[Mentalist]

oh, I have no doubt that (sadly) they'll make money off it.

I do, however, consider it a stupid statement, because they are referring to the genre as a whole. not in the example of a particular game (x-com), but rather to the genre as a whole.


by syaing this, they are essentially saying to everyone who is interested in any kind of TBS game, "2K is not what you are looking for". so, he is essentially willfully alienating a portion of the gamer marketshare. granted, compared to those who are looking for another CoD or Mass Effect clone, this is a marginal market share, but it still strikes me as moronic. Especially considering the fact that 2K is hte publisher of the series that is the best-seller in the very marginal segment of the marketplace they are trying so hard to alienate.

it's not X-com in particular i'm griping about here. I've long since lost any interest in that title and can only hope that the game tanks badly, so that publishers will learn their lesson and let the old, hallowed IP titles rest in peace instead of bastardizing them for a blatant cash grab. My point is, you can't possibly tell me that willfully reducing your potential market share is sound fiscal move. and that is exactly what this particular exec is doing when he's telling all those people who buy games made by Paradox, or Stardock, or all those who preordered Heroes 6, or even all those who just bought Civ 5 that HIS COMPANY PUBLISHES, that he and his company, don't think the games they like are worth anything. THAT'S the blatant idiocy of the move, nevermind the repercussions on the particular game.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 16 July 2011 - 02:50 AM

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

He's also stating that there is no room in the market for any game that isn't a shitty knockoff shooter anymore. It reminds me of the popular argument that if all these classic games were made today, they too would be shitty knockoff shooters - see previous comments on X-Com, Bethesda's spin on Fallout 3 etc - because that's what the developers really wanted to make, they just didn't have the technology. It's as ridiculous as saying that if Ray Charles had access to today's technology, he'd- oh.

Frankly, I think people underestimate the net profit that can be made from smaller-scale, smaller-market games. Look how well Minecraft is selling; I'm pretty sure the lead developer is a millionaire, and indies are only going to continue like this. People are leaving big developers in order to pursue their creative vision, like Brian Mitsoda leaving Obsidian. And this doesn't need to be the case. "Strategy games just aren't contemporary" because nobody is making them, and if anyone thinks they don't sell, Sid Meier and Blizzard are laughing at you from their thrones of solid diamond. Duke Nukem Forever may have sold more as Civ5, but taking into account the ludicrous production costs/years of development and the fact that sales are already dropping (from what I've read, may be wrong) they'll be lucky to profit anywhere near as much. I firmly believe that there's a substantial market for those games that just aren't fashionable these days, and that with internet distribution and word of mouth more powerful than they've ever been, many medium-large developers could see some considerable profit from lower-cost, smaller-scale games in the vein of the original X-Com - more than anything, far smaller teams would be required, so several could be worked on and published at the same time. The new Tomb Raider (Guardian of Light?) is a good example, and I'm pretty sure it's had very positive reviews and sold very well for what it is. Can only hope it sets a precedent.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

The problem is, ultimately, that there are genre's that are becoming more popular as the user base expands, and there are becoming gameplay styles that are becoming easier as platforms mature. These have been changing the paradigm of gameplay.

Not necessarily for the better. The easier has become more prevalent, which has (in our advertising driven economy) driven demand for such games. First person games are easier to make, a more secure investment, and not necessarily as user-to-user approval dependent.

It is ultimately more difficult to produce, and more ballsy to finance, a game that is different. To make a game that isn't a CoD clone. To put out a potential major label tower defense game, or perhaps something more complex. It takes balls that most consumers won't recognize, because the average consumer is a one-dimensional gamer.

[Gothos]

Mentalist, on 16 July 2011 - 02:50 AM, said:

Mass Effect clone

uh, Mass Effect clone?
Name one maybe?

[Aptorian]

I think what he means by "Mass Effect Clone" is "Soft RPG" games. Where the RPG elements are downplayed for more fast paced and shooty gameplay. Dragon Age 2 is probably the most obvious victim of Mass Effect 2's success. I'm not sure how prevalent that course of development is yet though, but it certainly is an easier way for publisher to get a broader audience for the less popular RPG genre.

[HoosierDaddy]

I do miss the very difficult game play of earlier consoles and computer games. I don't think I ever beat SMB1 or 3 on NES, but fuck if I didn't play those games for hundreds of hours.

Anyways, isn't the money anymore in getting the people to pay fees for either MMORPG or for X-Box Live and stuff?

[Aptorian]

HoosierDaddy, on 18 July 2011 - 07:20 AM, said:

I do miss the very difficult game play of earlier consoles and computer games. I don't think I ever beat SMB1 or 3 on NES, but fuck if I didn't play those games for hundreds of hours.

These games still exist, they're mostly done by indie developers now a days though, for example: Super Meat Boy, VVVVVVVVV, I want to be that guy (IWTBTG), Megaman 9 and 10, honorable mention for Demon's souls, which I am too much of a pussy to try and finish.

HoosierDaddy, on 18 July 2011 - 07:20 AM, said:

Anyways, isn't the money anymore in getting the people to pay fees for either MMORPG or for X-Box Live and stuff?

You're going to have to repeat that question. Do you mean that the money now a days is in getting people to sign up for subscriptions?

I think there is some truth in that, given that a steady stream of money gives them a better financiel security, how ever I think WOW is the exception, MMO's do not normally make millions and billions of dollars. In the case of X-box live and PSN, etc., I don't think the money is in the subscriptions, rather Microsoft and Sony make their money of game sales and other services sold through that subscription. I know that I have certainly recieved more free games over the past year from PSN than my PSN+ subscription is worth.

[Gothos]

Well, as far as simplified RPG elements paired with more action go, Mass Effect was hardly the precursor. Take, for instance, good ol' hack'n'slash games like Diablo, or even such respected titles as Deus Ex.
Dragon Age 2's problem was trying to put mechanics that work perfectly in a science-fiction setting into a fantasy one. Fantasy worlds just aren't the place for a Commander Shepard clone - the 'party of adventurers with perhaps a leader' is deeply entrenched in the hearts and minds of people, as opposed to 'a space superhero and his posse'. Also note that I'd say ME1 wasn't exactly that low on the RPG elements either.


As for money from MMO - aye, WoW is the unquestioned magnate, and other MMOs don't make nearly as much - though I guess EVE and Rift aren't really hurting either. The money these days? Either jump an old title for a quick sale like DN Forever, or pack it with DLCs ranging from actual real content expansions to customization packs and premium weapons (Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, Dragon Age 2, Magicka, Mortal Kombat, for a few examples). While it sometimes feels really annoying on a cosmic scale (like DLC only 'unlocking' content that shipped with the game, like the extra party member in DA2) but I think I do prefer sparing several euros for a bit of new content every now and then to static content forever. DLCs also, sadly, vary greatly in quality - on one hand you have Lair of the Shadow Broker, Awakening and Golems of Amgarrak, on the other hand you have Darkspawn Chronicles and Firewalker...

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

Pennyapt, on 18 July 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:

I think what he means by "Mass Effect Clone" is "Soft RPG" games. Where the RPG elements are downplayed for more fast paced and shooty gameplay. Dragon Age 2 is probably the most obvious victim of Mass Effect 2's success. I'm not sure how prevalent that course of development is yet though, but it certainly is an easier way for publisher to get a broader audience for the less popular RPG genre.

The only non-action CRPG outside indies I can think of in the last five years is DA1, so I'd call it pretty prevalent. I wouldn't blame Mass Effect particularly, though, it was already in full swing when it came around; nowadays, developers openly come out and explain that they don't want their RPGs being RPGs and stats/character development are bad and boring, so they've done their best to make their RPGs not be RPGs. Even The Witcher 2, which I'm really enjoying, is pretty much an action-adventure.
It's very peculiar. It's like if racing game developers came out and said they wanted to take the focus of racing games away from beating other competitors to the goal line, or people started making platform games with no jumping because "those bits are fiddly and frustrating, nobody really likes them". None of these RPG developers seem to make the logical leap into not making RPGs.

[Satan]

I thought these two videos by Eurogamer was interesting, if a slight deviation off the current topic in the thread.

http://www.eurogamer...-special-part-1

and

http://www.eurogamer...-special-part-2

[cerveza_fiesta]

Pennyapt, on 18 July 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

These games still exist, they're mostly done by indie developers now a days though, for example: Super Meat Boy, VVVVVVVVV, I want to be that guy (IWTBTG), Megaman 9 and 10, honorable mention for Demon's souls, which I am too much of a pussy to try and finish.

Oh noes apt. You just convinced me to buy Demons souls.

I have been looking for a good difficult game for awhile.

[Daemonwolf]

Demon Souls is effin brutal. The game is designed around "you WILL die" you want difficulty, you'll get it. When I had access to it I put 10 hours with maybe 3 restarts. Made it almost nowhere. My advice if you play. Be very very cautious, heroics will get you killed. When ya die, you lose all your weapons and armor, until you get back to your corpse.

[Aptorian]

One thing I can say about Demon's Souls is that when you succeed. When you beat that level. Kill that boss. It feels ten times as good as it would in a normal game.

[Gothos]

It's also a console-only title, isn't it? Fuck that game.

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

I think Dark Souls (the sequel) is meant to be coming to the PC? Really hope so.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Daemonwolf, on 20 July 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

Demon Souls is effin brutal. The game is designed around "you WILL die" you want difficulty, you'll get it. When I had access to it I put 10 hours with maybe 3 restarts. Made it almost nowhere. My advice if you play. Be very very cautious, heroics will get you killed. When ya die, you lose all your weapons and armor, until you get back to your corpse.

Pennyapt, on 20 July 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:

One thing I can say about Demon's Souls is that when you succeed. When you beat that level. Kill that boss. It feels ten times as good as it would in a normal game.

I am normally a very cautious player. Rarely going in full-blast and usually taking a minute to evaluate tactical options and all that whenever the pace of the game allows for it. How long are the levels in general?

@apt

That's what i'm looking for. None of these pushover bosses where you can just pop 100 health potions in a row while unloading clip after clip until they die.

[Daemonwolf]

As for the gaming world in general, I used to be really big on playing games, getting the newest releases spending hours going after the hidden stuff or hitting max level. These days I just can't seem to get into any of them.

I find myself being annoyed at so many different gameplay features. Likely because I liked my older stuff. An example for me on this is Dragon Age: Origins, I was so excited about this game and it looked like it was. Going to be awesome, then I started paying and I discovered that I hated the combat design. I don't action rpg is not something I want to micro-manage a group for, nor do I really want a group to begin with. Granted these are my opinions, but modern games just don't interest me that much.

[Aptorian]

Gothos, on 20 July 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

It's also a console-only title, isn't it? Fuck that game.

Come on, Gothos, it's time to give up that PC Master race attitude, cave in and buy a Playstation. The back catalogue of cheap games is well worth it by now. You know you want to deep deep down. Remember Spacemarine is coming out soon as well.

cerveza_fiesta, on 20 July 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

How long are the levels in general?

@apt

That's what i'm looking for. None of these pushover bosses where you can just pop 100 health potions in a row while unloading clip after clip until they die.

The levels are not that long, it's the fact that there are no check points and no save options except in the main hub outside the level that makes it feel long. You get to appreciate just how far there is from the beginning to the end of the stage. Each world is divided into 3 levels. When you beat the first boss in the world, say 1-1. You can chose to go back into the world and go a different way than you chose to reach boss 1-1 and instead head for the section that is 1-2. When you've fought your way to a boss or similar place in the world there is usually some place where you can lower a drawbridge or open a door that gives you quicker access to the new area you're fighting in, so you can skip a bit of the running fight. Other places demand that you earn a certain amount of "good karma", etc. What makes it all a bitch is that if you die, even right before or in the boss room, you're going to have to fight your way back from the start because all the monster you killed on the way respawn. What makes it worse is that when you die you drop all the souls you've collected from killing monsters. If you do not reach your corpse before you die again all these souls are lost. Souls are used to upgrade your character as well as buying new equipment, spells and most importantly repairing your equipment. Dying and losing all your souls can literally set you back hours and there is nothing you can do but curse and do it all over again. The game does not fuck around.

This post has been edited by Pennyapt: 20 July 2011 - 08:27 PM

[Gothos]

Pennyapt, on 20 July 2011 - 08:26 PM, said:

Gothos, on 20 July 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

It's also a console-only title, isn't it? Fuck that game.

Come on, Gothos, it's time to give up that PC Master race attitude, cave in and buy a Playstation. The back catalogue of cheap games is well worth it by now. You know you want to deep deep down. Remember Spacemarine is coming out soon as well.

Will you sponsor it then?

[Aptorian]

I'm not that rich but I'd add you to my exclusive friends list consisting of Raymond Luxury Yacht and nobody else...