Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Angry Joe's Sea of Thieves Angry Review

LudicrousSpeed said:
pokoko said:

I didn't make the dumb comparison, I quoted your dumb comparison as you fumbled around for some way to excuse SoT.

You're trying so hard to apologize for this game that you're being absolutely silly.  Just listen to yourself.  You don't think a large studio like Rare applied more resources to their "most ambitious game ever" than an indie studio with under 20 employees?  Answer the question.  I mean, do you know how laughable that sounds?  

I mean, this is a company that is giving away a $100,000 bunch of golden bananas in a contest.

Spin and deflect away, it won't do you any good.  

Please quote where I said you made any comparison, lol. The comparison was being made before you or I posted. I commented on that comparison. You replied to that comment. Hope that helps.

I've already said the game has too little content and too high a price. Not sure how any of this qualifies as apologizing for the game, but I'm not surprised to see another retort with zero substance. Also not surprised to see another post without any kind of source for your claims, confirming to me you're talking purely out of your butt.

Feel free to reply when you come up with an answer as to how a game like Sea of Thieves can have as much content as a game that is designed to randomly generate endless amounts of content because it's focused entirely around exploration, I'm just going to ignore anything else. Your reply to me focused entirely on the sizes of the studios making these games, not the genres the games are in or what the games are about, which is silly. So explain how you would give Sea of Thieves endless content. You'd have to include vast, endless randomly generated islands in a vast, endless ocean. How would that work with people playing on the same server? How would you get to these endless amounts of randomly generated islands in the endless ocean? A twelve hour sailing expedition perhaps? Sounds exhilarating. Oops, there I go being logical again. I mean, apologizing again. I'll be on pins and needles waiting to see how Sea of Thieves would work with endless randomly generated content. Personally I'd rather have well designed and balanced islands and forts as opposed to unlimited islands with random quality not worth sailing to but that's just me.

Stop with the "endless amount of content" excuse.  That's just ignorant and looks ridiculous on your part when the main complaint about NMS is that there is nothing to do.  Procedurally generated doesn't mean endless content, it means recycled assets.  Both games suffer from a lack of meaningful content and you know that.  You're just trying to bullshit your way out of your first comment that somehow a single player game should have more content than a multiplayer game (lol), which is just nonsense.

Your post, for context--"I would hope NMS had more content, it was a single player game, despite what Sean said it would be. Imagine if SoT had no multiplayer, lol."  And, no, you didn't quote anyone.

All you are doing is deflecting and it looks so silly and childish.  My comment was that Rare should have been able to provide a hell of a lot more content than they did and that a comparison with an indie studio does not cast them in a favorable light no matter how you spin it.  If it's going to be compared to something, then it should be compared to WoW or that Star Wars MMO, where it gets absolutely pulverized.

And please, please stop suggesting that Microsoft can't adequately fund a first party game.  That's nonsense.



Around the Network
pokoko said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Please quote where I said you made any comparison, lol. The comparison was being made before you or I posted. I commented on that comparison. You replied to that comment. Hope that helps.

I've already said the game has too little content and too high a price. Not sure how any of this qualifies as apologizing for the game, but I'm not surprised to see another retort with zero substance. Also not surprised to see another post without any kind of source for your claims, confirming to me you're talking purely out of your butt.

Feel free to reply when you come up with an answer as to how a game like Sea of Thieves can have as much content as a game that is designed to randomly generate endless amounts of content because it's focused entirely around exploration, I'm just going to ignore anything else. Your reply to me focused entirely on the sizes of the studios making these games, not the genres the games are in or what the games are about, which is silly. So explain how you would give Sea of Thieves endless content. You'd have to include vast, endless randomly generated islands in a vast, endless ocean. How would that work with people playing on the same server? How would you get to these endless amounts of randomly generated islands in the endless ocean? A twelve hour sailing expedition perhaps? Sounds exhilarating. Oops, there I go being logical again. I mean, apologizing again. I'll be on pins and needles waiting to see how Sea of Thieves would work with endless randomly generated content. Personally I'd rather have well designed and balanced islands and forts as opposed to unlimited islands with random quality not worth sailing to but that's just me.

Stop with the "endless amount of content" excuse.  That's just ignorant and looks ridiculous on your part when the main complaint about NMS is that there is nothing to do.  Procedurally generated doesn't mean endless content, it means recycled assets.  Both games suffer from a lack of meaningful content and you know that.  You're just trying to bullshit your way out of your first comment that somehow a single player game should have more content than a multiplayer game (lol), which is just nonsense.

Your post, for context--"I would hope NMS had more content, it was a single player game, despite what Sean said it would be. Imagine if SoT had no multiplayer, lol."  And, no, you didn't quote anyone.

All you are doing is deflecting and it looks so silly and childish.  My comment was that Rare should have been able to provide a hell of a lot more content than they did and that a comparison with an indie studio does not cast them in a favorable light no matter how you spin it.  If it's going to be compared to something, then it should be compared to WoW or that Star Wars MMO, where it gets absolutely pulverized.

And please, please stop suggesting that Microsoft can't adequately fund a first party game.  That's nonsense.

Hmm, I have my suspicions that these same people weren't so lenient on NMS.  Also, if this is MS's vision of GAAS, then count me out.  I'll make sure to support Sony and Nintendo for as long as they stick to traditional gaming.



AlfredoTurkey said:
Why do we care what some random guy on Youtube thinks? Have we asked this question yet of ourselves? What makes his opinion better than our own? Ever wonder why we, as a society seem to need people to lead us? Why we can't seem to form our own opinions?

Why have you posted your opinions here on the forum about various games? Why should we care what a random guy on VGC thinks? Have we asked this question yet of ourselves?

And if you read the one small paragraph in my opening post, you'd have an answer to your first question.
I didn't know what the full game was like, and wanted to know. Joe described how it works intricately, while giving visual examples. (And being entertaining.)
Give me a more convenient way to find out, rather than watching/listening to a review.

Last edited by Hiku - on 29 March 2018

thismeintiel said:
pokoko said:

Stop with the "endless amount of content" excuse.  That's just ignorant and looks ridiculous on your part when the main complaint about NMS is that there is nothing to do.  Procedurally generated doesn't mean endless content, it means recycled assets.  Both games suffer from a lack of meaningful content and you know that.  You're just trying to bullshit your way out of your first comment that somehow a single player game should have more content than a multiplayer game (lol), which is just nonsense.

Your post, for context--"I would hope NMS had more content, it was a single player game, despite what Sean said it would be. Imagine if SoT had no multiplayer, lol."  And, no, you didn't quote anyone.

All you are doing is deflecting and it looks so silly and childish.  My comment was that Rare should have been able to provide a hell of a lot more content than they did and that a comparison with an indie studio does not cast them in a favorable light no matter how you spin it.  If it's going to be compared to something, then it should be compared to WoW or that Star Wars MMO, where it gets absolutely pulverized.

And please, please stop suggesting that Microsoft can't adequately fund a first party game.  That's nonsense.

Hmm, I have my suspicions that these same people weren't so lenient on NMS.  Also, if this is MS's vision of GAAS, then count me out.  I'll make sure to support Sony and Nintendo for as long as they stick to traditional gaming.

lol, a vast majority of the hate NMS got wasn’t even about the content that was there, it was about the content that we were told would be there but wasn’t. Feel free to hate on SoT for a lack of content all you want, it’s a valid complaint and the reason I didn’t spend $65 on it. But they didn’t deliberately mislead and lie to buyers about what would be in the game. There’s a big difference between buyers remorse because you don’t feel the product is good, and feeling as if you’ve been swindled by a developer into buying something that doesn’t exist. That’s why a lot of people are more lenient on Rare, it’s not hard to understand.



A shame really. As Joe said, the core of the game clearly has potential, but as it is now there's no way it's worth anywhere close to $60. Maybe in a year or so, if Rare does create more content, the game might be worth checking out again.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #14: A Moment of Calm

2. Gods and Superheroes: The Story of Clover Studio

3. Video Game Music Spotlight #13: Winter and Cold

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
pokoko said:

Stop with the "endless amount of content" excuse.  That's just ignorant and looks ridiculous on your part when the main complaint about NMS is that there is nothing to do.  Procedurally generated doesn't mean endless content, it means recycled assets.  Both games suffer from a lack of meaningful content and you know that.  You're just trying to bullshit your way out of your first comment that somehow a single player game should have more content than a multiplayer game (lol), which is just nonsense.

Your post, for context--"I would hope NMS had more content, it was a single player game, despite what Sean said it would be. Imagine if SoT had no multiplayer, lol."  And, no, you didn't quote anyone.

All you are doing is deflecting and it looks so silly and childish.  My comment was that Rare should have been able to provide a hell of a lot more content than they did and that a comparison with an indie studio does not cast them in a favorable light no matter how you spin it.  If it's going to be compared to something, then it should be compared to WoW or that Star Wars MMO, where it gets absolutely pulverized.

And please, please stop suggesting that Microsoft can't adequately fund a first party game.  That's nonsense.

Hmm, I have my suspicions that these same people weren't so lenient on NMS.  Also, if this is MS's vision of GAAS, then count me out.  I'll make sure to support Sony and Nintendo for as long as they stick to traditional gaming.

Ludicrouspeed trashed no man sky at every thread and every opportunity he had in this forum, so you are correct



 

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
thismeintiel said:

Hmm, I have my suspicions that these same people weren't so lenient on NMS.  Also, if this is MS's vision of GAAS, then count me out.  I'll make sure to support Sony and Nintendo for as long as they stick to traditional gaming.

Ludicrouspeed trashed Sean Murray  at every thread and every opportunity he had in this forum, so you are correct

FTFY



LudicrousSpeed said:
thismeintiel said:

Hmm, I have my suspicions that these same people weren't so lenient on NMS.  Also, if this is MS's vision of GAAS, then count me out.  I'll make sure to support Sony and Nintendo for as long as they stick to traditional gaming.

lol, a vast majority of the hate NMS got wasn’t even about the content that was there, it was about the content that we were told would be there but wasn’t. Feel free to hate on SoT for a lack of content all you want, it’s a valid complaint and the reason I didn’t spend $65 on it. But they didn’t deliberately mislead and lie to buyers about what would be in the game. There’s a big difference between buyers remorse because you don’t feel the product is good, and feeling as if you’ve been swindled by a developer into buying something that doesn’t exist. That’s why a lot of people are more lenient on Rare, it’s not hard to understand.L

Let's see.  They promised there would be "tons" of customization at launch, including ships.  That they were redefining a genre with their most ambitious game ever.  The ambition seems to be referring to the water, as it does look good, even if it doen't really react to anything.  That there would be endless fantastic adventures filled with fantastical creatures that challenge you.  I don't think a bunch of mindless skeletons and sharks, within repetitive quests, fit that bill. 

If that's not overpromising, I don't know what is.  There's a reason the No Man's Sea is a thing.



thismeintiel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

lol, a vast majority of the hate NMS got wasn’t even about the content that was there, it was about the content that we were told would be there but wasn’t. Feel free to hate on SoT for a lack of content all you want, it’s a valid complaint and the reason I didn’t spend $65 on it. But they didn’t deliberately mislead and lie to buyers about what would be in the game. There’s a big difference between buyers remorse because you don’t feel the product is good, and feeling as if you’ve been swindled by a developer into buying something that doesn’t exist. That’s why a lot of people are more lenient on Rare, it’s not hard to understand.L

Let's see.  They promised there would be "tons" of customization at launch, including ships.  That they were redefining a genre with their most ambitious game ever.  The ambition seems to be referring to the water, as it does look good, even if it doen't really react to anything.  That there would be endless fantastic adventures filled with fantastical creatures that challenge you.  I don't think a bunch of mindless skeletons and sharks, within repetitive quests, fit that bill. 

If that's not overpromising, I don't know what is.  There's a reason the No Man's Sea is a thing.

NMS was a lied game thanks to Hello Games and Sony letting it happen.

No one expected the game to be the way it is, there biggist mistake is they lied about MP which you could not see other players. 

Guess what, SOTs is exactly what you expected at launch, it just lacks content. Its a pirate playground and content can be fixed.

You cannot change NMS to what many were saying was the Star Citizen for consoles turned out to be nothing more than a farming sim.



Azzanation said:
thismeintiel said:

Let's see.  They promised there would be "tons" of customization at launch, including ships.  That they were redefining a genre with their most ambitious game ever.  The ambition seems to be referring to the water, as it does look good, even if it doen't really react to anything.  That there would be endless fantastic adventures filled with fantastical creatures that challenge you.  I don't think a bunch of mindless skeletons and sharks, within repetitive quests, fit that bill. 

If that's not overpromising, I don't know what is.  There's a reason the No Man's Sea is a thing.

NMS was a lied game thanks to Hello Games and Sony letting it happen.

No one expected the game to be the way it is, there biggist mistake is they lied about MP which you could not see other players. 

Guess what, SOTs is exactly what you expected at launch, it just lacks content. Its a pirate playground and content can be fixed.

You cannot change NMS to what many were saying was the Star Citizen for consoles turned out to be nothing more than a farming sim.

Why do you include Sony in this?

Sony pushed the product, sure. Because it was an exclusive at the time. But they are in no way responsible for how the game was at launch.

Seems like you hold a silly grudge against Sony for who knows why.