lemmeplay96's forum posts

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

Well lets face it, gamers back in the day were gamers. Now we have everyone playing them. And now big game devs make games for money and not because they want to make a game. That is why I like indie devs so much. They make a game not to try and get a chunk of COD's money, or try to take in "new fans". They do it because they want to make a game. And that is what old day devs were like.

I read a homefront interview and the guy said that once they started to puch the 10 hour mark on a sp portion of a game they would start to lose the ability to balance both sp and mp. He made it seem like it is MANDATORY for all shooters to have mp. He said that if thye just focused on sp it would be 20 hours, but they don't want that. Why? Because if they need to make money. Games to devs aren't things that you actually make because you want to, you are just doing it for the cash. Authors write books on what they want to wright about, but game devs do it for the money. don't get me wrong, you need money, but when that becoms your only objective and not making a good game that you care about, well my friends, that is where you end.

Bioshock Infinite rcently had an interview and the guy said something like "We aren't going to add a multiplayer mode unless we have something completely unique that would add to the game and be something enjoyable, but the singleplayer mode is our first and foremost priority" And that is where game devs need to be. Not making multiplayer for the sake of having it.

Why don't COD clones work? Because we already have a COD. It's like why would you go out and buy the bad bread at the supermarket when you already have the quality loaf sitting at your house. Now I like COD (not the mp) and the only reason I am using it as an example is because it is probably the best example of a game that appeals to the masses. It's simple and easy to get into. And now we see games trying to simplify themselves to try to rake in more players, but then they alienate the fans.

Look at the new Hitman. They are trying to make it more accesable to the masses. Do you really think the masses are going to look at a hitman game? No. The only people that are going to look at it are the fans of the previous games. But they aren't going to get it when they see that it is something different.

It's like a store that only sells health foods wants to attract more people because they see that McDonalds makes so much money so they start to sell fries. Well, the people that only eats McDonalds isn't going to look at the damn healthy place. The only people that are going to look at the health place are the people that go there, and when they see the fries they aren't going to get them and then the fries fail and they blame it on bad advertising. So then they make a sequel, burgers and fries. But the same thing happens again. And they don't seem to get it, cater to your audience and you will be successful, try to cater to people who don't care about you and you don't only not get those people, you don't get the people that liked you in the first place either.

Hatiko

You must be my twin or something, because all of your opinions are the same as mine, especially the COD thing, because it's true, COD is the game that is most apealing game to the masses.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

I can still remember a time when most games didn't give you a difficulty setting and the game would get progressively harder, and in some cases, so hard, that it would take you ages to pass it or you couldn't do it at all. One Christmas I got a Nintendo 64 with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Back then, I couldn't even get out of the starting area, 10 years on, I've progressed pretty far, but the game still gets more difficult as I move along and I still haven't finished it.

What I'm getting at here, is that games these days are so damn easy and don't really provide much challange at all. This could be a contributing factor to the short lengths of most games. Also, all developers what their games to be big and mainstream, so they make them more "accessible". I am finding it increasingly difficult to find a fun and challenging game due to these things and it just makes me wish that all games can be like they were 10 years ago. I'm not asking for games to be extremely stupid (I'm looking at you World at War on veteran), but just so that I can get stuck on a game and not finish it in a 4-10 hour playthrough.

Feel free to share your thoughts as I am interested to see what the Gamespot community thinks on this topic. :D

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

It does run on the 360. Not very well though, you're better off playing it on an original Xbox if you can. Also you don't HAVE to necessarily play Morrowind or Oblivion seeing as Elder Scroll's games have there own storylines.gamerfreak1991

Actually, Bethesda have said that Skyrim is a direct sequal to Oblivion. So playing Oblivion first is probably a good idea.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

It might me Gekion Shooting King ;)

RaIn285

I looked it up and it isn't. This game was a side scroller.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

I remember when I was a little kid and there was this game on the original Playstation that I'd play all the time. It was a arcade kind of side scrolling shooter and you were a red (or blue, in co-op one person was red and the other blue) spaceship and you went through levels of enemy ships/ther space things and then fought some weird bosses. I kind of remember one boss being red and looking like a bat. It's really hard to explain but I've been looking for it everywhere.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]Doubt he has the money for a 6850... 6850 pushes over $200 in AU. lemmeplay96

The GTX460 also does.

Wait, disregard that, I remember that link that you posted.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#7 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

Doubt he has the money for a 6850... 6850 pushes over $200 in AU. jedikevin2

The GTX460 also does.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#8 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

Do you have a good monitor to use, or does the $1,100 include a monitor?C_Rule

Yeah, it includes a monitor.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#9 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

Considering he first stated for a gts 450.. i'm assuming well under 1080p res... Lookin at your sig... your gaming at 1920x1080p which will be pretty dang significant increase. If he's on say a 19 inch monitor like me at 1440x900 res or so... he will not have any issues.jedikevin2

I think that I'll actually go for the GTX 460 and will probably go for a 19"-21.5" monitor.

Avatar image for lemmeplay96
lemmeplay96

136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10 lemmeplay96
Member since 2008 • 136 Posts

Actually, they gonna be somewhere in that 21-24 min range... with it being really close to phenom iix4's at 3.0 ghz. All gpu's get trashed on the game though in heavy heavy usage though remember, starcraft 2 has been optimized quiet a bit since release with all the patches.. My old e7400 2.8ghz and bfg gts 250 blazed the game on High with lows at 40-45 fps on 4v4 fights... (I game at 1440x900)... The Athelon iix4 will do fine considering his budget seems low and what he's going for.

Offcourse, if you can get a phenon iix4, that would be a better option thent he athelon but if price is steep (AU is not kind for pc gamers) no reason for it.

jedikevin2

Yeah, Australia's prices are ridiculous for console gaimg as well, so this is considered "CHEAP" down here.