2013 in Gaming - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=person11;43315668]Most of these changes are irrelevant as long as there are still good games in the world. Like instead of criticizing Gone Home (I personally loved it) one can go play Stanley Parable or all the other amazing games that came out this year. [/QUOTE] It felt less like a criticism of Gone Home and more of a criticism of how Gone Home got tons more awards and press than legitimately better games like Papers, Please.

I'm not sure what he means with AAA games not taking much risk this year. BioShock Infinite was practically centered around a NPC who's made to be emotionally and psychologically linked to the player. There's also something about the morality and symbolism of taking decisions. Tomb Raider featured a female character that, having the reputation to be a super-hero in games, actually suffers, hurts and bleeds almost non-stop in an hostile environment during the entire game - something that stirred a few debates about sexism, perversion and what not. GTA V took risks with the three protagonists gameplay, and also pushed back the limits of open-world video games by offering an extremely vast, detailed, varied, complex and coherent world. Sure, Spec Ops The Line and Far Cry 3 both used to criticize video games, but doing that again this year wouldn't be as risky anymore, would it? And The Stanley Parable did it remarkably nonetheless, though it's not AAA.

Gone Home is the face of indie gaming in the higher parts of mainstream videogames media and that's bullshit

[QUOTE=Loadingue;43316165]I'm not sure what he means with AAA games not taking much risk this year. BioShock Infinite was practically centered around a NPC who's made to be emotionally and psychologically linked to the player. There's also something about the morality and symbolism of taking decisions. Tomb Raider featured a female character that, having the reputation to be a super-hero in games, actually suffers, hurts and bleeds almost non-stop in an hostile environment during the entire game - something that stirred a few debates about sexism, perversion and what not. GTA V took risks with the three protagonists gameplay, and also pushed back the limits of open-world video games by offering an extremely vast, detailed, varied, complex and coherent world. Sure, Spec Ops The Line and Far Cry 3 both used to criticize video games, but doing that again this year wouldn't be as risky anymore, would it? And The Stanley Parable did it remarkably nonetheless, though it's not AAA.[/QUOTE] I don't really think much of what you listed can be considered a risk.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;43316165]I'm not sure what he means with AAA games not taking much risk this year. BioShock Infinite was practically centered around a NPC who's made to be emotionally and psychologically linked to the player. There's also something about the morality and symbolism of taking decisions. Tomb Raider featured a female character that, having the reputation to be a super-hero in games, actually suffers, hurts and bleeds almost non-stop in an hostile environment during the entire game.[/QUOTE] And if you take a look at the marketing campaigns behind both of those games, you'll probably find that they were both marketed as games of existing IPs that have guns and lots of action. Basically, it boils down to this: most games this year were first/third person shooting games, almost all of which were existing IP of some form.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;43316165]I'm not sure what he means with AAA games not taking much risk this year. BioShock Infinite was practically centered around a NPC who's made to be emotionally and psychologically linked to the player. There's also something about the morality and symbolism of taking decisions. Tomb Raider featured a female character that, having the reputation to be a super-hero in games, actually suffers, hurts and bleeds almost non-stop in an hostile environment during the entire game - something that stirred a few debates about sexism, perversion and what not. GTA V took risks with the three protagonists gameplay, and also pushed back the limits of open-world video games by offering an extremely vast, detailed, varied, complex and coherent world. Sure, Spec Ops The Line and Far Cry 3 both used to criticize video games, but doing that again this year wouldn't be as risky anymore, would it? And The Stanley Parable did it remarkably nonetheless, though it's not AAA.[/QUOTE] Those don't seem to be risky, except for the Tomb Raider one, and that was because Lara Croft was designed to be a strong heroine character, not like most of the other women portrayed in games when the Tomb Raider series first started. It's more like the things you've listed are side experiments the developers put in alongside the game design formulas that they trust would make the game work. Risky is more along the lines of releasing Mirrors Edge, a first-person platforming puzzle game where the setting was a dystopian utilitarian future, in the midst of a market filled with military modern shooters (2007)

Well Starbound is great and that alone has made the entire year for me.

I think it was a pretty usual year then again I don't know much about the industry.

[QUOTE=Heroku;43316627]Well Starbound is great and that alone has made the entire year for me.[/QUOTE] The other notable early access game I was impressed with was Sir you are being Hunted.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;43316170]Gone Home is the face of indie gaming in the higher parts of mainstream videogames media and that's bullshit[/QUOTE] Wasn't it made by people who worked on Bioshock? Does not sound too independent.

[QUOTE=Keychain;43316238]I don't really think much of what you listed can be considered a risk.[/QUOTE] Well, he listed Spec Ops the Line and Far Cry 3 as risky games, but gameplay-wise, they're quite safe. What exactly makes a game risky? Does it need to be innovative? Smart? Criticize the video-gaming industry?

[QUOTE=Loadingue;43316956]Well, he listed Spec Ops the Line and Far Cry 3 as risky games, but gameplay-wise, they're quite safe. What exactly makes a game risky? Does it need to be innovative? Smart? Criticize the video-gaming industry?[/QUOTE] Innovative is especially one because people are scared of change, and if they see a game that looks different they're less likely to be appealed by it as opposed to something else that they're familiar with.

He's wrong about the Phil Fish thing. One guy on one stream said one thing about Fish and another guy. By the time most people caught on to Fish's episode he had canceled Fez II. So the entirety of that was Phil's fault and no one else's.

[QUOTE=person11;43316910]Wasn't it made by people who worked on Bioshock? Soooooooooooo indie.[/QUOTE] [quote]The Fullbright Company was founded in Portland by Steve Gaynor, Karla Zimonja, and Johnnemann Nordhagen. The three had previously worked together at 2K Games on Minerva's Den for BioShock 2. To reduce costs, the team moved into a house together, and set up the office in the basement. Gone Home was The Fullbright Company's first game, and taking into account their skills and financial constraints, the team decided upon a game with "no other people, no other characters, [just] you in a single environment"[/quote] Regardless of their previous work, this sounds as independent as you can get.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;43317479]He's wrong about the Phil Fish thing. One guy on one stream said one thing about Fish and another guy. By the time most people caught on to Fish's episode he had canceled Fez II. So the entirety of that was Phil's fault and no one else's.[/QUOTE] The community is just as much at fault for how they reacted to Phil as Phil is for his own dumb actions. Just because someone's being a child doesn't mean the best way to react is by being a child back.

I think 2013 was a great year for gaming, that's my perception.

I never understood all the praise for Gone Home. It's an audio book that you can't listen to while doing something else. That'd be like making a cellphone that explodes when you put it in your pocket. That being said, people shouldn't be attacked just for liking it.

I think 2013 had a good impact on the gaming community as a consumer more than anything. I've become a much more aware of the development and process that goes into creating the products we get to play. I think the opportunity to invest in games during the development phase isn't much to complain about. I understand his points about how it almost seems that releasing buggy half developed games has become the acceptable norm, but he never points to the fact that they're often time much less than the cost of AAA games that come out buggy and glitchy. * Ahem* I'm looking at you Battlefield 4. At least when I invest in a $30.00 early access game like DayZ I know that I will enjoy it for some good length of time; I also like the idea of being part of the growing process of a game and its surrounding community. Really, any of us here on Facepunch long enough started in the video gaming community because of Garry's Mod, which had a very thriving community during its development, and some even thought that paying for a mod that is still very much in constant development is silly; especially since a lot of the content such as models and textures weren't even original to Garry Newman. I wasn't bothered by this though, I couldn't help but sink $10.00 into it the night it released. And you know what? It was overwhelmingly successful immediately. So to really criticise the notion of buying an incomplete, or in development game is kind of silly since we've all seen how successful it can be. Games like DayZ shouldn't get as much of the criticism it gets because it's completely honest with the consumer. Even then, the game has been free, aside from having to own Arma II: Combined Ops; which I can't complain about because at least you get two really good games (Arma II and Operation Arrowhead) for a phenomenal price. So at least if DayZ flopped there was still an entire new community, addons, and niche to get into with the Arma series. But DayZ proved that it's what people want; the general populace has spoken in favor of the game and a lot of the community has been very deeply involved in the development from day one. It's successful because it's good, that can't be denied. That's why I'm ok with the $30.00 price tag. We were proven in the early F2P development that the mechanics and general idea could work with lots of tweaking and updating as the game grew. So for it to now have its own dedicated title I think it's worth investing in and seeing where they can take it. So far I have enjoyed it; it feels fresh yet familiar. Very similarly to the transition from Gmod 9.0.4 into Garry's Mod. The guy in the video should have focused more on developers such as Dice and publishers like EA allowing full price AAA titles get released in ridiculous states of instability. Some so bad that the game won't even start or remain stable long enough to truly enjoy. That's unacceptable because it's advertising itself as a AAA action packed game that will revolutionize the gaming experience. False advertising is a crime and bad practice and they know it. Hence why there is the rumor of free BF4 DLC due to all the release troubles. The problem is that those involved knew of many potential problems releasing the game to meet the holiday season deadline; yet they still did. The community wouldn't let them get away with it, and neither would those more influential in the legal system. Which is why there's lawsuits being drawn up against EA for releasing unfinished products while advertising and selling them as complete titles. That is what we should be focusing on this upcoming year. Ensuring that the AAA developers and publishers understand that the community's input on development and the ability to have some control over their purchase; whether it be through beta testing improvements or through modding, is imperative to the gaming industry's success.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;43313983] I've always wanted to join the game industry since I was young because it helped me through very bad personal times, and I want to give back to the world what I was given. But if this industry is honestly thinking about adopting ass tactics just to get as much money as possible before people realize they've been had, then my dreams have been crushed. [/QUOTE] You really shouldn't think like that. If anything, you should be working harder to become a bigger name in the industry so that your voice can be heard and do things that might make the scene a little better.

just like everything ever gets ruined because people are dicks. like one time i was in a sandbox and throwing sand at kids, dicks

What game is this? [img]http://puu.sh/5ZXAr.jpg[/img]

Volgarr the viking

[QUOTE=Loadingue;43316956]Well, he listed Spec Ops the Line and Far Cry 3 as risky games, but gameplay-wise, they're quite safe. What exactly makes a game risky? Does it need to be innovative? Smart? Criticize the video-gaming industry?[/QUOTE] He didn't list them as risky, he said even though they weren't risky they were self-aware [editline]27th December 2013[/editline] I think he does have a point with early access though. I'm afraid of being burned out before they're finished since my attention span for games is pretty limited. Something will have to remind me to try the game again once it's ironed out.

Moral of this video: Don't be a fucking cunt, you're ruining it for the rest of us.

This video made me think about something I said in another thread. A guy mentioned how when games like Papers, Please get such praise and recognition over AAA titles, it says something about an industry, calling it just what he called it: a pixel art game about paper work. I admit, I went and thought he was dumb, referencing the very games the guy in the video mentioned. But this video made me realize: those games were all very safe. It's been a considerable while since we've seen a game that takes risks and does something original. Sequels have even become safer than their predecessors, and that's not even this year. I played Crysis, and enjoyed how comparatively open and in-depth it was. The suit's multiple functionalities allowed multiple ways to approach situations. After beating Crysis: Warhead, I excitedly jumped into Crysis 2, and was... Disappointed. It immediately felt incredibly linear, and when it got to the point where the game literally stopped me from moving, and forced a tutorial onto me, I stopped playing. I remember playing Bad Company 2, remembering how Bad Company 1 felt like "the Three Stooges join the military," the campaign being different from the serious military shooters that were around and to come. Then Bad Company 2 kept the same characters, but put them in the same serious military environment that Bad Company 1 seemed to avoid. It felt safer. In my opinion, 2007 to 2009 was a fantastic period for video games. It had new concepts and games bust out that were huge hits. Portal, Mass Effect, BioShock, Borderlands, Mirror's Edge, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Assassin's Creed II... These are all games that made big marks and did things differently and were praised for it. Hell, I'd argue that BioShock's plot-twist is the video game equivalent of "Luke, I am your Father." These more recent years have seen a thriving indie game industry, and that's fantastic, but it's still sad to see the AAA industry become dull.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;43322042]This video made me think about something I said in another thread. A guy mentioned how when games like Papers, Please get such praise and recognition over AAA titles, it says something about an industry, calling it just what he called it: a pixel art game about paper work. I admit, I went and thought he was dumb, referencing the very games the guy in the video mentioned. But this video made me realize: those games were all very safe. It's been a considerable while since we've seen a game that takes risks and does something original. Sequels have even become safer than their predecessors, and that's not even this year. I played Crysis, and enjoyed how comparatively open and in-depth it was. The suit's multiple functionalities allowed multiple ways to approach situations. After beating Crysis: Warhead, I excitedly jumped into Crysis 2, and was... Disappointed. It immediately felt incredibly linear, and when it got to the point where the game literally stopped me from moving, and forced a tutorial onto me, I stopped playing. I remember playing Bad Company 2, remembering how Bad Company 1 felt like "the Three Stooges join the military," the campaign being different from the serious military shooters that were around and to come. Then Bad Company 2 kept the same characters, but put them in the same serious military environment that Bad Company 1 seemed to avoid. It felt safer. In my opinion, 2007 to 2009 was a fantastic period for video games. It had new concepts and games bust out that were huge hits. Portal, Mass Effect, BioShock, Borderlands, Mirror's Edge, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Assassin's Creed II... These are all games that made big marks and did things differently and were praised for it. Hell, I'd argue that BioShock's plot-twist is the video game equivalent of "Luke, I am your Father." These more recent years have seen a thriving indie game industry, and that's fantastic, but it's still sad to see the AAA industry become dull.[/QUOTE]You'll start seeing more risks being taken in a year or two, the new consoles should hopefully pump some life and creativity back into the industry now that developers can toy around with the new hardware and do some really cool things that they couldn't before.

[QUOTE=Killer900;43322157]You'll start seeing more risks being taken in a year or two, the new consoles should hopefully pump some life and creativity back into the industry now that developers can toy around with the new hardware and do some really cool things that they couldn't before.[/QUOTE] New hardware does not promise new creativity. Maybe the indie scene getting involved in the Xbone and PS4 from the start will help, compared to that being a rather late thing for the 360 and PS3, but with the costs of AAA game production likely increasing to fit all the fancy graphical effects and tech they can into 'next-gen' titles, that will only encourage them to play it safer than ever before least they lose significant profit incase it bombs or undersells.