"Snooty" Shooter Critics Anger Rage Dev

[bootz]

Here's my crazy perspective
people have limited money

If you make a COD clone. People won't buy your game they will buy COD.
If you make a wow clone. People won't buy your game they will play wow.

If you make something different and good, people will buy it, because they can't get the gameplay elsewhere.
Simple supply and demand.

Crap if he made a space fighter sim right now omg he would sell a crap ton of product.

 

[oldtaku]

What was bad about CoD:MW2 was the single player game. Popular or not, that was as disjointed and disappointing as hell after COD:MW. "Oscar Mike stay frosty while we run what was shocking about the first game into the f@$3ing ground here!"

 

[G96 Saber]

I have a good answer to this, John Carmack is more fucking wrong than than Hitler was about Russia. Not about games LIKE Call of Duty being good, (MOH and Battlefield are epic games), but on COD itself, COD uses an outdated engine from a simple time, glorifies war a little to much to be realistic, has the worst, least fair multiplayer maps in the history of gaming AND lacks innovation.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Well, see, that would be the snooty attitude Carmack is complaining about.

People enjoy Transformers. Twilight. It may not be "good" as far as the critics are concerned, but it's enjoyable enough to be popular. And I think there's some merit to that. Something to learn. If you can take what makes Call of Duty Twilight enjoyable, and distill the essence into your own game, book, I think that can only be a good thing.

See the problem with that argument?

I think the same thing about Twilight. All of that knee-jerk "this is popular because people are stupid and don't know they're supposed to like what I like" reaction is just snooty elitism. I honestly don't see the difference between the people who love Twilight because all their friends do, and the people who hate Twilight because all their friends do. If you actually look at it objectively, it has pros and cons, like anything else.

 

[Sir Prize]

As many have already said:
Popular doesn't mean good, just look at DA's front page.

Also, I know that the game's industry is a business and such, but shouldn't we be trying to improve upon things rather than use the same old outdated or overused stuff over and over again. I don't think CoD or alike are BAD as such, but sooner or later there will need to be change, overwise people will eventaully get tired of it.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It's not about the lack of innovation it's about the over-saturation.

There's just too many AAA FPSs out there, at least give us a third person shooter if you have to include guns just for some variety at least.

Or do something interesting. I'm actually surprised to say that a couple of my favorite games from this gen are FPSs: Fallout 3 & Borderlands. But those games were very distinctive.

One one hand I agree with Carmack: if people didn't want FPSs, they wouldn't buy as many and less would be made. There's nothing wrong with catering to the market. However it does make me think that his game might be a re-skinned version of "Generic FPS From This Gen."
On the other hand, it's a shame that it seems like all the most talented devs are working on FPSs.

Then again, it seems that with this gen, most people equate innovation with interactive movie and melodrama rather than new styles of gameplay.

Then again, maybe this is just the generation for the FPS. I kind of feel like last gen was the gen for driving games. Most of the innovative games were (sometimes loosely) based on driving: Burnout 3 & Revenge, as well as GTAs (get out of the car and beat that guy who crashed into you), and Katamari Damacy (it is at it's most basic level, a driving game).

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Duty as gamers? Our duty as gamers is nothing, because that's silly.

To explain what I was getting at, the state of gaming being stagnant (see previous disclaimer) is an unfortunate thing and that working to correct this state of affairs by denouncing it and not buying games that perpetuate it is a good thing. It is not snooty to want better for the medium. Do I think gamers have a "duty" to help progress the medium like this...perhaps that's not fair. So I may take that statement back, my point in that comment still stands though.

I don't believe the state of games is stagnant, not at all. New ideas and technologies are becoming available at a constant rate, and things not even thought possible five years ago are the boring standard now. Even the way games are being sold is changing, and for the better.

How do you feel that games are stagnating?

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, see, that would be the snooty attitude Carmack is complaining about.

People enjoy Transformers. Twilight. It may not be "good" as far as the critics are concerned, but it's enjoyable enough to be popular. And I think there's some merit to that. Something to learn. If you can take what makes Call of Duty Twilight enjoyable, and distill the essence into your own game, book, I think that can only be a good thing.

See the problem with that argument?

I think the same thing about Twilight. All of that knee-jerk "this is popular because people are stupid and don't know they're supposed to like what I like" reaction is just snooty elitism. I honestly don't see the difference between the people who love Twilight because all their friends do, and the people who hate Twilight because all their friends do. If you actually look at it objectively, it has pros and cons, like anything else.

How about the people who don't like Twilight because they read it and it sucked, don't like Transformers because they watched it and it sucked, and don't like CoD because they played it and it sucked?

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Hipsters gonna hip.

Anyway, I agree with him here, if people like a game that's great, whether it's popular or not. Developers don't have to make innovative games, hell they don't even have to make 'good' games, they just have to make games that people enjoy (of course innovative and good games are usually more enjoyable then repeatative bad games, but sometimes you want a mindless brawler to waste a couple hours on).

 

[Mouse One]

Sorry, the "it's popular so it must be good" argument doesn't cut it. AAA games have far, far more money and staff available for things like advertising and subsequent marketing. It's why McDonald's survives and the owner of that great little burger joint around the corner is driving a car made in the last millenium.

And to be fair, there's the issue of polish. I recently picked up Zeno Clash on Steam (which I'd never heard of until the sale-- see previous paragraph). Incredibly imaginative world building and artwork, coupled with a moderately creative FPS/brawling with blocks, dodges, counterattacks, etc. But truth to be told, the controls can be clunky at times. And there's no Multiplayer to keep you amused after a few runs (it takes about 4 hours to go all the way through the game, tops). When a AAA game is throwing literally millions of dollars around, they can afford more content, more modes, and they'll (usually) alpha test the heck out the game.

Basically, what a lot of us want is AAA budgets for indie creativity. Does that make me a snob? Whatever. I know what I like. And truthfully, I got bored of vanilla FPS back in my Quake days (thought Crysis revived that interest, but really it was just me being dazzled by graphics)

 

[Ipsen]

Hipsters gonna hip.

Anyway, I agree with him here, if people like a game that's great, whether it's popular or not. Developers don't have to make innovative games, hell they don't even have to make 'good' games, they just have to make games that people enjoy (of course innovative and good games are usually more enjoyable then repeatative bad games, but sometimes you want a mindless brawler to waste a couple hours on).

I don't think anyone who likes games hates a mindless bralwer/shooter sometimes, but it's more than 'sometimes' that these games actually come about. At least, we're trained to feel this way by the trends.

And even this wouldn't be an issue if video games were arguably proven to have so much creative potential. Games could have been just 'fun' but nooo, someone had to go snoopin' in the innovation jar... Assholes.

Now, obviously those pictures and the article are really cynical and jaded, but I really just can't help and feel that way as well. They may very well all be great games, more power to them if they are, but that doesn't really help the fact that we are just heavy in FPS saturation. And nearly all of them are the same; they have a tacked-on single player to go with the same-old CoD style multiplayer, the story tends to be shit, it's nothing but explosions and more explosions, everyone forgets about it after a few months, and the cycle repeats.

I'd just like to say that not 'everyone' forgets about the various CoD clones and FPS saturators; its mostly the people who perpetuate the trend that causes this saturation in the first place who forget all the other clones.

People who enjoy, say, CoD, for one, but also don't play anything else EXCEPT the next iteration, or feel compelled to compare other FPS games to CoD. These folks not as bad as the Wii shovelware crowd, but I can't say these folks contribute much to the expansion of this medium (and call it a feeling, but I DO think we need expansion.)

You need to plant the seed before something grows. Innovation isn't going to grow if innovation isn't being sold.

I second this. Fun games are fun, and awesome, but call me ADHD (or old), but that doesn't catch my attention much. More accurately, 'fun' does not make me a fan of video games. Innovation, something that surprises me, the feeling of discovery is much more likely to make me a fan, to want to see more from those developers than a game I can merely find 'fun' (especially if there's 10 other games so similar in play style that I can play).

As far as the OT goes, yea, popular games are not BAD games. Most of the time, they're good, well-made games. But 'popular games(innovative or not)' have much better financial result than 'good or bad (innovative or not)' games. This leads to the problem; when comepeting developers have to compete with the king of the hill (and obviously don't have as much money as said king), trade-offs between popularity and innovation begin.

I think what would help is if CoD, being the 'king' focused on really shaking up the FPS genre by innovation, being they have the capital and name to make it work. The smaller competitors should have innovation as their base, but never forget they have room to make fun/popular aspects, even if they bite a few chunks from the golden calf.

 

[Callate]

Well, certainly, but "we're going the 'popular' route, we don't need to be innovative" isn't exactly the wisest idea either (*cough* Quake 4 *cough*)

 

[ntw3001]

I'm with the giant swarm of people who are angry that a man said popular things can be good. If things were good, why would so many people like them? Everyone is stupid except me!

 

[xXHaytonLloyd23Xx]

By this idiots logic, the Transformers movies are really bloody good.

I really enjoyed the transformers movies. They weren't spectacular, but the were fun to watch. Also, why does everyone on this site hate Black Ops so much? I thought it was light years ahead of MW2 especially in the story department. Prop's to Treyarch for at least trying to mix up call of duty in it's fairly mundane story department

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

I think the same thing about Twilight. All of that knee-jerk "this is popular because people are stupid and don't know they're supposed to like what I like" reaction is just snooty elitism. I honestly don't see the difference between the people who love Twilight because all their friends do, and the people who hate Twilight because all their friends do. If you actually look at it objectively, it has pros and cons, like anything else.

How about the people who don't like Twilight because they read it and it sucked, don't like Transformers because they watched it and it sucked, and don't like CoD because they played it and it sucked?

It's fine with me, as long as those people don't decide that their opinions are somehow more valid than tens of millions of other people.

Note that I'm not saying you're in a minority and therefore don't matter. In fact, there's probably more people who hate Twilight, Transformers and COD than there are people who like them. I'm just saying, declaring something "bad" based on the prevailing opinion of your circle of friends is very narrow-minded. They have to be doing something right to attract such a massive audience. I don't believe in the "everyone is just too stupid to know better" argument.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think the same thing about Twilight. All of that knee-jerk "this is popular because people are stupid and don't know they're supposed to like what I like" reaction is just snooty elitism. I honestly don't see the difference between the people who love Twilight because all their friends do, and the people who hate Twilight because all their friends do. If you actually look at it objectively, it has pros and cons, like anything else.

How about the people who don't like Twilight because they read it and it sucked, don't like Transformers because they watched it and it sucked, and don't like CoD because they played it and it sucked?

It's fine with me, as long as those people don't decide that their opinions are somehow more valid than tens of millions of other people.

Note that I'm not saying you're in a minority and therefore don't matter. In fact, there's probably more people who hate Twilight, Transformers and COD than there are people who like them. I'm just saying, declaring something "bad" based on the prevailing opinion of your circle of friends is very narrow-minded. They have to be doing something right to attract such a massive audience. I don't believe in the "everyone is just too stupid to know better" argument.

Uh... no, I'm "declaring these things are bad" because I experienced them first-hand and noticed that they were bad. Other peoples' opinions have no bearing on the issue. I think the same thing about Lars Von Trier, for instance.

EDIT: And really, why get mad about people judging things based on the opinions of people they trust? I can eat an entire shit sandwich and decide it's a bad sandwich, take a bite of a shit sandwich, put it down, and decide it's a bad sandwich, or hear my friend's opinion on a shit sandwich and decide I trust his opinion that it's a bad sandwich. Those are all valid reasons to decide shit sandwiches are unattractive as food options, and they're valid no matter how many people swear by shit sandwiches.

 

[Condiments]

I think hardly anyone here can attest to the fact that 'popular=bad' because I assume of the majority here only really buy triple AAA games. Call of Duty is successful, but there are a lot of other games we love and play that are as well.

But I think disregarding criticism of call of duty due to the fact that said of opinion could be a result of them hating 'popular stuff' is foolish. Its a common logical fallacy to assume inherent quality in something because its popularity, and anyone who takes a look at the top media can see that. Criticism of a product should stand regardless of the external factors that surround it. Tons of people played MW2, but that doesn't change the fact its multiplayer was a glitched, exploitable mess that tore apart at the seams weeks shortly after its release.

Saying the industry "doesn't always need to innovate" would be a true statement, if the industry did in the first place. As of right now, its getting more and more stagnant due to the pressures gaming production is facing(too much money to make games now). If we're going to see any innovation it will be from the indie genre, where innovation sets games apart from the pack.

 

[r_Chance]

Interesting bit from Carmack. Looking over the first page's posts I think he hit a few targets. Oh well. Those who love to crticise often can't take it.

As for people not liking games like MW2, mostly they just didn't buy it (I didn't). The people who did may whine about parts of it but they spent money on it for a reason. That reason would be "fun", whether they just like the game or want to play one with their friends doesn't matter. And as for whining, gamers do. A lot. I do. Doesn't mean we stop playing games, and enjoying them.

It's about time people remember games are "fun", it's not just about being different / innovative. Different / innovative can be good -- or bad. As for what games people play, it will be whatever they like. And good for them. Personally I don't care what other people play as long as they have fun. I don't have to rain on their parade if they like something I don't.

 

[Stall]

My point is, if a game can be innovative AND a massive pile of crap, then logically innovation cannot possibly be inherently good for anything. Meaning it should not be something devs are "required" to do, but again, something that should happen naturally.

I personally find that logic severally flawed, and almost frightening to be honest. Just because experiments CAN fail doesn't mean you shouldn't do then. That line of logic is downright despicable and incredibly damaging if you were to generalize it outside of video games, and would almost immediately negate the simple existence of Science and human tenacity as a whole. Experimentation and innovation CAN fail... it's an understood risk when you try something new. But just because there is that inherit risk in experimentation doesn't mean one should never do it. If no one ever TRIED to be innovative, then progression wouldn't even happen "naturally," as you put it. Not even bothering to try to be innovative because of the inherit risk present would be considerably more damaging than the occasional failed experiment.

In addition, we know something doesn't work because it has been tried, and failed. You don't know if something will, or will not, until it has been realistically implemented. As a statistician and scientist (to some degree), I can testify you learn just as much when your hypothesis is wrong as when it is right. Failed innovations are just as important to moving the medium forward as successful ones, as we as an industry learn from them either way. You shouldn't discount failed innovations as not being important just because they failed. Didn't your parents always tell you to "learn from your failures"?

 

[Robert Ewing]

Silly people. All FPS's I've played have been a barrel of fun and adrenaline. No matter how similar they are, they just aren't. As long as there's something to do on them, it will be awesome.