First it was Douglas Adams' Salmon of Doubt, where in Douglas Adam's own words his final manuscripts were published.
Then it was the final book of the true dune series that was originally envisioned by Frank Herbert is now published (I don't know the name but I've heard more then enough about it).
And Now we have this.
What is it with people who have now basically gone around and robbed the grave? I mean Douglas Adams' salmon of doubt wasn't good but it was at least his work. Frank Herbert's son basically is robbing the grave here, and of course now this person's estate is now just asking for more money. It would be one thing if the person was dying and needed the money to go to a fund to save him from some sickness or cure other people, but in the end it's really just greed. I will give props to Brian Herbert, he at least has worked in his father's universe long before the final book was released, but even then his work has been far below his father's that to see him work on his father's last manuscript must be like watching a guy who shoots paint from his butt touch up a Picasso.
It's not that these people arn't well intentioned, they want to be loving with their work, but the fact is they will always change the work that they work on because it's the nature of the creative process.
Every time I see a post mortem release, whether it be a play (of course the script not being good enough or not being finished at the time of his death), a movie, a Cd, or even a book, I always feel a little sick and a little disgusted at the ultimate greed of man, especially when it's one of those platnium covered memorial copies that some groups try to sell fans.
The simple problem is the more choices a player has, the more times a different level character can come out.
When playing D&D there's either the core classes or multiple prestige, which works well except that there's always players who find the one way to get a character who at level 10 is so significantly more powerful than everyone else in the power that it's boring to play because the game becomes "hide behind loserboy".
Classes allow a simple way to balance a game, certain classes have certain skills and roles. A rogue might be able to solo in WoW but with a healer he's a lot more effective. A paladin can do well healing or fighting but he's not a master at either.
Imagine if you could have a stealth enabled caster who could equip heavy armor and knows the strongest magic in the game? It'd be unstopable but some open skill systems basically allow that. The secret is to give the players the option of any skill but to require specialization at the very least. Of course most games would even balk at that because that's going back towards Classes again.
Honestly The question is more what works best in your game? In a single player game do you want there to always be a solution to the problem so you can beat the game? Then you'll want classes. Do you want the character to possibly placed in a situation where they can't complete the game? Then skills will be you're option.
Or instead you can constantly play the game and change the rules over and over but by the third rule change many of your fans will start walking away because if there's one thing the fan's want is stability, especially stability with their own characters.
What's even worse is that after the first episode, Penny Arcade's hype was just not funny in the least. I think it was a decision by them to do a "story" but honestly how often has a Penny arcade story been funny or up to par?
Personally I think they should stop trying to be "art" and just go back to funny. They can't do huge storylines and keep it interesting and yet they try it at least 4 times a year.
If you think those are easy. Well you've too much time on your hand, that game is pretty long, no easy mode and the difficulty is mid to high. Plus for 40 bucks there's better games for "Easy" points.
Digipen doesn't suffer from the "daycare" problem as much, I also work with a guy from there and he's a great programmer (the other guy was from fullsail.. mock away). He does talk about that school and it does sound to be focused more like a CS degree for game programming, though he doesn't have a well rounded degree like mine, he does at least have more knowledge in CS than should be needed for the industry and knows how to learn well (recently he had to tackle C# with out knowing it or java. He passed that challenge with little help.)
But still at the same time there's other schools that just suck for teaching. At the same time you're right state universities are... well lacking. They arn't community college but they still don't have the true skills that you get from a Institute of technology. I went to a small institute, and we got a lot of hands on stuff early on, which helped a lot because after a couple years we did learn the fundamentals, but at the same time we had the applications to apply them too.
Of course as I said, those schools are jokes, but then again people with a huge amount of drive will be able to get into the industry through them. What companies look for is some formalized education, and demos and projects you've worked on. They don't care where you got your education as long as you know your stuff. My point is more that while you get the education at these schools if you change your mind, you're not going to be able to go into financial trading systems with the same degree (I've done that too. That makes game programming seem like cake)
I like the book I've looked through it a couple times, but I don't actually use it in the game, is that so poorly informed that I got something I wanted because it would be nice to look at?
It may not be the highest value item I bought all year, but it's one of the best looking strategies I've seen.
So yes, there's "colleges" that teach people the game industry. And yes they have decent tools. But the problem with those schools is a lack of discipline. I'm not talking S&M but coding discipline. When I left my college after 4 years with a CS degree, I knew Java, C, C++, the differences between the two, Lisp, and Prolog, as well as SQL, and how to connect and admin a database, I also had a great understanding of Networking and some exposure to XML.
Out of all those things they all have helped me now that I'm in the industry, these "schools" are basically 16 month programs where if you really work you can learn a lot however there's not a huge drive to work hard, you can pass with a little work or you can excel if you push yourself.
That's not to say they are useless, one guy I work with went through these programs and he actually said that because he had a lot of drive he really went far, but that doesn't mean the school did anything other then give him people to learn from. It was his own personal push that got him through the school and got him a job at our company.
The only problem is that if he doesn't like the game industry it would be significantly harder for him to leave and get a job in IT or programming outside the game development world. The degree is so precise in what it teaches and so fast that with out experience it becomes null and void much faster then even basic CS degrees. But I guess you get what you pay for, my friend got the cannon which he loaded with the blasting powder which shot him up to our level (a decent sized studio making blockbuster sized games), while others in his class barely had enough to blow their own nose with.
Go play an atari 2600 game and tell me that games today are more difficult? Go on I'll wait.
Thanks for coming back. Atari and NES games were by far the most difficult games ever made, but the fact is they weren't extremely good games, there were a great deal of great games there but what made them great is unique ways of playing them.
What really pisses me off however isn't strategy guides, or hint books, but people who buy the strategies immediatly when they buy the game? I bought the oblivion strategy guide just because of the beautiful look to the guide. I never cracked it open. I like the optimal experience from these games and that means no strategy guides for me.
The fact is that even when a game doesn't need a strategy guide or really can't use one, someone will write one to make money off of it. The simple fact is unless you don't have the internet you don't need a strategy guide. Gamefaqs has had great guides, granted the 360 guides are lacking since people don't seem to be writing them as fast (not that there's a huge need for it) but stil shouldn't gaming be a collective thing, and an optional thing? If I want to play Saints row (my company makes it so I decided to use that and it's new) legit and beat it all myself that's great, I love it, but at the same time if I want to play saint's row and get help from friends and use any hints I can I should be allowed to do that also. The simple fact is that game developers knows there's no such thing as a perfect secret. We can't stop you from figuring out a hint and telling a friend and we don't want to. But at the same time people should at least be smart enough not to spoil other people from our big secrets unless it's an honest mistake. Of course that never happens, some people just try to be spoilers.
We don't care why you bought the game, to cheat the hell out of it or to just play it as you want. Game companies want sales so no one is going to make it impossible for one group to play the game how they want. But to put it simply, strategy guides don't make harder games. Gamers asking for harder games makes harder games (and guess what we're still asking for them)
Because of overhead (read copy protection) you can't use wireless. If they had found a good copy protection or at least imagined the possibility someone will crack even this one then maybe they could make a good image for wireless.
It's definatly possible, you can get full HD Broadcasts over antenna, but because there's not Copy protection on that I guess it's ok. The fact is that it's not that HD or blue ray are going to be inferior technology, it's the fact both of them are going to be so overladen with copyprotection that neither will even gather acceptance. At least for a long while.
Seriously there's one reason that linux is constantly getting the shaft all the time... it's because the users will fight with each others and then fight with windows users all the time. No one has said "let's get together and present a unified front" instead I often see which linux brand is better.
Why does Firefox do so well when Linux is stagnating at best? Because Firefox bends to the will of people "oh we need IE" IE tabs is created. Oh we need access here... access granted. I want to be able to browse Microsoft's updates so I can get the new IE.
The fact is in the end even though Linux wants to believe it's open source it can't be and win. It has to work with groups that are closed source. At least for now. Perhaps ten years down the line after ITunes is popular on Linux then a Linux open source alternative can start being created working with music groups. But there appears to be no demand on the Linux side for it because no one is actively giving money to the RIAA so why would they support them.
The fact is Linux isn't Microsoft's friend and that's fine but Linux should at least pretend to be Microsoft's friend. The more you are willing to work with other people the better the cooperation works and the better the end result can become. Yes Linux will lose it's 100 percent open source ideals, but at the same time Linux will be able to do far more than it can do with only open source, while at the same time some users can remain 100 percent open source. It's about options.
Or Linux users can continue to fight amongst themselves and hang out at the 5 percent market share as Macs overtake them.
See I would agree, but I only agree when we add "worthwhile gameplay" You can play the crappiest game ever for 10 hours. I beat the first couple doors of Cloning Clyde on a copy I played. It took me about 2 hours. Actual worthwhile gameplay time? 10 minutes. Bejeweled I have gotten a lot of time out of just because I'm trying to get to the next level and it's a great relaxing game.
The problem however is that Live doesn't work with 1 person buying a game. Live works when you sell 10,000 copies of a game. Porting a game to the 360 isn't insanely expensive for a PC game, but these are non intel games, they are arcade games.
Street Fighter 2 was a VERY popular game, I have no problem paying 10 dollars for it especially if online worked. I personally would never pay that much but others will and I'm fine with it. That's not the "legacy" game I was talking about. I'm talking more about the crap midway has put up, reissuing tons of games like robotron and Crystal Quest. Both games remind me of Geometry wars, Mutant Storm reloaded. Both games remind me of arcade machines which I ploped quaters into, except the difference was for that same quarter I couldn't go to the next machine and play Final Fight or Final Fantasy, or Geometry Wars. Why would I pay 10 dollars for that game? Especially when I get a free trial that is enough to remember the "good times"
Personally I'll buy Time Pilot and Sinstar for 5 bucks each with out thinking about it, but 10 bucks seems a bit much for some of the games out there.
To me this is sounding like Futurama or simpsons. Why do I hear "side scrolling" in the back of my mind.
Penny arcade has definatly grown too big, their comics are funny at times but they get into storylines and try to develop characters and that's not what drew the fans in, in the first place. Their Dead Rising was interesting at first but has gotten lame. what could have been a decent week cartoon turned into almost three times as long and the humor was only in the first comic.
Two or three years down the line after a failed tv pilot, I've the feeling it's all going to collapse in on them. They'll still be popular but they'll be focusing on the comic and not all these other diversions.
The question is why doesn't microsoft just say "make your games cheaper" Microsoft publishes best practices papers that they suggest stuff in. They don't require it but it's not the companies that say "we wanted to be on live" It's Microsoft who saw that Live was working and went and shopped around for games.
Do they actually set the prices? Not exactly but at the same time it's their system, they can easily say "I'm sorry we're not going to offer your game at that price". Game stores are able to do it. If they don't want to sell or can't sell a game they won't take that stock.
It's still Microsoft's retail store, even if the content isn't owned by Microsoft, they set the price for points and control the transaction.
Actually the reasons why I'd get it is the game has around 1000 square feet of land, and the demo had no cutscenes at all. Assuming they just wanted to cut down on space that could be it. What I meant by not great is it didn't instantly sell me on the game. Not that the game itself was flawed. On foot controls did suck hard, but helicopters and speedboats not to meantion jets should make it worth my while.
The biggest reasons the game wasn't that great is the demo was very timed and linear, it's missing a few implementations (dropping a car in so you can drive around) and of course the area is extremely limited. A timed demo shouldn't even be an option, or at least make the time so obscene (such as the second Test Drive unlimited demo with 60 minutes compared to the first with 15) that you don't fight it.
That's why almost all 360 games, and all Xbox Live arcade games have Demos. If you don't play a demo and just buy a game and don't like it, it's your fault. I've downloaded... well let's put it this way I've played close to 15 demos on Xbox 360. I played 0 on the PS2, I played 1 on the PC in the last 5 years and that was for work (game company).
I tried Test Drive Unlimited last night, the controls were a little stiff, but damm if I didn't like driving with 10 real people in free drive, that's an easy "must buy" for me. I tried Just Cause and it was an interesting game however the controls completely sucked, and the game wasn't that great, I'm waiting on reviews for that one.
Starcraft 2 is going to be more welcomed, but I believe the announcement is Diablo 3. Diablo is a established name, and there's been little hint of Starcraft 2 even being worked on (why did they basically kill ghost, or at least delay it?)
Actually a big announcement would be Starcraft Ghost coming out next year for the 360 also... but that would just piss off the fans because what we really want is Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2.
If this is true, it's proof Microsoft is going to destroy Live.
Why was the first 6 monthes of Live popular? 5 bucks a game? What happened around June? Tons of new content all for 10 bucks a pop. Personally I'd buy 2 or three games for 10 bucks, but I'm sure as hell not buying legacy games for 10 bucks, I'm also not buying crap like Cloning Clydes or Bejeweled for 10 bucks a pop. I mean if it was 5 dollars I'd probably pick up both of them. If I had to pay 15 bucks for Luminies I'd be happy to pay that much but at the same time for 15 bucks I should get the puzzle pack and Versus for free. Instead I could go get Luminies for 20 bucks on the PS2, and that should contain both these modes and I'd get a CD/DVD for it.
Seriously anyone else hear Frank Sinatra when we talk about Vista, DRM, 64 bit only, higher specs. Basically Microsoft has just told the public what they must have.
So basically Microsoft who was actually pretty helpful to the user in XP giving a good amount of control, has now said "How can we serve you master" to hollywood and the RIAA. Personally I'll be hanging out with XP since it still does as High Def as I want, and I'm sure someone will give us a HD player for XP even if microsoft doesn't. But on the other hand even if they only use 64 how long will it take for someone to crack the encryption and figure out a way to crack vista? A week? two?
Personally I set up good governors and let them run the city, I can get by with around 10 mouse clicks, and one screen pan. Or I use the Go to function.
If you have to micromanage everything however you're milage will definatly vary, but that's a choice, not a part of the game.
Why is he panning? There's a map. 3000+ mouse clicks, 290 key presses? Is it just me or does he just seem to be trying to rack up the number of things he's doing to make a point.
And as stated a Civ game isn't RTS. RTS need a much faster UI system than Civilization.
Slashdot Mirror
First it was Douglas Adams' Salmon of Doubt, where in Douglas Adam's own words his final manuscripts were published.
Then it was the final book of the true dune series that was originally envisioned by Frank Herbert is now published (I don't know the name but I've heard more then enough about it).
And Now we have this.
What is it with people who have now basically gone around and robbed the grave? I mean Douglas Adams' salmon of doubt wasn't good but it was at least his work. Frank Herbert's son basically is robbing the grave here, and of course now this person's estate is now just asking for more money. It would be one thing if the person was dying and needed the money to go to a fund to save him from some sickness or cure other people, but in the end it's really just greed. I will give props to Brian Herbert, he at least has worked in his father's universe long before the final book was released, but even then his work has been far below his father's that to see him work on his father's last manuscript must be like watching a guy who shoots paint from his butt touch up a Picasso.
It's not that these people arn't well intentioned, they want to be loving with their work, but the fact is they will always change the work that they work on because it's the nature of the creative process.
Every time I see a post mortem release, whether it be a play (of course the script not being good enough or not being finished at the time of his death), a movie, a Cd, or even a book, I always feel a little sick and a little disgusted at the ultimate greed of man, especially when it's one of those platnium covered memorial copies that some groups try to sell fans.
The simple problem is the more choices a player has, the more times a different level character can come out.
When playing D&D there's either the core classes or multiple prestige, which works well except that there's always players who find the one way to get a character who at level 10 is so significantly more powerful than everyone else in the power that it's boring to play because the game becomes "hide behind loserboy".
Classes allow a simple way to balance a game, certain classes have certain skills and roles. A rogue might be able to solo in WoW but with a healer he's a lot more effective. A paladin can do well healing or fighting but he's not a master at either.
Imagine if you could have a stealth enabled caster who could equip heavy armor and knows the strongest magic in the game? It'd be unstopable but some open skill systems basically allow that. The secret is to give the players the option of any skill but to require specialization at the very least. Of course most games would even balk at that because that's going back towards Classes again.
Honestly The question is more what works best in your game? In a single player game do you want there to always be a solution to the problem so you can beat the game? Then you'll want classes. Do you want the character to possibly placed in a situation where they can't complete the game? Then skills will be you're option.
Or instead you can constantly play the game and change the rules over and over but by the third rule change many of your fans will start walking away because if there's one thing the fan's want is stability, especially stability with their own characters.
What's even worse is that after the first episode, Penny Arcade's hype was just not funny in the least. I think it was a decision by them to do a "story" but honestly how often has a Penny arcade story been funny or up to par?
Personally I think they should stop trying to be "art" and just go back to funny. They can't do huge storylines and keep it interesting and yet they try it at least 4 times a year.
If you think those are easy. Well you've too much time on your hand, that game is pretty long, no easy mode and the difficulty is mid to high. Plus for 40 bucks there's better games for "Easy" points.
Digipen doesn't suffer from the "daycare" problem as much, I also work with a guy from there and he's a great programmer (the other guy was from fullsail.. mock away). He does talk about that school and it does sound to be focused more like a CS degree for game programming, though he doesn't have a well rounded degree like mine, he does at least have more knowledge in CS than should be needed for the industry and knows how to learn well (recently he had to tackle C# with out knowing it or java. He passed that challenge with little help.)
But still at the same time there's other schools that just suck for teaching. At the same time you're right state universities are... well lacking. They arn't community college but they still don't have the true skills that you get from a Institute of technology. I went to a small institute, and we got a lot of hands on stuff early on, which helped a lot because after a couple years we did learn the fundamentals, but at the same time we had the applications to apply them too.
Of course as I said, those schools are jokes, but then again people with a huge amount of drive will be able to get into the industry through them. What companies look for is some formalized education, and demos and projects you've worked on. They don't care where you got your education as long as you know your stuff. My point is more that while you get the education at these schools if you change your mind, you're not going to be able to go into financial trading systems with the same degree (I've done that too. That makes game programming seem like cake)
I like the book I've looked through it a couple times, but I don't actually use it in the game, is that so poorly informed that I got something I wanted because it would be nice to look at?
It may not be the highest value item I bought all year, but it's one of the best looking strategies I've seen.
So yes, there's "colleges" that teach people the game industry. And yes they have decent tools. But the problem with those schools is a lack of discipline. I'm not talking S&M but coding discipline. When I left my college after 4 years with a CS degree, I knew Java, C, C++, the differences between the two, Lisp, and Prolog, as well as SQL, and how to connect and admin a database, I also had a great understanding of Networking and some exposure to XML.
Out of all those things they all have helped me now that I'm in the industry, these "schools" are basically 16 month programs where if you really work you can learn a lot however there's not a huge drive to work hard, you can pass with a little work or you can excel if you push yourself.
That's not to say they are useless, one guy I work with went through these programs and he actually said that because he had a lot of drive he really went far, but that doesn't mean the school did anything other then give him people to learn from. It was his own personal push that got him through the school and got him a job at our company.
The only problem is that if he doesn't like the game industry it would be significantly harder for him to leave and get a job in IT or programming outside the game development world. The degree is so precise in what it teaches and so fast that with out experience it becomes null and void much faster then even basic CS degrees. But I guess you get what you pay for, my friend got the cannon which he loaded with the blasting powder which shot him up to our level (a decent sized studio making blockbuster sized games), while others in his class barely had enough to blow their own nose with.
They can digitally replace William Shatner with a Jar Jar Binks, and have a good actor there for once. Though retain that annoying outer shell.
Go play an atari 2600 game and tell me that games today are more difficult? Go on I'll wait.
Thanks for coming back. Atari and NES games were by far the most difficult games ever made, but the fact is they weren't extremely good games, there were a great deal of great games there but what made them great is unique ways of playing them.
What really pisses me off however isn't strategy guides, or hint books, but people who buy the strategies immediatly when they buy the game? I bought the oblivion strategy guide just because of the beautiful look to the guide. I never cracked it open. I like the optimal experience from these games and that means no strategy guides for me.
The fact is that even when a game doesn't need a strategy guide or really can't use one, someone will write one to make money off of it. The simple fact is unless you don't have the internet you don't need a strategy guide. Gamefaqs has had great guides, granted the 360 guides are lacking since people don't seem to be writing them as fast (not that there's a huge need for it) but stil shouldn't gaming be a collective thing, and an optional thing? If I want to play Saints row (my company makes it so I decided to use that and it's new) legit and beat it all myself that's great, I love it, but at the same time if I want to play saint's row and get help from friends and use any hints I can I should be allowed to do that also. The simple fact is that game developers knows there's no such thing as a perfect secret. We can't stop you from figuring out a hint and telling a friend and we don't want to. But at the same time people should at least be smart enough not to spoil other people from our big secrets unless it's an honest mistake. Of course that never happens, some people just try to be spoilers.
We don't care why you bought the game, to cheat the hell out of it or to just play it as you want. Game companies want sales so no one is going to make it impossible for one group to play the game how they want. But to put it simply, strategy guides don't make harder games. Gamers asking for harder games makes harder games (and guess what we're still asking for them)
What makes you think you're going to be the only one.
At least this way you'll have a rival for when you want to do a race on those little motor scooters for children.
Because of overhead (read copy protection) you can't use wireless. If they had found a good copy protection or at least imagined the possibility someone will crack even this one then maybe they could make a good image for wireless.
It's definatly possible, you can get full HD Broadcasts over antenna, but because there's not Copy protection on that I guess it's ok. The fact is that it's not that HD or blue ray are going to be inferior technology, it's the fact both of them are going to be so overladen with copyprotection that neither will even gather acceptance. At least for a long while.
Seriously there's one reason that linux is constantly getting the shaft all the time... it's because the users will fight with each others and then fight with windows users all the time. No one has said "let's get together and present a unified front" instead I often see which linux brand is better.
Why does Firefox do so well when Linux is stagnating at best? Because Firefox bends to the will of people "oh we need IE" IE tabs is created. Oh we need access here... access granted. I want to be able to browse Microsoft's updates so I can get the new IE.
The fact is in the end even though Linux wants to believe it's open source it can't be and win. It has to work with groups that are closed source. At least for now. Perhaps ten years down the line after ITunes is popular on Linux then a Linux open source alternative can start being created working with music groups. But there appears to be no demand on the Linux side for it because no one is actively giving money to the RIAA so why would they support them.
The fact is Linux isn't Microsoft's friend and that's fine but Linux should at least pretend to be Microsoft's friend. The more you are willing to work with other people the better the cooperation works and the better the end result can become. Yes Linux will lose it's 100 percent open source ideals, but at the same time Linux will be able to do far more than it can do with only open source, while at the same time some users can remain 100 percent open source. It's about options.
Or Linux users can continue to fight amongst themselves and hang out at the 5 percent market share as Macs overtake them.
I doubt it. But I remember those.
And Barney Doom?
See I would agree, but I only agree when we add "worthwhile gameplay" You can play the crappiest game ever for 10 hours. I beat the first couple doors of Cloning Clyde on a copy I played. It took me about 2 hours. Actual worthwhile gameplay time? 10 minutes. Bejeweled I have gotten a lot of time out of just because I'm trying to get to the next level and it's a great relaxing game.
The problem however is that Live doesn't work with 1 person buying a game. Live works when you sell 10,000 copies of a game. Porting a game to the 360 isn't insanely expensive for a PC game, but these are non intel games, they are arcade games.
Street Fighter 2 was a VERY popular game, I have no problem paying 10 dollars for it especially if online worked. I personally would never pay that much but others will and I'm fine with it. That's not the "legacy" game I was talking about. I'm talking more about the crap midway has put up, reissuing tons of games like robotron and Crystal Quest. Both games remind me of Geometry wars, Mutant Storm reloaded. Both games remind me of arcade machines which I ploped quaters into, except the difference was for that same quarter I couldn't go to the next machine and play Final Fight or Final Fantasy, or Geometry Wars. Why would I pay 10 dollars for that game? Especially when I get a free trial that is enough to remember the "good times"
Personally I'll buy Time Pilot and Sinstar for 5 bucks each with out thinking about it, but 10 bucks seems a bit much for some of the games out there.
To me this is sounding like Futurama or simpsons. Why do I hear "side scrolling" in the back of my mind.
Penny arcade has definatly grown too big, their comics are funny at times but they get into storylines and try to develop characters and that's not what drew the fans in, in the first place. Their Dead Rising was interesting at first but has gotten lame. what could have been a decent week cartoon turned into almost three times as long and the humor was only in the first comic.
Two or three years down the line after a failed tv pilot, I've the feeling it's all going to collapse in on them. They'll still be popular but they'll be focusing on the comic and not all these other diversions.
The question is why doesn't microsoft just say "make your games cheaper" Microsoft publishes best practices papers that they suggest stuff in. They don't require it but it's not the companies that say "we wanted to be on live" It's Microsoft who saw that Live was working and went and shopped around for games.
Do they actually set the prices? Not exactly but at the same time it's their system, they can easily say "I'm sorry we're not going to offer your game at that price". Game stores are able to do it. If they don't want to sell or can't sell a game they won't take that stock.
It's still Microsoft's retail store, even if the content isn't owned by Microsoft, they set the price for points and control the transaction.
Actually the reasons why I'd get it is the game has around 1000 square feet of land, and the demo had no cutscenes at all. Assuming they just wanted to cut down on space that could be it. What I meant by not great is it didn't instantly sell me on the game. Not that the game itself was flawed. On foot controls did suck hard, but helicopters and speedboats not to meantion jets should make it worth my while.
The biggest reasons the game wasn't that great is the demo was very timed and linear, it's missing a few implementations (dropping a car in so you can drive around) and of course the area is extremely limited. A timed demo shouldn't even be an option, or at least make the time so obscene (such as the second Test Drive unlimited demo with 60 minutes compared to the first with 15) that you don't fight it.
That's why almost all 360 games, and all Xbox Live arcade games have Demos. If you don't play a demo and just buy a game and don't like it, it's your fault. I've downloaded... well let's put it this way I've played close to 15 demos on Xbox 360. I played 0 on the PS2, I played 1 on the PC in the last 5 years and that was for work (game company).
I tried Test Drive Unlimited last night, the controls were a little stiff, but damm if I didn't like driving with 10 real people in free drive, that's an easy "must buy" for me. I tried Just Cause and it was an interesting game however the controls completely sucked, and the game wasn't that great, I'm waiting on reviews for that one.
Starcraft 2 is going to be more welcomed, but I believe the announcement is Diablo 3. Diablo is a established name, and there's been little hint of Starcraft 2 even being worked on (why did they basically kill ghost, or at least delay it?)
Actually a big announcement would be Starcraft Ghost coming out next year for the 360 also... but that would just piss off the fans because what we really want is Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2.
If this is true, it's proof Microsoft is going to destroy Live.
t opic_id=24928329&page=1#comments
Why was the first 6 monthes of Live popular? 5 bucks a game? What happened around June? Tons of new content all for 10 bucks a pop. Personally I'd buy 2 or three games for 10 bucks, but I'm sure as hell not buying legacy games for 10 bucks, I'm also not buying crap like Cloning Clydes or Bejeweled for 10 bucks a pop. I mean if it was 5 dollars I'd probably pick up both of them. If I had to pay 15 bucks for Luminies I'd be happy to pay that much but at the same time for 15 bucks I should get the puzzle pack and Versus for free. Instead I could go get Luminies for 20 bucks on the PS2, and that should contain both these modes and I'd get a CD/DVD for it.
That being said Gamespot is saying it's likely bogus but us raising our voices against it should help it even if they were considering it. http://www.gamespot.com/news/show_blog_entry.php?
Xbox Live is going to be a pay service. So why if someone who uses Firefox can't access their system would they give microsoft money.
Easy answer? get Firefox to work with Xbox Live so everyone can give Microsoft money.
Seriously anyone else hear Frank Sinatra when we talk about Vista, DRM, 64 bit only, higher specs. Basically Microsoft has just told the public what they must have.
So basically Microsoft who was actually pretty helpful to the user in XP giving a good amount of control, has now said "How can we serve you master" to hollywood and the RIAA. Personally I'll be hanging out with XP since it still does as High Def as I want, and I'm sure someone will give us a HD player for XP even if microsoft doesn't. But on the other hand even if they only use 64 how long will it take for someone to crack the encryption and figure out a way to crack vista? A week? two?
They are learning old and incorrect facts, and now the schools have to go buy new books... again!
On the other hand they could wait a week and watch them overturn this.
Personally I set up good governors and let them run the city, I can get by with around 10 mouse clicks, and one screen pan. Or I use the Go to function.
If you have to micromanage everything however you're milage will definatly vary, but that's a choice, not a part of the game.
Why is he panning? There's a map. 3000+ mouse clicks, 290 key presses? Is it just me or does he just seem to be trying to rack up the number of things he's doing to make a point.
And as stated a Civ game isn't RTS. RTS need a much faster UI system than Civilization.
Yeah, because writting a story that doesn't describe the scam or anything other then the fact people are pissed about something is news!