Uh...I'm sorry, but what was the point of this reply? I was just saying that they make games that I like, thus I care about them more than Activision. You not liking those games really doesn't make me like them any less.archvile93 said:
THQ Claims It's One of the Big Publishers
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
OH wait, you asked who could hate the company itself, not who hates the games you described (well hate's actually to strong a word, except for SR 2 that was abysmal and I do hate it and its developer for cheating me). Hmm, no I guess it didn't have a point, sorry. Maybe if you care aboout Space Marine...Grey_Focks said:
Because he wants a reliable release schedule for sequels so he can go swimming in his money pool.archvile93 said:
I don't know exactly what he's thinking. THQ has some damn good exclusive licensing rights, and if they could figure out how to use them, they could very well BE a top tier publisher.
Hmm, actually I do care about Space Marine, so there was a point. You avoid the firing squad today, sir, but watch yourself.archvile93 said:
THQ are a big publisher, Red Faction and Homefront are household names, pretty much.
Also... SAINTS ROW!
Also... SAINTS ROW!
Homefront is one of the worst games this year. It's a Call of Duty clone that attempts to cash in on the recent "bland, uninteresting shooter" craze. Instead of supporting studios that innovate and push the industry forward THQ contributed to the downfall of the industry.Assassin Xaero said:
Metro 2033 was a good game that suffered from poor A.I. The game was obviously rushed out. If the developers were given more time a truly great masterpiece would have entered the market.
Saints Row is apparently a good game but unfortunately lacks any sort of PC support. Have you played the port? It's fucking horrendous.
THQ is exactly like all the other major publishers at work right now. All they care is about money. As a publisher who's attempting to gain the "major publisher" cloack they should be focused equally on innovation and original ideas in order to push the industry forward rather than backwards. As it stands, they're doing the exact opposite by rushing games and copying other.
The Cheezy One said:
The above applies to your post as well. Company of Heroes has no sequels but it does have 2 extremely shitty expansions.
I'm not saying we should live on indie games, even though I'd quite enjoy that since it would breath innovation into a rather stagnating and full of shit industry. What I AM saying is that publishers should focus more on innovative and original ideas instead of rehashing the same shit over and over again or in the worst case scenario ruin a perfectly decent franchise. Look at what's happening to Bioware ever since they joined up with EA. Mass Effect pretty much ended after the first game but seeing its popularity EA decided to revive the series and pretty much shit all over everything that made it GOOD. Activision is currently in the process of regurgitating another Call of Duty and publishing billions of sequels which in turn shit all over originality, innovation etc.
The indie scene is currently doing much better. We see innovative games all the time that most people rarely pay attention to instead choosing to spend their cash on supporting the death of gaming as a medium. Hell, last I checked from the indie scene came a whole new genre. When's the last time you saw that happen? Hell, when's the last time you saw an innovative and original game hit retail? Almost ALL the games in the past 2 years have been SEQUELS and the moment there are more sequels that original IP's is the moment gaming as a medium starts dying. Unless we turn this around there WILL be a crash. People will eventually get sick of eating the same shit year after year.
Is it really to much to ask that games don't go past one sequel? Is it really to much to ask for developers and publishers to focus on innovation and originality? I much prefer the indie scene. At least indie games contribute to making gaming a better medium as a whole. At the very least, the indie scene is not focused on profits. Whilst I understand that companies are created to make money, being greedy will not in any way benefit anyone.
Yes, because every military themed shooter is a Call of Duty clone. Crysis 2 is a Call of Duty clone. It looks and plays more like CoD4 (hell, even the kill streaks are EXACTLY the same) then it does Crysis. Homefront is more like Frontlines, which was their previous game.AndyFromMonday said:
Assassin Xaero said:
Well the story is basically "Call of Duty: What If Edition" and the multiplayer is basically just like Call of Duty's except you get vehicles. The thing is, this game does nothing good for the shooter genre. Instead of moving towards a more strategic playstyle like Battlefield did it's attempting to combine the two and ends up creating a clusterfuck.
It did at first. On launch is was like how games used to be, where you die after a few bullets (like hardcore mode in Call of Duty), with no option for a dumbed down mode. Then all the noobs complained and the whole game got nurfed. Sadly, it was fun before that.AndyFromMonday said:
Ah THQ, it's almost cute how it tries so hard to be bigger than it really is. You don't have to be a "big" developer like EA and Activision to be successful. Just accept your place, producing mostly above average, good games.
It's a wonder to me that these companies let guys like this speak in public, 'cause I've noticed that they have an alarming tendency to shoot their mouths off.
Don't tell me this stuff THQ, SHOW ME! Show me that you deserve to stand with the giants.
...although if EA and Activision are any example, being one of the giants is hardly a condition to be desired.
Don't tell me this stuff THQ, SHOW ME! Show me that you deserve to stand with the giants.
...although if EA and Activision are any example, being one of the giants is hardly a condition to be desired.