PDA

View Full Version : We're out of ideas....


justin_credible
03-06-2012, 01:35 AM
Let's make Halo 4 and another Forza. :crazy:

eastx
03-06-2012, 01:54 AM
Let's make Halo 4 and another Forza. :crazy:

Naw, let's make useless troll posts. Also, Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, Gran Turismo 5, Ninja Gaiden 3, Dead or Alive 5, and maybe some sequels.

justin_credible
03-06-2012, 01:56 AM
Naw, let's make useless troll posts. Also, Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, Gran Turismo 5, Ninja Gaiden 3, Dead or Alive 5, and maybe some sequels.

Hey fanboy, DOA 5 and NG3 are also on 360.


Wait a minute.....there's been an update on the magicbox main page.




Another Fable. :crazy:

Escaflowne2001
03-06-2012, 02:02 AM
Hey if you don't like Microsoft sequels you can always go and play the PS3 or Wii.... I mean they don't have sequels right..?

justin_credible
03-06-2012, 02:04 AM
It's not about sequels as I'm all for a good sequel. It's about games that deserve sequels or not.

I own a 360 and a PS3 and Wii btw.

Escaflowne2001
03-06-2012, 02:07 AM
Then apart from the crappy XBLA Fable stop-gap arcade game I don't really see the problem. I have no problem with Halo and Forza is meant to be good if you like racers.

eastx
03-06-2012, 02:09 AM
Hey fanboy, DOA 5 and NG3 are also on 360.

I'm not a fanboy, and I definitely don't stop by the Sony or Nintendo forums and start totally stupid topics. I included those two multiplatform games in the list intentionally to drive home my point: who the hell cares?

justin_credible
03-06-2012, 02:12 AM
I can't be the only one that's tired of playing Halo. There are Fable fans and that's fine, I don't happen to be one. Forza is alright but it sure does not need the yearly sequel treatment.

The 360 just seems pretty dead IMO if that's all it's got left to offer as far as being exclusive. 720 will fail unless they come up with some new IPs. Nintendo Sony have better exclusives and Sony took most of MS' exclusives (as in they're on both)

As I said I own a 360. Sorry if hurts your butt for me to point out my dissapointment.

eastx
03-06-2012, 02:18 AM
I can't be the only one that's tired of playing Halo. There are Fable fans and that's fine, I don't happen to be one. Forza is alright but does not sure it needs to yearly sequel treatment.

The 360 just seems pretty dead IMO if that's all it's got left to offer as far as being exclusive. 720 will fail unless they come up with some new IPs. Nintendo Sony have better exclusives and Sony took most of MS' exclusives (as in they're on both)

As I said I own a 360. Sorry if hurts your butt for me to point out my dissapointment.

Joe owns a 360 too, but that hasn't stopped him from hating it.

You might have some kind of decent point to make about the console needing more retail exclusives, but the way you expressed it was incendiary and dumb. It makes discussing the topic with you in a level manner quite difficult.

justin_credible
03-06-2012, 02:21 AM
Joe owns a 360 too, but that hasn't stopped him from hating it.

You might have some kind of decent point to make about the console needing more retail exclusives, but the way you expressed it was incendiary and dumb. It makes discussing the topic with you in a level manner quite difficult.

Or maybe you're just sensitive?

Yeah I've seen you in other threads, you're extremely sensitive. Lighten up bro. :thumb-up:

Drunken Savior
03-06-2012, 02:28 AM
I can't be the only one that's tired of playing Halo. There are Fable fans and that's fine, I don't happen to be one. Forza is alright but it sure does not need the yearly sequel treatment.

The 360 just seems pretty dead IMO if that's all it's got left to offer as far as being exclusive. 720 will fail unless they come up with some new IPs. Nintendo Sony have better exclusives and Sony took most of MS' exclusives (as in they're on both)

As I said I own a 360. Sorry if hurts your butt for me to point out my dissapointment.

I pretty much agree with all of this but still think this thread is stupid and pointless and the product of a sandy vagina. Douche that sandwich before you go full Bruce Banner!

Joe Redifer
03-06-2012, 02:46 AM
Joe owns a 360 too, but that hasn't stopped him from hating it.

I actually own 2. What I hate most is Xbox Live and the way certain things work within Microsoft's walled garden. My beefs are teh legit! But I hear that they will be making changes that will result in fewer complaints from myself.

Drunken Savior
03-06-2012, 02:51 AM
But I hear that they will be making changes that will result in fewer complaints from myself.

Yeah, I was happy to hear that MS was discontinuing MS Points and just going with regional currency. It's about time! (http://www.insidemobileapps.com/2012/01/23/exclusive-microsoft-to-discontinue-its-virtual-currency-system-microsoft-points/)

Joe Redifer
03-06-2012, 03:25 AM
I just hope that, along with that, I can simply pay for what any given thing costs instead of having to give them $10 for an $8 game, but I imagine they'll make sure it's all good. Once that happens I will definitely be looking around the Live store more (or whatever they call the store... Xbox Live Arcade????)

darren
03-06-2012, 04:00 AM
Let's make Halo 4 and another Forza. :crazy:


tbh apply that logic to every game studio on the planet


FF13x2?, DQ9, CODXXX, street fight X super spinny wizzy this time with an extra hat edition etc etc etc


if the games good i dont really care what number is after it tbh ..

Not making another Halo would be as stupid as Nintendo not making another mario game tbh and Halo 5 would sell a bucket load of netboxes. From what i'v been reading about the new Forza its some MMO type racing game this time so not just the next forza they are doing something different with the IP, which to be fair are meant to be ace possibly the best driving game you can get depending on who you speak to about them


I pretty much agree with all of this but still think this thread is stupid and pointless and the product of a sandy vagina. Douche that sandwich before you go full Bruce Banner!

sandy vagina douching .. isnt that what a rough tongue is for?

Escaflowne2001
03-06-2012, 04:22 AM
I just hope that, along with that, I can simply pay for what any given thing costs instead of having to give them $10 for an $8 game, but I imagine they'll make sure it's all good. Once that happens I will definitely be looking around the Live store more (or whatever they call the store... Xbox Live Arcade????)

Doubt it the PSN is the same you can only move money in 5.00 blocks so you always end up with something left over. :(

Icarus4578
03-06-2012, 09:21 AM
I get the gist of what you're saying, justin, in that MS cannot seem to come up with anything new besides sequel after sequel; I won't come in here and insult you for expressing your disappointment.

I've complained about companies relying too heavily on certain franchises (a certain plumber springs to mind...) while not creating new IPs. Some companies are content to live in the past. Also, many are sitting on great franchises and doing absolutely nothing with 'em, like Capcom, Konami, etc. To be fair, once in awhile you'll get the oddball attempt at a new series but the results usually don't live up to expectations (Asura's Wrath ...may as well be DMC).

Alucard was once telling me about how the PC market enjoys much more innovative software, thanks in large part to the explosion of indie development. With console game dev budgets rising sky-high to the point where it's akin to creating a Hollywood film, developers are apprehensive about taking risks, whereas PC devs can work on virtually any budget. A bold risk-taker needs to step up and take a bite out of the corporate monopoly of Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony in order to wake up the industry from the monotonous hell of tired sequels, spin-offs, gimmicks, and fads.

eastx
03-06-2012, 09:54 AM
I've complained about companies relying too heavily on certain franchises (a certain plumber springs to mind...) while not creating new IPs. Some companies are content to live in the past. Also, many are sitting on great franchises and doing absolutely nothing with 'em, like Capcom, Konami, etc. To be fair, once in awhile you'll get the oddball attempt at a new series but the results usually don't live up to expectations (Asura's Wrath ...may as well be DMC).


What are you trying to say about Asura's Wrath? That game may not be for you, but it is very different from any other game and wonderful. Definitely a huge risk considering it's steeped in this Buddhist mythology that not very many people will get, and it's way more story-driven than any normal action game.

Microsoft actually does put money into new IPs and exclusives. It's just that they're doing them mostly as downloadable titles these days. People who don't pay attention to downloadable games would miss out on all that. (Of course, they do also make downloadable sequels and spinoffs of existing franchises, ala Alan Wake and Fable Heroes).

MS is also very likely busy making launch titles for the next Xbox. I'm surprised they didn't hold onto Halo 4 for that, but it could explain why the new Forza isn't a numbered entry.

Alucard
03-06-2012, 10:11 AM
Its more story driven because most action games today have fuck all story. If you tried to turn say Gears of War into the same format as Asura's Wrath it would end up being 20min long and boring as shit.

Icarus4578
03-06-2012, 10:57 AM
What are you trying to say about Asura's Wrath? That game may not be for you, but it is very different from any other game and wonderful. Definitely a huge risk considering it's steeped in this Buddhist mythology that not very many people will get, and it's way more story-driven than any normal action game.

I was referencing the game engine, not the storyline (which from my perspective is cliche drivel). Ninja Gaiden for the NES had cool cutscenes for its time but even if you removed them all the game itself would still be excellent. Can't say the same thing about much of the newer software I've tried. Developers are trying too hard to create a pseudo-cinematic experience rather than a fun video game.

Microsoft actually does put money into new IPs and exclusives. It's just that they're doing them mostly as downloadable titles these days. People who don't pay attention to downloadable games would miss out on all that. (Of course, they do also make downloadable sequels and spinoffs of existing franchises, ala Alan Wake and Fable Heroes).

Do they develop them internally or farm the independents for worthy franchise IPs?

MS is also very likely busy making launch titles for the next Xbox. I'm surprised they didn't hold onto Halo 4 for that, but it could explain why the new Forza isn't a numbered entry.

Sequels in and of themselves aren't necessarily problematic. However, the overreliance on them tends to be.

Its more story driven because most action games today have fuck all story. If you tried to turn say Gears of War into the same format as Asura's Wrath it would end up being 20min long and boring as shit.

Pretty much. Imagine if the intermissions between stages in Strider were 15-minute cinematics. The game would be busted. Not every piece of software requires a cinematic storyline.

eastx
03-06-2012, 11:02 AM
I was referencing the game engine, not the storyline (which from my perspective is cliche drivel).

Do you know what a cliche is? It's something that's been done to death. While there are some similarities to revenge stories like God of War, the universe, the backstory, and most of what happens is extremely original for a videogame, so cliche is definitely the wrong word. Also, I doubt you've actually played through it to speak so authoritatively (but correct me if I'm wrong).


Do they develop them internally or farm the independents for worthy franchise IPs?


The tend to bankroll indie devs like Signal Studios, who made the (wonderful) Toy Soldiers games. It's a low risk model for Microsoft, and does produce a lot of quality software.
I don't think many games if any are made by Microsoft themselves, though they do own a handful of studios who are making games (Twisted Pixel, etc.).

Icarus4578
03-06-2012, 11:16 AM
Do you know what a cliche is? It's something that's been done to done. While there are some similarities to revenge stories like God of War, the universe, the backstory, and most of what happens is extremely original for a videogame, so cliche is definitely the wrong word. Also, I doubt you've actually played through it to speak so authoritatively (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Quite right, I didn't play all the way through it because it was boring me to tears. And yeah, I know what a cliche is and it definitely applies here. BTW, "done to done"?

The tend to bankroll indie devs like Signal Studios, who made the (wonderful) Toy Soldiers games. It's a low risk model for Microsoft, and does produce a lot of quality software.
I don't think many games if any are made by Microsoft themselves, though they do own a handful of studios who are making games (Twisted Pixel, etc.).

That's what I figured. Microsoft invests in other developers in return for software support. All in all I would concede that their business decision is a smart one since they don't seem capable of creating original software themselves.

eastx
03-06-2012, 11:43 AM
And yeah, I know what a cliche is and it definitely applies here.

It truly does not. But feel free to explain your statement. (Had a typo when saying Done to death)

Cliche: A trite or overused expression or idea

darren
03-06-2012, 11:54 AM
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lols30rUm71qeiwtao1_500.gif

Escaflowne2001
03-06-2012, 12:01 PM
Pretty much. Imagine if the intermissions between stages in Strider were 15-minute cinematics. The game would be busted. Not every piece of software requires a cinematic storyline.

Why are you comparing a side scrolling hack'n'slash (a genre that is almost always devoid of story) and doesn't need one to a visual novel which is all about story and why would you play it in the first place if you aren't interested in cinematics.

KingOfSentinels
03-06-2012, 02:12 PM
One day people will be happy with what they get, because I don't know about you guys but this generation has been amazing for me, and still is. We've been getting fantastic games all the time. I don't think I've ever played so many games I've liked, my 'Completed Games List' 2011 was just full of high scores, and the only stuff I've played in 2012 I've loved. People will always find something to whine about.

Currently playing Arkham City, and it's just utterly brilliant. I've also got Alan Wake waiting in reserve for when I finish, as well as co-op on Syndicate after that, and by the time I'm done with them, I'll probably have Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai to play next, and there'll probably be more that slips my mind. I think it's about time we got the next generation, PC has been in it for about 2 or 3 years now, and I'm sure it'll continue to wow me just like this gen did, but right now, I'm perfectly content with the games we're getting.

Also, Asura's Wrath is the opposite of cliche basically. It's extremely innovative and offers a different experience to basically every other videogame released; a cliche game would be an FPS where you play as an American soldier shooting Russian Terrorists. That's insanely cliche.

I didn't like Asura's Wrath tbh, I played it and was bored as hell by it, enough for me to stop playing it, but I still concede that it's an innovative, great game. People refuse to think objectively, their opinion just becomes fact; they don't like it, it's automatically shit. Despite me disliking the game, it was still an innovative game objectively. I can not like something and still respect what it is.

darren
03-06-2012, 02:18 PM
every gen people moan about the current gen, while looking back with tinted glasses to previous gens where they THINK only great games were made.

foxhunt99
03-06-2012, 02:24 PM
Let's make Halo 4 and another Forza. :crazy:

:thumb-dn:

This should be Nintendo's line.

Alucard
03-06-2012, 03:41 PM
every gen people moan about the current gen, while looking back with tinted glasses to previous gens where they THINK only great games were made.

It really depends on the system. There is no doubt from the psx era and back it was brilliant. PS2 was pretty awesome too. But the 360/ps3 era has been fairly flat in a way. I mean I love my systems and pc, I played shitloads of pc games before, but I always went back and forth. I think during the second half of the psx and most of the ps2 period, I actually played on those systems way more then my pc. But since the 360/ps3 time, my pc has gotten about 90% of m attention. Which is good really since I'm behind in too many games.

For the pc I'd say games are still as awesome as they were before. But 360/ps3 for me has been a huge disappointment. Hell, my gamecube saw about 99% more playtime then my Wii did.

Joe Redifer
03-06-2012, 03:50 PM
Doubt it the PSN is the same you can only move money in 5.00 blocks so you always end up with something left over. :(

Maybe that's how it is over there but I've never had any money left over on PSN. That should be illegal. Nobody can counter this argument logically.

darren
03-06-2012, 04:00 PM
It really depends on the system. There is no doubt from the psx era and back it was brilliant. PS2 was pretty awesome too. But the 360/ps3 era has been fairly flat in a way. I mean I love my systems and pc, I played shitloads of pc games before, but I always went back and forth. I think during the second half of the psx and most of the ps2 period, I actually played on those systems way more then my pc. But since the 360/ps3 time, my pc has gotten about 90% of m attention. Which is good really since I'm behind in too many games.

For the pc I'd say games are still as awesome as they were before. But 360/ps3 for me has been a huge disappointment. Hell, my gamecube saw about 99% more playtime then my Wii did.


i'm not talking about what games you like or dislike thats all down to personal taste..

its more the and it 100% happens all the time .. the back then during gen [what ever] game were better, none were broken, etc etc. people 'forget' about the bucket loads of broken buggy shit that came out etc .. hell during the psx/ps2 era sooo many games were coming out you spent more time shifting through crap in the store to find the good stuff.

Shorty0061
03-06-2012, 07:20 PM
I agree with Darren. Using the “Back in my day” or “back then” argument is a fallacy as your brain filters out most of the useless junk you’ve absorbed all your life. It’s the same stupid argument we hear about music and movies and all aspects of our life. “Achy Breaky Heart” came out in the early 90s, platinumed in the US, triple platinumed in Australia and went to number 4 on the billboard top 100. Crap music like that was just as common, and no better than the stuff people complain about today. “Shakespear in Love” beat out “Saving Private Ryan” in 1998. No one gave a shat about that movie when it came out and they definitely don’t care about it today, especially in comparison to SPR.

Saying things were so great back then shows you have a limited memory of the past, or you’re just an old curmudgeon and your opinion is fairly asinine. I have no issue with nostalgia, but gamers turn it into a fucking religion.

Drunken Savior
03-06-2012, 07:30 PM
^This.

Yeah, when we look at the past, we tend to remember the good times and filter out the bad. People should beware of that whenever they entertain nostalgia.

Oh, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" for the NES....you broke my heart, the heart of a child. I've been rotten ever since.

I bet in 10 years, I'll look back at this gen as the gen that gave me the first Batman game I really, really enjoyed.

spider-prime
03-06-2012, 08:07 PM
I like the games this gen then I did the last, the only problems I have are just the business models they are forcing on us. ie DLC on disc making us pay extra for stuff we already have!

Shorty0061
03-06-2012, 08:15 PM
Yeah, the big game publishers have been shitheads as of late, but this gen has brought so many awesome indie games, start-up, and smaller titles through DD that we would never have seen on consoles last gen. At least not to the successes we've seen the last few years.

Icarus4578
03-06-2012, 09:32 PM
It truly does not. But feel free to explain your statement. (Had a typo when saying Done to death)

Let's see... Main character gets framed for a murder, his wife is killed and his daughter kidnapped, gets ousted from his position, beaten and thrown down to the world below. Don't get me wrong, nearly every action game's story usually revolves around some revenge-based plot but the characters in Asura's Wrath just, I dunno, turn me off completely. You like it? Wonderful.

Why are you comparing a side scrolling hack'n'slash (a genre that is almost always devoid of story) and doesn't need one to a visual novel which is all about story and why would you play it in the first place if you aren't interested in cinematics.

If you were to completely remove all the cinematics from Asura's Wrath, you'd be left with the game itself. Putting aside the storytelling, the game is nothing impressive on its own merits. In fact, the original DMC, which this shamelessly borrows from, did most of this stuff much, much better.

One day people will be happy with what they get, because I don't know about you guys but this generation has been amazing for me, and still is. We've been getting fantastic games all the time. I don't think I've ever played so many games I've liked, my 'Completed Games List' 2011 was just full of high scores, and the only stuff I've played in 2012 I've loved. People will always find something to whine about.

2011 had the most games you liked, huh? That's your opinion.

Also, Asura's Wrath is the opposite of cliche basically. It's extremely innovative and offers a different experience to basically every other videogame released; a cliche game would be an FPS where you play as an American soldier shooting Russian Terrorists. That's insanely cliche.

Indeed it is but Asura's Wrath is in the same boat.

every gen people moan about the current gen, while looking back with tinted glasses to previous gens where they THINK only great games were made.

I've been gaming since the ColecoVision/Atari days and think I know when I'm having a great time vs when I'm not. Yeah, a lot of cruddy software existed prior to the current gen but, maybe you're not aware, there was also a preponderance of incredible new software, more risk-taking, extra content (which BTW didn't cost a penny), far better soundtracks, the arcade scene/ports, etc. etc. Games had more focused development, typically split between about a dozen or so people, unlike the hundreds required for most software in this day and age of Hollywood-wannabe software. That's how I see it, no rose-tinted glasses necessary.

Icarus4578
03-06-2012, 09:34 PM
Yeah, the big game publishers have been shitheads as of late, but this gen has brought so many awesome indie games, start-up, and smaller titles through DD that we would never have seen on consoles last gen. At least not to the successes we've seen the last few years.

This was the most positive development of the current generation.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 12:38 AM
If you were to completely remove all the cinematics from Asura's Wrath, you'd be left with the game itself. Putting aside the storytelling, the game is nothing impressive on its own merits. In fact, the original DMC, which this shamelessly borrows from, did most of this stuff much, much better.

The cinematics and the storytelling IS the game though. :P

eastx
03-07-2012, 01:14 AM
Let's see... Main character gets framed for a murder, his wife is killed and his daughter kidnapped, gets ousted from his position, beaten and thrown down to the world below. Don't get me wrong, nearly every action game's story usually revolves around some revenge-based plot but the characters in Asura's Wrath just, I dunno, turn me off completely. You like it? Wonderful.

If you were to completely remove all the cinematics from Asura's Wrath, you'd be left with the game itself. Putting aside the storytelling, the game is nothing impressive on its own merits. In fact, the original DMC, which this shamelessly borrows from, did most of this stuff much, much better.


Again, you really do not seem to understand what a cliche is (and I even posted the definition a while back). Yes, it's a revenge story. That's just the broadest way to describe it (the only broader way would be to do it by genre). I can promise you that far, far more games revolve around saving the world. Are all of those stories cliche now too? (Surely some of them are, but...) The more specific details are what matters - what you do with the genre or basic premise. And that's where Asura's Wrath differs greatly from most other games.

You can't separate the gameplay in Asura's Wrath from the storytelling because that is literally the point of the game. It'd be like saying, "If we ignore the platforming in Mario" or "the driving in Gran Turismo." Completely pointless argument to make. You don't want such a story-oriented game - fine, then say so. But claiming that it plays just like Devil May Cry (which wouldn't be such a bad thing but still) when it's in fact such a very different game other than maybe some of the controls is unreasonable.

Alucard
03-07-2012, 02:25 AM
I'd like to point out that no one I knew listened to achy breaky heart ever. Never. No one liked it. Except girls. They are the true reason shit gets messed up.

spider-prime
03-07-2012, 02:33 AM
I liked the Weird Al version better. Al makes every song better.

darren
03-07-2012, 04:10 AM
I've been gaming since the ColecoVision/Atari days and think I know when I'm having a great time vs when I'm not. Yeah, a lot of cruddy software existed prior to the current gen but, maybe you're not aware, there was also a preponderance of incredible new software, more risk-taking, extra content (which BTW didn't cost a penny), far better soundtracks, the arcade scene/ports, etc. etc. Games had more focused development, typically split between about a dozen or so people, unlike the hundreds required for most software in this day and age of Hollywood-wannabe software. That's how I see it, no rose-tinted glasses necessary.

im 38 this year and have been gaming since my dad built our first 16k specturm and also since the ColecoVision/Atari days, christ the first game i played was some pong thing that my dad had to write as you could buy them. what i said is true IMO .. back then stuff was just as buggy and there just as much tripe as there is now in the shops (percentage not volumes). Only main difference if it was buggy and broken it couldn't be patched.

so yes plenty of people with rose tinted glasses.

Anyone fancy hunting copies of the Atari ET in New Mexico with me? thats right film tie ins were just as crappy then as they are now, only back then the did the right thing bury the bloody things rather than shipping them to store

Again, you really do not seem to understand what a cliche is (and I even posted the definition a while back). Yes, it's a revenge story. That's just the broadest way to describe it (the only broader way would be to do it by genre). I can promise you that far, far more games revolve around saving the world. Are all of those stories cliche now too? (Surely some of them are, but...) .

yeep .. hell every aracde beatum up back in the day was the same near enough, SAVE THE GIRL ... STUPID BITCH GOT HERSELF KIDNAPPED AGAIN ...

but no one seemed to care or moan about that

Sinful Sam
03-07-2012, 04:50 AM
Well a beatum up game story didn't matter. Some games don't really need a deep story at all.

darren
03-07-2012, 04:58 AM
agreed, but it was all very cliche

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 07:15 AM
I mean back on the Commodore 64 I lost count of how many times I played a Xevious clone, or a Golden Axe clone or a R-type clone etc there were absolutely hundreds of clone games pumped onto the market at that time because they were so cheap to make it was worse then even now with FPS'.

darren
03-07-2012, 07:30 AM
exactly

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 09:12 AM
yeep .. hell every aracde beatum up back in the day was the same near enough, SAVE THE GIRL ... STUPID BITCH GOT HERSELF KIDNAPPED AGAIN ...

but no one seemed to care or moan about that

Of course nobody did because back then devs didn't force-feed hour-long cinemas on us before we got started, much less put us through long, drawn-out tutorials. We weren't treated like babies.

im 38 this year and have been gaming since my dad built our first 16k specturm and also since the ColecoVision/Atari days, christ the first game i played was some pong thing that my dad had to write as you could buy them. what i said is true IMO .. back then stuff was just as buggy and there just as much tripe as there is now in the shops (percentage not volumes). Only main difference if it was buggy and broken it couldn't be patched.

That's why we had VG publications (and rental stores) to help us make informed decisions. If a game was crap, it typically got a negative reputation. The difference between the quality software of today vs yesteryear is like night and day.

so yes plenty of people with rose tinted glasses.

I know the difference when I'm playing quality and when I'm playing crap. Some contemporary games are good, certainly, but in general has lacked a special vibe (I don't know how to define it).

Anyone fancy hunting copies of the Atari ET in New Mexico with me? thats right film tie ins were just as crappy then as they are now, only back then the did the right thing bury the bloody things rather than shipping them to store

Congratulations on pointing out a game everyone knows is a pile of trash. At least they dumped ET in a landfill. Today, trash like Wii Fit fills millions of people's living rooms.

darren
03-07-2012, 09:21 AM
Of course nobody did because back then devs didn't force-feed hour-long cinemas on us before we got started, much less put us through long, drawn-out tutorials. We weren't treated like babies.

yes that happens all the time .. i mean every time i turn a game on i have a 4 hour cut sense and tutorials .. err hang on .. no i dont ..

and plenty of games had tutorials in all previous gens



That's why we had VG publications (and rental stores) to help us make informed decisions. If a game was crap, it typically got a negative reputation.


we have even MORE publications now to do exactly the same .. in fact there are even MORE .. its called the internet, soical networking etc etc etc


The difference between the quality software of today vs yesteryear is like night and day.


evidence for this bold statement .. i could wheel out a zillion industry docs that prove the quality of ALL software now is much better than years gone ..


I know the difference when I'm playing quality and when I'm playing crap. Some contemporary games are good, certainly, but in general has lacked a special vibe (I don't know how to define it).

so do i .. and percentage wise there was just as much crap then as there is now



Congratulations on pointing out a game everyone knows is a pile of trash. At least they dumped ET in a landfill. Today, trash like Wii Fit fills millions of people's living rooms.

yes back in the day people used the AWESOME Family Fun and Fitness instead of wiifit ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Stadium_Events_cover.jpg

man it was soooooooooooooooo much better back in the day .. who needs a balance board when i can get my nes out and use the 'power pad'

as i said same old crap coming out trying to do the same thing ..

ROSE TINTED GLASSES if you think there wasnt as much crap IMO

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 09:39 AM
yes that happens all the time .. i mean every time i turn a game on i have a 4 hour cut sense and tutorials .. err hang on .. no i dont ..

and plenty of games had tutorials in all previous gens

Not to the extent that they do today -- nowhere near.


we have even MORE publications now to do exactly the same .. in fact there are even MORE .. its called the internet, soical networking etc etc etc

Yeah and guess what? Whereas before there were enthusiast gamers writing for publications, now they have young turks who tow the corporate line in order to appease their sponsors and bag the exclusives. That explains why every newfangled FPS to come along is touted as one the greatest achievements known to humanity or the like.

evidence for this bold statement .. i could wheel out a zillion industry docs that prove the quality of ALL software now is much better than years gone ..

You mean the budgets. Quality is subjective.

so do i .. and percentage wise there was just as much crap then as there is now

And?

yes back in the day people used the AWESOME Family Fun and Fitness instead of wiifit ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Stadium_Events_cover.jpg

man it was soooooooooooooooo much better back in the day .. who needs a balance board when i can get my nes out and use the 'power pad'

as i said same old crap coming out trying to do the same thing ..

ROSE TINTED GLASSES

Question: Which game sold millions of copies and was hyped to the stratosphere, Wii Fit or Stadium Events?

I rest my case.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 09:51 AM
Not to the extent that they do today -- nowhere near.

I think you'll find most games let you turn off or skip the help if you want. There are a few games that force you but there in the minority.



Question: Which game sold millions of copies and was hyped to the stratosphere, Wii Fit or Stadium Events?

Sounds to me your just sore/angry that the games you like or use to like are no longer popular or don't get sold anymore.
Sure it's crazy the way games like Wii Fit sells but you can hardly blame Nintendo if that's what people that have a Wii want, I've been saying that about Mario for years I've never gotten the appeal but clearly it's what people want. Otherwise it wouldn't be made but it's just another faze that'll pass like music games (Wii fit that is...).

The situation with FPS' now is no different as I said then it was with 2D shooters (vertical or horizonal) or side scrolling fighters back in the day. The only difference is you don't seem to like the popular genres at the moment and that seems to rub you the wrong way I think.

darren
03-07-2012, 09:54 AM
Not to the extent that they do today -- nowhere near.



and you write like it never happened back in the good old days


Yeah and guess what? Whereas before there were enthusiast gamers writing for publications, now they have young turks who tow the corporate line in order to appease their sponsors and bag the exclusives. That explains why every newfangled FPS to come along is touted as one the greatest achievements known to humanity or the like.


and guess what there are just as many enthusiast gamers writing now if not more thanks to social media. if you OPT to believe the likes of IGN, who were geing PAID back in the n64 days aswell then more fool you .. yes they were getting paid back in the good old days.


You mean the budgets. Quality is subjective.


no quality of the code .. you said "The difference between the quality software of today vs yesteryear is like night and day" .. thats nothing to do with budgets. I'm talking messurable code/software quality which has been tracked for years and years.

so again eveidence?

what you like is totally objective and not what i have been talking about when referering to rose tinted glasses .. i'v have only been talking about the fact that there was just as much shit software, and just as much buggy software back in the good old days as there is now, just am much rubbish stuff being pushed that people forget when they talk about the 'good old days'



And?

you seemed to suggest that you being able to tell the difference between good and bad games was important to the disucssion .. so did i ..


Question: Which game sold millions of copies and was hyped to the stratosphere, Wii Fit or Stadium Events?

I rest my case.

it has nothing what so ever to do with how much it sold .. its there to point out that back in the good old days the companies were trying to sell the same old shit they are now, nothing has changed in that respect . . but hay it ws cool back then it was the good old days as it was new and fresh shit.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 10:03 AM
I think you'll find most games let you turn off or skip the help if you want. There are a few games that force you but there in the minority.

About half of them do and half don't. Besides cutscenes, they tend to feature non-skippable, long-winded tutorials.

Sounds to me your just sore/angry that the games you like or use to like are no longer popular or don't get sold anymore.

I'm using examples to make a point, that games today are more akin to pseudo-cinemas with gameplay tacked on. Gamers used to be opposed to the whole "interactive" movement but it looks like it won out in the end.

Sure it's crazy the way games like Wii Fit sells but you can hardly blame Nintendo if that's what people that have a Wii want, I've been saying that about Mario for years I've never gotten the appeal but clearly it's what people want. Otherwise it wouldn't be made but it's just another faze that'll pass like music games.

It's not looking like the fad will just pass over anytime soon. Game developers have figured out how to cater to the causal, non-demanding market. Stadium Events exemplifies the difference between the market then vs now in that the majority of gamers didn't give a hoot about lousy junk like that, so it was buried. Today, with the right mass-market campaign, people will gooble up anything, quality be damned.

The situation with FPS' now is no different as I said then it was with 2D shooters (vertical or horizonal) or side scrolling fighters back in the day. The only difference is you don't like them and that seems to cloud your view a little I think.

It's not just FPS, it's the preponderance of lousy cinema-wannabe and gimmick shovelware.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 10:12 AM
and you write like it never happened back in the good old days

Care to name software from back then with long cinematics and tutorials which cannot be skipped? The closest you can come is Neo Geo games what with the skippable gameplay tutorials which last about 30 seconds.

and guess what there are just as many enthusiast gamers writing now if not more thanks to social media. if you OPT to believe the likes of IGN, who were geing PAID back in the n64 days aswell then more fool you .. yes they were getting paid back in the good old days.


Rare is the occasion that I go look at something on IGN. I certainly don't look to them for enthusiast reviews.

no quality of the code .. you said "The difference between the quality software of today vs yesteryear is like night and day" .. thats nothing to do with budgets. I'm talking messurable code/software quality which has been tracked for years and years.

so again eveidence?

How do you "prove" software quality?

what you like is totally objective and not what i have been talking about when referering to rose tinted glasses .. i'v have only been talking about the fact that there was just as much shit software, and just as much buggy software back in the good old days as there is now, just am much rubbish stuff being pushed that people forget when they talk about the 'good old days'

Yet when it comes to comparing quality offerings, today's software cannot stack up. It gets boring in no time at all.

you seemed to suggest that you being able to tell the difference between good and bad games was important to the disucssion .. so did i ..

That's why it's subjective. There is no measuring stick except to literally compare one title against another.

it has nothing what so ever to do with how much it sold .. its there to point out that back in the good old days the companies were trying to sell the same old shit they are now, nothing has changed in that respect . . but hay it ws cool back then it was the good old days as it was new and fresh shit.

Whenever they tried to force-feed us crap like Stadium Events, Sewer Shark, ET, etc., us gamers responded with a big fat "No."

darren
03-07-2012, 10:20 AM
Care to name software from back then with long cinematics and tutorials which cannot be skipped? The closest you can come is Neo Geo games what with the skippable gameplay tutorials which last about 30 seconds.

as Esca pointed out nearly all games have them as skip able these days, infact i cant recall the last time this gen i played a game with a tutorial i was forced to play tbh but my memory is shit .. and i cant be arsed to list games for you . a/ because my memory is shit .. and b/ i cant be arsed



Rare is the occasion that I go look at something on IGN. I certainly don't look to them for enthusiast reviews.


and .. point is there is are just as many enthusiasts writing now and more accessable than ever before .


How do you "prove" software quality?


easily using a software to monitor what your doing during the dev life cycle, vey very easily actually .. and its been monitored for decades ..

so again . evidence to prove the quality of the software is better. not that you like it more that does not prove the quality of anything


Yet when it comes to comparing quality offerings, today's software cannot stack up. It gets boring in no time at all.


totally objective and NOT was i was talking about.. infact when alucard said the same i replied.

"i'm not talking about what games you like or dislike thats all down to personal taste.. "

i have only every been saying rose tinted glasses when it comes to the quaity of the software produced and and amount of crap .. <---- this is what you seem to be missing every time you bring i prefer the games then crap which i'm not talking about.


Yet whenever they tried to force-feed us crap like Stadium Events, Sewer Shark, ET, etc., the gamers responded with a big fat "No."

again AND?? they still tried it over and over again.

back in the good old days, video games were not part of popular culture like they are now, its obviously as to why ideas like that didnt take off, and why they do now. doesnt mean good stuff isn't being made as well now, just like back then

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 10:27 AM
as Esca pointed out nearly all games have them as skip able these days ..

Again, maybe half or a little better let you skip cinematics, but many of the tutorials are built in. See Zelda ~ Skyward Sword.

easily using a software to monitor what your doing during the dev life cycle, vey very easily actually .. and its been monitored for decades ..

so again . evidence to prove the quality of the software is better. not that you like it more

"Software" to "prove" higher-quality? What in the world are you talking about?

totally objective and NOT was i was talking about.. infact when alucard said the same i replied.

"i'm not talking about what games you like or dislike thats all down to personal taste.. "

i have only every been saying rose tinted glasses when it comes to the quaity of the software produced and and amount of crap .. <---- this is what you seem to be missing every time you bring i prefer the games then crap which i'm not talking about.

I never implied that there wasn't any crappy software in past generations.

That's why it's subjective. There is no measuring stick except to literally compare one title against another.

Right.

again AND?? they still tried it over and over again

But they didn't succeed at mass-market penetration until this generation.

back in the good old days, video games were not part of popular culture like they are now, its obviously as to why ideas like that didnt take off, and why they do now. doesnt mean good stuff isn't being made as well now, just like back then

Exactly what I was getting to. The market expanded to include non-gamer types who are free and easy with their wallets. Now, developers are catering to this new market in a big way.

darren
03-07-2012, 10:36 AM
Again, maybe half or a little better let you skip cinematics, but many of the tutorials are built in. See Zelda ~ Skyward Sword.


did it offend you that much it made it a bad game bad?

and not one game i have played this and most of last year that i can think off made me play a tutorial.


"Software" to "prove" higher-quality? What in the world are you talking about?

the way the IT industry has worked for years with regards to code.

So again what evidence do you have to suggest the quality of the software was better then than it is now? or were you talking about you liked it better then than now .. which are to vastly different things


I never implied that there wasn't any crappy software in past generations.


well you did when you claimed i was wrong about rose tinted glasses as thats all i was talking about .. either that our you didnt read what i wrote properly.


But they didn't succeed at mass-market penetration until this generation.


really ??

i recall dance mats, guitars, keyboards, fishing rod etc etc etc selling rather well last gen as well, didnt that stupid nes robot do ok at the time as well, also didnt the superscope do ok?

sure they sold more on wii this gen . but past gens are just as gulity, maybe not in the same numbers as wiifit .. but still just as gulity

guitar hereos 2 on ps2 sold 5mill + copies ... thats 5 mill+ guitars add ons .. which is probebly why we had more guitar hereos, band hero etc etc this gen
beatmania sold over a million copies last gen .. that over a million add ons and probebly why the did dj hero this gen


its not just games this happens IMO as shorty said

It’s the same stupid argument we hear about music and movies and all aspects of our life

i mean the golden age of cinema?? why .. generallthe acting was terrible , direction was shit, female actors were fucked nighly by the studio that owned them .. yeah there was smoe amazing stuff made (The dictator, Duck Soup etc) but .. golden age suggests better .. which is far from the truth ..

could agree more with Shorty when he said

Saying things were so great back then shows you have a limited memory of the past, or you’re just an old curmudgeon and your opinion is fairly asinine. I have no issue with nostalgia, but gamers turn it into a fucking religion.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 10:56 AM
did it offend you that much it made it a bad game bad?

It detracts from the experience in that it's non-skippable.

the way the IT industry has worked for years with regards to code.

So again what evidence do you have to suggest the quality of the software was better then than it is now? or were you talking about you liked it better then than now .. which are to vastly different things

Ah, I see. You're talking about the level of programming, but that in no way reflects on the overall quality of the products being offered. An IT professional cannot measure quality of imagination, content, art, music, etc.

well you did when you claimed i was wrong about rose tinted glasses as thats all i was talking about .. either that our you didnt read what i wrote properly.

I don't recall offhand what was being discussed.

really ??

i recall dance mats, guitars, keyboards, fishing rod etc etc etc selling rather well last gen as well, didnt that stupid nes robot do ok at the time as well, also didnt the superscope do ok?

I'm not making comparisons to the last gen. As far as the Super Scope is concerned, it wasn't a resounding success. It only did moderately well, hence why Nintendo didn't really support it, unless you consider Yoshi's Safari to be big backing. Rob the Robot came included with some NES's; I don't recall how well it performed but I do know that it was disregarded by most gamers.

sure they sold more on wii this gen . but past gens are just as gulity, maybe not in the same numbers as wiifit .. but still just as gulity

So? Last gen was when gaming became truly mass-market, especially during the latter half of it.

guitar hereos 2 on ps2 sold 5mill + copies ... thats 5 mill+ guitars add ons ..

You're illustrating my point.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 11:10 AM
About half of them do and half don't. Besides cutscenes, they tend to feature non-skippable, long-winded tutorials.

There are extremely few games nowadays that don't let you skip cinematics, Naughty Dog are the only ones I can think of at the minute other then Nintendo. I can't think of the last time I did a tutorial. . . and I played a heap of games last year.


It's not looking like the fad will just pass over anytime soon. Game developers have figured out how to cater to the causal, non-demanding market. Stadium Events exemplifies the difference between the market then vs now in that the majority of gamers didn't give a hoot about lousy junk like that, so it was buried. Today, with the right mass-market campaign, people will gooble up anything, quality be damned.

It will the last two Zumba Fitness games pretty much flopped, the only ones that sell are the ones on the Wii and that'll run it course. What consoles do you have BTW out of the XB360/PS3/Wii?


It's not just FPS, it's the preponderance of lousy cinema-wannabe and gimmick shovelware.

I'm not really sure where you are coming from exactly what is it exactly you dislike story? the games nowadays blow away the games of the past in terms of story partly thanks to some of the great movie work. If you don't like the story based games there are alternatives.


You're illustrating my point.

and now it's dead. There's always been gimmicks I'm pretty sure the Master System had a gun attachment, it's just a extension of that really. As companies try new things is it really that bad.

darren
03-07-2012, 11:15 AM
Ah, I see. You're talking about the level of programming, but that in no way reflects on the overall quality of the products being offered. An IT professional cannot measure quality of imagination, content, art, music, etc.


i'v only ever been talking about what can be measured (buggy broken software) and how pepole looked back with rose tinted glasses on them being gens of nothin but super games which only had super bug free software

"measure quality of imagination, content, art, music, etc." is totally objective and not what I was talking about.


I don't recall offhand what was being discussed.


see above



I'm not making comparisons to the last gen.


why not??? why was it ok then and not now to produce all that crap


You're illustrating my point.

not really you have been pointing the fingure squarely at this gen .. when it fact its not. its previous gens .. when i hope you spent just as much time moaning about it

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 11:20 AM
There are extremely few games nowadays that don't let you skip cinematics, Naughty Dog are the only ones I can think of at the minute other then Nintendo. I can't think of the last time I did a tutorial. . . and I played a heap of games last year.

The opening stages in Asura's Wrath are tutorials which cannot be skip, far as I know.

It will the last two Zumba Fitness games pretty much flopped, the only ones that sell are the ones on the Wii and that'll run it course. What consoles do you have BTW out of the XB360/PS3/Wii?

X360 and Wii.

I'm not really sure where you are coming from exactly what is it exactly you dislike story? the games nowadays blow away the games of the past in terms of story partly thanks to some of the great movie work. If you don't like the story based games there are alternatives.

I don't believe that the games today blow away previous generations with regards to story. For example, both Lunars' storylines were far more enjoyable than anything I've played this generation.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 11:27 AM
i'v only ever been talking about what can be measured (buggy broken software) and how pepole looked back with rose tinted glasses on them being gens of nothin but super games which only had super bug free software

Well I certainly don't view things that way. I recall many major disappointments, such as DJ Boy, Streets of Rage 3, and so forth.

"measure quality of imagination, content, art, music, etc." is totally objective and not what I was talking about.

Yet it's stuff like that that is the main reason gamers play. You want good art direction, music/SFX, controls, design, etc., right? Nobody cares about a tech demo. Saying that programming has improved means about as much as saying that technology has improved. In what way does that translate into more fun-factor and replayability?

why not??? why was it ok then and not now to produce all that crap

When did I say that it was ok to produce crap?

not really you have been pointing the fingure squarely at this gen .. when it fact its not. its previous gens .. when i hope you spent just as much time moaning about it

This gen has seen more shovelware than all others, by far. What's worse, much of it sells big, thereby reducing the incentive for developers to target serious gamers.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 11:29 AM
The opening stages in Asura's Wrath are tutorials which cannot be skip, far as I know.

Fair enough, haven't played it yet.


I don't believe that the games today blow away previous generations with regards to story. For example, both Lunars' storylines were far more enjoyable than anything I've played this generation.

Both have quite alot of cinematics (and some horrible singing :) ) and ingame cutscenes though. Well the first anyway never did get around to playing the sequel.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 11:32 AM
Both have quite alot of cinematics (and some horrible singing :) ) and cutscenes though. Well the first anyway never did get around to playing the sequel.

Yeah, it was an RPG and RPGs rely on storyline much moreso than most other genres. Aside from the lame singing, the storylines were wonderful, particularly Lunar 2's. Having a great cast of characters certainly helped. Can't say that about most of today's generic, wooden ensemble.

KingOfSentinels
03-07-2012, 11:35 AM
lol Icarus

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 11:42 AM
Yeah, it was an RPG and RPGs rely on storyline much moreso than most other genres. Aside from the lame singing, the storylines were wonderful, particularly Lunar 2's. Having a great cast of characters certainly helped. Can't say that about most of today's generic, wooden ensemble.

EXACTLY but the genre doesn't matter weather it's a RPG, FPS or third-person shooter there mostly trying to do the samething to tell a story. If it's OK for one genre then it should be OK for all if that's what there aiming for.

darren
03-07-2012, 11:46 AM
obviously not :rolleyes:



When did I say that it was ok to produce crap?


when you basically fobbed of the fact stuff like that sold just aswell in previous gens


This gen has seen more shovelware than all others, by far. What's worse, much of it sells big, thereby reducing the incentive for developers to target serious gamers.

i have always had to wade through bucket loads of shit to find good stuff in store . Regardless of if its cart, tapes, cd, disc, dvd what ever

can i assume you were not moaning as much last gen then when guitar heros (which as Escsa pointed out is now dead this gen) sold 5million + copies on PS2 since you didnt answer that question?

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 11:47 AM
EXACTLY but the genre doesn't matter weather it's a RPG, FPS or third-person shooter there mostly trying to do the samething to tell a story. If it's OK for one genre then it should be OK for all if that's what there aiming for.

The thing is, must every genre now incorporate film-like cinematics?

darren
03-07-2012, 11:49 AM
The thing is, must every genre now incorporate film-like cinematics?

they don't.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 11:52 AM
when you basically fobbed of the fact stuff like that sold just aswell in previous gens

Yes, there was crap and always will be, but now crap sells.

i have always had to wade through bucket loads of shit to find good stuff in store . Regardless of if its cart, tapes, cd, disc, dvd what ever

Ok.

can i assume you were not moaning as much last gen then when guitar heros (which as Escsa pointed out is now dead this gen) sold 5million + copies on PS2 since you didnt answer that question?

That was indeed lame. As for his question, he edited it in while I was responding, so I didn't catch it.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 11:54 AM
The thing is, must every genre now incorporate film-like cinematics?

Not every genre no but most games aim to tell a story and cinematics is a easiest way to do it you'll notice most games try and use in game footage now instead of CGI/FMV to try and a keep you engrossed in the game and that's another reason why QTE's were born. The only reason they never did it so much in past generations is because they couldn't.

There's a reason why some games resorted to live actions sections like Command And Conquer and Resident Evil in an effort to improve the stories and bring the characters to life. LOL and wasn't that a failure right there.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 11:57 AM
Not every genre no but most games aim to tell a story and cinematics is a easiest way to do it you'll notice most games try and use in game footage now instead of CGI/FMV to try and a keep you engrossed in the game and that's another reason why QTE's were born. The only reason they never did it so much in past generations is because they couldn't.

There's a reason why some games resorted to live actions sections like Command And Conquer and Resident Evil in an effort to improve the stories and bring the characters to life. LOL and wasn't that a failure right there.

To be frank, I'm not opposed to cinematics per se. When there's too much of it, it irritates me. A classic example: Xenosaga. The cinematics literally made me stop playing.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 11:59 AM
haha, yeah there were certainly alot of course it didn't help the small bits in between the cinematics weren't much better either.

darren
03-07-2012, 12:01 PM
yeah that game stopped me playing long before the cinematics

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 12:03 PM
Whenever I pick up a game to play, I kinda like participating as much as possible. With a game like Xenosaga, there's more cinema than there's gameplay. It was atrocious.

On the other hand, Resident Evil, while featuring b-grade voice acting, was at least entertaining and didn't detract from the experience.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 12:07 PM
Yeah obviously I like playing a game as much as possible to but if I'm engrossed in the story like MGS or Yakuza then the frequent cutscenes just add to the experience in my case.

Icarus4578
03-07-2012, 12:09 PM
Plus you can skp them after you've seen them. The only slight issue with skipping MGS's cinemas was that you had to skip over several in a row with loading inbetween to resume action.

Escaflowne2001
03-07-2012, 12:19 PM
They were THAT long, LOL. :wink:

stroopwafel
03-07-2012, 03:25 PM
I don't understand why games like MGS and Xenosaga would be even remotely enjoyable for someone who doesn't enjoy the story. It's like going to a movie complaining there is dialogue in and between the action scenes. The whole point of those games is to tell a story through lengthy cutscene exposures. MGS I can somewhat understand for also having some good gameplay but if you don't enjoy the story of Xenosaga (or any other JRPG) what you have left is basically nothing but a bunch of menus. Most of the effort in creating these games have often been put in crafting the story, dialogue and cutscenes. If you skip that what you have left is most of the time an empty shell of a game. There are exceptions like Xenosaga ep 3 which was also fun to play for a JRPG. Game had a steady pace, no need to grind and the combat had sufficient diversity and was also pretty good.

Alucard
03-08-2012, 06:22 AM
You lot speak too much rubbish I cant keep up. One thing about the past compared to now days in gaming is back then there were heaps more genres. Now days some are dying down as developers will only make things that will sell to the larger base of idiots. Look at the space sim for example. Very few big games. Turn based strategy games, very few. etc. Now its just how many games can be created as an fps or remade as an fps. Thats the biggest difference. Most people used to make games because they loved them. Its a bit different now. Wheres my Homeworld 3? Same place my colony Wars is at.

Escaflowne2001
03-08-2012, 06:36 AM
Genre's come and go but they very rarely disappear completely there is a couple of space sims on the XB360 (Slypheed and Darkstar One) come to mind but like all things peoples interests change over time but most things come around again in time.

darren
03-08-2012, 06:41 AM
totally all genres popularity comes and goes, then come back again .. just look at the music game one .. its now nearly dead ... but i'm sure it will come back at some point slightly different etc ..

Alucard
03-08-2012, 07:40 AM
Darkstar One came out like 6 years back or whatever. There are a few space sims still on the pc, but some of the big titles from years back are totally gone. Now its mostly indie devs or small studios who make them so they lack a few things. I mean games like Nexus, Freespace, Elite, and Freelancer all deserve sequels but nothing. At least we've got some new stuff like Evochron. Sadly Sold Exodus and Starpoint Gemini ended up being disappointing.

Shorty0061
03-08-2012, 07:47 AM
I'm not too savvy on flight sims, but giant bomb has done quicklooks on 2 of them in the last couple months, and they both look fairly impressive in their options.

Alucard
03-08-2012, 07:51 AM
When I say space sims I'm talking about straight aracde style shooters. We're talking large universe, trading, upgrading ships, quests, etc.

darren
03-08-2012, 08:59 AM
i'm sure if the ones in the past had made much money or they thought anyone other than you wanted one someone would make some. supply needs demand etc

Alucard
03-08-2012, 09:09 AM
They made money. Difference is more people will play the next COD then the next Freespace. Thats the only difference.

darren
03-08-2012, 09:24 AM
then why arent the dev who made them making more?

Icarus4578
03-08-2012, 09:48 AM
I don't understand why games like MGS and Xenosaga would be even remotely enjoyable for someone who doesn't enjoy the story.

Depends. Some games have lackluster storylines but excellent gameplay and vice versa. Xenosaga had both dull gameplay and story. I don't mind the story in MGS but Kojima does stretch things out a bit.

MGS I can somewhat understand for also having some good gameplay but if you don't enjoy the story of Xenosaga (or any other JRPG) what you have left is basically nothing but a bunch of menus.

If you don't play an RPG, the only possible way you'll know if the story is any good is going by what other people say. With Xenosaga, they may as well have given it the anime treatment since gameplay is sparse.

Most of the effort in creating these games have often been put in crafting the story, dialogue and cutscenes. If you skip that what you have left is most of the time an empty shell of a game. There are exceptions like Xenosaga ep 3 which was also fun to play for a JRPG. Game had a steady pace, no need to grind and the combat had sufficient diversity and was also pretty good.

I didn't bother with Episodes 2 & 3 since the first was so terrible, so I can't comment. It goes without saying that there are some great RPG storylines, e.g. Dragon Quest VIII which does cinematics the right way without bogging down gameplay.

You lot speak too much rubbish I cant keep up. One thing about the past compared to now days in gaming is back then there were heaps more genres. Now days some are dying down as developers will only make things that will sell to the larger base of idiots. Look at the space sim for example. Very few big games. Turn based strategy games, very few. etc. Now its just how many games can be created as an fps or remade as an fps. Thats the biggest difference. Most people used to make games because they loved them. Its a bit different now. Wheres my Homeworld 3? Same place my colony Wars is at.

Yes, there was a wider variety of genre being covered across each respective platform & PC gaming. I think that today PC gamers have it good because they get to enjoy more stuff than console gamers do. Due to rising dev costs and increased competition for market penetration, console developers tend to go for the safe bet, be it an overcooked genre or a popular license. Heck, they could take an established genre like the FPS and push it in a new direction, but nobody bothers.

I think the biggest difference between then and now is creative risk-taking. When Treasure disbanded from Konami, they cranked out on original title after another: Gunstar Heroes, Dynamite Headdy, Alien Soldier and Light Crusader. Each of these softs put a new, refreshing twist on established genres. You don't see a similar level of creativity in this day and age, except perhaps for some indie softs. Because PC gaming doesn't suffer the same restrictions as console gaming, and because indie developers don't have the budget of the top-tier companies, they compensate by being more creative and innovative. After all, if you're scraping at the bottom of the barrel, there's only one direction you can go: up. Look at what they're doing with the RPG genre alone.

Check out: http://indierpgs.com/

Red Rogue looks like Spelunker in B&W ...except that it's a true RPG. Fortune Summoners ~ Secret of the Elemental Stone is a side-scrolling RPG in similar vein to Ys III, shamelessly trying to invoke the glory days of 16-bit RPGing. And so on and so forth. Indie devs are doing what console devs used to do: take creative risks. This is unarguably the best time to be an indie developer. You don't have to answer to a corporate-dominated hierarchy.

Programmer #1: "How 'bout if we take the RPG genre and push it into a new direction?"
Director: "Hmm, we could do that but we take our creative orders from the corporate suits upstairs and they say we've gotta make another FPS."
Programmer #2: "We want to do something different for a change. How come you don't put your foot down!? You're the director, aren't you?"
Director: "Yeah, I'm the director who isn't about to jeopardize his six-figure salary. We're making a FPS, is that clear?"
Programmer #1: "I wish I was an indie developer..."

Shorty0061
03-08-2012, 10:17 AM
Programmer #1: "How 'bout if we take the RPG genre and push it into a new direction?"
Director: "Hmm, we could do that but we take our creative orders from the corporate suits upstairs and they say we've gotta make another FPS."
Programmer #2: "We want to do something different for a change. How come you don't put your foot down!? You're the director, aren't you?"
Director: "Yeah, I'm the director who isn't about to jeopardize his six-figure salary. We're making a FPS, is that clear?"
Programmer #1: "I wish I was an indie developer..."

Booo! This is the worst impression of a game studio I've seen this week! Boo I say! Someone change the channel, this one is fucking repetetive as hell.

Icarus4578
03-08-2012, 10:20 AM
Always keep my fans riveted!

Shorty0061
03-08-2012, 10:26 AM
Always keep my fans riveted!

This topic is now about blazing saddles.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Blazing_saddles_movie_poster.jpg/220px-Blazing_saddles_movie_poster.jpg

JMK6lzmSk2o

Alucard
03-08-2012, 10:27 AM
then why arent the dev who made them making more?

Icarus covered it pretty well above. Pretty much the whole business today is publishers have the strongest power and they tell you what to make, where as back then publishers begged for this or that developer to publish their game so they could make things they wanted more often. Now a publisher comes to you and says 'I want a COD style game. Make it'. The dev says, 'But we make space sim and strategy games. Can we make Homeworld 3 cause the first two were really popular!'.. Publisher says, 'No, I want a COD game, go do it'.

Icarus4578
03-08-2012, 10:28 AM
Awesome. Probably the best film Mel Brooks ever made.

KingOfSentinels
03-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Pretty much the whole business today is publishers have the strongest power and they tell you what to make, where as back then publishers begged for this or that developer to publish their game so they could make things they wanted more often.

Lol? Where did you get this from? It's not at all like that...

It's not changed that much from old days. Developers still pitch their ideas to a publisher, and you get consulted before being thrown onto a project. The only time a developer would ever get 'thrown' onto a project is if there's a huge problem. I've never seen, nor heard, of any publisher demanding something like that from a developer. They put clauses around you generally; for instance, might need to use certain software, release it by a certain date, have a certain feature, etc. but the entire game is left entirely to the developer.

Battlefield 3 was made by DICE, EA had little to no input apart from pouring money into the project. The pre-order bonuses and Origin requirements are what EA did, but that doesn't effect the core game. And since EA funded the entire thing basically, handled all the advertising, the distribution, launch events, helped in the development to sub-contract from other companies if needs be, etc. spending millions and millions on it, that's a small price to pay.

Publishers just aren't as bad as people like to make out and don't hold 'all the cards' again as people like to say. The pros far outweigh the small amount of cons, hence why developers voluntarily sign with them. Bungie left Microsoft and instantly signed with Activision. Obviously you can work out there was a reason they voluntarily did that, there's good reasons for a lot of devs doing that.

Not all developers can survive being private and independent, game development is just too costly nowadays, and it's going to get even more expensive with next generation too. With digital distribution soaring we might see more pop up as staying private. Getting a game on Steam and having Valve do a pop-up for players is just as effective and a hundred times cheaper than shipping it to shops and getting slots on TV really.

darren
03-08-2012, 01:37 PM
Icarus covered it pretty well above. Pretty much the whole business today is publishers have the strongest power and they tell you what to make, where as back then publishers begged for this or that developer to publish their game so they could make things they wanted more often. Now a publisher comes to you and says 'I want a COD style game. Make it'. The dev says, 'But we make space sim and strategy games. Can we make Homeworld 3 cause the first two were really popular!'.. Publisher says, 'No, I want a COD game, go do it'.


i'm not even going to go into what bull crap most of that is based on at a good guess zero evidence/knowledge or experience of how things work in the industry.

and sorry but if there was a chance Homeworld 3 would make good money it would get made ..

Alucard
03-08-2012, 01:37 PM
You're joking right? I know you like to champion on the publishers as a force of goodness in the world but they're more vicious for the industry then you make them out. Mentioning developers like DICE or CDP who are either completely independent with most of the rights to their game locked with them or are a huge studio and can pretty much make their own rules is different to the smaller ones who get bullied throughout the entire process of the development cycle and then in some cases disbanded completely so all the profits go to the publisher. Happens often, too many examples to list.


i'm not even going to go into what bull crap most of that is based on at a good guess zero evidence/knowledge or experience of how things work in the industry.

and sorry but if there was a chance Homeworld 3 would make good money it would get made ..



It would make money no problem. The first two arent loved and adored and well known for nothing. Its what halped make Relic who they are today. It just wont make as much as a COD game to the console masses and thats what publishers focus on, the console masses.

darren
03-08-2012, 01:39 PM
i dont champion anyone thank you very much.

KingOfSentinels
03-08-2012, 01:49 PM
You're joking right? I know you like to champion on the publishers as a force of goodness in the world but they're more vicious for the industry then you make them out. Mentioning developers like DICE or CDP who are either completely independent with most of the rights to their game locked with them or are a huge studio and can pretty much make their own rules is different to the smaller ones who get bullied throughout the entire process of the development cycle and then in some cases disbanded completely so all the profits go to the publisher. Happens often, too many examples to list.

I'm not championing them, I'm just defending them because most of the fantastic games we've had all year wouldn't have happened if we didn't have publishers, and that's been the case for a long time now, and they're not at all like you portrayed.

Battlefield 3 wouldn't have been made if not for EA's funding. The very first Battlefield game likely wouldn't have been either, so as a whole, that series wouldn't exist, and nor would DICE. Dead Space. Mass Effect. Bioshock. Deus Ex. All these series were because a developer pitched the idea to a publisher, who liked it, and funded the project. That's how it works. The games could have still been made privately, there's a chance, but they might not have been the games they were, and the developer might not have survived if it didn't sell well, whereas a publisher will often bail out a developer if they believe they've got a good chance at hitting it big. There is little to no 'demanding' of a publisher for a developer to make an entire game. Generally publisher and developer relationships are very good; only the times it breaks down gets up on all the game sites and so it looks like it's always bad. But for every fight between a dev and publisher there's hundreds and hundreds of times they've worked together very well.

Years ago it was fine. Back when studios were smaller and the hardware was less demanding, it costed less money, and studios could thrive easier. But those days are long gone. Developers may make millions from a game, but it took millions to make the game. If those came out of your pocket, the returns are going to be very low unless your game does a Minecraft and sells like hell.

Get over thinking publishers are the enemy, when they're clearly not. They do what every business does and look out for themselves, and ensure they make money. That's not evil, that's called being a sensible company. The only publisher close to being bad is Activision since the clause they put around the devs are very restrictive, but every COD game is still that developer's game. Activision doesn't butt in.

Alucard
03-08-2012, 02:11 PM
i dont champion anyone thank you very much.

Not you, above you.

Sentinel, you're still making them out to be 90% angels when they're not. And like I said theres plenty of examples as to why most people see them as the bad apple of the industry. Obviously every game gets made because of a publishers money. But thats all they are, people who give money and then are greatly rewarded for it. Developers are the ones who work hard to finish off the game in what timeframe they're given, and unless they're a huge important developer they are usually never allowed extensions.

Bungie left microsoft because they werent allowed to make anything other than halo. Team Bondi disbanded the instant LA Noir was made and given nothing for their efforts. Your activision example is also another one. The publisher listens to pitches but only picks the safest one, ie an FPS lately. Most other genres are ignored because the publisher wants the best returns for their product. Thats all and well for them since they are a business, but as I mentioned before, which you havent denied, publishers are the reason we have so many FPS games and so very little of everything else.

KingOfSentinels
03-08-2012, 02:20 PM
I never said they weren't that. Developers work hard and then reap the benefits though. Using a publisher's money, a developer can make a game better and feel less limited by a constrained budget, and can use a publisher's contacts to fill in any gaps needed. And once the game is completed, the publisher handles all the marketing and distribution, and then hands the developer their money.

A developer can make a better game and earn more money in the process by signing with a developer, and that's a majority thing. If they're private and the game sells well, they'll get more money, but will have spent more money too; it's a lot riskier for little more reward, and sometimes worse reward if development was expensive and sales weren't amazing. Sure, private companies can make games and make money, but will more often than not make less and will tell you if we could talk to them about how they had to be very careful with their money.

If the game is going to make them money, publishers will rain down funds on you and all their resources, since they don't just sit on their arses. If you need to license technology for your game, need new equipment or software, etc. a publisher will pay for it and generally provide it. We didn't go out to PC World and buy our PCs, Ubisoft provided us with them and saved us thousands in the process. And the down side? None.

And yes, there are times when a publisher and developer break down. But again, for every bad time, there's hundreds of good working relationships between publisher and developer, they're just never publicised because that isn't news worthy, so you only hear about the bad. Bungie and Microsoft fell apart near the end. Every previous Halo they were working together perfectly happily, did you miss that bit out?

Publishers are businesses, they won't take many risks. You can't fault them for wanting to make money. But honestly, if all developers were private maybe gaming would be better, but in today's climate that will never happen, and right now, signing with a developer generally means a better everything than sticking on your own.

Also, I have mango. I win.

justin_credible
03-08-2012, 02:30 PM
I pretty much agree with all of this but still think this thread is stupid and pointless and the product of a sandy vagina. Douche that sandwich before you go full Bruce Banner!

This is the 100th reply to this thread. Guess it wasn't so stupid and pointless after all.

But go ahead, threaten to ban me or do it while Joe makes the same type of negative posts. And all the Euro's troll every thread with their arguments. But it's only me though, I deserve the ban.

If you ban me it won't hurt, but there may be a prick involved.

Escaflowne2001
03-08-2012, 02:49 PM
The publisher listens to pitches but only picks the safest one, ie an FPS lately. Most other genres are ignored because the publisher wants the best returns for their product. Thats all and well for them since they are a business, but as I mentioned before, which you havent denied, publishers are the reason we have so many FPS games and so very little of everything else.

I think Grasshopper Manufacture and Platinum Games would be a good example here. They've pitched there game ideas to publishers and have published them games under a number of big publishers that have taken risks with them.

SEGA took risks with a number of Platinum Games erm games with Madworld, Bayonetta and Infinite Space and have Anarchy Reigns on the way I would call all 4 games risks but they've stuck with them.

Likewise Electronic Arts took a big risk with Shadows Of The Damned and published the game worldwide. Warner Brothers are I would say taking a big risk releasing Lollipop Chainsaw because that's a game that could easily be
largely ignored. Microsoft are getting behind Sine Mora.

There are plenty of other examples of publishers taking risks if you bother to look around and not pull the there's nothing but FPS' BS everytime.

Bungie and Microsoft fell apart near the end. Every previous Halo they were working together perfectly happily, did you miss that bit out?

Did they really fall apart though they seemed to part ways pretty much on good terms really. Microsoft even sold there shares back to bungie I believe they could have treated them alot worse if they wanted to.

KingOfSentinels
03-08-2012, 03:13 PM
Oh I didn't know that, that's really cool. Well that just helps prove my point that publishers and developers generally have very healthy relationships with each other. :)

darren
03-08-2012, 03:17 PM
Also, I have mango.

you clearly win at arguing, pulling out the mango card is better than playing this card

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000626293/polls_racecard_4428_606267_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg



all the Euro's troll every thread with their arguments. .


/edit /

racist Europhobe :wink:

Alucard
03-08-2012, 03:46 PM
There are plenty of other examples of publishers taking risks if you bother to look around and not pull the there's nothing but FPS' BS everytime.

.

Releasing one here and there isnt the same as making lots of them. For western titles that are big and focused on xbox its mostly fps games. You can bring up 1 original game to every 10 fps games that come out. Further proof being older games brought back as fps games, syndicate and xcom being two recent ones. You say I focus on the fps games too much. I dont really. They're all over the damn stores.

darren
03-08-2012, 03:56 PM
why is it any different to the (as Esca pointed out) "endless Xevious clone, or a Golden Axe clone or a R-type clone etc" we got in gens gone past .. its just a different genre getting milked .. every popular genre gets milked to buggery all of the time.

i hope you were moaning your ass off at all of them as well .. as tbh i don't really see any difference other than the genre

Escaflowne2001
03-08-2012, 04:05 PM
Releasing one here and there isnt the same as making lots of them. For western titles that are big and focused on xbox its mostly fps games. You can bring up 1 original game to every 10 fps games that come out. Further proof being older games brought back as fps games, syndicate and xcom being two recent ones. You say I focus on the fps games too much. I dont really. They're all over the damn stores.

Sorry I don't get that. Releasing a few risks here and there is the perfect way to do it. It allows you to take risks while still releasing surefire hits like Battlefield and Call of Duty. If companies released nothing but risky games in the end it would destroy most companies as some risks will always backfire. I found 7 examples from just two developers there are plenty of others. . . Namco Bandai have been taking risks with Dark Souls, Armored Core, Majin, Inversion, Enslaved, Magna Carta 2 for another 6 examples from just one publisher off the top of my head.

There are alot of the FPS' in the stores there is no denying that but if you can't find anything else in between really you aren't looking hard enough if at all there are plenty of other genres in between I have loads of games to play on the PS3/XB360/Wii and there are many different genres involved other then FPS'.

Drunken Savior
03-08-2012, 06:06 PM
This is the 100th reply to this thread. Guess it wasn't so stupid and pointless after all.

But go ahead, threaten to ban me or do it while Joe makes the same type of negative posts. And all the Euro's troll every thread with their arguments. But it's only me though, I deserve the ban.

If you ban me it won't hurt, but there may be a prick involved.

Lulz, you're butthurt. :evilsmile The sand has migrated south.

Alucard
03-08-2012, 06:48 PM
why is it any different to the (as Esca pointed out) "endless Xevious clone, or a Golden Axe clone or a R-type clone etc" we got in gens gone past .. its just a different genre getting milked .. every popular genre gets milked to buggery all of the time.

i hope you were moaning your ass off at all of them as well .. as tbh i don't really see any difference other than the genre

Thats a bit unfair as back then they were limited with what they could do with technology and ideas were still fairly new. Now they can do plenty with technology and there are plenty of game types out there to choose from. But plenty get ignored.


Sorry I don't get that. Releasing a few risks here and there is the perfect way to do it. It allows you to take risks while still releasing surefire hits like Battlefield and Call of Duty. If companies released nothing but risky games in the end it would destroy most companies as some risks will always backfire. I found 7 examples from just two developers there are plenty of others. . . Namco Bandai have been taking risks with Dark Souls, Armored Core, Majin, Inversion, Enslaved, Magna Carta 2 for another 6 examples from just one publisher off the top of my head.

There are alot of the FPS' in the stores there is no denying that but if you can't find anything else in between really you aren't looking hard enough if at all there are plenty of other genres in between I have loads of games to play on the PS3/XB360/Wii and there are many different genres involved other then FPS'.

Again, I know theres plenty, but the focus point is fps games. If they werent then Syndicate and Xcom wouldnt be made into fps games instantly. They're already big name games so why change them? Because the market focuses on fps games.

darren
03-08-2012, 06:53 PM
Syddicate and Xcom. WERE big titles years ago. Not any more.

Thats a bit unfair as back then they were limited with what they could do with technology and ideas were still fairly new. Now they can do plenty with technology and there are plenty of game types out there to choose from. But plenty get ignored.

.

It's not un fair at all .. There's plenty they could have done but opted to clone a popular genre to make a quick no different one bit.

Escaflowne2001
03-08-2012, 07:26 PM
Again, I know theres plenty, but the focus point is fps games.

Not really I believe the focus at this very moment is on Mass Effect 3 last time I checked that wasn't a FPS. Bottom line is there's plenty of games out there for everyone, publishers are still taking risks with smaller titles not sure what the problem is exactly.

If they werent then Syndicate and Xcom wouldnt be made into fps games instantly. They're already big name games so why change them? Because the market focuses on fps games.

I believe there making two X-Com games at the moment a RTS and a FPS' so I'm not sure what your beef is there. I was under the impression that they were more cult classics rather then big titles anyway there's a big difference between the two.

Icarus4578
03-08-2012, 09:23 PM
There's another aspect people are ignoring and that's the relationship between developers and consumers. Relationships are being strained moreso than some here might be willing to admit. For instance, DRM "protection" (that's a laugh). UBISoft has come under fire time and time again for all their lousy DRM protection schemes.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120203/07550617650/ubisoft-cuts-off-legit-players-with-drm-server-migration-pirates-play.shtml

Frivolous lawsuits over copyright/IP, acquisitions and consolidations, developers being disbanded (sayonara Clover Studio...), industry veterans leaving their companies for greener pastures (e.g. Keiji Inafune departing from Capcom), online servers being hacked, firmware updates brickwalling systems, developers releasing bug/glitch-ridden softs and then using the consumers to essentially play-test their software, intentionally locking content and then charging for access, et al. Needless to say, the past five years or so haven't been all sunshine and roses.

Good things still do happen in the industry, certainly, but as soon as the industry surpassed both movies and music in profit, the corporate influences began to take a more prominent role in the shape of things to come. Sure, the technology has improved by leaps and bounds but the market is oversaturated with junk. Companies are trying to earn a little more, grow a little bigger, expand their market presence ...but what happens when there are too many of them? Everybody can't support everything.

Escaflowne2001
03-08-2012, 09:49 PM
Frivolous lawsuits over copyright/IP, acquisitions and consolidations, developers being disbanded (sayonara Clover Studio...), industry veterans leaving their companies for greener pastures (e.g. Keiji Inafune departing from Capcom), developers releasing bug/glitch-ridden softs

These ones always happened. It's just with the internet you here about them more often and quickier now.

Icarus4578
03-09-2012, 09:24 AM
Nowhere near to this extent.

With the next gen console war looming on the horizon, I have the feeling that it won't be a three-way dance anymore. There may very well be four or even five(!) consoles vying for the brass ring. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have hogged the console spotlight for quite awhile; there's no reason to doubt a newcomer entering the foray. With so much technological progress and widespread availability, it's no longer as difficult for an entrepreneurial spirit to go from concept to final design. The "big three" are no longer an invincible force.

darren
03-09-2012, 11:07 AM
the only companies i see that could touch Nin, MS and Sony with new hardware are

Apple - due the sheer volumes of cash they have
EA - as they own so much IP which would become exclusive (fifa, madden, mass effect, etc etc) other than nintendo they are probebly the only company that could have a system servive off the back of its own IP
Valve - at a big push .. but they have already said they are not interested
Google - again they have the cash ... but not sure they would be interested

taking a new system to mass market costs a shitload of $$ .. $$ not a lot of people have any more. if anything it wouldnt suprise me in the slightest if one of sony or ms dropped out next gen during the next gen (ala sega) and were replaced by an Apple offering tbh

Icarus4578
03-09-2012, 11:21 AM
Aside from Google, you're pretty much spot-on. Valve would be the most interesting and perhaps beneficial from a purely gaming aspect. They carry the wild card: indie support. Looking back, the NES could be considered one great indie experiment. Aside from a few odd arcade devs, the majority of third-parties were new and had yet to prove themselves. It was the perfect launching ground for third-parties to establish themselves by standing out, producing the kind of quality people would enjoy. Capcom, Konami (Ultra Games), Squaresoft, Enix, Hudson Soft, and many others. Valve has an opportunity to create the ideal breeding ground for indies to perform similar magic.

SavedFromSin
03-09-2012, 01:09 PM
I think it is funny that Halo 4 won't have a beta for the multiplayer. Bet it freaking sucks.

KingOfSentinels
03-09-2012, 01:13 PM
It might not suck, but it'll probably be buggy as hell. That's what happens when you don't Beta test! :P

Shorty0061
03-09-2012, 01:16 PM
They're trying to canonize the multiplayer for Halo 4. That game is going to be weird.

KingOfSentinels
03-09-2012, 01:21 PM
Oh, cool. I don't mind them trying to do that tbh, but I'm a bit sceptical of if they'll pull it off. Rather than make the multiplayer just mindless killing thrown beside the campaign, forming some kind of storyline would be a good idea. Like Brink, but better.

calintz
03-09-2012, 09:43 PM
Aside from Google, you're pretty much spot-on. Valve would be the most interesting and perhaps beneficial from a purely gaming aspect. They carry the wild card: indie support. Looking back, the NES could be considered one great indie experiment. Aside from a few odd arcade devs, the majority of third-parties were new and had yet to prove themselves. It was the perfect launching ground for third-parties to establish themselves by standing out, producing the kind of quality people would enjoy. Capcom, Konami (Ultra Games), Squaresoft, Enix, Hudson Soft, and many others. Valve has an opportunity to create the ideal breeding ground for indies to perform similar magic.

i think thats what apple already provides: open support for indie devs to make games on ios - some of the bigger games on the system are made by one man/small indie dev groups
if they make a console, ios indie devs will follow imo

Shorty0061
03-09-2012, 09:58 PM
i think thats what apple already provides: open support for indie devs to make games on ios - some of the bigger games on the system are made by one man/small indie dev groups
if they make a console, ios indie devs will follow imo

Yeah, the licensing costs, 70/30 revenue split (no cost if the app is free) and restrictions are pretty fair.

Icarus4578
03-09-2012, 10:32 PM
Yes but indie PC game developers don't have to pay royalties in order to create and sell software. If there ever was an open-ended PC-console, they shouldn't need to pay royalties to a first-party middle-man looking to cash in on their success. Console gaming has the potential to undergo another renaissance period. The whole concept of 'pay the first-party middle-man' is outdated.

Shorty0061
03-09-2012, 10:48 PM
Yes but indie PC game developers don't have to pay royalties in order to create and sell software. If there ever was an open-ended PC-console, they shouldn't need to pay royalties to a first-party middle-man looking to cash in on their success. Console gaming has the potential to undergo another renaissance period. The whole concept of 'pay the first-party middle-man' is outdated.

I don't see them easily giving up that control until steam or apple become a HUGE threat to the consoles. Whether it's the steam box or some apple console (or some other watershed moment in the game's industry) that really chews into the consumer base, it'll be business as usual.