Jimquisition: An Industry Of Pitiful Cowards

[generals3]

So... On one hand people complain that gaming companies don't change enough and now they complain they changed stuff...

You gotta know what you want.

We all know exactly what we want, and have been Screaming it a Squeenix for THIRTEEN FUCKING YEARS. Exactly WHO is complaining about Squeenix remembering who they are? For 13 years we have been waving fist fulls of money saying FFVII please, with some shiny new graphics. Or at least something of the caliber of 7,8, and 9. We have been loud, expressive and VERY very,clear as to our desires. We have also been ignored. They claim that the graphics would cost too much, despite making all 3 thirteen excrements in shiny, lovely graphics.

I am sorry, but your comment makes no sense.

Who spoke about square enix specifically? I don't recall jim talking only about them. It was about the general statement of his video which basically stated: "oh my god, developers/publishers decided to change stuff because they were scared not changing stuff would get bad sales". Which is all quite ironic because you see the opposite statement being made all the time. It usually goes like "Oh my god, developers/publishers are just making the same over and over again because they are scared to change".

At the end of the day it's quite clear, no matter what they do they are pitiful cowards because you can always twist their decision into cowardice.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So... On one hand people complain that gaming companies don't change enough and now they complain they changed stuff...

You gotta know what you want.

Not only is the target of your comparison nebulous, the comparison itself is nebulous too.
Today's lesson: Any argument can be made OR dismissed by making it as vague as possible.

Good to know.

 

[generals3]

So... On one hand people complain that gaming companies don't change enough and now they complain they changed stuff...

You gotta know what you want.

Not only is the target of your comparison nebulous, the comparison itself is nebulous too.
Today's lesson: Any argument can be made OR dismissed by making it as vague as possible.

Good to know.

What's nebulous about it? It can't get any clearer than it was. I see people, on this very forum, complain all the time about how companies always stick to the same and than i see this video where someone calls devs/pubs cowards because they didn't. I find this highly ironic and just goes to show there is no way to win for publishers/devs. They'll always be cowards in the eyes of some people. Either because they bail on things or because they stick to it. They bail on horror games? Cowards. They stick to modern warfare shooters? Lazy twats.

 

[Atmos Duality]

What's nebulous about it? It can't get any clearer than it was.

On the contrary; It can only get more clear.

Your exact words:

So... On one hand people complain that gaming companies don't change enough and now they complain they changed stuff...

You gotta know what you want.

People? Which people? Everyone? Just those on this forum? The people of Uganda?
You attribute complaints to nobody in particular. Just "people".

And "change"? What "change"? Just the act of "change"?

Are we even sure that the same people jockeying for "change" are the same ones complaining about the results of those "changes"?

The only way to assert that is to sweep everyone into one nebulous blob of "people", and that's a Gross Generalization.
Oops.

So this makes as much sense as yelling "You're all hypocrites!" into a crowded room.
It's asinine.

I see people, on this very forum, complain all the time about how companies always stick to the same and than i see this video where someone calls devs/pubs cowards because they didn't.

So what?

The people making the complaints about games being stagnant and demanding they change things up aren't necessarily the same as those complaining about the changes being made. Or even that those changes are one in the same!

Besides that there's other contexts you're just lumping together:
-Asking for specific changes and being given something different is still grounds for a valid complaint
-Asking for NO CHANGES to something and getting changes you don't want (I know a number of Diablo fans who would rather D3 not be always online.)

It actually seems like a fairly normal part of life, in fact.
As a wise man once said "You can't always get, what you wa-ant."

I find this highly ironic and just goes to show there is no way to win for publishers/devs. They'll always be cowards in the eyes of some people.

Well, they can't please everyone.
And what's actually ironic is that's the real lesson the publishers need to learn.
When they homogenized their games to appease everyone, they watered it down so much that it started driving others away.

Jim made a number of valid points in his video about that, so I won't repeat them here.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

so first they were westwood, then they were their successors and now they are a faction, make up your mind

is not off topic, you are arguing universe at war ruined petroglyph, i argue they were never good to begin with, if you want to include westwood in the petroglyph package it would be a different story, but as ive said many times now, petroglyph is not westwood, and you seem to agree now

I run on scrambled logic long before I get a coherent answer (it doesn't help that I'm also exceptionally poor at wording my points and answers most of the time)...so I went and did some research this morning. And I found out this one actually isn't hypothetical, mostly because nobody's heard or seen any of Developer X's work. Are you ready for this?

According to the TV Tropes page on Westwood Studios, there was a second company - Jet Set Studios [http://jetsetgames.net/about/]. However, Jet Set and Petroglyph have deviated from each other massively. While Petroglyph still continues to make projects that stall, close down and have had a string of bad luck since Universe at War, Jet Set seem to be doing well for themselves by focusing on iOS, Android and (allegedly) Steam games. They're BOTH considered to be the Spiritual Successor company by nature of Trope, but among the common masses the title of Successor is more closely attributed to Petroglyph as they are A) more well known, B) more vocal about it and C) continuing what Westwood was known for rather than - y'know - going a different direction (or at least trying to go in this direction). Oh and D) the fact that it's staffed by Westwood Era Dev's who choose to carry on the legacy of Westwood.

If we agree on anything, it's that Petroglyph is a terrible company too caught up in it's own nostalgia, and has for all intents and purposes "washed up".

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

so first they were westwood, then they were their successors and now they are a faction, make up your mind

is not off topic, you are arguing universe at war ruined petroglyph, i argue they were never good to begin with, if you want to include westwood in the petroglyph package it would be a different story, but as ive said many times now, petroglyph is not westwood, and you seem to agree now

I run on scrambled logic long before I get a coherent answer (it doesn't help that I'm also exceptionally poor at wording my points and answers most of the time)...so I went and did some research this morning. And I found out this one actually isn't hypothetical, mostly because nobody's heard or seen any of Developer X's work. Are you ready for this?

According to the TV Tropes page on Westwood Studios, there was a second company - Jet Set Studios [http://jetsetgames.net/about/]. However, Jet Set and Petroglyph have deviated from each other massively. While Petroglyph still continues to make projects that stall, close down and have had a string of bad luck since Universe at War, Jet Set seem to be doing well for themselves by focusing on iOS, Android and (allegedly) Steam games. They're BOTH considered to be the Spiritual Successor company by nature of Trope, but among the common masses the title of Successor is more closely attributed to Petroglyph as they are A) more well known, B) more vocal about it and C) continuing what Westwood was known for rather than - y'know - going a different direction (or at least trying to go in this direction). Oh and D) the fact that it's staffed by Westwood Era Dev's who choose to carry on the legacy of Westwood.

If we agree on anything, it's that Petroglyph is a terrible company too caught up in it's own nostalgia, and has for all intents and purposes "washed up".

yeah lets agree on that


also CoH 2 doesnt seem to be doing so bad financially, it beat rome 2 in that sales event the past month i think, boy it was like a battle of disappointments hehe

 

[Demonchaser27]

Okay, turn-based combat and the grind - sure I get where they are not the most popular things ever in an evolving industry where more and more action is available thanks to higher processing power and better graphics, but? who on Earth played Final Fantasy anything for the combat?! You play those games for the story, the characters, the pretty pretty cut scenes that are you reward for doing the grinding and the fighting. Swapping people in and out of combat - like FF10 does - was a nice innovation that spiced up the monotony of the whole turn based combat repetition and I could have been good with just that for at least 2 more games before I got antsy about seeing them hit it with the spice weasel again.

*slowly raises hand* I did...

Well okay then, my apologies? which ones did you enjoy the combat in most? I liked killing monsters a-plenty in most of them, but I can't say it's why I bought the games - I'm a story person for just about everything.

I enjoyed FF6 and FF7. I mean you had to avoid grinding a little bit. Well, little bit is an understatement, but you get the point. It was more of how you prepare your party and prepare your "materia (FF7)" or "Espers/magic (FF6)" in order to prep for a fight. It was just really satisfying to me to discover these insane combinations between your parties to efficiently win a battle or series of battles(arena). I loved the stories too.

I'm just saying, as much as I love games like Golden Sun, compare Golden Sun's combat to some of the Final Fantasy games and the depth just isn't there. It's like Checkers vs. Chess, same board and similar movements but there just isn't as much thinking and planning required in checkers. I mean its just my taste. I completely understand how someone could much more enjoy more active gameplay systems. I mean I absolutely love my DMC 3/4, Ninja Gaiden Black, Monster Hunter, Souls series. I just sometimes like to do the strategy thing, especially if their is planning that goes into it.

 

[Demonchaser27]

I'm just going to make a suggestion to game devs/pubs that I've been thinking about for awhile. Anyone can feel free to tell me if there is something wrong with this logic and why, I'm all ears. I just thought I'd get it out there.

To start, it always made sense to me that when devs made games to "appeal to masses"; I get it. I understand why they would want to do it. Even if they did it with kind intentions which isn't likely, but say they did. If they really just wanted to have as many people enjoy their games as possible, why do they build them for the casual/mainstream audience first?

I think that's the fundamental problem with the whole "mass appeal" thing. You can tell when you play the game. There were many words for it over the years: dumbed-down, casualized, lacking depth, etc. etc. etc.

Okay, now mainstream gamers aren't hard to please. They're usually just looking for something to breeze through, enjoy on a weekend, or just have simple fun. There is nothing wrong with this but core audiences will obviously be by-and-large displeased. Considering how easy mainstream audiences are to please and how difficult core audiences can be to please, why develop for the easy one first if your trying to please both?

To my point. All I'm saying is instead of making a simplistic game that adds "hard mode", which is really just damage and health buff, do it the other way around but with just two modes. Before anyone says "we already have difficulty modes" hear me out.

For example. Build a Hitman game and build the "in-depth" way they always have. They can add new features, bells and whistles. Whatever they want. But keep it "in-depth" for the core audience. Then just call that your "default mode".
Then go BACK and EDIT the "default game" to say: delete certain difficult aspects of the AI programming in each enemy, reduce damage taken, spawn less foes in a given section. And for games like Demon's/Dark Souls and Mario or other games that have a lot of terrain/spacial challenges, stretch the size of certain catwalks, or make certain enemies not activate certain traps. We call this the "easy or basic mode".

Its soooo much easier to delete/make minor adjustments to a tougher or deeper game than to actually have to build new assets and make new programming adjusted to an "easier or simpler" game. The mainstream audience doesn't really give a shit. The things I've listed are not hard things to do to make a game easier to breeze through. And we already know that most mainstream gamers don't really care if they can beat a game's singleplayer in 5-10 hours (excluding Skyrim of course, but that's a different crowd).

I mean maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how this would take away from the depth, mechanics, and difficulty for core players and not satisfy mainstream players as well. Hell, if they enjoy the "basic mode" enough they will probably even try out the "default mode". I mean personally I love dynamic difficulty (ability to grind [not requirement though], changed patterns/difficulty depending on weapons/equipment used [think Phantoon and Draygon of Super Metroid], or Godshand), but I'm just saying I really wouldn't care if this happened as long as I knew there was a way to get the more "in-depth" gameplay that I expected of a series.

 

[Cerebrawl]

I enjoyed FF6 and FF7. I mean you had to avoid grinding a little bit. Well, little bit is an understatement, but you get the point. It was more of how you prepare your party and prepare your "materia (FF7)" or "Espers/magic (FF6)" in order to prep for a fight. It was just really satisfying to me to discover these insane combinations between your parties to efficiently win a battle or series of battles(arena). I loved the stories too.

I too enjoyed the materia system, and indeed most systems that allow for complex preparations and interactions. Another favorite of mine is Romancing SaGa 3(Snes, fantranslated), which is a pretty free-form JRPG, with multiple characters to pick from, with different stories, and you can customize them as you wish. Not everything is optimal, but there's several good setups for each character. You can pick what weapons they specialize in, what magic they use, wether they're more magic or more weapon tech, etc. There's also formations with different bonuses, as well as multi-character combo attacks(specific to each formation).

I love these systems where I can really customize my characters, and figure out what's the most powerful, experiment and optimize, and yes, the combat system is an important part.

The stories in the FF games are kinda meh, and that's common with most games really. If I wanted story I'd rather play a classic western RPG than a JRPG. That said, Romancing SaGa 3 has good story for a JRPG, just don't expect it to be too linear and railroaded(the entire Saga series has a bit of a "choose your own adventure" thing going for it).

 

[Sir Shockwave]

yeah lets agree on that


also CoH 2 doesnt seem to be doing so bad financially, it beat rome 2 in that sales event the past month i think, boy it was like a battle of disappointments hehe

COH 2 wasn't a UaW level disaster no, and I don't pretend it was (especially when compared to Rome 2, COH 2 is at least PLAYABLE, and has been since launch X3).

And with the sales event - well, it was a case of the lesser evil. Would you be equally bad (or worse) if Rome 2 had beaten it? X3

 

[Demonchaser27]

I enjoyed FF6 and FF7. I mean you had to avoid grinding a little bit. Well, little bit is an understatement, but you get the point. It was more of how you prepare your party and prepare your "materia (FF7)" or "Espers/magic (FF6)" in order to prep for a fight. It was just really satisfying to me to discover these insane combinations between your parties to efficiently win a battle or series of battles(arena). I loved the stories too.

I too enjoyed the materia system, and indeed most systems that allow for complex preparations and interactions. Another favorite of mine is Romancing SaGa 3(Snes, fantranslated), which is a pretty free-form JRPG, with multiple characters to pick from, with different stories, and you can customize them as you wish. Not everything is optimal, but there's several good setups for each character. You can pick what weapons they specialize in, what magic they use, wether they're more magic or more weapon tech, etc. There's also formations with different bonuses, as well as multi-character combo attacks(specific to each formation).

I love these systems where I can really customize my characters, and figure out what's the most powerful, experiment and optimize, and yes, the combat system is an important part.

The stories in the FF games are kinda meh, and that's common with most games really. If I wanted story I'd rather play a classic western RPG than a JRPG. That said, Romancing SaGa 3 has good story for a JRPG, just don't expect it to be too linear and railroaded(the entire Saga series has a bit of a "choose your own adventure" thing going for it).

Well that sounds fantastic. I'm gonna have to look into that game. Thanks

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

yeah lets agree on that


also CoH 2 doesnt seem to be doing so bad financially, it beat rome 2 in that sales event the past month i think, boy it was like a battle of disappointments hehe

COH 2 wasn't a UaW level disaster no, and I don't pretend it was (especially when compared to Rome 2, COH 2 is at least PLAYABLE, and has been since launch X3).

And with the sales event - well, it was a case of the lesser evil. Would you be equally bad (or worse) if Rome 2 had beaten it? X3

i guess so

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Okay, turn-based combat and the grind - sure I get where they are not the most popular things ever in an evolving industry where more and more action is available thanks to higher processing power and better graphics, but? who on Earth played Final Fantasy anything for the combat?! You play those games for the story, the characters, the pretty pretty cut scenes that are you reward for doing the grinding and the fighting. Swapping people in and out of combat - like FF10 does - was a nice innovation that spiced up the monotony of the whole turn based combat repetition and I could have been good with just that for at least 2 more games before I got antsy about seeing them hit it with the spice weasel again.

*slowly raises hand* I did...

Well okay then, my apologies? which ones did you enjoy the combat in most? I liked killing monsters a-plenty in most of them, but I can't say it's why I bought the games - I'm a story person for just about everything.

I enjoyed FF6 and FF7. I mean you had to avoid grinding a little bit. Well, little bit is an understatement, but you get the point. It was more of how you prepare your party and prepare your "materia (FF7)" or "Espers/magic (FF6)" in order to prep for a fight. It was just really satisfying to me to discover these insane combinations between your parties to efficiently win a battle or series of battles(arena). I loved the stories too.

I'm just saying, as much as I love games like Golden Sun, compare Golden Sun's combat to some of the Final Fantasy games and the depth just isn't there. It's like Checkers vs. Chess, same board and similar movements but there just isn't as much thinking and planning required in checkers. I mean its just my taste. I completely understand how someone could much more enjoy more active gameplay systems. I mean I absolutely love my DMC 3/4, Ninja Gaiden Black, Monster Hunter, Souls series. I just sometimes like to do the strategy thing, especially if their is planning that goes into it.

I can fully agree with you there - the additional strategic elements of the Final Fantasy magic systems (even that horrific draw system) have always added to the combat and the over all gameplay and not only that, but they are almost always some key part of the way of the world workings that you manipulate, adding to the sensation of being truly powerful but within the confines of that reality.

I'm hardly a combat buff - sometimes I'll get a wild hair that I want to be really playing something with a challenging combat based on reflexes and such, but like I said, I'm much much more of a story/world/characters buff than any combat system fan.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Romancing SaGa 3 stuff.

Well that sounds fantastic. I'm gonna have to look into that game. Thanks

One warning though: there's no handholding, very little direction on what you need to do, and quests are missable, a walkthrough/faq is actually recommended. The game is also very replayable(different main characters, different stories, different parties and different setups for those parties, etc). I spent way in excess of a hundred hours on it.

 

[themilo504]

3d platformers were also largely declared dead at the start of the last generation, sure you still had games like ratchet and clank super mario galaxy and uncharted, but it?s a lot less compared to the ps2 era.

I think the reason why so many companies suddenly started seeing monsters that weren?t actually there was because of the economic crisis.

 

[Timewarpman1]

I think I've come to a true insight into why the game industry, namely publishers, are hurting the media.

The publishers treat games like how most manufacturers treat their products.
Every competitor has got to be as good as better as the next guy. They will do everything in their power to convince or lie to their customers in order to sell more products than their competition.

But there is one major flaw in this process.
Video games are stories.

Now hear me out. Humans have been telling stories since the dawn of time. It's almost primitive but one of core products of creativity, to create a unique world according to out views. These stories have their own settings, characters, feelings, reasons...etc. It is through our creativity that breathes life into these worlds we call stories.

Products on the other hand are simply no more than tools that serve functions. There no creativity in a hand-saw or a bowling ball. Things like this only serve their intended functions and nothing more. So the only thing you can do with them is to improve their function, which at best is just a need or a want.

I understand now that publishers make the mistake of mixing the two together, as if each story was solely design to just serve a function and not actually be something unique.

Can you imagine if someone made a commercial blitz on say Shakesphere's Hamlet but now it has all new characters like a drunk cop with a heart of gold? Michael Bay explosions in every chapter? And printed on finely made cotton texture patterns to make the book feel even better than the original? Doesn't that sound fucking weird and stupid?
It is because it is. You can't take someone's unique world and try to make it better.

Same with video games. Trying to make these stories into something they were not originally intended to be because you needed to compete with Brown shooter '13 is as fucking stupid as the example I gave above.

Maybe that's why we all view the gaming industry as the over bloated cancerous mutant that it is today. A self-indulgent perversion of pure wonder and enjoyment for the illogical selfish desire to make a buck.

I think we need a surgeon for this problem.

 

[Himax9]

You wanna know what "evidence" the industry took to throw good game design off a cliff?
Call-of-fucking-duty. Spunkgargleweewee.

Last I checked, the porn industry makes a tremendous deal of money, greatly moreso than legitemate theatre. Is this becasue porn is better designed, composed, and written than legitemate cinema?
No, it's becasue it is built from the ground up with the sole purpose of appealing to the lowest common denominator.

CoD is the gaming equivalent of porn; garbage with no real reedeming value other than that it is popular with idiots who have either a lot of disposable income or a lack of financial responsibility.
Everyone thought that Microsoft was positively influencing the industry when it proved that it could appeal to the drunken frat-boy crowd.

The problem with the drunken frat-boy crowd is that they are arrogant, stupid, and lazy.
How good could games specifically meant to appeal to the arrogant, stupid, and lazy possibly be?

You get games with lots of shiny explosions and pretty graphics, but absolutely NO creativity or skill required outside of one or maybe two intrisically simple abilities (Like twitch-reflexes). You get games where the OBJECTIVE of gameplay is to put yourself in a position where you are getting landslide voctories against those who cannot defend themselves-- and then declaring yourself intrisically superior to them in every facet of both gameplay and real life.
You get games that make money by ensuring that you can launch a dozen sequels with absolutely NO additions to the core gameplay and having them sell like hotcakes.

When the industry learns to treat creating a game more like creating art and less like selling porn, THEN we will see a new rennaisance in the videogame industry.

 

[Demonchaser27]

...but they are almost always some key part of the way of the world workings that you manipulate, adding to the sensation of being truly powerful but within the confines of that reality.

Dude... DUDE. This is what I absolutely love about older Final Fantasy games. That feel of the combat aspects/magic being directly related and being heavily integral to the lore of the game, and you mastering it. *Dies and goes to heaven*

 

[Demonchaser27]

Romancing SaGa 3 stuff.

Well that sounds fantastic. I'm gonna have to look into that game. Thanks

One warning though: there's no handholding, very little direction on what you need to do, and quests are missable, a walkthrough/faq is actually recommended. The game is also very replayable(different main characters, different stories, different parties and different setups for those parties, etc). I spent way in excess of a hundred hours on it.

Yeah I'm not against hand-holding. But I love games that don't hand hold. It feels more mysterious and rewarding when you find something. This sounds nice. I'll judge it as I play, lol. Thanks for the warning though.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

...but they are almost always some key part of the way of the world workings that you manipulate, adding to the sensation of being truly powerful but within the confines of that reality.

Dude... DUDE. This is what I absolutely love about older Final Fantasy games. That feel of the combat aspects/magic being directly related and being heavily integral to the lore of the game, and you mastering it. *Dies and goes to heaven*

Lady >.> (lol) but yeah I totally get the enjoyment factor. I'm all for things being integral to the whole both in and out of combat and it does great things for a game overall when that's done well.