Removed

[Korten12]

There's no such thing as competition in making games. There are only other companies making their own games.

Skyrim vs. Amalur
CoD. vs Battlefield 3 vs. Halo
Any MMO vs. WoW

It's marketing.

No, it's fan debates over which one they prefer and support. You must also not forget King of Fighters vs. Street Fighter, Sengoku Basara vs. Samurai Warriors, and Dead Rising vs. Dead Island. I wouldn't call that competition. The fighters, however, are all about competition.

I am sorry... But those games are in direct competition with each other. ESPECIALLY... Call of Duty vs Battlefield, you can't get a better example. The two publishers are literally enemies against each other and it's almost the origin of it.

MW3 and BF3, both Modern Shooters and both released near each other on PURPOSE. BF3 could have released earlier or before, but it released a week or so before MW3 because it knew it could grab sales from MW3 and make people stop playing CoD.

Competition is business 101, I don't think you understand that, competition is essential.

They released the two games near each other so that gamers could enjoy a first person shooter with more choices, and possibly buy the other so that they could decide which one they like more themselves.

Do you honestly believe that..?

Really?

EA and Activision mud slapped each other when the games were being developed. They couldn't give a fuck what the consumer thought, they released them close together because they hoped BF3 would steal MW3 sales. NOTHING MORE.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.331013-EA-Battlefield-3-Ate-Some-of-MW3s-Cake

 

[kyle_silver]

I agree with you Deadpan.. I loved games like the early RES games, I loved Ookamii, I loved Psyconauts.. Never really was a fan of the Ass-creed games.. I'm more of a puzzle game, adventure game, and RPG fan myself..

 

[Hal10k]

They're just being silly. Probably for publicity. Making games isn't a competition.

It amuses me that you exist.

OT: There's a fine point to these sorts of things. I think there's a crucial difference between expecting the player to figure something out for himself and just flat-out forgetting to tell him about it. The problem with the sword skill in Risen is, I think, an example of the latter, because it makes it remarkably easy to render hours of progress moot.

 

[Hazy992]

They're just being silly. Probably for publicity. Making games isn't a competition.

I'm sorry, but have you just never heard of EA or Activision before?

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

OP spends some good time on thoughtful gaming article. Derailed by some incessant guy on a Ubisoft hate binge.

All the more ironic considering Lunatic's nicely done statement

Taste can never be invalid.

If only people could accept that.

To be on topic, I'm not sure I understand what you mean Lunatic. There are two parts to your post, gameplay vs story segregation and immersion and difficulty in general.

For difficulty, I do have this problem. I view games from a Knox's mystery perspective, the challenges should be solve-able via pre-existing information and hints. No game should force a player to restart and prepare for a certain point.

 

[Hazy992]

But an entire thread about complaining might be taken down, wouldn't it?

That's what you've turned this thread into with your rabid hatred of Ubisoft. Congratulations.

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Korten12]

They're just being silly. Probably for publicity. Making games isn't a competition.

No... Just stop you clearly shown that you have no idea how the industry works.

 

[Vivi22]

No, Ubisoft makes bad games and little else, and unlike other companies with their honest mistakes, Ubisoft tries to rip people off with garbage ON PURPOSE. Capcom on the other hand, established my motto of "There is no such thing as a bad Capcom game." Capcom's games are always fun, always of the utmost quality, and they handle their franchises with the love they deserve.

Yeah, because Capcom never released games with broken gameplay balance, on-disc DLC, or killed fan favourite games in development because the fans weren't doing enough of the design work.

 

[Squidbulb]

Back on topic people.
I'll accept a game being unrealistic if it makes the game better. I don't care how realistic the game is if it isn't any fun.

 

[Soopy]

Back on topic people.
I'll accept a game being unrealistic if it makes the game better. I don't care how realistic the game is if it isn't any fun.

This, "realism" in games has been taken too far.

I mean, people on Skyrim forums get worked up about there being no toilets in the game or the fact that they don't have to eat and drink to survive.

Arbitrary conditions are not fun, its faff and padding.

 

[Hazy992]

No, Ubisoft makes bad games and little else, and unlike other companies with their honest mistakes, Ubisoft tries to rip people off with garbage ON PURPOSE. Capcom on the other hand, established my motto of "There is no such thing as a bad Capcom game." Capcom's games are always fun, always of the utmost quality, and they handle their franchises with the love they deserve.

Yeah, because Capcom never released games with broken gameplay balance, on-disc DLC, or killed fan favourite games in development because the fans weren't doing enough of the design work.

As far as I can tell, that's exactly right.

That's because you only play Wii

 

[Hazy992]

No, Ubisoft makes bad games and little else, and unlike other companies with their honest mistakes, Ubisoft tries to rip people off with garbage ON PURPOSE. Capcom on the other hand, established my motto of "There is no such thing as a bad Capcom game." Capcom's games are always fun, always of the utmost quality, and they handle their franchises with the love they deserve.

Yeah, because Capcom never released games with broken gameplay balance, on-disc DLC, or killed fan favourite games in development because the fans weren't doing enough of the design work.

As far as I can tell, that's exactly right.

That's because you only play Wii

I also play the DS and 3DS.

Point is you can't comment on the industry and what companies actually do to their customers when you only play on Nintendo consoles.

 

[sky14kemea]

I thought there WAS an eating mechanic.

Consider this a formal warning. Please do not post anymore on this thread. You're health bar is dangerously high as it is. -Mod.

 

[rob_simple]

DRIVER SAN FRANCISCO?! Are you kidding me?!?!?! The Wii version of Driver has been slammed into the ground! Nintendo Power's review probably said it best. It's like the kind of garbage you expect from Ubisoft.

Nintendo Power's review probably said it best. It's like the kind of garbage you expect from Ubisoft.

Nintendo Power's review

Spoiler

Excellent trolling, man.

That is the absolute best use of the quote system I've ever seen. I chuckled, heartily.

OT: The only thing that ever really lifts me out of the experience to the extent OP describes (it'd never even occurred to me how retarded putting posters on balconies was) is that when acquiring the ancient armour I have to run an elaborate assault course complete with intricate systems of gears, chains and pulleys that have all somehow kept functioning for hundreds of years despite the fact that if any one single mechanism failed then the armour would be lost forever.

Or, as Penny Arcade put it:

 

[Launcelot111]

This sort of getting yanked out of immersion hit me hard with Arkham City. Why did they take many of Gotham's most notable landmarks and put them in with the prison? Why is the museum under the same roof as a nightclub famed for its connections to organized crime? Why did the officials leave criminals in charge of a large industrial area with direct access to open water and a few unguarded boats? Why are the prisoners unsure if the Riddler is around seeing that he assembled over a hundred multistory contraptions around the city that each must have taken hours to build? The layout of the game is so senseless that I couldn't really take the game seriously

 

[tippy2k2]

I personally treat it like I do with movies; I give the media in question the suspension of disbelief in order for it to work.

With your example, I thought it was incredibly silly that my posters would be on the rooftops where no one (except other law breakers) would ever see them. However, I will let it go in order to make a good game.

Another example that has come up is Mass Effect 3. Millions are dying on a daily basis but Shepard has no problem taking his sweet time before getting back to Earth. However, by forcing a mechanic to make you go quicker and give you that sense of urgency, all you're going to do is rush the player, making the game less enjoyable.

Essentially, the only time I will not accept this is if the game is specifically trying to be a simulation (a genre that really doesn't exist anymore to my sadness). While things in games may make me raise my eyebrows in bewilderment, I accept that there are going to be things decided from a "fun" standpoint and not necessarily a realistic standpoint.

 

[Crispee]

I personally treat it like I do with movies; I give the media in question the suspension of disbelief in order for it to work.

Pretty much this.

It never really ruins my immersion, but it does make me laugh when I notice it. Like Portal for example, you're just doing some tests, but you eventually escape the main part of the facility and walk through the maintenance areas of the building which seems to contain sewers and whatnot that GlaDOS clearly is't able to access beyond the tannoy system, and yet it somehow leads directly to her.

Then again, Portal kind of justifies it, because there's broken maintenance lifts on your way that the workers presumably must've used to quickly access all of the levels you go through. As well as the fact that GlaDOS might have meant you to find her anyway. And in Portal2, the extremely convenient and specific route you take can be explained by the fact that Apeture Science can rearrange the walls and rooms.