First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Has the gaming community died?
Posted 6/16/08
Well...in gaming lately there has been a trend going on, it seems the only games that are receiving sales are 1) Huge IP's that the development cost for these games aren't even possible for smaller company's 2) Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 and GTA 4 and 3) Games capitalizing on 2's success.

At first, I thought to myself, that it was the companies fault, so I decided to address a small complaint I had, which was Final Fantasy, and how long the series is, and how it continues for no reason really, but to make money off its name. Obviously, the conclusion I came to after seeing the respones I were getting was

Most people like or love a franchise. They seem to pay attention to this franchise and probably only this franchise. This franchise, however jaded, or mediocre it has become has a perfectly justifiable existence, it makes tons of money off of people. That is the ONLY reason it still exist.

So why does a company have to use a franchise like this? Well I guess its because of this, there is no reason whatsoever to make anything new, fresh, or innovative anymore, the gaming community is filled with idiots now, A LOT of idiots, more idiots then people with taste worth a damn, therefore, if you cater to the idiots, you make more money, so instead of having to work hard or do something new, you simply pick any ol' game from a hat and label something on it to sell IE : Dirge of Cerberus, of which I'm sure I just pissed somebody off because, "THIS GAME ROX UR STUPID AND SHULD DIE!!!11!1"

Obviously, games like Mario have been coming out for a LONG time, but the thing is, up until recently, Mario games have evolved, all the way till the jump till 3d, where now he just kinda does every thing he did in the N64 but prettier. Maybe its just me, but the N64 games were the only ones that really introduced anything new, and now Nintendo's older franchise's seem to just be kinda, well, stale. I don't even like calling SMG a new game, it seems like a update to 64 to me, theres no new gameplay elements, nothing new presented story wise, and the same goes for just about every older first party title game Nintendo Wise.

Have you ever thought for a second, maybe just a little, about what would happen if the guys like Nintendo, Square, and Activision would stop, well ya know, just making updated old games, and brought NEW things, how much fun you could be having? Imagine what NEW characters Nintendo could bring you, and what other great games could show up, innovative things like Pickmen, because Mario and Link are not going much further. Square brings you FF, most of which is the only series you ever even played from them...but just think what if they started making STAND ALONE titles, appealing to you, and other gamers, and everybody, how much more fun you can be having.

Of course, because my idea's are not, "Dude, screw you, this is the real world, company's need to make craploads of money, I for one love pouring my money into there pockets for doing the same thing over and over, and will never want something new, EVER, thats just dumb, this old things make money, NEW IDEA'S!?!?! Hah, you can't make craploads of money off a new IP!" I will probablly get flamed, but if any gamer out there who played on the 16 bit and ealier, miss's there originality in there games, and not just having like 3 companys bring us stuff like Killer 7, No More Heroes, Team Fortress 2, and Portal once every to long, what do you think is the current status of the gamer community?
Posted 6/16/08
It's not just in video games...Originality is a rare commodity in any entertainment medium these days.
1124 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
imho, In order to create an "original" game (or any game for that matter), company needs funds.
so investor who holds the funds will opt for a safer investment for their money by investing in company that'll produce final fantasy (a sure fire hit title) rather than some new company with some new game concept (no guaranteed to success).
1251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wright Anything A...
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
Gaming Community has died?

Just the Wii alone introduced a lot of people to the gaming world. A few maybe be casual gamers but I guess they are considered part of the whole gaming community.

This is like broader topic of your "Should Final Fantasy die?" thread.

Yes we see almost everything today have similar elements to past games. Thus we have the different genres of games. It focuses on one idea and widens out to different possibilities.

Popular gaming developers do create new titles rather than their usual gamers but this is a big precaution since it has a higher chance it would flop rather than gamers that have a fanbase already.

The Halo series being branded as the "innovation of fps" has been flamed on and criticized by a lot of avid fps gamers. They say it didn't bring anything new to the table but the game itself is pretty decent (I just hate the overwhelming Halo fanboys who treat it as the God of fps). A bad example of innovation is that the Sonic the Hedgehog series trying a different approach and is trying a Sonic that has RPG elements added to it. It is new and fresh but we already got used to the fast paced side-scrolling adventures of the blue hedgehog (Sonic Adventure 1/2 was the best 3d Sonic compared to the others)

Super Mario Galaxy was actually an innovation to M64 with all the primary use of the Wiimote. Shaking it, using it to pinpoint Mario in certain events. Sadly sometimes its quite clunky and is kinda tacked on to a few.

If you want a different experience there is a LOT of games to choose from. Looking away at the big game developers there are a LOT of games that are different from the rest. Squeenix and the others do create a pretty decent amount of gamers and a few trashware games but their are a LOT going on away from them.

I just wanted to know what would you add to Mario's storyline....
Shall we add a different enemy besides Koopa and the others? Shall we make Mario have a deep back story that explains why he is a plumber? Do we connect Donkey Kong to the story?

tl;dr

I don't really know why the lack of innovation will hurt the gaming community whatsoever.

THAT IS ONE HUGE WALL OF TEXT I DID.........
3062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Inside an Oven
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
I still see that in most of the series they are trying to change the system (like the battle sequences) or add new elements. FFXII for example had a very radical battle system compared to its earlier titles, but was the "new"
system received well? Most people wanted to have the traditional elements still in their favorite game.. I think thats what scares some companies to change or venture into new stuff especially in a franchise.

I for one loved the new system... it was something new, still quite final fantasy like, but definitely a change. Is such changes considered "death" to the gaming world to you?

What about new elements that are added into a game to make the gaming experience much more complicated and more versatile? I just saw some clips of MGS4 on CR with the new skills and moves that you can do. Well, i might consider this as death to a the gaming world since all they added was some new stuff but the very foundation is still the same.. Despite that i'd probably still play that game since im there for the story that has captivated me since i first played it on the PS1..
1251 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Wright Anything A...
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
Fresh and New ideas is not always a good thing.
The execution of new systems added to the game still need to pull the game in tact.
Sometimes the additions seem to be nonsensical and that it wouldn't help make the gameplay elements better.

okay......that was better than the big wall of text......
79213 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
No the community is not dead. The PS2 is the mark of that. There are 100s of games out there that are new and creative, developed by small companies. The problem is that most people who call themselves "Gamers" are not really gamers. Most of them use gaming as a sort of social device. The term "The story sucks but the multiplayer makes up for it" is the mark that gaming is no longer in the hands of real game fans.

But I digress, there are plenty of new and original games coming out these days. The problem is that most of them are not very heavily publicized. Most of the most "Original" games are made by small companies who cannot afford to buy TV time. You just need to look around the net you will see that lots of games are coming.
583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/16/08
Like I said before, companies stick to well known franchises and big names because they sell. Making new and innovative titles presents a big risk that most of them aren't willing to do. I mean, why take risk when you can go the safe route and get about almost the same amount of profit. Likewise, it's the same for gamers. People look to established franchises with recognized names as their source for quality (whether it may be true or not). Gamers also don't want to take the risk in buying a completely new game, investing into something unproven. Games like Okami and Psychonauts are also a bit quirky, and tries to do different than mainstream games, and they didn't sell so well. This in turn (not just these 2 but just using them as an example) will cause companies to stick closer to their established franchises and take less risk.

And when you think about it, the better question to ask is, do people really want change? I mean, we can all sit here and say how a certain series needs to be innovative or completely revamped. But when it does happen, how's the reception? Resident Evil 4 was a game that I loved, but in the eyes of older RE fans the game was an insult to them. RE4 was Capcom making something completely new for the series and while it worked for the mass audience, it didn't go over so well with the older fans. They complain about how it changed so much it's no longer a "true" RE game. While series like Dynasty Warriors (I do like it but it's been admittedly getting stale), still sell like crazy because the fans keep buying it and loving every single sequel no matter how minimal the change is from one to the next. And when asked they wouldn't want it to change for anything.

So sometimes innovation actually doesn't work quite as well as being lazy and sticking to the same old things. A sad state of affairs, but unless we can somehow completely comvince people to see it the other way, it's not going to change.
Posted 6/16/08

sigma_draconis wrote:

Like I said before, companies stick to well known franchises and big names because they sell. Making new and innovative titles presents a big risk that most of them aren't willing to do. I mean, why take risk when you can go the safe route and get about almost the same amount of profit. Likewise, it's the same for gamers. People look to established franchises with recognized names as their source for quality (whether it may be true or not). Gamers also don't want to take the risk in buying a completely new game, investing into something unproven. Games like Okami and Psychonauts are also a bit quirky, and tries to do different than mainstream games, and they didn't sell so well. This in turn (not just these 2 but just using them as an example) will cause companies to stick closer to their established franchises and take less risk.

And when you think about it, the better question to ask is, do people really want change? I mean, we can all sit here and say how a certain series needs to be innovative or completely revamped. But when it does happen, how's the reception? Resident Evil 4 was a game that I loved, but in the eyes of older RE fans the game was an insult to them. RE4 was Capcom making something completely new for the series and while it worked for the mass audience, it didn't go over so well with the older fans. They complain about how it changed so much it's no longer a "true" RE game. While series like Dynasty Warriors (I do like it but it's been admittedly getting stale), still sell like crazy because the fans keep buying it and loving every single sequel no matter how minimal the change is from one to the next. And when asked they wouldn't want it to change for anything.

So sometimes innovation actually doesn't work quite as well as being lazy and sticking to the same old things. A sad state of affairs, but unless we can somehow completely comvince people to see it the other way, it's not going to change.


Like I said, its because of the community, rather then the company's, people cry about RE4, even though OBVIOUS problems were fixed with it, such as camera angel issues, and this game sold over a million copies. If we complain about things like RE4, and then praise Dynasty Warriors, then what has the community become?
Posted 6/16/08

anti-freeze wrote:

No the community is not dead. The PS2 is the mark of that. There are 100s of games out there that are new and creative, developed by small companies. The problem is that most people who call themselves "Gamers" are not really gamers. Most of them use gaming as a sort of social device. The term "The story sucks but the multiplayer makes up for it" is the mark that gaming is no longer in the hands of real game fans.

But I digress, there are plenty of new and original games coming out these days. The problem is that most of them are not very heavily publicized. Most of the most "Original" games are made by small companies who cannot afford to buy TV time. You just need to look around the net you will see that lots of games are coming.


I have found a lot of new and interesting titles, but won't see much more from that company because it was over shadowed by something like GoW, a PERFECT example of The story sucks but the multiplayer makes up for it games that seem to be popular today.
Posted 6/16/08

croissant025 wrote:

I still see that in most of the series they are trying to change the system (like the battle sequences) or add new elements. FFXII for example had a very radical battle system compared to its earlier titles, but was the "new"
system received well? Most people wanted to have the traditional elements still in their favorite game.. I think thats what scares some companies to change or venture into new stuff especially in a franchise.

I for one loved the new system... it was something new, still quite final fantasy like, but definitely a change. Is such changes considered "death" to the gaming world to you?

What about new elements that are added into a game to make the gaming experience much more complicated and more versatile? I just saw some clips of MGS4 on CR with the new skills and moves that you can do. Well, i might consider this as death to a the gaming world since all they added was some new stuff but the very foundation is still the same.. Despite that i'd probably still play that game since im there for the story that has captivated me since i first played it on the PS1..


By dead, I meant no innovation, nothing is changing, and the community will only play the same type of games that follow the exact same systems and have big familiar names or companys backing them. . I would like the foundation to change and games to evolve....
Posted 6/16/08

notpronerz wrote:

Gaming Community has died?

Just the Wii alone introduced a lot of people to the gaming world. A few maybe be casual gamers but I guess they are considered part of the whole gaming community.

This is like broader topic of your "Should Final Fantasy die?" thread.

Yes we see almost everything today have similar elements to past games. Thus we have the different genres of games. It focuses on one idea and widens out to different possibilities.

Popular gaming developers do create new titles rather than their usual gamers but this is a big precaution since it has a higher chance it would flop rather than gamers that have a fanbase already.

The Halo series being branded as the "innovation of fps" has been flamed on and criticized by a lot of avid fps gamers. They say it didn't bring anything new to the table but the game itself is pretty decent (I just hate the overwhelming Halo fanboys who treat it as the God of fps). A bad example of innovation is that the Sonic the Hedgehog series trying a different approach and is trying a Sonic that has RPG elements added to it. It is new and fresh but we already got used to the fast paced side-scrolling adventures of the blue hedgehog (Sonic Adventure 1/2 was the best 3d Sonic compared to the others)

Super Mario Galaxy was actually an innovation to M64 with all the primary use of the Wiimote. Shaking it, using it to pinpoint Mario in certain events. Sadly sometimes its quite clunky and is kinda tacked on to a few.

If you want a different experience there is a LOT of games to choose from. Looking away at the big game developers there are a LOT of games that are different from the rest. Squeenix and the others do create a pretty decent amount of gamers and a few trashware games but their are a LOT going on away from them.

I just wanted to know what would you add to Mario's storyline....
Shall we add a different enemy besides Koopa and the others? Shall we make Mario have a deep back story that explains why he is a plumber? Do we connect Donkey Kong to the story?

tl;dr

I don't really know why the lack of innovation will hurt the gaming community whatsoever.

THAT IS ONE HUGE WALL OF TEXT I DID.........


I didn't mean dead like nobody is playing game's, I mean like the community has become a piece of crap.

The Sonic RPG isn't actually a bad idea, and sense Bioware is making it, it should be good, I'll try it and judge it before I say its stupid because its not platforming :/

The use of the Wiimote in SMG was more of a tacked on feeling rather then "innovative". It had me, and most of people I knew saying "They should of just used the GC controler this is stupid."

As for the whole Wii, I would really like to see more titles like No More Heroes. It was a traditional style game, that offered "mini games" of sorts that were all fun, didn't seem tacked on and helped develop this character as a loser. The story was good, the combat was fun, even the wiimote use, everything about this game was fresh new and good, even though it was in a genre like cut um up action, it still managed to be fresh new and awesome. The exact oposite of this was Devil May Cry 4, which was tierd old, "Haven't I done this before?" and then through the actual game itself, you'll find yourself saying "OMG I killed these boss's, and why does it play just like DMC3" Then you'll break your TV after your forced to fight the same boss's agian, bored as hell. Now, I'm pretty sure DMC4 sold a lot more then No More Heroes despite the fact DMC4 wasn't that great, maybe a 7/10, while No More Heroes is more of a 11/10. The only real reason theres NMH didn't sell better? It didn't have somebody in it named Dante.

The kind of games I like and often play are not made by big companies and not many of these "gamers" today heard of them, play them, or no they exist. But seeing as my favorite genre is RPG, its getting harder to find new interesting ones of these nowadays and I'm seeing a lot more, "Boy/Prince goes out and saves world from angry godess/king who is going to destroy it with the legendary -insert cliche here-" and not enough things like TWEWY, which close's relative is Shin Megami Tensei, and thats a REALLLLY different game.

As for Mario's story, first, lets make him stop rescuing Princess Peach period. Second, bring in a new villain, like they do for the paper Mario games. Now, introduce a new female role that 1) isn't being saved 2) isn't the reason women still have to complain about not having good role models in video games. Then have Mario help this place, getting help from the old characters, such as Luigi and Bowser, and don't make him have to collect anything that resemables a star, hell anything period, have it level based or something, and bring in some new stuff, just don't make it SMG gameplay with a few new caps or something. do like the did for the transition to 3D, break down the walls, and rebuid damnit!

Hell, for Zelda, first can we get a new main character? Second make it a REAL new character, not just some guy who looks JUST like link, but is different, like they did in DMC. Hell make it a real twist and make it a chick! Bring in new weapons, not the same with some added on. Make a new gameplay style, not just improved base, make it interesting, but at the same time just as fun so we won't be complaining how it sucks that it changed. As for the story, Ganon is gone, but he has trained somebody to take his place, and now this new game takes over the Kingdom and rules it with a iron fist, and he constantly sends out people to look for the children with the triforce on them. When your parents realized you had it, they sent you away to a neighboring kingdom, but now ganon's aprentice is going to attempt to take that place over. So now that your older, you go to become a knight, to help your kingdom. In your first battle your beat badly but manage to escape, now in Hyrule (the place ganons apprentice has taken over) you have to find the sword a hero used to save the kingdom, this time to save your kingdom, and this one. Yeah its not the best ever, but I hope this shows its not impossible to freshen up the franchise's from Nintendo...I mean yeah maybe its a little harsh of me to ask them to just go away forever, but its defiantly not to much to just ask for a little change.
Posted 6/16/08
No, the gaming community is not dead. As long as people are around, games will be made with people to play them. Seems like everyone's too busy complaining what's popular all the time and how the gaming industry ought to be. Video games, as well as movies, music, etc. usually make profits on what is familiar more than what is new. Hey, it's what the majority buys and what drives companies to keep producing similar stuff over and over. As a gamer I personally don't like it, but it's just the way things are. Tough crap. Hasn't stopped me from just enjoying whatever good games I can find, although it's few and far in between.



583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/17/08 , edited 6/17/08

dmitsuki wrote:


sigma_draconis wrote:

Like I said before, companies stick to well known franchises and big names because they sell. Making new and innovative titles presents a big risk that most of them aren't willing to do. I mean, why take risk when you can go the safe route and get about almost the same amount of profit. Likewise, it's the same for gamers. People look to established franchises with recognized names as their source for quality (whether it may be true or not). Gamers also don't want to take the risk in buying a completely new game, investing into something unproven. Games like Okami and Psychonauts are also a bit quirky, and tries to do different than mainstream games, and they didn't sell so well. This in turn (not just these 2 but just using them as an example) will cause companies to stick closer to their established franchises and take less risk.

And when you think about it, the better question to ask is, do people really want change? I mean, we can all sit here and say how a certain series needs to be innovative or completely revamped. But when it does happen, how's the reception? Resident Evil 4 was a game that I loved, but in the eyes of older RE fans the game was an insult to them. RE4 was Capcom making something completely new for the series and while it worked for the mass audience, it didn't go over so well with the older fans. They complain about how it changed so much it's no longer a "true" RE game. While series like Dynasty Warriors (I do like it but it's been admittedly getting stale), still sell like crazy because the fans keep buying it and loving every single sequel no matter how minimal the change is from one to the next. And when asked they wouldn't want it to change for anything.

So sometimes innovation actually doesn't work quite as well as being lazy and sticking to the same old things. A sad state of affairs, but unless we can somehow completely comvince people to see it the other way, it's not going to change.


Like I said, its because of the community, rather then the company's, people cry about RE4, even though OBVIOUS problems were fixed with it, such as camera angel issues, and this game sold over a million copies. If we complain about things like RE4, and then praise Dynasty Warriors, then what has the community become?


See, I definetly agree with you about how it's the problem with the gaming community itself (not that companies themselves are completely innocent). But the thing is, you'll find that there isn't that many people who's willing to admit that they would go and buy the same rehash over again. If the internet is to be believed then everyone's all for innovation and anything that's new will be bought in a heartbeat. That though, is very far removed from reality where innovative games struggle with sales and same old stuff getting huge sales. Of course when we point this out, they'll say that they're not like that and will always welcome innovation. Changing the community is alot harder than you think when even they refuse to admit fault.

And I don't think anyone really praise Dynasty Warriors, it's just that the fans of the series have absolutely no problem with the minimal changes and will buy every single title. So it's less of "DW is innovative" and more of "as long as it's DW I'll still buy it".

Posted 6/17/08

sigma_draconis wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


sigma_draconis wrote:

Like I said before, companies stick to well known franchises and big names because they sell. Making new and innovative titles presents a big risk that most of them aren't willing to do. I mean, why take risk when you can go the safe route and get about almost the same amount of profit. Likewise, it's the same for gamers. People look to established franchises with recognized names as their source for quality (whether it may be true or not). Gamers also don't want to take the risk in buying a completely new game, investing into something unproven. Games like Okami and Psychonauts are also a bit quirky, and tries to do different than mainstream games, and they didn't sell so well. This in turn (not just these 2 but just using them as an example) will cause companies to stick closer to their established franchises and take less risk.

And when you think about it, the better question to ask is, do people really want change? I mean, we can all sit here and say how a certain series needs to be innovative or completely revamped. But when it does happen, how's the reception? Resident Evil 4 was a game that I loved, but in the eyes of older RE fans the game was an insult to them. RE4 was Capcom making something completely new for the series and while it worked for the mass audience, it didn't go over so well with the older fans. They complain about how it changed so much it's no longer a "true" RE game. While series like Dynasty Warriors (I do like it but it's been admittedly getting stale), still sell like crazy because the fans keep buying it and loving every single sequel no matter how minimal the change is from one to the next. And when asked they wouldn't want it to change for anything.

So sometimes innovation actually doesn't work quite as well as being lazy and sticking to the same old things. A sad state of affairs, but unless we can somehow completely comvince people to see it the other way, it's not going to change.


Like I said, its because of the community, rather then the company's, people cry about RE4, even though OBVIOUS problems were fixed with it, such as camera angel issues, and this game sold over a million copies. If we complain about things like RE4, and then praise Dynasty Warriors, then what has the community become?


See, I definetly agree with you about how it's the problem with the gaming community itself (not that companies themselves are completely innocent). But the thing is, you'll find that there isn't that many people who's willing to admit that they would go and buy the same rehash over again. If the internet is to be believed then everyone's all for innovation and anything that's new will be bought in a heartbeat. That though, is very far removed from reality where innovative games struggle with sales and same old stuff getting huge sales. Of course when we point this out, they'll say that they're not like that and will always welcome innovation. Changing the community is alot harder than you think when even they refuse to admit fault.

And I don't think anyone really praise Dynasty Warriors, it's just that the fans of the series have absolutely no problem with the minimal changes and will buy every single title. So it's less of "DW is innovative" and more of "as long as it's DW I'll still buy it".



I think its kinda sad for DW, seeing as it has a lot of potential for what it could be with these gen systems, and not just square button for the whole game, but I guess people who play it really don't care :/

And I don't think its easy to change the community at all, especially with the demographics I would have to try to appeal to these days, its hard to convince a teenage boy to buy something with more then three colors in the game, brown gray and orange :/ And for the casual gamers, they still think its "geeky" and "nerdy" to play the more hardcore titles.

This topic wasn't so much about changing the community, I just wanted to get a general idea of everybody's views on the community as it stands today and compare them against mine.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.