Jimquisition: Guns Blazing
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't see the problem... You already have Dark Souls. What more do you want? New levels? New monsters? What is this, FIFA? Skyrim was a success because it wasn't just a remake of Oblivion, which wasn't just a graphics upgrade over Morrowind. They made it bigger and bigger, brought it to a bigger audience, then let the modders make the game as realistic and hard as possible. Anyone interested in a challenge just has to look for a couple of mods. Heck, I still play all 3 of them. The same will be with Dark Souls 2. If it fails, let it fail... somebody else will pick up the crown later, plus you still have the original. It's not even a niche game. You want to talk about niche games?
Falcon 4 was and still is THE flight sim to play, 15 years after being made. Falcon 4 FAILED at the time, and Microprose died because of it. In a world of Hawks, nobody expected better, ever. Then DCS A-10C came out and changed the sim world. In reply, some crazy geniuses remade Falcon 4 to be almost on par. That's NICHE. But a NICHE completely filled, more than you could ever need, just waiting for Oculus Rift. Flight Simulator was killed off, yet 7 years on people still play it like crazy. Want more? Anybody here played Orbiter? It's a phenomenal free game, but so complex that very few played it. Guess what, Kerbal Space Program took off based on it, but simpler, although again mods made it so complex that even the developers now have to adjust. In the meantime, many people switched to Orbiter for the extra challenge. Funny how things work, ha? Still in space, I still play I-War2, which is basically ancient. Who cares? It's still the best inertial space sim where you can go faster than light and zoom around stars guns blazing and all. Those devs also went extinct, but at least we still have their masterpiece to inspire the future devs.
These titles went all in. They failed, but we still play them many years after their demise. Now compare that with the Silent Hunter series which did the opposite. They started as a niche in the age of simulators, struck gold with Silent Hunter 3 (which many still play), then failed again and again to close that niche with more realism. They played it safe, failed, and we're left with prayers for a proper naval sim and imagination. The salvation might just come from the most unlikely place, Assassin's Creed (still Ubisoft). Once the masses get the taste, a niche game becomes a possibility.
So I say go all in... whatever comes next, at least you'll have a legacy. Dark Souls is not a masterpiece. Dark Souls 2 might just be. So good luck to them. Should Dark Souls 3 suck, failing to live up to the previous games, well screw it...
Falcon 4 was and still is THE flight sim to play, 15 years after being made. Falcon 4 FAILED at the time, and Microprose died because of it. In a world of Hawks, nobody expected better, ever. Then DCS A-10C came out and changed the sim world. In reply, some crazy geniuses remade Falcon 4 to be almost on par. That's NICHE. But a NICHE completely filled, more than you could ever need, just waiting for Oculus Rift. Flight Simulator was killed off, yet 7 years on people still play it like crazy. Want more? Anybody here played Orbiter? It's a phenomenal free game, but so complex that very few played it. Guess what, Kerbal Space Program took off based on it, but simpler, although again mods made it so complex that even the developers now have to adjust. In the meantime, many people switched to Orbiter for the extra challenge. Funny how things work, ha? Still in space, I still play I-War2, which is basically ancient. Who cares? It's still the best inertial space sim where you can go faster than light and zoom around stars guns blazing and all. Those devs also went extinct, but at least we still have their masterpiece to inspire the future devs.
These titles went all in. They failed, but we still play them many years after their demise. Now compare that with the Silent Hunter series which did the opposite. They started as a niche in the age of simulators, struck gold with Silent Hunter 3 (which many still play), then failed again and again to close that niche with more realism. They played it safe, failed, and we're left with prayers for a proper naval sim and imagination. The salvation might just come from the most unlikely place, Assassin's Creed (still Ubisoft). Once the masses get the taste, a niche game becomes a possibility.
So I say go all in... whatever comes next, at least you'll have a legacy. Dark Souls is not a masterpiece. Dark Souls 2 might just be. So good luck to them. Should Dark Souls 3 suck, failing to live up to the previous games, well screw it...
I fully agree with you on this one Jim.
I am sick and tired of these publishers that have the mentality of turning the game to appeal to a more mainstream audience by marketing the hell out of it.
The Souls franchise already has a fanbase for it and they (Namco) shouldn't try to spread the audience, because this can only lead to dumbing the game down for the mainstream. Mass Effect 3 being one of the prime examples of that and I don't know if they sold as much as they expected.
Also, the tacked on multiplayer is a feature that should stop being implemented in every single game just to try and lenghten it's value. If the game is good, it should stand on it's own singleplayer campaign/story.
I am sick and tired of these publishers that have the mentality of turning the game to appeal to a more mainstream audience by marketing the hell out of it.
The Souls franchise already has a fanbase for it and they (Namco) shouldn't try to spread the audience, because this can only lead to dumbing the game down for the mainstream. Mass Effect 3 being one of the prime examples of that and I don't know if they sold as much as they expected.
Also, the tacked on multiplayer is a feature that should stop being implemented in every single game just to try and lenghten it's value. If the game is good, it should stand on it's own singleplayer campaign/story.
All I can say is that there is one thing that needs to go through sales and marketing teams' heads repeatedly:
Call of Duty was a fluke.
Skyrim was a fluke.
World of Warcraft was a fluke.
There are more big-hit games that also fall into these categories. But, as I can assure you that more money + bigger scope + higher expectations extremely rarely create a fluke - Those listed are, for the most part, extremely lucky that they did indeed succeed after using such an equation.
On AAA-izing a title in a series, you also carry the very big risk of creating a discord and eventually conflict within your own established community. Creating a game that is essentially a cult hit creates a small, niche community that's quite tied together - However, if a company creates a sequel that opens up the series to a more accessible audience, the existing group will likely prefer the "old way", desiring the qualities of the original, and the the new group prefers the adjustments made to lure them into the series. What's worse is when the older group falls apart because they can't handle themselves with the new group - This creates tension and cynicism within the whole of the community, and without a doubt there's evidence of this everywhere. This is nothing but short-sighted - Now developers have to create a game that has to appeal to both groups, and the third game might actually create a third group that can't wholly agree with the other two! And what about the subsequent games afterward? It becomes more unintentionally difficult all because somebody blatantly wanted more people to play their game.
Take the TES seies that Jim references to - There are still TES fans that are waiting for another Morrowind. Sure, the gameplay mechanics could be easily broken, but what they're still waiting for is a very unique environment with an extensive and vivid history and characters deep and interesting enough to care about, along with actions that can carry deep consequences - For example you can't be leader of all the guilds, and even then it takes a lot of time and politics to get to such a position. In this case, the series would find it impossible to achieve what is "needed" amongst the different fans in VI. Although, they could poke around by creating series of TES games that give you a small area to explore and focuses on some core styles of gameplay, to see what kind of expectations specific groups of fans are looking for.
captcha: one hit wonder
Heh, that's another good idea - Perhaps a popular game is better off staying as one and only one game in the series?
Call of Duty was a fluke.
Skyrim was a fluke.
World of Warcraft was a fluke.
There are more big-hit games that also fall into these categories. But, as I can assure you that more money + bigger scope + higher expectations extremely rarely create a fluke - Those listed are, for the most part, extremely lucky that they did indeed succeed after using such an equation.
On AAA-izing a title in a series, you also carry the very big risk of creating a discord and eventually conflict within your own established community. Creating a game that is essentially a cult hit creates a small, niche community that's quite tied together - However, if a company creates a sequel that opens up the series to a more accessible audience, the existing group will likely prefer the "old way", desiring the qualities of the original, and the the new group prefers the adjustments made to lure them into the series. What's worse is when the older group falls apart because they can't handle themselves with the new group - This creates tension and cynicism within the whole of the community, and without a doubt there's evidence of this everywhere. This is nothing but short-sighted - Now developers have to create a game that has to appeal to both groups, and the third game might actually create a third group that can't wholly agree with the other two! And what about the subsequent games afterward? It becomes more unintentionally difficult all because somebody blatantly wanted more people to play their game.
Take the TES seies that Jim references to - There are still TES fans that are waiting for another Morrowind. Sure, the gameplay mechanics could be easily broken, but what they're still waiting for is a very unique environment with an extensive and vivid history and characters deep and interesting enough to care about, along with actions that can carry deep consequences - For example you can't be leader of all the guilds, and even then it takes a lot of time and politics to get to such a position. In this case, the series would find it impossible to achieve what is "needed" amongst the different fans in VI. Although, they could poke around by creating series of TES games that give you a small area to explore and focuses on some core styles of gameplay, to see what kind of expectations specific groups of fans are looking for.
captcha: one hit wonder
Heh, that's another good idea - Perhaps a popular game is better off staying as one and only one game in the series?
The last one was that:Xanex said:
Male characters are created with male players in mind. They are not sexual objects, they are idealised.
No comment was made that it was wrong to do so, just that people should stop acting like male characters are treated the same as female ones.
This one is:
If you have a game and it works, stop trying to change it to appeal to other people purely for the sake of making more money.
The issue with trying to appeal to everybody is that it is not possible. People who haven't played Dark Souls yet probably haven't done so because the game doesn't interest them. Changing things that the fans love, just to try and get those non-interested people interested is an idiotic way of doing things.
Imagine your favourite band completely changing their style, purely for the sake of trying to appeal to people who don't already like them. That's what game publishers are trying to do with games.
I think it completely depends on what changes they actually make. It's ok to be cautious but we've got to trust them until they screw up (and Jim's right, they probably will).
I have never understood that mentality. My CEO always says, "If you're not growing, you're dying." What? In what world do these people live in? It's just like that idea that everyone can be rich. No, that's not possible. We live in a world of finite resources. There is only so much money, only so many customers, and only so much marketshare. Is Wal-Mart dying if they don't increase their customer base this year? I doubt it.
Ah, to be beholden to shareholders - You simply can't break even you need to make money grow from trees, because how else would you see your share price increase?
But, afterall how else is the publisher stumble bad enough to get bought out by EA? har har har
But, afterall how else is the publisher stumble bad enough to get bought out by EA? har har har
Or... we could just make a wax/fake head... with out "killing a hobo".... yeah... passion/anger aside... this is a topic EVERY ONE WOULD (me too) agreed with you for Jimmy... don't make it sound weird at the last minute.
BTW, great Episode and nice pose at the end... LOL!~
BTW, great Episode and nice pose at the end... LOL!~
I think you read too much into that statement, Jim. Perhaps all they were saying is that they weren't really concentrating their efforts when they made Dark Souls but they will now. The rest of it could also be understood likewise. Skyrim sold a royal ****ton. That's not what I would call a niche game. So naturally, it would be safe to assume that some people who bought Skyrim might be interested in Dark Souls as a franchise but never really got around to it or maybe it did something or didn't do something small that some of the fans of Skyrim really didn't appreciate.
I don't know. I'm just speculating. Either way, I don't think that epic rant was really needed right now until we know for sure that homogenizing Dark Souls 2 was really what they were talking about.
I don't know. I'm just speculating. Either way, I don't think that epic rant was really needed right now until we know for sure that homogenizing Dark Souls 2 was really what they were talking about.
Way to piss away any credibility, Namco, by allowing your pack of retards to skuttle any chance of Dark Souls to reach its target audience by forcing bullshit no one asked for.
I'd like to offer a proper punishment in regards to Jim's suggestion. Rather than punish some poor rube who looks like Chris Redfield, lets take the mouth-breathing dipshits of the AAA market that ignore the smaller audiences and try aiming for bigger crowds and inflict the following torment:
1) Kidnap a smaller group of these idiotic AAA publishers (I'd go with a baker's dozen) and have them march, wearing only their underwear, to a large stadium. Before that, we'd have to take a long route with plenty of gravel roads for these barefoot schmucks to walk on. In fact, lets set it on the hottest summer day in somewhere like Arizona.
2) Hold a lottery for pissed-off gamers to be selected in order to partake in whacking these dumb fuck publishers 5 times in the ass with a boat paddle.
3) Allow fellow game commentators (Jim Sterling, Ben "Yahtzee", etc.) the opportunity to use a bullwhip and give the condemned 10-15 lashes across the back and chest, followed by a lemon juice/salt water bath.
4) Move them to a grand stage where these offenders are to be disemboweled, castrated, have their limbs removed by wild horses, beheaded, and have what is left of their bodies burned.
5) Take their heads, put them on a large pike for all to see, including other AAA developers, and tell them "THIS IS WHAT AWAITS YOU IF YOU PULL ANY OF THESE BULLSHIT STUNTS EVER AGAIN! GOT IT?!?"
I'm sure, in a couple of months after we've exterminated most of them, the AAA market will finally see the light.
I'd like to offer a proper punishment in regards to Jim's suggestion. Rather than punish some poor rube who looks like Chris Redfield, lets take the mouth-breathing dipshits of the AAA market that ignore the smaller audiences and try aiming for bigger crowds and inflict the following torment:
1) Kidnap a smaller group of these idiotic AAA publishers (I'd go with a baker's dozen) and have them march, wearing only their underwear, to a large stadium. Before that, we'd have to take a long route with plenty of gravel roads for these barefoot schmucks to walk on. In fact, lets set it on the hottest summer day in somewhere like Arizona.
2) Hold a lottery for pissed-off gamers to be selected in order to partake in whacking these dumb fuck publishers 5 times in the ass with a boat paddle.
3) Allow fellow game commentators (Jim Sterling, Ben "Yahtzee", etc.) the opportunity to use a bullwhip and give the condemned 10-15 lashes across the back and chest, followed by a lemon juice/salt water bath.
4) Move them to a grand stage where these offenders are to be disemboweled, castrated, have their limbs removed by wild horses, beheaded, and have what is left of their bodies burned.
5) Take their heads, put them on a large pike for all to see, including other AAA developers, and tell them "THIS IS WHAT AWAITS YOU IF YOU PULL ANY OF THESE BULLSHIT STUNTS EVER AGAIN! GOT IT?!?"
I'm sure, in a couple of months after we've exterminated most of them, the AAA market will finally see the light.
This is probably relevant;
Even though they might get more people interested with a "broadened gaming experience" they'd still alienate the core fans of the game. Let us not forget that the cost that goes into broadening this experience will probably not get paid back in full with the money they make from those few extra customers.
It's as if gaming is trying to become TV...
Even though they might get more people interested with a "broadened gaming experience" they'd still alienate the core fans of the game. Let us not forget that the cost that goes into broadening this experience will probably not get paid back in full with the money they make from those few extra customers.
It's as if gaming is trying to become TV...
There's a minor problem in your argument (and apologises if this point has already been brought up), Jim: Not aiming to improve brings stagnation. While I do agree it is potentially the top of a very slippery slope, simply releasing largely the same game aimed at the same audience won't bring constant success either. In fact, over time, even the loyal fans will tire and bugger off.
World of Warcraft didn't need the Cataclysm expansion, City of Heroes didn't need the Going Rogue expansion, but if they didn't get it then players would have simply left as there was nothing new and if it was, it was basically the same with a new coat of paint (admittedly they were more of the same, but with new maps and in CoH's case a significant new feature in being able to swap sides, not to mention branching stories and conversations).
World of Warcraft didn't need the Cataclysm expansion, City of Heroes didn't need the Going Rogue expansion, but if they didn't get it then players would have simply left as there was nothing new and if it was, it was basically the same with a new coat of paint (admittedly they were more of the same, but with new maps and in CoH's case a significant new feature in being able to swap sides, not to mention branching stories and conversations).
It doesn't help when good games come out like Dishonored and at least 10 dumbasses on a daily basis somewhere in the world state
"durr this needs multiplayer hadurrr"
Then developers say
"hadurr lets divert money time and resources to making a generic multiplayer with the same game modes we've been seeing since sega dreamcast hadurr"
And the result is games like Far Cry 3 where a great singleplayer mode which could've had more missions, weapons etc end up having buggy crappy co-op missions crammed in.
"durr this needs multiplayer hadurrr"
Then developers say
"hadurr lets divert money time and resources to making a generic multiplayer with the same game modes we've been seeing since sega dreamcast hadurr"
And the result is games like Far Cry 3 where a great singleplayer mode which could've had more missions, weapons etc end up having buggy crappy co-op missions crammed in.
I have repeated this mantra more times than I care to remember on the Escapist: a company hears and understands only two sounds, the creak of your wallet opening and the slap of your wallet closing. Everything else is just noise to be ignored. The apparent fact is these "cheap, offensive" tactics that many of us on the Escapist rail vehemently against actually do work to improve sales and revenue for the publishers, as is evidenced by the repeated sales of 3+ million copies of these recycled franchises. Unfortunately, the shit that many of us here on the Escapist hate seeing in games does seem to cause more wallets to creak open. What has not been working for the publishers is the complete mismanagement of production and marketing costs. These have escalated faster than the corresponding increases in sales. If publishers could actually get better control of their costs while still maintaining their corresponding increases in sales, then the triple-A industry would be absolutely rolling in the green (and you would see even greater levels of homogenization and appeals to the mass audience). The perception of insufficient or lagging sales is only relative to the costs that have gone into the game, not because people are not buying games.canadamus_prime said: