Crimson Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Can Crimson take down Angry Birds?
  • Subject: Can Crimson take down Angry Birds?
Subject: Can Crimson take down Angry Birds?

yas334229812

A little bit of editing and removal of certain things from what i saw when a cutscene style conversation bubble comes up you see a picture of someone with text.

better to replace the pic with some cartoony figure.

  • 01.13.2012 10:36 AM PDT

Wheres Meh Sniper?

Youtube page

I really enjoy crimson, I've tried Angry Birds, didn't really like it. But I don't think Crimson has a realistic chance of taking out AB. Taking the behaviors of the majority of people downloading apps to their phones, "omg cute little birds blowing stuff up" is much more appealing than a pirate game.

  • 01.15.2012 6:22 AM PDT

FREEDOWNLOAD - PC GAMES, MOVIES, ANIME

http://www.rj21freedownloads.com/

Yah i think crimson is a great game compared to angry birds but the thing is angry birds is most popular because any age can play it and it's so easy to play,even my grandma and little brother knows how to play it.

  • 01.16.2012 1:54 AM PDT

Posted by: GLO Is Back
Posted by: GLO Is Back
Been 4 months ... crimson has not 'taken down Angry Birds'.

You can keep wishing, but the bungie name doesnt attract the same attention it once did.


Repeats and rinse.
(except its now into its 5th month)

Never going to happen - lol.
(espec with bungie not doing its 'publisher' job)

^ this.

Its like people still asking if reach can re-take the #1 position.
Dream on people, dream on.

Its an "ok" game but it is no Angry Birds.

  • 01.16.2012 3:35 AM PDT

I dont care what rank you are. I just enjoy playing the game. Playing the game legit brings much more joy of accomplishing something when you have worked hard to get to a certain rank, achievement, or commendation. Trust me you will enjoy the game alot more. Halo 2 is the best one.

agreed. AngryBirds is probably the most purchased app.

  • 01.16.2012 8:45 AM PDT

When you're only on 'I' devices it's sort of hard to take down something like angry birds completely.

  • 01.18.2012 5:12 PM PDT

There are three people I serve. God, Chuck norris, and Evilcam.

I doubt it.

  • 02.19.2012 11:45 AM PDT

-blam!-!@111!!!!!

  • 02.21.2012 9:18 AM PDT

No, I'm not perfect, but I have the feeling you're the kind of person who is used to meeting imperfect people on the internet.

lol, nah, it can't beat Angry Birds, it just doesn't have the same simplicity that appeals to the masses.

I'm okay with this, you should be too.

  • 02.29.2012 9:22 AM PDT

No, I'm not perfect, but I have the feeling you're the kind of person who is used to meeting imperfect people on the internet.


Posted by: GLO Is Back
Posted by: Guywiired
lol, nah, it can't beat Angry Birds, it just doesn't have the same simplicity that appeals to the masses.
I'm okay with this, you should be too.

Oh no ... its the 'halo reach' defense - lol.

From a commercial POV you want a game to 'appeal to the masses'.
From a developers POV you want your game to be loved by the masses.

The 'halo reach' defense was formed by sore losers who couldnt hold the #1 position against a game 1 year older ... tell me we are not going to run out that same defense now?


It's less about defense, and more about Reality, get yourself out of the forums and check it out sometime.

  • 03.01.2012 8:47 AM PDT

No, I'm not perfect, but I have the feeling you're the kind of person who is used to meeting imperfect people on the internet.


Posted by: Wrote
Posted by: Guywiired
It's less about defense, and more about Reality, get yourself out of the forums and check it out sometime.


ahhh ... more awful reach bland chatter overflows into this forum.
(yet, trying to absorb the blandness to see if it works somehow)

Have to agree with the reply, why would you NOT design a game to appeal to people?? Guessing that they actually did try but just missed the mark.

(btw: telling someone to "get out of the forums sometime" is kinda an ironic thing to post on that same forum - lol)


Niche markets make money too.

I love shooter games, I don't love sports games, but does that mean that sports games should NOT be made?

And if you're going to accept video games as an art, then you have to accept that some games are made because people wanted to make them, not because the studio or publisher ONLY wanted to make money.

It's going to be a sad sad day when developers decided they're ONLY in it for the money.

  • 03.02.2012 6:14 AM PDT

No, I'm not perfect, but I have the feeling you're the kind of person who is used to meeting imperfect people on the internet.


Posted by: Wrote
Posted by: Guywiired

"Niche markets make money too" ... but not at $0.99 a unit (less Apples cut, and then Bungies cut - lol)
Maybe, maybe not, but I think that supports the argument that they are in it to bring you great games (or world domination) but NOT in it for the money.

My iPad version, chapter 1 was free, and if it wasn't so damn fun, I would just stopped there. As it is, I was happy to pay the $2 for that much more fun.

"I love shooter games, I don't love sports games, but does that mean that sports games should NOT be made?" ... mixing your arguements. Your individual loves/hates is not a supportive positon for Angry Birds appealing to the masses.

Actually, you're very wrong here. Mine, and the the rest of the community's opinion is exactly what we're discussing here, and my example shows how while my tastes differs from others, that doesn't mean that games for me (or others) should not be made.

"And if you're going to accept video games as an art" ... nope another halo arguement of last resort - have to stop you there. Going the line that a game is great because of its graphics or artistic quality is the equivalent of defeat. It becomes a mute point because of individual opinions. Next thing we will be awarding Olympic medals based on the visual or artistic running styles of athletes and not who actually wins the race.

ehh... now you're starting to sound like that other guy... You can judge art by graphics, or quality, sure. But when I say: Video games are Art I am recognizing that there is a level of passion that goes into making them. That sometimes, no matter the cost, someone will work nights and weekends for free just to see a feature make it in, or a game they want to play get completed.

For them, it's not about the money, it's about the passion.

I have no idea where you're going with your Olympic medal argument though.. Seriously, do you even know what you mean here or how it applies?

"It's going to be a sad sad day when developers decided they're ONLY in it for the money." ... and yet bungie are now charging a fee for the game. At launch it was for free, but now ... dont go getting too sad on us now ;)

Additional Chapters are being charged for, yeah... I think it's pretty cool though that I got TONS of play out of Chapter one before I decided to pull the trigger on buying Chapter 2. Shouldn't that be how it is?

The game was also slated for free release within the moai site, as part of an open source understanding. I suspect that this is the "developers concept" to which you refer. But alas ... and not saying who ... this was stopped.
Best break out those anti-sad pills.


I must have missed something deeper than just this point here. It's a great game and it's cheap/free. Honestly it just seems like this is Reach hate boiling over to Crimson now, and I know that's not fair to anyone involved here.

  • 03.02.2012 8:36 AM PDT

No, I'm not perfect, but I have the feeling you're the kind of person who is used to meeting imperfect people on the internet.


Posted by: Wrote
Plus how many months has it been?


Several months... or one day, my point is just that it's not designed with the same appeal, never was.

Bungie is the first to say that they make games they would want to play.

They do that first, regardless of what the market would enjoy most. And I would argue that it's worked out for them so far!

  • 03.06.2012 11:34 AM PDT

No, I'm not perfect, but I have the feeling you're the kind of person who is used to meeting imperfect people on the internet.

Posted by: Wrote
Posted by: Guywiired
Bungie is the first to say that they make games they would want to play.

They do that first, regardless of what the market would enjoy most. And I would argue that it's worked out for them so far!

Fine, except bungie didnt make steam pirates.

As for "worked out for them so far" - suspect you mean halo? Well that was Microsoft, they owned the game, the studio, the lot between 2000 and 2007.

Of course if you meant that they got a bucket of cash (which would have been agreeable to anyone), then yeah.
Worked out VERY WELL for them - lol


ehh... you twist the relationship between Publishers and Studios to fit your ends, I get that.

But this is about the people that makes those two parts of a system work.. and why it is they do what they do.

Rareware made awesome shooters back in the day.. they've been independent, now they're owned by Microsoft and they're building Kinect stuff... The only that hasn't changed at Rare, is that the people there are making the games THEY want to play.

That's more important than anything.

Happiness > Money

Heck, Happiness beats EVERYTHING. (except maybe Tank. Tank beats EVERYTHING.)

The point is, Bungie is no different in that respect, and your description of a studio/publisher relationship misrepresents things.

  • 03.07.2012 8:53 AM PDT

No, I'm not perfect, but I have the feeling you're the kind of person who is used to meeting imperfect people on the internet.

I get it... you're in full on troll mode..

Posted by: Wrote
And speaking of staying OP and OT ... how does any of this support your view that 'Crimson can take down Angry Birds'?

you can't be bothered to actually read what anyone says..

In this context, we're done talking. Or more exactly, I'm done writing eloquent/intelligent replies that you can't be bothered to read before trolling me some more.

  • 03.08.2012 9:31 AM PDT