Printable View
You realize that you can speed up a game and still make a good game in the process? I realize how to make this happen, for some reason negative developers these days, but is simple, the way to do this is by providing options. Options are amazing things, striking, and at the end of the day, the easiest way to make a game both available to newcomers, and good, for veterans and newcomers who once experienced. What do you think about this?
RR was never intended to attract players OFP CWC, honestly, how could it? What every player PFO also was attracted first does not exist in the RR, GR was actually a good step in a new direction. Unfortunately, the power of the $ $ $ appeal RR prevailed over anything could offer, hence the urgent need to attract players like COD unfortunately the boys COD OFP players see nothing in this title to write home about and sales have reflected this.
Indeed ChiefBoats on its sales campaign to demonstrate the low RR. Nothing could be RR never would have sold more if it was any less accessible game made for hardcore fans. If RR falls on the Net, you do not win a cookie. However, there is abundant evidence that game developers are having major problems trying to deal with the economy and the costs of mass production. And these developers games have a lot of market research recommends the best option. Specific genres have become less specific for it. This is sad, I know, but its reality.
This hundred-fold RD is incredible, my favorite tactical FPS game hands down. It's almost a more polished ArmA is not bogged down with the simulation, but plays more to be a tactical FPS game with realistic weapon. Not that ArmA and CWC are not great games, they are, but DR fit the bill of a simple formula that works. RD is a tactical FPS in the finest knitwear. If Rainbow 6 Vegas is a strategic FPS, RD is a tactical FPS on steroids, what we so desperately want more.
Now put that into the price of games. It is a much more ridiculous standard that helps prevent developers. By the time of falling prices set to reflect the value of the sentence the cat is out of the bag, the game or "worst" or is "worth a bucket of trading buy", is nothing special. However, at this point, I've gone too far without it, I have the MP shooter I'm happy, but why worry with a game that probably dry line or the skill level of players is intimidating?
Well, while likely an inaccurate, is an easy way to describe something more complex. One issue that did not even bother to go into detail about. A lot of simulation games, though not nearly all are so absorbed by providing the authentic feel that a lot of other things suffer. Instead of spending much time in the game, interface, systems, etc, tend to worry more about the aspects of the simulation. Mostly, for good reason. Moreover, Sims also tends to require a great deal of knowledge and a lot of work. This is more or less what I mean in regard to ArmA, but it does actually suffer from other departments.
Times are tough right now, and I do not see why a developer with an excellent history of racing games, and without the financial plan of Activision or EA, try to compete in the FPS genre, with a product mediocre, for full price! If introduced at a lower price, possibly sales would have been more high? We must remember customers have less non-refundable income as they did. This is why indie games have sold a lot recently. I MAED A GAEM - £ 1, Fleet - £ 5, Minecraft - € 12. Low price, outstanding products, brilliant replay value.