In Fable III you can use dyes to color your hair and clothing how you please, except that in the release version (on the disc) there are four very obvious empty spots on your dye rack. You can now pay 80 MSpoints to purchase - surprise surprise - four more bottles of dye to fill those spots. They aren't very good colors though, just hot pink, turquoise, cream... and oh yeah, BLACK. The one color they knew everyone wanted, the one color they figured they could sell separately no matter how obvious it was that they cut it out just to nickel and dime the players. What, do they expect us to believe black dye wasn't done in time for launch, or that they came up with the idea after the game went gold?
It's an insult. Worse than the "horse armor."
Developers are usually very well aware when they have a bad game on their hands. This can't be news to Square. If they couldn't fix it before release, they can't fix it with one extra month.
I'm not going to play a tiny violin for the developers. I'm talking about the cost in computing power. It's not like there's a tiny little scene inside your PS3 and this new stereoscopic 3D just adds a second camera to film it. The PS3 needs to render the same scene twice, from two different angles. Even if you can turn off the 3D they're not going to throw all that extra computing power into making the "2D" version look even better. Else all the people who bought their overpriced 3DTVs would start crying about how it isn't fair that their new toy isn't magical.
3D will never be for everyone. I can't see in 3D, even in the real world. In order for a game to look 3D to me, it would have to be more real than reality and probably input directly into my brain.
I don't think the industry needs to bow to the afflictions of a couple of weirdos like me, but it sure would be nice if I had the option to turn it off and pretend it wasn't even there.
And before you ask, yes. 3D movies do look kind of funky to me, and not in the good way. More in the, "I can see the artifacts that are supposed to trigger stereoscopic depth perception and they look like ass" way.
A controller is a response to a technical limitation. A mouse overcomes that limitation. How is it cheating to solve a problem?
Maybe they shouldn't make games with red or green in them anymore. It's like people who aren't colorblind are cheating.
Somehow, "dark" and "PvP" doesn't quite mesh with "let's dumb everything down because I'd rather your mom play it for 10 minutes than you play it for 100 hours."
I'll believe it when I see it. And when I see it, I'll scoff at the $30 "part packs."
So the process seems to go like this:
1) Make a mature game or franchise for the known mature markets on the PC, X360 and PS3.
2) Make a version for the Wii with dramatically gutted gameplay and worse graphics.
2a) Make it a rail shooter so you can make it look as good as possible, gameplay be damned, because you know your consumers expect a Wii game to look like a PC game.
3) Fail to sell a ton of copies of your terrible, boring game.
4) Blame the failure on the Wii's more casual audience. Not the fact that you made a terrible, boring game.
Take note, fancy executive guys: Good games sell well. Bad games don't. If your game is good enough, your AUDIENCE WILL FIND YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
So an 11-year-old with a malfunctioning sense of empathy would never lie. OK.
In Fable III you can use dyes to color your hair and clothing how you please, except that in the release version (on the disc) there are four very obvious empty spots on your dye rack. You can now pay 80 MSpoints to purchase - surprise surprise - four more bottles of dye to fill those spots. They aren't very good colors though, just hot pink, turquoise, cream... and oh yeah, BLACK. The one color they knew everyone wanted, the one color they figured they could sell separately no matter how obvious it was that they cut it out just to nickel and dime the players. What, do they expect us to believe black dye wasn't done in time for launch, or that they came up with the idea after the game went gold? It's an insult. Worse than the "horse armor."
Developers are usually very well aware when they have a bad game on their hands. This can't be news to Square. If they couldn't fix it before release, they can't fix it with one extra month.
I'm not going to play a tiny violin for the developers. I'm talking about the cost in computing power. It's not like there's a tiny little scene inside your PS3 and this new stereoscopic 3D just adds a second camera to film it. The PS3 needs to render the same scene twice, from two different angles. Even if you can turn off the 3D they're not going to throw all that extra computing power into making the "2D" version look even better. Else all the people who bought their overpriced 3DTVs would start crying about how it isn't fair that their new toy isn't magical.
3D will never be for everyone. I can't see in 3D, even in the real world. In order for a game to look 3D to me, it would have to be more real than reality and probably input directly into my brain. I don't think the industry needs to bow to the afflictions of a couple of weirdos like me, but it sure would be nice if I had the option to turn it off and pretend it wasn't even there. And before you ask, yes. 3D movies do look kind of funky to me, and not in the good way. More in the, "I can see the artifacts that are supposed to trigger stereoscopic depth perception and they look like ass" way.
Isn't Lineage II exactly the same as every other Korean MMO, just with a different set of art assets?
Step 1 to preventing piracy: make a game worth more than $0.
A controller is a response to a technical limitation. A mouse overcomes that limitation. How is it cheating to solve a problem? Maybe they shouldn't make games with red or green in them anymore. It's like people who aren't colorblind are cheating.
Somehow, "dark" and "PvP" doesn't quite mesh with "let's dumb everything down because I'd rather your mom play it for 10 minutes than you play it for 100 hours." I'll believe it when I see it. And when I see it, I'll scoff at the $30 "part packs."
So the process seems to go like this: 1) Make a mature game or franchise for the known mature markets on the PC, X360 and PS3. 2) Make a version for the Wii with dramatically gutted gameplay and worse graphics. 2a) Make it a rail shooter so you can make it look as good as possible, gameplay be damned, because you know your consumers expect a Wii game to look like a PC game. 3) Fail to sell a ton of copies of your terrible, boring game. 4) Blame the failure on the Wii's more casual audience. Not the fact that you made a terrible, boring game. Take note, fancy executive guys: Good games sell well. Bad games don't. If your game is good enough, your AUDIENCE WILL FIND YOU.
OBJECTION! I thought Jackie Boy wasn't allowed to attack Take Two anymore?