Jimquisition: Irrational Decisions (Or Freedom In Chains)

[Sanunes]

I don't really share that perspective. The video is in great part about Levine, and his actions and consequences in the industry. During a big part of the video Jim defends the guy that left, and stands to justify his actions and (presumed) reasoning for leaving. At the very least, Levine is the trigger for the subject and the most prominent example used. Jim only goes to name further examples later on as if they were analogous.

And my point is, that they aren't. There is a world of difference between them... I understand the reasoning and even celebrate the cases of Bleszynski, Carmack and Jaffe, that left their (relatively secure) jobs in search of new, more personal challenges, while they were not in a crunch, and the world just kept spinning. However, the way Levine and 2K handled the situation was insensitive, impersonal, selfish and destructive; and while I can think of more political ways for 2K to handle it, can't fairly put those labels in a faceless corporation (because 2K is a corporation, so it is faceless, impersonal and selfish by nature) that probably reasoned that without Levine there was no point keeping the studio open instead of putting it under new management, rename it or even merge it with other studios, I sure can put those adjectives on a person that took the decision of closing it without considering or informing the people that implicitly trusted him with their future and where left behind.

It is cool when Carmack decides to resign Id in order to help a few garage geeks with a low level project. It is cool when Jaffe leaves a secure job to create small downloadable games on his own. I can applaud that. I can not put on the same level the decision of Levine to leave hundreds of dedicated and talented people on the street without much further notice (right after finishing the final DLC for BI, I might add) because he wanted to pursue a different venue. On a personal level I can understand his motivation, but I still think the way he handled it makes a world of difference. In most cases where someone prominent leaves a job and takes some people with him, they don't close the building, they put it under new management, they may change the name or split the workforce among other studios, and they definitely notify the employees. I can't know all the particulars, but I am fairly sure the decision of Levine was not impulsive, so the consequences were a shared responsibility between him and 2K.

So I can't really celebrate the indie scene for "scoring one more for our side" just yet. And while I am curious to see what games come out of this situation by the hundreds of people that were forced into it and the handful that weren't, if that was the point Jim was trying to make, he made a disservice of it by going with that example.

This is how I feel as well, just better put then what I was trying to say.

 

[Petromir]

There are a couple of separate problems at work here.

The AAA games (or indeed film) industry is often unwilling to take risks as their budgets make failure difficult to stomach. This leads them to tend towards caution and what has worked in the past. To much uncontrolled controversy is also scary for a big company often.

The Indie market failures when they get budget are usually a completely different problem, they seem to lose the control they had previously, possibly as the bigger numbers blind them. Its possibly linked to the way quite so many lottery winners and even sports stars manage to go bankrupt, once the numbers get past a certain point its easy to spend as if you can't run out, making it far more likely you will. Perversely the lack of the control that a publisher imposes, which is an indies greatest strength is also a potential fatal flaw if it makes it to big to quickly.


The AAA industry has a higher quality average per release than the indie, it does often seem otherwise as the indies we notice are the ones that have got there through being good. The AAA market is like mountain, its big, abut we see pretty much all there is to see, the indie market is like an iceberg, looks small, but theres a vast amount under the surface we can't see.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Dear God, I've finally talked with someone about Dead Space...and they're not utterly bitter about it/hate it. I suppose I was a bit too strong in my opinion though. If there's going to be more Dead Space, I'd sort of prefer it if they rebooted the series with a whole new main character in a different timeline/reality because the series from the motion coming to Awakened feels complete to me, and I'd prefer they didn't try to squeeze more into it.

While Awakened does exist as a quasi-cap for the series, it also leaves it open for at least one more game as Isaac fights one last battle. I don't want to see it end here because while grimdark, it also copy-pastes Mass Effect 3 with gigantic Lovecraftian aliens destroying Earth. I'd rather the series ended on a different note than that.

I feel there's a lot to this that could be touched upon and new directions it can go just by throwing a monkey wrench into the intended direction. On top of this, however, I just don't like seeing a good series die on a downer ending. That's my opinion.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

Dear God, I've finally talked with someone about Dead Space...and they're not utterly bitter about it/hate it. I suppose I was a bit too strong in my opinion though. If there's going to be more Dead Space, I'd sort of prefer it if they rebooted the series with a whole new main character in a different timeline/reality because the series from the motion coming to Awakened feels complete to me, and I'd prefer they didn't try to squeeze more into it.

While Awakened does exist as a quasi-cap for the series, it also leaves it open for at least one more game as Isaac fights one last battle. I don't want to see it end here because while grimdark, it also copy-pastes Mass Effect 3 with gigantic Lovecraftian aliens destroying Earth. I'd rather the series ended on a different note than that.

I feel there's a lot to this that could be touched upon and new directions it can go just by throwing a monkey wrench into the intended direction. On top of this, however, I just don't like seeing a good series die on a downer ending. That's my opinion.

I completely understand, and I have a feeling you're in the majority here. For me, considering Isaac and Carver almost died fighting a fledgling and incomplete Brethren Moon, and there's at least seven more out there, I don't think the two of them are going to win out against over a half down more (especially with EarthGov toppled and the Unitologists winning). Plus, I like the downer ending. It's a lot more like real life. It's just, "Fuck you, the bad guys win." It's honestly refreshing, because it seems wherever I go in real life, that's what happens, and all the happy endings or at least hopeful endings are starting to get annoying.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yes and no, we are on the cusp of a new age where AAA devs have become 2ndary to gaming.Indie needs more time to mature into something more while AAA devs find out less is sometimes more IE MP/online games become better for them than big budget single player. And on a side note fuck Levine, BS was BS a dumbed down shooter for the masses. Now maybe he can make something better but I doubt it.

 

[truckspond]

This is now my second favorite show on The Escapist (up from third, ZP has been slipping a bit as of late). Brilliant episode and keep up the good work!

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Now there we disagree... to me, "Bioshock Infinite", "The Last of Us" and "Tomb Raider" are symptoms of exactly what's WRONG with the industry. I mean, I can ignore "Call of Duty" if I don't want it - and I don't. But when my favorite developer makes a game like "Bioshock Infinite" then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong.

These are games that I felt treated me like a child. Scripted event after scripted event after scripted event. No exploration possible, every experience you will have will be pretty much the same, and they cost as much as a game like "Fallout: New Vegas" or "Skyrim". Which, whatever their faults, are games that you can pretty much do whatever you want with.

Now I'm not saying that every game needs to be open-world, or that following a specific storyline is "bad". "Bastion" absolutely nailed how to do a narrative-driven story but give the player control over the pacing of it, have the narrator refer directly to the player's actions, and give the player enough choices that the player has freedom of HOW to play the game - all of which mean it has a lot of replayability. "Tomb Raider" and "Infinite" and "The Last of Us" DIDN'T DO THIS.

They put you in charge of unlikeable characters following scripted events that you couldn't alter. Your decisions are meaningless in those games. It's like they're saying to you: "We have a vast well-designed world, but we're not going to allow you to alter it in any way! It's ours! All we're going to allow you to do is fight stuff! And stuff that has no bearing whatsoever on the plot of the game!"

No. No. No.

We need less of this crap, not more. And we need reviewers to be honest about what's going on with these games, because honestly the love-in for "Bioshock Infinite" - with all apologies to Jim here - made me feel a little ill. Not that it's a BAD game, but it sure as hell ain't a great one and it's Ken Levine's weakest (I will once again reiterate, as if I haven't done so enough already, that Levine made my all-time favorite game). THAT'S why I'm excited to see Levine set sail for pastures new, so to speak.

Um... I hate to break it to you buddy, but there is nothing wrong with a linear game. There's nothing wrong with scripted events. There is nothing wrong with a game that sets out to tell a story that you have no say over. Not every game needs player choices, not every game is about YOU as the player. Skryim, Fallout etc... they are about YOU. YOU are the protagonist and that is great, I love some of those games. But I also love some linear games that are not YOUR story, they are the character's story. The Last of Us is Joel and Ellie's story, Bioshock Infinite is Booker and Elizabeth's story. Tomb Raider is Lara's story. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If those are not the kind of games you enjoy, that is perfectly fine. They just don't suit your tastes. But just because you don't like that style, it doesn't make it something "WRONG" with the industry. They're just a different style of game which many people enjoy. If you don't like them, don't buy them. But don't begrudge other people for liking them just because you happen not to. Video games are subjective, I for one think Bioshock Infinite is a great game. You don't. Neither of us are wrong, it's just our personal experiences and enjoyment were different.

"Bastion" was a linear game, and I loved it. Many older platformers were linear games, and I loved some of them. If you don't see what's different between them and games like "Bioshock Infinite", then either I've done a really bad job of explaining myself, or you're just not getting my point. And look, I've gone into what's wrong with "Infinite" about five times over in other threads, I'm not going there again; suffice to say, it has zero replayability and isn't worth the forty quid I wasted on it.

And there is plenty that's objectively wrong with scripted events - or at least, having EVERY important moment play out in a scripted event, which is what "Infinite" and its ilk do. Aren't they primarily what people hate about the single-player campaigns of games like "Medal of Honour: Warfighter" and "Battlefield 4"? These are games with practically nothing BUT scripted events. And from what I'm seeing from supposedly more "in depth" or "adult" games like "Bioshock Infinite" now, a large section of the gaming industry is now using that as their model.

I mean, every opinion is subjective, etc. I absolutely understand why people liked "Bioshock Infinite" more than I did, at least more than I understand why people liked something like "FEAR", which had atmosphere and some nice visuals but literally nothing else going for it. But honestly... if you think a developer of the talent and calibre of Ken Levine should be making games that ape the gameplay of Modern Military Shooters, which is basically what "Infinite" does... then I'm sorry, you've lost me. Subjective opinion it may be, but it's one that I cannot see any sane man disagreeing with. It'd be like saying that a roast dog turd is better eating than prime fillet steak or something. I'm sure SOMEBODY would agree with that statement, but don't ask me why.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

I completely understand, and I have a feeling you're in the majority here. For me, considering Isaac and Carver almost died fighting a fledgling and incomplete Brethren Moon, and there's at least seven more out there, I don't think the two of them are going to win out against over a half down more (especially with EarthGov toppled and the Unitologists winning). Plus, I like the downer ending. It's a lot more like real life. It's just, "Fuck you, the bad guys win." It's honestly refreshing, because it seems wherever I go in real life, that's what happens, and all the happy endings or at least hopeful endings are starting to get annoying.

I think that given humanity invented planet-cracking, and the necromorphs are small moons, Isaac would have one last hand to play. Imagine the Ishimura and its fellow planet-crackers ripping them apart? That'd be a sight.

Yeah, downers and real life. Well that's where our opinions different. If I want downers, I'll watch the news and hang out in real life. If I want to pick myself up, I play a video game where I can shoot my way to a happy ending.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

And let's go into the question of "subjectivity" here, because I seem to be accused of it whenever I criticise a game that other people like, no matter what my reasoning is.

I don't like sports games, others do. My not liking them has nothing to do with the objective quality of the games. That's subjective.

I find certain mechanics in certain games off-putting (especially third-person viewpoint in a 3D game. Yeah, I still can't get used to that for some reason.) Completely subjective - although I might hold it against a game when there's no first-person OPTION in it for no apparent reason (especially given how many games do give you options like that nowadays).

I demonstrate that mechanics in a game don't work, or don't synergise with other mechanics, therefore limiting the enjoyment I had with the game - NOT subjective. The enjoyment that I had is a subjective point, relevant only to me. The mechanics not working is not. That's part of the game itself.

I don't begrudge people who enjoyed a game that I didn't. I'm glad that they had a good experience with the game and that they didn't waste their money.

I DO, however, insist that they don't, just because they enjoyed the game more than me, insist on the game being "perfect". Holy crap, I spent 200+ hours with Skyrim and I don't think it's anywhere near perfect! You guys can ***** about the AAA games industry stagnating into MMS's and their ilk all you want - I don't agree with everything you're saying, but that's why we have debate.

*

I think - this is my opinion - that the movie-fication of gaming is a pervasive and insidious problem that's affecting more and more games in a negative way. When this happens to the guy who created "System Shock" then honestly it feels almost personal... I grew up with Levine's games. Obviously I don't want to see him reduced to this. So obviously there's a lot of personal feeling in there. Which doesn't in any way invalidate my point.

Games are becoming less and less "interactive". "Bioshock Infinite" has a fantastic world and a great story, the trouble being that you can't DO anything in the world and you can't affect the story! The actual gameplay feels almost tacked-on. It would work better as a movie, and DID work better as a novel. (FYI, it's called "Bloodstone" by an author called David Gemmell. Seriously, read it. Besides being almost beat-for-beat the exact same story as "Infinite" until the penultimate chapter - the ending is different - it's a fantastic book.)

We now have the technology to create massive, overwhelming, immersive worlds (Levine's been doing it for twenty years now). This is GREAT. So why, if given the choice to play a game where you can influence the world, make decisions, etc, or a game where you basically follow someone else's story with no control over it whatsoever... why would you choose the second option? Aren't you just paying forty quid for a movie with some shooting sections? And what happens to replayability?

I guess I just don't "get" it anymore. If you have a world as good as "Infinite"'s, I would think you'd want to be able to actually DO stuff in it. To shape things, to influence events, to make your own story. I just don't see how the lack of this could ever be a good thing.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Now there we disagree... to me, "Bioshock Infinite", "The Last of Us" and "Tomb Raider" are symptoms of exactly what's WRONG with the industry. I mean, I can ignore "Call of Duty" if I don't want it - and I don't. But when my favorite developer makes a game like "Bioshock Infinite" then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong.

These are games that I felt treated me like a child. Scripted event after scripted event after scripted event. No exploration possible, every experience you will have will be pretty much the same, and they cost as much as a game like "Fallout: New Vegas" or "Skyrim". Which, whatever their faults, are games that you can pretty much do whatever you want with.

Now I'm not saying that every game needs to be open-world, or that following a specific storyline is "bad". "Bastion" absolutely nailed how to do a narrative-driven story but give the player control over the pacing of it, have the narrator refer directly to the player's actions, and give the player enough choices that the player has freedom of HOW to play the game - all of which mean it has a lot of replayability. "Tomb Raider" and "Infinite" and "The Last of Us" DIDN'T DO THIS.

They put you in charge of unlikeable characters following scripted events that you couldn't alter. Your decisions are meaningless in those games. It's like they're saying to you: "We have a vast well-designed world, but we're not going to allow you to alter it in any way! It's ours! All we're going to allow you to do is fight stuff! And stuff that has no bearing whatsoever on the plot of the game!"

No. No. No.

We need less of this crap, not more. And we need reviewers to be honest about what's going on with these games, because honestly the love-in for "Bioshock Infinite" - with all apologies to Jim here - made me feel a little ill. Not that it's a BAD game, but it sure as hell ain't a great one and it's Ken Levine's weakest (I will once again reiterate, as if I haven't done so enough already, that Levine made my all-time favorite game). THAT'S why I'm excited to see Levine set sail for pastures new, so to speak.

Um... I hate to break it to you buddy, but there is nothing wrong with a linear game. There's nothing wrong with scripted events. There is nothing wrong with a game that sets out to tell a story that you have no say over. Not every game needs player choices, not every game is about YOU as the player. Skryim, Fallout etc... they are about YOU. YOU are the protagonist and that is great, I love some of those games. But I also love some linear games that are not YOUR story, they are the character's story. The Last of Us is Joel and Ellie's story, Bioshock Infinite is Booker and Elizabeth's story. Tomb Raider is Lara's story. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If those are not the kind of games you enjoy, that is perfectly fine. They just don't suit your tastes. But just because you don't like that style, it doesn't make it something "WRONG" with the industry. They're just a different style of game which many people enjoy. If you don't like them, don't buy them. But don't begrudge other people for liking them just because you happen not to. Video games are subjective, I for one think Bioshock Infinite is a great game. You don't. Neither of us are wrong, it's just our personal experiences and enjoyment were different.

Ok, I'm gonna post the last bit of my last post here because you probably won't see it otherwise...

We now have the technology to create massive, overwhelming, immersive worlds (Levine's been doing it for twenty years now). This is GREAT. So why, if given the choice to play a game where you can influence the world, make decisions, etc, or a game where you basically follow someone else's story with no control over it whatsoever... why would you choose the second option? Aren't you just paying forty quid for a movie with some shooting sections? And what happens to replayability?

I guess I just don't "get" it anymore. If you have a world as good as "Infinite"'s, I would think you'd want to be able to actually DO stuff in it. To shape things, to influence events, to make your own story. I just don't see how the lack of this could ever be a good thing.

 

[Drummodino]

"Bastion" was a linear game, and I loved it. Many older platformers were linear games, and I loved some of them. If you don't see what's different between them and games like "Bioshock Infinite", then either I've done a really bad job of explaining myself, or you're just not getting my point. And look, I've gone into what's wrong with "Infinite" about five times over in other threads, I'm not going there again; suffice to say, it has zero replayability and isn't worth the forty quid I wasted on it.

And there is plenty that's objectively wrong with scripted events - or at least, having EVERY important moment play out in a scripted event, which is what "Infinite" and its ilk do. Aren't they primarily what people hate about the single-player campaigns of games like "Medal of Honour: Warfighter" and "Battlefield 4"? These are games with practically nothing BUT scripted events. And from what I'm seeing from supposedly more "in depth" or "adult" games like "Bioshock Infinite" now, a large section of the gaming industry is now using that as their model.

I mean, every opinion is subjective, etc. I absolutely understand why people liked "Bioshock Infinite" more than I did, at least more than I understand why people liked something like "FEAR", which had atmosphere and some nice visuals but literally nothing else going for it. But honestly... if you think a developer of the talent and calibre of Ken Levine should be making games that ape the gameplay of Modern Military Shooters, which is basically what "Infinite" does... then I'm sorry, you've lost me. Subjective opinion it may be, but it's one that I cannot see any sane man disagreeing with. It'd be like saying that a roast dog turd is better eating than prime fillet steak or something. I'm sure SOMEBODY would agree with that statement, but don't ask me why.

Well colour me insane, because Bioshock Infinite is my favorite Ken Levine game and I thoroughly enjoyed the gameplay (more than the gameplay of the original Bioshock definitely).

You explained yourself perfectly fine. You don't like how the games have a lot of scripted events and the lack of exploration and player influence over what happens in the story. This limits the game's replayability as it makes every experience of the game more or less the same. This is a valid criticism of a game and any reviewer should mention this - yet not everyone finds that a bad thing. I for one don't mind it all that much, indeed I quite enjoy a lot of scripted events. This is why I'm a fan of the Uncharted series for instance. They can certainly be overdone, and there should be a good ratio between gameplay and scripted scenes - too many and I may as well just watch a movie.

In regards to Battlefield 4 and Medal of Honour, I can't really comment as I haven't played them. I did watch some Battlefield 3 singleplayer, and the problem with that game for me wasn't that it had scripted events, it was that the writing was terrible.

You also think that Ken Levine should be making what you consider to be "better games" than Bioshock Infinite since you dislike how the gunplay is similar to modern military shooters.

What I'm trying to say is that just because you feel this way, it doesn't mean everyone else does and that is not a bad thing. Let's take another example, I do not like racing games very much. Games like Forza and Gran Turismo bore me to tears. The gameplay is incredibly repetitive and I lose interest very quickly. Yet some people love these games dearly, and that's okay! We just have differing tastes. I don't think there's anything wrong with liking them, and they're not symptomatic of a problem in the industry. They are just not my kind of game.

 

[Dragonbums]

Oh yeah, sure we can say that all we want. Sounds good to say it but we are all hypocrites. AAA gaming got itself into this mess, but don't pretend we didn't encourage them with gusto to go down that path. It's already alive and well. The fucking resolution watergate was the dumbest shit on the planet, yet it mattered so GODDAMN much.

Any person in any artistic field can tell you that limitations breed true creativity, but lord forbid a console or another system comes out that's the "weakest" and more limited than it's competitors. Then comes devs complaining about it being too restricting like they are using a fucking NES or Dreamcast, and there are always backed up by fellow gaming compatriots that will say "yeah outdated tech shit restricts devs! this is next gen!"

So I'm not buying it. We all deserve the shit that we are getting today.

Nobody told these people to make 100 million dollar games. We all contributed. Don't try to wash your hands clean like we had nothing to do with it.

 

[LysanderNemoinis]

I completely understand, and I have a feeling you're in the majority here. For me, considering Isaac and Carver almost died fighting a fledgling and incomplete Brethren Moon, and there's at least seven more out there, I don't think the two of them are going to win out against over a half down more (especially with EarthGov toppled and the Unitologists winning). Plus, I like the downer ending. It's a lot more like real life. It's just, "Fuck you, the bad guys win." It's honestly refreshing, because it seems wherever I go in real life, that's what happens, and all the happy endings or at least hopeful endings are starting to get annoying.

I think that given humanity invented planet-cracking, and the necromorphs are small moons, Isaac would have one last hand to play. Imagine the Ishimura and its fellow planet-crackers ripping them apart? That'd be a sight.

Yeah, downers and real life. Well that's where our opinions different. If I want downers, I'll watch the news and hang out in real life. If I want to pick myself up, I play a video game where I can shoot my way to a happy ending.

Ha! I can't believe I never thought of using the planet crackers against them. Though since the Moons could go from wherever the hell they were to Earth in a matter of hours, I think it might be hard to set the planet crackers up. After all, just cracking Aegis 7 took months to set everything up.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Well colour me insane, because Bioshock Infinite is my favorite Ken Levine game and I thoroughly enjoyed the gameplay (more than the gameplay of the original Bioshock definitely).

You explained yourself perfectly fine. You don't like how the games have a lot of scripted events and the lack of exploration and player influence over what happens in the story. This limits the game's replayability as it makes every experience of the game more or less the same. This is a valid criticism of a game and any reviewer should mention this - yet not everyone finds that a bad thing. I for one don't mind it all that much, indeed I quite enjoy a lot of scripted events. This is why I'm a fan of the Uncharted series for instance. They can certainly be overdone, and there should be a good ratio between gameplay and scripted scenes - too many and I may as well just watch a movie.

In regards to Battlefield 4 and Medal of Honour, I can't really comment as I haven't played them. I did watch some Battlefield 3 singleplayer, and the problem with that game for me wasn't that it had scripted events, it was that the writing was terrible.

You also think that Ken Levine should be making what you consider to be "better games" than Bioshock Infinite since you dislike how the gunplay is similar to modern military shooters.

What I'm trying to say is that just because you feel this way, it doesn't mean everyone else does and that is not a bad thing. Let's take another example, I do not like racing games very much. Games like Forza and Gran Turismo bore me to tears. The gameplay is incredibly repetitive and I lose interest very quickly. Yet some people love these games dearly, and that's okay! We just have differing tastes. I don't think there's anything wrong with liking them, and they're not symptomatic of a problem in the industry. They are just not my kind of game.

See, I agree with you on a lot of things here. Even your position on racing games. I don't find them fun either, but I certainly don't think that there's any problem with them as a result, or that there's a larger point to be made because of it. That - UNLIKE the point I'm trying to make about "Infinite", which extends to other games - is a purely subjective issue. It doesn't seem to me to have any wider ramifications.

I have absolutely no problems with the fact that you enjoyed "Infinite" more than I did - and again, I thought it was ok. It was certainly a HELL of a lot better than "Tomb Raider", which I couldn't even get through. (I think NerdCubed put in his review what was wrong with this game better than I ever could, so let's not go into that.)

What I'm trying to express here is that the problems I personally have with "Infinite" are not JUST things that I dislike about this one game. They're issues that I'm finding more and more with games which really shouldn't have those problems, and they seem to me to be symptomatic of a trend in the industry that, if left unchecked, is going to have a worse and worse effect on it. And while a lot of people liked "Bioshock Infinite" and even "Tomb Raider", this trend of having protagonists whose decisions you can't affect, worlds you can't interact with in any meaningful way, and stories that you have zero control over or responsibility for AS the protagonist, is going to be a blight on the industry.

People will stop buying these games, simple as that. Different people have different sticking points, but in the end, everybody values SOME degree of interactivity. As for me, I've obviously reached mine. Will I buy the next Bioshock game? - not a chance! Not unless I'm convinced that it actually has replay value. "Bioshock Infinite" is not worth forty pounds. ANY game that's a sixteen-hour experience with zero replayability will not be worth forty pounds. I'd make a beautiful movie, but that's all.

Now obviously you disagree with me on this game - but will you disagree with me on the next one, where the interactivity is reduced even further? Because that's the direction that we're going in. It's like the publishers think we're looking for experiences that are exactly the opposite of, say, "The Stanley Parable" - a game in which all you could do was walk around, and yet one in which every single decision you made had meaningful and entertaining consequences. It's becoming standard practice to include gear, progression systems, upgrades and all of this fancy shit in games; but it means nothing, because you can't DO anything with it. You can't affect the world around you in any meaningful way.

And when people really start regarding these types of games as too much of a "risk", y'know what the publishers are going to fall back on? The CoDs and the Battlefields of this world, that's all. They KNOW those games are going to sell like hot cakes, almost regardless of quality.

So when people complain about Modern Military Shooters being what's "wrong" with the industry, take a step back and look at why that is. As they slowly reduce the value of big single-player AAA games, less people will buy them, and as a result less people will MAKE them. "Tomb Raider" didn't meet its targets in terms of sales, and for good reason - a lot of people, including me, disliked it for trying to turn what was previously an open-world platformer into a linear "movie" experience, and doing a piss-poor job of it. (Did anybody want to hear whiny-voiced Lara complain about the brutality of it as she casually puts an arrow through the face of the sixtieth guy she's killed today? 'Cause I sure as hell didn't.) This kind of thing will happen more and more as people find they're unwilling to settle for less and less. And when that happens - BANG. No more big-budget single-player games. Gone. Too much of a risk to put the money into.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Ha! I can't believe I never thought of using the planet crackers against them. Though since the Moons could go from wherever the hell they were to Earth in a matter of hours, I think it might be hard to set the planet crackers up. After all, just cracking Aegis 7 took months to set everything up.

True, but they were taking it slowly. Maybe they have a faster solution for when you just want to crack open the surface like peeling an egg-shell. Isaac and a big group of fellow humans land on the surface of the necromoon, racing against time to implant and activate some kind of seismic cutters/tethers, then just call in the planet-cracker to latch onto the tethers and pull the moons apart.

 

[Biran53]

All opinions aside, it is a bit unfair to make assumptions based on nothing but pure speculation.

The only facts we know for sure, is that about 70 developers are currently out of work, and that is upsetting. But their dismantled establishment is still sticking together in order to make sure they all make it out relatively okay, and that seriously cheers me up.

It still sucks, given that they were just finished making a fantastic game, but I think they have proven enough talent in Infinite to ensure that they won't be short of any job offers any time soon. And I'll still be looking forward to whatever pretentious stroke of genius Levine thinks up next.

 

[Vegosiux]

But I also love some linear games that are not YOUR story, they are the character's story. The Last of Us is Joel and Ellie's story, Bioshock Infinite is Booker and Elizabeth's story. Tomb Raider is Lara's story. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

At least me, I prefer to read a book in such a case, because my imagination isn't limited by visual input in such a case. If I feel as a player that I have no agency in the plot, then, well, I'll grab a book instead. Or hell, play the game, WRITE the book and THEN read it, and give myself a pat on the back.

Though, my main problem with modern entertainment (not just games, mind) is how seriously it tries to take itself and failing to realize it doesn't have to be M-rated to be mature, it doesn't have to be hammy to be engaging, that it doesn't have to be edgy to be deep, and that in focusing on the former, it so often fails to achieve the latter.

 

[shteev]

Jim, can you tell us what games we saw in your video there? Especially at 2:00 and 6:00. They looked interesting.

 

[chikusho]

Subjective opinion it may be, but it's one that I cannot see any sane man disagreeing with. It'd be like saying that a roast dog turd is better eating than prime fillet steak or something. I'm sure SOMEBODY would agree with that statement, but don't ask me why.

It's more like saying that prime fillet steak done medium rare tastes like a roast dog turd to you, compared to prime fillet steak done medium well.