TheSandwichGamer

Does Anyone Want Battleblock Theater For Pc?

Recommended Posts

How does having more money lead to lower quality? Call of Duty is a higher quality game than The Behemoth games, (no offense intended) but AH, CC, and BBT are more enjoyable and original because more time was put into them, so more ideas were added throughout development. 

WHAT? You did not say what I just read. Are you naming Call of Duty, a game with the same recycled formula filling your shelf for years a HIGH QUALITY game?

 

Alright, time for some dictionary revision:

 

Quality:  a distinguishing attribute, an acquired skill, an inherent feature, superiority in kind...

 

Do you really think Call of Duty has any of the above? Battleblock Theater might not have the same 3D graphics, but at least looks fresh and beautifully designed. The Behemoth improves its content in every single title, can't say the same for Infinity Ward and Treyarch.

 

Call of Duty will never end, do you know why? Because it renders over 50 million dollars every year, not because it's exceptional. Castle Crashers in the other hand doesn't have any sequels yet, but most of us who played it keep going back for the entertainment it provides, not for a MOAB or an AC-130.

 

It's not a matter of time, it's the amount of people working to release the title. Dan could have an empire of people working with him, I bet his games would still be awesome!

 

ku-medium.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does having more money lead to lower quality? Call of Duty is a higher quality game than The Behemoth games, (no offense intended) but AH, CC, and BBT are more enjoyable and original because more time was put into them, so more ideas were added throughout development. 

 The Behemoth improves its content in every single title, can't say the same for Infinity Ward and Treyarch.

Have you heard about the Fish A.I.?

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a game I like, but it appeals to enough people for it to make the $50 million. It has higher-quality graphics, at least for the campaign. It was fairly unique when it came out, and since then they've been playing off that initial success. Again, I don't like the game, but you cannot deny that work has been put into it to make it better, but if it's not broken, they shouldn't fix it. They improve graphics and add some unique things to each game. If it was low quality, people wouldn't be dishing out $60 or more a year to play it,

Edited by BiPolarBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does having more money lead to lower quality? Call of Duty is a higher quality game than The Behemoth games, (no offense intended) but AH, CC, and BBT are more enjoyable and original because more time was put into them, so more ideas were added throughout development. 

WHAT? You did not say what I just read. Are you naming Call of Duty, a game with the same recycled formula filling your shelf for years a HIGH QUALITY game?

 

Alright, time for some dictionary revision:

 

Quality:  a distinguishing attribute, an acquired skill, an inherent feature, superiority in kind...

 

Do you really think Call of Duty has any of the above? Battleblock Theater might not have the same 3D graphics, but at least looks fresh and beautifully designed. The Behemoth improves its content in every single title, can't say the same for Infinity Ward and Treyarch.

 

Call of Duty will never end, do you know why? Because it renders over 50 million dollars every year, not because it's exceptional. Castle Crashers in the other hand doesn't have any sequels yet, but most of us who played it keep going back for the entertainment it provides, not for a MOAB or an AC-130.

 

It's not a matter of time, it's the amount of people working to release the title. Dan could have an empire of people working with him, I bet his games would still be awesome!

 

ku-medium.gif

Preaching... just pure preaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he probably meant to say was that Call of Duty is a higher production game!

It costs more money to make.

They have more programmers, composers, producers, marketing, playtesters, etc.

They probably have more experienced programmers too. that doesn't always translate into better gameplay though.

 

Yes CoD may be a lower quality game, but the Activision and Infinity Ward/Treyarch have a hell of alot more money than The Behemoth does, so it's a higher production game. It's also projected to sell millions if not billions regardless, so often times companies that know this can pour more money into the project to (attempt to) make a higher quality game.

They can afford to make separate ports available on the same release day too.

 

We all love The Behemoth but you have to accept their limitations.

But TB has alot of positive points too.

 

Such as throwing away concepts and starting over from scratch if they feel that it's unfun!

We throw out projects in the works that are not fun! I promise. Did you know we completely threw out the first incarnation of Castle Crashers? We threw it all out and started again from scratch. Whew!!! 

They also prefer new ideas as opposed to sequels or rehashed ideas!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard about the Fish A.I.?

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a game I like, but it appeals to enough people for it to make the $50 million. It has higher-quality graphics, at least for the campaign. It was fairly unique when it came out, and since then they've been playing off that initial success. Again, I don't like the game, but you cannot deny that work has been put into it to make it better, but if it's not broken, they shouldn't fix it. They improve graphics and add some unique things to each game. If it was low quality, people wouldn't be dishing out $60 or more a year to play it.

Fish A.I.? I call it unnecessary. Like I said before, people get obsessed with killstreaks (or record gameplay to upload on YouTube) and that's all. Call of Duty gets people vacuumed into a vague dream of getting a certain high killstreak, why you ask? To show off of course, there's no other reason, do you really think people purchase it for its astonishing story and graphics? Oh man, wake up. ''You cannot deny that work has been put into it to make it better'' -> Nah, it's like women wearing make-up, their facial appeal is the same, the differential result is how the make-up is applied, thus most apply it on a daily basis to look good. To finish off, the ''unique things'' added aren't worth the $60 you pay for the game.

 

Preaching... just pure preaching.

Actually, it's called expressing your own opinion. Preaching is what you (ERA5000) advocate against users in other topics, be careful there.

Edited by Thunder Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really want to make their next game, but they also want to widen their audience. Keeping a game an exclusive to a system isn't always a good thing. Porting does take a lot of work, and can hinder/help a game too. Most of the time however, porting does prove to be a success.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really want to make their next game, but they also want to widen their audience. Keeping a game an exclusive to a system isn't always a good thing. Porting does take a lot of work, and can hinder/help a game too. Most of the time however, porting does prove to be a success.

I wonder if they'd ever go to Nintendo. (Please don't bash Nintendo, It's just a comment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really want to make their next game, but they also want to widen their audience. Keeping a game an exclusive to a system isn't always a good thing. Porting does take a lot of work, and can hinder/help a game too. Most of the time however, porting does prove to be a success.

I wonder if they'd ever go to Nintendo. (Please don't bash Nintendo, It's just a comment)

Castle crashers was at first (in its early stages) on the GameCube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, don't compare AAA titles with indie games, that's just bad.

They're both games. It's like saying I can't compare the pizza place down the street that sells awesome pizza to Dominos that sells children's nightmares. 

So it's fair to compare a team with 100+ to a 20 man team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard about the Fish A.I.?

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a game I like, but it appeals to enough people for it to make the $50 million. It has higher-quality graphics, at least for the campaign. It was fairly unique when it came out, and since then they've been playing off that initial success. Again, I don't like the game, but you cannot deny that work has been put into it to make it better, but if it's not broken, they shouldn't fix it. They improve graphics and add some unique things to each game. If it was low quality, people wouldn't be dishing out $60 or more a year to play it.

Fish A.I.? I call it unnecessary. Like I said before, people get obsessed with killstreaks (or record gameplay to upload on YouTube) and that's all. Call of Duty gets people vacuumed into a vague dream of getting a certain high killstreak, why you ask? To show off of course, there's no other reason, do you really think people purchase it for its astonishing story and graphics? Oh man, wake up. ''You cannot deny that work has been put into it to make it better'' -> Nah, it's like women wearing make-up, their facial appeal is the same, the differential result is how the make-up is applied, thus most apply it on a daily basis to look good. To finish off, the ''unique things'' added aren't worth the $60 you pay for the game.

 

>Preaching... just pure preaching.

Actually, it's called expressing your own opinion. Preaching is what you (ERA5000) advocate against users in other topics, be careful there.

 

First of all, preaching to the choir is probably what ERA5000 was going for. It means you're explaining your opinion in front of a group who already share that opinion. In other words, we already know the behemoth is better so no need to point it out.

Second of all, different people like different games. I can't blame someone for liking Call of Duty, if their goal is to get high killstreaks and they accomplish that goal, don't go ruin their fun. People like different things, just because you like something different than they do doesn't mean it's better, it means you prefer it over what they like. If CoD players like competing with others and seeing their names on top, and you like enjoying a good story, doesn't mean your fun is better than their fun. Third of all, people have been throwing terms around like "higher quality graphics" and "higher quality games", although in this case what's being meant is "More realistic graphics" and "Games with a higher production value". Fourth of all, Fish A.I. was a joke, and yes, the studios that work on call of duty put work in improving the realism of their graphics and yes they work on adding more weapons and maps. Denying that they've worked on these things is simply rude.

Now go chill, have fun. That's why were here, to share our fun. Not to bash others. okay? cool.

 

 

Dude, don't compare AAA titles with indie games, that's just bad.

They're both games. It's like saying I can't compare the pizza place down the street that sells awesome pizza to Dominos that sells children's nightmares.

 

So it's fair to compare a team with 100+ to a 20 man team?

Yes, it is. Comparing different genres of games is like comparing apples with pears, comparing studios is like comparing a big melon with a small melon. The one melon might be bigger, but the small melon might be tastier. You can compare studios, comparing their results is a whole different thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I actually do hope that Microsoft snatches up The Behemoth, they'd have a hell of a lot more money to get their work done, so we'd probably see more than two games come out every decade...

 

Though on the flipside, if that were to happen they'd probably be forced into making Castle Crashers sequels every year or so..... ugh..... or they could pull a Garden Warfare, which would be cool in my opinion

Listen to what you're saying! More money is often the opposite of quality. Microsoft has shown good examples of that. I hope the staff isn't dumb enough to come to such an idiotic agreement, because if they do... Let's just say they won't be the best indie developer anymore.

How does having more money lead to lower quality? Call of Duty is a higher quality game than The Behemoth games, (no offense intended) but AH, CC, and BBT are more enjoyable and original because more time was put into them, so more ideas were added throughout development. 

 

Look at Rareware my friend. A crappy Banjo sequel, a waste-of-time Conker re-make and a lack luster Perfect Dark game... Now they just stick to the unpopular Kinect games and leave the gems on the back burner. I would hate to see The Behemoth end up like Rareware, in my experience Microsoft are idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawl Koen, I know what preaching means... Let's admit, competition has ruined the CoD community in the past four year and leave this conversation at that. I respect everyone's opinion, as long as they keep it real. Bashing reminds me of this: (I had tons of fun bashing others :P).

 

*It's a joke, please don't reply explaining the definition of the word ''bash.''*

 

CrashBashCover.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get this clear though, in case nobody noticed, I don't like CoD. 

We have a similarity then, I don't like it either.

I like the game, not the community. (Personally, it's fun but things change)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just to get this clear though, in case nobody noticed, I don't like CoD. 

We have a similarity then, I don't like it either.

I like the game, not the community. (Personally, it's fun but things change)

Before they gave their souls to Satan, it was good. Right after MW2 I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you heard about the Fish A.I.?

Anyway, I'm not saying it's a game I like, but it appeals to enough people for it to make the $50 million. It has higher-quality graphics, at least for the campaign. It was fairly unique when it came out, and since then they've been playing off that initial success. Again, I don't like the game, but you cannot deny that work has been put into it to make it better, but if it's not broken, they shouldn't fix it. They improve graphics and add some unique things to each game. If it was low quality, people wouldn't be dishing out $60 or more a year to play it.

Fish A.I.? I call it unnecessary. Like I said before, people get obsessed with killstreaks (or record gameplay to upload on YouTube) and that's all. Call of Duty gets people vacuumed into a vague dream of getting a certain high killstreak, why you ask? To show off of course, there's no other reason, do you really think people purchase it for its astonishing story and graphics? Oh man, wake up. ''You cannot deny that work has been put into it to make it better'' -> Nah, it's like women wearing make-up, their facial appeal is the same, the differential result is how the make-up is applied, thus most apply it on a daily basis to look good. To finish off, the ''unique things'' added aren't worth the $60 you pay for the game.

 

>Preaching... just pure prea

ching.
Actually, it's called expressing your own opinion. Preaching is what you (ERA5000) advocate against users in other topics, be careful there.

First of all, preaching to the choir is probably what ERA5000 was going for. It means you're explaining your opinion in front of a group who already share that opinion. In other words, we already know the behemoth is better so no need to point it out.

Second of all, different people like different games. I can't blame someone for liking Call of Duty, if their goal is to get high killstreaks and they accomplish that goal, don't go ruin their fun. People like different things, just because you like something different than they do doesn't mean it's better, it means you prefer it over what they like. If CoD players like competing with others and seeing their names on top, and you like enjoying a good story, doesn't mean your fun is better than their fun. Third of all, people have been throwing terms around like "higher quality graphics" and "higher quality games", although in this case what's being meant is "More realistic graphics" and "Games with a higher production value". Fourth of all, Fish A.I. was a joke, and yes, the studios that work on call of duty put work in improving the realism of their graphics and yes they work on adding more weapons and maps. Denying that they've worked on these things is simply rude.

Now go chill, have fun. That's why were here, to share our fun. Not to bash others. okay? cool.

 

 

Dude, don't compare AAA titles with indie games, that's just bad.

They're both games. It's like saying I can't compare the pizza place down the street that sells awesome pizza to Dominos that sells children's nightmares.

 

So it's fair to compare a team with 100+ to a 20 man team?

Yes, it is. Comparing different genres of games is like comparing apples with pears, comparing studios is like comparing a big melon with a small melon. The one melon might be bigger, but the small melon might be tastier. You can compare studios, comparing their results is a whole different thing.

 

I don't advocate anything. I just share my opinion with the rest of the community and you can feel free to disagree with me. One definition of preaching is to 'deliver a sermon.' One definition of a sermon is 'a long, tedious speech.' That fact that BiPolarBear had to explain that would probably be very tedious. One does not even need a reading level to see that it is long. As long as I don't violate laws in my country, disclose personal information, or offend anyone, I don't have to 'be careful' about what I post. If I follow those guidelines, which I have been, there is no reason to be careful. By the way, when I say 'preach,' I do not literally mean to stand in front of a choir and sing, I just use it as a term for something that I agree with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't advocate anything. I just share my opinion with the rest of the community and you can feel free to disagree with me. One definition of preaching is to 'deliver a sermon.' One definition of a sermon is 'a long, tedious speech.' That fact that BiPolarBear had to explain that would probably be very tedious. One does not even need a reading level to see that it is long. As long as I don't violate laws in my country, disclose personal information, or offend anyone, I don't have to 'be careful' about what I post. If I follow those guidelines, which I have been, there is no reason to be careful. By the way, when I say 'preach,' I do not literally mean to stand in front of a choir and sing, I just use it as a term for something that I agree with...

Ooooh! Big talk... Preaching, just pure preaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...