Gaming dying etc etc

Zeraki

WHAT AM I FIGHTING FOOOOOOOOR!?
Legacy
Apr 9, 2020
1,608
28
53
New Jersey
Country
United States
Gender
Male
gamernerdtg2 said:
Regarding Dragon Age and Mass Effect, why waste time playing those when you can see all of the plot points on YouTube for free?
That's my biggest gripe about them. I beat DA2 and ME2 before realizing that I was wasting my time.


With that mentality why bother playing any game when you can just watch it on youtube?

Video games have always been time wasters. It's no different from reading a book, watching a movie or watching a video on youtube even.

EDIT:It seems you're more interested in actual gameplay rather than story/character interactions which are pretty much the main appeal for games like Mass Effect though. So I can kind of understand what you were getting at. But watching someone play the game instead of experiencing it first hand just doesn't work for me. In fact it feels like more of a waste of time than actually just popping the disc in and playing it.
 

Rachmaninov

New member
Aug 18, 2009
124
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Yes, it does matter. Troma is not going to close if Paramount or Warner Brothers close. Why? Because Troma appeals to a niche that Warner Brothers and Paramount do not. People aren't going to stop buying Troma films if they can't get Paramount films anymore.
But like I said, this isn't about sales. We're not talking about games failing to sell.

We're talking about the fear shareholders would have if EA and Activision collapsed. We're talking about the investors who would see the collapse of EA and Activision like a warning that they, too, were about to lose money.

Even if publishers are not as tightly connected as banks, you can't expect EA and Activision to disappear without anyone taking notice. Their collapse would effect every industry they're part of.

So shareholders of other publishers losing money is a certainty. The question is, how many of them would want to stick around to see if they were going to lose it all, instead of selling?

BreakfastMan said:
This makes the assumption that all publishers are the same and focus their energy on putting out the same games, which is clearly not the case.
And it doesn't really need to be the case, for my point to stand. If people started buying less games, the first stock to show a noticeable movement would be Activision's, and then EA's.

Gaming is always under threat by other forms of entertainment, and with it being a luxury, it's subject to expendable income. So if expendable income dropped in major countries like the US, or other entertainment formats began to steal attention away from gaming, the stock to watch would be Activision's.

The kind of investor who owned stock in Square Enix, and ignored Activision's stock dropping in value, because "they don't make the same kind of games" is the kind of investor who loses a lot of their money.

BreakfastMan said:
Rachmaninov said:
If EA and Activision's stock starts to rise, it's fair to think that you'll see a rise all across the industry.
Not really. It depends on the reasons the stock is going up. If Activision's stock is increasing because people are buying more games in general, then it is fine to assume that everyone else's stock price is going to go up. If Activisions stock is increasing because it made another billion off of COD, it is ridiculous to assume that 2K, for instance, will get a boost to its stock, simply because someone else's stock went up.
It seems there was a miscommunication. I meant to say "If EA and Activision's stocks start to rise, it's fair to think that you'll see a rise all across the industry." because whatever caused both stocks to rise would be about gaming in general, and what with them being the two biggest publishers, any trends in games as a whole would likely show in them first, and strongest.

BreakfastMan said:
-Video game publishers sell products, while banks offer services.
-Banks are highly connected to each other through trading of mortgages and securities. Video game publishers are not nearly as tightly connected.
-Banks depend on highly volatile sectors of the economy, housing loans, for a good chunk of revenue. Video game publishers are not.
-Banks sell the same thing. I can get a savings account, a checking account, or a home loan from any bank I set foot in. By comparison, I cannot get an FPS, a sports game, or an RPG at every publisher I get to.
-There is little variation between services that the banks sell. By contrast, there is massive variation between products that video game publishers sell.
-Banks make most of their money through investments. Video game publishers make most of their money from selling products.
The point I made bold is a good point. I agree that this would weaken my analogy.

But I don't see how the rest weaken the comparison. Yes, they are differences between the banking and publishing industries, that much is true, but since we're assuming the collapse of EA and Activision, I can't see the merits in the others.

Between EA and Activision, they make nearly every genre of game. EA are particularly entrenched in sports games, but they're a big name in RPGs, simulations, FPSes and RTSes. Activision are the kings of the FPS and MMORPG genres, with a fairly strong showing in action-adventure. If FIFA, Mass Effect, The Sims, Battlefield, Command & Conquer, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Madden NFL couldn't save them, why would lesser known titles in the same genres fare any better?

BreakfastMan said:
Doubtful, but we really aren't talking about shareholders abandoning all publishers, are we?
No. Just abandoning all but two.

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would survive, but be disinclined to publish more games, in case they suffered a similar fate, if they pressed it too far.

Bethesda and Valve would survive because they're not publicly traded, but they couldn't support the whole AAA market on their own.

BreakfastMan said:
That was because the industry was reliant on Atari for consoles themselves. Completely different situation.
I'm not sure how you can say that, when there were more than ten other consoles available at the time. Can you elaborate?
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
DeadlyYellow said:
Zhukov said:
Speak for yourself.

90% of my memorable gaming experiences come from games made after 2004.
Please list a few.
I know you weren't asking me, but there you go. A few of the games I've found memorable since the year 2004. I left out a few that were in the same franchises.
Can I just butt into this argument to say that for the sole act of listing Fable but not its sequels I wish that someone had invented an actual way to high five someone over the internet so that I could give you a high five. That is all.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Rachmaninov said:
BreakfastMan said:
Yes, it does matter. Troma is not going to close if Paramount or Warner Brothers close. Why? Because Troma appeals to a niche that Warner Brothers and Paramount do not. People aren't going to stop buying Troma films if they can't get Paramount films anymore.
But like I said, this isn't about sales. We're not talking about games failing to sell.
I thought we were talking about EA and Activision blowing their load on marketing budgets, pushing the profit threshold through the roof, not a universal decline of games sales as a whole.
The kind of investor who owned stock in Square Enix, and ignored Activision's stock dropping in value, because "they don't make the same kind of games" is the kind of investor who loses a lot of their money.
Unless Square Enix's was losing money at the same rate as Activision, I doubt any investor would care. Square Enix and Activision sell entirely different products and appeal to entirely different markets.
BreakfastMan said:
-Video game publishers sell products, while banks offer services.
-Banks are highly connected to each other through trading of mortgages and securities. Video game publishers are not nearly as tightly connected.
-Banks depend on highly volatile sectors of the economy, housing loans, for a good chunk of revenue. Video game publishers are not.
-Banks sell the same thing. I can get a savings account, a checking account, or a home loan from any bank I set foot in. By comparison, I cannot get an FPS, a sports game, or an RPG at every publisher I get to.
-There is little variation between services that the banks sell. By contrast, there is massive variation between products that video game publishers sell.
-Banks make most of their money through investments. Video game publishers make most of their money from selling products.
The point I made bold is a good point. I agree that this would weaken my analogy.

But I don't see how the rest weaken the comparison. Yes, they are differences between the banking and publishing industries, that much is true, but since we're assuming the collapse of EA and Activision, I can't see the merits in the others.
Selling products is much different from selling services, as both appeal to different needs. Since banks depend on more volatile sources of income, they are at higher risk to fail and fail at a higher rate. Since banks sell the same service with little difference, a drop in people getting mortgages results in a decrease in revenue for all banks; compare that to a drop in the sales of sports games, which would only really effect EA. That is basically the gist of it.
Between EA and Activision, they make nearly every genre of game. EA are particularly entrenched in sports games, but they're a big name in RPGs, simulations, FPSes and RTSes. Activision are the kings of the FPS and MMORPG genres, with a fairly strong showing in action-adventure. If FIFA, Mass Effect, The Sims, Battlefield, Command & Conquer, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Madden NFL couldn't save them, why would lesser known titles in the same genres fare any better?
Because they are not the biggest names in all of the genres they cover, and they make most of their money from one or two core genres? If the bottom fell out of the shooter, MMORPG, and sports game market, Activision and EA would die. Yet, 2K would survive. So would Atlus. Square Enix as well, I would bet. Why? Because they make a lot of their money by appealing to different demographics. This would only really work if we theorize a massive universal decline of game sales as a whole, which is highly improbable.
BreakfastMan said:
That was because the industry was reliant on Atari for consoles themselves. Completely different situation.
I'm not sure how you can say that, when there were more than ten other consoles available at the time. Can you elaborate?
The Atari 2600 pretty much was the dominant force in games before the crash (in the US, at least). It was the PS2 of the time, far outselling its competitors.
 

gamernerdtg2

New member
Jan 2, 2013
501
0
0
Tank207 said:
gamernerdtg2 said:
Regarding Dragon Age and Mass Effect, why waste time playing those when you can see all of the plot points on YouTube for free?
That's my biggest gripe about them. I beat DA2 and ME2 before realizing that I was wasting my time.
Seriously?

With that mentality why bother playing any game when you can just watch it on youtube?

Video games have always been time wasters. It's no different from reading a book or watching a movie... or watching a video on youtube.
I know that it sounds harsh.

I'm talking about very specific games here. What I'm saying doesn't apply to just any game.

The games that have high production values for the story tend to drive me away if they don't have gameplay that is engaging enough. I don't want to feel like I'm stuck within the confines of a script when I play a game. Dragon's Dogma or Amalur are great games for me because you sort of make your own stories through the battles (the gameplay). I love games like that because I feel more in control of the experience. There are some exceptions for me, like some of the Tomb Raider games and the second Nathan Drake game, but I don't really care to play the 3rd Drake game.

Also - I am of the view that gaming is very different from watching a movie or reading a book. Reading and watching require an active mind and a passive body. Playing video games require both an active mind and coordination with your body. With movies and books it's common to put yourself in the position of the main protagonist. With games, you are the protagonist or whatever the game calls you to be. It's a higher level of interaction. I'll replay an old game for the gameplay. I'll re-read an old book for the writting and mental imagery. I'll re-watch an old movie for the acting and the plot, but I won't replay an old game for the story - even if the story is great.

So I don't bother with ME3 because it's essentially the same game as ME2 with another story. The story is the main draw, not the gameplay so much. It's certainly not a bad thing to play for the story, but I need more than that.
 

gamernerdtg2

New member
Jan 2, 2013
501
0
0
Vault101 said:
gamernerdtg2 said:
In a way, it's good for gamers like me because I can get what I want for less money. Regarding Dragon Age and Mass Effect, why waste time playing those when you can see all of the plot points on YouTube for free?
That's my biggest gripe about them. I beat DA2 and ME2 before realizing that I was wasting my time.
your kidding right?

its funny some people would say ME2 was a step up from ME1 gameplaywise AND vice versa (depending on who you ask) I prefered ME2 and liked ME3 the most (because hey I'm just a dummy who likes them shooters) I think you'll find plenty of people enjoyed playing those gamees..I played the crap out of ME2

even then watching it on youtube is nowhere NEAR "playing" those games...part of the apeal is to experience it yourself, and that means talking to the charachters, wandering around the ship and making the choices...that really is half the apeal....if your playing those games and complaining that the cutscenes/story are too long/annyoing then its clearly not the game for you

in that regard what people see in skyrim I have no Idea
I can't stand Skyrim. No game has frustrated me more.
If you're into FPS then I get why you're into Mass Effect. I wouldn't say that they are terrible games, I'd just say that I'm done with all the movie style production. I want to play the game. The stories are good and all, but it's become too much of "thing". You're right, it's not my game. I prefer Just Cause 2...but I have weird taste in shooters man.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
gamernerdtg2 said:
If you're into FPS then I get why you're into Mass Effect.
Mass Effect isnt a FPS

its a third person shooter cross RPG (depending on who you ask for the last part)
 

Rachmaninov

New member
Aug 18, 2009
124
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
You've made some good points, and although you've still got a few things I disagree with, I think we might both be talking in circles here.

I established a premise where EA/Activision's current direction leads them to a sudden collapse. And I hypothesized that this would lead to shareholders abandoning the other publishers, which you agreed would likely result in their collapse.

You disagree that the shareholders would panic about it, based on the dissimilarities between EA/Activision and their fellow publishers. And therefore, the other publishers would be able to grow to fill the void. You also pointed out the difference between banks and publishers, weakening my original comparison.

I can see the merit in your argument, as well as mine, but it's come down to the point where we're left with debating the "what if" of investor mentality, which would be nothing but guesswork.

I think perhaps we could agree on this; If EA/Activision did collapse, a shareholder panic would be catastrophic for many other publishers of AAA games, and perhaps even console manufacturers, but that shareholders have as much reason to not panic, as they do in favour of it...?

Would that be a reasonable middle-ground?

gamernerdtg2 said:
I prefer Just Cause 2...but I have weird taste in shooters man.
Nothing weird about that, Just Cause 2 is incredible.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Rachmaninov said:
I think perhaps we could agree on this; If EA/Activision did collapse, a shareholder panic would be catastrophic for many other publishers of AAA games, and perhaps even console manufacturers, but that shareholders have as much reason to not panic, as they do in favour of it...?

Would that be a reasonable middle-ground?
I suppose. Whether or not other shareholders start to panic really depends on why Activision or EA did collapse, I think.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Fusionxl said:
how can developers intentionally butcher their own work and, not only be entirely oblivious about it, but also genuinely think they are doing an excellent job?
The shit sells? I mean, using your own SimCity example, it sold so well that the servers are full and they're doing emergency bailouts to try and keep things running.

I mean, why wouldn't you think you were doing an excellent job with record corporate profits and millions of fanboys screaming


[sub]
Not pictured: Bender Rodriguez as EA
[/sub]

Since businesses tend to define themselves by corporate bottom lines and success, the fact that we will (as a whole) unashamedly toss our money at products that we already consider crap and then throw fits that we can't get refunds for issues we knew about from companies with a "no refund" policy.

I think the bigger question is: why is this even a mystery? Do we, as gamers, lack sufficient pattern recognition to figure out direct cause and effect?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Rachmaninov said:
I think perhaps we could agree on this; If EA/Activision did collapse, a shareholder panic would be catastrophic for many other publishers of AAA games, and perhaps even console manufacturers, but that shareholders have as much reason to not panic, as they do in favour of it...?
Shareholders have literally no reason to panic. A false compromise is no real compromise at all. In fact, declining EA stock prices and THQ's collapse indicate the market is likely to carry on, regardless of "sky is falling" hypotheticals from the layperson.

If, against all evidence to the contrary and any prevailing sense, the failure of one of the big publishers were to spark a panic, it would be bad. And if it started raining gold, it would be very bad for the precious metals market. What those two things have in common is that they're both unlikely hypotheticals.
 

Robot Number V

New member
May 15, 2012
657
0
0
Fusionxl said:
Dear Escapists,

As someone who has been watching good gaming series get mutilated over the past decade, I have for you a question: how can developers intentionally butcher their own work and, not only be entirely oblivious about it, but also genuinely think they are doing an excellent job?
How can somebody do something intentionally while simultaneously being totally oblivious to the fact that they're doing it? Great question. I'd like to know, too.

And anyway, a few crap sequels does not mean "gaming is dying". You keep lamenting your dying industry, I'll be over here enjoying Journey, The Walking Dead Game, Dishonored, Borderlands 2, and Far Cry 3, while happily awaiting the arrival of "Bioshock Infinite", "The Last of Us", and "Watchdogs".
 

Rachmaninov

New member
Aug 18, 2009
124
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Rachmaninov said:
I think perhaps we could agree on this; If EA/Activision did collapse, a shareholder panic would be catastrophic for many other publishers of AAA games, and perhaps even console manufacturers, but that shareholders have as much reason to not panic, as they do in favour of it...?
Shareholders have literally no reason to panic. A false compromise is no real compromise at all. In fact, declining EA stock prices and THQ's collapse indicate the market is likely to carry on, regardless of "sky is falling" hypotheticals from the layperson.

If, against all evidence to the contrary and any prevailing sense, the failure of one of the big publishers were to spark a panic, it would be bad. And if it started raining gold, it would be very bad for the precious metals market. What those two things have in common is that they're both unlikely hypotheticals.
I've got to admit, I'm little offended that you join in at the conclusion of a discussion, judge my argument entirely on one paragraph, and then try to paint me as though I'm some Chicken Little character.

I've gone into detail as to why shareholders would find a reason to panic, earlier in the argument, and I really get the impression you just haven't read it.

There is precedent for the collapse of large companies bringing the rest of their industries with them, even in the video game industry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983]. And as that link mentions, a core reason for Atari's collapse was the fact that it spent more money on Pac-Man and E.T. than it could recover in sales.

Then look [http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/] to now [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_2#Reception], and I'm not the only one saying it [http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa].

But I'm not going to argue it with you, because I'll end up in exactly the same place as I was with BreakfastMan. Maybe, instead of trying to get me to repeat myself, you should go read my already written arguments.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Rachmaninov said:
I've got to admit, I'm little offended that you join in at the conclusion of a discussion,
If it helps, I read the entire argument after seeing your comment, following the line of quotes back. You can do that, you know. Unfortunately, it didn't do much (anything) to change my conclusions. It also doesn't change the statements I presented here.
judge my argument entirely on one paragraph,
No, I
one paragraph.

You can comment on more than you quoted, just like you can read more than the post to which you respond. This is not dark magic. I shorthanded your post with what I felt was most significant.

Well, I guess I'll go line-for-line this time, just so you won't immediately assume I DIDN'T read it solely because I didn't explicitly quote it.

and then try to paint me as though I'm some Chicken Little character.
You do know that one can speak generically, right? I'm just checking.

I've gone into detail as to why shareholders would find a reason to panic, earlier in the argument, and I really get the impression you just haven't read it.
And I think it's nonsense.

There is precedent for the collapse of large companies bringing the rest of their industries with them, even in the video game industry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983]. And as that link mentions, a core reason for Atari's collapse was the fact that it spent more money on Pac-Man and E.T. than it could recover in sales.
Yes, there's precedent. Yes, it happened in gaming. The thing is, there are a lot of variables in that scenario, and few line up with the current scenarios. People have been bringing up the 80s crash for over a decade now, treating it as imminent, and it hasn't happened yet. The sad thing is, a lot of these people have been constantly predicting it and will feel like freaking Nostradamuses if it eventually should happen. Even if they have to predict it for another 50 years.

Gaming is ALWAYS about to crash. Unless, of course, you are realistic.

Then look [http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/15/dead-space-needs-around-five-million-fans-to-survive-according-to-ea/]
You don't seriously believe that needing "5 million sales" to continue is the same as making a profit for EA, right? Kingdoms of Amalur sold like 1.2 million copies globally, and was heralded as a success. And that one had a studio embroiled in a complete clusterfuck financially.

to now [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_2#Reception]
Doesn't help your argument. It's no surprise that they didn't think it reached a broad enough base. While, funnily enough, it did better than Amalur, it was from a different publisher, and a sequel in an era where sequels are seeing almost exponential growth. Not to mention that its sales in total were about the same as the sales for the PS3 version of the original game.

So you're telling me a game that sold worse than its predecessors was canned by the publisher? Shock.

and I'm not the only one saying it [http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa].
Oh, good. Your argument boils down to "other people are wrong, too."

But I'm not going to argue it with you, because I'll end up in exactly the same place as I was with BreakfastMan. Maybe, instead of trying to get me to repeat myself, you should go read my already written arguments.
I did. They're poor arguments. This is probably why you spent so much time talking about me as opposed to gaming.
 

Pink Gregory

New member
Jul 30, 2008
2,296
0
0
zefiris said:
You may be having fun, but that's actually taste. You aren't actually playing better games. With the exception of FPS shooters, games did objectively offer more gameplay and options ten years ago. Ultima Underworld 2 is objectively superior to any western RPG of the last few years as far as story and roleplaying goes. And I don't even like Ultima.

Fact is, in most genres, games aren't better. What they are is more addicting by giving you frequent flashy "rewards", firing off a firework in your brain, making you THINK you are enjoying it more.

It's like eating an actual apple, versus a glob of gelatine filled with flavoring agents. The later may SEEM more appley, but that's really just a company fooling you by giving you an objectively inferior, cheaper product that you THINk is better aqnd more valuable.
And then you're surprised why you're addicted and your doctor shrieks everytime he sees you.
Objectivity cannot apply to good or bad. That is not how it works.
 

Mr.Squishy

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,990
0
0
OP has massive nostalgia goggles. Like, Bob Chipman-level of nostalgia goggles.
Graphics *and* aesthetics are of higher quality than ever before (compare atari 2600 games to, say, okami or crysis).
Gameplay is more varied and better than ever.
There's shit-tons of challenge to be had (Dark Souls, ninja gaiden Black).
Humor and personality persists (Suda51's entire library, DeathSpank, Portal, TF2).
Online functionality has good sides, even though it can be severely forced.
Story is now more than 'Peach kidnapped' or 'Space invaders invading'.
Non-linearity is reaching new heights, and sandbox games keep getting better.
And even if you have some obsession with the 8-bit/16-bit era, you've got pretty much EVERY INDIE GAME EVER.

TL;DR: No, and stop being so glum.
'Rise and shine' - see, even captcha agrees with me.
 

Rachmaninov

New member
Aug 18, 2009
124
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Rachmaninov said:
I've got to admit, I'm little offended that you join in at the conclusion of a discussion,
If it helps, I read the entire argument after seeing your comment, following the line of quotes back. You can do that, you know. Unfortunately, it didn't do much (anything) to change my conclusions. It also doesn't change the statements I presented here.
So, reading my whole argument, your response was:

Zachary Amaranth said:
Shareholders have literally no reason to panic. A false compromise is no real compromise at all. In fact, declining EA stock prices and THQ's collapse indicate the market is likely to carry on, regardless of "sky is falling" hypotheticals from the layperson.
Claiming that declining EA stock prices and THQs collapse indicate (to who?) that the market is "likely to carry on", rather than actually responding to any of my points mentioned in the argument, like how EA and Activision are throwing ever-increasing budgets at games which they can't recoup, how Atari suffered a collapse for the same reason, and how EA and Activision collapsing would have a massive effect on the rest of the industry... and I'm supposed to think you read the whole argument?

You barely went beyond "Nu uh", in response to an argument pages long.

Zachary Amaranth said:
and then try to paint me as though I'm some Chicken Little character.
You do know that one can speak generically, right? I'm just checking.
And you do know that it doesn't change the insulting implication of your words, right?

Zachary Amaranth said:
I've gone into detail as to why shareholders would find a reason to panic, earlier in the argument, and I really get the impression you just haven't read it.
And I think it's nonsense.
And I think just saying it's nonsense is a complete waste of your time, as well as mine. Instead of just declaring that I'm totally wrong, how about you prove it?

Zachary Amaranth said:
People have been bringing up the 80s crash for over a decade now, treating it as imminent, and it hasn't happened yet. The sad thing is, a lot of these people have been constantly predicting it and will feel like freaking Nostradamuses if it eventually should happen. Even if they have to predict it for another 50 years.

Gaming is ALWAYS about to crash. Unless, of course, you are realistic.
Ahh, so because people were wrong in the past, I'm wrong too? I see your logic there. How could I ever have thought I could possibly be right, when so many people have been wrong? Silly me.

Zachary Amaranth said:
You don't seriously believe that needing "5 million sales" to continue is the same as making a profit for EA, right? Kingdoms of Amalur sold like 1.2 million copies globally, and was heralded as a success. And that one had a studio embroiled in a complete clusterfuck financially.
Who's to say that Dead Space 3 didn't cost a great deal more to make? Just because one game recoups its costs with 1.2 million copies sold, that doesn't mean every game would.

Even, if it only needed two and a half million sales to make a profit (half of what they claim) it's still more than they could expect it to sell. Right now, it has sold less than a million units.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Doesn't help your argument. It's no surprise that they didn't think it reached a broad enough base. While, funnily enough, it did better than Amalur, it was from a different publisher, and a sequel in an era where sequels are seeing almost exponential growth. Not to mention that its sales in total were about the same as the sales for the PS3 version of the original game.
It does help my argument, because Prototype 2 sold perfectly well, but they'd thrown so much money at the game that they felt the need to cannibalize the developer. It was evidence of AAA publishers throwing more money at games than they could make back, which means it was evidence in support of my argument.

Zachary Amaranth said:
and I'm not the only one saying it [http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa].
Oh, good. Your argument boils down to "other people are wrong, too."
Better than your argument of "You and those other guys are wrong just because I say so.".

Zachary Amaranth said:
I did. They're poor arguments. This is probably why you spent so much time talking about me as opposed to gaming.
Your poor keyboard. The plastic you eroded from it's keys, lost forever, and all to tell me "You're wrong just because".
 

Fusionxl

New member
Oct 25, 2009
274
0
0
Fair enough, "gaming dying" was a wrong title for the thread. There are still excellent games and series out there, many of which I do enjoy tremendously myself (Portal, Fallout 3, Civilization just to name a few). However, one thing is still true...

Yes, the new Simcity is a "city builder" but player freedom and scope has been drastically gimped. If you've played Simcity 4 and turned 3/4th of a region into a bustling concrete jungle then you understand exactly how... restrictive Simcity 5 feels. It may still be fun if you just want to build roads and watch little ants squabble about, but for true urbanisation enthusiasts it's underwhelming and simplistic.

Yes, the new Enemy Unknown is a "turn-based strategy game", but it simply cannot be called a worthy sequel to X-COM: Terror From the Deep nor UFO Defence. Nearly all micromanagement has been stripped, freedom chained, choices simplified. It's UFO Defence for dummies (and Hardcore Iron Man does not compensate).

Yes, Hitman: Absolution is technically a "stealth action" game, but can you really call it a true Hitman game if it swaps large open areas for linear corridors? No matter how many gamers can now get a taste of Hitman action, it's a disappointment for true Hitman loyalists and a waste of their time.

Gaming is not dying. Gaming is sacrificing depth and old values to expand. People who grew fond of certain series can no longer derive enjoyment out of new titles because they're no longer intended for them. They're drawing in more players at the cost of complexity. That is my gripe.
 

Pink Gregory

New member
Jul 30, 2008
2,296
0
0
noreshadow said:
@ Pink Gregory

Semantics?
is that the best your Cognitive dissonance can come up with?
'Objective' being not possible to apply to 'good' or 'bad' isn't a matter of semantics. The person I quoted stated that Ultima Underworld 2 was 'objectively' better than certain titles now. There is nothing that can be 'objectively' better without being subject to opinion, thus making it subjective. Differences in mechanics, design ethos and anything else and whether they're better or worse than something else is all down to taste.

Also, what cognitive dissonance are you talking about?