I see what you mean, when I was a kid i'd buy any crap i saw come on the shelf, and wee need to realize that a new wave of kids are getting into games along with the invention of online gaming, this is a way for companies to make an easy buck, that's a good point my friend.Mr.K. said:
Poll: Where did it all go wrong?
- Thread starter Tf2 H3aVy
- Start date
I'd say they're having a definite negative impact on the industry, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to work with either of them if I was a developer, but "ruining" seems like a harsh word to me. As publishers, their only directive is to make money, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. When it comes to big corporations like these, it's the job of the consumer to make innovative products profitable, and, unfortunately, we don't seem to be doing that. Gamers can't ask game companies to take risks with experimental titles when we're not willing to do so ourselves, or to stop putting out sequel after sequel to cash-cow franchises while we continue to buy them; it's just insane.
Considering how expensive making games is (sometimes unnecessaraly due to Hollywood talent being hired) and how bad most new IPs do, it is slightly the users fault. Gamers demand sequels to their favourite games but did you see anyone demand a sequel to most good movies or novels?
EA makes the pathetic Command and Conquer 3 and gets a lot of money off it, yet when it challanges itself with Command and Conquer Generals, it looses money.
SEGA makes bad Sonic games and makes money off them, they challange themselves with Alpha Protocol and loose money.
Unfortunately I can't think of the last time Activision did something new.
EA makes the pathetic Command and Conquer 3 and gets a lot of money off it, yet when it challanges itself with Command and Conquer Generals, it looses money.
SEGA makes bad Sonic games and makes money off them, they challange themselves with Alpha Protocol and loose money.
Unfortunately I can't think of the last time Activision did something new.
I don't blame EA. I blame CoD fanboys for continuing to buy the games. I received a copy of Black Ops for free when I bought a new PS3 (because mine was full and for some ridiculous reason it cost the same to buy a new console as it did to buy a new hard drive) and I immediately traded it in for the store credit.
Personally, I think that pretty much the whole gaming world went graphics crazy back in the late 90's and is only now trying to wean itself from pixel excess. Certainly, EA and Activision et al. share a portion of the blame, but there's plenty more for others.
The real problem is that the cost of development has gotten so high that publishers feel they can't afford to take any chances. As long as consumers are content with rehashes, they'll keep doing it.
The real problem is that the cost of development has gotten so high that publishers feel they can't afford to take any chances. As long as consumers are content with rehashes, they'll keep doing it.
Makes me think of sex.
If you wait a couple years to get to know each other the sex is usually amazing, and all you'll want to do is love each other.
On the other hand you could also go and pick up a hooker for some instant gratification, but you'll regret it a week later when you find out she gave you herpies.
Lesson, kids?
-Games that are worked on and worked on, for as long as it takes, are generally excellent. ('cept maybe DNF)
-And games that come out every year usually suck more than a cheap date.
(only exception is when the game is getting released on the exact same engine/etc every year. See: sports games)
If you wait a couple years to get to know each other the sex is usually amazing, and all you'll want to do is love each other.
On the other hand you could also go and pick up a hooker for some instant gratification, but you'll regret it a week later when you find out she gave you herpies.
Lesson, kids?
-Games that are worked on and worked on, for as long as it takes, are generally excellent. ('cept maybe DNF)
-And games that come out every year usually suck more than a cheap date.
(only exception is when the game is getting released on the exact same engine/etc every year. See: sports games)
Truth be told, if you are looking for the guilty, you only need look into a mirror. Yes Activision and EA have the bigger blame, since they reinvest their money in what only will make more money instead of making a risk now and then and releasing a game that's actually not a cookie cutter. Fortunately there can't be a void anywhere. If there is a demand, there will be supply. Now it's coming, just look at Amnesia: Dark descend; People wanted some awesome shit-in-your pants horror, they weren't enough to back up 60million USD in to the project so someone else did it and they made money. The other thing is, it's becoming simpler and cheaper to make a game that is passable (in terms of graphics, game-play, length whatever) so maybe, when we get a bit more diversified developers, then we'll get more diversified games.
All I'm suggesting is a bit of patience and hope
All I'm suggesting is a bit of patience and hope
1. we're = we areTf2 H3aVy said:
2. they're = they are
3. their = plural possessive
4. there = location
5. than = comparison
6. then = time/transition
Sorry about the grammar police, but just type correctly if you're about to criticize something.
7. Treyarch the lesser of the two? What? Has there ever been a vehicle to break up gameplay in IW's cods? Also, Treyarch has often offered more to do that just keep shooting. Zombies, zombie arcade, zork.
I just really disagree when people say that IW cods were superior. More content and more for me to do = a better game worth my money.
MW was pretty good, W@W had more to do though. MW2 was rather good, codblops has an equally decent story line for a modern fps including considerably more to do than simply grind prestiges.
As for the topic: I think that if these games are killing the time of millions of people, they have to be doing something right.
The benefit of having 2 giants in charge of the biggest AAA games is that it's not 1 giant monopolizing the genre.
Battlefield will race with Cod until the companies merge. That's when we have a problem. Until then, hopefully someone gets more innovative and makes some headway vs. the other.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,766
- 3,343
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Look Battlefield 3 well come out and crush both your little cod games. There I win.Tf2 H3aVy said:
P.S. real men play Mario Kart!
Daniel, you are a ******. you are also a hipster going for the less mainstream. call me bandwagon, but i almost always have fun with call of duty contrary to battlefield. while both games are good, i'm gonna have to agree with Instantbenz, and TF2, you are a milicious poster. fuck youReaperGrimm said:
Fucking cheers, Jake
Jake men are talking here you little 5'3 son of a........ but I digress, Jake I agree with everything with the exception me being a "******" and a "hipster" I am not a fagot, or a hipster I cant even fucking TEXT! but Joey is a "malicious poster". =)
Mierda ¡Salud!, Daniel
Mierda ¡Salud!, Daniel
you left out a g in ****** and hipsters don't text they think its too mainstreamReaperGrimm said:
It went wrong with the gamers.
Sales dictate the general direction of the industry. Publishers are businessmen and they follow the profits, and in general, people like to make money. Gamers are buying up the Modern Military FPS games like hotcakes, so the industry greenlights more such games to make more money. It's as simple as that, and it's not just games industry - movies are very much the same, music kinda is as well. Books, not so much, but that takes us to the next reason...
Games are getting more and more expensive to make. As a direct result, developers generally require bigger and bigger upfront investments, which need to come from publishers and investors, which in turn want a return on their investment so they are more likely to invest in games that they feel are more likely to sell, which brings us back to the previous paragraph.
Imaginative and "artsy" games have moved over to the Indie scene for the most part, much like how the imaginative and "artsy" movies are usually low budget productions. Sure, sometimes you get an Inception or some such, but you also sometimes get a Witcher 2 or whatever AAA title didn't quite follow the general mold.
Now, some trolls will blame all of this (dumbing down of games, lack of innovation) on the consoles and console gaming. That is, however, incorrect. The real reason is the broadening of the games market, bringing in a lot of new customers. This in turn leads to a lower lowest common denominator, which inevitably gets catered to. Modern consoles were a big part of broadening the market, but they aren't to blame for what's happening.
Gaming is no longer reserved for the enthusiasts. It is a medium which has to endure the same trials and tribulations as the movie industry, with high budgets mostly going to "safe" projects. This doesn't mean there won't be good games, or different games, it just means you'll have to look a bit harder.
Sales dictate the general direction of the industry. Publishers are businessmen and they follow the profits, and in general, people like to make money. Gamers are buying up the Modern Military FPS games like hotcakes, so the industry greenlights more such games to make more money. It's as simple as that, and it's not just games industry - movies are very much the same, music kinda is as well. Books, not so much, but that takes us to the next reason...
Games are getting more and more expensive to make. As a direct result, developers generally require bigger and bigger upfront investments, which need to come from publishers and investors, which in turn want a return on their investment so they are more likely to invest in games that they feel are more likely to sell, which brings us back to the previous paragraph.
Imaginative and "artsy" games have moved over to the Indie scene for the most part, much like how the imaginative and "artsy" movies are usually low budget productions. Sure, sometimes you get an Inception or some such, but you also sometimes get a Witcher 2 or whatever AAA title didn't quite follow the general mold.
Now, some trolls will blame all of this (dumbing down of games, lack of innovation) on the consoles and console gaming. That is, however, incorrect. The real reason is the broadening of the games market, bringing in a lot of new customers. This in turn leads to a lower lowest common denominator, which inevitably gets catered to. Modern consoles were a big part of broadening the market, but they aren't to blame for what's happening.
Gaming is no longer reserved for the enthusiasts. It is a medium which has to endure the same trials and tribulations as the movie industry, with high budgets mostly going to "safe" projects. This doesn't mean there won't be good games, or different games, it just means you'll have to look a bit harder.
this thread took a turn for the worst.
or for the better, I can't tell which.
Either way don't have 'what are your guys' opinions on this subject' in your post if you don't, in fact, want opinions.
Further, to the op, better graphics and gameplay in iw cods ... totally disagree. If anything they're equal, but that statement is simply blasphemous.
Hope everyone has a good non-floody day!
or for the better, I can't tell which.
Either way don't have 'what are your guys' opinions on this subject' in your post if you don't, in fact, want opinions.
Further, to the op, better graphics and gameplay in iw cods ... totally disagree. If anything they're equal, but that statement is simply blasphemous.
Hope everyone has a good non-floody day!
Here?s the thing. I think some gamers have grown wise and have chosen not to buy certain products or to buy them used if only to make a statement. Most of my ps2 owning friends never even got into this gen of consoles because it just didn?t seem like a good value anymore. Unfortunately this seems to have led to the publishers coming up with even more money grubbing schemes. And it?s not just EA & Activision.DustyDrB said:
Remember the immense amount of content you would get in a GTA game last generation? For GTA4 (which still had more content than many other releases) you had to buy the game and two $20 dlc packs to get close to that GTA amount of content. LA Noir even had dlc at launch; a practice I usually associate more with Capcom.
As a pc gamer I voted YES. I hate seeing once great dev houses been bought up by those bloodsuckers and forced to create generic crap that sells by the bucket load. RIP Bioware. Atm EA, Activ and Ubisoft who are the "Big 3" are actively trying to buy up as much of the gaming industry as they possibly can (other big publishers are doing the same but none have the same market share that those 3 publishers have). What i hate seeing is how they are increasingly encroaching upon the indie gaming industry, im seeing more and more so called "indie games" been published by EA and Ubisoft
It seems that smaller publishers and devs are slowly becoming a thing of the past. Thats why I actively go out of my way to support the small publishers like Rising Star Game or Aksys since they act in partnership with developers rather than own the devs or the game itself and syphon off most of the profits for themselves
It seems that smaller publishers and devs are slowly becoming a thing of the past. Thats why I actively go out of my way to support the small publishers like Rising Star Game or Aksys since they act in partnership with developers rather than own the devs or the game itself and syphon off most of the profits for themselves