Originally Posted by Hayo You don't have to be a lame douchebag for that but it sure helps!
Always
He can criticize stereotypical war games, but I can't criticize a garbage sandbox gangster wanna-be thug game where you spend more time riding bicycles and flying RC helicopters than you do on the central focus of the game?
Thumbspam
I think your confusing GTA 4 with San Andreas. I can not remember RC helicopters being in GTA4 at all - or have I had a senior moment!
I think GTA4 is kind of dull compared to the older ones. Niko and his cousin Roman (that dull and likable I almost forgot the dudes name) are about as dull as an Eastenders Christmas episode. Still the GTA series is FAR from garbage.
My GTA favourite list would be GTA1, VC, SA, 4, 3, 2. GTA1 MP on serial cables was a great laugh
Originally Posted by aphant Actually, the price of Xbox Live went up in November. It's $60 a year now. It sucks, I know.
I don't mind achievements that require you to play online, as I have quite a few friends who I would be able to play with and get the achievements with. What I do mind are achievements that require non-social ranked play, which means having to go into a game by yourself. You know what this causes? Achievement farming. Crafty people will also find a way around the system and just cheat the achievements anyways. It completely ruins the spirit of the game. I hate that.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Most of the time when this subject is brought up, pertaining to any feature that is left out of a game, some one always has to chime in with a "well this feature is too difficult to implement". I don't want to hear this nonsense. These are multi-million dollar companies we're talking about, if a feature has been done in the past, they are more than able hire someone who knows how to do it. Difficulty is NOT an issue for a large company. The only reason why a feature would not be implemented is if it was overlooked. The 1,000 people they had working on one project managed to miss something important, go figure. Companies like these will not pay extra money on a game unless there is something that can be fixed quickly that is hindering sales otherwise, if the game is selling copies anyways, they do not care.
Most studios employ no more than 200 people, and most of those people are going to be artists and animators.
Pedantry aside, features are difficult to implement sometimes. It's usually all about money. Publishers, and sometimes developers, will know who their target audience is, and base their features around the needs of that audience. Everything else (like split-screen) is secondary, and getting secondary features in requires a time table; Time is money, remember. And then sometimes features are cut because of technical issues. You know, actual issues like bugs, not knowing how to do it, or the engine not being able to support that feature without a major overhaul; In the case of the last one, the feature will usually make it into the sequel.
Great points. But I think you can agree with me on the point that it IS all about money, not necessarily about creating something thats "good". Not to say that the two don't come together once and a while, but most games can be a lot better than they are. Even some of these so called "greats" always leave something to be desired, and instead of a larger company thinking "how can we make this better?" it's usually "how can we make this make more money?".
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with people trying to make money to support themselves. None of this actually is an issue for me at all. I merely would like to point out that there are millions of great concepts with huge amounts of potential just ready for some great people to make history with.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
With few exceptions, I think modern games don't use the graphical advances of today to tell really absorbing and well thought of stories. I remember being really into the story and atmosphere of games like Beneath a steel sky, sanitarium or System shock 2 despite the limited graphics. Nowadays it seems no one cares about unique settings and story driven games, wasting incredibly realistic graphics into generic war stories.
It's just like mainstream music, it might appeal to the masses and sell millions, but whether or not they are memorable is questionable.
Sadly the current indie scene doesn't have the means to fill that gap yet, with a crapload of generic old-school and flash junk being thrown out the door every day.
Not long ago being indie was all about putting all your heart and money into a single masterpiece,even if took you years and years to finish, now in two weeks a single developer can make a thousand bucks with little effort.
I suspect what's happening with both the mainstream and indie gaming scene has a lot to do with the current global crisis, there is very little room for financial risks and going against the flow is considered suicide by most developers.
I suspect what's happening with both the mainstream and indie gaming scene has a lot to do with the current global crisis, there is very little room for financial risks and going against the flow is considered suicide by most developers.
I wouldn't say that for most of the indie scene as they can operate on little to no budget. Large corporations can't.
There is however the fact that freelancing (coding, graphics and music gigs) was a bit easier before the "crisis". Up until 2008 I used to get extra pocket money as a freelance pixel artist. Not a single serious offer since. I can imagine artists had to convert to making stupid flash games to pay the rent.
I suspect what's happening with both the mainstream and indie gaming scene has a lot to do with the current global crisis, there is very little room for financial risks and going against the flow is considered suicide by most developers.
I wouldn't say that for most of the indie scene as they can operate on little to no budget. Large corporations can't.
That's true, when it comes to part-time game developers. For the full time devs, one failure and you are most likely forced to get another job to avoid starving and keep working on games part time if you're lucky. With indie devs it's not so much about the budget they invest in, it's rather selling well enough to pay food and rent. Quite a few full time indie developers live on the limit, trying to keep the dream alive for as long as they can.
I think what Hayo pointed out is an extension of that, if non flash developers can barely survive they will hardly be able to afford freelancers, being forced to do everything by themselves or find someone willing to help them out for free.
A lot of people moved to the flash market because it's a relatively easy way to get a stable income as they are quick and therefore less risky to make. They also require less marketing know how from the developers's part so with a bit of luck even a newcomer to the industry can be successful, regardless of the effort put into the game.
Oh heres a great example of terrible games that just keep going down hill.
The Elder Scrolls
Heres a game that started off great with Arena and Daggerfall. Then when Morrowind came out everyone was like "woo, 3D", and they took out a bunch of awesome features and people were like "oh, it's just because of the 3D". Then Oblivion came along, which was even more dumbed down than Morrowind but oh wait, it looked better and they cast Patrick Stewart. Now Skyrim, which is coming out at the end of this year, I predict it's going to suck even worse.
When Oblivion came out, people were all over those gfx. Now, most people say it looks ugly. It just goes to show you, if you strive for the best looking game, it will more than likely be put in its place in a year or two. If you strive for great game play, it will probably last quite a bit longer.
Bathesda is the definition of a sell out company. Instead of improving on their product where it needed it, they continued to release the same game over again, take out some of the best features and paraded it around as something new. They had a diamond in the rough with daggerfall, but instead of cleaning it up, they decided it would be a better to stick it up each others butts and pretend it was a piece of chocolate.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Mainstream might be the magic word here, because it sells.
The story will likely be left out and the gameplay will be just that. Effort is put in to graphics and marketing since that will trick people into buying game. Hmm not sure what point I was trying to make or what I wanted to add to this conversation.
Anyway, not all is bad. If you like multiplayer and first person shooters or the music games. Guess I don't like em that much. I just want super mario universe or donkey kong earth Pixel graphics are preferred but I do like those nice simple stylish 3D graphics too.
Pixel jobs might have been replaced (doesn't have to be entirely) by vector jobs
Oh and I don't think that the future is flash because that is html 5, or did I mean hope instead of think?
As much as we hate to admit it, yes, it does all boil down to income. Capcom got on Andrew Dickman's case when he made the fan flash video of "Mega Man Neo". Square Enix cracked down on the 3D Chrono Trigger project. Both had amazing stories and an immense amount of promise, only to be shot out of the sky by the big wigs who (instead of seeing them as potential moneymakers if employed) saw them as financial threats.
Of course that isn't to say that it's ALL they look at. It's more of a hierarchy. Money comes first, then development and productivity, then ingenuity. How much can we make, how fast can we make it, how well can we make it. There are the few straggling games that do make it all the way to the ingenuity part, but tend to be overshadowed by the NEW CALL OF DUTY GAME THAT HAS TWO NEW GUNS YOU CAN SHOOT OMG I WANT THAT INSTEAD
It makes me sad. Back in the days of NES, I was happy enough knowing I rescued Peach. Got to choose my own level, I did. In that era (yes, era), goals were simpler and considerably more satisfying. Now you have to jump through more hoops than a dolphin just to get...what, a couple XBox points? I don't even have an XBox because it's still too damn expensive. And the developers actually expect the consumers to shell out more money for games that are less satisfying to play.
Multiplayer is different now than before, albeit two things haven't changed. What's different is that there's more you can do now (I.E. shoot a different gun at your friend). What's still the same is the multiplayer limit (since the NES/SNES days, it's always been four, thanks to the multitap), and the price. It still costs a lot to make decent multiplayer, regardless of what any non-developer says.
What gamers might end up having to accept at some point is that all the good ideas have been used and abused. Final Fantasy's RPG engine, Need For Speed's acceleration engine, Mega Man's look and gameplay feel, Sonic's pinball body, every war game's premise, Guitar Hero's notecharts, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater's 'insert trick here', the list goes on.
Thank the heavens for people like us who just want a different, challenging game.
Bringing up Capcom, that reminds me of how bad resident evil has become, and how bad dead rising is. Well, Dead rising isn't that bad, since in the second one they added some new features and actually improved on a lot of gripes(but even still doesn't make up for the missing features that could've used more focus from the last one [i.e. infinity mode]).
Resident evil is a whole different enchilada. It started off as a decent little game, while having clunky obnoxious controls, it fit with the atmosphere of the game (similar to silent hill, which almost follows the same path as the resident evil series). Now it's an almost a first person shooter, with the same clunky controls. And to top it off, like every other idiot that says "the zombie concept has been over done", they said "the zombie concept has been over done". I don't think the zombie concept has been over done, because it's NEVER BEEN DONE RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Most zombie games out there now are just some generic action or fps or platformer with guess what... zombies in it, which in that case has been done to death. Honestly, the closest thing I've seen to doing it right is the 'Survival of the dead' game on this site, and a small zombie outbreak simulator flash game that I came across a while back (even though it technically isn't a game), and even those need a decent push in the right direction. Then there is the CODWAW zombie nazi's, which could've been good, but unfortunately is impossible to enjoy. they have the barricades, great, they are useful for like 2 rounds. I realize it was more of an afterthought, but if they wanted to, that could be a whole game on it's own, although they would probably jam it packed full of a dull uninteresting and obnoxious storyline.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Dead Rising is garbage >_>. It shouldn't even be considered a game.
Have you played all the way through RE4 and RE5? I've beaten both various times and they are two out of few games that are actually good these days. I'm all for keeping old mechanics (ie: RE 1,2,3,Code Veronica, etc.), but theres nothing wrong with being innovative. RE4 and 5 took it and did it right. If anything you could say that RE5 was a bit of a step down from RE4 due to the mission system. Re4 was almost open-world so there was a good bit of exploration, while RE5 is pretty straightforward. Both are excellent titles, and the co-op on RE5 is top notch.
Advertisement
Post Reply
jenswa.neocities.org
Edited by Fish20