andrewducker | The Ducker Method Of Purchasing Games

I can boil down my game-buying methodology to one sentence "Is it less than £10 on Steam?", but that would be a little _too_ simple. The actual decision-method is closer to "Is it less than £10 on Steam for a mainstream game with great reviews, or £5 for something Indie with great reviews, or £3 for something quirky that looks like it might be worth playing about with?"

When I posted yesterday that I was picking up Fallout 3, and whether it was worth picking up Morrowind and Oblivion for £5 each on top I received multiple messages from people saying "Buy Skyrim instead!", which to me felt like the height of pointlessness. I've already said that it's FO3 that I really want, and Skyrim is (a) a very different game, (b) twice the price and (c) still getting regular patches so that the dragons fly in the right direction.

People seemed to vie in actively putting down Morrowind (apparently so old-fashioned that one would need a monocle _and_ a penny farthing to play it) and Oblivion (so repetitive as to be unplayable), despite me remembering that when they came out people raved about how awesome they are. And, indeed, if I check the reviews they both get Game Of The Year awards from multiple places, 90-95% reviews, and general acclaim. But because everyone has now moved on to _this_ year's games, they aren't worth having.

As someone who has recently had huge amounts of fun playing Cave Story, a game that looks like this:

I can quite happily say "Fuck That".

While I am quite sure that Skyrim has fixed some of the things that bugged people about earlier games, and contains all sorts of shininess undreamt of back in 2002, it seems to me that people really enjoyed playing Morrowind, have produced all sorts of addons for it, and that if I can't get £5 out happiness out of it then I will be very, very surprised.

So, going back to the actual title of this post - my method is not to be so caught up that I can't wait a year for a game to drop in price, have a massive backlog of games that will quite happily keep me going* for numerous months, and realise that I will never play every game that I want to, so I will happily browse away at the massive amount of options that I have. Heck, I waited more than six months to play Portal 2 when it came out, and that was fine too (I even managed to remain unspoiled!).

*I'm halfway through Dragon Age, and was very-much enjoying it when my life imploded and I didn't have the attention span for it, have Mass Effect 2 and DA2 after that, then Fallout 3 to play. In the meantime Cave Story+ is my active game, with Defense Grid as a background snippet game, for when I have 15 minutes and want to pick up another medal. Batman:Arkham Asylum is after that, and then Bastion. Plus Julie and I had Sacred recommended to us as a fun co-op action-RPG. Oh, and I have non-gaming things I do for fun too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not surprised people are recommending Skyrim.

Frankly, in my opinion it's the Casablanca moment for video games. I would tend to say - indeed, I have said, to several people - that if you have any interest in fantasy fiction, Skyrim is the game you MUST play, even if you've played no other game in the last 7 years.

Will it be as astonishing in a year's time, though? Probably, or at least close.

But if someone was asking me for film recommendations in 1942, and assuming such things existed, I'd still be saying "Go see Casablanca" rather than "Well, So Green Is My Valley's on DVD...".

I've heard "This is _the_ game!" about so many games, all of which are very good, that I don't really believe that there is any one game that is so much better than every other one.

It's like the threads whenever someone says "Games aren't art." that spring up - everyone has their own game which proves once and for all that they are, but they all seem to be different to each other.

If Skyrim _isn't_ astonishing in a year's time then that means that the astonishment was graphics related. And I've seen Skyrim being played on a good PC, and it was pretty, but it didn't change my life.

It what's amazing is the gameplay and the story, then those will still be there for me when I get there :->

No, I don't agree that it's all about the graphics. Game design is evolving all the time, and what was astonishing a few years ago may no longer be simply because what was once innovative is now commonplace and has been improved on. Morrowind was astonishing in its day. Now, not so much. That's not to say that you won't have fun with it, but that ultimately the primary expense when it comes to computer games is not the purchase price, it's your time. If it's generally agreed that Skyrim is better in all the ways that matter (I have no opinion since I haven't played it) and money is not a limiting factor (which is of course a big assumption to make, but for the sake of argument), then why would you not want to experience the most recent iteration of what Bethesda do?

Equally, there are instances where the newest is not necessarily the best. If you wanted to play an FPS, I'd recommend the Half Life games over Modern Warfare 3 without hesitation. I'd also go for the first two Fallout games over the third if you can get over the terrible UI and other ways in which they've dated - they're much more interesting games.

I've not played any of the RPGs that have happened since Morrowind, threfore the effect it has on me ought to be the same as it was upon people who played it on first release. And, so far as I can tell, Skyrim is not universally better than Morrowind - there are things that are simply different.

I've not played any of the RPGs that have happened since Morrowind, threfore the effect it has on me ought to be the same as it was upon people who played it on first release

I just don't think that's true. My experience of the game after going out to HMV and spending £30 on a copy excited about this new and interesting game will be different from yours after picking it up on Steam for a few quid several years later. How it will be different is hard to say, but it will.

Anyway, I'm not meaning to criticise your approach here. I pick up a lot of older games in Steam sales as well. But sometimes I find part of the fun is to be playing the latest thing, even if you do end up paying a lot more that way. :)

Aaah, but that's a difference of attitude, and I can't change that to make myself more excited about playing something new :->

I have to say I don't really agree with this -- yes, some games get a lot of hype... but I've played all three. Morrowwind I didn't finish... it was OK, captured me at first, but never wowed me and I just lost interest. Oblivion had nice points, was fun in parts, but by the end of it I was realised some dungeons you simply had to reach a check point and I got bored enough that I did the final 5-6 running around with enemies chasing me like a Benny Hill sketch. Skyrim I'm only 40-50 hours in but it just feels so much better.

Now, it could be I've got "half way through" syndrome as I've not finished Skyrim yet and perhaps by the end I will be very bored of it (it is far too easy for example) but nonetheless I would say the experience is better.

I'm not someone who always believes the "latest" game is better. Fallout 3 was good but Fallout 2 was a better experience (Fallout New Vegas is better). I'm certainly not someone who goes a bundle for graphics (I still play roguelikes).

I guess, for my entertainment dollar, if I'm going to be spending, likely 60-100 hours doing something, I'm willing to pay a fair bit for that if it will produce a better experience. That said, you can pick up some super bargain games on steam... Fallout 3 is good and New Vegas excellent.

I agree. (I made it my Game of the Year in my review of the year post here and it's very rare for my game of the year to be anything other than Football Manager.) You made the point rather more eloquently than I did though...

It's not about the graphics, which are great but not that much in advance of Oblivion if you applied a couple of texture mods. It's a whole variety of step-changes, but most of all it's the quantity of interesting content. Enough that each different player will only experience a few common events outside of the main plotline (which is by no means compulsory).

If it's as astonishing in a year's time? Then

andrewducker, and indeed probably myself as well, will enjoy it, and for a far lower price.

I'm pretty much in the same boat as him; I have a large number of good games I've bought cheap and have yet to play, I absolutely loved Prototype, and had got it for just a fiver, I recently got Human Revolution for a tenner — it's a good enough game from what I've seen and heard that I'm willing to get it for that, but for thirty quid? Nope.

There are rare exceptions; I was willing to get Arkham City for a mere 20 per cent off, but that's 'cause I really, really enjoyed Arkham Asylum.

If I had no other games, then yes, buying Skyrim now might well be a good idea. When I've… (quickly checks Steam) …Arkham City, Renegade Ops and Alice Returns to finish, Assassin's Creed, Aliens Versus Predator, Dead Space 1 & 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, EYE: Divine Cybermancy, Oblivion, From Dust, Ghostbusters, Just Cause 2, Orcs Must Die, The Force Unleashed, and Space Marine to basically start and play through? Skyrim can wait.

Also, another sidethought — When I get Skyrim, it will have had several bug patches released for it, and will likely also have community-made improvements if those are needed. Those will be in a, if not finalised state, in a pretty good state.

Games are released unfinished these days, using people playing it early on to nail down the last few bugs. Getting them later means those bugs are largely fixed by then.

The Ducker Method Of Purchasing Games

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject