Support NeoGAF

[mrklaw]

Looks fun,
Just a shame split screen co-op/ multiplayer is an XB1 exclusive feature

are we sure it is an XB1 exclusive, or simply a 'next gen' exclusive feature? It was mentioned as being 'XB1' in developer interviews at the time, being compared with the 360 version. As nobody ever mentioned the existence of a Playstation version, it might still support split screen on PS4.

Kind of surprised by the way Popcap/EA are playing with Sony properties though. It's cute, but considering it was a timed exclusive, not available on PS4 at launch, I'm surprised Sony are working so closely with EA.

 

[twobear]

Because it's probably the biggest gripe anyone had about the original game. It plays well but it sorely lacked in features and content.

I doubt the sequel will have the bumpy ride of development the original had, thus Respawn can create a better, more fleshed out game.

I still would love to see a special edition of the original on PS4. I REALLY want to experience the game, and it would be nice if I didn't have to buy an X1 and Live to do so.

They have a foundation to work with now.

left 4 dead 2 had the same number of campaigns as left 4 dead even though they 'had a foundation' to work with and the lack of content was a gripe that people had with the first game

 

[Melchiah]

are we sure it is an XB1 exclusive, or simply a 'next gen' exclusive feature? It was mentioned as being 'XB1' in developer interviews at the time, being compared with the 360 version. As nobody ever mentioned the existence of a Playstation version, it might still support split screen on PS4.

Kind of surprised by the way Popcap/EA are playing with Sony properties though. It's cute, but considering it was a timed exclusive, not available on PS4 at launch, I'm surprised Sony are working so closely with EA.

It might be the feature just wasn't possible on the 360 without unacceptable sacrifices, but if it's indeed an exclusive feature, which would be totally ridiculous, I'm definitely going to pass on buying the game.

 

[Caayn]

Really fun game, definitely worth its price. Can recommend it to anyone who wants a less serious class based shooter.

 

[twobear]

Hmm. It's almost like they crafted a narrative to absolve the publishers of any responsibility while painting Microsoft as the heroes. Incredible how that worked out!

And it's almost like you've crafted a narrative to explain away any situations where Microsoft act in the interests of gamers. Incredible how that's worked out.

 

[Brad Grenz]

And it's almost like you've crafted a narrative to explain away any situations where Microsoft act in the interests of gamers. Incredible how that's worked out.

Except I don't have a financial interest in misleading anyone.

 

[twobear]

Except I don't have a financial interest in misleading anyone.

You really think that EA and/or Respawn would be cool with saying that they had fucked everything up and needed a third party to fund the game if it weren't actually true?

If you're going to wave 'financial motivation' as a reason to invent your own narrative then it's applicable to literally every corporate decision any company has ever made. Don't like the facts as presented? Financial motivation! Now I'm free to make up my own story.

 

[Liamario]

I'm a little worried that they are going to phone this port in- ie still running at 900p.

 

[Brad Grenz]

You really think that EA and/or Respawn would be cool with saying that they had fucked everything up and needed a third party to fund the game if it weren't actually true?

You'll notice, quite conveniently, that the real bad guy in the story being told was Activision, whose vicious legal battle left a devastating effect on the team at Respawn. What I believe is that the game was running over budget and missing deadlines and EA decided to shop it around to platform holders in order to transfer some of the financial risk elsewhere. What I don't believe is that the game would not have come out without Microsoft's intervention, even if that meant EA sucking it up, or even Zampella signing over more than he wanted to.

While it may not have painted a flattering picture of Respawn, it was a self serving account of how an unpopular deal was struck. Maybe even those people believe it themselves, but these kind of stories about "Microsoft" products are a dime a dozen. Inventing underdog narratives is MS PR 101.

 

[Tunesmith]

Announce it alreadyyyyyy. Day 1, I've wanted it for months

How soon could this hit retail?

It won't be retail, it wasn't in the FY15 fiscal year retail games list. It'll be a digital only title.

Hints point towards late June/July release.

 

[kinoki]

You really think that EA and/or Respawn would be cool with saying that they had fucked everything up and needed a third party to fund the game if it weren't actually true?

If you're going to wave 'financial motivation' as a reason to invent your own narrative then it's applicable to literally every corporate decision any company has ever made. Don't like the facts as presented? Financial motivation! Now I'm free to make up my own story.

Studying history we learned one simple fact: never trust the official story. It's always a part of a bigger narrative and it's always constructed. Unless we see actual documents to prove everything there's no reason to trust MS, EA or Respawn.

 

[Steverulez]

Hmm. It's almost like they crafted a narrative to absolve the publishers of any responsibility while painting Microsoft as the heroes. Incredible how that worked out!

Who is a hero? MS saw a business opportunity, fronted the dollar and got something in exchange. Not everything is some big ass conspiracy you know.

 

[twobear]

You'll notice, quite conveniently, that the real bad guy in the story being told was Activision, whose vicious legal battle left a devastating effect on the team at Respawn. What I believe is that the game was running over budget and missing deadlines and EA decided to shop it around to platform holders in order to transfer some of the financial risk elsewhere. What I don't believe is that the game would not have come out without Microsoft's intervention, even if that meant EA sucking it up, or even Zampella signing over more than he wanted to.

While it may not have painted a flattering picture of Respawn, it was a self serving account of how an unpopular deal was struck. Maybe even those people believe it themselves, but these kind of stories about "Microsoft" products are a dime a dozen. Inventing underdog narratives is MS PR 101.

I don't know of any other examples but if you have them please feel free to share.

Also don't you think it's a little absurd to use past examples of disputed narratives to support your own dispute over a narrative? "Tom is a liar, and I know that he is because I suspect that he was lying these other times too!".

And for what it's worth I didn't get that impression at all from The Last Hours. I got a team that was over budget, over schedule, and on the verge of tearing itself over internal disputes. I don't think the picture painted is particularly flattering towards any of the players involved.

Studying history we learned one simple fact: never trust the official story. It's always a part of a bigger narrative and it's always constructed. Unless we see actual documents to prove everything there's no reason to trust MS, EA or Respawn.

But without official documents there's good reason to believe a story invented by forum dwellers with absolutely zero evidence for it?

The appropriate stance when you dispute the only source is a profaned lack of knowledge of the situation, not inventing another story which disagrees with that source but that you find plausible.

 

[yurinka]

As a PS3/PS4 I would be interested on Titanfall, but not on this. I hate plants vs zombies art and characters, and I think they don't fit at all in a shooter.

I find it's an embarassing idea of how to milk your IP: PvsZ sells, shooters sell, let's make a PvsZ shooter!

 

[kinoki]

I don't know of any other examples but if you have them please feel free to share.

Also don't you think it's a little absurd to use past examples of disputed narratives to support your own dispute over a narrative? "Tom is a liar, and I know that he is because I suspect that he was lying these other times too!".

And for what it's worth I didn't get that impression at all from The Last Hours. I got a team that was over budget, over schedule, and on the verge of tearing itself over internal disputes. I don't think the picture painted is particularly flattering towards any of the players involved.


But without official documents there's good reason to believe a story invented by forum dwellers with absolutely zero evidence for it?

The appropriate stance when you dispute the only source is a profaned lack of knowledge of the situation, not inventing another story which disagrees with that source but that you find plausible.

I'm actually more in the camp of MS and EA entering a really good deal. They talked about how the next gen would turn out and figured out deals. They both banked on Xbone winning and Titanfall being the next big thing. They went into this together and MS brought a lot of dough that help make it happen but I doubt it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't.

 

[thedarknight87]

I'm actually more in the camp of MS and EA entering a really good deal. They talked about how the next gen would turn out and figured out deals. They both banked on Xbone winning and Titanfall being the next big thing. They went into this together and MS brought a lot of dough that help make it happen but I doubt it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't.

Heck Zampella did not even need EA to make the game. A Kickstarter by the makers of CoD showing-off mechs and parkour would raise crazy amounts of cash. The number of people who fell for the narrative spun by MS in that Respawn documentary is quite astonishing. MS and EA stuck a deal to amortize risk on a new IP, the IP would have existed regardless of said deal. It probably would have done better too.

 

[Pain]

Won't give EA my money and support their Microsoft deal. Simultaneous release or no buy.

 

[Blackthorn]

Going to make a great PS+ game one day.

 

[Courage]

I'm kinda conflicted about this game; although I hate all the microtransactions they added to it, it also looks extremely fun to play. Might just get it because I'm a sucker in the midst of a drought.

 

[twobear]

I'm actually more in the camp of MS and EA entering a really good deal. They talked about how the next gen would turn out and figured out deals. They both banked on Xbone winning and Titanfall being the next big thing. They went into this together and MS brought a lot of dough that help make it happen but I doubt it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't.

If you're interested in a totally fictionalised account of how it might have happened in a parallel universe, The Final Hours of TitanFall is an entertaining work of counterfactual history. Well worth the few pounds I spent on it.

 

[TeddyBoy]

I hate plants vs zombies art and characters, and I think they don't fit at all in a shooter.

I find it's an embarassing idea of how to milk your IP: PvsZ sells, shooters sell, let's make a PvsZ shooter!

When the game was first announced didn't think the PvsZ IP would fit a shooter either, but after watching a couple of lets play videos on youtube the game seemed really fun for a good price (just £25 in the UK).

 

[kinoki]

If you're interested in a totally fictionalised account of how it might have happened in a parallel universe, The Final Hours of TitanFall is an entertaining work of counterfactual history. Well worth the few pounds I spent on it.

I'm not really interested in how it actually happened. I just think people take the words of the corperate suits who frame their struggles and hardships in the dramatic framework to match their narrative a bit too close to truth. It might have happened just as they said it did but I still wouldn't believe it unless I was actually there. I don't trust these guys that much. I trust them to make entertaining games, but that's it. What will be interesting to see is if the EA/MS-deal will be honoured past this E3.

And to atleast in some way say something about Garden Warfare: I think the game looks terrific and I'd love to play it. Can't wait for it to get released on PS4.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I don't know of any other examples but if you have them please feel free to share.

Sure. While it differs for obvious reasons from the Respawn situation, in the case of Internet Explorer, DirectX and the Xbox, Microsoft used a shockingly similar script around the time those initiatives were being launched to explain their genesis. You see, whenever they think a product need "street cred" they promote a tale about how it's the brainchild of a group of rebels working inside the belly of the beast. These visionaries are the only ones who see the winds are changing, and they have a great plan for how MS can capitalize. Despite great hardship and strong opposition from management, they cling to their principles and are finally able to win over the hearts of Chairman Gates and the board to their cause. With the day won, they can now proudly deliver a new innovation into the world!!!

Verbatim.

Every time.

 

[xinek]

It won't be retail, it wasn't in the FY15 fiscal year retail games list. It'll be a digital only title.

Hints point towards late June/July release.

Really? This is disappointing. If the online community drops way off, I'd like to be able to sell my copy.

 

[twobear]

Sure. While it differs for obvious reasons [...]

By replacing 'for obvious reasons' with 'in every way', I could see how those stories impinge on the Respawn case, yes.

 

[Snuggles]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nid0iExbgcw

Release date is set for August 19th. There might be a new thread, but I didn't see it posted in here.

EDIT - Now I see the new thread. Guess this one is old now.

 

[Head.spawn]

I only played a little bit of this game at my friends house, but it was pretty damned fun. The goofy cartoony look was initially a turn-off, but after playing it just felt right. If it hits PS4, just know it is definitely recommended.

 

[Odrion]

left 4 dead 2 had the same number of campaigns as left 4 dead even though they 'had a foundation' to work with and the lack of content was a gripe that people had with the first game

Came out only a year after with many more weapons and enemy types.

 

[Tunesmith]

Really? This is disappointing. If the online community drops way off, I'd like to be able to sell my copy.

I might be wrong in case it was deliberately left off of the financial call sheet which included one TBA Golf title for retail but that was it in terms of unannounced retail games.

 

[TalonJH]

Looks fun,
Just a shame split screen co-op/ multiplayer is an XB1 exclusive feature

Not anymore apparently.

 

[NateDog]

Any confirmation of extra content in PS versions?

 

[RE_Player]

I might end up getting this.

 

[Brad Grenz]

By replacing 'for obvious reasons' with 'in every way', I could see how those stories impinge on the Respawn case, yes.

You asked for examples of other underdog stories used by MS and I provided them.

 

[d0nnie]

EA really try hard to please Sony fans, I wouldn't forgive you!

Spoiler

Nah, I'll buy at discount price

Brilliant marketing, goes right in line with the PvZ themes. They're going after that money on that +9 millions consoles (by August).

 

[ElNino]

Not anymore apparently.

It was never an X1 exclusive feature, just a "next gen" feature. The 360 and PS3 don't have it while the X1 and PS4 do (no idea if the PC does).

 

[cuyahoga]

Might have to pick this up on PS3. Game looks super fun.

Fear EA might try to shutter PopCap HD once they're done with these ports.

 

[fvng]

See post #29 and compare it to the tweet.

Got it, I've never played a Sly game so his outfit wasn't as immediately apparent. Kind of a cool way to tease it.