September 17, 2014, 12:05:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 164
161  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 13, 2014, 07:17:04 AM

Quote from: TiLT on August 12, 2014, 08:12:32 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 12, 2014, 08:09:22 PM

I'm not trying to bait anyone, just stating an opinion. But here goes:

P.T. - new developer - we know next to nothing about the title so hard to say whether this is AAA or indie. Assuming indie since it's a new dev.

Alieanation - Housemarque new game - indie developer

Wild - from Wild Sheep, new indie developer (his words, not mine)

Those were the exact same indie titles I could track down too (maybe apart from P.T. They're keeping this one's cards close to their chest). Wikipedia isn't up to date yet.

Turns out Wild and Alienation aren't indie either. They're both published by Sony, and are Playstation exclusive. And as mentioned above, P.T. is actually a teaser for Silent Hill, which is unlikely to be indie.
162  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Better Life Index Tool Tells You Which Country Is Best For You on: August 13, 2014, 04:49:12 AM

Quote from: farley2k on August 12, 2014, 07:38:57 PM

Too bad they are so cold!

Classic misconception. We have something between 1 and 3 months of snow per year, and even then it tends to be a mild cold most of the time. Our usual weather is simply wet and mild. We've had a long heat wave this summer, with temperatures that have been higher than in areas such as the Mediterranean.

Scandinavia notices the effects of the climate change easily though. We're having more and more extreme weather. When it's cold, it's really cold. When it's hot, it's really hot. The weather around here isn't at all the same as it was 20 years ago.
163  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:56:17 PM

Quote from: Caine on August 12, 2014, 08:53:36 PM

or just admit that it's a glorified PS4 remote controller with the occasional PSN cross-buy release.

I think they did just that recently. The Vita has become more of a companion device to the Playstation family right now, with a focus on making your games portable instead of making portable games, if that makes any sense.
164  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:52:01 PM
It appears that I didn't actually finish P.T. There's more to it. I'm going to have to fire this up again tomorrow.

This press conference reminded me that I've forgotten to play Tearaway, so my Vita is officially out of the drawer at the moment.
165  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:48:12 PM
Here's some more info about Until Dawn. A promising snippet about the graphics:

We’re also using an updated version of the Killzone Shadow Fall engine, leveraging its great visual power together with some amazing, cutting-edge facial animation, lighting and audio techniques to give compelling character performances in our creepy and realistic environments.
166  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:25:06 PM

Quote from: forgeforsaken on August 12, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

P.T. also seems AAA and seems like it's sort of a viral game and may be related to something else. 

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. Search for 7780s Studio on Google. I browsed through several pages of results, and the oldest article I found was from 15 hours ago. These guys came out of nothing. I'm thinking they might be a more well-known studio operating under a pseudonym or something.
167  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:18:20 PM

Quote from: ATB on August 12, 2014, 08:17:17 PM

PT is what?

I honestly have no idea. The teaser is a little horror game that'll take you 10 minutes to play through.
168  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:15:58 PM
Btw, I played the P.T. demo. It's short but effective. I didn't think it would scare me, but it ended up creeping me out really effectively near the end. The little video we saw was nothing but a teaser to make people try it on the PS4, and that demo itself is just another teaser. It's very hard to say what kind of game they're going to make out of this, or even if it will be at all similar. It sort of feels like a proof of concept.
169  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 08:12:32 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on August 12, 2014, 08:09:22 PM

I'm not trying to bait anyone, just stating an opinion. But here goes:

P.T. - new developer - we know next to nothing about the title so hard to say whether this is AAA or indie. Assuming indie since it's a new dev.

Alieanation - Housemarque new game - indie developer

Wild - from Wild Sheep, new indie developer (his words, not mine)

Those were the exact same indie titles I could track down too (maybe apart from P.T. They're keeping this one's cards close to their chest). Wikipedia isn't up to date yet.

Tearaway I thought was indie because it looked like one, but it's a Vita remake.

Until Dawn is a major title (missed because it was lumped near P.T. with the live blog I was looking at).

Both of those are published by SCE.

As an aside, Until Dawn looks like it can be really incredible. People are comparing it to Heavy Rain due to the way choices play out in the game. I'm also very fond of the idea of doing horror in the 80s/90s style instead of the more modern horror we're so used to. Not many games have tried that.
170  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 07:55:11 PM
Okay, I'll bite. YK, please name some of the indie titles you saw in Sony's press conference. I'll wait.

Edit: I'll be less of an asshole and save you the trouble. Very few of the games you saw were indie games. It's a bit hard to dig up information on some of them yet, but you should look at who the publishers are.

Regardless, there were plenty of AAA-level games being shown, games we had never heard about before and those who were reintroduced after long periods of silence.

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that "this holiday season belongs to Microsoft."
171  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 07:51:29 PM
CBOAT of NeoGAF fame came out of the shadows today to say that the new Tomb Raider is only a timed exclusive though, but nobody is allowed to even mention that fact, apparently. Not that this will help stop the negativity in any way.
172  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 07:29:24 PM
I'm seeing the same reaction to the Tomb Raider thing in other places I've been looking too. This is an exclusivity deal that can come back to bite MS and Square Enix in the ass. It pisses off PC and PS4 owners, and doesn't give Xbox One owners anything they wouldn't have gotten anyway. It produces nothing but negativity, and can have hurt the Tomb Raider franchise, which was just rising from the grave, for a long time to come.

It just seems like they didn't quite think this through.
173  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 06:29:33 PM
I was really impressed with the Sony conference. I haven't followed any Gamescom conferences before today, and this went well beyond what I had expected. Tons and tons of games, lots of them completely unknown to me before now. Very few of them were games about shooting things with guns (which has caused a storm of "they only showed indies" comments from people who don't know how to identify neither indies nor AAA games), but offered an incredibly versatile selection of settings and gameplay styles.

They even had a "available right now" moment with the P.T. demo, which I had never heard about before. About to try it right now.

Quote from: Destructor on August 12, 2014, 06:19:50 PM

BTW, the PS4 hit 10 million units BOUGHT BY PEOPLE today (or was announced today anyhow). What is the XB1 at? Who knows, because they still use the outdated (because it looks better) 'sold to retailers'. But I do know it's nowhere near where the PS4 is at.

I think the PS4 is at roughly twice as many units sold to consumers at this point as the Xbox One, at least according to discussions I've seen between people who spend way more time looking up such numbers than I do.
174  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 06:14:10 PM

Quote from: naednek on August 12, 2014, 05:49:04 PM

Ok the Metal Gear Solid, and the card board box has to be the dumbest thing I've seen in video game history.

I was groaning at that video, especially when that swimsuit model showed up. On its own it's not so bad, but combined with some of the earlier controversy for this game, Hideo Kojima is coming off as increasingly misogynistic.

Btw, Wild looked absolutely incredible. That one came out of the blue.
175  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 12, 2014, 02:14:45 PM
Some more information about what Sierra will be doing.

It's hard to say what the exact deals behind the curtains is here, but based on this article and earlier speculation, it appears Sierra will indeed function as a sub-publisher under Activision's umbrella, focusing entirely on publishing games by independent developers (don't confuse this with making indie games, as anyone getting published by Sierra is no longer indie). The first two games that are part of this initiative are Geometry Wars 3 (developed by Lucid Games) and King's Quest (developed by The Odd Gentlemen), with more to follow.

I don't know what kind of responsibilities Sierra will have in this, but based on my arguments from earlier posts in this thread, it's probably not much. Still, it's nice to see Activision publicly supporting smaller games in this way. I hope this turns out well for them, and that this inspires Activision to step further outside of their comfort zone in the future.

This also confirms what I've been saying earlier: Sierra will not develop any games by itself. It's entirely a publishing label.
176  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Gamescom 2014 on: August 12, 2014, 01:55:41 PM
This is just a stupid, transparent move from both of their companies. Taking a non-exclusive license and suddenly turning it exclusive won't end well for them, publicity-wise. That statement offering "insight into the decision" can only hurt, because it doesn't offer any insight at all, leaving everyone to reach the only natural conclusion: Money.

It wouldn't have mattered if this was Sony buying the exclusivity either (though it wouldn't have affected me personally). It would still have been an incredibly stupid move. This is going to color all talk about this game for the rest of its existence. They won't be able to have a preview or a press release without all talk degenerating into console wars or the more rational feeling of betrayal for them suddenly taking a generally available franchise and putting it out of the reach of the majority of their fans.
177  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Why all the hate toward Activision? on: August 11, 2014, 08:26:22 PM

Quote from: EngineNo9 on August 11, 2014, 07:32:04 PM

The hate has mostly died down to a mild simmer since they shut up Bobby Kotick.  He had a real penchant for making statements that made him (and Activision) come across like a greedy prick with no respect for gamers as consumers.

Yeah, that's a good point too.
178  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Why all the hate toward Activision? on: August 11, 2014, 05:28:07 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on August 11, 2014, 04:31:08 PM

I'm genuinely curious.

I bought a bit of their stock at just over $18 per share and stick by that purchase, but I was unaware of any discontent gamers have toward them.

I get the EA hate etc, and am sure there are valid reasons to dislike ATVI as well, I just want to know what they are!

I bought it because they have more major releases this year than any other year I'm aware of, and the fact that Hearthstone is like crack, and it knew it would be a money press for the the moment  it as released on iPad.  People spent thousands on candy crush for goodness sake...

You're a few years too late. There hasn't been any noteworthy Activision hate since EA became hated. EA pretty much got all the attention, and has kept it since. There used to be a lot of Activision hate before then, but they've become so predictable as to not really upset most people all that much any more. They got their most attention when it first became obvious that their entire business strategy relied on running popular licenses into the ground by pushing just enough buttons to not upset their fans too much, but not enough buttons to reach any form of excellence. The fear of licenses like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty being ruined by Activision's greed and over-saturation scared people to the point where it became hatred.

We're used to it now though. Activision never really surprises us. It's always the same thing, which doesn't really spark enough anger to mean much. EA, on the other hand, keeps coming up with new ways to inspire hatred, and there seems to be no end to what they'll do in that regard.
179  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (08/11) on: August 11, 2014, 06:26:16 AM
I'm keeping an eye on Risen 3, but I'm highly skeptical.
180  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 09:11:32 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 09, 2014, 09:09:19 PM

What kills me is that what's in the quoted post here is what I've been trying to say (ineffectively, apparently) all along, more or less.

Yeah, you were the one who clued me in on it to begin with. See my third post in the thread, where I start to see what's going on, only substituting Telltale for whoever is working on the license now. My initial confusion was over whether or not Sierra represented an actual development studio (it doesn't), and my later argumentation stands in its entirety.
181  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 08:56:07 PM

Quote from: Destructor on August 09, 2014, 08:34:14 PM

and why there's no hope whatsoever for anything good out of what we're discussing.

Oh, I wouldn't quite say that. After all, it looks like this is going to open the doors for new games in beloved Sierra series of old. I'm only arguing that we won't be seeing Sierra as a developer, so this will only last as long as other, smaller developers are willing to pay the licensing fees and take all the risks involved, while giving Activision, under the guise of Sierra, a bunch of credit. At least one company seems to be doing so already, while Telltale apparently let their own license expire last year, for reasons unknown. I suspect it was too expensive compared to the other licenses they had available to them at the time.

This is actually better than my impression was at the beginning of the thread, where I thought Sierra was somehow going to be some kind of development house. It's good news for gamers, just not in the way a lot of people seem to think.
182  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
Geoff Keighley is reporting that credible reports claim The Odd Gentlemen is working on a new King's Quest. I guess that's good, all things considered.

Now, let's talk numbers for a little bit to add some weight to my earlier comments in this thread, just in case anyone thinks I'm just making these things up. As far as I'm aware, Broken Age is the most hyped and high-profile point and click adventure game we've had for quite some time (someone correct me if I'm wrong). One unique thing about that game is that we actually have some sales numbers to go on, as Double Fine talked about them in one of their documentaries. Apparently, Broken Age sold roughly 70,000 copies in a little over two months after release. Surprised? Shocked? I certainly was. Before seeing that documentary, I had no idea about the bad shape of the adventure game genre. I thought it was merely abandoned, but it turns out that it's actually dead in all kinds of ways, except for the smallest of companies that can survive with numbers at that level or below. Also keep in mind that Broken Age costs only $25, half (or less) of a full-priced game, and still sold so little.

Then we have Gone Home, an unusual kind of adventure game that received a lot of acclaim and awards, and quite a bit of media attention for an indie game. They sold roughly 50,000 copies in the first month, and have reached a little more than 250,000 total sales since then. A bigger number than Broken Age to be sure, but still incredibly low compared to most other genres, especially when we're talking about a real reviewer favorite (it has a Metascore of 86 at the moment).

Activision's games routinely sell 10+ million copies at full price, and often far, far more than that. These games are rarely parts of sales, and when they are, we're usually talking 10-25% off the regular price (which doesn't change for years after release, unlike other publishers that lower the regular price after a while), or 50% for older games in a series just before a new game is coming out, in order to hype the new one. Their games are almost never for sale at lower prices than that, unless they are really old.

Let's say Activision decided to spend money resurrecting Sierra as a sub-publisher that handles games that aren't AAA. That's the rose-red glasses ideal concept we're looking at right now, as I don't think anyone among us expects them to suddenly create AAA adventure games. Establishing Sierra as a smaller publisher owned by Activision lets them establish a clear separation between the two, which makes everything more predictable and easy to understand for both the press and the stockholders, who have been promised a stable company with risk-free investments and steady growth. With this scenario in mind, the question becomes: Why on earth would Activision do something like this? Even if they made a real hit adventure game, they'd be lucky to get anywhere close to a million sales, and they probably wouldn't be able to charge full price. They would have either have to shift people from the more rewarding AAA development to work on these smaller titles (which would end up as a net loss in their results, most likely), or hire new people or new development studios to work on such titles, which would cost quite a bit of up-front money and require management to expand and cover more projects at the same time, which adds risk and reduces profitability. I'm no expert on business (the only company I've run went bankrupt after 3 years), but I don't see how anyone within Activision would ever be able to convince the stockholders or Kotick himself that this is worth using money on. Remember that Kotick isn't a gamer and doesn't believe in this kind of sentimentality in the first place.

What's more likely, and which is pretty much what I mentioned earlier in this thread, is that another company is licensing old Sierra titles. This costs Activision very little but gives them a small flow of side income at little to no risk. They establish Sierra as a brand and assign a couple of people within Activision to administrate these properties and keep control over the licenses and the studios working on them. It adds a little cost, but the risk is still so low as to be no real danger to any budgets or results.

I still don't see why Activision would bother with this as even the second scenario will give them too little actual income to matter, but I guess it could be for publicity reasons and to strengthen / keep alive old brands, for reasons pointed out earlier. We can at least rule out the possibility of Activision itself handling development or creating internal projects under this brand name.

So let me be more specific about my "wet blanket": What you should not expect is a rebuilt Sierra producing new games in beloved game series. What you should expect is other companies licensing properties that used to belong to Sierra (and now belong to Activision), publishing them under the Sierra name.

But under no circumstance should you expect Sierra to develop games. It won't happen.

My 2 cents, anyway. I hope nobody thinks I'm posting this because I want to be a downer. I post this because I take a huge interest in this topic and love discussing it, and I like dissecting industry moves to understand what's going on behind the scenes. I get annoyed when these industry moves are designed in such a way as to trick consumers into thinking one thing while something else is happening, and try to do my part to inform of what I think is going on, with facts that I can back up. I'm not dictating what people should think. I'm informing. Make up your own minds, but don't tell me to shut up.
183  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 03:10:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 09, 2014, 02:36:46 PM

Why not be positive about it?

I've made it pretty clear why I don't think there's anything to be positive about. I can't stop you from being enthusiastic, but that's your choice. Believing that this is going to amount to anything means you think Activision behaves like other companies.

Activision doesn't. Take. Risks.

It's as simple as that.
184  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 09:49:25 PM

Quote from: kronovan on August 08, 2014, 09:11:04 PM

Meh, it's ultimately Kold-tick and his company behind this. He'll manage somehow to suck the spirit out of anything potentially good from a Sierra brand resurrection. This will probably amount to our beloved heroes from those Sierra games being featured in some bland shooter. Oh, and you'll no doubt have to pay extra for everyone of those heroes, as they'll likely be DLC.  icon_twisted

You're confusing Activision with EA. Tongue
185  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 08:08:52 PM

We don't know for sure that this is connected to Telltale, though, so keep that in mind.

Whatever it is, forgive me for getting (cautiously) excited about it and trying to share that.  But if it's important to toss a big, old soggy blanket over any hope of someone doing something decent with these titles, then keep at it, TiLT.  I hate Kotick and what Activision represents as much as the next guy, but I don't let that override talking about what should or even might be done with these classic franchises, so I guess I don't see how being a wet blanket is important.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't hate either Kotick or Activision, but I do know how they run their business, and I've read a long interview with the man himself about his career and his visions. A revival of adventure games through Sierra doesn't align at all with the company and image he has built up, and it's not the kind of thing he personally believes in, nor would he get much support from the company shareholders if he experimented with it.

These companies treasure their old trademarks, for they know that the time may one day be right to earn themselves quick goodwill by bringing them back. Nobody should allow themselves to believe that a revived trademark equals a revived company, however. How many times has that happened in the history of videogames? When did ever any big company pull an old brand name out of their archives (apart from game names themselves, that is) and actually revive what players remember about that brand? I don't know about you guys, but I'm drawing a blank here.

This isn't a wet blanket thrown onto enthusiasm. I'm trying to prevent the enthusiasm from ever happening, because I hate to see good people let themselves get carried away over things that clearly don't mean what they let themselves imagine in their minds. I'm wetting the grass to stop it from burning in the first place, because enthusiasm for this kind of thing will only end in disappointment, especially when it comes to the most risk-averse publisher in the business right now. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's better for it to happen now than to let you build up impossible expectations over time, for that would only be worse.

Edit to add: I'd love to be wrong about all this, I really would. Few things would be better than seeing Activision suddenly invest good money into a revival of Sierra's classics, not least because it would signal a change in how Activision does its business, to the betterment of the industry itself. I don't see that as anywhere near remotely realistic, however.
186  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 06:31:23 PM

Quote from: Rumpy on August 08, 2014, 06:08:34 PM

I thought Telltale decided to shelve King's Quest. Now I'm confused.

Bullwinkle's link above covers this:

Going over old reports, apparently when Telltale first announced that they just obtained the licensing to make Sierra games from Activision (which they announced at a press event in San Franscisco on Feb 17, 2011), their license included several of the games of Sierra's back catalogue. King's Quest is apparently is just the first game series they planned to work on.

Telltale has entered into an agreement with Activision, current owner of the rights to the classic Sierra On-Line adventure franchises, to create new episodic games based on these series. The first will be King’s Quest.

Seeing as it was only an initial anouncement made at the press event, they never gave a major press release on their website. They only made a single reference iin a blog post (on Feb 18, 2011) to how King's Quest was going to be one of the next IPs they were going to work on after they finished Walking Dead and Fables. No press releases nor websites were made for King's Quest or the Sierra license in general.

Since many of the games they announced got pushed back from their initial release dates, and this has affected their entire release schedule. This has probably affected any development on King's Quest as well.

In anycase I think its interesting that they apparently have the license to make other Sierra game franchise games. Perhaps this would if they continued to include, new games within the Police Quest, Space Quest, Gabriel Knight, Quest For Glory games, etc. If Adventure Gamer's account of that press event is accurate.

Obviously it would have never included Larry, as that was already sold to Codemasters. But the series I listed above are the major series that Activision has rereleased through GoG so far.

But it seems that the announcment at the event was apparently more of a general reference to them obtaining the Sierra family license.
187  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 05:30:38 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 08, 2014, 04:45:16 PM

As for the Activision skepticism, I'll throw out a $1 bet that they're thirsty for the adventure game money they're seeing come through Kickstarter and they do some kind of crowdfunding approach for old Sierra games.

You'd lose that $1. As I've mentioned above, Activision doesn't care about these small sums. They're just not worth the bother to them. Even the biggest Kickstarter campaigns (MAYBE with the exception of Star Citizen, which is far from an adventure game) are nothing but small change to this company. Someone like Ubisoft or even EA (maybe) might consider doing such things, as they like to spread out a bit. Activision doesn't. That's not the type of company Kotick has been building. He wants the big fish, and nothing but the big fish.
188  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 04:31:36 PM
But that's just Telltale licensing Sierra games. We've had Telltale for years. That's not the return of Sierra, that's the strengthening of Telltale, a completely different beast altogether.
189  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 03:57:23 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 03:29:07 PM

It wouldn't surprise me to find that Activision made it a requirement that their branding be more forward than Telltale's.

You know, this whole thing confused me (see my "I'm surprised they're even bothering" comment above), but I think I'm starting to see what's going on now. Here's what I think happened:

Telltale approached Activision on their own initiative and asked for a license to create a King's Quest game. Activision shrugged and said, "sure, I guess that'll help keep our trademarks alive, but it'll cost you, and we won't pay you a dime for your effort". In an effort to have the collaboration bring Activision something meaningful beyond the pocket money it might provide them, they decided to resurrect the Sierra brand and put that front and center in the Telltale effort, hoping that it might regain some of its former value to the consumers. Activision has very few licenses worth a damn, so this might be their way of trying to strengthen one of the few they have left without having to spend any real money having to do so.

This is the only explanation that makes any sense to me right now.
190  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 03:46:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 03:29:07 PM

While I agree that we should be careful, because it's Activision, it's a little too dismissive and cynical to just say it means nothing.  

Clearly some effort has been put together (and money spent) on doing something with the name.

Because it's Activision, we have every reason to say it means nothing. We have examples to point to, among other things. Here's a good one: Star Control. It's been 18 years since the last game in that series came out. A few years back, without warning, a Star Control flash game suddenly appeared online, clearly made in just a few days (if that) and with almost no resemblance to the original games apart from borrowing the most basic parts of the combat system. They did this to keep the trademark alive, not because they cared about it or wanted to earn money with it. It was strictly for legal reasons.

There's also this: Have a look at the games Activition has published over the last few years. Take their big franchises (Call of Duty, Skylanders, anything by Blizzard, Destiny) and put them in one imaginary pile. Take the rest of their games and put in another pile. Now look closely at the second pile. It contains nothing but quick cash-grabs and throwaway projects that barely received enough funding to reach market. There's only one exception (Transformers: Fall of Cybertron), and I think that has more to do with sheer grit and perseverance in the development studio than any real effort or interest from Activision. The company has grown notorious for pushing anything but their core games to the market with no regard for its quality (and even with the core games they often don't give a shit. Just look at Call of Duty for Vita, one of the crappiest big-profile games we've seen on any platform in the last decade) because they don't feel it's worth their time.

Make no mistake, a collaboration with Telltale is insignificant in Bobby Kotick's eyes. He'll put one little lump of money into that project, enough to be meaningful to Telltale, but not enough to disturb Activision's core projects or present anything that could be considered an actual risk to their investors. Even if the results of their collaboration are very successful, they will barely register as a blip on Activision's radar. They have nothing to lose and pretty much nothing to gain here. I'm surprised they're even bothering. If it's not an AAA blockbuster, Activision historically doesn't give a shit whether the game succeeds or fails.

This is not the Sierra you're looking for. It's doomed, as was the real one once Activision got its claws on it. Being an optimist about this development is merely setting yourself up for disappointment.
191  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 02:57:16 PM
It's just a name, in the same way that Infogrames using Atari as their "cover" doesn't mean that they were the actual Atari, and the way in which Black Isle Studios was "reborn" in 2012, gaining the hatred of a unusually unified gaming community in the process. None of the original Sierra people are still around in that company, having quit ages ago.

This means nothing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say gamers should be particularly careful about anything that comes out of this studio, since they are using unearned nostalgia to try to cheat their way to credibility.

Specifically, this is Activision hiding behind an old trademark they themselves pissed all over. Does anyone here think Activision is going to invest any serious money into adventure games?

That was a rhetorical question.
192  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (08/04) on: August 06, 2014, 10:18:00 PM

Quote from: EddieA on August 06, 2014, 08:41:58 PM

Quote from: rittchard on August 06, 2014, 05:24:53 PM

I knew it was an action game, which didn't bother me, but it seems like reviews on Steam are universally bad, so I'll probably wait for a sale.  It doesn't sound too different from Gauntlet, so I'm still a little tempted, just wish it were on one of the next gen consoles.

I wouldn't put much stock in the reviews.  Most people can't get over the fact that this game isn't like Sacred 2, and even if it were the greatest hack-and-slash action game ever made, they'd still hate it.  Since Best Buy cancelled my Destiny Limited Edition preorder and gave me $50 gift card in compensation and the game is only $30 (after my Gamers Club discount and the $10 gift card that comes with the game) I decided to buy it.  I'll post some impressions once I've played some.

Watch TotalBiscuit's WTF Is video for this game. He approaches it from both angles, and decides that it's a bad and overpriced game, period. It has no real depth, has bad controls, no variety, no carrot to go with the stick, no character development, no loot, and so on. For a game like this to be fun, its combat system needs to be both good and fun, and by all accounts it's neither. I would not spend money on this game, even at half price. Especially considering this game is priced at least 4 times too high to begin with. Even had it not been, the game doesn't seem to be any fun.
193  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS3/360] Assassin's Creed: Rogue on: August 05, 2014, 06:37:20 PM

Quote from: Caine on August 05, 2014, 04:23:10 PM

I think it will be more fully fleshed out than Liberation was though. 

Of course. They're using the old engine, probably with only minor changes if any. All they have to do is make content. Rogue is likely going to be the equivalent to a long expansion pack from the old days, only at full price instead of expansion price.
194  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS3/360] Assassin's Creed: Rogue on: August 05, 2014, 03:49:08 PM
Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this game was announced some time ago, though without a name. The plan has always been for two Assassin's Creed games to be released this year, one for current-gen and one for last-gen. Rogue, which was tentatively called Comet until just now, is the last-gen version. I imagine it's going to be as vital to the series as Liberation was, which is to say, not much at all.

Unity is the only Assassin's Creed that matters this year, unless you're stuck on a last-gen console for now. Rogue is a bone thrown to those who are.
195  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: August 04, 2014, 03:19:48 PM
I just bought a new ship in the game. Ditched my trusty Sidewinder (the crappy little ship you start with) and got an Eagle instead. The game doesn't really tell you anything about the ships you're buying yet, though I'm sure there'll be in-game stats later on, so I didn't know anything about the ship until it was bought.

And wow, the feeling of getting into a new cockpit was completely awesome and unique on the Rift. This wasn't just a bunch of new visuals, stats and so on. It was an entirely different feel, even while sitting in the hangar bay. The Sidewinder is cramped but still somewhat spacious, with a lot of junk just lying around wherever the pilot could fit it in. The Eagle is long and thin and completely sleek, and the cockpit windows really press in against you, making it feel almost claustrophobic. The windows are better designed for dogfighting, giving me better situational awareness, especially above me.

Taking off, it felt like going from a regular car to a trimmed sports car. It was fast and zippy, making the exit procedure from the station exciting all over again. Even the sounds are different.

I've never really experienced anything like this in a game before. Everything feels so much more personal and real this way. It goes to show what a developer can do when they design their games for the Rift from the get-go.
196  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (08/04) on: August 04, 2014, 08:43:57 AM
Nothing. Between Elite: Dangerous and The Last of Us Remastered, I've got more than enough to play.
197  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: August 03, 2014, 08:28:53 PM

Quote from: naednek on August 03, 2014, 08:21:10 PM

a little off topic, but how does the rift work with people who require glasses to see?

Depends on why you need glasses. From what I understand, if you're longsighted, you should be fine (don't quote me on that). If you're shortsighted, you need to either wear your glasses inside the Rift (which is a snug fit), or use the provided alternate lenses that have a corrective rating of 4 or so for shortsighted people. I myself have astigmatism and use glasses almost all the time while indoors. This hasn't been a problem at all with the Rift, where I don't use my glasses.

Here's how the Rift works with your optics: The screen is just in front of your eyes, but between you and it are two lenses (one for each eye) that bend the light so that it hits your eyes straight on. This means that for all intents and purposes, your eyes react to the light as if it was coming from very far away, which is perfect for people with normal vision and those who are longsighted. Alternate lenses, such as the B lenses included in the box, adjust this slightly for shortsighted people, but if your vision is very bad, it might not be enough. In that case you can and should use glasses.

People have reported that glasses worn in the DK2 might scratch against the lenses, damaging the latter. This is something to keep in mind, especially if your glasses are large.
198  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: August 03, 2014, 02:29:24 PM
I've been playing this game with the Rift now for a couple of days, and it is absolutely amazing! The problem is that it's also impossible to describe properly. To paraphrase Morpheus: "Nobody can be told what the Rift is. You have to see it for yourself."

You won't fully understand the scale of this game if you only play it on a regular monitor. The inside of a space station may look impressive enough that way, but it's only when you put on a Rift that you truly understand how massive it is. I get an "oh shit" moment every time I leave the hangar bays as I see the sheer spectacle of these places. Situational awareness is vastly improved, letting you keep track of ships around you without any issues at all. Docking is incredibly straightforward this way, and I haven't fumbled a single one of my attempts. Place your HOTAS joystick and throttle appropriately, and you'll be able to look down upon the in-game pilot arms and honestly believe they are yours. That's not hyperbole either, you can truly forget that these aren't your own arms, which can weird you out if you start moving them around. Then again, joystick and throttle movements are replicated by the in-game model.

The resolution of the Rift leaves something to be desired, but unlike with the DK1, all in-game text is readable in Elite: Dangerous with the DK2, especially if you lean in for a closer look. I've done several trade runs with no issues whatsoever, never having to remove my hands from the joystick and throttle except for when I'm using the galaxy map. The map feels incomplete right now and doesn't work properly with a HOTAS at all, forcing you to either use a controller or the keyboard to navigate it, and the text is much smaller and harder to read than any other parts of the game. I expect the map to go through radical improvements in coming patches.

There's also a stuttering issue with head movements right now, but this is caused by a software bug in the Rift itself which has already been fixed internally at Oculus. We're bound to see this removed sooner rather than later.

There's so much I could say about the Rift and Elite: Dangerous, but if you haven't tried it yourself, it won't really mean much. Let me just put it like this: I can't imagine ever wanting to play this game without the Rift again. It would feel empty and artificial. On a monitor you're simulating the feeling of sitting in a space ship and flying across the galaxy. With the Rift you are sitting in a space ship, flying across the galaxy.
199  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: July 31, 2014, 09:39:34 PM

Quote from: Harkonis on July 31, 2014, 08:21:47 PM

I still think I would prefer to play on my 46" tv and stream with a TrackIR, than play on a Rift

I think that preference would get turned on its head the moment you tried the Rift. icon_razz
200  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Orbis. aka PlayStation 4? The rumors are put to rest. on: July 30, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
"All" meaning "US and Canada". It feels a bit silly sitting here with a 100 Mbit fiberoptic Internet connection while Sony says they can't support PS Now in Europe yet because the Internet connections aren't good enough here. Tongue
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 164
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.244 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.138s, 1q)