I wasn't trying to say that every FPS copies Call of Duty because it's an FPS. I meant they were copying specific introduced - or at least well implemented - in the first Modern Warfare title. Levels, classes, unlockables, perks, extra objective, etc. Many of those existed before CoD came around, but CoD was the first to put it together well.
That definitely wasn't the part I was referring to about CoD. DM, CTF, all those modes existed long before Call of Duty came around. Hell, Doom had some of those modes.
I'm talking about Modern Warfare's use of levels, classes, unlockables, objectives, etc. Yes, many of those were not introduced in Modern Warfare and have existed for awhile before, but because Call of Duty put them all together and did it well to the tune of "over thirteen million" according to Wikipedia, every FPS with a multiplayer mode tries to reproduce what CoD has done.
But rarely do those FPS games try to build upon the CoD model. They're often very content to just take the Call of Duty model, reskin it to suit their particular game and call it a day. The end result is usually a game that doesn't surpass Modern Warfare and the online mode ends up empty within half of year of release. And it's particularly prevalent in games which have a multiplayer mode added to the sequel of any otherwise single player game.
The same problem exists with first person shooter multiplayer games. Everyone seeks to copy Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's multiplayer system and rarely do they actually try to build on it.
Mind you, Call of Duty isn't suffering from the same drop off as World of Warcraft, but the pattern of developer copying is still there.
Don't forget about Manhunt 2!
No, wait.
On second, yeah, forget about Manhunt 2.
Now I haven't played GTA III in many years, but I thought the opening scene involved Claude and Catalina robbing Liberty City Bank? Carson City only gets some passing mentions on the radio (about its corrupt mayor in some scandal, if I recall correctly.)
As for Manhunt 2, it's best that nobody attempts to remember that game.
That could be true, but it would also cost money to run staff to patch a game on any platform. So if it's $40,000 to patch it for consoles, would it be $20,000 to patch it for PC?
There have been several instances where game patches were delayed because they had to jump through hoops wherein Sony and Microsoft would have to approve the code before it was released. There's probably an additional fee associated with this, not to mention a possible fee to cover the bandwidth costs of everyone downloading the patch.
That said, $40,000 sounds a little high. It only costs around $10,000 USD for Sony's PS3 development kit.
Maybe the patches are subjected to the same 16 cents per gigabyte fee handed down to free content on the PSN? That would quickly add up to well over $40,000, for the PS3 at least.
Robotics Construction Facility on Anteevy in Star Wars: Dark Forces.
Vaitaku stronghold in Mark of the Kri.
Pretty much the entirety of Max Payne.
Sometimes those hidden levels are actually just sets for the in-game cinematics, though I can't say that for the GoldenEye island.
I know in Grand Theft Auto III, it was possible to find your way into a partially constructed, deserted city which was actually the set for the opening cinematic.
I usually just remember the countdown to exit the exploding world, though I think that actually happens in all the Metroid games. I guess it was just the first game to really grab me at the end and hold the tension while also letting me play the finale instead of watch.
You should probably get that examined.
Didn't we already decide that the Guinness World Records 2012 Gamer's Edition was total crap anyway? Or was that some other record breaking catalogue? I seem to recall several stupid categories based more on marketing than any actual record breaking merit.
Also, Super Metroid will always be the first "best ending" that comes to mind, but nowadays, plenty of games tend to end in a similar fashion.
I recall an article about the new review format, but I guess I only skimmed it. Thanks for the heads up.
Some really nice shots... paired with some really bad shots. The opening shots were just awful, especially the wood patio and that taxi.
The text of the review screams NO but it's been scored a YES. Very confusing. Yeah, I get that you're saying YES to playing it not as a game, but your review still makes numerous points about how bad it actually is.
Also, why are the reviews back to the old LOVED IT and HATED IT format? And every reviewer seems to have their own version of this format.
There was a very nice review for Resident Evil Revelations quite recently that was actually a straight forward written review without all the subsections and headings (except for the bold lines, but you can't win them all.) A shame to see that it wasn't to be the norm.
These screenshots just don't do anything for me. I guess I just feel so burned by the lousy Max Payne 2 and that was because it was just a complete mess of a story. Didn't help that it was the same exact gameplay as the first, but if the story had held up, I'd at least have played to the end. The gameplay is fun.
For me to be interested in the third game, I'd have to know the story wasn't going to be such a wreck... and I wont know that unless I play the game. I appear to be in a catch 22.
I've had a hankering to replay the first game lately. Hmm....
Who would pay $12.45 for a used copy of Duke Nukem Forever?
Hell, I paid $10 for a new copy just after Christmas.
I don't think we'll ever really reach a point where graphics are going to be photo realistic, at least not when in motion. We can already great photo realistic graphics... if we just stand still.
And it's also largely up to the developer to use the engine to create these photo realistic environments and I don't think that'll happen. It may look nice, but then some animation will make it obvious this is fake. An enemy will slide along the ground instead of walk. A dragon will fly through a mountain. Little things will get in the way.
Personally, I say to hell with photo realistic graphics and let's correct some of the issues nobody seems to bother with. Let's get perfect collision detection working, so an axe in someone's hand isn't piercing their thigh. Stuff like this would go a long way to make a game more realistic than prettier graphics.
You've gone well beyond the scenario I suggested in my post, but I like it. I don't know how well it would work. TV is very easy to film quickly and publicly funded television isn't all that great (with some exceptions.)
I just get the feeling that, should something like this happen, sooner or later a developer would fail to deliver and that would result in turning people off the idea. It could only work were there some sort of safety net for the backers and I don't know what that would be.
Well then, I am quite pleased to have learned this. I would gladly pledge $15 today for a game tomorrow.
