Rome 2 made PC Gamer's list of "Worst launches in PC gaming history"

[riskymonk]

Oh well.

Look, it's simply not that important a point. Since I raised it, you've asked me to support claims I didn't make, admitted that you were reacting in defense of something I didn't say, demanded examples, then rejected those examples as being insufficient for you, then moved the goalposts when asking for new examples. Ok, great....if they're not compelling for you, they're not compelling for you. I'm not going to play the game where I spend more time finding more examples that will finally compel you to even begin discussing what wasn't a very important line of discussion to begin with.....I've been offered zero evidence that the conversation would be at all interesting or productive or that you'd be at all receptive, and I'm simply not willing to play that game to that extent over this topic for this audience.

Good job....you won.

No I couldn't find many equal examples either. It was a surprise to see you equate the slightly misleading trailers of Back To The Future with the misleading advertisements of AC Unity for example. In my mind there is a strong difference between a game you are unable to play without performance issues, CTDs, gamebreaking/stopping bugs and a film with slight cuts in their trailers and repeats of the same cameos or phrases in order to make it appear this and that part is bigger than it actually is. Find a film that the paying audience wasn't able to finish watching at the cinema then we can have serious talk. At least find one that has experienced the problems poor release games have experienced.

Did you manage to find DLC/cut content type practices within the film industry?

In the UK, the body which regulates advertising of films and music is the Advertising Standards Authority. For Games? It's the Advertising Standards Authority too, and that includes web-based advertising. They have a public record of their rulings on their website. You might be interested in their rulings on advertising of Sim City and Mass Effect 3. There do not appear to have been any complaints about Rome II.

This is interesting. Do you know if they have a dedication/commitment towards governing the gaming industry in the UK? It's disappointing to see that the Sim City complaints weren't about the release state, it was only on misleading advertisements which is good but from what I've seen it isn't a watchdog for early releases categorized as full releases. This might be why Rome II didn't receive complaints because it's not within their guidelines, rules, goals to tackle poor releases. They only watchdog misleading advertisements which is reliant on peoples complaints as, from what I gather, they don't seem to actively police gaming advertisements. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction towards protecting consumers but unfortunately at the moment it is up to the consumers themselves to decide whether games get released in a poor state with day 1 DLC.

[Symphony]

Find a film that the paying audience wasn't able to finish watching at the cinema then we can have serious talk.

Unlikely...the goalposts would simply move again, in all likelyhood.

See, you're spawning up all sorts of interesting things to discuss, in terms of entertainment industry standards. Are movies and games an apples-to-apples comparison? Is making a movie that will run beginning to end without hitches or performance issues a fair comparison, given that movie projection equipment is fairly standard, and PC game developers are developing for decidedly non-standard equipment and software? You're trying to portray them as if they self-obviously ARE equivalent, because it helps make your argument, but are they really? Console developers have far fewer potential platforms to consider....should they have yet a different standard? What exactly defines a "performance issue" in either medium? Is the process of making a game that will run (not considering quality of entertainment, just plain RUN) simply harder than making a movie, given that one is interactive and the other isn't? Should it matter when defining consumer protection standards? Does the different amount of content matter (most modern games have far more content than modern movies)?

I've had movies "break" in the theater...the sound gets messed up, the focus is off or falls off during the showing, etc. Now, these were all clearly problems with the theater, and had nothing to do with the film...I'm certain those films ran fine in other theaters. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this; how does a standards-enforcing agency define the line between local hardware (or software) responsibility and the filmmaker/developer? How and when do you investigate (and who pays for the investigation) into whether a game performance issue truly is a code issue (many are), or a certain local hardware or driver (or combination) issue (which many also are)?

How do you translate bugs like the siege AI hanging up? Technically, the game still runs, and you can let the timer run out to end the battle and keep playing, but that seriously impairs the entertainment experience. Does that translate to a movie just stopping, or is that more equivalent to a special effect that simply looks horrible and ruins the experience for a time, or an actor giving a really horrible performance in one scene?

Those are all things a governing body would have to consider when setting standards, and there's a lot of room for opinion, movement, and discussion in those questions. It'd make for a fairly interesting discussion here (at least, interesting to me....this is where I was going when i even questioned the point in the first place).

But, you've set a completely arbitrary (and variable) entrance criteria on "having a serious discussion" on any of those things...I suppose because artificially containing the discussion makes it easier for you to feel like you're winning (even though it's not really a win/lose discussion)? I don't know....just speculation. In any case, I have zero interest in trying to meet your arbitrary criteria....you already moved the posts once, I choose not to play that game. Hopefully, somebody else wants to pick up some of those questions, and there'll be an interesting discussion.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

I don't think you can compare movies and games. An average joe could make a "working" movie, but the average joe would have a tough time just replicating the games of the 80s/90s, and making a game as complex as the games these days would be impossible. Hell, my class in PS made a "working" movie, it's not that difficult.

[riskymonk]

Unlikely...the goalposts would simply move again, in all likelyhood.

See, you're spawning up all sorts of interesting things to discuss, in terms of entertainment industry standards. Are movies and games an apples-to-apples comparison? Is making a movie that will run beginning to end without hitches or performance issues a fair comparison, given that movie projection equipment is fairly standard, and PC game developers are developing for decidedly non-standard equipment and software? You're trying to portray them as if they self-obviously ARE equivalent, because it helps make your argument, but are they really? Console developers have far fewer potential platforms to consider....should they have yet a different standard? What exactly defines a "performance issue" in either medium? Is the process of making a game that will run (not considering quality of entertainment, just plain RUN) simply harder than making a movie, given that one is interactive and the other isn't? Should it matter when defining consumer protection standards? Does the different amount of content matter (most modern games have far more content than modern movies)?

I've had movies "break" in the theater...the sound gets messed up, the focus is off or falls off during the showing, etc. Now, these were all clearly problems with the theater, and had nothing to do with the film...I'm certain those films ran fine in other theaters. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this; how does a standards-enforcing agency define the line between local hardware (or software) responsibility and the filmmaker/developer? How and when do you investigate (and who pays for the investigation) into whether a game performance issue truly is a code issue (many are), or a certain local hardware or driver (or combination) issue (which many also are)?

How do you translate bugs like the siege AI hanging up? Technically, the game still runs, and you can let the timer run out to end the battle and keep playing, but that seriously impairs the entertainment experience. Does that translate to a movie just stopping, or is that more equivalent to a special effect that simply looks horrible and ruins the experience for a time, or an actor giving a really horrible performance in one scene?

Those are all things a governing body would have to consider when setting standards, and there's a lot of room for opinion, movement, and discussion in those questions. It'd make for a fairly interesting discussion here (at least, interesting to me....this is where I was going when i even questioned the point in the first place).

But, you've set a completely arbitrary (and variable) entrance criteria on "having a serious discussion" on any of those things...I suppose because artificially containing the discussion makes it easier for you to feel like you're winning (even though it's not really a win/lose discussion)? I don't know....just speculation. In any case, I have zero interest in trying to meet your arbitrary criteria....you already moved the posts once, I choose not to play that game. Hopefully, somebody else wants to pick up some of those questions, and there'll be an interesting discussion.

I appreciate now that you can see the differences and cannot make comparisons between the film and gaming industry. Most people just get angry and either resort to insults or ignore the debate so I appreciate the understanding.

What was that album you downloaded that was falsely advertised as an EP or some other? I'd be interested to find out if the artist was well-known and what happened afterwards, did they get sued, did they lose their career.

Please give me some examples of me moving the goal posts so that I can avoid doing so or giving the impression I'm doing so in future discussions. Also where did you get the impression that there was a win/lose type thing going on in this debate? This debate isn't based on personal opinions like who is the better football team it was about how the gaming industry seems to be the only industry in media and entertainment, and possible the only industry, does not have its policing and watchdogs to protect consumers. I could be wrong but what gaming developers can get away with on Steam would be impossible for film company's to get away with on Netflix.

Please don't tell me I'm ignoring your questions when you're not answering mine. The only trouble I have with answering those questions in your previous post is that we were meant to be talking about the differences between advertisements/marketing in films and games and how film trailers etc can be considered more trustworthy than game trailers. Originally you stated that there is no difference but now we've agreed that there is a strong difference. Lots of gamers wait for reviews in order to make sure the game isn't an early release or at the very worst, broken. Lots of film goers wait for the reviews to find out if the film is worth watching. No film goer on planet earth waits for the reviews in order to find out if the film can be watched, as advertised, or if you're going to pay full price for half a film. I don't feel there are any film buffs who have been conned in the sense that they didn't get what was advertised. They may have felt conned emotionally but nothing in the marketing was a lie.

I haven't been to the cinema in almost 5 years, I wanted to know do they have any special deals now where if you buy a ticket before the movie comes out, you will get the 10 minute introduction completely free.

[General Maximus]

It seems Attila is now going on the Rome II route as well. Might be better, who knows, but it won't be a good TW game unless CA drastically work on it.

[Sp4]

Hahah, it likes AC's unity release!

Maybe it was because of what happened with Rome 2 but I knew AC:Unity was going to be a disaster when I saw the preview gameplay footage.

[General Maximus]

Maybe it was because of what happened with Rome 2 but I knew AC:Unity was going to be a disaster when I saw the preview gameplay footage.

It is a shame, because AC Unity seems to have one of the best stories and concept out of any game in history. But the execution was so poor. I hope they fix that game...

[LestaT]

Did you manage to find DLC/cut content type practices within the film industry?

Never watch extended version or director's cut ?

[Axalon]

Never watch extended version or director's cut ?

Ever watched a directors cut or extended versions as the standard movie premieres? Basically that would roughly translate to day1 DLC's... Been to any shows where you for - say 2 dollars/euros/coins more - could see the directors/extended cut instead of the standard "theatre-version" (of a movie)? No? Well, there you go...

- A

[The Norseman]

Not really a big surprise, ever since Empire Total War there haven't really been any good games.
1. You can't give or demand regions anymore
2. The HUGE garrisons are just ridiculous. There should not be units in an abandoned region, only armed peasants if anything.
3. All of the constant rioting, you should not have to stay in a region for 5-10 turns to quell a rebellion. That is something that was at least done properly in Napoleon and Shogun.
4. The multiplayer campaign is absolutely horrid, it never makes it past turn 30 and even by some miracle it does there is a plethora of bugs that constantly come up. EVEN THE MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN BETA in EMPIRE total war was better! Atleast on that campaign I could play until turn 130+. Whoever did that MP campaign coding should do it on the next game, and the guy who is currently doing it should be assigned to do something else (no offense, I am sure him/her/theMPteam is very good at coding, but it just isn't working.)
5. Bugs. Not sure if TWC allows enough letters to finish this part... Just kidding, but seriously, there have been a lot of bugs.
6. 2,3 and 4 particularly!!!
7. Armies must have a general and has to be recruited from the generals army and not in the cities from a barracks like they should be.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Ever watched a directors cut or extended versions as the standard movie premieres? Basically that would roughly translate to day1 DLC's... Been to any shows where you for - say 2 dollars/euros/coins more - could see the directors/extended cut instead of the standard "theatre-version" (of a movie)? No? Well, there you go...

2d versus 3d versions?