I love how everyone judges Gameloft based on one game which is Terminator Salvation. That's the only short game I've ever played from Gameloft. Assassin's Creed, Asphalt 4, Real Soccer, Real Tennis, Castle of Magic, Brain Challenge, UNO, BIA, Let's Golf, etc. are all packed with content.
DMD is 'Dead Man's Dungeon'. It's an old FPS, not too good IMO. Controls work OK but the game is too choppy/glitchy. Of course it will have a singleplayer campaign mode. The question is whether or not it will have online multiplayer. I agree. I am still playing Assassin's creed, it's one of those games where I do a mission, leave it for a while, then come back to it. I'm pretty sure MC: Sandstorm will be quite long. It just seems like one of those games so good/revolutionary on the iPhone platform that the developers wouldn't go to all that trouble to make a short game. They have probably learnt from their mistakes in the past i.e - Terminator: Salvation (although I didn't think that it was really short, just a bit shorter).
Like what! BIA lasted me a couple days because I played a little bit a day. Terminator....dont even.....Castle of Magic wasnt that long. And etc. But what Im also trying to say is, even IF the game turns out good, and it doesnt have multiplayer (which it probably wont....) they ARE NOT going to add it....OR ANYTHING ELSE!!!
If I get any it'll most likely be LiveFire. I think ngmoco is going to put more work into it and will care more about what the community thinks about it.
Why would you play games on a mobile platform for any longer periods of time than that? I mean...honestly. Mobile platforms = minute gaming. Minutes at a time. This particular market isn't conducive to longer play periods. For those types of games on the go, one need look at the portable game system market (PSP and DS). Games on there are designed for longer play periods (more minutes than mobile platforms upwards to about an hour or so, but obviously shorter than home consoles and PC). But, again...that's a different market. Yeah...that game was damned short, even when just playing for minutes at a time. Eh...about as long as BiA.... Honestly...I kinda hope they don't. The last time Gameloft drastically updated a game was with Asphalt 4, where they cleaned up the graphics just a bit, smoothed out the framerate somewhat and changed/updated the unlocking system to give it more of a challenge. And if they had stopped there, it would've been great. But then they went and, in the same update, completely raped the once wonderful, smooth as butter accelerometer controls. Asphalt became Ass Fault, as in "whose ass is at fault for such a game crippling update?". Seriously...I'll never, ever forgive Gameloft for that update.
Again, I just don't trust Gameloft with major updates. UbiSoft (of which Gameloft is a sister company)...yeah. UbiSoft themselves are great with updates. But...well...ironically UbiSoft's problem is that the games they develop, upon first release, just suck all around (for PC I mean), and then they release an update and it just totally saves the game. See the update to RE4 for PC. First release was just crap on a stick, but the updates from Ubi made it a much better game all around. Gameloft has the exact opposite problem. On first release, their games are usually very good but then they release an update that just makes a good game, well...not so good. They're like mirror opposites. UbiSoft goes left, Gameloft goes right. UbiSoft wears white, Gameloft wears black. They need to get it together, man.
You cant compare them, one is modern warfare and one is halo type futuristic warfare. Check out my youtube channel, got a giveaway going on!
You tell me when they have ever released an update for a game? Not an icon change or bug fixes or bullshit. I mean more content?
ok some of what you said made no sense at all. if a game that gameloft released was overall good at first, and they release a update, they dont try to make it worse. would you like to give me an example of an update they released that made the game more worse? I dont think they release updates so they can make a game more crappy.
As spiffyone pointed out above, Asphault 4 did receive an update (which, in his opinion, broke the controls) -- hence his apprehension. Not a content update, per se, but one that was meant to enhance the gaming experience.
Well time for a long story on my opinion. First of all to everyone who are saying omg Gameloft stinks because they makes clones, big deal other game companys do it all the time. I know Castle of Magic was mentioned plenty of times before and is arguably one of the best or the best platformer on the Idevices and a original IP. As to the thing about how it borrows other things from other platformers, yes it does it takes ideas from the some of the best platformers and uses them in their own game. Things like that are done all the time in the video games industry like for example the achievements from the 360 are pretty much copied into trophies on the ps3 and im not saying achievements were the first award system im just using it as a example that ideas are borrowed from other companys all the time. As for the rest of Gameloft's games its obvious that some of thier games are clones of other big name games but not to be a jerk but some of you are idiots when it comes to "clones" and "ripoffs". As soon as a game comes out that bares any resemblance to a current big name game you think you must compare them(ie: mecho wars - advanced wars, vanguard storm - plants vs zombies,) and its stupid. Games can be of the same genre of another big name game and not be a clone, ripoff, or even need to be compared to another game. Yes it obvious some games are deliberate clones of other games but some and most are not(not talking about gameloft games here just games in general). Just because a game is a clone doesnt mean it isnt still good or fun because it offers nothing new. And judging a new game just by the past of a company is unwise and should be given a chance before you make a judgement. As to this game being a call of duty ripoff yes it is obviously a ripoff beacause of the close resemblance and even the name implies it. But that doesnt mean if its worse then call of duty it should be shunned seeing as there is no call of duty game on the Idevices. Not to mention that Call of Duty is sort of a rip off itself. OMFG I know I just said that. Fanboys settle down. The original call of duty team are remnants of a team that worked on a Medal of Honor game that after the project wished that they had been allowed to do things differently and more openly so they went on to make a WW2 game in theyre own way with the open feel they wanted which became Call of Duty the original. Dont believe me? look it up, matter of fact find one of the episodes of Xplay where they talk about the development of Call of Duty Modern Warfare(before it was released) and they talk about the history of the series in a interview with the lead of the team and he says it himself. So dont judge a book by a cover I guess. As to the Killtest vs MCS debate on how they would effect each other I have this to say: First of all if you must compare Killtest to a big name brand name game series it is online play style versus matches makes it different from Halo in the fact it has no campaign and looks nothing like it. Just because it is futuristic doesnt make it "like Halo" in everyway. If anything it is like the Unreal Tourny series as in the it is pretty much multiplayer based and is future like. If you become biased not to buy Killtest because it is revealed that MCS has multiplayer you are odd. If you like Unreal and you like Call of Duty and they reveal the next Call of Duty will have multiplayer are you just not going to buy Unreal because of that. If so by god you should never consider yourself a gamer. They are two different game with almost nothing in common besides the fact they are shooters. I mean i could understand if Medal of Honor was released and call of Duty was and they both had online and offline because they are so similar(ww2 storys and design). I would get both if that was the case because of how often i play games(not to mention i prefer story mode). I can also understand if you only have money for one game but not just because they are similar. So no I dont think they should effect each other. I honestly will probably only get MCS because at my home I have dial up internet(atleast until end of august or early september when cable comes to my street) and only have access to wifi at school, friends, or in town so I wouldnt be able to play it when ever i wanted. Still i may buy it along with this(if they both are revealed to be worth it). As to any jokes that may come because of the fact I have dial up. No I am not poor nor do I live in redneck township. I live about a hour from Cleveland Ohio. Time warner cable and armstrong were battling for rights over who could provide cable along my street for years and time warner finally won(yes I had no idea cable companys could have rights to provide for a street) so I will be getting it once they begin servicing it on my road. ^All just my 99 cents and sorry for any bad grammer or spelling im to tired to read all that I wrote.
That's one long article. This "," is a comma by the way. In a post that large, you should consider using more of them. I gotta go, my brain hurts.
Killtest/Livefire=Halo 3 Modern Combat: Sandstorm=CoD4 In answer: Both, even though i don't own CoD4, i do own Halo 3, and i plan on getting both
Very well said, this should be like a front page post. IMO he's got it right saying they won't affect each othe, and the fact that killtest us more like unreal tournament. Which leads me to ask do u play unreal tournament? Me and my cousin are real good in UT 3. For those of u that think halo is god of fps, play unreal tournament and get owned cause unreal is the true fast paced fps game, that and Quake 3. Halo is by far one of the worst fps's I've ever played... Even quake 1 took more strategy than shoot get close then melee, and the lunge... Uggh i'm not gunna get into this, and I'm pretty sure imunna get flames by the fps noobs but oh well, that prob means that they like slow paced straightforward shooters. Not saying that's bad, just saying u will never get good at fps until u play faster paced fps.
UT3 sucks. Sold horribly. Plus no one plays it. Plus its a boring old formula which other games do so much better and expanded on. Team Fortress 2, Halo 3, Call Of Duty 4, BF2, L4D, CS:S, etc. to name a few are far better games that are fun and do new things for FPS genre. And way more fast paced then UT3, which is and was a joke of a game. KillTest looks good for a ipod game though. Simple deathmatch formula.
Haha don't make me laugh xD left 4 dead isn't even pvp lol (save versus) and halo 3 cmon lol look at a UT3 duel and compare that to a halo duel. UT 3 undoubtedly takes more skill. I've played cod4 and I've found that that game is fast paced in a different sense. TF 2 I own, and TFC was a way faster paced game. A 5 year old can play halo and beat a 20 year old easily, to me UT 3 is way more intense. U prob don't even own UT3 lol. Play me on quake 3 or UT3 or heck even CS:S or CoD4 as those are the only real fast shooters listed their. simple dm, lol warfare, titan mode, betrayal, greed, vctf, cmon now. Im guessing that means that cs:s and tf2 with just tdm is the same boring formula, same can be said about CoD4, and Halo.
@FinalGamer, Next time add some paragraphs to your posts. --> Like this. Looking at that long story made me feel like I was looking at the Matrix
