For straight revenue, yeah, that'd be right. Technically everything else is a rounding error. But if Epic was one of those single game unicorns like Riot or Rovio this would not make much sense. The synergies of Unreal with both the movie and theme park buisness for Disney seem like a better fit. I mean, assuming the move makes actual sense, Disney is out there talking about game collaborations and it's not like it's the first time they've spent money randomly and poorly in the gaming business. I just think the investment would make sense even if Fortnite wasn't in the mix.
And either way it's being blown out of proportion by the news because they haven't even bought the company. 1.5B is what? 10% as much as Tencent owns?
I... yeah, what? Disney is what does it? You were cool with Tencent, Sony, Lego, the massive fine for mishandling underage information? Disney. That's your line.
Hah. The framing from normie news is so weird. It's "bizarrely Disney is investing on Fortnite", instead of "Disney buys a stake on the people making Unreal, which at this point is like half of their and everybody else's VFX pipeline".
I wonder if the gaming news guys will have a better picture or the "Disney Fornite whaaaa?!" angle is what people will take away from this across the board.
Really? I hadn't heard about that extremely prominent aspect of the game's development and marketing for thirty years. You don't happen to have any shocking news about the origins of Super Mario Bros. 2 by any chance, do you?
Alright, alright, I'll tone down the snark, it's just... yeah, that reads a certain way.
But also yeah, he kinda killed it. The Q2 soundtrack in particular has been in my music players longer than some European countries have existed.
I don't think Q2 had nearly as many issues with color as a whole through the game. I mean, it wasn't the most colourful game either on any given screenshot, but it had more biomes and locations. At the very least they learned how to make outdoors look like outdoors, with the bright red skies contrasting with the grey interiors. Later on they even throw a bunch of green lights around when they're feeling frisky.
You're not wrong that Id only stopped making brown games in Quake 3, which if anything is a bit too garish sometimes. I also don't disagree about your description of early shooters, all I'm saying is that people had been getting good at using that cardboard cutout tech and people had gotten good at parsing it. Moving to full 3D required a few steps backwards to then push the tech back past that point, and Quake 1 was a big muddy mess of a game. If you were able to read brutalist eldrich temples as opposed to sand-colored legos that's fair, but even with all the flashy new tech it never read like that to me at the time.
Man, that's more like it, I was starting to get weirded out by how little pushback I was getting. And the two of you pushing back are being super civil, even. I guess this conversation has lost a lot of its edge now the games are 30 years old and we're no longer in school.
Anyway, it does feel like you're cherrypicking a little bit there. I mean, sure, there's plenty of grey textures in Dule Nukem, but even if you turn around from that spot you mention the entrance to the cinema is full of reds and yellows, the cop pigs are wearing bright blue and once you get inside the theatre it's all red curtains and colourful posters. There is surprisingly little in terms of good screenshots or video of software Quake as it was for a legit comparison, and even when I took one it got mushed and compressed to crap, but hey, that version is an extra on the GOG version of Quake, go check it out, it's an eye openener.
I don't disagree that Quake was done the "hard way", and the lighting effects and 3d models were technically impressive at the time, what I'm saying here is the picture they put together with it was not as appealing.
It doesn't, honestly, but man, at the time a CRT sure did wonders to blend the pre-rendered backgrounds and a lot of the places where stuff came up short. It really did look great.
Large scale terrain deformation and morphing in real time, procedural fire and magma, gravity physics for objects on slopes and, again, animated, reflective 3D water. All running on software with support for a high resolution mode.
The year before the PlayStation 1 launched.
It is a miracle of dark magic and computer science and I don't understand how it can possibly exist. That game is the reason every time Peter Molyneux came up with some random, obviously impossible garbage everybody went "alright, but maybe?"
I think long term, absolutely. At the time, though, very few people were playing online, and a lot of the praise heaped on Quake was for the single player game and the visuals, which I never got.
I mean, I was on a Pentium 133, so I could play it pretty much as intended, I just thought it looked ugly. At that point in software mode I didn't find it looked any better than Magic Carpet, which had stuff like animated waves and water reflections, and you could make a 3D volcano come out of the ground in real time. It's pretty nuts how far the 3D characters took it.
Side note: Magic Carpet is a technological marvel and we don't talk about it enough. Peak non-accelerated 3D environments ever, right there.
Oh, man, I'm about to relitigate an almost 30 year old nerd argument. Here we go.
I thought Quake looked like crap.
It's brown, and blocky and chunky and in software mode at 320x200 it's barely putting together a readable, coherent picture at all. Compared to what the peak of legacy tech was at the time, which was probably Duke Nukem 3D, I thought it was a genuine step backwards.
Now, it played well, it was fast and they got a ton of mileage out of the real 3D geometry to make crazy and cool level designs. But visually? Hot garbage.
You're right that the game changer was actually 3D acceleration, and Quake did come to life when it started hitting HD resolutions of 480p or (gasp) 800p, comparable to what we were already getting in Build engine games and 2D PC games elsewhere, but the underlying assets are still very, VERY ugly. To me it all came together in Quake 2, which was clearly built for the hardware. That's when I went "well, I need one of these cards now" and went to get a Nvidia Riva.
I have no complaints about Quake's sound design, though. I can hear it in my head right now. No music, just sound effects. I don't know what that shotgun sound is taken from, but it's definitely not a shotgun and it sounds absolutely amazing.
Oh, and on the original point, I'm not super sure of "graphics can't get any better" beign a thing that I thought, but I do remember when somebody showed me a PS2 screenshot of Silent Hill 2 gameplay in a magazine I mocked them for clearly having mistaken a prerendered cutscene for real time graphics. Good times.
Oh, yeah, for sure. The marketing they did for Guardians was also very bad, it really made it seem of a kind with Avengers, which it really wasn't.
There will be a lot to say about why Rocksteady is getting to the looter shooter space so late and why it was the exact wrong move for the studio and the franchise. Unless the game is great and everybody buys it, I suppose.
Oh, big difference there, though. Suicide Squad actually IS a looter shooter driven by a wish to chase a business trend from five years to a decade ago. Guardians is a strictly single player Mass Effect-lite narrative action game (which yeah, given the material that fits).
I'd be with you in the argument that it would have been an even better game without the Marvel license, because then they could have skipped trying to rehash bits from the movies' look and feel, which are consistently the worst parts of the game. But then, without the license it would never have been made, so... make mine Marvel, I guess. Well worth it.
Nah, I'm mostly kidding. About the being my enemy part. The game is, in fact, awesome, and you should fetch it somewhere before the absolute nightmare of licensed music and Disney IP bundled within it makes it unsellable on any digital platform forever.
Seriously, I bought a physical copy of the console version just for preservation, beause if you want to know what will be in the overprized "hidden gem" lists of game collectors in thirty years, it's that.
Well, then you're my enemy, because that game is great, Marvel connection or not. In fact it's a fantastic companion piece ot the third Guardians movie, because they're both really good at their respective medium but they are pushing radically oppposite worldviews (one is a Christian parable, the other a humanist rejection of religious alienation).
And yeah, holy crap, they made a Marvel game about grief and loss and managing them without turning to religion and bigotry and it was awesome and beautiful and nobody played it and you all suck.