ShiftyGeezer Comments

Page 1 of 35

  • What does Brexit mean for the UK video games industry?

  • ShiftyGeezer 24/06/2016

    "Add in the free movement of skilled labour, which EU residents have enjoyed for years, and that could mean we will have a talent deficit until we can train our talent up."
    That's kinda silly. The creative industries are very international. There are all natioanlities working in all countries like USA, Canada, New Zealand, etc., without freedom of movement arrangements, along with non-EU nationals working at EU companies.
    Reply +6
  • EGX partners with Amazon for 2016 show

  • ShiftyGeezer 06/06/2016

    @Lankysi : If everyone knew how to "play" it, no-one would be able to "play" it. Reply +3
  • APB Reloaded hits Xbox One - with a 115 "micro"-transaction

  • ShiftyGeezer 03/06/2016

    @Triggerhappytel : This doesn't need the EU. Everyone's free to not play the game or choose to grind or pay stupid money. There are many, many other games out there to play instead, so free competition is the order of the day here. Reply +5
  • The Last Guardian re-emerges, on track for 2016 release

  • ShiftyGeezer 27/05/2016

    @grassyknoll : In which case it probably works out okay. First I've heard of it described that way. Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 27/05/2016

    @grassyknoll : I don't disagree, but Sony has shown willingness to close first party studios that aren't making (lots of) money. Why keep Team ICO running rather than spend money on indie games (like Vane from ex ICO staff)?

    I'm not advocating closure nor questioning the value niche first parties can bring. I'm just pointing out that Team ICO isn't inherently immune to trimming back any more than other studios. The cost of running Team ICO for ten years to make this game could have been spent on securing several niche, artsy 2nd party titles instead. That's the model MS have pursued and Sony's studio closures with history, talent and value suggests to me they're starting to recognise the lower-risk benefits in that model too.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 27/05/2016

    @christinetaylorrinzl : Not all 30. About half of them in that article. Also many are only 4-5 years, not the true development hell we're talking about here. Furthermore, look at the user scores rather than the metacritic scores and you see a very different picture. eg. Spore has 82% reviews, but 52% from 1600 user reviews. Users encounter more of the bugs and issues and quality problems in the long run than reviewers. As a final point, that article is 5 years old so missing the most recent data. I don't know how more recent Development Hell titles stand up. Reply +6
  • ShiftyGeezer 27/05/2016

    @christinetaylorrinzl : I don't think that'll last. We've had a couple of devs closed down, and the financial cost of TLG is going to be absurd. It'll never make its money back. I doubt it'll even be a mainstream title. Will it bring enough value to the platform to justify supporting Team ICO, or will they be shelved like many others in the cold, hard reality of games as a business? Reply +1
  • Oculus Rift's latest attempt to block piracy backfires

  • ShiftyGeezer 23/05/2016

    @TheStoneRoses : That's what the Kickstarter was for. I don't think OVR was struggling for money or investment, and it's not like FB's money has made a decent product and service beyond what was possible. The manufacture and distribution is terrible - not what you'd expect for a billion dollar company. Reply +5
  • ShiftyGeezer 23/05/2016

    Palmer Luckey is the iconic sell-out. He went into VR with a young vision and enthusiasm, and a set of alturistic values not defined by corporate greed. He then sold out to FB and they've taken over and stomped all over his values.

    Question is, would you have refused the money and kept with the idealised vision, or would you have taken the billion dollars and let some souless corporation destroy your dream?
    Reply +21
  • One of Street Fighter 5's greatest mysteries solved

  • ShiftyGeezer 20/05/2016

    Slowed down in Audacity, he actually does say that. Although more like 'bear' than 'bird' Reply +1
  • Expired Xbox Live Gamertags to become available again on Wednesday

  • ShiftyGeezer 17/05/2016

    @ecco : The solution there is to add a PublicName to the account that is used for the public front. Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 17/05/2016

    @Peew971 : Yeah, changing names is important. Still don't see the value in expring them. eg. We created an account for sharing content between three friends on PS3 back in 2011. Bought a few games on it before Sony reduced the active device count from 5 to two. Didn't touch it in years. Last week I wanted to try From Dust again which was on this shared account. After a few tries I remembered the password and accessed the paid content. Had Sony removed that account for being idle for years, I'd have lost access to my paid content.

    Ultimately if someone has used an account to buy stuff, what's the justification in removing that account and their content? It's not like there's a finite number of accounts or names possible. It's not as though Nintendo come around and remove all your Wii games that haven't been played in years. ;)
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 17/05/2016

    Some of the greatest inventions of all time

    I presume that one generates a fault.

    @Peew971 : What's the expiry on PSN accounts? Ultimately you don't want one - you want the owner to come back to using it and buying content. So I can see names never being released.
    Reply 0
  • Project Spark is dead - Long live Project Spark

  • ShiftyGeezer 15/05/2016

    @Mr_Writer85 : Tearaway was critically successfully but not financially. LBP was highly successful thanks to the possiblity of selling DLC. Dreams is an unknown how Sony are going (to be able) to monetise and make it a going concern. If they can't, ideas of this ilk will be harder to justify ivnesting in in future. MS have tried Kodu on 360 and Spark on XB1, neither of which has done well. Are they likely to try again? Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 15/05/2016

    @Pete207 : Firstly, if you bought it, you have had the experience of it. It's no different to other games getting online modes shelved, like MAG. All products have a shelf-life and we shouldn't expect refunds long after the plug is pulled.

    Secondly, when it went free weren't recent buyers credited? So MS already went a little beyond the norm. If you bought it after it went free, you were basically ripped off so it's a nice gesture to refund those suckers. Who probably won't even know they're entitled to a refund as they must be running a shop-bought copy.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 15/05/2016

    @RawShark :
    Yes. I'm not saying it won't be released. What I'm saying is that IF it gets released I'll be amazed. No contradiction there.
    You expect it not to be released. You even consider a high probability that it'll never release because you'll be amazed if it is. well, unless you are very easily amazed by things that's the implication. ;)

    It's going to get released. That's a given (very high probability barring natural disasters etc). There's a lot invested in it; the product is in a serviceable state; and it's in the public eye now with constant updates ahead of beta test and release. It won't be pulled at this point as the required investment to complete will be worth the financial risk. Even if it doesn't sell massively, it may well produce a lot of positive PR from content created by it. And if it gets a VR version, it could be one of the best tools for VR content.

    What are the arguments to think it'll get shelved? Project Spark didn't work so Sony will view Dreams as destined for the same fate and give up?
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 14/05/2016

    @AdamNovice : I'm sure it'll be great as a tool. Dream's something I hope to use in a signifiacnt way (I had an LBP animated short show at the Cannes Film Festival. Dreams will be way better!). I question if it'll have mass appeal though, in terms of millions of people wanting to buy it to make stuff. There's a certain psychology about creation that none of these 'games' have really managed to get, IMO. Hence the biggest creation title of all being a simple game of big boxes, rather than an amazingly beautiful, powerful, complex tool like LBP. I think one of the reasons is that in something like LBP, you have an idea of what you want to do based on seemingly endless possiblities, but then have to struggle with the tools and get frustrated in working around limitations and getting it just how you imagined. In something like Minecraft you are so incredibly limited in what you can do that your creative ideas get automatically capped to what's possible, just making some form of building or statue, for which the game provide obvious tools that never frustrate. So there's never any frustration and there's always the possibility of the reward of success if you just put in the time, so it's far more leisurable (if that's a word).

    That's my current guess as to the difference in response anyhow. Makes sense to me this moment in time.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 14/05/2016

    @RawShark :
    I'm not saying Dream won't be released
    If that Media Molecule Dreams game ends up getting released I'll be amazed.

    Dreams will get finished and released. Whether it sells gangbusters or not...probably not. I think it's an experience people will like but be too complex. I'm theorising that people like creativity, like in Minecraft, when it's incredibly simple. Once it becomes too complicated to pick up and do, they switch off. This is why people don't spend their free time creating home-made CGI animations. ;)

    But if MM appreciate this and are building it that way, it may gain traction. I haven't been following the tools to see what state it's in.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 14/05/2016

    @RawShark : Why won't Dreams get released?

    And Lego has tried multiple times over the years. Creators just don't have the appeal for some reason.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 14/05/2016

    These ideas don't really work. the closest we've had to a success is LBP, which was a game principally. 'Creators', whether from MS or EA orLego or whoever, don't seem to attract the attenion as much as games with creative aspects like Minecraft that people prefer to mess around in.

    Someone probably needs to study that, to understand the different appeals.
    Reply +1
  • There's a new Kinect game

  • ShiftyGeezer 13/05/2016

    The PS3 version was pretty ropey regards background removal, although marketed with pretty much the same super-clean extraction IIRC. It'll be interesting to see how well Kinect can extract the player. Reply +1
  • Can Battlefield 1 help us see The Great War with fresh eyes?

  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    @WilhelmvonOrmstein : []quote]Some may parody contemporary events, but do you REALLY think they are some deliberate attempt to drill home sinister messages? I wasn't saying that at all. I guess you're reading my words as an 'antiviolent game lobbyiest' based on the conversation thus far and (mis)interpreting as such. The discussion is far more elaborate than that and far more subtle then violent computer games brainwashing people into a mindless, willing army. If your only going to discuss in such terms then there's no discussion to be had. Yes, computer games don't cause people to be violent nor make them willing combatants so there's nothing to question nor debate and everything can carry on regardless. Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    @WilhelmvonOrmstein : You misunderstand my point. I play violent computer games and am not missing out on anything. I'm also very aware of how desensitised I've become, and I appreciate that if people weren't desensitised, they woud be far more resistant to committing attrocities. We've had our barriers weakened.

    That's not saying games or media makes us violent. The situation is far more complex than that and distilling it into an either/or debate misses what's really going on and what the concerns really should be.

    Think of it like this - take any of the German soldiers who marched on Belgium in 1914. Talking to them a few years earlier, how many would have said, "yeah, that's a good idea?" You can't just take an ordinary, decent, average Joe, give them a gun/bomb, and turn them into a killer. It takes conditioning. Games that take you towards that reality are one form of conditioning, which of course isn't enough in and of itself.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    @WilhelmvonOrmstein : When someone's invading, it's defence. Point is, the people doing the invading were actually all good, decent, ordinary folk, who'd rather be at home with the family then warmongering. What led them to invade? Social pressure, basically.

    The capacity for societies and peoples to be hoodwinked into performing attrocities on someone else's say-so is a major issue with human progress. Again, computer games are another 'tool' that can make people complacent/susceptible. The military use computer games to prepare people for real killing. Before then we had posters and statues and war stories and big celebrations of great murderers, and hid the real victims away from the PR machine, because otherwise it'd be very hard for the next crazed leader to drum up an army of willing souls to do their dirty work next time they wanted oil or land or further a religious ideal.

    But that's not really my point, as that's applicable to many games. For this game in particular, the horrors of WWI will lose emotional power when kids get to experience them 'first hand' and laugh at the gameplay they bring. Kids will be more likely to look at a flamethrower in a museum and chat to their mates about 'that time in BF1 when...' than think about what it'd feel like to have your skin burnt off; to go the rest of your life hideously disfigured if you were 'lucky' enough to survive the attack; the emotional disconnect needed to get a man to burn-alive his fellow man; and how society gets to that point and what can be done to stop it ever happening again.
    It's the same mind processes as that which goes on 'terrorists' and 'liberators' so isn't ancient history and something we can overlook.
    Reply +1
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    @WilhelmvonOrmstein : "Cannon Fodder" on the Amiga had to remove the Poppy trademark. I wonder if this will face the same? Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    I would argue that, given it was the Gulf War, the US tank crew could treat it like a computer game because they were facing such underwhelming opposition and thus the threat to their lives was actually quite low
    Which is the problem. They were blowing people up, with a callous detachment from their actions because it ws just like playing COD. Surely they should be in the tank treating it like the real world with real people and making intelligent, humane choices about when to shoot and when not to, rather than putting on some loud music and shouting "boo-yah" every time they spread some poor dumb schmuck's innards over the neighbourhood.

    And I don't think games are purely to blame for this detachment in the Western world.
    Of course they aren't. As I said though, they have made it worse. They make it easier to interpret horrific acts of violence in a inhumane, amoral view, rationlized with a primitive "they are the baddies" psychology that renders combatants emotionally immune from their acts. Until such time as the barriers come down and they are faced ith real consequences, and then we see the real personal impact of war in PTSD and a potential lifetime of reliving ones actions.

    Wars should be fought by people who are aware of what they're doing and hate what they're doing and will stop the very first chance they get. That's difficult to achieve when getting excited about total kill counts and head shots - a culture computer games help develop, if not are entirely responsible for developing.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    @MccyMcFlinn :
    Battlefield 1 may well prompt further misconceptions about WWI in immature minds; however, those minds may be immature now but, eventually, everyone grows up and BF1 might just prompt them to take a keen interest in WWI which could lead on to WWII or the Boer War, etc.
    I'm not sure that's true. I've seen footage of gung-ho modern soldiers with a complete emotional detachment from the suffering of war, who treat it like a game. I'll never forget the Gulf War documentary footage of a US tank listening to loud war-mongering metal music about killing people and blowing real-life people up and having a fun time doing it. There was zero gravitas in their appreciation of their actions, and no remorse for the suffering they were inflicting. I'm pretty sure the computer game era has made that problem worse.
    Reply -2
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    @Achtung_Englander : That's unfair. They were moved at times, just not powerfully affected. They didn't come away from the trip feeling the horrors of war, and how could they when it's so sanitised behind museum glass? As a kid, I never felt the horrow of war either, save perhaps a little empathising when learning about mustard gas and camps and Hiroshima. It wasn't until the likes of Saving Private Ryan that I understood the emotions and not just the ideas. There are many horrors left out of games. The number of soldiers who had to fight with it's not bad enough to have all that going off, your bowels are twisting up at the same time.

    who died so that they could live
    That's sadly not true. They died because dickhead 'leaders' had their petty power squabbles and brainwashed the population into thinking fighting wars was a Good Thing. And humanity hasn't yet developed the strength to walk away because society keeps brainwashing people into thinking fighting for your country (or whoever wrangled their way into power) is Noble and Brave and to not is Cowardly and Dishonourable, and these lies keep people fighting.

    There's nothing wrong with not fighting and everyone just getting on with it, despite everyone, extremeists and Hollywood etc., saying you need to fight for what you believe in.

    Still, if people are busy playing games or war, they may not get around to fighting them for real.
    Reply +11
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/05/2016

    A local school had a recent trip to Ypres. I don't think they were particularly moved. How's it going to be when these 13-14 year olds go on such trips, then come home and fire up Battlefield and laugh at how their mate flame-throwed them in the face as they respawn? Reply +9
  • Windows 10 will cost $119 after July

  • ShiftyGeezer 05/05/2016

    Don't like Win10 on my SP4 so don't want to 'upgrade' Win 7 desktop. But don't want to pay for Win10. Solution? Get Win 10 for free, then run a Win 7 virtual machine! Reply 0
  • Shadow of the Beast remake will include the original Amiga game

  • ShiftyGeezer 04/05/2016

    Have Sony created an Amiga emulator for PS4 along with PS2 emulator? Are we going to see other Amiga titles avaulable on PSN?! :o Maybe even a floppy disc drive peripheral to load your old disks??! :eek: Reply +5
  • Uncharted 4's multiplayer content will all be unlockable for free

  • ShiftyGeezer 02/05/2016

    Depends on the balance. If designed for hours and hours of grind to unlock, I'd say it's still Pay-to-win. And chances are it is weighted that way otherwise no-one would buy the content... Reply +9
  • It looks like this year's COD is named Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

  • ShiftyGeezer 26/04/2016

    @MikkyX : Cavaliers versus Roundheads? Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 26/04/2016

    Presumably the next stop is back in time, so CoD:Napoleonic War or somesuch. Only standing in a square getting shot at, firing one round a minute, probably isn't the sort of gameplay CoD fans would like... Reply +8
  • Tales of Berseria confirmed for Europe in spring 2017

  • ShiftyGeezer 25/04/2016

    Interesting that everyone assumes the explanation is just to defend the art choice. What if there's actually a good reason, and the character is really well developed, and the situation very thought provoking?? eg. To disarm male antagonists and manipluate their shallownessto gain an advantage? Or something. Reply +2
  • Ubisoft fixes big The Division exploit

  • ShiftyGeezer 22/04/2016

    IMO tricking enemy to fight each other is emergent gameplay and one of the joys of gaming, finding solutions to problems. It adds an element of discovery. Reply +25
  • Ubisoft just implemented a smart fix for The Division's incursion exploits

  • ShiftyGeezer 21/04/2016

    @dkeppens : It's a short-term workaround while they (presumably, hopefully) fix the broken aspects. Basically, this is the boy with his finger in the dyke while the organisation of a full, time-consuming repair gets underway. Reply +5
  • ShiftyGeezer 21/04/2016

    Like I suggested then with my "if(boss != dead)" code suggestion. Do I get commission? ;) Reply -2
  • Ubisoft threatens to "punish" The Division players who use a popular exploit

  • ShiftyGeezer 18/04/2016

    @nathull : But what's an exploit? If that's not defined anywhere, it's pretty hard to adhere to it, on a legal level (which removal of access to one's purchased product/service means we need to be operating on). I think we've all exploited games at some point, from cheating limited AI to finding safe places to fight bosses. If we enjoy that from our products, no-one should be denying us the right to play how we want.

    This is only an issue because 1) It's 'competitive' online, and 2) it's part of the product's long-term value and so affects monetary worth. The same glitch in a single player game (like Borderlands) would go ignored.

    Being online doesn't give a game special entitlement to how it's played. The game needs to manage players to be played properly.
    Reply 0
  • ShiftyGeezer 18/04/2016

    @Cocheese1998 : "!=" means 'not equals'. Therefore if the boss is not dead, don't make the loot available. Then no matter what exploits of the map can be used to reach the loot area, you won't have access to the loot without killing the boss first.

    It's also not meant as an example of a perfect solution, but an illustration of how the game design can (fairly easily) incorporate defenses against the most common exploits that sneak through. In this case, have numerous conditions checked before paying out the goods performed at the moment the goods are to be paid out. We've had online games like this for a good decade now. Devs should be putting in basic security checks for high-level defense (like they do cheats), instead of relying on a Gentleman's Agreement that fundamentally challenges one's right to use one's paid for software however one wants.
    Reply +2
  • ShiftyGeezer 18/04/2016

    Or in short,
    If (Boss != dead){
    lootAvailable = false
    You know, code better to protect key objectives from easy hacks.
    Reply +26
  • ShiftyGeezer 18/04/2016

    What exactly is the 'Code of Conduct' entry that makes this unfair? Is there a clause, "if we release a game that can be played without strict adherance to our rules, you will still play according to the rules"? What if jumping around is faster than running, say. Would you expect players to avoid jumping because that's how it should be done?

    Ultimately, fix the issue and leave it at that. The only problem here is the way Ubi have responded, and failed to plug the hole quickly enough.

    Reading the CoC, it does actualyl say, "you won't use exploits," which is very subjective and I reckon could be challenged in a law court.
    Reply +7
  • Codemasters picks up Driveclub developer Evolution Studios

  • ShiftyGeezer 11/04/2016

    Also, Codies should grab the Studio Liverpool bunch to secure the Wipeout style racing too! Reply +9
  • ShiftyGeezer 11/04/2016

    Pretty specialist, a racing-game publisher. Considering that market has been shrinking, I really hope this works. Definitely need to branch out a bit to differentiate the racing games. eg. Keep rally, Motorstorm (under a different name), F1, but add decent karting game and MicroMachines and such. Learn from the past 8 years of varied racing games as to what works (commercially) and what doesn't. Otherwise they'll just collapse under their own weight in 5 years. Reply 0
  • Samsung Galaxy S7 review

  • ShiftyGeezer 03/04/2016

    A smaller megapixel count might sound disappointing but those pixels are larger, which means better low-light shooting. It's remarkable how clear images in darkened environments come out - there's none of the graininess one normally associates with this kind of photography on mobile phones.
    There's a lot of digital noise reduction going on. You'd need to take some RAW shots and convert them without noise reduction to make a fairer comparison.
    Reply +3
  • Sex, shopping and video game longevity

  • ShiftyGeezer 26/03/2016

    The objective is inconsistent in this article. Are you trying to find something fun to do for 30 years, or are you trying to find a computer game that you can play alone on a desert island for 30 years? Lots of the suggestions are multiplayer, which isn't an option in the latter situation.

    Also, what's the definition of 'enjoy for 30 years'? How frequently do you play? People can enjoy golf, say, for 30 years, but not playing every day. So are you after a game you can revisit in 20 years and still enjoy as much as you did the first time you played, or something that you'll be playing an hour or two a day for 30 years? If the latter, you'd probably want something that isn't so much a game as a pasttime - a gentle brain-relaxing activity that prevents boredom but doesn't demand too much.

    Personally I'd say any rule set will ultimately get boring, although I get bored by everything! For me, it'd have to be something like LBP/Dreams where you can create, have ideas and explore - nothing else is open enough and will be exhausted after a spell. Which is where on a desert island, it'd be more interesting to try to build a home and farm effectively and solve life's problems then repeat the solution to computer game problems you've solved many times before.

    So what's needed is an open-world sandbox survival game about a guy stuck on a desert island. You could play that for 30 years...

    One moment you're combining two ones, and the next you might be combining two twenty eights, and the feeling is very different.
    Very reminiscent of Rimmer describing his 'exciting' Risk games. ;)
    Reply +11
  • That Dragon, Cancer "has not yet seen a single dollar from sales"

  • ShiftyGeezer 25/03/2016

    @Mistress : Curious that people have negged you a lot. It's the same as pointing out what film genres are profitable. Black and white subtitled documentaries don't make money at the box office, so don't expect to make a living producing such films even if Cannes loves you... Reply +4
  • ShiftyGeezer 25/03/2016

    I guess there's conceptual difference between a Let's Play video of a game and it's gameplay, and one of a story-based game where the story is key. The latter is much closer to posting a ripped movie. I doubt Let's Play Tubers will care to self moderate. The top vid on YouTube has 2.5M views. That'll be a few thousands dollars advertising revenue for that Tuber. Even giving that to a cancer charity (if he did) doesn't really help the developers.

    Morale of this story I guess is, as a developer, release your own Let's Play, and budget only for that ad revenue. Or don't do story games because YouTube will ruin it. Or don't tackle serious subjects in a short game because people won't buy it.
    Reply +15
  • Sony announces new mobile studio ForwardWorks

  • ShiftyGeezer 25/03/2016

    @danthology24 : Why? Why shouldn't MS and Sony (try to) make money from a market based in IAPs when Blizzard can? It's no more bizarre than MS and Sony getting into the console business in the first place!

    Things change. Successful companies change with them. Even Nintendo sees the need with mobile challenging their monopolistic handheld gaming market.
    Reply +2
  • ShiftyGeezer 24/03/2016

    @danthology24 : Uncharted, Tomorrow Children, Last Guardian, secret Bend game, Sucker Punch's unannounced title, Horizon Zero Dawn, whatever North West is doing fr VR, Dreams, Kojima Productions.

    Evolutions and Studio Liverpool only made racing games, a dying genre. It makes good business sense to redirect funding to more lucrative ventures. In doing so, sony clearly aren't abandoning PS4 or console or their fanbase. Indeed, they're trying to grow it into markets where selling a PS4 just ain't gonna happen. This is a win for everyone save those who unfortunately lost their jobs in the closures.
    Reply 0