How to (NOT) bring fresh new concepts and ideas into gaming. (Or: Why we can't have nice things)

[shrekfan246]

And it is not AT ALL possible people actually want one thing and DIFFERENT people want a DIFFERENT thing and both are correct and you are making a broad generalisation that is wrong?

Well, I actually mean that I've literally seen people say that they want developers to try new things, and then say that they won't buy a game that is trying something new, because it's not a perfectly polished high-budget title. Or because it's in a niche that doesn't appeal to them, so therefore its existence is meaningless.

Disregard that statement - we, Legion, officially deny associating ourself with it. Furthermore, we can't help noticing you haven't been assimilated joined us yet. Report to your nearest game dispense centre, a.k.a., "game store" and say you want to be part of the hive. We will be expecting you.

[HEADING=2]We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Resistance is futile.[/HEADING]

 

[Khanht Cope]

I've based my opinion on this game from the E3 trailers and interviews with the developers. In what possible way can those be considered 'leaks'?

In the sense that they're small releases of concentrated information that don't offer near enough to form an over-arching impression that isn't problematically narrowly focused on just the information given.

I would not in any way describe myself as a feminist. I'm not sure what's given you that impression. I'd prefer if you responded to what I'm actually saying, rather than arguing points I've never raised.

I've noticed you in just about every other thread for this game and this issue. You've no reservation in supporting feminist and sexism interpretations where-ever it allows you to slam the game.

I'm sorry if girls cry when you say hello to them but...

They don't.

It has nothing to do with feminism at all, so your long diatribe on the subject was kind of wasted on me.

I just wanted to make sure feminism doesn't come up as any kind of cover for your being a hater showing up at every "I condemn the new Tomb Raider because it's sexist" thread to fuel the fire. So if you were to raise feminism, then it'd be out there that you'd be kind of a shitty feminist.

The fact is I don't give a damn about sexism in videogames, except perhaps when it's really over the top, and even then I'll likely just laugh at it and move on to something more interesting.

Glad we got this out here. I'd like you to be honest in presenting your criticism in further discussion pertaining to this game.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I've come to the following different yet not exactly contradictory conclusions:

-Gamers want a console that is either likely to break or will not get very good firmware support.

-Gamers want their consoles to have all the inconveniences of owning a PC but none of the benefits.

-Gamers want to pay next to new prices for used games then pay another $10 to play the online content.

-Gamers who buy new games want to punch in an endless series of codes and download a bunch of crap before playing their new game.

-Gamers want to pay $60 for some of a game and pay more for the rest of it when they get home.

-Gamers want to have their SP games to always be online even if it doesn't need to.

-Gamers want to misuse the term "entitled" so much that it loses all meaning.

-Gamers like being bullied by the companies they are fans of.

-Gamers (like me) like to make generalizations about all the other gamers.

 

[teebeeohh]

just one thing: the people who liked demons souls like trial and error in all their games and after the game got huge amounts of positive press people who may dislike trial an error still tried the game to see what the buzz is about

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

When did gaming stop being about games and start being about the state of the internet community of people who play games? This is getting ridiculous. You can hardly say anything about any game anymore without this shit coming up.

 

[Sixcess]

I've based my opinion on this game from the E3 trailers and interviews with the developers. In what possible way can those be considered 'leaks'?

In the sense that they're small releases of concentrated information that don't offer near enough to form an over-arching impression that isn't problematically narrowly focused on just the information given.

I have no qualms about using this information to form an opinion given that this is exactly what Crystal Dynamics have chosen to show us. They didn't ask some intern to put the trailer together in his lunch break, nor is it likely that they just sent Rosenberg out to give interviews without discussing what he was going to say in advance. This is what they want us to see.

But it's important to remember that they can decide what we see, but they cannot decide how we will react to it.

I've noticed you in just about every other thread for this game and this issue. You've no reservation in supporting feminist and sexism interpretations where-ever it allows you to slam the game.

Is that what I was doing? I thought I was just agreeing with people who share similar views to mine. I haven't really given much thought to how they came to hold those views. I couldn't talk feminist theory if I tried, so if my personal views happen to intersect with theirs it's purely coincidental.

I just wanted to make sure feminism doesn't come up as any kind of cover for your being a hater showing up at every "I condemn the new Tomb Raider because it's sexist" thread to fuel the fire. So if you were to raise feminism, then it'd be out there that you'd be kind of a shitty feminist.

Well, okay. Nice to know you'll be monitoring my posts, I guess.

I'd like you to be honest in selecting your criticism in further discussion pertaining to this game.

I'll be just as honest as I have been up to now.

 

[Nimzabaat]

- Gamers want a more mature approach to storytelling as long as it doesn't involve any mature controversial elements (See Tomb "It's not acceptable to show a criminal modern-pirate-like-scavenger-guy touching a young, frightened girl inappropriately because that is sexist" Raider)

There's nothing 'mature' about the Tomb Raider reboot.

I'm going to quote Grant Morrison here. Back when comics were in the midst of their 'dark and gritty' phase he wrote an issue of Animal Man in which the hero meets the writer, who talks about why the hero's family was killed in an earlier storyline. The writer replies:

"Pointless violence and death is 'realistic'. Comic books are 'realistic' now."

"We thought that by making your world more violent we would make it more 'realistic', more 'adult'. God help us if that's what it means."

There's a place for genuine mature story telling in video games, but an action adventure series like Tomb Raider is not that place, and I for one don't trust Ron 'Rape' Rosenberg to deliver a story that rises above the level of an 80s exploitation flick.

The term was "more mature". As in Lara doesn't have enormous boobs anymore. It is more mature, yet not quite cresting "mature". Let's say we have a maturity scale of 1-10. Previous Tomb Raiders could have been a 2 or 3, this one is aiming for 4.

And you sir, are a poopy-head

 

[Sixcess]

The term was "more mature". As in Lara doesn't have enormous boobs anymore. It is more mature, yet not quite cresting "mature". Let's say we have a maturity scale of 1-10. Previous Tomb Raiders could have been a 2 or 3, this one is aiming for 4.

You know, I could easily live with that. Hell, I just want a fun game where Lara goes to exotic locations and shoots weird stuff. Just all their talk about how dark and emotional it's all going to be makes me suspect they think they're aiming for an 8 or a 9.

And you sir, are a poopy-head

Waaaaaaaa!

*cries and runs for the Report button*

[sub](but not really)[/sub]

 

[targren]

Firstly, because (attempted) rape as a catalyst for female character development is a terribly overused trope.

This I definitely agree with. There have GOT to be more creative ways to Break the cutie [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreakTheCutie] (TVTropes Warning), people. At least TRY to find one.

But dear lord, all this empty-headed QQing about the whole thing. It's starting to make me think I'm too old to be a gamer anymore.

 

[Khanht Cope]

I have no qualms about using this information to form an opinion given that this is exactly what Crystal Dynamics have chosen to show us. They didn't ask some intern to put the trailer together in his lunch break, nor is it likely that they just sent Rosenberg out to give interviews without discussing what he was going to say in advance. This is what they want us to see.

But it's important to remember that they can decide what we see, but they cannot decide how we will react to it.

But does more information not make an opinion or reaction more informed? and therefore prefereable?

I'm not one to say that there are fundamentally "incorrect" reactions. The thread below shows my initial reaction to the trailer. I stand by that reaction as an initial reaction; as OTT as I see it today:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.377133-Misgivings-about-the-new-Tomb-Raider#14721735

However; my position subsequently became more informed, and more balanced as I explored to what extent my complaints were valid.

I cetainly think one should try to make an informed and balanced opinion (and one that I'd hope, attempts to understand) on something before they move into slandering a project.

The fact that you can read an article that cites creator inspirations such as RL survivors, Die Hard and Casino Royale for exploring how to use hardship to shape and develope a strong character; and subsequently argue elsewhere your conviction that they're following in line of vapid and distasteful exploitation flicks, says to me that you're not quite there yet.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Stop liking the things I don't like, and start liking the things I like. Otherwise you are demonstrably, provably wrong.

 

[WanderingFool]

Following both gaming media and gamer reactions in recent years, i've come to the following conclusion:

- Gamers want more realistic games, but they don't want real scenarios (That's why Six Days in Fallujah failed)

- Or any implications to it that may differ in the slightest from what they see as acceptable (The whole thing about naming the opposing multiplayer teams in the latest Medal of Honor Game)

- Gamers want a more mature approach to storytelling as long as it doesn't involve any mature controversial elements (See Tomb "It's not acceptable to show a criminal modern-pirate-like-scavenger-guy touching a young, frightened girl inappropriately because that is sexist" Raider)

- Gamers want fresh, interesting elements and remixes of common genres as long as they are implemented perfectly from the start and are fine to everyone's taste (That's why Mirrors Edge failed)

- That said, gamers don't want a trial-and-error approach to gameplay, except when they do (That's also why Mirrors Edge failed while Demon's Souls was praised by a majority of hardcore gamers)

- Gamers also don't want to be hold by their hands an helped by the mechanics throughout the game (That's why Prince of Persia 2008 and Enslaved equally failed).

- Gamers want a unique experience in both storytelling and gameplay with great graphics that never gets dull and lasts over 20 hours.

- They also expect risky, unique game ideas being turned into multi-million AAA productions.

- Gamers generally expect every smaller, cheaper game to cost at least $5 less than they do.

- They also are only willing to buy a game at full price if it has a long lasting feature-rich multiplayer as well as state of the art 3D graphics.

- Gamers expect a fully featured game that seamlessly implements every ambitious idea or storyline every designer working at the game right from the get-go, releasing one year after the announcement at the latest.

- Gamers don't want to have the option to buy additional content for the game because they will feel FORCED to buy it.

- Gamers are willing to support sequels of ambitious, critically lauded flops despite the obvious concerns of the publisher that it may bring them huge losses. After all, they totally bought and loved the first game when it was in a $3 sale on steam.


I may return with more observations, until that feel free to be offended.

Hmmm, nope. It all looks about right.

Also, I have you know I support the idea to bring forth a sequal to Alpha Protocol, and I baught it when that fucker came out.

 

[Sixcess]

The fact that you can read an article that cites creator inspirations such as RL survivors, Die Hard and Casino Royale for exploring how to use hardship to shape and develope a strong character; and subsequently argue elsewhere your conviction that they're following in line of vapid and distasteful exploitation flicks, says to me that you're not quite there yet.

What they may intend is all well and good, but it's not as important to me as what I actually see, and what I've seen so far does come across like an exploitation flick, in my eyes.

I've been uneasy about this reboot from the start, although the reasons I'm uneasy about it have shifted with each new release of information. Once we get more new info perhaps it'll shift further. Given my affection for the franchise I really do want to be looking forward to this game.

But nothing I've seen so far comes close to convincing me that Crystal Dynamics have the skill to handle this correctly.

 

[veloper]

Following both gaming media and gamer reactions in recent years, i've come to the following conclusion:

- Gamers want more realistic games, but they don't want real scenarios (That's why Six Days in Fallujah failed)

- Or any implications to it that may differ in the slightest from what they see as acceptable (The whole thing about naming the opposing multiplayer teams in the latest Medal of Honor Game)

That wasn't gamers though, but rather publishers caving in to non-gamers who got wind of it in the media.

Which brings us to the simple, single explanation why we cannot have nice things: companies are trying to please too many different audiences all at once.

Naturally the result will be old concepts and playing it safe.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Alright. I'll bite.

Following both gaming media and gamer reactions in recent years, i've come to the following conclusion:

- Gamers want more realistic games, but they don't want real scenarios (That's why Six Days in Fallujah failed)

I thought that failed because it was shaping up to be a shit game and nobody really found it interesting. As far as I could tell at the time they couldn't decide on if it should be an arcade CoD clone or a milsim and devs and publisher were constantly talking at cross purposes about marine consultants this and that while showing a game with regen health and a bullet sponge as the player.

- Or any implications to it that may differ in the slightest from what they see as acceptable (The whole thing about naming the opposing multiplayer teams in the latest Medal of Honor Game)

I'm assuming you're talking about the Taliban stuff? I was under the impression that that was EA caving to morons? In any case, MoH was another shitty CoD clone where you had to tag along behind your AI mates so who cares.

- Gamers want a more mature approach to storytelling as long as it doesn't involve any mature controversial elements (See Tomb "It's not acceptable to show a criminal modern-pirate-like-scavenger-guy touching a young, frightened girl inappropriately because that is sexist" Raider)

- Gamers want fresh, interesting elements and remixes of common genres as long as they are implemented perfectly from the start and are fine to everyone's taste (That's why Mirrors Edge failed)

Did it fail though? As a new game I would think nobody expected it to blow the market up. As far as I'm aware it did well enough and most of the moaning about it was from people like Dude Huge who wanted more guns. Seriously, that guy is a tool. Another game that mixes quite a lot of genres is Deus Ex and the new iteration of that seems to have done well enough. Dishonored is also shaping up in interesting ways.

- That said, gamers don't want a trial-and-error approach to gameplay, except when they do (That's also why Mirrors Edge failed while Demon's Souls was praised by a majority of hardcore gamers)

Mirror's Edge works best in a flow, when running fast over the roofs. That's when the game is better than anything else. It's perfect. It comes together in a rushing crescendo. All that grinds to a stop when you have to repeat the same section over and over or get stuck in a stupid gunfight. Nothing wrong with trial and error if it suits the game. It did not suit Mirror's Edge.

- Gamers also don't want to be hold by their hands an helped by the mechanics throughout the game (That's why Prince of Persia 2008 and Enslaved equally failed).

My guess: PoP failed because it's a rather bad game. Haven't played Enslaved though. Looks very Japanese so I won't touch it with a poker.

- Gamers want a unique experience in both storytelling and gameplay with great graphics that never gets dull and lasts over 20 hours.

And? What's the problem in wanting a good product? And even if this is what we want we sure seem willing to settle for 4 hours of Tom Clancy conspiracy drivel in form of the latest Call of Duty.

- They also expect risky, unique game ideas being turned into multi-million AAA productions.

Yes, which is why Minecraft is made by Activision and Ubisoft bought 2D Boy and World of Goo. I heard that SpaceChem was picked up by EA and was being made into a military shooter.

- Gamers generally expect every smaller, cheaper game to cost at least $5 less than they do.

Aside from the obvious fact that indie games are selling just fine, I see no issue in wanting to optimize the value you get from your money.

- They also are only willing to buy a game at full price if it has a long lasting feature-rich multiplayer as well as state of the art 3D graphics.

See my previous answer. The developers are not entitled to our money. How they go about getting us to pay is really not my problem.

- Gamers expect a fully featured game that seamlessly implements every ambitious idea or storyline every designer working at the game right from the get-go, releasing one year after the announcement at the latest.

I'm not even wasting time on this one. It's plain silly.

- Gamers don't want to have the option to buy additional content for the game because they will feel FORCED to buy it.

That certainly depends on the content. Story content, yes, that will feel like coercion. Pointless crap and skins are fine.

- Gamers are willing to support sequels of ambitious, critically lauded flops despite the obvious concerns of the publisher that it may bring them huge losses. After all, they totally bought and loved the first game when it was in a $3 sale on steam.

Again, nothing wrong with making sure you don't get short changed when handing over your money. Perhaps devs should spend a little less on new games and price them lower to get people hooked?

I may return with more observations, until that feel free to be offended.

 

[hoboman29]

A lot of this list seems subjective to what people actually think and some of it gets ambiguous. I personally don't care about multiplayer and 3d cutting edge graphics so I wouldn't buy a game for full price because of it. I don't want realism in my games.
If this is an opinion piece it sure doesn't sound like it and more like you're speaking for everyone.