Support NeoGAF

[anonymousAversa]

This honestly sounds like one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, but who knows.

I agree...thin air? Really?

 

[soultron]

I agree...thin air? Really?

You say that like it's not a real concept.

It's not that bad of an idea for a gameplay mechanic.

 

[SolarPowered]

Not a criticism of you, but I would say a general rule of thumb would be, that unless any developer specifically mentions the PC platform, it is just console. PC is not a given anymore.

This kind of sucks...

And the mentioning of Skip was in regards to the random generated bit. Levels in the game will not be random generated you the player plays them.

Ah, gotcha.

And since you want confirmation, here is the press release in full:

This could have been avoided if the OP of the original thread were updated with this. The platform announcement is a pretty important one for most people...

thanks

 

[Psy-Phi]

To be honest, I don't really trust what the development team says anymore. They were claiming that this game would stay true to the series roots and then come up with this "you can die for real" bullshit.

Why didn't they use Mirror's Edge as inspiration instead of CoD?

Because Mirror's Edge didn't sell as good as CoD? Pretty simple to see that conversation going down between the designing team and the boss with marketing experience.

 

[cilonen]

What is so horrible about them trying something different? Did people respond with large amount of hate when they announced Burnout was going open world as well?

Oh yes indeed. It's the single biggest thing I remember people complaining about; and when the demo came there was even more rage about it (well that and having to trek across city to try again if you fail, same issue really).

 

[charlequin]

I am eager for the haters to eat humble pie when the actual impressions hit.

I don't think most of the people in this conversation are going to be "eating" anything if impressions come in that are like "this is an awesome dark, pseudo-realistic snowboarding game where you cope with deadly environments on every real-world mouintain track!" I don't care about a game like that, I wouldn't buy it if it were a new IP called "Danger Boards" and I wouldn't follow its development, even if it were raved about. (I didn't buy Skate either even though everyone says it's super-great because it doesn't offer anything I'm interested in.)

The Spike VGAs are part of the (new) audience EA as a publisher is trying to approach with DD.

But this is part of the problem. For anyone who is already disgusted at Spike TV and at the increasingly prevalent pandering to a lowest-common-denominator market that it represents, the idea that EA wants to debut and market their game in a way designed specifically to appeal to that market is offputting.

I think you've got it twisted. Nobody in their right minds wants the SAME thing as the past SSX games in a literal sense, which is exactly why Blur was disliked, aside from the controls, and complete lack of character as well.

What people want is the VIBE that SSX once stood for with its first 3 games.

Precisely.

The exact aesthetic for SSX is certainly already somewhat dated, but I don't think there's anything innately passe about a groovy, cartoonish snowboarding game with an emphasis on ultra-arcadey speed/trick mechanics.

 

[soultron]

I've simmered down because I've come to accept I'm from the camp of SSX fans who's more a fan of the genre itself than the specific aesthetic of SSX. Again, it does make for an immensely enjoyable game, but was never the main draw for me. Net_Wrecker was the first to actually articulate what he thought was wrong, IMO, and that helped.

I still think anyone who was expecting the same old SSX (especially as a major release/retail product) from EA is kidding themselves. It would be great fun for the core audience like us, but we aren't the only ones that EA is interested in anymore.

XBLA/PSN is a best case scenario, and I don't think anyone would be opposed to that.

 

[Plissken]

Got my EGM last night, read the article this morning. The game they're making sounds really cool and I plan to play it, but they should have left the "SSX" out of the title. Had they announced this as a new snowboarding IP with all the features listed in the article, it would be getting a lot more love. However, announcing you're making a new SSX game, then having your big reveals include almost nothing that fans of the previous games expected is going to generate a lot of hate, whether it's justified or not.

 

[soultron]

If you, as a fan of the previous SSX games, buy/play it solely on the fact that the inclusion of the SSX name piqued your interests, the marketing department at EA wins. :lol

I see what you're saying.

 

[robo_robo]

I really can't associate snowboarding with "the first goal is to survive". It just sounds weird and kind of dumb.

 

[TimmiT]

Sounds pretty good to me. It just shouldn't be called SSX.

 

[KingJ2002]

Still on the fence about this one... without the crazy tracks (snowboarding in Hawaii for example), colors, goofy characters and humor... it just wont be SSX.

I'll reserve my final judgment until I play it but so far it's starting to feel like they shouldn't have called it SSX like TimmiT sez.

 

[AlphaTwo00]

What is so horrible about them trying something different? Did people respond with large amount of hate when they announced Burnout was going open world as well?

I believe I spent the first 6 months in the Burnout thread defending the game for a)open world, and b)not having restart.

NFS:HP going open world had almost the same issue too.

People WILL hate you when you make a change, and don't properly justify it right away. That's just how it goes. Criterion seems to have gotten away with it because of their name, and with NFS, because of how Burnout turned out...

 

[Neuromancer]

The idea of EA making a crazy experimental snowboarding game, but not calling it SSX something or other (presumably out of respect to old SSX fans), is just wishful thinking. Remember this is a company trying to sell the most games they can and the name SSX still has brand recognition. I bet the same game would sell 1/2 as well without the name, just for being a new IP.

 

[Plinko]

I believe I spent the first 6 months in the Burnout thread defending the game for a)open world, and b)not having restart.

Wow.

 

[mil6es]

fuck me, the direction they have taken this game is so unlike SSX its a bloody joke, wheres the mention of "slopestyle", "super pipe" and "big air" courses????

 

[AstroLad]

fuck me, the direction they have taken this game is so unlike SSX its a bloody joke, wheres the mention of "slopestyle", "super pipe" and "big air" courses????

don't worry they are going to slopestyle superipe and bigair up all the generated courses

 

[echoshifting]

All right, I want it. Pretty bad, actually. And I'm willing to forgive their use of the franchise...because it's better than nothing...okay, unless "nothing" were an HD update of Tricky and 3. But maybe if there's enough interest around this new entry, that might actually happen (pipe dream).

That said. EA deserves all the shit they get for what they are dong to this franchise.

 

[AndyD]

If the trailer had a shot overlooking a complete festival of sounds, lights, and characters right at the at the end when the dude popped open his wingsuit, I'd be going absolutely crazy with anticipation. It's THAT easy.

Motorstorm style? I agree.

Look they want to make it gritty and more "real" and that's fine, but let us know if the SSX soul is still in there. If not, don't bullshit us.

Do I mind many mountains, procedural or topographically generated? Not at all. As long as the hand crafted ones still exist, or at least routes then I am OK with it. And from those details it seems they will have all that, just not on the whole surface of the mountain.

SSX 3 did this, some wilderness areas, some crafted track areas and it was a lot of fun still, even without the full on craziness of Tricky.

I would certainly be OK with this and a Tricky/SSX3 HD remake on PS3 as many other games are getting.

 

[StarEye]

I believe I spent the first 6 months in the Burnout thread defending the game for a)open world, and b)not having restart.

NFS:HP going open world had almost the same issue too.

People WILL hate you when you make a change, and don't properly justify it right away. That's just how it goes. Criterion seems to have gotten away with it because of their name, and with NFS, because of how Burnout turned out...

NFS isn't really open world though, is it, unless you want it to be. I for one haven't tried the open world mode even once yet (is it the free ride?).

Burnout Paradise failed (for me) to be the best Burnout game because of the open world nature and the complete lack of interesting well-designed tracks. So far, I enjoy NFS a lot more than Burnout, and I was a huge Burnout fan. Heck, I've even bought Paradise twice.

What I don't know is why developers/publishers insists on making a change and doing something different when so much time has passed since the last great game and all the fans want is more of the same.

And I'm pretty sure that we won't see a SSX HD classics for the PS3 simply because ofthe new SSX. Which will most likely fail horribly. And then they will blame this on us, the consumer, who apparently isn't interested in SSX anymore. And because of this we will neither see SSX again, nor will we get a remake/HD compilation.

 

[mil6es]

don't worry they are going to slopestyle superipe and bigair up all the generated courses

seriously I just have this scary thought of the game being me going down this grey/white dimly lit "realistic" mountain path with the character shouting out random swear words when things go wrong, all while listening to linkin park or some other generic nu-metal band in the background.......sigh

 

[Vinterbird]

seriously I just have this scary thought of the game being me going down this grey/white dimly lit "realistic" mountain path with the character shouting out random swear words when things go wrong, all while listening to linkin park or some other generic nu-metal band in the background.......sigh

If you don't like where they are going, then just ignore it. They're doing it no matter how much people bitch and moan.

 

[AstroLad]

If you don't like where they are going, then just ignore it. They're doing it no matter how much people bitch and moan.

ok we'll stop posting

 

[ColonelColon]

I really can't associate snowboarding with "the first goal is to survive". It just sounds weird and kind of dumb.

Same here. I might like a game about surviving frigid conditions on a mountain, and I would love a snowboarding game with colorful visuals and ridiculous tricks, but a blend of the two minus the over the top style seems totally unappealing to me.

 

[Vinterbird]

ok we'll stop posting

People are just bitching for the sake of bitching now. It's like people are ignoring the information we are getting, and maybe trying to adjust to that and think about the possibilities that could bring to the series.

It's all fun and nostalgic to bitch about how this game sucks, and how SSX Tricky was amazing. But that gets boring after two posts, so maybe trying to actually discuss the new thing would be a nice change of pace?

 

[charlequin]

The idea of EA making a crazy experimental snowboarding game, but not calling it SSX something or other (presumably out of respect to old SSX fans), is just wishful thinking.

Well, sure, if you have an extremely narrow understanding of branding and you think of brands as platonic entities whose existence is independent of what they're associated with and whose selling power is affected only by ephemeral "trends" and not by what you actually do with them.

In reality, the value of a brand is in its ability to signify the positive qualities associated by buyers with the product it's attached to. Effective use of a brand involves using it to support products that actually embody those associated qualities. In some cases, reinventing the brand by selectively utilizing only some of these qualities can work -- but here we're looking at a game whose connection to its franchise history is literally that both are games about snowboarding.

The problem with these companies with huge IP vaults dredging up old franchises and slapping their names on random games is that it does much more to tarnish those brands than it does to make those games sell better. Calling this game SSX isn't going to make it sell that much better, and it risks transforming SSX from a brand with a notable amount of cachet (as demonstrated by the excitement that came up every time we had an "OMG SSX RUMOR" thread) into a brand that has no associated selling power.

And I'm pretty sure that we won't see a SSX HD classics for the PS3 simply because ofthe new SSX. Which will most likely fail horribly. And then they will blame this on us, the consumer, who apparently isn't interested in SSX anymore. And because of this we will neither see SSX again, nor will we get a remake/HD compilation.

That's the other reason people get so upset about these kinds of revelations, yes. A poorly-thought-out reboot has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure, and tone-deaf executives who can't recognize the difference between the title that fans loved and the new title that bore only a superficial resemblance to it tend to blame that failure on the "lack of a market" for the franchise.

In a more realistic sense, it's probably accurate that the SSX people wanted to see was very unlikely to come out of EA in its current configuration for a variety of reasons, but as long as the franchise name itself wasn't getting abused the possibility was more real than it'll be if this game comes out, flops, and buries the name again.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

The idea of EA making a crazy experimental snowboarding game, but not calling it SSX something or other (presumably out of respect to old SSX fans), is just wishful thinking. Remember this is a company trying to sell the most games they can and the name SSX still has brand recognition. I bet the same game would sell 1/2 as well without the name, just for being a new IP.

Well then you get what you ask for.

Fucking over your fanbase is never a smart idea, and that's almost essentially what they're doing. And for all you keep claiming that SSX has this brand recognition, tell me - to whom? SSX was a hit, but it was never this huge brand name synonymous with snowboarding games in the same way Call of Duty and Halo are with shooters, etc. The majority of people who like SSX like it for the aesthetic in addition to the gameplay; if they didn't they would've been Amped or 1080 fans. Giving people the diametric opposite of the game they want and claiming "This is the new SSX game, guys!" is just fucking stupid. It's Sonic 4 all over again.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

I believe I spent the first 6 months in the Burnout thread defending the game for a)open world, and b)not having restart.

NFS:HP going open world had almost the same issue too.

People WILL hate you when you make a change, and don't properly justify it right away. That's just how it goes. Criterion seems to have gotten away with it because of their name, and with NFS, because of how Burnout turned out...

How could you defend not having restart? That was an absolutely horrible decision on their part. For the first time EVER, Burnout Paradise had me AVOIDING RACING IN A RACING TITLE. I spent the vast majority of my hours with that game messing around in free mode online with 7 other people just jumping off of stuff, and breaking road rule times.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

Well let's be fair - Paradise's problems are more than just not having restart, since it's a fantastic open world car game but a really shitty Burnout.

 

[charlequin]

People are just bitching for the sake of bitching now. It's like people are ignoring the information we are getting, and maybe trying to adjust to that and think about the possibilities that could bring to the series.

I can complain about the information we're actually getting instead if you like. Danger mechanics are by their very nature going to come into conflict with the core mechanic of SSX, that being maximizing speed via well-placed tricks on courses with multiple pathways and approaches. Oxygen deprivation will either be meaningless (since you'lll already be trying to go fast) or force you to trade speed for survivability. Freezing mechanics based on light-painted snow will limit your path flexibility.

The mountain thing is kind of cool in a sense but "70 mountains" isn't something I like to hear. I think you could make a very cool SSX-style snowboarding game where you took ten "famous" mountains, digitized them, extensively reworked those digitized tracks with added features and design elements, and then building up a "World Tour" stylistic approach around it, but the idea that they're shipping with 70 full mountains that are modeled 360 from top to bottom means that the human touch on each is going to be extremely light.

 

[I <3 Memes]

That's the other reason people get so upset about these kinds of revelations, yes. A poorly-thought-out reboot has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure, and tone-deaf executives who can't recognize the difference between the title that fans loved and the new title that bore only a superficial resemblance to it tend to blame that failure on the "lack of a market" for the franchise.

In a more realistic sense, it's probably accurate that the SSX people wanted to see was very unlikely to come out of EA in its current configuration for a variety of reasons, but as long as the franchise name itself wasn't getting abused the possibility was more real than it'll be if this game comes out, flops, and buries the name again.

Yes this is the worst part. Because they have used the SSX name on this game there is no going back now. You dont go from over the top, to serious, then back to over the top. The series is now gone forever.

And how can people say that an SSX that was like the first 3 wouldnt sell? Those games sold very well. SSX and Tricky were 2 of the first big games for PS2. As the franchise moved further and further away from it's roots it's sales suffered.

 

[AlphaTwo00]

How could you defend not having restart? That was an absolutely horrible decision on their part. For the first time EVER, Burnout Paradise had me AVOIDING RACING IN A RACING TITLE. I spent the vast majority of my hours with that game messing around in free mode online with 7 other people just jumping off of stuff, and breaking road rule times.

I don't feel like digging out the pages, but the gist of my argument was that I can see their point (not that it's the best idea). Their argument was that it forces players to find and learn the shortcuts. And it did.

And I even have proof: after they patched in the restart, there was an influx of people who started playing. And they all sucked at the races because none of them had ever found any of the shortcuts.

 

[I <3 Memes]

And I even have proof: after they patched in the restart, there was an influx of people who started playing. And they all sucked at the races because none of them had ever found any of the shortcuts.

That is not proof that you were right, it's proof that you were wrong. :lol It's proof that a gameplay mechanic was so poorly thought out that people didn't even want to play the game.

 

[AlphaTwo00]

That is not proof that you were right, it's proof that you were wrong. :lol It's proof that a gameplay mechanic was so poorly thought out that people didn't even want to play the game.

But then it goes back to the whole "open world" issue. The ones who didn't want open world just wouldn't have cared unless the parts were clearly labeled for them. I've said already that if I also didn't think it's a good idea, but I can see why they thought it was a good idea at the point: it's preventing the player from hurting their own experience (even if it was going to piss off more people).

Hindsight is 20/20, and since they had launched the game, there's been numerous quotes, statements and post mortems from them saying from their metrics that they were wrong on what they expected players to do in the game.

 

[Azih]

Look at Shadowrun to see what poor use of a brand in a reboot can do.

 

[Azih]

Hindsight is 20/20, and since they had launched the game, there's been numerous quotes, statements and post mortems from them saying from their metrics that they were wrong on what they expected players to do in the game.

Can you link to some?

 

[°°ToMmY°°]

:lol at the Google copyright. Holy shit, don't ever do that again Insomniac.

it's a photoshop.

 

[gondee]

In a more realistic sense, it's probably accurate that the SSX people wanted to see was very unlikely to come out of EA in its current configuration for a variety of reasons, but as long as the franchise name itself wasn't getting abused the possibility was more real than it'll be if this game comes out, flops, and buries the name again.

The current heads at EA don't have much confidence in SSX series. Look at SSX Blur - it was a remake of SSX 3, minus the voice acting. They've written it off - and I've had numerous insiders tell me that there have been several attempts by teams eager to make their imprint on the series to make a current-gen SSX, but the heads at EA didn't think it would sell. This current direction has as much to do with finding an angle the heads at EA will back than something that the faithful will love. You can hear that aspect in the Marketing speak, because it was present during the build-up to SSX On Tour, which was another "made for the sake of producers" iteration. People always ask me why I'm not angrier about this direction - it was because I've been expecting it for more than a year now. All the blurbs I've heard out of Vancouver have pointed towards this thing. With that said, the game could rock - all we have to go on is a few blurbs and no gameplay. But it's not gonna be anything like past games and, if EA were the ones who floated that rumor, they were stupid to say that.

On a side note, PSM3 had a blurb in their newest issue:

While the new look is darker and more realistic, we’re pleased to report that we’ve seen SSX Deadly Decents running and - as huge fans of the original - have great news to share.

So they seem to like it. From what I've heard from the grapevine, there's still quite a bit to build on the game, thus the release date that is so far ahead.

 

[AlphaTwo00]

Can you link to some?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnout_Paradise#Paid_content

Originally announced as the "Eastwood pack coming in Fall 2008",[29] the expansion known as "Big Surf Island" was released June 11, 2009.[30] Design for the island was guided by the principle of "If you can see it, you can drive it".[31][32] The island puts emphasis on the playground aspect of Burnout. The developers mentioned that in their telemetry they noticed that players congregate in areas of Paradise City that lend themselves to stunt-driving, and so the idea was to create an entire island to accommodate player desire.

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/b9/news/burnout-s-binned-content-revealed-162cb9.html

did you know, for instance, that work on a downloadable Island was started almost immediately that the main game was finished? There’s confidence for you.

Elsewhere “powerful telemetry tools” showed that online players were enjoying Burnout Paradise’s Freeburn Challenges more than any other of the game’s many features. Thus work on the downloadable island idea was halted and redirected with such gameplay in mind, and Big Surf Island as we know and unreservedly love it was born.

I remember a few other instances where they've talked about it, but it's somewhere within a podcast or something...

In some ways, I wonder if we'll see the same thing about SSX once it's out. It's hard to say anything with certainty if all we have are a few paragraphs and screenshots.

 

[Y2Kev]

Snowboarding into a prison omg :lol :lol :lol

 

[sneaky77]

I'll wait until real gameplay is out before judging much of the game. I loved the old SSX games so I hope this one is still fun.

 

[soultron]

I just grabbed SSX3 for $8 tonight. DJ Atomika and I are bro'ing out all night long.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Snowboarding into a prison omg :lol :lol :lol

I just don't know anymore

What happened to my SSX?

 

[Raging Spaniard]

The game will live or die by its track design, until some of that can be seen I dont really have an opinion. Very uninspired art direction though, thats for sure.

 

[Neuromancer]

Snowboarding into a prison omg :lol :lol :lol

Wait what did I miss?

 

[X26]

I wonder if the game will have a grain filter

 

[ScOULaris]

I was immediately writing off SSXDD from the first announcement and trailer like the rest of you, but after having read EGM's lengthy feature on the upcoming game I can safely say that I am much less skeptical now. It sounds like they are doing something pretty cool with this game, even if it is different from the SSX that we knew and loved back on the PS2.

I'd suggest to everyone to track down the new issue of EGM and give it a read. I'm as cynical as they come about the Tom Clancification of gaming, and the writeup on the game assuaged my fears for the most part.

 

[charlequin]

I was immediately writing off SSXDD from the first announcement and trailer like the rest of you, but after having read EGM's lengthy feature on the upcoming game I can safely say that I am much less skeptical now.

That's funny, because I read the whole article and it made me feel like all my initial skepticism was well-founded.

Now, I don't want to say that there's no chance this team is building what could be a good game -- they do seem very enthusiastic and invested in producing a polished product with a great deal of work put into it -- but much as I suspected, the fundamental lack of respect for the aesthetic of SSX goes hand in hand with a fundamental disrespect for the gameplay of SSX, which is called out more than once in the article as being simplistic and backward, not suitable to anchor a "next-gen" game. They refer to the game as "a reboot, not a true sequel," they go on and on about how important it is to have lots and lots of tracks (instead of a smaller number of well-designed and memorable ones), they say they want to "move beyond" time-trial racing and trick-scoring modes and instead build the game around realistic physics....

 

[george_us]

Didn't the first three SSX games sell pretty well? I know On Tour and Blur tanked but those games were garbage anyway. I seem to remember SSX3 selling around two million across all three platforms.

but much as I suspected, the fundamental lack of respect for the aesthetic of SSX goes hand in hand with a fundamental disrespect for the gameplay of SSX, which is called out more than once in the article as being simplistic and backward, not suitable to anchor a "next-gen" game. They refer to the game as "a reboot, not a true sequel," they go on and on about how important it is to have lots and lots of tracks (instead of a smaller number of well-designed and memorable ones), they say they want to "move beyond" time-trial racing and trick-scoring modes and instead build the game around realistic physics....

This is fucking depressing.

Realism rears its ugly head yet again.

 

[Neuromancer]

So I take it this EGM is currently at newstands? I may have to make a run out today.