Need to adapt the Doom model.
Pay 15 bucks for base game
Pay 15 bucks for part two of SP
Pay 15 bucks for part three of SP
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36600165]That's honestly why I'm not interested in it. I frankly don't need another one like that now. While I love a game with a good story, that alone isn't enough to sell me on it if the mechanics themselves are awful. Part of the experience is the story, yes, but another equally big part of the experience is the actual gameplay.[/QUOTE]
It has a good story and generic third person gameplay.
The gameplay mechanics are nowhere near awful
[QUOTE=Matrix374;36602340]It has a good story and generic third person gameplay.
The gameplay mechanics are nowhere near awful[/QUOTE]
This, the gameplay is nowhere near awful and is fine and the game doesn't just have a "good story" it has an amazing damn story. I'll compare it to Max Payne 3 since both are third person shooters, while Max Payne 3 has the amazing gameplay it's story doesn't come close to Spec Ops the line, where if fucks with you from beginning till end.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36600077]I think that, as long as Gabe stays in control of Valve and they stay privately owned, Valve will always be a good company. And the likelihood that they will go anywhere isn't that high, given the strength of Steam on the digital distribution front.[/QUOTE]
This.
BioWare sold out to EA and look what has happened to them. As long as Valve doesn't sell out, they're good to go.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;36599875]Games like those don't appeal to the masses because they actually require thought and strategy, and not just mindless button-mashing and trigger-holding.[/QUOTE]
I hear this quite often, honestly people are not that dumb. It is arrogant to assume that some games require to much effort. Everyone has a favorite genre and explores it with different games. I have a friend who only played console games like Halo. Then he started playing Red Orchestra 2 and L4D2 which is quite a lot harder.
Also I do not think that devs can come up with totally revolutionary solutions to reinvent gaming. For instance FPS has always been more or less the same. The ones that I found revolutionary are Battlefield 2 because of the teamplay, Red Orchestra due to the realism, Metro for it's awesome story and general setting. Half-Life offering a unique story with awesome cinematics.
Games need some cores to focus on, which makes them unique.
Maybe there will be a crash and like the last one, a beautiful phoenix will rise out of the ashes and usher in another golden age... and then the phoenix can turn to shit and burn to death again and we can repeat.
Big publishers are too arfraid to use some new ideas or anything, because making a generic fps is easy profit for them. They dont care about anything else than getting money.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36600162]But the employees can't hold a vote on firing Gabe.
(...Can they? :v:)
I understand what you're saying though.[/QUOTE]
If anything lead to firing it most likely would be done in a vote form, so yes they could chuck gabe newell out if it had enough support but seeing as Gabe has pretty much got valve in the spotlight since the release of half life I doubt he'd be ever kicked out of his own company.
Only mainstream game I even play anymore is BF3, but if Crytek listened to fans of Timesplitters and released Timesplitters 4 I'd be happy enough to play it.
[QUOTE=icemaz;36599741]Not good when in September I'm supposed to be starting a Game Design and Programming course. I want to perhaps have some future prospects :([/QUOTE]
The ones who have to fear for their future are the PR and Advertisement guys.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;36603032]Big publishers are too arfraid to use some new ideas or anything, because making a generic fps is easy profit for them. They dont care about anything else than getting money.[/QUOTE]
Tell me about all those generic shooters, besides of Call of Duty and Battlefield.
People complain about this all the time, I do not see many generic shooter and that statement is not valid anymore.
[QUOTE=VagueWisdom;36603101]Only mainstream game I even play anymore is BF3, but if Crytek listened to fans of Timesplitters and released Timesplitters 4 I'd be happy enough to play it.[/QUOTE]
They've said it would be a F2P game if they made it, I'd rather have no Timesplitters than their idea of Timesplitters.
Last AAA game I've bought was Arma 2 CO and that was for a mod... can't remember the last AAA game I bought. Probably Skyrim.
Companies just need a bit more time to get a little more secure money-wise and start experimenting and taking risks again. Take Mirror's Edge for example, that was something fresh and daring from an AAA company. Sure, it failed, but that's what's experimentation's all about.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36603199]Tell me about all those generic shooters, besides of Call of Duty and Battlefield.
People complain about this all the time, I do not see many generic shooter and that statement is not valid anymore.[/QUOTE]
Medal of Honor, Operation Flashpoint, Homefront, Syndicate...
(I didn't play any of them but they seem pretty generic)
[QUOTE=Kljunas;36603520]Medal of Honor, Operation Flashpoint, Homefront, Syndicate...[/QUOTE]
Medal of Honor wasn't generic, the D-Day was amazingly done back then. Operation Flashpoint is fucking legendary and loved by many, a true classic. Homefront was shite though, utter crap. Although had somegood potential.
Syndicate had some cool gameplay but yeah it wasn't that great and rather mediocre.
I'm talking about modern Medal of Honor and Operation Flashpoint games obviously.
[QUOTE=Jackald;36603465]The only AAA game i've had fun with in the last few months has been Max Payne 3, and that sold incredibly poorly.
[editline]3rd July 2012[/editline]
Experimentation doesn't make money, pumping out sequels does. That's the main problem here; publishers have way too much control over the development process and consumers are way too eager to keep buying the same old shit rehashed.[/QUOTE]
That's why I said companies need to get more stable money wise, iirc most are coming back from a depression of sorts
I'm sure devs want to go back to the golden era of gaming. Publishers aren't allowing them to do so.
[QUOTE]Back in the day, it took a couple of man days to create a Doom level. Creating a Doom III level took multiple man-weeks. Thus budgets spiral every upward; as late as 1992, a typical computer game had a budget of $200,000. Today, 10 million dollars is your bare buy-in for a next generation title.
As budgets soar, publishers are increasingly conservative about what they will fund, because nobody wants to lose 10 million dollars. So they look for ways to reduce their risk. Today, they have become so risk-averse that anything other than a franchise title, a game based on a movie license, or a game that slots easily into a category they know how to sell is unthinkable.
[B]Today, Myst, Civilization, or Sim City would never get funded.[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm skeptical. There'll always be room for an "unlikely breakthrough" game (that will then be monetized on and replicated and become the new mainstream), but mainstream is mainstream for a reason. There's a small vocal minority on the net that prefers more atypical games, but they don't represent the majority of the customers.
Way I see it, if the industry is going down, publishers won't take risks and run themselves into the ground with more sequels of what sells, possibly opening gaps for others to take their place, possibly simply hurting the industry and making sponsoring devs in this field less attractive to people with the money necessary for AAA.
And no AAA would mean no Assassin's Creed or BioShock or DX:Human Revolution.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;36603520]Medal of Honor, [B]Operation Flashpoint[/B], Homefront, Syndicate...
(I didn't play any of them but they seem pretty generic)[/QUOTE]
woah [I]woah[/I] [I][B]woah[/B][/I]
As game companies grow they start bumping into unprecedented issues like "how do we invest all this money properly", "how do we take care of our staff", "how do we market ourselves" etc. In short, administrative, business related stuff that game developers ie programmers, graphic designers, story writers and whatnot generally don't know how to tackle. The easiest way to handle this is to put someone in charge who knows economy and administration while having connections to the media industry. Over time, the distance between management and developer grows because management work to meet financial goals and don't give or know two shits about originality or creativity.
Then we've got game companies like Valve who's got a game developer in charge. Need I say more?
[QUOTE=latin_geek;36603782]woah [I]woah[/I] [I][B]woah[/B][/I][/QUOTE]
Dragon Rising and Red River, not the original one.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;36604040]Dragon Rising and Red River, not the original one.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah that one was really just an attempt to cream money out of a series which wasn't really theirs.
Makes sense, most AAA games tend to resort to half-assed sequels because the formula worked once, so it probably works a few more times, but even the most dull of players will eventually get bored of the same thing over and over, Indie games tend to experiment more with new game mechanics because their budget and potential losses is severely lower than that of AAA games, and because people want something new, they end up having more success.
Good, let them crash, this is how competition works. You make a shitty ass overpriced product, and now you get to enjoy the repercussions.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36603199]Tell me about all those generic shooters, besides of Call of Duty and Battlefield.
People complain about this all the time, I do not see many generic shooter and that statement is not valid anymore.[/QUOTE]
Haze, GOW, Resistance, Tribes, Blacklight, COD, Rage, Nuclear Dawn,Hard Reset, Bodycount, Brink.
They are all different but not unique.
Haze? You know how long it's been since that came out?
[QUOTE=Trooper-guy1;36599677]All this mainstreaming with games and AAA titles has ended up making me result to just playing Free-to-play and Indie games. I just can't bring myself to play and enjoy the bigger games anymore, it's the same rehashed thing with a couple of new features and nothing to really pull me in. If others feel this way, then yes, I wouldn't be surprised when/if it happens.[/QUOTE]
And don't forget:
Rehashed and half released games which you have to buy the rest later in DLC.
Relevant, even if it's a little bit dated:
[img]http://www.cracked.com/phpimages/article/2/7/5/25275.jpg?v=1[/img]
I kind of hope that video games draw back to lower-budget/indie stuff because, really, here are some of the games that I've clocked the most hours into:
[img]http://www.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/roller_coaster_tycoon_screenshot.jpg[/img]
[img]http://cdn.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/4000/0000000830.1920x1080.jpg?t=1322501967[/img]
[img]http://www.atributosurbanos.es/images/fotos/sim-city1_large.jpg[/img]
You know whats the one thing they all have in common? They are simple, original, and play extremely well. What bothers me so much is that most mainstream titles now are literally too huge to improvise or be innovative in their field. I think maybe the last AAA title I've played that tried that was [I]Bulletstorm[/I], and totally flopped because ultimately in the end anything that could of furthered the game probably would of costed more money and thus would be far riskier. That, and the games I listed above didn't cost $60 (Garry's Mod itself is only $10!) to buy while they also didn't try to over monetize themselves (DLC.)
To be honest, I think we'll see more of a similar developement to big movie studios. We're already ont he way towards that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
