PDA

View Full Version : UBI/Driver:The 24 Million Dollar Question



Symantecus
07-02-2007, 04:27 PM
When you spend 24 million dollars to procure the license of ANYTHING...you must have big plans in order to recoup those megabucks.

Source Links:
http://www.google.com/search?tab=vw&q=UBI%20MILLION%20DRIVER%20FRANCHISE

UBI didn't pay a million dolars, two million or even ten million dollars for the Driver francise, but a whopping TWENTY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS!

If you think that UBI is crazy, you don't know what UBI has planned for the Driver franchise.

HERE IS THE CATCH: For their $24,000,000 GAMBLE, are they willing to listen to the fans of the game or just go after GTA (which would be a big mistake), but with 24 big ones involved - Rockstar is shakin' in their boots! Or are they?

ABSOLUTELY! RockStar has placed fifth columnists, spies, slanderers, false witnesses and more in the gamers field to malign the Driver franchise. It it obvious that some reviewers have been overtly PAID OFF to give the Driver franchise bad press!

It's that gang-banger mentality, which is what the GTA series glorifies, and evidently a philosophy they also emulate.

If GTA is the CRIPS, then the DRIVER franchise is THE BLOODS! Driver is GTA's ONLY competition, though EA and others attempt a more sanitized version with their latest Kool-Aid racing games like Need For Speed: Most Wanted.

Either UBI or Atari or the developers have made a MAJOR, MAJOR error in DPL by removing it's HEART & SOUL, Hollywood Style RECORDABLE chase scenes. This feature has been what set the Driver series a part from the crowd, and was also it's original selling point - but it has been removed in DPL. Three words:

PUT IT BACK!

The game itself is quite a bit of fun and adrenaline pumping to play, CONTRARY TO THE GTA-OBSESSED and paid off press reviews and ILL-INFORMED reviewers (Quote: "Driver is the most blatant rip-off of GTA yet").

HELLO!!!

Driver was doing what GTA has more recently (almost, but not quite mastered) when GTA was a cheezy Nintendo top-down-scroller! Who's cloning who?

I own both GTA:SA and Driver 3 as well as Driver PL.

#1. Driver is more fun to play than GTA, plain and simple!
#2. Driver PL (PC) graphics slaughter GTA:SA
#3. Night & Day cycle does not exist in GTA
#4. Police are even more stupid in GTA (try running a red light in GTA. The cops just smile at you. Try that in DPL - LOL! Get ready to rumble!
#5. DPL and Driver 3 police DO have problems with AI, but so do the cops in GTA!

Gee, do we miss the foul mouth BUTT-UGLY ******s, pimps and gang-bangers of GTA so much that we gotta have our GTA:Nappy-Headed-Hoe fix or lie, cheat and steal to slander an EXTREMELY WELL CRAFTED GAME?

Sure Driver is not as blatantly foul mouthed and politically incorrect as GTA is, but it is still a much better game, and with a few tweaks...Rockstar is sweatin' bullets right now, knowing that UBI didn't spend 24 million bucks just to shelf the franchise! And so the CRIPS (GTA) slander, smear campaign against THE BLOODS (Driver) has begun.

I only hope that consumers are not so easily swayed by obviously tilted, slanted and FALSE reviews of an excellent game, with even bigger plans for expanding the gameplay to even greater heights!

InsaneDriver06
07-02-2007, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Symantecus:
When you spend 24 million dollars to procure the license of ANYTHING...you must have big plans in order to recoup those megabucks.

UBI didn't pay a million dolars, two million or even ten million dollars for the Driver francise, but a whopping TWENTY FOUR MILLION DOLLARS!

If you think that UBI is crazy, you don't know what UBI has planned for the Driver franchise.

HERE IS THE CATCH: For their $24,000,000 GAMBLE, are they willing to listen to the fans of the game or just go after GTA (which would be a big mistake), but with 24 big ones involved - Rockstar is shakin' in their boots! Or are they?

ABSOLUTELY! RockStar has placed fifth columnists, spies, slanderers, false witnesses and more in the gamers field to malign the Driver franchise. It it obvious that some reviewers have been overtly PAID OFF to give the Driver franchise bad press!

It's that gang-banger mentality, which is what the GTA series glorifies, and evidently a philosophy they also emulate.

If GTA is the CRIPS, then the DRIVER franchise is THE BLOODS! Driver is GTA's ONLY competition, though EA and others attempt a more sanitized version with their latest Kool-Aid racing games like Need For Speed: Most Wanted.

Either UBI or Atari or the developers have made a MAJOR, MAJOR error in DPL by removing it's HEART & SOUL, Hollywood Style RECORDABLE chase scenes. This feature has been what set the Driver series a part from the crowd, and was also it's original selling point - but it has been removed in DPL. Three words:

PUT IT BACK!

The game itself is quite a bit of fun and adrenaline pumping to play, CONTRARY TO THE GTA-OBSESSED and paid off press reviews and ILL-INFORMED reviewers (Quote: "Driver is the most blatant rip-off of GTA yet").

HELLO!!!

Driver was doing what GTA has more recently (almost, but not quite mastered) when GTA was a cheezy Nintendo top-down-scroller! Who's cloning who?

I own both GTA:SA and Driver 3 as well as Driver PL.

#1. Driver is more fun to play than GTA, plain and simple!
#2. Driver PL (PC) graphics slaughter GTA:SA
#3. Night & Day cycle does not exist in GTA
#4. Police are even more stupid in GTA (try running a red light in GTA. The cops just smile at you. Try that in DPL - LOL! Get ready to rumble!
#5. DPL and Driver 3 police DO have problems with AI, but so do the cops in GTA!

Gee, do we miss the foul mouth BUTT-UGLY ******s, pimps and gang-bangers of GTA so much that we gotta have our GTA:Nappy-Headed-Hoe fix or lie, cheat and steal to slander an EXTREMELY WELL CRAFTED GAME?

Sure Driver is not as blatantly foul mouthed and politically incorrect as GTA is, but it is still a much better game, and with a few tweaks...Rockstar is sweatin' bullets right now, knowing that UBI didn't spend 24 million bucks just to shelf the franchise! And so the CRIPS (GTA) slander, smear campaign against THE BLOODS (Driver) has begun.

I only hope that consumers are not so easily swayed by obviously tilted, slanted and FALSE reviews of an excellent game, with even bigger plans for expanding the gameplay to even greater heights!

Back when Driver 1's first display hit Electronics Boutique, I heard a GTA 1 fan say to the clerk, "So Driver's like a GTA rip-off, only in 3D." I didn't like the comment, since I played Driver 1, and the driving action was unlike anything I played to that point. The missions were insanely difficult, but the freedom to go anywhere in the city was awesome.

Is GTA setting up Driver for failure by propping bad press and so on, assuming Driver's the main competition? I doubt it, GTA doesn't sweat the competition, selling games like water. They're game makers, not gang members.

Do I enjoy the Driver series? Yes. GTA as well, but at the end of the day, I prefer the tradition of the Driver series great driving controls, just hope they really crank up the intensity for this next big Driver game.

Symantecus
07-02-2007, 09:14 PM
Is GTA setting up Driver for failure by propping bad press and so on, assuming Driver's the main competition? I doubt it, GTA doesn't sweat the competition, selling games like water. They're game makers, not gang members.

Man, every corporation is actually a bunch of organized gang-bangers! Ever heard of the term "Corporate Spies" - "Corporate Espionage" "Corporate Sabotage" Ever heard of ... ENRON?

You'd be in shock at the level of "Corporate-Black-Ops" going on to sabotage competition. Don't be so quick to think that just because it's "corporate" it isn't run like a street gang ... IT IS!

Assaultmachine1
07-03-2007, 02:01 PM
It's really sad to hear that many believe that the Driver franchise is a rip-off of the GTA games. The Film Director, car chases, smart AI, realistic approach for the cops to go after you (as they would in real life), and the sweet vehicles in the games are what make the franchise so great. Also, the TAR mode has made it great too. And no, I don't think that Ubisoft bought the Driver franchise and Reflections for just anything, they really believe in the team and that they could create a big impact for the Video Game Industry to see.

Although I can't necessarily call the Driver franchise more fun or even any superior than the GTA franchise, the concept of the first Driver game is truly what made the franchise so great and while we do need the elements from the first Driver to be stronger than ever (awesome storylines and missions that accompany every career in the game, both realistic physics and damage for all vehicles, the most realistic 3-D free-roaming experience, just like D1 was around its own time, a powerful Film Director, the best chases, greater freedom, and a whole lot more). I'm sure that with all of this to be improved for the next Driver game along with a ton of more on-foot than ever before, we might as well expect to see a masterpiece coming from Reflections. Above it all, they must truly look at the 4F's of Great Game Design, which I learned about and those are Fun, Feedback, Fairness, and Feasibility. If they can follow the 4F'sOGDD, I believe that Reflections will be more successful than ever. And remember to follow the path of what made the first Driver game so great as well as having a new approach with more on-foot and more careers than ever for you to tackle as part of your storyline in the game.

Symantecus
07-03-2007, 03:59 PM
Although I can't necessarily call the Driver franchise more fun or even any superior than the GTA franchise

Which is more fun is a matter of taste.

For in car, Driver beats GTA hands down. The car physics are more true to life, graphics 100% better than GTASA, the police chases in DPL are 100% more adrenaline pumping than GTASA, which is pretty mundane when compared to DPL.

The AI for the police will hopefully be tweaked and improved, but we all know that GTASA police are even more stupid than DPL.

I don't have a problem with the storyline of DPL, it flows, and the cut scenes are 1000% better than GTASA (but cut scenes are not game play).

They need to put back the boats, add flying...and most importantly the HEART of the Driver franchise...FILM DIRECTOR.

InsaneDriver06
07-03-2007, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Symantecus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is GTA setting up Driver for failure by propping bad press and so on, assuming Driver's the main competition? I doubt it, GTA doesn't sweat the competition, selling games like water. They're game makers, not gang members.

Man, every corporation is actually a bunch of organized gang-bangers! Ever heard of the term "Corporate Spies" - "Corporate Espionage" "Corporate Sabotage" Ever heard of ... ENRON?

You'd be in shock at the level of "Corporate-Black-Ops" going on to sabotage competition. Don't be so quick to think that just because it's "corporate" it isn't run like a street gang ... IT IS! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't doubt there's companies who like to stoop to that level, but Rockstar North? They're already a success, not sure why they'd want to take out competition that really isn't much competition in sales. In the end, it's the gamers who determine if a game is good or not by word of mouth, not so much reviews, though they do make an impression, even if they are one reviewers opinion.

Assaultmachine1
07-04-2007, 09:07 AM
I agree, InsaneDriver06, There isn't anything that the developers would looking into making sure that the rest of the competition fails. Otherwise, they're just troublemakers and, not to mention, idiots because there needs to be competition in the Video Game Industry along with many games because if there isn't, it would only make the Video Game Industry smaller and that would make it so much harder to improve itself. No matter what, every developer must try to achieve success and be as big of a competitor as those that are doing really well because we must keep video games living on as they are possibly the best of entertainment today.

Symantecus
07-04-2007, 12:27 PM
LOL!

Boy, you guys aren't really that naive to believe what you just posted? LOL!!!

Guys, you need to get a bit more knowledge of corprate tactics. To say that Rockstar doesn't need the money, they're already successful...ANY CORPORATION that thinks like that is on the road to failure. Corporations NEVER consider themselves successful...it's a CONTINUOUS dog-eat-dog-greed environment. There is NEVER enough money to be made! I amazed you don't realize this? You must not be from America - LOL - that is the American way!

O' yes, innocent Rockstar North! You mean the guys who snuck in PORN just to gain more sales, knowing that it would cause a major raucus (and plenty of FREE PRESS!) Rockstar has no scruples.

Look! I get Gamespot's newsletter, just came out today, NOT ONE MENTION OF DRIVER BEING RELEASED!

This ain't Pleasantville folks and corporations will stoop to any means to quench their insatiable appetite for MO' MONEY and eliminate and/or dominate the competition, rather they are already successful or not!

Assaultmachine1
07-04-2007, 03:24 PM
You are now starting to make more sense of this, Symantecus. Therefore, I must say that it is true what you stated in your post. Partly. The reason why I saw partly is because a game company like Nintendo is more about innovating and having people be able to afford the games that they buy from them rather than just making something that is extremely expensive and having people the need to pay lots of money for it, which is where the big cash comes from. You can't say, sterotypically, that 100% of the companies in the world are only out to get money. I'm going to work hard at becoming a boss and having my own company in the future, which will be working towards technology and entertainment for the most part, but I don't think only on money. My duty is to help this world change and evolve in ways that we could not imagine and help resolve this world of the many problems that it has. Money is not everything. I can tell you that. Intelligence is perhaps more valuable than money because having money to yourself will not always guarantee you a better life and as being a better person than someone with a great deal of intelligence, does it?

Maybe Rockstar North do only care about money, much like Rockstar Games themselves. Money and power is perhaps what they see for themselves, but if one focuses and is too much addicted to a certain thing, it will not be enough to help that one thing (money for instance and implementing a lot of different things in to a game to give it variety) save the people from the evil that comes from within them.

Speaking of video games, the Video Game Industry would really need to put down the focus on making a game into a franchise as it gets closer to more technology and more changes because this is helpful to making every developer have a better chance of creating concepts for games that are more original. Why should the focus always be on one particular thing and not have it move on in a year to something different? Right now, as still a gamer and not a game developer, I will say that I do and will enjoy the best franchises of today, but in the future, there must be more change and developers will certainly have to work that much harder. Originality has been such a big factor in video games from the start, but with video game franchises starting to be born, it really made it that much harder for developers to create new and original ideas/concepts for video games. Eventually, new games will need to be born, not franchises, but games that can stand alone because of their greatness, and these franchises that we know very well (Metal Gear, Super Mario, Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Star Fox, Metroid, Pokemon, Driver, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Virtua Fighter, Dead or Alive, God of War, Gears of War, Halo, Half-Life, etc.) will dissappear in to the thickness of a fog. Each developer deserves to have that much of a chance at creating an intense and original concept for a game, but with a game concept being too much focused on and having other games come out copy it, will only spread the concept further and not let anything develop beyond it. Why can't we see a new change for each of these genres and in having each developer create a game and move on to another original, new, and different concept after it? This is how I will begin making video games. Not focusing on two or more to be a part of a franchise. It will be enough for me to make one incredibly original concept to impact that particular genre and help the Video Game Industry grow.

Symantecus
07-04-2007, 06:42 PM
I wish you well in your endeavors, Assault, but even with the best of intentions (and there are many who have started corprations with your very philosophy)...

...a corporation takes on a life of it's own, regardless of the founders wishes and life philosophy. When they go public they'll just vote the founder OUT. It happens every day.

If you haven't already, YOU MUST SEE a movie called "The Corporation". It demonstrates that if a corporation was human, it would be a sociopathic misift of society.

Slayer_591
07-04-2007, 09:00 PM
$24 MILLION DOLLARS?!?


Pfft
I don't believe that.

Assaultmachine1
07-05-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Symantecus:
I wish you well in your endeavors, Assault, but even with the best of intentions (and there are many who have started corprations with your very philosophy)...

...a corporation takes on a life of it's own, regardless of the founders wishes and life philosophy. When they go public they'll just vote the founder OUT. It happens every day.

If you haven't already, YOU MUST SEE a movie called "The Corporation". It demonstrates that if a corporation was human, it would be a sociopathic misift of society.
Well that seems like bull**** to me. It's not fair to have the owner/founder leave a company, especially if he/she is making it do very well. Who knows. Maybe I'll be that good of a person that they won't have to make me leave at all. I don't see it happening in Nintendo, Sony, or even Microsoft, other than the fact that some people have decided to leave (Bill Gates and someone else), but that's about it.

Symantecus
07-05-2007, 06:27 PM
Assault, you're either young or inexperienced in the realm of business (not to be insulting), but you reveal very little knowledge of how the corporate world and structure works.

I've founded three corporations and one non-profit corporation. I know what I'm talking about and it happens all the time. The only reason Bill Gates has remained in the top position of Microsoft (something which is extremely rare in the corporate world) is because he is an American icon, but more importantly because Microsoft remains profitable.

TO SLAYER:
Yes, 24 million dollars is what UBI paid for the Driver franchise according to entertainment and game media outlets...look it up on Google...on second thought I WILL:

http://www.playfuls.com/news_6220_Driver_License_Goes_F..._For_24_Million. html (http://www.playfuls.com/news_6220_Driver_License_Goes_From_Atari_To_Ubisof t_For_24_Million.html)

And for an entire list:

http://www.google.com/search?tab=vw&q=UBI%20MILLION%20DRIVER%20FRANCHISE

InsaneDriver06
07-05-2007, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Symantecus:
LOL!

Boy, you guys aren't really that naive to believe what you just posted? LOL!!!

Guys, you need to get a bit more knowledge of corprate tactics. To say that Rockstar doesn't need the money, they're already successful...ANY CORPORATION that thinks like that is on the road to failure. Corporations NEVER consider themselves successful...it's a CONTINUOUS dog-eat-dog-greed environment. There is NEVER enough money to be made! I amazed you don't realize this? You must not be from America - LOL - that is the American way!

O' yes, innocent Rockstar North! You mean the guys who snuck in PORN just to gain more sales, knowing that it would cause a major raucus (and plenty of FREE PRESS!) Rockstar has no scruples.

Look! I get Gamespot's newsletter, just came out today, NOT ONE MENTION OF DRIVER BEING RELEASED!

This ain't Pleasantville folks and corporations will stoop to any means to quench their insatiable appetite for MO' MONEY and eliminate and/or dominate the competition, rather they are already successful or not!

Big deal, Rockstar North had Hot Coffee in the game, something most people haven't even played. It got blown out of proportion, since it was already an M rated game, never intended for kids to begin with. Just cause a kid plays it, doesn't mean it's Rockstar's fault, the warning's on the box. And Hot Coffee isn't out of the box for Rockstar North, they're not afraid of controversy in their games: Manhunt 2 for example. It's what they're about at present.

Corporations may have roots of corruption depending on the 'leaders', but I wouldn't put game developers in the same bowl in most cases.

Take 2 is the Publisher. Rockstar North is the game maker/developer. Are you suggesting Rockstar North is corrupt and sabotaging their competition, or Take 2? Last time I checked, Rockstar North's busy making games as fun as they can make them, fixing glitches, adding controversial content, not plotting out how they're going to sabatoge the competition's next big game.

GTA3 is big because it offered freedom unlike most other games at the time. That's what I always looked for in a game. Sure, Driver 2 got there first, but it's about competition to create the best game they can make, and no game's appeal lasts forever, as new consoles and graphics take over.

Now I could see if you're talking about Sony's PS3 VS Xbox 360. Both have their problems. I'm sure plenty of undermining the other's console takes place on forums and in press, that's competition, trying to get the gamer to choose their product to stay in business. That's one form of marketing. Then there's just advertising your product and hoping people like it, never attempting to sabatoge your competitors. That's also an American way.

Symantecus
07-05-2007, 10:09 PM
Take 2 is the Publisher. Rockstar North is the game maker/developer. Are you suggesting Rockstar North is corrupt and sabotaging their competition, or Take 2? Last time I checked, Rockstar North's busy making games as fun as they can make them, fixing glitches, adding controversial content, not plotting out how they're going to sabatoge the competition's next big game.

Man, What IS RockStar North, just a bunch of good 'ol gamer-dudes workin out of a garage? RockStar has more people in other areas of the BIZNESS than in game development, as do ALL major game companies. Marketing, advertising, administration, executive boards, spies, fifth columnist ALL feeding the BEAST that RockStar is.

RockStar isn't unique, ALL major players are built that way.

You guys - check it - I KNOW how corps work - THEY AIN'T PHILANTHROPISTS! They're unscrupulous money hungry BEASTS and that's how it's gotta be to survive, that's how it is - or you don't survive.

Driver 3 got a whopping 3.8 rating from GameSpot...that is total BULL-SHE-ITE!!! That's what you give a truly low-end-bug-ridden-game, which is not Driv3r!!!

There is an ugly reason why it got a 3.8 rating, whether you want to believe it...

...or not!

To kill sales of the game causing the franchise to go bankrupt - removing GTA competition.

It's total bull-she-ite, but that's the overt wickedness of the GAME BEHIND THE GAME!

3.8 - That is beyond bull sheite!!

Influencing Quotes from GameSpot:

"Don't waste your time with Driver 3"

They don't even name anything GOOD about the game, merely outright lies to influence the gamers buying the game:

The Bad

* Awful control (LIE)
* Broken physics (BETTER PHYSICS THAN GTA)
* Horrific AI (JUST AS BAD AS GTA)
* Weak voice work (MICKY O'ROURKE - WEAK? LOL!
* Poor textures. (Just as good as GTA)

GAMESPOT:
"The physics behind the driving appear to be designed to give you that '70s-cop-show-car-chase feel, in that everything has been exaggerated. Even the slightest turn around a corner is a tire-screeching, sliding-out affair. Getting slammed hard by a cop car might send you flying into the air, causing you to barrel-roll a half-dozen times before crashing back to Earth."

WRONG! You're not going spinning unless you hit something REAL hard, and that's what cars do SPIN (unlike GTA's flawed physics engine that keeps you slightly glued to the road at 200 mph!) WRONG!

Driver's physics takes a bit of getting used to, but when you master it - it is an AWESOME experience.

I could go on, bnut I won't. This is enough to demonstrate there is a CONSPIRACY against the Driver franchise. Maybe it was because of Atari (hopefully). UBI is a different animal - only time will tell, but Driver PL is well worth the small price, as is Driver 3.

Assaultmachine1
07-05-2007, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Symantecus:
Assault, you're either young or inexperienced in the realm of business (not to be insulting), but you reveal very little knowledge of how the corporate world and structure works.

I've founded three corporations and one non-profit corporation. I know what I'm talking about and it happens all the time. The only reason Bill Gates has remained in the top position of Microsoft (something which is extremely rare in the corporate world) is because he is an American icon, but more importantly because Microsoft remains profitable.

TO SLAYER:
Yes, 24 million dollars is what UBI paid for the Driver franchise according to entertainment and game media outlets...look it up on Google...on second thought I WILL:

http://www.playfuls.com/news_6220_Driver_License_Goes_F..._For_24_Million. html (http://www.playfuls.com/news_6220_Driver_License_Goes_From_Atari_To_Ubisof t_For_24_Million.html)

And for an entire list:

http://www.google.com/search?tab=vw&q=UBI%20MILLION%20DRIVER%20FRANCHISE
Maybe I do not know as much about corporations, but that doesn't mean that you're completely right about what you think of game publishers and about how every founder gets thrown out of the company. Perhaps you take me for being a person with no knowledge or good will at all in that I will really screw up whatever business it is that I come up with. Well, I'll tell you something. I'm not going to back down from my dreams and if you're worried about me making a mistake in my company, then don't be because no matter what, there are always some mistakes that people make throughout their own lives, especially at work. As I am more mature and older, I'll be able to handle things that much better and know more about them as well. As for how young I am, I'm about to be in the third year of high school, so don't mistaken me for some 10 year old.

Originally posted by InsaneDriver06:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Symantecus:
LOL!

Boy, you guys aren't really that naive to believe what you just posted? LOL!!!

Guys, you need to get a bit more knowledge of corprate tactics. To say that Rockstar doesn't need the money, they're already successful...ANY CORPORATION that thinks like that is on the road to failure. Corporations NEVER consider themselves successful...it's a CONTINUOUS dog-eat-dog-greed environment. There is NEVER enough money to be made! I amazed you don't realize this? You must not be from America - LOL - that is the American way!

O' yes, innocent Rockstar North! You mean the guys who snuck in PORN just to gain more sales, knowing that it would cause a major raucus (and plenty of FREE PRESS!) Rockstar has no scruples.

Look! I get Gamespot's newsletter, just came out today, NOT ONE MENTION OF DRIVER BEING RELEASED!

This ain't Pleasantville folks and corporations will stoop to any means to quench their insatiable appetite for MO' MONEY and eliminate and/or dominate the competition, rather they are already successful or not!

Big deal, Rockstar North had Hot Coffee in the game, something most people haven't even played. It got blown out of proportion, since it was already an M rated game, never intended for kids to begin with. Just cause a kid plays it, doesn't mean it's Rockstar's fault, the warning's on the box. And Hot Coffee isn't out of the box for Rockstar North, they're not afraid of controversy in their games: Manhunt 2 for example. It's what they're about at present.

Corporations may have roots of corruption depending on the 'leaders', but I wouldn't put game developers in the same bowl in most cases.

Take 2 is the Publisher. Rockstar North is the game maker/developer. Are you suggesting Rockstar North is corrupt and sabotaging their competition, or Take 2? Last time I checked, Rockstar North's busy making games as fun as they can make them, fixing glitches, adding controversial content, not plotting out how they're going to sabatoge the competition's next big game.

GTA3 is big because it offered freedom unlike most other games at the time. That's what I always looked for in a game. Sure, Driver 2 got there first, but it's about competition to create the best game they can make, and no game's appeal lasts forever, as new consoles and graphics take over.

Now I could see if you're talking about Sony's PS3 VS Xbox 360. Both have their problems. I'm sure plenty of undermining the other's console takes place on forums and in press, that's competition, trying to get the gamer to choose their product to stay in business. That's one form of marketing. Then there's just advertising your product and hoping people like it, never attempting to sabatoge your competitors. That's also an American way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're absolutely right, InsaneDriver06. Rockstar North and even Rockstar Games themselves are eager to include as much content as they can, which are usually for older and more mature audiences, to offer the most that you can ever get from a single product of theirs. And about the marketing way, you're right of that too. Games are either made depending on how the developers see fit (i.e. Splinter Cell Conviction) or even by what the fans want (i.e. Driv3r and Driver Parallel Lines).

Originally posted by Symantecus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Take 2 is the Publisher. Rockstar North is the game maker/developer. Are you suggesting Rockstar North is corrupt and sabotaging their competition, or Take 2? Last time I checked, Rockstar North's busy making games as fun as they can make them, fixing glitches, adding controversial content, not plotting out how they're going to sabatoge the competition's next big game.

Man, What IS RockStar North, just a bunch of good 'ol gamer-dudes workin out of a garage? RockStar has more people in other areas of the BIZNESS than in game development, as do ALL major game companies. Marketing, advertising, administration, executive boards, spies, fifth columnist ALL feeding the BEAST that RockStar is.

RockStar isn't unique, ALL major players are built that way.

You guys - check it - I KNOW how corps work - THEY AIN'T PHILANTHROPISTS! They're unscrupulous money hungry BEASTS and that's how it's gotta be to survive, that's how it is - or you don't survive.

Driver 3 got a whopping 3.8 rating from GameSpot...that is total BULL-SHE-ITE!!! That's what you give a truly low-end-bug-ridden-game, which is not Driv3r!!!

There is an ugly reason why it got a 3.8 rating, whether you want to believe it...

...or not!

To kill sales of the game causing the franchise to go bankrupt - removing GTA competition.

It's total bull-she-ite, but that's the overt wickedness of the GAME BEHIND THE GAME!

3.8 - That is beyond bull sheite!!

Influencing Quotes from GameSpot:

"Don't waste your time with Driver 3"

They don't even name anything GOOD about the game, merely outright lies to influence the gamers buying the game:

The Bad

* Awful control (LIE)
* Broken physics (BETTER PHYSICS THAN GTA)
* Horrific AI (JUST AS BAD AS GTA)
* Weak voice work (MICKY O'ROURKE - WEAK? LOL!
* Poor textures. (Just as good as GTA)

GAMESPOT:
"The physics behind the driving appear to be designed to give you that '70s-cop-show-car-chase feel, in that everything has been exaggerated. Even the slightest turn around a corner is a tire-screeching, sliding-out affair. Getting slammed hard by a cop car might send you flying into the air, causing you to barrel-roll a half-dozen times before crashing back to Earth."

WRONG! You're not going spinning unless you hit something REAL hard, and that's what cars do SPIN (unlike GTA's flawed physics engine that keeps you slightly glued to the road at 200 mph!) WRONG!

Driver's physics takes a bit of getting used to, but when you master it - it is an AWESOME experience.

I could go on, bnut I won't. This is enough to demonstrate there is a CONSPIRACY against the Driver franchise. Maybe it was because of Atari (hopefully). UBI is a different animal - only time will tell, but Driver PL is well worth the small price, as is Driver 3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And where do you get your sources from, about how Rockstar Games and Rockstar North pays others to do commercializing or even the ways of how another competitor fairs up to the GTA games seem like nothing at all? If you have prove, show me it then. Give me links or possible anything to show me that you're reasonable with this.

As for how Driv3r turned out to be, you've got to believe that it is a really messed up game. Make no mistake. It was a ruined game because of the approach and how bad Reflections made use of the time. They had a specific time limit and yet their were probably trying to do more for the game rather than just finish up what's left of it to make it a good game and send it off to Atari, which would then ship it off to stores. I can assure you that many developers go through with this and Reflections certainly has screwed up with this title. Even there were titles from Square Enix of Final Fantasy (the action spin-off ones) and of the Biohazard Gun Survivor (Resident Evil Gun Survivor series games) that made a mistake because of how they had decided to approach the franchise and existing concept that they'd overwritten with these titles. They just couldn't get the concept to be original nor to have it be fun, so this is why it turned out this way. You maybe are right about the physics, but just about everything else of the game was nothing good to see at all. I understand that you are a fan of the Driver series and probably couldn't have the intelligence to make a really good criticism of what a game does right and wrong, but that's okay. The point is that Driv3r was certainly not the right game that we had intended to see and that it is no way better than those higher rated titles of the 6th generation.

I've had about enough of this pointless argument in this very thread about what corporations believe, how they are, and what they do. Lets just leave what we think to ourselves and give Ubisoft and Reflections a break because if they see a thread like this, they'll feel terrible or maybe even have a headache.

Symantecus
07-06-2007, 01:59 PM
I've had about enough of this pointless argument in this very thread about what corporations believe, how they are, and what they do. Lets just leave what we think to ourselves and give Ubisoft and Reflections a break because if they see a thread like this, they'll feel terrible or maybe even have a headache.

A passionate customer base is what will make Driver an even bigger hit (if it indeed deserves to be a hit)...

But a 3.8 rating from GameSpot...get real! That's an OBVIOUS slanted and biased HIT!

I'm working on a video with Driver 3 that I want you to see. Watch the physics, the graphics, the lighting, the action, and tell me, could this have been done as REALISTICALLY with GTA?

Sure there are cheezy, and I emphasize the word CHEEZY GTA stunt videos of CJ doing the physically IMPOSSIBLE.

Unfortunately, you can't produce a video like this with DPL. Hang in there.

AudibleKnight
07-06-2007, 03:37 PM
Hey guys, I got a heads up on this thread. As I see it, no one has broken the TOS, but as with anything, there's potential for high tempers and personal attacks here.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and are free to share them here on our forums. Just be sure to respect each other, watch the language, and follow the TOS. Otherwise, I'd be forced to take official action, and no one enjoys that...

InsaneDriver06
07-06-2007, 05:31 PM
Understood. I always try to respect others online in any situation. Thanks for checking in.

I would like to finish and say, I enjoyed Driv3r and DPL, and did feel the professional reviews didn't take into account the free roam gameplay, which is why I play the games to begin with, thanks to the great vehicle controls and freedom in the detailed, large maps. To me, Driver's best option is Take a Ride/Free Roam. In most reviews, Take a Ride isn't even mentioned.

I remember PSM gave Driv3r a 4/10. The missions could've been less frustrating and more varied, but the free roam was plenty of fun IMO, giving the game at least a 7/10 to be fair and to see the fun possible in free roam. Sometimes, with all the games and deadlines a reviewer has, they either have very high standards and/or not much patience or creativity to see the fun possible in an open map.

Take Transformers The Game for the 360: The missions are weak and repetitive, but the free roam gameplay is plenty of fun in the style of RAMPAGE(2D monster city game). Even with the fun possible, most reviewers gave Activision's major game around a 5/10. From what I've seen, most professional video game reviewers put most if not all the emphasis on the missions and campaign, not the free roam fun. I believe it's the same case with the Driver series up to this point.

Looking forward to the next Driver, more than GTA to be honest.

Assaultmachine1
07-06-2007, 10:03 PM
Maybe critics do forget about the amount of free-roam in a game, but if most of the critics say that a game is bad, I'm pretty sure that they've all got the most reasonable answers to this. Game Rankings is a website full of many reviews based on computer and video games, which I use to see truly if a game is worthy depending on how the majority has responded to the game.

Although Driv3r versions of Xbox and PS2 got a 59.2% (PS2 version) and a 59.4% (Xbox version), the mobile version got an average rating of 79%. How many times do you see a mobile version deliver this much better than the other versions, which are better in terms of graphics? The PS2 and Xbox versions as well as the PC version (got a 48.5% out of 100) are not good games at all. And just because the free-roam gameplay may be good in a game, that being one feature, it is not enough to hold the rest of the game together, so the score still would be below the 70%, which is not a good game. Also, I'd like to point out that there were a lot of glitches in the game. Therefore, a lot of the gameplay was not finely tuned, it was done just as if there was a big mess. The graphics aren't always the best that they can be, especially since the frame rate messes it up sometimes and not to mention that the cars sometimes look bad in quality. All of these glitches pop up out of nowhere at many occassions in the game, that you can't expect to notice it every time. The on-foot in Driv3r is way smaller than it was in GTA III or even GTA VC. You aren't able to go in to as many interiors, there aren't as many weapons, there is no way to jump, especially on-top of cars, and many of the cities' backgrounds are just made for the graphical representation of it. Now while you can say that because the vehicles look more realistic, perform more realistic, people look more realistic, cops go after you based on breaking real and simple laws (crossing a red light, hitting a car, hitting a property, driving on the side walk, etc.), and the graphics look better, you can't say that it is necessarily more realistic. Lets make a comparison of Driv3r to that of GTA III and GTA VC:

Driv3r has awesome realism for the vehicles in the game (AI, looks, performances, a close resemblance to that of real vehicles, etc.), the graphics stand out better (except when glitches occur), and the cutscenes are more realistic. The on-foot has hardly anything realistic much at all. Interiors are not as much explorable and not as much different kinds of crime happens. It even has weapons, which can be fired. Cops will fire at you. Swimming is in the game to add more realism.

GTA III has the ability to jump, to sprint, to fire weapons, to pick up a ******, to drive vehicles (they don't function very realistic in physics and don't look very much real), the graphics aren't the best ever, but set the tone alright, the missions are quite realistic, the AI is kind of bad, there is a combat system (it isn't necessarily realistic), it has radio stations (just as it was first introduced in GTA 1), side-missions are started when activated (not too realistic at all), missions begin at a location of where you are working for the contact (realistic), hidden packages and rampages are scattered throughout the city (not realistic), there are different garages at which you can get vehicles from after having delivered all the needed vehicles (the delivering vehicles to the garage doesn't seem real for a contact to allow you such a job and nor is them delivering it to you realistic either), crushing a car at the junkyard in the game is realistic, and the gangs will hate you after a mission of having to kill them (this is pretty realistic if you ask me). GTA III has a plenty of free-roam gameplay and while not all of it is realistic, I'd say that it made it very much fun. Not to mention the fact that you can ride automobiles and boats, which were the standard type of vehicles ever used for a great free-roaming game. The bat is the only weapon different from the rest, which are guns.

GTA Vice City brought the realism up a little more. There are now helicopters, planes, and motorbikes to go along with the automobiles and boats as being part of the roster list. The combat is very similar to that of GTA III. Crouching is a new ability to keep you from being shot. Now firing weapons aren't the only kinds of weapons. There are tools, knives, and even a katana. Plus many new guns make their way in to the game including the minigun, ruger, m4, colt python, stubby shotgun, spaz shotgun, and many others. The waves and water now looks more realistic. Vehicles, people, the weather, the sun shining, and other main parts of the game are now more enhanced with realism. The music is outstanding and makes it feel like you are really in the 80s' setting. The missions are not necessarily always better than those of GTA III, but some are new and others return. Characters are more alive than ever and the voice overs seem a bit more impressive. Many interiors of being explorable in the game make it feel a lot more realistic than GTA III could have ever thought of being. The physics of vehicles are not realistic, but are easier to handle than in GTA III. Side missions are expanded, but seem just the same in the level of realism. Realism in Vice City is bigger than ever and is probably the best aspect of the game, but it doesn't allow the game to be getting any higher of a score than GTA III.

These games are quite realistic in multiple ways. The fact is that Driv3r lacks much realism in the on-foot of not being able to handle as much of both GTA III and GTA Vice City. What it makes up for it is having better graphics for many aspects of the game (mostly in the cutscenes and other times in the gameplay, except with the glitches appearing out of nowhere), has better physics and damage for the vehicles (not for the boats, which were pretty much useless in the game because of how little work was spent on them), has better AI of the chases, and that's about it. Driv3r is most of the time better in the driving portion, but both GTA III and GTA VC crush Driv3r with a lot more options for the on-foot and even the driving, which is focused on other things than just story missions (Driv3r focuses mainly on this) and even have more for the free-roaming portion. Driv3r basically allows you to use Film Director for car chases, to get into car chases, to cruise around, to look for secrets (vehicles), to use cheats (GTA III and GTA VC allow you to do so too), to use weapons on anyone, to kill timmy vercellis, and to go anywhere at anytime. GTA III and GTAVC also allow for you to do many of Driv3r's free-roaming gameplay (i.e. get into chases with the law enforcement, use cheats, unlock things, go anywhere at any time, to use weapons on anyone, to cruise around, to do rampages, to find hidden packages, to go in to interiors, to gain money, to buy more ammo, and more.) I hope that this clears up of what we thought about Driv3r in comparison to that of the GTA games before it.

Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and Driver Parallel Lines' comparisons of realism are:

Parallel Lines offers:

- more realistic physics than in GTA:SA

- better graphics (especially in the PC version)

- cutscenes look a lot more amazing than in GTA:SA

- draw distance is pretty good, much like in GTA SA and are both equal of that level of realism, which is good, but not ever perfect.

- has weapons that make realistic noises and reload nicely

- graphics of the gameplay are worse than performed in D3, but are glitchless or a lot less glitchy, making realism become better

- no swimming

- rolling and crouching are somewhat realistic

- interiors are not explorable, except for the hideouts and places of yours of where to save the game, which is much like in GTA III.

- people are not as chatty and nor do they do as much as in GTA SA (fighting doesn't go on).

- crime is not that big and only tends to happen to your character.

- no emergency vehicles are seen driving.

- vehicles are all stored in to different garages of the game, but wouldn't fit in real life of such a way.

- cops notice if you're a criminal after having commited a crime and being in a different car without them having noticed it, which makes them not recognize you instantly and on a bike, if having commited a crime, they recognize you no matter in which vehicle you switch to after that. The felony system is a lot more realistic and is still much the same with the laws of the previous Driver games, so the realism in the felony is a lot more improved. It is impressive.

- the AI is smarter than in D3, which are less likely to crash, but still isn't as difficult as in D1.

- missions are less realistic than before at most times, which make it seem a lot like the GTA games.

- side-missions are very much like in the GTA games and aren't that realistic.

- has customizations for your vehicles

This is all that I found of DPL, but you can add more to it as I know that I was in a rush and have missed out other things.

GTA San Andreas' realism:

- allows you to change and buy your own clothes.

- you get skinny, muscular, or even fat.

- can play sports and pool as well as even arcade games and a game on for money on horse racing.

- has customizations for your vehicles

- side-missions are very much like in the previous GTA games and aren't that realistic.

- many of the RPG elements and simulation elements make the game more realistic and full of freedom for the on-foot than ever before.

- driving is a bit more harder to handle and is nothing as realistic as in the Driver games.

- felony system is still the same and is not very realistic at all.

- falling from a very big height will either kill you or leave you with little health, which is an improvement in realism over both GTA III and GTA VC.

- a lot more vehicles are in the game

- missions feel a little more alive

- characters seem more realistic

- doing multiple drive-bys is awesome and realistic

- the recruitment of gang members is realistic

- the replay feature is not necessarily realistic, but is okay and nothing compared to Film Director.

- parachuting is quite realistic

- being able to get your own hair style gives more freedom and realism

- the size of the state makes it feel unique and the cities very much resemble the real cities that they are based on.

GTA San Andreas manages to defeat DPL and maybe even D3 at realism for the on-foot, but the realism seen in vehicles has never been better in the GTA games than in the Driver series, overall.

With the lack of many things in D3 and few improvements or anything good at all, it deserves something around a mediocre rating, meaning like a 59.2%, 59.4%, or 48.5% while DPL is perhaps, truly, a good game with a 7 or give it a little more if you'd like. DPL is a lot more improved and fixes many problems of D3, but doesn't manage to keep Tanner and leaves out Film Director. Also, the graphics are not exactly better than D3, but the graphics do look more impressive than ever in the PC version.

Symantecus
07-07-2007, 06:34 PM
Assault, I'm not arguing or criticizing you. I appreciate your comments, but it's should be okay to disagree, and even with that, we don't disagree on much.

InsaneDriver06
07-10-2007, 05:41 PM
One thing that should be noted is:

1. GTASA makes a direct joke at "Driv3r" during a cutscene where they're playing a "Driv3r" game, suggesting the controls aren't good.

2. Driv3r makes a joke at GTAVice City by including hidden bad guys with blue hawaiian shirts and float pads on their arms, suggesting you can't swim in GTAVC, which is based in Miami.

3. GTASA makes fun of True Crime, by calling it "True Grime" Garbage disposal service on a billboard in LA.

4. True Crime LA makes fun of GTA's RockStar by including a similar logo called "Jockstraps", or something dumb like that, with a star next to a J logo.

5. And it goes on. The point being, they're making in-game jokes about their competition on a game maker level. It was noted in a PSM interview, that Reflections themselves said they have respect for Rockstar, and the other way around, and the jokes are not meant as anything more than a joke. Something along those lines.

Corporations in general may be a different story, but I think game makers want to make great games first.

Driverman2006
07-10-2007, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by InsaneDriver06:
One thing that should be noted is:

1. GTASA makes a direct joke at "Driv3r" during a cutscene where they're playing a "Driv3r" game, suggesting the controls aren't good.

2. Driv3r makes a joke at GTAVice City by including hidden bad guys with blue hawaiian shirts and float pads on their arms, suggesting you can't swim in GTAVC, which is based in Miami.

3. GTASA makes fun of True Crime, by calling it "True Grime" Garbage disposal service on a billboard in LA.

4. True Crime LA makes fun of GTA's RockStar by including a similar logo called "Jockstraps", or something dumb like that, with a star next to a J logo.

5. And it goes on. The point being, they're making in-game jokes about their competition on a game maker level. It was noted in a PSM interview, that Reflections themselves said they have respect for Rockstar, and the other way around, and the jokes are not meant as anything more than a joke. Something along those lines.

Corporations in general may be a different story, but I think game makers want to make great games first.
Also, some license plates in GTA:SA say "EA-SUCKS" on them. I wonder if Reflections will make another "Joke" about one of their competetors.

Symantecus
07-11-2007, 09:10 AM
Corporations in general may be a different story, but I think game makers want to make great games first.

Right brain creative types (developers) are a different ILK than publishers. Many developers HATE their publishers, and their publishers money-grubbing tactics.

It's very similar to the music industry, where artist do battle with their record labels.

it's not the artists that are ruthless, it's the RIAA and record companies. The same goes for the game development community as opposed to certain game publishers.

InsaneDriver06
07-11-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Symantecus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Corporations in general may be a different story, but I think game makers want to make great games first.

Right brain creative types (developers) are a different ILK than publishers. Many developers HATE their publishers, and their publishers money-grubbing tactics.

It's very similar to the music industry, where artist do battle with their record labels.

it's not the artists that are ruthless, it's the RIAA and record companies. The same goes for the game development community as opposed to certain game publishers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can understand the point about Corporations. I just wanted to defend the game makers in general. The music artist vs the record label is a good comparison. Major Labels tend to be concerned with "Units sold" vs "Artistic Vision" of the musician.



From IGN.com (old news)
July 13, 2006 - Today Ubisoft announced it will acquire the Driver franchise, taking the wheel from Atari, which has published the action-on-wheels series for years now. In an agreement expected to close soon, Ubisoft will pay 19 million euros ($24 million) in cash for the franchise, technology rights, and most assets. Additionally, though Ubisoft is not acquiring the studio outright, the 80 members of Driver developer Reflections Interactive will become employees of Ubisoft.

"We are thrilled with this acquisition which will allow us to add a prestigious title to our catalog and to enter into the driving games segment, one of the most important segments in the gaming industry," commented Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot. "With more than 14 million units sold throughout the world, Driver is one of the most successful brands in the history of video games. We look forward to leveraging the unique knowledge of the Ubisoft studios to ensure that Driver will be one of the leading brands of the next generation of consoles."

Just how Ubisoft will develop the Driver franchise remains to be seen; the company is not announcing any new titles just yet.

Driver began as a stylized, crime-touched racer, but subsequent games introduced overt action elements including, eventually, on-foot running and gunning. The most recent installment, Driver: Parallel Lines, was published by Atari in March. Atari will retain rights to Parallel Lines through the end of 2006.

---
14 million units is pretty good. Selling more games means they can make more games, so hopefully, they bring us the best Driver ever.

InsaneDriver06
07-26-2007, 07:55 AM
From Game Informer August 2007 issue (Prototype Game on the Cover)

Article relating to Publishers vs Developers is printed. Here's some direct quotes: "Is Game Development a cooperative or competitive game?", "The worst part of this buisness is that publishers think developers are out to screw them and developers think pulbishers are out to screw them." "Paranoia. Power. Money. These are all common themes in game development. Unfortunately, they take away from everyone's primary goal: making a good game."

It goes on to discuss the friction often times between the two forces of making a game. Just interesting how it relates to this thread.

Symantecus
07-27-2007, 10:24 AM
My point exactly, InsaneDriver. Most gamers do not even begin to comprehend the POLITICS involved in getting a game to market - RIGHT - or the business end of gaming.

I've been in the gaming (and music) industries for 30 years - it's dog-eat-DOG!

InsaneDriver06
07-28-2007, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by Symantecus:
My point exactly, InsaneDriver. Most gamers do not even begin to comprehend the POLITICS involved in getting a game to market - RIGHT - or the business end of gaming.

I've been in the gaming (and music) industries for 30 years - it's dog-eat-DOG!

I see your point. Publishers want to sell product, Developers want to make games, but need money from the Publishers, so comprimises are made along the way in many cases, resulting in subpar games or games that turn out other than originally intended, mostly due to deadlines and adding 'the latest feature that sells games'. Just speaking in general terms, not putting Ubisoft in the same boat necessarily, as I'm glad they're supporting Reflections and Driver.

In the gaming industry? Cool. What game(s) were you involved with over the 30 years?