I have lost a lot of respect for 3rd party AAA developers

[Lightknight]

Yes, the ps1 library and ps2 library was fantastic. I have no idea what comparing the sales of Sony from 5th through 6th gen has anything to do with 3rd party AAA game variety.

I was explaining why Exclusivity was almost null last generation but not the 5th and 6th. The Ps1 and ps2 sold SOOOOO many machines and porting games was so difficult back then that exclusivity was viable, easy even. Then when the ps3 had such a rocky start and the most popular machine was so weak, things started being multi-platform out of necessity. Now, with x86 being the architecture, it doesn't matter how many units consoles sell. They are so easy to port between that there's realy no reason not to.


Indie developers are great and love their variety. But I blame myself for not specifying in my post I mostly speak of AAA developers. No, you did specify that quite clearly. I was only including them in discussion and saying that indie developers have their own niche areas that AAA developers aren't necessarily needed in. Sure, a game like minecraft makes "runaway-and-buy-an-Island" money, but the vast majority of those games don't make anything close to what AAA titles make on a bad day. In some way, complaining about AAA developers not being more niche can be a little like complaining that a 5-star restaurant doesn't also serve hotdogs and spaghettios. Not that indie games are the hotdogs and spaghettios of the gaming world, just that they are incredibly cheap to make and usually don't make anything close to the return other things would. The thing you're forgetting is that AAA typically refers to the kind of budget behind the game. All the small and innovative games you like aren't typically AAA titles anyways. So to say that AAA devs aren't making them is kind of axiomatically true.

I loved sony in the 6th and 7th gen. They were my games of choice after the sega genesis. So when I think about their former games compared to the more modern ones, it is just sad. Fear of risking new ideas, color or allowing the player to play as they wish to hampers games now.

Yes, their former systems had a lot of exclusives. But I don't see what that has to say about AAA development as a whole besides that they are capable of multi-platform development.

3rd party AAA games of the 7th gen (I'll stick to games that are available on the console) that were popular and at least tried something new (such as being a new IP):

Alan Wake
Army of Two
Assassin's Creed (the first game debuted here)
Batman Arkham Asylum
Bioshock
Bayonetta
Borderlands
Crackdown
Crysis
DarkSiders
Dark Souls
Dead Island
Dead Rising
Dead Space
Dragon Age
F.E.A.R.
Left for Dead
LittleBigPlanet (This was 3rd party when created, Sony didn't purchase them until 2010)
Mass Effect
Mirror's Edge
No More Heroes
Portal
Saint's Row
Sleeping Dogs

Etc.

I guess I'm just not sure what you think is missing. Major game titles are just getting more and more numberous to the point that a sane person can't play all of them even if they wanted to.

Remember cheat codes? When you could just mess around in a game with infinite ammo and god mode without worrying about ruining the atmosphere of a game?

Sure, I remember that they weren't in every game back then either.

Games like:
GTA IV and V
The new FFTactics version for the psp.
Metal Gear Solid IV
Assassin's Creed III
Dead Space

I mean, they're all over the place. Some are literally cheat codes. Some are cheat actions. Even Skyrim could be on that list with so many exploits. These not being included in several games isn't because they're cheap. It's because cheats can easily kill games. I like the way MGS does it, where it's usually something that you have to earn in one playthrough.

 

[Negatempest]

Spoiler

Yes, the ps1 library and ps2 library was fantastic. I have no idea what comparing the sales of Sony from 5th through 6th gen has anything to do with 3rd party AAA game variety.

I was explaining why Exclusivity was almost null last generation but not the 5th and 6th. The Ps1 and ps2 sold SOOOOO many machines and porting games was so difficult back then that exclusivity was viable, easy even. Then when the ps3 had such a rocky start and the most popular machine was so weak, things started being multi-platform out of necessity. Now, with x86 being the architecture, it doesn't matter how many units consoles sell. They are so easy to port between that there's realy no reason not to.


Indie developers are great and love their variety. But I blame myself for not specifying in my post I mostly speak of AAA developers. No, you did specify that quite clearly. I was only including them in discussion and saying that indie developers have their own niche areas that AAA developers aren't necessarily needed in. Sure, a game like minecraft makes "runaway-and-buy-an-Island" money, but the vast majority of those games don't make anything close to what AAA titles make on a bad day. In some way, complaining about AAA developers not being more niche can be a little like complaining that a 5-star restaurant doesn't also serve hotdogs and spaghettios. Not that indie games are the hotdogs and spaghettios of the gaming world, just that they are incredibly cheap to make and usually don't make anything close to the return other things would. The thing you're forgetting is that AAA typically refers to the kind of budget behind the game. All the small and innovative games you like aren't typically AAA titles anyways. So to say that AAA devs aren't making them is kind of axiomatically true.

I loved sony in the 6th and 7th gen. They were my games of choice after the sega genesis. So when I think about their former games compared to the more modern ones, it is just sad. Fear of risking new ideas, color or allowing the player to play as they wish to hampers games now.

Yes, their former systems had a lot of exclusives. But I don't see what that has to say about AAA development as a whole besides that they are capable of multi-platform development.

3rd party AAA games of the 7th gen (I'll stick to games that are available on the console) that were popular and at least tried something new (such as being a new IP):

Alan Wake
Army of Two
Assassin's Creed (the first game debuted here)
Batman Arkham Asylum
Bioshock
Bayonetta
Borderlands
Crackdown
Crysis
DarkSiders
Dark Souls
Dead Island
Dead Rising
Dead Space
Dragon Age
F.E.A.R.
Left for Dead
LittleBigPlanet (This was 3rd party when created, Sony didn't purchase them until 2010)
Mass Effect
Mirror's Edge
No More Heroes
Portal
Saint's Row
Sleeping Dogs

Etc.

I guess I'm just not sure what you think is missing. Major game titles are just getting more and more numberous to the point that a sane person can't play all of them even if they wanted to.

Remember cheat codes? When you could just mess around in a game with infinite ammo and god mode without worrying about ruining the atmosphere of a game?

Sure, I remember that they weren't in every game back then either.

Games like:
GTA IV and V
The new FFTactics version for the psp.
Metal Gear Solid IV
Assassin's Creed III
Dead Space

I mean, they're all over the place. Some are literally cheat codes. Some are cheat actions. Even Skyrim could be on that list with so many exploits. These not being included in several games isn't because they're cheap. It's because cheats can easily kill games. I like the way MGS does it, where it's usually something that you have to earn in one playthrough.

Honestly, I am still trying to figure out where you are coming from. Are you saying 3rd party are as good as they have ever been? My point of Sony and Microsoft making their own games over drooling over 3rd party is that 3rd party are not as good as they used to be. Since they are nowhere near as good as they used to be, they are not the sink or swim supporters of consoles from the past. 3rd party is very much eating it's own tail and expecting to get bigger. If 3rd party was as fantastic as before I would not be posting this. But their own failure to make a 100% complete game is just sad and depressing. For example, when you get a buggy game. Do you come up with your own excuses for why it may be buggy? I used to come up with excuses for them. After the 3rd party developers have had nearly a decade of experience with a console you'd think that bugs wouldn't be as rampant...right? Compared to a PC where each individual having the same hardware is unlikely at best. So PC bugs very understandable, always different hardware. Console excuse? For the same hardware for nearly a decade?

 

[Lightknight]

Honestly, I am still trying to figure out where you are coming from. Are you saying 3rd party are as good as they have ever been?

Third party in general? Good and better than they've ever been. 3rd party AAA specifically? Bigger and better than they've ever been before. In a world where I can easily play games like The Stanley Parable, Bastion, Double Fine's exhaustive list of awesome titles (or are they considered a AAA company? I certainly consider them one of the best if that's all that's required) and then go and play Hitman, GTA, COD, and Borderlands? This is a good time to be alive and be a gamer. It's easy to look back on our golden age when everything was new and fresh and think that those were the best times.

In fact, those may legitimately be so. But the age of new and exciting experiences were more born out of rapidly advancing technologies and the lack of existing libraries (either out of fewer games being made or out of difficulties in emulation until now). It's not a credit to the game that it was early though. The games of today can often have much better writing and development than anything we had in the past. There were some developers who really stood out in storylines back then, but those guys are still around and have been given new life through sites like kickstarter.

Even the list of first party games has never been better. Though I think Nintendo may have taken a little nap at the wheel for the last hundred miles.

Looking at the games objectively, I am much happier with modern games. Have you ever really gone back and played those games at any length? Even games as recent as FFVII can be hard to play again. Fallout 1, which I loved the first time I played, is almost unplayable to me now. Fallout 3 though? Entirely playable.

Things are only looking better as the major consoles have opened up for indie development

My point of Sony and Microsoft making their own games over drooling over 3rd party is that 3rd party are not as good as they used to be.

I categorically deny that. Nostalgia is a mind clouder if ever there was one.

If anything has changed to the disadvantage of us oldschool gamers, it's perhaps that gaming has become so popular that we are no longer the largest demographic that gaming companies cater to specifically. As with movie fans of any particular genre, we have to wait our turn. This is inevitable in any such industry.

Since they are nowhere near as good as they used to be, they are not the sink or swim supporters of consoles from the past. 3rd party is very much eating it's own tail and expecting to get bigger. If 3rd party was as fantastic as before I would not be posting this. But their own failure to make a 100% complete game is just sad and depressing. For example, when you get a buggy game. Do you come up with your own excuses for why it may be buggy? I used to come up with excuses for them. After the 3rd party developers have had nearly a decade of experience with a console you'd think that bugs wouldn't be as rampant...right? Compared to a PC where each individual having the same hardware is unlikely at best. So PC bugs very understandable, always different hardware. Console excuse? For the same hardware for nearly a decade?

So your argument is that all 3rd party games don't work?

From what I've seen, it's only a handful of companies that have trouble with this. Bethesda and EA easily come to mind. Bethesda I at least understand somewhat because of the size/scope of their worlds but EA's failure usually sprouts out of their insistance on treating real customers like criminals. And, while I am generally ok with most of Bethesda's mistakes for the reason I mentioned, I QA'd the PS3 version from home and IMMEDIATELY noticed that Dungeons weren't resetting along with any other assets in the world. I even caught the nirnroot bloom stacking issue right away. There's no way Bethesda wasn't aware of that well before launch.

But there's a few things here.

1. No software that has ever been made is entirely without bugs. I've worked on software dev cycles before, primarily as a QA engineer. We often have large lists of tests to perform with every build as well as some time set aside to just explore and break the product. Even then, things fall through the cracks and clients use the product in ways we simply didn't anticipate. The more complex the software, and video games are as complex as it gets, then the more liklihood that something will slip through. Perhaps even something I tested for in a previous build that wasn't a problem then but was introduced by a build meant to fix another problem that I did find. But then I never retest that one thing I tested on a whim.

The sheer number of issues makes it pretty much impossible to fix everything or to even know every issue. The job of a product manager isn't to release the game when it's perfect. It's to release it when there are no significant bugs that ruin the game. Good enough. That's the way it has to work. The problem comes when they fail to catch major bugs or release anyways, that is their fault then.

2. Most of the major titles I listed went off without a hitch. Any patches were small things fixing regular issues that consoles used to not be able to fix, ever. Does anyone remember that FF gameboy game that had a critical glitch at the end of the game that prevented finishing it? I can never remember which game it was other than the cartridge image was red. Games absolutely did release broken and bugged back then. Bungie released a game that would crash your computer if you tried to uninstall it. So I'm sorry, but your perception of things is off. The only difference today is that things can be fixed afterwards which does lead to premature releases and that media is far more readily avaiable and does focus on broken games because that IS news and a game working as expected is not.

3. This isn't a criticism of the games themselves unless. Major problems are usually fixed in a week to even a few days (most of the time, the first patch takes care of them and so the big problem is never seen). So, while frustrating it isn't the norm and isn't anything against the game itself once fixed.

 

[aozgolo]

To be honest I feel the divide between Indie and AAA is narrowing, I mean many indie games you can still clearly tell are "indie" but they have a level of polish that AAA game developers 10 years ago could appreciate, and that's with shoestring budgets and skeleton crews.

Sure we've lost plenty of developers, but that happens in every generation, not just this one, and that talent doesn't really "disappear" it just moves on to new jobs and new projects.

This whole issue of "respect for game development" seems isolated to the console market, perhaps as a predominantly PC Gamer I don't notice it as much. Yes these are changing times and we have plenty of companies wanting to milk the DLC cow but I'm finding the plus side of this is that they are no longer the only options, and generally speaking at least to my own interests, I find the games I most enjoy being put out by game developers who actually do put considerable investment into the game itself and deliver a full experience right from the get-go.

 

[Shpongled]

It should just go into offline mode if you lose internet in games with out always on DRM. It does with mine.

It should, but it doesn't. The worst part of it is when others think the problem doesn't exist because it works for them -.-

No, the worst part of it is when others think that because it doesn't work for them, the problem is universal. I think I can count on one hand the times this has been a problem for me. In recent memory, maybe thrice. Twice, it was just faulty and went back to behaving normally the next time I restarted Steam. The third time I sent in a ticket and the issue was resolved within 5 days. Problem? Yes. Ruining PC gaming? No. Although I can't speak for Origin or whatever Ubisoft's platform is called, both of which I avoid for the same reasons I stay away from a white van with "free candy" spray painted on the side.

If the problem was universal they'd fix it or it wouldn't be as popular. So you don't have problems and I shouldn't hate it because it works for you even if it's a piece of shit for me? If you haven't had issues and you like it, that's understandable. I don't see how it's any less understandable to hate it for having problems.

If you get constantly get food poisoning at a restaurant are you going to keep eating there because other people don't get it?

You're not obligated to like Steam, and you're welcome to share your opinions about it, but you should understand that there are reasons far beyond Valves control why offline mode might not work on your PC. If you can understand that, you should probably be able to make the logical leap as to working out why your specific problem probably isn't going to spell doom for PC gaming as a whole.

To use your analogy, if you constantly get food poisoning from a restaurant, and no one else that goes there does, you're probably better off assuming the problem is with you and going to the doctors and getting yourself checked out, rather than assuming its something the restaurant is doing and publicly decrying that particular restaurant to be ruining food retail.

Also, just so i can add something actually OT: ~2008 the world entered a Global recession. This is far more likely to explain why so many companies have gone out of business since then than any sort of DRM/DLC/etc problems.

 

[Lightknight]

To be honest I feel the divide between Indie and AAA is narrowing, I mean many indie games you can still clearly tell are "indie" but they have a level of polish that AAA game developers 10 years ago could appreciate, and that's with shoestring budgets and skeleton crews.

Sure we've lost plenty of developers, but that happens in every generation, not just this one, and that talent doesn't really "disappear" it just moves on to new jobs and new projects.

This whole issue of "respect for game development" seems isolated to the console market, perhaps as a predominantly PC Gamer I don't notice it as much. Yes these are changing times and we have plenty of companies wanting to milk the DLC cow but I'm finding the plus side of this is that they are no longer the only options, and generally speaking at least to my own interests, I find the games I most enjoy being put out by game developers who actually do put considerable investment into the game itself and deliver a full experience right from the get-go.

There will be a day when gaming engines and their respective utilities are so robust and user friendly that even an indie game can have AAA polish.

On that day, AAA had better evolved into some crazy virtual reality tech or to have invested significantly in better writers. Because that's when writing will be all that makes a game good or bad if everything looks as good as it can.

 

[TehCookie]

I bought a new Kawasaki ER-6n a few years ago, almost killed me a few times due to a problem with the revs suddenly ramping epic levels for no apparent reason. Took it back to the Kawasaki dealership and ended up trading it in for a Ninja, which i sold and bought a Suzuki instead.

Point being, no, i'm not a particular fan of Kawasaki bikes anymore because of those few terrifyingly life-affirming moments, and it's unlikely i'll be buying one again for a good while. However, i do understand that they're designing precision engineered motorcycles to work all over the world for all types of riders, and sometimes things go wrong. I understand that hundreds of thousands of people across the world ride Kawasaki's everyday with no problems at all. I don't hate Kawasaki, and I don't go around decrying Kawasaki as ruining motorcycling.

See how this ties in with Steam? Hundreds of thousands of people across the world make use of offline mode on Steam everyday, with no problems. Sometimes Steam bugs out for us, but we understand that Valve have to design Steam to work on computers from the mid-90's up until 2013, on OS's spanning decades, on an untold number of hardware and software configurations, for thousands of different people with different computering habits.

You're not obligated to like Steam, and you're welcome to share your opinions about it, but you should understand that there are reasons far beyond Valves control why offline mode might not work on your PC. If you can understand that, you should probably be able to make the logical leap as to working out why your specific problem probably isn't going to spell doom for PC gaming as a whole.

To use your analogy, if you constantly get food poisoning from a restaurant, and no one else that goes there does, you're probably better off assuming the problem is with you and going to the doctors and getting yourself checked out, rather than assuming its something the restaurant is doing and publicly decrying that particular restaurant to be ruining food retail.

Also, just so i can add something actually OT: ~2008 the world entered a Global recession. This is far more likely to explain why so many companies have gone out of business since then than any sort of DRM/DLC/etc problems.

You do realize that I wasn't the one saying Steam is killing PC gaming or terrible to everyone, that was the person above me (and if you think I'm like that then you're a fanboy). I replied I find it terrible because it doesn't work for me, which if I'm not obligated to like it and welcome to share my opinions on it why do you keep trying to convince me otherwise? I'm not even going on a crusade like you seem to think, I only say what I think when someone asks, and you're the one who keeps quoting me and asking so I'll continue hating on it until you understand I don't like it and no matter how good it is for you it still doesn't work for me.

Yes Steam has to deal with all sorts of builds and one probably won't be happy with it, but that's PC gaming. The games are fine with my build so why do I have to deal with something that's not even necessary for playing them?

 

[Negatempest]

Honestly, I am still trying to figure out where you are coming from. Are you saying 3rd party are as good as they have ever been?

Third party in general? Good and better than they've ever been. 3rd party AAA specifically? Bigger and better than they've ever been before. In a world where I can easily play games like The Stanley Parable, Bastion, Double Fine's exhaustive list of awesome titles (or are they considered a AAA company? I certainly consider them one of the best if that's all that's required) and then go and play Hitman, GTA, COD, and Borderlands? This is a good time to be alive and be a gamer. It's easy to look back on our golden age when everything was new and fresh and think that those were the best times.

In fact, those may legitimately be so. But the age of new and exciting experiences were more born out of rapidly advancing technologies and the lack of existing libraries (either out of fewer games being made or out of difficulties in emulation until now). It's not a credit to the game that it was early though. The games of today can often have much better writing and development than anything we had in the past. There were some developers who really stood out in storylines back then, but those guys are still around and have been given new life through sites like kickstarter.

Even the list of first party games has never been better. Though I think Nintendo may have taken a little nap at the wheel for the last hundred miles.

Looking at the games objectively, I am much happier with modern games. Have you ever really gone back and played those games at any length? Even games as recent as FFVII can be hard to play again. Fallout 1, which I loved the first time I played, is almost unplayable to me now. Fallout 3 though? Entirely playable.

Things are only looking better as the major consoles have opened up for indie development

My point of Sony and Microsoft making their own games over drooling over 3rd party is that 3rd party are not as good as they used to be.

I categorically deny that. Nostalgia is a mind clouder if ever there was one.

If anything has changed to the disadvantage of us oldschool gamers, it's perhaps that gaming has become so popular that we are no longer the largest demographic that gaming companies cater to specifically. As with movie fans of any particular genre, we have to wait our turn. This is inevitable in any such industry.

Since they are nowhere near as good as they used to be, they are not the sink or swim supporters of consoles from the past. 3rd party is very much eating it's own tail and expecting to get bigger. If 3rd party was as fantastic as before I would not be posting this. But their own failure to make a 100% complete game is just sad and depressing. For example, when you get a buggy game. Do you come up with your own excuses for why it may be buggy? I used to come up with excuses for them. After the 3rd party developers have had nearly a decade of experience with a console you'd think that bugs wouldn't be as rampant...right? Compared to a PC where each individual having the same hardware is unlikely at best. So PC bugs very understandable, always different hardware. Console excuse? For the same hardware for nearly a decade?

So your argument is that all 3rd party games don't work?

From what I've seen, it's only a handful of companies that have trouble with this. Bethesda and EA easily come to mind. Bethesda I at least understand somewhat because of the size/scope of their worlds but EA's failure usually sprouts out of their insistance on treating real customers like criminals. And, while I am generally ok with most of Bethesda's mistakes for the reason I mentioned, I QA'd the PS3 version from home and IMMEDIATELY noticed that Dungeons weren't resetting along with any other assets in the world. I even caught the nirnroot bloom stacking issue right away. There's no way Bethesda wasn't aware of that well before launch.

But there's a few things here.

1. No software that has ever been made is entirely without bugs. I've worked on software dev cycles before, primarily as a QA engineer. We often have large lists of tests to perform with every build as well as some time set aside to just explore and break the product. Even then, things fall through the cracks and clients use the product in ways we simply didn't anticipate. The more complex the software, and video games are as complex as it gets, then the more liklihood that something will slip through. Perhaps even something I tested for in a previous build that wasn't a problem then but was introduced by a build meant to fix another problem that I did find. But then I never retest that one thing I tested on a whim.

The sheer number of issues makes it pretty much impossible to fix everything or to even know every issue. The job of a product manager isn't to release the game when it's perfect. It's to release it when there are no significant bugs that ruin the game. Good enough. That's the way it has to work. The problem comes when they fail to catch major bugs or release anyways, that is their fault then.

2. Most of the major titles I listed went off without a hitch. Any patches were small things fixing regular issues that consoles used to not be able to fix, ever. Does anyone remember that FF gameboy game that had a critical glitch at the end of the game that prevented finishing it? I can never remember which game it was other than the cartridge image was red. Games absolutely did release broken and bugged back then. Bungie released a game that would crash your computer if you tried to uninstall it. So I'm sorry, but your perception of things is off. The only difference today is that things can be fixed afterwards which does lead to premature releases and that media is far more readily avaiable and does focus on broken games because that IS news and a game working as expected is not.

3. This isn't a criticism of the games themselves unless. Major problems are usually fixed in a week to even a few days (most of the time, the first patch takes care of them and so the big problem is never seen). So, while frustrating it isn't the norm and isn't anything against the game itself once fixed.

Sorry fir delay. Holiday fun. -_-. anyways. your post is long and I did read it all. The issues with most of the games you listed were not small. There were multiple small to big messups or bad decisions in each game. Alan with DLC ending, ME with lore munipulation each game, and GTA with GTA issues that everyone forgives. And yet again I say that you know of whom I speak when it comes to 3rd party and to list them all is pointless. I do not mention Indie because the studios are small that could fall apart without notice.
Yes, 3rd party started strong, in the beginning. Which is what I mentioned in OP. I am saying now. As of now and since mid 7th gen cycle 3rd party are just not there. I have played those old rpg games and still love them. I played FF1 for the first time 2 years ago and loved it. I see the bad choices mechanic wise from old games. Grinding is still a pain. Forgetting to save. But you know what? I had control of my characters and game the majority of the time. Lucky if I get half control of the game nowadays. Easy to understand game does not equal a great game. I said before, game makers are chasing the mature crowd far too often. Has to be deep to get any kind of respect as a game, and that is just wrong. I would love some imagination and color from EA and Activision, but that just not gonna happen.
Could you imagine the movie industry if every studio chased after the Avatar crowd?

 

[Roxas1359]

Could you imagine the movie industry if every studio chased after the Avatar crowd?

You do realize that the movie industry actually did do that right? Avatar had two things going for it, and one of those things was the wave of 3D stuff that ended up coming in droves after that movie. After Avatar, a bunch of movies suddenly were offered in 3D, when before they hadn't. Thank god that trend is pretty much dead now, but it made it's way into the gaming industry in the end. Just look at the PS3 games with 3D capability or the 3DS' 3D feature in general. Would they have been in there if 3D suddenly wasn't made popular, chances are no and even in the end no one used the 3D feature on the 3DS because all it would do is drain the battery.

What I'm meaning by this is that because of Avatar suddenly every movie had to have a 3D version in theaters alongside the regular and IMAX versions, just so they could make more money because of the gimmick. As for plot wise, I'm sure there are people who rip off the plot and elements of Avatar all the time, hell they did it with movies before Avatar came out.

 

[Pinkscare]

That is why I know speak with my wallet.

 

[Negatempest]

Could you imagine the movie industry if every studio chased after the Avatar crowd?

You do realize that the movie industry actually did do that right? Avatar had two things going for it, and one of those things was the wave of 3D stuff that ended up coming in droves after that movie. After Avatar, a bunch of movies suddenly were offered in 3D, when before they hadn't. Thank god that trend is pretty much dead now, but it made it's way into the gaming industry in the end. Just look at the PS3 games with 3D capability or the 3DS' 3D feature in general. Would they have been in there if 3D suddenly wasn't made popular, chances are no and even in the end no one used the 3D feature on the 3DS because all it would do is drain the battery.

What I'm meaning by this is that because of Avatar suddenly every movie had to have a 3D version in theaters alongside the regular and IMAX versions, just so they could make more money because of the gimmick. As for plot wise, I'm sure there are people who rip off the plot and elements of Avatar all the time, hell they did it with movies before Avatar came out.

No. The movie ibdustry copied different individual pieces. They did not copy the large budget and deep story at the same time. Sure 3D is a gimmick but it is found in different genres. I should have been more specific. You dont see every other studio chasing the deep mature crowd. They make different genres to target different audiences. So far all 3rd party video game makers are targeting is the mature, deep crowd and believing going over budget is the way to do it. Which is why I want strong 1st party support again so we see the likes of Crash and Spyro again. Adding in Tiny Tank as well.

 

[white_wolf]

I'm just waiting around for them to nose dive themselves into another crash greed tends to do that.

 

[Lightknight]

Sorry fir delay. Holiday fun. -_-. anyways. your post is long and I did read it all. The issues with most of the games you listed were not small. There were multiple small to big messups or bad decisions in each game. Alan with DLC ending, ME with lore munipulation each game, and GTA with GTA issues that everyone forgives. And yet again I say that you know of whom I speak when it comes to 3rd party and to list them all is pointless. I do not mention Indie because the studios are small that could fall apart without notice.

Are you saying that other studios make perfect games? All software has problems here and there. First, Second, Third party and indie games. All of those have problems. You can't stamp out all bugs and a problem with writing to you isn't necessarily a problem with writing to others.

I only listed a handful of titles that most people loved. Everyone forgives GTA issues that exist because they love the game. Most AAA games do not have system crippling bugs. You are exageratting the problem here.

I played FF1 for the first time 2 years ago and loved it. I see the bad choices mechanic wise from old games. Grinding is still a pain. Forgetting to save. But you know what?

How are these not akin to the kind of problems you just expressed for modern games? Why do old games get a free pass?

I had control of my characters and game the majority of the time. Lucky if I get half control of the game nowadays. Easy to understand game does not equal a great game. I said before, game makers are chasing the mature crowd far too often. Has to be deep to get any kind of respect as a game, and that is just wrong. I would love some imagination and color from EA and Activision, but that just not gonna happen.

You're making too broad a comment. Is GTA a bad game because it had it's problems? Were ME 1 and 2 bad games? Crysis? Bioshock?

Are those bad games?

Could you imagine the movie industry if every studio chased after the Avatar crowd?

Make lots of money? Push gaming technology forward at a break neck pace? Make a good story necessary where graphics are common-place? Your example here is literally the highest grossing movie of all time. Here's something scary that you may not have realised. The majority of gamers do not share the sentiment that most of us here on the escapist share. They like graphics. They like being impressed. That's where the money is. Take a look at the highest grossing films of all time and evaluate their quality in relation to their lower grossing contemporaries. Not visual quality, but writing and story telling. Most of them are just visually impressive or just were visually impressive back then with an ok story. The movies that are just well written or fun don't make it. Probably something to do with the desire to see those graphically impressive ones in 3D and IMAX.