High Voltage Software Is Using The Wii Audience

Jaysonguy...this thread is a total fail.

1.) You give praise to a developer who doesn't really support the Wii. Manhunt 2, didn't look too different from Manhunt 1 and 2 on the PS2--with controls just as worse. Bully was a port of a 2 year old PS2 game---whoopty doooh! Rockstar loves Wii.

2.) You give praise to a franchise (whose developer you praise) that hasn't landed on the Wii yet.

3.) You rip a developer (with smaller pockets than Rockstar) who took their limited funding to create one of the most advanced engines on Wii. Has Rockstar, with their deep pockets, bothered to do that? No! They took the cheap-less risky approach and released games originally built on the PS2. Rockstar hasn't bothered with the Wii since 2008's Bully port.

4.) Who's using who? The richer developer who makes cheap Wii games or the smaller developer who builds an engine and a game from the ground up--for the Wii?

5.) I don't care if you disliked Conduit or won't bother with Conduit 2. That's fine and to each his own. However, I have a problem with false accusations. All publishers/developers want your money--that's just the way it is. If HVS is wrong for that, then rip the entire industry. So what if they hyped their own product! You act offended because a company is hyping it's product--what do you want them to say?! If you bought The Conduit and was disappointed then it probably wasn't the first or last time a game let you down. Get over it--on to the next!

There are so many other companies--with deeper pockets--who consistently put out crap for the Wii, yet I see no threads ripping them. Along comes a developer who gives a care and you rip them apart as if they conned you out of money. This is not a guilt trip and no one should buy a game to 'show support'--I understand that. However, I think HVS is the least developer deserving of criticism.

Jaysonguy...this thread is a total fail.

1.) You give praise to a developer who doesn't really support the Wii. Manhunt 2, didn't look too different from Manhunt 1 and 2 on the PS2--with controls just as worse. Bully was a port of a 2 year old PS2 game---whoopty doooh! Rockstar loves Wii.

2.) You give praise to a franchise (whose developer you praise) that hasn't landed on the Wii yet.

3.) You rip a developer (with smaller pockets than Rockstar) who took their limited funding to create one of the most advanced engines on Wii. Has Rockstar, with their deep pockets, bothered to do that? No! They took the cheap-less risky approach and released games originally built on the PS2. Rockstar hasn't bothered with the Wii since 2008's Bully port.

4.) Who's using who? The richer developer who makes cheap Wii games or the smaller developer who builds an engine and a game from the ground up--for the Wii?

5.) I don't care if you disliked Conduit or won't bother with Conduit 2. That's fine and to each his own. However, I have a problem with false accusations. All publishers/developers want your money--that's just the way it is. If HVS is wrong for that, then rip the entire industry. So what if they hyped their own product! You act offended because a company is hyping it's product--what do you want them to say?! If you bought The Conduit and was disappointed then it probably wasn't the first or last time a game let you down. Get over it--on to the next!

There are so many other companies--with deeper pockets--who consistently put out crap for the Wii, yet I see no threads ripping them. Along comes a developer who gives a care and you rip them apart as if they conned you out of money. This is not a guilt trip and no one should buy a game to 'show support'--I understand that. However, I think HVS is the least developer deserving of criticism.

Tri-Enforcer

Jayson wasn't talking about a developer making content for the Wii specifically. He used Rockstar as an example of a company that made some average games and turned it into something great later on. You mentioned a developer like Rockstar using the Wii audience with ports and poor software, but the same could be said about HVS - they've given Wii owners more bad content then Rockstar has on the Wii. They've made more games for the Wii - almost all of them being poor. Hell, Tournament of Legends came out like a month ago with awful reviews and buggy issues.

You also said that the 'richer' developer is taking advantage of the Wii owner - though the opposite could be said with something like Red Steel. The first was atrocious and the second was a completely different, more robust and better game, built specifically for the Wii, ground up, with awesome art direction and awesome motion control that supported a peripheral. So honestly the whole 'richer company is doing it worse!' thing doesn't work. Capcom is also a rather rich company and they've given us stellar titles like Zack and Wiki, Monster Hunter Tri and Tatsunoko vs Capcom - They've also made the MT Framework engine work on the Wii, HVS aren't the only ones providing a good engine for Wii software.

There is nothing wrong with promoting you're product - however theres a right and wrong way of doing it. HVS does it the wrong way. Saying things like "Most of the Wii games look like crap, we want to change that [...]" to saying "Our goal is to be the most technically innovative Wii developer on the planet"- Yeah, it doesn't cut it if your final product still ends up looking lackluster, uninspired and unoriginal.

They also say they're trying to do things that we all know they cannot achieve, such as saying "With Conduit, we are trying to make a Wii game that looks like a 360 title". Obviously you and I know they said they're 'trying', but a lot of people take it as a promise and see it as one that was ultimately not kept. They really wanted to bring Wii owners a strong title, with strong visuals and gameplay - They gave us a game with three parents (Metroid, Half-Life and Halo) who had an ugly baby (The Conduit). They also gave us 10 year old gameplay design with corridor-sty1e levels.

I don't think HVS cares much about the Wii audience. If they did, they'd make better product. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe they're just not capable of doing so? I don't know. I'll admit they have done some things that have potential but never really took off. Their engine is pretty sub par and their customizable control scheme turned out to be a bigger issue, at least for me. It took too long try to adjust what I wanted and when I did it became a jittery mess, I wanted my Prime 3 controls to just fit into The Conduit. HVS has also given us some horrid software... let us review (average review score in bracket):

• Tournament of Legends (47%)
• Ironman 2 (48%)
• Evasive Space (58%)
• V.I.P: Casino: Blackjack (49%)
• Ben 10: Protector of The Earth (58%)
• Harvey Birdman: Attorney of Law (62%)
• The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (60%)

That compared to their "good" titles:

• The Conduit (72%)
• Go, Diego, Go: Safari Rescue (72%)
• Gyrostarr (71%)

So, thats a 7:3 ratio.

Yeah, they don't deserve a free pass either. This whole 'they aren't as rich and they give a damn' thing doesn't work when the software is poor. You want to see how to do it properly? Cing is a developer that is now bankrupt. They were a fairly small developer with big hopes. What did they do? They made one of the best Wii third party titles available to Wii players - Little King's Story. It had a ton of great content and lots to do. It was funny, original, innovative and unique for the platform - Little King's Story also holds an average review score of 87% - Which is much better then anything HVS has produced on the Wii thus far. Cing was established in 1999. High Voltage Software was established in 1993. HVS has no excuse, except that they don't know how to make good games.

People just need a slap of reality - HVS is just a bad developer. They tried to do things some cool things on the Wii, ultimately, they failed. I appreciate it effort, but the PR talk that makes no sense is not needed. Why should I bother with any HVS software? Especially this generation when more and more developers, small or big, are trying their best and actually delivering, whether it be WiiWare or retail Wii software.

HVS is not one of those developers who can produce great Wii content - regardless of their size or financial wellbeing.

There's always people falling for the developers own hype, so yeah. The answer to the poll would unfortunately be "no", as long as HVS exist.

I can see the future now. "Conduit sucked, but now they know how to make it good! Go Conduit 2! Hey... C2 kinda sucked too. Who would've thunked it? Well, now they totally must know how to make it good. Go Conduit 3!!"

Same thing with Sonic..

Oh, and for those who haven't seen it...

Jayson wasn't talking about a developer making content for the Wii specifically. He used Rockstar as an example of a company that made some average games and turned it into something great later on. You mentioned a developer like Rockstar using the Wii audience with ports and poor software, but the same could be said about HVS - they've given Wii owners more bad content then Rockstar has on the Wii. They've made more games for the Wii - almost all of them being poor. Hell, Tournament of Legends came out like a month ago with awful reviews and buggy issues.

You also said that the 'richer' developer is taking advantage of the Wii owner - though the opposite could be said with something like Red Steel. The first was atrocious and the second was a completely different, more robust and better game, built specifically for the Wii, ground up, with awesome art direction and awesome motion control that supported a peripheral. So honestly the whole 'richer company is doing it worse!' thing doesn't work. Capcom is also a rather rich company and they've given us stellar titles like Zack and Wiki, Monster Hunter Tri and Tatsunoko vs Capcom - They've also made the MT Framework engine work on the Wii, HVS aren't the only ones providing a good engine for Wii software.

There is nothing wrong with promoting you're product - however theres a right and wrong way of doing it. HVS does it the wrong way. Saying things like "Most of the Wii games look like crap, we want to change that [...]" to saying "Our goal is to be the most technically innovative Wii developer on the planet"- Yeah, it doesn't cut it if your final product still ends up looking lackluster, uninspired and unoriginal.

They also say they're trying to do things that we all know they cannot achieve, such as saying "With Conduit, we are trying to make a Wii game that looks like a 360 title". Obviously you and I know they said they're 'trying', but a lot of people take it as a promise and see it as one that was ultimately not kept. They really wanted to bring Wii owners a strong title, with strong visuals and gameplay - They gave us a game with three parents (Metroid, Half-Life and Halo) who had an ugly baby (The Conduit). They also gave us 10 year old gameplay design with corridor-sty1e levels.

I don't think HVS cares much about the Wii audience. If they did, they'd make better product. Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe they're just not capable of doing so? I don't know. I'll admit they have done some things that have potential but never really took off. Their engine is pretty sub par and their customizable control scheme turned out to be a bigger issue, at least for me. It took too long try to adjust what I wanted and when I did it became a jittery mess, I wanted my Prime 3 controls to just fit into The Conduit. HVS has also given us some horrid software... let us review (average review score in bracket):

• Tournament of Legends (47%)
• Ironman 2 (48%)
• Evasive Space (58%)
• V.I.P: Casino: Blackjack (49%)
• Ben 10: Protector of The Earth (58%)
• Harvey Birdman: Attorney of Law (62%)
• The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (60%)

That compared to their "good" titles:

• The Conduit (72%)
• Go, Diego, Go: Safari Rescue (72%)
• Gyrostarr (71%)

So, thats a 7:3 ratio.

Yeah, they don't deserve a free pass either. This whole 'they aren't as rich and they give a damn' thing doesn't work when the software is poor. You want to see how to do it properly? Cing is a developer that is now bankrupt. They were a fairly small developer with big hopes. What did they do? They made one of the best Wii third party titles available to Wii players - Little King's Story. It had a ton of great content and lots to do. It was funny, original, innovative and unique for the platform - Little King's Story also holds an average review score of 87% - Which is much better then anything HVS has produced on the Wii thus far. Cing was established in 1999. High Voltage Software was established in 1993. HVS has no excuse, except that they don't know how to make good games.

People just need a slap of reality - HVS is just a bad developer. They tried to do things some cool things on the Wii, ultimately, they failed. I appreciate it effort, but the PR talk that makes no sense is not needed. Why should I bother with any HVS software? Especially this generation when more and more developers, small or big, are trying their best and actually delivering, whether it be WiiWare or retail Wii software.

HVS is not one of those developers who can produce great Wii content - regardless of their size or financial wellbeing.

Haziqonfire

Oh, and for those who haven't seen it...

Head_of_games

[QUOTE="nini200"]:lol: He goes and finds proof. :lol: Jaysonguy, you are a riot. Hi-Larry-Us!!! :lol:

Haziqonfire

He's right.

Just because you don't like Rockstar's titles doesn't mean they don't make quality software. Their software is successful commercial, critically and is a hit with audiences world wide.

I don't like Rockstar games either but I be one to say they don't make good product. You cannot say the same about HVS titles, especially Wii ones. The Conduit was unsuccessful commercially, unsuccessful critically (apart from obvious inflated scores, like IGN) and for the most part, was unsuccessful with the core Wii audience.

The same cannot be said about Rockstar titles like GTAIII.

Imagine if HVS only did a good game, and all their following games were highly ranked, mostly because they are reskins or mods of initial big hit. I really dont have it for devs who can only do one type of game and leech of its gameplay for the rest of their live as a company. intro94

JK, I couldn't resist. :lol:

You're right that comparing HVS and Rockstar just doesn't work well. So can you think of any similar devs with similar budgets in the same gaming era as HVS that HAVE brought a series' quality from Conduit levels to something much higher? If we had an example of that, it might be a little easier to argue that Conduit 2 has a chance of being significantly better than the first.

however you have to be in the context of the situation.developers like rockstar had resources and time to work on their ips from the get to go ,where developing time spent on the graphics wasnt as TAXING as it is now. You cant compare a developer who flourished in the 80ths or 90ths where writing a game was a matter of a couple of months with todays requirements. Basically you would have to compare 2 SIMILAR developers with SIMILAR budgets on the SAME GAMING ERA to be truly fair. In the past a 3 man team within a month could develop a FULLY retail title and cal it a hit, and make several sequels with the same success about it. The conditions and market situations between Rockstar from the 90ths and HVS from the late 90ths are incredibly different to have the guts to compare them. BTW Developers like rockstar really arent the best example, given that they have only worked with 1 succesful formula and gave it different flavors for most of their succesful games. Imagine if HVS only did a good game, and all their following games were highly ranked, mostly because they are reskins or mods of initial big hit. I really dont have it for devs who can only do one type of game and leech of its gameplay for the rest of their live as a company.intro94

That very thing is what HVS does - They take what has already been successful and do it on the Wii, claiming they're the first to bring experience x to the Wii, but they do it far worse then who they're trying to imitate it from.

Also if you want to compare companies that were established in 1993/1994 - like HVS - there are many that have been successful since then - so why couldn't HVS do it? Because they're bad developers. Just for the sake of comparison, here are some developers that were established in 1993 that have successful software:

• Take Two Interactive - Grand Theft Auto, BioShock, Max Payne, Serious Sam, Tropico, Mafia, Civilzation
• Criterion Games - Burnout, Need For Speed, Black
• Monolith Productions - F.E.A.R, Condemned
• Bizarre Creations - Project Gotham Racing, The Club, Geometry Wars
• Insomniac Games - Ratchet & Clank, Resistance, Spyro

Now, I highly doubt these teams were heavily funded at the beginning. They were probably all in the same position as HVS, they all had some questionable games at first but they've turned around and brought out brilliant content. Why haven't HVS?

@ Haziqonfire

HVS has spent most of their existence as a developer of licensed games--for PUBLISHERS who set aside short development schedules, small budgets and limited creative freedom.The Conduit was HVS first and true independent effort.The Quantum 3 engine and The Conduit were basically being developed at the same time from their own limited funding.Considering that a majority of The Conduit's development was without a publisher (Sega came along late and only handled distribution), I say the game didn't come out too bad given it's intended scope.Now that Conduit 2 doesn't have to suffer through the growing pains of the original—expect a much better and well polished game.

As for Little King's Story, apparently that's not the title the Wii audience was looking for otherwise it would have done better in sales.I saw it get a price drop less than two months after it's release—I have the photo to prove it.Also, Cing had a huge opportunity to take advantage of Wii pointer controls for a real time strategy (RTS) game, but didn't even bother with it.Even 'New Play Control' Pikmin and NPC Pikmin 2 (an RTS hybrid) had pointer controls.So the controls for Little King's Story were mere button presses and it felt clunky.An RTS works well on the PC and of course the Wii, if pointer controls are used.Also, the game suffered an identity crisis and was misleading to consumers.King's Story had kiddie-story book visuals which may have turned off some hardcore Wii owners, and then it's difficulty/strategy was not for youngsters or casuals.Decent game, but no cigar.

Once…again I can't emphasize enough about publisher influence over a project.Gladiator A.D. not only was renamed Tournament of Legends, but was totally watered down because the publisher (SEGA) wanted a 'family friendly' fighter.Gladiator A.D. had promise from it's limited showing, but that was canned and we got ToL instead.The title suffered a complete overhaul, with a short development schedule set aside by the publisher.So yeah, if you followed the development of what was Gladiator AD, you can only imagine how a rushed and overhauled project would turn out.Blame Sega for that!A developer like Rockstar, had the patience and support of a publisher (Take Two) who wasn't cheap and let the developer flex their skill.Also many publishers have a cheap and casual philosophy towards the Wii, so a developer like Rockstar, can thrive on the HD systems where publishers take their games more seriously. They also had such a philosophy last gen for the PS2 and X-Box.

Considering that a majority of The Conduit's development was without a publisher (Sega came along late and only handled distribution), I say the game didn't come out too bad given it's intended scope.Now that Conduit 2 doesn't have to suffer through the growing pains of the original-expect a much better and well polished game.

...

Gladiator A.D. not only was renamed Tournament of Legends, but was totally watered down because the publisher (SEGA) wanted a 'family friendly' fighter. Gladiator A.D. had promise from it's limited showing, but that was canned and we got ToL instead. The title suffered a complete overhaul, with a short development schedule set aside by the publisher. So yeah, if you followed the development of what was Gladiator AD, you can only imagine how a rushed and overhauled project would turn out. Blame Sega for that!Tri-Enforcer

@ Haziqonfire

HVS has spent most of their existence as a developer of licensed games--for PUBLISHERS who set aside short development schedules, small budgets and limited creative freedom.The Conduit was HVS first and true independent effort.The Quantum 3 engine and The Conduit were basically being developed at the same time from their own limited funding.Considering that a majority of The Conduit's development was without a publisher (Sega came along late and only handled distribution), I say the game didn't come out too bad given it's intended scope.Now that Conduit 2 doesn't have to suffer through the growing pains of the original—expect a much better and well polished game.

As for Little King's Story, apparently that's not the title the Wii audience was looking for otherwise it would have done better in sales.I saw it get a price drop less than two months after it's release—I have the photo to prove it.Also, Cing had a huge opportunity to take advantage of Wii pointer controls for a real time strategy (RTS) game, but didn't even bother with it.Even 'New Play Control' Pikmin and NPC Pikmin 2 (an RTS hybrid) had pointer controls.So the controls for Little King's Story were mere button presses and it felt clunky.An RTS works well on the PC and of course the Wii, if pointer controls are used.Also, the game suffered an identity crisis and was misleading to consumers.King's Story had kiddie-story book visuals which may have turned off some hardcore Wii owners, and then it's difficulty/strategy was not for youngsters or casuals.Decent game, but no cigar.

Once…again I can't emphasize enough about publisher influence over a project.Gladiator A.D. not only was renamed Tournament of Legends, but was totally watered down because the publisher (SEGA) wanted a 'family friendly' fighter.Gladiator A.D. had promise from it's limited showing, but that was canned and we got ToL instead.The title suffered a complete overhaul, with a short development schedule set aside by the publisher.So yeah, if you followed the development of what was Gladiator AD, you can only imagine how a rushed and overhauled project would turn out.Blame Sega for that!A developer like Rockstar, had the patience and support of a publisher (Take Two) who wasn't cheap and let the developer flex their skill.Also many publishers have a cheap and casual philosophy towards the Wii, so a developer like Rockstar, can thrive on the HD systems where publishers take their games more seriously. They also had such a philosophy last gen for the PS2 and X-Box.Tri-Enforcer

HVS has had other opportunities before The Conduit, that were also unlicensed games - Just look here.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about being a commercial success with Little King's Story. I was talking about a developer turning around and making a quality product. Cing has done so with Little King's Story. The controls might be an issue for some, the mistaken identity might have caused rough sales - So be it. Regardless, the product was still of high quality, I cannot say the same about anything HVS has made on the Wii.

And lastly Jordan said what I was going to say as well.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Except Conduit 2 looks like a HUGE Improvement from the Last.

I guess you wouldn't know if you never played the First Game.

wiifan001

just about everything Icuras08 said.

So Sega ruined Gladiator AD, but Sega is going to save Conduit 2?

JordanElek

Well the original Conduit had already been released and at least received moderate success for a core Wii title that they didn't have to put much money into (it was pretty much close to completion by the time Sega came on board so not much of a development risk for them).More is being put into Conduit 2 than ToL since the original Conduit had shown some promise, also it won't cost as much to develop a sequel that's running on the same engine as the original. This time around HVS doesn't have to work on the Quantum 3—it's ready, so now they can just focus on the game itself...instead of both the game/engine. ToL was originally supposed to have been a very mature game and was no where near done (Gladiator AD). Sega didn't want to risk too much on that title in terms of costs. In other words, Gladiator A.D. since it had no previous title to build off of, and was basically in early development---would've cost Sega more money than a sequel to an already established title that did 'ok' by their expectations. That if they stuck with the original idea, but instead they wanted something cheaper and less risky.

[QUOTE="Tri-Enforcer"]

@ Haziqonfire

HVS has spent most of their existence as a developer of licensed games--for PUBLISHERS who set aside short development schedules, small budgets and limited creative freedom.The Conduit was HVS first and true independent effort.The Quantum 3 engine and The Conduit were basically being developed at the same time from their own limited funding.Considering that a majority of The Conduit's development was without a publisher (Sega came along late and only handled distribution), I say the game didn't come out too bad given it's intended scope.Now that Conduit 2 doesn't have to suffer through the growing pains of the original—expect a much better and well polished game.

As for Little King's Story, apparently that's not the title the Wii audience was looking for otherwise it would have done better in sales.I saw it get a price drop less than two months after it's release—I have the photo to prove it.Also, Cing had a huge opportunity to take advantage of Wii pointer controls for a real time strategy (RTS) game, but didn't even bother with it.Even 'New Play Control' Pikmin and NPC Pikmin 2 (an RTS hybrid) had pointer controls.So the controls for Little King's Story were mere button presses and it felt clunky.An RTS works well on the PC and ofcourse the Wii, if pointer controls are used.Also, the game suffered an identity crisis and was misleading to consumers.King's Story had kiddie-story book visuals which may have turned off some hardcore Wii owners, and then it's difficulty/strategy was not for youngsters or casuals.Decent game, but no cigar.

Once…again I can't emphasize enough about publisher influence over a project.Gladiator A.D. not only was renamed Tournament of Legends, but was totally watered down because the publisher (SEGA) wanted a 'family friendly' fighter.Gladiator A.D. had promise from it's limited showing, but that was canned and we got ToL instead.The title suffered a complete overhaul, with a short development schedule set aside by the publisher.So yeah, if you followed the development of what was Gladiator AD, you can only imagine how a rushed and overhauled project would turn out.Blame Sega for that!A developer like Rockstar, had the patience and support of a publisher (Take Two) who wasn't cheap and let the developer flex their skill.Also many publishers have a cheap and casual philosophy towards the Wii, so a developer like Rockstar, can thrive on the HD systems where publishers take their games more seriously. They also had such a philosophy last gen for the PS2 and X-Box.Haziqonfire

HVS has had other opportunities before The Conduit, that were also unlicensed games - Just look here.

Secondly, I wasn't talking about being a commercial success with Little King's Story. I was talking about a developer turning around and making a quality product. Cing has done so with Little King's Story. The controls might be an issue for some, the mistaken identity might have caused rough sales - So be it. Regardless, the product was still of high quality, I cannot say the same about anything HVS has made on the Wii.

And lastly Jordan said what I was going to say as well.

Licensed or unlicensed—a publisher was involved and thus a developer is limited to the resources and philosophy of the publisher.

Licensed or unlicensed—a publisher was involved and thus a developer is limited to the resources and philosophy of the publisher.

Tri-Enforcer

But SEGA had published three 'mature' titles for the Wii, HOTD: Overkill, The Conduit and MadWorld -- All of which, to my knowledge, were never altered in anyway.

So they were given a chance to make what they wanted, without any interruptions from publishers - and they still did poorly.

[QUOTE="Tri-Enforcer"]

Licensed or unlicensed—a publisher was involved and thus a developer is limited to the resources and philosophy of the publisher.

Haziqonfire

But SEGA had published three 'mature' titles for the Wii, HOTD: Overkill, The Conduit and MadWorld -- All of which, to my knowledge, were never altered in anyway.

So they were given a chance to make what they wanted, without any interruptions from publishers - and they still did poorly.

Sega gambled on HoTD: Overkill and Madworld. Overkill is an onrails game--a genre that's dying out and was very very mature...so that limited the audience. Madworld was ultra violent and a niche title. Also many were turned off by the black and white visuals.

See the pattern? Gladiator AD was going to be a violent mature title. Sega got burned by mature titles, on the Wii, in the past. They didn't won't to take another risk Gladiator AD/ToL. However, Conduit and Conduit 2 are not mature titles. Once again the original Conduit was not a risk for Sega since they only handled distribution and didn't have to put much into production cost--it was pretty much done by the time Sega came along.

omg someone broke the thread!

[QUOTE="nini200"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Check this out.....

In 1998 an upstart team named Rockstar made a game, perhaps you heard of it, Grand Theft Auto
Now that game did poorly but showed some promise in places so a year later they released Grand Theft Auto 2 and that did better but still wasn't anywhere near good so they took a step back and reassess their ability to make a good game

What they made was one of the most important pieces of software in history with Grand Theft Auto 3, from there on they've gone to deliver quality experiences every few years and have even dropped a few games the Wii's direction. They talk the talk and get lots of pub but they deliver with some of the best software you can buy.

Jaysonguy

Because I'm right?

They have some of the highest ranking software ever.

(If you allow me to go a little off-topic:)

And some of the most overrated. I'd say Rockstar has made some of the most fun software available, but until recently their games were often buggy, clumsy, and quirky. GTA Vice City had the same silly gameplay limitations as GTA III (not being able to climb over walls higher than 3 feet, no swimming in a heavily water-based environment), and while GTA San Andreas fixed some of these errors, it still ran on an engine that was hardly capable of handling the game, the most horrible draw distance in gaming history and some of the most retarded AI you'll ever see will attest to that. GTA games were incredibly fun because they allowed near limitless freedom, but the core gameplay was often flawed (old GTA's action compared to a serious third person shooter is a joke) and the games suffered from tons of bugs and glitches and were often several years behind in terms of technology (graphics, AI). This is barely acceptable if you consider the budget of some of these games. This doesn't only go for GTA, but also for other titles such as Midnight Club, The Warriors, and even Bully at times.

The thing with Rockstar is that they have an absolutely fantastic creative department. The writing, acting, and overall wit in all of their titles is nearly unmatched. GTA games were not just enjoyable because they allowed such freedom, but because they introduced many priceless characters, unforgettable moments, and masterful humour. GTA 3's Chatterbox FM talk radio is still one of the funniest things to ever appear in a video. The thing with Rockstar is that they aren't necessarily the best developers in terms of programming, but they always have fresh ideas and they have the money and talent to supply nearly every game they produce with undeniable charm that causes many people to overlook the many technical shortcomings of their games. I must say they did a great job improving GTA's gameplay with GTA IV, and apparently Red Dead Redemption is a very good game as well, but it's not like Rockstar went from being mediocre to amazing developers over time. They do improve with nearly each game, and they've obviously been far superior to HVS for so long that they're just plain incomparable, but Rockstar came a long way, and they had the luck they could compensate their initial shortcomings with creativity and ambition, something which HVS seems to lack most of the time. Don't get me wrong about Rockstar - I have played and loved many of their games, and if a title is developed by them it definitely makes it waymore interesting to me (and they're one of the few besides Nintendo, GSC Game World, and various European developers), but it's not like they've had a spotless reputation since they made GTA III.

That being said, I'm still curious to try out Conduit 2 as I really did enjoy the first game despite of its flaws, and it at the very leasts seems to become more original than Call of Duty part 35 and Call of Duty with a Goldeneye skin.

[QUOTE="Tri-Enforcer"]

Licensed or unlicensed—a publisher was involved and thus a developer is limited to the resources and philosophy of the publisher.

Haziqonfire

But SEGA had published three 'mature' titles for the Wii, HOTD: Overkill, The Conduit and MadWorld -- All of which, to my knowledge, were never altered in anyway.

So they were given a chance to make what they wanted, without any interruptions from publishers - and they still did poorly.

[QUOTE="intro94"]

That very thing is what HVS does - They take what has already been successful and do it on the Wii, claiming they're the first to bring experience x to the Wii, but they do it far worse then who they're trying to imitate it from.

Also if you want to compare companies that were established in 1993/1994 - like HVS - there are many that have been successful since then - so why couldn't HVS do it? Because they're bad developers. Just for the sake of comparison, here are some developers that were established in 1993 that have successful software:

• Take Two Interactive - Grand Theft Auto, BioShock, Max Payne, Serious Sam, Tropico, Mafia, Civilzation
• Criterion Games - Burnout, Need For Speed, Black
• Monolith Productions - F.E.A.R, Condemned
• Bizarre Creations - Project Gotham Racing, The Club, Geometry Wars
• Insomniac Games - Ratchet & Clank, Resistance, Spyro

Now, I highly doubt these teams were heavily funded at the beginning. They were probably all in the same position as HVS, they all had some questionable games at first but they've turned around and brought out brilliant content. Why haven't HVS?

[QUOTE="Tri-Enforcer"]

Licensed or unlicensed-a publisher was involved and thus a developer is limited to the resources and philosophy of the publisher.

But SEGA had published three 'mature' titles for the Wii, HOTD: Overkill, The Conduit and MadWorld -- All of which, to my knowledge, were never altered in anyway.

So they were given a chance to make what they wanted, without any interruptions from publishers - and they still did poorly.

Check this out.....

In 1998 an upstart team named Rockstar made a game, perhaps you heard of it, Grand Theft Auto
Now that game did poorly but showed some promise in places so a year later they released Grand Theft Auto 2 and that did better but still wasn't anywhere near good so they took a step back and reassess their ability to make a good game

What they made was one of the most important pieces of software in history with Grand Theft Auto 3, from there on they've gone to deliver quality experiences every few years and have even dropped a few games the Wii's direction. They talk the talk and get lots of pub but they deliver with some of the best software you can buy.

They went from below average to great in a span of three years

Now let's take a look at High Voltage.

They started in 1993, a half decade before Rockstar, and they're entering their 18th year of developing software and what do they have to show for it?
A plethora of bad titles that barely get above 50% in review scores.

Now normally this wouldn't be a problem because there's other shovelware developers that make bad games too, the problem is that High Voltage like to talks the talk that they haven't backed up in almost 2 decades.

They promise Wii owners great gameplay and stellar graphics and overall fun experiences and they've failed to deliver any of those things for the entire length of the Wii's lifetime. From launch to today they've failed to deliver a game that even comes close to their talk.

They don't mind either. They had no problem telling Nintnedo Power that they would have added online to Tournament of Legends but that would take too long and they wanted to get it out quickly.

So here's a developer telling Wii owners they'll make a good game and Wii owners believe them and then tell other Wii owners that they should too and what does High Voltage do with this pub? They start making deals with "others" from the high profile they have now doing nothing but talk.

They're users and they've camped out on the Wii because for whatever reason their talk is more effective there, no idea.

More and more I see Wii owners who used to listen to their talk stop listening with no results and thankfully it's happening more and more. As I've shown before devs don't need ages to come around and make good games, it's under 5 years for almost all of them with Rockstar being one significant dev who started off poorly and turned it around without large funds that many say is behind High Voltage's 18 years of bad titles.

Do you ever think we'll come to a point where no one on the Wii listens to High Voltage's talk?

Jaysonguy

I am not going to write off a whole software company based off multiple failed efforts to give me good software. If I did, I wouldn't be using Windows.

So what? Why do you, or anyone else, care if some gamers like HVS's games (gasp!) and like what they are trying to do?

Some of us enjoy some of HVS's titles, and honestly at this point after two years of a small dev trying there hardest to make good games for any platform, and getting D+ grades from gamers and critics (could be worse) it feels like this dicussion of the "Lies HVS puts out" or "oh how bad are HVS's games" is not only tired, but cruel.

Excuse them for having their own business, trying to make a good product and coming away with an average one, that they can still be proud of and a lot of people enjoy despite its flaws, and of course excuse them for supporting their families while doing something they love.

So, do you plan on going into every small Mexican restaurant in Texas doing the same things to them even though there are hundreds of places to eat that serve better food with more value?

You act like they haven't given me fun experiences, good gameplay, or great graphics. Last I checked, some of their games had pretty good character models for Wii titles, I had fun playing the Conduit, and I felt the gameplay was solid.

This entire thread is coming from you JaysonGuy, who gave Super Mario Galaxy 2 a 1.0 out of 10 here on gamespot. I can't imagine you played the game, but if you have please, and I mean this with all the sincerity that I have, tell me what makes you give that game a 1 out of 10

if no one was listening to HVS, they will still make more games

because that's their job

believe it or not some (maybe like two) game companies treat the industry like a business and are out to make money. If that means getting good press and putting out an average game and getting a decent profit on it than so be it.

Wii owners aren't used to harcore games I guess so they listen to and hype up every word any developer breathes as long as they promise something that it like what the 360 and PS3 are getting all of the time.

A lot of people making excuses/explanations for HVS. My take is, who cares if the poor little bunnies try their bestest, have no money or time, have had tough breaks, or whatever else apparently happened... At the end of the day, their games are crap! It's like when you see a director interview about a bad movie, he'll talk all day about his terrible producer and lack of funding and difficult actors or whatever... But does any of those explanations make the bad movie better? Nope. locopatho

No one's saying such 'excuses' make the final product better. However, such factors should be considered when criticizing a developer's skill set.

I think, in terms of acclaim and quality, Conduit 2 will be HVS's big break. Reviews and user feedback will improve--I guarantee it. I don't know about sales...however. It may be another Wii game, with great quality, that doesn't do well. But we shall see.

I was disappointed with The Conduit 1 just like everybody else, but I must give High Voltage credit. They are working the hardest to stand out with this one because they have the most to gain. Activision and Black Ops? They'll reveal it maybe one week before the game comes out, and Wii owners will just have to deal with what they see. Granted, treyarch is trying to do right by this version, but it is a multiplatform game. If it were to bomb, it would still sell 10 million elsewhere.

Goldeneye....the verdict is still out on that one. Activision isn't doing it any favors releasing alongside Blood Stone and Call of Duty. It can get overshadowed.

The Conduit 1 just seems more ambitious. Who knows, HVS may crap out and remove features again and the game will still blow chunks. But HVS is the only one I've seen who got Wii Speak in their game, is trying local co-op, local multiplayer, bundling an exclusive headset, working with Nintendo on friend codes, and trying different things to correct the previous entry's flaws.

If the game comes out and stinks...I'd still find value in it with the local multiplayer. When you have so many features, its easier to forgive flaws. All the companies are out to get your money, but Conduit 2 seems like the least of 3 evils. Plus.....its easy to give a chance to the "little guy" so to speak. High Voltage has been around since 93, but they were trapped to licensed titles; it will take time.

Maybe next gen, they can be a major player in Nintendo support. It's a bad idea to leave them hanging. Nintendo did away with DMA Design when they weren't clicking. DMA Design changed names and created Grand Theft Auto 3 soon after.

1. HVS doesn't force you to buy their games.

2. HVS hypes their games because they are a business and want you to be interested enough to look at their games. (and hopefully buy them)

3. Not liking a game has nothing to do with the develper being bad. I don't like GTA games, I don't think Rockstar is bad.

4. Quit whining.

1. HVS doesn't force you to buy their games.

2. HVS hypes their games because they are a business and want you to be interested enough to look at their games. (and hopefully buy them)

3. Not liking a game has nothing to do with the develper being bad. I don't like GTA games, I don't think Rockstar is bad.

4. Quit whining.

mrfokken

Thank you!

the chances of high voltage software making a good game are about as high as jaysonguys chances of making a post people agree with.

Personally I love High Voltage. And am painfully excited for The Conduit 2 :)

the chances of high voltage software making a good game are about as high as jaysonguys chances of making a post people agree with.

Half-Way

Wahahahahahah! :lol:

Friggin' hilarious lol. (even though it's counterproductive because this statement basically agrees with Jay). But who cares still funny!

The main thing is that anyone arguing for (God knows why) High Voltage doesn't have any facts to show for it

"Oh the next game will be better"

Why?

"Well they said it would be better"

They also said their other games wouldn't suck, how'd that work out

"But....but they said the next one would be better"

Yeah and didn't they say that after making another awful game?

"Well yeah"

And what happened?

"Their next game sucked"

Then what did they do?

"They promised their next game would be better"

That's all this is, everyone in the High Voltage dingey only has what High Voltage has said about their games and to this point all they've done is lied about their games and released bad games. Yet right after getting another set of lies and then another bad game High Voltage says "Oh wait, next one will be better" and people STILL say everything is going to be fine and they're telling the truth this one time.

1. HVS doesn't force you to buy their games.

2. HVS hypes their games because they are a business and want you to be interested enough to look at their games. (and hopefully buy them)

3. Not liking a game has nothing to do with the develper being bad. I don't like GTA games, I don't think Rockstar is bad.

4. Quit whining.

mrfokken

The main thing is that anyone arguing for (God knows why) High Voltage doesn't have any facts to show for it

"Oh the next game will be better"

Why?

"Well they said it would be better"

They also said their other games wouldn't suck, how'd that work out

"But....but they said the next one would be better"

Yeah and didn't they say that after making another awful game?

"Well yeah"

And what happened?

"Their next game sucked"

Then what did they do?

"They promised their next game would be better"

That's all this is, everyone in the High Voltage dingey only has what High Voltage has said about their games and to this point all they've done is lied about their games and released bad games. Yet right after getting another set of lies and then another bad game High Voltage says "Oh wait, next one will be better" and people STILL say everything is going to be fine and they're telling the truth this one time.

Jaysonguy

So HVS 'supporters' provide baseless claims, but what are you doing?

Conduit 2 is better not because HVS says so, but because it has the features that were lacking in the original and then some. That is not a baseless claim, as I can back that up with facts. But I don't need to because you will ignore those facts anyway. Also there have been promising previews as well.

The main thing is that anyone arguing for (God knows why) High Voltage doesn't have any facts to show for it

"Oh the next game will be better"

Why?

"Well they said it would be better"

They also said their other games wouldn't suck, how'd that work out

"But....but they said the next one would be better"

Yeah and didn't they say that after making another awful game?

"Well yeah"

And what happened?

"Their next game sucked"

Then what did they do?

"They promised their next game would be better"

That's all this is, everyone in the High Voltage dingey only has what High Voltage has said about their games and to this point all they've done is lied about their games and released bad games. Yet right after getting another set of lies and then another bad game High Voltage says "Oh wait, next one will be better" and people STILL say everything is going to be fine and they're telling the truth this one time.

Jaysonguy

Dude, you clearly haven't played their games so why do you care so much? I want to know what are you getting out of all this? What are you getting out of giving games a 1 out of 10, that get a 10 out of 10 on this site, after months of saying "old green hills are now purple"

Some people like HVS's games, are you trying to convince these individuals of the error of their ways even though they played the titles and enjoyed them for what they were?

They haven't lied if someone was satisfied by their products, the fufilled that individual's needs (like myself and Darth Samus)

People give them chances coz they liked something about the games despite their flaws. I mean did I write off Super Mario Galaxy just coz it was made by the team that made a silly DK Bongo GameCube game that I couldn't have cared less for? No.

I don't get why you're picking on the fans of their titles (they like the games they've made so what?) and why you're picking on a small (er) business for doing what they love albeit not the best at it.

Why?

[QUOTE="mrfokken"]

1. HVS doesn't force you to buy their games.

2. HVS hypes their games because they are a business and want you to be interested enough to look at their games. (and hopefully buy them)

3. Not liking a game has nothing to do with the develper being bad. I don't like GTA games, I don't think Rockstar is bad.

4. Quit whining.

gamefan67

That they had to prove themselfs before and fail more than once, nitnendo had to prove you could still get the console sold in usa.

Who excpted a developer that ussally makes linceses games to be a high quality game the conduit was not as bad as you people make it out. you fail to get into the story that your own fault. the conduit was not poorly desgin or poorly ecercuted. the online is hackbale any game... or any console it happens all the time on sony and ms consoles you just don't here. it.

The problem is most of gamers are excpeting to much for one developer when not really any developer of a 3rd party for wii has really step up.

EA-No

activison- somewhat sure

rockstar north- not even close

sega- much better sega games compare to the other consoles so sure

capcom- fail

2ksports- fail seriously some of games have online for wii but htere baseball games are crap on all system even more crap on the wii which still does not support online play.

That they had to prove themselfs before and fail more than once, nitnendo had to prove you could still get the console sold in usa.

Who excpted a developer that ussally makes linceses games to be a high quality game the conduit was not as bad as you people make it out. you fail to get into the story that your own fault. the conduit was not poorly desgin or poorly ecercuted. the online is hackbale any game... or any console it happens all the time on sony and ms consoles you just don't here. it.

The problem is most of gamers are excpeting to much for one developer when not really any developer of a 3rd party for wii has really step up.

EA-No

activison- somewhat sure

rockstar north- not even close

sega- much better sega games compare to the other consoles so sure

capcom- fail

2ksports- fail seriously some of games have online for wii but htere baseball games are crap on all system even more crap on the wii which still does not support online play.

rcafan