WHAT THE FRACK!?
TheVampireBoy's forum posts
@draxyle: I reckon this happens more then we care to realize. A publisher lends money to a developer and they squander the money on a game which is being published by a rival publisher (2K in this instance.). It really does paint gearbox in a bad way and future publishers may find it difficult to trust them if they make this a niche of theirs. But like I said, the picture isn't fully in front of me, so I'm counting it a speculation... Highly plausible speculation, non the less.
@CircleNine: I don't know whether or not you misread what I wrote. I too have my own reservations about the statement, I too have the same thought going round my head. Whether he is Q/A or just an outside tester, how does he know of money changing hands? That I feel is a deeper question. Maybe this person has inside ties to someone within gearbox? I dunno. But I mentioned all the doubts of the solidity of his statement I have. I read it on gaming blend, I'll get you a link. Gotta read it all, but the statement is in there. 6th paragraph down I believe.
A tester for ALIENS: colonial marines WII-U has spoken out on reddit before the statement was removed and his account deleted. He contradicted the gearbox statement when they said the WII-U version is the definitive version, the anonymous user said it is in fact the worst of all versions. With tedious and dull minigames and even worse AI. He was also slapped with a cease and desist order from SEGA and gearbox.
He also said, and I'm paraphrasing here so bare with me.
"The money Sega paid to Gearbox for working on Aliens: Colonial Marines was used for Borderlands 2 instead."
If this is the case, gearbox games have committed fraud. Misuse of budget for film, television or video games is quite a serious offense. I think we kind of have our answers people. But I am still confused (if the case may be) as to why SEGA are covering for the development team if gearbox half swiped money intended for one product and was used for another? What are your thoughts to this anonymous reddit user? Is there truth to his statements? (Besides the fact that the WII-U version will totally suck.)
It has just turned the 24th of December in the UK, so I want to wish everyone a happy, safe and joyous Christmas and a very prosperous new year to all on the staff and in the community. Have fun people. :)
I disagree with Toms review, it just sounds like the ramblings of Yahtzee from escapist magazine; and come on people, do you really take in to consideration the ranting of a cynical English dude when you're weighing the option of buying games? His review is what I call half baked; he's only touching the small parts of what I thought was a much deeper story line then any other halo game which has came before it. It was more philosophical then its predecessors in certain points and it had some great plot points through out the narrative. Sure, there were points when the story did get a little tiresome, but that happens in all forms of media; whether it's books or films, lulls in plots are bound to happen. They're a device which is supposed to build any sense of tension or anxiety whilst giving people the right amount of exposition, they break up the action and help set a sense of pacing for transitioning from one engagement to the next.
Another thing I like about halo 4' campaign was the interplay between characters, I have always loved the banter between chief and Cortana; but this time it felt a little more grounded and serious in places. I liked the sense of roll reversal, that something synthetic and artificial was worrying about its own mortality whilst chief came across as even more machine like and distant from the rest of humanity. Chief gave me the impression that he didn't want to help out humanity this time, a part of me thinks he doesn't really care anymore. He's like John Mc'clain, the wrong place at the wrong time; he saves humanity not because he wants to, but because he has to. And there is a difference between wanting to and having to.
I think Tom isn't really a deep thinking kind of gamer. His comments come across as a call of duty player bashing halo for what it doesn't have but call of duty has, like "Halo sucks because you can't get air strikes and stuff like that." No, we just prefer to do our own killing and not throw it down to a 'be all and end all' predator strike. But I'm getting side tracked there, Tom has missed the point big time; he refuses to see the bigger picture and dive deeper in to the story. He also doesn't seem to realize that the campaign doesn't stop after the credits, there is spartan ops; which is pretty damn good so far.
Anyways, halo 4 is probably the best game of 2012. It's design is fantastic, it sounds amazing and its vision to strive to become more is just breathtaking. I gave the game a good 9.5/10 (because I think competitive multi-player is pretty crappy and nothing more then a soul grind.) But Toms review, 0/10. It's just an asinine rant with no constructive criticism or anything worthwhile. Reviewers like that come across as pretty dull people, and granted, I can be like that from time to time with certain games ( I love tearing call of duty games apart.). But we all have out tastes, at least write something worthwhile about them.