Jimquisition: Sequel or Slaughter

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

synobal:
Personally I think Studios should not be attached so much of creating squeals but instead creating new games with in the same setting. Unfortunately this means a lot of times they will be tempted to do the same thing again and again rather than explore new aspects of the setting.

It really bugs me that we've been spending so much time and money on world building as a society and doing absolutely nothing with it. How many times will someone make a 500-page document mapping out the entire history of their world only to make a trilogy of games/movies focusing on one guy doing one thing in a few places.

It makes me wish anthology stories were way more common than they are.

Darth_Payn:

Deathfish15:
[snip]

What? StarCraft? They only made 2 games in the last 15 years.

I think Deathfish15 just made a list of franchizes he/she doesn't like. If you really go through it and figure out what game types/franchises aren't in there, you'll find what their preferred games are. It'd be like saying that I don't like horror movies so that genre needs to stop.

Looming_Shadows:
Although I agree with you on most games, FUCKING GTA?! Fallout (it's a miracle you didn't add The Elder Scrolls)?! These games frankly get better 100 fold with each new installment

I wouldn't say they get better. They certainly get more impressive. But it's hard to get better when you're already starting with a bar set as high as Morrowind set it.

The Feast:
I agree, I don't really understand why people want The Hobbit to be just a single movie. Honestly, if I really want to adapting the book to just one movie, especially with the success of the LOTR trilogy, it will probably feel like a fan made movie that people never even want to mention anymore, and they will probably want more, especially about the book that explores more Middle Earth.

I don't want just to watch the Hobbit like a 'movie', I got plenty of those kind movies to think it that way. For example, a recent movie that based on a book, World War Z, how quickly it have being diminished on for being just a typical movie, because the people who make it want it that way. Other people may watch the The Hobbit and thinking it for being too long, well I don't and I want more.

You don't want to just watch the Hobbit like a movie? It is a movie. Not sure how else you'd watch it.

The problem isn't that it's more than one movie. The problem is that it's three 3-hour-long movies that are trying to include just one much smaller book. Originally it was going to be two movies which would have been plenty. If the movies were two hours long, it would be about the same as just two movies. But as is, the movie feels drawn out and spread thin. That's not what should be wanted.

You know, there are two kinds of sequels: the ones people do because they still see potential in their idea and the ones that are farted out for a quick buck.

Deus Ex and Bioshock come to mind.

The first sequels to both games came out pretty quickly to ride on the success of the originals. While the critics mostly considered them being okay while not reaching the quality of their predecessor, the gamers panned them as lackluster, unnecessary cash-in's. Hell, denying the existence of Invisible War has become a running gag amongst Deus Ex fans. I know that IW failed hard on the market, dunno how well Bioshock 2 sold.

Years later, both franchises get yet another sequel. Though chronologically, they're both prequels.

Human Revolution and Infinite took way more development time, got a bigger budget, better writing and lots of new game mechanics. The critics love them, and so do the fans.

Would they have been absolutely necessary to continue the story? Not at all. Have they been neccessary because the developers had plenty of new ideas they wanted to realize? Hell yeah! Did they become commercial successes? You bet your ass they did!

So, what did we learn today?

Half assed cash ins crash and burn sooner or later, sequels that are made with heartblood become hits at both the register and the people who bought them.

Looming_Shadows:
Although I agree with you on most games, FUCKING GTA?! Fallout (it's a miracle you didn't add The Elder Scrolls)?! These games frankly get better 100 fold with each new installment

Rockstar takes its time with GTA, every new installment (not counting the handheld spin off's) gets new characters, new stories, new gameplay elements and on top of that a completely new engine. Unlike games like Call of Duty and Assassins Creed, whose sequels would rather qualify as add ons.

And yeah, about Fallout...

While the fanchise does indeed have lots of potential for sequels (America is big and there are plenty of Vaults left), Bethesda butchered it. Badly.

The transition from an isometric RPG with tactical combat to a post-apocalyptic shooter was indeed an act of heresy. Dull characters, large scale environment recycling and the boring story did the rest. Don't get me started with the bugs, Bethesda being Bethesda and all...

New Vegas on the other hand was made by the people who did the old Fallouts before. They had more in mind than just reskinning Oblivion, and it shows. They realized many of the ideas they had for Van Buren, put lots of effort into story and characters and took their time for the environment. The landscape is full of small little details.

The question is if you work on a game because you overflow of creativity and the drive to realize your ideas or if you just watch the clock, hoping you get this shit done in time to go home at six.

I suspect companies like sequels because they require much less marketing than new games. As long as this remains the case publishers would be stupid to make games that can't have sequels.

fantastic episode Jim and I couldn't agree more.

The greed of getting more money along with the games being so expensive to make will eventually turn them most of the franchises we love into sequels being milked annually. I hope against hope that this will not be the case, but I'm very curious to see if Ubisoft will do that to Watch Dogs.

Guess we are lucky to still have those indies that will not succumb to big publishers and still release full games without any sequel baits.

I want to be clear for a moment. People actually complained about the idea that all games should be fun? As in there are people who would make that argument because they actually do not believe that all games should be fun? As in there are people out there who do not believe that games should be fun?

Wow. Just wow. The hell is wrong with you people? Why would you play a game that wasn't fun or that you did not enjoy? If you are enjoying the game that means it is fun. Even if you are not enjoying the game it doesn't mean it's NOT fun you're just not having fun with it. What possible reason could anyone have to believe that games should not be fun.... unless you're just mindlessly parroting what you heard some developer say in an effort to make it THAT much easier to make soulless, over budgeted garbage designed from some sort of algorithm.

And people wonder why the industry looks the way it does today....

Chaosritter:
And yeah, about Fallout...

While the fanchise does indeed have lots of potential for sequels (America is big and there are plenty of Vaults left), Bethesda butchered it. Badly.

The transition from an isometric RPG with tactical combat to a post-apocalyptic shooter was indeed an act of heresy. Dull characters, large scale environment recycling and the boring story did the rest. Don't get me started with the bugs, Bethesda being Bethesda and all...

New Vegas on the other hand was made by the people who did the old Fallouts before. They had more in mind than just reskinning Oblivion, and it shows. They realized many of the ideas they had for Van Buren, put lots of effort into story and characters and took their time for the environment. The landscape is full of small little details.

The question is if you work on a game because you overflow of creativity and the drive to realize your ideas or if you just watch the clock, hoping you get this shit done in time to go home at six.

Highly subjective. Allow me to explain as someone who is currently wearing a t-shirt that combines Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail with Fallout New Vegas (which clearly gives me authority on the matter :p )

http://shirt.woot.com/offers/condition-fleshwound

Fallout 1 was a great game in its day but it doesn't translate well into today's market. This was the way that the game could exist and be successful. I, for one, really enjoyed Fallout 3. Would I like another top-down fallout game? Maybe. Fallout 2 was awful or perhaps I'm thinking of Fallout tactics. But I'd point out that according to metacritic, Fallout 3 has a slight edge over New Vegas in metacritic score (91 to 84) while New Vegas has a slight lead over Fallout 3 in user score (8.2/8.0). They are very evenly matched with people on very opposite sides. Your position that one is better than the other is strictly your personal taste. I say this knowing full well that I loved New Vegas but I also loved Fallout 3. Both had a great setting that felt real, both had great characters and memorable storylines. They're so similar that you do one disservice by denouncing the other.

Scores of old games are also usually higher for nostalgia purposes. For example, FO1 got a really high user score but I doubt even half of them replayed the game through today's eyes to score it. It's a difficult game to play today. Would I like a modern version of that style of game? Maybe, but I know that the current two FOs are my favorite so far.

Lightknight:
wall of text

First of all, congratulations for your excellent taste in fashion.

I've played the original two Fallout's pretty late (sometime around 2007). Tried it before, but got turned off after getting slain by a random pack of Raiders three time in a row. When I was lucky and got a 10mm SMG in the very beginning, I got into it really fast. I played through the nights worth of one week and did not regret it. Fallout 2 was even better since they polished the game mechanics quite a bit. When you liked Fallout 1, chances are that you loved Fallout 2. But yeah, Tactics really was a ricochet.

Now for your argument that there's no market for isometric RPG's anymore, I guess several Kickstarter projects speak a different language. Just take Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland 2 for example. Certainly, the FPS' Fallout's would sell way better in comparison, but that doesn't mean the genre is dead.

And for the Metacritic scores, I wouldn't give them too much credit. I mean seriously, even Call of Duty and Assassins Creed are being considered the greatest things since sliced bread. I give you that tastes differ indeed, but a high score does not equal a good game, let alone a worthy sequel.

Deathfish15:

-Total War

Sorry what?
each Total war game has a different setting or different mechanics usually both, not to mention there are no other games like the total war series on the market. (except King Arthur which is apparently terrible)

Raso719:
I want to be clear for a moment. People actually complained about the idea that all games should be fun? As in there are people who would make that argument because they actually do not believe that all games should be fun? As in there are people out there who do not believe that games should be fun?

Wow. Just wow. The hell is wrong with you people? Why would you play a game that wasn't fun or that you did not enjoy? If you are enjoying the game that means it is fun. Even if you are not enjoying the game it doesn't mean it's NOT fun you're just not having fun with it. What possible reason could anyone have to believe that games should not be fun.... unless you're just mindlessly parroting what you heard some developer say in an effort to make it THAT much easier to make soulless, over budgeted garbage designed from some sort of algorithm.

And people wonder why the industry looks the way it does today....

I assume people are looking at the game for the "experience," not the "fun." You know, like how some people actually listen to music that you can't dance to.

There are books you don't read for pleasure--I doubt Anne Frank's diary is enjoyed by many--that expand your views or horizon. Same with virtually every other medium. I don't see why this would be different for games. I also don't see how this would benefit teh big soleless ebul compuneez, especially since unlike film and literature and music you rarely see these come from the same companies.

Lightknight:
You don't want to just watch the Hobbit like a movie? It is a movie. Not sure how else you'd watch it.

The problem isn't that it's more than one movie. The problem is that it's three 3-hour-long movies that are trying to include just one much smaller book. Originally it was going to be two movies which would have been plenty. If the movies were two hours long, it would be about the same as just two movies. But as is, the movie feels drawn out and spread thin. That's not what should be wanted.

When I said it is not just a movie, I meant that people already know that the story based on Middle Earth isn't something like 'just' an adaptation from the book. It's already become like Star Wars in its own way, the character and the stories need to be invested long enough to make them stands out when comparing to LOTR story and characters. Most fans probably want to see Thorin and fellow dwarves, Benedict Cumberbatch as the necromancer and the dragon. Believe me when I said they want to see more of them, because the fans want more of Middle Earth and its characters, whether you think that it spreads thin and drawn out.

Because in the end of the day, it is all based on people's taste and hey, if it bother you so much to have a three part movies, why watch it? Tolkien's legacy need to be shown in the big screen more often even if his son won't allow it. The Silmarillion, why not?

Jimothy Sterling:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.

Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.

Aardvaarkman:

Jimothy Sterling:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.

Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.

The Wii a failure?

Neither the PS3 or 360 has, or likely ever will, catch up to it on total sales, much less actual profits. Even with the Wii being obsolete for over a year while the other 2 continued to get support it's still about 20 million units ahead of the 360 in units sold. I'm pretty sure it's only second to the PS2 in terms of unit sales for a home console.

OlasDAlmighty:
Neither the PS3 or 360 has, or likely ever will, catch up to it on total sales, much less actual profits. Even with the Wii being obsolete for over a year while the other 2 continued to get support it's still about 20 million units ahead of the 360 in units sold. I'm pretty sure it's only second to the PS2 in terms of unit sales for a home console.

But very few people are buying games for the Wii, meanwhile Sony and Microsoft continue to rake in money based on their cut of game sales and online subscriptions. The number of consoles sold is not the only metric that counts toward profitability.

Aardvaarkman:

OlasDAlmighty:
Snip

But very few people are buying games for the Wii, meanwhile Sony and Microsoft continue to rake in money based on their cut of game sales and online subscriptions. The number of consoles sold is not the only metric that counts toward profitability.

Obviously, otherwise Nintendo would be the only company to have even profited, the Wii being the only console that sold for more than it cost to make. You might be right about the 360 making more money overall if you include game sales and other subscriptions, though you also have to factor in the money people spent of Wii peripherals. I've never seen or heard the numbers on overall money earned.

But even if the 360 does come out ahead in that regard you could never call the Wii a failure. It was almost inarguably probably Nintendo's biggest success to date.

Aardvaarkman:

Jimothy Sterling:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.

Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.

The Wii was a dismal failure wut?

Wut?

Wut?

Wut?

I think I missed the point of this commentary, but JESUS, Watch Dogs looks AMAZING.

Bastion could have easily merited a sequel, and many fans seemed to think it did, yet the company decided not to. They let the story rest where it was, and that takes balls. I personally would've enjoyed a sequel, but I'm just as looking forward to the new game they're coming out with.

OlasDAlmighty:
Obviously, otherwise Nintendo would be the only company to have even profited, the Wii being the only console that sold for more than it cost to make.

Do you have any data to support that assertion?

Jimothy Sterling:

The Wii was a dismal failure wut?

Yes. Generally the idea of a console is to make a profit and have people play and buy its games. The Wii hasn't been doing much of either lately. Yes, there are plenty of Wii consoles in people's homes, but from what I've seen, they don't tend to get used very much.

Do you think the Wii U has been a success? Because in this business, it's generally about building a franchise or platform that lasts for longer than one model. Nintendo's main success has been in the DS series, not the Wii.

Aardvaarkman:

OlasDAlmighty:
Obviously, otherwise Nintendo would be the only company to have even profited, the Wii being the only console that sold for more than it cost to make.

Do you have any data to support that assertion?

If your going to ask a condescending question like that, you should actually make sure that I don't. Otherwise you make yourself look like a fool.

The fact that only the Wii makes a profit off each console's sale is actually fairly common knowledge, it didn't take long to find these 4 sources.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/reggie-wii-makes-immediately-6157690

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nintendo-Makes-6-Dollars-Profit-on-Each-Wii-Sold-99524.shtml

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/nintendo-nets-6-profit-off-each-wii

Now, it's your turn to prove that Microsoft and Sony made more money than Nintendo with game sales. Because I've never heard that before and was pretty much just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Alar:
Bastion could have easily merited a sequel, and many fans seemed to think it did, yet the company decided not to. They let the story rest where it was, and that takes balls. I personally would've enjoyed a sequel, but I'm just as looking forward to the new game they're coming out with.

I would say not so much balls as Integrity, Pride in your work and motivation to create anew where as most publishers only have greed to spur them on.

OlasDAlmighty:

The fact that only the Wii makes a profit off each console's sale is actually fairly common knowledge, it didn't take long to find these 4 sources.

That wasn't the question. Where is your evidence that Sony and Microsoft don't make money off their hardware sales? They aren't exactly cheap consoles, so the idea that they are losing money from each sale doesn't seem very credible.

Jimothy Sterling:

Aardvaarkman:

Jimothy Sterling:
... and the Wii trouncing its competitors.

Wait, when did that happen? Sure, the Wii had initially strong console sales, but in terms of ongoing game sales, it's been a dismal failure, and the Wii U is a total non-starter.

The Wii was a dismal failure wut?

Wut?

Wut?

Wut?

I'm glad this is your response. Frankly, I'm surprised you're responding at all so I'll flesh out the details so you don't have to bother.

As of right now, these are the sales numbers if this is still accurate:

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=&publisher=&platform=Wii&genre=&minSales=0&results=1000

140 different titles have sold over a million copies (582 title just there). Total game sales combined make up over 840 million games sold to approximately 100 million Wiis as of March 31st of this year. Very easy math would put the attach rate at 8.4 games per console. To be fair, Wii Sports does account for around 81.38 million, but even if you discredited them as non-distinct software sales it'd still be over 7 copies per console.

Compare that to the PS3 which is at just over 7.7 games per console and the 360 which is at 8.7. The Wii is right there with them. What's not doing well is the WiiU which hasn't cracked 2 games per unit.

None of these are are failures, the Wii least of all since the Wii actually sold more units total so their attach rate is more heavily weighted. It looks like it comes in at somewhere between the ps3 and 360. But even the ps3 was a success albeit a bumbling one early on.

The wii itself has always been sold at a profit which the other consoles can't claim. The Wii was a huge success and will hopefully help Nintendo weather the storm that the WiiU looks like it's shaping up to be.

Chaosritter:
I've played the original two Fallout's pretty late (sometime around 2007). Tried it before, but got turned off after getting slain by a random pack of Raiders three time in a row. When I was lucky and got a 10mm SMG in the very beginning, I got into it really fast. I played through the nights worth of one week and did not regret it. Fallout 2 was even better since they polished the game mechanics quite a bit. When you liked Fallout 1, chances are that you loved Fallout 2. But yeah, Tactics really was a ricochet.

So, fourth time's a charm? I remember having a similar experience back in the 90's with it. Do you think the mainstream market would be so forgiving?

Now for your argument that there's no market for isometric RPG's anymore, I guess several Kickstarter projects speak a different language. Just take Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland 2 for example. Certainly, the FPS' Fallout's would sell way better in comparison, but that doesn't mean the genre is dead.

Oh, there'd better be a market for isometric RPGs. I backed in several of those projects. What there isn't is a AAA mainstream market as far as we can tell. $4million is a cute number, but it's peanuts to publishers. $4 mil is a REALLY tight budget, especially for what they promised. There's certainly a market but it still looks to be comparatably niche. Fallout 3 sold around 5 million units. New Vegas is also hovering around or even well over the 5 million copies mark.

There is a significant difference between the AAA market and a niche market and even as a fan of Isometric RPGs it doesn't mean that wouldn't be just as happy exploring the world in first person. But there's a LOT of people who wouldn't be happy with the reverse.

And for the Metacritic scores, I wouldn't give them too much credit. I mean seriously, even Call of Duty and Assassins Creed are being considered the greatest things since sliced bread. I give you that tastes differ indeed, but a high score does not equal a good game, let alone a worthy sequel.

Oh, so you don't like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed and therefore they can't be as good as other people think? That's an interesting way to dismiss something. I personally hate cilantro. Cilantro produces a compound that smells and tastes strongly like soap to me. Ergo, it must be awful and there's no way other people could have different tastes than me, is there?

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/7-foods-bizarre-side-effects-135000124.html

Lightknight:

Chaosritter:
I've played the original two Fallout's pretty late (sometime around 2007). Tried it before, but got turned off after getting slain by a random pack of Raiders three time in a row. When I was lucky and got a 10mm SMG in the very beginning, I got into it really fast. I played through the nights worth of one week and did not regret it. Fallout 2 was even better since they polished the game mechanics quite a bit. When you liked Fallout 1, chances are that you loved Fallout 2. But yeah, Tactics really was a ricochet.

So, fourth time's a charm? I remember having a similar experience back in the 90's with it. Do you think the mainstream market would be so forgiving?

It was more the frustration of getting into fights you can't win in the very beginning. Could be fixed easily enough, but not every game back then had an easy mode. ;)

There is a significant difference between the AAA market and a niche market and even as a fan of Isometric RPGs it doesn't mean that wouldn't be just as happy exploring the world in first person. But there's a LOT of people who wouldn't be happy with the reverse.

It's not the perspective that bothers me, but the things that came with it. Mostly the real time combat. They should have implemented the combat system of the original Fallout's, that would have made the game a lot more challenging. Seriously, remember that ruined church you can find early in the game? I clubbed a super mutant to death with nothing but a baseball bat and lots of stimpacks. While being level 2 on hard. Now imagine that encounter with a combat system that neither allows hit 'n run tactics nor medkit spamming.

And for the Metacritic scores, I wouldn't give them too much credit. I mean seriously, even Call of Duty and Assassins Creed are being considered the greatest things since sliced bread. I give you that tastes differ indeed, but a high score does not equal a good game, let alone a worthy sequel.

Oh, so you don't like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed and therefore they can't be as good as other people think? That's an interesting way to dismiss something. I personally hate cilantro. Cilantro produces a compound that smells and tastes strongly like soap to me. Ergo, it must be awful and there's no way other people could have different tastes than me, is there?

Remember the topic.

These two series I mentioned as examples are being milked to death, most sequels would rather qualify as add on. Hell, Modern Warfare 3 even said that "MW 2 wasn't shut down properly the last time".

None of the reviewers seems to care that he's playing a reheated meal with fresh ketchup. When the first one in the series was well received, it's very likely the rehash will receive similiar praise, no matter how lackluster it is.

When the story has room to explore and the concept has room to reach further out into greater territory, I'm all for it, when you make it because you want to continue the formula.....well if we are not improving it why are we making it write stories in each sequel, or write a whole story over multiple entries, as long as the games are present for the consumers rather than the deep pockets of the publishers and developers, and are made with the utmost care and dedication they deserve, I'm all for it, anything just for the sake of doing it is pointless.

So Watch Dogs is gonna have a shit cliffhanger ending and a ton of sequals that do the same until it stops making money. Fucking great Ubisoft you fucking poison.

While its easy to throw blame everywhere, perhaps the problem is not so much sequelitis as it is conditioned response. Look at the likes of Rockstar and in effect they had a methodology that shows how you can a focus on more standalone properties.

But they also illustrate the problem goes well beyond just sequels. Hone in on rockstar. Compare GTA, LA Noire, Red Dead, Bully, etc. Remove midnight club and essentially you have the same fundamental game under the hood with niche respective coats of paint with only stylization and a few divergent mechanics to separate them. This comes from a company who basically claims to be living the philosophy Jim is wanting here, Yet more and more of the same gameplay mechanics, writing depth, and other fundamental elements of their products.

Rockstar shows that you dont actually need franchises, But in doing so still manages to illustrate most of the ills that most people are talking about when get all tweaked over sequelitis. Reprocessing and repackaging the same tired thing with the notion of to make as much profit off of it as possible.

It does not matter how you present "Some dude screwed you over, so you have to chase him down before he gets away with your Egg Mcguffin". On a bicycle, a studabaker, on horseback, or with a hooker riding shotgun. You are still doing the same thing.

Chaosritter:
It was more the frustration of getting into fights you can't win in the very beginning. Could be fixed easily enough, but not every game back then had an easy mode. ;)

That's a true and fair statement. I suppose such games don't have to maintain the old school difficulties (that were often times unnecessarily hard).

It's not the perspective that bothers me, but the things that came with it. Mostly the real time combat. They should have implemented the combat system of the original Fallout's, that would have made the game a lot more challenging. Seriously, remember that ruined church you can find early in the game? I clubbed a super mutant to death with nothing but a baseball bat and lots of stimpacks. While being level 2 on hard. Now imagine that encounter with a combat system that neither allows hit 'n run tactics nor medkit spamming.

Then your criticism is based on the mechanics of the game? For me, the first person mode really opened up the experience for me but turn based games aren't generally compatible with first person modes. While I do enjoy the style of FO1 and FO2, I enjoyed the setting it took place in more and the real time action in general was welcome to my immersion in it. I felt like the V.A.T.S. sufficed my love of strategy/planning in this kind of scenario.

But if turn-based combat is why you liked the first games then I totally understand your frustration at this change. It isn't necessarily that the game is bad to you but that it's a different genre now. My favorite game of all time is likely Final Fantasy Tactics so I can sympathize (Lion Wars, not the advance crap, my apologies if you liked the advanced ones, I found them overly kiddy but also didn't give them a fair shake after the opening). I would personally be open to having both styles of games being produced going forward. I'm not sure why we couldn't have the big budget FPS styled Fallout games AND the smaller budgeted Isometric type. But the fallout world really lended itself to first person gameplay and I have loved these games. I just don't think isometric RPGs have the same following they used to, certainly not for $60 per game. I wonder if it'd be possible to create a game that allows both. That would certainly be interesting if you could toggle between the two in the same map. Aside limiting the number of moves the character has in addition to the number of VATS shots, the difference is just user interface if you really get down to it. There are a number of hurdles that would have to be passed to align the two and the only question is if it'd be worth it.

But yeah, if turn-based is what you wanted then they certainly took a bad move from your perspective. I personally love the move despite my appreciation of turn based scenarios. The world is just too worth exploring for me to get caught up in the mechanics. Isometric RPGs really make exploration a lot less intuitive. From the first person I just see something in the distance and walk towards it.

These two series I mentioned as examples are being milked to death, most sequels would rather qualify as add on. Hell, Modern Warfare 3 even said that "MW 2 wasn't shut down properly the last time".

None of the reviewers seems to care that he's playing a reheated meal with fresh ketchup. When the first one in the series was well received, it's very likely the rehash will receive similiar praise, no matter how lackluster it is.

COD games in particular do have full and often interesting storylines . Same with asscred or whatever you kids are calling it nowadays. Yes, the gameplay is the same in both that's also kind of the nature of their respective genres. COD IS going to be a FPS. So a sequel is going to look like an updated version of the previous one, naturally, and the difference is going to be even more minimal now that graphics have been so realistic for so long lately.

Have you played either of those series for any length? I have enjoyed COD for some time, particularly the black ops Multiplayer games which have significant advancements in the mechanics each time (including one of the first viable times I've been able to play with bots. Assassin's Creed has had some serious advancements since the first game but I must confess that recently they had all these weird side-releases that confused me just enough to keep me from buying them (because I shouldn't have to google/wikipedia research games with titles like Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed 2, Assassin's Creed 3 just to figure out which Assassin's Creed 3 is the next in a sequence). Crysis also did that mess and was the first series I hated for doing it. I am a lot more forgiving about that with games that are not part of a numbered series. But there's no reason to have games numbered AND make other games like that.

COD at least has two different developers and a Modern Warfare Game is not a Black Ops game. I generally like the Modern Warfare single player games more than the Black Ops single player while the Black Ops Multiplayer wins out. Definitely a great game when you have friends over. But as long as these games are fun and do have original content, I don't have a problem with them. It's not like the world is a worse place for their existence and the actual numbered different games are significantly different environments. It's these [Game Name Here] 2.3 crap that needs to stop. If it's DLC, it's DLC.

I don't entirely blame Ubisoft for that attitude.
It's just what a business wants to do ideally; find something that's the most reliably profitable and exploit it for as long as they can.

On the flip side, a fair number of gamers just want to find a game series that's familiar and reliably fun, and they want that game to last.

But video games are a creative medium. Barring personal insanity, nothing can remain enchanting forever.
One can only revisit the same scenic vistas so many times before they start to look too familiar and mundane.

I don't have a problem with a gaming market that includes annual blockbusters; I have a problem with that market trying to make nothing BUT annual blockbusters. It's why I sigh every time I see a new military shooter or God of War clone announced because even if that game were given extraordinary time care and creative effort, it would still seem diluted just due to the sheer number of other games like it.

What's the game shown in the video, where a white cloaked guy is running with a red sword?

chikusho:
What's the game shown in the video, where a white cloaked guy is running with a red sword?

That's the new Final Fantasy 13: Lightning Return. I guess if you mentioned it?

The Feast:

chikusho:
What's the game shown in the video, where a white cloaked guy is running with a red sword?

That's the new Final Fantasy 13: Lightning Return. I guess if you mentioned it?

Oh, I see. Thanks!

I am a afraid I will have to disagree with you on this, and here's why: Coffee

One of my buddies works for the evil green empire (starbucks) but also wants to start his own coffee shop. I was confused about why starbucks doesn't fight back against the rise of the small coffee shop, which survives by being different, and in most cases by offering objectively better coffee. So I asked him why doesn't Starbucks add a little bit of personality to each of it's branches, modify the decor, offer different coffees at each branch ect. His answer surprised me, because A. they would make less money, and B. it would kill the industry as whole. People go to starbucks for a consistent experience, in addition to that starbucks draws people in to drinking coffee. You don't start drinking coffee at hipster coffee house #37, you start by drinking starbucks coffee.

I think the same thing could be applied to video games. FTL is a great game but I don't think it's going to convert people to gaming. As much as I hate to admit it CoD, WoW and their ilk have done more for reaching out to new blood than all the indies ever. But it get better than that because these companies are so concerned with making a consistant product it allows the smaller developer to come in and do crazy stuff and change the industry.

And yes, I do thank God for you
Magic Bacon Fairy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here