via Fidgit.com, Tom Chick writes:
"NPR's "All Things Considered" did a short piece on Braid, the mind-bending time-twisting platformer available on Xbox Live. After Robert Siegel tries to get his mouth around various trademarked videogaming phrases like "Xbox Live" and "Halo Combat Evolved", there's a three-and-a-half minute segment based on speaking to developer Jonathan Blow. Because I'll bet you dollars to donuts correspondent Heather Chaplin didn't actually play Braid.
"Braid feels like a game that a grown up can play," she chirps, "that a grown up perhaps ought to play. Braid pulsates with feelings of loss, loneliness, and longing. Which means that Jonathan Blow has violated one of the cardinal rules of game-making: that games have to be fun. Fun with a capital F and an exclamation point."
Leaving aside that "fun" is a useless concept in any meaningful discussion, this is accidentally a good point. Braid doesn't work according the traditional rules, which mandate doling out rewards to players to encourage them to keep playing. Blow expresses it much better when he tells Chaplin his idea of a reward system: "You simply feel the satisfaction of having done something that seemed difficult at first. And having expanded your understanding."
But Chaplin gets in the last word with yet another inadvertent and oblivious dig at videogaming..."
BLG writes: "Do you know any famous games made by one person? Well, we’re here to educate you on some of the best one-man projects out there."
Nice list.
I’ll add 9th Dawn III to that list. Great game made by one person.
Always Sometimes Monster is made by two people technically, but let’s do an honorable mention.
I’d add HABROXIA 1 & 2 on here as well. Berry does pixel wonders with the Game Maker engine.
Replies(1)
Technically speaking Minecraft should have been on the list. But it's nice to see these single devs thrive.
Theyr is no game made by one man. Theyr is always a team of developers behind them.
However there is always someone who comes up with the idea of a game.
When i would give an example of one man with that idea for me its Hideo Kojima....
No there are certainly games made by 1 person, start to finish. Maybe after it launches and becomes a big enough success the 1 person will reach out for help maintaining it or updating, but games have been made by 1 person.
Unless of course you are being insanely nit-picky and trying to claim "the engine they used was made by Unity" or "the assets they put in were made by someone else"
Microsoft is offering three additional free games for all Xbox Live Gold subscribers in addition to the regular lineup of games this month.
I enjoyed Joe Danger back in the day, it's pretty fun. What's amazing is how Hello Games went from a few of these rather simple games to the ultra-ambitious No Man's Sky!
Replies(1)
I would love a sequel to JD - although I do realize that Hello Games have kinda grown beyond that scope of game.
And still the contradiction of getting something for "free" from a service you pay for continues.
But isn’t the service for online multiplayer? So, technically it’s “free games” included with your online subscription? I mean, what was the point of Xbox Live? To get free games?
Only, after they tried doubling the price of another online service, some similar nonsense, isn't Xbox online multiplayer suppose to be free?
"isn't Xbox online multiplayer suppose to be free?" No, it was always been a paid premium on console. The free games was not related to the rumored price hike. They were giving them away long before that.
If there was a service for free online multiplayer on console, it was PSN. Until the PS4 came out.
How would you have worded it then? I’d say ‘subscribers claiming free games’ is about as clear as it gets.
"As part of", "In addition to", "As an extra bonus". Anything better than, "Get this with no strings attached or requirements" which is what "free" implies.
That’s like saying ‘buy one get one free’ doesn’t apply because it’s not technically ‘free’. Stop trying to find a problem with something when there isn’t one.
** "Get this with no strings attached or requirements" which is what "free" implies.**
No, it actually doesn't, it's just like when you get a free refill of soda after you purchased your first cup.
I think we are well enough into these console gens to stop bringing up this tired argument
You always had to pay for Xbox Live to
play online multiplayer… this was the case way back during the original Xbox when it was released.
I don’t understand what you’re hung up about when plenty of subscription services give free things as a perk or benefit to a user who subscribes to a service.
Hell, Nintendo Power gave me a “Free” Strategy Guide of my choosing for paying for their magazine subscription way back in the day.
You’re getting the games that you’d need to pay for regardless of the subscription for free, bottom-line. The service you’re paying for is the online multiplayer service Xbox Live. You aren’t paying for Xbox Live and paying for the game you were handed out for free, you’re still just paying for the online service and nothing more. Hence, why the game in itself is free for Xbox Live subscribers.
It was originally just for online access. It had updated and began monthly game releases to compete with PS Plus. Monthly games have been a part of Live for many years. It is more recently that the releases are getting worse and worse.
Its been a majoritively dismissed point as DLC, MTs and now subscriptions became things. Failed protest against policies meant ultimately to strip consumers of ownership rights over media in general.
Still, may as well keep pointing it out.
@Godmars290
I guess people are just missing the point. And, now we got people thinking Live is still just an online sub and games are a generous inclusion like it's not a feature of the paid service lol.
Live officially on Microsofts site lists, "Free games every month. Now that’s Gold.
Get 2 free games a month, including backward compatible Xbox 360 games".
But, many are starting to say that Live payment is still just for the online access. Which, if that's what they're believing then I'm worried about why they'd pay just for online access. Paying for it back in the day was already a ripoff since they didn't even host dedicated servers to ensure the best quality connection. You'd pay for it just to host it on the internet provider that you also pay for lol.
I do think it's great to offer extra games on top of the existing ones. However, Live has repeatedly offered very lacking games, has listed the same games more than once, and even listed the same game two months in a row one time. They need to have a solid consistent history of delivering quality monthly releases.
And still the contradiction of bringing up a decade old tired complaint knowing we’ve all moved in but you. We all agree it would better if the author was accurate but this argument is so old now, move on.
https://www.xbox.com/ja-jp/...
I've just redeemed knights quest needs GP/gold membership etc
KeenGamer: "Time manipulation concepts have been the foundation of many great games, including these 5 greats which do the them justice. Because every Back to the Future fan needs a bit more time manipulation to fulfil their time traveling fantasies."
Im thankful Quantum Break ended up here! The only thing that stopped this game from being talked up was Xbox exclusivity and the live action scenes being way too long...
Otherwise, it's basically Control with lighter visuals
Isn't the AI broken? Physics issues as well?
Why, if it wasn't actually a broken game, possibly less so than Blix the Time Sweeper, would being an exclusive be an honest mark against QB?
TimeSpinner is a good time based metroidvania.
Also, Singularity rocks a a time-theme Bioshock-like FPS.
