Will new gen consoles be able to keep up with PC graphics when released?

[Veliko]

I wondered how long we'd go before you resorted to childish ad hominem. Good job.

First off, do you play, or have you played ANY of the series I listed? No? For more than one or two entries? I'm guessing not.
Because if you have, you wouldn't have to ask that question. It would be self-apparent. It would be obvious. Go listen to any of the HUNDREDS of rants about FFXIII, about the dumbing down of Civ 5, about the complete overhaul of the R6 and Ghost Recon games, about the bastardization of FS to Flight!. I could go on at length. It's not rocket science, it's not even opinion. These are real, measurable, quantifiable alterations to largely successful series, made for no other reason than to expand the market to include casual, largely uninterested gamers in a genre they're not actually interested in. Studios have essentially admitted this. Usually failing miserably. You have no ground to argue that, it's black and white.


If you seriously have to ASK how FFXIII is linear compared to previous entries, you need to leave this discussion now. If you seriously need to ASK how something like Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2 was dumbed down, GTFO. And if you don't know what linear is, you are, for all intents and purposes, a dolt.
Of course, you're not. You're just playing dumb and smug, but you know exactly what we mean. Just as in that previous thread, where virtually everyone was disagreeing with you and offering counter examples, you continue to argue for arguments sake.

I asked "What does 'inexcusably linear' even mean," and you haven't actually understood the question.

I know what the word linear means. I don't know what 'inexcusably linear' means, because I don't have this preconceived notion that linear is inherently bad. Half Life 2 is about as linear as you can get, yet everyone loves it.

Bleat on about 'dumbed down' Civ 5 all you want, but vanilla Civ 5 is better than vanilla Civ 4.

Your previous quote gems, when talking about classic RPGs;

...I feel just sad for you. I'm just now playing through System Shock 2 for the first time, a game you couldn't get into by your own admission because it wasn't "up to scratch", and it's still miles better than the majority of shooters out there. That's not nostalgia talking, I never played the game when it was new.
But I suppose if there's enough voice acting, enough slick menus, and shiny graphics, that will make up for the fact that today's games, by and large, are becoming so painfully easy, so brain dead linear, and so hand-holdingly bland that they essentially plays themselves.

I played and completed System Shock 2 about ten years ago, and it is one of my favourite ever games.

I don't quite see your point here. Are you saying that things like graphics, sound and physics don't have any impact at all on your enjoyment of a game?

Um. Yes.

Games that have changed...by becoming more dumbed down.

Which is the entire fucking point of this discussion.

You're really brilliant.

You are still missing the point. Games exist outside of those franchises you listed; pointing at 'dumbed down' franchises as proof that everything is being dumbed down is a false equivalence.

For instance, I got Mass Effect back when it first came out and loved it. When Mass Effect 2 came out, I was disappointed with the changes and didn't finish it.

However, I started replaying the original ME a month or so ago and found it to be immensely frustrating to play. I am not talking about the graphics, but how it played.

Everything about it feels dated and awkward. ME2 may be 'dumbed down', but it has, along with other games, made the various aspects of ME1 feel old and clunky.

Exactly which games they are, I couldn't say.

 

[BD2003]

You call it dumbed down, I call it streamlined. Devs have been getting really good of late at stripping out the non-fun parts of games, removing filler, and focusing on the core essence of the games that make them great.

Civ V is a perfect example of this. Mass effect 3 another good one - they actually adde back in a lot of complexity that ME2 took out, while not weighing it down with a lot of the baggage from ME1. FF13 tried and failed to streamline their game (hence the 20 hour tutorial).

I'm just not seeing the dumbing down. Sure, many games might be getting less complex....but I think it's generally for the better.

 

[purbeast0]

i can personally see some of this dumbing down that he is talking about.

i typically see it in sequels though.

the original game will be all tough and mighty, where the REALLY good player stand out above the rest. then as the next iterations of the game come out, the line seems to get blurrier and blurrier from the novices and experts at games.

but this is nothing new. this has happened forever.

the one that pissed me off first and still does to this day, is the Mario Kart franchise. Super Mario Kart took so much precision and skill to be an expert. Then Mario Kart 64 came out and was SSSSSOOOOO freaking easy with no sense of speed. Then the Gamecube one became even easier. i have no desire to play the one on Wii. The DS one was closest to the SNES one, but not as close.

the next one i remember is the Halo franchise. Halo 2 came out and everyone who was expert at Halo quickly realized how dumbed down it was and how they made it 'easier' and more accessible. rechargeable health, slower walk speed, no 3 shot pistol kill, the 'noob combo', etc.

this also became a trend with COD. i remember when MW2 came out and they made it SSSOOOO easy to get kill streaks and had so many rewards you could get that stacked and stacked.

my brother and i were playing COD2 2 weekends ago on XBL (yes people still play it) and it is so different than the new games. it's a more basic premise, but it is harder because of it. no red dot sights, no way to jam radars, no run button to run and hide after you get shot.

i've also noticed this recently with street fighter 4 compared to street fighter 3. and then street fighter x tekken took it even further adding this stupid gem feature that allows for auto-blocking. AUTO-BLOCKING IN A FUCKING FIGHTING GAME - think about how broken that is.

so i can't say i disagree with him about it being dumbed down. to me, the dumbing down seems to be in the multiplayer aspect of certain games/genres.

that said, it doesn't mean i can't have a blast at them. and sometimes i'm glad they are 'dumbed down' because i just don't have the time to dedicate to getting good at these games like i used to. but at the same time, i miss the challenge and rewarding feeling i get from becoming expert at some of these games.

but the games i haven put the time into to get good, such as SF4, it is definitely a good feeling and rewarding to totally own someone else!

 

[diesbudt]

the one that pissed me off first and still does to this day, is the Mario Kart franchise. Super Mario Kart took so much precision and skill to be an expert. Then Mario Kart 64 came out and was SSSSSOOOOO freaking easy with no sense of speed. Then the Gamecube one became even easier. i have no desire to play the one on Wii. The DS one was closest to the SNES one, but not as close.

Really?

I found Super Marior Kart was easy. I could easily lap most computer racers by the time the race was over even at 150cc.

In the 64 Version, I would be lucky if I even lapped more than 1-2, by the time the race was over at 150cc.

(Not saying 64 was harder, just that Super Mario kart was in no way required percision, and the only tricky thing with it was the feather, and how you used it. Coins gave such an edge to the player too, so many coins = so fast)

Example: The Boo/haunted race course in Super Mario Kart, there was a point you could jump across and skip a portion of the level. But if you missed...

However, I had the most fun on the 64 Mario Kart of any mario karts. And the "tricks" you could do. Like skip 95% of the DK kong track by turning around at the start, and jumping in such a way that you brush the wall and tricking the game to think you went around once already.

 

[purbeast0]

Really?

I found Super Marior Kart was easy. I could easily lap most computer racers by the time the race was over even at 150cc.

In the 64 Version, I would be lucky if I even lapped more than 1-2, by the time the race was over at 150cc.

(Not saying 64 was harder, just that Super Mario kart was in no way required percision, and the only tricky thing with it was the feather, and how you used it. Coins gave such an edge to the player too, so many coins = so fast)

Example: The Boo/haunted race course in Super Mario Kart, there was a point you could jump across and skip a portion of the level. But if you missed...

However, I had the most fun on the 64 Mario Kart of any mario karts. And the "tricks" you could do. Like skip 95% of the DK kong track by turning around at the start, and jumping in such a way that you brush the wall and tricking the game to think you went around once already.

you must have missed this part of my post...

so i can't say i disagree with him about it being dumbed down. to me, the dumbing down seems to be in the multiplayer aspect of certain games/genres.

guarantee you couldn't lap me in a 150cc race. probably couldn't even beat me

another example in MK64 was lightning. it was such a regular item, which was RARELY seen in SNES unless you were like in dead last and losing by a lot.

 

[exdeath]

...I feel just sad for you. I'm just now playing through System Shock 2 for the first time

My advanced appologies to you for ruining PC gaming for yourself from here on out after you complete System Shock 2.

To this day, every once in a while I will play it again from the start and consume an entire weekend with the shades drawn, headphones on, no food, and just immerse myself.

Be sure to look for all the important mods like the texture and model enhancements, etc.

It's pretty much one of the best PC games ever made, along with others like the original Deus Ex, etc.

Bioshock didn't come close... and is ironically yet another example of a game being dumbed down today.

I think I'm going to comb over the DS library and hit up Ebay. Seems some quality games are still being made for DS that have more substance than "follow the big compass arrow, kill people, blow up red barrels, win the game in an hour, and watch the 5 second cliche ending that we couldnt POSSIBLY have seen coming".

 

[Sulaco]

I asked "What does 'inexcusably linear' even mean," and you haven't actually understood the question.

I know what the word linear means. I don't know what 'inexcusably linear' means, because I don't have this preconceived notion that linear is inherently bad. Half Life 2 is about as linear as you can get, yet everyone loves it.

It's really quite simple. Half Life is a poor example. Why? Because the Half Life formula has always been linear, and it has always been one of the strengths of the series.
I'm talking about games that have always been more open, deeper, and less handholding being morphed into simplified, linear, and less challenging games, for the express purpose of appealing to a wider audience that probably doesn't care either way.

It's not that linear games are bad. It's that games that built their reputation and fanbase on offering the players depth, choice, and challenge, are being reworked or drastically changed into more linear/easier/simpler games, to vainly try and appeal to a broader audience. This is as coherently and cogently as I can put this argument. If you read nothing else, reread that last sentence. I can't spell it out any simpler.

This is the crux of my point. Not all, mind you. But if I can off the top of my head easily 13 odd franchises that matter to me that are indisputably doing it, all within the last 5 years it is a trend, pure and simple. Two or three franchises, ok, coincidence. 13 or more in 5 years, that's a trend, bud.

Bleat on about 'dumbed down' Civ 5 all you want, but vanilla Civ 5 is better than vanilla Civ 4.

I will say, I have been a first day purchaser of the Civ games since Civ 2. Civ 5 was without a doubt the worst out-of-the-box AI I've experienced. I've posted numerous times about my experiences with Civ 5 completely pathetic and worthless AI, and gimmicky features.
Civ IV had plenty of bugs out of the box, but those were addressed within the first several months through patches. CIV V's AI is still beyond shit. No excuses anymore. 2 years and the AI is awful.
Civ IV was a splendid game after the first several patches, and one of the best ever after the expansions. What does Civ 5 have to show in 2 years? Absolutely nothing.
Here's hoping Gods and Kings vastly changes everything, but your argument is worthless as it stands.

You are still missing the point. Games exist outside of those franchises you listed; pointing at 'dumbed down' franchises as proof that everything is being dumbed down is a false equivalence.

For the last time...

I'M NOT SAYING ALL GAMES ARE BEING DUMBED DOWN. I feel like a broken record, and I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

The point is, there is a startling trend in the industry towards oversimplifying and making games easier to attract a wider audience of people who normally wouldn't be interested in that style of game.
It's especially alarming considering they are doing it by taking many established franchises, whose bread and butter so to speak for YEARS has been their depth and challenge , and turned those games into something that bears little resemblance to what made the franchise popular to begin with.

I am NOT saying that every game that comes out is dumbed down, or that a good linear game is a bad thing.
I am talking about the industry trend by almost every publisher, to take franchises that have an established style of gameplay and depth that their fans appreciate, dumb that down to attract a large audience, and generally butcher the game in the process. If not outright butcher, at least alter and remove core components that were special and important to the fans.

 

[exdeath]

Best and latest example is Capcom going on record that they want Call of Duty fans to be able to play the next Resident Evil...

Just shoot me. Gaming as I knew it is dead.

It's all about making less game for more money anymore and generating "free revenue" now. And per my previous comments, this generation of "gamers" just HAS to be ADHD to continually eat it up and keep coming back for more, there is no other logical explanation.

I hope EA and Activision cause another game industry crash and they both burn in hell.

I'm so frustrated my 9 yr old nephew can't even play a game like Borderlands without getting "stuck" or "lost" or not knowing what to do and then quitting and going right back to all the easy instant gratification Call of Duty shit he's been fed in today's game market. Quests, navigation, character growth, equipment procurement, exploring, interacting with things OTHER than shooting them, story, or having to read or listen to something, is completely foreign to him. Figured it would be a good "gateway" game to introduce him to real games, since it would introduce him to RPG and other gameplay elements in a familiar FPS environment, but shallow CoD gameplay has corrupted him.

Maybe I'll try a few others... Metroid Prime, etc, other shooters that have 100000x more to offer than CoD, then eventually work him to classics like Ocarina of Time until he realizes what he's missing. There is more to games than damn kill ratios. It's FUN to be lost and not know anything about the world around you.

 

[Veliko]

I will say, I have been a first day purchaser of the Civ games since Civ 2. Civ 5 was without a doubt the worst out-of-the-box AI I've experienced. I've posted numerous times about my experiences with Civ 5 completely pathetic and worthless AI, and gimmicky features.
Civ IV had plenty of bugs out of the box, but those were addressed within the first several months through patches. CIV V's AI is still beyond shit. No excuses anymore. 2 years and the AI is awful.
Civ IV was a splendid game after the first several patches, and one of the best ever after the expansions. What does Civ 5 have to show in 2 years? Absolutely nothing.
Here's hoping Gods and Kings vastly changes everything, but your argument is worthless as it stands.

I have been playing the Civ games since the very first one on the Amiga 500.

Civ 5 vanilla is better than Civ 4 vanilla, and your posts about your experiences don't prove anything other than the AI being poor.

I'M NOT SAYING ALL GAMES ARE BEING DUMBED DOWN. I feel like a broken record, and I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

The point is, there is a startling trend in the industry towards oversimplifying and making games easier to attract a wider audience of people who normally wouldn't be interested in that style of game.
It's especially alarming considering they are doing it by taking many established franchises, whose bread and butter so to speak for YEARS has been their depth and challenge , and turned those games into something that bears little resemblance to what made the franchise popular to begin with.

I am NOT saying that every game that comes out is dumbed down, or that a good linear game is a bad thing.
I am talking about the industry trend by almost every publisher, to take franchises that have an established style of gameplay and depth that their fans appreciate, dumb that down to attract a large audience, and generally butcher the game in the process. If not outright butcher, at least alter and remove core components that were special and important to the fans.

It seems that you are spending a lot of words saying very little.

Your entire point seems to be "some franchises have got simpler".

So what? There are lots of industry trends at the moment, why does this particular one matter?

 

[Veliko]

Best and latest example is Capcom going on record that they want Call of Duty fans to be able to play the next Resident Evil...

Just shoot me. Gaming as I knew it is dead.

It's all about making less game for more money anymore and generating "free revenue" now. And per my previous comments, this generation of "gamers" just HAS to be ADHD to continually eat it up and keep coming back for more, there is no other logical explanation.

I hope EA and Activision cause another game industry crash and they both burn in hell.

I'm so frustrated my 9 yr old nephew can't even play a game like Borderlands without getting "stuck" or "lost" or not knowing what to do and then quitting and going right back to all the easy instant gratification Call of Duty shit he's been fed in today's game market. Quests, navigation, character growth, equipment procurement, exploring, interacting with things OTHER than shooting them, story, or having to read or listen to something, is completely foreign to him. Figured it would be a good "gateway" game to introduce him to real games, since it would introduce him to RPG and other gameplay elements in a familiar FPS environment, but shallow CoD gameplay has corrupted him.

Maybe I'll try a few others... Metroid Prime, etc, other shooters that have 100000x more to offer than CoD, then eventually work him to classics like Ocarina of Time until he realizes what he's missing. There is more to games than damn kill ratios. It's FUN to be lost and not know anything about the world around you.

There is nothing special about Resident Evil, it was a boring set of games with horrendous controls.

And getting lost is not fun, and it never has been.

Did you ever play the text adventure games on the Commodore 64? Some of them had maze sections that you could get lost in.

Even back then, getting lost was seen as a bad thing.

 

[exdeath]

It's called discovery. It's a wonderful drug when you start a new game for the first time and haven't a clue where you are or what you are doing.

That is lost today when you fire up CoD and a giant arrow says "go here, kill this guy, blow up this barrel, kill another guy, gratz game over!"

 

[Sulaco]

I have been playing the Civ games since the very first one on the Amiga 500.

Civ 5 vanilla is better than Civ 4 vanilla, and your posts about your experiences don't prove anything other than the AI being poor.

And your posts don't prove anything except one had more bugs, which were quickly addressed, and the game was patched into a masterpiece. Civ V's "bugs" are STILL FUCKING THERE two years later. What part of this don't you get?? So has Firaxis gotten woefully lazy, or are those actual design decisons? To simplify a game to make it more palatable for the uninterested?
Either way, my point stands. Both were buggy at launch. One was fixed within a year, the other's had 2 years to fester and remain garbage.
Do better.

It seems that you are spending a lot of words saying very little.

Your entire point seems to be "some franchises have got simpler".

So what? There are lots of industry trends at the moment, why does this particular one matter?

I've said the same thing for the past 2 pages, you've just been too dense to grasp it. Sorry if it's getting repetitive, but it seems only now you're starting to catch on (I hope?)

And if you have to ask, again, really, just stop already. "Why does this particular one matter?" What a silly question. Why do people join and post on internet hobbyist forums about their hobbies? I mean, really? Reread what an astoundingly ridiculous question that is.

It "matters" because people care about and enjoy the games. When you've been a fan of a franchise or series for years and countless entries, it's upsetting to see it changed/devolved into something completely different for the sole reason of (futilely) attracting new gamers who aren't interested anyway.
These aren't improvements we're talking about, these aren't fixing bugs or issues. This is actively fixing what isn't broken so the stupid can not have to think. Period.

There is nothing special about Resident Evil, it was a boring set of games with horrendous controls.

And getting lost is not fun, and it never has been

What a vapid, strawman argument. No one had said anything about the controls. It's entirely possible to improve the controls and still have an actual, you know, survival horror game that's worth a damn. With tension, atmosphere, and real horror pacing not the garbage "We want it to appeal to the CoD fans!" game style it has become.

The fact that you view the RE games as "nothing special", again, just shows your disconnect. It's easily considered one of the hallmark, seminal franchises in gaming, certainly the Godfather of the genre, and all you can say is you didn't like the controls and you didn't like figuring out where to go.

 

[exdeath]

Resident evil used to be a semi free roaming puzzle game LOADED with suspense and ambiance. Hiding out in a room with 2 rds of ammo left, hearing noises outside. The silence terrifying you. Holding your wound and limping, health in the red. *One* freaking licker blocking your path in the hall, hold your breath and plot your move... hope its looking the other way and run to the next door down the hall 3 screens over while the creepy music wells up and plays tricks with your heart rate. Or even no enemies at all, just stuck exploring and trying to connect the dots and figure out the next part of a puzzle to progress.

Now its just another on rails run and gun shooter with endless waves of thousands of unavoidable bad guys that jump on you and bite you a million times without you being able to do anything about it and damn near infinite health and ammo. Half the levels in RE5 you don't even get to "play" because the scripted game events have you running as fast as you can from infinitely respawning hordes. It's annoying, not suspenseful or survival. Rolling your eyes at yet another scripted "don't have time to explore or do anything, shoot and run for your life down the only path in front of you" sequence, you end up playing just to beat it and get it over with, not because you are actually immersed and enjoy it. That's all you did in RE5, just run and gun through boring linear single path levels. Now its going to be Call of Evil, not sure how much worse they can make it.

The original Resident Evil was ground breaking; huge development time, lots of investment in something that wasn't proven, etc. It was a huge risk that started a whole new genre. That will never EVER happen again thanks to the industry wide adoption of the maximum profit no risk nickel and dime sell them the same shit over and over EA/Activision pioneered business model. It's all about playing it safe with simple retarded franchised content recycled to death games, that are the cheapest easiest games to develop, that your down syndrome ADHD dog with the ability to rapidly tap a single button can pick up and play after joining mid game.

Gaming today is in a very sad state. Next gen graphics should be the least of anyone's concerns.

 

[Veliko]

And your posts don't prove anything except one had more bugs, which were quickly addressed, and the game was patched into a masterpiece. Civ V's "bugs" are STILL FUCKING THERE two years later. What part of this don't you get?? So has Firaxis gotten woefully lazy, or are those actual design decisons? To simplify a game to make it more palatable for the uninterested?
Either way, my point stands. Both were buggy at launch. One was fixed within a year, the other's had 2 years to fester and remain garbage.
Do better.

Do better with what? Civ 4 is nothing without it's expansion packs, and Civ 5 has only just had one announced.

This isn't about bugs, it's about the game as a whole. I would rather play Civ 5 than Civ 4.

I've said the same thing for the past 2 pages, you've just been too dense to grasp it. Sorry if it's getting repetitive, but it seems only now you're starting to catch on (I hope?)

And if you have to ask, again, really, just stop already. "Why does this particular one matter?" What a silly question. Why do people join and post on internet hobbyist forums about their hobbies? I mean, really? Reread what an astoundingly ridiculous question that is.

It "matters" because people care about and enjoy the games. When you've been a fan of a franchise or series for years and countless entries, it's upsetting to see it changed/devolved into something completely different for the sole reason of (futilely) attracting new gamers who aren't interested anyway.
These aren't improvements we're talking about, these aren't fixing bugs or issues. This is actively fixing what isn't broken so the stupid can not have to think. Period.

You aren't even being consistent with your own arguments now. First of all you moan about franchises changing so they can appeal to a wider audience and sell more, yet now you say it is futile because they aren't interested anyway.

Perhaps you would be better served if you didn't get so attached to game franchises, then it wouldn't be so upsetting.

What a vapid, strawman argument. No one had said anything about the controls. It's entirely possible to improve the controls and still have an actual, you know, survival horror game that's worth a damn. With tension, atmosphere, and real horror pacing not the garbage "We want it to appeal to the CoD fans!" game style it has become.

The fact that you view the RE games as "nothing special", again, just shows your disconnect. It's easily considered one of the hallmark, seminal franchises in gaming, certainly the Godfather of the genre, and all you can say is you didn't like the controls and you didn't like figuring out where to go.

Well turning it into a CoD-style game is certainly one way to improve the controls.

However, changing the controls would also change how the game plays, which would upset the hardcore fans anyway.

And what is this 'disconnect' nonsense? Not everyone likes RE, I thought it was garbage right from when the first one was released.

 

[Veliko]

It's called discovery. It's a wonderful drug when you start a new game for the first time and haven't a clue where you are or what you are doing.

That is lost today when you fire up CoD and a giant arrow says "go here, kill this guy, blow up this barrel, kill another guy, gratz game over!"

So don't play CoD then, play something else that suits your tastes.

 

[Veliko]

The original Resident Evil was ground breaking; huge development time, lots of investment in something that wasn't proven, etc. It was a risk. That will never happen again thanks to EA/Activision, it's all about playing it safe with simple retarded franchised content recycled to death games that your down syndrome dog with the ability to rapidly tap a single button can pick up and play after joining mid game.

Have you even looked at the games that are available today? There are plenty of games available outside of the main franchises.

 

[exdeath]

So don't play CoD then, play something else that suits your tastes.

Kind of hard to do when nobody wants to put effort into making anything else anymore.

Who's going to spend 5 years developing another Resident Evil or Chrono Trigger when you can copy/paste your own CoD in 3 weeks and make millions, add 2 guns and 1 new level and make millions again, sell virtual t shirts make millions, ad infinitum.

An indy or small company doesn't have the budget for it, and all the big bloated conglomerate publishers with dollar signs and DLC and monthy subscription revenue schemes in their eyes won't fund anything that doesn't fit the easy money CoD formula.

I don't have a gripe with CoD as a game, you're right, I don't have to buy it or play it. I hate how it's become the model of franchised mass market greed driving the entire industry. My not contributing or supporting it with my wallet isn't going to make good games suddenly pop up.

 

[Sulaco]

You aren't even being consistent with your own arguments now. First of all you moan about franchises changing so they can appeal to a wider audience and sell more, yet now you say it is futile because they aren't interested anyway.

Perhaps you would be better served if you didn't get so attached to game franchises, then it wouldn't be so upsetting.

What about my arguments hasn't been consistent? I've said from the first post in this thread, they are changing/morphing quality franchises into something simpler and more accessible to the casual gamer.
And my saying it's "futile" is from a purely market and business sense. They are literally shooting themselves in the foot, in almost every case. Why? Because the changes infuriate long-time fans, weaken the game, and the casual fans don't end up being interested anyway. At least not enough to offset the alienation of your previous audience.

This is what I'm trying to convey to you. This is why it's so frustrating. Not only are they butchering many of the franchises, but the intended audience, the people whom they're butchering it for, aren't really interested anyway. And the the franchise is REALLY in trouble. You've alienated your longtime fans, and the new audience you hoped to attract.

I have no idea what games or franchises you play, so I can't make an analogy that you might understand. But just saying "Well stop caring" is perhaps the cheapest of the cheap cop-out answers out there.

Don't like what's happening? Don't talk about it! Why should it matter?

-Hugs & Kisses,
Veliko

 

[Sulaco]

I would rather play Civ 5 than Civ 4.

Say no more. Yet again you are in the vast minority with your views.

That's fine, you're entitled to them. But you're not convincing anyone.

 

[exdeath]

Have you even looked at the games that are available today? There are plenty of games available outside of the main franchises.

Yeah I have most of the good ones. But they are too far and few between, and only get an hour on the shelf before the store is ordered to clear the wall of everything else for the next 17 variants of CoD or Madden pre orders. And what I have I had to get on Ebay because I couldn't find them locally in stores a month or two after their release... why? Because Call of Duty 19 1/2 Turbo Ultra Pink Ops Collectors Deluxe Edition and Madden 103847139472949757273734 Season 237473947 preorder boxes plastered the entire f**king wall. And all you hear from the zit faced employees is "how awesome it is, the splosions and guns look more realistic!! and you can blow up cars now, itz teh best game ev4R! and u can download moar gunz!"

I stop by game stores and look hard going up and down A through Z for hours in the PS3/360 isles. Other than the good games I already have, which aren't on the shelves anymore, there is NOTHING. It's all CoD, Fast and the Furious, Halo, and Madden shit over and over and over again.

I get more excited checking out used game sections for SNES, Genesis, Gameboy Advance, DS, PS1, PS2, Dreamcast, and Saturn at pawn, music, and book shops than I do over current gen, let alone next gen. Game dev today is run by publishing dictators with dollar signs and shopping season sales predictions in their eyes, nobody is allowed to put any heart and soul into their games anymore.

Games like Xenosaga (see my sig) which was originally supposed to be an epic masterpiece of SIX EPISODES was cut short into three incomplete rushed games because like anything not CoD the game took longer than 3 weeks to make and didn't make 100 billion dollars on launch and funding was cut. So obviously it affects me greatly even if I "don't play games like CoD then".

 

[Veliko]

What about my arguments hasn't been consistent? I've said from the first post in this thread, they are changing/morphing quality franchises into something simpler and more accessible to the casual gamer.
And my saying it's "futile" is from a purely market and business sense. They are literally shooting themselves in the foot, in almost every case. Why? Because the changes infuriate long-time fans, weaken the game, and the casual fans don't end up being interested anyway. At least not enough to offset the alienation of your previous audience.

So give me an example of a franchise that has changed, worsened, and then failed due to losing the hardcore players that would have otherwise stayed and kept the franchise going.

 

[exdeath]

Square Enix President Says No More Non Mainstream Games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mH80aBa3WE

This. Video. Is. Awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2HAW08yHsQ

It's not just CoD, it's just the poster child for everything wrong with the industry.

 

[Veliko]

Square Enix President Says No More Non Mainstream Games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mH80aBa3WE

This. Video. Is. Awesome.

He looks and sounds like an annoying dick.

 

[exdeath]

He looks and sounds like an annoying dick.

Not surprised you'd care more about what the dude looks and sounds like coming from someone who judges games by their HD graphics and uber special effects.

 

[BD2003]

Kind of hard to do when nobody wants to put effort into making anything else anymore.

Who's going to spend 5 years developing another Resident Evil or Chrono Trigger when you can copy/paste your own CoD in 3 weeks and make millions, add 2 guns and 1 new level and make millions again, sell virtual t shirts make millions, ad infinitum.

An indy or small company doesn't have the budget for it, and all the big bloated conglomerate publishers with dollar signs and DLC and monthy subscription revenue schemes in their eyes won't fund anything that doesn't fit the easy money CoD formula.

I don't have a gripe with CoD as a game, you're right, I don't have to buy it or play it. I hate how it's become the model of franchised mass market greed driving the entire industry. My not contributing or supporting it with my wallet isn't going to make good games suddenly pop up.

Your rants are hilarious...but the simple fact is that you're the odd man out. You might lament that, you can accuse every company in the industry of selling out....but this is and always was going to be the natural progression of things.

That being said, there are more games being made now than ever before. Even if most of the attention is on games you want to declare a jihad on....if you can't find something out there you like, you're not looking hard enough. It might no longer be the center of attention, but its there.