I never said it was a GOOD sequel. I'm just saying it was popular enough to warrant one. FoC and WFC are both held in pretty high regards in the gaming community. If they weren't then Activision would have just turned out something completely different. There was a lot of effort made in turning over the WFC and FoC stuff from High Moon to Edge of Reality. It's not like they just threw in some unused levels in Rise of the Dark Spark. There is effort there. There's a couple of well known glitches in the FoC escalation maps and Edge of Reality did make an effort to deal with that. I'm not saying it wasn't a cash in, but they did try to turn out a good product.

I never said they did. I'm just saying the designs are popular and the games are well liked enough that people keep spending money on that continuity. And only "three" designs? Aren't you one of these toy collecting OCD types that spend their days kissing Peaugh and EmGo's a**? How can you not know that there was an entire Dinobot team made, in addition to Optimus, seekers, etc? It's a pretty extensive list.

You know what's funny? This game actually has a longer time-to-kill stat than most modern shooters. I think that's what keeps people coming back to FoC. There's nothing else on the market currently like it at the moment. Destiny, BattleFront, Black Ops, etc are all twitch shooters and FoC requires a bit more time per kill. It's a nice change of pace.

 

This game though, I have invested a frankly irresponsible amount of time on it.

 

Well this is it. Im fine with being killed in games, im quite well versed in online gaming thanks.

But being killed, spawning, being insta-killed again, spawning, being instantly killed again over and over, then getting a clear run at some one from behind only for them to murder you horribly and instantly when they turn round... just. I gave it 10 hours multiplayer and gave up.

I spent a good deal really WANTING to like and enjoy the game.. but i just couldnt.

 

lol. i saw the title and got excited as foc is one of my favourite games, regardless of transformers, then i saw pages of people arguing about what retro means. nice.

 

Yes, you did.

How exactly is this supposed to be intepeted if you were "trying to be nice" to people who apparently aren't as good at shooters as you?

So it was a high investment of even more time you invested into video game shooters in general?

lol you contradict yourself

So even with half of HMS still there, they couldn't push a balance update.

Wrong.

Just because they would shut down the FoC servers doesn't mean they're actually getting rid of those servers - they'd just remove the FoC content and replace it with another game. If FoC doesn't have an active enough playerbase such that it is taking up server volume better suited to handle the stress of a game with a far more active player base, keeping FoC running is clearly the less economic option.

PS4 architecture means all the purchasable cosmetic crap for multiplayer won't work.

Do you know what a "warranty" is?

So if FoC can't work on a new console, but only on what is now a "dead" console in terms of relevancy that you admit is actually hated by people?

Great job selling this game to people. Truly.

The graphics chip was designed by NVidia. Based on the 7800GTX for PCs.

So the fact it plays music CD's, DVDs, blu rays, accesses the internet, uses streaming services, has social networking, and bluetooth capability also aren't things PCs can do?

Please source this information because you are the only one I know of who seems to claim this is somehow officially held views by public consensus

Stop using your personal opinions as the only source of making these claims when literally everybody in the thread has disagreed with you about your insistence that things less than 5 years old are "retro". Are you going to say cellphones are also retro since smartphones have been around for years now?

So Team Fortress 2 is now retro as well?

Feb. 6, 2016 release date.

XCOM is not a small brand name.

[quot]That's not true, simply because not every retro game has a community. There's no Cosmic Ark community out there.[/quote]

1. That's because it's an obscure Atari 2600 game

2. Its publisher went out of business in 1983 during the great video game crash, while "Cosmic Ark" was released in 1982. So of course there wouldn't be a "community" for something barely younger than PONG given it's likely nobody ever heard of the game in the first place due to the crash.

So you're citing some webshow that made that claim before dropping that exact aesthetic...and some random youtuber most of us probably have never heard of?

Something a bit more officially recognized - as in official in any capacity - is what you should be providing, not two specific instances in specific contexts without any recognized authority involvement.

Isn't this precisely what they did?


I mean, it says ACTIVISION right there in the lower right.

Which is literally what they did.

And apparently failed miserably at that, according to the majority of board regulars here on TFW who played that atrocity.

I'm sorry, what was it you said when I suggested you were casually insulting other posters?

And yet here you are actively telling somebody off for "kissing ass" without even knowing if they even watch those reviewers.

but it's on a previous generation system that's on its way out, why bother learning how to play a shooter that is so unlike other shooters when its lifetime is limited anyway?

 

I love how the title is "Best Game You're Not Playing" yet all you do is bitch and whine about how it isn't and then turn pretentious about how it is...

 

I still play WFC and FOC to this day on PS3.

 

Also for the record, clan matches where you ahve rules like "No Chaos Rift Combuster" are pretty lame.

I used to play Fighting Games HARDCORE. You know, the kind of person who'd go to Evolution, the biggest damn fighting game tournament in the world every year. Know what we DON'T have in the FG community? Character ban lists. Unless a character is ABSOLUTELY, TRULY broken and makes the game unplayable, they get banned, but there's only been 3-4 characters that have been banned at EVO in the 14 years the tournament has been running. We fighting game players tend to take stuff as it is and work around it or work hard for our wins.

 

Correct. HMS is wholly owned by Activision, and Activision locked it down. They weren't willing to spend anymore money on live monitoring. (guess they should have sold dance emotes like Destiny [joke]). Technically, the people working on FoC were laid off or moved over to Deadpool. After Deadpool flopped Activision started handing HMS busy work from other studios. They were never given the option to go back and work on FoC.

It doesn't work like that. First, I'm pretty sure that FoC doesn't even have it's own personal server. Given that FoC is peer to peer, the resources it uses on the server side are pretty small. Second, Activision isn't known for cutting online play for games. EA will do it in a heartbeat for sports titles, but that's mainly just to get people to upgrade to that year's newest version. There's not some guy sitting in a room thinking, "OK, FoC is down to 100 players. Let's cut the cord!" It doesn't work like that. When FoC goes down, it'll go down with a slew of other past gen games in a giant purge. I wouldn't expect that anytime soon.

What? Just... what? WTF are you talking about? Why do you keep saying this incoherent crap like you made some kind of point? PS3 games don't work on the PS4 because it's a totally different architecture. It has nothing to do with "purchasable cosmetic crap." Where are you even getting that?

What? "Warranty?" WTF does that have to do with 7th Gen being phased out?

WTF? Ok, am I being punked? Is this "Haze the new guy!" This "Autobot_Burnout" account is just a joke account used to troll the new people right?

I don't know, everyone EVER. Why do you think the term "7th Gen" even exists?

In my opinion, yes. It is. Team Fortress came out in what? 2007? Almost a decade ago in the computer industry? Yeah, I call that retro.

No, it actually isn't. FoC and WFC were well enough received to earn a sequel in the form of Dark Spark. It was then Dark Spark's financial failure that caused Activision to pass the game off to someone else. But even then (in an E3 interview before release) PlatinumGames said that Activsion was open to anything. They didn't have any real vision for the next game. It was PlatinumGames who came up with Devastations concept, not Activision. Activision would have probably done another WFC style game if that's what PlatinumGames had pitched. But sadly, it wasn't.

 

Oh, I agree completely. And so do several other clans (like NoD). Unfortunately there's several problems with the CRC. It's true that some people don't like it because it's a low skill weapon. But the main problem is that it's damn near game breaking. If you have 6+ people all using CRC then the game's frame rate drops into the basement. I'm not even kidding. It's like you're playing a motion comic. I don't know what it's like on PC, but on the PS3 it's a real issue.

 

I agree on frame rate issues but you lose me at "low skill. Huh? What? It's in the game. It's a tool. Live with it or learn to beat it. That's my mentality. If you already limited classes then there is no point in limiting the weapons.

 

What makes you think they wanted to go back to FoC? The video game industry can't just endlessly support multiplayer games without consistently making new titles in order to sell them and keep making money.

Things like Team Fortress 2 lasting several years is an anomally and happened only due to the support of regular updates on the PC build. Team Fortress 2 on the console is dead despite the Orange Box being for Xbox.

What do you think handles matchmaking, then? Or the online purchases for the DLC stuff?

There is a page on the support website listing every single game Activision has shut off online support from.

The last release in the Quake series - the grandady franchise of MMOFPS - is on that list.

Here.

Because it's not phased out. You act as if production halting later this year is going to actually mark the end of the PS3.

Legally, the minimum requirement on Sony's part is to provide a full year of warranty for each PS3 sold as of the day of consumer purchase. And there are extended waranties that can extend that to about three full years.

Roughly speaking, that means the PS3, by your words here, can't actually be phased out until 2019 because that's the earliest Sony can stop supporting the console.

Your arguments are self-defeating ever since you've somehow taken up the position people should jump into FoC, when it's limited to a console you also have keenly listed a number of problems that said console has with FoC such as the framerate issue, and that the PS3's days are numbered.

Why should people buy a PS3, which is on its way out according to you, when the PS4 is already on the market and doesn't have most if not all of the problems of the previous machine?

Then you should have absolutely no problem posting a link of some official source like the ESRB defining films and video games in the same context, if "everyone" somehow thinks like you say we do.

So...Sonic The Hedgehog 4 episode II isn't retro because it was a 2012 release?

But that doesn't change the fact Activision was responsible for Dark Spark which is a giant mess that only exists as Age of Extinction movie-tie in merchandise.

...you can not be serious. Do you know what PlatniumGames is famous for to the point the only reason you give something to them is to have them apply what they are known for doing to that thing?

Like, holy crap...Metal Gear Rising: Revengance alone is a perfect indicator that even getting PG to develop something is going to result in a game involving fast single player combat with qucktime actions and over the top scenarios.

And that's why Activision did something different - because handing it over to another studio for development is still by definition "DOING" something.

 

It's considered "low skill" because you don't have to aim it. You can just sit back in a corner, fire it randomly into the sky, and start racking up kills. There's also a question as to whether or not it's glitched, or if it doing the damage that HMS intended it to do. The CRC was buffed in one of the later updates because people weren't using it, and there's a question on whether something went wrong or if HMS just went too far. A random CRC shot can fully take down a whirlwinding Titan (even using the damage resistant perk) instantly. That just shouldn't happen, and several people take issue with it. I'm not necessarily one of them, but I see their point. If the CRC didn't also destroy the frame rate and lag the game then I'd probably just say deal with it.

I actually wanted to reduce clan battles to 4v4, with each of the 4 using one specific class (based on a tournament held by Daneki85). That way you have 1 Destroyer, 1 Titan, 1 Infiltrator, and 1 Scientist. Then it wouldn't be as much as an issue if the Destroyer on your team was using the CRC. Two people using it shouldn't lag the game, and random instant deaths would be minimized. Sadly, no one agreed to that idea because no one wanted to be locked into one class.

 

Jesus Christ, I never said they wanted to go back. You just wanted an answer as to why they hadn't, so I gave you one. They were pushed on to other projects. I have no idea what Matt Tieger wanted to personally do.

The server handles matchmaking, yes. But the actual match is hosted by the console. That's why it doesn't cost a lot to keep peer to peer games working. DLC doesn't factor into the Activision severs at all. That's simply an unlock code that Sony sells you, and that's handled by the PSN servers. Activision doesn't have any cost there.

Yes, but actually look at the list. They're almost all franchise games. It's a safe bet that all those games were removed because Activision lost the license.

Oh.... I see where you went wrong. Never go by anything Suki or Diablo says. As soon as I saw who was posting in that thread it all made sense. Just ignore whatever they tell you. Suki was especially running at the mouth because she was convinced that the PS3 free network was going to close down once the PS4 paid network stabilized in the gaming community. Just forget that entire thread. It's a mess of false statements and assumptions that were proven wrong. Can't believe I didn't post in that thread though. I wonder where I was.

I didn't say it was phased out, I said it was being phased out. But that's beside the point, because Sony can cut PS3 services whenever they want. Your warranty doesn't mean jack in that regard. They have to replace mechanical defects for a year, but that's about it. And believe me, Sony has done some F'd up things with that power. Remember the "Other OS" option or that Earth map thing? Sony just came in and completely removed that from everyone's system and there wasn't s*** your warranty was going to do about it. Sony could cut PSN services tomorrow if they want. They're under no obligation to keep any services up and running after you bought the PS3.

I never said anyone SHOULD buy a PS3. You probably shouldn't (although it is a free network so I guess you can make a case for it). I was just saying that "if you've got this game in your collection, then pop it in. If you've got a PS3 and see this game at gamestop for $5 bucks then it's worth a look."

I don't know why you think we disagree on that point.

Neither of us know how that went down. My guess is that Activison went to several different companies and heard game pitches, but for whatever reason they settled on the PlatniumGames pitch. It was probably due to the fact that there was no longer a WFC/FOC toyline to push and it made Hasbro happier to feature the current Generations/Masterpiece lines.

 

So you're telling people they should play a game where you have to buy codes to unlock stuff on the physical disc they already bought? Because being forced to buy stuff that was already technically bought to begin with does not make a game appealing.

Well, now we've established why Activision might cut FoC; they lose the TF license.

What does that have to do at all with the validity of their statements or not?

The fact you're trying to use offsite drama through character assassination of people not actually tied into this thread topic aside, there is no reason to believe or distust anything they've said any more than what you have said, because you refuse to actually provide solid evidence beyond a webshow nobody else on the boards has seen and some guy on youtube nobody else on the boards has heard of.

I don't care who they are, if what they say is true then they could be absolute jerks and that doesn't change the validity of their statements. You're the one calling them untrustworthy without providing a shred of decent support to prove them factually incorrect, instead just stroking your own ego by saying you're somehow more of an expert than they are just because.

And when they do, FOC goes down too, won't it?

Then why should people pick up FOC if the services could shut down at any given point of any given day?

You've torpedoed your own argument.

Remind me what this thread was supposed to do again?

Or maybe it was the part where they were already working with them on a Korra title?

You obviously have no idea how the toylines even worked given there were TWO FOC figures in Generations past the point you just said. Or that Hasbro doesn't feature Masterpieces whatsoever beyond store exclusives, usually Toys R Us, because they don't even develop any MP figures in-house - that's Takara's domain.

Or that Rise of the Dark Spark existed to push the AoE toys and was utter shit.

 

 ​

Well, yes. In fact there was an article a couple of years ago that said Activision was fed up with paying to license franchises when it wasn't actually bringing in more money. Supposedly they were going to cut back on movie tie games and stuff they had to buy a license for. I don't know what happened there since Activsion has clearly still got the Transformers license from Hasbro. I don't know if they scaled back the other stuff or not; although that might explain the discontinued list that you posted.

I can break down the other thread from gamefaqs if you want...

First of all, let me say that you completely misunderstood what that thread was about. Nothing in it backs up your crazy quote about about incompatible DLC being the reason that the PS3 games aren't ported to the PS4. You completely misunderstood that entire thread. Let me explain...

The first guy is worried that Sony is going to shut down the free PS3 network once the paid PS4 network starts. He's worried that he won't be able to use the character customization menu because you have to connect into multiplayer first to be able to use that feature. With no network, it would just be locked out. You'd never see it again. Then the entire thread is just speculating what it will mean if the PS4 paid network causes the PS3 free network to go down.

At no point is anyone saying that the customization option is keeping the game from being ported to the PS4. They don't discuss PS3/4 architecture at all. I hope that clears up your confusion.

Yes, Sony can cut services whenever they like. Just like Bungie could cut Destiny's services whenever they feel like it. But that's not likely to happen in the immediate future, and that's about as much guarantee as you can get from any online game.

Because it's here now. It's available now. And it's unlikely to shut down any time soon (although yeah, it could). In fact, I'd say that might be more of a reason to pick it up. Because once this experience is gone, it may not be available ever again. But if taking the chance and spending the 15 bucks is going to break you, then pass.

It was suppose to be an invite to people who hadn't played the game in awhile before you derailed it with petty bickering.

Maybe that was the reason why Activision accepted their pitch. How the hell do I know? I wasn't in the board meeting. All I know is what was said at E3 from the Japanese guy who worked for Platinum. Activsion gave them a blank slate to pitch whatever they wanted. Platinum decided to pitch a G1 hack and slash. Activision accepted. Anything beyond that is speculation.

Yeah... I don't give a s***. Let's just say that whoever was in charge of the general toyline was probably thrilled with the inclusion of the combiner wars characters in Devastation and Activision was probably happy that they were happy, so that the game license wasn't shopped around. Hasbro, Takara... whatever. The point is that Activision was playing ball with the guys who were licensing them the characters.

I think Dark Spark was pushing the movie more than toys, but whatever. They did a few things right... most things wrong. I've said that if you look at the game as an FoC expansion pack then it seems like a better deal. I got just as much content out of Dark Spark as I did Taken King for Destiny, so... But my opinion is biased. I loved FoC escalation and I thought the escalation changes Dark Spark made were at least interesting. Of course when I bought the game I got a free poster and three free movie tickets to AoE (thanks Gamestop and Regal morons!) . So I didn't have much to complain about from the start.

 

Folks, let's make sure this stays civil. Thanks.

 

And? That doesn't matter. It's a tool in the game, and I reiterate my point...if you already limit the classes to two, then the issues you have with it aren't an issue. Because, from my standpoint, all it sounds like is this: "Bawww, I can't handle a player using a weapon, so I'm just gonna BAN it!"

Again, because where I come from you don't do that. You learn to work around what you don't like and overcome it.

 

I agree, but what can I tell you? That's not how everyone else feels. I actually have a CRC setup and I get SLAMMED for it all the time. The "limit the classes to two" thing is kind of new. Most clan battles don't go by that. That was a rule that DMG used and it's sort of caught on in the last 6 months. The problem is there's no standardized rule set for clan battles. There should be, but no one has ever made it happen. The two teams just hammer out an agreement before the battle. I actually lobbied everyone to go to the MLG forums and have the game added to their little ranked battles setup (which seems to be surprisingly easy to do, but who would have thought that the MLG forums would be DEAD.) But no one wanted to do it because they like to do their own thing. The truth is none of them want to make a rule that will come back to bite them in the ass later on. But feel free to go over to gamefaqs and tell them that CRC should be allowed. I wouldn't expect it to go over well though.