• Unoriginal - October 29, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    The only viable solution is to increase the cost of games because I'm not sure I can accept a game without turtle entries in the in-game encyclopedia in this post AC IV world.
  • Doctalen - October 29, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    And here I was thinking that the problem with AAA games was the lack of critical analysis skills and strategy required for a majority of games. But pfff fuck that turtle are more dangerous than derp killing :p But you do make a good point, the difference between immersion and excess is a fine line. I feel like its a special case the Assassin's Creed titles simply because they have to rely on historical and biological/ecosystem accurate data. But for many other games, excess (at least applied to wildlife) is easily avoided. Take Halo: Reach for example, those Ostriches and what ever the hell those hairless gorillas were, were completely unnecessary. When playing Halo no one gives two shits about the wildlife. Same for call of duty with their fish physics
  • RayPaw - October 29, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    Shredder was right all along ...
  • EAC73 - October 29, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    Really liked the article Coop, please keep them up, with this sense of humor, I really enjoyed it. One thing though, I would of liked a mentioned the turtle in Crysis, where you can use a turtle as a weapon. I remember beating the entire first level only using the strength suit, then throwing the turtle at every enemy.
  • Sinosaur - October 29, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    Clearly Crysis spent the correct portion of its budget on turtles. TURTLE POWER!
  • Vonter - October 29, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    Well if you have been in gaming forums you can also see why devs speculate this it's top notch needings when making an immersive world. The gaming community discusses more about the game looking good (Tesselation, anti aliasing, other techy stuff), if the story doesn't offend them in some regard,than discussing if the game is fun. Fun is something very diminished in today's gaming industry, the standard it's things should look good/real (who can even tell the difference anymore). Oh this game not has online mutliplayer it will be less fun (SM:3DW), oh this game has some control issues, it works, does it make it boring, tedious (Sonic & The Wonderful 101 ). OMG this game will change the way you see games you haven't seen anything like this before this is like interacting in a real world (GTAV, The Last of Us), I did get this games where entertaining but even more with TLoU, there aren't many people who talk about the gameplay or if that game is fun. Sorry for the long post but I'm as of now coming to the conclusion game priorities will be divided in some ways, because I don't think you can still put a scale on a game that it's good at being fun and a game that is good at engaging you.
  • Sinosaur - October 29, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    I don't know if a developer specifically determining that their game works best without online multiplayer is actually going to make it less fun. Online multiplayer requires a lot of additional resources that may well take away from the base fun when they have to take into account lag and spend funds on creating and testing their online code. Nintendo is often a bit behind the times, but I putting online multiplayer into the already chaotic world of Mario Multiplayer seems like it would be pretty crap.
  • JarkayColt - October 29, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Wait, who's to say that anybody was paid to write that description for the turtle? For all you know...well, it reads like it was just lifted from an encyclopedia, pfft. (Not that it makes it any less pointless. I mean, who doesn't already know that a turtle is a shelled reptile? Kids younger than 5 still probably know that without being told. XD)
  • Vonter - October 29, 2013 11:33 a.m.

    Well multiply that for every element with a description. It might be copy paste but it's still something that takes time. Even without that bit everything else requires dedication.
  • masterjoe123 - October 29, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    If it was from an encyclopedia, they probably paid the writer of the encyclopedia, or at least got their permission. If they didn't, that would be plagiarism, which is illegal.
  • Vonter - October 29, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    You don't say! But in all seriousness yeah it could have a work of a day having the text. But one still had to transcribe it and translate it to several languages for Europe.

Showing 21-31 of 31 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.