I am not around nearly as much as I used to be, but I just have one question. After how well High Moon Studios did with WFC, DOTM and FOC, and being owned by the company publishing the game in Activision, I am surprised they didnt have them make Rise of the Dark Spark, especially since half the game is based on High Moon's games, even with High Moon laying off some workers awhile back. Is there any answers or possible answers to why Edge of Reality is making it?


~AAD

 

I think high moon is working on the port for the next call of duty game

 

'Cos High Moon are a bunch of hipster manbabies who can't handle the capitalist reality of supply and demand 

 

I suspect they were overworked. They had the DOTM project which wasn't received all that well and was likely forced on them.

Also I don't believe that FOC was as big of a success as WFC. Quite a bit of what made WFC popular as an outright video game wasn't present e.g. campaign co-op, escalation seems dumbed down and MP didn't seem the have the same buzz to it.

Then Deadpool came along to decidedly lukewarm response.

Given the promoted scale of ROTDS I'm very concerned that this will be a big pre-movie turkey.

 

As opposed to the glorified Gears of War mod that is High moon's first installment? 


I mean, by mod standards they did a great job, but it shouldn't cost $69.90

 

No, what I'm saying is that WFC was probably the first TF game that was a good game first and a good TF game second. FOC was likely hampered by having to squeeze a movie game out in between.

ROTDS is (at least loosely) tied to a movie license which almost always results in a sub-par game. They can re-use WFC/FOC assets which is a head start but they've also had to adapt AOE designs which weren't likely complete when the project started.

 

YMMV, but ROTF got a higher rating on Gamespot than WFC. Maybe a little creativity goes a long way, even in a movie tie-in. WFC stuck to a tried-and-true method, but so does Call of Duty, a constant bugbear among the (I presume) predominantly center-left gaming community 

 

Simply put? Activision, in their infinite wisdom, decided not to hire them again. Why? That remains unanswered at this time.

Despite HMS developing FoC and WfC, Activision holds all rights toward the character models of both those games.

 

If we get into what gaming sites review games at we enter a rabbit hole of score comparisons.

ROTF had an enjoyable (if simple) MP mode but the single players campaign was a grind.

WFC wasn't perfect but it was what TF games needed, a solid base to build off of.

FOC actually went full on with the story and gained something but lost something too in the process. BUT it used the same base.

ROTDS could work in that it is based on a, now, established base which is what TF games need going forwards.

 

Finally, I see a defense of WFC's quality that doesn't boil down to "ITZ GEEWUN SO IT MUZ BE GUD!!!!". You get gold star 

I agree to an extent, but the Pat Lee-style did to me what the Bay-style did to everyone else, unfortunately.

Dunno jack about FOC though, except that Shockwave taught an enemy combatant how to be a apex predator. So much for giving more respect to the character than Bay 

 

I was born and raised in G1 but Transformers need to embrace the meta-series mentality even more than it has been.

Each series being a fresh slate that carries across some core themes.

WFC would have likely been just an enjoyable if you played the role of a customisable genericon who was guided by key characters. It was a solid base.

I also have no issue with the bayverse designs or stylings. They separate themselves from other continuities which is fine with me. My problems with the movie are nothing to do with their similarities or lack of with G1. That's a discussion from somewhere else.

The bottom line is that I hope that ROTDS is at least passable. With arguably the largest roster of TF characters ever assembled it has promise.

If it flops the chances are that the 'experts' may think it is time for TF game cooldown.

 

My ideal game would be a GTA-style game. I've got ideas, but I'd never get it off.

Shouldn't be hard to make, just have a giant protagonist that turns into a car (instead of stealing cars) and have disguise as a gamepoint. A couple of anti-American agitprop would be the piece de resistance that will have the gaming community worshipping you for centuries to come. 

 

Yeah, a GTA-style sandbox game would definitely not be hard to make.....errr, right.  
Any idea just how much work open world games take to create? Good luck with that.

I also think it's funny you're downgrading WFC to a 'glorified Gears of War mod', then do a 180 and state your ideal game would be a Transformers themed copy of GTA. Irony.

I'll state right away: there's nothing wrong with Call of Duty, technically. The only thing 'wrong' is how blatantly obvious Activision is churning those games out (a company trying to make money? No way!   ), but quality-wise they're great games (although the Infinity Ward ones are definitely better than the ones that other company makes).

Call of Duty has a bad name among certain groups of gamers, who are willing to completely undermine those games' qualities and strengths because they don't like the shooty-shooty, or the fact their hillbilly cousin John-Fred also likes to 'play games' now.

Aaaanyway...

I'm not sure how 'ROTF scored better than WFC on Gamespot' makes for a good argument. That's one review site.
I'm not here to tell anyone ROTF was a shit game - although I have not played it much I've been told, for a movie tie-in, it's actually pretty decent and the multiplayer's fun.
But when comparing the games, if that's what you want to do, the only fair way to do it is to go to Metacritic.com, which is a site that collects reviews from all around the web, not just a single site.

A quick glance shows that ROTF scored somewhere around a 6, while WFC scored around a 7.5.

There's nothing wrong with sticking to a tried-and-true method, and that doesn't automatically make WFC a Gears of War copy. I can see where people would make the comparison, but playing both games for more than 10 minutes reveals neither their gameplay nor setting nor level of grittiness.

But I get it: people see a third person shooter with bulky characters in a somewhat gritty color palette and the damage is done.

War for Cybertron is a perfectly reasonable game, and especially for a Transformers game it was top-notch. That doesn't mean every TF fan will like it, as still more than enough factors come down to preference (and the Pat Lee comparison you make later on is very valid: I'm a bit bothered by the beefed up designs in FOC myself and I can see how that would be a GIANT turn off for people), but it's a shame still so many people seem to want to trash a prfectly fine game for petty reasons.
Yes, if there is one thing that pisses me off in 'videogame land' is that customers are incredibly poor at judging quality games, and it often boils down to 'a perfect 10' or 'totally shit'. Which is fucking awful.

Really? Where have you been hanging out? Is this what the TF Videogames section is like? Because at other places where I've discussed the game people have come up with tons of pros and cons about this game that had nothing to do with 'OMG GEEWUN', and it's quite insulting that you're waving that false argument as some kind of 'I win' card.

This is a totally valid, well-worded opinion and I'm now wondering why the rest of your posts in this thread aren't more like this, because the rest comes across a bit snarky and demeaning.

Did you find this out from playing the game or did you get that from trailers/interviews/wikipedia? Because that's once again overly simplifying something to make a non-existing point across.

Look, I'm not saying WFC/FOC are the pinnacle of storytelling: they're quite straightforward and blunt, and it only feels worse when comparing the story of the war back on Cybertron to how IDW's current comic books are handling them (showing a much more complex situation), but the way you're presenting it is really unfair, and untrue.

Shockwave is a Decepticon scientist who is working behind the scenes, kind of disconnected from the actual war, as he's scouting the galaxy for other planets that might harbor resources, and he does this using Space Bridge technology left behind by an ancient tribe of Transformers.
One of the planets he comes across is Earth, that apparently was mapped out by those ancients for whatever reason (if any at all), and there he finds either dinosaurs, or their remains.
He then captures enemy combatants with the goal of torturing them, and experimenting on them to turn them into brainless weapons of mass destruction, based on the looks and power of dinosaurs. Because apparently Cybertron doesn't have something like those (of course completely ruined because Hasbro felt the need to tie the Prime show, and thus the Predacons, to the games...and oh, there was already a robot dinosaur called Trypticon   ).

GEE YEAH that totally doesn't sound like something a Shockwave would do and is totally the same as movie Shockwave drilling around in a giant worm and then getting killed.


Sir...do you have some sort of personal agenda against these games or something?





OP, we don't know the real reason(s) why High Moon isn't working on this game, but I guess there are more than enough signs:
-High Moon's DOTM and especially the Deadpool game underperformed (read: Deadpool bombed and it was a pretty bad game). This has caused the studio to get into some really bad weather and they had to lay-off many people.
-The license and all the work done for the games is technically Activision's property, so they're free to give what was made to other developers and let them do the job. Knowing Activision, they probably went with whatever studio would be cheapest/fastest to whip this game up. It probably also comes down to schedules, whether or not the developer is experienced with handling big/movie franchises (which Edge of Reality is), and probably the simple fact High Moon is simply unable to carry a game like that with their current amount of staff.

 

Dude, you are smart.

Yeah, you're right. Maybe I just burnt myself out on shooting games. I dunno, I don't even have that much .

 

I'd be down for a sandbox game with a need for disguise. Transform and blend in with traffic when in the city.

The disguise element hasn't really been looked at in games much.

Staying disguised, nullifying Decepticon threats as an Autobot and for the opposing side identifying disguised Autobots etc etc.

As long as they can allow you to recreate that back alley scene in TF07 when Prime drives through and confronts Megatron I'm in.

 

You might want to go back, as in the meantime I was editing my post to hook into other stuff you've said in this topic.
And don't get me wrong, I would love to see a GTA-style Transformers game (it would be great)...and I do get that people would get burnt out on shooters.

I just don't see the need to turn that into outright snarkiness and unfair arguments, or calling people hipster manbabies.

And then I'm retorting with similar snark and now we're going to have to wrestle! Huaargh!   (   )

 

Give Me Your Face! 


Nah just kidding, you're right. It's just the hype backlash for me regarding High Moon. I mean, dang, Is it really the Holy Grail of TransGaming? I was vaguely interested 'til I saw the dudes plundering along and the crouch-sprint "vehicle modes". Then I was like "welp, there goes my anticipation"

I hated Shockwave's portrayal in DOTM. But then again I hated how Boba Fett went down in Episode 6 too, so my opinions may not count for much. I just thought G1 Shockwave was all about logic and efficiency, and the whole Dinobot subplot just confuses me in that context.*

I don't particularly hate Call of Duty either. I don't really buy the postmodern moral equivalency tropes that make various peaceniks foam at the mouth whenever an american man is potrayed in a vaguely positive manner 

And meh, the initial reaction to WFC is pretty much a WHY CAN'T MICHAEL GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY MAKE A FIUM THIS KKKEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWL. so you might forgive my conclusions about WFC's hype.


Nothing against WFC's simple plot either,(I hate waffling) but no one explained why it's so "great" to me, so I came to my above conclusion, unfortunately.


It's nice to have proper logical explanations instead of pedantic declarations for a change, Digilaut

* My ideal Shockwave would be a Sheldon Cooper clone, albeit one that never discovered comic books 

 

Think the better question is why would you want Highmoon working on another TF game...

Yeah the campaigns were fun and solid, but they are a complete disaster when it came to the longevity of the game - multiplayer. WFC was actually really well done in the aspect that everyone had something outrageous and broken, and it kinda balanced itself in that manner. Except of course the rampant hacking/glitchers that pretty much destroyed that online community (which I personally would still be a part of today), and Highmoon turned a complete blind eye to. Hay gaiz we're workin on a new game! Sorry!

In FOC they tried to balance things to make them more "fun"  
Yeah, let's remove all the cool shit that people loved like sweet items, abilities and killstreak bonuses in favor of balance! What could go wrong! Well, everything. That was the most boring piece of shit I've every played online - and it still had hackers/glitchers   2 strikes, goodbye.

Now if ROTDS truly has no online multiplayer, I guess I can at least respect that this new dev is admitting they just don't know how to do it correctly, and I don't buy the game. So I don't have to be bitter or angry about it because I don't have to spend a dime. Life goes on and I just don't have to play the game. I'd rather that and let it cater to a specific playerbase that enjoys campain/co-op modes, rather then tout itself as something it isn't.