User information for Alex Silva

Real Name
Alex Silva
Nickname
Bluesreader
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
Signed On
May 15, 2000
Supporter
-
Total Posts
21 (Suspect)
User ID
4708
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
21 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
2.
 
Re: ...
Nov 14, 2007, 00:32
2.
Re: ... Nov 14, 2007, 00:32
Nov 14, 2007, 00:32
 
The episodes are pretty cool. Each has different writers and artists but Minnie Driver is the voice of Lara throughout.

It was part of a promotion leading into the release of Anniversary, but the last episode by Jim Lee suffered a big delay (which is apparently typical with him).

50.
 
Re: balderdash
Sep 4, 2007, 15:21
50.
Re: balderdash Sep 4, 2007, 15:21
Sep 4, 2007, 15:21
 
Because Bethesda wants the game sell as well, if not better, than Oblivion? Game development is a business and developers want to make as much money as they can, even if they have to compromise a game's quality to do so.

Really? No kidding? I always thought game developers wanted to make great games. That is what they all say in interviews. How deceitful.

Aren't you assuming that compromising quality will sell better?

The question was not about making money which is a given. It is about where making money falls on the spectrum of priorities. Why should we as consumers give a crap about about companies that place their net return on investment far above quality of product?

Edit: Bethesda is free to make whatever choices they want. We'll just have to see how it plays out. I think that there will be more complaints before this is over though. After all, the brand value comes from the customers caring, not from anything they did. I am actually still hopeful.

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 15:28.
48.
 
Re: balderdash
Sep 4, 2007, 14:01
48.
Re: balderdash Sep 4, 2007, 14:01
Sep 4, 2007, 14:01
 

Frankly the name change idea was a very good one in this context. It implies a rebirth rather than continuation, which clearly this isn't even if they do get it right.

Except it really doesn't matter what it's called. As I've mentioned in a previous topic, they could call this Fallout 3 or Fallout: Revenge of the Supermutants. It'll still be the same game. Should Fallout fans expect Fallout 3 to be like the previous two games? Not if they have any sense. No publisher is going to give AAA fundong to a turn-based, isometric, PC-exclusive RPG. It just isn't going to happen.

One of the problems I think many Fallout fans have, is with the general assumption by others that a sequel needs AAA funding. Why couldn't a sequel be, particularly with the drastically better tools and productivity of today, a lower funded game just for Fallout fans? Why does it have to appeal to everyone or sell far more than the originals?

Fact is a game like the originals (and I mean just similar production values, not necessarily way bigger) would probably cost the same or less today and sell better. It might not be a megahit sales-wise compared to console games, etc., but the whole point is it doesn't have to be. The only thing that is more expensive is the labor costs assuming you are using experienced guys (and gals :)) to do it. Everything else has declined in cost especially in dollar/time.

PS> Also, I notice that lots of people assume that game publishers have the right to pursue profit at the expense of all else, but then turn around and deny consumers the right to withhold support for such companies (or complain about consumers doing so). Why do people always defend publishers? If publishers do their jobs well they will be rewarded by the market. If they don't, they won't. That doesn't mean gamers lose all rights to voice what they want.

Obviously big game publishers seem to want to model the big movie companies where everything has to be AAA and therefore appeal to the masses or the sales won't allow the recoup of such a huge investment. This is what happens as game publishers get bigger and bigger and accounting, finance, and marketing guys take over. (and the result of trying to maintain huge staffing levels, which the movies abandoned long ago)

This comment was edited on Sep 4, 14:26.
21.
 
balderdash
Sep 3, 2007, 17:28
21.
balderdash Sep 3, 2007, 17:28
Sep 3, 2007, 17:28
 
All NMA did was provide an alternative view to the publisher's marketing and the pandering previews that the general gaming media feels so compelled to write. The PCWorld complaint is merely another example of how much access is valued over honest opinion and criticism.

I personally did not find much new info that hadn't been covered by others already but the impressions and opinions were new.

NMA (having been generally ignored by Bethesda) is simply trying to serve its constituents who want an unvarnished look at the game in comparison to the ones they love. Even they admit that the game will probably be very successful (sales and reviews wise) but that is not the measure they using. Will it hold up to the originals in terms of gameplay and atmosphere? Should fans of the originals (both diehard and more casual) expect a similar experience or something very different? It appears that Bethesda might be straying a bit from the important things (to NMA-type Fallout fans), but everyone including NMA recognizes that the game is long way off. The point is everyone can read all the opinions and decide for themselves if this is a game they are interested in following.

As a NMA and Fallout fan, I understand where they are coming from. Bethesda has plenty of time to address the issues they raised, many of which might just be a result of the early state of the game, but some of which, might have just been things overlooked. If so, then it is better that Bethesda should hear about them now than have everyone be disappointed when release time comes around. Nobody is expecting isometrics or turn based battles anymore but the fear of Oblivion with guns, radiation, and rubble is a real one and shouldn't be ignored if Bethesda is honestly trying to serve all Fallout fans and not just cash in on the name.

Frankly the name change idea was a very good one in this context. It implies a rebirth rather than continuation, which clearly this isn't even if they do get it right.

2.
 
Yahoo Yahoos
Jun 23, 2007, 08:40
2.
Yahoo Yahoos Jun 23, 2007, 08:40
Jun 23, 2007, 08:40
 
I like how Yahoo erroneously mentions that the IBM's Cell powers the 360 and Wii along with the PS3. I mean who has time to fact check or learn about the industry you are covering right?

"IBM plans to use the new chemicals across its entire range of products, which include its Power6 high-end server chip announced on May 21, a variety of ASICs for telephony backbone platforms, and its Cell Broadband Engine chip used to process high-end graphics data in gaming consoles, including Sony Computer Entertainment's PlayStation 3, Microsoft's Xbox 360, and Nintendo's Wii."

2.
 
Audio myths wrong
Oct 7, 2005, 17:11
2.
Audio myths wrong Oct 7, 2005, 17:11
Oct 7, 2005, 17:11
 
There are some errors in that Facts and Fallacies article. The Playstion stuff is pointless since you can get S-video from ANY Playstion by simply buying the S-video cable. There is no need to get an RCA to S-video converter, just buy the cable. Why does he even talk about this?

Also differing cable lengths DOES have an effect, relative electrical signal delays and thus potentially out of phase signals, though whether this is something significant or not is debatable.

Like the speaker resistance answers, sometimes he reduces thing to too simplistic an answer thus missing out on explaining things that are important. i.e. you want to match pair lengths for wire but maybe not the lengths for back and front, you want to make sure that speakers don't have more rated resistance than the channel which drives them even if they are each not necessarily matched to each other.

Myths propagate because people don't know and when an 'expert' gives advice that perhaps makes fundamental assumptions about what people know rather than explicitly spelling out the considerations, they only continue to propagate. Even worse is advice that ignores or exposes a gap in knowledge to begin with (like the Playstation advice).

49.
 
Re: Inflation is a fake concept
Oct 1, 2005, 19:30
49.
Re: Inflation is a fake concept Oct 1, 2005, 19:30
Oct 1, 2005, 19:30
 
Actually, inflation is a measure of the relative cost of goods. A dollar buying you more or less of a good would appear to mean (if the good hasn't changed) that the dollar is worth more or less. The dollar itself doesn't inflate in value, it is a standard to which the value of other things is converted. Inflation in the dollar is a merely a reflection of the value of other goods. A dollar for a match yesterday is the same as the dollar for a match today. I'll leave the time value of money out of it for now.

Now if a game was $50 and is still $50 then there hasn't been any inflation there. You could argue that the quality of games for the $50 has increased and therefore the game is 'cheaper' than what it would have cost for such a game in the past but that is iffy (well arguable).

It is only when you try to compare the costs of goods relative to each other that you have o bring in dollars and thus the dollars value can appear to inflate or deflate but the fact remains that $50 to someone making $50G in 1985 is the same as $50 to someone making $50G in 2005, i.e. a certain fixed portion of their income. Whether that gets you better or different goods is where inflation comes in.

Since games' sale price drops over time (people won't pay the original price after a few years in most cases, even if the game is brand new, unopened) and the good itself hasn't changed (it doesn't spoil like milk say), it can be said that the pricing and the value are not necessarily bound together. Then it is very hard to claim that games have gotten cheaper because of inflation since the the charge relative to a person's income has not changed (for new games). Whether the dollar gets you more or less of other goods is immaterial.

Inflation as used by the government is an overall average and doesn't take into account a lot of other factors which is why some people claim it is fake. Fact is, if something costs more, it does and if it doesn't, it doesn't. Period. Milk costs more, DVDs cost less, and games cost the same. All pricing is an arbitrary human invention, based on perceived values and inflation is just an attempt to measure the relative change in these perceptions.

Games aren't cheaper unless we all agree that we'd exchange a lot less of some other goods for them, which I haven't seen any evidence of. Or we see a price drop

This comment was edited on Oct 1, 19:31.
48.
 
Forgetting the point...
Oct 1, 2005, 18:50
48.
Forgetting the point... Oct 1, 2005, 18:50
Oct 1, 2005, 18:50
 
Who cares whether Mark is full of it if he thinks developers deserve a cut of used games sales? They certainly don't. The point is that used game sales, as they are being carried out right now, hurt the game industry (particularly the developers) and that having the retail chain expand this practice is only going to make it worse.

The idea that the profit margin for used games, to the retailer, is the same as for new (mentioned by someone) is ridiculous. It is vastly larger (the cost of aquisition and "repackaging" is minimal but not very reducable) and none of that money goes to publishers or developers.

People may get up in arms over how publishers make so much and rip off developers anyway, but how are developers supposed to survive if they get only a small fraction of their games sales to begin with then watch that erode as 'new' sales erode away? Digital distribution is a joke. Already everyone whines about Steam and play per play and that is supposed to be a solution? And what about the fact that roughly half the US market still doesn't have broadband or the fact that games are getting bigger and bigger? Please. A solution for one wealthy developer is not a solution for the whole industry.

The reason resale markets exist is because game prices are too high. No one complains about the DVD resale market or music resale markets because those items are priced fairly reasonable when new. Large sales mean that their is a huge potential supply of used copies but who is buying if everyone could afford them when new? Also the larger market means prices for used copies can't get too high since there is so much potential competition.

Even games after they have been out a few years fall into this category (i.e. discount bins and racks, etc.). The problem is that new releases are priced so exorbitantly compared to the value they deliver, that retailers have found a way to cash in. Back when VHS was new movies cost $80 and more, until movie studios realized that they were driving a rental/used trade and could instead profit if they sold to everyone at a much cheaper price.

If games were priced the same way DVDs were ($14-25) with titles spread out (instead of all new being $25) then you'd start to see the used market become less relevant. After all aquisition and repacking are costs not easily lowered for used, and the increase in supply of used copies (due to more new being purchased) means that prices for used can't be pushed all the way up to the limits of new as they currently are. There will always be used games, but the market will be healthier if sales are up and more of the inital revenue flows back to developers.

I have argued this with friends for the last few years as I watched the space devoted to new titles dry up at EB and watched them continously push used over new. The stores have gotten sloppier and uglier (used stuff all over) and from what I have seen Gamestop is even worse (started the trend I think). Ever wonder where they come up with all that money to merge?

Obviously retailers are in it to make money, but it is sad to see EB and Gamestop screw over the industry that helped to make them. BB is just trying to keep its fingers in the pie (having many other departments). Perhaps Walmart will ride in to the 'rescue' and demand huge cost cuts from publishers to stock their titles, but then again I wouldn't expect them to pass on the savings unless publishers pushed to lower MSRPs too.

Anyway, I think everyone should realize that the game industry could still stumble into a major downturn despite its size and be supportive by buying games new not used. Even if it is in the discount bin or cheapo rack, something gets back to developers, unlike used.


This comment was edited on Oct 1, 18:56.
7.
 
cowards
Sep 12, 2005, 22:23
7.
cowards Sep 12, 2005, 22:23
Sep 12, 2005, 22:23
 
Seems like the ESRB is willing to sell out its representation of the games industry to the politicians and lawyers. Instead of standing up for developer and publishers' rights and reasonable expectations they only want to cover their asses. The idea that developers and publishers can or should be responsible for what people do to a game after buying it (or stealing it for that matter) is not just ridiculous, it is chilling. Given that lawyers will seek to minimize legal exposure (which the ESRB seems to want to increase for everyone), we could see some very negative things happen to interactive entertainment and freedom of expression.

I'd like to see the industry fight the ESRB on this instead of cedeing them effective censorship authority like the MPAA. The fact that stores won't tolerate A titles already is bad enough. Will we soon have an underground game scene like there is for films?

1.
 
Dogs?
Oct 20, 2004, 20:53
1.
Dogs? Oct 20, 2004, 20:53
Oct 20, 2004, 20:53
 
Does "Dogs of War" seem an appropriate title for a Medal of Honor game? I have no problem with the phrase in general but to me it carries a slight derogatory connotation towards soldiers. It is not outright negative but still... I guess I see it as a sort of tough friendly put down like 'you dirty dog'. Anyhow I think given the goal of the series as being respectful of the heroic effort of individuals during the war, the title just crosses over a bit into casual disregard. The title is cool sounding and edgy, but were Medal of Honor recipients dogs of war? Were they common (as title evokes) or uncommon? The whole point of the Medal of Honor is to recognize, not common heroics (the bar for which has been steadily lowered over the years), but uncommon and outstanding heroics, the sort of which everyone recognizes as being beyond what we might expect of anyone, not just the average person, in those circumstances. To me a Medal of Honor recipient is someone who overcame more than the ordinary fears and dangers of combat.
Anyway, I just feel that this particular series shouldn't bear a Dogs of War title, unless the new focus is no longer the Medal of Honor type of soldier, in which case why is it part of the series? Anyone else feel the same mixed message it sends?
PS> Another way to look at it is, dogs of war evokes 'the war is wholly dirty business' angle, whereas, the series takes a more 'war is terrible but can have honorable goals and be fought with honor' angle. i.e. there can be some redeeming aspects. The only sort of positive reference Caesar might have been making (and I am not entirely sure he was) was to the glories of combat which is not really the same thing, nor I think, what the Medal of Honor is about. Not only that, the glories of combat is no longer the way we generally view modern warfare.

This comment was edited on Oct 20, 21:05.
556.
 
Best wishes...
Sep 19, 2003, 09:45
Best wishes... Sep 19, 2003, 09:45
Sep 19, 2003, 09:45
 
Best wishes and hope that things turn out alright. Your fans are here to provide whatever support we can.

This comment was edited on Sep 19, 09:48.
18.
 
One more thing
Jan 23, 2003, 21:38
18.
One more thing Jan 23, 2003, 21:38
Jan 23, 2003, 21:38
 
EQ etc. are PC games and I am saying that MS/Vivendi is a threat to Sony's console dominance. If Sony converts all those games to PS3 games then MAYBE they have a shot. If MS/Vivendi turned all those games into Xbox 2 games (and PC games?) then they would have 2-3x number of titles and I don't think even EQ can save Sony at that point (meaning they are number 1). And yes number 1 is important because Sony has always encouraged innovative games, MS hasn't, and I'd rather not have MS control everything :).

17.
 
True, true
Jan 23, 2003, 21:32
17.
True, true Jan 23, 2003, 21:32
Jan 23, 2003, 21:32
 
First off when I said coffin I meant as far as being the dominant player next time around. Sony isn't going to disappear, but it should also be noted that they are not the huge mega-corp some people seem to think they are. They have HUGE brand awareness but that doesn't mean their electronics business doesn't suffer from downturns (as it has) and it doesn't mean that they don't rely heavily on the success of the Playstation (as they do). I want Sony out front, but I am afraid that their current complacency in terms of online and basic game development will be their downfall in the face of a MS/Vivendi. Of course Vivendi said that they weren't going to sell the games division a few weeks ago (barely noticed by the press BTW) because it was on of the few good performers in their conglomerate. How ever if MS did buy it...

There are two factors to note regarding this potential merger. Sony does not own many studios and their portfolio of frachises, online or off, is slim. Furthermore their strongest ones are PC games and not playable on the PS2. The second factor is that Microsoft has lots of experience in the PC realm and a machine that is highly cross compatible with the PC, the Xbox.

If MS acquires the huge portfolio of PC and console games of Vivendi they will have a tremendous set of materials to draw on to fashion an online game service that Sony would have an extremely difficult time competing with, not to mention controlling some big current money makers for the PS2. In three years Xbox Live and the Zone/Steam could be far ahead of Sony and ripe for merger into a single consumer game service. If the next generation consoles launched with similar hardware and in the same time frame, an MS/Vivendi would be able to offer a proven gaming service with lots of popular games that could be played on either PC, Xbox, or Xbox 2 whereas Sony would have a handful of games which are playable on either the Station PS2 or PS3 but not all. MS could easily scale its games across its multiple platforms whereas Sony has already shone it cannot. Wouldn't most people prefer the flexibility of playing any game they bought on either PC or the couch?

The next generation winner (sales leader) is going to be the company with the strongest online offerings and that will defintely be MS if they buyout Vivendi's games. (I am discounting movie and music downloads as a draw because I don't think either will drive console sales.)

True Sony doesn't have a coffin yet but they are building themselves one if they don't get more online games out there than "the Station" games (EQ, Planetfall, etc.). Most of those games haven't even launched yet and most are not console enabled. Everything that Sony currently relies on for dominance could easily evaporate next time round.

13.
 
Serious Jeopardy for Sony
Jan 22, 2003, 17:42
13.
Serious Jeopardy for Sony Jan 22, 2003, 17:42
Jan 22, 2003, 17:42
 
If this is true it could spell serious long term disater for Sony. MS controlling Blizzard, Sierra, and Universal Interactive gives them control over numerous huge franchises. Diablo, Warcraft, Half-life et. al., Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, lots of good selling movie licenses (whether the games are crap or not). Even with PC gamers comprising many of the users for the first few it isn't a huge stretch to see MS positioning those games for the next version of the Xbox and Xbox Live. It might not seem like much now but 3 years down the road it could be the nail in Sony's coffin as the dominant player. I am a huge Sony fan but their games are growing more and more lackluster while Xbox admittedly is strengthening its position for the online realm which is where it matters. A few years from now when the next generation of consoles hits I am afriad Sony will have already lost the war even if they have better hardware. Xbox may suck now but it certainly won't next time round, especially if it becomes just another machine on a home network (i.e. games you can play on your PC or Xbox because it is all just one big service.) Really, only a handful of Japanese companies are likely to avoid Xbox and that isn't enough to maintain Sony's dominance if MS brings almost every other major franchise into its fold (which is what this buyout would effectively entail). Sony had better hope that EQ I,II,Adventures/Planetside/Star Wars Galaxies as a single service is enough to compete because they have nothing else. A damn shame because their console has traditionally had tons of fun interesting games to play.

This comment was edited on Jan 22, 17:46.
55.
 
Re: I tried it out today
Jul 12, 2002, 18:46
55.
Re: I tried it out today Jul 12, 2002, 18:46
Jul 12, 2002, 18:46
 
I guess that depends on what you consider intuitive for driving. We played for awhile (til people got impatient with us) but just didn't cover much of the game I'm sure. Anyway driving is a pretty basic thing and I would think more than a minute or two (aside from learning per vehicle handling) is way too long to pick up the basics. Maybe an option was mis-set but just basic moving and turning was a pain in the a**. It was cool the way you could flip a warthog back over by yourself though.

26.
 
Why not do this...
Jul 12, 2002, 18:21
26.
Why not do this... Jul 12, 2002, 18:21
Jul 12, 2002, 18:21
 
Some savvy open source developers could release some server code for integration into games that tests client drivers for this feature (by whatever feasible methods) and disallows connections from clients using drivers that support it. If each developer makes this part of the official server code base then it would shut out anyone who wanted to cheat (could even be an option). People possessing these drivers would then have to disable the feature (if possible) or realise that they'll need to write their own servers if they want to cheat amongst themselves.

Seems like this would be the best route on a per game basis and would send a signal to companies that this type of driver is not acceptable for gaming, though clearly it might have uses in development.

51.
 
I tried it out today
Jul 12, 2002, 18:02
51.
I tried it out today Jul 12, 2002, 18:02
Jul 12, 2002, 18:02
 
My brother and I tried out a little (tiny) amount of HALO in CompUSA today and while the graphics/effects looked really nice and it seemed like a good game I have to say the driving controls SUCKED. So the game is not perfect, so what, but I was surprised a PC/console title with so much time in development had such crummy driving controls. I mean console driving controls are pretty much an established science by now. What the hell were they thinking?

Anyway I would still consider buying it on the PC (cause I ain't gettin no X-box). Bungie does make some pretty good games and multiplayer would definitely be cool.

One thing that is B.S. though is the claim of fastest million seller. Come on. GTA3 alone sold close to 6 million in that time span; and I am sure GranTurismo A-spec and FF?? whatever in Japan hit a million faster than that. PS2 is definitely a next-gen system but Microsoft and Xbox diehards would like to ignore that. Oh well. Press releases will never change I guess.


18.
 
Oh well.
Jul 12, 2002, 17:38
18.
Oh well. Jul 12, 2002, 17:38
Jul 12, 2002, 17:38
 
A lot of financial years also start mid to late january so companies have end of year flexibility. I think this is just a correction to reflect an August/Sept. release. Sept. would be bad sales wise with back to school and all though.

Anyway, Mark has been notoriously inaccurate with his 'guesstimates' throughout the history of the Unreal franchise. If there is one person who should shut his mouth about guessing it is he. Update us sure, but don't make guesses. He is NEVER right and it does get annoying when he is a head honcho. You'd think he had learned this by now, sheesh.

1.
 
This looks pretty cool
Apr 11, 2002, 01:42
1.
This looks pretty cool Apr 11, 2002, 01:42
Apr 11, 2002, 01:42
 
This game sounds pretty cool. I especially like the graphics, colorful and simple. Too many games stress useless polys and "realitic" detail. Maybe that is why I like original PS1 games so much. I hope this game gets some more press and turns out well, because it does seems to have a neat premise. It actually sounds a bit RTS-sy in a way. The shot of the dragon in front of the village is what sells me on this game, along with the basic idea. In a few more years, there could even be a MMOG version with super huge worlds and players trying to rule/defend enormous kingdoms of little sim fantasy races, with their dragons and their wits. The graphics don't have to change a bit, just allow enormous view distances and attacks on huge armies of little fantasy people. Mmmm...

4.
 
Quake Mod by same name?
Apr 11, 2002, 00:54
4.
Quake Mod by same name? Apr 11, 2002, 00:54
Apr 11, 2002, 00:54
 
I was in the bookstore reading a book called "3D ART" that had color screenshots of a mod for Quake III called Stalingrad and discussed texture creation and level design for it. I didn't actually read the text just captions, but I wonder if that "evolved" into this game or whether the mod guys basically got there first. If so there might be copyright issues or trademark (same name for same product)? Anyone else hear of this mod?

21 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older