FireMonkey Comments

Page 1 of 45

  • Controversial mass murdering game Hatred appears on Steam Greenlight

  • FireMonkey 17/12/2014

    It's interesting to see the backlash against this game.

    I wonder how well the game would have been received if, right from the start, the people you shot were zombies or 'infected'?

    Does the name you give a bunch of pixels really have much of an impact?
    Reply -1
  • Another World-inspired adventure The Way sets January release date

  • FireMonkey 11/12/2014

    @Shinetop - I know it's harder than it looks, but I feel for this game (and many others) a hi-res version would be harder.

    In this game, the hi-res look would need to be semi-realistic as a cartoon style would not fit the gritty feel of the game. The more realism you add the hard things get. Pixel art pulls that back and due to having less detail, the realism is filled in by the mind of the player and in a way 'can' end up feeling more realistic than many hi-res attempts.

    For instance, in my mind the original Monkey Island games felt realistic. When playing later version (or the updated versions) with hi-res graphics, I was always disappointed by the look as it was too cartoony.

    Also, pixel art quite often lends itself to having a low number of frames for animation, whereas a hi-res version would need much smoother anims.

    So yes, Pixel art is more difficult than it seems, but then so is hi-res art and that is a lot less forgiving.
    Reply +1
  • FireMonkey 11/12/2014

    @Shinetop - It's partly due to the fact that it is much easier (and hence cheaper) to achieve this look than a smoother look.

    Thererfore it is perfect for Indie devs.
    Reply +1
  • Today, Sony is selling PS4 20th Anniversary Edition consoles for just 19.94 each

  • FireMonkey 10/12/2014

    @cowell - "More than 12% of the whole population of the UK is in London."

    Which means 88% of people don't.
    Reply +11
  • Xbox boss points to Killer Instinct in response to Sony's Street Fighter 5 deal

  • FireMonkey 08/12/2014

    @jabberwocky - "You know for all the people saying that MS wouldn't allow cross platform gaming they were actually the first to allow it with Shadowrun."

    But then MS backed away from it quite a bit due to the imbalances it revealed between systems.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ms-killed-pc-xbox-cross-platform-play
    Reply +3
  • Target pulls Grand Theft Auto 5 from sale in Australia

  • FireMonkey 04/12/2014

    I wonder what Target will do if the counter petition (https://www.change.org/p/australian-government-protect-the-artistic-freedom-of-video-game-developers) gets loads of people signing up?

    It had 121 at 1.00, but now has 1043 (at 8.30). Seems to be spreading quickly.

    I have no problem if Target decide to remove it from the shelves tbh. As long as it remains legal to sell the game, then there will be plenty of ways of people to get it.

    What I 'really' do have a problem with is the fact that the original petition is full of lies and misinformation. If people don't like these games that is fine. If people want them banned, that too is fine, but do it based on facts not lies.
    Reply -1
  • Desperately seeking Salty: A WOW fishing tale

  • FireMonkey 26/11/2014

    I read the title "Desperately Salty Susan".

    Not sure how, but I feel a little disgusted now.
    Reply +9
  • SkySaga is the game The Oliver Twins always wanted to make

  • FireMonkey 26/11/2014

    @Dajmin - That's why you'll never see a large(ish) indie like them do it as it will cost too much.

    The best you could hope for is that them and Codemasters allow a small indie to take it on. I doubt that will happen.
    Reply +1
  • FireMonkey 26/11/2014

    @melnificent - Lot's of Casualties? They were all subsidiaries of Blitz Games, so not really.

    Anyway, what has that really got to do with the price of fish? Smilegate have a fair bit of cash.

    You were on another article about them saying exactly the same stuff and seem to have a personal grudge with them.
    Did they make you redundant?
    Reply +3
  • FireMonkey 26/11/2014

    @Dajmin - "I can't be the only one who's been waiting for a decent Dizzy game for 20 years."

    Should have joined their Dizzy Kickstarter then. ;)

    That was a bit of a flop, so I doubt it will happen now.
    Reply +3
  • Apple removes the "free" label from F2P games

  • FireMonkey 21/11/2014

    @Uncompetative - I agree with this sort of idea, but worry that for the general market it 'may' be too confusing.

    I also wonder how a system like this would get implemented. I doubt Apple and Google would agree on terms and so create even more confusion.
    Reply 0
  • FireMonkey 20/11/2014

    @PlugMonkey - Nice idea, but not all F2P games are done in the Pay As You Go style, so that would be misleading in itself.
    Pay As You Go sounds more like a subscription based game such as WoW.
    Reply +1
  • How Assassin's Creed: Unity's micro-transactions work

  • FireMonkey 16/11/2014

    @chrisboers - "EVERYTHING that is not reachable through one playtrough, is called grinding, and is the basis formula for F2P IAPs. This single statement is just that: the admission that AC: Unity is a Full Price game using F2P tactics to get you to pay more."

    Have you played previous Assassins Creed games?

    If you wanted everything in them then they all became serious grind-fests too and they didn't even have IAPs. That pretty much disproves your connection between the two.

    However... IF they have made the grinding worse than in other AC games to push the IAPs then they need to be strung up by the balls and whipped.
    This is what the article fails to state and what I would like to know before agreeing that this game should be avoided due to having IAPs (I'm personally going to avoid it for being a buggy mess)

    Forgetting about IAPs for a moment, I'd like to think about game design for a bit and focus on why they would want you to grind to unlock everything in their games (including ones without IAPs).

    I believe the reason for this is because they don't actually want you to get everything in a single play. If they did, then the choice over what to spend your hard earned loot on becomes a little meaningless as you know eventually you will have it all.

    It also means you lose a lot of the reason to do side quests and activities as what are they going to give you? Cash? Who cares about extra cash if you will get all the items anyway.

    If these activities are then pointless then there would be hardly anything to do apart from the main story. If that is the case, then what is the point of having an open world. It may as well be linear and on a fixed path.

    Suddenly, by allowing all items to be collected in a single (non-grindy) play through, you have a much different and I feel less enjoyable game.
    Reply -1
  • FireMonkey 16/11/2014

    @The_Ty - I just want to clear up that I am not defending any game or publisher per se, but am trying to stress that IAPs do 'not' always mean the game has been negatively affected and so should be avoided.

    Some games actually implement IAPs in a way that has no affect on the main game. If you would have been happy with the game before knowing it had IAPs available, why would it suddenly become bad when they sell IAPs?

    Most people seem fairly happy with the fact that Team Fortress 2 has IAPs (and these were added when it was still a full price game btw), so surely they can't all be bad?

    Take a listen to this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHC-uGDbu7s#t=77

    Valve believes that their are 2 main approaches to IAPs. One is to try push customers into paying them (which is the method most people on here seem to believe all IAPs are) and they have data to show that this will fail financially. The other is to use IAPs to actually improve the user experience (obviously making a little money themselves at the same time).

    Not all IAPs are bad. Not all IAP implantations mean that the main game has suffered in any way.

    We as consumers need to just be careful with what we buy and avoid those products that have been badly affected by IAPs, but we shouldn't hail all games with IAP as bad as that is obviously not true.
    Reply -1
  • FireMonkey 15/11/2014

    @lostmuppet - I never pre-order as you never know what you are actually ordering. Waiting on the reviews of FC4. If they are positive and it's not buggy, I'll be getting it (whether it has IAPs or not) Reply -2
  • FireMonkey 15/11/2014

    @Gayrath You really do sound like someone who just likes an argument and to moan about things.

    All I have been trying to say is that we shouldn't just hate every game that has IAPs. We need to judge them on a case-by-case basis.

    If a game is enjoyable when played without IAPs then it is still a good game whether or not it has the option of IAPs.

    However, if a game is poorly affected by the inclusion of the IAPs, then this will be spotted by reviews and 'these' are the games we need to avoid.

    We should not just blindly state 'all games with IAP are bad' as we may very well miss some gaming gems.
    Reply -5
  • FireMonkey 15/11/2014

    @lostmuppet 64.99 is not to get an item. It's to get in-game currency which you can spend to get many in-game items.

    Not saying it's right or I would ever buy it (never have paid for IAPs and doubt I ever will).

    Also it was me that said micro-transactions. I don't think they ever actually call them that, so moaning at them for a mistake I made is a little unfair.
    Reply -4
  • FireMonkey 15/11/2014

    @lostmuppet -"You just don't get it do you, free to play business schemes have no place in full priced retail games period. Please stop defending this shit."

    It is not a free to play scheme. It is a micro transaction. It's very similar to how DLC has always worked, but on a 'micro' scale. Yes, F2P use it a lot, but if done right in a full price game it doesn't matter.
    As I say, if a game reviews well despite micro transactions then what does it matter.
    Reply -11
  • FireMonkey 14/11/2014

    @YenRug - "But the developers weren't forced to adjust the mechanics of a game to encourage you to pay that money, were they?"

    They still aren't and not all do.
    Some might. If they do, the reviews should pick up on this and review them badly.

    Getting a low review score for bad in-app purchasing implementation will hopefully stop companies abusing them as this will lead directly to loss of sales.
    Reply -2
  • FireMonkey 14/11/2014

    I have no fundamental problem with in-app purchasing if (and it's a big if) it is done fairly, does not hassle me and does not affect the progress of the main game for people that do not want to buy into it. I find it a little odd that some people read in-app purchasing and will write a game off no matter how good it may be.

    However, if games become a grind fest due to in-app purchases I want to know and will avoid these games especially if it is in a full retail game.

    Reviews need to mainly review the game without the in-app purchases (maybe have a secondary section covering the in-apps). If a game abuses in-app purchases it will score lower ratings, but if it's still a good game despite in-apps, then it will score well and then surely it doesn't matter what extras you could buy in the game does it?
    Reply 0
  • FireMonkey 14/11/2014

    @lostmuppet - "I don't know about you but back in my day they were called cheats and the cost was zero."

    Actually people did spend money on cheats as we didn't have the internet to just look them up.

    Plenty of people bought magazines to get hold of the cheat codes. I believe there were some magazines dedicated to just cheat codes.

    There were also premium rate phone numbers that you could call to find cheat codes for games.

    In a way, at least the money now goes to the devs and not somebody else leeching off the game.
    Reply -11
  • FireMonkey 14/11/2014

    "Normally the only way you could obtain it is by forking over 125,000 francs - which would take a huge amount of time to accumulate."

    Would it? How long roughly?
    Surely that is quite an important fact that is missing from this.

    Not having played the game I'm quite interested in how long this would actually take. If it's a top level weapon then, in a game like this I think I'd be more than happy if it took me until I was at least 30% through the game before I could afford it. Ruins a game if you get the top items too early.
    Reply -4
  • Assassin's Creed: Unity, Far Cry 4 and The Crew in UK Steam no-show

  • FireMonkey 07/11/2014

    @Faramis - "Fuck Ubisoft then. No steam, no buy. I don't want to keep hundreds of seperate accounts for my games."

    Then buy all your games in uPlay! ;)

    You want Ubisoft to do extra work to get their games working (properly) in Steam, but surely it should be the same the other way and Valve should make all their games work properly in uPlay and Origin?
    Reply +3
  • FireMonkey 07/11/2014

    I love how everyone jumps to the conclusion that this was a decision Ubisoft made.
    It could very well be caused by Valve. Why is no one asking them to comment?

    EA pulled there games off Steam after a policy change went against the way they wanted to sell the items and would have caused them additional work for no extra income.

    I wonder if Valve have changed the Steam policies again and this time it affects Ubi?
    Reply +2
  • FireMonkey 06/11/2014

    1) Buy from GetGames
    2) Link the game to your Steam account (if you really want to)

    Job done. No fuss. Stop whining for the sake of it.
    Reply -16
  • Star Wars Battlefront out Christmas 2015

  • FireMonkey 29/10/2014

    @DAN.E.B - Sword fighting works really well in Chivalry. See no real reason DICE couldn't do something good with light-sabres in 1st person. Reply +3
  • Star Wars: X-Wing and Tie Fighter re-releasing on PC

  • FireMonkey 28/10/2014

    @foxdie_01 - "Finally a good enough reason to install another DRM ridden executable"

    Umm.. GOG are usually DRM free and if you read the article, it looks like this will be too.

    "A post on GOG.com published prematurely (but spotted by the GOG.com community), revealed a partnership with Disney to bring over 20 classic LucasArts games to the platform DRM-free."
    Reply +2
  • Steam Music Player lets you listen to your music while you play

  • FireMonkey 25/09/2014

    @chucklepie - Yes, but that is not so easy to do when running in big screen mode with a pad in the living room.

    May not be for you and me, but for some people it may be of use.

    Also, how does WinAmp or MediaPlayer handle the music when you start a game? You probably get 2 lots of music, this has the potential to detect music playing and silence the ingame music.
    Reply +2
  • New Oculus Rift prototype Crescent Bay unveiled

  • FireMonkey 22/09/2014

    PCGamer covered it too and seemed really excited by it:
    http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/09/21/oculus-rift-crescent-bay-prototype-hands-on-experiencing-true-vr-presence-for-the-first-time/
    Reply 0
  • PES 2015 demo goes live, but not in Europe

  • FireMonkey 18/09/2014

    "Out now in Asia. You know what to do."

    I'm not going to Asia just to play a demo. /s
    Reply +22
  • Silent Hills concept trailer is coming for you

  • FireMonkey 18/09/2014

    @green_nifta - "Corpse picking his head from the ground? We need straight-jacketed nurses with no faces "

    So a giant, faceless, maggot headed child crawling at you doesn't tick that box?
    Reply +2
  • Ridiculous AirVR headset straps a mobile device to your face

  • FireMonkey 18/09/2014

    @Plankton1975 - "Holodeck please, else I'm not interested."

    They have to start somewhere and VR actually addresses a lot of the same issues a Holodeck would face.

    Your comment is like someone in the past saying "Steam engines! No thanks. HydroElectric or not interested."
    Reply +10
  • FireMonkey 18/09/2014

    The problem with this and Googles Cardboard VR (or whatever it was called) is that the screens of these devices are not designed for VR. They are not supposed to be looked at that close through a lens and they do not (in general) refresh fast enough.

    These are the reasons for the awful screen doors and some of the motion sickness on the Rift DK1.

    Things like this are just going to damage the impression of VR even more.
    Reply +3
  • Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham first Lego game to get a season pass

  • FireMonkey 11/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine - Sorry if that sounded patronising, it wasn't intended as such, I just wanted to explain to those who do not understand the costs.

    The example of costume DLC is quite far from the type of DLC I am talking about here (the ones in the Lego game), which includes a new level, story and characters. Costumes do not need much time to get back into the flow of development and can be done during down time on any project and normally just by a single person. The DLC here would need a full team of developers (albeit a cut down team compared to a full game) and the DLC would need much more QA.

    Your point about the number of costumes in the original DoA. The new costumes are of a much higher quality and so would take longer (and cost more) to develop so obviously they would have to include less to stop the price going up too far.

    Although, even after saying that, your point about DoA and RE5 may have some merit. That does not however mean that ALL DLC is a rip off

    As I said with my very first point, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with DLC (even day one DLC). As long as the base game is still fun and the customers feel they are getting their moneys worth from it then why does it matter?
    Reply +1
  • FireMonkey 11/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine - Read my last comment.

    DLC is NOT a cash grab, as no one needs to buy it and many people want it otherwise it would not sell.

    DLC does NOT raise the cost of anything. DLC does not just appear for nowhere, it is made through the hard work of game devs that need to be paid for their work. If this content were to be included in the main game, then the cost of developing the main game would have been higher and so the game should be sold at a higher price.

    Early DLC is a very efficient business practice and as such REDUCES the cost of developing the DLC AND full games.

    How? Well (as explained in my last comment), staff that would otherwise be finished on the game move straight onto DLC at full speed. This is opposed to moving onto a different game and then later getting pulled back to do the DLC. Returning to a game and getting back into it takes time, which costs money.

    Also, if the staff were pulled back from another game, that would slow down the development of that other game and RAISE the overall cost of that game and so the game should sell at a higher price.

    (in case you do not understand why a slow game dev without extra staff costs more money, it is because the running of a company costs money on a day to day basis due to paying HR, PR, cleaners, taxes, rent, etc. The longer a game takes the more money is spent on running the company which need to be spread out between the games and so the more the games cost)
    Reply 0
  • FireMonkey 10/09/2014

    @PlugMonkey - Well we are both monkeys! ;) Reply +1
  • FireMonkey 10/09/2014

    @monkeychris - "The difference being it's day one DLC and if the download is any more than a 1MB file to unlock them, I'd be surprised.

    That's like having the police station, hospital and houses in the box and having to pay to use them.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seasons passes and new content but day one DLC smacks of a cash grab."

    Or it smacks that you haven't got a good understanding of running a business efficiently (which is fine btw).

    Before making a game the developers estimate how many units it will sell and at what price. That gives them an idea of how much they can spend on developing the product. If financially plausible, this money is spent on developing the main game.

    At the same time the developers look at potential DLC and how many units it will sell and at what price. This gives them an idea of how much they can spend on developing the DLC. If financially plausible, this money will be spent on developing the DLC.

    They could wait until after the game has been released to develop the DLC, but this would actually waste time, which costs money and would raise the final DLC cost.

    The reason for this is that towards the end of game production the teams shrink and staff leave to move onto a new product (why do you need designers or animators during bug fixing stages? The answer is that they don't).

    Having DLC to work on means that the staff that finish on the main game can move straight onto the DLC. This means their minds are already on the game and they are fully up to speed with the development process and can spin through work really quickly. If they had to be pulled from another game, they would have to get back up to speed (which takes time - hence costs money) and would also slow the development of the other game (which in turn makes that game cost more).

    The reason it can often be fit onto the main game disc is that the DLC's are usually using the same systems as the main game and so are a lot less risky and so much easier to test. In fact testing of the DLC often completes before the testing of the final game. Even if it doesn't and there are bugs, then they only need to offer a very small update to fix these issues when you pay for the DLC.

    If the DLC is pretty much ready before the disk is sent off to be burnt, then why not add it? What is anyone losing out from that? The only difference is that the devs save server space and bandwidth and we save time (and potentially money) in downloading.

    Basically, day one DLC shows that the company is making effective use of their staff and not wasting money (which means they can afford to spend more on developing better products)
    Reply 0
  • FireMonkey 09/09/2014

    @monkeychris - Why?

    There is nothing wrong with this method as long as the base game is still fun and worth the money paid for.

    If I buy a real Lego City fire station set, I don't expect to get the police station, hospital and houses as well, even though they were planned for and created at the same time. Why does it have to be so different for video games?

    As for season passes, I see nothing wrong with this either. Gives those of us who would pay for the full lot to get it all cheaper.
    Reply -23
  • Editor's blog: About the Destiny review

  • FireMonkey 08/09/2014

    Does this mean when the global player count on the game drops, the game will be crap? Reply +3
  • Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aime completes the Ice Bucket Challenge

  • FireMonkey 30/08/2014

    @Canyarion I can fairly easily chuck 10 towards this charity AND one to help with Ebola. Charity donations are not mutually exclusive.
    I just wish I knew who to give money to help with Ebola.
    Reply +8
  • FireMonkey 30/08/2014

    @ImpericalLegion - "People should stop participating in this silly fad now and just donate the money."

    Do you really think without this 'fad' they would have had as many people donate as they have?
    This 'fad' is helping raise awareness and raise money. Yes, some are using it as a way of promoting themselves, but if it raises money who really gives a fuck.
    Reply +1
  • Nintendo announces new 3DS and 3DS XL designs with extra buttons, improved CPU

  • FireMonkey 29/08/2014

    @SG - I actually gave you a + till I saw the edit. Now you have another -.

    Grow up!
    Reply +2
  • Depression Quest has arrived on Steam

  • FireMonkey 13/08/2014

    @Lunatic4ever - "Just read his post, what a nice and caring person. The world needs more people like him."

    her
    Reply +28
  • Destiny expansion The Dark Below launches in December 2014

  • FireMonkey 12/08/2014

    @nothough - "If you can turn around an "expansion" 2-3 months after the game's release, put it in the game from the start."

    But then the game will cost 3 times as much on release.
    You do realise it costs money to make these things don't you?

    It does seem a bit dumb telling people about the DLC before the game is released. That's like a film producer releasing a trailer for a third film in a trilogy before the first has hit the cinema.
    Reply +4
  • Deep Silver parent company buys Homefront from Crytek

  • FireMonkey 30/07/2014

    @spamdangled - "and in the case of Warface, are complete sh*t"

    I'm actually really enjoying Warface.
    Having much more fun with it than I have with CoD for some time.
    Reply +1
  • EA Access gives players access to triple-A games for $5 a month

  • FireMonkey 29/07/2014

    @MTM2 - Fifa 14 and BF4 aren't 'that' old. Reply +2
  • FireMonkey 29/07/2014

    @Brev2034 You get to play any (well any of the ones they put on the service and for the amount of time they have them, on their. This is the grey area at the mo.). No need to pay extra for them games that are on the service. Reply +2
  • FireMonkey 29/07/2014

    @smelly - Yep, only your opinion counts. Reply -2
  • FireMonkey 29/07/2014

    @MTM2 - "I don't think this competes with PS Now"

    Maybe not right now, but what have Sony got planned for the future?
    If they allow this now, how could they then introduce a similar feature later on without pissing off the PS4 owners that have already paid for the EA only version?
    Reply 0
  • FireMonkey 29/07/2014

    @elfergos - "I wonder if they will start pulling their offerings from other subscription services like they pulled their flagship titles from steam."

    FYI, Valve actually changed their T&C for games on Steam and some EA's games no longer met them. EA were not willing to change the games to make them work for Steam as it would have meant more money going to Valve and less to EA. Because of this they had to remove them.
    This is why their games are still on other download services.
    Reply +1