I don't see how they'd be able to give us anything specific since they're not working full time on it. But since commercial games often slip, I can't start lambasting amateur games for having dubious projected release dates. :)

You don't have to be working on something 10 hours a day, 6 days a week to follow a schedule. :shifty:

I can bet you schedules are changed constantly with these fanmade projects...They haven't got publishers breathing down on them...

Still Moaning
 

I'm still moaning. No. Let's call it what it is: bitching. Defending "rights" or not, Vivendi OFTEN makes complete crap for games nowadays.

Sad, but true.

Kirk

I'd have to disagree with you there. Vivendi themselves may not develop games, but they've published F.E.A.R., SWAT4, Tribes Vengeance, World of Warcraft and The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay in the last year and a bit. All of which were critically acclaimed.

Glad you enjoyed them.

Kirk

:) ;)

If only Sierra produced hit titles like Blizzard, it might even be still alive today making immersive adventure games. But most of them were clones.

Huh?

Sierra turned into what it is today because Ken Williams sold the company to Havas, who lied about their financials and basically drove the Sierra into the ground after the sale.

As for "hit titles," that's more or less all they did produce for the 20 or so years they were a major player in the industry. They certainly had their share of not-so-great games, but I don't think anyone can argue that Sierra didn't release hits. We wouldn't still be talking about them today (in this very thread!) if they hadn't.

Thats true, they did drive it to the ground. But Sierras titles were never as popular as StarCraft or Warcraft or Diablo. But I know, Sierra did make very successful games. :)

According to whom? I just don't think this is true. More people play games now than did when Sierra was big, so if you just look at numbers, yeah, more people have played Blizzard's games. But it's not really a fair comparison.

Not trying to start a stupid argument here, really. I'm just trying to understand your point, because I don't see what comparing Sierra to Blizzard has to do with anything. :confused:

I guess this post was the trigger to my other post.

Sierra and Blizzard where pretty much faounded at the same time, both produced very popular titles. Although they both where popular in their own genre.

Blizzard = The best of RTS
Sierra = The best of Adventure

So I guess you cant compare the companies based on what genre they make games for.

I've always seen Blizzard and Sierra as companies that go well together, and their co-presence under the Havas and then Vivendi umbrellas shows that this does work.

Don't forget that it's not just the genres that mark the two companies out as different. Sierra was (and is to an extent) about pushing the boundaries of gaming and developing new ideas, while Blizzard's games have always been based on the idea of taking established ideas from other games, bringing them together and creating a high-quality title in an established genre.

Am I making any sense? :crazy:

...Bwhat?! Sierra and Blizzard founded at the same time?? Not quite. Mystery House, Sierra's first game was released in 1979 (Source: Vintage-Sierra.com). Now according to MobyGames, Blizzard was formed in 1991 ("The company was founded in 1991 under the name Silicon & Synapse ").

Unless a 12 year period is considered "at the same time", I'm pretty Sierra's been around for longer.

EDIT: Speaking of being popular in their "own" genres... Sierra was the creator of the graphic adventure genre (Mystery House was the first adventure game to feature graphics, and the later King's Quest was the first to feature third person graphics). However, the RTS genre is usually credited to Westwood with their game Dune II (Though you could trace it's roots to "The Ancient Art of War" by Evryware, coincidently the same company that produced the two Manhunter games for Sierra).