Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

They Came.. From Hollywood 28

Posted by simoniker from the haxton-suspiciously-missing-from-imdb dept.
Thanks to GMicek for pointing to the DIYGames.com site, which has an interview with Octopus Motor, the developers of They Came From Hollywood. This real-time strategy PC title allows you to control giant B-movie monsters as they maraud through major American cities, and you can even play as one of the monsters from those classic Harold Haxton movies. The project is also an interesting model for today's independent games, as the official site explains the game has only 2 developers, and the title will be self-published when it's finished later this year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

They Came.. From Hollywood More

They Came.. From Hollywood

Comments Filter:
  • to destroy your server
    • That moderation is a shame, cos I think that was quite clever. Do you think one of the powers the monsters can get will be "No sense of humour!"? Anyways, anyone seen a price tag? I'd quite like to know how much games are "really" worth when you take the big name publishers out of the equation.

  • This is, like, so 1986 (Score:4)

    by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Monday May 26, 2003 @07:21AM (#6039735) Homepage
    Remember Rampage [klov.com]
    • How about my favorite "Crush, Crumble, and Chomp"?

      Played it on the C-64. Took 30 MINUTES to load and had a 50% success rate. When your monster got killed you had to RE-LOAD the game. The fact that we played it and played it is a testament to how good it was...

    • Yes, this has been done before. In fact, they list quite a few games like this in their FAQ. The style is different, though, and they think they can make another fun game for the monster genre.

      They know their roots. Do you know that they know their roots?

  • This artcile is really stupid (Score:3)

    by @madeus ( 24818 ) <slashdot_24818@mac.com> on Monday May 26, 2003 @07:45AM (#6039767)
    From looking at the screen shots both the graphics and gameplay (and you can get a good idea of the gameplay from looking at the screen grabs provided) seem to be extremly poor.

    It looks like they have spent quite a bit of time on the roads/buildings/people, which is good, but I'm certain there are a lot of alternative ideas for gameplay that would be able to sell this underlying engine better than the idea they currently have.

    I think it's perfectly possible to come up with good ideas that don't rely on 3D, but for a game with the concept this one has (which relies largley on the coolness factor of destroying things) it would seem to cry out for cool 3D graphics and alpha blended explosions - *something* to keep the player entertained (as I think the minor amusement of destorying things as a big monster in the current environment will wear off before the first level is complete).

    There are hundreds of small time developer outfits producing great games (like Ambrosia Software), I fail to see the point of an article about a game that, quite frankly, is crap, when there are plenty of small time developers turning out good low budget shareware and freeware titles (in particular there are many excellent games in this category for Palm OS and Pocket PC).

    I appreciate that harsh critisim is hard for the developers to hear, but:

    There are free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech games out there that have more appealing graphics and gameplay premises.

    I think that when people spend time writing god awful software it's only fair to call it as it is, it's crap and no one in their right mind is going to want to buy it.

    How many non A/C account holders think this game is cool and would buy it, really?
    • It looks like they have spent quite a bit of time on the roads/buildings/people, which is good, but I'm certain there are a lot of alternative ideas for gameplay that would be able to sell this underlying engine better than the idea they currently have.

      Gameplay? Come on! This will be the Rampage of the 21st century, and THAT is a good thing! It's almost like saying that Get Medieval's [getmedieval.com] gameplay was ripped off Gauntlet =)
    • How in the world can you tell what the gameplay is like from just looking at a few screenshots? You don't know what the AI is like, you don't know what the math is... that just seems like a kind of weird thing to say.
      • You can easily tell a lot about the intended gameplay from looking at screen shots of a game, that should be blatantly obvious, and there are quite a lot of screen shots avalible on the site (as well as from the gameplay movies provided on that site).

        Even the developers of this game think it's possible to get an idea of the gameplay from looking at images of the game (that's why they have 'gameplay movies' on the site).

        You can see what the player is being asked to do and the type of objectives they will b
        • "The gameplay will be limited as the potential for havock will be constrained to what's possible in a 2D isometric game."

          See... visuals aren't gameplay, they're visuals. For me, gameplay is strategy, tactics, the necessity to think ahead, resource management, and so on. I think you're confusing gameplay with special effects, here.
          • If all the graphics are pre-drawn isometric 2D, you have a seriously limited level of interaction and immersion, for a start you can only face and move in directions that have been predrawn for you. This goes for every element in the game.

            Which is the obvious point you don't seem to grasp, you also don't seem to understand how much this limits gameplay.

            That's why new games tend to be in 3D, if you hadn't noticed.

            But if you think this game looks like winner don't let me stop you! You must be one of those
            • Only an idiot would state that 3D is the best thing about games. Lots of games have 2D prerendered background-- predrawn. Did you forget about Resident Evil?
              • Only an idiot would state that 3D is the best thing about games

                Nobody did, your just spoiling for a fight.

                Lots of games have 2D prerendered background-- predrawn. Did you forget about Resident Evil?

                No, but it seems like you did...Redident Evil's level and style of interaction would not be possible if the environment was 2D - the player has 3D movement avalible to them - can you imagine how much atmosphere would be lossed if the entire game was isomentric 2D?

                Sure, Manic Mansion was great but it's ha

    • Personally, I'll just wait for a demo before judging whether or not the game is crap. Screenshots don't mean very much these days...

      And anyhow, since when do lousy graphics == bad gameplay?

      Just my two cents.

      • They have gameplay movies demo'ing the game play.

        I disagree entirely the the idea that screen shots don't mean very much 'these days' (as if they ment more in the past? - I think they are more relevent than ever), a game with great graphics might play poorly, but a game with lousy graphics will almost certainly suck.

        Since when have was lousy graphics been a hall mark of a good game? If someone can't be bothered to make sure something looks good it's doubtful they have spent much time on the bit's you can'

        • Since when have was lousy graphics been a hall mark of a good game?

          Sorry, perhaps I mis-phrased that: I meant that you don't NEED good graphics for a great game. Look at NetHack. Sure, it's been around for a while, but the graphics haven't been improved, 'cause they're not really needed. They work fine the way they are. Sure, they're ugly, but the underlying game holds up well enough to do without snazzy effects.

          How many recent Good Titles with Bad Graphics can you think of?

          This is, of course a

          • Sorry, I forgot to address the "screenshots don't really mean much these days" issue. ;)

            What I meant was since most games coming out now have fantastic graphics, the "gee-whiz" factor is getting a little tired, y'know?

            Unreal II [gamespot.com], for example, has AWESOME graphics, but it's just the same run-and-gun game that've been around since the Doom days. Not that I dislike running around and shooting the crap outta monsters, but a little innovation goes a long way.

    • The game looks and sounds nothing like Rampage. It looks and sounds like Crush, Crumble and Chomp, a game by Epyx back in the 1980s for the Apple II (and I think C64) that was removed from the market when Epyx got sued by at least one film company. I will take acceptable graphics and good game play any day over great graphics and crap game play. You attack the game for shitty graphics and then turn around to promote games on Palm OS and PocketPC devices. What the hell is that? Last I checked, Snood wasn't
      • Erm you've got confused, I didn't mention Rampage. Your refering to another poster/thread.

        I would take a game with acceptable graphics and good game play over great graphics and crap game play, but there are so many games with good graphics and good gameplay it's not as if it's a choice gamers have to make (something lost on the dolts round here who wouldn't know a decent video game if they played it).

        There are quite a few decent games on the Palm OS and Pocket PC platform, 'Dope Wars'? If you think tha
  • but i certainly wish he was. Mars needs Chicken, Gravy and Women? Once they get everything they need, that there red planet would a nice place to settle down.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mystics always hope that science will some day overtake them. -- Booth Tarkington

Close