Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Xbox 360 Respawned

Gorth

By Gorth
in Computer and Console

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hurlshort

Hurlshort

Posted
Posted

Ah, thank you for clarifying without illuminating whatsoever. I'm pretty sure the care level is at an absolute minimum on clans, since most of us just play among the forums and real world friends. But I might be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tale

Tale

Posted
Posted (edited)
CivRev demo is out.

 

From player impressions, apparently it's not dumbed-down and still chock-full of options, though it's been streamlined/simplified in some aspect to reduce the micromanagement. Which could potentially even be a good thing, depending on how you look at it. Anyway, I'll try out the demo when I get a chance.

I find it odd that someone can say it's not dumbed-down. At least in comparison to Civ 4. It seemed to be completely lacking religion as a conquest mechanic. Every single city improvement I saw had no tradeoff. I'm not even sure pollution is particularly relevant anymore as a result. No managing of workers, though that does seem a valid reduction of micromanagement. I couldn't find any real drain on gold, except wonders.

 

In Civ 4 I started off building everything I could just for the heck of it. This used to lead to very unhappy, polluted, and poor civilizations. In Revolution it seems pretty much a-okay.

 

 

But I did play the demo only once and may have overlooked quite a bit. Of course, I wouldn't say "dumbed-down" as that's a perjorative. But the meaning would be the same. I don't think it's dumber. But it's less complex, with fewer options, and has less consequences for bad decisions. It still strategic, is faster paced, less confusing, and easier to manage.

Edited by Tale
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mkreku

mkreku

Posted
Posted
Of course, I wouldn't say "dumbed-down"...

Just say it. It's not like it's some well-kept secret.

 

Or just call it "streamlined" if you want to be annoyingly PK.

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llyranor

Llyranor

Posted
Posted
CivRev demo is out.

 

From player impressions, apparently it's not dumbed-down and still chock-full of options, though it's been streamlined/simplified in some aspect to reduce the micromanagement. Which could potentially even be a good thing, depending on how you look at it. Anyway, I'll try out the demo when I get a chance.

I find it odd that someone can say it's not dumbed-down. At least in comparison to Civ 4. It seemed to be completely lacking religion as a conquest mechanic. Every single city improvement I saw had no tradeoff. I'm not even sure pollution is particularly relevant anymore as a result. No managing of workers, though that does seem a valid reduction of micromanagement. I couldn't find any real drain on gold, except wonders.

 

In Civ 4 I started off building everything I could just for the heck of it. This used to lead to very unhappy, polluted, and poor civilizations. In Revolution it seems pretty much a-okay.

 

 

But I did play the demo only once and may have overlooked quite a bit. Of course, I wouldn't say "dumbed-down" as that's a perjorative. But the meaning would be the same. I don't think it's dumber. But it's less complex, with fewer options, and has less consequences for bad decisions. It still strategic, is faster paced, less confusing, and easier to manage.

That's because you played the PS3 version.

Hadescopy.jpg

(Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tale

Tale

Posted
Posted
That's because you played the PS3 version.

No... I played the 360 version. In between bouts of Halo

**** yeah

and keggers.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
walkerguy

walkerguy

Posted
Posted
Probably the name of some gang of Walkerguy and his ten year old friends roll in.

 

Ha. Most call them six year olds. Anyhow, they're some big multi-clan thing mostly dominant in Halo 2 & 3. I don't personally care for them, and I wondered if anyone had something to say since I figured they're probably well known enough. Whatever.

Twitter | @Insevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Krookie

Krookie

Posted
Posted
Probably the name of some gang of Walkerguy and his ten year old friends roll in.

 

Ha. Most call them six year olds. Anyhow, they're some big multi-clan thing mostly dominant in Halo 2 & 3. I don't personally care for them, and I wondered if anyone had something to say since I figured they're probably well known enough. Whatever.

 

You really thought we would know what you were talking about by saying a three letter acronym followed by "thoughts?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thepixiesrock

thepixiesrock

Posted
Posted

BBW, thoughts?

Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!
http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdanger

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llyranor

Llyranor

Posted
Posted

Okay, reconsidering intentions to get Brothers in Arms.

 

http://www.crispygamer.com/_GeneratedPages...terview914.aspx

 

Crispy Gamer: You've obviously got the single-player mode figured out. Will there also be a co-op mode?

 

Pitchford: We chose not to invest there because I don't think we're quite there yet. And I mean "we" as an industry. You have to design levels just for co-op, and we decided to invest the time and money in a strong single-player mode because most of the people who buy our game do so for the single-player experience.

 

Crispy Gamer: What about competitive multiplayer?

 

Pitchford: It plays a lot like the PC version of Counter-Strike. It's a very team-based tactical game that takes our squad concept and applies it online. It's 20 players, and when you begin, you can ask to be the squad leader or on the assault team or on the special team, which changes depending on the map -- it might mean you're in a tank. Depending on who wants what, you might get what you want or you might get assigned, but each round is quick, they're three to five minutes, and objective-oriented.

 

Crispy Gamer: What about an online mode where you're playing one-on-one, and each person controls a squad of artificial intelligence soldiers?

 

Pitchford: Yeah, we had that last time, and it was cool, but we couldn't think of how to add to it to this version so we skipped it. We're kind of weird, we don't make games to make money; we make money to make games. Part of the fun is trying things that haven't been tried before, or offering things that wouldn't exist if we don't do them.

 

No co-op, no co-op skirmish or even 2v2 with squad controls = no sale. I'm not getting the game just for generic PvP with a 'squad leader' that no one will listen to.

Hadescopy.jpg

(Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llyranor

Llyranor

Posted
Posted
With multiplayer, we're doing something different. I can't predict how everyone is going to feel about it. In fact, I can imagine a wide spectrum of reactions, from love to hate and everything in between.

 

We think what we set out to do is pretty neat and different and interesting.

 

But, it is different. If you're expecting to just play a standard MP game with standard MP modes (just with BiA HH's awesome graphics, characters and weapons) you're going to be surprised. Of course BiA HH looks amazing, but the *design* of BiA HH's MP game is NOT like CoD, Halo, BiA 1 or 2, or any other game we've played.

 

The closest thing we can compare it to is Counter-Strike, but we have some things that make it very different from that, too, so I'm careful about even talking about that and haven't wanted to talk about that since it's misleading too.

 

It may work - people may really enjoy it. It may not work for some folks.

 

Regardless of what any of your personal preferences and desires are, from a big-picture market point-of-view, Brothers in Arms' success *depends* upon us delivering an amazing looking narrative-based action shooter single player game with deep character and story, tactical squad-based game play, a high degree of authenticity and state-of-the-art/best-in-the-industry production values behind both familiar and all-new game design elements. I'm happy to say with confidence that Hell's Highway succeeds there and I think you'll agree.

 

However, Brothers in Arms' success does not depend upon multiplayer. In other words, we have the freedom and means to try something new. In that case, a low-risk, already done and proven multiplayer model that we can find in other games, then, isn't very interesting to us. And so we take some risks and do some things that are interesting and fun and unique and that you can't find in any other game.

 

What is interesting about this is that I have a pretty good feeling about how the game is going to do and how the narrative, single player game is going to affect everyone.

 

Meanwhile, I have very little ability to predict how our multiplayer is going to be received. You guys may want to skewer us because you would've wished for us to do something other than what we did or you may decide to applaud us because the new approach there really works for you. The spectrum of possible outcomes there is very wide.

 

I would be very afraid of the uncertainty except for the fact that I know where our success depends we are extremely strong.

 

Some people (customers, too) aren't comfortable with the uncertainty that comes from taking risks and trying something new that hasn't been done before. We understand that and have accounted for that when setting our plans in motion and in setting our expectations from those plans.

 

Some of you may have imagined a particular type of multiplayer that *you* really want and you're using a lot of experience with our past games and other games to help guide your own hopes and expectations. I can imagine there are thousands of different expectations out there. Which means that since we're doing something that's hard to expect, there's going to be thousands of surprised folks out there. For some, it will be a good surprise. For others, it may not be. It all depends upon what kind of player you are and how rigid you are in your tastes.

 

The thing I've been up front about since the first time I ever mentioned multiplayer for Hell's Highway is that "we're doing something different, something we've never done before." And, beyond that, I've tried not to talk about it too much.

 

The reason is because, frankly, I'm in a strange spot too and am uncertain. Because it's different, I'm not entirely sure how to talk about it in a way that's going to both help you understand and help us promote it. As people who spend time on these forums, you know how difficult it is to use words and language to accurately describe the experience and feel of games. This is especially true when there are new things that don't have a lot of comparisons (or any comparisons) that can help us understand.

 

Another thing I have to be honest about is that I haven't played the multiplayer game much myself. Our team decided on the approach and the design and had hired one of the Rockstar studios to help do a lot of the development of the multiplayer game. So I'm actually sort of in the same boat that many of you are in - looking forward to being surprised and playing it online with everyone else when it's launched. Unlike you, I know what the strategy and design is and I know who is working on it and how much they're focusing on it and I can say that all makes me interested to see and play the result with real people in the real world. But I also know it's different to the point that I'm not sure anyone can expect it and there is some risk there.

 

But I think the best thing is for you to just try it when we're done and decide for yourself.

 

If a surely awesome, best-in-class, AAA, highest-production values ever in the genre and subject matter single player game justifies the cost, then don't even think about it - race at Brothers in Arms Hell's Highway because it will deliver. And, if multiplayer turns out to work for you, it's like a great bonus. If MP doesn't work for you, you're still happy because what you wanted from the single player game not only delivered, but blew you away in a few places and affected you in other places.

 

In any case, I'm really interested in seeing how it is received.

 

I trust and hope that you guys can help us keep the buzz going not only in our own forums, but in game forums around the internet.

 

And, when you don't hear from us in the forums, trust that what we're doing right now is attacking the remaining tasks with about as much vigor and motivation as is humanly possible so that you can have the game this August.

 

Until we're actually done, there is always risk that it could take longer. Our ability to focus and your support and cheering us on is what is going to drive this thing across the finish line!

Hadescopy.jpg

(Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...