Lorcin wrote on Aug 12, 2012, 21:02:
Stopped at about 1m when the giant fish tank got smashed and the protagonist didn't even stumble from the weight of the water.

I'd normally ignore that except the idiot commentator went "that's impressive".

update: went to check the time and then noticed the 100+ gallons of water disappear in <2 secs.

There's suspension of disbelief and just sloppy design. If they can't program a tank that big exploding why add it - and what does that mean for the rest of the game?

MxxCon wrote on Aug 12, 2012, 16:39:
That's cool, but now I'm disappointed that I watched this video..It's a huge spoiler..especially robot head models

Blue, you should probably mention that it contains spoilers.

hb3d wrote on Aug 12, 2012, 10:23:

Ray Marden wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 23:26:
Noting Syndicate is $12 at GG, though a horribly flawed game,

Syndicate is now $6 at Gamersgate and will be for the next 16 hours.

Gamersgate's sale has been going on for the past two weeks (with two weeks to go I believe) with standard discounts on a wide range of games and then 75% off of four or five titles per day.

Bhruic wrote on Aug 12, 2012, 04:29:

Jerykk wrote on Aug 12, 2012, 03:57:
That's not an accurate description of Origin. Unless the game explicitly requires Origin (most new EA games), you can run it without launching Origin.

Really? Haven't bought anything newer on it (it applies taxes, where Steam does not), so I guess I was assuming.

Bhruic wrote on Aug 12, 2012, 01:55:

Dev wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 20:47:
Well they went from near digital sales to some amount of digital sales. My guess is its not doing too bad, they had a built in customer database of all previous impulse customers to start with, and now they can get consolers who are looking to try some PC games with no fussing over cds.

Not really. With Origin, if you want to play a game you got from it, you mostly need to run Origin. With Steam, if you want to play a game you got from it, you mostly need to run Steam. With Impulse, if you want to play a game you got from it, well, you just run the game. No need to run the client at all.

The only people who they can really advertise to directly are people who need to re-download a game. That doesn't give them a large percentage of the already small percentage of the market they have.

jacobvandy wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 03:37:
I also only buy Steam keys from them (they do sell Steam keys for games that are not necessarily using Steamworks). Well, I got Guild Wars 2 there recently, but that was the same sort of thing, just a key. They consistently have the best pre-order deals, whether due to their store-wide vouchers or specific limited-time promos. That combined with the very respectable sales they have on older games is why they are probably the fastest growing digital distributor in the world.

I don't know when they started out, but within the past year or so they have far surpassed older and better-established places including GameStop/Impulse, GamersGate, and Direct2Drive/GameFly. At least in my opinion. I don't know how they're making money reselling Steam keys so cheaply, but I hope they keep it up because it's fucking great.

Dades wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 20:21:

Ratty wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 19:08:
I've posted this thought here before but I'll do it again. From everything I've heard they're trying to do some REALLY challenging things that nobody has ever done before. They way they describe what Elizabeth can do and how she reacts in different situations is far advanced of any AI companion in any game so far. The other thing Ken mentions, the skylines, I've never seen anything like that either.

I've been skeptical of the trailers. They seemed so much like cut scenes to me which is a real step back for sandbox games. But I'm thinking - hoping - it's simply because they were showing things that had never been done and I was unused to.

It all looked scripted to me. Have you seen any versions of those trailers where the gameplay is any different? I haven't and I've been trying. Companies normally show off and tout that sort of stuff, they don't hide it.

wtf_man wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 10:36:

Jerykk wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 23:06:
I really like that you can attach mines to rats. However, the ability to pause time still looks incredibly overpowered.

Difficulty in a game has never been a criteria for me... other than overly difficult = way too frustrating and probably either no sale, or I'll use cheats.

So, as long as the game is fun, I don't mind overpowered options. The beauty is you don't have to use them. I've played many o' game where my second run through was "stealth only", "non-lethal only (or mostly)", or some other challenging and entertaining way to play though again.

WaltC wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 22:24:
Gabe's Win8 apocalyptic rant was really over the top, even for Newell (who is frequently over the top.) It's funny how development companies love to build their multimillion dollar businesses on top of the platform that Microsoft provides in Windows, but just let Microsoft stick its nose in there and offer them a bit of competition--which always benefits consumers--and watch 'em bitch & moan & complain and even sometimes run to the government, tail between their legs. Even the folks you would think would have plenty of confidence get really rattled by the possibility of Microsoft competition--or, at least they act like it. :o

Creston wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 14:38:

Jerykk wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 12:44:
It will be interesting to see how Thief 4 turns out. No big publisher is going to fund a pure stealth game these days. That's why Deus Ex, Hitman, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear, Ghost Recon, etc, all let you shoot your way through if you want. I suspect Thief 4 will make combat a much more viable option than in the previous games.

If you still CAN stealth your way through the entire game, what does it matter?

Jack9 wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 21:50:

I am curious to see how well the South Park game does, especially with the $60 price tag. The series isn't exactly at the peak of its popularity and given the game's relatively low production values, $60 might seem too steep for most consumers.

The fact you state it as a possibility is mind numbing. Nobody wants to pay $60 to see southpark. Period. Popular game franchises with amazing tech behind them have trouble with sequels (Prototype) and I don't see Simpson games breaking records (well...not since the multiplayer Simpsons Arcade brawler). It's just silly to put a novelty theme game at $60 nowadays unless they release it at a magical point where there's nothing else to choose from. Hell I've never heard of this Southpark one-off and I rather throw my money away on a game I'll probably never play like a HL3 preorder or Mechwarrior online.

spindoctor wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 20:50:
If you're wondering how this game plays, go and fire up any old version of Counter Strike you might have. No matter how much you might have liked it back in the day, it was back in the day. For better or worse, shooters have changed a lot in the last 10 years and there are probably things that you just expect from one these days. Playing CS will yank you back 10 years in game design. If you find yourself comfortable and enjoying CSS or CS1.6 just like you used to, then by all means go ahead and get CSGO. It's a fairly decent remake of the core CS gameplay without rocking the boat too much.

jacobvandy wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 02:21:

Jerykk wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 01:52:

Creston wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 01:29:
If even George Broussard can see the light at the end of the tunnel for you, you know shit is bad.

Also, what exactly is THQ's core business? Do they even have anything anymore besides Saints Row?

Creston

WH40k, Company of Heroes, Metro, Darksiders.

Add to that Red Faction and WWE (must be making money, they've done like a thousand different iterations), plus they've got the South Park RPG coming up. That should do VERY well, considering the built-in fan base of millions and the hype around it being the first bona fide video game based on the series, i.e. actually being written and produced by Stone and Parker.