|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=24056 |   GatoRat (9) Aug 23, 2011 - 08:53 am
| » Developers don't understand users
Several relatively recent polls found that most games weren't interesting in cooperative game play. Seems that most developers enjoy online game play and push that viewpoint to the point where they are alienating many potential customers.
Even I've been surprised with several games where the cooperative/online experience was touted at how few online players there were in absolute numbers and as a percentage of overall sales. Yet, developers and publishers don't get the obvious message.
(Blizzard still doesn't comprehend how many World of Warcraft players prefer playing solo or with one or two real life friends.) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=23393 | GatoRat (9) Mar 18, 2011 - 02:21 pm » Edited on Mar 18, 2011 - 02:22 pm
| Nothing is stopping a game maker from working with AMD to write directly to the hardware, but who is going to pay for this work? AMD? And is AMD going to help the same company port the software to NVidia hardware?
That said, I think the guy is full of crap. DirectX is NOT getting in the way. Quite the opposite, it is allowing for games to use all this phenomenal functionality. Simple economics are getting in the way.
Moreover, eye candy isn't the issue--playability is. I sill enjoy playing a few decade old games. I'd love for some of those games to be updated, but I also know they wouldn't do so without changing the game. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Siteseeing Link » /news/siteseeingarticle.asp?searchid=4544 | GatoRat (9) Aug 28, 2009 - 06:35 pm » Edited on Aug 28, 2009 - 06:37 pm
| Putting aside the argument of whether what kind of health care we want in the US, why do proponents of any government health care plan fool themselves into thinking that the government will reduce costs while increasing benefits. Not only is that simply impossible, based on history, its absolutely absurd.
Look at the cash for clunkers program. A day before the program expired this month only 6% of the "rebates" had been fulfilled. In addition, the administrative budget for this program was $100 million. Think about that for just a second and tell me again how the government running ANYTHING (required or not) is cheaper and more efficient? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21889 | GatoRat (9) Jul 18, 2009 - 12:30 pm
| | While these articles are interesting, I'd like to see you run at least a few tests on your recommended systems. For example, while your ultimate rig is probably fastest, I suspect you could spend half as much and lose only marginal performance. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21867 | GatoRat (9) Jul 10, 2009 - 05:38 pm
| Consoles is #1
I say World of Warcraft is #2
Seriously. Before WOW, we were purchasing a PC game a month. For the past 3 1/2 years we've purchased about six PC games. I know several gamers who haven't purchased any other PC games since WOW came out.
World of Warcraft not only is very time consuming, the $12-$15 a month takes a bite out of gaming budgets.
Irony is that I haven't played WOW in months and have had trouble finding good PC Games. I didn't like the last half of Crysis, but FEAR 2 was a blast. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/54208/757 | GatoRat (9) Dec 26, 2007 - 04:06 pm » Edited on Jan 03, 2008 - 04:09 pm
| When I read the first reviews of WoW, I wasn't that interested. At my son's insistence, I gave it a whirl about two months after it was released and have been hooked since. I've long puzzled why it holds my attention so well. I have a few observations:
1. The internal consistency of the world is simply amazing. I found myself wanting to level just to experience the sights and sounds of each new zone.
2. There is no set way to do quests nor order in which to do them. You can even skip the really annoying ones.
3. Creating and developing characters allow for a wide range of customization. I've discovered that the gaming experience is dramatically affected by what class you pick. For a given person, some classes are loads of fun when leveling solo, but a real drag in groups and deathly boring once maxed out. Conversely, some classes were boring to level, but have proven to be loads of fun when grouping in the so-called "end game."
One downside of this is that for the new player, there is no warning about the implications of picking certain classes when doing groups.
4. The realm you pick can greatly affect how fun the game experience is. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict this and changing servers is ridiculously expensive. Some servers start out great and end up stinking, others do the opposite.
5. Blizzard continues to modify the game mostly for the better. As has been pointed out, they accelerated leveling up and made it easier to do so solo (grouping at low levels on some servers has become almost impossible.)
One valid criticism touched on in the review is that the leveling experience isn't consistent. You can easily zoom through several levels only to stall due to lack of quests or really frustrating ones.
World of Warcraft isn't for everyone, but if you liked Dungeons and Dragons and/or Dungeon Siege, this is a great place to go next. Flag this | Edit this post |
| Matrix Blog Link » /matrix/blog.asp/38252/752 | GatoRat (9) Dec 26, 2007 - 03:23 pm
| I agree that the look was pretty dated for when the game came out and the AI wasn't great, but I still enjoyed playing the single player version of Renegade. (Above all, I rarely felt I was "on rails", which, for example, made Return to Castle Wolfenstein suck, despite it's superiority in all other respects.)
Where this game excelled was online. It's still one of the most enjoyable online shooters I've ever played, especially once aircraft were added. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
