RockyRan

I got Rainmeter installed myself and I have to say it's really nifty. But like Dean said, I pretty much don't use it at all seeing as I'm actually using the computer when I sit down in front of it. I got the Enigma skin (one of the ones showcased in the Rainmeter site itself) against a low-lit wood pattern background and it looks oh-so-classy

Personally, I would like it if the game was still based on levels, except for that they would be more open ended. Rather than guiding you along a set linear path, it would be cool if they just put you at the bottom of a building in the beginning of a level and they just told you "get to the top". Then you'd have multiple ways of figuring out how to get to the top, with vents and corridors and offices that lead to more vents that eventually lead to elevator shafts, etc. They'd have to work on making the levels not too terribly confusing, but I think adding an open element to a definite goal would be a really cool evolution from the level design of the first game without resorting to a flat out open world. Although having a free-roam mode would be cool. Maybe an optional mode or something?

If what the guys over at that Bonus Round thingy (which I tried to link to and fail miserably ) is any indication, it's probably being padded to justify a $60 release. Through the whole video they're like "OMG IT'S SO STRESSFUL COMPETING AGAINST OTHER COMPANIES JAMMING SO MUCH CONTENT INTO A $60 GAME", which is why I ask "then don't?" I don't know why nobody's thinking of just scaling back budget and price tag. It's not as simple, but they could at least try it once.

I hadn't thought of that. My guess is that it's based on a percentage of revenue, but who knows? Maybe MS/Sony are a little more greedy and charge per unit shipped, no matter what price tag the game has on it.

http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/502?ch=1 http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/502?ch=1 Today's Bonus Round over at GT definitely got me thinking about how so many game devs are under the misguided assumption that everything they make has to be a huge, epic game with tons of content packed in at $60. Just look at the video and hear the studio honchos saying they're so stressed that they have to go big or go home. My question to them is: do you really? Wouldn't it be nice to have game devs scale back the games, budget, and pricing? I think that would solve a lot of problems, both for developers and consumers. For consumers, it will provide a way of getting through games faster and more efficiently, not feeling that they have to bog themselves down on a single, lengthy game for weeks or even months at a time as they play epic RPGs or multiplayer for 200+ hours. They also don't have to pay $60 for every single new release, even for the games that have a lot of content but isn't anything particularly compelling enough to pay for that price. For developers, if they make smaller-sized games they no longer feel like they have to justify the $60 price tag and thus don't have to spend so much money and effort cramming all kind of content into a game that frankly a lot of people aren't even going to see. They'll be able to make smaller, more focused, less spread-thin games in smaller intervals (they won't have to spend 6 years making a magnum opus). In a way, it's what Double Fine is doing right now with small downloadable games, but I'm thinking scaling it up a little bit toward cheap $20 retail titles. They'll get a bigger volume of sales from the cheaper price point, be able to get more games out the door, and they'll get more frequent sales as people get done with the smaller games faster and buy other ones quicker. Of course, I think the industry still has plenty of space for the magnum-opus epic titles, but honestly, I think the industry has it all wrong. Epic masterpeice games aren't a requirement, and they aren't the only types of games these big studios can make.

I'm playing through BioShock right now and I'm feeling that the combat in general feels very hollow. Not just because of the lightness of the guns, but because the collisions feel very "vague" (that is, I'm not entirely convinced half the bullets from enemies really hit me or half my bullets hit them. It's not that I think the collision detection is bad, but because the game's lacking in visual feedback a little bit). Animations feel robotic, whether they're the hand animations from the character or the enemy ones. Plus, the aiming is completely off. The crosshair for the revolver is so tiny that I can use it as a sniper rifle, and the machine gun's "recoil" is laughably choppy and bad. It doesn't feel like it's recoiling from the shots at all, but rather the game is just arbitrarily moving my crosshair in an extremely choppy manner to simulate the recoil. Not to mention the gun sounds completely lack all "oomph" that you'd normally get from a gun. The revolver, for instance, sounds like I'm making popcorn. Not sure if that's what you're thinking of, but at least to me that's why I think the combat in BioShock is off.

I don't know what other people have asked him, but I'd ask: -Thoughts on each platform: What does he like best about each, what does he hate most about each? (including PC in this) -Has he ever included something in a game that was just a complete disaster and it had to be taken out (feature, game mechanic, etc.)? -Some people (Ben Croshaw, etc.) are speculating that mainstream, big-name-studios don't have the ability to make an extremely experimental game (due to monetary risk) and thus people who want new experiences are defaulting back to indie gaming, where more and more experimental games are turning up that don't show up in mainstream games that had a bigger budget. What are his thoughts on this? Oh, and here's a big one I'd really like to ask: -What does he think about the exponentially escalating costs of game development? Does he think game development is a major problem, or is it maybe that budgeting in games just isn't being done very well, thus driving up costs? EDIT: And another one: -Does he think the industry (that is, from the developer side) is ready for a "next-generation" of consoles? Is there anything in particular about this generation that he feels is constraining him, or does this generation still have plenty of legs?

And who the hell said anything about the indie crowd? I'm talking not selling out the the IP, which by the way was one of the best implementations of an original IP as far as mainstream games go. This isn't some stupid hunch of mine saying there are executive blowhards who don't know how to handle their IP's. We've already seen plenty of mediocre sequels to games with original premises that degenerate themselves into me-too copy cats of other, better selling IPs. The fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. So what if Mirror's Edge 2 doesn't sell as well as Mass Effect 3? Who gives a shit? Mirror's Edge 1 wasn't a financial failure by any stretch of the imagination, so it's not like the reluctance to make the sequel lies in a loss of money, it lies in a misguided effort to make every single game attempt to have an enormous mainstream appeal, even if the IP is unconventional and inherently alienates specific crowds. Mirror's Edge was a well-funded, relatively experimental game by mainstream game standards, but there is absolutely no reason to shoehorn in "mass appeal" shit that doesn't belong in the game. Open your eyes.

Yeah, I'm worried now. Every time someone says "make it sell moar", you bet your ass they're gonna just copy shit from other games to try to "appeal to a bigger market". I don't give a fuck if Mirror's Edge 2 appeals to 10 people, I want an unadulterated sequel with no corporate-meddling BS. I swear, if they shoehorn shitty multiplayer with "stunstreaks" and add copious amounts of explosions and boobs I'm gonna throw a backpack into a crowd.

Yeah, just played a bit of Crysis 2 MP and it's painfully derivative. It's just sci-fi CoD multiplayer. Ugh. The people who were really into Crysis Wars are probably raging beyond all belief.

I got a quad core and I have the problems, though Also, looky here. Freaking amazing:

Let's play a game of "Sheen, Beck, or Qaddafi?"!! (Play this in the background:) How well will YOU do, folks? Can you differentiate between these three pathetic nutjobs, or will their ass-for-brains bigotry homogenize their quotes together? YOU DECIDE! http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/its_time_to_play_sheen_beck_or.html

Same here. I NEED to play the first one now, because I know for a fact that I WILL get 2 down the line after reading that little bit of news. I never played the first either D: AGH I enjoyed the demo though....that's enough!.....no its not I got to play it for about 4 hours. It didn't blow me away, but it's the kind of game you want to finish.

Yeah, it's a timed exclusive. As someone else eloquently put it, it's part of Microsoft's "we want more exclusives, even just for a little while" initiative.

Currently a 360 exclusive, but my 360 isn't connected online and it'd be a pain in the ass to change that, so if anything I'll probably wait for the PS3 version whenever it comes out (don't have time to play it right now anyway). I do have a question, though. I've heard the PC version of this is coming out later as well, do you guys reckon I should wait for it? Or is the game strictly a console affair in terms of gameplay structure? That is, is there anything in the game that could be augmented by it being on a PC? Oh, and I guess this topic is also here to discuss anything regarding the HD remake. So discuss. Now. Or leave.

The other end of the table is already filled. Look at the ridiculous number of sales on Steam, the numerous people who say they've stopped pirating because of them, and the statements from Gabe saying that they don't even look at piracy numbers because they're so low. The potential has all but been proven to be there. It's up to the publisher now to see if they want to take advantage of it. It may not be the end-all-be-all solution, but this is a great start, and if developers don't get this start going they're really the ones who don't want the conversation.

Well, see now we're back to square one, aren't we? This is exactly the type of thing that goes on for every single game, whether we're talking piracy or not. Case studies and focus groups are run by people all the time because they want to turn potential customers into paying customers, and now we're pretty much on the same page that pirates who don't torrent for the sake of torrenting are potential customers too. The ball is in the publisher's court now. They got the piracy numbers, now it's up to them to convince as many of those people to buy their game, but if they don't feel like convincing them they really shouldn't be whining.

Same here. I NEED to play the first one now, because I know for a fact that I WILL get 2 down the line after reading that little bit of news.

Well that viewpoint is fine and dandy for someone who doesn't have a game publishing company, but I'm talking what's in the best interest of the business that needs (or at least WANTS) to see sales from people who normally pirate, and the only way to achieve them is to convince them. It's that simple. Pirates who always pirate no matter what aren't absolutely any different than a random Joe on the street who's never into video games and won't buy one ever. You know what businesses call the latter person? "NOT the market". By default, businesses don't regularly go out of their way to entice the consumer who is not in their market (you don't see Lamborghini commercials being aired after Deal or No Deal). By the same token, a pirate who will always pirate no matter what price we're talking or incentives to buy isn't a part of their market, because there's literally nothing that business can do to get that person to buy a game. The best course of action? Ignore them. The rest of the pirates who would buy a game if it was cheap enough or had good enough incentives? THOSE are the people publishers should go after, not with intrusive DRM, but with bargains and incentives. That's the only way to see a dime out of those people, so either developers put up or shut up. Intrusive, draconian DRM isn't going to get people anywhere, but good prices and extra features and content will.

I'd just like to add that launching every single game at $60 is a horrible mistake, because if a game is "kind of good but not really that good", you're dooming your game from day 1. As it is, gaming afficionados already know they want to get more games than they can possibly play, and as such a lot of people begin prioritizing. Good game now? Or bargain bin buy? If your game goes into the "bargain bin buy" category for a lot of people, you're in deep shit because not only do you not see sales immediately, you might never see sales ever, because a game has to be damn good for you to remember to buy 6-months-to-several-years down the line. Anecdotal evidence time: I liked the concept of Blur and I thought it a neat concept, but most definitely not $60 neat, so I put it in my "buy when it's cheap" bin. I've yet to get the game, but of course that means nothing to Bizarre creations now (because it doesn't exist anymore). Had the game been $40 or $30 since the beginning, I would've eyed it a lot more and probably even bought it. But now? Who knows? I might not get it, because I have a backlog of "games to get now that they're cheap" too. Assassin's Creed 2, inFAMOUS 1, Alan Wake, etc., so the game's competing with THOSE titles too. If publishers want good sales on non-AAA games right off the bat they better expect to price the games aggressively, because at $60 they compete with the huge, AAA titles that people have been waiting for years, and the non-AAA titles will always, always lose out on that little contest.

You know why I'm excited for this? Because if it's a board game/card game it won't matter if I have 200,000 ping, I'll still be able to play online acceptably. And god knows Mojang's netcode for multiplayer is beyond hope. I kid, I kid

That's what I was referring to; negative reviews. I'm just saying reviews seem to be given this overwhelming power due to the indecisive nature of consumers, and how publishers (and etc) interact with them. To me, it seems like Notch, and others beforehand, make pirates into this "misunderstood" crowd that just needs love because daddy wasn't there. Pay more attention to them, whisper sweet nothings into their ears and I'm sure they'll make purchases! Like, find the missing variable and the problem with have a solution. I think how we've discussed piracy alone in this thread shows the intricate motives and dealings that go on through an individuals thought process. Don't charge $59.99? Well, what price is there that's better than FREE? Does every company need to refocus efforts into making sure every game has add-ons, passcodes, and enough material to counter the pirate motive? Does there need to be some kind of hivemind of unified developers on how to look at a pirate community? When it comes down to it, this is another Indie vs. Exec debate. Dude of Minecraft who made a good enough sum for an individual gained the authority to talk to the big wigs on business. See, I don't understand this kind of thinking. Making an active effort to curb piracy past idiotic DRM isn't sympathizing with pirates, it's merely working toward making your product more effective and one that convinces more people to buy the game instead of pirating. It's not "sweet talking", and it's not victimizing, but it's analyzing the problem. And what do you know? Pirates are humans like you and me. They have thought processes. They're not just some kind of misfigured aliens hellbent on destroying the industry with the words "KILL KILL KILL" on their foreheads. You ask why some people victimize pirates, I ask why people vilify them. The minute you refuse to to "sweet talk" pirates into buying the product is the minute you've lost the war against piracy, period. Have you noted the article in RPS that notes that PC sales are up 19%? Despite other reports saying retail PC game sales are down? Think about that for a minute. What's missing here? Digital distribution, and it's digital distribution that's turning pirates into buyers and buyers into more buyers. Why? Pricing. You ask "what kind of price competes with free?" I say "$10, $5, $2.50" or any of Steam's crazy sales on games 1+ years old. You're always going to have people who pirate for absolutely no reason and wouldn't buy a game even if it was 1 cent, but here's the deal: those kinds of pirates are not the only kinds of pirates. If a game is dirt cheap or just a really good bargain, a lot of people who would've pirated the game are going to buy it, and many people who already pirated it think "hey, this game's on the cheap now. I remember I liked it. I might as well buy it now that I want to play it again". This is the kind of thing publishers need to be doing. No, not caressing pirates, but doing things that makes them want to pay instead of steal. And yes you'll have people who steal for the sake of stealing, but that's not the only kind of piracy by far, and taking the attitude of "these people are humans and not mindless drones" (i.e., they listen to reason) goes a long way into curbing piracy. Entrenching yourself stubbornly because "you don't deal with scum" and going the path of the most resistance with intrusive and annoying DRM is NOT the answer, no matter how many lazy publishers say it is. Honestly, they're just mad they have to work with pirates to convince them, and they're mad their lazy, misguided attempts at curbing piracy aren't working. That's why they think every game pirated is a lost sale, because publishers want the benefit of every potential customer buying a game without having worked to convince them, even the more "difficult" customer. In short, it's an entitlement issue. But not on the side of pirates, on the side of developers. They feel entitled to sales figures they never earned.

Totally agree with you on that last post, Excaliburps. I too used to be practically a religious follower of Kotaku. I'd even defend them a few times, but the past year they've dropped so hard it's not even funny. First came the increasing amount of completely pointless "articles", then came the ridiculous banhammer swings and the general phobia for constructive criticism, then came the Gawker hack (and honestly I should've left the site right there because my account was one that was compromised) with very little apology or even letting people know what happened (a THIRD PARTY had to go around e-mailing the people. Fucking pathetic), then the redesign and the proverbial foot up all the commeneters' asses, not just from the fact that the redesign went up despite all the people who used it saying it was atrocious, but also from their prick of a CEO who loudly bellowed that he won't listen anymore to commenters. As if he ever fucking did. I had it with the site by the time the redesign came up. The community that was there a couple of years ago was all but gone anyway and their coverage is very easily replaceable, so I had no use for the site anymore. The decline of the site in general is almost palpable, and like you said, they completely deserve to be knocked down a couple of notches if they haven't already. translation: "Our readers are idiots, so here's a damn scroll bar." when really I ran into multiple problems (especially from a laptop), when I was intending to scroll a story, and would scroll the articles area. Or since the scroll slider on the touchpad of my wife's laptop is wonky, I'd be using the down and up arrows, only to have the entire fucking article change. Oh, this is fucking golden. I love how they're transparently claiming to be "ahead of the curve". Yeah, yeah, keep flattering yourself. You're coming so far ahead you're falling behind, right? Everyone's leaving because you're too awesome? Jesus, these people wouldn't know "humility" if was raping their bums.

Reading the article is fun!

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/28/gamestop-targeted-in-class-action-suit-over-personal-info/ Chewie, explain. NAO. >