Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

They Came.. From Hollywood

Posted by simoniker on from the haxton-suspiciously-missing-from-imdb dept.

Thanks to GMicek for pointing to the DIYGames.com site, which has an interview with Octopus Motor, the developers of They Came From Hollywood. This real-time strategy PC title allows you to control giant B-movie monsters as they maraud through major American cities, and you can even play as one of the monsters from those classic Harold Haxton movies. The project is also an interesting model for today's independent games, as the official site explains the game has only 2 developers, and the title will be self-published when it's finished later this year.

8 of 28 comments (clear)

  1. They Came.. From Slashdot by bjpirt · · Score: 2, Funny

    to destroy your server

  2. This is, like, so 1986 by lightspawn · · Score: 3

    Remember Rampage

  3. This artcile is really stupid by @madeus · · Score: 2

    From looking at the screen shots both the graphics and gameplay (and you can get a good idea of the gameplay from looking at the screen grabs provided) seem to be extremly poor.

    It looks like they have spent quite a bit of time on the roads/buildings/people, which is good, but I'm certain there are a lot of alternative ideas for gameplay that would be able to sell this underlying engine better than the idea they currently have.

    I think it's perfectly possible to come up with good ideas that don't rely on 3D, but for a game with the concept this one has (which relies largley on the coolness factor of destroying things) it would seem to cry out for cool 3D graphics and alpha blended explosions - *something* to keep the player entertained (as I think the minor amusement of destorying things as a big monster in the current environment will wear off before the first level is complete).

    There are hundreds of small time developer outfits producing great games (like Ambrosia Software), I fail to see the point of an article about a game that, quite frankly, is crap, when there are plenty of small time developers turning out good low budget shareware and freeware titles (in particular there are many excellent games in this category for Palm OS and Pocket PC).

    I appreciate that harsh critisim is hard for the developers to hear, but:

    There are free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech games out there that have more appealing graphics and gameplay premises.

    I think that when people spend time writing god awful software it's only fair to call it as it is, it's crap and no one in their right mind is going to want to buy it.

    How many non A/C account holders think this game is cool and would buy it, really?

    1. Re:This artcile is really stupid by Txurlo · · Score: 2

      It looks like they have spent quite a bit of time on the roads/buildings/people, which is good, but I'm certain there are a lot of alternative ideas for gameplay that would be able to sell this underlying engine better than the idea they currently have.

      Gameplay? Come on! This will be the Rampage of the 21st century, and THAT is a good thing! It's almost like saying that Get Medieval's gameplay was ripped off Gauntlet =)

      --
      Txurlo
    2. Re:This artcile is really stupid by Bryant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How in the world can you tell what the gameplay is like from just looking at a few screenshots? You don't know what the AI is like, you don't know what the math is... that just seems like a kind of weird thing to say.

    3. Re:This artcile is really stupid by Ath · · Score: 2, Informative

      The game looks and sounds nothing like Rampage. It looks and sounds like Crush, Crumble and Chomp, a game by Epyx back in the 1980s for the Apple II (and I think C64) that was removed from the market when Epyx got sued by at least one film company. I will take acceptable graphics and good game play any day over great graphics and crap game play. You attack the game for shitty graphics and then turn around to promote games on Palm OS and PocketPC devices. What the hell is that? Last I checked, Snood wasn't exactly a technically cutting edge game. Maybe you've been playing a modified version of Dope Wars. Maybe one where you are the buyer and not the seller. Being hepped up on goofballs is the only reason I could think you would brag about Palm OS and PocketPC games.

  4. Re:This is, like, so 1986? Try 81 by digitalgiblet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How about my favorite "Crush, Crumble, and Chomp"?

    Played it on the C-64. Took 30 MINUTES to load and had a 50% success rate. When your monster got killed you had to RE-LOAD the game. The fact that we played it and played it is a testament to how good it was...

  5. Re: Gameplay from Screenshots by Bryant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The gameplay will be limited as the potential for havock will be constrained to what's possible in a 2D isometric game."

    See... visuals aren't gameplay, they're visuals. For me, gameplay is strategy, tactics, the necessity to think ahead, resource management, and so on. I think you're confusing gameplay with special effects, here.