Jimquisition: Guns Blazing
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They won't give a shit because shareholders are more important than customers, and niche titles don't increase quarterly sales reports to make shareholders happy.
And all those previously independent developers from the 90's and early 2000's that saw those same dollar signs when publishers began to buy them up are what got this snowball rolling.
The gaming industry needs to collapse again.
And all those previously independent developers from the 90's and early 2000's that saw those same dollar signs when publishers began to buy them up are what got this snowball rolling.
The gaming industry needs to collapse again.
I don't have a source to fully back this up, but if they could've, I believe Dark Souls would've just been Demon's Souls II, in all honesty. Miyazaki and the new directors of Dark Souls II have stated that the games (all three) have really nothing to do with the other in terms of story, and it's a continuation mostly on mechanics (some might debate this, and you're in the right, because we don't know jack at the moment for DaS II). The name is, I think, natural because it joins the series together. The only reason why they even kept the Souls name, if this is true, is so that people associate it with Demon's Souls, otherwise they would have named it anything else.Zom-B said:
Back on topic, I'm not too frightened as a lover of Dark Souls. Namco Bandai will take the hit if it doesn't go as well, but ultimately From Soft calls the shots for the franchise and is the publisher in Japan. If it becomes a financial success for From, and I think it will, but bombs Namco, they can just find someone else. The question then would be if they could find a publisher just as good in terms of creative freedom.
In short, don't be worried about it affecting DaS II in terms of game mechanics or quality. Really.
Oh man, Jim you need to calm down a bit....not that i dont agree with you 100%.
I recently thought i was going off games until i realised its not me, its the crap thats being produced. Sad to have to say goodbye to one more decent franchise, heh Triple A, the Aids of the game industry...
I recently thought i was going off games until i realised its not me, its the crap thats being produced. Sad to have to say goodbye to one more decent franchise, heh Triple A, the Aids of the game industry...
Did I not say that language evolves?Mick P. said:
Regardless Nitch is still painfully shit and boowy doubly so. I do not care who gets alienated with "francophone" sophisitication.
Buoy is at the root word or buoyant, bouyancy, etc and and it is either Dutch or Spanish with both pronunciations being closer to boy. Boowy is closer to French so who is alienating who with francophonie now?
Sorry but adding extra difficuly modes is just dilluting the game directors vision of the gameplay to appeal to a wider audience. That's why Dark Souls only has one difficulty mode and plays so tight; the game director knew how he wanted the game to be played and refused to sell it short to appeal to people who cant deal with adversity.Infernal Lawyer said:
Unless something changed that I'm not ware of, let me make something abundantly clear to everyone... From Software is developing it themselves (like they do all their titles that I know of), and they do their own publishing within their home country of Japan. They use other companies like Agetec, Atlus, and Namco to publish overseas.
Given that, Namco Bandi will have very little to do with the development of Dark Souls 2. They have no rights to tell them how to do things, and ultimately Namco needs From Software, not the other way around. If Namco spends billions on useless ad campaigns and pushing for Dark Souls 2 to be as big as Skyrim, they'll only hurt themselves. If they do this and consider Dark Souls 2 to be a colossal financial failure, and refuse to publish any others, From will simply move on to another publisher, and we'll still get a quality game out of Dark Souls 2.
So this is actually the perfect way for consumers to get everything we want: publishers learning a painful lesson in reality, and knowing that the games we love to play aren't going to be a casualty of that process. And really, if by some unbelievable miracle Dark Souls 2 doubles or even triples the fanbase of its predecessors, I'm happy with that too. I see very few ways for this to go wrong as far as we're concerned.
Given that, Namco Bandi will have very little to do with the development of Dark Souls 2. They have no rights to tell them how to do things, and ultimately Namco needs From Software, not the other way around. If Namco spends billions on useless ad campaigns and pushing for Dark Souls 2 to be as big as Skyrim, they'll only hurt themselves. If they do this and consider Dark Souls 2 to be a colossal financial failure, and refuse to publish any others, From will simply move on to another publisher, and we'll still get a quality game out of Dark Souls 2.
So this is actually the perfect way for consumers to get everything we want: publishers learning a painful lesson in reality, and knowing that the games we love to play aren't going to be a casualty of that process. And really, if by some unbelievable miracle Dark Souls 2 doubles or even triples the fanbase of its predecessors, I'm happy with that too. I see very few ways for this to go wrong as far as we're concerned.
I'm a big fan of the Tales games from Namco Bandai. I'm even more niche than Dark Souls fans.
Luckily, Hideo Baba seems to have no desire to change the Tales franchise into something it is not. While people who do not like Tales games might not find that an interesting prospect, I am and I do and that's why I spend money on them.
I'm trying to imagine what a Dark Soul and Skyrim fusion would look and play like right now. There's already a hot debate over whether Dark Souls is a "jRPRG" or a "wRPG" or 'neither one.' That argument would go right out the window for the most part if Dark Souls did, in fact, become more like Skyrim.
Well one thing, I think it would have far better combat than Skyrim. Skyrim is still somewhat stuck in the first person RPG discipline as you can tell that third person gameplay is less than stellar in comparison to many other 3rd person games, like Dark Souls which do punishingly hard combat in 3rd person pristinely well. Skyrim having better 3rd person action combat would be a good thing. In fact Dragon's Dogma is also better than Skyrim in this respect.
The problem is that I don't think that Dark Souls is meant to be Skyrim. It isn't so much about exploration as much finely tuned areas with finely tuned challenges. Most locations in Dark Souls are meant to kill you rather than make you wonder. I'm not against theses to genres learning from each other and having fusion games. But I don't think that Dark Souls needs to give up what it is for the sake of becoming more like Skyrim. Again, Dark Souls is about challenge more than exploration. And making it more about exploration than challenge would dilute what Dark Souls is about.
Luckily, Hideo Baba seems to have no desire to change the Tales franchise into something it is not. While people who do not like Tales games might not find that an interesting prospect, I am and I do and that's why I spend money on them.
I'm trying to imagine what a Dark Soul and Skyrim fusion would look and play like right now. There's already a hot debate over whether Dark Souls is a "jRPRG" or a "wRPG" or 'neither one.' That argument would go right out the window for the most part if Dark Souls did, in fact, become more like Skyrim.
Well one thing, I think it would have far better combat than Skyrim. Skyrim is still somewhat stuck in the first person RPG discipline as you can tell that third person gameplay is less than stellar in comparison to many other 3rd person games, like Dark Souls which do punishingly hard combat in 3rd person pristinely well. Skyrim having better 3rd person action combat would be a good thing. In fact Dragon's Dogma is also better than Skyrim in this respect.
The problem is that I don't think that Dark Souls is meant to be Skyrim. It isn't so much about exploration as much finely tuned areas with finely tuned challenges. Most locations in Dark Souls are meant to kill you rather than make you wonder. I'm not against theses to genres learning from each other and having fusion games. But I don't think that Dark Souls needs to give up what it is for the sake of becoming more like Skyrim. Again, Dark Souls is about challenge more than exploration. And making it more about exploration than challenge would dilute what Dark Souls is about.
I still don't get why people act as if Dead Space 1 was that sophisticated, intriguing survival horror game that got forced into being a third person shooter franchise.
Seriously, go play Dead Space 1 again: It's a third person shooter, loud and clear. There's no resource scarcity, there's no threat in a single enemy and the game's understanding of atmosphere is that a loud bang after a few seconds of "creepy" silence makes people jump in their seats and that that's kinda fun. The core gameplay mechanic is shooting off the limbs of enemies with ever more powerful weapons. Sorry, it's a third person shooter. Yes, the setting is sci-fi horror, but it's a shooter, an action game.
Dead Space 2? Even more action, more gross-out effects and loud "shock" moments, but less horror, sorry. It's still an action game.
Why are people so pissed at EA for Dead Space 3 being an action game? Because it has coop now? Okay, that's actually a difference, but a fairly small one.
Seriously, go play Dead Space 1 again: It's a third person shooter, loud and clear. There's no resource scarcity, there's no threat in a single enemy and the game's understanding of atmosphere is that a loud bang after a few seconds of "creepy" silence makes people jump in their seats and that that's kinda fun. The core gameplay mechanic is shooting off the limbs of enemies with ever more powerful weapons. Sorry, it's a third person shooter. Yes, the setting is sci-fi horror, but it's a shooter, an action game.
Dead Space 2? Even more action, more gross-out effects and loud "shock" moments, but less horror, sorry. It's still an action game.
Why are people so pissed at EA for Dead Space 3 being an action game? Because it has coop now? Okay, that's actually a difference, but a fairly small one.
Well, Jim, the people making decisions are business people. And they're not smart business people either - the smart ones tend to go into Oil, Military R&D, Mining and Aviation. Truth be told, the Video Game industry attracts only the middle-quality business people who don't really understand how to make businesses very successful.
These business people think of one thing and one thing only - money. They see what makes money, and in their minds, doing more of that will get them more money. Every industry suffers from this, it's not just video games. The truly successful, imaginative and intelligent business people know that to lazily copy another product in the hopes of duplicating its success is not wise. But those business people are few and far between. The majority of business people have precisely ZERO imagination (that's why they went into business after all) and want to take easy options to get big bucks.
These business people think of one thing and one thing only - money. They see what makes money, and in their minds, doing more of that will get them more money. Every industry suffers from this, it's not just video games. The truly successful, imaginative and intelligent business people know that to lazily copy another product in the hopes of duplicating its success is not wise. But those business people are few and far between. The majority of business people have precisely ZERO imagination (that's why they went into business after all) and want to take easy options to get big bucks.
I do not see the problem with widening the net with your advertising. I was not interested in Dark Souls. I didn't even hear about it until months after it was released, and even then it took some prodding by a few friends to get me to take the time to look at it. I fell in love. Getting your game some more exposure to try and reach more people doesn't seem inherently bad to me.
It's bad if you do it to excess.
It's bad if you disguise what the game is.
It's bad if you alter the game to suit a broader audience, at least when you do it in a way that alienates your primary audience.
It's not bad to widen your marketing a tad to reach more people, because word of mouth doesn't reach everyone, and it doesn't reach them as quickly.
Can someone please explain the problem to me? Are there other statements released by the company, other actions that make this more worrying in context? Is there a terrible aspect of widening the net a little bit that I'm just not getting?
It's bad if you do it to excess.
It's bad if you disguise what the game is.
It's bad if you alter the game to suit a broader audience, at least when you do it in a way that alienates your primary audience.
It's not bad to widen your marketing a tad to reach more people, because word of mouth doesn't reach everyone, and it doesn't reach them as quickly.
Can someone please explain the problem to me? Are there other statements released by the company, other actions that make this more worrying in context? Is there a terrible aspect of widening the net a little bit that I'm just not getting?
Aw man, I was already very skeptical about Dark Souls 2 because of the title alone. Dark Souls is a spiritual successor to Demon Souls, so it stands on its own and that's reflected in the title. Dark Souls doesn't require a sequel, so why does it have a sequel instead of a spiritual successor?
The problem isn't about widening the advertising but about widening the game itself. Making it more bland, less difficult and more mainstream.
I very much agree Jim, I can't recall another time in my life when I felt such apathy for every single AAA publisher and all they games they shit out.
The only games that actually do garner my interest are smaller indie and/or kickstarter titles, and they are FAR more exciting than anything that EA or their retarded cousins can produce. That's where the real games are coming from, we do not need these corporate shitbag game publishers and their misled devs.
The only games that actually do garner my interest are smaller indie and/or kickstarter titles, and they are FAR more exciting than anything that EA or their retarded cousins can produce. That's where the real games are coming from, we do not need these corporate shitbag game publishers and their misled devs.
If is the case then I would actually be more excited, but the wording used by the publisher says otherwise. Not to mention the developer's director has been replaced. Things are looking a bit shaky.Voltano said:
The thing about Nintendo games is that they are targetted at a big audience, "children". Thats one of the big 3,
so it's not exactly niche. Also just because you target a niche doesn't mean you can't experiment with gameplay, borrow ideas, improve visuals and continue the story arc.
Homogenization and Innovation are different things altogether.
The route that the publishers and the new directors who demands loyalty in the developers side means shoving to much money into visuals, homogenizing the gameplay so it's easier, handholding, appeals to wider variety of people (who would probably not buy the game because they already associate dark souls with hard ass game and it turns away existing fans) & publishers shoving tons of money into advertising it's largely increasing expenses that's setting yourself up for failure.
Yeah, we shall have to see. I'm holding onto my money until I see the gameplay before making any decision.Voltano said: