Clbull's forum posts

#1 Posted by Clbull (127 posts) -

30 bucks for:
 
- Sonic Adventure (A game which is so outdated to today's standards that it is unbelieveable, plus pales in comparison to Sonic Adventure 2, the infinitely better sequel)
- Sega Bass Fishing
- Space Channel 5 Part 2
- Crazy Taxi (An arcade game which gets boring after about an hour of playing and lacks variety in gameplay modes)
 
No thanks. Sega should ask the question of "Would fans buy this" once they include either Sonic Adventure 2 or Jet Set Radio...

#2 Posted by Clbull (127 posts) -

We need better videogame related shows on television.

#3 Posted by Clbull (127 posts) -
@falserelic said:
" I've been hearing about this game for years now.It seems like it never gets old for people.Would someone care to explain whats special about this game? "
The game's mechanics are pretty damn good.
The social aspect of the game is very good if you find a nice guild of friends to play with.
#4 Edited by Clbull (127 posts) -

It will be hard to beat Steam with this. I applaud Microsoft for trying to take on the digital distribution giant, and I think they are moving in the right direction with gaming, but its worth mentioning that Steam has many many flaws at this time including:
 

  • A buggy offline mode. Unless offline mode is explicitly activated while you are online and have games activated, you will not be able to play your games. Plus if Steam decides a game needs to be updated, you cannot play ir regardless of your connection status.
  • DRM. The idea that each game is tied to only one account, requires Steam and requires an internet connection to activate is worrying for some users.
  • Resource intensive client. I can only think of one similar platform that is even laggier, and that is Xfire.
However, Microsoft has to take several things to account if they want to beat Valve/Steam at their own game, including:
  • DRM. Steam is quite restrictive at times. If Microsoft can reduce the amount of DRM bullshit they place in their downloads, I think more people could flock to GFW:L than Steam. If Microsoft go the opposite direction and add crap like copy protection rootkits or installation limits to their downloads, then GFW:L will fail hard.
  • Availability of titles: If they have next to no titles available (i.e. like OnLive has at the moment) then I think people will flock to Steam more. If they do not have third party support, they will falter and Steam will remain on top, guaranteed. I believe it was Steve Ballmer who once said "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS"
  • Windows Genuine Advantage. Its annoying, and has been known to mark some people who bought their OS as criminals (either because they bought a copy of Windows which they didn't know was pirated or due to bugs in the system.) If they make WGA a mandatory requirement to download their client/use their service, I think it will put off a lot of people.
  • International pricing: I think this is a very crucial consideration for Microsoft and third party developers. Steam (or rather third party developers who decide the game prices) have really fucked over international markets in terms of prices. When a game would cost more in € or $AU than it would in $US or £, then you know you are not getting a fair deal. I don't mean increased prices due to higher taxation on goods, I mean prices going even higher than that.
  • Offline mode support.
  • Possible cross-platform support. Unlikely as Microsoft are directly competing with the likes of Mac OSX, Linux, Solaris etc plus few PC games are developed for/to include a non-Windows market.
#5 Edited by Clbull (127 posts) -

Maybe breaking the cost barrier is the real revolution that still must to happen for innovation not to be a dirty word. As browser-based games become less of a chore to run, I can see such things not being a big deal.  Then again, my current browser is such a slug that I won't hold my breath for my being able to take part.   


Runescape started out as a game in 2001 as a project by Andrew Gower which he operated from a server in his own home. By late 2001/early 2002, he met with two other people including his brother, Paul and Constant Tedder to set up Jagex Games and keep the MMORPG running.
 
Look at where Runescape got to within 10 years: 

  • Subscription based premium service. Namely paying about $5 - 6 per month for premium features which made up a vast majority of the content ingame
  • A huge amount of updates, normally weekly, fortnightly or in rare cases, monthly.
  • Most popular free-to-play MMORPG for several years (including currently even) according to the Guiness Book of Records.
  • Five revisions of the Runetek game engine which Runescape was built on. Including many graphical improvements which make the game look closer to but not quite as graphically equivalent as Vanilla WoW. Considering previously, it looked almost as bad graphically as a SNES game using Mode 7.
  • At least a million subscribers. I don't know their exact Members' figures but I heard its at least 1M. More successful than many other MMORPGs in terms of subscriber base.
 
My point is, as proven by Runescape, you don't need craploads of money to start up a basic MMORPG from the ground up. However, if you are trying to enter it immediately on a large scale, yes it will be a large investment. The problem is that many developers are just shelling out money for MMORPGs with a severe lack of innovation and often copying other game genre's mechanics but badly.
 
Example 1: All Points Bulletin. It was basically a poor GTA clone, its only real redeeming features being an extensive custom character editor and the fact that its set in a massively multiplayer world. Apparently over $100,000,000 of investors' money was poured into this game and it tanked like crazy. This game is now officially shut down.
 
Example 2: Warhammer Online. Very similar gameplay to World of Warcraft but with slightly different classes and collision detection between other players. However, it did so many things wrong that it convinced people not to pay a subscription to continue playing the game. Namely, these problems included piss-poor player vs monster content, a severe lack of any endgame content apart from scenario grinds and Land of the Dead, and a huge emphasis on grinding in the same old scenarios and open realm vs realm combat environments over and over again.
 
My point is, until developers realise they have to make a fun, innovative game that works in an MMO world rather than think "World of Warcraft is successful, why don't we make our own cash cow?", we will continually witness a stampede of crap MMO games.


#6 Posted by Clbull (127 posts) -

I put down no because I think it can be a curse as well as a blessing.
 
What if the relationship goes badly and ends in a divorce? Then you will both have to battle for custody of each other's wealth, kids, etc in a climatic "battle" in court. And apparently, divorce is not approved of by most religions.

#7 Edited by Clbull (127 posts) -

If this is true, then Gearbox software have more of a chance of finishing it than 3DRealms did.
 
In fact, I don't know how 3DRealms burned through so many goddamm game engines.

#8 Posted by Clbull (127 posts) -

Whose logo is that to the left of the 2K Games logo?

#9 Edited by Clbull (127 posts) -

Okay, I am going to give my absolute opinion on your review and the Sonic series and the direction its been going in.
 
You said that since Sonic has made the jump to 3D, not a single good game has been produced which has actually been 3D, and I actually agree with you on the most part. Sonic 3D, Sonic R, Sonic Heroes, Sonic 06', Sonic Unleashed, Sonic and the Secret Rings and Sonic and the Black Knight sucked ass.
 
However, let me say that you were wrong in the respect that two decent 3D Sonic games have been made previously, and those are Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2. I agree that Sonic Adventure isn't as great now as it was back then but Sonic Adventure 2 is still a freaking awesome game in its own right.
 
I think you were wrong about speed making the old 2D Sonic games brilliant and saying it was speed that makes Sonic good is just making you sound like a Sega fanboy. As Sonic Rush proves, too much speed is more of a hinderence than an asset. Often, you will end up running uncontrollably into walls or enemies because you are going so goddamm fast.  Sonic did go very fast in Sonic 3 but it felt quite fluid because some of the levels were designed for such speed. Take for instance Hydrocity Zone. Now that is an absolutely brilliant speedy level, whereas other levels such as Marble Garden or Chemical Plant Zone were designed more for platforming than speed. I think its this which modern Sonic games are missing.
 
With Sonic Rush, half the time you'd be holding down the X or Y button. The same went for Sonic Unleashed. There was a huge lack of actual "platforming" in the game. And even when there were paltforming sections, the controls were so poor that you'd often leap off a platform to your death due to how Sonic controlled in mid-air.
 
You claim that the 3D Sonic games were not fast enough. They were.  The problem with those games were that the controls were so horribly piss-poor that controlling Sonic the Hedgehog is about as easy as balacing on a tightrope while you have razor sharp knives thrown at you. The daytime levels in Sonic Unleashed, the oversensitive controls in Sonic Heroes and the really fast Egg Carrier chase sections in Sonic 06' were notorious for their terrible controls. It would often be near impossible to get Sonic to walk in a straight line or dodge things because Sonic Team had done a half assed job at perfecting the control scheme. It also explains why the Light Dash rarely worked in Sonic 06' too.

#10 Posted by Clbull (127 posts) -

Is it just me, or are game companies now looking to milk long dead franchises? Lets see.
 
Take for instance Mega Man 9 and Mega Man 10. Now I haven't played said games nor the original Mega Man games but I heard Capcom did a hell of a job with the game and made it just as nostalgic and most importantly fun as the original Mega Man games. This is surprising. Especially since Mega Man earned a spot in the Guiness Book of Records as the most milked video game series.
 
I also haven't played the new Rocket Knight, which I first thought was an attempt at beating a decomposed horse because Sparkster: RKA2 was released over 16 years ago. But apparently its alright, although most levels look the same and the gameplay is pretty bland from what I hear. From the screenshots I have seen of it, Sparkster just doesn't look the same as he did in RKA2. I mean what happened with the badass spiky hair? Why does he suddenly look similar to how he looked in the original Rocket Knight Adventures but less fat?
 
Speaking of a "long overdue sequel" I have played. New Super Mario Bros was alright, but Nintendo missed out on the chance to make something truly spectacular. It felt more like the original Super Mario Bros than anything due to the lack of powerups. Sure you could turn tiny, turn huge or become a turtle but those powerups were so infrequent and annoyingly were needed to reach certain exits that New Super Mario Bros just becomes more of a chore than fun.
 
Why do you think Super Mario World was and still is the best Mario game? Well....
 

  • 6 "islands", each filled with many secret exits. And lets not forget Bowser's lair, the Star World and Bonus World as well.
  • Not limited to tiny Mario, large Mario and fireball Mario. Oh no, theres a frequent Cape Mario powerup too, and this powerup isn't infrequently found and isn't a pain in the ass to get.
  • Unique bosses. Half the time in NSMB, you just stomp on Baby Bowser's head 3 times, or fight the occasional unique boss.
  • The final battle with Bowser was actually pretty good.
 
I don't know whether I am looking forward to Sonic 4 or not. I think Sega could potentially ruin it because its episodic, it doesn't feel retro enough, and based on how bad almost every Sonic game since Sonic Heroes has been.....