Let me say first: If you are not a fan of the game DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE, you probably won't enjoy it.
I for one love the original 2 games. (#3 and 4 not as much) I will never forget sitting down to play the first one late and night and being terrified. Never before did a game provide that level of horror and suspense.
The movie is true to the game genre, and for that I loved it. It is loosely centered around ideas and themes from the first game so if that was your favorite (as is mine) you should enjoy it.
1) Dialogue is similar to the games: Not A+, but this was originally a Japanese game and I imagine there is a small amount of "All-your-baseness" that someone ignorant to the games might take as just poorly written character dialogue.
2) There are a lot of pyscological themes in the movie, just as the game. If you look at it more then a slasher film you will walk away with more
3) YES there is violence and a lot of disturbing imagery. What do you expect? Again, did you play any of the games?? The games include murder, blood, violence, rape, strange religous imagery, etc. Expect the same in the film
4) If you walk away confused at the end then good, again the movie succeeds in keeping true to the series. Please, anyone who has played this series before tell me you weren't scratching your end when you completed the game. (It will be amusing to see if the DVD contains alternate endings similar to each game)
Is this movie going to get rave reviews? No, becuase most people out there won't appriciate it for what it is. Is it the best "video game movie" I have seen. By a long shot.
Problems with revenue models and game
on
MMOGs Branch Out
·
· Score: 1
WoW did do something right. It used an established revenue model and simply did what Blizzard does best; make quality games that perfectly fit the genre. (Starcraft/Warcraft= arguably best RTS ever, WoW = arguably best MMO ever)
The real issue that I think these people are missing comes down to the fact they want to get console like revenue in the PC market via the MMO revenue model. They want to attract buyers that might pay $60 for the newest EA sports game but don't touch PC MMOs presumable for their time requirements and or monthly costs. I beta'ed Auto Assault. Sure it was fun, it was fast, but it also played like a Playstation game. The fact it was MMO was completely irrelevant to me. I could have just been just as satistified if all those people running around were NPCs. In the end, sure I might buy the game for $30, but would I ever pay to play beyond that? No, never.
IMHO if you are going to make an MMO then spend the time to make a quality game that is attractive to the targeted audience (aka, fantasy, SciFi) and yes follows the traditional model. Make quests more dynamic, make the world more interactive, make characters more customizable and unique to the player. (See some features of the new Eldar Scrolls: Oblivion, not MMO but great RPG concepts) If, on the other hand you want to make a "quick play, smaller scale" (aka cheaper to produce/maintain) game, why bother trying to fit the MMO model? Put it out for PS2/PS3/XBOX.
As an "older" player of MMOPG's it blew me away when I started seeing public broadcast chat at a early teen or younger level of maturity. (I started with EQ and I think the younger crowd didnt really show up on this genre until a few years later) I was thinking: What so these kids parents went out and got them a $40-$50 game then handed over their credit card for the monthly fee? "Go ahead Billy, play away"
I'm glad to see part of the reasoning behind this is the parents interaction with thier kids. MMORPG's especially, foster social (somethings good, other times bad) interaction, and if a family can "group" together it seems like a real positive way to spend family time. (As long as its balanced with ball games and outdoor stuff;)
However, I think the sad fact (Having personally witnessed this tons of times) is that most games, especially MMOs = ultimate babysitter. As long as they are old enough to go to the bathroom and feed/cloth themselves, $15 a month buys you all the free time in the world. But, I would be even more concerned with parents that played certian games like FPS with their kids. "That's the 6th time I've killed you tonight Billy, start working on your Sk1llz!!"
I completely agree. I only played EQ2 for a couple months after release and the despite the archetype model, they still created pecking order for group spots. The funniest part is their argument to get away from the "holy trinity" of EQ. So now instead of warrior, cleric, enchanter, every group needs archetype A, B, and C. Oh and since your all the same choosing who you want in your group comes down to what, looks? Fight it all you want, certian classes will always be better at particular things then others. And the MMO mob has pre-determind that to be take pain = best tank, biggest heal = best "cleric", most damage/crowd control = 3rd group spot. IMHO the trick is not class balancing but world balancing. What if there were quests/bosses who might deal very little damage but are constantly regenerating/healing. Your damage dealing "tank" now becomes more attractive for that instance over one that can take a beating better. Of course, this also requires there to be some balance in quest rewards.
One thing I was looking forward to with Vangaurd was the "new" MMORPG classes like diplomats. Perhaps someone who could "unlock" or make possible certian quests by his negotiation skills with NPCs, or take advantage of difficult battles by persuading some of the enemy to turn against their friends. Of course, once you dump this special sort of class into an archetype where their counterpart uses magic to simply destroy their way through you have lost a huge element of an immersive RPG.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me say first: If you are not a fan of the game DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE, you probably won't enjoy it.
I for one love the original 2 games. (#3 and 4 not as much) I will never forget sitting down to play the first one late and night and being terrified. Never before did a game provide that level of horror and suspense.
The movie is true to the game genre, and for that I loved it. It is loosely centered around ideas and themes from the first game so if that was your favorite (as is mine) you should enjoy it.
1) Dialogue is similar to the games: Not A+, but this was originally a Japanese game and I imagine there is a small amount of "All-your-baseness" that someone ignorant to the games might take as just poorly written character dialogue.
2) There are a lot of pyscological themes in the movie, just as the game. If you look at it more then a slasher film you will walk away with more
3) YES there is violence and a lot of disturbing imagery. What do you expect? Again, did you play any of the games?? The games include murder, blood, violence, rape, strange religous imagery, etc. Expect the same in the film
4) If you walk away confused at the end then good, again the movie succeeds in keeping true to the series. Please, anyone who has played this series before tell me you weren't scratching your end when you completed the game. (It will be amusing to see if the DVD contains alternate endings similar to each game)
Is this movie going to get rave reviews? No, becuase most people out there won't appriciate it for what it is. Is it the best "video game movie" I have seen. By a long shot.
WoW did do something right. It used an established revenue model and simply did what Blizzard does best; make quality games that perfectly fit the genre. (Starcraft/Warcraft= arguably best RTS ever, WoW = arguably best MMO ever)
The real issue that I think these people are missing comes down to the fact they want to get console like revenue in the PC market via the MMO revenue model. They want to attract buyers that might pay $60 for the newest EA sports game but don't touch PC MMOs presumable for their time requirements and or monthly costs. I beta'ed Auto Assault. Sure it was fun, it was fast, but it also played like a Playstation game. The fact it was MMO was completely irrelevant to me. I could have just been just as satistified if all those people running around were NPCs. In the end, sure I might buy the game for $30, but would I ever pay to play beyond that? No, never.
IMHO if you are going to make an MMO then spend the time to make a quality game that is attractive to the targeted audience (aka, fantasy, SciFi) and yes follows the traditional model. Make quests more dynamic, make the world more interactive, make characters more customizable and unique to the player. (See some features of the new Eldar Scrolls: Oblivion, not MMO but great RPG concepts) If, on the other hand you want to make a "quick play, smaller scale" (aka cheaper to produce/maintain) game, why bother trying to fit the MMO model? Put it out for PS2/PS3/XBOX.
As an "older" player of MMOPG's it blew me away when I started seeing public broadcast chat at a early teen or younger level of maturity. (I started with EQ and I think the younger crowd didnt really show up on this genre until a few years later) I was thinking: What so these kids parents went out and got them a $40-$50 game then handed over their credit card for the monthly fee? "Go ahead Billy, play away"
;)
I'm glad to see part of the reasoning behind this is the parents interaction with thier kids. MMORPG's especially, foster social (somethings good, other times bad) interaction, and if a family can "group" together it seems like a real positive way to spend family time. (As long as its balanced with ball games and outdoor stuff
However, I think the sad fact (Having personally witnessed this tons of times) is that most games, especially MMOs = ultimate babysitter. As long as they are old enough to go to the bathroom and feed/cloth themselves, $15 a month buys you all the free time in the world. But, I would be even more concerned with parents that played certian games like FPS with their kids. "That's the 6th time I've killed you tonight Billy, start working on your Sk1llz!!"
I completely agree. I only played EQ2 for a couple months after release and the despite the archetype model, they still created pecking order for group spots. The funniest part is their argument to get away from the "holy trinity" of EQ. So now instead of warrior, cleric, enchanter, every group needs archetype A, B, and C. Oh and since your all the same choosing who you want in your group comes down to what, looks? Fight it all you want, certian classes will always be better at particular things then others. And the MMO mob has pre-determind that to be take pain = best tank, biggest heal = best "cleric", most damage/crowd control = 3rd group spot. IMHO the trick is not class balancing but world balancing. What if there were quests/bosses who might deal very little damage but are constantly regenerating/healing. Your damage dealing "tank" now becomes more attractive for that instance over one that can take a beating better. Of course, this also requires there to be some balance in quest rewards.
One thing I was looking forward to with Vangaurd was the "new" MMORPG classes like diplomats. Perhaps someone who could "unlock" or make possible certian quests by his negotiation skills with NPCs, or take advantage of difficult battles by persuading some of the enemy to turn against their friends. Of course, once you dump this special sort of class into an archetype where their counterpart uses magic to simply destroy their way through you have lost a huge element of an immersive RPG.