This guy makes a good point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q#ws)
From a producer perspective it is safer to invest little in innovation and do a quick cash in.
We say we want innovation, but then the innovative good games rarely get the sales that other titles of less quality get. The profit is simply not there for the innovation, apart of a few times.
So what is your opinion? Do you try new game titles or more look forward for sequels?
He does make a good point, and im sure it reflects most of the population's ideals, but just not mine.
If i was given a choice to pick a game for free between some random indie game and a AAA title, i'd go for the random indie game, and the reason is just like he said on the video. Major companies seek profit, and its easier to make profit out of a game when you dont need to develop it, just pick an old title, throw some new textures and art, change the main chars and alter the storyline slightly, maybe develop 1 or 2 new features to make the game feel different...DONE
Indie games however, do not follow this ideals, because as new developers they need to make their games stand out, and since they dont have the money they need to resort to innovation.
My experience so far has been the same as what jony says. Major companies invest less time to create a game that catches the player then indie developers.
Because once ya hit the jackpot ya mostly think you have made it! and thats just totaly wrong! Nintendo has been jumpin in the deep for many years and still keeps on doing it even though at times it looks like they ride the mainstream bus and stop thinkin about what ppl really want(meaning true gamers) and think more about ok what can get us the best profit before a certain time frame.
ppl are getting more and more greedy because we see it with the new consoles and new hardware for our pc's that companies forget that if ya wanna keep up its not always about who can finish a good game as soon as possible with the new graphics then take their time work things out like they used to be and read back on the basic!
So yh thats actually my statement on the whole gamers are destroying the gaming industry!
ps. Still lookin for testers/voice actors/and game character models for my own game =3
(edit whitehorse: sorry edited by mistake instead of quoting, placed all back! ^_^)
Funny, because Nintendo is also the one at fault, doing mostly Mario rehashes. :P For me CoD, and Mario games are the same crap.
Quoteps. Still lookin for testers/voice actors/and game character models for my own game =3
Need a evil/mad man laugh for the main vilain on your game?
If so, go no further than recording me on TS when I go on a rampage. :P
Or give me an mmo guild where i need to clean up the inactive accounts.... ::)
He's not making a horror game, White.... Speaking of that regard, lets keep that in the topic that Sjadey made before. I still have some stuff to add in there
I see his point and facts are facts. I also agree that gamers are killing games - big time -. But here I'm thinking of possibly a different vector adding to the fray, the current and increasing trend of:
(1) producing games that want to monopolize your every waking hour in order to progress to an acceptable degree as judged by your co-players or guilds. These games seem also in addition to be catering to a group of people that need the game achievements to bolster their ego. The result is that casual MMO play is out, rushing is in. It also means that once the game is vanquished boredom quickly sets in. New installments can slow the effect but it is still there.
(2) The oddity I notice is the enormous effort that needs to be expended by producers to make their game look outstanding, only to have the game crowd rush through
it like a hog through a bag of food. Then - in most cases - the crowd moves to the next game and the cycle repeats. From an investment standpoint this seems to me like paying a lot of money for what is a gamble at a short time success that will bring profits in excess of the original investment + cost over time.
(3) A good guild like RoyalStorm buffers this effect and gives members a bit of leniency so they can basically play at their own rate within the time they can free and enjoy the game even if they have little time to do so. This is great and is most surely one of the reasons RoyalStorm is such a nice community. Thanks guys :D
(4) What makes me wonder though - and this is a feeling that is very hard to shake- is why not more games try to make a liveable MMO. Such a place has all the action you could wish for, with any intensity you could want, depending on what you chose to be or do. I know of 3.5 such games basically:
(4.1) Ultima Online (release date 24/09/1997) is still going round with most of all servers intact. In this game - which has no levels by the way - you elevate skills and in this way gain skills. The graphics by today's standards - if you chose classic client - will chase most modern players away as far as Timboekto or even to the deserted ice plateau of Leng - courtesy of H.P. Lovecraft. BUT this is virtual world you can live in. This is a virtual life crossed with an MMO with monsters et al.
(4.2) Lord of the Rings Online: can in my view be seen as a modern alternative to UO. The graphics are a lot better, but character customization is very limited. The social aspects and RPG aspects are unsurpassed however and 'living' the game is extreme fun and exceedingly rewarding. One of the nicest experiences I ever had in an MMO was when doing the closed beta for LOTRO Rider's of Rohan. I used to the beta tools provided to upgrade my - at the time - lowly level 26 hunter - to the required level and got the required equipment and started out on my journey through Tolkien's Lands direction of Rivendell. I had to find my way, run through Moria, report bugs on the way, came to the Last Homely House, went on and arrived in Rivendell and it was a blast! Then the first installment of The Hobbit, an Unexpected Journey came out and I went to watch it. And when they started out I just new my way arround the place. I could say for instance ok in a second they'll go this way and they'll come to the Last Homely House, and they did. Such a nice experience.
(4.3) Darkfall tried to be a better and less compromising game using the best ideas from UO. It had many issues and you should look up how their game works and what people say who played it before jumping in.
(4.3.5) Shroud of the Avatar: this game is currently in early alpha and graphics are more or less of the quality of LOTRO, i.e. a parsec removed from Aion for instance. The housing idea is magnificent, but costly :) We will want to see how it will turn out but it is kind of called a next generation of UO by the creator. The creator is Richard Garriott who incidentally was also the creator of UO back in the '90s. Lord British - full name - Lord Cantabrigian British, was a personality he played with his friends as a kid :)
Conclusion:
(1) I like virtual life with MMO action aspect games a lot. Not to rush them - except at the start - but to live in them and enjoy a virtually fantasy world. There is bascically no reason to exclude it from games, since it does not hamper the other aspects. Virtual worlds to live in though seem IMHO to have longer staying power than games that lack the feature.
(2) Look at virtual social worlds like There, Second Life, ... although there was no game element present in most to speak off most of them kept staying round for long.
(3) For those interested in MMO history, also take a look at Meridian 59 by "3DO Company". It was the first MMO ever, but did not make it commercially, dieing an early death after going life. Which is the reason UO is listed as the first MMO. I played Meridian 59 beta late in the process back in the second half of 1996 and it was amazingly new at the time. The game has been revived and can be played if you want. Beware the interface and other things are not very smooth. But the explorer will still be amazed at the achievement and especially if (s)he takes the time to look up the sad story of Meridian's 59 creation.
Nights :)
Looking forward to hear what you all think :)
I for one don't search for a "virtual life" on a MMO.
What I search in a MMO is a level of entertainment as I will have when playing Darksiders or watching a movie like Lord of the Rings/Star Wars/Star Trek.
I search to experience what the environment, the story and the characters have to offer. Having some sense of "admiration" of what I see and having some sense of "achievement" on what I am doing. That it contributes to the evolution of the story and being rewarded with further interesting story.
Darksiders 1 was a great example of what I like in a game. On a MMO I search for the same, but with the difference that it is a co-op and player faction vs player faction thing.
I do hate the "level ups" and hard to make or hard to drop gear. That dam concept is even present on First Person Shooters for crying out loud. It kills the game.
The only thing I might "agree" is the classification of "levels" so that players can be grouped with players of similar game experience. But not making "levels" meaning that experienced players get even more bonus stats and gear than newer players. Because that only increases the gap and pushes new players away with a bad experience of being overkilled.
I like my FPS old school. No level ups, no made/dropped extra gear. Everyone has equal access to the same things since the beginning and it stays that way.
Same as fighting games, that only rely on the capacity of the player to play. No level ups, no extra items.
Hopefully one day a good (well produced) MMO will copy the old school concept. And if successful then people will not constantly be jumping to other games. But will stick to it for quite a long time. Like some games get to have a good long term community.
PS: Thanks Ker for your point 3. :)