• Infinity Ward: Making a new game other than Call of Duty would be "the easy way out"
    232 replies, posted
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42036191] i was saying that last light and new vegas are exceptions to this statement.[/QUOTE] He's right though that they're essentially the exceptions that prove the rule. They're still poorly made games, even if they came out nicely.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42036231]okay??? there's still a difference between EA [I]corporate[/I] and EA Maxis' [I]developers.[/I] how come nobody understands what a [I]developer[/I] is anymore? EA does not develop AND publish the game in the same office with the same staff.[/QUOTE] They control every step of the process regardless? They fund the game to a studio they own as a first party developer/publisher relationship. There is NO part of the game EA doesn't make the executive call on. When they make a statement deferring responsibility to Maxis, and people like you buy that, that's called good PR as EA avoids being the bad guy despite having the direct control of the company at all steps. You're the one not understanding the relationships here.
[QUOTE=Reimu;42036224]Plus, making a good game under pressure =/= this should be the standard. Realistically speaking, gamers that care about devs should spend their money on products that actively support their devs. Buying Fallout: New Vegas because of its content over its work conditions is like buying at Walmart while actively disagreeing with their anti-union practices. Gamers have a responsibility to think about the work conditions and process when they purchase a product, just like any other product. Otherwise, we vote with our money - and many of us are passively telling companies that we'll buy their product regardless of their work conditions, as long as it comes out looking decent enough.[/QUOTE] I wish people knew that when they rated, lets say, DNF it was an "Alright at best" game for what it went theough that was hyper overhyped and overdone way too much. People hate the devs because they made a bad game but its genuinely not their fault. And thus, its a 5-6 rated game at best that gets 0's and 1's because people can't understand the nature of its qualities. [QUOTE=milkandcooki;42036231]okay??? there's still a difference between EA [I]corporate[/I] and EA Maxis' [I]developers.[/I] how come nobody understands what a [I]developer[/I] is anymore? EA does not develop AND publish the game in the same office with the same staff.[/QUOTE] to prove your point people look at Dishonored and go "Augh gamebryo bullshit" because bethesda PUBLISHED it What is Arkane studios anyways? Some kind of post office?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42036264]They control every step of the process regardless? They fund the game to a studio they own as a first party developer/publisher relationship. There is NO part of the game EA doesn't make the executive call on. When they make a statement deferring responsibility to Maxis, and people like you buy that, that's called good PR as EA avoids being the bad guy despite having the direct control of the company at all steps. You're the one not understanding the relationships here.[/QUOTE] Do you have any proof of this besides the use of the pronoun "we?" or "it's ea so of course!" because that's all i've been seeing in these types of threads.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42036203]Innovation of an idea is extremely important to reception but, Im' not disagreeing that you don't always have to "Stand out" to have an amazing amount of sales. After all, most of the games I've seen took an idea or a style from a previous game or genre and refined it, they made the idea better and added onto it, rather than simply emulating it. They tried to make something unique out of it. They innovated an idea and made it better. But sometimes, some people don't innovate an idea THAT much and do well. that makes literally no sense they aren't exceptions, because they actually made something NEW and made a NEW style of gameplay. They didn't just recreate doom or another movie, they did something that made that form of media stand out. an exception would be a game that tries to very very closely replicate HL2 and despite copy catting still manages to succeed because of outside reasons[/QUOTE] norm: innovation often results in poor reception exceptions to the norm: half-life 2 and the Avengers have been received very well despite being innovative norm: innovation often results in good reception exceptions to the norm: Jurassic Park: Trespasser and Rise of the Triads have not been received well despite trying to change the norm
[QUOTE=Juniez;42036305]norm: innovation results in poor reception exceptions to the norm: half-life 2 and the Avengers have been received very well despite being innovative[/QUOTE] most of the games in my steam account I'd call innovative of an idea you seem to be literally saying that being original and different means the game will be shitty somehow how the fuck do you even come to that conclusion? That's silly
[QUOTE=J!NX;42036316]most of the games in my steam account I'd call innovative of an idea you seem to be literally saying that being original and different means the game will be shitty somehow how the fuck do you even come to that conclusion?[/QUOTE] I don't - i'm saying that innovation doesn't have a lot to do with (good or bad) reception and that other factors such as production and polish may correlate closer to reception THEREFORE, making a 'good' (we're defining good games as games that are received well) game relies more on quality than innovation i've been saying this for quite some time now
[QUOTE=Juniez;42036320]I don't - i'm saying that innovation doesn't have a lot to do with good reception i've been saying this for quite some time now[/QUOTE] then this must be purely based on what us ourselves have seen I normally see a game with a cool new idea get good results, sometimes they fail simply because they are bad games, but generally ones that don't stand out as much don't make as much attention. [QUOTE=Juniez;42036320]I don't - i'm saying that innovation doesn't have a lot to do with (good or bad) reception and that other factors such as production and polish may correlate closer to reception THEREFORE, making a 'good' (we're defining good games as games that are received well) game relies more on quality than innovation i've been saying this for quite some time now[/QUOTE] I've been trying to say that innovating an idea (not necessarily tech) is what makes a game quality
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42036264]They control every step of the process regardless? They fund the game to a studio they own as a first party developer/publisher relationship. There is NO part of the game EA doesn't make the executive call on. When they make a statement deferring responsibility to Maxis, and people like you buy that, that's called good PR as EA avoids being the bad guy despite having the direct control of the company at all steps. You're the one not understanding the relationships here.[/QUOTE] It's still the developers cocking the game up, not EA as a whole. As someone tried to use in the last thread I argued this, when a franchise of McDonalds fucks up, we blame McDonalds only because they own the franchise. I countered it with the fact that the franchise is owned by them, and therefore does not have a name, but it is still a separate entity. The McDonalds HQ are in control of everything [B]but[/B] (and this is the bit the EA/Maxis developers relate to) what the employees of that franchise actually do. EA may well own Maxis, and may well be the ones who make the decisions, but problems with the game (like flat out not working) are because the developers fucked up, as we can't attribute it to them as a group like Maxis any more, EA are going to get the brunt of it. Even though EA itself didn't do anything wrong other than perhaps not test it thoroughly.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42036332]then this must be purely based on what us ourselves have seen I normally see a game with a cool new idea get good results, sometimes they fail simply because they are bad games, but generally ones that don't stand out as much don't make as much attention.[/QUOTE] I normally see a game with solid, tested mechanics get good results (either innovative or not, doesn't matter)
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42036341]It's still the developers cocking the game up, not EA as a whole. As someone tried to use in the last thread I argued this, when a franchise of McDonalds fucks up, we blame McDonalds only because they won the frachise. I countered it with the fact that the franchise is owned by them, and therefore does not have a name, but it is still a separate entity. The McDonalds HQ are in control of everything [B]but[/B] (and this is the bit the EA/Maxis developers relate to) what the employees of that franchise actually do. EA may well own Maxis, and may well be the ones who make the decisions, but problems with the game (like flat out not working) are because the developers fucked up, as we can't attribute it to them as a group like Maxis any more, EA are going to get the brunt of it. Even though EA itself didn't do anything wrong other than perhaps not test it thoroughly.[/QUOTE] a lot of people don't realize that Maxis is a first party developer. [quote]In the video game industry, a first-party developer is part of a company which manufactures a video game console and develops exclusively for it. First-party developers may use the name of the company itself (such as Nintendo), have a specific division name (such as Sony's Polyphony Digital) or have been an independent studio before being acquired by the console manufacturer (such as Rare or Naughty Dog).[5][/quote] just because they're called [I]EA Zimbabwe[/I] or [I]Ubisoft Antartica[/I] doesn't mean that they are literally the same company.
[QUOTE=Juniez;42036345]I normally see a game with solid, tested mechanics get good results[/QUOTE] I normally buy games based on how interesting the game mechanics are Click games are not commonly enjoyed, but Walking Dead took click-games to a new level and made it unique, for example. There are many click games but not many "Good" click games, Walking dead changes this by doing it right.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42036363]I normally buy games based on how interesting the game mechanics are Click games are not commonly enjoyed, but Walking Dead took click-games to a new level and made it unique, for example. There are many click games but not many "Good" click games, Walking dead changes this by doing it right.[/QUOTE] therefore, we can safely say that a game's reception isn't about the originality of the idea, but rather on how 'right'-ly it executes said idea (both new or old)
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42036341]It's still the developers cocking the game up, not EA as a whole. As someone tried to use in the last thread I argued this, when a franchise of McDonalds fucks up, we blame McDonalds only because they own the franchise. I countered it with the fact that the franchise is owned by them, and therefore does not have a name, but it is still a separate entity. The McDonalds HQ are in control of everything [B]but[/B] (and this is the bit the EA/Maxis developers relate to) what the employees of that franchise actually do. EA may well own Maxis, and may well be the ones who make the decisions, but problems with the game (like flat out not working) are because the developers fucked up, as we can't attribute it to them as a group like Maxis any more, EA are going to get the brunt of it. Even though EA itself didn't do anything wrong other than perhaps not test it thoroughly.[/QUOTE] There are certain features and issues which are clearly Maxis's fault. Many of the fan complaints, however, were directed at a universal problem where EA has "casualized" their best-selling franchises in order to create a "social" appeal. SimCity's "always online" feature and "login to play" setup are part of almost every EA game series now. Those were huge fan complaints on release, and it became clear that was clearly EA's fault when Maxis slowly started to shift blame away from their own development ideas.
[QUOTE=Juniez;42036379]therefore, we can safely say that a game's reception isn't about the originality of the idea, but rather on how 'right'-ly it executes said idea (both new or old)[/QUOTE] At the same time, no doubt new ideas are risky but if you do them right they work amazingly. I generally see new ideas do pretty alright. Doom is a great example. First FPS ever, now billions of FPS are being sold all the time. HL2 did it with technology, and others did it simply by making a mechanic work well. That's all I'm saying, you just gotta make it work. Replication doesn't work, making it your own idea and making it unique will.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42036402]At the same time, no doubt new ideas are risky but if you do them right they work amazingly Doom is a great example. First FPS ever, now billions of FPS are being sold all the time. HL2 did it with technology, and others did it simply by making a mechanic work well.[/QUOTE] L4D also legitimately restarted the "simple is good if the experience is great" notion that's led to a huge increase in co-op video games. When L4D first came out, magazines like PC Gamer were saying that L4D would have been ridiculous from any other studio. It's so simple, no publisher would want to publish a game like L4D. Suddenly, its mechanics are seen as amazing and innovative because of their simplicity alone.
[QUOTE=Reimu;42036399]There are certain features and issues which are clearly Maxis's fault. Many of the fan complaints, however, were directed at a universal problem where EA has "casualized" their best-selling franchises in order to create a "social" appeal. SimCity's "always online" feature and "login to play" setup are part of almost every EA game series now. Those were huge fan complaints on release, and it became clear that was clearly EA's fault when Maxis slowly started to shift blame away from their own development ideas.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah I expect the social stuff was no doubt something EA asked for, but things like the game just outright not starting or features that were there at one point being missing seems more like Maxis themselves breaking it or removing them for whatever reason. They said something about the always online, and I can see the advantages of a greater reliance on online stuff, but always online may have been something EA added in to the original idea.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42036361]a lot of people don't realize that Maxis is a first party developer. just because they're called [I]EA Zimbabwe[/I] or [I]Ubisoft Antartica[/I] doesn't mean that they are literally the same company.[/QUOTE] I literally used the term "First party developer". I even used it in the correct instance. They're a first party developer for EA, they do whatever EA wants them to make. [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;42036434]Oh yeah I expect the social stuff was no doubt something EA asked for, but things like the game just outright not starting or features that were there at one point being missing seems more like Maxis themselves breaking it or removing them for whatever reason. They said something about the always online, and I can see the advantages of a greater reliance on online stuff, but always online may have been something EA added in to the original idea.[/QUOTE] Of course bugs and code related aspects come down to the people who wrote that code and not the execs who didn't write the code, but the larger calls on design ideas and gameplay aspects are going to come from EA and EA's designers. They straight up lied about the cloud computing aspect of the games always online connection, they straight up lied about what ties it into being a permanently online game, so what can anyone hope to take away from that but that EA is a little bit more than involved as a publisher. [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;42036341]It's still the developers cocking the game up, not EA as a whole. As someone tried to use in the last thread I argued this, when a franchise of McDonalds fucks up, we blame McDonalds only because they own the franchise. I countered it with the fact that the franchise is owned by them, and therefore does not have a name, but it is still a separate entity. The McDonalds HQ are in control of everything [B]but[/B] (and this is the bit the EA/Maxis developers relate to) what the employees of that franchise actually do. EA may well own Maxis, and may well be the ones who make the decisions, but problems with the game (like flat out not working) are because the developers fucked up, as we can't attribute it to them as a group like Maxis any more, EA are going to get the brunt of it. Even though EA itself didn't do anything wrong other than perhaps not test it thoroughly.[/QUOTE] That's a bad analogy though because individual Macdonalds are relatively independent of HQ, they have managers trained to HQ standards but rarely see actual involvement with HQ. EA and a first party developer staffed by who EA staffs it with, it's a little bit of a different step.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42035830]lol, you said I'm awful at this posting thing literally you completely missed everything I've said this entire time do not you have eyes or something? Why can't it be both? Do what you want, but, obviously you can't just try and copy call of duty or minecraft[/QUOTE] why are you still here like you've had around 100 posts on this thread fighting some battle that you think is going to change peoples minds, let alone Infinity Ward? you think people are listening to you say "I hate call of duty and it's all dumb i hate it!!!!" and thinking "wow he has a great point, maybe we should stop playing call of duty and do something else."?
[QUOTE=DentalDoctor;42036549]why are you still here like you've had around 100 posts on this thread fighting some battle that you think is going to change peoples minds, let alone Infinity Ward?[/QUOTE] it's like everyone who posts this just simply has never realized what a forum is
[QUOTE=DentalDoctor;42036549]why are you still here like you've had around 100 posts on this thread fighting some battle that you think is going to change peoples minds, let alone Infinity Ward? you think people are listening to you say "I hate call of duty and it's all dumb i hate it!!!!" and thinking "wow he has a great point, maybe we should stop playing call of duty."?[/QUOTE] do you actually know what my point really is? I have fun on Call of duty but, well, I've already explained myself. And most of us have come to an understanding people are making posts against me, what am I supposed to do, just ignore them? That's stupid. and its pretty obvious you don't get the point of a forum. Obviously I won't change IW, but I'll still voice my opinion regardless.
He's made his point around 25 times and no one has accepted it he doesn't seem to understand that part I really don't care if he posts his opinion but.... It's been fucking noted... [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;42036594]people are making posts against me, what am I supposed to do, [b]just ignore them?[/b] That's stupid.[/QUOTE] [b][i][u]yes[/b][/i][/u] dude why are you making everything some fight you have to win? I'm trying to help you out a little cause you're just overstretching your idea with all of these posts and your point is foggy now
[QUOTE=DentalDoctor;42036595]He's made his point around 25 times and no one has accepted it he doesn't seem to understand that part I really don't care if he posts his opinion but.... It's been fucking noted... [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [b][i][u]yes[/b][/i][/u][/QUOTE] I'm going to keep replying to people because that's like what a forum is for also because I know I bother you. You don't have to go to this thread if you don't like it. [QUOTE=DentalDoctor;42036595]dude why are you making everything some fight you have to win? I'm trying to help you out a little cause you're just overstretching your idea with all of these posts and your point is foggy now[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;ZvEnIkz82A0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvEnIkz82A0[/video]
alright continue writing the same thing over and over you win
[QUOTE=DentalDoctor;42036630]alright continue writing the same thing over and over you win[/QUOTE] well you just did 3 posts of it so you know what it's like
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42036640]well you just did 3 posts of it so you know what it's like[/QUOTE] 2*
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42035782]Uhhhhh...he never said that. You're awful at this "posting" business. He said why should games be about about anything in particular, as in, why should development teams be restrained to making games deep, story driven epics, or free to play, freemium model shooters? Why not let the developer decide how they want to approach the industry as with any other artistic medium?[/QUOTE] Don't publishers have a handle on creativity?
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;42038010]Don't publishers have a handle on creativity?[/QUOTE] Creativity? Not really. Ideas that are actually used? Probably seeing as they are paying for the game.
[QUOTE=Epiclulz762;42023433]As someone else stated, Notch had a one-hit-wonder. The Call of Duty series as of late has become absurd.[/QUOTE] Notch has enough money for his family for generations Notch doesn't need to make another game, ever. Gotta love the sense of entitlement the fans have
But the call of duty fanbase wouldn't care about something that isn't call of duty.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.