blame space
Banned
we play minecraft on the streets
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Raise the flame shield: Your "controversial" gaming opinion.
- Thread starter Laughing Banana
- Start date
Out of the military FPS genre? Sure. They're fun roller coaster experiences.
But out of all FPS, maybe other than COD 4, they're way down the list. Just in the last year or so we've had Bulletstorm, Serious Sam 3, Rage, Resistance 3 and Crysis 2 which were all way more fun and creative than the typical military FPS'.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Painkiller exists, which disproves your opinion.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
I've often felt the American obsession with online gaming has led to the Single player campaign being relegated to an after thought in alot of games.
So whilst i wouldnt say 'Americans ruined console gaming', i would say they have pushed publishers in a direction i dont like.
Spawn,die,spawn,die,spawn,die...is not paticulary my idea of fun.
I'll take a focused, 20hr Half Life 2 campaign, over potential hundreds of hours of boring repetative, tedious variations on a theme, online shooting anyday.
Note: this is mainly aimed at PC games, console games are now the home of truly exciting single player campaigns, but seeing as i dont own, or want, a console, the focus on multiplayer gaming has left me cold TBH.
Half Life 2 is an American game too.
Right. But "ruined"? It's all about a dissimilar route, as expressed by you.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
It's also 8yrs old, alot has changed in the market since 2004, the online component being much more prominent in new releases, being one of them.
There were many really good PC games released that year that had great single player campaigns. The Witcher 2, Total War Shogun 2, To The Moon, Red Orchestra 2, Skyrim with its many promising mods on the horizon that you can't get on the consoles, the dozens of really good indie games that are PC exclusive...
This year you have Diablo III, Dishonored, Quantum Conundrum, Cartel (that Syndicate-inspired game by Paradox), Grim Dawn, Shadowrun, STALKER 2...
I don't see how consoles can be the home of truly exciting single player campaigns when the PC has plenty of its own, and a much better ratio of single player to multiplayer games than the consoles. I think you aren't looking hard enough!
EDIT: And I don't think you can blame Americans for that. You can call it a Western thing, but it's the entire gaming culture moving to a more online-focused environment. I mean, MMOs are huge in the East (and the online obsession is none more greater than in places like South Korea), and they love games like Call of Duty and Battlefield as much as people over here do. Some of the biggest games in Japan right now have nothing to do with single player campaigns and are very multiplayer-focused.
This year you have Diablo III, Dishonored, Quantum Conundrum, Cartel (that Syndicate-inspired game by Paradox), Grim Dawn, Shadowrun, STALKER 2...
I don't see how consoles can be the home of truly exciting single player campaigns when the PC has plenty of its own, and a much better ratio of single player to multiplayer games than the consoles. I think you aren't looking hard enough!
EDIT: And I don't think you can blame Americans for that. You can call it a Western thing, but it's the entire gaming culture moving to a more online-focused environment. I mean, MMOs are huge in the East (and the online obsession is none more greater than in places like South Korea), and they love games like Call of Duty and Battlefield as much as people over here do. Some of the biggest games in Japan right now have nothing to do with single player campaigns and are very multiplayer-focused.
Good to know I can just skip over your posts since I probably won't find anything remotely interesting about them.
What indie games have you played? And why do you think they "fucking suck"?
Explain
This is as nonsensical now as last time you tried to push it.
[citation needed]
Systems not breaking even on hardware sales during the first year (or even years) is the norm for the industry. (Selling as well during the first year as 3DS now does however is not.) Even Nintendo are not strangers to the concept.
Sony is posting a much bigger loss and has done so for four years running.
That would be completely inane. I'm pretty sure Nintendo made more money this generation than any other company in the industry has done in their lifetimes, and long term no one has come even remotely close to matching the success of their business model. In fact, I believe they were the #1 money maker even during the GC/GBA generation where their handheld market was ~1/2 and their console market ~1/5 of this gen. Why ape the business model of less successful companies?
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
My most controversial opinion that I can recall right now is that I hated Bioshock.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
I really doubt Nintendo made more money this gen than Microsoft has done since they were founded.
You must have missed the recent thread, hating Bioshock is the new hot.
blame space
Banned
listen i don't know what you guys play in your townhouses with your wife and kids but out here on the streets.. we stick to Minecraft.
BrownieVonTurdmeisterIII
Neo Member
Super Mario Galaxy is the best Mario game ever made.
That thread was ridiculous. The less its mentioned, the better.
Rahxephon91
Banned
It was a hilarious backfire. Not that Bioshock is bad, but I didnt think it was good enough to have such an assuming thread. I was quite surprised to see how the thread went though.
He probably meant just the gaming divisions of Sony and Microsoft. I can be wrong though.
Again, since it seems you ignored my other post, context matters. If the debate is about "exclusives" on each console, then it doesn't matter if said game(s) can be played on PC when they can't be played on the competing console. Use the term "console exclusive" if you're gettting too hung up on the term "exclusive" there. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, and it's a tired, old debate.
Crazyness. The devs & pubs are just giving the market what it demands.
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
Indeed I did.
About a year or so ago I said that I thought that the game wasn't very good (not on here) and got ripped a new one.
That's controversial like evolution is in mississippi.
Imagine if you don't have access to a tele, due to lack of having one or someone else using it often, yet you still want to play full sized sit down and play titles rather than pick-up and play short games.
Empyrean Heaven
Member
Okay, let me put this a different way. If you're right, then why is practically every analyst and gaming journalist out there saying that my opinion will come true? Not saying you're wrong, but you'd be hard pressed to see some sort of printed word over the last six months saying something positive about Nintendo.
TaroYamada
Member
Because I feel 'selling at a loss' is a very negative thing for any company that isn't Sony or MS, Nintendo had never sold hardware at a loss before Gamecube's launch, Sega never had before the PS1's price point forced them to drop Saturn's price. The only exception to each of those was when Nintendo cut loose unsold Virtual Boy's and Sega cut loose unsold 32X units, at least in the states. Basically selling at a loss is a anti-competitive tactic which is often used to kill the smaller companies, it's similar to the price cutting that GM, Ford and Chrysler practiced when attempting to deal with Studebaker-Packard and eventually AMC. Before Chrysler bought out AMC for their Jeep line because they realized it would be more expensive to develop their own competitor and as such decided to purchase the entirety of AMC for that one marquee. They only continued the 'Eagle' marquee because it was in their contract to do so for a number of years if I remember correctly.
Back into the gaming industry, obviously Sega is more responsible for their downfall than anyone else, but I also feel it is quite likely they would still be in the manufacturing business had Sony or MS never entered. Regardless, I never blamed Sony or MS for Sega's death. Not sure why that was brought into this, I was merely commenting on the fact that what Sony did in regards to pricing and the trend they started by selling their hardware at a loss -- a trend Microsoft joined in on, and Nintendo avidly tries to avoid -- is a technique that is used by companies with large revenue streams to push out small fry competitors. Not a fan of anti-competitive tactics like that, and I never will be.
Finally, those indie titles were doing fine on PC and still are, and most set ups can run them fine due to their low system requirements. I don't care if they are on consoles. In regards to Sony's contributions vs. Microsoft's, I agree, in terms of consoles I prefer Sony's efforts over Microsoft's. Uncharted 1/2 are in my top five games this generation, where as not a single MS game is in there or even in the top ten. Still, that's not really pertinent to this discussion as I never portrayed the quality of Sony's first party output in a negative light and never even mentioned it until you brought it up. My stance on Sony is largely in regards to their business practices, same with Microsoft, and before we get even further I'll clarify that I consider Microsoft's practices worse.
Although I love Ocarina of Time for what it is, I don't get why it is so loved for what it isn't, original. My first thought upon finishing or getting late into the game was that it was the same game as a link to the past just different. Same structure is mainly what I mean. 3 start dungeons, past/dark world another 5, o no wait ALTTP had 6 or 7 after so yeah it the better game and my favorite IMO.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
I think Ocarina of Time isn't the best game to come out of 1998. I'd rank Daytona USA 2, Need for Speed III and Half-Life ahead of it, and that's off of the top of my head.
TaroYamada
Member
I agree with Daytona, probably one of the few who would. Also Metal Gear Solid, Dragon Force II, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Gran Turismo. I'd probably take OOT over MGS, but not the other 3. Some other PS1 goodies were Resident Evil 2, and I believe Xenogears was out that year.
Not impressed how JRPG fans sometimes rip on Golden Sun when its brought up in a discussion. I'd say it's a humble series, with some great production value for its time and platform. Not amazing in comparison, but not terrible.
Yet I think some Final Fantasy fans just like having a punching bag.
Yet I think some Final Fantasy fans just like having a punching bag.
TaroYamada
Member
I liked Golden Sun, but I think it's more because of Golden Sun being a step down from some of Sonic Software Planning's previous titles. Or Camelot Software Planning's, rather.
GraveHorizon
poop meter feature creep
Nintendo should make a more mature main series Pokemon game to cater to the grownup fans. Or make the games for older people by default, with an optional "child setting".
Iron sight aiming is stupid, and all FPS's should have a discernible jump.
Zelda games shouldn't have Ganon in them anymore. I was going to say that Majora's Mask is the best Zelda game, but apparently quite a lot of people already agree with that sentiment.
Iron sight aiming is stupid, and all FPS's should have a discernible jump.
Zelda games shouldn't have Ganon in them anymore. I was going to say that Majora's Mask is the best Zelda game, but apparently quite a lot of people already agree with that sentiment.
It also is excessively verbose for how simple the stories really are, being a lot more concise would go a LONG way given the base games are sound enough, not to mention NOT insulting players who know what they're doing. Don't think it's really an FF fan thing so much as a general JRPG fan thing anyway, games like Trails in the Skies are just as verbose if not moreso, but the story it's telling is far more engaging and likeable, whereas I just want to ADVENTURE in Golden Sun.
It does get pretty wordy, I know all my friends couldn't stand the first game because it wouldn't let you play until an hour in.
But it is overwhelming in a good way for first-time RPG players (you feel like it's a much more epic story than it is), and then they go back and see how pointless much of the dialogue is. Not that it's a bad story, just nothing fantastic.
In other words, it's baby's first RPG in a lot of respects. And that's okay if you ask me.
The market demands what is marketed to them.
This isn't a MS vs Sony thing for me, even though it may look like it. I just had more experience with Sony and their platforms than with MS. Anyway, I still don't see how Sony is the worst thing that happened to the industry no matter their tactics. If you think selling at a loss really harmed anybody in the gaming industry then I can understand your annoyance, if you hate those practices, but saying they are the worst thing is too far-fetched IMO.
Like I said, they came into this industry with an interest to provide great games and they have been doing so since they started. How can a company that has brought a lot more options for gamers and a lot more great franchises that people still enjoy to this day be the worst thing that ever happened to the industry? I just don't see it.
When I put things on a scale, I just end up with a company who has served gamers wonderfully since they entered the gaming industry as a platform holder and I honestly can't find anything that big(negatively) for me to agree with such a strong statement. We will have to agree to disagree.
atomic moth
Member
Tekken is the only popular fighting game franchise currently being released that continually rewards the player for the time put into it.
Yet it has been actively moving in the reverse direction since T5.... Seven years ago....
Figure that one out.
Yet it has been actively moving in the reverse direction since T5.... Seven years ago....
Figure that one out.
GraveHorizon
poop meter feature creep
Kazuya's spinny kick is the best move in the game. All you need is it and the ability to teabag to tear up the online scene.
Tell me about SMG1.
I'm (finally) currently playing the game. I have 104 stars as of last night, and getting ready to take on Bowser tonight. Is it worth it to get the other 15 stars for whatever special surpise you get afterwards? (I don't plan on ever re-playing the game...at least not for a few years...too many other backlog games.)
To a point, yes. Devs & pubs test the market to see what works/sells, and what doesn't. Then they create the product that will sell and thus, make them money to operate & expand their business. Basically, this is Business 101.
There would be a lot more of these (niche) JPN titles in the market if they sold better.
There are a lot of 1998 games I'd take over OoT, and I don't particularly dislike OoT. Half-Life, Dangun Feveron, Metal Gear Solid, EspRaDe, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Gunbird 2, Spikeout, Tenchu, VOOT, Tetris the Grandmaster, House of the Dead 2, KoF 98, and so on. It's a pretty big list, really.
Mr. B Natural
Member
No, you make the game then market the shit out of it. That's the trick. It's the same "trick" used since the 80's to get kids to buy toys and watch the show based on the toys (so that they market each other in a loop) Nobody "tests the market" in this industry. That would be a waste of money when your customers are so easily persuaded to buy anything if marketed properly.
If people tested the market in this industry, the word "demo" wouldn't mean, in game culture context, what it means today. You would actually be asked what you want in a game, but you never are and you never will be, because, like children, gamers don't know what they want in terms of specifics, they just want to "get hype." They are easily predictable and have little to no nuance whatsoever. As long as your game has the proper checkmarks (extreme levels of familiarity? check. Violence? check. Does your platformer have mario in it? check), great, you're good to go.
So you get "hype" with overly positive previews by the hype masters aka "gaming journalists", screenshots, false trailers, commercials, etc. None of those things I listed are testing the market, the game is being made already with faith that the sellers can easily persuade you to buy their game like a bunch of sheep...and it works wonderfully nearly every time if enough money is spent selling you what you never asked for.
By the time they actually test the market with a demo, the game is coming out in a week or month and there is no turning back. Besides, there isn't much needed for testing the market when there are hundreds of games coming out a year and they're all pretty much aiming for the same 2 markets and doing the exact same thing to get their interest. The trick is to stand out and the way to do that with gamers is to market the shit out of them until they can't help but to buy your game. This is why games are made and THEN seek a publisher more often than the other way around.
And if anything, Japan lost the marketing war this gen...which is why they "won" previous gens. Blame it on microsoft, really.
Terrible idea. Pokemon appeals to everybody, not just kids. So there's absolutely no point to that. Plus, asking for a mature Pokemon is no different than asking for a mature Sonic.
Mostly agreeing with this, however. I'm glad to hear that Ganondorf wasn't in
Skywards Sword.
Also, I really want Majora's Mask 3D. 3D MOON, MAKE IT HAPPEN NINTENDO!
That's a bit of a hyperbole, but either way, treating gaming journalists or analysts as prophets is a very bad idea. Here're some blasts from the past:
Michael Pachter said:
Strategy Analytics said:
SIG said:
Citigroup said:
In-Stat said:
Nomura Securities said:
Yankee group said:
IDG (International Development Group) said:
(Thanks to JoshuaJSlone for keeping track of the predictions.)SFG Research said:
So much drivel in one post. Games aren't created in a vacuum.
Marketing helps, yes, but it won't convince consumer to keep buying/supporting a product they don't like. If gamers didn't like CoD, then they would stop buying it every year. Marketing only helps insofar as letting consumer know your product exists, and getting said consumers to purchase your product for the first time. The product needs to actually be worth the investment if the business wants continued support. There is no "trick" involved.
Also, nearly every new game is a test of the market. If said game is successful, then dev/pub will iterate on the product. Heck, even sequels still test the market with new ideas & features....ideas & features that are either expanded upon, or taken out depending on their success.
And as a father of a 3yr old, I wouldn't use kids as the measuring stick of marketing efficiency. Kids are highly persuadable. That's one reason why I don't let my daughter watch too much TV, she wants everything shown on commercials. Adults are more discerning.
No, not really. :lol
JPN lost their dominance this gen because their games no longer have mass market appeal. That's not Microsoft's fault.
I find it pretty hard to believe that one day American consumers simply woke up and decided not to bother with all the Japanese franchises they've been playing since the 8-bit era. Marketing has a huge role to do with sales, there are a lot of great games that people would really appreciate (and would develop a nice niche market) with a bit of an advertising push. Hell, just look at the Tales series - best selling game in the series in America was Symphonia which was also the most marketed one (not necessarily the best in the series). Same reason why Lost Odyssey was more successful than any other 360 RPG - the fact that it actually got TV spots.
There are niche games that have appeal to non-hardcore customers, but the US customer base has gotten extremely conservative in their buying habits (probably due to the economy) and overwhelming amount of games to pick from... so the average joe will buy what he sees on TV, what is getting hype and huge marketing budgets thrown behind it, and not be willing to take a risk on an unproven genre/franchise/etc.
I find Sony personally to be one of the best things to happen to the industry, strictly from a technological standpoint. I mean, they made people seriously look at CDs for a change instead of cartridges (yes, I know other consoles tried CDs, but the software wasn't there like on the PS1). Then with the PS2, you have DVDs leading the charge when the Dreamcast was still on CDs, which revolutionized the gaming industry as PCs didn't even use DVDs as a standard until later on. Now, you have BluRay technology, which, say what you want, presents another leap forward in technology that is set to overtake DVDs as a standard if the rumors of Microsoft putting those in the next Xbox are true. The fact you can have uncompressed video and sound on this large discs is pretty fascinating, and Sony aren't so self-centered as to make it some sort of proprietary technology like Nintendo is doing with the WiiU. When we're talking about leaps and bounds in technology, Nintendo certainly wasn't leading that charge, and they're only now getting around to doing it with the WiiU. And if you lash back by saying why on earth you would need photo-realistic graphics, even 2D games like Disgaea need huge amounts of processing power to run a game like that. Sure, they may be selling at a loss and you can call it anti-competitive all you want, but Sony is pushing brand new technology forward even while Nintendo has much deeper pockets than they do. Nintendo aren't the innocent ones here if you want to take about leveraging power and money in the marketplace. If you think that selling the PS3 at $599 in America and still selling at a loss was anti-competitive when it cost them more than that to build the PS3, then I don't understand what you're saying.
Microsoft... I mean, it's good that they're lending competition, but man, I really don't like how they buy exclusivity at such a bigger scale than Sony or Nintendo. Sony certainly does it, but it's not as obvious as Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft has very few first-party studios and hedges their bets by buying, for example, Modern Warfare 3 map packs to have on their system a month ahead of even Call of Duty Elite members on the PC and PS3, I think that's the biggest problem the industry has when it comes to delivering content.
Yeah, I agree with the poster above who replied to this quote. Opinion =/= fact. Of course you'll point out people that reinforce your opinion. It's the same reason someone would like a journalist that gives a game they like a good score, but rag on those that give it a poor score. If we listened to all of the analysts and took their opinion as gold, Michael Pachter would have shrines dedicated to him for his ability to predict the future. lol. It's like the whole NINTENDO IS DOOOOOOOMED forecast a majority of analysts gave when, hey, they're doing just fine right now with the 3DS.
There are plenty of JPN games that are dominating the market right now. Look at all the Mario and Resident Evil games, among other titles. If we're talking JRPGs, that's because like everything else, it works in a cycle like the fight genre. Give it a few years and we may see a return to huge popularity. I don't think it's right to count them out for good, especially when people are still really excited for good amount of other JRPGs like Xenoblade, The Last Story, Tales of Xillia, and Persona 5.
Microsoft... I mean, it's good that they're lending competition, but man, I really don't like how they buy exclusivity at such a bigger scale than Sony or Nintendo. Sony certainly does it, but it's not as obvious as Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft has very few first-party studios and hedges their bets by buying, for example, Modern Warfare 3 map packs to have on their system a month ahead of even Call of Duty Elite members on the PC and PS3, I think that's the biggest problem the industry has when it comes to delivering content.
GodDuckman said:
Yeah, I agree with the poster above who replied to this quote. Opinion =/= fact. Of course you'll point out people that reinforce your opinion. It's the same reason someone would like a journalist that gives a game they like a good score, but rag on those that give it a poor score. If we listened to all of the analysts and took their opinion as gold, Michael Pachter would have shrines dedicated to him for his ability to predict the future. lol. It's like the whole NINTENDO IS DOOOOOOOMED forecast a majority of analysts gave when, hey, they're doing just fine right now with the 3DS.
LosDaddie said:
There are plenty of JPN games that are dominating the market right now. Look at all the Mario and Resident Evil games, among other titles. If we're talking JRPGs, that's because like everything else, it works in a cycle like the fight genre. Give it a few years and we may see a return to huge popularity. I don't think it's right to count them out for good, especially when people are still really excited for good amount of other JRPGs like Xenoblade, The Last Story, Tales of Xillia, and Persona 5.