Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56
  1. #1
    Network Hub Mihkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    237

    Why is trying to appeal to everyone a shitty thing to do

    A bunch of games today get simplified or just being made a lot shorter and stupider story-wise just because some people might not like it if it has some depth or a little complex elements. The formula follows: short garbage + passable multiplayer mode = moneymaker. And I've read justifications that more or less literally say: "Well this idiot gaming site had 300 people voting that they hate long games so we make them short."

    A lot of developers and/or publishers do not focus on a single aspect of the game, in this case single- or multiplayer. They often include both to maximize their profits, because apparently you need both for something or other herp derp. I don't see any fault getting money for your product but what I do think is wrong is that they go for cheap cash and they don't realize that it's not what makes a steady revenue in the long run, most of them are just fucking greedy. What does give you a steady income is making a genuinely good game and focusing on a single aspect, especially if you're a dev with none or one game under your belt.

    The fact of the matter is that there are going to be ppl who do not like your game. The notion that one piece of media is going to be universally liked is retarded. I do get there are some things that work so well that most will like it but imitating that piece of gaming, movie or whatever is not going to bring in same results except if you retain the few elements. I think Glen Schofield is a very funny example here. He was deeply involved in Dead Space development, a game that took some successful elements from a game or two and was very well recieved. He then went on to Sledgehammer Games (the dudes who made MW3) and when their game was released he saw what general public on metacritic was saying about it. The public got wise to the same old shit mechanic and therefore was pissed off. What Glen did next was so incredibly retarded - he went on twitter:"I don’t usually do this but, if u like MW3 go 2 Metacritic.com & help our user score. It’s suspiciously low. Be honest but help if u agree." Why do you do this Dominic Purcell lookalike, what do you fucking expect?

    Other thing is adding shit to your games when it does not belong. Battlefield 3 here is a good example of that. "Woah guys Call of Duty is coming out with this Elite stuff so we better make our own version of it called Battlelog. No matter that we have NEVER gotten our netcode straight in a game so lets even more complicate the matter!" Cue DICE devs opening another bottle of fucking vodka or whatever cuz no sober person would make that choice. Also adding single player there wich basically qualifies as a glorified tech demo but still takes time away from development to make a POLISHED game. I know that Bad Company series had single player and I really don't have that much of a problem with it because these are not true Battlefield games anyway and DICE was experimenting with single player at that time (also Mirror's Edge) and to be honest BC1 singleplayer was nice in that Kelly's Heroes sort of way. And now thanks to all that shit Battlefield 3 is a buggy fucking mess that I personally regret buying for fucking 33 euros.

    I also have a problem with this "getting Call of Duty audience" mentality. Why would you want to get that if you have a solid fanbase already? Main culprits here being fucking Bioware with their tripe called Dragon Age 2. AWESOME BUTTAN HERPA DERPA HHHHÖÖÖÖÖ. It's not a bad game but it's so mediocre that they lost their core fanbase (customers lost) and they gained a temporary audience who's there for shite romance and button mashing and if a year or 2 passes they won't be getting Bioware products anymore because they will have grown up by then. So you have no proper customers anyways in the end, nice going you fucking lonely nerds and spineless creatures. I fully know why Brent Knowles left those assholes. I guess you get tired of keeping retards in check after a while and as soon as he left you get Awesome Age 2: Everybody's Fucking Bi and Horny with a Shit Story That Doesn't Make Any Sense Except In a Masturbatory Way to Some Lonely Basement Dwellers.

    So in the end what's the point of all this? The point is not to lose all your integrity, dignity and generally good human traits and try to give some soul to your product. No matter how buggy a game might be it still is recognized because people put some love and thought in it (Vampire Bloodlines and KOTOR 2 for instance) and genuinely tried to craft something instead of going the cheap greedy bastard money way.

  2. #2
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihkel View Post
    Other thing is adding shit to your games when it does not belong. Battlefield 3 here is a good example of that. "Woah guys Call of Duty is coming out with this Elite stuff so we better make our own version of it called Battlelog.
    You know what I hate most about global stats?

    The moment you're good at something, you don't wanna try any other thing lest you fuck up your win/kill ratio.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  3. #3
    Network Hub Mihkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    You know what I hate most about global stats?

    The moment you're good at something, you don't wanna try any other thing lest you fuck up your win/kill ratio.
    Hahah yeah man. There's a platoon in Battlelog for instance that doesn't let ppl in if they have a KDR ratio that's below 1.0.

  4. #4
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    I see you
    Posts
    178
    K/D needs to be removed from any team based game and W/L pushed to the front.

  5. #5
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    380
    Really? I thought Battlelog was just meant to be an FPS version of Autolog, the online racing leaderboard that nags you!

  6. #6
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    978
    The problem with criticising the development process behind games like Battlefield and CoD is that they shift a silly amount of games. So you'd need a damn impressive argument for why your way of doing it is any better than theirs.

  7. #7
    Network Hub Mihkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by archonsod View Post
    The problem with criticising the development process behind games like Battlefield and CoD is that they shift a silly amount of games. So you'd need a damn impressive argument for why your way of doing it is any better than theirs.
    How about not adding pointless shit to hinder your development for DICE/EA and how about trying to increase your development time and working with your imagination for Sledgehammer/Activision. Not really that hard if you're not churning out shit and focusing on something. Also not that Activision is a so small publisher that it couldn't afford a year or two extra development time.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The land of slain white knights
    Posts
    850
    Autolog is probably the best thing to happen to Battlefield in the history of the series. Battlefield has been doing stat pages for a few games now, and the integration with Battlelog is superb.

    Can nobody remember Battlefield2/2142/BadCompany2 and their horrendous game menus?

    Wait, you used Gamespy? OH NOES LIKE SEPARATE PROGRAM IN A BROWSER FOR LAUNCHING GAME!!!1!



    PC gamerz why u no like change!?

  9. #9
    Network Hub Mihkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Swayze View Post
    Autolog is probably the best thing to happen to Battlefield in the history of the series. Battlefield has been doing stat pages for a few games now, and the integration with Battlelog is superb.

    Can nobody remember Battlefield2/2142/BadCompany2 and their horrendous game menus?

    Wait, you used Gamespy? OH NOES LIKE SEPARATE PROGRAM IN A BROWSER FOR LAUNCHING GAME!!!1!



    PC gamerz why u no like change!?
    The Battlelog itself isn't a problem. The problem is that it adds more complications on the netcode of the game and DICE has never got one right. With the addition of Battlelog it creates more problems bug-wise etc. I would have no problem with it if they would have done it as a sideproject and implemented it later on a WORKING game. But as is they just fucked themselves and the players over.

  10. #10
    Activated Node Gnoupi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Swayze View Post
    Autolog is probably the best thing to happen to Battlefield in the history of the series.
    Patrick9009 beat your time for the tank race on Caspian Border. Click here to play this challenge!

  11. #11
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnoupi View Post
    Patrick9009 beat your time for the tank race on Caspian Border. Click here to play this challenge!
    You forgot 'Battlelog Alert!'

    All Autolog did differently from any other game's online leaderboards was tell you someone had beaten your time, something you could easily do yourself if you really cared about beating your friends' times anyway (unless you're a psychopath who needs to know that XxXB4dg3rM073st3rXxX beat their time too, in which case, again, you'd be checking yourself anyway)

    Oh, and it had an Arsebook-style 'Wall', so you could brag about pointless accomplishments to a disinterested audience who'd 'Like' it out of instinct rather than genuine affection.

  12. #12
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Fumarole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,584
    I'll just link here as a reason why the lowest common denominator can be a Bad Thing.

  13. #13
    How dare developers practice good business.

    I don't blame them for wanting to make money. If you honestly love video games so much that you would rather make good games than profitable ones, rad. But I'm betting in the shoes of developers and publishers, you wouldn't. Their liveihoods depend on these games succeeding, and who doesn't want to make a fortune?

    I don't always like it either, but I accept material greed as a fact of human nature that is just as evident in me as everyone else. Not too mention, some complaints about games getting dumbed down is just pretension. Mainstream stuff is usually kinda dumb, but people also like to attack it because it makes them feel superior.

  14. #14
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Huxleykrcc View Post
    If you honestly love video games so much that you would rather make good games than profitable ones, rad.
    They are not mutually exclusive! They are not fucking mutually exclusive!

    Whatthefuck!
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  15. #15
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus pakoito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Spainishtan
    Posts
    1,850
    You know what's even worse? Bioshock 2's multiplayer. El ou el.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Fumarole View Post
    I'll just link here as a reason why the lowest common denominator can be a Bad Thing.
    Grr!! I am Legend still makes me angry when I think about it. The first half had so much potential!!

    Anyway, back on topic...

  17. #17
    Network Hub Mihkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Huxleykrcc View Post
    How dare developers practice good business.

    I don't blame them for wanting to make money. If you honestly love video games so much that you would rather make good games than profitable ones, rad. But I'm betting in the shoes of developers and publishers, you wouldn't. Their liveihoods depend on these games succeeding, and who doesn't want to make a fortune?

    I don't always like it either, but I accept material greed as a fact of human nature that is just as evident in me as everyone else. Not too mention, some complaints about games getting dumbed down is just pretension. Mainstream stuff is usually kinda dumb, but people also like to attack it because it makes them feel superior.
    I'm not against making a profit. What I am against is this blatant churning out of subpar crap. What I've seen is that a good game makes a profit by default. I wouldn't bet that them Bioware, Ubisoft, EA or DICE devs are so in the shitter with their lives that they need the cash so bad that they would resort to such business ethics.

    I wouldn't call dumbing down pretension. Lets take Splinter Cell: Conviction for example. That game has 8 hours worth of gameplay (that's story mode and coop mode combined). It's down to 2 visibility modes (either you're seen or you're not), whereas Chaos Theory had a light and sound meter that had various levels wich all corresponded well with the game and how the player operated in the environment. In Conviction you have to kill people while in Chaos Theory you have the option of killing, making people unconcious or totally sneaking by them and the game rewards being sneaky. Interrogation in Conviction is you trashing everything in the room with the interrogated person (wich really defeats the element of being stealthy in a game about stealth), in Chaos Theory you can interrogate everyone and some enemies even have some cool stuff written for them and Sam dialogue (the guy who thinks Sam's a ninja for instance). So much stuff has been taken out since Chaos Theory that in the end you're left with this actiony empty shell of a game called Conviction.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    They are not mutually exclusive! They are not fucking mutually exclusive!

    Whatthefuck!
    Of course not, but this thread seems to be discussing cases where they are in conflict.

    Sorry, my phrasing was expeditious to the point of oversimplified. Calm down mate.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihkel View Post
    I'm not against making a profit. What I am against is this blatant churning out of subpar crap. What I've seen is that a good game makes a profit by default. I wouldn't bet that them Bioware, Ubisoft, EA or DICE devs are so in the shitter with their lives that they need the cash so bad that they would resort to such business ethics.

    I wouldn't call dumbing down pretension. Lets take Splinter Cell: Conviction for example. That game has 8 hours worth of gameplay (that's story mode and coop mode combined). It's down to 2 visibility modes (either you're seen or you're not), whereas Chaos Theory had a light and sound meter that had various levels wich all corresponded well with the game and how the player operated in the environment. In Conviction you have to kill people while in Chaos Theory you have the option of killing, making people unconcious or totally sneaking by them and the game rewards being sneaky. Interrogation in Conviction is you trashing everything in the room with the interrogated person (wich really defeats the element of being stealthy in a game about stealth), in Chaos Theory you can interrogate everyone and some enemies even have some cool stuff written for them and Sam dialogue (the guy who thinks Sam's a ninja for instance). So much stuff has been taken out since Chaos Theory that in the end you're left with this actiony empty shell of a game called Conviction.
    But you're against making "bad" (and don't get me wrong--mainstream gaming is becoming of less and less interest to me) games for the sake of making money. At least, that seems the essence of the issue to me--that commerical and artistic (professional? Not quite sure how to articulate that)concerns often conflict and it frustrates you. If I'm misrepresenting you, I apologize; please clarify for me.

    If I have you right, I don't even philosophically disagree, but I think that you're being unrealistic, simplistic, and probably hypocritical.

    And no, I don't like Conviction either. That you're right in one instance is sort of beside the point, since I said "often," not "always."

    And yes, Chaos Theory is a bad game--I don't think it was very successful either, though I don't know.

  20. #20
    Network Hub Mihkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Huxleykrcc View Post
    But you're against making "bad" (and don't get me wrong--mainstream gaming is becoming of less and less interest to me) games for the sake of making money. At least, that seems the essence of the issue to me--that commerical and artistic (professional? Not quite sure how to articulate that)concerns often conflict and it frustrates you. If I'm misrepresenting you, I apologize; please clarify for me.

    If I have you right, I don't even philosophically disagree, but I think that you're being unrealistic, simplistic, and probably hypocritical.

    And no, I don't like Conviction either. That you're right in one instance is sort of beside the point, since I said "often," not "always."

    And yes, Chaos Theory is a bad game--I don't think it was very successful either, though I don't know.

    I'm against making bad games in a sense that bad is to cash in on every turn where one has a chance to make a quick buck (instead of focusing on something and trying to genuinely make a product that one would be proud of selling), to try and appeal to everyone by adding pointless features to a game that doesn't really need them just because some dude might buy it if it's in there and removing defining features of the said game because somebody found it too hard or too complex or whatever the subjective reason and all at the cost of alienating your loyal customers who fed you from the beginning. The games that often come out of this process aren't literally bad but just so mindnumbingly boring that it's a waste of everybodys time and money in the end. I do agree that I'm being unrealistic in a sense that this thing stays around for a while and nothing is really going to change but I just felt sharing this opinion I have on the subject matter on this forum. Also sorry for taking your dumbing down comment out of context.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •