Quote:
Originally Posted by prisoner437x3y0
HW i generally respect you but as a pretty serious nerd I take offense to some of what your saying here.
Yes and no. Games are generally far more expansive and complex than before.
Cliff Blizenki took the over the shoulder viewpoint from shinji-mikami lead resident evil 4 game. The cover system was already made in kill.switch a game for the previous gen.
Unreal engine has real issues with texture pop in but otherwise yes, it's prety astounding.
Gears of war has off shoots made by other developers. They release sequels bi-annually instead of annually, usually in response to not wanting to compete with halo franchise.`
Could you rephrase what you mean here? Your saying you want developers to invest in more complete products? It's not a recurring annual cost because most of the engine has already been made/optimised so its roughly speaking about changing the content. For example, this is why the first AC games are poor and get better with sequel.s
Epic success stems largely from the unreal tournament franchise. Most independent studios get creative control but end up not lasting long without a hit.
Cliffy B left epic studios, always exist internal conflicts.
Zelda, Mario, Sports titles, platformers(rayman legends, etc)n fighting games etc are nearly identical to how they were upon their inception. No such thing as golden age, purely subjective. Epic is fairly unoriginal company, I get the point your trying to make but bad example.
That was shinji mikamis "F U" to all the proponents of gears of war. He deliberately made that game to outdo cliffy b and the gears franchise.
Not because of development cost, just market trends. FPS games are the new platformers; only thing people really play. There are so many good castlevania games already people don't really need anymore. You have the decline of the Japanese game market etc
There are so many good original games today that I don't feel like bothering to mention (but will if necessary). I don't get the stance you guys are taking at all.
|
what I'm saying is that games ESPECIALLY the CoD franchise, which I'm sure has some of the highest developmental costs in the market really started going for blockbuster-movie style experiences.
The AC games, you're right, because they were reusing a lot of the same code, this goes for CoD as well, did get more polished because they could spend more time on details instead of the groundwork already laid by a prequel...this includes game play and graphics engines.
I think the video game stat quo is so freakin' dreary...
We just finished a console generation (most of my opinion is based there) that saw the likes of the birth of Assassin's Creed (phenomenal story and game play, innovative combat engine), Bio Shock (another story-rich game with outstanding graphics and game play), Gears of War...Halo is hit or miss for me but as far as I'm concerned does not set the bar for anything anymore. The first couple were really innovative and revolutionary at the time. Call of Duty, pretty much all the way up through modern warfare 2 was just destroying FPS scenes, for good reason--they were awesome and innovative.
So I think while development costs have gone up, it's because of how market advertising is done now and also co-linear development. They might be spending $5mil/year but I guarantee you it's not all on one game. They have multiple staffs and teams simultaneously developing not only the next release--but the release after that too. So for somebody to say we spend $5mil annually...I challenge where the costs are. I don't know...it's not my field of expertise but I call malarkey in that somehow or in anyway being justifiable for a game to be released in installments and end up costing over $100.
That's my whole perspective...
I'm an adult now so I pick and choose the games I invest in 'cause I don't have the time I used to when I was a younger pup. And I just demand more for my buck as a savvy consumer. I need something new...not more of the same. Call of Duty has been the same, more-or-less, in terms of experience for the past 6 years. Same for Assassin's Creed, though more for the last 3 years. They're resting on their laurels and really phoning it in now and it doesn't justify the same price tag as before.
For example, the Gears of War: Ultimate Edition redux...$40. I think that is perfectly fair and I gladly play it.
They reused a lot of the old code but updated the graphics. Fair enough pricing for getting an updated experience to play on this current gen.
Dude, if you didn't play the first Lords of Shadow and you consider yourself a nerd...do yourself a favor and pick up a copy. Seriously, I've been playing video games for some 27 years and that is one of the best experiences I've had in gaming. Same with Vanquish...a Sega product.
I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying, from my perspective, I challenge the notion that anything beyond an $80 price tag for an entire game (including DLCs) is kinda unreasonable!