• Ubisoft's Jade Raymond on making blockbusters 'with more meaning'
    24 replies, posted
[url]http://www.shacknews.com/article/72808/ubisofts-jade-raymond-on-making-blockbusters-with-more-meaning[/url]
FPS are dominate because people like FPS so much.
[quote]Or: "Maybe games like Call of Duty could make some kind of statement about sexism. For example, you could let players play as a woman and you'd have to make the choice to stay covered up and suffer reduced performance or suffer terrible comments from fellow soldiers."[/quote] This article is a parody right? I hope so.
This looks like a very satire article here.
[quote]"Why not attack the most taboo subject of all across all media? Religion... We let players die a lot. Couldn't it be interesting, for example, to model the beliefs in Hinduism and reincarnation and allow players to retry levels as different animals or as humans with varying skill levels?"[/quote] Someone make a rougelike out of this. Every time you die you reiencarnate as a different race/class on a different dungeon level. You can of course go back and find your past corpses to find your shit but the lack of specialization choice and random level would complicate things.
Terrible comments from fellow soldiers as a female? Everyone knows that most female soldiers have more balls than males do.
Oh cool, a screenshot of GTA V.
She is hot <3 [thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Jade_Raymond_-_E3_2007.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE]Why not attack the most taboo subject of all across all media?[/QUOTE] Because in most cases the product just wouldn't be any fun. As much as I appreciate meaningful storytelling in games, you should never sacrifice gameplay for "taboo subjects".
This sounded nice at first, but as I read I figured she's either got her head in the clouds or she's satirizing.
Did they just confirm a new Splinter Cell game in the works?
Anyone else follow Peter Moly[b]d[/b]eux on Twitter? I think he and Raymond would get along pretty well.
she sounds like a dumbass.
The idea sounds nice although she might have exagerated a bit, I always liked how Assassins Creed gave you an insight from the view of the Templars and the Assassins. Some of their reasons and motivations was interesting and really different from another point of view.
I beg to differ, the Templars seek prosperity and peace through control and force. They aim to control all the individuals to keep themselves from harm or any stupid idea. Assassins want a liberal and free system, where the people freely choose what they like and how they want to do it. Liberty and the freedom of choice are the main objectives. Some of the targets that you assassinate give you some insight in their plans. It makes sense, there is no good or bad side.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;35068718]FPS are dominate because people like FPS so much.[/QUOTE] That's kinda true; it is one of the more dominant genres in the modern market. But the real question, one that may be hard to answer; is this a bad thing? The way I see it is that games like Call of Duty appeal to basic facets of the mind, like the urge to progress presented by the progressive levelling system, or the thrill of fast exhilirating combat; both of which seem to appeal to male gamers, which is kind of what the FPS market is majorly comprised of nowadays. The thing is, i'm not sure that a game that appeals to base urges is something that young children should be playing, since if it's something that is predominant in their leisure time, something that imprints on them more than the finer things in life, they may find themselves unable to appreciate things with more spirit and substance. Sure an adrenaline-fuelled thrilling FPS experience is nonetheless entertaining, this I begrudgingly admit, but it should be reserved for times when you can't make the effort to think. If you come home from a long day at work and can't be bothered to pay attention to the engaging story of a meaty RPG and/or adventure game, sure go ahead and jump into a shooter to have some mindless fun that doesn't tax your cognitive abilities. But when you come home with a longing for adventure, an urge for something with more substance and spirit to balance out the banality of working life, put away that gun-toting fish and SWAN-DIVE; into a truly engaging experience that makes you truly think and imagine, as you become immersed in a rich story experience. Sadly, if you have too many shooter fans in the market, the more sophisticated products may lose potential customers that could have otherwise appreciated something with a bit more substance. And that's why first-person shooters are very dangerous; not because of any sort of hair-brained individual turning psychopathic, but because of it drawing away customers who would otherwise be more interested in games that are more sophisticated than a visceral candy-machine shooter. In that regard, games like CoD should be kept out of the hands of younger people, to protect them from potentially failing to appreciate and enjoy a more substantial experience. It's like having a proper diet for your kids (I may not be a parent, but I can see certain important aspects for raising a child right); feed them on junk-food too often and they don't achieve their full potential, causing health problems later on in life. But if you raise them on a well-balanced diet with the right amount of healthy stuff, they turn out alright and are generally healthier. Sure, give them junk-food every now and again as a treat, but don't overdo it or things may not turn out so good. What i'm trying to get at here is that children shouldn't play stuff like CoD too often, and should spend more of their gaming leisure time on more substantial and engaging experiences, in an effort to ensure they grow up to appreciate the finer things in life, hopefully whilst they're still young. If I ever had a kid who got into video games, i'd ensure they didn't play too many games of a less-intellectual nature (the concept of Call of Duty being intellectual is a humorous one; the games are essentially the bastard-children of Tom Clancy and Michael Bay), and instead encourage them to play RPGs or adventure games that're suitable for children of that age; not much too far above their age range, but i'd be somewhat lenient in that regard, since some of us can safely say that our parents did allow us to play games that were a bit more mature than our age group, either due to ignorance or being somewhat ok with it. In conclusion, first-person shooters like Call of Duty are like junk food, and should be properly regulated since pretty much every kid likes candy; this way the kids will still be more receptive concerning games that have more spirit and substance, thus sowing the seeds for a more refined gaming community in later years. Games like Call of Duty have their place, but they should not overstep their boundaries and threaten the minds of developing youths, acting like candy or junk food, an occassional treat for good behaviour.
She sounds like the only games she is aware of are the huge hyped up series like CoD and Battlefield.
[QUOTE=Cushie;35097082]She sounds like the only games she is aware of are the huge hyped up series like CoD and Battlefield.[/QUOTE] Or maybe she's using those games that people are well aware of, to get her point to more people rather than using a game that many people wouldn't know. She does make a few valid points, but the CoD one is silly and ridiculous (for a start theres these things called Uniforms, that aren't optional)
[QUOTE=MrParalegal;35080597]Did they just confirm a new Splinter Cell game in the works?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it's been kind of confirmed for ages.
[QUOTE=junker|154;35093322]I beg to differ, the Templars seek prosperity and peace through control and force. They aim to control all the individuals to keep themselves from harm or any stupid idea. Assassins want a liberal and free system, where the people freely choose what they like and how they want to do it. Liberty and the freedom of choice are the main objectives. Some of the targets that you assassinate give you some insight in their plans. It makes sense, there is no good or bad side.[/QUOTE] It's Chaotic Good versus Lawful Evil.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;35098363]CoD one is silly and ridiculous (for a start theres these things called Uniforms, that aren't optional)[/QUOTE] right right don't wanna ruin COD's reputation for realism and understated-ness
[QUOTE]Or: "Maybe games like Call of Duty could make some kind of statement about sexism. For example, you could let players play as a woman and you'd have to make the choice to stay covered up and suffer reduced performance or suffer terrible comments from fellow soldiers."[/QUOTE] ...So if your tits are covered up you can't shoot people as good as if they were flapping in the breeze? Or was that statement supposed to be interpreted differently?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.