position because it means that developer dishonesty is ultimately self-correcting: gamers won't purchase a game with sensationalized promo media because of perceptions of imbalance. I also don't understand why it warrants your earlier criticism of Torpid because, if anything, you should be pleased that a potentially unbalancing feature was corrected.
I do not see any gripe has always been about advertising exaggerated features to sell games and game imbalances, be it the bombardment or whatever. Just because the engine is a major part of the car its the one feature of it that *I* look at when buying a car; somone else might look for safety equipment etc. I only used the example of the car to show the *effect* on one consumers decision when there was a change between the prototype and the production product (a deflation of a feature you could say), not comparing a game to a car in any other literal sense that I believe was taken by some. I understand now that it wasnt deliberate on PGs part to create a 'wow' factor about it, since I said a number of times I didnt see the video or hear the promoters discalimers but of course I am happy to know that the end version will not be like I feared, even if it could be fixed with a patch. Last line, first paragraph of my last post= since it was not deliberate it could also be interpreted as nothing more than a plea to PG not to do what some other game companies do. I doubt they will. Seeing as PG werent guilty of product sensationalism im sure Torpid couldnt care less about what I said. The poor guy has copped alot more flak of others for various things, im sure he has pretty thick skin otherwise he wouldnt be on the forums. PG know they have a great product that doesnt need to resort to such shinanigans to sell it. I do believe that "exaggerated promo media misleads consumers into purchasing less sensational games" as you say. It just depends on how exaggerated it is. This happens with any products; as we all know its called advertising. It comes in different forms. Sometimes its not accurate and it leads people to buy stuff and be disappointed. Your a smart enough guy to realise that if you bought that convertible your not going to have three bikini clad babes hanging out of it as you cruise the beach, when you live in, say texas, and neither will 99% of guys but some will believe that by buying that car they will have more fun/get more attention/etc and that is what the advertiser wants you to think. Thats how they succeed. Unfortunately dishonesty is not always self correcting due to consumer demand because some people arent as careful as others, some just don't care and some are down-right gullible. Some dodgy people only need to burn a consumer once to get the desired return.

Anyway, I have crapped on long enough. At least it might provide some with entertainment...
Rust_Lord is offline   you may: quote & reply,