HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2012
Neither the news of Angry Birds capitalizing more or Green Day selling out surprises me.
I forget, did I mention the time I was at the theater earlier this year and there was a sign in front that said something about "NO ANGRY BIRDS" with the logo, urging people to shut off their mobiles? I love how much that game has permeated our society. It's the new Pac-Man, honest to goodness. And I don't begrudge it for that.
Edit - Since it was more or less bottom-of-the-page'd.
How is he a loser for bringing up some valid points of criticism about the game and saying he would've done it differently?
Also, it's not even relevant to anything unless Blizzard comes out as a company and comments on it, and they won't. All this does is show Wilson and crew as geese who can't take any criticism lightly. Their fault for not keeping things private.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
How is he a loser for bringing up some valid points of criticism about the game and saying he would've done it differently?
Also, it's not even relevant to anything unless Blizzard comes out as a company and comments on it, and they won't. All this does is show Wilson and crew as geese who can't take any criticism lightly. Their fault for not keeping things private.
Because the "valid points" were "people don't like it!" He gave, and I apologize for using a political analogy, Mitt Romney types of responses. "We can do better, we know better." How? He didn't elaborate on shit. What if he's lying? What if they don't have idea on what to do differently?
Neither the news of Angry Birds capitalizing more or Green Day selling out surprises me.
I forget, did I mention the time I was at the theater earlier this year and there was a sign in front that said something about "NO ANGRY BIRDS" with the logo, urging people to shut off their mobiles? I love how much that game has permeated our society. It's the new Pac-Man, honest to goodness. And I don't begrudge it for that.
I swear, every 10th kid I see out in public is wearing an Angry Birds t-shirt.
I know I'm in the minority but I don't hate Green Day (I've gotten bored of them, but I don't hate them). It might be a nice way to introduce my son to music that isn't on the pop radio stations...
How is he a loser for bringing up some valid points of criticism about the game and saying he would've done it differently?
Also, it's not even relevant to anything unless Blizzard comes out as a company and comments on it, and they won't. All this does is show Wilson and crew as geese who can't take any criticism lightly. Their fault for not keeping things private.
Because the "valid points" were "people don't like it!" He gave, and I apologize for using a political analogy, Mitt Romney types of responses. "We can do better, we know better." How? He didn't elaborate on shit. What if he's lying? What if they don't have idea on what to do differently?
They made some decisions with the loot system that were very different than the way that we did it in Diablo 2 and I think that obviously the community has been upset with some of the decisions they made. Having all of your powers work off your main weapon and things like that, to having blues that are more powerful than yellows. Eventually the auction house and how that worked, even something as simple as when you equip an item and it’s bound to your character permanently would have totally changed the dynamic of the game.
Dude doesn't go through a thesis (it's only a short part of the interview, and he's touching on the subject for that sake), but I thought he was clear on what wasn't working. I mean he could go on at length about how powers and skills work on the weapon and what the reprecussions are, but there wouldn't be any point, that's a topic that's been discussed to death and back again.
subedii on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
How is he a loser for bringing up some valid points of criticism about the game and saying he would've done it differently?
Also, it's not even relevant to anything unless Blizzard comes out as a company and comments on it, and they won't. All this does is show Wilson and crew as geese who can't take any criticism lightly. Their fault for not keeping things private.
Because the "valid points" were "people don't like it!" He gave, and I apologize for using a political analogy, Mitt Romney types of responses. "We can do better, we know better." How? He didn't elaborate on shit. What if he's lying? What if they don't have idea on what to do differently?
They made some decisions with the loot system that were very different than the way that we did it in Diablo 2 and I think that obviously the community has been upset with some of the decisions they made. Having all of your powers work off your main weapon and things like that, to having blues that are more powerful than yellows. Eventually the auction house and how that worked, even something as simple as when you equip an item and it’s bound to your character permanently would have totally changed the dynamic of the game.
Dude doesn't go through a thesis (it's only a short part of the interview, and he's touching on the subject for that sake), but I thought he was clear on what wasn't working. I mean he could go on at length about how powers and skills work on the weapon and what the reprecussions are, but there wouldn't be any point, that's a topic that's been discussed to death and back again.
Having your powers work off the strength of your weapon isn't a "do better," it's do-differently, and frankly it's one of the things I saw championed the most as an improvement in Diablo 3 since in previous games, casters only wanted stats off weapons. So he wants to take the genre back a step in one regard? And we're supposed to believe he knows better? "Blues more powerful than yellows" is a flaw Diablo 2 had. Yellows were more powerful than uniques. Give me a fucking break. Again, the guy has no introspective. Bound items also don't make or break the genre.
I don't say that stuff to make this a Diablo 3 thread, but what he thinks "isn't working" is just arbitrary pickings of things that were changed. It's things I've seen praise or indifference for. Are there people unhappy with those changes? Yes. But the few loud people aren't the majority. His evidence is all based on "people don't like it!", as I've said, and if that were true people wouldn't be playing the game. It's just useless sourgrapes.
How is he a loser for bringing up some valid points of criticism about the game and saying he would've done it differently?
Also, it's not even relevant to anything unless Blizzard comes out as a company and comments on it, and they won't. All this does is show Wilson and crew as geese who can't take any criticism lightly. Their fault for not keeping things private.
Because the "valid points" were "people don't like it!" He gave, and I apologize for using a political analogy, Mitt Romney types of responses. "We can do better, we know better." How? He didn't elaborate on shit. What if he's lying? What if they don't have idea on what to do differently?
They made some decisions with the loot system that were very different than the way that we did it in Diablo 2 and I think that obviously the community has been upset with some of the decisions they made. Having all of your powers work off your main weapon and things like that, to having blues that are more powerful than yellows. Eventually the auction house and how that worked, even something as simple as when you equip an item and it’s bound to your character permanently would have totally changed the dynamic of the game.
Dude doesn't go through a thesis (it's only a short part of the interview, and he's touching on the subject for that sake), but I thought he was clear on what wasn't working. I mean he could go on at length about how powers and skills work on the weapon and what the reprecussions are, but there wouldn't be any point, that's a topic that's been discussed to death and back again.
Having your powers work off the strength of your weapon isn't a "do better," it's do-differently, and frankly it's one of the things I saw championed the most as an improvement in Diablo 3 since in previous games, casters only wanted stats off weapons. So he wants to take the genre back a step in one regard? And we're supposed to believe he knows better? "Blues more powerful than yellows" is a flaw Diablo 2 had. Yellows were more powerful than uniques. Give me a fucking break. Again, the guy has no introspective. Bound items also don't make or break the genre.
I don't say that stuff to make this a Diablo 3 thread, but what he thinks "isn't working" is just arbitrary pickings of things that were changed. It's things I've seen praise or indifference for. Are there people unhappy with those changes? Yes. But the few loud people aren't the majority. His evidence is all based on "people don't like it!", as I've said, and if that were true people wouldn't be playing the game. It's just useless sourgrapes.
I think you're reading way too much hate into his comments that he'd do things differently. I just can't really read sourgrapes in that fashion. It was a short interview, he was asked pretty directly about things like the loot system, and that was his answer. All he's saying is "I would have done it differently". I also don't see how it can be "do differently" and at the same time "a step back". Removing stats control altogether and tying each class to one core stat always seemed like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me, I don't see that this is some horrible view to hold (and I agree a lot with what Eric Schaeffer's said on why he's keeping stats modification in Torchlight 2, but that's a long topic elsewhere). He doesn't go into detail on the topic of "what I would fix with D3", but he was never asked, the interview just moves on.
Regardless, I think at this stage, it's coming down to subjective interpretations on what he said. I can't read into his statements the kind of background that you are, and vice-versa. And you're right, this will turn into a Diablo topic otherwise. So maybe we should just drop it.
subedii on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I can agree to that. My whole angle was his manner of what he was saying rather than discussing what he said.
+1
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
Tokyo Jungle was retail in Japan, but the European release at least (26th Sept) is going to be PSN only, for just £10. Don't know what the situation for America is like.
How is he a loser for bringing up some valid points of criticism about the game and saying he would've done it differently?
Also, it's not even relevant to anything unless Blizzard comes out as a company and comments on it, and they won't. All this does is show Wilson and crew as geese who can't take any criticism lightly. Their fault for not keeping things private.
Because the "valid points" were "people don't like it!" He gave, and I apologize for using a political analogy, Mitt Romney types of responses. "We can do better, we know better." How? He didn't elaborate on shit. What if he's lying? What if they don't have idea on what to do differently?
They made some decisions with the loot system that were very different than the way that we did it in Diablo 2 and I think that obviously the community has been upset with some of the decisions they made. Having all of your powers work off your main weapon and things like that, to having blues that are more powerful than yellows. Eventually the auction house and how that worked, even something as simple as when you equip an item and it’s bound to your character permanently would have totally changed the dynamic of the game.
Dude doesn't go through a thesis (it's only a short part of the interview, and he's touching on the subject for that sake), but I thought he was clear on what wasn't working. I mean he could go on at length about how powers and skills work on the weapon and what the reprecussions are, but there wouldn't be any point, that's a topic that's been discussed to death and back again.
Having your powers work off the strength of your weapon isn't a "do better," it's do-differently, and frankly it's one of the things I saw championed the most as an improvement in Diablo 3 since in previous games, casters only wanted stats off weapons. So he wants to take the genre back a step in one regard? And we're supposed to believe he knows better? "Blues more powerful than yellows" is a flaw Diablo 2 had. Yellows were more powerful than uniques. Give me a fucking break. Again, the guy has no introspective. Bound items also don't make or break the genre.
I don't say that stuff to make this a Diablo 3 thread, but what he thinks "isn't working" is just arbitrary pickings of things that were changed. It's things I've seen praise or indifference for. Are there people unhappy with those changes? Yes. But the few loud people aren't the majority. His evidence is all based on "people don't like it!", as I've said, and if that were true people wouldn't be playing the game. It's just useless sourgrapes.
I think you're reading way too much hate into his comments that he'd do things differently. I just can't really read sourgrapes in that fashion. It was a short interview, he was asked pretty directly about things like the loot system, and that was his answer. All he's saying is "I would have done it differently". I also don't see how it can be "do differently" and at the same time "a step back". Removing stats control altogether and tying each class to one core stat always seemed like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me, I don't see that this is some horrible view to hold (and I agree a lot with what Eric Schaeffer's said on why he's keeping stats modification in Torchlight 2, but that's a long topic elsewhere). He doesn't go into detail on the topic of "what I would fix with D3", but he was never asked, the interview just moves on.
Regardless, I think at this stage, it's coming down to subjective interpretations on what he said. I can't read into his statements the kind of background that you are, and vice-versa. And you're right, this will turn into a Diablo topic otherwise. So maybe we should just drop it.
He made a D2 team:D3 team :: Infinity Ward:Treyarch comparison while mentioning that "it shows how critical people are in this industry". Which has some serious implications behind it. It's pretty much calling the new team shit.
Oh please. If HGL had the Blizzard logo on it, then it would have sold like hotcakes on name alone...just like Diablo 3 did.
If Wilson's game is still played 12 years from now he can start talking shit to Brevik. Atm Jay just comes off like an insecure fratboy who's can't handle criticism and doesn't know how facebook works.
Separate development environments mean little chance of easy porting
A top Sony executive has admitted that PlayStation's new Cross Buy feature, which allows certain PS3 games to be played on PS Vita at no extra cost, is hampered by the technological differences between both devices.
The Cross Buy initiative means that people who buy certain PS3 games (including PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale and Ratchet & Clank: Full Frontal Assault) will effectively own a licence to play the game on Vita too.
However, from a development standpoint, two separate and distinct builds of the game will have to be created if they are to work on both systems.
Jim Ryan, the chief executive at PlayStation Europe, told CVG that "the development environments are rather different".
"PS Vita is a more PC-based environment whereas the PS3 is a more bespoke development environment. So the cross-over between both platforms is rather limited."
The revelation casts doubts on whether development studios will have the funding and time to create two distinct game builds despite charging for just one single licence. It is rumoured, however, that PlayStation 4 will implement a PC-based environment, theoretically meaning that future PS4 games could more easily cross over to Vita.
In an interview with CVG, Ryan was asked for his view on suggestions that only a few - if any - third party publishers will utilise the Cross Buy feature.
"Well, I think our priority with publishers is to provide them an environment, in terms of installed base, where they can publish profitably on Vita," he replied.
"That's our challenge and it is something we have to rise to".
Oh please. If HGL had the Blizzard logo on it, then it would have sold like hotcakes on name alone...just like Diablo 3 did.
If Wilson's game is still played 12 years from now he can start talking shit to Brevik. Atm Jay just comes off like an insecure fratboy who's can't handle criticism and doesn't know how facebook works.
Based on . ... what?
HGL didn't even review as well as D3 and anyone who played the game noticed the obvious lack of polish.
D3 maybe had things some people didn't like, HGL was a goddamn mess, let's not be silly here.
Also, let's not pretend like Jay Wilson's resume is any less impressive then Brevik's pre-Flagship record.
Oh please. If HGL had the Blizzard logo on it, then it would have sold like hotcakes on name alone...just like Diablo 3 did.
If Wilson's game is still played 12 years from now he can start talking shit to Brevik. Atm Jay just comes off like an insecure fratboy who's can't handle criticism and doesn't know how facebook works.
I thought Hellgate did actually sell like hotcakes. It's just that said hotcakes were full of shit, and once people spat them out and stopped buying them, the studio was left wondering how it was going to pay for all the expensive kitchen equipment.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
If the cross over potential is limited...why keep trying to sell it as a PS3P?
It's not that the crossover potential is limited. It's that Sony's own fragmented development environments has made it a pain in the ass to develop for both platforms simultaneously. Compare to Apple and how portable apps are between iOS and OSX. Both use the same development environment, the same programming language, and similar UI frameworks, and iOS came out long after OSX did, similarly to how the Vita has come out long after the PS3 did. It's a failure of planning ahead on Sony's part, and it only hurts their attempt to attract 3rd parties to the system and its features.
The real problem with convincing outside developers to make a Vita version along with their PS3 version is convincing developers to make a Vita game in the first place and then sell it for nothing.
It sounds like the Vita is easier to developer for than the PS3 which is the problem. So it's easier to develop for the Vita than the PS3 but it's harder to port from the PS3 to the Vita than it should be.
There's that Cell processor biting them in the ass again.
Seriously, that thing is a curse that's just never gonna leave.
It's a processor from a gone by era when highly clocked multicores where the future, man, and on top of that it's even got some "extra" parts so that it can make up for the somewhat lackluster PS3 GPU.
Problem is, the design was so occult it didn't really fit into mainstream processor architecture philosophy down the road, got abandoned, and now nobody's making anything that could do processing tasks in the same way the Cell does. This is good, in the sense that the Cell was notoriously difficult to program for, but when it comes to offering cross platform play (not to mention legacy support down the road) between the PS3 and other devices, it's a game devs worst fucking nightmare.
Zephiran on
Alright and in this next scene all the animals have AIDS.
Announcing an obvious sequel with no video, pics, or details day after rumors of layoffs at PopCap sounds to me like a smokescreen to keep their stock price from taking another hit.
Announcing an obvious sequel with no video, pics, or details day after rumors of layoffs at PopCap sounds to me like a smokescreen to keep their stock price from taking another hit.
Devil's Advocate: Well, it's not like we don't all know EXACTLY what a PvZ sequel would look like. It's like Angry Birds 2, all they have to do is say it and we know.
It sounds like the Vita is easier to developer for than the PS3 which is the problem. So it's easier to develop for the Vita than the PS3 but it's harder to port from the PS3 to the Vita than it should be.
When the Vita was announced (as the NGP) one of the things developers were praising was how easy it would be to port PS3 titles to the Vita with the support and dev kit Sony gave to them.
The publisher also moved to reassure developers that the technical hurdles of cross-platform development were being kept as low as possible.
"Any shaders for PS3 stuff will just work," said the source. "We won't have to rewrite. What would have taken two-to-three months before looks like it could take just one-to-two weeks now. The architecture is obviously different, but it's the same development environment."
Another shift has come to the world of Command & Conquer: Generals 2, with BioWare Victory General Manager John Van Caneghem announcing the free-to-play game will not include a single-player campaign.
Speaking with PC Gamer, Van Caneghem said the focus for BioWare Victory was to develop "co-operative and competitive" skirmishes as the core of the latest game to carry the C&C insignia. More modes – including a single-player campaign – could be added in the future, based on community demand, but the developer has yet to reveal how adding that content will work.
BioWare Victory's aim is to bring Generals 2 "back to the roots of what made Command & Conquer great," letting you build a devastating number of units and kill off the competition in a dedicated online space.
Originally announced as a new retail game during the 2011 Spike VGAs, Generals 2 has since been shifted to one part of EA's effort to create a free-to-play universe surrounding the Command & Conquer license. "We decided to choose Generals as the first set of games we build under the universe, but we'll be expanding after that, like Tiberium and Red Alert as well as some others as well. But Generals 2 was the first one, and it was one of the biggest sellers, as well as the fanbase has been asking for it for some time," Van Caneghem said.
We're not sure that losing a campaign and shifting to a free-to-play model is exactly what C&C Generals fans had in mind when making those requests, though.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I'm not sure I follow EA's logic on that one. I liked generals, and c&c in general........and I don't think I ever have played multiplayer on a single one of them. I'm not into multiplayer strategy games at all really. Anyways, they drop single player, okay, guess it's not going to be something I'll want to play, even free. But they're going to add back in a singleplayer mode later, if fans want it?
I mean, are they expecting people who would want that to stay hyped and keep asking for it? And I'm assuming they are thinking these people will be playing multiplayer and spending money on it in the meantime? I'm not sure there is any research whatsoever on it, but I don't see the multiplayer crowd really caring if single player gets added later, and I don't see the single player crowd playing multiplayer modes for what would likely be a year or more hoping they add a campaign. And I don't see a campaign being added under those conditions that won't suffer from the circumstances horribly anyways.
That and I think I'm choking on my own tongue trying to stifle giggles at hearing they named one of their studios "Victory" on top of slapping Bioware on it. Take that "Austin"!
That and I think I'm choking on my own tongue trying to stifle giggles at hearing they named one of their studios "Victory" on top of slapping Bioware on it. Take that "Austin"!
That's because they used to be Victory Games before they were renamed.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
From what I'm reading, they had just created them (for the purpose of working on the C&C series), decided to name them Victory, then later decided to brand them Bioware along with all the others as well. Right?
Not that I would have anything against them if they decided to name a studio "Bioware Awsome" for the hell of it tomorrow. I just think their naming policy is really really lazy these days.
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
Looking at it, it's not even called "Generals 2" anymore, just straight up "Command & Conquer," reboot-style. I'm sure that'll go over well with old CnC fans. Well, those that actually still care about the series.
I wonder if they're doing a version of CnC4's dumb unit unlocking, which kind of make actual sense the context of F2P.
Why am I even wondering, of course they will. $1 to unlock 50 one-time-use Mammoth Tanks. You heard it here, peoples.
Posts
I forget, did I mention the time I was at the theater earlier this year and there was a sign in front that said something about "NO ANGRY BIRDS" with the logo, urging people to shut off their mobiles? I love how much that game has permeated our society. It's the new Pac-Man, honest to goodness. And I don't begrudge it for that.
Edit - Since it was more or less bottom-of-the-page'd.
Also, it's not even relevant to anything unless Blizzard comes out as a company and comments on it, and they won't. All this does is show Wilson and crew as geese who can't take any criticism lightly. Their fault for not keeping things private.
Because the "valid points" were "people don't like it!" He gave, and I apologize for using a political analogy, Mitt Romney types of responses. "We can do better, we know better." How? He didn't elaborate on shit. What if he's lying? What if they don't have idea on what to do differently?
I swear, every 10th kid I see out in public is wearing an Angry Birds t-shirt.
Well, it doesn't suit that pig as well as it does Tim Minchin I can tell you that for a fact.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
Dookie was such a good album, remember when someone brought it into school and it was the first non chart thing I ever heard, got me into punk.
Hell Warning was the last album that was any good, I really shouldn't care or be surprised.
Anyway, enough of that horrible interlude.
Is rock and roll a foreign concept to you? :P Besides, it's 2012.
Dude doesn't go through a thesis (it's only a short part of the interview, and he's touching on the subject for that sake), but I thought he was clear on what wasn't working. I mean he could go on at length about how powers and skills work on the weapon and what the reprecussions are, but there wouldn't be any point, that's a topic that's been discussed to death and back again.
Having your powers work off the strength of your weapon isn't a "do better," it's do-differently, and frankly it's one of the things I saw championed the most as an improvement in Diablo 3 since in previous games, casters only wanted stats off weapons. So he wants to take the genre back a step in one regard? And we're supposed to believe he knows better? "Blues more powerful than yellows" is a flaw Diablo 2 had. Yellows were more powerful than uniques. Give me a fucking break. Again, the guy has no introspective. Bound items also don't make or break the genre.
I don't say that stuff to make this a Diablo 3 thread, but what he thinks "isn't working" is just arbitrary pickings of things that were changed. It's things I've seen praise or indifference for. Are there people unhappy with those changes? Yes. But the few loud people aren't the majority. His evidence is all based on "people don't like it!", as I've said, and if that were true people wouldn't be playing the game. It's just useless sourgrapes.
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
I think you're reading way too much hate into his comments that he'd do things differently. I just can't really read sourgrapes in that fashion. It was a short interview, he was asked pretty directly about things like the loot system, and that was his answer. All he's saying is "I would have done it differently". I also don't see how it can be "do differently" and at the same time "a step back". Removing stats control altogether and tying each class to one core stat always seemed like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me, I don't see that this is some horrible view to hold (and I agree a lot with what Eric Schaeffer's said on why he's keeping stats modification in Torchlight 2, but that's a long topic elsewhere). He doesn't go into detail on the topic of "what I would fix with D3", but he was never asked, the interview just moves on.
Regardless, I think at this stage, it's coming down to subjective interpretations on what he said. I can't read into his statements the kind of background that you are, and vice-versa. And you're right, this will turn into a Diablo topic otherwise. So maybe we should just drop it.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
He made a D2 team:D3 team :: Infinity Ward:Treyarch comparison while mentioning that "it shows how critical people are in this industry". Which has some serious implications behind it. It's pretty much calling the new team shit.
If Wilson's game is still played 12 years from now he can start talking shit to Brevik. Atm Jay just comes off like an insecure fratboy who's can't handle criticism and doesn't know how facebook works.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
http://www.computerandvideogames.com...d-sony-admits/
Based on . ... what?
HGL didn't even review as well as D3 and anyone who played the game noticed the obvious lack of polish.
D3 maybe had things some people didn't like, HGL was a goddamn mess, let's not be silly here.
Also, let's not pretend like Jay Wilson's resume is any less impressive then Brevik's pre-Flagship record.
I thought Hellgate did actually sell like hotcakes. It's just that said hotcakes were full of shit, and once people spat them out and stopped buying them, the studio was left wondering how it was going to pay for all the expensive kitchen equipment.
It's not that the crossover potential is limited. It's that Sony's own fragmented development environments has made it a pain in the ass to develop for both platforms simultaneously. Compare to Apple and how portable apps are between iOS and OSX. Both use the same development environment, the same programming language, and similar UI frameworks, and iOS came out long after OSX did, similarly to how the Vita has come out long after the PS3 did. It's a failure of planning ahead on Sony's part, and it only hurts their attempt to attract 3rd parties to the system and its features.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Seriously, that thing is a curse that's just never gonna leave.
It's a processor from a gone by era when highly clocked multicores where the future, man, and on top of that it's even got some "extra" parts so that it can make up for the somewhat lackluster PS3 GPU.
Problem is, the design was so occult it didn't really fit into mainstream processor architecture philosophy down the road, got abandoned, and now nobody's making anything that could do processing tasks in the same way the Cell does. This is good, in the sense that the Cell was notoriously difficult to program for, but when it comes to offering cross platform play (not to mention legacy support down the road) between the PS3 and other devices, it's a game devs worst fucking nightmare.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
Announcing an obvious sequel with no video, pics, or details day after rumors of layoffs at PopCap sounds to me like a smokescreen to keep their stock price from taking another hit.
Devil's Advocate: Well, it's not like we don't all know EXACTLY what a PvZ sequel would look like. It's like Angry Birds 2, all they have to do is say it and we know.
Infractions may be incoming, so brace yourselves.
When the Vita was announced (as the NGP) one of the things developers were praising was how easy it would be to port PS3 titles to the Vita with the support and dev kit Sony gave to them.
eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-04-new-ngp-details-emerge-at-private-event
Sounds like something got lost between then and the final dev kit.
Surprising how many people bought into the "easy porting" line, given Sony's past on promises.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I mean, are they expecting people who would want that to stay hyped and keep asking for it? And I'm assuming they are thinking these people will be playing multiplayer and spending money on it in the meantime? I'm not sure there is any research whatsoever on it, but I don't see the multiplayer crowd really caring if single player gets added later, and I don't see the single player crowd playing multiplayer modes for what would likely be a year or more hoping they add a campaign. And I don't see a campaign being added under those conditions that won't suffer from the circumstances horribly anyways.
That and I think I'm choking on my own tongue trying to stifle giggles at hearing they named one of their studios "Victory" on top of slapping Bioware on it. Take that "Austin"!
That's because they used to be Victory Games before they were renamed.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Not that I would have anything against them if they decided to name a studio "Bioware Awsome" for the hell of it tomorrow. I just think their naming policy is really really lazy these days.
I wonder if they're doing a version of CnC4's dumb unit unlocking, which kind of make actual sense the context of F2P.
Why am I even wondering, of course they will. $1 to unlock 50 one-time-use Mammoth Tanks. You heard it here, peoples.