|
|
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/38252/752 |  HangTime (14) Nov 25, 2007 - 03:33 pm
| Personally I think Renegade is a little underrated.
Sure, it's not a brilliant or even 'very good' game, but it does have some redeeming features. There's a good variety in terms of level design (towns, bases, caverns, deserts, islands etc... some of the levels are pretty big, too), and it has a very nice selection of weapons. It also has a reasonable storyline/cutscenes, and I like the way you get multiple mission objectives appearing as you progress through the level.
Overall I think Renegade ticks most of the boxes required for a quality FPS - it falls short in a few areas but I've played a lot of inferior games. With enhanced graphics (textures/lighting mainly) and AI, it would be a top notch game. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18309 | HangTime (14) Nov 15, 2007 - 12:51 pm
| Yeah, that was my first reaction.
At 1600x1200, the 8800ultra is getting around 120fps. Yet at 1920x1200 (a mere 20% increase in resolution) with the same levels of AA/AF, the framerate has plummetted way down into the 40s. It's the same across the board for the Nvidia cards, something definitely isn't right there as they are running the show in all the other benchmarks. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=17612 | HangTime (14) Sep 28, 2007 - 12:10 pm
| | We own a Wii, and despite having it for over 6 months I still haven't taken Zelda out of the box. Like many people I think we got it in the basis of Wii Sports (bundling it with the console was a masterstroke) but having been a PC gamer for so long I really can't see myself sitting down to play 'serious' games on it. The most modern console I owned before that was a SNES/Megadrive. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/35 | HangTime (14) Jul 20, 2007 - 02:04 pm
| » What, no Quake? :(
Kinda disappointed not to see Quake/QuakeWorld (or Quake2, for that matter) on here, bearing in mind FiringSquad's history. I know quite a few of the staff used to play Quake - plus, of course, Thresh was pretty good at it!
Heck, I might produce a 30sec Quakeworld mblog just for the hell of it, even it's not eligible :) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=16406 | HangTime (14) Jul 09, 2007 - 04:08 pm
| Another superb article Jakub, although I think some of your figures probably vary a lot depending on factors like where the studio is based. Including that EA logo also struck me as a bit of a cheapshot (given the attitude many gamers seem to have towards them) I didn't expect from you, but I guess there's only so many appropriate logos one could use for such an article :)
I think your conclusion about the cost of games is accurate. $50 (around £25 here) isn't really all that much; in fact £25 in 1990 would translate to around £40+ in real terms.
One thing I can see happening is that with high speed broadband now becoming commonplace across the globe, more and more developers are going to seek to 'cut out the middleman' and go for direct distribution models along the lines of Steam or similar. The traditional publishers will face increasing competition from the likes of D2D, as the cost savings from eliminating traditional distribution methods (cd/dvd production, shipping, shelf space etc) are not to be sneezed at.
In fact if we look back at the 90s, some of the biggest names in the industry such as id software and Apogee/3DR built much of their success on shareware content - initially they didn't have the big publishers backing them. Nowadays with all the gaming/news sites, video trailers, demos etc it should (in theory) be even easier for devs to get themselves noticed without the need for a big publisher backing them. 10 years ago, sure, without the marketing dollars 99% of companies were screwed. But maybe not so much today. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=14582 | HangTime (14) Mar 05, 2007 - 05:23 pm
| Heh :)
At the risk of sounding arrogant I'm actually kinda suprised I didn't make the cut, as while not perfect I thought my written style and anecdotes would place me in the top 15, and I put quite a few hours of effort in to it. Maybe I should have stuck to my guns rather than changed the formatting at the last minute as per Jakub's suggestion, or perhaps I underestimated outside influences and should have tried to get more hits/votes for my article rather than relying on the judges.
Still, good luck to those who remain and I will follow the competition to see what budding writers it produces. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Cluster Shout Box Link » /matrix/cluster.asp/11 | HangTime (14) Feb 25, 2007 - 03:09 pm
| I feel the same - I haven't rated anyone else's work since it's hard to be independent. What I would say is that there are some articles acoring around 15-30% which while not perfect or even especially good, certainly don't deserve that kind of treatment.
After 1 vote my article had 90%, after 2 it had 55% (meaning the second vote must have been 20%, by iteration). Now I'm not some kind of arrogant guy who thinks people shouldn't vote as they see fit, if somebody thinks my article sucks that's fine, but it does show that there's a very wide range of scores being handed out. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/61824/124 | HangTime (14) Feb 23, 2007 - 02:42 pm
| I can see where you are coming from.... I guess it's because originally this article was going to be kinda top10 countdown type affair, but in the end I wanted to focus on a couple of titles a bit more.
However I stand by the approach I took in terms of looking at multiple titles, as I think simply analyzing a single game without looking at other alternatives can come across as a somewhat blinkered viewpoint. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
