Posts by Thrik

Yeah, that's why I reckon an adventure game with the engine could be amazing. A much more relaxed kind of game you can enjoy on the bus, and thanks to the lack of frantic camera movement the fidelity could be superb. Plus as it's like the first robust engine we'll hopefully see it used for more interesting genres rather than just just first-/third-person action.

Well I can understand watching a bit of it to get a general idea of the quality and gameplay, but to watch even a large portion of the game seems bizarre to me — it's going to completely negate the impact of twists, surprising moments, etc. Even the gameplay will be less exciting because you already know what's going to happen and where. I personally put huge value on that first time I ever play a game because I can never recreate that feeling of it all being new and fresh, even if I replay it. Each to their own I guess.

Quote from D3ads

Uhhh.. there's a lot more to it than MW2, you should notice that pretty much all the content is new, there's barely anything used from IW's games. If you're talking about multiplayer though.. then meh, I can't comment.

Some people buy primarily for single-player, some buy primarily for multiplayer. The impression I've been getting from a lot of friends and such is that the single-player is superb, whereas the multiplayer is very much the usual fare. So if you've already invested loads of time into MW2 and have lots of friends still playing it, probably not worth it. Kind of like those who didn't move on from Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 2142.

Also I find it really weird you're watching the whole of the game rather than actually playing it D3. What's the point? Why not wait until you can play it properly?

Following the tech demo released a couple of months ago, the inevitable announcement of an actual game using Unreal Engine on the iPhone is upon us! Looks ace IMO:

Who knows whether or not the game will be fun (though with Epic the chances are reasonable), but I definitely like the potential of having such a robust engine running on phones — most 3D iPhone games I've tried just feel awkward and difficult to control, whereas Epic's tech demo was lovely. Of course what I really want to see are third-person Broken Sword-esque adventure games done with such an engine.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2010/11/ ... lade-epic/

Quote from Buddy

Still looks like the alyx model.

Haha, I see what you mean! I never noticed Valve ripped that off so blatantly.

[attachment=0]alyx.jpg[/attachment]

Yeah, UK retailers are wonderful at breaking release dates. People on Facebook were going on about Fable 3 a good several days before it came out due to their online orders being delivered early.

Probably comparable to the Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood multiplayer too, which is also based around each player being given targets and everyone having to find and kill their target. Have to say that appeals to me much more, especially because of all the NPCs you can blend in amongst.

I think it's kind of easy to see why Bloody Good Time might struggle — it's not easy to succinctly describe what it's about, even if you watch videos. From the surface it just looks like a fast-paced deathmatch game with a weird cartoon theme, which let's face it isn't going to impress anyone. The theme also doesn't really suit the gameplay IMO: the concept of murders going down on a ship whodunit-style was cool. On a movie set? Not really...

I also heard the NPCs were removed and identifying the players made too easy, transforming it from the fairly cool concept of observation and discreet killing to nothing more than cat-and-mouse deathmatch.

Not that I don't respect the team involved, and I understand the production issues must have had a big impact (though I suspect some questionable creative decisions would have remained intact regardless), and obviously I'm only speculating having not played it — but even as someone who's probably more open to unusual gameplay experiences than most I can't help but have a decidedly 'meh' feel about the game.

To be fair the first redesign of the interface was an absolutely massive improvement. I truly hated the original blades interface with every fibre of my being, both for its aesthetics and usability.

Video here:

Looks mostly the same really, save for more conspicuous use of the avatars and a general lick of paint to the interface (the video guy's crappy wallpaper notwithstanding). I can see some nice tweaks such as the fact that you can now see the previous box when you cycle through them, whereas before you had no way of knowing what the previous box was or even if there was one apart from the '3/20' or whatever at the bottom.

I wonder if this new version runs in proper 1080p. I swear the old one ran at 720p (even if upscaled) because it looked suspiciously blurry on my screen in comparison to the ultra-sharp interface on the PS3.

God of War 3 was awesome the whole way through, man! Probably a perfect example of how to do that type of game IMO.

Big fan of both myself. I'm not going to go so far as to say they're the best movies ever or anything like that because there're literally dozens of supremely fine movies I could never choose between, but they're definitely a superb pair of films. I know hype makes a lot of people feel almost obligated to hate something, but there's really not that much to criticise about them. I really enjoyed them as someone who's never particularly been a Batman fan and felt they communicated their relatively complicated plots well.

Made a start on Fable 3. As a long-time Fable fan it appears to be more of the same but still excellent and things have been changed for the better in most cases.

Oh absolutely, I'm not saying console distribution is some kind of holy grail or anything. I was more pointing out that whereas consoles used to be a completely closed arena and you needed to be on the PC if you wanted to get something out as an individual or a small team, now it's very much possible on consoles. It won't necessarily be any more fruitful on consoles (although I still think it's likely console sales are likely to do better), but the opportunities are all there. The PC is no longer the exclusive domain of budding developers.

I can't think of any Minecraft-type successes because that's on a level all of its own, having literally become a phenomenon. But I would imagine things like Braid, Limbo, Flower, and Fat Princess have done well on consoles but would have had trouble getting far on the PC. My gut feeling, anyway.

Really I love both the PC and consoles and both have opportunities. I just found Ken's implication that the PC was the only place breeding up-and-coming developers a bit of an outdated notion.

Well, when I say releasing I do mean through some kind of distribution model that hosts it, markets it, etc. On the 360 that'd be LIVE, on the PS3 that'd be PSN, and on the PC that'd primarily be Steam. Naturally you can always release it yourself through your own website or whatever, but the odds of it actually taking off are a million to one unless you've already got a dedicated base (which will still only get you so far). Even with PC distribution models like Steam, the vast majority of small-scale releases seem to flop — including ones close to home such as Zero Gear.

I'm not going to assert anything as I don't have the numbers, but I'd imagine if you were to release an indie game on the PC and on consoles the console releases would far outsell the PC version. Out of curiosity, what indie PC successes have there been in recent times beyond Minecraft?

Weird, I always thought of the Japanese as pretty much the origin of most things that make good games today. The influence that even single series like Mario and Zelda have had is immeasurable. Anyway, gaming history is too vast and complicated to attribute specific things to any one region — the UK alone is a massive player thanks to Grand Theft Auto's innovation, for example.

I do think Ken's argument is fairly weak as the openness of consoles is very rapidly catching up with the PC, to the point where if it were any more open there'd be too much shit to sift through. Getting a console game published through the online stores isn't that hard for any team or individual producing quality games, and you can get development tools relatively easily — neither of which were the case in the past. If you want to make and release stuff on PS3 or 360 it's not that different to doing the same on the PC.

I do see his point that a lot of developers were born on the PC and indeed most developers still use PCs for their actual work, but I can't imagine many new developers are going to make their mark on the PC seeing as its market doesn't tend to result in many hits (even if a very small number of PC games like Minecraft are spectacularly successful). He's using examples that are really from a bygone era, hence why pretty much all of them are now primarily console developers and there're very few PC-orientated developers nowadays.

D3 That's tragic, my thoughts and sympathies are with you.

Frie, I agree there's no equivalent to real-world girl experience — I only started looking at online dating after getting over my fears and such IRL, then just used the web as another way of meeting girls I could get serious about alongside night clubs, day-to-day life, etc. Turns out the web led to good results most quickly though (Albeit after misfires both online and IRL!).

Haha. A dating guide based on game analogies would probably prove very popular.

But yes D3, you need to be in it to win it: if you don't proactively put yourself in situations with girls and then actually chase them you're very unlikely to get anywhere. I used to be very similar to you in that I was pretty much terrified of seriously approaching girls with dating in mind, but then I decided to start pushing myself to talk to them whenever I could and before long it became natural to the point where I could ask a girl out over a coffee shop counter and get the number — a far cry from months earlier when I'd duck away from even eye contact with them. It's just about breaking down that fear of rejection.

I'd seriously recommend you try Plenty of Fish. It's not only the biggest dating site in the UK (especially with 18 to 30-year-old girls) but it's also free. I know two people IRL who met their long-term partners through it, and I myself have been with a girl I met through it for five months now — and that was after meeting three other girls, all of whom I went from initially messaging to dating within about a week. OK so those first three didn't work out due to being way off personality-wise, but the point is I managed to meet four girls and find the perfect one (who happens to be hot and a hardcore gamer ) within weeks from the comfort of my sofa. All Nottingham girls too of course.

The taboo with regards to online dating has mostly faded — most people I know openly talk about it and/or have done it, mostly because nowadays people in their 20s find it difficult to find time to socialise and meet new people due to work, friends moving on in life and settling down, etc. Also most of the girls on there tend to be relatively serious about having an actual relationship and are willing to meet fairly quickly if you play your cards right — none of this online messaging for weeks/months bullshit. Just do it... tonight!! :cool:

Girlfriends are excellent at dressing their guys in the worst clothing ever because they find it cute and like to experiment. Beware.

Be* are indeed good, it's with them that I had my 20mb/s connection in Mansfield and they have no kind of capping. Unfortunately their coverage is limited and I can't get it in the absolute centre of Nottingham.

TalkTalk are good too, offering up to 24mb/s just like Be*. They also have very relaxed capping and are willing to change your settings on their end to produce optimal gaming latency, etc.

Of course they all use BT's network apart from Virgin who have their own fibre infrastructure in place, so whether or not you can get anywhere near 24mb/s is questionable. Depends entirely upon your distance from their exchanges.

Yeah, it's pretty lame but we're not doing that badly — the US is at least as bad as us and they're pretty much internet central. The problem is the old copper phone networks were laid out long ago in these countries, so taking all that out and replacing them with fibre is an insanely costly thing to do. And we're not talking a few million here, we're talking something in the region of £15 billion last time I checked. That's a serious problem even for a company as massive as BT.

Some other countries are much better off because their lines were laid down more recently and they had the foresight to use fibre knowing it'd eventually pay off, just like Virgin/NTL/Diamond Cable/whatever laid out fibre across much of the UK in the 90s (which is already available and capable of doing at least 100mb/s). The reason the UK/US progress has been slow is because we already have a fully functioning phone/broadband network and it's simply an upgrade, and also there wasn't enough competition in the past forcing BT to do it quickly. Of course that's changed now the internet has continued to boom and Virgin has started threatening BT by actually making proper use of its fibre network.

But yes, again it sucks. I'm stuck on 8mb/s in the centre of Nottingham right now, despite being on a fairly luxurious 20mb/s in my previous small town of Mansfield.