Jump to content
Dogmatic

Friday the 13th releasing on Nintendo Switch this Spring

Recommended Posts

@JED Why do you still post here then? Move on with your life. Many still enjoy and play the game. If its not for you, then its not for you. Your hate is falling on dead ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BeautyNumber2 said:

They’re literally in the Virtual Cabin: Jason X, child Jason, a different phone, a computer, an entire different cabin, multiple tools and weapons, a radio, a pad lock. All these items are —pardon me for continuously reiterating—in the game.

Damn it, how did I miss those items. I can think of tons of stuff to do with just what you listed. 

Also Jason X (Uber) is in the game files, not just the virtual cabin model but a 99% finished version of the character. His kills even have sounds attached, just not executed properly. Not that I expect that to change any of the answers given.

 

Edit - Apparently I’m not enough of a white knight, you guys get to have all the fun. 😕

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JED, I’m generally asking, no sarcasm, just want your input. How is the game broken in your opinion? I understand bugs and glitches, I get that. But the most recent update was probably the best at fixing “some” of those issues that we have had since the game was released. If they keep pecking away at the bugs and weed out all the glitching (which I believe their headed in the right direction), they will have the game running better than ever in the (I hope) not so distant future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Slasher_Clone said:

Edit - Apparently I’m not enough of a white knight, you guys get to have all the fun. 😕

 

Well if you aren’t a white knight, maybe you are the black knight. If so, I’m jealous. The black knight is awesome. 

Or, you could be the dark knight. Your real name isn’t Bruce is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may get some hate with what I'm gonna say but I honestly just see this as a quick cash grab. If this game had a full singleplayer story/campaign (I don't consider singleplayer challenges a story/campaign)then I would really be more on board with this Switch release but since it doesn't, then I can't see anything but a cash grab. Multiplayer is the selling point of this game and with it still being very buggy at times, why go ahead and release it? I highly doubt by the time this releases on the Switch bugs (some bugs which have been around a long time) will be fixed and I can only imagine the new bugs that will be in the Switch version. I just don't think porting a game that already has a lot of bugs and exploits is the right thing to do but maybe they will surprise us and we won't see people on Switch on the Packanack roof or cars randomly being destroyed or no interaction lock.... but I highly doubt it. Like I said with multiplayer being the selling point I just think it's sorta wrong since they also can't add any new content, it's basically a company releasing a new multiplayer base game for a system that they have no plans to support besides the occasional patch fixes, which honestly doesn't look good on their part IMO. I do love this game and started playing it on Xbox when it was released and despite the horrible launch Xbox had with the constant crashing and with the lawsuit with no content I still stuck around because I enjoy the game. I respect the developers, I really do for what they gave us but I'm not sure I like this idea of releasing it on Switch. People coming into this game brand new from Switch might not know what they bought is what they get with no new content arriving, most won't know about the lawsuit new coming in and that's not their fault, but it would help if Gun gave a disclaimer in the Nintendo store about no new content will be released for the game. This is all just my opinion and I'm sure lots of people will probably disagree with me but I just felt like giving my honest feedback.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brogan322, lots of games don’t have new content or DLC, so I don’t think that’s as good a reason as you think. Have you considered that the things they need to build for the Switch, ie. a LAN set up, will be useful in keeping all other versions of the game playable after the servers are turned off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, The Milwauking Dead said:

I know this subject is beat to death. So I apologize in advance. But I just don’t understand. I understand even less after this post. Can you please explain more in depth. If we all saw the hacked videos of Jason X and all his kills, doesn’t that mean the coding already exists in the game? 

In terms of what is available to the public, no it isn't the same. When discussing legal matters pertaining to an IP, that's what's important to distinguish. 

Everything in the Switch version is already available to the public.

10 hours ago, F134Ever86 said:

@Slasher_Clone I highly doubt Layers of Fear 2 will be multiplayer. Pretty sure the first one wasn't.

LoF2 is a single player experience only.

9 hours ago, BeautyNumber2 said:

No, there is a clear discrepancy and you swerved on multiple points I made. I know Pam’s laugh and the mask are in the game, I literally said that. In my post. Jason X and everything that is in the Virtual Cabin 2.0..... is....in the game. It’s there.... in the Virtual Cabin. Have you played the game?

Your argument that you can’t add any new content but that you can change, add, update, or expand upon code for things that are in the game has been exposed. All the elements I mentioned are in the game so don’t backtrack now. They’re literally in the Virtual Cabin: Jason X, child Jason, a different phone, a computer, an entire different cabin, multiple tools and weapons, a radio, a pad lock. All these items are —pardon me for continuously reiterating—in the game.

The argument that you can create a flashing mask to appear on the map—a mechanic that itself was not in the game— pieced together from items previously in the game makes it new content. It’s new, it wasn’t there before. Pam’s laugh sound clip + mask graphic + flashing + condition = something new. 

Now you’re trying to to say that actual items in the Virtual Cabin......... don’t *count* as being in the game? Admit you’ve been caught peddling discrepant information. I’m not some kid on a forum, I hold two Ph.Ds so your lackluster attempt to dismiss the points I made in response to misinformation YOU presented is not going to fly. 

To reiterate: items that are in the Virtual Cabin... ARE in fact part of the game.

You admitted that the developers are legally permitted to piece together existing items, files, and features in the game to code something new. This is most evident with the latest update that adds a new feature when Jason enters rage. According to you, this doesn’t constitute new content on technicality.

Then explain why Gun and Black Tower “can’t“ touch anything that appears in Virtual Cabin, the items previously mentioned that you erroneously claimed aren’t part of the game.

Existing in the Virtual Cabin is not the same as taking control over the playable character. And no, a mask in a menu is not the same as an additional playable Jason build in game. It's also not the same as repurposing elements interactively. You're focusing on a UI element as a basis for playable, protected properties. That's not the same.

3 hours ago, Slasher_Clone said:

Damn it, how did I miss those items. I can think of tons of stuff to do with just what you listed. 

Also Jason X (Uber) is in the game files, not just the virtual cabin model but a 99% finished version of the character. His kills even have sounds attached, just not executed properly. Not that I expect that to change any of the answers given.

 

Edit - Apparently I’m not enough of a white knight, you guys get to have all the fun. 😕

 

 

Again, this 99% number is made up. There was still plenty of work to be done. May not seem like it, but there was and is. 

The question no one seems to be asking in order to help themselves understand this situation is "Why would Gun intentionally withhold Jason X unnecessarily if it was as finished as you claim?" We had already spent the money making him, so it's ultimately a loss. If he really was 99% done, why would we have held him back? It makes zero sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mattshotcha said:

The question no one seems to be asking in order to help themselves understand this situation is "Why would Gun intentionally withhold Jason X unnecessarily if it was as finished as you claim?"

Unfortunately, that's what all the conspiracy theorists think happened and are spreading it out to everyone that will believe them.  

I would love to have JX, and was crushed when the news of the lawsuit halted everything, but there's no doubt in my mind that if JX could have been released, we would have him. Like you said, that's money waisted if JX was held back for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slasher_Clone said:

@Brogan322, lots of games don’t have new content or DLC, so I don’t think that’s as good a reason as you think. Have you considered that the things they need to build for the Switch, ie. a LAN set up, will be useful in keeping all other versions of the game playable after the servers are turned off?

How about porting a game over to a new console without fixing the existing exploits and bugs? If they were small bugs I really wouldn't care, but the car and interaction lock have been bad for a while now. I mean you gotta admit porting a game to a new console when the game still itself still needs fixing doesn't seem like the most logical thing to do. And you're right most games don't have DLC, but the majority that don't are single player campaign games, while this is for the most part multiplayer, but the multiplayer games I seen ported to other consoles still release DLC (DBD was a port and is getting ported to Switch). Like I said it wouldn't look as bad if they gave notice in the Nintendo store about there being no future new content, but I highly doubt they would do anything like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattshotcha said:

 

In terms of what is available to the public, no it isn't the same. When discussing legal matters pertaining to an IP, that's what's important to distinguish. 

Everything in the Switch version is already available to the public.

LoF2 is a single player experience only.

Existing in the Virtual Cabin is not the same as taking control over the playable character. And no, a mask in a menu is not the same as an additional playable Jason build in game. It's also not the same as repurposing elements interactively. You're focusing on a UI element as a basis for playable, protected properties. That's not the same.

Again, this 99% number is made up. There was still plenty of work to be done. May not seem like it, but there was and is. 

The question no one seems to be asking in order to help themselves understand this situation is "Why would Gun intentionally withhold Jason X unnecessarily if it was as finished as you claim?" We had already spent the money making him, so it's ultimately a loss. If he really was 99% done, why would we have held him back? It makes zero sense.

Thanks. But that still doesn’t answer my question. We all saw the videos. So Jason X is already in the code as a playable character with kills. So why can’t he be released if you say it doesn’t count as new content if it’s already in the code? I just don’t get it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2019 at 9:06 PM, mattshotcha said:

There really is no discrepancy. Existing content as in existing for sale elsewhere, existing as in released. 

Everything in the Switch version is already available on other platforms. 

Jason X and Grendel are not, nor will they ever be. We can't possibly be any more clear than that.

As for the mask flash with Rage and Pamela laugh, they already exist in game. The laugh occurs in game already and the mask is the same mask from the lobby menu.

You also mention Jason X and Grendel being "previously available" and that's incorrect. They were never available. 

 

On 3/6/2019 at 10:04 PM, mattshotcha said:

He wasn’t complete, and he wasn’t fully functional. He also was never released, never available by standard means. I’m not sure I understand why you say released isn’t the case, because it is. He was never released for download. I can’t speak to Killer Puzzle as I do not work for them.

 

1 hour ago, mattshotcha said:

In terms of what is available to the public, no it isn't the same. When discussing legal matters pertaining to an IP, that's what's important to distinguish. 

Everything in the Switch version is already available to the public.

Existing in the Virtual Cabin is not the same as taking control over the playable character. And no, a mask in a menu is not the same as an additional playable Jason build in game. It's also not the same as repurposing elements interactively. You're focusing on a UI element as a basis for playable, protected properties. That's not the same.

Again, this 99% number is made up. There was still plenty of work to be done. May not seem like it, but there was and is. 

 

10 minutes ago, The Milwauking Dead said:

Thanks. But that still doesn’t answer my question. We all saw the videos. So Jason X is already in the code as a playable character with kills. So why can’t he be released if you say it doesn’t count as new content if it’s already in the code? I just don’t get it. 

I don't know how else I can say this. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mattshotcha said:

 

 

 

I don't know how else I can say this. 

Lol. I’m sorry! I just mean you’ve said that if it’s already in the code, it doesn’t count as new content. Which is why you could do fixes and add little things. The laugh, the rage mask, etc. Playable Jason X is in the code with kills. So it’s in the code. Why doesn’t that fall under the same category you’ve explained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Milwauking Dead said:

Lol. I’m sorry! I just mean you’ve said that if it’s already in the code, it doesn’t count as new content. Which is why you could do fixes and add little things. The laugh, the rage mask, etc. Playable Jason X is in the code with kills. So it’s in the code. Why doesn’t that fall under the same category you’ve explained?

Because it was never released to the public. As in regardless if it’s in the code it isn’t available for release anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Slasher_Clone said:

Because it was never released to the public. As in regardless if it’s in the code it isn’t available for release anymore. 

Ok. So theoretically, they could rearrange every existing cabin, tree, rock, water, etc to create more maps? In theory. Since those things are in the existing game already? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No they can't as it would be new content. They can only rearrange existing maps and modify existing playable content.

@The Milwauking Dead I think they could but won't.

Edited by F134Ever86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, F134Ever86 said:

No they can't as it would be new content. They can only rearrange existing maps and modify existing playable content.

So they could possibly make maps larger? As an example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did this lawsuit have to affect the game in the first place or why does this lawsuit even exist? 😭

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Milwauking Dead said:

So they could possibly make maps larger? As an example. 

Not really, not as I understand it they could only move the existing boundaries. So they could make them a little larger or smaller but not expand them. 

A better question is can they allow us to play on the SPC maps by moving them to multiplayer? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BigJay said:

Why did this lawsuit have to affect the game in the first place or why does this lawsuit even exist? 😭

I don't know and like you... hate it just as much. Gun has taken a lot of heat over this that they don't deserve.  I read plenty of post asking Gun for a Switch release. This is hardly a "cash grab" their listening to the community.  The Switch release will help bring more people to the game and help pay for dedicated servers. Gun is playing the hand that was dealt to them. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Slasher_Clone said:

Not really, not as I understand it they could only move the existing boundaries. So they could make them a little larger or smaller but not expand them. 

A better question is can they allow us to play on the SPC maps by moving them to multiplayer? 

One thing I’ve been asking for is the ability to move the AI behavior from Single Player Challenges to Offline Bots mode. So the counselors are actually doing things while you stalk and kill them. Not just in a panic right away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JED said:

And you three are perfect examples of white knights. No argument just insults hehe. I tried for years to give the makers of this game (and the people who took over and were suppose to make the game better) the benefit of the doubt. Well guess what..fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times...well that's not happening because I'm not a white knight or delusional.

 Also you can look at all my past comments and see I'm  not a "troll" but someone who's tired of waiting for this game to get fixed. I hope im wrong and they miraculously turn things around but its pretty obvious it's not going to happen. 

When you claim that they are using the lawsuit as an "excuse", that statement to so oblivious and ignorant to the reality that it does not warrent much response. You call it "white knighting", I call it "actually having a clue."

3 hours ago, mattshotcha said:

The question no one seems to be asking in order to help themselves understand this situation is "Why would Gun intentionally withhold Jason X unnecessarily if it was as finished as you claim?" We had already spent the money making him, so it's ultimately a loss. If he really was 99% done, why would we have held him back? It makes zero sense.

I apologize if at any point I insinuated I think you guys are choosing not to release him when you could. I've actually made the same argument as you have here in the past, why would you refuse to release it when it is so close to done and you put so much time into it? I just hope that since he's so close to done maybe someday he'll see the light of day. I know I'm hoping against reason, but it would really suck if all that hard work was for nothing.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Milwauking Dead said:

One thing I’ve been asking for is the ability to move the AI behavior from Single Player Challenges to Offline Bots mode. So the counselors are actually doing things while you stalk and kill them. Not just in a panic right away. 

This is interesting, not something I think straight bots are built for. I think that for the SPC bots it’s more like trains on a track and not generated interactions based on what’s happening around them. So I don’t think it’s actually possible to move it, as cool as it would be. It might be connected to something I’ve been thinking about though.  

I read that the bots behaviour is determined by selectable archetypes and was thinking how to make those selectable by the players. Without knowing the different archetypes, it makes it rather difficult. I was thinking of using the perk pictures as they seem appropriate, or most easily repurposed. I don’t know if it’s something other people would be interested in controlling but I want my bots to fight back or barricade and run cabin to cabin, not just leave when Jason is seen. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JED said:

And you three are perfect examples of white knights. No argument just insults hehe. I tried for years to give the makers of this game (and the people who took over and were suppose to make the game better) the benefit of the doubt. Well guess what..fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times...well that's not happening because I'm not a white knight or delusional.

 Also you can look at all my past comments and see I'm  not a "troll" but someone who's tired of waiting for this game to get fixed. I hope im wrong and they miraculously turn things around but its pretty obvious it's not going to happen. 

Wouldn't "social justice warrior" be more appropriate than "white knight"?

6 hours ago, Dragonfire82877 said:

Well if you aren’t a white knight, maybe you are the black knight. If so, I’m jealous. The black knight is awesome. 

Or, you could be the dark knight. Your real name isn’t Bruce is it?

I was the Dark Knight a while back, but I ditched my cape, cowl and utility belt for something a bit more colorful. I'm the Green Arrow now. 😎

6 hours ago, Brogan322 said:

I may get some hate with what I'm gonna say but I honestly just see this as a quick cash grab. If this game had a full singleplayer story/campaign (I don't consider singleplayer challenges a story/campaign)then I would really be more on board with this Switch release but since it doesn't, then I can't see anything but a cash grab. Multiplayer is the selling point of this game and with it still being very buggy at times, why go ahead and release it? I highly doubt by the time this releases on the Switch bugs (some bugs which have been around a long time) will be fixed and I can only imagine the new bugs that will be in the Switch version. I just don't think porting a game that already has a lot of bugs and exploits is the right thing to do but maybe they will surprise us and we won't see people on Switch on the Packanack roof or cars randomly being destroyed or no interaction lock.... but I highly doubt it. Like I said with multiplayer being the selling point I just think it's sorta wrong since they also can't add any new content, it's basically a company releasing a new multiplayer base game for a system that they have no plans to support besides the occasional patch fixes, which honestly doesn't look good on their part IMO. I do love this game and started playing it on Xbox when it was released and despite the horrible launch Xbox had with the constant crashing and with the lawsuit with no content I still stuck around because I enjoy the game. I respect the developers, I really do for what they gave us but I'm not sure I like this idea of releasing it on Switch. People coming into this game brand new from Switch might not know what they bought is what they get with no new content arriving, most won't know about the lawsuit new coming in and that's not their fault, but it would help if Gun gave a disclaimer in the Nintendo store about no new content will be released for the game. This is all just my opinion and I'm sure lots of people will probably disagree with me but I just felt like giving my honest feedback.

Haters are gonna hate. Speak your mind. I may not agree with everything you say, but I respect your right to say it.

4 hours ago, mattshotcha said:

Everything in the Switch version is already available to the public.

With this statement, people who plan on buying the Switch version should already know exactly what they are getting, and shouldn't have to ask why such and such isn't available to them.

3 hours ago, Dragonfire82877 said:

Unfortunately, that's what all the conspiracy theorists think happened and are spreading it out to everyone that will believe them.

That's how conspiracy theorists operate. They have the best of intentions, but it doesn't always work out that way.

2 hours ago, Brogan322 said:

How about porting a game over to a new console without fixing the existing exploits and bugs? If they were small bugs I really wouldn't care, but the car and interaction lock have been bad for a while now. I mean you gotta admit porting a game to a new console when the game still itself still needs fixing doesn't seem like the most logical thing to do. And you're right most games don't have DLC, but the majority that don't are single player campaign games, while this is for the most part multiplayer, but the multiplayer games I seen ported to other consoles still release DLC (DBD was a port and is getting ported to Switch). Like I said it wouldn't look as bad if they gave notice in the Nintendo store about there being no future new content, but I highly doubt they would do anything like that. 

To me, it would seem like porting a game (bugs and all) while there are still major fixes to implement, would make their work load harder. I'm not a coding expert, but I'd imagine fixing it on multiple platforms is not as simple as global fixes. Each one would seem like you have to treat the code differently. Would a well-versed coder mind weighing in on that?

1 hour ago, BigJay said:

Why did this lawsuit have to affect the game in the first place or why does this lawsuit even exist? 😭

It likely affected the game because it is called Friday the 13th: The Game.

The lawsuit exists because certain parties were looking at the dollar signs of the franchise, instead of thinking about the fans who are caught in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Slasher_Clone said:

This is interesting, not something I think straight bots are built for. I think that for the SPC bots it’s more like trains on a track and not generated interactions based on what’s happening around them. So I don’t think it’s actually possible to move it, as cool as it would be. It might be connected to something I’ve been thinking about though.  

I read that the bots behaviour is determined by selectable archetypes and was thinking how to make those selectable by the players. Without knowing the different archetypes, it makes it rather difficult. I was thinking of using the perk pictures as they seem appropriate, or most easily repurposed. I don’t know if it’s something other people would be interested in controlling but I want my bots to fight back or barricade and run cabin to cabin, not just leave when Jason is seen. 

 

I think what I mainly want are the kills from single player challenges. Like if we can sneak up on a bot repairing the car. Or near the stop sign. Or the electrical box kill. I’d like the bots to do those things in offline mode so we can use the single player kills there. 

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.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...