Ronnie Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 That game looks so ridiculously generic and terrible, a 6 seems very generous.
Sheikah Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 It may as well be a new console, similarly priced, new tech, new experience. Homebrew and experimental games are all well and good, they'll be fun to wade through but it's just a shame there isn't that one must play VR game to launch this new platform like what Nintendo did in the N64 era, that's all. All the reviews seem to be talking about how cool the tech is, rather than how cool any of the games are. All the best software developers out there aren't going to sink their typical budget of millions of pounds into making a game that only a few thousand people are able to buy on launch (early adopters with big pockets). Every software developer worth his salt knows there is currently a 1.5-1.6k GBP outlay for new PC VR customers and as such you're not going to see many big games like that for a while. Mario 64 was made in a much cheaper time and with much cheaper tech. The mainstream could buy into it at the price it was sold at. The best thing they can do right now is showcase the potential, which is what the lots of little games are doing. Showing off new tech in cool ways draws a crowd; in the mean time they can refine their tech, make it cheaper, and those customers and developers will come.
Ronnie Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Games don't need a massive budget to be great. Nintendo prove this time and time again.
Goron_3 Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Games don't need a massive budget to be great. Nintendo prove this time and time again. You are seriously underestimating the cost of Nintendo's game development.... Look at the credits for their games - those people have to be paid!
bob Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Yeah but what about CoD, FIFA and Assassins Creed? Hmm? HMMMMMMMM?!
Ronnie Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 My point is you don't need a huge budget to make a great game.
Ashley Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) You don't, but saying Nintendo is an example of this isn't great. They spend millions on making games. Edited April 7, 2016 by Ashley
Ronnie Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 I suspect Splatoon, Mario 3D World and Mario Kart 8 cost slightly less than The Division, Uncharted 4 and Bloodborne.
Retro_Link Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) I suspect Splatoon, Mario 3D World and Mario Kart 8 cost slightly less than The Division, Uncharted 4 and Bloodborne.What's the point in comparing games that are wildly different and you know nothing about the budgets of? If you're going to, then at least think about comparing games within near enough the same genre!... Like Mario to Ratchet and Clank, or Zelda Wii U to - at a pinch - Bloodborne. Edited April 7, 2016 by Retro_Link
Ronnie Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) Yep Ratchet and Clank is a good example of a cheap (probably) great game. I didn't say Nintendo are the only ones who can do it ffs. I thought I'd compare flagship titles, the three biggest Wii U games with three big hitting PS4 games. Look I really don't think it's that controversial a statement to make, Nintendo AAA games have smaller budgets than the majority of AAA games out there. Nintendo are good at making brilliant games with a smaller budget. They're shit on every day on here for the most minor of things, how about people give them that at least? Conversely gamers expect the PS4/XBO to output these breathtaking cinematic worlds to play in, and so the budgets have to match that scope. Dead Space 3 had to sell 5 million copies for the IP to continue, MGSV had to sell 5-6 million to break even, Tomb Raider sold 3 million in it's first month, but it wasn't enough to turn a profit. Studios are closing down left right and centre because games aren't making enough money to justify the enormous cost of developing games these days. The point is, there are no must play (SMB, Mario 64, Ocarina of Time style) VR games at the dawn of this new gaming era, and that's a shame. You don't need a huge budget to make a great game and so that excuse doesn't apply. What's surprising is that in an industry flooded with shooters, there don't even seem to be any of those. Edited April 7, 2016 by Ronnie
Blade Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) @Ronnie Nintendo are not "shit on every day on here for the most minor of things" at all. We discuss their consoles and games on a Nintendo based forum. A few people on here (including myself) are unhappy with what Nintendo are doing at the moment or have done/not done in the recent past with their games and consoles. You will actually find that there are plenty of forum members that are happy with Nintendo and don't criticise. Also "industry flooded with shooters". Really? Its like saying the Wii U is flooded with 2D platformers... Edited April 8, 2016 by Blade
Sheikah Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) Yep Ratchet and Clank is a good example of a cheap (probably) great game. I didn't say Nintendo are the only ones who can do it ffs. I thought I'd compare flagship titles, the three biggest Wii U games with three big hitting PS4 games. Look I really don't think it's that controversial a statement to make, Nintendo AAA games have smaller budgets than the majority of AAA games out there. Nintendo are good at making brilliant games with a smaller budget. They're shit on every day on here for the most minor of things, how about people give them that at least? Conversely gamers expect the PS4/XBO to output these breathtaking cinematic worlds to play in, and so the budgets have to match that scope. Dead Space 3 had to sell 5 million copies for the IP to continue, MGSV had to sell 5-6 million to break even, Tomb Raider sold 3 million in it's first month, but it wasn't enough to turn a profit. Studios are closing down left right and centre because games aren't making enough money to justify the enormous cost of developing games these days. The point is, there are no must play (SMB, Mario 64, Ocarina of Time style) VR games at the dawn of this new gaming era, and that's a shame. You don't need a huge budget to make a great game and so that excuse doesn't apply. What's surprising is that in an industry flooded with shooters, there don't even seem to be any of those. Pipe down man, you mad a crappy comment and used Nintendo as a very poor example. As I said, right now few people will be on board with VR and they have opted for lots of little games to show off different potential uses of VR rather than pump lots of time into one effort. Shigeru Miyamoto confessed to spending months just having Mario run around a room to get the feeling of movement right for Mario 64. Totally different objectives for the 64 and current VR, so not at all surprising to see a difference in game quality. Also have you thought that Nintendo's budget might be a bit less than the competition is because they're usually always behind the curve in terms of specs? Cheaper to make SD or 720p games than then next step up, etc. Edited April 8, 2016 by Sheikah
somme Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 What's surprising is that in an industry flooded with shooters, there don't even seem to be any of those. So you're moaning the industry is flooded with shooters yet whining there isn't a VR shooter? The industry isn't flooded with shooters. You own a PS4 now, look at what you can play on the thing. You're spouting bollocks.. again. Oh and here you go: Wrong on all counts this time.
bob Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Bizarrely FPS are actually quite hard to do in VR. The running forward often leaves people feeling queasy, as it doesn't move forward in the same way we do (and at ridiculous speeds). Also, you need to worry about moving three different things rather than two; your head, your gun, and your body. It hard to develop a game that manages this without losing immersion. Most VR games either try to limit moving around, or they slow you down to help with the weird feeling that gliding along the floor at 30mph does to your brain.
Zechs Merquise Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 I'm really surprised they bothered to make this game as it's a very poor showcase of VR and 3D platformers gain nothing from using the VR, the reviewer even said that the controls would have been better handled via a regular camera control stick than the VR headset. I think VR to play regular games - 2D games and 3D person games is pretty pointless, VR is really a way to experience worlds from a first person perspective.
Ronnie Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 You say this... Pipe down man, you mad a crappy comment and used Nintendo as a very poor example. Then go on to post this... Cheaper to make 720p games than then next step up, etc. lol. The industry isn't flooded with shooters. You own a PS4 now, look at what you can play on the thing. You're spouting bollocks.. again. As much bollocks as saying the Wii U only has 2d platformers. When I say flooded with shooters, I mean the biggest games on the platform are all fps: Fallout 4, Destiny, MGSV, The Division, Far Cry, Call of Duty, Battlefront, Rainbow 6 etc etc
Fierce_LiNk Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 You say this... Then go on to post this... lol. As much bollocks as saying the Wii U only has 2d platformers. When I say flooded with shooters, I mean the biggest games on the platform are all fps: Fallout 4, Destiny, MGSV, The Division, Far Cry, Call of Duty, Battlefront, Rainbow 6 etc etc You really don't know what you're talking about. You've lumped MGS, Fallout and Battlefront all under the same umbrella. I don't even-
somme Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 You say this... I mean the biggest games on the platform are all fps: Fallout 4, Destiny, MGSV, The Division, Far Cry, Call of Duty, Battlefront, Rainbow 6 etc etc Firstly, who cares what the "biggest" games are? There is a plethora of alternatives, in fact there are more alternatives. Fallout 4, Destiny and The Division are third-person. Battlefront is both/either. As I'm sure you well know.
Fierce_LiNk Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 God, music sucks. Such a lack of diversity. Muse, REM, U2, Kings of Leon, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Bryan Adams and Bruce Springsteen all have guitars. Typical rock music.
Happenstance Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 God, music sucks. Such a lack of diversity. Muse, REM, U2, Kings of Leon, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Bryan Adams and Bruce Springsteen all have guitars. Typical rock music. First person rock music at that!
Magnus Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 I'm really surprised they bothered to make this game as it's a very poor showcase of VR and 3D platformers gain nothing from using the VR, the reviewer even said that the controls would have been better handled via a regular camera control stick than the VR headset. I think VR to play regular games - 2D games and 3D person games is pretty pointless, VR is really a way to experience worlds from a first person perspective. I've seen people who have tried VR say that it still adds to the experience in third-person games. You still feel like you're in the world even if you're looking at things from a distance.
Recommended Posts