You're conflating "is going to kill it's user" with "isn't historically accurate." Yes, Titana's Alan's and Sully's armors are not historically correct. That does not excuse Carmilla's "please kill me" ensemble. This isn't a binary situation. Titana's armor I could see being effective in the context of anime. Sully should wear pants, because mounted, but it's still on the level of good enough. If Carmilla turns her arms the wrong way, or God forbid, her weapon gets stuck in something, her arm guards have a decent chance of taking her out of the fight.
Please tell me you can see the difference. Hell, that I could come up with examples that give plausibility to Titana's armor doesn't mean I think it's realistic, it means that is doesn't break my suspension of disbelief. At the very least, it can vaguely resemble someone who didn't want to die on the battlefield.
The Fire Emblem world is fantasy anime. I get that. It used to be Record of Lodoss War. Now it seems to be taking it's playbook from Agarest War.
You're conflating "is going to kill it's user" with "isn't historically accurate." Yes, Titana's Alan's and Sully's armors are not historically correct. That does not excuse Carmilla's "please kill me" ensemble. This isn't a binary situation. Titana's armor I could see being effective in the context of anime. Sully should wear pants, because mounted, but it's still on the level of good enough. If Carmilla turns her arms the wrong way, or God forbid, her weapon gets stuck in something, her arm guards have a decent chance of taking her out of the fight.
Please tell me you can see the difference. Hell, that I could come up with examples that give plausibility to Titana's armor doesn't mean I think it's realistic, it means that is doesn't break my suspension of disbelief. At the very least, it can vaguely resemble someone who didn't want to die on the battlefield.
The Fire Emblem world is fantasy anime. I get that. It used to be Record of Lodoss War. Now it seems to be taking it's playbook from Agarest War.
It's not about historical accuracy dude. It's about how impractical the majority of the designs in the game are that could just as easily get the wearer killed that nobody wants to talk about because they don't happen to have boobs attached to them. Like I honestly have to wonder if you actually know anything you're trying to say...And if you realize exactly how inane any discussion of what could and couldn't kill the wearer is not decided by what they wear, but by what the plot demands(plot in this case being actual plot and/or player fuck-ups in-game).
The only reason I brought up historical accuracy is again, because you started in on how Sully wasn't historically consistent when she honestly largely is and how the majority of outfits are designed for readability with historical influence on how they came about.
For some reason, the title made me think that it was a complain about penises not being emphasized as much as breasts. Because that's something that we can change:
Though it contributes nothing to the conversation, I have to say, this is the best thing I've seen on the internet today. Thank you.
To the discussion, am I the only one who sees cologne commercials on TV, or the trailers for Magic Mikes? How about the photoshoot Neville Longbottom (I don't know the actor's name and I'm too tired to get stuck in lIMDBo) did last year? I'm not saying that it happens with equal frequency, but it is happening more often (which I think is good, all things considered).
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I don't see how anyone wins by demanding character design meet a specific puritan aesthetic or taste, for either gender. I don't like staring at man-slab myself, but I've absolutely no problem if it fits into the aesthetic or story of the work.
Basically, what I'm saying is that if some of the girls in a game are going to run around in fetish gear, so should some of the guys.
Why don't they emphasize penises? Probably because that is an actual genital, not just a physical sexual identifying characteristic. As others have mentioned, a proper counterpart to the boob window would be the shirtless abs thing, and that is very, very common.
i mean seriously, look at this majestic manly beast.
also, note the lack of actual nipples, because they are too close to the line, in the same fashion showing off big boobs is done while avoiding the same.
Been a while since I played a fire emblem game, but even the GBA ones I did play had relationships between characters and an anime art aesthetic. While perhaps taken to a silly extent more recently, the direction the game went with the relationship and visual stuff does still fit well with the series history and the idea of trying to add to that mechanism within the game. While the series certainly had more sober moments, it also had more humorous and lighthearted ones too. Between the overall tone of the games and the look, it is pretty clear they are very similar to a lot of anime, something very much fitting for the art style and not too far removed from the dating simulator lite ideas they borrowed.
So have to agree with your claim that Fire Emblem is not a game where it fits.
a) Yes, they did have romance, but it wasn't a dating sim and, frankly, it generally wasn't remotely explicit about the romantic feelings. You chose supports because you wanted to know more about the character, not because you wanted a suitable heir. Fire Emblem turned from Dragon Age to Crusader Kings in one installment. In the west, anyways. I'm was recently told there was one time a similar mechanic in a Japanese-only FE game. Did some digging and it didn't seem particularly liked or disliked.
No, it wasn't as deep a mechanic in earlier games, but the mechanic itself did exist, so them making it more involved or giving it more depth to explore is not surprising. It is because those roots existed that I can't say it is out of place. It would be like saying a game with customizing and crafting of equipment is out of place when previous entries in the series still had equipment.
Heck, Awakening had some sort of future breeding program thing going on, so it isn't the first time they tried to add depth to the romancing and relationship parts of the game in a way that affects gameplay.
b) The style of illustration has little-to-nothing to do with the themes, gameplay or plot. While I know most of our parents fell into the trap of "cartoonish = child-friendly" I think all of us here are experienced enough to realize that Happy Tree Friends [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Tree_Friends] isn't something to show to a four year old just because of its animation. Its not the style of animation but what kind of setting they're trying to elicit from the design. Use of practical outfits is one of many traits that imply a setting that deceives its cartoonish appearance. [small]And geez, look up with what happens with Zephidel. Thats the sort of thing you'd expect to see in Game of Thrones.[/small]
Style of illustration is relevant when it helps set tone and aesthetic though, things that would be relevant when trying to determine if some visual design choice fits. While it would be great if gameplay, plot, themes, aesthetic and tone all synced up, they don't always mesh perfectly. Hell, tone itself is not always a singular fit, and can have things from the grim and serious nature of the plot mixed with lighter goofy character moments. So saying it doesn't fit when it is an art choice that doesn't fit with part of a plot or gameplay when it might still fit with the visual and other aspects of tone isn't quite right.
While perhaps taken to a silly extent more recently, the direction the game went with the relationship and visual stuff does still fit well with the series history and the idea of trying to add to that mechanism within the game.
Its not a bad idea but I think its actually pulled off quite poorly for a variety of reasons, such as creating story content that most players will never experience not because they're goody two-shoes like in Mass Effect or Fallout but because its not strategically viable. There were some missions in Fire Emblem games that were quite different depending on how well or poorly you've done. Usually extra chapters are locked off for good performances. With the new relationship stuff they're basically asking you to severely kneecap yourself to see support conversations. There were always "best" choices for support conversation partners in previous Fire Emblem games but you never lost anything by pairing Person A with Person C instead of Person B.
I don't get how you are kneecaping yourself to see support conversations. I know the older games made the relationship stuff an actual benefit to gameplay that was limited by options in the same style as class choices when it came to advancing (as in, not required, but useful and unable to get all options). I don't get how making the experience of setting these relationships up and still getting benefits from it is any worse off, compared to previous entries in the series. Still seems like there is a lost option when you make choices there. Awakening limited which kids and what skills they would have through pairings.
As for best though, that is pretty open to interpretation and playstyle to begin with. How does the newer relationships vary from previous ones with regard to losing out on something, the older games still had you lose out on character stat and performance bonuses for other characters when they got closer to select ones? Still seems like a basic gameplay a balance of "pick what works best, you can't get them all" to me.
While the series certainly had more sober moments, it also had more humorous and lighthearted ones too.
Lighthearted, yes, but never fanservicey. Well, not sexual fanservice anyways. There are some occasional shipping nods here and inside jokes there but they were always minor and wouldn't even be noticable to somebody not familiar with the series. XCOM 2 just came out and I'm sure that, like XCOM EU, there are going to be inside jokes but throwing in ill-suited clothing for combat conditions would clash even moreso than in the previous installment.
That seems a bit selective of you though. It is a dark and grim topic covering game, that is totally allowed to have lighthearted moments, a cheery brightly colored art style that is juxtaposed to the themes, silly character skits, but a bit of fan service is too much? As I said before, the game's visual design and built in relationship system both support the idea. This seems to be a very arbitrary point to draw the line in the sand about to me. I mean dislike it all you want, but I can't see it as any sort of great betrayal of the game's integrity by having it. Just seems like another attempt to add depth and flesh out that particular mechanic.
Edit: To beat the drum more about the tone of the series, I think its important to note what the very first thing they decided to show us what the series would be about when we played Blazing Sword/Rekka no ken (simply "Fire Emblem" outside of Japan).
It was followed by her telling us how her nomadic tribe was raped and pillaged by bandits when she was a child, her parents being slaughtered - presumably a discovery she found out firsthand. Then she goes out and kills two bandits who announced their intention to rape her. Cheap way of saying "bad guys"? Yeah, but you never get this sort of notion in The Legend of Zelda or Mario. What follows is basically the plot of Anastasia except way more graphic. There's a lot of racism and sexism present. Its a wonder how it got away with an E rating, and no surprise that later FE games were usually rated E10+ and T.
I remember, The GBA games (including the portable rerelease of that one) were two I was referring to having played in the past. It was a fun one and covered some heavier topics, but never wallowed in them nor seemed entirely bound to them throughout,. Compare it to things such as a noir story which might have tone, visuals, theme and plot all be synced up. But nothing about the series' use of mature themes says that is all it can or has to do though.
Is the nipple thing a general sensibility, the world over, or is a Japanese censor thing? I think they're pretty much against pubic hair, and nipples from either gender. I think the West you can get some uncomfortably emphasized male nipples actually.
I don't know if that is a japanese only sensibility. I do recall seeing it a lot though in animation. Even western animation tends to use it, such as Silver Surfer and Thing from fantastic 4 fame having none despite being shirtless all the time (and the rocky stuff being Ben's actual skin). Though got to admit, do not want boulder-skin nipples.
Yeah, the batsuit nipples thing. Could have sworn they got flack over it too, though admittedly not the the extent you'd get from women's nipples. Though now I wonder if there is a difference between animation and live action with regard to male nipples. Wouldn't there also be a similar difference between animated and live boobs too?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I don't see how anyone wins by demanding character design meet a specific puritan aesthetic or taste, for either gender. I don't like staring at man-slab myself, but I've absolutely no problem if it fits into the aesthetic or story of the work.
Its almost like disliking boobs windows in Fire Emblem isn't a bunch of hatemongers being "puritanical"[footnote]Put in quotation marks because its funny seeing people continually not understand anything about puritans. You know, things like how they'd wouldn't allow women on the battlefield.[/footnote] its being upset that its stupid and doesn't fit the aesthetic of the game. Nope, that can't be the case, its just a legion of hoop-earring'd harpies.
Fire Emblem isn't The Sims or Bayonetta. It just doesn't fit. [snip]
Apologies for the dryness of my comment, that I could be misunderstood. I'm not arguing in favor of this costume in particular; I've not played a lot of Fire Emblem games to be honest. I was commenting on the thread the discussion had taken, largely dealing with the concept at large (as I understood reading through).
As to my use of "puritanical", I was mainly using it for hyperbolic effect, as an exaggeration on its meaning:
pu-ri-tan-i-cal
ˌpyo͝orəˈtanək(əl/
adjective\derogatory
adjective: puritanical
practicing or affecting strict religious or moral behavior.
In the slang I'm most accustomed to, it's used as a kind of spoken shorthand for an attempt to make something affect a change in aesthetic to please a person's personal sense of style or propriety.
I am not saying this is a good outfit, or that it fits the game; simply that overall I would prefer to see a diversity of aesthetic and story, and for the styles of games to reflect that. In this case, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I simply lack the context in regards to this story to make an informed decision (I can only rely on my knowledge of JRPGs, which leave me to assume stupid outfits for everyone).
Again, I apologize for the dryness of my tone; I have trouble being familiar in written communication on open forums (I prefer to avoid the risk of offense unless intended).
I think that sums it up in about the most simplistic way possible.
Though I know of and witness women (family and friends) getting that thousand-yard-stare whenever they see someone like, say, Jim Caviezel, going all Old Spice "Hello, Ladies."
And I've seen guys go all "Ew, fat sacks!" when presented with cleavage like we see on said Fire Emblem character.
It's almost as if these sorts of things are subjective.
Is the nipple thing a general sensibility, the world over, or is a Japanese censor thing? I think they're pretty much against pubic hair, and nipples from either gender. I think the West you can get some uncomfortably emphasized male nipples actually.
Hm, most cases I can think of in western animation where male nipples are drawn at all(female nipples are an extreme no-go outside of direct erotica) the cartoons tended to use them for jokey purposes. Otherwise they're pretty much never drawn.
It seems like a general notion, regardless of the country of origin, that pecs or breasts aren't REALLY erotic until you can see the nipple. Which is why plunging necklines, side and underboob are collectively acceptable, but if the whole breast is going to be shown, pasties are used,the nipple isn't drawn or there's strategically covered by hair (the Godiva hair trope), even if at that point you're looking at a 95% exposure level.
So yeah, I can't really think of many cases where they drew the nipples on a male character simply because men have nipples. They're either jokes or unused. I don't know if the bat-nipples were an intentional joke, but they certainly got a laugh out of me.
Confining the discussion to specific body parts is getting weighed down with semantics; the trend people are referring to when they mention stuff like this is that, historically, the male gaze has been invited far more often than the female gaze.
Now, the times are changing, and characters designed to titillate women have become more common. I don't think anyone is arguing that catering to the sexual preferences of only straight men is fair; any reasonable person should see the problem with that logic.
The argument against equal opportunity fan service typically goes one of two ways:
A: Media that exaggerates the human form is bad no matter who it's aimed at because it creates impossible standards.
B: Women simply don't respond to media like this as strongly as men do.
I think each of these arguments is flawed.
On the Subject of Women not responding to sexuality in media
I'm gonna get this out of the way first because the answer is pretty straight forward; they made a whole fucking movie based on what was essentially hardcore porn aimed at women. The idea that women don't respond to sexual imagery is blatantly and obviously not true.
So the question is why did the imbalance ever come into existence. Basically, it comes down to what Tommy Lee Jones said in Men in Black: a PERSON, singular, is smart, but people collectively are fucking morons. The IQ of a mob is the IQ of it's dumbest member divided among the entire mob.
So things that individual people in small groups figured out ages ago have taken centuries for society at large to come to grips with. This is why, until recently, so much of media still hadn't gotten used to the idea that women were sexually independent from men, and thought they basically just wanted emotional intimacy and just sort of put up with sex as a consequence of that desire.
Of course, reasonable people figured out that was crap a long time ago, but in the mean time, people were getting rich selling sex exclusively to men because they just assumed they were the only ones who would buy it. And in the honored business tradition of pathological risk aversion masquerading as wisdom and caution, media outlets reasoned that women wouldn't buy into sex the same way men would because they had never sold sex to women before... because they had never tried to sell it to them... because they didn't think they would buy it. (Logic, ladies and gentlemen!)
So the reason that this and every other blatantly unfair double standard exists is because, no matter how insane a tradition is, you're always gonna find a host of backward fucks willing to stick up for it; unless we drag it kicking and screaming, the human race will never find a better future.
TL;DR: 50 Shades of Grey exists - this argument is invalid.
On the subject of impossible standards
First of all, if your self image is so fragile that you feel insecure next to a figment of imagination, there is nothing to be done. You can't depend on media to get the positive reinforcement you should be getting from real people, and as long as that support structure is absent from your life, the media you consume isn't going to change anything.
The argument against the sexual idolatry of celebrities is different, but similarly flawed. The problem with the idea that "Everyone is beautiful" is that it robs the concept of beauty of any meaning.
Humans don't just choose their sexual partners at random because they enjoy everyone just the same; beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and nobody honestly thinks that everyone is equally beautiful. Going around saying that "Everyone is beautiful" is just empty lip service. People who are insecure about their looks don't want everyone to just verbally acknowledge their attractiveness, they want people to personally find them sexually appealing, specifically the people that THEY find sexually appealing.
Sure, there are people out there who genuinely don't care about looks, but I'd venture to guess that the majority of people have some preference; it's human nature.
Expecting other people to NOT have a standard of beauty if just like expecting them to subscribe to a traditional standard of beauty.
I'm sure someone will want to argue that it's about being beautiful in your own eyes, but I call bullshit. No sexual human being is just totally indifferent to whether or not other people find them attractive. There is nothing wrong with the desire to be wanted; it's perfectly normal.
People are never going to stop putting the human form on a pedestal for the same reason that they're never going to stop eating baked goods; whether it's healthy or not, just like sugar, lust appeals to the very core of human nature. People will always want it, and so there will always be a profit in it.
What we need to do instead of trying to convince people to just ignore the instincts they were born with is make sure they understand that whether or not they happen to fit into the flavor of the week for "Ideal Beauty" isn't the end of the world. Let us not forget that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and just because traditional media presents your specific type of appearance as unattractive doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people in real life who don't find you attractive.
Again, it all comes down to the issue of dependency on media; in this case, on provisional self esteem.
TL;DR: You shouldn't depend on media to feel good about yourself, finding some people more attractive than others is normal, and there will never be a time when everyone is considered equally beautiful; that would be a contradiction.
My perspective on the prevalence, or lack thereof, of the female gaze in media is limited; I'm packing one of hem Y chromosome thingies and I think the female form is dope, so I don't actively seek it out. But I'm of the mind that things like porn and fan service are basically harmless, so I think the answer to this problem is just equal opportunity.
Some brave artist should adopt the practice of leveling the playing field; every time they encounter a piece of media intended to titillate exclusively the members of one gender, they should take it upon themselves to render a painting, video, or short story that mirrors the content of the original as closely as possible, in detail as luxurious as necessary, but intended for the opposite audience; everybody wins!
Yes, it does happen, but that's Frank Quitely and other fringe comic artists that prefer a more surrealistic style, with either heavily deformed characters or realistic bulging of the costumes. In video terms it's like comparing One Direction to Genesis - Land of Confusion and Henson's crazy puppeteering. Artists draw what they enjoy, whether it's impossible perfection or exaggerated body characteristics.
It's because when it comes to designing a character with a classically attractive form (as the vast majority of fictional characters possess, with varying degrees of exhaggeration) the aesthetics of a female body generally falls onto the overall shape and proportion of focal points such as hips, legs, stomach, shoulders and breasts to create an overall attractive silhouette whereas for men it's mostly about musculature, definition, face-shape, athleticism and overall proportion. The individual bits tend to get focused on in discussions such as these without looking at the wider picture. Sure they tend to go a little overboard at times in both directions but stylisation never hurt anybody.
Mainstream will jump on it? Yeah, tell that to minecraft players that have been playing for ages, and only recently has it been really copied by main streamers. Sure there's been knockoffs on the indie level, but it still clearly flies in the face of your argument.
Portal's popular, but it seems like it's the only game of it's kind outside of indie games.
Yeah, sure, I mean we all know that after Minecrafts success there were barely any games that tried to achieve the same success by copying parts of it. The only ones that come to mind are
Terraria
Starbound
Craft the World
Block Story
Life is Feudal
Fortresscraft
Uncrowded and it's thousand clones
Forsaken Uprising
Starforge
Cubic Castles
Castleminer Z
Ark:Survival Evolved
It basically started it's own genre: The crafting games.
Or did you mean streamers as in youtubers and twitch streamers. Because from what I can tell roughly half of Let's plays seem to be about Minecraft and that goes so far back that I am not sure whether or not there may have been Minecraft Let's players before Minecrafts release.
I give you portal, somewhat at least, because there haven't been that many direct clones of it's mechanics, but there have been dozens of games trying to gain the same audience. Small, creative puzzle-games, if possible with some physic-puzzles, got a massive surge in releases from portal.
Q.U.B.E., Quantum Conundrum and Antichamber are just some examples of this. And these are only the somewhat high profile ones. I bet I could find dozens more if I really went looking for it.
Mainstream will jump on it? Yeah, tell that to minecraft players that have been playing for ages, and only recently has it been really copied by main streamers. Sure there's been knockoffs on the indie level, but it still clearly flies in the face of your argument.
Portal's popular, but it seems like it's the only game of it's kind outside of indie games.
Yeah, sure, I mean we all know that after Minecrafts success there were barely any games that tried to achieve the same success by copying parts of it. The only ones that come to mind are
Terraria
Starbound
Craft the World
Block Story
Life is Feudal
Fortresscraft
Uncrowded and it's thousand clones
Forsaken Uprising
Starforge
Cubic Castles
Castleminer Z
Ark:Survival Evolved
It basically started it's own genre: The crafting games.
Or did you mean streamers as in youtubers and twitch streamers. Because from what I can tell roughly half of Let's plays seem to be about Minecraft and that goes so far back that I am not sure whether or not there may have been Minecraft Let's players before Minecrafts release.
I give you portal, somewhat at least, because there haven't been that many direct clones of it's mechanics, but there have been dozens of games trying to gain the same audience. Small, creative puzzle-games, if possible with some physic-puzzles, got a massive surge in releases from portal.
Q.U.B.E., Quantum Conundrum and Antichamber are just some examples of this. And these are only the somewhat high profile ones. I bet I could find dozens more if I really went looking for it.
I'll never understand why people keep trying to beat me over the head with indie releases when I keep indicating that I'm looking outside of indie to build my point about major companies not buying into a winning formula.
Terraria's about the only on that seemed to make an attempt early on to cash in on the minecraft formula, and actually got traction, but what major gaming company made any of those you listed?
I emphasize outside of indie for the simple reason that Minecraft made Notch absurdly rich, but what major company is trying to capitalize on the formula to contend on a MW/Cod rivalry level? Not even Lego who you'd think was the perfect company to contend with notch. Instead they made Minecraft lego sets.
It seemed like Minecraft was easily the biggest leader, and essentially the winner in streaming, youtube vids, etc.
Ark came in later in the break the world apart, and put it together again game, and I'll give it kudos for getting a lot of attention lately, but all in all, it doesn't seem like a high budget AAA attempt to capitalize on the minecraft formula, which made Notch obscenely rich.
Simply put the mainstream gaming industry isn't quick to latch on to everything as was being argued.
I don't believe I've ever seen a mainstream clone of the Portal Formula. I do like Quantum Conundrum for the music, and John de Lancie. Such an epic voice, and actor. Still, while being made by people behind Portal, it's puzzle solving was not the same as shooting portals.
Also there's MariO, which is a portal gun mixed with super mario bros. Stil, Indie.
Microsoft didn't try to contend with Minecraft with their own version, even with all the millions, and millions they could pour into it. Instead, they bought Minecraft.
Sony's not making any minecraft clones. Not EA, not Konami, not Capcom, no major company is trying to cash in on the Minecraft formula. If they are, they're really laying low on it which, IMO, is a terrible idea when thy could advertise it, and draw in far more people with even a simple commercial.
Yet they don't.
Has Mineraft even gotten a commercial from Microsoft? None I've seen outside of gamestop's TVs.
Same goes for Portal.
I'm not some game snob here, I like indie titles, and AAA, and everything in between, but i have a point I'm trying to make.
Not only is it true but it's true to the degree that men are often shamed for showing a liking in it but still seek it out anyway.
In the same way that the go to insult to offend someone who is to make fun of the idea that they have had lots of sexual partners, the go to insult for males is to insult them for not having sex, men who show interest in this stuff are shamed for not seeking out real sex, you can do both but the person insulting doesn't know or really care.
Same reason why dildo's are seen as acceptable at least compared to the male equivalent which is seen as disgusting. The idea that it's only recently become acceptable for women to indulge is silly, they've been doing it in the ways women have enjoyed for years, romantics, rom-coms and novels.
"Doesn't fit the design aesthetic" is usually 90% of the problem I have with blatant fan service, sexual or not. I mean, if Carmilla were a character in the new Disgea instead of Fire Emblem, she'd be awesome. If you tried putting Killia in Fire Emblem, I'd have the same negative reaction.
Side note: Beastmen and actual supernatural creatures tend to get a pass. If Carmilla were a bat-person or actual vampire, game on.
I'll never understand why people keep trying to beat me over the head with indie releases when I keep indicating that I'm looking outside of indie to build my point about major companies not buying into a winning formula.
Terraria's about the only on that seemed to make an attempt early on to cash in on the minecraft formula, and actually got traction, but what major gaming company made any of those you listed?
I emphasize outside of indie for the simple reason that Minecraft made Notch absurdly rich, but what major company is trying to capitalize on the formula to contend on a MW/Cod rivalry level? Not even Lego who you'd think was the perfect company to contend with notch. Instead they made Minecraft lego sets.
It seemed like Minecraft was easily the biggest leader, and essentially the winner in streaming, youtube vids, etc.
Ark came in later in the break the world apart, and put it together again game, and I'll give it kudos for getting a lot of attention lately, but all in all, it doesn't seem like a high budget AAA attempt to capitalize on the minecraft formula, which made Notch obscenely rich.
Simply put the mainstream gaming industry isn't quick to latch on to everything as was being argued.
I don't believe I've ever seen a mainstream clone of the Portal Formula. I do like Quantum Conundrum for the music, and John de Lancie. Such an epic voice, and actor. Still, while being made by people behind Portal, it's puzzle solving was not the same as shooting portals.
Also there's MariO, which is a portal gun mixed with super mario bros. Stil, Indie.
Microsoft didn't try to contend with Minecraft with their own version, even with all the millions, and millions they could pour into it. Instead, they bought Minecraft.
Sony's not making any minecraft clones. Not EA, not Konami, not Capcom, no major company is trying to cash in on the Minecraft formula. If they are, they're really laying low on it which, IMO, is a terrible idea when thy could advertise it, and draw in far more people with even a simple commercial.
Yet they don't.
Has Mineraft even gotten a commercial from Microsoft? None I've seen outside of gamestop's TVs.
Same goes for Portal.
I'm not some game snob here, I like indie titles, and AAA, and everything in between, but i have a point I'm trying to make.
If you look at portal the reason it was successfull wasn't because they did anything completely new, but rather because they did something that was allready a thing, physic based puzzle games, and did it really really well.
Minecraft on the other hand, with it's focus on crafting did something more or less unique and I would say that the AAA Industry has definetly noticed.
What do you think is the reason that we now have crafting system in pretty much every single game. We do because Minecraft showed how engaging it is to "build" something of your own.
This lead to many indie games that are focused on the crafting system, which I allready listed, and it lead to AAA games which incorporated crafting systems. (No matter what AAA games are rather difficult to get outside their regular niche of Action/Shooter/RPG). Games like Assassins Creed, Fallout 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, The Witcher 3, MGS 5, Shadow of Mordor, Skyrim and more all have game mechanics based around the Idea of ressource collection and crafting, which they got from Minecraft.
Some games like Dying Light even make a real big deal of these crafting systems with breakable weapons and such.
The reason why they are not working of Minecraft: AAA Edition is because a game like Minecraft isn't really possible to make AAA. They could slap on some high-res graphics, but we allready have Minecraft texture packs. They look at the countless Minecraft indie-clones and see that only very few of them got any traction. For these publishers to fund a major AAA development there has to be a proven concept. Something that guarantees them that the game will sell. RPGs, Actiongames and Shooters all have proven that they have a large target audience. Crafting games have one example, Minecraft, selling Millions and every clone of it not selling millions.
Games like Terraria or Starbound did great, but these AAA publishers are looking for Millions of sold copies, which both of these games didn't have.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
l/
