|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17417 |  GX-Warspite (129) Sep 17, 2007 - 08:20 am
| You have no idea what you're talking about.
1. Smurfing originated in WarCraft II on Kali when a team of elite players decided to name itself after Smurfs and go after good players.
2. Smurfing is mostly about anonymity and not having to play with a reputation.
3. No one said anything about tricking less skilled players to play against higher skilled, the idea is that it's consensual. Flag this | Edit this post |
| This message was posted anonymously and is hidden |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/42 | GX-Warspite (129) Sep 12, 2007 - 11:23 am
| Are they dumbing down ideas or simply not being allowed to cash in on cheap thrills?
Let's say you sleep with a woman of... loose morals. You wake in up the morning. Do you want to wake up next to her, or would you prefer to escort her out of the house before then? Sure you got your rocks off, but in the morning you're not feeling especially great about it.
On the other hand, if you've been dating a girl you adore for a few weeks and finally hit the sack together, you're not going to want her out of your bed, never mind your house!
One's a cheap thrill, the other isn't. You don't feel great about indulging in the former and the latter is fulfilling.
Manhunt, to me, is the cheap thrill. Oooh! You put a plastic bag over someone's head and punched his face in! Or you stuck a broken beer bottle in through under his jaw! Shocking, riveting, raw!
Despite working in an industry where THE controversy is video game violence, and often finding myself defending games against stupid mainstream media and the Jack Thompsons of the world, I think Manhunt 2 is just that cheap thrill again.
However you may feel about it, AO games don't get banned, they just get limited exposure. Wal-Mart won't carry them, and that's a pretty big deal, but it's not a ban.
AO and other ratings are going to become an issue when the ESRB becomes politicized to keep indie developers out of stores, like the MPAA ratings are. Read about the ordeals that Trey Parker and Matt Stone had to go through with their indie Orgasmo compared to the Paramount-produced South Park: The Movie, and getting them rated. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/42 | GX-Warspite (129) Sep 12, 2007 - 11:00 am » Edited on Sep 12, 2007 - 11:06 am
| I can't say I'm disappointed by in-game ads.
The cost of game development is so high right now and the margins so thin that publishers don't have many other options. Other than EA, most of them are one or two bad years from ending up like Atari.
With competition as fierce as it is and the strength of EA in the market place, prices can't be raised to match costs. Remember, games sold for $50 15, even 20 years ago. How much bigger have development teams gotten? How much more do developers earn? Think of the inflation in gas, housing, movie tickets, cars, food, everything except home electronics over the past decade and a half.
That said, in-game advertising is a band-aid solution to a fundamental problem with the game industry, and is only going to prolong the struggle until some consolidation occurs.
Besides, as a gamer, would you prefer paying an extra $10 or just see and ignore some ads? That'd make a good poll, actually.
Games WILL get more expensive, but not until some publishers drop dead. Whether or not the price increase will see a sales decrease to offset it remains to be seen. If sales decrease as price increases, then the market will take that as a hint that high-budget games are done. We won't see any more $30m, $40m ventures any more, and you can expect graphics and content to take a step back as companies scale back.
Then again, we may see a sales crash just because gamers are fed up with playing the same game all the time. Honestly, how much difference was there between Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2? How long can gamers tolerate "safe" innovations? Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/42 | GX-Warspite (129) Sep 12, 2007 - 10:54 am » Edited on Sep 16, 2007 - 07:22 am
| Heya mak!
Hmm... favorite console? Probably the 360. But I like sports games so I'm biased. I think the Wii is the best console of this generation though. Over a year ago now I spent some time mocking it until I saw a video of how the controller would work and I instantly said it was going to win this war. The Wii is definitely a step in the right direction for gaming, though it's going to need refinement in future generations.
Right now I'm playing on the Dell XPS 710 that we got for review and Dell never asked for back. Shh! It's a ridiculously powerful machine but I can't use the Sound Blaster X-Fi on it. The EMI from the video card just creates too much static and drives me bonkers. Maybe it's not a problem with speakers but with headphones it is. Instead I'm using the USB sound card thingy from the SteelSound 5H V2 I have. Minimal static.
Usually I build my own systems though. I used to be a pretty hardcore overclocker though I've found less need to do so over the years. I still remember the Pentium 133 I built, and then the K6 200 I replaced it with, followed by a Celeron 466, Pentium III 600, Athlon Thunderbird 1GHz, Pentium 4 2.0A, ... oddly enough, I can't remember what my previous computer had! I think a P4 3.0GHz.
After a while it all becomes routine :)
Link: http://www.firingsquad.com/features/nintendo_revolution/ Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/42 | GX-Warspite (129) Sep 12, 2007 - 10:42 am » Edited on Sep 12, 2007 - 10:44 am
| Hey Zane, nice in-depth question there.
I'm not sure what the future is. PC companies seem to prefer the pick your server setup, and console developers are leaning more towards matchmaking. That's probably because console gamers are a bit more casual and they just want to jump in and play a game, and trying to use a search filter interface with a console would probably be quite labor-intensive as opposed to using a keyboard and mouse.
Matchmaking, if done right, I think can be more attractive for 95% of the gaming population than finding a server. If done wrong, it can be a nightmare to use.
One benefit it can have is if you choose to be competitive, you can find competition on a similar level. I just hope companies don't force you to constantly play people of the same skill set, and you have the option of playing up to challenge yourself and learning new tricks, or playing down and enjoying a more relaxed pace. That's something I found missing in ladder StarCraft/WarCraft games on battle.net. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/42 | GX-Warspite (129) Sep 12, 2007 - 10:30 am
| Heya Knuckles,
Sneaky guy, asking multi-part questions! Fair enough :)
What games have impressed me most? BioShock is there, for sure. Not so much as a game but as a narrative.
Call of Duty was fantastic, really a mind-blowing experience the first time and an excellent multiplayer game. It helps that I was really, really good in multiplayer too :)
Civilization IV is remarkable. After Civ 3, I thought the franchise was on the ropes but Soren really knows his stuff and designed a remarkable game.
The original Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was absolutely brilliant. I don't think I've ever had so much enjoyment out of 6 maps.
World of WarCraft is the only MMORPG to sink its hooks into me, though that passion has faded.
I still play World War II Online, though much less so. I think the developers have lost focus a bit and are too obsessed with new features as opposed to fixing old bugs, but there's really no other game out there like it and even now, the game is unrivaled in what it does. I mean, jump into a real World War II fighter, fly over a battlefield where real World War II units are fighting with real physics and in real time, with no aim correction or stats-based damage like PlanetSide... I marvel at it.
Games that I get excited about? Probably Quake Wars. I try not to get hyped about something but that's one itch I have to scratch. Other than that, I avoid hype, I ignore press releases and avoid screenshots, and so on. Heck, I didn't know a thing about BioShock until I played it.
That said... Crysis looks like a graphical marvel but the real issue that CryTek has to address is gameplay. Far Cry looked amazing, but the gameplay was so-so, and those 99th percentile tweaks that take half the development time were quite off - movement code, weapon feel, aim, etc.
Team Fortress 2 has me really excited and other than watching the Soldier/Engineer/etc. videos, I've gone out of my way to avoid hype.
Quake Wars I'm expecting great things out of though I do realize it's just a tweak, albeit significant, of the original Enemy Territory formula. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/42 | GX-Warspite (129) Sep 12, 2007 - 10:15 am
| Hey Demo,
Good question.
You do become jaded, absolutely. But what is objectivity? Is objectivity simply accepting the game as it was hyped and buying in? If I don't buy the hype, I'm already a bit jaded.
There are times when I've been too tough on a game, like C&C Generals, and other times when I let myself get caught up in the excitement too much, as with Doom 3. It's a tricky balance for a reviewer to maintain. Heck, even the excitement and hype is part of the gaming process. BioShock is better because it's hyped. Civilization 4 is better because you can't wait to play another Civilization game.
We as gamers and reviewers don't like to think so, but advertising and hype work to affect our psychology. There was a fascinating study recently that showed that children will think a McDonald's branded item tastes better than a non-branded one.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic a bit. Point is, objectivity itself is subjective. What one person considers an objective stance, someone else thinks is too jaded, or too close to the source of the Kool-Aid. In that sense, I've come to the conclusion that objectivity in reviewing is a myth; the best you can hope to be is fair to new intellectual properties by not being too attached to old ones. Then again, who can't wait for Civilization 5? Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/42 | GX-Warspite (129) Sep 12, 2007 - 09:59 am » Edited on Sep 12, 2007 - 10:32 am
| Hey Martimus,
Thanks for the nice comments, it feels good to be appreciated every now and then :)
Publishers have moved to releasing fewer but bigger games over the years, and by making safe investments they've ended up creating very few games that have a fresh formula. Next game on my radar is Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I'm tempted to do Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword, but I figure I might as well just copy and paste someone's review of the old Civilization: Call to Power to explain why strategy game developers shouldn't use bad ideas like lawyers/spies. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15797 | GX-Warspite (129) Jun 05, 2007 - 10:23 am
| 1. Who was comparing the zoom to CoH and DoW? I was talking Homeworld/Supreme Commander/C&C.
2. Never said AI would be exactly like SC, I said don't expect the AI to play for you (like CoH). I think pathing will be improved and judging from the videos targeting is, but I doubt we'll have auto-cast. This is a multiplayer game and it's announced in Korea and Blizzard isn't going to screw the huge Korean appeal by making another WC3. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=15797 | GX-Warspite (129) Jun 04, 2007 - 10:36 pm » Edited on Jun 04, 2007 - 10:39 pm
| There's only so much you can say about a game this early in development. That aside, I didn't use press releases or "fact sheets" or any other crap.
You know, maybe the "added speculation" is what sets it apart. Sort of like how there's an empty glass, but you "add" juice, and you have a refreshing beverage. :) Flag this | Edit this post |
|
