Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Am I getting old or...?Follow

#102 Dec 06 2010 at 8:04 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
F3rth wrote:
Yeah... Activision doesn't even bother to hide the fact that all they care about is cranking out crap titles as fast as possible. Games are big business now... and when your goal is profit, quality takes a back seat. As long as people are willing to line up every year for Call of duty and Halo it really isn't going to change.


Indeed i mean they sure pump out starcraft 2 mad quick after the last one, and diablo 3 etc etc.
____________________________
MUTED
#103 Dec 06 2010 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
378 posts
That's blizzard. Activision didn't acquire blizzard until shortly before Star craft 2 came out. and WOW churns in enough money that I doubt they would pressure blizzard to do anything too drastically different... Except of course release their pc titles at 60 dollars instead of the market standard of 50, and then split star craft into three games so they can charge you that 60 dollars not once, but three times.

Activision as a publisher is almost as bad as disney. that doesn't mean they don't have talented people... but they are still subject to activisions totally skewed business perspective.

Edited, Dec 6th 2010 10:06pm by F3rth
____________________________

Retainer: Ferthmart
FFXI: Ferth - Cerbereus Nee Hades Nee Leviathan.
#104 Dec 07 2010 at 1:40 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
F3rth wrote:
That's blizzard. Activision didn't acquire blizzard until shortly before Star craft 2 came out. and WOW churns in enough money that I doubt they would pressure blizzard to do anything too drastically different... Except of course release their pc titles at 60 dollars instead of the market standard of 50, and then split star craft into three games so they can charge you that 60 dollars not once, but three times.

Activision as a publisher is almost as bad as disney. that doesn't mean they don't have talented people... but they are still subject to activisions totally skewed business perspective.

Edited, Dec 6th 2010 10:06pm by F3rth


Shortly before ? Vivendi acquired activision in 07....

And yeah they did divide starcraft 2 in three game's, but each game has more content and missions than the entire starcraft/broodwars combined....

yeah they milk COD and guitar hero whoopi dooh lol
____________________________
MUTED
#105 Dec 07 2010 at 2:16 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
378 posts
Eh, deleted my rebuttal. Don't want to derail this thread anymore.

Edited, Dec 7th 2010 3:38am by F3rth
____________________________

Retainer: Ferthmart
FFXI: Ferth - Cerbereus Nee Hades Nee Leviathan.
#106 Dec 08 2010 at 12:42 AM Rating: Good
**
568 posts
Kirutaru wrote:
It annoys me (no offense to those in this thread personally, but you did annoy me) when people attribute nostalgia as the catch-all substitute for quality in any game over 5 yrs old.



I agree with this.
Let me explain some probably obvious truths.

Games with flashy graphics sell. There.

In depth: Graphics take a lot of development time to produce with smooth animations and they also require a lot more work on the code side to run properly.

The sad thing is that graphics never substitute content in a game.

For example Batman: Arkham Asylum was selected as game of the year on various gaming websites.
Excited to play it I bought it and when through the opening 2 hrs with excitement.

Then it hit me.

This game has one level and 2 enemies that I'm forced to play over and over. The combat requires one button press which causes my beloved mr.Bat do stuff. Every kick and punch is a visual spectacle over which I have no control over. For a minute I could pretend that it was my forceful way of smashing the action button that allowed me to off the opposition with such flair. I was playing to be playing a game. I couldn't pretend to be having fun however, especially when I realized that the illusion of open world was actually a corridor-bat-fu'em up.

The illusion of immersion was broken and I switched to playing FFVII on my ps2.
The lack of any anti-aliasing was an eyesore and something I didn't remember noticing on my first play through years ago. No wonder as the effect lasted only for a brief moment. What is memorable though is the content of the game.
Never in my life have I felt so happy to see the NPC's go through their handful of looping animations because it meant that everyone has something to say (this is in a world before every game was ruined by voice actors) be it quests or just info on the world. There is always somewhere to go and something to do.

Visually the game is still impressive (especially IX! amazing art direction!) The backgrounds are always just oozing strong moods with perfect composition and every vehicle/building/whatever machine is designed with stunning originality.



These are 2 games I brought up just as an example of the way games have changed. And at least for me it's for the worse. That's why my ps2 is in more frequent use than the current gen consoles.

Another good examples of bad modern day game design would be FFXIII, Call of Duty 2, Heavy Rain and Assasins Creed.
I'm calling them "water-slide"-games because there's not that much your involvement required to get to the end.

(automatic combat, automatic Hollywood water-slide, automatic bad not-good-enough-even-for-tv storytelling and automatic platforming [<-jesus!])


Before someone goes all ballistic on me I KNOW people buy and enjoy those games. That doesn't mean I have to.

*goes back to Persona 3(because it's quest-y)*
#107 Dec 08 2010 at 1:05 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
Take Chrono Trigger. The animations there consisted of a simple flip between two sprites.
And made my eyes watery. Over the years, SE has definitely "lost" something they once
were very, very good at.

I also disagree - please don't be offended by this - with Mr. Tanaka who wants to open
the FF series up "to the general western audience". By intoducing simple stories and
flamboyant characters. He may be too young to know, but they *DID* try this before
with Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, or whatever that title was called in the US (SNES).
Which also failed.

The reason why people in your "western" countries played FF was never because it fit the
general "western" tastes. It was because it didn't. It was (such is my layman interpretation
at least) somerthing "new" for you, something games produced in the west didn't provide.

By trying to accomodate to "general western tastes", Tanaka dropped one of the biggest
trump cards SE had in the overseas market: Uniqueness.


Edited, Dec 8th 2010 2:08am by Rinsui
1 2 3 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 14 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (14)