Some friends of mine from the old Husky Games days have moved to Austin and have opened up their own studio for casual games. It is listed now on the IDGA site for Austin based studios and they have released their first title on Facebook. You can check them out HERE.
Sean, Ryan, good luck with your studio. If you make it big, hire me :)
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Game Review - Resident Evil 5 : PS3 : Capcom
Resident Evil 5... where to begin. First off, I have not beaten the whole thing yet. I plan on it tomorrow. Currently I am on Chapter 6-1. I realize this is close to the end but I had plans tonight that didn't include being home near my PS3. Regardless, I have played enough to have an honest opinion of the game...
Seeing as I've played every other Resident Evil game out there, it was a given that I would pick up the latest installment. Now it's true, I am a tool and bought the collectors edition for an additional 30 dollars. Why you ask, you would have just as good an answer as myself. However it did come with a nifty metal case and some crap I will never use (Patch for BSAA, a figurine of Chris, a medallion of Africa, and a crappy thin, cheaply made, tote bag that is way too small for me to carry.
Now I expected the game to be an action game, seeing as that is the direction that RE4 took. I thought RE4 was a good game but not really worthy of the Resident Evil title, as they changed the genre so much. It saddens me to say that RE5 makes RE4 look like a classic. They have totally reworked game play, all but gotten rid of the challenging puzzles of the original, and made the game chapter base that forces you to run from point A, to point B, killing hordes of annoying enemies with highly delayed AI systems and way too much health to balance out the game.
It may be the case that I am too much the hardcore fan of the originals. It may be that I'm just jaded on the newest games that are out, because very few have failed to meet my expectation of "Next Generation" gaming. However, I am greatly saddened when a company the size of Capcom is not willing to stick to its grassroots and take a chance or releasing a game in a well known franchise that is more unique yet risky. Most of this I feel is due to the cost of production of modern day games. It is a better risk for the company if they do something already done than attempt to push their own market IP. It is just my fear that all games will eventually merge into the same rehashed concept that is marketed by large scale developers.
On the otherhand, it makes me glad to see a large scale company move the way of the standard first/third shooter, it opens up room for us little guys.
Later
Seeing as I've played every other Resident Evil game out there, it was a given that I would pick up the latest installment. Now it's true, I am a tool and bought the collectors edition for an additional 30 dollars. Why you ask, you would have just as good an answer as myself. However it did come with a nifty metal case and some crap I will never use (Patch for BSAA, a figurine of Chris, a medallion of Africa, and a crappy thin, cheaply made, tote bag that is way too small for me to carry.
Now I expected the game to be an action game, seeing as that is the direction that RE4 took. I thought RE4 was a good game but not really worthy of the Resident Evil title, as they changed the genre so much. It saddens me to say that RE5 makes RE4 look like a classic. They have totally reworked game play, all but gotten rid of the challenging puzzles of the original, and made the game chapter base that forces you to run from point A, to point B, killing hordes of annoying enemies with highly delayed AI systems and way too much health to balance out the game.
It may be the case that I am too much the hardcore fan of the originals. It may be that I'm just jaded on the newest games that are out, because very few have failed to meet my expectation of "Next Generation" gaming. However, I am greatly saddened when a company the size of Capcom is not willing to stick to its grassroots and take a chance or releasing a game in a well known franchise that is more unique yet risky. Most of this I feel is due to the cost of production of modern day games. It is a better risk for the company if they do something already done than attempt to push their own market IP. It is just my fear that all games will eventually merge into the same rehashed concept that is marketed by large scale developers.
On the otherhand, it makes me glad to see a large scale company move the way of the standard first/third shooter, it opens up room for us little guys.
Later
A Comment on Standards
Hi All,
It's been a while since I posted, but I have an interesting little tid big that I ran into today. Apparently some standards state that you should always define your null checking logic as follows:
if ( null == var )
{
// do whatever
}
instead of:
if ( var == null )
{
// do whatever
}
Apparently the reason for this is that it will always avoid a dreaded assignment error causing a null pointer in your application. I.E.:
if ( var = null )
{
// This will do bad things to your code.
}
It avoids them because the compiler will not allow you to assign a value to null where as you can assign null to a variable. This same logic holds true for any constant. I.E.:
if ( 1 == var )
{
// do something spiffy
}
as well as any variable declared as a const, and enumerated values as well, since these are converted by the compiler to be a constant. However, I plan on still doing things the old fashion way, as bad habits are hard to break. I just thought it was an interesting idea and thought I would share.
Later.
It's been a while since I posted, but I have an interesting little tid big that I ran into today. Apparently some standards state that you should always define your null checking logic as follows:
if ( null == var )
{
// do whatever
}
instead of:
if ( var == null )
{
// do whatever
}
Apparently the reason for this is that it will always avoid a dreaded assignment error causing a null pointer in your application. I.E.:
if ( var = null )
{
// This will do bad things to your code.
}
It avoids them because the compiler will not allow you to assign a value to null where as you can assign null to a variable. This same logic holds true for any constant. I.E.:
if ( 1 == var )
{
// do something spiffy
}
as well as any variable declared as a const, and enumerated values as well, since these are converted by the compiler to be a constant. However, I plan on still doing things the old fashion way, as bad habits are hard to break. I just thought it was an interesting idea and thought I would share.
Later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)