The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
The video game industry thread: January 2011's over, use the new one
Posts
Maybe not, but thats the impression I got anyway.
The game is here: http://www.thedutycalls.com/
Or you can watch a (very short) runthrough here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7r9RqWBdl8&feature=player_embedded
Absolutely genius marketing.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Watched the first few seconds, laughed, figured I'd be better off downloading and playing - thanks for the link!
sorry, i didn't mean that to be an attack on you or any other person specifically. i still feel though that wow is a pretty big exception to what you're describing solely because of the massive amount of effort and attention to detail that goes into maintaining something like wow. i don't feel that blizzard just milks the franchise because it's apparent that they put a lot of work into what they put out.
This bothers me as much as the Halo parody and the endless crotch shots.
It really seems like their writers and designers looked up "humor" in the dictionary, then tried to implement it in XTreme ways.
Wow... nothing about game-design, just lots of bragging about the new shinies ... <sigh>
Well... yeah. He's talking about the engine there. Not the game.
Translation: "The game that introduced lame leveling systems into first person shooters is back! It's gonna look just like Battlefield Bad Company 2, with slightly different maps and longer leveling curves, because the engine we made for that game turned out really good. BC2 was just a beta test!"
Ninja Theory is part of the problem though. A development house that uses a huge budget to create games that are little more than interactive movies. And I'm saying this as someone who firmly believes in the potential of games as a storytelling medium.
C'mon... Any game where the threat of instant death around every corner is missing is automatically crap. You know that.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Bad Company 2 was a sequel to Bad Company. Battlefield 3 is a sequel to Battlefield 2.
They are different games.
And honestly I think it's a little early to be complaining about how similar the two are when we've seen nothing of BF2.
"the ORIGINAL Baby Maker Extreme has had over 800k downloads, and over 120k sales."
Yes, a game called Baby Maker Extreme is one of the best sellers of XBLIG last year. Apparently, it's a Nanaca Crash clone (haven't actually played it).
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire,
And if they announce ME2, I'd preorder it in a heartbeat. But still, I'm taking their PR with a handful of salt.
It's actually not bad. Amusing enough for a few minutes with some beers and a mate. Worth the 60p IMHO!
And who here has tried Try Not to Fart? C'mon, admit it.
Rainbow, Slash, the way is clear: your next game needs to be about a farting baby.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/42870/MTV-Games-closed
If they were going for whatever is popular, wouldn't they make a Zombie Avatar Massage game?
You mean they didn't?
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Poor guy. Don't know why he ever left his old job for MTV anyway.
So that's it for Rock Band, eh?
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Reading is Fundamental.
Rock Band/HMX still exists and has been wholly separate from MTV Games for about a month now. Whatever happens going forward, MTV won't be involved.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Have you played both games? Because they are both far more than that. Christ there was actually a fair amount of depth and challenge to the combat in Enslaved if you set it to hard. Get used to easy becoming not having to play. With all the data coming back showing how few people actually finish games more and more games are going to be push A to win on normal mode. I was fucking seriously challenged beating Enslaved on hard and I am hardly a newb at games.
I've just played through Heavenly Sword and Enslaved is in the pile of games I have to play so I'll only comment on HS. I played on normal and only found the final boss to be a challenge. I reckon a lot of people who don't finish would get stuck there. The last hat/gong puzzle was a pain aswell.
The combat of HS was ok but it wasn't that great, the light puzzle sections that used the six axis were terrible but the arrow/cannon ball shooting with it were great. More games should use the six axis. I reckon the progression of the combat system was flawed in that it was too tied to the storyline progression. You don't get much time at all to use the top end "westling" finisher. A shop like system similar to god of war/devil may cry may have worked better.
It was a alright game, the story was ok, but I didn't think it gave me much in the way of interesting choices in how I played it.
Why would it? It wasn't MTV doing the acquisitions. By now, HMX has built up enough of a reputation for what their product is and how easy it is to deal with. About the only thing it would affect is perhaps the amount of money available for getting some songs. But until they start releasing public domain shit, it won't be a factor.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Ah, misunderstanding. I was under the impression that MTV helped them get some of the songs.
Gamewise estimates
Yes. Go figure. And thats why people can't cope with loosing in online games when pitted against humans. They ain't usded to it. Back in the old days games were oriented twoards arcade games, and naturally loosing was quite easy. Maybe too easy but the concept works better that way. In my humble opinion.
But, yes: the general notion is twoards... movies... with savestates from where you try again and again until you overcome a difficult obstracle. And rerun the same frustrating part again and again.
I don't think this is how games should be designed.
First you need a good concept.
I am eagerly awaiting Diablo 3 (hardcore mode), i consider that one a game. Also Starcraft 2 is a fine game (if you do not save in missions).
So those are excellent examples of "good" concepts. And Blizzard is aware of it. Thats why they made Cataclysm the way it is. However, its just a temporary reprisal. MMORPGS are best when things are fresh and everybody is exploring.
Not really, but you need a different concept then... business simulations work well without lives as an example.
But walking in ghostform to your corpse is NOT a good mechanic. Is that fun? Backtracing your corpse?
Death is a good concept because it changes the entire experience, the entire way you play a game, especially in the first go and especially if the gameworld is constantly changing it keeps up the challenge forever.
Of course not everybody is manly enough to accept charcter death as a given possibility. So they amass hoards of precious loot until the next contend patch comes around to totally devaluate it... no... thanks.
You got me here. I'm staying away from the game solely based on the lackluster demo and its reputation for it being 8 hours long. In fact, if I saw it for $5 I'd probably pick it up (well, maybe... my backlog is getting beyond ridiculous). I would have considered it more seriously if it had a reputation for combat and re-playability on par with Bayonetta.
Well, it follows the concept of death (at least the old ones do, i have no idea how the Wii version handles things). Its an old concept. But the problem with those games is: you rerun the easy parts again and again until you beat the game. There were two approaches to deal with that. Either you have a vast gameworld where you decide where to go first (Super Mario Bros... II i think? Also Thunderforce III and many others) or you have a branching tree, so each game ends up different.
In a way Super Mario Bros (at least the old one i know) have a far better concept than a WoW, even when being a bit straightforward in approach. I mean its platformers, not RPG. RPG demands more depth because it should be concepted around role playing and that involves options and choices. Options of Character development wich WoW does offer, but because of its compeditive element it always boils down to min/maxing and you don't really end up with a choice. You have to use the current blueprint. Guildwars does the character builds thing thousand times better. You have way more options. That being said Guildwars lacks the depth of a WoW.
Exactly. You try hard not to die in WoW so you don't have to take a lot of durability damage and take a lot of time walking back. It changes the way you play the game. If you couldn't die, you'd just go all out every time and kill every boss easily.
These two sentences don't really follow very well...I think you're saying that people aren't manly enough to accept death, so they try to equip better things so that they don't die? Uh, isn't that the point of nearly every game, to become stronger? In hardcore modes do you always equip the worst possible equipment in the hopes that you'll die in order to prove you're manly?
I started at the end of this thread, had to go all the way back to find this and it is something interesting because I mostly agree with it.
All you need to do is look at any sequel thread to see the evidence. It's pretty disengenuous to claim that people don't try to enforce the status quo. It's also disengenuous to claim that game development is not funded and planned around making money, which means appeals to popularity. I personally think that very few people enjoy brand new things or will try out different things for the sake of them. This is why brands are so strong!
He's not saying anything remarkable here.
My only problem is how he generalises to all gamers instead of the ones who do it. Since not all gamers do that.
I'm unimpressed (to the point of actively ignoring their arguments) by people who use ad hominems to counter his claims. Seeing as ad hominem is a fallacy. All that matters is a persons argument.
I didn't actually like heavenly sword much. I didn't dislike it, I did think it was kind of interesting, it just didn't grab me enough to finish it. I was neutral. I thought the three way switching was novel but something about its implementation put me off. So I'm hardly a defensive fanboy, just in case someone wants to have another crack at the whole ad hominem thing for old times sake.
Basically all he did was word accurate observations of markets badly. People don't like something to be changed once they are used to it. This is utterly uncontroversial.
Death in Demon's Souls is enjoyable because you know it's usually your fault. Ran up the stairs without looking to see if there are any traps? Didn't check to see if the crumbly tower was missing some balconies? Thought it'd be a good idea to open some iron maidens? Enjoy soul form.
Can the player overcome the difficulty through something other than pure experience (having done it before)? Yes? Then he can improve. Improving yourself is satisfying. Knowing that you can improve yourself to get past obstacles puts an onus on yourself to get better.
People who don't play games for this kind of satisfaction wont see the point of demon souls difficulty.