Black Francis

The vid you mean?

He's no Matpat but i imagine he is fairly popular considering he's on Screw Attack.

regarding the topic, i don't think every triple AAA game out there was developed to suck your money away, ive played games lke Borderlands and RDR which felt like full games without the DLCs but even with that i bought their DLCs because that was the only way to get extra content. my main problem with that sorta thing it's that it used to be free. Take a game like Castlevania Symphony Of The Night, i can't help to think that if that game were released today the upside down castle would be a DLC not something you could unlock by discovering that secret.

Videogames for the most part have stayed at a reasonable price but at the same time now you have the option to keep sinking money into the game to get a little more out of it and that wasn't necessary before.

__________________
"Hey Kids you got to meet the MIGHTY PIXIES!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbRbCtIgW3A

Hip-Hop Homework

somethin' happened...not paying attention. Double post--disregard this.

Hip-Hop Homework

the development price tag taking the hike is due to buying air time for advertisement on network television and also buying star power to anchor the voice casts...kevin spacey and the like.

Look at Gears of War, man...to me that game embodied the standard for not only innovation but story was pretty original, it developed the characters in balance enough to be riveting, and the graphics? Unreal engines have been and will continue to remain king! The Gears series is still unique to this day, over 9 years later and people are still playing. They took their time to develop it...keeping their following on the edge of their seats instead of buying into the annual-release model.

Their games were really polished but the cost of development $5 mil over a period of 3 years...versus a game that might cost $5 mil to develop over a year and that be a recurring, annual cost. Then it doesn't seem that justifiable to vacuum up the last two pennies and lint in my pockets.

The Epic studio was self-made with the overnight success of Gears and were able to maintain not only creative control but quality control, etc. All possible due to their innovation...

So if companies tried to follow in their footsteps as far as bringing an innovative product. Gamers would be treated to what now seems like the golden era of gaming from 2001-2011 (give or take) Most games from our childhoods wouldn't really hold a candle to today's standards and the bulk of their value lies in nostalgia. So I pretty much only consider the last two generations and the current. We wouldn't be confined to expecting to break our sisters' piggy banks just to get a full game.

Did you ever play Vanquish? That game was sick...it was like a futuristic Eye of the Colossus or whatever.

The Castlevania Lords of Shadow game was one of the best platformers I've ever played, awesome graphics, fantastic story line, and outstanding game play.

Games like that are few and far between these days...maybe 'cause of development cost???

Bro, my milk went bad 3 days early...I'm sittin' here eatin' dry cereal. The roof of my mouth will thank me later for that.

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.

Hip-Hop Homework

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!

Mr. Charlie

^ Vanquish is indeed ace, but it's developed by Platinum Games who are the folks behind Bayonetta and Wonderful 101, and masters of their trade, so it's not really surprising how satisfying it is to play.

prisoner437x3y0

platinum games has delivered some duds lately.

I've always meant to play a castevania game, I love metroid.

I think its the draconian aesthetic I don't really like. Never been a big vampire guy.

I think gamers gripe too much about the current state, it's truly the best its ever been. I mean some of the games coming out where I get to hop from planet to planet. Where on the cusp of them not being games as much as virtual worlds and its pretty dope in my opinion.

The Batlord

The GBA Castlevania games aren't even really vampire games. They're just supernatural platformers with vampire end bosses.

__________________

Mr. Charlie

Prisoner, if you enjoy Metroid then you'll enjoy Castlevania. Very similar gameplay mechanics - only dressed differently.

Black Francis

Yea and you can even f*ck your party members, i got no problem with how games have evolved i have a problem with how their marketing has evolved. I don't like the fact that almost every game nowadays has a DLC and that microtransactions are now the norm. i can't help to dislike this because ive been playing games since the Nes era and right up till the Ps2 era, games weren't developed with that formula but nowadays those very games are resold digitally to you in some "Classic bundle" just to squeeze more money outta them.

To me it feels like the industry standard itself has gotten way more greedy and they found a way to justify that greed to the consumers to the point we expect it now.

__________________
"Hey Kids you got to meet the MIGHTY PIXIES!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbRbCtIgW3A