PDA

View Full Version : The Industry: What's Wrong With It?



Deus_Ex_Machina
21st Dec 2010, 08:11
I realize that this isn't directly related to DXHR, and as such I wouldn't object if any mods were to merge this with the "other games playing" thread, or even delete it. I only posted this in its own thread because I felt that a long, drawn-out reply about my perspective on the videogame industry in the "other games playing" thread would seem out place and confusing.


Where do I begin?

I guess I'll start with common complaints that "hardcore gamers", as well as industry insiders and journalists, have about the current state of the industry. Here it goes:



1) Regenerating Health

This is a big one, especially on these forums. Regen health has been universally celebrated and reviled since it became a standard after a certain sci-fi FPS franchise popularized it. Proponents of regen health say that it helps keep the flow of the game consistent. Opponents of health regen say it's taking away the challenge present in games and even takes away from a game's depth, a game's immersion. However you feel about health regen, there's no arguing that it's a topic that gamers feel very strongly about. Personally, I hate health regen and wish it wasn't an industry standard.

2) The Buying and Selling of Used Games

This is also a big one, since it affects the heads of the industry as well as gamers. On one hand, if a financially challenged gamer wants to pick up a game, but can't afford it at retail price, used games are a great alternative. However, several devs (especially EA) have come up with so called "online passes" that are only included with new copies of games, which is very inconvenient for used game purchasers. On the other hand, smaller game devs (especially the smaller ones in Europe) can't afford to lose money due to used game sells, as in some cases it really hurts the small studios. However you feel about the buying and selling of used games, it's certainly an issue that will stay with the industry, for better or worse, for quite some time.

3) Motion Controls: It's What's Hot

Everyone and their grandmother has seen the onslaught of advertisements concerning motion controlled games. In some cases, everyone and their grandmother has played/is playing motion controlled games. This recent fad has gotten so big that now every platform has motion control tech and games. Some say it's an evolution of gaming, that handheld controllers were holding the industry (and potential consumers $$$) back. Others, like myself, say this obsession with motion controls is ridiculous and will only end badly for the industry as a whole (it already has for some (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIUUzmflyBQ)).

4) A.I. - Assinine Intelligence

Most, if not all, gamers would agree that A.I. is the one thing that hasn't improved since the last generation. I myself am stunned as to why something as important as A.I. has been so neglected by the industry as a whole.

5) DLC: Or How We Got Charged You For What's Supposed To Be In The Game At Launch

Many gamers, especially those on these forums, have complained about this issue. As is the norm with most devs of today, "additional" content is added as a pre-order incentive. However, this "additional" content is, more often than not, finished before the game goes gold and could easily have been added on the disc before release.

6) Sequel 2: Milking The Cow

Every dev out there feels the need to make sequel or trilogy or franchise out of everything. Stand alone games are quickly fading from existence, and I for one think it's a damn shame, since there are PLENTY of games out there that DON'T need sequels.

7) "Single-Player Only Games Aren't Feasible Anymore"

Many devs feel this way (especially EA (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/12/08/ea-says-single-player-gaming-is-on-the-way-out.aspx)) and I can't stand it. Sure, some games that were SP focused now have MP that's actually original and fun (here's looking at you, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood). However, the same can't be said for the vast majority of games where MP failed (here's looking at you, Bioshock 2).



The next thing I'd like to bring up is the ultimate question: Why? Why are devs doing some of the things listed above? If Occam's Razor has taught me anything, the answer is:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5127/5279842304_ff0480cc6e_m.jpg

Now, I don't for one second believe that all game devs got into game design to be greedy, thumb-twiddling evil doers. Well, maybe this guy:

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5593/dugaslaugh.gif

I think most, if not all, game devs got into the videogame industry because they themselves were gamers and wanted to bring something to the industry that they themselves, as well as other gamers, would love. I think somewhere along the line, greed got the better of some (most) devs out there, and, as Dugas put it, "the industry grew up." :(


As a gamer who has been gaming for a solid 20+ years, I'm starting to see a pattern emerging. I see many devs out there all doing the same things with their games, most of which I have listed above. The problem with having a lot of devs all doing the same thing over and over is that, eventually, something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videogame_crash) happens. I'm not trying to be a downer, nor am I attempting to be the "Nostradamus" of the videogame industry. I'm just very concerned with the current state of the industry and I fear the worst may happen, meaning:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4998017370_6241bd180e.jpg




So, how do you feel about what I posted? Agree? Disagree? Care to add anything?

avenging_teabag
21st Dec 2010, 08:53
You're being overly dramatic.

There's nothing wrong with game industry - nothing that the movie industry, the music industry and basically every entertainment industry hasn't gone through in their time. I was gaming, on and off, since the early 90-ies, and although I'm not terribly familiar with the inner workings, i think it's a natural process. I've seen this same circle repeat itself several times already - cries of SELLOUT! DUMB MASSES! $$$ IS ALL THEY CARE ABOUT! Yes, there are sellouts, and there are dumb masses (as always), but people stay fundamentally the same, and in the end, I believe you will get better, more diverse product, a market where there's something for everyone. That is, unless we'll get taken over by space aliens in the nearest future. :flowers: That's my honest opinion anyway.

Daedatheus
21st Dec 2010, 08:56
I agree with much of this but I really don't think GREED is the big issue here. It's sustainability, success and expansion. The heads of EA want their titles to be successful and their company to expand, so yes - that COULD be called greed. But the devs, the artists, the programmers? Not only do they need to sustain their own living, but they also need to sustain employment. They face pressure from higher-ups to conform to these things and make generic and carbon-copy games. So as far as I see it, it's not so much the devs as it is the marketing managers, CEOs, and others who run the business as a "business."

Also, regen health is not the foundation of the issue. The way "health" is treated in videogames, and the way that mechanic is considered standard and unchanging, is the problem. There ARE new and original ways to handle the health issue, but everyone's too afraid to try. For christ's sake we still press a "use" button to interact with so many things in a game world like a door, with a fixed reaction, yet other objects in that same world have realistic physics interactions with us in unpredictable and new ways?

For innovation in games one must question the most basic of mechanics that we've become accustomed to. Of course, these are RISKS and while often successful and praised these kinds of risks, are well, risky. Risky does not equal guaranteed profit. AAA titles backed by big studios cost a LOT OF MONEY to make and a company and dev team that needs to be sustainable can't afford to take a ton of risks. Sadly this is why this kind of scene emerges. Not necessarily greed.

DLC, on the other hand, is like a mod community that charges you money. THAT is unequivocally, definitely, greed. 15$ for a few new maps in Black Ops? **** off.

Now, the gaming industry is not absolutely ruined yet. Look at mainstream film - mostly garbage and formulaic. Games DO appear to be headed down that path. However, look at indie film. Amazing things come out of there. Same with indie games. The problem is simply budget, we want these truly original films and games to have production values equal or rivalling the AAA titles... which makes this all fairly sad. The interesting thing about this parallel is that not only does the economic model match between movies and games, but the artistic direction of games is following movies as well. Games today try too hard to be movies - linear, flashy, scripted. But the best games (like DX1) do things that only games can do in their special way - immersion, choice, non-linearity and a special brand of emotional reaction - they even provide escape to a degree only the finest arts can. Devs need to try harder to do with games what only games can do, and no other medium can. Stop trying to storytell like movies.

Donvermicelli
21st Dec 2010, 09:37
You could also add the point that every developer feels to implement X feature because:"hey it worked for game Y!"

Also what Japan is doing at the moment seems like complete suicide to me, they are removing key Japanese features from games so they become more sell-able on American markets. Makes you wonder why they Japanese games were so popular in the first place (they were something different maybe?)

Thing is, I guess the financial crisis hit the industry more than it would like to admit (or we would like to admit) and developers decide to take the 'safe' way and only produce games that have features that 'work' so they are more accessible to the masses. While this probably saves them in the short term this will kill most in the long term because innovation seems to be dropped completely.

Brockxz
21st Dec 2010, 09:43
The problem with 4th point is that to make good AI is really hard and there is not really good programmers and industry to do that. Most of gamedev studios reuse things already done and adjust something for their game. Also i say that we will most likely will see AI programming improvements in next 2-3 years (industry most likely will shift towards behavior trees AI).
Also I don 't see the problem with number 6th because if title is successful why not to try make a sequel. Of course i hate such things as new sequel every year when actually nothing really new has been added to franchise gameplay-wise. Most of the todays sequels are dumbing down from original (removing things and streamlining everything so that everyone could understand how to play and everyone can complete the game without any problems).
Also number 7, I hate this. :D It's like everyone obsessed that CoD sells so well because of multiplayer so they put multiplayer in every title that had successful single player part hoping that they will get a slice from that CoD pie. The problem is that history shows that only a really small % have succeeded in doing that and most of those who try to copy other success formula actually lose not gain.

Red
21st Dec 2010, 10:36
It has grown up.

:badum tiss:

Irate_Iguana
21st Dec 2010, 10:47
It has grown up.

We need a macro for this. Just like that terrific GREENLIGHT macro we had.

Unstoppable
21st Dec 2010, 12:06
If there was something wrong with the game industry it should be pointed toward the treatment of Developers by big Publishers.

Just look at how Activision fired the core team behind the Call of Duty franchise and refused to pay them their bonuses. In turn the developers have sued and opened up a new studio with EA games.

Look at how Viacom is trying to get rid of Harmonix just because their latest game Rock Band 3 did not sell millions of copies like the previous two.

The list goes on and on. There are still independent studios who sign deals with publishers which are reasonable thank the lucky stars. Also there are still publishers who decide not to rush their games out like Square Enix learned with their latest catastrophe Final Fantasy 14.

Did you know that developers for Red Dead Redemption did not get a day off.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RockstarSpouse/20100107/4032/Wives_of_Rockstar_San_Diego_employees_have_collected_themselves.php

rokstrombo
21st Dec 2010, 12:09
I think the most issues with the gaming industry as far as gamers are concerned are the rapidly increasing production costs and the greater competition from other forms of digital entertainment that are much cheaper to produce. There is also less incentive to please cynical "hardcore" gamers who are tiring of current games, when there are increasing numbers of younger people entering the primary demographic each year to compensate for this decline.

thedosbox
21st Dec 2010, 12:43
6) Sequel 2: Milking The Cow

Every dev out there feels the need to make sequel or trilogy or franchise out of everything. Stand alone games are quickly fading from existence, and I for one think it's a damn shame, since there are PLENTY of games out there that DON'T need sequels.

7) "Single-Player Only Games Aren't Feasible Anymore"

Many devs feel this way (especially EA (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/12/08/ea-says-single-player-gaming-is-on-the-way-out.aspx)) and I can't stand it. Sure, some games that were SP focused now have MP that's actually original and fun (here's looking at you, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood). However, the same can't be said for the vast majority of games where MP failed (here's looking at you, Bioshock 2).


Take a look at your game collection. What percentage of those are from the big publishers? How many of those sequels do you have? Now take a look in the mirror.



The next thing I'd like to bring up is the ultimate question: Why? Why are devs doing some of the things listed above?

We're talking about companies whose objective is to make money for their shareholders. They've settled on their current strategy to appease those shareholders. Whether this will hurt them in the long run remains to be seen.

Don't like it? Then rather wait to be told which recycled "AAA" game to play, look for good indie games and support developers who come up with original games.

Heck, it's the holiday season, go throw some money at the Humble Bundle 2 (http://www.humblebundle.com/) to benefit Childs Play and you might discover some interesting games.

[edit] just realized that you might be a console gamer, in which case my condolences :D

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
21st Dec 2010, 13:30
As a gamer who has been gaming for a solid 20+ years, I'm starting to see a pattern emerging. I see many devs out there all doing the same things with their games, most of which I have listed above. The problem with having a lot of devs all doing the same thing over and over is that, eventually, something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videogame_crash) happens.

Of course all games from 1980-1995 were completely different from each other, right? The biggest changes were in 1995 with the 32-bit machines and the 3D revolution. But I don't see how you can imply that gaming has always been this exciting industry where new revolutionary ideas are being churned out every few years, because that is BS.

CoDEllite
21st Dec 2010, 15:35
WOW. At first when I saw the title of this thread I thought RESURRECTION but then I looked at the post count and saw what you did there ;) . But I think the answer you are looking for is "it grew up". But let me ask you a question :). Who plays just single player only games these days? Unless you have no friends to play on xbox live or something in which case that is very sad :( .

ZakKa89
21st Dec 2010, 16:03
WOW. At first when I saw the title of this thread I thought RESURRECTION but then I looked at the post count and saw what you did there ;) . But I think the answer you are looking for is "it grew up". But let me ask you a question :). Who plays just single player only games these days? Unless you have no friends to play on xbox live or something in which case that is very sad :( .

You don't need to have friends on xbox live to play games with other people you know. Some people have friends on PSN, Steam or you know: Real life.

Corpus
21st Dec 2010, 16:07
WOW. At first when I saw the title of this thread I thought RESURRECTION but then I looked at the post count and saw what you did there ;) . But I think the answer you are looking for is "it grew up". But let me ask you a question :). Who plays just single player only games these days? Unless you have no friends to play on xbox live or something in which case that is very sad :( .

So people should only play games with friends? Some people can actually have fun on their own you know.

lithos
21st Dec 2010, 16:10
So people should only play games with friends? Some people can actually have fun on their own you know.

Talking to CodEllite about independence is like talking to Than Shwe about democracy.

St. Mellow
21st Dec 2010, 16:16
Did you notice he has an IW avatar?

lithos
21st Dec 2010, 16:23
Multiplayer is boring, in the same way I find soccer or cricket boring. It's a sport, not art, and the sooner everyone figures that out, the better gaming will be.

Unfortunately, singleplayer games are hard. You have to work out narrative (sometimes several!) flesh out characters, design levels, hire voice actors, direct the voice actors, play test to buggery (although many developers seem to be skipping that bit,) write AI and scripts, weapon design, work out mechanics, graphics, sound, physics.

Multi's a piece o' piss. Do a few levels. Design weapons and models, netcode, graphics, sound physics, you're done. No AI, no scripts, few if any voice actors, no pesky writers rolling their eyes every time the coders suggest "We should do something like Movie X!" Any glaring oversights, just patch it out a week after launch - doing that in multi's much more forgivable than in single, because if there's a balance issue or exploit, half the blame goes towards the players who use them. The bulk of the work is done by the rubes who paid for it - it's win-win!

The other thing about the industry is that the the games "journalists" are a joke.

ZakKa89
21st Dec 2010, 16:25
;1545824']Did you notice he has an IW avatar?

Obviously trolling us ; )

Corpus
21st Dec 2010, 16:35
The other thing about the industry is that the the games "journalists" are a joke.

I agree entirely with this. Very rarely will you find a 'game journalist' not just some guy who mildly enjoys a select few games and decided to get the job. What annoys me most is the reviews nowadays are worse than before. Heavily based on opinion and aimed more towards a more casual audience rather than attempting to look at the game from all angles.

The problem with multiplayer is the quality of it is mostly to due with the community surrounding it not just the actual design. COD gets such grief for being a bad game primarily because its selling point is the multiplayer and the community isn't exactly the best.

lithos
21st Dec 2010, 17:01
I agree entirely with this. Very rarely will you find a 'game journalist' not just some guy who mildly enjoys a select few games and decided to get the job. What annoys me most is the reviews nowadays are worse than before. Heavily based on opinion and aimed more towards a more casual audience rather than attempting to look at the game from all angles.

Reviews are meant to be opinion - it's hard to write them any other way, if not impossible. You're meant to know the *reviewer* as well - know his tastes and opinions, so you've got a frame of reference.

The other thing is that none of them are willing to ask any hard questions. There was an interview with Mike Laidlaw in a PC gaming magazine here, and they asked him if Dragon Age: Origins sold better on PC than consoles. Laidlaw replied with a nicely meaningless piece of PR phrase: "We had good attach across all platforms." And the mag accepted that, said that Laidlaw didn't offer any percentages. I'm thinking, did you even ask for any?


The problem with multiplayer is the quality of it is mostly to due with the community surrounding it not just the actual design. COD gets such grief for being a bad game primarily because its selling point is the multiplayer and the community isn't exactly the best.

No, I find the actually gameplay soulless and repetitive. It's a taste thing, of course. But to call single and multi interchangeable is a grave mistake, and I hope EA wakes up to it. Again, it's a case of "X worked in Game Y, so we're doing it in this one."

It makes me wonder, though, why bother with the singleplayer aspect in games like COD?

Corpus
21st Dec 2010, 17:08
Reviews are meant to be opinion - it's hard to write them any other way, if not impossible. You're meant to know the *reviewer* as well - know his tastes and opinions, so you've got a frame of reference.

No, I find the actually gameplay soulless and repetitive. It's a taste thing, of course. But to call single and multi interchangeable is a grave mistake, and I hope EA wakes up to it. Again, it's a case of "X worked in Game Y, so we're doing it in this one."

It makes me wonder, though, why bother with the singleplayer aspect in games like COD?

I know reviews are meant for opinion but they should at least say "I don't like it/I don't like x features but if you enjoy x game then you'll enjoy this". Thats something I hardly see anymore.

I too wonder why COD or any other game where MP is the selling point bothers with SP. There is hardly any story behind it. Just an excuse to show the generic 'badass' characters ignoring explosions. Same applies for most military shooters of today.

VectorM
21st Dec 2010, 17:40
And, as always, the game industry will be completely fine at the end of the day.

K^2
21st Dec 2010, 17:58
You're being overly dramatic.
That he is, but the main points aren't wrong. Being a big business harms the quality of the game that are being made. When game-makers were in charge of making money from the game, the game still came first, because that's all they knew how to do. But when professional money-makers were given charge, it all went to hell in hand-basket, and I don't really see a way to recover from it without a major game market crash.

Happy
21st Dec 2010, 18:30
Don't we have like, five or six threads on this topic already?

ZakKa89
21st Dec 2010, 18:50
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6157/graphmh.jpg

Don't mind the typo.
I am a genius

Adam Moore
21st Dec 2010, 18:53
If there was something wrong with the game industry it should be pointed toward the treatment of Developers by big Publishers.

Just look at how Activision fired the core team behind the Call of Duty franchise and refused to pay them their bonuses. In turn the developers have sued and opened up a new studio with EA games.

Look at how Viacom is trying to get rid of Harmonix just because their latest game Rock Band 3 did not sell millions of copies like the previous two.

The list goes on and on. There are still independent studios who sign deals with publishers which are reasonable thank the lucky stars. Also there are still publishers who decide not to rush their games out like Square Enix learned with their latest catastrophe Final Fantasy 14.

Did you know that developers for Red Dead Redemption did not get a day off.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RockstarSpouse/20100107/4032/Wives_of_Rockstar_San_Diego_employees_have_collected_themselves.php

The games industry is not perfect. There are plenty of problems not listed in the OP and this is one of the big ones. Check out the IGDA Quality of Life White Paper (http://archives.igda.org/qol/whitepaper.php) for more info.

Deus_Ex_Machina
21st Dec 2010, 20:08
;1545824']Did you notice he has an IW avatar?

Yes, I do.

I figure since DXHR has set it's sights on the masses rather than the hardcore fans of the original DX, I thought changing my avatar would be appropriate. Also changed my sig.

Happy
21st Dec 2010, 21:30
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6157/graphmh.jpg

Don't mind the typo.
I am a genius


Zakka FTW :)

singularity
21st Dec 2010, 22:20
We rant and rave about the industry as a whole... but I'm not completely downtroden about it. I wanted my super-hard, old-school esque single player adventure... Demons Souls and Devil May Cry have been there for me. I wanted my "drink beer and have fun with the guys on Saturday game" -- Call of Duty and Rock Band have filled the role wonderfully. I want my involving, rich story, deep characters and cool universe game. Mass Effect, Batman AA, Metal Gear Solid and Assassin's Creed 2 have picked up the slack pretty well.

Yeah -- the industry may not have "grown up" in the way our geeky 16-year-old selves wanted it to -- but in all honesty, I'm really not complaining. It could be a whole lot worse.

Then again, I can enjoy just about anything -- regenerating health and sequels be damned. Doesn't mean I'll buy anything, but I'm not very picky. :-)

Archy
21st Dec 2010, 22:32
the industry has moved on from the late 90s guys
deal with it

luminar
21st Dec 2010, 22:37
the industry has moved on from the late 90s guys
deal with it

Or we could not accept it and instead do something about it!

Kodaemon
21st Dec 2010, 22:52
We can start again... live in villages...

Fluffis
21st Dec 2010, 22:59
the industry has moved on from the late 90s guys
deal with it

Moved on, yes. Just not forward. Sort of to the side. And now it's sitting in one place, treading water.

motsm
21st Dec 2010, 23:20
The game industry grew too fast, simple as that.

I personally despise the industry right now, find almost every game out there down right horrendous to a sickening degree. However, as others have said, I think the industry will even out eventually and get through this phase of bile shoveling within the next decade or so. Well, it better not take any longer than that.

Shralla
22nd Dec 2010, 00:00
I think the industry will even out eventually and get through this phase of bile shoveling within the next decade or so. Well, it better not take any longer than that.

You realize that's what people said about the music industry when The Beatles were first came out, right?

Believing what you said is pretty ridiculous.

motsm
22nd Dec 2010, 01:20
You realize that's what people said about the music industry when The Beatles were first came out, right?

Believing what you said is pretty ridiculous.The gaming industry is completely different than the music industry, so I'd say you are the ridiculous one for believing in that comparison.

For starters, music has been around forever, and the industry itself has been around far ages. It's not something that is in it's infancy, or that's just recently exploded like video gaming has. On top of that, music can happen on a much smaller scale. Maybe I hate what the mainstream music industry has to offer? No problem, I can find literally hundreds of thousands of bands, artists, and composers off the beaten path making very high quality music. Even if I do like the mainstream, and am just looking for more of the same, I can find plenty of that too within the underground scene.

That doesn't line up with gaming, the underground of gaming consists mostly of simple flash games, highly experimental conceptual games, or very obviously low budget productions. Of course there are the rare exceptions, but you will essentially never find games of similar scope to what the mainstream gaming industry offers.

In other words, if the millions of people that didn't find the mainstream appealing in the music industry had no alternative, that mainstream would eventually evolve into that market to at least a bigger degree then they currently were. The gaming industry is just too young to have moved past it's recently found problems. Not that we haven't been seeing small changes already, with typically small and foreign games reaching more into the mainstream to fill a portion of the gap. Even ports have improved generally, not that they are near where they should be, but they are much better than the days of Invisible War and the like.

VectorM
22nd Dec 2010, 01:54
Even if you ignore comparisons with other industries, this is not the first time that people have feared the Doomsday.

Adam Moore
22nd Dec 2010, 02:40
Even if you ignore comparisons with other industries, this is not the first time that people have feared the Doomsday.

The game industry crashed in '83 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%20North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983) and managed to come back from it.

With how large of an industry the games industry is today - if it dies off then it's going to be for a far bigger reason than mediocre game design. GDC '09 showed me how the industry handled the worst of the recession. A lot of developers had been laid off, most people on the expo floor were job hunting, and they were competing for very few openings. EA didn't have their usual spot on the floor - most likely in the interest of conserving their funds. It was a very depressing year on the expo floor at GDC...but the industry is in recovery.

This is a really exciting time in the industry (http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2010/12/13/game-design-has-become-a-game/). The landscape has been changing thanks to digital distribution and now developers aren't as dependent on publishers as they used to be. I'm in a small indie group working on Facebook games in our free time. We're going to crowd-source our funding through Kickstarter once we hit production. We'd be working out of a garage if any of us had one. :lmao:

PS - Is your avatar Bobby Kotick!?

Archy
22nd Dec 2010, 02:56
Or we could not accept it and instead do something about it!

whining on a forum won't change the industry
gaming's gone big now, it has to appeal to a large audience. if all games appealed to niche audiences (eg hardcore gamers) then the whole industry would go the way of comic books

Archy
22nd Dec 2010, 02:59
Moved on, yes. Just not forward. Sort of to the side. And now it's sitting in one place, treading water.

gaming has grown significantly. with that growth has come a need to appeal to a large audience

VectorM
22nd Dec 2010, 03:01
The game industry crashed in '83 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%20North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983) and managed to come back from it.


And even then it came back on its feet right away. Just one the reasons I am not worried about anything.


PS - Is your avatar Bobby Kotick!?

http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bobby-kotick-activision.jpg

Deus_Ex_Machina
22nd Dec 2010, 03:21
http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bobby-kotick-activision.jpg

Whenever I see that image, I think of lulzy articles like this one (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/16/activision-publishing-ceo-says-perception-of-the-company-is-diff/) or this one (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/21/activision-claims-ea-and-former-iw-execs-schemed-to-inflict-ser/).

motsm
22nd Dec 2010, 04:02
whining on a forum won't change the industry
gaming's gone big now, it has to appeal to a large audience. if all games appealed to niche audiences (eg hardcore gamers) then the whole industry would go the way of comic booksNo it wouldn't, it would just stay smaller.

mentalkase
22nd Dec 2010, 04:50
I think some of you look at the past with rose coloured glasses. While I agree that the turn of the century was a peak in terms of the quality of the best games, there was a hell of a lot of shovelware too. The overall average level of quality has gone up, and peoples expectations are higher. The worst turd now is considerably better than the worst turd of 15 yrs ago, if you want proof of that just watch 'The angry video game nerd'. The absolute turkeys he reviews just would not pass quality assurance now. People seem to forget that 70% of games being made back then were absolute rubbish.

There's an awful lot more games being made now than ever before, and most of those, while not brilliant, are playable. We're just incredibly spoilt for choice, which makes us incredibly choosy.

I'm not trying to argue that games haven't become more generic, but that's an obvious bi-product of the size of the business, it's the same thing that has happened to blockbuster movies. Anything that purports to be 'AAA' or 'blockbuster' is almost by definition seeking to reach the broadest audience.

FrankCSIS
22nd Dec 2010, 05:55
'm not trying to argue that games haven't become more generic, but that's an obvious bi-product of the size of the business,

This be the part which hurts the most. This industry is not doomed, it's just...slightly boring. It lacks variety, it lacks imagination, it's too anchored in our mainstream world and pop culture. Little Big Adventure, Normality or Day of the Tentacle would never emerge in our current setting. This is what truly worries me.

Fluffis
22nd Dec 2010, 08:31
You realize that's what people said about the music industry when The Beatles were first came out, right?


Actually, it was also what part of the music industry said about The Beatles...



gaming has grown significantly. with that growth has come a need to appeal to a large audience


They came to gaming all on their own. There is no need to alter anything to keep them. They're already here.

What we're talking about in this case is not "appealing to a large audience". It's about attracting a new audience. Just to get the facts straight.

CoDEllite
22nd Dec 2010, 15:57
I personally despise the industry right now, find almost every game out there down right horrendous to a sickening degree.

Thats a rather horrendous view to hold. SO I guess you also consider modern games such as Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect 2 to be horrendous and totally undeserving of praise? LOL whatever I'm not gonna bother arguing wit you ... go back to "real" gaming on your 20 year old Commodore.


You realize that's what people said about the music industry when The Beatles were first came out, right?

Believing what you said is pretty ridiculous.

+1 :thumb:

Anasumtj
22nd Dec 2010, 16:15
Just curious, but since when did Mass Effect 2 become part of some gaming holy grail?

I ask that as somebody who quite enjoyed the game. It was a lean and tight experience, but it also bore the hallmarks of everything that's currently going wrong with a lot of today's titles: Brutally simplified, linear to a fault, and many of its mechanical underpinnings laid bare underneath a thin narrative overlay (Why are there chest high walls all over this prison station? Who cares).

CoDEllite
22nd Dec 2010, 16:22
Brutally simplified

Disagree. It wasn't simplified or "dumbeddown". Rather it was streamlined and there is a difference. Getting rid of the inventory and some of the unnecessary rpg elements was what many critics praised in how the game improved over it Mass Effect 1. It took rpg game formula to the next level rather then keeping with the archaic gameplay notions of the 90s.

lithos
22nd Dec 2010, 16:34
I ask that as somebody who quite enjoyed the game. It was a lean and tight experience, but it also bore the hallmarks of everything that's currently going wrong with a lot of today's titles: Brutally simplified, linear to a fault, and many of its mechanical underpinnings laid bare underneath a thin narrative overlay (Why are there chest high walls all over this prison station? Who cares).

Aye, I found it exasperating that it topped so many GOTY lists. No inventory, near-identical weapons, and quite a few plotholes.

I don't care how good technology is, I don't think you're ever gonna be able to resurrect someone with their memories intact after they've been floating in space for two years. And how come when you walk into your old boss's office, and inform him you're now working for an outlawed terrorist organisation, he doesn't bat an eye?

It had killer Invisible War Syndrome - simplified compared to its predecessor, more linear, and smaller level sizes. A classic IWS symptom - an area you visited in the first game (the Citadel,) is much tinier than when you visited it in the first (like Liberty Island in DX and IW.) And what's an RPG without loot?

I used to be of the opinion that games need better narrative. ME2's got a decent one, but it also made me realise no one in the industry knows how the hell to tell a story in a game, nor is anyone keen to figure it out. Instead they just fall back on endless cutscenes and conversations, and gleefully cut out gameplay.

Mindmute
22nd Dec 2010, 16:43
it also made me realise no one in the industry knows how the hell to tell a story in a game, nor is anyone keen to figure it out

Obsidian's not half bad at it.

lithos
22nd Dec 2010, 17:57
Obsidian's not half bad at it.

Well, I'm talking more about the mechanics of game storytelling - ie, going beyond cutscenes (which are movie mechanics.) That was ME2's problem. Vast slabs of conversations and cutscenes, but diluted, minimal gameplay.

What did EM say about the takedown cutscenes? That those're the reward for sneaking up on the guards (ie, the gameplay?) It's a common philosophy, these days. Instead of a cutscene being something you persevere through to get to gameplay, gameplay's what you sit through to get to cutscenes. The works is now the reward and the reward is now the work.

Obsidian, though, do more with the narrative than is normally done, and they kick arse at branching narratives. (How many endings did Fallout: New Vegas have again? How many ways could you get there?) And Alpha Protocol was great at this.

Unfortunately, they're not too good at the "stability" bit of game making...

Mindmute
22nd Dec 2010, 18:20
Obsidian, though, do more with the narrative than is normally done, and they kick arse at branching narratives. (How many endings did Fallout: New Vegas have again? How many ways could you get there?) And Alpha Protocol was great at this.

Unfortunately, they're not too good at the "stability" bit of game making...

Or the actual finishing of the product. KoToR:TSL and NWN2 would've been classics if they had been properly finished, instead of being just another decent game.

I recently replayed TSL with the latest Restored Content Mod and it seriously shines. There were points where I felt like I was playing a totally different game and could finally see where Obsidian was going with the narrative.

Archy
22nd Dec 2010, 19:28
No it wouldn't, it would just stay smaller.

and that's exactly how comics died, they didn't grow
with that lack of growth came a lack of interest from investors/customers, with that lack of investors/customers came a lack of money. you can see where i'm going with this now.

K^2
22nd Dec 2010, 19:33
Disagree. It wasn't simplified or "dumbeddown". Rather it was streamlined and there is a difference. Getting rid of the inventory and some of the unnecessary rpg elements was what many critics praised in how the game improved over it Mass Effect 1. It took rpg game formula to the next level rather then keeping with the archaic gameplay notions of the 90s.
How can you actually believe that? You are basically quoting marketing bull crap that exists for no other reason than to justify to you a game that's cheaper to debug, faster to develop, and easier to sell. These are the reasons for which the game was "streamlined". You know, castration can also be called "streamlining". It greatly improves aerodynamic qualities of one's body. It also makes it biologically useless. But hey, "We streamlined this game," sounds a lot better than, "We castrated this game," doesn't it?

Try to read between the lines. Try to think why people say what they say. People don't say anything without a motive. Especially people who are payed to say what they say. Game reviewers in particular.

Anasumtj
22nd Dec 2010, 21:41
Disagree. It wasn't simplified or "dumbeddown". Rather it was streamlined and there is a difference. Getting rid of the inventory and some of the unnecessary rpg elements was what many critics praised in how the game improved over it Mass Effect 1. It took rpg game formula to the next level rather then keeping with the archaic gameplay notions of the 90s.

Nobody will argue that ME1 had a perfect system for inventory, or that the usefulness of some skills weren't questionable. But you're going to have to break down for me how gutting them entirely and delivering half of the RPG that was in the first title in any way constitutes "taking it to the next level".

Are you seriously going to tell me that the grand total of three weapon swaps you get for each firearm type (two for pistols) wasn't in any way a lazy, half-developed idea? There's no point to an inventory system if every new weapon you get is just going to be a linear upgrade from the previous gun. You never had to make a choice in your loadout in considering range, power, stability, or anything like that. You could argue that such tradeoffs didn't really matter in ME2's environments, which is true. But that's only because Bioware decided to piecemeal every world into a couple of corridors and removed any planetary exploration. As for your character? Same ****. Simplifying character development to just ability power for the most part was a pretty drastic step back. That made it an RPG in the same sense that games like Bayonetta are RPGs... which is to say they aren't, really.

I know, I know. That's fine for you and your tastes. It is still an RPG in the most bare bones of ways and ME2 is certainly not a model other RPGs should aspire to.

Fluffis
22nd Dec 2010, 22:05
Nobody will argue that ME1 had a perfect system for inventory, or that the usefulness of some skills weren't questionable. But you're going to have to break down for me how gutting them entirely and delivering half of the RPG that was in the first title in any way constitutes "taking it to the next level".


It is the next level. Unfortunately, it's a level down.

mentalkase
23rd Dec 2010, 00:18
I hope that in the case of ME2 they felt that a more action oriented model just suited that particular series. I haven't played it yet but honestly I found the 'loot' system in ME boring in the extreme. There was no feeling of reward whatsoever with the swapping out of weapons in that game to me. Maybe they just felt that in the particular case of a ME game it suited being a more straightforward action rpg. Although that they seem to be taking a similar design philosophy in DA2 is a worry.

lithos
23rd Dec 2010, 02:46
How can you actually believe that? You are basically quoting marketing bull crap that exists for no other reason than to justify to you a game that's cheaper to debug, faster to develop, and easier to sell. These are the reasons for which the game was "streamlined". You know, castration can also be called "streamlining". It greatly improves aerodynamic qualities of one's body. It also makes it biologically useless. But hey, "We streamlined this game," sounds a lot better than, "We castrated this game," doesn't it?

+1. And was that a Lance Armstrong reference?


Nobody will argue that ME1 had a perfect system for inventory, or that the usefulness of some skills weren't questionable. But you're going to have to break down for me how gutting them entirely and delivering half of the RPG that was in the first title in any way constitutes "taking it to the next level".

All ME1's inventory needed was tabs for sorting. That's it. "Pistols," "Assault Rifles," "Grenades." And also for it not to keep resetting to to the top of the item list everytime you sold something. That was it.


Are you seriously going to tell me that the grand total of three weapon swaps you get for each firearm type (two for pistols) wasn't in any way a lazy, half-developed idea?

I didn't even figure out what weapon I was using in ME2 - because they all felt the same. When you picked up a new weapon in a level, I didn't know if Shepherd equipped it immediately, or if you had to go back to the Normandy and equip it at the weapon locker. They all felt the same. Not until I got through about 80% of game and got a sniper rifle with a significantly longer zoom than my old one did I find out it did upgrade in the level.


It is still an RPG in the most bare bones of ways and ME2 is certainly not a model other RPGs should aspire to.

All it takes for a game to be labeled an "RPG" these days is for it to have your character change a bit or for your character to get new equipment. Doom was an RPG in that sense.

ME2 is a great example of how adding simplified RPG elements allows for the minimisation of player skill and the removal of any sort of learning curve. As the game gets more challenging, don't worry, you character will adapt.


I hope that in the case of ME2 they felt that a more action oriented model just suited that particular series. I haven't played it yet but honestly I found the 'loot' system in ME boring in the extreme. There was no feeling of reward whatsoever with the swapping out of weapons in that game to me. Maybe they just felt that in the particular case of a ME game it suited being a more straightforward action rpg. Although that they seem to be taking a similar design philosophy in DA2 is a worry.

Yet the action wasn't that great. Bioware can't make shooters, which is exactly what they were trying to do with ME2.

I got the exact same feeling from ME2, didn't get it as much in ME1.

Big Tobacco
23rd Dec 2010, 21:09
The industry took to many ideas from the Hollywood $#!% machine and forgot how to make games. Speaking of which Hollywood hasn't made a decent action flick in a long time. It's all special effects no substance. Much like the modern day game industry. FPS'/TPS' galore most of which when looked at objectively just plain suck. I used to like Halo, I own or have owned all of them at one time or another. But after playing Reach for a while I've come to realize that it's only good quality is the balanced gameplay. The weapons are dull by 1998 standards, the enemies aren't terribly intelligent they just have good aim, the design behind some of the armor and all of the vehicles is illogical or stupid (example: intakes on a helmet), and the story is god awful I could point out at least 2 major flaws in the story but I wont. Even Starcraft 2 which I'm currently playing is pretty lame. It's almost the exact same game. The only reason people think there is tons of micro in that game is because the command system hasn't been streamlined or changed in any way. You want units in a specific formation better watch em' 24/7 other wise it's just a big cluster ****. They produce 8 million shovelware games a day (exaggeration) just to make a quick buck. They got a taste of money and now they can't get enough. They're going to constantly water everything down to base parts until all you have is shooters and WoW. Used to be I didn't have enough money for games now I have trouble finding a game that's worth my dollar.

"Makin Love To The Money, I Swear The Sex Great, Keep Dem Hoes Off, But Let The Money Stay."
-Bobby Kotick aka "Mr. Money Bags"

Shralla
24th Dec 2010, 04:17
Speaking of which Hollywood hasn't made a decent action flick in a long time. It's all special effects no substance.

Because action movies are such a bastian of depth and thought-provoking cinematography. I mean really. That's pretty much like saying "man the mainstream music industry hasn't made a decent pop band in a long time. It's all catchy melodies and asinine lyrics."



I used to like Halo, I own or have owned all of them at one time or another. But after playing Reach for a while I've come to realize that it's only good quality is the balanced gameplay.

Yeah, which is only the most important part of the game. As if THAT matters.

JackShandy
24th Dec 2010, 06:34
Oh my god, you're all right! The game industry sucks and all games are terrible!

*Destroys PC, goes outside*

Fluffis
24th Dec 2010, 07:15
Because action movies are such a bastian of depth and thought-provoking cinematography. I mean really. That's pretty much like saying "man the mainstream music industry hasn't made a decent pop band in a long time. It's all catchy melodies and asinine lyrics.

Try going further back than the 80s/90s and you'll see why what you wrote is actually an argument in his favour.

Shralla
24th Dec 2010, 07:49
Try going further back than the 80s/90s and you'll see why what you wrote is actually an argument in his favour.

Throw some names around then. I bet they're about as deep as a thimble.

Fluffis
24th Dec 2010, 10:02
Throw some names around then. I bet they're about as deep as a thimble.

Considering the width of the "pop" genre, I could bring up a couple of dozen, without even scratching the surface. Here's two for starters: The Beatles and Simon & Garfunkel.

Edit: quite honestly, I can't be arsed to educate you.


Merry Christmas, people!

JCpies
24th Dec 2010, 10:33
Oh my god, you're all right! The game industry sucks and all games are terrible!

*Destroys PC, goes outside*

By God. You're right!

*Destroys PC, goes outside*

Kvltism
24th Dec 2010, 10:36
Depends how you want to look at it. Robyn's a contemporary pop artist, but her work tends to have substance/authenticity that many of her peers lack. People who use that "music sucks these days" angle annoy me. Maybe the mainstream's flooded with more throwaway material, but there is still a healthy underground movement that blurs genre lines and pushes boundaries.

Hey! The same can be said for the video-game industry.

Shralla
24th Dec 2010, 11:05
Considering the width of the "pop" genre, I could bring up a couple of dozen, without even scratching the surface. Here's two for starters: The Beatles and Simon & Garfunkel.

Edit: quite honestly, I can't be arsed to educate you.


Merry Christmas, people!

I was asking about movies actually, but it's funny that you should mention The Beatles given that they're pretty much THE reason that the music industry is so ****ty.

Fluffis
24th Dec 2010, 22:36
I was asking about movies actually, but it's funny that you should mention The Beatles given that they're pretty much THE reason that the music industry is so ****ty.

Oh, I'd love to hear the rationale behind that.

Fox89
24th Dec 2010, 23:05
The industry took to many ideas from the Hollywood $#!% machine and forgot how to make games. Speaking of which Hollywood hasn't made a decent action flick in a long time. It's all special effects no substance.

Yeah! Not like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon! They were deep man. ....Wait... Anyway, Inception & Dark Knight? They were good!


They got a taste of money and now they can't get enough

Them and everyone else in the world.

As much as I would dearly love to sit here and tut about the corporate fat-cats and the state of the world and so on and how everything is fuelled by greed... I can't. Not really. Greed is exactly the reason why you have video games to play to begin with. If everyone was satisfied with what they already had the world would be a much more boring and less developed place. Although more content I'll grant you. You want someone to blame for the shallow games we see lots of these days? The consumers are where you want to direct your hate. People are stupid enough to pay through the nose for utter rubbish. So of course most developers have to pander to this, it's the lowest risk. And any sensible business plan is all about minimizing risk.

Publishers invest the smallest amount of resources possible for maximum return. Nothing immoral about that, if you were offered DX:HR Standard Edition for £40, or DX:HR Augmented Edition for £35, which one would you pick? Developers due the best with what they can but often with strict resource and creative constraints from their publishers due to the problems above. I personally believe the masses are beginning to get bored of just more shiny rubbish and things are looking good for the future, but it's the ignorance and/or low standards of the masses that's the problem. Can't blame capitalism, if it was profitable to be daring then they would! Though then being daring wouldn't be daring... catch 22.


All it takes for a game to be labeled an "RPG" these days is for it to have your character change a bit or for your character to get new equipment. Doom was an RPG in that sense.

ME2 is a great example of how adding simplified RPG elements allows for the minimisation of player skill and the removal of any sort of learning curve. As the game gets more challenging, don't worry, you character will adapt.

There are different types of RPG mechanics. There is stat management where you faff around with inventory items and skill points etc etc, and there is role-playing. Mass Effect is all about the latter, and it does it well. Ish. Over-simplified morality choices notwithstanding.

Irate_Iguana
24th Dec 2010, 23:37
Can't blame capitalism, if it was profitable to be daring then they would!

Daring can be extremely profitable. The problem with daring is that it is also very high risk. So while you might gain an awful lot there is a very real possibility of losing a lot. Most capitalists don't have the balls to try daring.

Senka
24th Dec 2010, 23:48
stuff

Sorry but the inventory in ME1 was rubbish. It needed improvement to say the least.

ZakKa89
25th Dec 2010, 00:22
Sorry but the inventory in ME1 was rubbish. It needed improvement to say the least.

I agree, but instead of improving it they just threw it away. Which is better, but it's the simple way out. I would love for mass effect 3 to have an actually improved inventory system.

Big Tobacco
25th Dec 2010, 04:40
Yeah! Not like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon! They were deep man. ....Wait... Anyway, Inception & Dark Knight? They were good!

Them and everyone else in the world.

As much as I would dearly love to sit here and tut about the corporate fat-cats and the state of the world and so on and how everything is fuelled by greed... I can't. Not really. Greed is exactly the reason why you have video games to play to begin with. If everyone was satisfied with what they already had the world would be a much more boring and less developed place. Although more content I'll grant you. You want someone to blame for the shallow games we see lots of these days? The consumers are where you want to direct your hate. People are stupid enough to pay through the nose for utter rubbish. So of course most developers have to pander to this, it's the lowest risk. And any sensible business plan is all about minimizing risk.

Publishers invest the smallest amount of resources possible for maximum return. Nothing immoral about that, if you were offered DX:HR Standard Edition for £40, or DX:HR Augmented Edition for £35, which one would you pick? Developers due the best with what they can but often with strict resource and creative constraints from their publishers due to the problems above. I personally believe the masses are beginning to get bored of just more shiny rubbish and things are looking good for the future, but it's the ignorance and/or low standards of the masses that's the problem. Can't blame capitalism, if it was profitable to be daring then they would! Though then being daring wouldn't be daring... catch 22.

Remember that time I said action movies had to be deep or thought provoking to be good. Yeah neither do I. IMO both Lethal Weapon and Die Hard are tasteless but are still better than their modern counterparts.

I could give a [insert expletive] about their profits or risk. There are modders that do this job for free and yet these [expletive you wouldn't think of]'s expect to get paid tons of money for making the same thing over and over again without even improving on the formula. For example they made the latest Front Mission a poor mans shooter, and yet it still costs $60. What justifies that POS costing $60. It does nothing new and what it does accomplish is obviously half-assed. Masseffect 2 is another miscarriage of a shooter. You spoke of people being satisfied and content. The problem is they are. They're very content to sell you trash for $60 a pop and are probably going to up the in price the next generation of consoles. I'm not saying this is the end of the interactive medium. That's beyond stupid. But at the rate they're going Gran Turismo 6 will have the most realistic shooter elements of any racing game. I don't want to be in my 50's with crippling arthritis from playing crappy games in my youth.

Fox89
25th Dec 2010, 15:28
I don't want to be in my 50's with crippling arthritis from playing crappy games in my youth.

Then stop buying them. And persuade everyone else to stop buying them. Capitalism is a great system in principle but to get quality as well it does require informed consumers actually willing to vote with their wallets. If Front Mission Evolved sells well and Awesome Daring Game 3 does not, then how can any business justify making Awesome Daring Game 4? When companies take risks that don't pay off, do you know what happens? They go into administration and have their assets liquidated. And then how can they make games?

Also, we are in a very privileged position. We can sit here and rip games to shreds, calling them half-assed pieces of crap and anything else we want. How much does it cost us to do that? $60 if we buy it. Free if we borrow it from a friend or just play a demo. Well somewhere along the line a company has invested millions in that half-assed piece of crap. And they have invested millions in the hope that it will sell well. If we want better games, we need to educate consumers, so that the masses want their games to take risks; and will reward the companies that try to do so.

reticulate
25th Dec 2010, 15:35
It does nothing new and what it does accomplish is obviously half-assed. Masseffect 2 is another miscarriage of a shooter. You spoke of people being satisfied and content. The problem is they are. They're very content to sell you trash for $60 a pop and are probably going to up the in price the next generation of consoles. I'm not saying this is the end of the interactive medium. That's beyond stupid. But at the rate they're going Gran Turismo 6 will have the most realistic shooter elements of any racing game. I don't want to be in my 50's with crippling arthritis from playing crappy games in my youth.

I actually liked Mass Effect 2. I wasn't aware this was a unpopular position to take, but that game held me from start to finish.

I also run World of Darkness and play Shadowrun PnP games to this day. I have an army of Grey Knights ready to kick your ass all over the 40K universe. Same with friends in the same position, so I wonder who exactly you're speaking for. Because it certainly isn't me. Based on your evaluation, I should be some sort of moron.

Big Tobacco
26th Dec 2010, 00:11
I actually liked Mass Effect 2. I wasn't aware this was a unpopular position to take, but that game held me from start to finish.

I also run World of Darkness and play Shadowrun PnP games to this day. I have an army of Grey Knights ready to kick your ass all over the 40K universe. Same with friends in the same position, so I wonder who exactly you're speaking for. Because it certainly isn't me. Based on your evaluation, I should be some sort of moron.

When did I say moron or anything about 40k? Are you saying that because I said Masseffect 2 is "a miscarriage of a shooter?" Just because you like it doesn't make you stupid. As they say theres no accounting for taste. Hell I like the Armored Core series and those games are seriously flawed. I'm not angry with the consumer. Whats he gonna do organize a boycott? No I'm angry with the game designer. The man close enough to the source that he can actually do something about it as an individual. Like not scrapping the few customization elements of Masseffect.

Fox89
26th Dec 2010, 01:24
The man close enough to the source that he can actually do something about it as an individual. Like not scrapping the few customization elements of Masseffect.

That may have been a poor individual decision (although was an overall improvement on the original's system), but it's not the game designer's fault that the industry generally dumbs games down and takes few risks. That's down to the consumer and the nature of capitalism.

mentalkase
26th Dec 2010, 01:34
Depends how you want to look at it. Robyn's a contemporary pop artist, but her work tends to have substance/authenticity that many of her peers lack. People who use that "music sucks these days" angle annoy me. Maybe the mainstream's flooded with more throwaway material, but there is still a healthy underground movement that blurs genre lines and pushes boundaries.

Hey! The same can be said for the video-game industry.

It's not just that, it's that people always remember the good music from a period and forget about the crap, exactly because it WAS forgettable. There was just as much tripe around in the 60's as there is now. Go and read the charts from the period and you'll see that for every Beatles or Rolling stones you'll see some dire pop singer.

And yes, the same applies to games. People seem to think there were more good games being made in the 90's than now, when the opposite is true. Also like music, games have always had their mainstream pop hits and their underground cult hits and always will.

As for the general dumbing down that's going on in the industry, unfortunately console haters are right. It's because of the current generation of HD consoles. In the 90's you had your console games and you had your pc games, and they were different games for different audiences. Now consoles can do almost everything pc's can and developers have realised you can make more money by putting the same games on both pc and console, but only if you were to modify and simplify them to suit both. It's a great time to own a console, it's not a good time to be a pc gamer. I don't think that boycotting certain games is going to have much affect on the current business climate of games unfortunately.

FrankCSIS
26th Dec 2010, 04:02
People seem to think there were more good games being made in the 90's than now

That is hardly the issue. It's sometimes worded or presented as such, but the core of the argument is never there. That would simply be an undefendable position. My brother and I owned every console since the Intellivision (yeah, including the Jaguar) and we bought perhaps 30 titles altogether. Everything else were rentals for us, and the video club was filled with absolute rubbish we never even approached.

The idea is to look at an objective list of good games and/or successes of the past, side by side with the recent solid titles. You will be amazed by the variety of the past in both genres and gaming mechanics, when compared with the recent releases. It's not that today's good games don't compare, it's just that the market lost a lot of its scope, at least in the official channels. Too many genres disapeared, or were merged along with others, forcing mechanics out of the window in the process.

Big Tobacco
26th Dec 2010, 05:14
That is hardly the issue. It's sometimes worded or presented as such, but the core of the argument is never there. That would simply be an undefendable position. My brother and I owned every console since the Intellivision (yeah, including the Jaguar) and we bought perhaps 30 titles altogether. Everything else were rentals for us, and the video club was filled with absolute rubbish we never even approached.

The idea is to look at an objective list of good games and/or successes of the past, side by side with the recent solid titles. You will be amazed by the variety of the past in both genres and gaming mechanics, when compared with the recent releases. It's not that today's good games don't compare, it's just that the market lost a lot of its scope, at least in the official channels. Too many genres disappeared, or were merged along with others, forcing mechanics out of the window in the process.

Someone that can word it better than myself. Not to say I'm some kind of wordsmith but it feels like I've been alone on my side of this discussion.

Dead-Eye
26th Dec 2010, 05:42
The problem is the Illuminati is real. They killed 2pac, and Barry Jennings. So it's no coincidence they killed the video game industry. I mean who really made Halo? Bungi? No. I'll give you a hint, you're probably using there operating system. That's right! And who dose Microsoft work for?


http://technomarketer.typepad.com/technomarketer//aol_logo.jpg

=

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yJE834OtsY8/Sv7Vi1WIhSI/AAAAAAAACAM/BhmmC67Hs_E/s400/illuminati.jpg

Donvermicelli
26th Dec 2010, 12:54
What's even more disturbing if you look closely:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a83/Darklogic/Majestic-12Hand-1.jpg

=

http://www.pu.nl/userfiles//Deus%20Ex%20Human%20Revolution%282%29.jpg

=

http://wandalizart.net/Image/firefox-logo-negro.jpg

=

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0403/v838feb04_hst_c1.jpg

MJ12 can be traced across time and even space it seems.

nomotog
26th Dec 2010, 13:26
That may have been a poor individual decision (although was an overall improvement on the original's system), but it's not the game designer's fault that the industry generally dumbs games down and takes few risks. That's down to the consumer and the nature of capitalism.

You say that the industry takes few risks, but your getting this from mass effect 2? Mass effect 2 took some quite large risks. They removed the inventory system (I miss it.) and radically changed the skill system (It's better now.). That's taking a risk. A big risk too when they could have just left everything the same knowing the game would sell.

Fox89
26th Dec 2010, 13:29
You say that the industry takes few risks, but your getting this from mass effect 2? Mass effect 2 took some quite large risks. They removed the inventory system (I miss it.) and radically changed the skill system (It's better now.). That's taking a risk. A big risk too when they could have just left everything the same knowing the game would sell.

I'm not! I'm talking about the industry in general, it's whoever I was talking with at the time that decided to zero in on ME2 as a specific example! Also removing the inventory doesn't count as a risk because it was so universally panned by critics and fans alike. Leaving it in would have been a risk because then people would have said "Why the hell have they not changed this hugely flawed feature we all complained about?"

It's the same problem Ubisoft faces with the Assassin's Creed franchise. Why the hell after 4 games have they not fixed the fundamental flaws with the combat? It's getting stupid now and is not doing their reputation much good.

nomotog
26th Dec 2010, 13:40
I'm not! I'm talking about the industry in general, it's whoever I was talking with at the time that decided to zero in on ME2 as a specific example! Also removing the inventory doesn't count as a risk because it was so universally panned by critics and fans alike. Leaving it in would have been a risk because then people would have said "Why the hell have they not changed this hugely flawed feature we all complained about?"

It's the same problem Ubisoft faces with the Assassin's Creed franchise. Why the hell after 4 games have they not fixed the fundamental flaws with the combat? It's getting stupid now and is not doing their reputation much good.

Removing the inventory was a risk I am not even sure it was worth taking. I miss it and want it back for 3. As for assassins creed. They did fix it. Have you played brotherhood? The combat is fast and fun now less like AC1 & AC2 where it's wait and counter.

IwantedOrange
26th Dec 2010, 13:58
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4998017370_6241bd180e.jpg



Excellent example for "a picture says more than 1000 words."
I'm totally agree with you - as many many other players, who play(ed) games in 90s.

Real Quality is gone. Now they're just aim on pumping money as fast as possible.
Just like the movie-/music industry...

Look around. Do you understand why all things are changing so rapidly in these times?
Here, on that question, it starts to be interesting.

Fox89
26th Dec 2010, 13:59
Removing the inventory was a risk I am not even sure it was worth taking. I miss it and want it back for 3. As for assassins creed. They did fix it. Have you played brotherhood? The combat is fast and fun now less like AC1 & AC2 where it's wait and counter.

You're going to have to explain to me how removing the inventory system in ME2 was a risk. As it was in the original was panned by just about everyone. Maybe not you, but just about everyone. When you get that kind of feedback, removing the cause of the criticism is not risky at all. On the contrary, it's expected of any developer worth its salt. They got rid of the stupid elevators as well for similar reasons, was that also a risk?

And they didn't fix the combat in Brotherhood. It is somewhat improved, yes I will concede, but not fixed. It certainly hasn't had the overhaul it needed.

nomotog
26th Dec 2010, 14:21
You're going to have to explain to me how removing the inventory system in ME2 was a risk. As it was in the original was panned by just about everyone. Maybe not you, but just about everyone. When you get that kind of feedback, removing the cause of the criticism is not risky at all. On the contrary, it's expected of any developer worth its salt. They got rid of the stupid elevators as well for similar reasons, was that also a risk?

And they didn't fix the combat in Brotherhood. It is somewhat improved, yes I will concede, but not fixed. It certainly hasn't had the overhaul it needed.

Inventory management is a core part of the RPG. With the gender mixing now a days you could argue that having an inventory system is the only thing that divides an RPG from from a game with RPG elements. Sure the system in ME 1 was panned, but most would have tried to fix it. Removing it was risky because you are removing one of the core aspects of your gender you are bound to upset more people then if you left it in.

What is wrong with AC combat and why dose it need a overhaul.

JackShandy
26th Dec 2010, 14:30
If Front Mission Evolved sells well and Awesome Daring Game 3 does not, then how can any business justify making Awesome Daring Game 4?

I'd think the game wouldn't really be a daring risk by the time they're making the third in the series.

Fox89
26th Dec 2010, 14:32
With the gender mixing now a days you could argue that having an inventory system is the only thing that divides an RPG from from a game with RPG elements.

Not sure you could argue that very strongly though :)

I suppose I will agree that removing the inventory system entirely was a risk in the sense that any game design decision ever is somewhat of a risk, as some will like it, some will hate it and you need to (generally) appeal to the majority. But removing the panned inventory management of ME1 was not any more substantial a bold move then pretty much anything else that could have done. It was a flawed system, it needed changing. Any change at all would have been welcomed, be it tweaking the formula all the way through removing it entirely. Whatever they did to the inventory system there was never likely to be any real downside.


What is wrong with AC combat and why dose it need a overhaul

Because there is still far too much waiting around to counter, and the control system (on the PS3 version at least) is too flimsy. They've upped the difficulty and strategy by inserting an enemy immune to normal counters by about 1 in every 10, but that just makes the combat more frustrating as it is a system designed around the counter-attack. I heard a quote when AC2 was released along the lines of "In a post Arkham Asylum world, the combat in Assassin's Creed in unacceptably archaic". And I completely agree with that, it has simply lagged behind. All they need to do is swap things around so that counters are used less than other kinds of attack and drastically up the temp, and the system will be more or less fixed.


I'd think the game wouldn't really be a daring risk by the time they're making the third in the series.

Touché :)

Kvltism
26th Dec 2010, 14:48
There was just as much tripe around in the 60's as there is now. Go and read the charts from the period and you'll see that for every Beatles or Rolling stones you'll see some dire pop singer.

For sure. Some of dad's friends have record collections littered with TERRIBLE releases that they purchased back in the day. I'm not just talking cheese; the kind of garbage that doesn't have a single redeeming feature. Many of my 80's pop releases fall in that category. :D

lithos
26th Dec 2010, 16:35
The idea is to look at an objective list of good games and/or successes of the past, side by side with the recent solid titles. You will be amazed by the variety of the past in both genres and gaming mechanics, when compared with the recent releases. It's not that today's good games don't compare, it's just that the market lost a lot of its scope, at least in the official channels. Too many genres disapeared, or were merged along with others, forcing mechanics out of the window in the process.

Very well put. I think the amount of money these days in gaming, coupled with the relentless drive to grab new market share, are at the root of that problem.

Hammich
26th Dec 2010, 18:06
The phrase "less is more"... I'd like to beat into the heads of quite a few publishers (and even developers) out there.

Getting extremely tired of "epic... epic... EPIC!!!"
Especially when starkly different settings/time periods/genres are made to feel the exact same because it's the same devices used over and over >:(

and if you look at the last decade there was actually a lot of variety if you look at the big picture of things and the stand-outs... the 90's was extremely varied but it's easier to see that in hindsight when we have all the games from the period that impressed us all grouped together. There were years where space sims were in-vogue. Then when every shooter was alien-invasion of something or visa-versa. Plentyyy of stagnating trends in the 90's but it progressed... the march feels slow.. but move; it does.

lithos
27th Dec 2010, 03:05
Getting extremely tired of "epic... epic... EPIC!!!"
Especially when starkly different settings/time periods/genres are made to feel the exact same because it's the same devices used over and over >:(

Aye. I'm getting sick of Triple-A games; I'd like to see more A games.

Daedatheus
27th Dec 2010, 07:26
Getting extremely tired of "epic... epic... EPIC!!!"
Especially when starkly different settings/time periods/genres are made to feel the exact same because it's the same devices used over and over >:(

My god you've hit the nail on the head - subtlety is just a lost art, for videogames in general. As soon as modern game technology gained the ability to be MASSIVE and EPIC, that's all it ever does now.


There were years where space sims were in-vogue. Then when every shooter was alien-invasion of something or visa-versa. Plentyyy of stagnating trends in the 90's but it progressed... the march feels slow.. but move; it does.

The only issue I have today is that some of those genres are completely non-existent today, when modern tech could really achieve something impressive. Imagine a AAA space sim title, it would be effing beautiful, I'd play it all the time...

Unstoppable
27th Dec 2010, 07:38
Ubisoft is afraid of change. It's quite simple, they want to milk the franchise while providing jobs for their developers. What is it 3 games now? I played the first two the second one was a step forward. I've heard good things about Brotherhood. If it ain't broken why fix it is their philosophy then. Not a bad one to go by, that's exactly what many people here wanted from Deus Ex 3.

However eventually it will backfire. Look at Twilight Princess. It sold well but for me it was no where near the quality of Ocarina of Time. That one can't even be matched along with A Link to the Past. Remember that games usually change project leads.

If I'm not mistaken after Assassin's Creed launch a big chunk of the core dev team said they where done with making that franchise. So there you have another reason for why things are how they are.

Cronstintein
27th Dec 2010, 17:54
The problem with the combat, and the Assassin's Creed franchise in general, is the difficulty. Almost plays itself it's so easy. Compare that to AC1 where you would often have to run from huge fights (and use a modicum of skill to escape, not up one building and you're free).

I like some of the added stuff in terms of side missions and whatnot but the lack of ANY kind of challenge is galling.

Rindill the Red
27th Dec 2010, 18:06
The problem with the combat, and the Assassin's Creed franchise in general, is the difficulty. Almost plays itself it's so easy. Compare that to AC1 where you would often have to run from huge fights (and use a modicum of skill to escape, not up one building and you're free).

I like some of the added stuff in terms of side missions and whatnot but the lack of ANY kind of challenge is galling.

I think both AC and B:AA suffer from the same old kung fu movie problem... where a group of enemies will just stand around and only attack one at a time.

If they adapt the combat system so that more than one enemy might attack at the same time in staggered or simultaneous fashion, it would get a lot more difficult and interesting. They'd have to program in the ability to counter-attack two enemies at once but that wouldn't be too hard to do.

pringlepower
27th Dec 2010, 19:11
I think both AC and B:AA suffer from the same old kung fu movie problem... where a group of enemies will just stand around and only attack one at a time.

If they adapt the combat system so that more than one enemy might attack at the same time in staggered or simultaneous fashion, it would get a lot more difficult and interesting. They'd have to program in the ability to counter-attack two enemies at once but that wouldn't be too hard to do.

I think they tried that out in AC Brotherhood, where groups of enemies would pile on you, but the combat ended up really easy anyways. B:AA was better, because it encouraged long-flowing combos to get the most XP, but those left you most vulnerable to attacks midcombo (especially in hard mode, where there is no counter indicator), so there was a nice risk/reward system.

Shralla
27th Dec 2010, 19:54
Batman: Arkham Asylum has the single best three-button combo system in existence. The whole combat aspect plays out so smoothly and it's completely under your control as to whether you decimate everybody in the room, or you get a x3 combo and then get kicked in the face. They start you off pretty easy, with just normal enemies, and no real reason to use your stun or your "leap over bad guy" ability, but later on they throw the guys with knives and the guys with the stun sticks at you, and combat gets a lot more involved, even if not particularly difficult (I haven't been man enough to play it on hard with no counter alert yet). Much MUCH better than Assassin's Creed, and the second one is supposed to make a lot of improvements, including bad guys somewhat rushing you.

Rindill the Red
27th Dec 2010, 21:39
Batman: Arkham Asylum has the single best three-button combo system in existence. The whole combat aspect plays out so smoothly and it's completely under your control as to whether you decimate everybody in the room, or you get a x3 combo and then get kicked in the face. They start you off pretty easy, with just normal enemies, and no real reason to use your stun or your "leap over bad guy" ability, but later on they throw the guys with knives and the guys with the stun sticks at you, and combat gets a lot more involved, even if not particularly difficult (I haven't been man enough to play it on hard with no counter alert yet). Much MUCH better than Assassin's Creed, and the second one is supposed to make a lot of improvements, including bad guys somewhat rushing you.

Really? I found medium so easy I switched to hard almost right away.

The key to beating it on hard is to always have a situational awareness. If you are surrounded by enemies, flip over a few heads until they are all in your field of vision (and even then always try to have an idea of where each enemy is, so you can strike and be sure to watch your back).

You don't need the alert to know when an enemy is going to attack you, most of them stand around or move slowly, but when they are going to attack you, they run towards you quickly. If you see no one moving towards you quickly?... then it's probably the guy closest to you because he is already gearing up for the attack. As you play you'll get a feel and intuition about where the likely attacks are going to come from.

Always be aware of any enemies going for guns or picking up things to throw. You'll want to hit them before they can get it off; the most effective way is to use batarangs in your combo.

Don't be afraid to move about the battlefield a lot using your head flip ability, it lets you position yourself where you feel comfortable and will often result in enemies farther away trying to attack you, giving you time to counter. It also pads your fighting time, giving you more time to think and execute plans.

Don't try finishing moves with anyone still up and close to you, because you take to long and you'll get hit.

lithos
28th Dec 2010, 07:01
B: AA is the kind of game Ubisoft wishes it could make. But I still found it a little too automated.

Fluffis
28th Dec 2010, 08:54
B: AA is the kind of game Ubisoft wishes it could make. But I still found it a little too automated.

This.

It was very good, but it could have been great. It felt like it guided you a bit too much, in everything you did - on all difficulties - and did a bit too many things for you.

lithos
28th Dec 2010, 16:22
It was very good, but it could have been great. It felt like it guided you a bit too much, in everything you did - on all difficulties - and did a bit too many things for you.

The problem, I think is this:

* Devs want the animation to look good. And complicated.
* No game controller - mouse & keys, control pad, motion control, whatever - has the amount of control, detail of input, required to do what they want. You can press buttons or move a joystick/mouse, but those are still fairly crude actions compared what ends up happening on screen.

The "solution" is to automate it - HR's takedowns are the extreme of this, and, frankly, some of the worst things you can do. Press a button, and several things happen, none of which are a result of player interaction.

Unfortunately, all the player feels he/she is doing is just pressing button, a single, simple action, and what happens on screen is a series of complex ones. So there's no equation of action: pressing one button in, say, Assassins Creed, when behind a bad guy results in Altair shuffling precisely into position behind him (otherwise the animations wouldn't line up,) grabbing the guy's mouth, stabbing him in the back, and lowering him to the ground. It looks good, but it doesn't play good: it doesn't feel fun, because the player's not doing it.

Yes, it would nice to be able to control all that, every step of the way, but we can't. And so they trade "playing good" for "looking good" when, in games, gameplay should come first and looks second. The automated stuff, like the takedowns in various games, end up being far more complex than anything the play can pull off, and thus creates a disconnect between the player's actions and the character's action, when those should be as close as possible.

People ***** about how it's stupid to walk around with a crowbar and just swing it in one or two directions, like you did in HL and DX. But the act of swinging is a short, simple action...just like clicking a mouse button, or pressing a button on a controller! Yes, the player's interaction with the game is limited, but with automated sequences like the takedowns in HR or AC, or even jumping from gargoyle to gargoyle in Arkham Asylum, the player's interaction is zero.

The gargoyle jumping's what sticks in my mind most: just highlight a gargoyle, press a button, and you know Batman will jump, and land perfectly on it. You haven't jumped; you've merely told the character were to go. You haven't actually judged the distance, or timed the jump.

The annoying thing is, is that people fall for it.

Fox89
28th Dec 2010, 16:50
People * about how it's stupid to walk around with a crowbar and just swing it in one or two directions, like you did in HL and DX. But the act of swinging is a short, simple action...just like clicking a mouse button, or pressing a button on a controller! Yes, the player's interaction with the game is limited, but with automated sequences like the takedowns in HR or AC, or even jumping from gargoyle to gargoyle in Arkham Asylum, the player's interaction is zero.

The gargoyle jumping's what sticks in my mind most: just highlight a gargoyle, press a button, and you know Batman will jump, and land perfectly on it. You haven't jumped; you've merely told the character were to go. You haven't actually judged the distance, or timed the jump.

The annoying thing is, is that people fall for it.

I don't think that's the best example to use, there are times when such automation is a good thing. Take the old Tomb Raider games, for example. In those, all the platform elements were in the hands of the player, with the angle, timing and momentum involved in Lara's jumps all left down to the player. But the combat on the other hand was as simple as holding down the 'shoot' button, as Lara would automatically lock on to enemies. And that was the right decision, Tomb Raider was not a game designed around shooting mechanics, the enemies were too quick and the player lacked the precision necessary for free-aiming.

I feel the automation in B:AA was at just the right level. Let's say they changed the design of the gargoyles, how would they do it? Either the player 'sticks' to the Gargoyles, in which case automation is enforced, or he doesn't. In that case you could introduce some player skill into the equation, requiring Batman to gather some momentum and time his jumps in order to reach the next gargoyle. But they're small objects, so what you'll then have is the player falling off from time to time or missing simple jumps, which Batman wouldn't do because he's awesome.

ZakKa89
28th Dec 2010, 16:57
If you had to perfectly time the jumping, and had to judge the distance from gargoyle to gargoyle everytime in B:AA I think it would become awfully repetitive. Because people don't mind doing a really simple thing over and over again.

An example are the 'hacking' minigames in Mass Effect 2. At first, they are ok. But after a while, you grow tired of them and whish you'd just had to press a button and get it over with. I know it's kind off a weird comparison, but it's the same idea.

Oh and I would also like to say that Assassin's creed wishes it had a combat system like B:AA (Which is a much better game overall imo). Simple, but addictive, rewarding and even challenging if you're trying to get really high combo's.

Shralla
28th Dec 2010, 20:41
If you had to perfectly time the jumping, and had to judge the distance from gargoyle to gargoyle everytime in B:AA I think it would become awfully repetitive. Because people don't mind doing a real simple thing over and over again.

Especially since you're playing as Batman, who is at the peak of human physical performance and training. It makes sense that stuff like that is stupid easy for you to pull off because when you're playing the game, you're Batman, and Batman doesn't have to think about that.

pringlepower
28th Dec 2010, 21:03
Yes, this is BATMAN. If JC can't perform basic actions it's okay, because he's a rookie but this is BATMAN. Even with automation the grappling hook was remarkably versatile. You could grapple onto almost every single ledge in the game, and while on that ledge do a takedown. Oh the possibilities.

Anyways I had more of a problem with guards that didn't notice you swinging 2 feet above their heads as you went from gargoyle to gargoyle, but I guess that's game mechanics for you.

Happy
28th Dec 2010, 21:14
Why is this thread still here???? Slow news week for things DE# related? :)

Jerion
28th Dec 2010, 21:50
Why is this thread still here???? Slow news week for things DE# related? :)

The studio don't know we got fans and they don't NEED to know. How about you fix the negativity and then I'll talk.



Points if you get it.

lithos
29th Dec 2010, 03:29
If you had to perfectly time the jumping, and had to judge the distance from gargoyle to gargoyle everytime in B:AA I think it would become awfully repetitive. Because people don't mind doing a really simple thing over and over again.

Not really. Platformers run off that very mechanic.


An example are the 'hacking' minigames in Mass Effect 2. At first, they are ok. But after a while, you grow tired of them and whish you'd just had to press a button and get it over with. I know it's kind off a weird comparison, but it's the same idea.

Those were tedious, yes. I actually think Deus Ex had a nice idea: no hacking minigame BS, just run a 'sploit.


Oh and I would also like to say that Assassin's creed wishes it had a combat system like B:AA (Which is a much better game overall imo). Simple, but addictive, rewarding and even challenging if you're trying to get really high combo's.

Oh, yes. Assassins Creed wishes it was Arkham Asylum in almost every way. AC felt like a chore to play - hell, to even get up and running (there are like three menu screens before you actually get into the game; even quitting is a chore,) the overwrought, hammy dialogue in the cutscenes, and the far-too-context-sensitive controls made it terrible. There were also a few confusing plotholes/choices in the game.

Rocksteady's game design philosophy: "We hope to make a good Batman game."

Ubisoft's design philosophy: "There are only two types of people in the world: retards, and geniuses. All the geniuses work for Ubisoft - guess what that makes the rest of you?"

II J0SePh X II
29th Dec 2010, 07:54
The only thing missing from Batman's combat are those speech bubbles - POW! ZAP! BIFF! - I have to do them myself when in the flow. It's so rewarding when you get that two-footed lunge kick half way across the room KAPOW!

I saw in the credits for B:AA that the game testing was done at Eidos Montreal, and I'm wondering if any of the testers went on to be developers for HR.

Happy
29th Dec 2010, 15:39
The studio don't know we got fans and they don't NEED to know. How about you fix the negativity and then I'll talk.



Points if you get it.

No points for me, unfortunately - I don't get it :(

CoDEllite
29th Dec 2010, 15:47
B: AA is the kind of game Ubisoft wishes it could make. But I still found it a little too automated.

I don't get it :( . IMO combat in Assassinss Creed 2 was quite deep and very rewarding, more so then in Batman AA. AC 2 was definately the better game.

Fox89
29th Dec 2010, 16:43
Your tastes are most peculiar, CoDEllite! I will grant you there was more... 'potential' depth in the AC2 system, in that there was much more you could do with it than you could in Batman, but with the complete overpowered nature of the counter-attack there was never any reason to use anything else. Batman, whilst a simpler system, motivated you to use everything in your repertoire and encouraged you to go on the offensive. There was no standing around waiting for someone to lunch so you could counter, it was just; punch, punch, counter, throw, batarang, dodge, counter and so on. The fluidity was superb and something that AC has never been able to match, even at its best.

JCpies
29th Dec 2010, 16:51
I don't get it :( . IMO combat in Assassinss Creed 2 was quite deep and very rewarding, more so then in Batman AA. AC 2 was definately the better game.

What...?

The fighting in Assassin's Creed (1) looked good, but was very boring and not fun to get into at all, I wouldn't call it deep or particularly rewarding. The assassinations and chases were fun though.

ZakKa89
29th Dec 2010, 16:55
I don't get it :( . IMO combat in Assassinss Creed 2 was quite deep and very rewarding, more so then in Batman AA. AC 2 was definately the better game.

Nothing deep about it. Just really cool the first time but extremely repetitive.

lithos
29th Dec 2010, 17:37
Nothing deep about it. Just really cool the first time but extremely repetitive.

That's a perfect summary of nearly every Ubisoft game of the last few years.

ZakKa89
29th Dec 2010, 18:03
Your tastes are most peculiar, CoDEllite! I will grant you there was more... 'potential' depth in the AC2 system, in that there was much more you could do with it than you could in Batman, but with the complete overpowered nature of the counter-attack there was never any reason to use anything else. Batman, whilst a simpler system, motivated you to use everything in your repertoire and encouraged you to go on the offensive. There was no standing around waiting for someone to lunch so you could counter, it was just; punch, punch, counter, throw, batarang, dodge, counter and so on. The fluidity was superb and something that AC has never been able to match, even at its best.

Perfectly summarized. Though in ac2 the other attacks beside countering were made more usefull. Small improvement over the first installment. Never played ac2 more than a couple of hours though.

lithos
30th Dec 2010, 04:31
That "really cool but extremely repetitive" reminded why exactly I found AA better than AC. I did find AA a bit automated, but way less than AC or SC: C. It played a like a series of mini games, yes. But AA had tons of variety: Rocksteady constantly gave the player something new to do. AC didn't have that; any new stuff you got was negated by extremely poor controls.

nomotog
30th Dec 2010, 05:11
So now we are on AA. We can't just stick to one topic can we, but that's cool. To be honest it has been a long time sense I played AA, but I was never that impressed with the combat depth. It starts out real nice with just normal enemies that you bounce from one to the other (Kind of like too human only good.) pressing Y when you see the squzzle heads. It's not hard, but I found it fun and nice. What kind of killed it for me was when they put in knives and shock enemies. It felt so arbitrary. Like when you get to the final boss only to find out that he is immune to all your cool weapons. I think AC had better combat. It was slower then AA, but had more depth and never just stuck it's thumb up and said only sword attacks work on this guy.

CoDEllite
30th Dec 2010, 16:07
I think AC had better combat. It was slower then AA, but had more depth and never just stuck it's thumb up and said only sword attacks work on this guy. And not to forget that AC 2 had some of the most epic setpiece battles in any game to date (although GTA 4 came pretty close). And how Ubisoft makes the gameplay appear so cool, even to watch somebody else play. I'm really glad that Eidos is trying to include a similar "cool" factor in Human Revolution.

Fox89
30th Dec 2010, 16:15
And how Ubisoft makes the gameplay appear so cool, even to watch somebody else play

Not the combat though. That was just slow and, to watch, quickly became tedious. Quite cool if you mixed it up from time to time, but as I mentioned before there is no reason at all to do so. You want cool? Arkham Asylum's high tempo, free-flowing combat was much better in that regard.

Where AC DOES excel though is the free running. Especially in the first 2 games. In that regard it is top of the class. Brotherhood was a let down in that regard because some of the level design was abysmal.

lithos
30th Dec 2010, 16:55
Where AC DOES excel though is the free running. Especially in the first 2 games. In that regard it is top of the class.

You mean the Auto-Run™?

EDIT: Top of its class? Mirror's Edge ring a bell?

I suppose if the class were "Non-Interactive Digital Media," then, yes, AC is indeed top of its class.

Fox89
30th Dec 2010, 17:10
EDIT: Top of its class? Mirror's Edge ring a bell?

Yes, which was nowhere near as fun as the free-running in Assassin's Creed due to some highly disappointing level design and unforgiving collision detection. Mirror's tried to put some skill and precision into the free-running concept, and I admire that for sure. But it got it wrong. There were a number of occasions where you would consistently miss seemingly simple jumps or not grab pipes you were sure you'd hit. Or something that it looks like to should be able to grab onto is just out of reach, or requires a millimetre perfect jump... all this kind of thing.

If DICE make a sequel and can get their level design right, then maybe it can top an AC system that shows us that something can be intensely and consistently fun even if it is extremely easy.

lithos
30th Dec 2010, 18:01
Yes, which was nowhere near as fun as the free-running in Assassin's Creed due to some highly disappointing level design and unforgiving collision detection. Mirror's tried to put some skill and precision into the free-running concept, and I admire that for sure. But it got it wrong. There were a number of occasions where you would consistently miss seemingly simple jumps or not grab pipes you were sure you'd hit. Or something that it looks like to should be able to grab onto is just out of reach, or requires a millimetre perfect jump... all this kind of thing.

Yup. Welcome to the world of player-skill based gaming, where the play actually has to have some skill. Bit different to the Press X To Win world of Ubisoft.

Too bad you don't actually do any free-running in AC. Just hold down three buttons, and the game does it all for you.

It's a platformer where you can't even jump, FFS.

Fox89
30th Dec 2010, 18:38
Yup. Welcome to the world of player-skill based gaming, where the play actually has to have some skill. Bit different to the Press X To Win world of Ubisoft.

I have nothing against the need for player skill at all. What I have a problem with is when it is implemented badly. When you make a jump in Mirror's Edge and miss a handhold that you really shouldn't miss, that's poor implementation. When you have spend 2 minutes lining up an inch perfect precision jump like the old Tomb Raider games, that's poor implementation in a game that's all about free running.

Assassin's Creed is all about route finding at speed. Seeing enemies in the distance and figuring out the best way to get around them unseen into the hiding place you're trying to reach. And you do still have to judge distance, if you leap off into a gap that is too big for your character to make they will still plummet to their death. So it hasn't completely done away with player judgement, just the need for timing. And above all: it's fun! For most of us at least. Like the combat or Gargoyles in B:AA, the free-running in AC is automated to a very good extent. It's not about the challenge its about the sensation of fluid movement which is directed (if not completely controlled by) the player.

You would do well to remember its not only challenge and player skill that makes games fun.

If you want a better example of a free-running game that challenges AC, because Mirror's Edge simply doesn't cut it, then Prince of Persia is a good bit. That strikes a good balance between AC's consistent fluidity and introduces some additional player skill. I still prefer AC in that regard as that allows you to be more creative in your routes, PoP very much only gives you one way to go.

Maybe you should play QWOP. That sounds more like you're type of game, where you get to control the movement of each leg muscle! None of this "hold W and the game runs FOR you" nonsense.

Rindill the Red
30th Dec 2010, 20:10
Yes, which was nowhere near as fun as the free-running in Assassin's Creed due to some highly disappointing level design and unforgiving collision detection. Mirror's tried to put some skill and precision into the free-running concept, and I admire that for sure. But it got it wrong. There were a number of occasions where you would consistently miss seemingly simple jumps or not grab pipes you were sure you'd hit. Or something that it looks like to should be able to grab onto is just out of reach, or requires a millimetre perfect jump... all this kind of thing.

If DICE make a sequel and can get their level design right, then maybe it can top an AC system that shows us that something can be intensely and consistently fun even if it is extremely easy.

Sorry to break it to you, but it sounds like you just suck at the game.

I never once had trouble with Mirror's Edge in the way you are describing. Faith always grabbed things she was supposed to, and I never once had to gauge anything by millimeters (I understand that's an exaggeration).

It sounds like the automation aspect of Assassin's Creed is perfect for gamers like you who are just bad at gaming. And there is nothing wrong with that... it's just that good gamers find things like Assassin's Creed boring because too much is automated and it's too easy.

Fluffis
30th Dec 2010, 20:22
Sorry to break it to you, but it sounds like you just suck at the game.

I never once had trouble with Mirror's Edge in the way you are describing. Faith always grabbed things she was supposed to, and I never once had to gauge anything by millimeters (I understand that's an exaggeration).


I count myself as being pretty good at Mirror's Edge, and I definitely have those weird misses sometimes too. I dunno, maybe it's a controller/platform issue? I play it on a PC with kb+mouse, anyway.

Fox89
30th Dec 2010, 20:25
It sounds like the automation aspect of Assassin's Creed is perfect for gamers like you who are just bad at gaming

Are you kidding me with this bit or what? Even if the insinuation that I'm 'bad at gaming' was true (which it sure as hell is not) that doesn't come close to addressing the point. What, you think I like games that handle all the scary jumps for me because that's the perfect level of challenge I can cope with?

No. I freely admit that the running in Assassin's Creed isn't challenging in the slightest. The point is it doesn't always HAVE to be to be fun. And I'm fairly confident you'd be able to find something in the games you like that remain fun despite being mind-blowingly easy.

And bully for you for never having trouble with Mirror's Edge. I didn't have 'trouble' either, just some more-frequent-than-I-would-like moments of frustration arising from the level design. And I'm not the only one who was less than impressed with the overall quality of ME's free running, I have three friends who work in games and two of them agree with me to some extent on that point. Maybe they're just 'bad gamers' as well but given the nature of their work I'd say maybe not. Just because you never experienced an issue doesn't mean it wasn't there. I avoided a whole host of game-breaking bugs in Fallout: New Vegas, for example. ME was great at it's best, but it didn't hit its best enough.

So if you must insult me to make your point try not to miss mine in the process, and the point was not "AC's free-running is challenging" bur rather "AC's running is damn easy but fun nonetheless".

Rindill the Red
30th Dec 2010, 20:40
Are you kidding me with this bit or what? Even if the insinuation that I'm 'bad at gaming' was true (which it sure as hell is not) that doesn't come close to addressing the point. What, you think I like games that handle all the scary jumps for me because that's the perfect level of challenge I can cope with?

No. I freely admit that the running in Assassin's Creed isn't challenging in the slightest. The point is it doesn't always HAVE to be to be fun. And I'm fairly confident you'd be able to find something in the games you like that remain fun despite being mind-blowingly easy.

And bully for you for never having trouble with Mirror's Edge. I didn't have 'trouble' either, just some more-frequent-than-I-would-like moments of frustration arising from the level design. And I'm not the only one who was less than impressed with the overall quality of ME's free running, I have three friends who work in games and two of them agree with me to some extent on that point. Maybe they're just 'bad gamers' as well but given the nature of their work I'd say maybe not. Just because you never experienced an issue doesn't mean it wasn't there. I avoided a whole host of game-breaking bugs in Fallout: New Vegas, for example. ME was great at it's best, but it didn't hit its best enough.

So if you must insult me to make your point try not to miss mine in the process, and the point was not "AC's free-running is challenging" bur rather "AC's running is damn easy but fun nonetheless".

Hmmm... I understand your point... perhaps it's just that your view of what Faith should be able to do differs from what Faith is actually able to do. That lead you and other gamers like you to mis-judge jumps and other actions in the game... and feel it was the game's fault... not you, the player, who was in error.

You do SO much running in Assassin's Creed... getting from A to B... that it's really generally boring. Hold a trigger, move your direction stick and hit A from time to time. Compared to the immediateness and greater precision of Mirror's Edge controls.

In Assassin's Creed you can spend 10 minutes real time getting from one side of the city to the other.

Rheinhold
30th Dec 2010, 20:57
You do SO much running in Assassin's Creed... getting from A to B... that it's really generally boring. Hold a trigger, move your direction stick and hit A from time to time. Compared to the immediateness and greater precision of Mirror's Edge controls.

In Assassin's Creed you can spend 10 minutes real time getting from one side of the city to the other.

In that respect, the slow crawl of the Vault dweller in FallOut 3 and of the Courier in FallOut:NewVegas sure is way up there in boringness. When going to a quest marker (like, say, Tenpenny Tower) from Meagton, if you havent discovered it yet, it can get really annoying. It is one of the places where you usually get when you are low level, so creatures and enemies you cross paths with are usually easy as pie. Might be fun for half an hour, but walking to locations that you know are there but you havent got yet, can take much longer.

It is, however, easily avoided by not strictly following the shortest route, and exploring the other locations that lie somewhere along the route.

Some esy stuff which is highly repetitive, can be fun though, as stated by Fox. That is one of the reasons people are running for their fifth prestige in CoD. And not to mention the free-to-play FPS games.

Ninjerk
31st Dec 2010, 20:56
I've been thinking about a video game market crash since all these large companies have been deciding to enter the MMO portion of the market.

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 21:15
Yes, which was nowhere near as fun as the free-running in Assassin's Creed due to some highly disappointing level design and unforgiving collision detection. Mirror's tried to put some skill and precision into the free-running concept, and I admire that for sure. But it got it wrong. There were a number of occasions where you would consistently miss seemingly simple jumps or not grab pipes you were sure you'd hit. Or something that it looks like to should be able to grab onto is just out of reach, or requires a millimetre perfect jump... all this kind of thing.

If DICE make a sequel and can get their level design right, then maybe it can top an AC system that shows us that something can be intensely and consistently fun even if it is extremely easy.

I actually loved that you had to time everything right in |Mirror's Edge. That's the point. In Assassin's Creed you only have to hold one button and let your character do everything for you. Pretty simple. Mirror's Edge just requires some skill and some classic trial and error gameplay to get it right. I loved that about it. If you didn't, I suggest you stay away from titles like super meat boy.

I really felt I was in full control in Mirror's Edge. Every time I died, I knew it was my own fault for not timing my jump correctly, or misjudging the distance. In my opinion, Mirror's Edge could even be a little bit harder, because I love trial and error gameplay. The only other recent game which has this kind of gameplay is super meat boy, though it takes it to a whole new level. You literary die a hundred times untill finally finishing a level.

If dice makes it easier like in assassin;s creed, then mirror's edge is gone.Mirror's Edge has to be trial and error. That's the whole point of the game. That's the core gameplay. That's Mirror's Edge.

If you think the parcour in Assassin's Creed is more fun, that's okay. Mirror's Edge just doesn't need to take any example from that game.

Fox89
31st Dec 2010, 21:24
If you didn't, I suggest you stay away from titles like super meat boy.

That's the point of that game though. Mirror's Edge is about, or at least I thought it was 'supposed' to be about, free-flowing movement. Not unforgiving precision (in fact the two don't really go hand in hand all that well). I remember playing the demo of Mirror's and being massively impressed. It was intuitive and fun. And that just...didn't carry over into the full game. At least not consistently enough. I have nothing against the trial and error stuff like super meat boy, but there is a time and a place and a game based around parkour is not the place.

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 21:34
I'm really glad that Eidos is trying to include a similar "cool" factor in Human Revolution.

Ah the cool factor. What would games be without the cool factor. I wish more developers implemented this cool factor. Games would be so much more epic if they just made it cool.

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 21:42
That's the point of that game though. Mirror's Edge is about, or at least I thought it was 'supposed' to be about, free-flowing movement. Not unforgiving precision (in fact the two don't really go hand in hand all that well). I remember playing the demo of Mirror's and being massively impressed. It was intuitive and fun. And that just...didn't carry over into the full game. At least not consistently enough. I have nothing against the trial and error stuff like super meat boy, but there is a time and a place and a game based around parkour is not the place.

Well then we disagree. A game based around parcour is exactly the place for this kind of gameplay. I want interaction, I want to be able to get better at a game the longer I play it. For me Mirror's Edge was as rewarding as a game could be.

This formula should be implemented in all games who want to be challenging: Easy to learn, hard to master. It's this kind of formula that makes games like Counterstrike or Starcraft great. The freerunning in Assassin's Creed is fun, but I get bored with it because it requires no skill. After a while, escaping from guards just get's tedious and repetetive.

Another point. Mirror's edge is a Linair game, AC is open world. Mirror's edge is all about facing a different challange each time, and trying to complete it. That could never work with a system like in AC. I could just watch somebody else play then, because there would be almost no interaction.

Which one is more fun, well that's a matter of opnion. I explained why I think Mirror's Edge is more fun. I just think you should rethink that statement that Mirror's Edge's sequel should have a system similair to AC. That's just impossible, sorry :)

Pretentious Old Man.
31st Dec 2010, 21:53
Ah the cool factor. What would games be without the cool factor. I wish more developers implemented this cool factor. Games would be so much more epic if they just made it cool.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3407253638_f6655a1db4.jpg

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

CoDEllite
31st Dec 2010, 22:10
Ah the cool factor. What would games be without the cool factor. I wish more developers implemented this cool factor. Games would be so much more epic if they just made it cool.

Exactly my thought, dude :) . Ubisoft has been my fave developer since I played Prince of Persia Warrior Within at a friends house a couple years ago. Man Ubisoft really knows how to make a great sequel. But since Eidos Montreal are based in same city maybe some of Ubisoft's talent for making cool games rubbed off on Eidos (and didn't Dugas work for Ubisoft?). JJB sure seems like a cool guy that knows what modern gamers want.

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 22:12
Dude I was joking :)

By the way. What is a 'modern gamer' ? How does a 'modern gamer' differ from like other gamers?

And it's like everything you say I have to disagree. Warrior within a great sequel? The first one is far superior. They had to make the prince look all dark and gritty in the warrior within, ugh.

Pretentious Old Man.
31st Dec 2010, 22:14
I know you were joking. I just couldn't resist the MW2 factor.

Fox89
31st Dec 2010, 22:20
I just think you should rethink that statement that Mirror's Edge's sequel should have a system similair to AC. That's just impossible, sorry

Actually, that's not what I said at all :) I said hopefully if DICE do a sequel, they could top AC by getting the current formula right. I will freely admit that challenge and additional interaction in a game like Mirror's Edge is a good thing. The only reason I disliked Mirror's Edge is because I felt they got the balance wrong, I felt they screwed up some of the level design and some of the collision detection was far too unforgiving. There were a few moments where I would miss grabbing a pipe, for example and think "But I could have reached that in real life!" Those were what made it frustrating and, in my eyes, a failure ultimately.

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 22:22
I know you were joking. I just couldn't resist the MW2 factor.

I know you know I was joking. I was talking to Call of Duty-elite ;)

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 22:24
Actually, that's not what I said at all :) I said hopefully if DICE do a sequel, they could top AC by getting the current formula right. I will freely admit that challenge and additional interaction in a game like Mirror's Edge is a good thing. The only reason I disliked Mirror's Edge is because I felt they got the balance wrong, I felt they screwed up some of the level design and some of the collision detection was far too unforgiving. There were a few moments where I would miss grabbing a pipe, for example and think "But I could have reached that in real life!" Those were what made it frustrating and, in my eyes, a failure ultimately.

I misread then. But surely you're saying they should make it easier. And that's also something I am against. If anything, HARDER :cool:

CoDEllite
31st Dec 2010, 22:27
Actually, that's not what I said at all :) I said hopefully if DICE do a sequel, they could top AC by getting the current formula right. I will freely admit that challenge and additional interaction in a game like Mirror's Edge is a good thing. The only reason I disliked Mirror's Edge is because I felt they got the balance wrong, I felt they screwed up some of the level design and some of the collision detection was far too unforgiving. There were a few moments where I would miss grabbing a pipe, for example and think "But I could have reached that in real life!" Those were what made it frustrating and, in my eyes, a failure ultimately.

I tried Mirror's Edge on xbox couple of weeks of ago and man the trial and error gameplay was just too frustrating compared to AC 2 excellent freeflowing parkour running. So yeah if DICE wants to make a GOOD parkour game then they should try to copy some of the things that AC 2 got right but in 1st person. And "gamers" who say that AC 2's platforming is boring obviosly don't know what they are talking about or haven't played enouhj new platforming games. It's not "automated" as you can still mess up jumps if you such at the game. While in Mirror's Edge you mess up because the controls are not as tight as AC's controls.

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 22:33
I tried Mirror's Edge on xbox couple of weeks of ago and man the trial and error gameplay was just too frustrating compared to AC 2 excellent freeflowing parkour running. So yeah if DICE wants to make a GOOD parkour game then they should try to copy some of the things that AC 2 got right but in 1st person. And "gamers" who say that AC 2's platforming is boring obviosly don't know what they are talking about or haven't played enouhj new platforming games. It's not "automated" as you can still mess up jumps if you such at the game. While in Mirror's Edge you mess up because the controls are not as tight as AC's controls.

So I don't know what I'm talking about because I have a different opnion?
Which controls? There are hardly any controls you only have to press one button and walk/run in the right direction.

Mirror's edge has PERFECT control's. I didn't play it on a xbox, but you are in CONTROL all the time. You are in control of everyting you do. Also, These two are completely different types of games. I won't say AC should be more like mirror's edge because it just wou;dn't work that way. Just because I like one thing more doesn't mean it will work in another game. Where's the logic? I've talked to you about this before. Just because you like one game more than another doesn't mean the other game should implement something from a completetly different type of game.

Figures an xbox fanboy like you find mirror's edge gameplay too 'frustrating'. I guess now I understand what you mean by 'modern gamer'. Just somebody who doesn't like too much challenge I guess.

/rage

Fox89
31st Dec 2010, 22:35
But surely you're saying they should make it easier.

I'm advocating making certain sections of it... less bull***** and arbitrary :) If they want to raise the overall difficulty, that's fine. It's when it's reasonably simple for half a level and then you get to one obnoxious jump that is being very particular about the way it's taken that winds me up. Because that's not a good kind of challenge, that's just irritating.

And fixing some other bits of level design that broke up the flow of the platforming - not always because of difficulty but because the nature of the level was much more stop-start than Mirror's Edge should be!

Jerion
31st Dec 2010, 22:45
I'll agree instantly that ME had some level design foolishness. Minus a few cases though, most difficult sections were really about less about precise jumping and more about clever thinking.

Oh, something that gave people I know trouble is that they'd think that the moment the platform beneath them disappeared from the bottom of the screen, they were at the edge of it and could jump. That's not how the game works. You need to get a feel for the time lapse between the object leaving the field of view and your feet reaching the end of it. Once you get that down the whole thing becomes a lot smoother and easier.

ZakKa89
31st Dec 2010, 22:45
I'm advocating making certain sections of it... less bull***** and arbitrary :) If they want to raise the overall difficulty, that's fine. It's when it's reasonably simple for half a level and then you get to one obnoxious jump that is being very particular about the way it's taken that winds me up. Because that's not a good kind of challenge, that's just irritating.

And fixing some other bits of level design that broke up the flow of the platforming - not always because of difficulty but because the nature of the level was much more stop-start than Mirror's Edge should be!

I understand. I disagree, but understand and accept.

JCpies
1st Jan 2011, 00:28
What I have a problem with is when it is implemented badly.

Implemented? The whole game was about free running. I personally see no problem with flowing, finding alternate routes and improvising when I make a mistake.

ROCK STARTIST
3rd Jan 2011, 23:11
Good points here Machina, especially number 6. A majority of my games are single player focused, so I can really immerse myself in the experience. In this information age where communication is expanding, MP is almost a prerequisite in every video game, and you can also add the rivalry with with PC vs Consoles, there just has to be an MP prerequisite!

Nowadays, I can't invite buddies over to experience Red Dead Redemption SP mode, that would be boring for them, or just to experience the atmosphere and scenery. If I bought Black Ops, that would be a different story.

I guess it is sad in a way, it's not like the olden days where you can still enjoy your friends presence while playing the acclaimed hit, Super Mario Bros 3!

ZakKa89
4th Jan 2011, 01:19
We should have a thread with: What's wrong with gamers. A lot of complaints about the industry, well, isn't really the industry's fault. They provide what a lot of people want. Supply and demand I guess.

Shralla
4th Jan 2011, 03:35
Nowadays, I can't invite buddies over to experience Red Dead Redemption SP mode, that would be boring for them, or just to experience the atmosphere and scenery

That's sad to me. The first time I played Red Dead Redemption, I went down to my friend's place and watched him play for a few hours, and then he handed me the controller and asked if I wanted to play, and I ended up playing for a good five or six hours, with him watching. The game is so gorgeous and atmospheric that even just watching it is fun, and that's true of a lot of games.

Deus_Ex_Machina
4th Jan 2011, 03:47
We should have a thread with: What's wrong with gamers. A lot of complaints about the industry, well, isn't really the industry's fault. They provide what a lot of people want. Supply and demand I guess.

That's one perspective.

Another is that the industry provides and people adapt.

reticulate
4th Jan 2011, 04:16
Just to go back to AC for a minute, I feel Brotherhood did a good job fixing a lot of the complaints people had about the combat. In fact, if you want to point to a series where the developers took criticism to heart and really improved from game to game, AC is a great example.

I enjoyed both ACII and Brotherhood immensely. And found the context-sensitive free running a natural and interesting way of getting around the world without making the platforming either dull or infuriating. That may appear to be an unpopular opinion around these parts, but the wider audience appears to agree with me. Not that an argument from majority is evidence of a quality game.

I'd really like to see another Mirror's Edge where DICE can take the valid criticisms and build an improved sequel.

IdiotInAJeep
4th Jan 2011, 08:12
Looks like you might get your wish. EA said that they wanted to continue expanding on their new ip's including Mirror's Edge. I also agree with you on the praise of Assassins Creed's freerunning. It was amazing just holding down two buttons and watching Altair perform crazy leaps and swings for the first time.

ZakKa89
4th Jan 2011, 13:27
Exactly. Amazing for the first time. Also, it fits that game well.

Ashpolt
4th Jan 2011, 13:58
That's one perspective.

Another is that the industry provides and people adapt.

Thank you. You've said in twelve words what I was going to write a mini-thesis about.

To expand slightly though: saying "game x sold well" is not proof that "game x is what people want." If there's only beefburger on the menu, I'll order a beefburger, but I'd prefer a steak. I love deep, complex and immersive games - but such games are few and far between, so I (like everyone else) end up buying Call of Duty etc. If games like Deus Ex were the standard (obviously with improved graphics etc) do you honestly think Call of Duty / Gears of War / Halo etc would sell half as well as they do? I somehow doubt it.

If we're to blame consumers to any degree for the state of the industry, it's for failing to vote with their wallets, not for doing so.

K^2
4th Jan 2011, 15:17
If games like Deus Ex were the standard (obviously with improved graphics etc) do you honestly think Call of Duty / Gears of War / Halo etc would sell half as well as they do? I somehow doubt it.
They were a standard. Not games like Deus Ex exactly, but many games that were based on a similar philosophy. Casual players wanted casual gaming. That's where the money is, and that's where industry went.

This cannot be an issue with gamers buying what industry is making. Simple competition would slowly evolve games into what consumer wants, because a game with slightly more of the desirable features would significantly outsell competition and would then be copied. We do see that happening, only the selection factor seems to be simplicity.

FrankCSIS
4th Jan 2011, 19:00
You're both right on this, somehow.

It's true there is no defined market, properly speaking, in the sense that people will consume what is offered to them, to a certain degree, anyway.

Those who are into gaming will have to contempt themselves with what is out there, and those who are not into gaming will not suddenly pick up a title unless the offer changes.

You take my cousin, which I just saw on New Year's day. He grew up with Nintendo and Sega, same as me, but never got into pc gaming. He'd play Mario and some other platformers or arcade games, but that was it. You'd never see him play the more complex console RPG's, for instance. The first gaming rig he ever bought by himself was the PS3, and he now spends a few hours a week playing Gran Turismo and Call of Duty, mainly online. He even got a racing seat, wheel and pedals set which costed over a grand, so money is really not an issue (it never is an issue with console gamers, unlike what they somtimes say).

Now we were talking about games in general, and he flat out said to me he only enjoyed casual gaming. Red Dead Redemption was too "complicated" for him, in the sense that he did not like having to provoque situations or running around for quests and things to do. He likes getting from A to B, and enjoy the ride in between. The only "adventure" game he's really enjoyed so far was Uncharted, and the cut scenes were his favourite part.

I'm not making any of this up, even though he may appear to be a walking cliché. He represents rather well the kind of market the industry has managed to reach out to, the kind of gamer which was often ignored by the old industry we cherish here. In a sense, it's cool that there are well-produced games for him to enjoy.

The trouble now is that while he represents an audiance which is more accessible than we are, the industry also knows that we who demand more will also typically pick up at least some of their titles. This combined "market" suits their current needs and objectives well enough, and completely destroys whatever appeal a niche market might have. The only thing we could ever hope for is a balanced industry, where some companies invest a part of their mass market profits into niche gaming, because casual gaming will not go away. Not unless the sales massively go down.

motsm
4th Jan 2011, 20:16
If we're to blame consumers to any degree for the state of the industry, it's for failing to vote with their wallets, not for doing so.This.

I can't stand reading everyone moaning and complaining about games they are buying, bought knowing the issues, or even pre ordered. Things will never change in this climate.

Shralla
4th Jan 2011, 21:25
Looks like you might get your wish. EA said that they wanted to continue expanding on their new ip's including Mirror's Edge. I also agree with you on the praise of Assassins Creed's freerunning. It was amazing just holding down two buttons and watching Altair perform crazy leaps and swings for the first time.

I'm really interested to see how the freerunning in Brink is going to work out. They have what they call the "SMART" button, which is basically Assassin's Creed mode, where you hold that button, and it performs leaps and slides and mantles for you given the context of the environment, but you can also perform all the moves manually using your jump, crouch, etc, and they've said that properly performed manual moves will get you more speed/more height/better results in general than using the SMART button all the time, because you can time everything yourself.

FrankCSIS
7th Jan 2011, 02:54
Here's a little song to enrage the anti-nostalgic

Yesterday, all my gaming seemed so hard to play
Now it looks as casual's here to stay
Oh I believe in Yesterday

Suddenly, games aren't half the length they used to be
There's a budget hanging over me
All the rest is publicity

Why the industry
Had to grow, I couldn't say
Although it's not all wrong
I still long for yesterday

Yesterday, it wasn't all about the triple A
They were mostly built to dream away
Oh I believe in Yesterday

Where did variety go
I don't know, I couldn't say
Although it's not all wrong
I still long for yesterday

Yesterday, games were such a complex thing to play
Now I need DosBox to hide away
Oh I believe in Yesterday.
Yes I believe in Yesterday.

Deus_Ex_Machina
7th Jan 2011, 03:21
Here's a little song to enrage the anti-nostalgic

Yesterday, all my gaming seemed so hard to play
Now it looks as casual's here to stay
Oh I believe in Yesterday

Suddenly, games aren't half the length they used to be
There's a budget hanging over me
All the rest is publicity

Why the industry
Had to grow, I couldn't say
Although it's not all wrong
I still long for yesterday

Yesterday, it wasn't all about the triple A
They were mostly built to dream away
Oh I believe in Yesterday

Where did variety go
I don't know, I couldn't say
Although it's not all wrong
I still long for yesterday

Yesterday, games were such a complex thing to play
Now I need DosBox to hide away
Oh I believe in Yesterday.
Yes I believe in Yesterday.

Very well done.

Interesting choice, using the Beatles. Talk about nostalgia. ;)

pha
7th Jan 2011, 04:45
Here's a little song to enrage the anti-nostalgic

http://iworkfortheinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/youwin1internets.jpg

Tverdyj
8th Jan 2011, 20:32
By the way. What is a 'modern gamer' ? How does a 'modern gamer' differ from like other gamers?
.

let me guess:

He plays all his games on a console, and never heard of gaming before Halo.

Pretentious Old Man.
8th Jan 2011, 22:12
Here's a little song to enrage the anti-nostalgic

Yesterday, all my gaming seemed so hard to play
Now it looks as casual's here to stay
Oh I believe in Yesterday

Suddenly, games aren't half the length they used to be
There's a budget hanging over me
All the rest is publicity

Why the industry
Had to grow, I couldn't say
Although it's not all wrong
I still long for yesterday

Yesterday, it wasn't all about the triple A
They were mostly built to dream away
Oh I believe in Yesterday

Where did variety go
I don't know, I couldn't say
Although it's not all wrong
I still long for yesterday

Yesterday, games were such a complex thing to play
Now I need DosBox to hide away
Oh I believe in Yesterday.
Yes I believe in Yesterday.

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/you_win_the_prize.jpg

Although, OT, if we're doing songs...

“METAL BOXES on the hillside,
METAL BOXES full of Spess Mehreens!
We must crush them 4 teh BLOOD GOD,
All the RHINOS must be burned!
There’s a Drop Pod and a Whirlwind
And a Dreadnought and a Predator,
But I’d rather smash the RHINOS,
METAL BOXES DIE TODAY!!!

All the foolish little Spess Mehreens
Think they’re safe in transport vehicles,
Well they’ll find it hard to hide when
THERE’S AN AXE SHOVED IN THEIR BRAINS!!!
All their tactics and their transports
And their STEEL REHN and their FUREH
Cannot stand the power of Chaos,
We shall take their tanks away!

Bash the RHINOS, smash the RHINOS!
I hate them more than anything!
They’re the reason Mummy hates me,
They’re the cause of all my pain!
Just look at me, I’m an ugly mess,
And my voice acting’s hammy,
This whole game is ******* awful,
And the RHINOS caused it all!

METAL BOXES on the hillside,
Destroy them, my minions!
We shall shoot them with our Bolters,
We shall tear them into scraps!
They are cowards, they are weaklings,
An offence to the BLOOD GOD!
And they’re made out of adamantium
AND THEY ALL MUST DIE TODAY!!!!!"

Donvermicelli
10th Jan 2011, 16:27
http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/you_win_the_prize.jpg

Although, OT, if we're doing songs...

“METAL BOXES on the hillside,
METAL BOXES full of Spess Mehreens!
We must crush them 4 teh BLOOD GOD,
All the RHINOS must be burned!
There’s a Drop Pod and a Whirlwind
And a Dreadnought and a Predator,
But I’d rather smash the RHINOS,
METAL BOXES DIE TODAY!!!

All the foolish little Spess Mehreens
Think they’re safe in transport vehicles,
Well they’ll find it hard to hide when
THERE’S AN AXE SHOVED IN THEIR BRAINS!!!
All their tactics and their transports
And their STEEL REHN and their FUREH
Cannot stand the power of Chaos,
We shall take their tanks away!

Bash the RHINOS, smash the RHINOS!
I hate them more than anything!
They’re the reason Mummy hates me,
They’re the cause of all my pain!
Just look at me, I’m an ugly mess,
And my voice acting’s hammy,
This whole game is ******* awful,
And the RHINOS caused it all!

METAL BOXES on the hillside,
Destroy them, my minions!
We shall shoot them with our Bolters,
We shall tear them into scraps!
They are cowards, they are weaklings,
An offence to the BLOOD GOD!
And they’re made out of adamantium
AND THEY ALL MUST DIE TODAY!!!!!"

WH40k? Chaos Space Marines?

AlexOfSpades
10th Jan 2011, 17:05
For the Emproh!

When i die, i want to be buried inside a Dreadnought

Irate_Iguana
10th Jan 2011, 17:08
For the Emproh!

When i die, i want to be buried inside a Dreadnought

Even in death I still serve.

Pretentious Old Man.
10th Jan 2011, 18:12
Purge the unclean.

Donvermicelli
10th Jan 2011, 21:22
Death to the false Emperor!

Pretentious Old Man.
10th Jan 2011, 22:31
Death to the false Emperor!

Burn the Heretic!

FrankCSIS
11th Jan 2011, 02:34
http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/you_win_the_prize.jpg

Although, OT, if we're doing songs...

“METAL BOXES on the hillside,
METAL BOXES full of Spess Mehreens!
We must crush them 4 teh BLOOD GOD,
All the RHINOS must be burned!
There’s a Drop Pod and a Whirlwind
And a Dreadnought and a Predator,
But I’d rather smash the RHINOS,
METAL BOXES DIE TODAY!!!

All the foolish little Spess Mehreens
Think they’re safe in transport vehicles,
Well they’ll find it hard to hide when
THERE’S AN AXE SHOVED IN THEIR BRAINS!!!
All their tactics and their transports
And their STEEL REHN and their FUREH
Cannot stand the power of Chaos,
We shall take their tanks away!

Bash the RHINOS, smash the RHINOS!
I hate them more than anything!
They’re the reason Mummy hates me,
They’re the cause of all my pain!
Just look at me, I’m an ugly mess,
And my voice acting’s hammy,
This whole game is ******* awful,
And the RHINOS caused it all!

METAL BOXES on the hillside,
Destroy them, my minions!
We shall shoot them with our Bolters,
We shall tear them into scraps!
They are cowards, they are weaklings,
An offence to the BLOOD GOD!
And they’re made out of adamantium
AND THEY ALL MUST DIE TODAY!!!!!"

Alright Old Man.

You and me.

Pistols at dawn.

K^2
11th Jan 2011, 02:48
Frank, can I be your second?

FrankCSIS
11th Jan 2011, 02:56
Be my guest.

Be packing.

thedosbox
22nd Jan 2011, 21:04
Now I need DosBox to hide away


:eek:

FrankCSIS
23rd Jan 2011, 02:15
The circle is complete!

Romeo
23rd Jan 2011, 05:38
The problem with the industry is the complete and utter lack of diversity, which results in an illogical fear of complexity. Games ten years ago could be completely and totally different from one another, and it was fine, if you liked one but didn't like the other, you just didn't buy the one you didn't like. But these days, if you don't like the way every FPS feels... Well, too bad for you, deal with it (I paraphrase the gaming industry here). Because they feel compelled to copy one another, the niche market withers and dies, because no one dares cater their game to that 'smaller market' (Even when one could effectively be garaunteed almost all of that smaller market).

The same issue applies to the automotive industry these days. Hell, just comparing what the Viper was, and what it's being made in to, perfectly mimes the game industry. The Viper used to be a raunchy, silly, awesome car, that didn't have ABS, Traction Control or Automatic options. If you didn't know how to drive it, oh well, it's not meant for you. The new Viper? ABS, Traction Control, Automatic Only... In order to cater to the large market that can't drive for themselves. Lotus got fat, Porsche got a battery fetish, Ferrari went four-wheel drive... Honestly, the niche market in cars just upped and left the last few years.

FrankCSIS
23rd Jan 2011, 09:15
They got to Lamborghini as well. This once crazy ass car is being marketed as a civil daily driver.

Cruise in style down Hollywood boul in your ridiculous orange car, top down. Wave the 599 GTB doing its groceries.

This damn civilised world. It lacks chaos, and the fun that comes with it :p

Romeo
24th Jan 2011, 01:10
They got to Lamborghini as well. This once crazy ass car is being marketed as a civil daily driver.

Cruise in style down Hollywood boul in your ridiculous orange car, top down. Wave the 599 GTB doing its groceries.

This damn civilised world. It lacks chaos, and the fun that comes with it :p
True, but with Lambourghini it's almost forgivable, they've always just sort've done whatever they feel like. Cars like the Elise and the Viper had very specific purposes: The Elise was a lightweight queen and the Viper was a demanding engine strapped to wheels. Well, the Elise got fat, and the Viper got cushy. And it's the same issue with games: The market is to afraid to ask the gamers to invest the effort of learning it's complexities, so they roll over and play dead. I remember reading the review for Warhammer: Battle March. Now, don't get me wrong, the game isn't a masterpiece, but something I remember as standing out was the complaint that the game "took too much time to learn." It was borderline offensive. lol

Apathy.
24th Jan 2011, 15:20
Yeah. Real men download the big releases, even the ones they don't enjoy...

Just to piss the big studios off :P

... though I did buy COD4

Vorru
24th Jan 2011, 19:35
Well, I see some hope in some smaller companies and indie game makers.

I for one enjoyed The Experiment (eXperience 112) a lot, a strange idea, but still fun.
Still waiting for Dead State, seems like a great idea, hoping the end result will deliver.
And Amnesia, almost wet my pants with that one.

Though I must admit, that I also liked Heavy Rain, even though it went the completely opposite direction, reminded me a bit of those older FMV games, with the exception that Heavy Rain actually had a plot to go with it :)

And Demons Souls. Fun fun.

Yes, most of the games these days are quite generic and pretty much carbon copies of each other, but there are still some pearls out there just waiting to be found.
Try to stay positive, there's always hope.

Pretentious Old Man.
24th Jan 2011, 21:35
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/24/the-paradox-convention-preview-blowout/

I defy anyone to read that article and tell me the industry is dying. For as long as a few brave developers still draw breath, the battle is not yet lost.

koijotito
24th Jan 2011, 23:00
You, OP, talk as a gamer. You possibly have a job in other industry to keep you going, and gaming is your hobby. Many (most) of game devs WORK as game devs, so they have to earn that money.

I'd agree with the health regen, maybe, but it depends on the game. If done right, it's much more fun, especially in action heavy games. In stealth games, however, medkits etc are better.

Shralla
25th Jan 2011, 03:43
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/24/the-paradox-convention-preview-blowout/

I defy anyone to read that article and tell me the industry is dying. For as long as a few brave developers still draw breath, the battle is not yet lost.

No offense or anything but it seems to me that literally every single one of those games is a strategy game of some type. Hardly offering varied experiences.

Deus_Ex_Machina
2nd Mar 2011, 20:05
You, OP, talk as a gamer. You possibly have a job in other industry to keep you going, and gaming is your hobby. Many (most) of game devs WORK as game devs, so they have to earn that money.

I acknowledge and appreciate that fact. However, IMO, the videogame industry was better when devs thought like gamers instead of like this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-DSwpzxtUNE/TMUFqlMqD9I/AAAAAAAAAA4/qa0iDXJE20E/s1600/bobby_kotick_activision.jpg

The biggest problem with non-gamer fat cats is that, obviously, they know nothing about games other than what their pie charts and annual reports tell them.

Donvermicelli
2nd Mar 2011, 20:21
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/24/the-paradox-convention-preview-blowout/

I defy anyone to read that article and tell me the industry is dying. For as long as a few brave developers still draw breath, the battle is not yet lost. We haven't lost yet no, but we are steadily losing ground.

Frictional games, Kalypso, and mostly indie developers still manage to bring refreshing stuff to the table but most established companies keep rehashing the same stuff over and over again only with each installment they make their games look more like their competitors. Though I must admit that Blizzard for one still manages to bring epic game into the market.

mahmoudd
2nd Mar 2011, 22:44
health regen and game pads

VectorM
2nd Mar 2011, 23:00
Rehashing the same stuff over and over again is a new thing, obviously.

mentalkase
2nd Mar 2011, 23:54
Rehashing the same stuff over and over again is a new thing, obviously.

Actually it's well established fact that before 2000 every single game developed was unique and brilliant. Genres weren't yet invented. It took the hive minds of the industry giants to devise that particular evil. Learn your history.

bloodyfall
3rd Mar 2011, 04:42
I agree entirely with this. Very rarely will you find a 'game journalist' not just some guy who mildly enjoys a select few games and decided to get the job. What annoys me most is the reviews nowadays are worse than before. Heavily based on opinion and aimed more towards a more casual audience rather than attempting to look at the game from all angles.

The problem with multiplayer is the quality of it is mostly to due with the community surrounding it not just the actual design. COD gets such grief for being a bad game primarily because its selling point is the multiplayer and the community isn't exactly the best.

the worst casualty to this new opinionated journalism in the gaming industry is Alpha Protocol. Many people just flat out didn't look twice at it because of the reviews, but the game play was solid and the actually really fun. They compared it to Mass Effect, and it really wasn't. You could go the whole game as a gadgets guy, a soldier, or just a spy. You didn't have to mow down the door with a machine gun and all that overdone crap. It was a breath of fresh air for me.
Same goes for The Saboteur, many people have never heard of it, or thought it was a GTA knock off but I enjoyed that game way more than any of the GTAs. All because it had great story, fun side quests that didnt feel like a chore and more than anything, immersion. Yet, magic reviewer 8 ball says, ask again. :hmm:

ranmafan
3rd Mar 2011, 07:44
It's simple - The moment it was called an industry was the moment things began to change.

No tl;dr version.

To put things in perspective:

Around the 1980s or so, games were considered a novelty and nobody really expected them to take off in any meaningful way because other forms of entertainment were still considered fresh and interesting.

Electronic games were still mostly developed as a really obscure hobby, shared and enjoyed by small communities. Those who could, sold their games as a way to earn some money back for the time invested in their hobby. (look up Richard Garriott) -- Many were still schooling, or working a day job somewhere. It was practically unheard of for anyone to give up everything they had to make e-games.

Of course, as is the natural course of all things new, some people discovered that they *enjoyed* computer and video games, and started investing money in them. This led to the cycle where some people realized they had fans (with money) and were thus given an incentive to continue creating more games of the sort their fans loved (because they loved their own games too, back then).

At some point, things started growing into the full fledged Games Industry as you call it now. Such a term practically did not exist 20+ years ago, when electronic games development was still something people considered as a hobby/passion first, and career second/last. Only, some people with money noticed that there was a market for such things, and started putting money into this new venture...

I like to call this the Schism. At some point, the idea of 'games development' broke up into two distinct elements - the mainstream commercial element, and the hobby/enthusiast element.

The former is what the TC appears to be posting about. It's an industry that exists to make money and supports a number of human beings in this economy. It is a business that caters to its audience. It isn't entirely soulless and devoid of passion, but when you have mouths to feed, it certainly comes second.

The latter is what continues to drive passion, innovation and creativity in the idea of 'games development' as a whole, especially if it crosses over into the former. But it is mostly just that: something people do simply because they love it, and not because they expect it to pay the bills.

I fall into the former - The games industry is my ricebowl. My hobby is PLAYING games, my job is MAKING games. I love them both, in different capacities. The studio I work for makes simple but fun casual games (which caters to an audience this forum does not often know exists). They are not AAA titles, we have tiny budgets, the hours suck, there're no bonuses whatsoever, but regardless, it's still a job (and for some, a career) to help make ends meet.

Make no mistake, the fact that I'm making games for a paycheck now is precisely because those people with capital thought that selling games would be a good way to make more money. I am grateful that I have a job that pays me to do something I find enjoyable, and that as a bonus I get to travel, meet and greet our customers, who enjoy our games.

But I do not for a minute harbour any illusions about what I do: The minute I stop receiving a paycheck for making games, I would go find another job to continue paying my bills (and feeding my gaming hobby). Making games would very much become a back-seat activity for me (if even that), in the same way someone who once flew F15s might now fly a light aeroplane for fun while working at a hangar for Boeing assembling engines instead.

Although the occasion fan mail does make it worth the sacrifice, once in a while. (Especially the one we got from a little 6 or 7 year old girl.)

I would recommend reading up on the history of the Ultima series, from back when it was called Akalabeth. It tells a pretty interesting tale of what I'm trying to say here.

VectorM
3rd Mar 2011, 08:53
Actually it's well established fact that before 2000 every single game developed was unique and brilliant. Genres weren't yet invented. It took the hive minds of the industry giants to devise that particular evil. Learn your history.

That's what I said. As a matter of fact, I don't think there were games that were even vaguely similar. Unlike today, where every single game is a cover shooter, including RTS-es and Adventure games. I don't think the fan made King's Quest game would be downloaded so much, if they didn't put regen health in it.

mahmoudd
3rd Mar 2011, 13:51
Rehashing the same stuff over and over again is a new thing, obviously.

yeah

like health regen and **** gameplay ported to pc due to gamepads