so i'm not the on;y one who sees that, one of my friends buys EA sports, 2K sports and that is IT!CakeEater said:
Poll: Who do you blame?
- Thread starter Baelor
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Developers have forsaken the originality part of game design in favor of being greedy dumb-f***s who only care about sales. So it's their fault for thinking that massive profits are more important than making quality games.
Consumers constantly buy crappy games because they think one little thing about it is good (more often than not, the "one thing" is either graphics or the fact that it's part of a series (like GTA or RE)). Since we keep buying more and more of the repainted garbage, game developers see an easy way out of actually putting forth an effort by just taking an old game, changing a few things around, and selling it as either a "new" game or a remake (look at Ninja Gaiden: Remakes for years before the FIRST sequel!!!).
*If you like a particular series, then people can't really blame you for buying more of it; I still buy Metroid, Legend of Zelda, and Pokemon games myself. It's when consumers become a fanbase and cause developers to make only crappy games for the fanbase that it becomes a problem.
The media picks out a few good things about the game and wears it out through advertising until it's little more than a blood-covered stub. When the game finally comes out, it turns out that the game comes nowhere near living up to the hype. Not to mention that they rarely announce more than a handful of the hundreds of games made each year.
So, in a sense, it's everyone's fault.
Consumers should stop buying recycled games; developers will realise that they'll lose their precious profits unless they make games people will buy, and original ideas will start appearing. Not much you can do about the media other than hope that they stop stirring up a huge hype about only a small amount of games only to leave gamers disappointed because the games don't live up to their media-fueled expectations.
Consumers constantly buy crappy games because they think one little thing about it is good (more often than not, the "one thing" is either graphics or the fact that it's part of a series (like GTA or RE)). Since we keep buying more and more of the repainted garbage, game developers see an easy way out of actually putting forth an effort by just taking an old game, changing a few things around, and selling it as either a "new" game or a remake (look at Ninja Gaiden: Remakes for years before the FIRST sequel!!!).
*If you like a particular series, then people can't really blame you for buying more of it; I still buy Metroid, Legend of Zelda, and Pokemon games myself. It's when consumers become a fanbase and cause developers to make only crappy games for the fanbase that it becomes a problem.
The media picks out a few good things about the game and wears it out through advertising until it's little more than a blood-covered stub. When the game finally comes out, it turns out that the game comes nowhere near living up to the hype. Not to mention that they rarely announce more than a handful of the hundreds of games made each year.
So, in a sense, it's everyone's fault.
Consumers should stop buying recycled games; developers will realise that they'll lose their precious profits unless they make games people will buy, and original ideas will start appearing. Not much you can do about the media other than hope that they stop stirring up a huge hype about only a small amount of games only to leave gamers disappointed because the games don't live up to their media-fueled expectations.
As has been stated above, I think that the current plight of the gaming scene is the fault of both the gamers and the developers. If we, the gamers, are unwilling to send a message to the developers via our dollars, then there is very little incentive for the developers to be proactive and creative with new releases.
Mainly, I blame Publishers, Developers, and Consumers.
Publishers: Rush Developers to finish products by a time limit. Case in point, Far Cry 2. Could have been great with extra polish. They are the real issue when creativity comes to question, IMO.
Developers: Lazieness. With this day in age, people shoulden't slack off just because they can update things with a patch. It is the developers job to make sure the game is running efficiently in all areas, and not just saying "We will be releasing a patch to fix this issue shortly"
Consumers: Supporting the crappy games. Case in point, Wii Play. It comes alot cheaper if you just buy a Wiimote! Do people really like this? If the consumer stops buying horrible games, the developers make alot less of them.
Publishers: Rush Developers to finish products by a time limit. Case in point, Far Cry 2. Could have been great with extra polish. They are the real issue when creativity comes to question, IMO.
Developers: Lazieness. With this day in age, people shoulden't slack off just because they can update things with a patch. It is the developers job to make sure the game is running efficiently in all areas, and not just saying "We will be releasing a patch to fix this issue shortly"
Consumers: Supporting the crappy games. Case in point, Wii Play. It comes alot cheaper if you just buy a Wiimote! Do people really like this? If the consumer stops buying horrible games, the developers make alot less of them.
This is a chicken and egg question, and mirrors the one that asks why Hollywood does so many stupid remakes instead of investing in innovative, new movie ideas.
Risk avoidance is the answer in both cases, I think.
For movies innovation tends to come from independent sources, who often risk all with one shot, and as a result chart a new path for Hollywood trends when they're successful, essentially proving that a new concept can work.
Does the gaming community (game-buying community actually) value innovation and creativity enough to try a new concept game? I hope so, and I guess I would try/buy a game that sounded interesting enough--innovative, immersive environment and good story are important to me.
Getting back to Risk Aversion, much of this is driven by the fact that many producers (of games and movies) are publically-held companies, and have quarterly profitability reports to make. Stock holders like to see profit, or they might take their dollars and run, and taking risks being innovative often has a down-side that many producers are unwilling or uncomfortable taking.
So Wall Street is to blame.
Risk avoidance is the answer in both cases, I think.
For movies innovation tends to come from independent sources, who often risk all with one shot, and as a result chart a new path for Hollywood trends when they're successful, essentially proving that a new concept can work.
Does the gaming community (game-buying community actually) value innovation and creativity enough to try a new concept game? I hope so, and I guess I would try/buy a game that sounded interesting enough--innovative, immersive environment and good story are important to me.
Getting back to Risk Aversion, much of this is driven by the fact that many producers (of games and movies) are publically-held companies, and have quarterly profitability reports to make. Stock holders like to see profit, or they might take their dollars and run, and taking risks being innovative often has a down-side that many producers are unwilling or uncomfortable taking.
So Wall Street is to blame.
The vast majority of consumers only pick up new products based on the little they know about it from a 30 second ad. I believe that is why the high number of sequel releases have been occuring recently. It's easy to sell a product that the people already know and trust. Controversy helps too. Game Developers have simply let it go that way, and over time have gotten lazy themselves.
When this tech was new, every game was too. Each release was some new twist to better suit the existing tech so it could try to live up to the potential of what it could do. The tech gets better? So do the games. BUT when the ONLY change is graphics...the gameplay begins to get stagnant.
Honestly, I think GTA3 unwittingly started the trend towards gameplay mediocraty. The people liked it so much that they wanted to be able to live out other fantasies using the same sandbox setup (Mercenaries, Dead Rising). RE4 came along, and now we have Silent Hill Homecoming, RE5 (duh), and Dead Space. And RE4 was just a smaller view of a smaller sandbox. First Person Shooters COULD be the thing that allows for some growth, but the only thing you can really do is SHOOT.
With the gameplay falling into each respective niche, so too go the stories involved, because how many ways can you explain why you're shooting people? Rockstar released Manhunt and there was no real story there, just a murder simulator. What else do gamers in this day and age do with our games? We kill things. Maybe, we'll solve puzzles, too, but that either is preceded or followed by the death of something at your hands. Sometimes that's the point of the puzzle.
Gamers are now asking "Why" a lot more. "Why am I supposed to be killing that guy again?"
"Because he's there." is losing it's potency as an answer. We were heros!!!! Link was a hero!!!
Think about how many games have come out now that have reduced you to just being a killer. The developers can do better.
When this tech was new, every game was too. Each release was some new twist to better suit the existing tech so it could try to live up to the potential of what it could do. The tech gets better? So do the games. BUT when the ONLY change is graphics...the gameplay begins to get stagnant.
Honestly, I think GTA3 unwittingly started the trend towards gameplay mediocraty. The people liked it so much that they wanted to be able to live out other fantasies using the same sandbox setup (Mercenaries, Dead Rising). RE4 came along, and now we have Silent Hill Homecoming, RE5 (duh), and Dead Space. And RE4 was just a smaller view of a smaller sandbox. First Person Shooters COULD be the thing that allows for some growth, but the only thing you can really do is SHOOT.
With the gameplay falling into each respective niche, so too go the stories involved, because how many ways can you explain why you're shooting people? Rockstar released Manhunt and there was no real story there, just a murder simulator. What else do gamers in this day and age do with our games? We kill things. Maybe, we'll solve puzzles, too, but that either is preceded or followed by the death of something at your hands. Sometimes that's the point of the puzzle.
Gamers are now asking "Why" a lot more. "Why am I supposed to be killing that guy again?"
"Because he's there." is losing it's potency as an answer. We were heros!!!! Link was a hero!!!
Think about how many games have come out now that have reduced you to just being a killer. The developers can do better.
I blame everyone. The Developers started making shit and instead of casting it asunder, we embraced it, yelling "take our money, give us more, we want more" as loud as we could.
It is our role as consumers to choose what we like and reject what we hate. If we just buy the crap over and over, we become numbed by the increasing weight of banality, so that when something good comes along, we call it great. Then when something great comes along, we call it a masterpiece.
But it's also the role of the Developers to realise when they're pumping out rubbish that will do nothing but stagnate the genre.
We must stop just buying things for the sake of it and develops must stop depending on names, logos and abusing fan loyalty to franchises.
It is our role as consumers to choose what we like and reject what we hate. If we just buy the crap over and over, we become numbed by the increasing weight of banality, so that when something good comes along, we call it great. Then when something great comes along, we call it a masterpiece.
But it's also the role of the Developers to realise when they're pumping out rubbish that will do nothing but stagnate the genre.
We must stop just buying things for the sake of it and develops must stop depending on names, logos and abusing fan loyalty to franchises.