TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Open Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-02-2013, 04:56 PM   #901
Henry Jones VII
IndyFan
 
Henry Jones VII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
And what do you think about it?

Well I'm a big fan of soccer so this game was a no brainer. the game is pretty good and entertaining. the controls are the same as FIFA standard soccer games, so it was easy to get in the action. the graphics are terrific, a great diversity of stadiums/arenas.

recommended
Henry Jones VII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2013, 09:28 AM   #902
Ska
IndyFan
 
Ska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,438
Just beat Assassin's Creed 3 last night. Really enjoyed the game, despite a few glitchy parts. Not quite the ending I expected (for Desmond's story anyways). Looking forward to seeing how they continue his story in AC4.

Picked up Tomb Raider a few weeks ago for $15. It was on sale at Gamestop for $40, and I traded in my Ezio trilogy for $25 towards it. Surprised I got that much for it. I guess it was technically 3 games in one.

The little I've played of TR so far is creeping me out. Seems like a great game though. I've yet to hear anything negative about it. I'm in the rare crowd that for the most part enjoyed every TR made. Yes, even Angel of Darkness.
Ska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 04:33 AM   #903
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Confirmed. Well, sort of. CFO John K. Martin confirmed the third outing in the Arkham series is set to debut in 2013.

And it has been subsequently -- and officially -- announced: Batman: Arkham Origins.



Deathstroke. That is all.

Note the reference to Queen Industries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska
Just beat Assassin's Creed 3 last night.

And you're just in time for the marketing blitz on Black Flag!



I have nearly zero free time these days, but I did download my first game ever from the PS Store.



As somebody who grew up with the classic arcade sidescrolling brawlers, Guacamelee has been a lot of fun. It remains true to its 16-bit origins, and adds a lot of new features. The fantastical mash-up of Mexican mythology and lucha libré is exceptionally well-done. The best since, well, Grim Fandango.

Remember Karateka? I've spent quite a bit of time with Bladeless. Use IE. It doesn't appear to like Firefox.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 07:36 AM   #904
ListenLiveLong
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Geheimhaven
Posts: 42
Run 2.


Not so much of video games as they are computer games, however. I do have a Wii and Xbox 360 which I don't use too often.

I'm considering getting Minecraft. I like to play Angry Birds once in a while as well.
ListenLiveLong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 05:27 PM   #905
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,920
Before I looked back, I didn't realize how long it's been since I've last graced this thread with my presence.

While I've been busy with this and that, I've also found the necessary moments to clear quite a handful of titles from the backlog.

---

Earlier, I put Sleeping Dogs on hiatus in order to wait out for the final DLC packs to be out in order to not having to go back to the game once they were out, but ironically enough, for that one time I held out, I found that I would probably have been happier with the game had I been done at the conclusion of the main story. Neither of the story DLC I played immediately after managed to leave me with a feeling that they brought anything extra to what we'd already seen.

Okay, Nightmare in North Point was refreshingly kooky, but there was an obvious difference between the production values of the main game and continuation story in the Year of the Snake that ended up being nothing but detracting. I was hoping it'd be a proper story involving some actual investigation like the cop cases of the main game, but all we got was practically a hastily put together collection of minor beat cop jobs tied together with a loose story. Hard to recommend.

---

Up next, Dead Space 3. Technically very familiar gameplay when compared to the earlier parts, but still, some of the magic was lost. Perhaps it was the whole tone of the game. Whereas in the earlier parts, Isaac Clarke was a scared-out-of-his-wits engineer clambering through narrow, dark corridors, always low on ammo and forced to improvise through and through, here we had plenty of open space, with equipment similarly plentiful and even the Necromorphs were not the scary supernatural space zombies anymore, but merely a perfectly mundane alien race, with a penchant for body horror. This was also reflected in Isaac's personality, who was taking the whole killing of space zombies and other crazy things happening to him far more casually. As a result, a lot of the unique atmosphere surrounding the earlier two games was lost, the end result being almost a yet another corridor shooter.

Okay, I think the whole experience was geared towards co-op. Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to try it out with a pal, but from what I could gather from external sources, it was actually trying to do something new on that field. So they've got my kudos for that.

---

Then, Tomb Raider. Surprisingly enough, I didn't really enjoy this much as I thought I should have. I mean, it was a good game and all, but it lacked something... a soul. It became quite clear pretty early on that while the devs were out to make a good game, they were not out to make to an unique game. There was practically no features whatsoever that would have made it memorable. It simply recycled the most reliable tricks in the book with an extra layer of polish.


The story didn't do much to help either. I tried to find an analogue that would best help describe what I felt with it, and came up with this:

Imagine you've heard of this series people think is pretty good. It's called Lost. One night you decide to settle down and catch an episode, see what it's about. Only, it's a random episode in the middle of the season four, and as a new viewer, you're immediately lost (no pun) on the plot and what is supposed to be going on.

Luckily, you're watching it with a friend who's far more versed in the series, and he's doing his best to explain the backstory and other intricacies that are brand new to you. But well, despite his best efforts he can't quite do it in manner that would give you a full understanding by the time the credits roll.

This is what Tomb Raider does. It dumps the player in the middle of it all, gives no explanations on who these one-dimensional characters are or what are their roles or relationships, and later tries to amend this by playing the helpful friend by giving the player a collection of VERY brief text logs that are supposed to serve as exposition.

It is, simply put, irredeemable. With Lost, one at least has the chance to go back and catch the earlier three seasons' worth of episodes. Can one do the same with the rebooted Tomb Raider? Well... no.

---

Finally, one more game I completed just yesterday. I think I'll save more detailed comments for my next post, but let's say this... it was probably the most fun I've had playing a game in a while. And note, just playing the game. It wasn't exactly a memorable experience because of the story or setting or other aesthetic qualities, but simply because it was a pretty damn fun game to play. Definition of insanity, indeed.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 05:40 AM   #906
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Is that this game, The Testament of Sherlock Holmes?

You might be interested in the tech demo Focus Interactive put out for Crimes & Punishments. I was hoping for a L.A. Noire level of immersion with the last game, but the upgrade to Unreal 3 looks like we might be getting closer to that type of world.

Even if we don't, it's going to look miles beyond Testament.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Finally, one more game I completed just yesterday. I think I'll save more detailed comments for my next post, but let's say this... it was probably the most fun I've had playing a game in a while. And note, just playing the game. It wasn't exactly a memorable experience because of the story or setting or other aesthetic qualities, but simply because it was a pretty damn fun game to play. Definition of insanity, indeed.

Do tell.



Note: The above image is from the original Port Royale game, but in absence of a really good image or trailer for the third image, I've opted for this one.

My curiosity was piqued when this was initially announced several months back, but the yahoos at the local Gamestop couldn't find the title in their system. So I forgot about it until a couple of days back when there it was -- sitting right on the used game rack. Picked it up for about twenty bucks, and have put in about a dozen hours so far.

Early impression: 7/10

The game's naval engagements are frustratingly difficult. No, not hard; just frustrating. For example, I'm cutting across the keel of a corvette in an attempt to take out her rudder. Despite having my cannon fully loaded and primed, the game won't let me fire. It's not only until after I've completed the maneuver that the game allows me to fire because a handy green icon around the enemy vessel indicates as such. In the meantime, I've taken three-or-four broadsides from her sister ships.

Despite being able to control cannon with the trigger buttons, I am only able to fire a side at a time. Independent control of port and starboard cannon with both triggers would have been great. Plus, canister/grape shot & chain shot don't seem to be particularly effective; a full broadside at close range only resulted in a couple of enemy deaths. Not nearly as effective as round shot.

Fortunately, the trading and economics half of the game is robust. Drawing deeply on mercantilism, Port Royale 3 places a premium on most finished goods; i.e., rum over cane sugar; cigars/cigarillos/whatever over tobacco; and clothing over textiles. To achieve this the game steps into Sim City, Tropico territory by allowing you to build & staff the various businesses around town. You'll need to keep those businesses supplied with raw materials, though. To do that you'll need to have several ships ferrying goods, quite literally, from Port A to Port B. Once set up, the game's AI handles the assigned task remarkably well.

Eventually you're supposed to be able to be appointed governorships as well as sacking enemy towns. I'm not that far in yet.

Anyway, if you like trading simulations or are a sucker for the time period, I would recommend picking up a copy of Port Royale 3 on the cheap.

One final point: The most irritating aspect of the game is the lack of a comprehensive manual. A lot of the symbols around the various ports of call can be deciphered, but a lot of them can't. Is a religious coup going on? Are those poltergeists? Kalypso Media should be commended for putting together a decent manual, but failed when it came to giving you all the details you need.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2013, 03:06 PM   #907
Nurhachi1991
IndyFan
 
Nurhachi1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pankot Palace
Posts: 4,771
What do you guys think of the OUYA?

http://www.ouya.tv/
Nurhachi1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2013, 05:54 AM   #908
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nurhachi1991
What do you guys think of the OUYA?

I think I need a lesson in proper pronunciation; otherwise, not much. Like all gaming systems, it's going to come down to the software support. If gets a few notable games, people will pick it up. Beyond that, it's going to have to fight tooth and nail for any real market share. Predictable enough, all eyes are currently on Sony & Microsoft.

Speaking of which, this just lept up onto my "must watch" list. Square-Enix continues to have interesting titles cropping up. Hopefully they'll be able to right a ship decimated by over reaching.

Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 07:17 AM   #909
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,617
Since this thread is now for things we might be playing in the future, there's this video for Wolfenstein: New Order:



As others have commented, the video is interesting up until they show the actual game!
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 05:20 AM   #910
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Since this thread is now for things we might be playing in the future...

Not exactly. It has (appropriately enough) become a catch-all thread for any, and all video game related discussion. Outside of those select franchises, of course, that have warranted their own threads.

Now that The Raven is very near to being an officially dead scene, I don't suppose it really matters.

Following Microsoft's catastrophic blundering with their 24-hr authentication cycles and the inherent privacy issues with Kinect 2.0, did Sony torpedo the X-Bone before it got out of the harbor?



The reaction from 'round the 'net certainly seems to think so. Especially with its $399 price tag. I hadn't actually intended on picking up a console for a while, but I might just become an early adopter.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2013, 11:53 AM   #911
The Drifter
IndyFan
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The distant figure that walks the treeline. The man standing in the field.
Posts: 4,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Not exactly. It has (appropriately enough) become a catch-all thread for any, and all video game related discussion. Outside of those select franchises, of course, that have warranted their own threads.

Now that The Raven is very near to being an officially dead scene, I don't suppose it really matters.

Following Microsoft's catastrophic blundering with their 24-hr authentication cycles and the inherent privacy issues with Kinect 2.0, did Sony torpedo the X-Bone before it got out of the harbor?



The reaction from 'round the 'net certainly seems to think so. Especially with its $399 price tag. I hadn't actually intended on picking up a console for a while, but I might just become an early adopter.

Yes, Sony done good for the next round of systems. But, I may wait a few months after launch to get a PS4. The launch titles don't interest me. I'm sick to death of shooters, and Knack can't make me buy the system out of the gate. I'm passing on XBox one completely, but Ryse: Son of Rome looks pretty good.
The Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2013, 04:29 AM   #912
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drifter
But, I may wait a few months after launch to get a PS4. The launch titles don't interest me. I'm sick to death of shooters, and Knack can't make me buy the system out of the gate. I'm passing on XBox one completely, but Ryse: Son of Rome looks pretty good.

I have been meaning to acquire a second PS3 for my living room (the primary unit is in the bedroom), but @ $399 I think I'll opt directly for a PS4; that price tag is really, really attractive. Any higher though, and I would be sitting out for quite a while since there's still so much to do with the PS3. With my current schedule, my handful of games would probably last through the end of this year.

That said, none of the first-party games sound appealing. Not that I think either platform holder is done announcing launch titles either. No, with PAX Prime, the Tokyo Game Show, and Gamescom around the proverbial corner, I expect a flurry of announcements for launch and just post-launch titles. You also can't out the World Famous San Diego Comic Con International these days. Warner Bros. will be there in full-force with some sort of exclusive announcement regarding Batman: Arkham Origins. Sony will, at the very least, have a floor presence, and I wouldn't doubt them having a panel of some sort. No idea on Microsoft. I can't recall if they've ever been there to be honest.

I am interested in: Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, Thief, Batman: Arkham Origins, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and something else I can't remember. While they're all titles I would probably buy on PS3, the upgrade in graphical fidelity should be worth an early adoption.

I had the original X-Box (the green Halo edition), because I wanted to play: Fable, Halo, & Full Spectrum Warrior. I also ended up buying Broken Sword III: The Sleeping Dragon, but that was it. I've been staunchly Sony since then, so while there is no real chance I would pick up the X-Bone, a really great game could change my mind.*

* Full disclosure: No, no it wouldn't. Microsoft's attempt @ giving me the shaft made their newest console s definite no sale. Ever.

Anyway, I was initially curious about Ryse: Son of Rome. The concept of a first-person hack n' slash through Imperial Rome certainly had possibilities, but after that video/trailer/whatever nu-uh, no way, no how. It looks like a really bad attempt @ cloning God of War. I shouldn't see the same kill animations in a five minute trailer either, but that's besides the point. I'll be sticking with Rome II: Total War.

It's definitely nit-picking, but compare the size of the scutum in both trailers. There's no way the one in Ryse would stand up to a Falx or Falcata.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Ubi has of course done enough entries to the franchise by now that they don't really have to build every nut and bolt from scratch - far from it - but I still think that what we're going to have on our hands come the holidays is merely a good game, rather than a truly great one.

If I'm being honest, the gameplay trailer Ubisoft released in conjunction with E3 dampened my enthusiasm. Sure, it looks absolutely fantastic but there are very clear indicators of entire animations recycled from ACIII. For example, the transition animations are exactly the same as are the "backstab" animations. That's exactly how Connor employed his tomahawk. It just gives credence to my earlier position -- you don't use a sword to backstab somebody, you use a knife/dirk/dagger.

In this instance, Edward Kenway should be using a naval dirk since he is technically an officer during the Age of Fighting Sail. You can see a very fine example of one here.

Fun fact: During the 16th Century, naval architects hadn't yet thought of the block n' tackle concept to arrest cannon recoil. So, in order to counter this, cannon were permanently affixed to the hull of the ship. In order to reload, gun crews had to scramble up and over the side to ram home the charge! It wouldn't be until 17th Century that gun ports and gun tackle would become commonplace in naval armaments.

Gamestop had a nice write up that was lost amidst the E3 hoopla.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin VanOrd
It was at sea that the visuals impressed me most. Weather will be a fearsome element, forcing you to work harder for victory at sea during heavy bursts of wind, and filling the screen with chilling sights like water spouts. A fort liberation mission entailed barraging a heavily fortified installation with cannon fire. As the Jackdaw pelted the fort's artillery, a blaze erupted and billows of smoke rose into the air, not just making a frightful sight, but also affecting visibility during battle. But dominating a fort with your ship isn't enough to make it yours: you must also infiltrate it on foot, going head to head with your foes, sword in hand, before liberating the fort and gaining access to the new missions it might harbor.

I, for one, love the fact that vision will finally be obscured during heavy fights. I am interested in just how much of an affect weather will have on navigation and battles. For example, given that many ship-of-the-lines had their third gun deck just above the water line, in heavy seas they would be forced to keep them closed negating a third of their firepower. It'll be interesting to see if this detail will appear in game and thus actually making weather a genuine factor in naval engagements.

It should also be noted that sinking a wooden ship is nigh impossible barring a direct hit on the powder magazine.

Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 06:10 AM   #913
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
There has been a lot of talk of piracy (such a grandiose term for the reality of the situation) in the video game industry. Since Microsoft introduced their 24-hr nanny service, the talk has become more mainstream. Cliff Bleszinski, formerly of Epic Games, recently took to Twitter defending the need to stamp out the used game market/piracy/whatever.

A sampling:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy B
You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing. The numbers do NOT work people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy B
The visual fidelity and feature sets we expect from games now come with sky high costs. Assassins Creed games are made by thousands of devs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy B
Those of you telling me 'then just lower game budgets' do understand how silly you sound, right?

Thoughts?

Personal anecdote: I used to rent a studio apartment in San Francisco's Tenderloin. For those of you who aren't familiar with the city's neighborhoods, it's the ghetto. Open drug use was (and still is) commonplace on its streets. Prostitution is there, too. The ancillary crimes associated with those societal ills are, of course, firmly entrenched. And for that privilege I paid the princely sum of $750/month. Fast forward a decade and that very same studio is approximately $3,000/month.

Fun read: The Bacon Wrapped Economy.

Know any of your friends who would ever pay forty-eight bucks for a fried chicken dinner?

The short answer to all of this is that, we, the plebians, must pay through the nose to support the game/tech/whatever industry's excesses. At least this is the opinion of those firmly entrenched within the bubble. Remember Cliffy B is worth a cool $15-million, and drives a Lamborghini to work.

Back in the real world, though.

I have a budget. And within that budget, there's a certain amount of disposable income. If the cost of entry is too high, then it means any ancillary purchases are reduced or negated. For example, if a ticket to, say, Comic Con goes for a hundred bucks, my purchases at the various vendors are going to be affected. If that ticket instead goes for fifty bucks, my budget, while it hasn't changed, can be dispersed throughout the event. The organizers are satisfied, the vendors are pleased, and I'm inclined to return next year. While I may splurge on the hundred dollar ticket, it's not something I would be inclined to repeat. Con organizers are now forced to scramble to attract new visitors.

To extrapolate this out to the game industry, the cost of entry is sixty bucks. That's standard. Factor in the additional content (really, it isn't going anywhere), and you could spend upwards of a hundred bucks for a single game. That's a significant investment. You could've bought twenty-five comic books or seen (roughly) ten movies. Is that an investment you're willing to make for one game? Now add it up over the extent of your entire library.

If you bought that same title at a discount would you be more inclined to snatch up the related content? I know I would. It's personal economics and where I find value. If the option to trade-in games and/or buy used is snuffed, that value is no longer there. The already small number of games I do buy will become even smaller, even miniscule.

The industry needs to take a good, hard look at itself. Can it sustain itself perpetually on mega-AAA titles that takes a team of thousands to churn out at an acceptable rate (to the publishers)? Are salaries wildly out of wack (they are) with the work they do? Are game budgets increasingly unsustainable?

Disneyland has A-E attractions for a reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drifter
I'm sick to death of shooters

You're going to see a lot more of them unfortunately. So long as gaming continues to move up out of the cultural basement -- and 'accepted' by the DudeBros -- these are the games that are going to get back. The Return on Investment is too massive for publishers to ignore.

So, anyway, thoughts?
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 09:53 AM   #914
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
So, anyway, thoughts?
You know, I have to agree with Cliffy B. The numbers don't add up. But he's going to wrong way if he attempts to blame the consumer base for trying to cut their costs. It's the bloody industry who needs to find a way to cut theirs, especially when their current behavior is very much driving the gamers towards finding out ways to get off cheap.

Like Cliffy himself puts it, Ubi is currently using thousands of devs across multiple studios to push out an Assassin's Creed title once a year. However, the only gain out of using this manpower is the savings in time. Smaller teams can also make quality titles - they'll just need more time.

But hey, less time, more volume, more $$$, right? Well, not exactly. It might work if one publisher was the only player in the market. But thanks to the lords of free economy, they're not. And won't be.

Let's assume that we end up in a situation where we have 20 different publishers doing the same. That's 20 "must play" AAA titles a year. Except, majority of the gamers on this Earth can't afford to buy all of 'em. They'll have to get a little more picky - especially if one expects them to pay the full price. One guy buys titles A, B and C, another buys A, B and D, third buys B, D and E and so forth.

So yeah. What do you get in the end? A business environment where the costs are sky-high and the competition extremely fierce, meaning only a select few titles can consider themselves lucky to make it above the line. Unless... you slow the hell down, you dumb f**ks. Cut down the team sizes, use more time and the product will be as good. And if everyone does the same, it also means you'll end up peddling in a far calmer market where the competition is only 10, not 20 titles released at the same time. Which means a far greater likelyhood that more gamers pick up your title when they consider their choices.

Okay, there may still be added competition given how at least some of those devs not working for you will be working on some other, brand new IP which will likely add to the competition. But still, it's not so bad, because you've still cut down the costs. Meaning that while the market may not be a whole lot calmer, but you have still cut your costs, meaning you'll still have to sell less before you make it to the line and start producing a profit.


You're really the one who sounds silly here, Cliffy. You can cut down your budgets. The tradeoff is more time spent on a title, but if it is expected enough, you can still make a pretty penny out of it. In fact, the mirror image of the current Ubi method is a little phenomenon dubbed "Valve time". Sometimes, making your base wait can even embellish the success, even multiply it. Now, if few years down the road, my personal budget balances out by making a choice either between Half-Life 3 or Assassin's Creed 7, I don't think I'll have to consider for long. In fact, it's not even a contest.


---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Do tell.

Now, let's start by clarifying something. Far Cry 3 does make an attempt to give us an explanation to Jason Brody's proficiency to survive in the hostile environment he's flung into. The line he says after being rescued by Dennis is not "I have never shot a gun before". It's "I have never shot anyone before". I trust you see the difference. I know I've handled my share of firearms and know my way around them comfortably enough, but I've still never pointed one towards a man and pulled the trigger with the intention to kill him.

Also, it's explained in a later flashback his brother who died in the intro did give him some weapons training.

Okay, while it's there and pulls off an attempt to explain some things, it still does it in an extremely shoddy manner. Though ironically, what bothered me far more was that after liberating the first outpost (which I, by the way, did like a boss by knifing every pirate and fragging that annoying dog for the extra XP reward) I was told to go see the doctor in his mansion. On the way there, I climbed another radio tower, hunted down and skinned quita a handful of veracious animals, liberated another outpost and killed probably a couple dozen more (very literal) redshirts who just happened to be riding along the same road as I did - and yet when I got there, feeling like a legitimate badass, Jason suddenly decides to act like a timid schoolboy again.

But eh, in the end, I couldn't care less. Because even if the plot had been about something else altogether and had you play a random grunt on a random mission doing random things, the game's charm would likely still have persisted. In fact, I think I hit quite close to mark when I said earlier that the protagonist in a game like this doesn't matter, if the game world manages to nail it. And that it did. Far Cry 3's true protagonists are the Rook Islands. The way game gives you the chance to do things your way, be it noisy or silent, all on land, water and air made it such a joy to play. I was genuinely surprised how there was no contrivances on any playstyle. Whatever you decided to do, however you chose to approach a situation, it just worked. Which is no small feat to pull off in a game like this.

In fact, I consider this the biggest contrast between this one and Tomb Raider. The latter simply took a handful of gameplay features that are already known to work and mixed them together, whereas Far Cry 3 set out to tackle things that have not previously quite worked - and got them bloody right. The story may still be what it may, for that alone they already have my respect.

And while the storytelling could have used some polish, I actually found Jason Brody quite an ingenious player avatar in the end. Because that is exactly what he is a player avatar. He's not a SpecOps grunt or something like that, he's a run-of-the-mill college kid on an unexpected power trip - which is something most of the gamers are when they pick up the controller. Also, it actually does serve as an extra layer of integration between the story and gameplay. Why would some SpecOps grunt spend hours jet ski racing, hunt animals just for the hell of it, or delve deep into the jungle after some long-lost relic when his next objective is already clear and his friends are suffering in the hands of an insane, bloodthirsty pirate king? It'd be perfectly out of character for a disciplined soldier. But for Jason Brody such behavior actually makes perfect sense. While a badass growing in power, he's still a spoiled slacker at heart - and that means he can get easily distracted while looking for the next adrenaline surge.


Though like I said, the execution stills falls a little flat. But you can't say that the concept itself is nothing short of brilliant.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 11:56 AM   #915
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,617
I've been playing Fallout 3 again.

However, after once more finishing the main storyline I began to lose interest in what was left to do. So I had a look at the F3 Nexus site to see if there were any new mods that might get me back into the game.

I chanced upon this: Obscurum - Unnatural Selection

It was only 56mb but the whole game becomes a new experience.

It's freaky, creepy and deadly. Very deadly! It reminds me a little of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, only here the anomalies chase you!

The over-saturated colours take a little to get used to, and to get the game to begin I had to resort to installing an 'Alternate Start' point to avoid a crash during the character's birth scene.

I also happened to have a dull mod called 'Amazonian Hospital' installed, which was a lifeline as it's full of powerful weaponry, strong armour and a lot of stimpaks!

It really has to be experienced, since words don't do it justice.

Here's what the creators say about it themselves:


Quote:
Obscurum is a Fallout 3 overhaul with a twist for horror and survival, laid out in a sandbox style.

What once was a gratuitous shooter with assured victory, is now an actual horror simulator.

Obscurum drags you out of your comfort zone and tells you you're no longer the big shot ruling the Wasteland

You are alone now. No more traders, vendors or settlements.

There's just you, the wildlife, cannibals, anomalies, and a legion of many more monsters ready to take your life or scare you lifeless.

And boy, are they good at what they do.

Whereas in the past, 50% of your enemies died by one shot to the head, and 75% by the second in head or torso, you'll find that percentage dropped five times at least. And those cannibals aren't alone, and they aren't all pushovers. Ever heard of pack mentality?

Every bullet counts, and stealth and evasion are skills vital to your survival.

No more Raiders or Enclave that are nothing more but walking ammo-refills.

Resources are scarce, and the only enemies you can loot are huddled up in places that make sense.

Don't expect to find a stray cannibal. They own the towns now, and you're not invited.

A flimsy "realism" mod that claims game-breaking changes while just changing game values such as bullet damage or loot lists.

Obscurum doesn't attempt to change your game by twisting the cogs and chisel your experience a little.

It changes the game completely, to the point that you no longer recognize the experience you were so used to.

Obscurum also doesn't come with a primary needs system of sorts. It's your choice to install one.

Foods aren't changed in any way, so it's perfectly compatible. You'll just have a harder time finding nourishment.

Most quests, including the Main Quest, are gone. This is not an overthrowing of the lore.

Obscurum is simply intended to be experienced as a true Sandbox Survival game. You make your own goals, which shouldn't be too hard.

One hint: You'll need bobby pins, guns, lots of ammo and various other supplies.

Anomalies now roam the Wasteland, and they're difficult to fight.

Seeing as they are beings defying the laws of physics, a low level player would be wise to avoid or flee from them upon detection.

Insect swarms infest some of your enemies. Upon the death of their host, they will be released and attack you instantly.

Most commonly with Ghouls and lesser Mutants. Being tiney creatures, guns are very ineffective, giving new purpose to explosives and flamethrowers.(removed in Beta.11 due to instability)

Many of the new enemies have custom scripts, giving them a much more interesting, and challenging experience than you are used to.

We'll try not to spoil any of them, but rest assure: they're a nasty surprise.

Cannibals are now a large part of the game. They are inspired by "The Road".
A film I never liked due to how depressing it was, but a good idea is a good idea.

Cannibals are, besides you, the only humans left and are a kind of sub-human beings who have devolved due to generations of poor nourishment, illiteracy and inbreeding. You'll notice how their faces are generally malformed.

Weapons now do six times their damage. Much like real life weapons, it makes them quite more deadly.

This also affects mod-included weapons, so no need to worry about other mods ruining the balance.

This mod is generally compatible with anything. But most standard things have been replaced or removed.

So the mod itself might not play as big of a role as it should.

But strictly performance-wise: I see little problems unless it's heavily scripted. All heavily scripted mods tend to cause problems with one another.

Also, speaking of performance:

All NPCs are removed from the game through a script which dumps them into a dummy cell, and gives them a script package to stay put.

This is a very safe way to do it and should not cause crashes.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 04:05 AM   #916
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
You know, I have to agree with Cliffy B. The numbers don't add up. But he's going to wrong way if he attempts to blame the consumer base for trying to cut their costs. It's the bloody industry who needs to find a way to cut theirs, especially when their current behavior is very much driving the gamers towards finding out ways to get off cheap.

I’m certain Cliffy B is all about spreadsheets and metrics, but I would love to see the numbers he’s sourcing. Do they use the same fuzzy math that resulted in Tomb Raider & Resident Evil 6 being called failures? Tomb Raider sold 3.4-million copies in its first month of release, and Resident Evil topped out at about 6-million copies. Sleeping Dogs even managed to eke out 1.75-million sales! Yet, all three games are considered failures by their respective publishers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Like Cliffy himself puts it, Ubi is currently using thousands of devs across multiple studios to push out an Assassin's Creed title once a year. However, the only gain out of using this manpower is the savings in time. Smaller teams can also make quality titles - they'll just need more time.

My scant few hours of free time these days is still consumed by Port Royale 3. While my mercantile empire has expanded, I found myself referring to the manual for a thing or two. Yeah, a manual! Remember those? It didn't have what I wanted, but they had the temerity of purpose to print the dev team's names. All fifty of them.

Sure, The High Adventure of The Ledger & the Balance Sheet isn't for everybody, but the game's budget should have reflected this. I'll assume it does. But the point is if 50-people can create a game with this much depth and replayability, it should be readily doable with a team double in size and a moderate budget.

Though, I am disappointed that I can't double shot my cannon.


---



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Now, let's start by clarifying something. Far Cry 3 does make an attempt to give us an explanation to Jason Brody's proficiency to survive in the hostile environment he's flung into...

Sure, I see the difference. The problem is that it was so-o long ago that I'll need to take your word for it. I didn't care enough for the game to dwell on it, and opted to trade it in for... something.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Though like I said, the execution stills falls a little flat. But you can't say that the concept itself is nothing short of brilliant.

Conceptually brilliant? I wouldn't go that far, but it certainly had promise. The open world mechanics were generally solid, but after the initial wow factor of the Rook Islands, I found them devoid of any real interest. Red Dead Redemption's recreation of the Old West remains my high water mark for immersion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
I've been playing Fallout 3 again.

There are other games out there.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 05:12 AM   #917
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
There are other games out there.

Haven't read about any current games that would entice me to buy them.

Most of the time I'd rather watch films than play games. But every now and then it feels good to blow something to bloody pieces while rescuing teddy bears from dire predicaments.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:22 PM   #918
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
I’m certain Cliffy B is all about spreadsheets and metrics, but I would love to see the numbers he’s sourcing. Do they use the same fuzzy math that resulted in Tomb Raider & Resident Evil 6 being called failures? Tomb Raider sold 3.4-million copies in its first month of release, and Resident Evil topped out at about 6-million copies. Sleeping Dogs even managed to eke out 1.75-million sales! Yet, all three games are considered failures by their respective publishers.
Indeed. It's practically ridiculous that you can sell an amount of copies that reaches seven digits, and still not pull a profit. If you fail in that, one should definitely look if the bar of costs has been dragged too high during development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Conceptually brilliant? I wouldn't go that far, but it certainly had promise. The open world mechanics were generally solid, but after the initial wow factor of the Rook Islands, I found them devoid of any real interest. Red Dead Redemption's recreation of the Old West remains my high water mark for immersion.
Actually, I was merely referring to the use of a character like Jason Brody as a player avatar. He practically acts as an extra layer of adhesive that tie the world and gameplay together.

That being said, the game is not without its faults. Like I said, the story didn't do that much for me and over time, the sights and sounds of the Rook Islands were starting to wear out their novelty. The contrast is clear to, say, Skyrim for example (which I finally decided to take for a spin) where most regions of the sandbox and the dungeons littered all around it all have an unique vibe to them.

I've played a plenty of games that are technically "bad", but still have some kind of intangibles, be it the story, the character, level or world design or somesuch that keep me in it, but it's rare to come across a game where these aspects are rather bland but the gameplay is so superb that you can't help but have jolly good time with it. This is pretty much the biggest sole reason why I enjoyed Far Cry 3 so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
There are other games out there.
At least it's a Bethesda RPG. It's not like he's just experiencing the same sights and sounds over and over again. In fact, it could be argued that they are NOT meant to be played in the vanilla state. Heh, the first thing I did before I even started Skyrim's campaign I downloaded a motherlode of mods. Given it's the first run, I still wish to experience the story "as is" so I didn't grab anything that messes up with characters or quests, simply a bunch of heartily recommended visual and gameplay improvements.

Of course, these are luxuries only available to the master race, so it is perfectly understandable that not every dirty console peasant will grasp the concept.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:39 PM   #919
The Drifter
IndyFan
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The distant figure that walks the treeline. The man standing in the field.
Posts: 4,152
I enjoyed every moment of Far Cry 3, and never once grew tired of the landscapes. I've never been overly keen on sandbox worlds as I do like a bit more direction in my games, but Far Cry 3 was the exception to the rule. I bet I explored every inch of that game and still wanted more.
Skyrim on the other hand started to bore me to tears after about 20 hours in. To me the world of Skyrim all looked identical. It was a boring and bleak land, and it didn't give me the desire to explore much of it. But like the title to the old sitcom says "Different strokes".

As of right now, I'm playing The Last of Us. I will post my thoughts on it when I beat it.
The Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:42 PM   #920
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drifter
To me the world of Skyrim all looked identical. It was a boring and bleak land, and it didn't give me the desire to explore much of it. But like the title to the old sitcom says "Different strokes".
Hmm. P'haps it has something to do with the natural ability to see variety in a northern landscape.

As an inverse example, I might be complaining that every corner of Sahara looks the same, only to have a confused bedouin tell me that no, it really does not.



It could also be all those mods.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 04:03 PM   #921
The Drifter
IndyFan
 
The Drifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The distant figure that walks the treeline. The man standing in the field.
Posts: 4,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Hmm. P'haps it has something to do with the natural ability to see variety in a northern landscape.

As an inverse example, I might be complaining that every corner of Sahara looks the same, only to have a confused bedouin tell me that no, it really does not.



It could also be all those mods.

It very well could be the reason. I loved Oblivion, but just didn't care for Skyrim. I even made a character that looked like Conan and pretended I was in Cimmeria, but that didn't even work!

Go shove your PC up your bum! Master race my arse!
The Drifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:01 AM   #922
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Indeed. It's practically ridiculous that you can sell an amount of copies that reaches seven digits, and still not pull a profit. If you fail in that, one should definitely look if the bar of costs has been dragged too high during development.

I think certain publishers have visions of Call of Duty-like sales. If Activision can do a billion in sales, we should be able to half that with our ultra-niche title nobody has heard of!

If the numbers I scrounged up are correct, then retailers are purchasing their games @ approximately $52/copy. So on a million-copy selling game, the publisher is netting $52-million in revenue. That means a game like Sleeping Dogs pulled in approximately $91-million in revenue.

Despite Activision's original claims of sky high development costs, I can't see total development exceeding, say, thirty million bucks. I doubt they put more than fifteen million into advertising which would put Square-Enix's net profit at ~$45-million. I wouldn't sneeze at that kind of profit margin.

Again, if the numbers hold true, Tomb Raider netted approximately $177-million in its first month of release! I can't find current sales figures, but I expect that they've gone up in the subsequent three months. I don't think it would be unfair to say that it's pushed its way north of the $200-million mark. While video game advertising tends to remain a low cost, high yield venture Square-Enix went out of its way to ensure you knew this was coming out. There has to be some profit in there somewhere.

Did they spend an additional $100-million on advertising? I don't think so.

Fun read: The Business of GameStop, Part Two.

I have very strong doubts that Tomb Raider cost $100-million to make. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the Uncharted series cost in the neighborhood of $20-25-million each. David Cage said Heavy Rain cost about $50-million to make including marketing, and made Sony $130-million.

Which is why I remain seriously skeptical of "the numbers". They don't add up based on empirical evidence.

I suspect the truth is closer to this: Since the gaming industry has gone increasingly corporate in both product and outlook, so have the expectations. (Insert AAA-title here) made money, but didn't make enough money. Profits weren't maximized.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
At least it's a Bethesda RPG. It's not like he's just experiencing the same sights and sounds over and over again. In fact, it could be argued that they are NOT meant to be played in the vanilla state.

I get the same sight everyday -- the collector's edition box staring at me from the floor where it's been for, like, two years now! I rather liked what time I spent with the game, but opted to wait for Bethesda to patch the... uh, problem with overly large save files corrupting on PS3. Never did get back around to playing it, though.

Sure, the dragon statue is cool, but why did I buy the "collector's edition again?" It's not like I need any more plastic junk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Myself & I
Port Royale 3 Early impression: 7/10

You want to stick with that impression? Yes, yes I do. Though I did discover a new favorite thing I can't do -- I can't defend my towns with my fleet!

Yep, the slimy English can sail right into Santiago de Cuba and proceed to bombard my fort. That fleet of wargalleons? It doesn't even appear on the map during the attack. I had a second battle group stationed nearby, but when I attempted to bring them in on the action I'm informed that the "harbour is blocked by battle."

No 'ish! I'm not trying to trade with the town, I want to break their naval blockade! Instead, I get to watch their ships decimate my defenses, watch the town get "annexed", then I sail in and retake the town. Repeat ad infinitum. Seriously, Santiago has changed hands six different times in the past thirty minutes. It's ridiculous.

To top it off, the other nations have been getting angry with me for "attacking" the English when I'm actually defending myself. So now I'm in a war of attrition with France, the Dutch, England, and Spain. I've burned through 2.5-million reales in the process, and don't see any way to repair my reputation with the other nations... yet.

There is still a significant amount of depth on display, but there's a lot that's missing or broken. Specifically, on the warmaking side of things.

Back to the mill stone.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 08:25 AM   #923
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
I think certain publishers have visions of Call of Duty-like sales. If Activision can do a billion in sales, we should be able to half that with our ultra-niche title nobody has heard of!

If the numbers I scrounged up are correct, then retailers are purchasing their games @ approximately $52/copy. So on a million-copy selling game, the publisher is netting $52-million in revenue. That means a game like Sleeping Dogs pulled in approximately $91-million in revenue.

Despite Activision's original claims of sky high development costs, I can't see total development exceeding, say, thirty million bucks. I doubt they put more than fifteen million into advertising which would put Square-Enix's net profit at ~$45-million. I wouldn't sneeze at that kind of profit margin.

Again, if the numbers hold true, Tomb Raider netted approximately $177-million in its first month of release! I can't find current sales figures, but I expect that they've gone up in the subsequent three months. I don't think it would be unfair to say that it's pushed its way north of the $200-million mark. While video game advertising tends to remain a low cost, high yield venture Square-Enix went out of its way to ensure you knew this was coming out. There has to be some profit in there somewhere.

Did they spend an additional $100-million on advertising? I don't think so.

Fun read: The Business of GameStop, Part Two.

I have very strong doubts that Tomb Raider cost $100-million to make. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the Uncharted series cost in the neighborhood of $20-25-million each. David Cage said Heavy Rain cost about $50-million to make including marketing, and made Sony $130-million.

Which is why I remain seriously skeptical of "the numbers". They don't add up based on empirical evidence.

I suspect the truth is closer to this: Since the gaming industry has gone increasingly corporate in both product and outlook, so have the expectations. (Insert AAA-title here) made money, but didn't make enough money. Profits weren't maximized.
Your numbers are off.

First of all, I don't see it that outlandish that the total costs associated to an AAA title can reach up to $100m these days. But because you never know if the numbers given are related to everything or simply the core development costs, there's simply no point in saying stuff like "I don't buy Tomb Raider costing $100m if Uncharted only costed like $25m", unless you can be sure that the numbers cover the same expenses.

Another infallacy: that $52 you report is exactly as you say, a retailer price. It refers to shelf copies only, and most likely even then to console units. The latter fact is actually pretty easy to deduce, given how a regular PC copy is a tad cheaper than its console counterpart. No retailer sells anything with a zero margin.

Finally, most copies of PC games sold these days are actually digital, direct-download ones, and given the sources I've seen, 90% of pc game sales are already digital. And they drag the median price of a copy even lower.

Let's take the retailer sales of Tomb Raider. See here, here and here.

PS3 version has sold 1.24m copies up to early June, X360 1.05m and PC 0.17m. If we add up, that makes... 2.46m copies sold. Hey, there's million copies missing. That's the digital PC sales. You add that number to the shelf PC sales and you get roughly 1.1m copies sold on PC, roughly evening out the sales on all three platforms.

Which obviously brings us to yet another multiplication formula fail in your deductions. That retailer $50-per-copy range naturally only applies to the console shelf units, which have sold about 2.3m copies up to this date. That's around 115-120m revenue.

Given how the digital distribution puts the median price of a single copy for PC all across the board - but for the sake of getting some kind of number, let's put it at $30. And I'm actually being gracious here. That amounts, naturally, to $30-35m of revenue for PC copies.

That means the Tomb Raider total revenues jump up to the $150m mark. And if we are to buy the reports that claim that the total costs of the game were that $100m, it gives us $50m in profit. It's a profit all right, but I can somewhat see why the corporate executive wouldn't be completely happy with it.


Sleeping Dogs sold 1,5m console retail copies (per VGChartz), which means the PC sales are sitting roughly at 250 000 copies sold. $50 * 1,5m is roughly 75m and the PC copies standing on top of that, $30 * 0.25m make around 7m, totaling the sales at bit over 80-million mark.

Now, I don't think the total development costs of Sleeping Dogs were at $100m, but even if you place them at $50m or a bit over, you'll still get only around $20-30m in profit. So yeah, I can actually see why the suits are calling these two titles financial disappointments.


The bottom line is that I can see a modern game costing $100m total to create. I can also attest that there is nothing wrong with the way the industry does its math. However, they do have to start figuring out ways to cut down their costs, because it's obvious the current budget models can't all stand in such a contested environment.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 05:57 AM   #924
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
..there's simply no point in saying stuff like "I don't buy Tomb Raider costing $100m if Uncharted only costed like $25m", unless you can be sure that the numbers cover the same expenses.

Short answer: Bollocks. A slightly longer, less snarky response: Similar products have similar costs, and things don't get much closer than Uncharted & Tomb Raider. They operate in the same genre with the same play mechanics, have similar production values, and have similar-sized teams. Crystal Dynamics could have had horrible cost overruns with Tomb Raider, but $75-million worth is hard to swallow. I'd sack myself too. How much could they have saved by not developing its useless multiplayer component?

Marketing costs aren't our concern either. That's strictly a publishing decision. We're only concerned with development costs. Publishers could very easily shave off a few millions from the marketing budgets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Another infallacy: that $52 you report is exactly as you say, a retailer price. It refers to shelf copies only, and most likely even then to console units.


Now you're just being obtuse. For the sake of this topic though, we're only concerned with those aforementioned retail sales. Why? Because Square Enix has explicitly indicated* that those sales figures don't include digital downloads. I can only assume that those numbers are actual, physical copies then. No Steam, GOG, PSN, or XBL.

* -- Scroll down to the...ah, fourth slide.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Let's take the retailer sales of Tomb Raider. See here, here and here.

See above. There's a significant disconnect between Square-Enix's in-house sales figures and what VG Chartz is reporting. Didn't Wired & Gamasutra report that the site isn't what you would call a reliable source? Yeah, here's Gamasutra's article.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
So yeah, I can actually see why the suits are calling these two titles financial disappointments.

I can too. It's not a fair assessment, though. By all accounts, the games made money. Not making an accurate sales forecast is a management problem, and with zero ancillary markets (movies, books, etc.) to artificially boost sales Square-Enix was setting themselves up for failure. Tomb Raider has never done the kinds of numbers they were talking about it when it was new, and with a five year gap between titles it might as well be a new IP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
However, they do have to start figuring out ways to cut down their costs, because it's obvious the current budget models can't all stand in such a contested environment.

No argument there. Except rather than figure out how to manage those costs, they want corporate welfare. You must buy new, give up all concept of ownership, and pay through the nose for the industry's excesses. The platform holders recognize that the money is to be made in the so-called casual market, but publishers have clearly forgotten that the core market was never that large to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Of course, these are luxuries only available to the master race...

Master Race? Maybe. But it's very clear that the dirty console peasants are paying the freight. Without the console's ascendancy the entire industry would still be in your proverbial mother's basement.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 04:41 PM   #925
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Short answer: Bollocks. A slightly longer, less snarky response: Similar products have similar costs, and things don't get much closer than Uncharted & Tomb Raider.

They operate in the same genre with the same play mechanics, have similar production values, and have similar-sized teams. Crystal Dynamics could have had horrible cost overruns with Tomb Raider, but $75-million worth is hard to swallow. I'd sack myself too. How much could they have saved by not developing its useless multiplayer component?

Marketing costs aren't our concern either. That's strictly a publishing decision. We're only concerned with development costs. Publishers could very easily shave off a few millions from the marketing budget.
Your comprehension is off. So I guess I'll clarify.

Yes. Similar products tend to have similar development costs. That means costs sans publishing and other fluff that doesn't directly involve the geek squad hammering away at their keyboards.

Now, what we don't know is what Square Enix has included into the alleged $100m vs. Naughty Dog's 25m. If the former reports the total costs, including every possible penny into the figures and the other simply the core ones, there can be that large a disrepancy. But then the figures aren't comparable in the first place.

Do I think Tomb Raider's dev costs were 100m? Hardly. But I've got no doubt that they could have been higher than Uncharted's. First of all, Tomb Raider is a game that is more advanced than any of Nate Drake's outings. It's clearly got more of what Cliffy B calls "visual fidelity", which do crank up the costs - as he says. (For the record, I think that aspect is far from crucial to making a good game - so I'm not defending the habit, simply stating the same fact. The better-looking game is the more expensive game.)

You mention the useless MP component, which probably could (and should) have been cut to reduce costs. But then again, Uncharted has MP too, and it didn't apparently overly bloat Naughty Dog's budgets.

There is one more thing where Uncharted (and Heavy Rain too) and Tomb Raider differ, though. See, one of them is a PS3 exclusive. The other is a multiplatform release. Which means one dev only needs to hone up a working game for single kind of setup. But do you have any idea how much more QA it takes when you've got to take multiple kinds of hardware combinations into account? I'll put it in single syllables: A lot. There's plenty more work to be done when one has to make sure that the product is stable across a wide range of setups. And this I have from the horse's mouth: A person working in the industry directly stating to a roomful of people that striking an exclusivity deal lightens the workload quite a bit.

I can easily think it's plausible that the core development costs of Tomb Raider hitting 60m, especially if they allowed some extra bloat to float in. Add $30m worth of additional costs, and you're not far off from the $100m mark.

So unless we have someone from Square Enix/Crystal Dynamics stating that the alluded $100m was the core costs, or someone from Sony or Naughty Dog clearly saying what's covered in their figures, your argument doesn't have a solid base. But if they're indeed both talking about the same thing, then there's definitely something funny in Square's camp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Now you're just being obtuse. For the sake of this topic though, we're only concerned with those aforementioned retail sales. Why? Because Square Enix has explicitly indicated* that those sales figures don't include digital downloads. I can only assume that those numbers are actual, physical copies then. No Steam, GOG, PSN, or XBL.

* -- Scroll down to the...ah, fourth slide.
You'll have to quote it out to me, as I don't see it.

Besides, it makes no sense for the publisher to exclude certain figures. A sold copy is a sold copy, whether it's off the shelf or down the tube.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
See above. There's a significant disconnect between Square-Enix's in-house sales figures and what VG Chartz is reporting. Didn't Wired & Gamasutra report that the site isn't what you would call a reliable source? Yeah, here's Gamasutra's article.
The article rags agaist VGChartz's ability to make early sales estimates and retcon their earlier ones, which is admittedly ambiguous behavior.

However, almost four months (or 10 months in the case of Sleeping Dogs) down the road from the initial release, it's fair to assume that they've got better data, given the release sales spike has passed. It may not be 100% accurate, and even a decimal or two off can admittedly make it scientifically unreliable, but given how we're only dealing with rather crude math here, they should be quotable.

In other words, there's no fault in taking the numbers with a grain of salt, but Gamasutra is not telling us to mistrust ALL their numbers. Given how we have a pair of high-profile AAA titles and there's been substantial time from release, I'd be hard pressed to believe that the figures I referred to are off by millions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
I can too. It's not a fair assessment, though. By all accounts, the games made money. Not making an accurate sales forecast is a management problem, and with zero ancillary markets (movies, books, etc.) to artificially boost sales Square-Enix was setting themselves up for failure. Tomb Raider has never done the kinds of numbers they were talking about it when it was new, and with a five year gap between titles it might as well be a new IP.
Yeah. It's pretty obvious that the income didn't match the investment, which means that they're not talking out of their backsides when they air their disappointment. But when they start looking for guilty parties, it's pretty obvious that the biggest fault is in their own expectations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Master Race? Maybe. But it's very clear that the dirty console peasants are paying the freight. Without the console's ascendancy the entire industry would still be in your proverbial mother's basement.
Like I've said before, I welcome any and every development that makes gaming more mainstream. There is nothing wrong with felling those technical hurdles that might stop the non-geeks from adopting a gaming habit.

However, at the same time I'm vehemently against any and every development that threatens the diversity of gaming. If the result is that the industry decides that there's no point in making a Witcher if the peasants are quite happy with their yearly Call of Duty, I'll go happily back to the basement.

Last edited by Finn : 06-23-2013 at 04:50 PM.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 PM.