POST A COMMENT

20 Comments

Back to Article

  • blueeyesm - Saturday, November 05, 2011 - link

    Virtual Machine. VMWare player is free. Reply
  • azmodean - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    I neither want to pirate windows nor pay MS for their crap OS just to play games, so your "solution" doesn't solve anything. Reply
  • damianrobertjones - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    ? It's hardly crap and to think so is quite closed minded. Reply
  • Kamen75 - Saturday, November 05, 2011 - link

    This game looked fairly interesting so I thought I'd put it on my netbook. Waste of time! This game requires a 2ghz dual-core cpu as a minimum system requirement. Seems like this game should run great on a Pentium era processor. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Gaming.. Netbook.

    Yeah. This isn't a good comment.
    Reply
  • a5cent - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Games like this ran great or even better on technology from 1985 (Amiga / Atari ST) with a 7 MHz clock (Megahertz!). Something is fundamentally wrong when our hardware accelerated UI's on 1 - 3 GHz processors don't offer a comparable experience. Reply
  • GuinnessKMF - Tuesday, November 08, 2011 - link

    Seriously? You're looking through some rose colored glasses there my friend. You're talking about sprite based games running in pure hardware mode with ~480i at best.

    You're also talking about games being developed to run on very specific hardware, not free games banged out in what I'm guessing is XNA framework; it's a free game. It might look like a regular 2D platformer, but the lighting is likely rendered through a 3D engine, and run through a filter to intentionally stylize it to look like it does (Kind of like cell shading, you can put shaders in your pipeline to achieve the right look from a 3D scene).

    I'm sure if they spent the time they could make it run just fine on cheaper hardware, but they're not exactly asking for money.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Have you actually tried running it? CPU reqirements are often not that strict..

    BTW@a5cent: it may look like 1985 in your memory.. but go ahead and place some screenshots side by side. I guess you're in for a surprise :p
    Reply
  • mikbe - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    I love the style of reviews this site does and think I see a way to make it even better: l would like to suggest breaking out the game news into its own category. That way the GPU articles aren't drowned out by all the game ones.

    Thanks for a fantastic information source.
    Reply
  • Craig Getting - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Noted! Still trying to figure out when the GPUs tag is appropriate given its previous association with gaming content. We'll keep working on it. Reply
  • Desidero - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    The game was interesting, but the forced wait times when you finish a level drove me crazy. Perhaps I'm just too impatient, but it drove me crazy staring at the high score screen for 30 seconds at the end of each level. You spend more time going through the pre/post-level screens than you do completing the levels themselves. Reply
  • ajaxpliskin - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Hi, this is in no way normal. You should not be forced to look at the high scores. Have you tried pressing Enter/Return key? Reply
  • Desidero - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Yeah, I pressed enter, escape, space, all the standard game controls, right/left mouse, etc. Nothing made the screens go away faster. Reply
  • Craig Getting - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    They've updated it since the weekend. Seems to speed up these load times. Reply
  • jimhsu - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Sad to see the potential of UEFI squandered on pretty "3D interfaces". Here's what I want a UEFI-based interface to be able to do:

    - Ability to support multiple profiles that can be recalled with a single click. E.g one for OC benching, one for everyday use, one for low power undervolting, etc.

    - Customizable, saveable interface. Don't use overclocking? Hide it. Want to experiment with memory timings? Move it up in the list to save keystrokes.

    - Integrated benchmarking functionality. Can be something as simple as a rudimentary SuperPI or Prime95 like thing. Can be fancy but not necessary.

    - Much better OS integration. Again, in terms of profiles, customization.

    - Considerations for notebook/tablet uses. Touch interface. Altering settings / boot priority / etc based on presence of AC power, battery, docking station.

    - Visual aesthetics. Yes, they do in fact matter. Color and shading to improve contrast. Logical grouping of functionality (without having memory timings on this screen, FSB on another one, TurboBoost on yet another one).

    That will truly bring BIOS into the modern age with out this "pretty stuff" in the way.
    Reply
  • jimhsu - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    Hm... this was meant for the other thread I opened. Oops. Reply
  • dfsd - Sunday, November 06, 2011 - link

    lick on our website:
    ====( http://www.hapous.com )=====

    ====( http://www.hapous.com )=====
    Reply
  • xsilver - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    interesting that nobody has mentioned that games like this should be developed for mobile platforms and would reach a much wider audience that way?

    but then again if the coding is bad that you need a dual core 2ghz to play then ios/android is probably not a good idea
    Reply
  • Craig Getting - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    I think the biggest issue to this being a mobile game right now is the control scheme, though you're definitely right about the optimization issues.

    Virtual d-pads, etc. just aren't precise enough for games like this.
    Reply
  • KingstonU - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Gave it a shot but game keeps giving me errors and can't get past the start screen to start a game. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now