Forums / Discussion / General

171,349 total conversations in 5,618 threads

+ New Thread


Current state of the modern video game industry?

Last posted Mar 10, 2013 at 04:48AM EDT. Added Mar 07, 2013 at 07:41PM EST
48 posts from 29 users

There are many current trends in video games right now, some geting disliked, some getting appreciated, So what I want to do today is get every’s perspective on the modern video game industry from users here to have a conversation going.

Just post your of thoughts about could be improved in modern video games or what already is getting improved, digital rights management, downloadable content, preorders, microtransactions, free 2 play, Indie games, digital distribution, Pretty much anything that has to do with current state of modern video game without flaming anyone.

Mar 07, 2013 at 07:41PM EST
Quote

I would like to be the first to say the FPS genre is, for the most part, down the shitter. There are notable exception like Borderlands, and I hear good things about Spec Ops: The Line.
JRPGs go largely unnoticed (although Ni No Kuni seemed to break this chain). They need more public awareness.
MMOs haven’t changed much besides they keep requiring more and more RAM. Although League of Legends claims to be the most played game in the world (more than WoW).

Mar 07, 2013 at 07:51PM EST

Captain Badass wrote:

I would like to be the first to say the FPS genre is, for the most part, down the shitter. There are notable exception like Borderlands, and I hear good things about Spec Ops: The Line.
JRPGs go largely unnoticed (although Ni No Kuni seemed to break this chain). They need more public awareness.
MMOs haven’t changed much besides they keep requiring more and more RAM. Although League of Legends claims to be the most played game in the world (more than WoW).

The Line is third person.

Mar 07, 2013 at 08:33PM EST
Quote

When it comes to the whole “THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY IS DEAD” bullshit, I’m really annoyed by it. Oh wah, EA released a game with day one DLC, get over it.
There are still tons of great games coming out every month, and plenty I’m still looking forward to.
Sure, I don’t like microtransactions or pay to win games as much as anyone else, but that usually doesn’t stop me from enjoying the game. People are too overly critical of the gaming industry as a whole in recent years, and it really irritates me.

Last edited Mar 07, 2013 at 09:28PM EST
Mar 07, 2013 at 09:28PM EST

EA needs to die. Their practices are horrible for gaming.

Game developers have gotten lazy with patches and now push out unfinished, bug-filled games to meet deadlines cough Ubisoft cough EA cough. Patches should be to fix unexpected bugs; never used as an excuse to fix known bugs at launch.

The price of games needs to come down. $60 is way too much for one, single game.

Online passes need to go the way of the dodo. They’re nothing more than pure, corporate greed.

Overall state of the industry is a D-.

Mar 07, 2013 at 09:33PM EST
Quote

Emi wrote:

EA needs to die. Their practices are horrible for gaming.

Game developers have gotten lazy with patches and now push out unfinished, bug-filled games to meet deadlines cough Ubisoft cough EA cough. Patches should be to fix unexpected bugs; never used as an excuse to fix known bugs at launch.

The price of games needs to come down. $60 is way too much for one, single game.

Online passes need to go the way of the dodo. They’re nothing more than pure, corporate greed.

Overall state of the industry is a D-.

And here we go.

EA needs to die. Their practices are horrible for gaming.


EA sucks, sure, but they still have a lot of good franchises under their banner.

Game developers have gotten lazy with patches and now push out unfinished, bug-filled games to meet deadlines cough Ubisoft cough EA cough. Patches should be to fix unexpected bugs; never used as an excuse to fix known bugs at launch.


I don’t disagree with this, but bugs are never the epidemic people seem to think they are. Oh sure, they’re annoying, but they’re never as buggy as people always claim they are.

The price of games needs to come down. $60 is way too much for one, single game.


Making a video game is expensive. So is packaging it and sending it to stores. $60 is a pretty good asking price in my opinion. Selling digital versions for cheaper is something that should definitely be priced lower, though.

Online passes need to go the way of the dodo. They’re nothing more than pure, corporate greed.


No, online passes are publishers wanting to make a bit of money off a game you bought used. Buying used games gives the developers and publishers no money from your purchase. Online passes are perfectly acceptable.

Last edited Mar 07, 2013 at 10:13PM EST
Mar 07, 2013 at 10:12PM EST

As much as I hate EA..What about the company who loves to troll the hell out of fans?
Yeah, Capcom
Hell, I reaally love how people love their first day DLCs , which are loaded INSIDE the disk, that’s right, pay for something you already paid (dwag).
Also, let’s not talk about what happened to DMC and Resident Evil franchises, which are almost dead, specially RE after the godawful Racoon City and the sixth part of the series. What the hell happened? Just for the love of fighting games, I could get over the *Ultimate/chocolate/Magic/Wii-Fi" from Street Fighter and Marvel vs Capcom…But…After the glorious trailer of Bad Box megaman and the whole Inside Disc thing…Speaking of dead things, what about the Blue Bomber? It’s like they refuse to talk/discuss about Megaman’ fate. Your choises are ass, the character is dead and we will keep sinking down
I will let Urban Dictionary speak for me:

A Japanese video game company. Known for classic titles such as Mega Man, Street Fighter, and Resident Evil. You know… Capcom is a lot like Elvis. Awesome and revolutionary in its younger years… but then it got old and fat and lazy and is eventually gonna die in the crapper.

Mar 07, 2013 at 10:20PM EST
Quote

Cite wrote:

When it comes to the whole “THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY IS DEAD” bullshit, I’m really annoyed by it. Oh wah, EA released a game with day one DLC, get over it.
There are still tons of great games coming out every month, and plenty I’m still looking forward to.
Sure, I don’t like microtransactions or pay to win games as much as anyone else, but that usually doesn’t stop me from enjoying the game. People are too overly critical of the gaming industry as a whole in recent years, and it really irritates me.

I couldn’t agree more. People need to stop whining, and simply just ignore games if they don’t think that they are good.

Mar 07, 2013 at 10:33PM EST

Id say for the most part, im ok with it. Sure, shit like aliens colonial marines happens, but there are more than enough games that are quality.

Capcom sadly has become my most hated game company. I really am fond of many of its franchises, but that doesn’t excuse the amount a shit they have been doing. I could go on about everything I hate about them ( I’m looking at you UMvC3, megaman, and resident evil 5 versus mode) but I’d be here forever. But whatever, if they want to be that way, I’ll just ignore their games, plenty of other games to play.
Last edited Mar 07, 2013 at 10:43PM EST
Mar 07, 2013 at 10:39PM EST
Quote

The video game industry for the most part focuses too heavily on video games as a conduit for story-telling and not enough on a gaming experience. There are some good examples that break this, which is why I like the Call of Duty franchise, but for the most part, major developers are too concerned with the writing not enough with diverse immersive gameplay.

Mar 07, 2013 at 11:03PM EST
Quote

@teh brawler

I could not disagree more. I like story in my games as long as the gameplay is also good. Catherine is a great example. It has a very engaging story as well as brutally difficult puzzle gameplay. And just saying, I don’t think call of duty is a good example of diverse immersive gameplay, it’s the same thing I’ve been playing since COD4. Plus it is very story driven as well, with black ops standing out for me for having a pretty damn good story.

Mar 07, 2013 at 11:21PM EST
Quote

Emi wrote:

The price of games needs to come down. $60 is way too much for one, single game.

I don’t think a lot of people realize just how expensive it is to develop a game. A group known as Pixelscopic is in the process of developing the game Delver’s Drop, and they had a kickstarter campaign with the goal of 75K, and that is considered a low goal when compared to kickstarter campaigns for other games. And this is just for a game that is only intended for digital release. It’s no wonder a lot of big league gaming companies try to weasel every last penny they can get from their customers and generally stay in the “safe zone” of game development by coming out with a million sequels for a game that they already know is successful.

I do wish the game industry as a whole took more risks with their games and spent more time worrying about caring for their customers rather than themselves, but hey, what can you do?

Mar 07, 2013 at 11:41PM EST
Quote

I think right now Indie games are in their golden years (2011-2013).
There have been a lot of good games coming out lately, some old (Minecraft, Cobalt, probably Frog Fractions, Journey), some more than likely to be very anticipated (0×10c, others).

Although those are on my opinion some pretty good games, there are others that deserve equal amounts of fame, too.

Mar 08, 2013 at 12:19AM EST
Quote

I don’t mean that games should be $10, but even $50 sounds more reasonable, especially when DLC costing $15-30 is going to be released.

Mar 08, 2013 at 01:04AM EST
Quote
The price of games needs to come down. $60 is way too much for one, single game.

If you count out inflation, the price of video games has actually gone down. Games made 10 years ago would cost $80 in today’s dollars.


Anyways, one thing that really irks me is today’s video game AI. I find the fact that F.E.A.R. and Half-Life (which is well over 10 years old) still hold the banner for artificial intelligence rather sickening. People go on and on about how video game technology and budgets are skyrocketing, yet you still get AI that can’t see five feet in front of their face, walk slowly one-by-one to their deaths, etc, etc.

I’m not necessarily asking for superhuman AI. I always expect there to be some faults. I just want enemies to be able to put up a reasonable fight.

Mar 08, 2013 at 01:15AM EST
Quote

@Cite

I don’t disagree with this, but bugs are never the epidemic people seem to think they are. Oh sure, they’re annoying, but they’re never as buggy as people always claim they are.

I think there is still a point where we need to put our foot down and declare what is unacceptable.

As a developer I would never harass any game developer for releasing a buggy game. That feat is impossible and I can most certainly understand that. No game in history ever went out the door without bugs.

BUT

In the past I never had to change my DNS to Googles public service just to make one game playable. I’m looking at you Blizzard Entertainment! After one patch, suddenly not a single game can start because Starcraft is suddenly no longer compatible with any pacific servers and Blizz tells me that it’s my fault for being in the pacific. That should not be okay. Why should I fix the developers mistakes? Shouldn’t games only be released in a state where they can actually provide the service we paid for?

That’s just one example I have of severe crippling technical problems that games get nowadays that somehow pass as normal.

A few glitches that make gameplay a tad annoying? Okay, it happens. No charges pressed.

But errors that put a complete stop to playing the game that we paid for? That’s where we get the right to complain.


When did “browse forums for troubleshooting guides” become an additional step in installing a game? It wasn’t one back in 1999, I can tell you that. Back then we could just install the game and immediately play it afterwards. There was no account signups, no friend services, no system checks, no mandatory internet connections, no debugging process and when bugs were fixed they stayed fixed.

I won’t deny there is a lot to love about the current state of gaming, with the way it’s becoming more and more social than ever before: Games are turning from outlets of anti-sociality to forgers of communities and I love how games have evolved in that direction.

But if there’s one thing not to love: it’s all the additional technical bullshit we are forced to go through now and it’s making the future for casual PC gaming look darker. Perhaps that’s just the cost of increasingly complex games.

That’s why I still play old games like Urban Terror. It’s a relic of the time when gaming meant joining a server and playing…that’s it. Nothing else. People still play that game for that simplicity we used to have in those days, but no longer have now.

Last edited Mar 08, 2013 at 02:46AM EST
Mar 08, 2013 at 02:42AM EST
Quote

On the topic of glitches and bugs, does anybody here know how bad Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2’s online glitch total was?

Well, there are an absolute ton of glitches in MW2 that have been since the release of the game, and I’m not saying they were all found straight away in a single month, however, there were still many obvious glitches.

Such as the ‘Care Package Glitch’ where one could obtain unlimited care packages from only getting it once as a kill streak, or perhaps the good ol’ ‘Javelin Kamikaze Glitch’? Don’t get me started on all the hacks…

Seriously, that game will be remembered for its horrible online players and glitches it had exploited in the first months release. And yet, I still like the game!

Mar 08, 2013 at 03:02AM EST
Quote

I think the current state of gaming is ominous.

Let’s go back to the so called golden age of gaming, the Sega vs Nintendo era first. Games were short, and they were hard, oh so fucking hard to keep people gaming. That was the gimmick back then, keep games hard to make them last longer, and it makes the game more fulfilling when you actually do beat it, if you beat it. Honestly it was a good gimmick, hard games are often the most satisfying to beat.

Well, in the future, we were able to make bigger games, so instead of making super hard games, they’d make them fairly hard and longer. Games like this were still satisfying to play.

Now, I talked about how expanded capacity changed games for the better, but here’s other stuff that has changed gaming: pandering to casual audiences, PC modding, dollar aps, the skinner box, free games, and DLC.

PC modding changed gaming for the better. It all started with Doom, people modded that game and now we have the modern PC gaming scene we have today. PC gamers love it, being able to mod games you have or create entirely new games working from other games has driven the PC gaming market.

Now let’s talk about the pandering. It isn’t just the slew of casual games like what mostly plagues Nintendo and the Kinect on 360, but it’s also stuff in other games that just insist on handholding EVERYONE who plays. There have been a lot of games, Nintendo ones in particular that have had their difficulties dumbed down to the point of numbness, and they insist on handholding through everything. I’m looking at games like Super Mario Galaxy, but also at stuff like Fire Emblem 7. (I know how to move my units and attack other units you fucking dummy, anyone with a brain can do that, I don’t need an excessively slow tutorial that tells me how to do every single obvious thing in the game to keep hounding me, I have a fucking manual if I need help)

Dollar aps are a pain for us too, because we now have a massive distraction. It’s cool I suppose that people are making small games all over the world, but it’s become a cash cow now, and has shifted the biggest profits to the fucking iPhone, which isn’t even a gaming console. Now Nintendo has made their Wii U partially imitate the iPad and play stuff like Reversi because of this.

Next comes the Skinner box, the big plague in game design. There was a time when game developers had to focus on quality, where a studio would do best by releasing a game and making sure it’s good enough to convince consumers to buy their next game. With subscription based games and other crap like that, that’s not necessarily the case. Now it’s become in a lot of cases about dragging out play time with cheap quests that take forever. You’ve seen games that just throw in items that take forever to get, or you have to grind until some item or chest gives you a lucky drop. Stuff like this is all over tons of games now and is draining quality from games, especially subscription based games like WoW. Probably one of the worst is when you have to spend money on opening treasure chests and crates and stuff, it’s even lazier and more profitable, entrenching us more in this problem.

Free games are also a bitch, it’s another distraction coupled with the skinner box.

DLC really takes the cake though, it’s what has made its way into run of the mill games, PC games included. DLC used to be the cherry you could put on top of already awesome games, but now it’s become lazy, often where it’s just for the sake of profit with lazy crap or where the DLC completes the game, not tops it off. Fuck, in some games, the DLC is on the disc, but you’re shelling out the Hamiltons for stuff already on the disc. (Fable 2, I’m looking at you) Another one is actual content released that is way too expensive, oftentimes new characters and levels that cost several bucks a pop.

So, now we have free games and dollar aps and DLC and skinner boxes and all these are profitable and they’re a distraction from genuine gaming. Sure, it still exists, but it’s on the backburner now for many developers. Gaming has shifted into being a cash cow rather than an art for many, and we’re at a loss because of it.

Mar 08, 2013 at 03:06AM EST
Quote

I’d give the current gaming industry a C. Yes, there’s lot of crap going on such as unfinished games and oddly priced DLC, but there’s still lots of great things going on. I love it when a game releases DLC much later after the release date because it shows that it was being worked on after the game was shipped. The free DLC is pretty sweet, too. Tekken Tag Tournament 2 and Skyrim have been great examples of either giving great DLC much after the release or simply free DLC altogether.

Mar 08, 2013 at 12:27PM EST
Quote

Video games today are a mix of fun, original ideas, and the same game with a different cover (generally the latter). As much as there is a lot of brilliant games out there, a lot of gaming companies are rehashing old games, and that really annoys me. I don’t think I need to bring up CoD here, but I will bring up quite a few other shooter games, and I’d also like to say that the New Super Marion Bros. formula was old 5 years ago, so I wish Nintendo would drop it already. Companies are relying too much on series that are already successful as they know that it has bunch of mindless fans that will buy whatever they spit out. Developers need to take chances on new game series that are a bit different in comparison to what we see already.
I’d also like to say that all companies have there ups and downs, and EA are no exception. I don’t really hate any games companies, but the ones I do, I still realize that they do have some positives.

Mar 08, 2013 at 12:31PM EST
Quote

I’ve been very iffy towards the industry as whole. The recent incident with EA just the latest. I still await to see how the new generation shapes up though.

However, I feel like the only way for gaming to get a boost, is to see a breakup of both Activision and Electronic Arts.

Mar 08, 2013 at 12:54PM EST
Quote

Dac wrote:

@teh brawler

I could not disagree more. I like story in my games as long as the gameplay is also good. Catherine is a great example. It has a very engaging story as well as brutally difficult puzzle gameplay. And just saying, I don’t think call of duty is a good example of diverse immersive gameplay, it’s the same thing I’ve been playing since COD4. Plus it is very story driven as well, with black ops standing out for me for having a pretty damn good story.

I’m not saying games shouldn’t have good stories, I’m saying that story shouldn’t take priority over gameplay. I enjoyed the Mass Effect titles immensely, and two of my favorite franchises are Professor Layton and Phoenix Wright. But I think there are too many game developers, such as 2K, who only use the medium to tell a story and focus on the gameplay as a secondary priority and/or as a string to tie plot points together. There are masses of companies guilty of this, and I think it harms the medium as a whole. Also, the reason I say that Call of Duty has diverse immersive gameplay is not because the games drastically change or that there’s a wide range of gameplay styles, but because the game puts you in a multitude of different scenarios with different weapons that take different strategies and levels of concentration to achieve. Yes, you could say that it’s nothing but shooting things, but you can say that of any game: Mario is nothing but running and jumping on Goombas, Pokemon is nothing but battles, etc.

Mar 08, 2013 at 01:15PM EST
Quote

@teh brawler

Besides the telltale games, can you give me examples of games putting story first? Just curious
But I’ll admit, I loved the walking dead game.

Mar 08, 2013 at 01:19PM EST
Quote

I think games lost “sentimental value”. I’m not a Nintendo fanboy. I think CoD is fun, but has been releasing pretty much the same for the past years, and it-s too damn lineal.
I got Chronno Trigger about 2 years ago, and after beating it, I didn’t touch it for 1 year because of some AV cable business. Anyways, I am playing it again, and it has almost the same amount of feels as the N64 games I hadn’t seen since I was a kid.
The difficulty has changed too. Compare Goldeneye or Doom to CoD. Nowadays, you have a radar telling you where to go and where your enemies are. Back then, you had more objectives depending on the difficulty, but you still had to search around the whole map for some basic stuff. The same thing happened to Resident Evil and Alone in the Dark. After RE4, there were no more complicated puzzles, and it focused much more on fighting. It was fun, and it was amazing, but I miss the old Survival Horror.
I also think graphics have damaged genres like Point and Click or Classic RPGs. The DS Final Fantasy 3 remake was cool, but making it 3D wasn’t necesary in my opinion, just to add the zoom function and some cutscenes.

Mar 08, 2013 at 03:14PM EST
Quote

I’d be happy if video game companies implemented difficulty levels for their games (I’m looking at you, Nintendo). Eg. “Easy” for kids, “Normal” for casual gamers, and “Hard” for people who wants a challenge. It takes like 20 minutes to program, why the f*** doesn’t every game have this feature?

Also there’s a lack of turn based rpgs, especially strategy rpgs. It seems like Fire Emblem is the only srpg series left.

Mar 08, 2013 at 05:13PM EST
Quote

Silbotronic wrote:

I’d be happy if video game companies implemented difficulty levels for their games (I’m looking at you, Nintendo). Eg. “Easy” for kids, “Normal” for casual gamers, and “Hard” for people who wants a challenge. It takes like 20 minutes to program, why the f*** doesn’t every game have this feature?

Also there’s a lack of turn based rpgs, especially strategy rpgs. It seems like Fire Emblem is the only srpg series left.

There’s also Advance Wars, made by the same people as Fire Emblem, Civilization, XCOM, Final Fantasy Tactics, etc…

Mar 08, 2013 at 05:35PM EST
Quote

Classics like Big Rigs are starting to reemerge in the modern gaming industry. Standards are dropping increasing.

At least you get the occasional gem, like Tribes: Ascend and Dwarf Fortress…

Mar 08, 2013 at 05:37PM EST
Quote

Also, I’ve noticed that what’s best for game companies is to actually have people that make games in charge of the companies. Satoru Iwata, the main guy calling the shots in developmental authority in Nintendo, has been developing games since he was a teen, and so have a lot of the other big deal pioneers in gaming. (The only other one I can think of is Valve) They know how to make games, they know how to direct development, and they’re passionate about their projects, they know to take risks.

You wanna know why Nintendo is still relevant in gaming despite their disadvantages, while SEGA is almost entirely irrelevant? SEGA hounds and rushes their developers, to see evidence of this just look at the latest Sonic games. Not only do the exec producers insist on having stupid gimmicks, the games come incomplete because SEGA sets time limits. SEGA worries too much about pinching the pennies while sacrificing the incoming dollars.

Mar 08, 2013 at 05:53PM EST
Quote

I’ve noticed that the spike of popularity of when a new game is released is getting shorter and this is happening to bigger franchises.

Mar 08, 2013 at 05:57PM EST
Quote

Spider-byte wrote:

I’ve noticed that the spike of popularity of when a new game is released is getting shorter and this is happening to bigger franchises.

It’s because of our modern communications culture. Things move fast, but this has translated to gaming, and not in a good way.

Mar 08, 2013 at 07:16PM EST
Quote

Whatever happened to gameplay? Why do games have to be artsy now all of a sudden?
Was it because we’ve been threatened? Because we’ve been touted as violence-makers and just play-things?

As you probably already know, I’m into stuff like Katamari Damacy, the Wario Land series and a lot of the Sega, Sony and Capcom games, so naturally I’m biased towards this sort of thing, but… I kind of want the video game to remain the video GAME. I think we kind of reached the point of perfection around the first Playstation era – game developers realized they should be artsier than the arcade games of old, but at the same time, they could maintain their arcade roots and make something more entertaining. This seems to be a philosophy that a lot of game developers are forgetting.

… And yet, at the same time, I’ll argue for extra-easy modes in games all day long – game modes in which you’re basically just watching the game unfold and barely playing it. It’s a weird paradox that way.

Mar 08, 2013 at 07:20PM EST
Quote

Dac wrote:

@teh brawler

Besides the telltale games, can you give me examples of games putting story first? Just curious
But I’ll admit, I loved the walking dead game.

Capcom, however well or poorly they do it:
-Resident Evil, all titles
-Ace Attorney, all titles

Konami:
-Metal Gear, all titles

Bungie/343:
-Halo

Bioware:
-Dragon Age 2
-Mass Effect
-Mass Effect 2

Bethesda
-Fallout 3
-Elder Scrolls: Oblivion
-Elder Scrolls: Skyrim

2K:
-Bioshock
-Bioshock 2

Square Enix:
-Final Fantasy, all titles

I could probably think of a lot more, but these are the ones that stand out to me. Please note that I’m not saying that all of these games are bad: many of them are well done. However, I can think of examples in all of these games where gameplay did suffer because the focus was linking story points together instead of providing real gameplay opportunity.

Last edited Mar 09, 2013 at 12:08AM EST
Mar 08, 2013 at 11:53PM EST
Quote

What bugs me about varying modes of difficulty in games is that the only thing that changes most of the time is the numbers. It’s like programmers don’t want to be bothered to try to make enemies smarter once they realize they can just throw more of them in, make them harder to kill and the player easier to kill. I’m seeing this more and more in games today.

Mar 08, 2013 at 11:55PM EST

HolyCrapItsBob wrote:

@Brawler

>Metal Gear
>Capcom

I’M SORRY I’M TIRED AND I HAD A LONG SHIFT AT WORK

Mar 09, 2013 at 12:09AM EST
Quote

People complain far too much. In all honesty, I think the games industry is as strong as it’s ever been, maybe even stronger. Some of the best and most memorable games I have ever played have come out in the last few years (Bastion, Journey, The Walking Dead, To the Moon). Fantastic freeware games and visual novels are everywhere (Ib, That Cheap and Sacred Thing, Katawa goddamned Shoujo, The Mirror Lied, et cetera), casual and mobile gaming has begun to widen the demographic of those who play games and has helped legitimize the medium, graphics are pushed to new heights, the new console generation will move forward the standards for multiplatform games, unprecedented games like the Eve Online-tied F2P FPS Dust 514 are being released, indie gaming has surged in popularity and relevance (A trend that I gladly welcome, as it brings much-needed innovation), and many games on the horizon look fantastic. (Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, Watch_Dogs, etc.) You may complain, but there’s always some cathartic and memorable gaming experience waiting to be had.

Last edited Mar 09, 2013 at 02:33AM EST
Mar 09, 2013 at 02:31AM EST
Quote

@teh brawler
We can agree to disagree. I personally love a good story in a game, and though I can’t speak for all the ones you’ve mentioned since I haven’t played them all, out of the ones I did play, the story enhanced my experience.

Mar 09, 2013 at 03:24AM EST
Quote

I don’t understand why difficulty isn’t… difficult, anymore.
It’s just more in the masses, not in the coding. They make you have less perks on your character/decrease your basic stats, and that is just pretty easy to replicate. They never bother with changing your enemy’s coding to make them actually smart for once.

Honestly, that… curse me for as I call such a thing… game, Call of Duty, never seems to even bring the feeling of difficulty at all. No matter what, it’s just kind of Move from Point A to Point B, or Defend Point A and Point B, and even putting it to the highest “difficulty” never really changes it. Sure, you have to be careful, but that is easy to get used to and that “difficulty” ceases to be “difficult” at all. And then the fact that basically having Mary Sues as weapons (hate me for using that term somewhat improperly) takes away any difficulty if you’re good at it.

(Note: This is just my opinion on the matter, if you don’t like it, good. I don’t think this was a very good opinion actually.)

Mar 09, 2013 at 11:54AM EST
Quote

Iamslow wrote:

What bugs me about varying modes of difficulty in games is that the only thing that changes most of the time is the numbers. It’s like programmers don’t want to be bothered to try to make enemies smarter once they realize they can just throw more of them in, make them harder to kill and the player easier to kill. I’m seeing this more and more in games today.

You should see what Civilization does.

Mar 09, 2013 at 12:29PM EST
Quote

@lone K. The creeper

Play the favela stage(mw2) on veteran to know the true meaning of hard.

Mar 09, 2013 at 12:32PM EST
Quote

Spark, the Silencer wrote:

As much as I hate EA..What about the company who loves to troll the hell out of fans?
Yeah, Capcom
Hell, I reaally love how people love their first day DLCs , which are loaded INSIDE the disk, that’s right, pay for something you already paid (dwag).
Also, let’s not talk about what happened to DMC and Resident Evil franchises, which are almost dead, specially RE after the godawful Racoon City and the sixth part of the series. What the hell happened? Just for the love of fighting games, I could get over the *Ultimate/chocolate/Magic/Wii-Fi" from Street Fighter and Marvel vs Capcom…But…After the glorious trailer of Bad Box megaman and the whole Inside Disc thing…Speaking of dead things, what about the Blue Bomber? It’s like they refuse to talk/discuss about Megaman’ fate. Your choises are ass, the character is dead and we will keep sinking down
I will let Urban Dictionary speak for me:

A Japanese video game company. Known for classic titles such as Mega Man, Street Fighter, and Resident Evil. You know… Capcom is a lot like Elvis. Awesome and revolutionary in its younger years… but then it got old and fat and lazy and is eventually gonna die in the crapper.

I don’t know what you’re talking about I liked Raccoon City.

Mar 09, 2013 at 12:37PM EST
Quote

@cale

I had fun with raccoon city as well, but it was hated by many. The huge problem I had with that game was how buggy it was.

Mar 09, 2013 at 01:31PM EST
Quote

Dac wrote:

@lone K. The creeper

Play the favela stage(mw2) on veteran to know the true meaning of hard.

Not hard, more like frantic to the point of being cheap. It all essentially ends up being a roll of the dice in hoping that you aren’t tackled by more enemies than you can handle. CoD games on high difficulty settings aren’t a test of skill, they’re a test of patience and resisting frustration. (Something I am NOT very good at, mind.)

Mar 09, 2013 at 02:34PM EST
Quote

I believe that the modern gaming industry is diversifying, with the recent successes of kick starter, indie developers have gained the ability to develop games that consumers want. Successful games that have been funded and are not limited to:

Torment: Tides of Numenera – A recent project that was funded in 6 hours with a hilarious trailer to the project mocking CEO’s of game managers like EA.

Planetary Annihilation – A project by Uber Entertainment which is about to reach the alpha phase and is promising to deliver upon a vast majority of its promises to the people who funded it. Approximately 70% of all of the units are designed. The game will support server modes so certain servers can add units to the game which all players can utilize.

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare – A project that was funded with $85,934, even with this low budget, the game turned out very well.

All of these projects show that you do not need a triple A Hollywood style development process and marketing to produce a great game.

I am somewhat appalled by the recent released of Aliens: Colonial Marines and Simcity. Aliens: Colonial Marines suffered because the single player campaigned was outsourced from Gearbox to TimeGate, most likely when TimeGate received the production of the game they did not have the same capabilities to manipulate the engine which Gearbox created. Simcity is just another case of why always online DRM is a terrible business practice which is anti-consumer. Always online DRM punish legitimate consumers while pirates can modify the software to disable it and not be affected by its adverse effects. I do not think that this was will adversely affect EA’s financial prospects in the short term, but the loss of consumer confidence will eventual lead to EA’s potential bankruptcy if they continue down this path which they continue to insist enduring.

I also believe you as the consumer have the right to complain about the state of a product upon completion. You also have the right to deny a company funds by not purchasing their products, potentially encouraging them to alter their practices. If you do chose to provide them the funds then you have the fundamental right to a completed game which you have access to. Online DRM has the capability to hinder that ability which is why this practice should be frown upon with good reason. As long as this is a free market economy where the consumer has sway over the market via supply and demand and property rights, then you have the fundamental right to question those who provided the product.

Last edited Mar 09, 2013 at 08:02PM EST
Mar 09, 2013 at 07:55PM EST
Quote

Emi wrote:

I don’t mean that games should be $10, but even $50 sounds more reasonable, especially when DLC costing $15-30 is going to be released.

This game cost 190 bucks. More than the excellent mw2 limited edition with night vision googles. Enough said.

Games are a lot cheaper nowadays if you consider the amount of content and replayability.

Mar 09, 2013 at 09:04PM EST
Quote

Dac wrote:

This game cost 190 bucks. More than the excellent mw2 limited edition with night vision googles. Enough said.

Games are a lot cheaper nowadays if you consider the amount of content and replayability.

One hundred and ninety dollars!?

Oh yeah, that reminds me- if you really think that the electronic entertainment industry has gotten worse just because of some bad game released and seedy corporate practices, just watch an AVGN video or two. You’ll see that nothing’s changed.

Mar 10, 2013 at 12:54AM EST
Quote

Oh, and now I’m playing Spec Ops: The Line. Holy fuck. Have any complaints that the video game industry is stagnating? Play Spec Ops and eat your words.

Mar 10, 2013 at 04:48AM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Yo! You must login or signup first!