It’s a counter argument, but ultimately with consoles you’re at the whim of the platform holder. They make changes, and people have to get used to it. Look at the friggin Wii.
The tough thing with this change is that it’s a major change to only one small facet of a controller that is very much the same, so people assume to use it the same. That’s why I think Microsoft should just officially explain it, because they could reach a wide amount of people that otherwise are making their own experience with it worse.
I’m ok with the change though, because at the end of the day it’s an improvement, not a loss.
Just like the last consoles, I do predict both will expand on features, but I hope they don’t get slower and clunkier as a result…because both the PS3 and 360 have.
Both consoles right now feel like their software is rushed, and doesn’t work as well as ads will showcase it to. The PS4’s UI needs some work, because that horizontal scrolling through software will get bad once people get more games, and they are in real need of some sort of sorting, or player placed sorting of stuff. The XB1 at least has that down.
I’d argue it’s not working for people because they haven’t even thought to try it, or when they do they give up on it because they’re used to the old way.
Well I think this video sums it up nicely.
The idea is you’re not supposed to press down on the top of the bumper buttons. They’re placed higher, and require a lot of force to press down on the top to get people to stop the old behavior. The bumpers are more angled now, and right next to the wider triggers, because they want you to simply roll your finger over to the bumper, and press down with the middle knuckle in your finger.
It feels weird at first, old habits die hard, and new habits are hard to form after 8 years…but I would argue it is an improvement. Instead of wasting time lifting your finger off the trigger to then land on the bumper, you’re only having to do a faster rolling motion. It’s beneficial for when you want to make very quick second actions.
Welp…this is the first I knew that Blockbuster even had stores in the UK.
They still should make a video showing people how to use the bumpers that they changed on the Xbox One controller. Seriously, tons of people think they suck, just because they’re trying to tap them the same way.
I’ll echo that I’m not remotely convinced alot of these Finnish devs care about quality in games over money…given alot of the biggest companies there are mobile based, and designed around monetization.
Well it doesn’t help some devs, especially on consoles, really do just release betas for products that are very much done, but are released for marketing, and to stress test the player load.
Pretty sure the worship is more over Steam than the particular games they make, since that has a much bigger impact than any single dev.
That said, Half-Life 1 was innovative. The whole scripted sequences implementation in action games began with Half-Life, and they told their entire story through those rather than cutscenes that take you out of control or put you in a different perspective. Many sequences were optional as well, only activated through player exploration, or through the player performing specific actions in an area. The game didn’t have actual levels, rather a continuous world that only had moments where the screen would pause, and it would stream in the next large section. Many combat encounters put focus on using elements in the environment to kill enemies, rather than just up front fire from your guns. There was also some creative weaponry that skewed from traditional weapons at the time, and continued a bit into Half-Life 2’s gravity gun.
Ask any shooter game dev, Half-Life had a huge impact in game creation, and was the biggest shift since Doom. People can exaggerate how great Valve is, but they did indeed innovate with some of their titles.
- Demonstrate the OS is more user-friendly and useful for games in the living room and office.
- Show games can be better optimized through their OS, meaning less money the consumer has to spend to enjoy content.
- Grow developer support to a point it gets consistent releases.
- Execute well on the local streaming solution that makes it backwards compatible with Windows machines, so users can access the games they already bought, while utilizing the living room friendly interface of SteamOS.
The first stage won’t be getting people to switch over (minus people who buy Steam machines), but getting people to at least dual-boot SteamOS. Either way, this is a long-term thing, whether it works or fails.
Yeah, but all it takes is a larger company that makes an easy to use interface, and structures programs in a way that is as easy to access as Windows. It can be done.
Self-support is not the only way Linux has to go.
I just wanna know when they put the UDK version of this engine out, because I want to play with it.
That really depends on the dev. Mirror’s Edge, Tera, Batman Arkham City, Bioshock Infinite, Antichamber, Borderlands 2, Dishonored, Killer is Dead, and Dungeon Defenders look quite different from each other.
If a dev just uses the default tools, and doesn’t bother to customize anything in terms of shaders, lighting, animation, texture style, and basic forms of characters and objects…you’ll get a basic look that shows the same weaknesses of the engine.
Honestly, I really am just looking forward to heading back home, and catching up with friends. I suppose money to go get some nice food like sushi, lobster, and copious amounts of alcohol (including Egg Nog).
Looking forward to giving people some co-op games over Steam, that we can then play together over the holiday, or right after the New Year.
Still…a tablet or a new couch would be nice.
I’d easily say the Division. Why? Well because I feel the hype over Destiny is really the hype over Bungie doing something new, and their pedigree. I struggle to think how Destiny would fair if it was taken on its own merits, and not “It’s from the guys who made Halo”. Bungie has also advertised their game like this beacon of innovation and change, yet what they’ve shown doesn’t go beyond Halo + Borderlands loot.
The Division hasn’t shown much more information, but I’d argue its trailer was more effective. It advertised a much more open world, hinted at how exploration would be valuable, involved more teamwork in combat, and even tied in the second-screen stuff in a way that actually looked useful. The encounter itself provided the players tactical opportunities, showed players making use of special items and abilities beyond fire gun at stuff, a nice UI where the map displayed on the ground around you, and they sold the dynamic streaming multiplayer better at the end.
What I’ve seen from Destiny shows me limitations, while what I see from the Division shows me possibilities.
I’ll echo BangBiscuit…my excitement is tempered by the lack of online play. Simple fact is with my life situation, is that I’m not living in the same city anymore, and I don’t have a group of real-life friends that would regularly come over to play local multiplayer on this indie fighting game.
If there was online play, I’d be greatly excited for this game, because it is influenced by Smash Bros. (which I love), yet plenty different to be a fresh new experience. Without online play though, I wouldn’t get much use out of it.
What Kinthalis said.
Cool, not nearly enough open-world sci-fi games out there compared to the fantasy or modern day variety.
I want Star Wars SSX.
What question, they’ve already said those numbers represent users who actively log in and use Steam services. The number that is hard to glean are the users who are actively playing games on the service, and not just at peak times.
A little bit, but I try to ignore. I got another copy of the Command and Conquer Collection for a friend, so hopefully that’s good enough.
What I think we’re ultimately seeing now is the rough early stages, where people are experimenting with different price methods, and eventually some kind of standard will come out of it…along with expectations from consumers that this standard is upheld.
Once more successful early access games release, it will get better.
It’s a risk, but it is in the dev’s best interest to release some kind of finished product, and with early access you’re required to also get that finished game, along with all the other builds on the way there.
The only area I don’t like is where devs charge more during the beta period, than what the actual final product will be…like I should be paying more for the privilege. I get that they have to honor their Kickstarter setup. but I think lower costs would encourage more people to do it, and provide a benefit for consumers willing to take a the risk.
On quite a few cases they have color options, and a custom case they’re making themselves…I suspect they’d build in options.
Considering all the game delays this industry is known for using the traditional publisher model…not seeing your point.