"Snooty" Shooter Critics Anger Rage Dev

[Nobby]

I don't agree much with John Carmack and I can't remember him making a game worth playing since the nineties.

 

[JPArbiter]

My Favorite Kansas City Expat speaks the truth!

To Bring up a rotting horse, look at DNF, to many people were expecting it to blow the stack off of FPS games, and instead said " *sigh* I can't believe I used to laugh at this."

when Gear boxes goal was to make you say "*chuckle* I can not Believe I used to laugh at this!"

 

[Stall]

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

Just seems like an easy way to dismiss negative feedback to me.

He said that something is popular because people enjoy it, and there are plenty of people who enjoy the Transformers movies. Now, does that mean they are critically good? Not necessarily, but the films wouldn't be anywhere near as popular if people didn't enjoy them. That's what Carmack is trying to convey-- he doesn't think something has to be innovative to be fun and enjoyable, which he would be right. He thinks game developers should make games that are fun.

Also, did you SERIOUSLY just call Carmack an idiot? Did you SERIOUSLY just call one of the single most influential, famous, important, and brilliant developers in not only FPSs, but in the history of our medium an idiot? Are you 13?

Games would all be like Alpha Protocol and we'd have suffered another catastrophic market crash.

Let me guess: you never actually played Alpha Protocol, and are just one of those people who bash an innovative, intriguing, and wholly compelling game because some asshole "game critic" said so, and you were too lazy to actually play the game and postulate your own opinion? It was rough around the edges, sure, but as soon as you looked past its flaws, you would find a really interesting game that is miles above what we typically get from mainstream gaming.

Sigh...

 

[WayOutThere]

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.

 

[Susan Arendt]

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

Just seems like an easy way to dismiss negative feedback to me.

Not at all. "Popular doesn't equal bad" doesn't mean that "popular equals good." There's still stuff that's popular and bad; Transformers is a great example of that. But you shouldn't automatically dismiss something solely because it's popular. That's all Carmack is saying.

In other words, you should try CoD to see if you like it, not just assume you won't because it's the current Big Thing.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

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

Not really, he never says that bad games should get a free pass. What's he's sick of is people dismissing shooters just because they're shooters.

I draw your attention to the following:

"That's still a proven formula that people like, and it's a mistake to [discount that]. As long as people are buying it, it means they're enjoying it," he said. "If they buy the next Call of Duty, it's because they loved the last one and they want more of it."

Replace Call of Duty with Transformers in that quote.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You think he's saying one thing, and I think he's saying something else. Personally, I think you're jumping to conclusions, but I don't really want to get sucked into an argument about it.

 

[Woodsey]

Games would all be like Alpha Protocol and we'd have suffered another catastrophic market crash.

Oh, sorry. I really shouldn't have tried to bring some perspective into your short sighted nostalgia.

Funny, really, Alpha Protocol wasn't that bad, just really rough around the edges. Had some really interesting concepts. Shame it couldn't be polished out a bit more/was made by Obsidian.

And what, we're not already on our way to another catastrophic market crash? It's really only a matter of time, the industry is just saturated.

Because thats what caused the crash in the eighties. Too many awesome games.

"If they buy the next Call of Duty, it's because they loved the last one and they want more of it."

Not so sure about that.

The amount of times I've seen: "MW2 totally sucked, BlOps is gonna rulez! Whoop Treyarch!", and now: "BlOps sucked, MW3 gonna stick it to da bitches!" is... well, a lot of times. I think a lot of people play them just because their mates do.

And perhaps the snobbery exists somewhat because some of us don't like CoD, and don't want its influence in every other bloody game released (which is happening a lot in some form or another)?

Still, I get his point, but "popular = good" is just as irritating as "popular = bad" to me.

Imagine what games would be like now if people had invested in the Deus Ex school of design, and not the "we're not even gonna let you open a fucking door" one. Sigh.

Games would all be like Alpha Protocol and we'd have suffered another catastrophic market crash.

Oh, sorry. I really shouldn't have tried to bring some perspective into your short sighted nostalgia.

"Invested in properly with competent developers" I should have said. And its not nostalgia, I played Deus Ex the other day. Its design (apart from obvious stuff that naturally gets better over time - weapon feel, enemy AI, etc) trumps most of the stuff coming out nowadays.

We'll reexamine the argument once Human Revolution has launched (you know, that one that's had a third of itself leaked and has everyone wanking over it), but for now, I'd suggest staying away from accusing other people of being narrow-minded when your own example is taken from a famously incompetent developer (arguably not their fault) who was in business with a supposedly pushy and interfering publisher.

So you're basically trying to claim that the reason that idea keeps failing is because its devs are incompetent, yet you claim that the smashing successes that comnpetent developers have had in linear games is undone because you can't handle a well crafted experience.

No, I was telling you why your example was pointless. Alpha Protocol failed due to incompetent handling, most people haven't bothered trying to attempt anything Deus Ex-y because they find it too intimidating, which is understandable, but its also the reason why CoD won't even let you open doors for yourself. If we wanted a somewhat close comparison, then I'd cite Bethesda with the Fallout and TES games. But yeah, you're right, they fucking bomb in the charts.

And no, I didn't say that either. I love linear experiences (Half Life 2, Portal 2, The Sands of Time, Mafia, Uncharted 2, etc.). But good ones; ones that don't feel like they've got your dick in a vice, in spite of being linear. And I just wish that people had bothered to follow up on a game design that is far more interesting.

I mean, the medium has more potential than any to do new shit, and yet what we're getting for the most part, in the most popular genre, is fucking B-movies that let you move the cameraman forward.

And then have a nuke go off in your face before crawling around dying in the fallout. Oh wait, that scene doesn't count.

And excuse me? "B-Movie"? You're idolising a game about a shadowy conspiracy group stopping terrorists who blew up the Statue of Liberty from hoarding all the cure for themselves.

"And then have a nuke go off in your face before crawling around dying in the fallout. Oh wait, that scene doesn't count."

No, it counts (although the impact was debatable - it was hardly a profound statement). But well done, you've found 2 completely scripted minutes in 24 hours worth of game (going from MW onwards).

"And excuse me? "B-Movie"? You're idolising a game about a shadowy conspiracy group stopping terrorists who blew up the Statue of Liberty from hoarding all the cure for themselves."

That's because Deus Ex has other stuff going for it. "Cameraman in a B-Movie (with a fascist dictating the camera angles)" is all CoD is. I'm not sure what part of "continuing with the Deus Ex design philosophy" you find complicated to process, but it doesn't mean "stay exactly the same", nor does it mean "don't change anything". I would have thought that rather clear considering we're arguing different points, and your side of the argument is that shit should just stay the same. Mind you, it looks like you're about to start complimenting the writing in CoD, so there you go.

 

[NewfieKeir]

Is it so hard for the escapist crowd to admit that people actually enjoy COD?

I mean really, half of this thread is COD bashing. Now I'm no huge COD fan, but I'll be damned if I haven't had fun playing it online with friends, and I'll probably do it when the next installation comes out too. That said, I'd still rather be playing L4D 3 should it ever come out (and I really hope it does).

There's nothing wrong with games that don't revolutionize the genre in one way or another, because we play games to have fun. And as long as we're having fun (or the target audience is having fun) then there's no problem.

 

[Stall]

-snip-

What if you replace that game with Demons Souls? Or Psychonauts? Yes, it's not a bad idea to go with what works. But you make a logical fallacy since you are implying all innovative games are on the level of Mind Hack (I haven't played it... I would like to if I ever saw it cheap though), which is entirely inaccurate. All that shows is that experiments can fail, which is obvious to anyone with half a brain. Sometimes experiments work, and sometimes they don't. And just because that's true doesn't mean people shouldn't experiment. At one time, those mechanics in Uncharted 2 were nothing but crazy experiments some developer put forth, but they actually worked.

 

[Pandaman1911]

I like id's old stuff better than their new stuff.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who thinks the reverse. Hell, I grew UP on id's old stuff, and we all know what nostalgia does to a body.

On topic, what he's saying is so, so wrong, but I can't find any counterpoints to his argument, and now my brain hurts and I feel sad.

 

[XT inc]

I buy games based on their own merits. I have a lot of call of duty games mainly because my friends play, but I waited for each one to come out.

It's hard to no judge game developers, which is why I hate preorder bonuses.

I think they should get rid of them and put them as content in new releases or signing up to a newsletter before a certain date.

There is nothing worse to a gamer than getting a shit game they preordered months ago to realize it was a shiny turd they now feverishly wish to pawn back to their game store for whatever they can get.

 

[Johnny-Natrium]

Ok, I'm very very tired, and sort of drunk, so this is going to be rambly..

Have people forgotten about mainstream/casual gamers?
If only true gaming enthusiasts, with good knowledge of the market's offer, would play games, Call of Duty would lose much more popularity relatively to a lot of games/franchises that are actually much better. This is because Call of Duty is so accessible. The largest part of Call of Duty players actually suck and they hardly play any other games. The same goes for the Wii and movies.
A lot of really popular movies are despised by people who actually know what they're talking about.
With gaming it is actually so that overall the best games are very unpopular.
I know pretty much the complete listed PC gaming library since 1993. I absolutely hate CoD and Assassin's Creed 2. I know a whole lot of people who love them, and some that hate them. All of the people who love them happen to be completely ignorant on gaming, while the people that hate them are all gaming enthusiasts.
There could be the question of pretentiousness, but I have always gone into games, treating them with a blank slate. It just pains me then, to find out that this game that everybody plays, is such an uninspired piece of shit, and there are so many much better outings available.

Ugh fk it, I can't form an ordened story right now.

 

[Jumplion]

I am currently holding two games. In my right, Mindjack. In my left, Uncharted 2. One of these games is innovative, one is not. One of these games is considered one of the greatest of all time, one is not. Which game did I hold up first and second?

I am currently holding two games. In my right, an FPS. In my left, another FPS. One of these games started a whole trend, one is following it. One of them is said to be similar to it. Can you guess what games they are? Actually, I lied, I'm holding up [http://i52.tinypic.com/1zpmq7r.jpg] twelve games [http://i53.tinypic.com/2myt6zb.jpg] (god I love Cracked [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/]).

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.

Have you ever heard the expression "don't reinvent the wheel"? What, you think that readers are getting bored reading books made with words, and they want books you feel instead? Or tv watchers are clamoring for a tv that periodically releases scents?

You don't need to reinvent the wheel, but it helps to put some effort into building it.

Innovation for innovations sake is just a retarded idea put foward by loudmouthed egotists. Innovation happens organically, and is not fucking needed to happened every single month.

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

Really, I am just cynical of the whole FPS genre. I'm not content with "good enough" or "it ain't broke, don't fix it" or "games are fun, man". I'm all for my silly-fun games, I love Uncharted and the like. But is it too much to ask for something to really try to be something different?

 

[Raddra]

Some of us are just absolutely SICK of the shooter dominated industry.

We're tired of all our old games getting turned into shooters.

We're tired of our old favorite genre's slowly vanishing.

You know what?

Apple pie is GREAT.

However I don't want to eat apple pie every day, and i'm sick of seeing more apple pie dominating the shelf space every time I want to eat pie. And slowly, that shelf portion devoted to non-apple pie is getting smaller, and I haven't seen a blueberry pie in ages.

 

[UberNoodle]

Well, as we all know, ideas can only be employed once (at least, that's what people who don't have ideas tell us). Then, if somebody else wants to employ them, they must pay a $10 fee, or 'Idea Pass'. Regardless, nothing of artistic worth in human history has ever been achieved via refining, adapting or reinterpreting existing ideas. Look at Beowulf, the Odyssey, Impressionism, Blues and Jazz!

I rest my case.

There's plenty of innovation in Rage. This fabled 'innovation' that people keep harping on about seldom actually comes. There's always something more innovative to champion. In the end, the word is often just a lazy catch call to legitimise empty criticism. Most of our works of the highest artistic worth were achieved via refining, adapting or reinterpreting existing ideas. This obsession of 'new ideas or die' is the result a grazer culture raised to consume.

Some of the greatest art is the most familiar, and it would be crucified by armchair critics on the Net today, and for the most naive of purposes.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

"If they buy the next Call of Duty, it's because they loved the last one and they want more of it."

Not so sure about that.

The amount of times I've seen: "MW2 totally sucked, BlOps is gonna rulez! Whoop Treyarch!", and now: "BlOps sucked, MW3 gonna stick it to da bitches!" is... well, a lot of times. I think a lot of people play them just because their mates do.

And perhaps the snobbery exists somewhat because some of us don't like CoD, and don't want its influence in every other bloody game released (which is happening a lot in some form or another)?

Still, I get his point, but "popular = good" is just as irritating as "popular = bad" to me.

Imagine what games would be like now if people had invested in the Deus Ex school of design, and not the "we're not even gonna let you open a fucking door" one. Sigh.

Games would all be like Alpha Protocol and we'd have suffered another catastrophic market crash.

Oh, sorry. I really shouldn't have tried to bring some perspective into your short sighted nostalgia.

I really enjoyed Alpha Protocol...

And I imagine we would probably be complaining about how games always made us do everything ourselves instead of complaining they never let us do anything. People need something to complain about/

 

[Woodsey]

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

Just seems like an easy way to dismiss negative feedback to me.

He said that something is popular because people enjoy it, and there are plenty of people who enjoy the Transformers movies. Now, does that mean they are critically good? Not necessarily, but the films wouldn't be anywhere near as popular if people didn't enjoy them. That's what Carmack is trying to convey-- he doesn't think something has to be innovative to be fun and enjoyable, which he would be right. He thinks game developers should make games that are fun.

Also, did you SERIOUSLY just call Carmack an idiot? Did you SERIOUSLY just call one of the single most influential, famous, important, and brilliant developers in not only FPSs, but in the history of our medium an idiot? Are you 13?

Games would all be like Alpha Protocol and we'd have suffered another catastrophic market crash.

Let me guess: you never actually played Alpha Protocol, and are just one of those people who bash an innovative, intriguing, and wholly compelling game because some asshole "game critic" said so, and you were too lazy to actually play the game and postulate your own opinion? It was rough around the edges, sure, but as soon as you looked past its flaws, you would find a really interesting game that is miles above what we typically get from mainstream gaming.

Sigh...

I was arguing against him, although I'll agree with him that the game's not very good. But yeah, the concept was intriguing and could certainly have been something.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

My personal tastes aside I don't think we should excuse lack of innovation just because something is popular. There is no way pumping out something identical with an equally short story mode and a few more maps for the same price is good for the industry. It just sets a bad precedent for other developers.

The fact that is being defended by developers so much recently shows that they are using it as an example of how to be popular and they are willing to drop quality and depth for those big sales. Money makes the world go around but it would be nice if someone held onto thier integrity once in a while.

I personally think it's popular becuase you can jump into it have a game and then walk away. It doesn't require any great time investment from players.