Damn, I had been looking for a SimCity replacement. Ads kill that idea :(.

I wouldn't say that. With realistic physics and dynamic destruction, a high-tech Carmageddon would be awesome.

I won't argue against an all out budget. I think one reason we haven't seen any serious clones or a sequel is the risk factor. This is true for almost any game that doesn't have a recently established franchise or desirable license. Carmageddon's notorious past and bad press would make any of the financial stakeholders that much more nervous. I just think a lower budget would encourage more risk taking by smaller and nimbler devs.

As for car upgrades, I don't think that would matter to me. Part of the fun of Carma was collecting/upgrading to different cars. Either way you're trying to end up with the perfect combo of speed, weight, and dexterity.

Personally I would actually be more worried about the devs capturing the humor, open level design that encouraged you to explore, and over the top and sometimes hysterical/nonsensical powerups (It must include a Pedestrian Electro Bastard Ray or ).

This comment was edited on Apr 1, 2009, 10:12.

Clutch is pretty close. Just it went the route of Carmageddon 3 (?) and used zombies instead of just pedestrians.

This may be exactly what I'm looking for. I'm cool with zombies and willing to let no MP support(?) slide.

Thanks for the tip.

A game called "Death Track" with a Teen rating?

I just don't understand why a Carmageddon clone hasn't shown up yet. Who cares if it's rated 'M'? The controversy over pedestrians is dead too with GTA's success.

The ingredients are so simple:

Cars
Physics
Pedestrians
Powerups
Multiplayer

Graphics and AI don't even have to be closed to cutting edge. Keep it simple and low budget. Save the the improvements for the sequel. With today's distribution channels it seems like a profit would be assured.

If I had the money, I'd bankroll this myself.

Profit suggestion: New Carmageddon! Even a budget title that just updates the code to work with current PCs. One title with all the maps from the 3 releases.

Get on it!

It's tough being worse than just a lawyer.

Oh, and saying nobody licensed it when someone did, reflects poorly on your Google skills.

I never said the Far Cry engine was licensed more. I said that the Doom 3 engine was poor and that was why nobody licensed it. I also pointed out that Far Cry came out earlier and had better graphics.

Fine. Two statements. Poorly worded as to make it easy to conflate. But fine.

CryTek did try to license it and only found one taker. If it was so great there would have been more. But just saying CryEngine and Source engines are better doesn't make it so.

This comment was edited on Jul 8, 16:58.

Idiot. Doom 3 was a poor engine, hence why nobody licensed it. Far Cry beat them to market with a better game and better graphics.

Number of third party games shipped with the Doom 3 engine: 1 (Prey - 3D Realms) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_3

Number of third party games shipped with the CryTek engine: 0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryENGINE#Games_Using_CryEngine

Pot meet kettle.

I'll concede that Far Cry is a better use of an engine, but number of licensees is hardly a metric. Besides it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Doom 3 had few outside areas and Far Cry had few inside areas (and in fact had major performance problems when transitioning between the two).

This comment was edited on Jul 8, 16:48.

I see the MAIN diff is the price.

$200 with minimum two year contract. They raised the price of unlimited data. $10/month.

Old iPhone: $400 + 24 mos * $60 (Min plan w/ data) = $1840
New iPhone: $200 + 24 mos * $70 (Min plan w/ data) = $1880

Yeah, sure, you can buy the phone without unlimited data, but that defeats the purpose. I suppose if you already pay $50 or $60 dollars a month in phone bills, then paying another $10 to $20 premium might be worth it.

Me? I would spend $150 + $200/yr on prepaid minutes, buy an XBox, PS3, Wii and 8800 GTS instead. That's not to say you can get the same capabilities or experience out of prepaid. I'm just saying you can get a lot more value for the extra $1300 you pay to get mobile web browsing.



This comment was edited on Jun 9, 22:11.
Fixed formatting and spelling.

This comment was edited on Jun 9, 23:06.

http://www.gameupdates.org/details.php?id=2427

I think gamers don't mind developers making money, including from appropriate advertising (billboards/loading screens etc) but they object to being treated like idiots.

Actually, I do mind. Sad thing is, lowering the price won't do it for me either. As much as publishers hate multiple SKUs, I won't be satisfied unless there is one SKU with ad-supported lower price and another full-priced SKU without ads. I don't care if the ad SKU is $25 and the non-ad SKU is $50, I'll still pay $50 (assuming the amount of content warrants it).

Still, with more and more electronic delivery happening. Two SKUs shoundn't be that hard.

Pitchford's selling more "ads are good for you" bullshit. He needs to be told it's OK to be a greedy fucking whore.

I hope this bears out to be true in the final product. I really thought Blizzard had more sense than that.

Sadly, the only motivation for them is greed. SC II will sell huge numbers. Millions of dollars in profit on sales alone.

Study paid for by company gets results making company look good. Well at least Massive passed BS Propaganda 101.

I'm getting really tired of those people that keep telling us anti-ads people to chill or slit our wrists. Not a single one has put forth reasoned arguments to our concerns.

1. We're not being given a choice. Most of us who would pay more for ad-free games. Some of us would be OK with free or low-cost games. Not myself, but again, no choice.

2. WE JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE ADS. When we play games we try to escape from other ad-infested real world.

I, however, will put reasoned arguments to their talking points:

Development costs have skyrocketed

Have costs increased? Yes. Skyrocketed? Absolutely unprovable. It would take a long time to by an objective source to measure inflaton, impact of new tools and middleware which make it easier to create new content, offshoring, the draining of an experienced talent pool to more and more development houses, risk spread across platforms, etc. And that's just off the top of my head.

This was also the reason justified for the $60 360 and PS3 games. And yet they still contain ads (Sheep still buy them too!). Sorry the argument doesn't wash.

They're innocuous/You haven't seen how they are implemented/People have tuned them out

WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ADS IN OUR GAMES. WE'RE TRYING TO ESCAPE THE REAL WORLD. SPEAK ENGLISH?

Nothing's free anymore/It's needed for maintenance and improvements

Seriously debunked already. The game industry has long survived before ads in games showed up. There are plenty of examples of games that don't have ads in them with continued support and improvements. Guild Wars, all the BF games and expansions until 2142, Battle.net games, Half-Life and CS (until Valve got greedy), etc.

This website/TV has hads

I didn't/don't pay for either. I have to pay for these adware games. Your point is?

Increase the price and you reduce the number of sales

There is serious evidence to dispute this. Look at the price of 360 games. It hasn't stopped Microsoft from selling millions of games. Look at how well CE editions of games sell too.

The spying is anonymous

This is split. I personally could care less about the privacy aspect of it. But I support the notion I should still have the choice to control whether or not any statistics are gathered and sent to a third party. I can do this with browsers (by controlling cookies).


sure they might cost a bit more to make but the ammount[sic] of people buying games at the moment is massive


Please quanitify and provide a source. That statement is worthless as it is.

In the month of April game sales 'only' improved by 20% over the year before. And that was considered a slow month. Most industrys would kill to have that problem.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200706151413DOWJONESDJONLINE000875_FORTUNE5.htm

Don't buy games like this and you have to suffer the evil of console ports, increased prices and more limited support.

Now that I've proved that game sales are more massive, prove boycotting PC games with ads results in console ports, increased prices, and more limited support.

I had been lazy and was getting around to defending this game on recent news items, but this is unacceptable. The game is now adware and I will avoid it like the plague. There are plenty of examples to prove that this is not needed for ongoing costs and maintenance. BF2, Guild Wars, Battle.net, etc. This is greed pure and simple. I'm willing to exchange money for a product so that they can make a profit. But I draw the line at ads. I just don't want to see them. I spend enough time avoiding them elsewhere in my everyday life. I don't need them in my attempts at escapism.

Shame on id for allowing their intellectual property to be soiled by this.

At that resolution it's still really hard to tell how much an improvement it is over id Tech 4. It does seem like there isn't much in the way of repeating textures which is nice. I just wish id's designers/artists wouldn't always choose such drab environments.

The marketing speak makes it sound like the entire engine was built from the ground up with the QW:ET Megatexture stuff in mind. I just wish we had a demo or actual game we could sink our eyes into.

The very definition of vaporware.

Please, I humbly submit to you that Duke Nukem 4ever and Team Fortress 2 should be listed as examples in Webster's. Savage 2 was demoed live at GDC.

Sure, I'm a little ticked at the delay since I'm one of the original pre-orderers in Mar '06. But vaporware is too strong a word.



This comment was edited on Mar 27, 09:42.
Typos and such.
This comment was edited on Mar 27, 09:43.