Harbinger: Gamespot run by morons

I agree that what you get for the $30 - 40 dollars you plunk down for a game these days is important. I haven’t played the game so I can’t say whether multiplayer could have added value to the game or not.
Summoner had multiplayer and it really sucked, but it had a good single player game experience (IMHO). Kind of an apples and oranges example but it’s late ;) FWIW I don’t think you’re a moron for being hard on the game - you’ve played it and I haven’t.

They’d be a bit too late to start the trend… this storage system is a staple of the Resident Evil series. :)

I find it a bit ironic that some in this forum would jump on the “anybody who likes MoO3 is a dumbass fanboy” bandwagon, then turn around and call a Gamspot review “pure bullshit” just because the reviewer didn’t like their pet game.

Who’s the fanboy now?

Yeah, its like Captain Cookiepants is channelling the review conspiracist retards in the Moo3 thread. Next up - Cookiepants’ eyes roll up so far into the back of his bulging eye sockets that his retinas detach, and when he eventually recovers from droning listlessly on about the Gamespot reviewers having their flanks branded by the molten cock of Harbinger’s competitors’ multi-million dollar PR department, he has to change his nick to “Captain Cookiemonster” to reflect his newly aquired googly eyes.


Can’t you make a SINGLE post in this forum (or anywhere else for that matter), without injecting nonsensical verbage like some blind world-hating gerbil on crack?

Jesus H. Christ man, I was enjoying this thread (both sides of the argument) until I - again - ran up against your shit. Why must you do this in practically EVERY thread you post to? I mean, seriously. Its NOT funny anymore.


Best…Simile…Ever… :lol:

Derek, don’t get jealous, sweetie, you’ll always be my first.

LMAO!!! Somewhere in my caffeine saturated brain, I figured you were going to come back with something like that. :D

Man, those were the days :wink:

LMAO!!! Somewhere in my caffeine saturated brain, I figured you were going to come back with something like that. :D

Man, those were the days :wink:[/quote]

You two are insane :!:

Get a room!


Let’s just look at it from a value standpoint. Today with my $30, I can get a lot more value out of buying Diablo II or Dungeon Siege (current EB prices) or finding a used copy of Nox for $5 and using my $25 in change to buy a lot of beer.

I don’t think thats a very good analogy. Fans of the hack and slash genre have likely already purchased the above games, and mayble for full retail.

By this argument, NOLF2 should have been hit for value because the original is longer and can be found in the bargain bin for ten dollars.

As for marking a game down for not including multiplayer, when was Battlefield 1942 marked down for not having robust singleplayer?

Want an analogous situation? Take a look at the reception Unreal 2 is getting.

Max Payne was as short if not shorter than Unreal 2 and it got great reviews. The problem with Unreal 2 is not the lack of multiplayer, but that the single player is strictly average and short.

As for Harbinger’s length, did you try playing as the other characters? Gladguy has stated that the game plays almost completely different. If that’s the case then that 12 hour gameplay could be mulitplied by 3: 36 hours of gameplay is a lot more than most games these days, particularly for a value priced game.

Yeah, you guys ALL remember my half-hour dissertation on the morons who blindly love MoO3 don’t you? Hell I did a guest talk at NYUs. In fact those threads are just chock FULL of my post. I’M BEING SARCASTIC. Just thought I’d throw that in their for you people with rubber sheets who didn’t take the time to notice I didn’t post in those threads.

It’s God damn obvious that Johnny Moron there is NOT a fan of the genre

Is it so demanding of me to expect that it include multiplayer or randomly generated levels? These are features that have been in every single other game in this genre?

Please raise your hands if you can name at least six games with no multiplayer (or horrible multiplayer that made the games worse) or no random levels? LOOK! It’s EVERYONE IN THE GOD DAMN WORLD. Moron.

I already showed you the many reasons why I feel the way I do about this game, going so far as to simplify the analysis for you by posting my reasons in laundry list form. All the points in the list were in the review. I had more, but they are niggling points, like why does my map disappear when I save a game or come out of a conversation? Why put the quick save and quick load buttons right next to each other? Why is it that you can take the ship’s internal transport mechanism (umbilicals) right to the surface of a planet? Why is it that even though I play as one character - let’s say the human, I keep coming across health packs that only work for the other two classes? What is the point of that?

Well if you insist we can go over your little triflings:

  • shallow role playing. 4 traits per character. makes levelling not fun or interesting

Unlike your beloved Diablo II that you trot out to do it’s ‘I like RPGs! And I have plenty of black friends! I’m not rascist’ trick.

  • combat is broken, no point to melee.

Which is stated multiple times to not be a large part of the game. Did you hate all that taxi driving and fare collecting you had to do in GTA3?

  • more treasure chest types/models than unique enemies

And? You truly spend that much time looking at the enemies?

  • no true variety in weapons, armor. humans always use some kind of rifle with or without a bayonet. how about dual pistols? submachineguns? gladiators always use a gun arm and a blade arm. he’s a robot, so why can’t I go two guns or two blades? culibines always use gauntlets and that’s it.

Again, what the hell is your point? It’s the story, it’s what these characters handle. Besides, take into acount who made the game, they didn’t have five years and 4 million to spend. Lighten the fuck up.

  • merchant almost never turns over his inventory. For 3/4s of the game, what he has is exactly what you sold him and that’s it. Finally near the end you get a chance to buy something cool. Why?

Ummm so you’d kill more creatures in the field to find good stuff?

  • no multiplayer, not even randomly generated levels for extra single player fun. For a game in this genre, it’s inexcusable to not have one of these features.
    I believe I covered this one.

If you just don’t like the genre then you shouldn’t be reviewing the game. It’s obvious you never gave more than a cursory glance at anything but the ‘must have’ games by your whining over things that have been in RPGs for centuries.

why does my map disappear when I save a game or come out of a conversation?
‘And pressing that one button again make me sweat and I get out of breath!’
Why put the quick save and quick load buttons right next to each other?
shrug If the game’s so easy why do you need to quicksave? Are you one of those players that restarts the game so as to not mar your perfect record? Is that why you died so little?
Why is it that you can take the ship’s internal transport mechanism (umbilicals) right to the surface of a planet?
Yeah really, I HATE when my games about sentient robots inside a space ship the size of a planet fighting to free it from a tyranical overlord and invading alien bugs have those stupid sci-fi elements in it.
Why is it that even though I play as one character - let’s say the human, I keep coming across health packs that only work for the other two classes? What is the point of that? I can sell it for money - except that money doesn’t really do a whole lot for you in this game, as I stated before.

Like I’ve said, you obviously haven’t played the genre, as such you have TWO points of reference, and those points are multi-million dollar games with nothing no one hasn’t seen 7 billion times before.

Next time they ask you to review an RPG say ‘No thanks, I have no previous experience with games of this type and will therefore shrieking like a banshee with hemoriods cause it’s not Diablo 2. Now I’m off to ‘hang’ with my black friend. Peace out dawg’.

Cookiepants, I liked the game, and you aren’t doing it, or yourself any favors here. I’m half considering changing my review score just to watch your head explode…


Cookie, lets get together in a multiplayer game of Harbinger and discuss this like rational adults, okay? Oh wait…

Yeah yeah yeah, I just hate that someone is scaring away people from a good game because of what HE thinks is SHOULD have. I could see if it was something the game was lacking, but things they purposely left out to make the storyline stronger isn’t a detriment.

That same argument could be used to dismiss nearly every review written, even the ones you agree with.

Honestly, though, I have read both sides of this argument, and neither has swayed me yet. I am not suggesting you are both wrong or that your points aren’t valid. On the contrary, you have both given some reasons to like and to dislike the game. Bob’s list does do a good job of saying what the features are that he didn’t like, and why. That helps me because I may not have a problem with those features, and he DID list them and explain them, which helps me make my decision far better than what he thinks about them. Cookie has given some reasons why he thinks those points are invalid. If you cut through the overly passionate (borderline hate-mongering) parts, you can get some more information about the game.

It seems unfair to accuse Bob of not liking the genre, when he obviously likes Diablo 2, as Cookie noted himself. Is Harbinger a substantially different game? It sounds like Diablo is more action/melee oriented, which I generally prefer in this style of game, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like Harbinger. I just remember not really liking the traps part of Divine Divinity or Diablo…it just isn’t my thing. But that doesn’t mean Harbinger doesn’t do that kind of thing better. I’ll check out some reviews before deciding, and if you two can stay civil and keep discussing your differences about it that might help me make my decision as well.

Friends don’t let friends fisk other friends posts.

Let’s put it another way. Let’s say you bought Diablo, Nox, or DS for 50 bucks. I don’t believe you’re going to find 3/5s of the value of those games in Harbinger. Harsh assessment? Well considering I spent hundreds of hours in those games, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it. Oops, there goes Cookiepants’ theory that I hate this genre.

And I’m willing to bet most people who bought BF1942 have spent more than 20 or 30 hours playing it. Look there isn’t a magical formula to determine which games should have single or multi and which should not. I don’t have a checklist next to me as I play. If I pay $50 and get a quality experience (single or multi) for 12 or so hours (i.e. Max Payne), I’m satisfied. If I pay $20 and play for twice as long and I’m not having fun, did I really get more value out of the latter? Not really.

This harping on me pointing out that there’s no multiplayer has obscured the fact that the gameplay itself just isn’t engaging. I already talked this to death but you must have missed it.

Obviously. I didn’t beat the game 3 times, but I gave the other two characters an honest run-through to get the feel of it. The human and the gladiator are almost identical and the culibine doesn’t feel all that different. Again if you read my review before jumping in, you’d have seen that I answered this question already. Don’t believe me? Read the RPGcodex guy’s review (link earlier in this thread) as he goes into the classes at length. I pretty much agree with his assessments.


And cookiepants - it’s obvious that nothing I have to say is going to change your mind or even get you to begin to understand my point of view. You’ve made up your mind, and you’re sticking with it, which is fine. But your ranting and personal attacks have made it clear to me that rational discussion of this game with you is impossible. So I’m going to stop answering your posts on this subject.

I’m sure you’re going to take this to mean you’ve “won” this argument, so if feeling that way makes you sleep better at night, then kudos to you.


I agree.

After having read the review - and never played the game (yet), I had to say that, if nothing else, the review was objective and to the point. If the reviewer didn’t like the game (as seems to be the case with that other RPG review), thats FINE. At least he - like that other review - explained why.

It is also obvious from the review that he actually played the game. That is a plus.

The reason games succeed or fail is based on their own merits. Very rarely do gamers - at least the hardcore ones who have their own functional brain and who vote with their walets not their emotions - buy games based on reviews. Why? because reviews are what they are, opinions.

There was a time when I’d see a review of my game - even a good one - in which the reviewer wrote something completely incorrect, derogatory or off-topic. At which points, I would, senselessly and foolishly of course, fire off an email which I’m quite sure kept me on the media’s Gaming’s Most Wanted Jackass list.

Until the sales of my games, continued to stress the point I was making above.

Further, it is about credibility. To wit, Tom’s, one of the most respected media folks, is being lambasted over his recent reviews (MOO3, U2 etc) - despite the fact that even the fanboi’s acknowledge some of his gripes, but just discount it as thats how they intended it and other crap. In recent years, when the likes of Denny, Andy et al reviewed my games and with scores I considered to be low, I didn’t go off the handle because they reviews were objective, to the point and stressed the game’s (e.g. BCM) high and low points. That objectivity helped shape the things I addressed in the patches and in the upcoming sequel. Heck, even the BCM Gold manual (that Gladguy is working on based on my recent manuscript) has a printed list of acronyms and the tutorial at the back. In BCM, there was no such list and the tutorial was in HTML. That sort of thing came from feedback and I passed it along.

The sad truth is that when you’re looking at a one-shot deal, i.e. a game not based on a franchise or one that is positioned be such, you [dev] rarely get a second chance. With a franchise, you can always look forward to taking some of that objectivity and turning it into a good or better sequel - or add-on.

And let me just say this, Gladguy is very competent, loyal, understanding and capable product manager. As someone else pointed in another thread (in which Adam at Sierra was lauded as such), there are very few of these out here in the industry. As anti- suit (even the quasi flavor) as I am, in these past months, I’ve never had to question nor judge the handling of my game (there is so much I dont’ do anymore, because I have them, its not funny) in any aspect. And guess what, they [producers, product managers] are the unsung heroes who you never hear from (the devs get all the spotlight) - until there is a problem, a game tanks or similar. So, to infer that Harbinger is this or that because of marketing or otherwise is discounting the efforts of a very hard working and capable individual, bar none.

I’m not defending him, but knowing the guy personally, he’s probably just going to sit and read this shit and not go too far into it. He’s a classy kinda guy (just like Adam, who takes his hits here and there), unlike this loud mouth, yours truly.

If its one thing I hate, its fucking retards who have NO idea about what it takes to develop, produce and/or market a game. If Harbinger fails, it won’t be because of the marketing or anything any one person did, it will be if its a bad game. Gamers, as always, will vote with their dollars.

And to dock a game because it lacks multiplayer, well, it happens. We have to live with it. If Harbinger was billed as a Diablo clone and then came out without multiplayer, well then, who gets to pay the price? I shipped my last game without multiplayer and most reviews indicated that the game cried out for multiplayer. I lived with it and with the knowledge that, one day in the future, I would have a multiplayer component that is as strong as the single player. The BC games stood on the merits of their single player component despite lacking multiplayer.

/me seething and reaching for the pair of jumper cables in case my pacemaker gives out