Support NeoGAF

[Net_Wrecker]

He didn't lie to you - at the time the Burnout demo came out, EA Vancouver was working on a new SSX for current gen consoles. This got cancelled because the EA heads don't have faith in the SSX classic formula. Look up the infamous "Surfergirl" rumors for info on that.

Another team put forth a second proposal for a new SSX a year or so after that, headed by one of the team from the original 3 games. This one was closer to the spirit of the old games than the current SSX DD is as well. That one got declined.

After this, another team was put together to crack the conundrum of how to create an SSX "that would sell". It's probably better to say they were looking for an SSX that would get approved by EA heads - one that would cost less money and require a smaller team. Thus, the first nut to get cracked was a way to create mountains with less manpower - behold, Mountain Man the auto-mountain generator.

The SSX On Tour creative team used to make references to the limits placed on them in time and money to create the game. You saw what that lead to - I think we're looking at a similar situation here.

This is heartbreaking if true. Not cool EA, not cool at all.

 

[Vinterbird]

Interesting. I saw your other post where you said it's business and so on, and I agree... Yet, I find this list pretty stupid. Nothing to do with cynicism, just that I'm thinking of some games that hit only a few of these points (and in some cases, barely hit any at all) and have been more successful than pretty much any other game in existence. Where does Super Mario Bros. fit? Nowhere. Where does Mario Kart fit? Only socializing, and maybe griefers/achievers to a lesser extent. Wii Fit? None. Interestingly, Minecraft does seem to hit several of them (most notably Explorers, Nurturers and Builders I'd assume), but maybe it's just that it actually does it well without hampering the experience of other types of players.

If most people in marketing indeed are using this template or a variation thereof, then no wonder why so many games bomb, and a good proportion of the successful ones seem boring and sterile to me. And again, I'm not dissing the fact that they're viewing the thing from a business angle (I would do the same in their place, you don't make games for the sake of it), but that this part of their methodology is laughably wrong. If that's what passes for good, reliable marketing, I fear for the future of games.

We're being taught this in universities alongside other focus group and data collection theories like Personas and so on. It's something a lot of designers, producers and marketing use every day when designing software. And as mentioned other places in the thread, it's a business and that is priority number one no matter how much you want it to be "for the art".

 

[-PXG-]

The March 2011 Official X-box Magazine came out a few days ago with an article on SSX DD.

Creative director Todd Batty says everyone who sees SSX Tricky and SSX 3 thinks they are Wii games. He says that there are 10 "gamer types" for video games including "Explorers" who love big open worlds, "Managers" who love bartering and trading goods, and "Monsters" who mess people up. He says World of Warcraft hits nine of these types, and SSX DD currently hits 8, which is 2 more than SSX 3.

Summary of concrete features:

• Right now, the game is split into 3 main modes. Campaign - where you tackle the 9 Deadly Descents, Explore, and Live Events. Xbox magazine seems to think this last option is for online events.
• Plot: 3 returning characters including Zoe Payne get tired of the typical snowboard competition scene and form the SSX corporation to tackle the 9 deadliest mountains around the world. Some old characters join in for the challenge, but one drops out to race to get all 9 mountains done before the others. You step in as the new character "Jack", who is featured in all the screenshots.
• Rewind feature is confirmed, though there will be some sort of penalty for using it
• Batty says the danger element bridges the gap to an action-adventure game.
• In-game equipment like ice axes will be able to be powered up through an RPG-type power-up system and that overusing them will incur an in-game penalty. He says you won't be able to just 'fly through' a level.
• 200-300 tracks through 9 peaks. I would say "tracks" are more like "paths" than tracks in the old way of thinking.
• Expect Split/Second-type set pieces on every mountain, but they are not scripted events.
• You pick the tracks you race through a "Google Earth" type interface, which you can zoom in and out and pick which path you'd like the helicopter to drop you on.
• Now the doozy - Batty says they've simplified the process to do tricks from "nine inputs down to two". According to X-box magazine, they watched as he used the two analog sticks for the trick inputs: the left stick jumps and does spins, and sweeping motions with the right stick do tricks. Looks like some sort of Skate mechanic will make it through to the game. I have a strong hunch that Uber tricks will not make it into the game.
• Batty says he's got a unique way of including the score-multiplier feature from the old games without resorting to large neon-colored snowflakes that ruin the feeling of reality.
• Finally, it seems like it might be a 2012 release. Batty mentions that they have 15-months of development left on the game.

And finally, X-box magazine says that while fans are wondering "Why So Serious?" with SSX, they wonder if the fans shouldn't give EA the benefit of the doubt. After all, Heath Ledger as the Joker worked out well, didn't it?

Yes it did. But EA is not Christopher Nolan. Nowadays, their studio is more like Uwe Boll.

bunch-o-bullshit

WHAT

THE

FUCK

EDIT

Please. Would someone be so kind to explain why the FUCK they are even calling this SSX? I need a drink...or eight.

EDIT 2

I had a good ass day. A REALLY good day. Played MvC3, spent most of the day with and had some "quality" time with my new girl, who also cooked me dinner. Came home to watch another good Team Spooky stream. Decided to read other threads on GAF...and then....I read this......

NIGHT RUINED!!!!

 

[water_wendi]

Why is everyone going crazy over this news? im not really familiar with the SSX games.

 

[-PXG-]

Why is everyone going crazy over this news? im not really familiar with the SSX games.

Take a brilliant, high quality, fun, addictive, energetic, creative franchise from last gen, resurrect it, and cover it in as much repulsive, hodge podged, nonsensical, abysmal, down right, flat out retarded horse shit you can possibly think of.

I've read about odd design direction, but this one just takes the cake. Shit, it takes the whole motherfucking wedding.

Call it anything. ANYTHING you want...Anything BUT SSX. I feel like I've been pimp bitch slapped with baby powder and chunky ass diamond rings by EA. Holy shit.

 

[KevinCow]

We're being taught this in universities alongside other focus group and data collection theories like Personas and so on. It's something a lot of designers, producers and marketing use every day when designing software. And as mentioned other places in the thread, it's a business and that is priority number one no matter how much you want it to be "for the art".

Uh. Did you actually read the post you replied to? He didn't say anything about it being "for the art." In fact, he said the exact opposite.

There have been plenty of games that have been successful without appealing to many or even any of the types of gamers in that list, and there have been plenty of games that have flopped horribly despite trying to address a lot of that list.

The approach of mainly trying to appease SUPER HARDCORE FUCK YEAH gamers is flawed because there are plenty of gamers out there who aren't really SUPER HARDCORE FUCK YEAH gamers.

 

[-PXG-]

Uh. Did you actually read the post you replied to? He didn't say anything about it being "for the art." In fact, he said the exact opposite.

There have been plenty of games that have been successful without appealing to many or even any of the types of gamers in that list, and there have been plenty of games that have flopped horribly despite trying to address a lot of that list.

The approach of mainly trying to appease SUPER HARDCORE FUCK YEAH gamers is flawed because there are plenty of gamers out there who aren't really SUPER HARDCORE FUCK YEAH gamers.

It's funny how the focus group/ "Poochy" bullshit almost always fails. I wonder why. Conflicting ideas? Lack of coherence? No direction? Taking suggestions from people who have no idea what they want and/or talking about?

Let's have a game about Ghandi, but he has guns, and fights under water, butt naked, with no breathing apparatus, killing North Korean space sharks...HELL YEAH!!!

 

[Keyser Soze]

Why is everyone going crazy over this news? im not really familiar with the SSX games.

Todd Batty shot Old Yeller with a big ole gun, and thinks it's hilarious

 

[Kilrogg]

Uh. Did you actually read the post you replied to? He didn't say anything about it being "for the art." In fact, he said the exact opposite.

There have been plenty of games that have been successful without appealing to many or even any of the types of gamers in that list, and there have been plenty of games that have flopped horribly despite trying to address a lot of that list.

The approach of mainly trying to appease SUPER HARDCORE FUCK YEAH gamers is flawed because there are plenty of gamers out there who aren't really SUPER HARDCORE FUCK YEAH gamers.

Thank you.

 

[Gravijah]

Why is everyone going crazy over this news? im not really familiar with the SSX games.

What if The Witcher became Fable?

 

[water_wendi]

Todd Batty shot Old Yeller with a big ole gun, and thinks it's hilarious

Meh. Whenever changes like this happen with the games i like a huge chunk of GAF says that the old games i like had antiquated gameplay and that the changes are for the best. Maybe thats the case with SSX?

 

[elohel]

i can identify with the characters of this game

i want something different

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Meh. Whenever changes like this happen with the games i like a huge chunk of GAF says that the old games i like had antiquated gameplay and that the changes are for the best. Maybe thats the case with SSX?

Or maybe it's not the case and this mysterious "huge chunk of GAF" was incorrect, or the situations are very different!

 

[ZZMitch]

Meh, doesn't sound too bad.

I think it will be a good game in the end. Any chance of it coming to PC or Wii?

 

[graywolf323]

Meh. Whenever changes like this happen with the games i like a huge chunk of GAF says that the old games i like had antiquated gameplay and that the changes are for the best. Maybe thats the case with SSX?

I don't think GAF has a silent majority

 

[gondee]

This is heartbreaking if true. Not cool EA, not cool at all.

All true. My sources within the studio have dried up since they gutted it, but I've been privvy to murmurings over the last few years. The sad thing is I've heard that it's not impossible that EA may still cancel the game ala True Crime/Activision. We'll see, they still have a long way to go. But the producers of the game have a fine line to walk - reassure the gaming audience that the game isn't a complete veer away from the pedigree of SSX, while assuring the heads at EA that it totally is nothing like the old games, so that "it will sell."

Let's have a game about Ghandi, but he has guns, and fights under water, butt naked, with no breathing apparatus, killing North Korean space sharks...HELL YEAH!!!

This is a game that will sell well. Perhaps I am biased though.

 

[Neuromancer]

I wonder if every SSX thread from here on out is going to have this kind of uproar.

 

[Gravijah]

I wonder if every SSX thread from here on out is going to have this kind of uproar.

Probably. The game could be really good, but attaching the SSX name to it was a mistake.

 

[sixteen-bit]

I miss SSX

 

[Dante]

yeah....I don't want this.

 

[Neuromancer]

Probably. The game could be really good, but attaching the SSX name to it was a mistake.

Oh come on, like EA would launch a brand new snowboarding game without the SSX name. That would be a pretty stupid business decision. This game is guaranteed to sell more copies because it's called SSX, regardless of how much like the old SSX's it is.

 

[timetokill]

Interesting. I saw your other post where you said it's business and so on, and I agree... Yet, I find this list pretty stupid. Nothing to do with cynicism, just that I'm thinking of some games that hit only a few of these points (and in some cases, barely hit any at all) and have been more successful than pretty much any other game in existence. Where does Super Mario Bros. fit? Nowhere. Where does Mario Kart fit? Only socializing, and maybe griefers/achievers to a lesser extent. Wii Fit? None. Interestingly, Minecraft does seem to hit several of them (most notably Explorers, Nurturers and Builders I'd assume), but maybe it's just that it actually does it well without hampering the experience of other types of players.

If most people in marketing indeed are using this template or a variation thereof, then no wonder why so many games bomb, and a good proportion of the successful ones seem boring and sterile to me. And again, I'm not dissing the fact that they're viewing the thing from a business angle (I would do the same in their place, you don't make games for the sake of it), but that this part of their methodology is laughably wrong. If that's what passes for good, reliable marketing, I fear for the future of games.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm vehemently defending this methodology or anything, I'm just explaining. And to clarify a few things...

For one, this stuff isn't meant to be a marketing tool, it's meant to be a production and design tool, though producers stray into marketing territory quite often in the game industry.

Furthermore, it doesn't mean the game has to have something as a primary "focus" for it to include different types. For instance, you said Super Mario Bros. doesn't hit any of them. That wouldn't be accurate. Looking at Super Mario Bros. in particular through the lens of somebody using this method:

- Collectors: coins, powerups, one-ups are scattered all over the place, becoming a compulsive "need to get" thing for Collectors
- Achievers: high scores
- Killers: plenty of enemies to defeat in various ways

Later on, the Mario games would include Explorers (things like secret areas, large expansive 3D worlds, etc.). I know it doesn't seem like Mario would appeal to a "killers" set but maybe the name is throwing you -- it really just has to do with defeating enemies in some way. Some players that play Mario won't go through without killing practically every enemy they see. This would be the "killers" type, the type that enjoys defeating enemies.

At any rate, it's supposed to be about identifying what compels people to play, and what they're interested in. Also, hitting more points doesn't mean a game will be more successful, which is a huge mistake this guy seems to be subscribing to. he's trying to cast a wide net by saying the game has "something for everyone," but those features have to be compelling on their own in order to really function. It's kind of the jack of all trades, master of none sort of thing. Mario is very specific but it does what it does extremely well.

 

[Gravijah]

Oh come on, like EA would launch a brand new snowboarding game without the SSX name. That would be a pretty stupid business decision. This game is guaranteed to sell more copies because it's called SSX, regardless of how much like the old SSX's it is.

Oh, I understand why they did it. Don't get me wrong. The game will definitely sell more because it has the SSX name slapped on.

 

[Neuromancer]

Furthermore, it doesn't mean the game has to have something as a primary "focus" for it to include different types. For instance, you said Super Mario Bros. doesn't hit any of them. That wouldn't be accurate. Looking at Super Mario Bros. in particular through the lens of somebody using this method:

- Collectors: coins, powerups, one-ups are scattered all over the place, becoming a compulsive "need to get" thing for Collectors
- Achievers: high scores
- Killers: plenty of enemies to defeat in various ways

Later on, the Mario games would include Explorers (things like secret areas, large expansive 3D worlds, etc.). I know it doesn't seem like Mario would appeal to a "killers" set but maybe the name is throwing you -- it really just has to do with defeating enemies in some way. Some players that play Mario won't go through without killing practically every enemy they see. This would be the "killers" type, the type that enjoys defeating enemies.

Don't forget speedrunners.

Oh, I understand why they did it. Don't get me wrong. The game will definitely sell more because it has the SSX name slapped on.

Yep. It's just a marketplace reality. Besides I'm not convinced a Tricky/SSX 3 style game would really sell any better than this one.

 

[Thunderbear]

Did you read the info in the OP? How exactly are people jumping to conclusions?

I did read the info in the OP and yeah, I don't think it's anything near the disaster everyone's jumping to the conclusion that it's going to be.

I would love for this to turn out great, then point out this thread and perhaps give you guys a bit of a glimpse of how absurd it is to get this dramatic over the information we've gotten so far.

I'm a huge fan of the SSX series, and since it's a new team it could go either way how it turns out. These snippets of information doesn't making me post gifs or say FU to a bunch of people because that would be my definition of being narrow minded. You are taking small bits of information and drawing a final conclusion.

How many people were "guaranteeing" that Killzone 2 was going to be a failure because GG had never made a good console game? It's happened time and time again for different reasons.

Just at least wait until you've seen some gameplay videos before you freak out.

 

[timetokill]

Don't forget speedrunners.

I had actually written it out originally under Achievers, but I didn't want to get into an argument as to whether that was part of the intent of the game's design or not.

 

[FoxMcCloudDS]

This game just is a disappointment already... cant believe they have 15 months worth of jobs yet.. I mean, hearing the feedback I would feel like shit as a developer to keep going to work to know your game wont be a "hit outta the park".. ya know..

It would be like working on NBA every year or something...

 

[StuBurns]

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's cancelled.

EDIT: Google Swenglish source:

Oh, great. EA hates me, time to bring back System Shock and make it a Modern Warfare space clone.

 

[Neuromancer]

I had actually written it out originally under Achievers, but I didn't want to get into an argument as to whether that was part of the intent of the game's design or not.

Fair enough, I'd say it wasn't though. When I used to play, the clock was something that only concerned me when I spent too long dicking around in a level.

This game just is a disappointment already... cant believe they have 15 months worth of jobs yet.. I mean, hearing the feedback I would feel like shit as a developer to keep going to work to know your game wont be a "hit outta the park".. ya know..

Fortunately for them GAF doesn't generally get to decide what's successful or not.

 

[El-Suave]

If they're not sure about a more "classic" SSX, they should have just converted SSX Blur nicely into HD, put it on PSN and XBL and see if it sells.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

I did read the info in the OP and yeah, I don't think it's anything near the disaster everyone's jumping to the conclusion that it's going to be.

I would love for this to turn out great, then point out this thread and perhaps give you guys a bit of a glimpse of how absurd it is to get this dramatic over the information we've gotten so far.

I'm a huge fan of the SSX series, and since it's a new team it could go either way how it turns out. These snippets of information doesn't making me post gifs or say FU to a bunch of people because that would be my definition of being narrow minded. You are taking small bits of information and drawing a final conclusion.

How many people were "guaranteeing" that Killzone 2 was going to be a failure because GG had never made a good console game? It's happened time and time again for different reasons.

Just at least wait until you've seen some gameplay videos before you freak out.

I've said it before, every single person that doesn't like what they've read so far would LOVE to be proven 100% wrong. I would have no problem looking like a narrow minded fool come release day of Deadly Descents.

The problem is that almost every piece of information seems to be going directly AGAINST what SSX fans wanted in the first real SSX this generation. Combine that with the action movie trailer we got at the VGA's, and the game director crapping all over the look/atmosphere of the best SSX games in the series, and...well...you get this and every SSX thread since the reveal of Deadly Descents.

Fortunately for them GAF doesn't generally get to decide what's successful or not.

Not to take anything away from your point, but it's FAR from just Gaf nerd-raging over the info we've received so far. Check their Facebook, and every other SSX dedicated forum, or comments in news articles from various sites. Their general "That old colorful stuff was too fake, and wouldn't work now" attitude is rubbing a lot of fans the wrong way.

 

[dallow_bg]

I wonder if every SSX thread from here on out is going to have this kind of uproar.

I hope so.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Not to take anything away from your point, but it's FAR from just Gaf nerd-raging over the info we've received so far. Check their Facebook, and every other SSX dedicated forum, or comments in news articles from various sites. Their general "That old colorful stuff was too fake, and wouldn't work now" attitude is rubbing a lot of fans the wrong way.

Yeah, I'm not convinced that they really give a shit about what the "make Tricky in HD, again and again and again" group says. There are a couple of real clowns posting on the Facebook page, some dweeber dude has now devolved to telling them to fuck off and die and such whenever anything new is shown. Talk about counterproductive.

Anyway, I don't get the deadly descent thing. Is each mountain range unique in its challenge?

 

[soultron]

The only thing I don't really like in the OP is the mention of simplified controls. The rest is fine with me.

SSX3 works on 360 BC so I don't need more of the same. HD remake would be nice, but I doubt it will happen since it's so far off from the image SSXDD is going for.

Please be good. By all means, if 2012 is what you need to make it good, take the time.

I know it's early but I really wish they'd just show video already. Something.

 

[I <3 Memes]

They should have just went with the Deadly Descents name. That's a great name for a snowboarding game. Every single thread on every messageboard is going to look like this one because they used the SSX name. Sure gamers would have raged a little at why they were making this type of snowboarding game instead of making an SSX game like we had been begging for, but it would have died down quick and been minor compared to this. Now we dont get the SSX game we have wanted and because they used the name they have tied the SSX brand to this crap direction so there is no hope for a good SSX game in the future.

I'm actually a little relieved at the way this has played out. I dont own a console and an true SSX successor is about the only thing that would have gotten me to buy a console again. Saved me 300 bucks this way.

 

[RSLAEV]

What sucks is that if this game bombs no one involved in the decision making process will realized admit they fucked up. But if it succeeds, they'll use it to try and prove that they know what gamers *really* want. :/

 

[big_z]

Its like if a marketing department designed/developed a game.

this was actually brought up on a podcast by someone that works in the industry. it was confirmed that the games design was chosen based on focus groups and test marketing.

this game has no soul. it's just a melting pot of current "Hit" game designs mixed into a snowboarding game with the SSX brand name. it's nothing more than a cash grab.

this game is going to be a horrible SSX game and then when it doesnt sell EA will think there's no interest in franchise.

Creative director Todd Batty says everyone who sees SSX Tricky and SSX 3 thinks they are Wii games

i hate gamers that think something is for babies because there's bright colors and you're not killing something. sadly there's a lot of them.

 

[graywolf323]

What sucks is that if this game bombs no one involved in the decision making process will realized admit they fucked up. But if it succeeds, they'll use it to try and prove that they know what gamers *really* want. :/

meanwhile us SSX fans are screwed either way

if the game fails they'll claim that means no one wants SSX anymore

if it succeeds we'll only ever get dudebro SSX again

:-(

 

[Neptune]

This thread is full of good news if you are a fan of:

- EA the corporation
- Snowboarding / extreme sports in general
- "Action set pieces", "RPG elements", "gritty realism" and whatever other homogenised and focus group-tested modern gaming cliché every game needs to include to sell to the "mainstream" audience that buys Call of Duty every year.

This thread is full of bad news if you were first and foremost a fan of the SSX series' gameplay and aesthetic. All the people in here accusing SSX fans of "jumping to conclusions" or "being narrow-minded" need to realise that every piece of information from this article and the announcement trailer goes directly against so many of the things people enjoyed about the series in its prime. If you liked the old games and are still excited about this news, good for you, but it's probably because you never really cared about what made SSX different from any other snowboard game at the time.

 

[soultron]

If you liked the old games and are still excited about this news, good for you, but it's probably because you never really cared about what made SSX different from any other snowboard game at the time.

The fact that they played the best in the entire genre was what set them apart, IMO.

I get it, but the '00s-era art direction and characters are becoming a tired argument. The rest of us get it already. The old SSX games are still around if you'd like to track them down for cheap and play them.

EA might not be Christopher Nolan, but I like the Heath Ledger Joker analogy. I know it's hard, but try to wait for video or hands-on impressions before you sell Deadly Descents completely down shit creek. I'll be right there with you if video and impressions turn out to be sour.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

If you've been dying for a new installment in one of your favorite franchises for what's about to be EIGHT YEARS (On Tour and Blur don't count) and they turn around and completely change the atmosphere of the series, you'd be raging too.

Not really.

 

[Jimrpg]

How could you possibly blame the Wii for this?

Not just the Wii but the Wii contributed to a large part of what the game industry is these days. Mainstreamness. In the PS1 and PS2, dreamcast, xbox era, most of the games we got were for gamers.... sure we got a lot of Buzz, Singstar titles towards the end of the PS2 life, but most games were created for gamers.

The Wii changed the whole mentality of the industry. It turned non-gamers into gamers. Look at Activision these days - anything that isn't reaching mainstream or mainstream like numbers is not a success.

The article interviewing Todd Batty says there are ten gamer types, and he's reaching out to 8 now, 2 more than before. There's no alleigance to hardcore gamers anymore, yes we might be the first to spread the word and make something like Demon's Souls a success, but we are not the be all and end all of games success.

What I think they really should have done was not use the SSX name at all - i dont think there would be such an uproar. Sure we would have ridiculed the game still but we wouldn't actually be angry and disappointed like we are now.

anyways - im not 'blaming' the wii or hating on the wii or anything - BUT the fact its increased the market space and set the bar higher for what is or isn't a success, the side effects are games such as these - SSX, Ridge Racer, DMC, Dead Rising - where even japanese executives have started believing that they need to westernize their games without even realising whether their end product is what their hardcore fans want (but again, we have become insignificant).

 

[StarEye]

The Wii changed the whole mentality of the industry. It turned non-gamers into gamers.

You know, that exact argument came up when the PS1 became such a mainstream phenomena as well. I guess you weren't around to witness that?

 

[Kilrogg]

anyways - im not 'blaming' the wii or hating on the wii or anything - BUT the fact its increased the market space and set the bar higher for what is or isn't a success, the side effects are games such as these - SSX, Ridge Racer, DMC, Dead Rising - where even japanese executives have started believing that they need to westernize their games without even realising whether their end product is what their hardcore fans want (but again, we have become insignificant).

No, raising development costs and an ever-narrowing focus on the same genres (shooters being the prime example) for the same, barely-growing (if not diminishing) customer base did that.

 

[dope4goldrope]

meanwhile us SSX fans are screwed either way

if the game fails they'll claim that means no one wants SSX anymore

if it succeeds we'll only ever get dudebro SSX again

:-(

=(

EA, why have you forsaken us?

 

[JaseMath]

This. Sounds. Terrible.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

There is absolutely no creativity or inspiration behind this. It's purely cynical, focused grouped, marketing trash. This is a game made by hacks with guns pointed to the backs of their heads demanding they sell 2 million+ copies.

If this game was just called "Deadly Descents" with no SSX connection, it wouldn't even have a thread on GAF for it. Nobody would give a flying fuck. It would sell 50,000 copies and be $15 in a month. Now I guess it's obvious why they needed to rape SSX in order to get attention.

 

[daoster]

If EA thinks that SSX games don't sell, what's the reasoning behind using SSX name for a game that has nothing to do with SSX thematically (and probably gameplay wise)?

It certainly can't be to try to sell the game, since EA thinks SSX doesn't sell!

And call me naive, but I don't think that the people who would be interested in Snowboarding type games would be interested in everything I've seen (and heard) of the new SSX so far. So they don't want to go back to the Tricky/SSX3 style...that's fine, but they think more people want to play THIS type of game?

 

[AceBandage]

If EA thinks that SSX games don't sell, what's the reasoning behind using SSX name for a game that has nothing to do with SSX thematically (and probably gameplay wise)?

It certainly can't be to try to sell the game, since EA thinks SSX doesn't sell!

And call me naive, but I don't think that the people who would be interested in Snowboarding type games would be interested in everything I've seen (and heard) of the new SSX so far. So they don't want to go back to the Tricky/SSX3 style...that's fine, but they think more people want to play THIS type of game?

It's been the case for the entire generation that publishers just have no clue what the market wants, besides a few lucky breaks.

 

[charlequin]

The "gamer types" quote is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard a developer say.

That part of the article reads like a parody. It is so hard to believe an actual person said those things with an entirely straight face.

To be fair, it's not like SSX wasn't always kind of Poochie in its presentation - I mean, let's be honest here, Eddie, Moby, Psymon and all these characters we look back on as these great things were just as manufactured and faux-cool as anything we've seen for Deadly Descent - but at least they had fun with the tropes and took the game to ridiculous levels.

Part of the difference is that Tricky was pretty self-aware and absurd about the whole thing, and part is that in 2001 the industry still had costs low enough and a broad enough demographic target that even though plenty of games were pandering, at least they could pander to a lot more different subgroups instead of monotonously chanting "BROS BROS BROS" in creepy robot voices.

Also, plenty of people like SSX3 best which is a style that also would've been fine for me and is a bit less IN UR FACE "extreme."

The death of Tony Hawk came in large part due to the fact that they go so far away from what made it popular to begin with.

Combined with annual releases that brought nothing new to the table.

Yeah, I'm not convinced that they really give a shit about what the "make Tricky in HD, again and again and again" group says.

If only there were numerous people in every one of these threads who had explained their positions in detail so as to save this particular strawman any more whacks from your cranky-old-man cane.