DiamanteGeeza: Times are-a-changin' whether you like it or not (and it seems that you do not).
But can you say that it's a change for the better, when the easy money is in the rehashing of old content than to risk any sort of real innovation?
Having more people aware that gaming isn't just for nerds is a good thing. The more people that want to be involved in this industry will very probably lead to the innovation that you're after, whatever that is.
You're not going to see much in way of innovation from huge publishers like Activision and EA because they are risk-averse thanks to the fact that they ultimately answer to Wall Street. Although, having said that, Skylanders (whether you like the game or not) was an innovation... does that work for you? ;-)
I'd say that Skylanders wasn't innovation, it's DLC: The DLC'ening.
But can you say that it's a change for the better, when the easy money is in the rehashing of old content than to risk any sort of real innovation?
Having more people aware that gaming isn't just for nerds is a good thing. The more people that want to be involved in this industry will very probably lead to the innovation that you're after, whatever that is.
You're not going to see much in way of innovation from huge publishers like Activision and EA because they are risk-averse thanks to the fact that they ultimately answer to Wall Street. Although, having said that, Skylanders (whether you like the game or not) was an innovation... does that work for you? ;-)
I'd say that Skylanders wasn't innovation, it's DLC: The DLC'ening.
So the fact that you buy physical toys that have memory and stats, put them on a portal, and then play that character in-game isn't innovation? It's never been done before, it's a great hook and, judging by the sales, kids absolutely love it.
Having more people aware that gaming isn't just for nerds is a good thing. The more people that want to be involved in this industry will very probably lead to the innovation that you're after, whatever that is.
You're not going to see much in way of innovation from huge publishers like Activision and EA because they are risk-averse thanks to the fact that they ultimately answer to Wall Street. Although, having said that, Skylanders (whether you like the game or not) was an innovation... does that work for you? ;-)
I'd say that Skylanders wasn't innovation, it's DLC: The DLC'ening.
So the fact that you buy physical toys that have memory and stats, put them on a portal, and then play that character in-game isn't innovation? It's never been done before, it's a great hook and, judging by the sales, kids absolutely love it.
Why is that not innovative?
Because it's not gameplay innovations, it's a shameless marketing ploy.
I'd say that Skylanders wasn't innovation, it's DLC: The DLC'ening.
So the fact that you buy physical toys that have memory and stats, put them on a portal, and then play that character in-game isn't innovation? It's never been done before, it's a great hook and, judging by the sales, kids absolutely love it.
Why is that not innovative?
Because it's not gameplay innovations, it's a shameless marketing ploy.
DiamanteGeeza: I'm assuming that you've never developed a game? The balancing has nothing to do with the engine. It's all hand-tuned by human beings after hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of playtest feedback. It's extremely easy to unbalance a game - far easier than balancing it, in fact. (Also, the balancing of a game is partly subjective, too. What you dislike, other people will like)
For example, Battlefield 2 was far from perfect in terms of balance but the engine was supposed to support full automatic fire.
CoD2 had submachine guns (many times frowned upon by players), fixed MG positions and the occasional hand held machine gun. The majority of the time players would use the rifles because they were simply more powerful.
MW2 and MW3 favor the annoying SMGs and full auto secondary weapons and the guys who keep running a knifing.
The maps are just too short, the spawns too quick and random. Doesn't work together.
If you're referring to multiplayer lag, then that's a real-world physics problem, rather than the game engine's fault.
Yeah, game engines feature something called lag compensation. Here's the deal: the call of duty engine has had bad lag compensation for years. But the problems are more an more evident.
Plus, the P2P system? On PC? It's awful, not to mention the host advantage (that Treyarch tried to bypass by adding "fake" lag to the host!)
The lag compensation system is one of the worst I've seen in a game. Add up the occasional glitches and the game is completely broken if you take a peek under the hood.
DiamanteGeeza: Overall, though, yes the CoD engine is a bit long in the tooth. It's going to struggle on next gen... but what makes you think IW isn't working on an upgrade to their engine?
Because they have been upgrading their engine since...? The IW engine is actually based on the Quake engine, the thing needs improvement.
DiamanteGeeza: Once again, that was my point. The huge franchises have been pushing gaming into the 'socially acceptable' realm for the last few years, and it's a good thing. (...)
Despite your opinion, MW3 and Black Ops did actually push games further into the fore of the accepted 'entertainment' category. Some of the Sledgehammer guys that worked on MW3 were interviewed on the Jimmy Fallon show, for crying out loud! When was the last time you saw a developer on a late night talk show??!
Sledgehammer? Glad you mentioned them, it reminds me of the "too many cooks stirring the soup". The most recent Call of Duties don't even try to hide they are money making machines.
How does a developer being interviewed effect me? It doesn't.
Nintendo DS and the Wii have done more for "gamers" than the Call of Duty franchise. Pure Pwnage had a TV show on Canada! There have been lots of franchises that broke the conventions and MW2/Mw3 were simply "late to the party".
I could argue that Carmack being an Aeronautical Engineering has made people respect gaming more than an interview.
Anyway, thanks for "implying" my hate for a franchise from posts defending that the game isn't working like it should. If I am expecting something really great, it's from Jason West and Vince Zampella.
DiamanteGeeza: I'm assuming that you've never developed a game? The balancing has nothing to do with the engine. It's all hand-tuned by human beings after hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of playtest feedback. It's extremely easy to unbalance a game - far easier than balancing it, in fact. (Also, the balancing of a game is partly subjective, too. What you dislike, other people will like)
For example, Battlefield 2 was far from perfect in terms of balance but the engine was supposed to support full automatic fire.
CoD2 had submachine guns (many times frowned upon by players), fixed MG positions and the occasional hand held machine gun. The majority of the time players would use the rifles because they were simply more powerful.
MW2 and MW3 favor the annoying SMGs and full auto secondary weapons and the guys who keep running a knifing.
The maps are just too short, the spawns too quick and random. Doesn't work together.
The point I was addressing was your suggestion that bad balancing is in some way a game engine's fault. It isn't.
If you're referring to multiplayer lag, then that's a real-world physics problem, rather than the game engine's fault.
Yeah, game engines feature something called lag compensation. Here's the deal: the call of duty engine has had bad lag compensation for years. But the problems are more an more evident.
Plus, the P2P system? On PC? It's awful, not to mention the host advantage (that Treyarch tried to bypass by adding "fake" lag to the host!)
The lag compensation system is one of the worst I've seen in a game. Add up the occasional glitches and the game is completely broken if you take a peek under the hood.
As you have never had "a peek under the hood", you wouldn't know. The prediction and smoothing in the CoD engine is actually pretty good so, I'll disagree with you on this one and move on.
DiamanteGeeza: Overall, though, yes the CoD engine is a bit long in the tooth. It's going to struggle on next gen... but what makes you think IW isn't working on an upgrade to their engine?
Because they have been upgrading their engine since...? The IW engine is actually based on the Quake engine, the thing needs improvement.
If you honestly think the modern CoD engine resembles Quake in any way more than the fact that an updated version of Radiant is used to block out levels, and the environments are stored as BSPs, then you're crazy. Once again, this comes down to non-developers like you assuming that those of us that do make games are just 'lazy' and never change anything. It's extremely insulting.
Today's CoD engine is "based on" Quake in the same way that a Ferrari engine is "based on" the one from the Model-T Ford.
(And before you misunderstand me again, I'm not suggesting that the CoD engine is a Ferrari... I've already agreed with you that it's long in the tooth and needs some serious upgrades for next gen)
DiamanteGeeza: Once again, that was my point. The huge franchises have been pushing gaming into the 'socially acceptable' realm for the last few years, and it's a good thing. (...)
Despite your opinion, MW3 and Black Ops did actually push games further into the fore of the accepted 'entertainment' category. Some of the Sledgehammer guys that worked on MW3 were interviewed on the Jimmy Fallon show, for crying out loud! When was the last time you saw a developer on a late night talk show??!
Sledgehammer? Glad you mentioned them, it reminds me of the "too many cooks stirring the soup". The most recent Call of Duties don't even try to hide they are money making machines.
How does a developer being interviewed effect me? It doesn't.
Apologies. I didn't realize this whole thread was purely about you. My bad.
Nintendo DS and the Wii have done more for "gamers" than the Call of Duty franchise. Pure Pwnage had a TV show on Canada! There have been lots of franchises that broke the conventions and MW2/Mw3 were simply "late to the party".
I could argue that Carmack being an Aeronautical Engineering has made people respect gaming more than an interview.
If you are under the impression that my previous post was a definitive list of all companies, games, and bits of hardware that have done good things for games, then you need to grow up. I merely took one example of how gaming is entering popular culture today. You have given some examples too. Awesome. It seems that we're saying the same thing, so why are you arguing about it? I'll say again: I'm not suggesting that CoD is solely responsible for this!!!!
Fox242: So blame Call of Duty. Great...how original. Maybe there are other factors involved? Granted MW3 isn't as good as Black Ops in the opinion of a loyal Call of Duty player like myself and people may not be buying it as much, but could there be other factors here? Just a thought.
that does make sense
Shocksplicer: Did they think that the release of Battlefield 3, a far better game, at roughly the same time had something to do with it? I imagine that BF3 must have taken some of the market share...
and this could be one of those factors you were talking about?
EDIT:
jurnag12: You know, a price-drop after a few months could generate more tail-sales, but noooooo, Activision wouldn't want any AAA game released in the last 5 years to be even a penny under 60, now would they?
gamestop prices for call of duty games Call of Duty 4:modern Warfare $12.99 used Call of Duty:World at War $12.99 used Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 $19.99 used Call of Duty:Black Ops $34.99
so what we're you saying about call of duty games all cost $60 after 5 years??
DiamanteGeeza: The point I was addressing was your suggestion that bad balancing is in some way a game engine's fault. It isn't.
IW's engine uses a hitscan method instead of actual ballistics.
DiamanteGeeza: The prediction and smoothing in the CoD engine is actually pretty good so, I'll disagree with you on this one and move on.
Really? The only game I remember with such a crap lag compensation was Combat Arms.
In no other games I have witnessed an enemy scoring multiple hits while my screen only captured one shot being fired.
DiamanteGeeza: Once again, this comes down to non-developers like you assuming that those of us that do make games are just 'lazy' and never change anything. It's extremely insulting.
No it doesn't. So far you have been the only one to mention laziness.
DiamanteGeeza: Apologies. I didn't realize this whole thread was purely about you. My bad.
Me is just an example. How does a developer going to a show have any impact on the way you enjoy videogames?
My sports team winning doesn't do anything for "my" image.
wooty: I read the title wrong, I saw "Thin Tali" and nearly flew into a rage, how dare they take away her curves!!
But OT: Most people I know missed out MW3 in favour of BF3, perhaps people knew that CoD was just going to be the same old tired shit and decided to try out pastures new?
This. So much this. Is it telling that I read the title and thought that they were blaming Tali going on a diet for something that Call of Duty was doing?
Then again, I'll admit, if they put Tali in Call of Duty... I might buy it...
Scrumpmonkey: "casual gamers leaving the market" what does that even mean? Im sorry but people band the 'casual gamer' market around like they have even the faintest clue what a 'casual gamer' is and what they play/ where. This is the same shit that is leading to another HUGE bubble in the social/mobile gaming market.
Here are the facts; MW3 is the same game as MW2 and every other Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 4. A large % of mass market games provide poor value because they are being made by risk averse, non creator driven empty suites who don't know their MMORPGs from their big, smug asses. 'AAA' massmarket games have gone down in quality, memorability and even sanity. So people are going to buy less and they are going to forgt about them quickly.
Contrast that with the 'long tail' of something like Skyrim, Portal 2 or any number of actually decent games. They don't sell billions in the 1st week but they sell and keep selling for years to come.
This is what happens when you keep making £40 - £50 10 hour shite with an online pass to actually acess the tacked-on obligatory multiplayer; Because even bad multiplayer is replay value right? day one DLC, microtansactions and retailer exclusive content are pretty much givens for a big release. I mean its not like the publisher is going to turn ALL the multipler servers of 12-18 months after launch is it? I mean its not like they made you pay £10 for the crime of daring to utilise your consumer rights and buy a cheaper game and get the sweet sweet privelage of getting all the content you paid for that is on the disk. Its not like you already gave Microsoft £30 this year for the luxary of having online actually available to you. Of course 3 months into your 12 month rental of the game there will obviously be a £15 map-pack or equipment pack that will leave you unable to play in 1/2 the online games unless your buy it.
In 2012 'AAA' Gaming as an experience is fucking horrible. I think im going to take up underwater basket weaving or something.
Or you could just do what I did and pull out an earlier generation system.
Hello there, PS2, I've missed you.
*Pulls out his GameCube*
Ah... the days before console DRM... How I missed you!
jurnag12: You know, a price-drop after a few months could generate more tail-sales, but noooooo, Activision wouldn't want any AAA game released in the last 5 years to be even a penny under 60, now would they?
gamestop prices for call of duty games Call of Duty 4:modern Warfare $12.99 used Call of Duty:World at War $12.99 used Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 $19.99 used Call of Duty:Black Ops $34.99
so what we're you saying about call of duty games all cost $60 after 5 years??
You can't use used prices to support your argument. Used games are completely irrelevant here, as Activision has no influence over the prices of used games.
Try Target or any retail store. Call of Duty 4 $24.99 Call of Duty World at War $24.99 Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 $39.99 Call of Duty Black Ops $49.99
Just a few months ago, CoD4 was still $30, and a year ago it was $40. That's insane and asinine.
And on the point of Call of Duty, they made it unfair to play online if you didn't buy into the Elite pass.
No they didnt. Call of Duty Elite is essentially you just prepaying for a years worth of dlc.
Sorry. That was just one of the perks. Some others included 2 hours of double XP, and clan XP boost. The crippling one was the early XP boost to people. 2 hours of gaining double was terribly unfair at the beginning.
Amazing how despite the nuketown spawnkills, hit detection issues, gilly suits in corners and that god damn second chance, black ops is still the better game because its multiplayer is slightly less shit.
mattttherman3: OR, and this is just a thought, you released the exact same game 3 times with no real changes. If you want people to play MW3, cut online service of MW and MW2. Plus that elite service thing probably doesn't help. Or perhaps, since MW3 sold so well, alot of those same people bought the game when it first came out, who knows.
Don't be silly! This is OBVIOUSLY the fault of used games sales and pirates. also immigrants
cursedseishi: [quote="DVS BSTrD" post="7.366754.14286002"][quote="mattttherman3" post="7.366754.14285767"]OR, and this is just a thought, you released the exact same game 3 times with no real changes. If you want people to play MW3, cut online service of MW and MW2. Plus that elite service thing probably doesn't help. Or perhaps, since MW3 sold so well, alot of those same people bought the game when it first came out, who knows.
Don't be silly! This is OBVIOUSLY the fault of used games sales and pirates. [sub]also immigrants and gay marriage[/quote]
Don't be ridiculous...! You forgot the gay illegal immigrants who slipped in to get married! That's the worst of the bunch!
Seriously though...? I can't remember squat really about what released in March... at least anything that didn't get beetched to hell about. Heck, the most I can think of is the batch of Silent Hill games, but between the overall craptastic handling of the so-called "HD" "collection" and the mediocre Downpour... what's to remember?
yea to leave their anchor babies all over the place goddamn replicating gays.
Is everyone forgetting mass effect 3? I dont know why Im bringing it up, its a game ill never play (thanks for the warning me2)
And on the point of Call of Duty, they made it unfair to play online if you didn't buy into the Elite pass.
No they didnt. Call of Duty Elite is essentially you just prepaying for a years worth of dlc.
Sorry. That was just one of the perks. Some others included 2 hours of double XP, and clan XP boost. The crippling one was the early XP boost to people. 2 hours of gaining double was terribly unfair at the beginning.
The XP boost really does not do much for you. Elite was not really working for the first couple weeks so the majority of people did not get the douple XP until it was meaningless. Plus after a day or two it wouldnt make a difference. Oh and the way the weapons are balanced the other thing you get from leveling up faster is better perks and you get them fairly early anyways.
Maybe... and this is just a theory, but since there haven't been any major game releases in the past couple of months that have been interesting to consumers, perhaps people who have a rather large back catalog of games or know where to purchase older games for overstock prices are catching up on good titles instead of shelling out for bad ones.
If they want to boost sales, give out better product.
I simply do not take what money I have and invest full price in a game that will have 70 dollars worth of dlc I WANT, but do not VALUE. Hell yes I want the full swathe of colors and costumes, hell no do I feel the need to pay for such things.
I speak not as someone who feels entitled to content, I just feel that the games market is a warzone. If you want to get your game played, get on your knee's and treat me like a god king, your life giver. Not your yipping poodle devoid of treats and will degrade myself to no end for goodies.
Gaming was expensive before and now it is just stupid to be a console gamer. I used a steam calculator to determine the value of games I own on it and chuckle to myself knowing I didn't pay a sixth of that knowing all my games come from charity bundles and deep sales. I could blow my whole years steam budget buying MW3 and all of its pay for dlc.
Plain and simple version. Gamers game. We want to play all the games that interest us, We will find a way to do this regardless of what companies thing. If they want to take away our rentals and our used games, then they will die, because no one is going out and buying every single game they want to play (with the dlc every year). No one. seriously NO ONE.
Sure they aren't getting paid, but keeping an IP in the forefront of consumers minds is important. Maybe I rented a game, then I told some friends and they bought it, or I got a shirt or some branded goodies, maybe even I went out and bought a copy.
DiamanteGeeza: The point I was addressing was your suggestion that bad balancing is in some way a game engine's fault. It isn't.
IW's engine uses a hitscan method instead of actual ballistics.
Hilarious. As I said previously, you clearly have never made a game and therefore know nothing about this.
DiamanteGeeza: The prediction and smoothing in the CoD engine is actually pretty good so, I'll disagree with you on this one and move on.
Really? The only game I remember with such a crap lag compensation was Combat Arms.
In no other games I have witnessed an enemy scoring multiple hits while my screen only captured one shot being fired.
It's a shame that you have such a bad experience, but tens of millions of people don't.
DiamanteGeeza: Once again, thi s comes down to non-developers like you assuming that those of us that do make games are just 'lazy' and never change anything. It's extremely insulting.
No it doesn't. So far you have been the only one to mention laziness.
It was implied in your suggestion that MW3 was basically Quake.
DiamanteGeeza: Apologies. I didn't realize this whole thread was purely about you. My bad.
Me is just an example. How does a developer going to a show have any impact on the way you enjoy videogames?
My sports team winning doesn't do anything for "my" image.
Hmmm... I'm sure in your head this was relevant to something or other. Not quite sure what though...
And on that note, I shall bid you adieu. This discussion has lost its way, thanks in part by you not knowing what you're talking about.
DiamanteGeeza: Hilarious. As I said previously, you clearly have never made a game and therefore know nothing about this.
It's perfectly clear that the hitscan method is an absolute joke. Modern Warfare pretty much hates shotguns. Instead of a ballistic calculator, the buckshot simply vanishes after traveling a few meters. BRILLIANT!
I used to play MW2 on the PC and there was a ridiculous bug/glitch/whatever that allowed me to jerk the mouse really fast and if I quickscoped, it would hit.
The killcam showed the bullet hitting walls, floor, stairs or whatever. But the hitscan when right trough the enemy.
DiamanteGeeza: It's a shame that you have such a bad experience, but tens of millions of people don't.
>youtube >"lag compensation"
Tons of results. Even in the Call of Duty forums people whine about it.
It becomes somewhat unsettling when the top selling FPS has the same problems as a F2P game.
DiamanteGeeza: It was implied in your suggestion that MW3 was basically Quake.
No, I implied it was based on coding reminiscent from Quake and it has been receiving "band-aids". It works. But when you have bugs/glitches that you can't fix it should be discarded.
The engine used in Battlefield 2 had a bug that made your player model appear at the top of the ladder when you started climbing. Battlefield 2142 still had the same problem.
Combat Arms uses a game engine from 2002 and Nexon patched so much stuff on top without optimization that the Medikits and the mine warnings cause huge FPS drops even if you are on the opposite side of the map looking at the opposite direction.
It's easy to predict waning interest for Call of Doodoo and Gears of Bore, but I want to know what this 'projected' thinning tail metaphor means for triple-A games like Assassin's Creed and, oh, I don't know, Fallout/Elder Scrolls and Bioshock. We've gotten tired of shooting things, now let's figure out how long it will take me to get tired of stabbing/magicking/plasmiding them to death.
hooksashands: It's easy to predict waning interest for Call of Doodoo and Gears of Bore, but I want to know what this 'projected' thinning tail metaphor means for triple-A games like Assassin's Creed and, oh, I don't know, Fallout/Elder Scrolls and Bioshock. We've gotten tired of shooting things, now let's figure out how long it will take me to get tired of stabbing/magicking/plasmiding them to death.
Sloooooooow day in the news room, eh Andy?
Well, there are two different types of games. Some sell big upon release because all of the fans buy them, then sales drop off because most of the people who'd want the game already have it. Huge titles like CoD and BF fit this mold.
Some titles have decent sales at release, and continued sales from then on as word-of-mouth spreads and people who were maybe thinking of buying them get convinced from friends, or positive reviews, or even Youtube videos. Heck, I bet Skyrim was even helped by the popularity of a certain meme...
So.... Call of Duty sales are slipping and that apparently bodes ill for the industry? Is this analyst a retard? The game came out in November, anyone who honestly wanted to play it has.
I blame my RPG backlog that I actually started to work on. And the fact that I never wanted MW3 in the first place (it was a gift).
MW3 has too many issues IMO. Black Ops felt solid enough that I didn't have a complaint every other match due to game design. That, and I was enjoying Battlefield 3 so much more since I couldn't play TF2 on my crappy computer.
As far as RPG's go, I'm playing Birth By Sleep, Persona 4, Half Minute Hero, and Skyrim simultaneously. I'm waiting to finish Pokemon White, Agarest War, Okamiden (not really an RPG but w/e), Shadow of the Colossus, and Resonance of Fate. KH 358/2, The World Ends With You, Mass Effect 3, Persona 3, and Devil Survivor are waiting in line. Oh, and I'm playing BlazBlue. Can't ever forget that. Infinitely better than MW3.
Oh, if I had a dollar every time someone dismissed every complain about something, with a line like this...
And if I had a euro every time I saw someone try to dismiss my valid counter-argument with this type of line, I'd have more money than you due to the exchange rate. Just because it's an argument that's extensively used, doesn't mean it's a bad argument.
In fact, The majority of the time it probably means it's a good argument. The way I see it, CoD being around has a non/minimal impact on anyone who doesn't like the game.
It's like me complaining about JRPG's. I think they're fucking terrible, but I have no qualms with them existing seeing as how they don't affect my gaming experience a lot. You don't see people rising against it in the same amount of numbers as you do for anti-CoD enthusiasts.
Oh, if I had a dollar every time someone dismissed every complain about something, with a line like this...
And if I had a euro every time I saw someone try to dismiss my valid counter-argument with this type of line, I'd have more money than you due to the exchange rate. Just because it's an argument that's extensively used, doesn't mean it's a bad argument.
How is it, in any way, shape, or form, a valid counter-argument? You're basically saying that anybody who dislikes something that's popular, only does so because it IS popular, not because they might have a valid complaint.
maybe pricing down games that have been out for a while MW3 still costs 60$ new!