i think they should fire all game designers of the last 20 years who are disappointments

[Vrex360]

Pretty much in agreement of what everyone else is saying, I can respect the annoyance that comes with poor games being released but honestly there is something kind of childish about being unable to accept the petty gripes of the world and demand that everything run your way. As others have said a 'good game' and a 'bad game' are purely subjective. If a game still funtions properly then it can be called a good game regardless of whether or not you liked it. So to do a mass unemployment of people working in game development solely because they make games that don't fit into your criteria of what makes a game good just seems odd to me.
I apologise if this may seem a little harsh, I am certainly not trying to be.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Well, even if we unanimously agree, it's not like it's magically going to happen.

I agree BIG TIME that some people just make crappy games and they don't seem to get it, but kicking people out and not giving them the chance to learn isn't going to help.

 

[Darzen]

for starters game designer arestarting to make nothing but sequels of older games or using way to familiar themes instead of tapping into the creatice juices they have or atleast had.while new game designers with new ideas and talent are left to work in small offices for some useless company or stuck in dead end jobs because all the game disigners for Xbox are milking halo and it's theme of humans versus aliens.Nintendo atleast has 3 cows to milk(zelda,mario and metroid game series).and Ps3.....actually they don't milk many games they already made.

Game companies should atleast trade game designers like trading cards.imagine 1 guy from microsoft saying"we should make a game like Halo" then a game designer from Sony saying"thats a good idea but i know where we could make improvements."or maybe just layoff any game designer who proposes to remake a game or make a sequel to game who's last game in the series already provided plenty of closure.i'm just saying letting in more than a drop of fresh blood to an older gaming company.it would add more variety to the choice of games out there for gamers.if a game is a hit make a sequel.if a game is a hit and a sequeul is made don't throw out to many old control,inventory,or combat systems that made it good.so the next time you see a sequels where the number is higher than 3 just think to yourself"who should be fired or traded off?"

 

[wax88]

Good idea, cause so many people have lost their jobs as it is, lets just further destabalize the economy

not neccesarily. think about it-they lose their jobs but the company still has that position to be filled. time for some fresh blood i say.

 

[atomictoast]

I love it, destabilizing the economy further, making individuals lose a job for things usually outside of their control, understanding none of the process of making a video game but harshly passing judgment as if your the expert in that field...When can we start?

 

[Darzen]

first off if people would actually make games we wanted to buy instead of having to buy becaue the theme is familiar and no one can think of a better game to make we'd buy more games leading to gaming companies branching out and spending more money to help their business further grow and adapt to an ever changing market helping to open more jobs and more money spending helping the economy.
secondly,if 20 reviewers say a game is good it's woth looking into.if 5 game reviewers say a game is bad and 25 friends recomend the game you should look into it.if every reveiwer(incliuding yahtzee) says a game is good and everyone of your friends agree then buy it.75% of reviewers like it and everyone you know,friend or not,diagree than something is wrong.

Last you find a replacement before firing thus keeping your number of employes the same.plus those who were fired should have enough money left to live off of until another job at a different company opens up.you'd think games would go through quality control too.like a majority type thing.if 61% of a test group for a certain game says the game is spit(i don't like cursing)than they should take a survey on whats good or not.on top of that instead of setting a realease date as soon as a game is done they should have to go through at least 2 months of quality control.also that whole trade game developers idea is still good.(yes i deliver long comeback arguments for people who disagree with me)

 

[Alex the Pally]

for starters game designer arestarting to make nothing but sequels of older games or using way to familiar themes

My god, you're absolutely right. In that case, we should get rid of all works since the beginning of mankind, seeing as they're all using similar themes!

while new game designers with new ideas and talent are left to work in small offices for some useless company or stuck in dead end jobs

Or they're doing flash games on sites like Newgrounds, bypassing the bureaucracy that is the industry and leaving to the masses whether or not something is good.

because all the game disigners for Xbox are milking halo and it's theme of humans versus aliens.Nintendo atleast has 3 cows to milk(zelda,mario and metroid game series).and Ps3.....actually they don't milk many games they already made.

Note that this is not a bad thing. PS3 has the Ratchet and Clank series, and I defy you to say that Nintendo has not made several important contributions ot the industry with said franchises, i.e. Z-targeting.

Game companies should atleast trade game designers like trading cards.

I'm quite sure things aren't that easy, seeing as sports teams and game studios are two very different entities.

or maybe just layoff any game designer who proposes to remake a game or make a sequel to game who's last game in the series already provided plenty of closure.

There's nothing wrong with remakes, per se.

i'm just saying letting in more than a drop of fresh blood to an older gaming company.it would add more variety to the choice of games out there for gamers.

There's plenty out there already. But then Sturgeon's Law comes into play and it turns into a mess. We do not need a bigger mess, we just need better quality control, which is a concept easier in theory than application.

if a game is a hit make a sequel.if a game is a hit and a sequeul is made don't throw out to many old control,inventory,or combat systems that made it good.

Farewell, any and all innovation that sequels have brought or popularized!

so the next time you see a sequels where the number is higher than 3 just think to yourself"who should be fired or traded off?"

Rule of Three does not apply to everything. Some things actually tend to get better AFTER the third installment, like the CoD or AC franchises.

I apologize for the long delay, but I had to dig through the syntax and grammatical errors to assemble a semi-logical statement from all that.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Most Dev teams are only making what there publishers want them to make. You can't blame them. Also I doubt that it would be a good idea to fire proably over a 1'000 and leave them in a field with no options. I mean if you got fired for being a bad developer who is gonna hire you?

 

[Darzen]

i'm just saying maybe if dev's had some original ideas that everyone would enjoy then they should day them instead of being a publisher's personal -bleep-.if a title has more than 15 games and only 4 have numbers after them then maybe we should re-examine our society and the publisher's interest's should come second in game developing.i should have said that sooner before i made those huge rants but i don't think well before i take a shower and read some "Calvin and Hobbes".but if a developer is piching and making the same theme of games over and over again because 1 game with that theme made it big they should be fired for exploiting that theme and milking it to dry for the next generation to enjoy the products of that perticular theme.If a dev makes a bad game he shouldn't be condemed or congradulated but traded off to another company or set on a vision quest to come up with better game.if a game is good and gives no closure after the third title another game should be made and if you can keep it going go right ahead.But if the systems of controls work and the inovations turn out to make them to complex then stick with the old till you find a better new.so if a dev gets way to frickin repedetive then they should be retired from their job.So inovation and repeditive ness aren't always bad but to much of it can get annoying and confusing.new ideas and keeping some old control systems are usually good.

note:the left analog stick equals camera and the right analog stick equals movement and nothing else

 

[HentMas]

this is a terrible idea and shows you have absolutelly no knowledge in any kind of enterprise or industry

first of all, firing all the only guys that are experienced enough to make a video game that actually works (and sometimes they even crash and burn by themselves) is a bad idea, finding new blood with absolutelly no basis as of who the hell you are going to hire or oppening so many spaces to fill that you dont even know if anyone will ever fill the shoes of the guy you just fired is an absolutely company nightmare

seccondly, Making a new game with a new concept and a new gameplay... have you ever heard of "Katamari"??? its different, its absolutely new concept, new gameplay, new characters and it isnt the most succesfull game, why!? because it is TOO DIFFERENT, and kiddy, tell me right now from the top of your head one game that you think, come on, do it, absolutelly not! that idea sucks, why?? because I dont like it (harsh example) of course everything seems similar, if something is too different it will alienate regular players, why do you think EA sports haves so many sales??

thirtly... why would a company (any company) spend resourses and man hours to develop a game they dont know if it will sell?? think about it, they make studies for the game they are making, they dont go full blast on an idea because they have to adapt everything to what the general public wants, look at what happened to the PC version of Modern Warfare 2, they made it more "console like" because the PC gamers are not their selling niche, it was "too much hassle" to continue pleasing a niche that in the end didnt delivered.

that is my general view on the matter, you can say whatever you want but i trully believe it is not viable because it cost too much and companies are to make money, not spend it.

 

[cheese_wizington]

Discussion fail much?

What is there to talk about, all you said is " dey shud liek behn suckeh gem deveys frum mekkin sukkeh gems so we cen haz mur haloz!"

Minus the halos part....

But I'm sure thats what was also on your mind.