pwyll on 30/5/2009 at 20:10
Yes, there is no mistake. I like 3rd person more than 1st. I know that most of you think otherwise but this is my opinion so respect it. Don't argue with me.
Sulphur on 30/5/2009 at 20:15
You really need to chill out once in a while. No, really.
Cozmo on 30/5/2009 at 22:11
ok, so the average age of a video gamer is 41 and on average, gamers make $55,000 a year? :erm: :cheeky::cheeky::cheeky:
Alright, I think some people need to start using common sense and logic, and trust less in random internet publications...We all know there are many exceptions (including me - 25), but the bulk of the "gamers" is constituted of teenagers..
YuSeF on 31/5/2009 at 01:39
Quote Posted by Cozmo
ok, so the average age of a video gamer is 41 and on average, gamers make $55,000 a year? :erm: :cheeky::cheeky::cheeky:
Alright, I think some people need to start using common sense and logic, and trust less in random internet publications...We all know there are many exceptions (including me - 25), but the bulk of the "gamers" is constituted of teenagers..
LOL what delusion. He refutes the given sources with a mere simple opinion without any evidence. Then he proceeds to claims that "bulk" of gamers are teenagers and yet has no source to back it up.
Renzatic on 31/5/2009 at 03:16
Bah. Teenagers are too busy talking about their iPod playlists and getting convicted for Sexting their friends to play videogames.
Throw something about Twitter in there, too. I HATE TWITTER SO MUCH!
Cozmo on 31/5/2009 at 07:54
Quote Posted by YuSeF
LOL what delusion. He refutes the given sources with a mere simple opinion without any evidence. Then he proceeds to claims that "bulk" of gamers are teenagers and yet has no source to back it up.
This guy proves my point perfectly. He refuses to think for himself, has no common sense (or acts like he doesn't) and he is only going to believe
anything if he sees it in an internet publication so he would have a
"source". LOL If someone told him that the Earth is not flat, he'd call that statement "delusional", as no
"source" was provided. Scientific talk is one thing, but inability to rationalise, even on a simple level is just sad. Go ahead - ask for the source of anything people tell you in conversation and see how many weird looks you are going to get. :tsktsk:
Bit of a waste of time, showing him the error of his ways, but I was bored. And perhaps he'll learn. :idea: Then again, probably not.
Bulgarian_Taffer on 31/5/2009 at 08:24
I also think that we have oldtaffers (those who liked T1 and T2, but not TDS), and newtaffers (those who liked TDS, but disliked T1 and T2).
I consider myself to be an oldtaffer, because I played Thief 1 and Thief 2 first, and only Thief - Deadly Shadows later. I found myself surprised that although there were many angry rants here about TDS (lack of rope arrows, Garrett not able to swim, load zones), I actually enjoyed Thief - Deadly Shadows! I enjoyed TDS even more than Thief 2 for various reasons - for example, dull architecture in missions like this in Shipping... and Receiving, lack of zombie missions in T2, modern atmosphere (Mechanists, robots)...
So my top list is:
1. Thief - The Dark Project
2. Thief - The Deadly Shadows
3. Thief - The Metal age
I found that only Thief 1 and Thief - DS had a true Thief-feeling and I'm talking about OMs. There were FMs for Thief 2 I actually enjoyed more than the original missions. Thus, I'd like Thief 4 to keep the atmosphere of Thief 1 and Thief - Deadly Shadows - dark, grim. However, I won't be against seeing Mechanists for a mission or two (but with fewer robots and gizmos), plus a victorian-style mansion.
Kaiseto on 31/5/2009 at 08:40
Quote Posted by Myth
2. The new taffers that first encountered the Thief series with TDS, and then played the first two games and didn't like them because of the graphics, or because they were too hard or what not.
What about those of us who played Thief: Deadly Shadows first, then went back and played the other two and loved them to bits? Aren't there any of those people? Because their forum could probably use some of us. I actually liked all three games, mostly because I played the weakest first, and had no expectations.
I'm not expecting much from a new thief game though. I see it being completely different from anything in the series, lacking the witty writing and great atmosphere in favor of more marketable one-liners and a more distinguishable Medieval Fantasy setting. Games that are hard to define tend to be hard to sell, and let's face it, there hasn't been a stealth game remotely like Thief in its mechanics for several years.
jay pettitt on 31/5/2009 at 09:24
Quote Posted by Cozmo
This guy proves my point perfectly. He refuses to think for himself, has no common sense (or acts like he doesn't) and he is only going to believe
anything if he sees it in an internet publication so he would have a
"source". LOL If someone told him that the Earth is not flat, he'd call that statement "delusional", as no
"source" was provided. Scientific talk is one thing, but inability to rationalise, even on a simple level is just sad. Go ahead - ask for the source of anything people tell you in conversation and see how many weird looks you are going to get. :tsktsk:
Bit of a waste of time, showing him the error of his ways, but I was bored. And perhaps he'll learn. :idea: Then again, probably not.
Ahh, our old friend common sense. The mass abandonment of reason in favour of prejudice. It is rarely reliable - and because we tend to subconsciously seek out and preference information that reinforces our prejudices and avoid or reject information that doesn't, common sense is also a tricksy little minx. Don't trust her. Funny how internet sources can be greeted with due scepticis, yet one's own armchair expertise is accepted without question and defended vigorously.
May I suggest that by gamer, you mean a teenager who plays Tomb Raider and Gears of War and what ever it is that the kids do these days (yes I am out of touch, that's not the point), and thus think that gamers are most likely teenagers who play Tomb Raider etc. But can I also suggest that might not be the whole story - oh and also that it is completely irrelevant to generalise 'gamers' when thinking about a market for one particular product. The best market for Tomb Raider may be a younger audience, and that younger audience may be a huge tempting pool, but it is very full. Games like Gears of War may be phenomenal cash-cows, but I don't think it's smart to think that the only way a video game can be a commercial success is to try and do what Gears does. That'd just lead to saturation, making it difficult to sell anything while other markets go untapped and financial woes for developers and publishers and lost opportunities and so on. oh wait.
Anyone telling you that there isn't a market for smart video games targeted at people of around your age and older who maybe grew up with games and wouldn't mind keeping a toe in is an idiot and will probably need to be rescued by SquareEnix any time now. It's a different market perhaps, with different numbers and maybe needing a different approach - but it's there alright. If you don't want to believe me, try asking Valve.
