The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Also, it restricting used games isn't rumour anymore. You have to install games and then that disc is locked to your account. If you buy a used game, you have to pay MS, i think they said $10, to be able to then lock it to a different account. To be honest, that's not so bad, it's not like Nintendo where it's locked to a fucking console instead of an account, and you can change it. I just wonder if the publishers get the money or if MS hogs it all.

The worst news is that they will not be supporting Indie devs beyond what they do with the 360. Typical short sighted move by MS. If PS4 supports indies like Steam and Apple does, there's a massive potential there!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Graphics are only a part of a game engine, and in all honesty, they stopped being impressive long ago. I get that we can make prettier games now (that cost more to make because it takes a lot of artists to get those results), but how does it improve the gameplay?
Meanwhile, the Planetary Annihilation devs keep releasing new videos of their engine work that look nowhere near as pretty as this, and yet it's far more technically impressive, because they're solving problems that actually have a direct impact on how RTS games are played. To me, that's far more exciting than the newest Unreal engine.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Different studios -- Bethesda (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim) and ZeniMax Online (parent corp., so they can borrow art assets and TES IP, but whole different set of developers and from what I've read I don't think they'll be transferring any of the dev staff between studios).

Take heart, all is not lost for single-player TES.

I bought a dev kit via the kick starter - I can't wait for experiencing this in March/April and test out some game ideas to test some game ideas.

Damn, I was soooo wanting to sift this. If this doesn't hit numero uno there is something wrong here! I want this movie NOW!! I'm a fan of trashy cinema and this scene is easily up there with the best. I thought 3 Dev Adam was the best Turkish film out there. I may have been mistaken.

Oh, to answer your question. Pure WIN!

I never thought visuals were the issue with the ARMA series. If you play single player on ARMA II, everything looks pretty good. The problem is the unbalanced game play and steep learning curve. I'm all for making things more like a simulator, but when you fly/drive around for an hour, looking for action, sorry, that's not fun. I don't care how beautiful the maps are.

And, finding multi-player matches is so tedious and unfriendly for non-ARMA experts, it is just too much in the "con" column. Here's hoping the devs prove me wrong.

>> ^critical_d:

I soooooooooo want this guys job!!!


Actually, before he made his first video, the guy was a game developer out of the Australian dev community. I can't recall who he worked for, but he left, or there were layoffs, and this whole gig started with him wanting to do some traveling while he was young and unemployed.

I think it worked out marvelously. He certainly touched my life in a meaningful and inspiring way.

After his second video I thought "again? c'mon dude..." but if he's going to keep doing this, and if every video he does is as, or more, inspiring than his last, then I want to see this guy 60 years from now still releasing these ridiculous videos that bring so many people together.

Ooooh, yeah, this sort of thing gets my goat.

Pretty much anytime I go back to Apple (as a dev) I end up having to reset my password as I've forgotten what one I used there last time. And then, as I try to come up with one that it'll accept (complete with avoiding the 'not one you've used in the last x passwords) I realize why it is that I couldn't remember the one it was last set to.

Because they've forced me to use one I'll never remember! STUPID!

*promote the insanity

Here's my problem with modern game developers, back in the day if I wasn't sure whether or not I wanted to drop $40 or $50 bucks on a game I had only read hype about and never played. I just went online or bought a copy of PC Gamer and got the demo disc or downloaded a demo of the game, problem solved if I like the demo enough to finish it and want more I would go out and buy the full game. Then devs started whining that demo's cost too much money to produce which is total BS and they stopped doing game demos almost all together, that when I said f*ck it I'll just pirate my full version demo and and if I really like the game I might buy it for the DLC or the multiplayer like Battlefield 3 where you can't play the online portions on the the pirated versions.

Take the hint devs release demo's of your games so people don't feel like they wasted a good chuck of their hard earned cash of a piece of sh*t game like Duke Nukem Foerver. Let the games speak for themselves if your game is really worth paying $80 bucks like ME3 than people will realize that from the demo. Valve has the right idea piracy is completely a service problem not some delinquents idea of sticking it to the man. People just want to know that they are getting their money's worth, why do you think movies have trailers. I miss the old days of Doom when you got the entire first episode free and then if you liked it you paid for the other two. Quit blaming piracy on the little guy when Big Games are just trying to milk every last horse armor dollar out of their fan base. And for god sakes quit releasing games chock full of bugs and then 6 months down the line fix them to the point the game should have been in the first place like Skyrim, I'm glad I waited till recently to buy that game or the UI bugs would have made me chuck it through the first available window.

Sorry I'm ranting I'll shut up now but for god sakes devs think about your fan base we pay your freakin salaries after all!!!!!

For a PS3 tech demo it's rather solid. Considering the environment and robotic arms are quite low poly, and that the vast majority go the character, it looks pretty solid. Add the modern mocap (developed by Weta Digital, used most famously in Avatar) it's fairly compelling.

Unfortunately so long as most game developers are working on console hardware so many generations behind, we'll never actually see this. I mean the most graphically impressive game is 'still' Crysis and that was made in 07. I personally suspect the next innovative game technologically will probably come from a small dev house, with good backers and enough time and expertise to really push gaming technically again. And of course the primary platform will have to be the PC.

I don't get how people can enjoy this when the AI is so terrible and the way they move is totally stupid it brakes all immersion in the game.

The combat system in the game is also terrible ( i know he was playing silly but when playing normaly its still rubish)



Untill AI is decent or they design the levels and spawning of characters around the fact that AI is shit then I have no motivation to play.

Muds and txt adventures play better and are more immersive than this even Doss based old school RPGs where you r in a dingoin and you just click left right forwards and backwards are more immmersive than this. simply because they are consistent and the parts that are gamey are abstract with no reference points in reality keeping the suspension of disbelief going.



I mean look how the tiger rotates on its back legs or how the skeletons are walking into walls or stood behind him doing nothing that shit happens constantly through the game, If the game cannot do real time combat properly then they should abstract it in a way that can work with today's technology.

allso why make a game thats largely bassed on hand to hand combat and then have a combat system that consists litraly of move forwards and click to atack and then move back to avoid getting hit. Granted they tried to put emphasis on a spell system to cover that up and give the player stuff to upgrade but combat using spells is hardly challenging and still mostly consists of simple attack retreat, It really says something when games like thief which came out in 1998 have a far superior core game play . More recently games like Mount & Blade: Warband show how its possable to have realy good hand to hand combat and the Warband mechanics would work especially well in a game like skyrim.

I guess the devs dont have to worry about the core game play becuse players are happy to put up with utter shit so long as there is X task to do and Y reward for it , Game play could be walking around clicking on hedges for all they care , so long as the graphics are nice and the environments are well made.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

@coolhund
Ah, so you're a PC elitest. They're the worst at being opinionated douche bags, stuck in the past moaning about every game that comes out these days. I prefer my gaming on PC, especially shooters and despise poor ports, but I'm not a total dick about it. Next you'll be saying something like "STFU fag noob!".
I also think you do not understand my comments and instead of actually thinking about what i mean by evolution, like the definition being survival of the fittest, fittest being the games that actually sell, you just attack and start spewing your demented hate. Game design has evolved, many aspects for the better, many IMO for the worse, but denying that it is evolution is retarded.
The current industry works like this. Game development can cost 10s to sometimes 100s of millions of dollars, not including marketing, which again costs millions of dollars and is vital. These days it doesn't matter how good a game is, if it doesn't have branding or good marketing behind it, it wont sell. In some cases not even then because launch window is important too. Very rarely a game comes out of no where and surprises people and becomes a hit, but as I said, rarely. Investors/Publishers are rarely willing to release something totally different or release in a genre they know doesn't sell, and frankly who would be? Would you seriously be willing to risk losing that much money on such a risky investment? It's a business!
You'll be surprised to know I actually agree with you partly, the cause for this is the size of the industry now and the size of it's userbase. However what do you expect to happen to it? Do you expect the industry to stagnate, stay as it was 15 years ago and not grow yet still stay alive just to create your space flight sims? And yes, indie development is where all the ingenuity comes from, low risk and also low reward.
We only recall those nostalgic games we hold dear. Sometimes they live up to modern scrutiny, often they don't (a friend of mine who'd never played System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gave both ago. Loved SS2, couldn't get into Deus Ex). You never recall all the games that were shit. I can barely recall them, but i do remember there being a lot more shit games than good games.
These old classic games will always hold a place in my heart and many of them, especially the phenomenal Quake, I could always fire up (assuming I can get them running) and have a fun time, but that is nostalgia. Indie devs will be the ones to turn to, to experience old school game design. If that's enough for you, wtf are you so angry about? If you seriously expect AAA publishers to release games like that, you're in for a seriously long wait.
Now, I've had enough squabbling with a 30 year old child. Go back to your mother's basement, continue to replay your old games and by all means, don't stop complaining on the internet about how modern gaming has ruined your "life". I'll be here in the present, looking to the future and thinking fondly of the past


Why should I call you something like that? Dont put your standards on others. Well, you still havent grasped what I am trying to say. No wonder.
Yes, I know very well how the market looks right now. I know how it developed and I know whats to blame. That doesnt mean I deal with it. Dealing with it would mean I would have given in, and I never give in when things I like get destroyed. That may be futile in this case, with so many idiots like yourself who have given in and went back to mindless consume, but I dont care.

Games have not evolved. Since 2007 the graphics have not become much better, all in all they have actually gotten worse. The controls and gameplay have become much worse since 2006 or so and the genre variety and diversity has declined a lot.

You really think I grasp too much for classics? I dont care for classics, except for their memories and maybe one or two I still play from time to time. Why would I think a game (yes, a PC game) released in 2009 is the best game Ive ever played then? You know nothing about me and your assumptions are dead wrong. Each and every one. Funnily, my assumption of you being an ignorant prick just got confirmed again.

Yes I know how much marketing costs... or rather how much they make it cost. EA for example spends 2 times as much on marketing than on the game itself (prolly 3 or 4 times in case of BF3). Thats how games get so expensive. Get a clue.

Yeah, I have also wasted enough time on your ignorance and I wont be wasting more time trying to explain anything to you, not even a novel-sized text would help anyway.

@coolhund

Ah, so you're a PC elitest. They're the worst at being opinionated douche bags, stuck in the past moaning about every game that comes out these days. I prefer my gaming on PC, especially shooters and despise poor ports, but I'm not a total dick about it. Next you'll be saying something like "STFU fag noob!".
I also think you do not understand my comments and instead of actually thinking about what i mean by evolution, like the definition being survival of the fittest, fittest being the games that actually sell, you just attack and start spewing your demented hate. Game design has evolved, many aspects for the better, many IMO for the worse, but denying that it is evolution is retarded.

The current industry works like this. Game development can cost 10s to sometimes 100s of millions of dollars, not including marketing, which again costs millions of dollars and is vital. These days it doesn't matter how good a game is, if it doesn't have branding or good marketing behind it, it wont sell. In some cases not even then because launch window is important too. Very rarely a game comes out of no where and surprises people and becomes a hit, but as I said, rarely. Investors/Publishers are rarely willing to release something totally different or release in a genre they know doesn't sell, and frankly who would be? Would you seriously be willing to risk losing that much money on such a risky investment? It's a business!

You'll be surprised to know I actually agree with you partly, the cause for this is the size of the industry now and the size of it's userbase. However what do you expect to happen to it? Do you expect the industry to stagnate, stay as it was 15 years ago and not grow yet still stay alive just to create your space flight sims? And yes, indie development is where all the ingenuity comes from, low risk and also low reward.

We only recall those nostalgic games we hold dear. Sometimes they live up to modern scrutiny, often they don't (a friend of mine who'd never played System Shock 2 or Deus Ex gave both ago. Loved SS2, couldn't get into Deus Ex). You never recall all the games that were shit. I can barely recall them, but i do remember there being a lot more shit games than good games.

These old classic games will always hold a place in my heart and many of them, especially the phenomenal Quake, I could always fire up (assuming I can get them running) and have a fun time, but that is nostalgia. Indie devs will be the ones to turn to, to experience old school game design. If that's enough for you, wtf are you so angry about? If you seriously expect AAA publishers to release games like that, you're in for a seriously long wait.

Now, I've had enough squabbling with a 30 year old child. Go back to your mother's basement, continue to replay your old games and by all means, don't stop complaining on the internet about how modern gaming has ruined your "life". I'll be here in the present, looking to the future and thinking fondly of the past