Reply
Highlighted
Jul 02 2012
By: Dominator94- Uncharted Territory 1676 posts
Offline

First party games going down hill

12 replies 244 views Edited Jul 2, 2012

First party games going down hill. Anyone as thing so? 

 

Some examples KILLZONE 3 No User Created Rank Rooms, No game browser and cheap unlockables. KILLZONE 2 got User created rooms, game browser and the unlockables are not that cheap has KILLZONE 3.

 

RESISTANCE 3 Got rid of the game browser, more cheap COD things like kill strikes and stuff.  One good thing is the lobby text chat. I think more games should have text chat and it also probably get more people to buy the keyboard for the controller.

 

SOCOM this game series went down hill really bad on PS3. I don't know where to start with this one. SOCOM Confrontation this game should never been release with all of the bugs this game had. It took SLANT SIX a year to make this game playable and SLANT SIX also fail at trying to recreate SOCOM. SOCOM 4 was the biggest mess up. SOCOM 4 is like a TPS COD, and like most COD copy cats it fail.

 

I just feel every game should have it own identity. Feel like lot of new first party shooters are trying to copy COD.

Message 1 of 13 (244 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Big Daddy
Registered: 12/24/2007
Offline
16918 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

Jul 2, 2012

Blame the developer, not the publisher

Furiously Chaosing
Message 2 of 13 (240 Views)
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 09/19/2011
Offline
318 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

[ Edited ]
Jul 2, 2012

Not all, but every game somewhat has a personality.  It's mainly what the developers do in their time with it.  Take Killzone 3 for example it may be far off but it's like a PS3 version of Halo or in other words a future tech shooter.  Uncharted 3 has that action movie feel and so on.  Call of Duty is just a horibble shooter that repeats itself.  One of the last good games I heard to play was World at War and Call of Duty 4 Modern Warefare.  

 

After that it kind of felt like repeats just to make money.  Throw in some new maps,guns,story add a cool new feature and upgrade the engine so people who didn't research would be fooled by the graphics.  To make a series it's not about throwing in a fresh new coat of paint it's about maybe even changing up gameplay mechanics.  If not the been there done that feeling will kick in ,but I still don't know why people buy Cod.

Message 3 of 13 (232 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
VP of Gaming
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
29432 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

Jul 3, 2012
You named three games out of what, maybe a dozen. I don't think first party titles are going "down hill". I think gamers have a false assumption of "well if one game is bad that means they're all bad". Which is simply not true.
Message 4 of 13 (219 Views)
MVP Support
Registered: 05/12/2009
Online
10213 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

Jul 3, 2012

Killzone 3 was great

Resistance 3 was underrated and underappreciated.

Socom..well it was well known beforehand that it would fail miserably.

Message 5 of 13 (216 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 12/13/2009
Offline
188 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

Jul 3, 2012

I would have to say that almost all video games are going down hill.  You can't really buy any game today that comes out with the quality that games once did.  

 

Games that are released today are full with bugs that the developers are well aware of, but had a deadline to meet (Skyrim), so they weren't able to fix them before release. 

 

We are also experiencing the rip off to consumers known as DLC...most people don't see it this way.  They see it as an extension of new content to keep them playing the game longer; however, almost all DLC is completed before the game is even released and is used as a way to double dip the consumer.  

 

Online passes is another double dipper.  Before anyone says anything about 'But we need to support the developers and used games don't help them at all!!' argument, I would like to make the point that for every used game sale, there had to be a new game sale...common sense really and besides the point, all online pass revenue is solely a benefit to the publisher and not the developers (this was admitted by David Jaffe when he tried to take a stand against Sony making Twisted Metal have an online pass).

If the game industry keeps going in the direction it will, almost all veteran gamers will quit, becuase in my opinion the glory days are over.. Call of Duty is the best selling game franchise of all time, and I think that says a lot about how bad of shape the industry is in when a company can release the same game over and over and people buy it like it's the next best thing...not much originality and creativity left in the industry because there is no need for it.

 

I myself am not looking forward to the future of gaming, because the future isn't looking very bright.

Message 6 of 13 (211 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 10/21/2011
Offline
573 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

[ Edited ]
Jul 3, 2012

long before COD there was the final fantasy series... if u wanna talk about repackaging the same old game.

its def not a new phenomena.

LONG LIVE CECHA01!!!
the absolute pinnacle of console video gaming!
Message 7 of 13 (200 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
MVP Support
Registered: 08/04/2009
Online
7425 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

Jul 3, 2012

SteveO_GOW wrote: 

I would like to make the point that for every used game sale, there had to be a new game sale...common sense really


Just to nitpick on this one point: for every used game sale, there is a maximum of 1 new game sale.  Games can be resold and rebought several times.  Regardless, I don't think used games are that big of a concern that they needed to implement online passes; there is a greed component as well.  They can get away with it, so they will.  People who buy new for the most part won't care, and people who buy used are now giving them money.   There's practically no downside for them.

 

Message 8 of 13 (190 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
VP of Gaming
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
29432 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

[ Edited ]
Jul 3, 2012

SteveO_GOW wrote:

I would have to say that almost all video games are going down hill.  You can't really buy any game today that comes out with the quality that games once did.  

 

(i've often said that "gamers" act as if a bad game is something new. There have been bad games since the dawn of the industry, even as far back as the arcade days. There are bad movies, bad record albums, bad books, bad television programs, yet somehow gamers thought that video games were immune to this phenomenon. It's just the law of averages)

 

Games that are released today are full with bugs that the developers are well aware of, but had a deadline to meet (Skyrim), so they weren't able to fix them before release. 

 

(Games are bigger, more complex and you also have to deal with the online component. So you either delay and risk your audience losing interest, note the spelling, or you release it and try to fix it later. WIth tens of millions of dollars on the line, I think the answer is obvious)

 

We are also experiencing the rip off to consumers known as DLC...most people don't see it this way.  They see it as an extension of new content to keep them playing the game longer; however, almost all DLC is completed before the game is even released and is used as a way to double dip the consumer.  

 

(Don't like it, don't buy it. It's that simple)

 

Online passes is another double dipper.  Before anyone says anything about 'But we need to support the developers and used games don't help them at all!!' argument, I would like to make the point that for every used game sale, there had to be a new game sale...common sense really and besides the point, all online pass revenue is solely a benefit to the publisher and not the developers (this was admitted by David Jaffe when he tried to take a stand against Sony making Twisted Metal have an online pass).

 

(I know that it's the typical gamer response to say "THEY'RE GREEDY MEANIE POOPIE HEADS!!", but try to look at it from the other side for a minute. Support cycles have gone from zero to YEARS. Online servers cost money, support costs, money, and bandwidth costs money. There's more overhead now. Where's that money going to come from? The problem is not that used game = one game sale. That's far too simplistic an argument. The real problem is for that one new game sale, that game can be turned around and resold countless times over, money that never makes it a developers pockets. Contrary to the popular gamer belief that video games exist in a vacuum, and that developers and publishers shouldn't be making money, they do and NEED to make money, otherwise there will be no more industry. Yes, I may not like the practice of online passes, however I don't blame them one bit. Furthermore, I've illustrated before that the myth of buying used and saving money can easily be busted. It's the IDEA of saving money that many are enamored with, because you can save more money buying new than used if you comparison shop, and don't rush headlong into GameStop ready to be fleeced )

 

If the game industry keeps going in the direction it will, almost all veteran gamers will quit, becuase in my opinion the glory days are over.. Call of Duty is the best selling game franchise of all time, and I think that says a lot about how bad of shape the industry is in when a company can release the same game over and over and people buy it like it's the next best thing...not much originality and creativity left in the industry because there is no need for it.

 

(If they quit then I say more room for me. As for the "glory days", I don't think they ever existed, or they're being colored by nostalgia. To me it always seemed weird that this is an industry that the fans don't want to become more mainstream. The fact that Call of Duty has permeated the public conciousness to the point where it's a household name is remarkable. Yet "veteran gamers" seem to feel that it should have never gotten to that point. Why? Is it that they want to be thought of as outcasts and anti-social? The activity is now mainstream, which is what it should have always apsired to. Well it's not just your ball, and you can't dictate who can play with it and who can't. This is a medium that anyone and EVERYONE can enjoy. The more the merrier. And if there are those who feel that there are those who are unworthy, and they feel they shouldn't have to share the playing field, I bid them godspeed). 

 

I myself am not looking forward to the future of gaming, because the future isn't looking very bright.

(I think the industry CAN have a bright future, as long as they continue to move forward and explore new territories. Some won't like it, but as they expression goes if you either ride the wave of change, or are swept up by it.)


 

Message 9 of 13 (184 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 12/13/2009
Offline
188 posts
 

Re: First party games going down hill

Jul 4, 2012

CaptainAlbator wrote:

 

(i've often said that "gamers" act as if a bad game is something new. There have been bad games since the dawn of the industry, even as far back as the arcade days. There are bad movies, bad record albums, bad books, bad television programs, yet somehow gamers thought that video games were immune to this phenomenon. It's just the law of averages)

 

 

I agree with what you just said, but the fact is that when a game is released in an almost unplayable state, and the developers knowingly did so is what I think is wrong.  In almost any other case that calls for a lawsuit.  If I pay 60 dollars for a new game it better work, it may not have to work perfectly, but it should at least work...Skyrim was released in a state of almost unplaybility on PS3 when it first came out!

 

(Don't like it, don't buy it. It's that simple)

 

 

That's my point, I shouldn't have to buy something to complete the game that I just bought...it should have been included in the first place...especially when it is day one DLC.

 

(I know that it's the typical gamer response to say "THEY'RE GREEDY MEANIE POOPIE HEADS!!", but try to look at it from the other side for a minute. Support cycles have gone from zero to YEARS. Online servers cost money, support costs, money, and bandwidth costs money. There's more overhead now. Where's that money going to come from? The problem is not that used game = one game sale. That's far too simplistic an argument. The real problem is for that one new game sale, that game can be turned around and resold countless times over, money that never makes it a developers pockets. Contrary to the popular gamer belief that video games exist in a vacuum, and that developers and publishers shouldn't be making money, they do and NEED to make money, otherwise there will be no more industry. Yes, I may not like the practice of online passes, however I don't blame them one bit. Furthermore, I've illustrated before that the myth of buying used and saving money can easily be busted. It's the IDEA of saving money that many are enamored with, because you can save more money buying new than used if you comparison shop, and don't rush headlong into GameStop ready to be fleeced )

 

 

I really hate the argument that everyone tries to make with this...it's really as simple as I stated it.  If I buy a used car, I don't have to pay a surchage to the manufacturer for purchasing their vehicle and driving it...it should be the same exact concept for used game sales. As far as your support argument goes, most publishers do not grant support for a title for very long...usually just long enough to release their next new title and then they don't care about the old one.  Do me a favor and play modern warfare 1....almost every match you get into is hacked like crazy...really seems to me that they are still supporting that title.

 

(If they quit then I say more room for me. As for the "glory days", I don't think they ever existed, or they're being colored by nostalgia. To me it always seemed weird that this is an industry that the fans don't want to become more mainstream. The fact that Call of Duty has permeated the public conciousness to the point where it's a household name is remarkable. Yet "veteran gamers" seem to feel that it should have never gotten to that point. Why? Is it that they want to be thought of as outcasts and anti-social? The activity is now mainstream, which is what it should have always apsired to. Well it's not just your ball, and you can't dictate who can play with it and who can't. This is a medium that anyone and EVERYONE can enjoy. The more the merrier. And if there are those who feel that there are those who are unworthy, and they feel they shouldn't have to share the playing field, I bid them godspeed). 

 

 

Glory days to me were when you would buy a videogame that had an amazing single player experience that once you finished you started right up again, and never felt like you were missing out on something by not having online multiplayer...games today just don't have that feeling.  And most games that could have that feeling are marred by developers being pushed into having multiplayer just to boost sales...even though it harms the overall game.

 

I know that you have been around on these forums for a long time, and have obviously played many games in your life-time, but I really think that you just don't want to admit it to yourself that videogames are going from something that once had passion and that the developers actually cared about to nothing but $$$$$signs in the eyeballs of developers and publishers...they are no longer making games for the gamers.

Message 10 of 13 (177 Views)
Reply
0 Likes