I completely forgot this game was released in 2007. It’s gameplay mechanics are brilliant(better than GTA),
Player’s abilities progress like an RPG without the “stats-overload”
Player’s abilities increases through the use of the abilities: shooting, jumping, bombing, kicking
Killing civilians degrades abilities progression
Health/shield regeneration - player is partially superhuman
Challenging mix of jumping puzzles and henchmen + boss battles - very hardcore
Easy transition from walking + jumping + climbing + swimming + driving in an seamless world
but suffers from a two tragic flaws that downgrades it from “Game of the Year” to just “good game in 2007.”
The art style is a bit too hardcore gamer for my tastes: greens, purples, oversaturated colours.
The story is all too generic and actually interferes with gameplay. Initially, the story appears to be polished and somewhat interesting (Agency, cloning, advanced powers), but after the third cut-scene it becomes predictable (you good, ugly people bad - no plot twists) and in the end useless. The developers could have just put up 3 lines of text instead of spending all that time on pre-rendered sequences + voice over.
GTA III had a simpler/better style (although generic) and the story was compelling due to the over-the-top mafia characters who give you wacky tasks to execute in order to progress. Crackdown’s art was too eccentric (the cel shading is nice, but the art director needed to choose the colours better) and the story was too generic.
A game like Crackdown suffers from the typical “3D platformer camera” problem that has been present since Mario 64 + Tomb Raider arrived. Crackdown’s camera is very good by modern standards, but in tight spaces it zooms in and out while forcing nearby geometry into transparent mode (all very disorientating if you are carefully trying to maneuver). Modern platformers either avoid tight spaces or use a pre-planned camera paths like in Heavenly Sword, Ico, Prince of Persia, etc.
Overall, few platformers appeal to the masses due to complex controls (Crackdown uses all 8 buttons and both joysticks!) and wonky 3D cameras. Hardcore gamers have a high tolerance to these issues and are willing to spend the time dealing with them.
On Facebook, couple of people have invited me to a game of Scrabulous which from the name, I thought was a variant of Scrabble… supported by Hasbro or EA.
At the core of the issue is the use the name Scrabble-like name in a product that is too similar to the original. Copying the gameplay itself is not illegal as there are plenty of Scrabble clones but trademark dilution and trademark infringement can strip Hasbro of their IP rights to Scrabble. Trademark laws are funny that way - you must vigorously sue others that potentially infringe on your trademark so that the court sees that you are actively using the trademark. Unlike copyright, trademarks must be actively used to be valid. With copyright, the creator maintains ownership regardless if the IP is being used or not.
Note, using a Scrabble-like name in a product that is NOTHING like the board game is also legal. Scrabulous could be an egg-white alternative and pass the “legal muster test.”
I’ve had enough of GUI toolkits for games. I just want hardware accelerated Flash for less than $1K in my game… Unfortunately ScaleForm is way too expensive and gameSWF is too time-comsuing to wade through.
It’s either all animated 3D menus from now on OR HTML/CSS based one like libRocket
In a startup, one can not always afford to pay for the best artists or developers but if one can find any of these artists/developers willing to take less immediate salary for company stock / royalties / profit-sharing then one should do it.
But what is the best type of deferred compensation? The first answer would be STOCKS!
Also, the “acquiring” company can purchase only the assets of the game studio without purchasing the company itself (barely rewarding the shareholders). This happened once to myself when Documentum bought The Bulldog Group (a media asset management company - the only non-3D position I’ve held). The Bulldog Group shares were worthless afterwards because Documentum never bought the company only the assets (IP + equipment + etc.). I assumed the money from the purchase was used to pay off Bulldog Group debt.
Is percentage of revenue the answer? What about a percentage of profits?
Since profits are hard to come by in game development and profit calculations nebulous (many things can be written off as “costs” which will lower “profits”) - it’s not the best option for the artist/developer. However, for the game studio, this provides some cost certainty as no money is paid to the artist/developer until the game breaks even.
In the interest of both parties, revenue sharing is best. Revenue as defined as game sales money from the publisher or distributor and NOT retail revenue which is beyond the control of the studio. Using wholesale revenue is NOT a good idea as the game studio has limited control of wholesale pricing and returns. All the game studio has control of is the revenue streaming coming in from the publisher or distributor…
