@thom_maytees The reason is because it's now owned by EA and they don't care about their employees. Hopefully all of PopCap saw the writing on the wall and updated their resumes last July.
I've been eagerly awaiting any FO4 info since the first footage of their revamped engine was shown (for Skyrim). Plus, seeing some cool in-game tech based on fictional MIT research would be cool as hell.
@Deadly_Nemesis Revelations would definitely be the best example to use for the "anti-yearly releases" crowd, but I have a hard time finding any faults in Brotherhood. And if it was a choice between not giving closure to Ezio's story, skipping a year and releasing AC3, I'm glad they chose to release ACR because we still get a brand new, overhauled sequel this year, but we also got a decent installment in the meantime.
@Havok83 I would agree that looking back after playing more recent games, 1 is nowhere near as good. But the first time I played it I felt it was an awesome new experience, so I went with how I originally felt when writing my comment, not how I would rate it looking back. And Brotherhood was almost as good as 2 in my opinion. It was great seeing a fictionalization of the Borgia empire. If you haven't seen it, check out the show The Borgias, it does a good job illustrating how perfect of a setting that region/time period was for an AC game. I would agree that Revelations could have been a lot better in terms of storyline, but the gameplay was still fun.
So 5 years, 3 awesome games, one great, and one good. Are you people saying you'd rather wait longer between major overhauls and miss out on the in-between games? Because I for one am grateful to have Brotherhood and Revelations in my collection to enjoy while waiting for AC3. Bunch of whiners in this generation of gamer.
He did a great job explaining their business practices. I can't wait for this game. I hope they bring back the bicycle and the "leveling up" aspects of San Andreas.
Ok so a free-to-play game built by the makers of Diablo, with essentially an identical interface and with superior graphics? Why the hell are they charging $60 for D3 again? The servers will probably be more reliable for this game, too. Yet another slap in the face to anyone who paid for D3.
There are several factors that will play into the success or failure of this device:
1. Developers have a hard time making money off of Android due to the ease of pirating content. Basically all you have to do is transfer the APK to the device and you're good to go.
2. The hardware is essentially the same as you'd find in a phone or tablet, so it seems to be targeted at the casual gamer. However, the casual gamer will prefer to use their phone/tablet and therefore has little incentive to purchase this device.
3. A customizable media box that can also play some games could be an attractive purchase for people looking to consolidate their media. There won't be restrictions on which types of media can be used so savvy users might pick this up to make streaming MKVs to their tele a bit easier.
4. The hardware is cheap, so consumers could benefit from it, but without a good ROI structure for developers, content could be limited. They will need to find a way to monetize content which can be difficult on Android.
5. This will be a great device for emulating old games. But as the legality of that is questionable, it won't make any money. Consumers will enjoy it, but at ~$100 a console they won't make much from people wanting it mainly for that purpose. There's no way MS, Sony or Nintendo will license their games to a competing console, so emulation will be entirely 3rd party and won't even be officially supported.
6. The hardware manufacturer will only make a decent ROI if the console has a large profit margin. They allow free development for the device, so their only income will be from console sales.
@blacksaibot Look another doofus who complains about a game that tries to give a more in-depth exploration of a complex story! Yeah, maybe people do refer you to COD a lot, probably because if all you want is an FPS it's a better choice for you. The Half-Life series has always been about conveying a compelling story. If it seems like HL2 does it more than HL1 it's because they had more experience and took more time to include aspects they couldn't feasibly do before. I've got news for you, it's only going to get more involved, because Valve won't dumb down their game for you. So yes, if you want something that allows you to run and shoot without ever interrupting you to give you bits of story, see my previous comment.
timmy0001's comments