|
Post by wcw on May 14, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Failure no not at all. Lots of great games, games are as popular as ever, and expanding the medium in many ways.
I think that it will be the last of its kind however. Next generation will see every game be available for download at the same time as a retail release. Downloading will be big in the next gen even if there is still a retail option.
I do agree that patches have made developers lazy too many day 1 week one and month 1 patches. Shipping games incomplete is unexcuseable in my opinion. David Jaffe is right games should only have like 4 patches a year for technical issues.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,434
|
Post by FinalGwen on May 14, 2011 23:25:22 GMT -5
So, uh... How exactly is a day one patch lazy? It says to me that they're doing more work in order to make sure the game is the best it can be, even if not everything is perfect by the time the discs have to be pressed and shipped.
And heck, if they're constantly improving and fixing things, that strikes me as a damn good thing. I'll withstand the 20 second download time if it means I'm getting a better experience, and I'll thank the countless people putting in the time.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 14, 2011 23:31:19 GMT -5
So, uh... How exactly is a day one patch lazy? It says to me that they're doing more work in order to make sure the game is the best it can be, even if not everything is perfect by the time the discs have to be pressed and shipped. And heck, if they're constantly improving and fixing things, that strikes me as a damn good thing. I'll withstand the 20 second download time if it means I'm getting a better experience, and I'll thank the countless people putting in the time. The thing is, people think it is lazy, because it means developers get to release a broken game and just patch them over time. I don't buy that for a second.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,111
|
Post by Mozenrath on May 14, 2011 23:33:43 GMT -5
So, uh... How exactly is a day one patch lazy? It says to me that they're doing more work in order to make sure the game is the best it can be, even if not everything is perfect by the time the discs have to be pressed and shipped. And heck, if they're constantly improving and fixing things, that strikes me as a damn good thing. I'll withstand the 20 second download time if it means I'm getting a better experience, and I'll thank the countless people putting in the time. The thing is, people think it is lazy, because it means developers get to release a broken game and just patch them over time. I don't buy that for a second. Sometimes that does happen, so that they can meet schedule, but usually that is a bit overblown and shouldn't just be assumed.
|
|
|
Post by Father Dougal McGuire on May 14, 2011 23:43:26 GMT -5
I think the ability to patch is probably the biggest advance of this generation.
As for the question at hand, while this generation is not as big of a step up as the last (ps/n64 to PS2/Xbox), it is hardly a failure.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 14, 2011 23:48:30 GMT -5
I think the ability to patch is probably the biggest advance of this generation. As for the question at hand, while this generation is not as big of a step up as the last (ps/n64 to PS2/Xbox), it is hardly a failure. I think this generation wasn't a huge step in terms of graphical strength, yeah it was an improvement(in the case of the PS2 to PS3, a HUGE one), but I think what this generation did was improve how we play our games and what our game systems can do. Last generation, the PS2 and Xbox could play DVDs and CDs, this generation, the PS3 and Wii can surf the web, the PS3 and 360 can play DVDs, all three consoles can stream movies via Netflix, and the PS3 and 360 have access to social networks. And of course, motion controls. Like them or not, they did change how we played games. I guess what I'm saying is, this generation wasn't so much a vertical evolution, but rather more of a horizontal evolution.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,111
|
Post by Mozenrath on May 14, 2011 23:58:44 GMT -5
KOTOR 2 is an example of a game that would have really benefited from a patch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2011 3:55:34 GMT -5
Let's not pretend that the 16-bit era didn't have its share of shovelware and generic clones. They just didn't seem to get the alarming amount of coverage or buys that the ones these days do. For every Mortal Kombat, there was a Bloodstorm, Street Fighter: The Movie or Eternal Champions. For every Sonic the Hedgehog there was a Bubsy The Bobcat, Gex, or Aero The Acrobat. Not saying all of those were bad, but they were trying to get the same audience, and none of them were really as good quality. Gritty war FPSs might be too prevalent now, just as cartoon animals with 'tude were in the 90s, but there's plenty this generation that breaks out of that label. Dead Rising, Assassin's Creed, Braid, Super Meat Boy, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Portal... The list goes on and on. DLC? Means that a game can be updated and given more time even with the shackles of release dates. If Sonic 2 came out today, we'd have Hidden Palace, Wood Zone, Dust Hill and Cyber City. If Fallout 3 came out in 1992, we wouldn't have Broken Steel, The Pitt, Operation Anchorage or Mothership Zeta. Or if we did, it'd be an extra disc we'd have to go out and buy. DLC is a good thing, not a bad thing, so long as it's not abused (which I think is less common than people make out). And consoles less reliable? With the complexity of them, I'm not surprised that sometimes things go wrong. There's more things to go wrong. While internet problems and compromised solders aren't brilliant, neither was blowing into a cartridge to get it to work. Absolutely this! And I really hate the thinking that 'all games now are brown, futuristic FPSs.' They really take up a fairly small chunk of the market. The games listed here and dozens or even hundreds more are entirely seperate, creative, entertaining and unique. I'd also argue that more variety exists, thanks to places like Xbox live and PSN giving console gamers access to smaller budget games that in previous generations would have been reserved for the PC. The increased technology has also given rise to more advanced games that couldn't have existed in previous generations thanks to use of physics engines. Portal is the prime example of this, but other games such as VVVVVV and Portal's grandaddy Half-Life 2 similarly display a creative use of physics within their games that was impossible on previous generations. I'm not saying this is the best era of gaming ever by any means. 1995-2000 era PC gaming takes that title. But the consoles have taken inspiration from this era and has created a massive onslaught of various titles that as good as, if not better, than the games in any other era. Yes things like on-disc DLC is annoying, but this is just a small piece of the pie. Its a fantastic time to be a gamer.
|
|
Bam Neeley
Dennis Stamp
Foxy Stoat Seeks Pig!
Posts: 4,047
|
Post by Bam Neeley on May 15, 2011 4:23:45 GMT -5
This generation has marked the end of traditional game development and finalized the move to movie industy-like approach of having large design commitees, pandering to the masses and streamlining the gaming experience. This is very far from being lazy as it takes incredible amount of time and care to ensure an enjoyable experience for a wide range of player.
So while the amount of money is bigger and production values are about the same as Hollywood movies, the games are shorter and easier the play than ever.
As for expansion packs and patches? PC's had those things in the 90's. It's just that the integrated delivery services had made it possible to do those things with consoles too. You have to member that it's the publishers who usually set up the release dates. If the publisher and the developer agree that the game is not going to be in a playable state by the release date it's set back. That's going to cost a lot of money since adverts need to be changed, dates reset and possilby risk releasing the game in a bad time.
Personally I think DLC's would be good if it would put the price of the original game down. Most people are happy playing a X hour campaign so why would they want to pay for the extra X+n they can't be bothered with? The hardcore players can pay the 5.99 for the extra missions which add more content.
|
|
default
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Blames Everything On Snitsky. Yes, Even THAT.
Posts: 17,056
|
Post by default on May 15, 2011 6:38:02 GMT -5
Hardly a failure.
We're seeing the growth of online play and add-on content and pretty much the birth of digital downloading. (I know other consoles have done digital downloads to varying degrees, but the internet wasn't up to snuff). Graphic capabilities have continued to peak throughout the generation.
We're starting to see more stuff along the lines of "virtual reality" with motion control, which is something everyone talked and dreamed about in the 90's.
On top of all that, we're also seeing more independents starting to make a solid go. Companies like Behemoth, Twisted Pixel and others are thriving.
And I really don't get the "sequel" stuff. How many games did AKI build off their wrestling engine? Look at the Final Fights, Phantasy Stars, Donkey Kongs, Streets of Rages (Streets-es or Rage?), etc. Game companies are always going to recycle ideas just like they do engines. It's basic business.
The only major failure I can really think of this generation is the music game fad.
And hell, there hasn't even been a serious console fail (i.e. death ). No Jaguar, Dreamcast, 3DO, Pippin, etc. to mourn over/laugh at.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on May 15, 2011 6:57:05 GMT -5
The lack of originality is a bit annoying nowadays, especially in regards to FPS shooters. There's plenty of wars/concepts for future wars that designers could use yet they seem to stick to the status quo of WW2 shooters, Alien shooters or modern shooters with Russians as the enemy. I wanna see a Falklands War game or Korea war or even a few Vietnam War ones I'm also not a fan of dumbing down modes in RPG games to try and appeal to the mass market. Like taking out the customisable options such as being able to change your allies armour/weapons from Dragon Age 2 and not being able to change your characters race. It seems pointless to me and just takes away from the game imo. Mass Effect 2 had a similar thing if I recall correctly. (Still enjoyed the games btw, just don't see why they had to remove a few RPG elements that I enjoy)
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on May 15, 2011 7:06:13 GMT -5
A failure? No. Lazy, and overly dependent on DLC? Absolutely.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,434
|
Post by FinalGwen on May 15, 2011 7:15:52 GMT -5
God, yeah, these lazy developers. They can't just draw some cartoony grass and geometrically patterned earth, they've got to take shortcuts and make fully-crafted realistic 3D terrain. And rather than coding how high the character jumps when you press a button, they've got these damn physics engines making sure everything reacts realistically! And they don't even do titlecards that explain the plot, they hire amazing actors to actually do the plot as you play... Hacks.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on May 15, 2011 7:16:39 GMT -5
There's still originality if you look beyond the FPS and Sports genre. This generation has made indie developers more accessible than ever with PSN and X-Box Live. We finally see console gaming get at least some of the community development opportunity that PC gamers have had for years. We still have games like LittleBigPlanet that have bustling communities releasing new content all the time. It's easy to decry the FPS and pretend like consoles in the past didn't have clones and problems of their own, but that's just blind nostalgia. We just remember the good games from the past and ignore the bucket-loads of broken crap.
As for the failures of the systems with RROD and PSN going down, RROD will probably be remembered more with how pervasive it was, but that won't mean this entire generation will be a failure anymore than the last generation. No one considers the PS2 a failure, even though it had the major Disc-Read Error problems that affected the majority of the players. Problems and glitches seem more prevalent today because we can talk about them with millions of people, but that doesn't mean games didn't freeze or hardware didn't break in the past.
As for patches and stuff, some developers do use it as a crutch yeah, but that doesn't mean patches are a bad thing at all. There have been games in every generation that have been marred by glitches and cheapness. Having patches allows good developers to fix them instead of having them be the hallmark of the game like they would have been in the past. Yeah, it might mean they don't play test a game as much as they should have, but glitches get into games of every generation anyways. Patches give them a chance to fix it.
So no, this generation wasn't a failure. And it's only lazy and drab if you look at it superficially.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2011 8:54:36 GMT -5
A failure? No. Lazy, and overly dependent on DLC? Absolutely. ^This. Not to mention there seems to be some sort of gamer dependence on multi-player this generation. I was on GameFAQs not too long ago looking at info Batman: Arkham City and there were people asking: "Is there gonna be multi-player, hurr-durr everyone loves muti-player!" No, the previous game didn't have any, so why should this one? Not every game has to have shoe-horned in multi-player modes just for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on May 15, 2011 8:57:59 GMT -5
A failure? No. Lazy, and overly dependent on DLC? Absolutely. ^This. Not to mention there seems to be some sort of gamer dependence on multi-player this generation. I was on GameFAQs not too long ago looking at info Batman: Arkham City and there were people asking: "Is there gonna be multi-player, hurr-durr everyone loves muti-player!" No, the previous game didn't have any, so why should this one? Not every game has to have shoe-horned in multi-player modes just for the sake of it. Indeed. Sometimes, like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, it WORKS. That multi-player system is dead on. The Splinter Cell games, on the other hand, absolutely didn't need a multiplayer.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on May 15, 2011 8:58:25 GMT -5
I think the only real failure of this generation is the type of gamers it has produced: mostly whiny, entitled fanboys. (Present company excluded. )
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on May 15, 2011 9:05:39 GMT -5
I think the only real failure of this generation is the type of gamers it has produced: mostly whiny, entitled fanboys. (Present company excluded. ) I seriously f***ing love the attitude of "if someone doesn't like something, it's THEIR fault for having that opinion, and not due to any actual flaw in the thing they're complaining about". I wish I could simplify everything in life like that.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on May 15, 2011 9:16:58 GMT -5
I think if there is anything to really be considered a "failure" about this generation, it is how the measurement of a game's success has changed. Last generation, a game only needed to sell a few hundred thousand copies to make a profit and earn a sequel. This generation, the average cost of a game quintupled, and as a result, things have changed, console exclusive games have to sell at least 1 million copies to be a success and multiplatform games need a bare minimum of 2 million copies sold to even think of being considered successful. Sell a few hundred thousand copies doesn't cut it anymore. It works with the downloadable games, but with the downloadable games, a few hundred thousand copies is actually considered a smash hit. Nowadays, if a full retail game only sales a few hundred thousand copies, it can lead to the developers being shut down. I mean hell, look at how many studios have been closed this generation, and it is sad, to think just a few years ago, their games would've been considered successes, and they wouldn't have been closed.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on May 15, 2011 9:21:33 GMT -5
I think the only real failure of this generation is the type of gamers it has produced: mostly whiny, entitled fanboys. (Present company excluded. ) I seriously f***ing love the attitude of "if someone doesn't like something, it's THEIR fault for having that opinion, and not due to any actual flaw in the thing they're complaining about". I wish I could simplify everything in life like that. Hey, if there's something wrong or broken, I'm all for making your voice heard in hopes that it can be remedied. But for all the gamers who won't play a game for stupid reasons like graphics not being quite up to snuff (while still being pretty decent) or just because it's on a particular system, it's just mind-boggling. It's like someone who doesn't like apples just because they're red, and then shitting their pants and crying when someone tells them "Hey, there are non-red apples too!"
|
|