Ten years ago, when I bought UT99, bots were a big selling point due to my iffy/costly internet connection, and lack of decent servers. Since those aren't issues anymore, it doesn't matter that much to me. In some games it really works well (like filling in AFK players dynamically in L4D), other games it makes servers a ghostown (there's nothing more annoying than seeing what seems to be a ton of semi-active servers, only to find them filled with bots). It's a "nice-to-have" at most, but I'd rather dev time spent elsewhere such as adding more game modes and maps.
[QUOTE="creeping-deth87"] I've never paid much attention to how digital distrubtion prices fluctuate over time, though I think this is offset somewhat by the fact that games available through digital distribution usually debut at lower prices generally. And maybe the fact that there's no such thing as a used online game factors into it somehow. As for games halving in price over 6 months in North America, it honestly depends on the game. I work at Blockbuster and Call of Duty 4 is still 59.99 (Canadian) brand new despite the fact it's over a year old. In contrast, you can grab Too Human used for just 20 bucks and that just came out last fall I believe.
On Steam Empire:Total War is selling for over full retail. On online stores like Play.com you can pick the game up for about half what they are charging. Same with games like Dawn Of War 2. It might be diffrent per region, but here it's still cheaper to buy from stores. You are paying a premium for convience.
Wow, I had no idea. Thanks for busting the DD-is-cheaper myth. Unfortunately, there are also plenty of counter-examples where DD is cheaper, such as the (many) L4D discount weekends, Steam's holiday deals, etc. It's definitely not black and white. For consoles where installs don't really come into play, I don't have a preference. But when I upgraded my PC, damn was I happy to just have to install Steam and let it take care of the rest, since re-installing games from disc is a pain. Moreover, I don't need to worry about those old CD discs not working or not having the ol' CD keys. For PC, I go DD only.
Sony may have taken the exclusive crown with R2 and KZ2 being much more recent/relevant than PDZ and Halo3, but honestly the FPS games from this gen that I keep going back to are TF2, CoD4, and L4D...all of which are multiplats. And the FPSs I'm most looking forward to are also multiplat (Wolfenstein, Rage, and CoD:MW2) or free (Quake Live, Battlefield Heroes). Go Figure.
The short time I had trying the LBP beta didn't impress me that much for a home system game, but I'm definitely going to get it for my PSP. It always struck me as the type of game I'd prefer in short bursts on the go, so hopefully they deliver! I wonder if they'll make it full-blown 2D (instead of 2.5) due to the PSP's limitations? As long as they keep the interesting physics and charm, as well as a full-blown level editor (not watered down), it'll be a must-have.
I am also in the Closed Beta. I find it sorta fun, yet pretty mediocre. Not many weapons and it relies to much on the rocket launcher, which is over-powered. The gameplay is good, but not great. I found some problems with command response and lagging, although it is just a beta. I say try it out. We need more lower skilled players for some not-so-good people to play against.Phoenix534
Heh, you must've never player Q3: Arena. While the rocket launcher is a nice weapon to have, the real pros snipe you with the railgun while strafe jumping over impossible gaps. I was a bit more of a UT99 fan at the time due to the better bots and more varied gametypes, but Q3 is simply the best and purest deathmatch game there is. From the Beta I don't think this game will be for the faint of heart in the long run, but I agree that it will be good to get an infusion of the less-than-hardcore.
[QUOTE="scottiescott238"] So whats wrong with it?scottiescott238
Can you search for custom games?
Is there an option to choose host in custom game? and before you said something, partyleader do not always get host.
Why can I only check my stats on a computer?
Do it have leaderboards?
Does it have clan option?
Does it have dedicated servers?
NON of that has anything to do with how the game plays, the games search engine is based around finding the best match based on your skill ability. Being given the option of host would mean nobody would want to search a game, due to the advantage. Nobody would want to search for a custom match, it would always end up with some stupid kid with a stupid match varient, like hammers with 2000% health. Leaderboards on a game like that are pointless like on cod4, there are levels to indicate your skills. Does it need dedicated servers? iv never had lag before and it finds game uber quick. It doesnt have clans as such, but most people team up in fours and try to get as high as possible, if i were to play a game against a team of 4 Level 50 5 star generals with all the same armor and names, then id know i was about to be thrashed. There are stats on halo 3 , but only the essentials, clicking around menu's using the 360 pad would be aweful Coming from a PC gaming background, I disliked the Halo 3 matchmaking system as well as the need to have full DLC to play half the modes listed in the browser. I exchanged it for CoD4 and I honestly can say I get into matches much quicker than Halo 3. What's even better is that people tend to stay on the same "server" for more than one match, and empty slots get filled dynamically, whereas in Halo 3 it would be the endless cycle people leaving before the game ends, everyone jumps ship after the match is done, you're forced back to the lobby, need to start searching again, and then have to sit through that consistent last-second map veto only to have them complain about the new map. When you're actually playing Halo 3 multi is fun stuff, but getting into games takes longer and is more frustrating than it needs to be.
why do people believe to make a game running on the KZ2 engine will take 4 yrs... GG took 4 years including the time to CREATE the game engine.. having the game engine ready take much less time in creating a game specially if the Idea/planning/story of a game is already done...
You think if EPIC had to create a completely new game engine for GEOW2 it would have taken them only 2 yrs to make the sequel???? come on lets not be ridiculous..
Malta_1980
It all depends on the tools that were developed for the engine. Platforms like UE3 (and supposedly the upcoming id Tech 5) were developed specifically with tools to license out to other devs, with complete scripting languages, level editors, etc. If GG did the same, then there is little reason why it would take 4 years, but if they didn't....well, we simply don't know what they did, so the OP is just speculating. For all the time and money they've spent, you gotta hope that Sony did the "right" thing and make tools for the engine for easy repackaging.
Log in to comment