• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

David Jaffe Accidentally Leaks Details About New Game

Interfectum said:
As much as I loved Twisted Metal 1, 2 and Black I'm not sure I'd be interested in playing another one past a couple of hours unless the game is so radically different that it's basically Twisted Metal in name only.
Click to expand...

Twisted Metal as it was would indeed not suffice, unless it's a PSN only game.

I'm pretty sure, if it comes back, it will be more than car combat.
 
Deepack said:
Twisted Metal as it was would indeed not suffice, unless it's a PSN only game.

I'm pretty sure, if it comes back, it will be more than car combat.
Click to expand...

Yea, it will need a short scripted campaign and cover system for the cars.
 
Kittonwy said:
It's been almost 3 years since CAC was released, unless he's working on something big budget, how the fuck can this be taking so long.
Click to expand...

After CAC, the studio was working on the PS2 port of Twisted Metal Head On right? 2.5-3 years isn't abnormally long for a big budget game made by what is a relatively long studio. Just ask Remedy.
 
Deepack said:
Twisted Metal as it was would indeed not suffice, unless it's a PSN only game.

I'm pretty sure, if it comes back, it will be more than car combat.
Click to expand...
There have been seven games in the series that have all followed the same formula. Obviously, there'll be innovation, but what on earth are you expecting them to do with it if not mostly vehicular combat wherein I can select different vehicles with different abilities/attributes?
 
Kyoufu said:
bububut he said hes not making a TM game ...
Click to expand...

No. He said he's not making THAT game. He's not making Twisted Metal: Harbor City. Maybe he's making Twisted Metal_______.
 
Kittonwy said:
It's been almost 3 years since CAC was released, unless he's working on something big budget, how the fuck can this be taking so long.
Click to expand...

I really really don't think he was working on the game all of those 3 years. I think the bulk of those 3 years was spent setting up the business of ESP, getting the premises, equipment, etc. which I'd think took a damn long time. But that's just me guessing.
 
Shurs said:
No. He said he's not making THAT game. He's not making Twisted Metal: Harbor City. Maybe he's making Twisted Metal_______.
Click to expand...

he's making Twisted Metal X

sony filed for a website domain twistedmetalx.com and there are 9 twisted metal releases so I guess he's making the Xth (10th) one
 
I recall reading on his blog or twitter a few days(weeks?) back that he is not going to be at e3. Still, they might show a trailer for w/e he's doing.
 
There's not really anywhere dedicated for this kind of thing, but this thread is close enough. I just saw his DLC/Game Sharing blog and wanted to comment on here, because it's something that really irritates me.

DLC on a disc makes perfect sense. The idea that this is a con of some sort is bullshit. BluRay's are massive, I'd much rather they use all that space for potential content then me having to download it and take up harddrive space. DLC is produced with it's own financial plans, they're green-lit independently of the main game, if GTA4 had shipped the same day as The Lost and Gay Tony, you should not get all three for the price of GTA4, it makes no difference whatsoever if additional material is on the disc. One thing I do disagree with Jaffe on however is the idea that you own the disc and everything on it, and if you can in some way unlock this material without using the official channels, you should do so. That's bullshit. All that does is give credence to the idea that you're buying a disc, and whatever is on it is yours as appose to how it actually is, which is you're buying a license to play a certain amount of content.

As for game sharing, I think it's bad form in terms of not supporting developers, however, Sony are the ones who made this system, and people abusing it is Sony's fault. I don't agree that it's really any different to lending people the game though. Both things allow a limitless theoretical player count, within the constraints of the time it takes to share it. One gaffer could buy and lend Jaffe's next game to every single person on GAF, one by one. Game sharing allows you to share it with everyone on GAF, five at a time. The only difference I can see morally is the speed in which you can spread the content. The reason piracy is immoral, to me at least, is because you can perfectly duplicate something as many times as you wish, five for game sharing is closer to one with lending, then as many as you choose with duplication.

An important thing is, you are weakening your own purchase by game sharing, something piracy and lending does not. If you buy Calling All Cars, you get five activations. Sharing it will reduce that amount for you. Lets say you have two PS3s, you want it on both, one dies, you've lost an activation, you replace it, that's three gone. You go and stay with your parents over xmas, you want to play it, you use an activation there. You are fucked. Game sharing weakens the product for a single owner. People game sharing are not doing so without a personal cost to themselves. If anything, lending someone something, is arguably worse.
 
StuBurns said:
As for game sharing, I think it's bad form in terms of not supporting developers, however, Sony are the ones who made this system, and people abusing it is Sony's fault.
Click to expand...
This is truly the generation of personal responsibility. People abusing it share SOME blame, don't they? I mean just because a system CAN be exploited doesn't mean it HAS to be.
 
StuBurns said:
There's not really anywhere dedicated for this kind of thing, but this thread is close enough. I just saw his DLC/Game Sharing blog and wanted to comment on here, because it's something that really irritates me.

DLC on a disc makes perfect sense. The idea that this is a con of some sort is bullshit. BluRay's are massive, I'd much rather they use all that space for potential content then me having to download it and take up harddrive space. DLC is produced with it's own financial plans, they're green-lit independently of the main game, if GTA4 had shipped the same day as The Lost and Gay Tony, you should not get all three for the price of GTA4, it makes no difference whatsoever if additional material is on the disc. One thing I do disagree with Jaffe on however is the idea that you own the disc and everything on it, and if you can in some way unlock this material without using the official channels, you should do so. That's bullshit. All that does is give credence to the idea that you're buying a disc, and whatever is on it is yours as appose to how it actually is, which is you're buying a license to play a certain amount of content.

As for game sharing, I think it's bad form in terms of not supporting developers, however, Sony are the ones who made this system, and people abusing it is Sony's fault. I don't agree that it's really any different to lending people the game though. Both things allow a limitless theoretical player count, within the constraints of the time it takes to share it. One gaffer could buy and lend Jaffe's next game to every single person on GAF, one by one. Game sharing allows you to share it with everyone on GAF, five at a time. The only difference I can see morally is the speed in which you can spread the content. The reason piracy is immoral, to me at least, is because you can perfectly duplicate something as many times as you wish, five for game sharing is closer to one with lending, then as many as you choose with duplication.

An important thing is, you are weakening your own purchase by game sharing, something piracy and lending does not. If you buy Calling All Cars, you get five activations. Sharing it will reduce that amount for you. Lets say you have two PS3s, you want it on both, one dies, you've lost an activation, you replace it, that's three gone. You go and stay with your parents over xmas, you want to play it, you use an activation there. You are fucked. Game sharing weakens the product for a single owner. People game sharing are not doing so without a personal cost to themselves. If anything, lending someone something, is arguably worse.
Click to expand...

Wow, the game industry loves this kind of sheeplike thought, congrats, it's really sad that you've abdicated your rights as a consumer.
 
Chrange said:
This is truly the generation of personal responsibility. People abusing it share SOME blame, don't they? I mean just because a system CAN be exploited doesn't mean it HAS to be.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, in fact I worded that section poorly. Sony did not hide the fact you can game share, and certain wording they've used implies this is an alternative function of the activation system they decided on.

I think it's a question of morality, do you care that a publisher isn't getting the money they should? I haven't game shared (outside of one exception to get a region exclusive PS1 game, that I still paid for, and own on disc), however, that's me, Sony are allowing this practice, and legally, it's fine I believe.

elrechazao said:
Wow, the game industry loves this kind of sheeplike thought, congrats, it's really sad that you've abdicated your rights as a consumer.
Click to expand...
In ten years, you'll just be arguing the opposite because that's what will be most convenient for you as a consumer then. The idea of the licensing which is better, is that a license can be transferred, it shouldn't matter if you originally bought it on disc, you should be able to download it if you lost the disc, or get a replacement. It's limited thinking.

Even though it's technically illegal to rip CDs, it is accepted by the music industry because of this concept of owning a license. I'll take that over owning a piece of plastic.
 
StuBurns said:
I totally agree, in fact I worded that section poorly. Sony did not hide the fact you can game share, and certain wording they've used implies this is an alternative function of the activation system they decided on.

I think it's a question of morality, do you care that a publisher isn't getting the money they should? I haven't game shared (outside of one exception to get a region exclusive PS1 game, that I still paid for, and own on disc), however, that's me, Sony are allowing this practice, and legally, it's fine I believe.
Click to expand...
I think the excuse that 'it doesn't hurt publishers' stopped being reasonable justification when publishers started saying they were hurt by it and trying to stop it.
 
StuBurns said:
I totally agree, in fact I worded that section poorly. Sony did not hide the fact you can game share, and certain wording they've used implies this is an alternative function of the activation system they decided on.

I think it's a question of morality, do you care that a publisher isn't getting the money they should? I haven't game shared (outside of one exception to get a region exclusive PS1 game, that I still paid for, and own on disc), however, that's me, Sony are allowing this practice, and legally, it's fine I believe.


In ten years, you'll just be arguing the opposite because that's what will be most convenient for you as a consumer then. The idea of the licensing which is better, is that a license can be transferred, it shouldn't matter if you originally bought it on disc, you should be able to download it if you lost the disc, or get a replacement. It's limited thinking.

Even though it's technically illegal to rip CDs, it is accepted by the music industry because of this concept of owning a license. I'll take that over owning a piece of plastic.
Click to expand...
Not when technology inhibits the transfer of the license and strips away the first sale doctrine. My position is consistent with decades of law and content rights, and will not in fact change "in ten years" for no reason that you have articulated. Companies use tech to end around the legal landscape that they hate, which has given us rights as consumers.
 
Chrange said:
I think the excuse that 'it doesn't hurt publishers' stopped being reasonable justification when publishers started saying they were hurt by it and trying to stop it.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but one could argue their beef is with Sony, not the consumers, and as always, the consumers are the ones getting burnt by their attempts to stop this. If I'd have bought Final Fight, not knowing about their DRM, I'd be very pissed off. Because it's Sony who've screwed up, not the publishers, not the non-game sharing consumers, but we're the ones getting shit on.

elrechazao said:
Not when technology inhibits the transfer of the license and strips away the first sale doctrine. My position is consistent with decades of law and content rights, and will not in fact change "in ten years" for no reason that you have articulated. Companies use tech to end around the legal landscape that they hate, which has given us rights as consumers.
Click to expand...
So you would prefer to have something salable, which can be lost or broken, than something which cannot be sold, but however is essentially invincible and limitless. That's fine, that's your opinion, but I don't give a shit about selling video games, music or films, I give a shit about having to replace them.
 
StuBurns said:
Indeed, but one could argue their beef is with Sony, not the consumers, and as always, the consumers are the ones getting burnt by their attempts to stop this. If I'd have bought Final Fight, not knowing about their DRM, I'd be very pissed off. Because it's Sony who've screwed up, not the publishers, not the non-game sharing consumers, but we're the ones getting shit on.


So you would prefer to have something salable, which can be lost or broken, than something which cannot be sold, but however is essentially invincible and limitless. That's fine, that's your opinion, but I don't give a shit about selling video games, music or films, I give a shit about having to replace them.
Click to expand...
So we agree that you don't give a shit about your rights as a consumer :) I can agree to disagree at this point then.
 
DLC like Gay Tony and Lost and Damned are okay as they are more like expansiin packs with a few hours of content...nickel and diming on costumes, weapons, and other small bullshit is crock in my book
 
pseudocaesar said:
I never, ever, ever thought I would see someone defending "DLC" on a disc.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't see the problem. In the years that I've been following the argument, people arguing that unlock codes are bullshit always seem to be missing the point, or just arguing poorly. The real issue here is whether or not people buy into the PR that close to launch DLC was never intended to be included with the retail product, or if it was just arbitrarily yanked late in the game to nickel and dime the consumer via DLC. One's personal opinion about which it is is irrelevant in regards to the delivery mechanism for the content.
 
sn00zer said:
DLC like Gay Tony and Lost and Damned are okay as they are more like expansiin packs with a few hours of content...nickel and diming on costumes, weapons, and other small bullshit is crock in my book
Click to expand...

care to provide an explanation of why you feel that way? Or is there someone behind you with a gun to your head and his hand on your wallet?

Take the new just cause 2 DLC, completely optional, very cheap, adds new and interesting things while in no way invalidating the usefulness of previous content. That's a good thing in my book.

It is worth mentioning though that the reference to costumes is probably a direct reference to capcom. The stuff they do is pretty criminal, but they've given us so much that i'm willing to forgive them. Do not bite the hand that could possibly feed you a new megaman legends
 
WTF happened to this thread.
Indifferent2.gif
 
Chrange said:
I think the excuse that 'it doesn't hurt publishers' stopped being reasonable justification when publishers started saying they were hurt by it and trying to stop it.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that?
 
elrechazao said:
So we agree that you don't give a shit about your rights as a consumer :) I can agree to disagree at this point then.
Click to expand...
If you consider it that way, then sure, I don't give a shit. But I massively prefer being able to reacquire materials for free. Take software. Lets say the choice is buy ProTools on disc, you can do whatever you want with it, sell it, use it, lose it, break it etc. Or you can register it, and if you lose it, you can download it again, for free, any time you want. I want that. If there was an option to have both things, then I'd want that of course, but if I had to choose, having a 'license' is far better for me personally. How often do I want a new copy of something I own? Very often. How often do I want to sell something I own? Basically never.

You can see it as screwing consumers, and in a way it is, but it's rewarding them at the same time by providing a far better product, one that can't be stolen, lost, broken, worn out etc. I never have to worry about my ProTools installation disc, because it's meaningless. If I lose GOW3 tomorrow, I'm never playing it again, without repurchasing it. How many times am I going to buy Terminator 2? VHS, laser disc, DVD, BluRay, downloadable from iTunes. It's essentially making one product vastly more expensive than it should be.

Consumers seem to want everything for nothing. In terms of compromise, I think licensing is a far better compromise.
 
StuBurns said:
If you consider it that way, then sure, I don't give a shit. But I massively prefer being able to require materials for free. Take software. Lets say the choice is buy ProTools on disc, you can do whatever you want with it, sell it, use it, lose it, break it etc. Or you can register it, and if you lose it, you can download it again, for free, any time you want. I want that. If there was an option to have both things, then I'd want that of course, but if I had to choose, having a 'license' is far better for me personally. How often do I want a new copy of something I own? Very often. How often do I want to sell something I own? Basically never.

You can see it as screwing consumers, and in a way it is, but it's rewarding them at the same time by providing a far better product, one that can't be stolen, lost, broken, worn out etc. I never have to worry about my ProTools installation disc, because it's meaningless. If I lose GOW3 tomorrow, I'm never playing it again, without repurchasing it. How many times am I going to buy Terminator 2? VHS, laser disc, DVD, BluRay, downloadable from iTunes. It's essentially making one product vastly more expensive than it should be.

Consumers seem to want everything for nothing. In terms of compromise, I think licensing is a far better compromise.
Click to expand...

You need to go back to being Stuburns (like stubborns) instead of StuBurns.
 
That's interesting. It's sort of like Halo vs. CoD. CoD is like 3 shots and done vs. longer battles in Halo with lots of jockeying for position.
 
Wow...that sounds quite bleh. He's really come up with some boring concepts since leaving SM.

Is anyone else making a new Twisted Metal?
 
Decado said:
Wow...that sounds quite bleh. He's really come up with some boring concepts since leaving SM.

Is anyone else making a new Twisted Metal?
Click to expand...

um, what?

All he did was give a few details hinting at multiplayer gameplay. I wouldn't doubt Jaffe too much considering he has had a large role in a few very successful franchises.
 
Decado said:
Wow...that sounds quite bleh. He's really come up with some boring concepts since leaving SM.

Is anyone else making a new Twisted Metal?
Click to expand...

Wow... let's all make stupid pronouncements based on the most minimal information possible.
 
Jaffe also describes the game's competitive multiplayer mode in more detail, saying that he's struggled to convince naysayers that a "deathmatch" mode doesn't necessitate killing as many players as possible quickly. According to Jaffe, he wants to "up the hit points" and keep players alive longer. According to Jaffe, this would allow players to form more meaningful relationships with each other, describing a scenario where "I could chase them, and they could chase me, or we could be running toward the same power-up [...] to turn the tables."
Click to expand...
AWESOME!
Thats why I liked UC2's multiplayer so much but we all know what happened next. Jaffe is too stubborn to make a major change like that after release though. :D

Deathmatch is also about trying to stay alive as long as possible without giving up any kills to any other players. It's not all about offense. Give us good defensive options. Defense =/= Camping
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[David Jaffe] Is Kratos BLACK or WHITE?!?
2 3 4
189
2K
Setsuna Mudou replied
David jaffe accuses pearl abyss and crimson desert devs of putting antisemetic content in the game 'facepalm'.
2 3 4 5
223
2K
Kokoloko85 replied
Surprise surprise David Jaffe hates god of war sons of sparta.
Drama  2 3 4
169
2K
Mortisfacio replied
David Jaffe: GAMEPASSA - why I still love it!
Opinion  2 3
131
2K
CashPrizes replied
David jaffe upsets a chunk of the gaming community by making a 'This is an Xbox' joke about a man's dead father.
Drama  3 4 5 6 7
313
3K
kiphalfton replied
Top Bottom