134 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >
 |
| 114. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 7, 2008, 01:39 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Developers don't deal with stock keeping units.
Stop misusing this word as an attempt to come off as an industry insider or something.
And you know this... how? Are you a developer?
SKU is commonly used by developers and publishers to refer to specific versions of any given game. It's usually platform + region. So, for example, PS3 EFIGS (English, French, Italian, German, Spanish) or 360 Japan and what not.
Don't believe me? http://tinyurl.com/692r5z (original link is too big and screwed up the formatting of this page).
Seriously, if you're going to try to prove that I'm not a developer, at least be a developer yourself. Or do a little research.
This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2008, 01:43. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 113. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 7, 2008, 00:41 |
sponge |
|
|
Developers don't deal with stock keeping units.
Stop misusing this word as an attempt to come off as an industry insider or something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 112. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 7, 2008, 00:03 |
Jerykk |
|
|
And your entire fallacious existence on this web page hinges on the contradiction that, were you an actual game developer, you would be the least likely person to condone, let alone practice, software piracy.
Do you know any developers? Have you talked to any? You really should. Piracy is a lot more commonplace than you'd believe. In any case, it's good to see that you can't refute of any my points and instead rely on the timeless "I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!!!11!" rebuttals.
I'll ask again: Do you believe that all SKUs receive equal attention in multiplatform development? A simple yes or no will suffice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 111. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 23:57 |
PHJF |
|
|
You don't seem to understand the fact that opinions are not arguments. And your entire fallacious existence on this web page hinges on the contradiction that, were you an actual game developer, you would be the least likely person to condone, let alone practice, software piracy.
Also, F3 has side missions that are as good and frankly better than the main story. Mass Effect had forgettable side missions that after 5 of them i quit trying, just headed for the main quest.
That's because FO3 has a terrible main quest. The side quests are for the most part entirely forgettable and culminate in rewards that are outright pathetic. They're all too independent and lack any real, and some of them are outright clones when juxtaposed by Oblivion's quests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 110. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 23:43 |
Surf |
|
|
One of the best games I have played in a loooong time. Its no Stalker, but just as good in different ways (Stalker is far more original and much better graphics, F3 has better missions)
I also found F3 different and reverse of Mass Effect. Mass effect had a pretty cool main story and engaging conversation.
F3 has somewhat average conversation (The topics are great, the visuals suck compared to ME). Also, F3 has side missions that are as good and frankly better than the main story. Mass Effect had forgettable side missions that after 5 of them i quit trying, just headed for the main quest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 109. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 23:38 |
Kxmode |
|
|
Its a game that could have been great, but they just dropped the ball in a number of placed. It is above average, good, but it is very clear they just didn't give a crap at some points. What makes it hurt is it is very clear that with just a little more effort this game could have been legendary.
Really? Because aside from the ending, which happens suddenly, the rest of the game is fun. It actually the non-game stuff I'm finding most fun... like finding interesting ways to blow Tenpenny off his little balcony into the Wastelands below.
My next plan is to figure out how to spawn an army of zombies on that balcony! MUAHAHAHAHAHA 
This comment was edited on Nov 6, 2008, 23:39. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 108. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 23:24 |
Jerykk |
|
|
If you can give me an iota of evidence I won't have to dismiss you as a thick-headed troll like everybody else has.
You don't have to believe I'm a developer to see the validity of my argument. It's really quite simple:
1) Console games have to pass certification.
2) PC games don't have to pass certification (unless you want to be tagged with Games For Windows, in which case you have to pass a few basic requirements as opposed to the dozens required by MS and Sony).
3) PC games get lowest priority in multiplatform development because they don't have to pass certification before they can be released (among other reasons).
It's like taking a test. If you have a time limit and your test is going to be graded, you are going to focus on that instead of the take-home test which won't be graded.
Now, let's look at some more facts that support my argument:
1) Console games usually sell more than PC games.
2) The PC is very rarely the lead SKU for a multiplatform game.
3) PC ports of console games are typically half-assed.
4) PC ports of console games are typically delayed.
All of those support the fact that PC versions get the least attention in multiplatform development.
I'm not really sure what position you are trying to argue here. Do you honestly believe that all SKUs receive equal attention in multiplatform development? Do you really think that every version is designed specifically for its respective platform? Do you have any logic or evidence to support that belief?
Better yet, since you've developed so many games, how about you stop whining and deconsolize FO3 yourself? I'd love to see your results.
Yes, because all game developers are programmers and scripters. Not to mention that Bethesda hasn't released any modding tools or the SDK for FO3. Luckily, there's already a fix for the huge text. It only required editing a few XML files, something which Bethesda could have easily done but didn't bother with. If they ever release modding tools, I'm sure much of FO3's consolitis will be cured.
Oh yeah, I forgot to address one of your original statements:
Had they actually finished the 360 version, as is required if they were to begin a PC port, they would have pushed it out the door.
That's not how it works. They assign a programmer to port the console code over to the PC during the game's development. Depending on the publisher and the number of SKUs, a PC build might be required for each milestone. If that's the case, the PC milestones will usually have more relaxed requirements and even be delayed until after the console milestones. In many cases, the publisher won't even add the PC SKU until later in the development cycle. If the PC isn't the lead SKU, it will automatically receive lowest priority because every console requires that you pass certification and you have to submit your game at least a month before the shipping date. Since PC is lowest priority, everybody focuses on the other SKUs first. QA usually doesn't even start proper testing on the PC build until a few months (if even that much) before shipping. Once the other platforms start passing submission, focus shifts to the PC and more programmers and testers are added to the mix.
That's how it goes. If a developer with multiplatform experience ever stops by, feel free to verify my claims.
This comment was edited on Nov 6, 2008, 23:39. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 107. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 22:18 |
PHJF |
|
|
VATS provides an increased chance to critically hit AFAIK, and it's only practical service other than that is to ensure headshots. The assault rifle does *not* have a tight spread outside vats. The hunting rifle has a *very* tight spread outside vats. In fact, the sniper rifle seems only ever to miss what I'm aiming at, whereas the hunting rifle nearly always strikes dead center regardless of range.
The biggest issue FO3 has is a total lack of difficulty. I just tanked five super mutants, one of which had a minigun, earlier today, and I used a single stimpack. This is on Very Hard. *NOBODY* should be tanking miniguns in a Fallout game, REGARDLESS of armor or difficulty level. In Fallout1/2/Tactics I can't recall the number of times I was vaporized, gibbed or crippled from rockets, deathclaws, or minigun-wielding muties. There's never a threat. The only semi-difficult enemies, the Sentry Bots, suffer from such abysmal AI that the easiest and best course of action is to simply run up to them and beat them with a melee weapon while they turn about aimlessly without so much as attacking. It's like Bethesda never played a shooter before; the AI is like some kind of placeholder waiting for a proper programmer from Valve or Monolith to come by and finish it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 106. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 22:15 |
Kxmode |
|
|
| Why don't you guys just go blow up Allister Tenpenny with 40 mines. It's a riot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 105. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 22:07 |
PHJF |
|
|
I'm not going to divulge which dev I'm from, as my self-professed pirating habits are generally frowned upon and I don't want anything potentially reflecting badly upon the studio.
Needless to say, I've seen multiple projects through the whole dev cycle and I've spoken to others who have worked with other studios. All of them have had the same experience with multiplatform development.
Oh, that's cool, because I just talked with Obama this morning and he said I could take the Secretary of Treasury if I wanted.
Oh wait, things aren't true just because I say they are. If you can give me an iota of evidence I won't have to dismiss you as a thick-headed troll like everybody else has.
Better yet, since you've developed so many games, how about you stop whining and deconsolize FO3 yourself? I'd love to see your results. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 104. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 22:07 |
Warskull |
|
|
I think you're right, but I've built my character to use Heavy weapons and energy weapons and I've ignored the small arms. I have noticed that using my laser rifle in real time is pretty effective if I put it on target.
Until recently the only ranged weapons I had were the mini gun, missle launcher, and fat boy. Those aren't weapons that like being fired in real time mode.
My mini gun burns through so much ammo I could barely afford it in real time. Using VATS with the minigun is more efficient. I suppose the missle launcher can be lined up nicely, maybe I'll try that.
Using the fat boy in real time is a suicide. It's pretty hard to aim accurately and I've blown my self to hell plenty of times.
Next time I pick up a hunting rifle I'll try using it in real time to take out long range enemies. I would hope that my low small arms skill would make the rifle horribly inaccurate, it's be a little disappointing if my shots land right on target...
It depends on the gun, I don't think small arms makes that big a difference outside of VATS.
The 10mm pistol is horrible inaccurate and goes all over the place outside of VATS. The 10mm SMG is pretty tight, the assualt rifle is reasonable tight, and the hunting rifle has an ok spread. Laser pistol, laser rifle, and sniper rifle are near perfectly accurate outside of VATS. Combat Shotgun is accurate, but seems to taper off in damage fast at ranges outside of VATS.
You just have to experiment with them. The big thing is you can usually get a lot more shots in without retaliation in VATS.
Experiment and you get a real good feel for what you should do in VATS and what is best done outside VATS.
When developers make no efforts to optimize a game for the PC platform, I see that as half-assed. You can call hotkeys or large text "minor," but the fact remains that they are easy fixes and should have been implemented. Unfortunately, they weren't, so the port is half-assed.
This game actually is on the half-assed side for the PC release. It has some nasty stability issues. Plus once you complete the game the main story line feels extremely half-assed as does the ending. The "500+" endings they advertised is complete and total BS. You get about 8 and they all suck.
Its a game that could have been great, but they just dropped the ball in a number of placed. It is above average, good, but it is very clear they just didn't give a crap at some points. What makes it hurt is it is very clear that with just a little more effort this game could have been legendary.
This comment was edited on Nov 6, 2008, 22:13. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 103. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 21:47 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Okay okay, I may have exaggerated a bit. PC development does actually begin before 360 and PS3 have been submitted. Usually they assign a programmer to start porting the game to the PC a few months before the shipping date. The other devs don't actually start focusing on the PC build until after 360 and PS3 have been submitted (at least a month before ship date), though, which is why so many multiplatform games have the PC version delayed.
I don't know to what extent, if at all, this is the case in Fallout 3, but I would expect that the disappointment at any changes would be much more amplified when they are to such a storied and beloved series.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised with FO3. It isn't as bad as I thought it would be. There are still many annoying issues but I'm having fun. I only wish they had put more effort into the port.
This comment was edited on Nov 6, 2008, 21:50. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 102. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 21:45 |
Prez |
|
|
In the case of Fallout, it is pretty natural I think for a diehard fan of such a seminal series to look at the differences between 1 and 2 and compare that with the difference between second and this one and be taken aback by how drastic a change there was this time around.
From a purely business standpoint, the changes seem smart considering that the first 2 combined didn't sell nearly as well as the 3rd already has in 2 weeks or so. But fans of a series tend to concern themselves less with the business aspects and more with how true to the spirit of the series the sequel stays. Changes that cheapen the experience strictly to improve sales are generally looked down upon, and it isn't that hard to understand why.
I don't know to what extent, if at all, this is the case in Fallout 3, but I would expect that the disappointment at any changes would be much more amplified when they are to such a storied and beloved series. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 101. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 21:38 |
theyarecomingforyou |
|
|
After 360 and PS3 SKUs have been submitted to Microsoft and Sony for submission, slap together the PC version. LMFAO! You win, you're definitely the funniest in the topic. Oh wait, this wasn't a joke competition? You should have just started with that statement and then I'd have known not to bother responding to you. Clearly I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Judging by his comments, pretty sure he's a Hellgate: London developer. And he moonlights for Derek Smart.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core i7 2600-K (4.6GHz) | 12GB DDR3 | GTX680 SLI (1215/1605) | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB SSD | Windows 8 Pro
Hazro HZ30Wie 30" | Saffire PRO 40 | Razer Mamba | Coolermaster RP1000W
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 100. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 21:17 |
Jerykk |
|
|
| I'm pretty sure Hellgate wasn't a multiplatform title. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 99. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 21:15 |
carnom |
|
|
Which game development house are you from again? Or are you with a publisher?
Judging by his comments, pretty sure he's a Hellgate: London developer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 98. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 21:11 |
Jerykk |
|
|
I'm not going to divulge which dev I'm from, as my self-professed pirating habits are generally frowned upon and I don't want anything potentially reflecting badly upon the studio.
Needless to say, I've seen multiple projects through the whole dev cycle and I've spoken to others who have worked with other studios. All of them have had the same experience with multiplatform development. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 97. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 20:57 |
PHJF |
|
|
| Which game development house are you from again? Or are you with a publisher? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 96. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 20:48 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Development for multiple platforms doesn't mean something is a port.
You're kidding, right? Here's how multiplatform development works:
1) Pick a lead platform (usually 360).
2) Design the game for this platform.
3) Focus development on this platform for the majority of the dev cycle, only paying attention to the secondary platforms when you have to deliver a milestone.
4) After 360 and PS3 SKUs have been submitted to Microsoft and Sony for submission, slap together the PC version. You don't have to worry about certification so PC version gets lowest priority in development.
5) Ship it.
In many ways, a delayed port is better than a multiplatform release, as it will get much more attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 95. |
Re: Fallout 3 Sells Big |
Nov 6, 2008, 20:41 |
PHJF |
|
|
It's not a port and you're clownshoes to think it is.
You're suggesting that Besthesda developed a game for the 360 and postponed the release for X months while they ported it to the PC, the complete opposite of industry standard. Had they actually finished the 360 version, as is required if they were to begin a PC port, they would have pushed it out the door.
Development for multiple platforms doesn't mean something is a port. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
134 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
