Thoughts on how messed up the game world is
AjBlue
Member Posts: 215
Ok so a little bit ago i looked at grisly manor on the appstore, i've never played the game but from the comments someone mentioned that its an hour long.. i don't know how accurate it is, but still. There are multiple reviews that just appalled me, 1stars saying this games too short its not worth the money spent on it.
and thats got me thinking how messed up the gaming world is particularly mobile games. Everyone wants to see more for the buck, people enjoy to get more than their moneys worth out of a game. I for one like this too, there is nothing better than getting free updates for games etc. but i have noticed that this one thing that set popular games a part is in turn hurting developers. People come to expect to get more for their money, the only reason the big popular iphone games can afford to sell for 99 cents is that the mass of people buying it makes up for the low price. Now you will see that developers are going to be expected to do more and it wouldn't be worth it because if everyone else is following this sales model, people are beginning to stop appreciate games for what they are worth. i think a 1$ game that lasts an hour is quite good if you ask me, watching a movie is about 3 times more expensive than idevice games, compared to time spent. there is no reason why those comments should be 1 stars, i would think a 4 or even a 3 would be more appropiate. and the reviews should have said "its a good game i just wish it was longer "
If i ever make a console game it would be game of the year . because i would have free content be constantly released updating the multiplayer and whatnot to hold them over and make them happy which in turn make happy gamers tell all the rest of the gamers and bam, tons of people, tons of money. Then we would take atleast 3 years developing a completely different game, and im not just talking about using the same gameplay but putting a whole different story around it. Im talking about possibly switching over genres, and mainly letting the development team really have the ability to try many different things, because imagine how boring as a developer to make the same style games. They been around games long they have ideas of what works and fresh new stuff. the game would take its time to become something that everyone would want to play. the whole rushing games out to get money just doesn't work, you can't make great games that way. sequels are just terrible, no sequels allowed. once a games done it done no more. the more of the same gameplay people get the more borring the game is right away, like the black ops effect. cod4 had a really fresh type of gameplay when it first came out, people played it everyday right up until the release of mw2. but the more of the same people got people are already bored of blackops and it only been like 3months. people always say they don't like certain genres but i think thats not true, its just that the genre hasn't been done good enough yet. you could go into any genre and as long as the time is taken to really make the gameplay good, no one would be able to hate it. sequels always tank the only good sequels are ones where the first game sucked. true story very rarely can a game make a good game sequel to a game that was already looked upon as good, because if you stray anything away from the first games formula its not the same game anymore and if you stick to the formula its just going to be more of the same gameplay and that gets boring.
i really admire games like duke nukem forever and a few more, because they take their time to really make it good, now of course they can't work on a game 2 years and see some new technology and scrap it right away, which i think was just a bad time for duke nukem, because it really was a huge spike in technology during the past decade. if you've been noticing games have been starting to plateau a lot more on the technology side consoles are staying around longer etc. but just the mere fact that they were like this game will be done when its amazing is just inspiring.
theres a fine line between making a skillful game thats easy to get into. and unfortunately the mainstreamization over the past say 3 years have hurt the skillfulness of games tremendously. people dont take the time to get good at a game, they get frustrated way to quick and dont just say to themselves hey im new its normal to die a lot when i first start. example- a friend of mine just got into gaming really 2 years ago, (ive been play xbox from the start and games were more skillful back then) so he is very very good at call of duty games, and because of call of dutys negative corruption of video games. my friend hates game like halo and gears of war. now these games take longer to kill people, the guns a more of a learning curve, but because he started off playing call of duty, he can't play a game that actually has recoil that he has to compensate for a little with his joystick instead of just animation recoil, and hes not used to dieing a lot because ultimately games that take longer to kill enemies require quite a bit more of skill to kill, you need to be acurate with a lot more of your shots. and call of duty being a 2-3 shot kill game with guns that shoot 20 bullets per second that have fairly large ammo clips when paired up with the damage and rate of fire. i cant stand games that dont take skill because quite frankly they get boring. gamebattles has changed a lot, because games have become way to easy and now teams just drop and add people all the time looking for people that can go positive better. in game when the 360 first came out teams in games that took skill would spend hours setting up gameplans on each map assigning each person a different role that was rather complex by todays standards. the competition for me was so addicting and then call of duty sort of ruined it for me a little and then my friend got my account banned for a year, so now i have given up on gamebattles teams never end well since they dont build a bond by practicing and striving to win. it just lost all of its competitve appeal.
which brings me to my next thing, technology + skill equals bad. so technology is made to make things easier, technology in war is to make things easier for normal people to be able to fight. which is bad because it goes completely away from competitive aspect of what is fun. explosives are bad, grenades weren't too bad as it could kill campers but it wasn't easy. its just terrible because apparently defense has not been able to keep up with attack. knifing in call of duty is a joke, its like you walk around a corner hug a guy and unrealisticly pulls out a knife instead of just hitting you with his gun or something. instant kills are the opposite of skill.
a good game of skill is where you can tell the general direction of your enemy, running is bad, where in real life do you see people running around a warzone looking for people to kill, no they walk with their gun at the ready, and if they have to run do to some bad circumstances to get away, there is no way they would be able to run that fast with all that gear on. The faster people die the less skill it takes. i don't know about other people but its extremely annoying to be thought of as one of the better people in a game and you die so much to were you only average about double the kills to death. thats just terrible. i've personally like rainbow six vegas 1 very much, the armor gave that run factor type thing, where the more armor you have on the slower you walk, and with no armor they walked pretty past but died quick. it was a good balance. you weren't always getting shot in the back. if anything you got shot from the side or someone took their time to sneak around the enemies.
there is no better feeling than playing a skillful game and being one of those people who don't die a lot. and lets face it for people to win others must lose, and making everyone about even is just boring. in comparison to games today gears in one of the games that really fell off the chart, because even though it still has some of the best graphics to date, the skill level required is just not accepted anymore
then you have objective based games, lots of people have been catching on a little bit. but games have put a big thing on killing people and that makes no sense in an objective type games. humans by nature are compelled to compete and try and win. its fun for us. but when you bring up to people about trying to go for the objective they think your mentally challenged. its very weird if you have played call of duty and went to a game like halo which has somehow still managed to get people to actually play the game. i think the arena system was a great invention and i cant wait to see games us it in the upcoming years its just arena didn't go so well because the armor abilities and too powerful grenades, power weapons, and armor abilities really hurt the competitive experience and it didnt come off as well as it could have. but i think with a shootergame that actually uses your gun ( theres a reason why they are called shooter games and not explosive games) the competitive space they created would be great. everyone in arena is in it to win it, and its a very good atmosphere but oddly pair with overpowered thing - a bad experience because people will exploit anything and everything.
a new big thing in games is invisibility, and its complete bull. a game where you can be invisible is just not right it violates the rule of knowing where the general area your enemy is at. crysis 2 looks like a great game but i know invisibility is a game breaker. i think in killzone theres an ability to appear as the enemy team, and when i watch games on youtube it just confuses me how the guy will be shooting at red names and blue names or whatever.
a lot of people say 3rd person games aren't for them and that they prefer fps games, and the main reason that is one, call of duty was likely the first game they played, and two 3rd person games have yet to be perfected. the character movement has always been a little sluggish and then the fact that looking down sights is a challenge, where gears actually does this pretty nice. call of duty as good of a change in game it was when it came out is having some very bad effects on the game industry mainly because during this time is when gaming blew up, almost every boy in middle school and highschool has a console now playing online. these consumers not used to any type of games that were good, think because call of duty was their favorite game that no other style games have a shot. i like the gaming boom, don't get me wrong its nice that now a days playing video games and the internet are now not nerdy things. its pretty cool knowing i grew up during a revolution where, calling ones self a nerd or a geek wasn't a bad thing. its very historical. people think about the past and say what have we done in the 2000s? people generally can't think of anything historical. we have by now pretty much gotten rights straightened out pretty nice,to were anything changed is just minor. just think about how different old people are going to be in the year 2050. now its like old people don't understand our need for technology/entertainment, and for the most part until this time period old people have been the same pretty much up until now, other than the fact that they live longer. kids these days might not have been the pioneers of the new generation, but we are the ones to embrace it.
the future is great and now i think i will end my book, seeing as i just spent like an hour putting what i think out there,
AjBlue
The Future is amazing
and thats got me thinking how messed up the gaming world is particularly mobile games. Everyone wants to see more for the buck, people enjoy to get more than their moneys worth out of a game. I for one like this too, there is nothing better than getting free updates for games etc. but i have noticed that this one thing that set popular games a part is in turn hurting developers. People come to expect to get more for their money, the only reason the big popular iphone games can afford to sell for 99 cents is that the mass of people buying it makes up for the low price. Now you will see that developers are going to be expected to do more and it wouldn't be worth it because if everyone else is following this sales model, people are beginning to stop appreciate games for what they are worth. i think a 1$ game that lasts an hour is quite good if you ask me, watching a movie is about 3 times more expensive than idevice games, compared to time spent. there is no reason why those comments should be 1 stars, i would think a 4 or even a 3 would be more appropiate. and the reviews should have said "its a good game i just wish it was longer "
If i ever make a console game it would be game of the year . because i would have free content be constantly released updating the multiplayer and whatnot to hold them over and make them happy which in turn make happy gamers tell all the rest of the gamers and bam, tons of people, tons of money. Then we would take atleast 3 years developing a completely different game, and im not just talking about using the same gameplay but putting a whole different story around it. Im talking about possibly switching over genres, and mainly letting the development team really have the ability to try many different things, because imagine how boring as a developer to make the same style games. They been around games long they have ideas of what works and fresh new stuff. the game would take its time to become something that everyone would want to play. the whole rushing games out to get money just doesn't work, you can't make great games that way. sequels are just terrible, no sequels allowed. once a games done it done no more. the more of the same gameplay people get the more borring the game is right away, like the black ops effect. cod4 had a really fresh type of gameplay when it first came out, people played it everyday right up until the release of mw2. but the more of the same people got people are already bored of blackops and it only been like 3months. people always say they don't like certain genres but i think thats not true, its just that the genre hasn't been done good enough yet. you could go into any genre and as long as the time is taken to really make the gameplay good, no one would be able to hate it. sequels always tank the only good sequels are ones where the first game sucked. true story very rarely can a game make a good game sequel to a game that was already looked upon as good, because if you stray anything away from the first games formula its not the same game anymore and if you stick to the formula its just going to be more of the same gameplay and that gets boring.
i really admire games like duke nukem forever and a few more, because they take their time to really make it good, now of course they can't work on a game 2 years and see some new technology and scrap it right away, which i think was just a bad time for duke nukem, because it really was a huge spike in technology during the past decade. if you've been noticing games have been starting to plateau a lot more on the technology side consoles are staying around longer etc. but just the mere fact that they were like this game will be done when its amazing is just inspiring.
theres a fine line between making a skillful game thats easy to get into. and unfortunately the mainstreamization over the past say 3 years have hurt the skillfulness of games tremendously. people dont take the time to get good at a game, they get frustrated way to quick and dont just say to themselves hey im new its normal to die a lot when i first start. example- a friend of mine just got into gaming really 2 years ago, (ive been play xbox from the start and games were more skillful back then) so he is very very good at call of duty games, and because of call of dutys negative corruption of video games. my friend hates game like halo and gears of war. now these games take longer to kill people, the guns a more of a learning curve, but because he started off playing call of duty, he can't play a game that actually has recoil that he has to compensate for a little with his joystick instead of just animation recoil, and hes not used to dieing a lot because ultimately games that take longer to kill enemies require quite a bit more of skill to kill, you need to be acurate with a lot more of your shots. and call of duty being a 2-3 shot kill game with guns that shoot 20 bullets per second that have fairly large ammo clips when paired up with the damage and rate of fire. i cant stand games that dont take skill because quite frankly they get boring. gamebattles has changed a lot, because games have become way to easy and now teams just drop and add people all the time looking for people that can go positive better. in game when the 360 first came out teams in games that took skill would spend hours setting up gameplans on each map assigning each person a different role that was rather complex by todays standards. the competition for me was so addicting and then call of duty sort of ruined it for me a little and then my friend got my account banned for a year, so now i have given up on gamebattles teams never end well since they dont build a bond by practicing and striving to win. it just lost all of its competitve appeal.
which brings me to my next thing, technology + skill equals bad. so technology is made to make things easier, technology in war is to make things easier for normal people to be able to fight. which is bad because it goes completely away from competitive aspect of what is fun. explosives are bad, grenades weren't too bad as it could kill campers but it wasn't easy. its just terrible because apparently defense has not been able to keep up with attack. knifing in call of duty is a joke, its like you walk around a corner hug a guy and unrealisticly pulls out a knife instead of just hitting you with his gun or something. instant kills are the opposite of skill.
a good game of skill is where you can tell the general direction of your enemy, running is bad, where in real life do you see people running around a warzone looking for people to kill, no they walk with their gun at the ready, and if they have to run do to some bad circumstances to get away, there is no way they would be able to run that fast with all that gear on. The faster people die the less skill it takes. i don't know about other people but its extremely annoying to be thought of as one of the better people in a game and you die so much to were you only average about double the kills to death. thats just terrible. i've personally like rainbow six vegas 1 very much, the armor gave that run factor type thing, where the more armor you have on the slower you walk, and with no armor they walked pretty past but died quick. it was a good balance. you weren't always getting shot in the back. if anything you got shot from the side or someone took their time to sneak around the enemies.
there is no better feeling than playing a skillful game and being one of those people who don't die a lot. and lets face it for people to win others must lose, and making everyone about even is just boring. in comparison to games today gears in one of the games that really fell off the chart, because even though it still has some of the best graphics to date, the skill level required is just not accepted anymore
then you have objective based games, lots of people have been catching on a little bit. but games have put a big thing on killing people and that makes no sense in an objective type games. humans by nature are compelled to compete and try and win. its fun for us. but when you bring up to people about trying to go for the objective they think your mentally challenged. its very weird if you have played call of duty and went to a game like halo which has somehow still managed to get people to actually play the game. i think the arena system was a great invention and i cant wait to see games us it in the upcoming years its just arena didn't go so well because the armor abilities and too powerful grenades, power weapons, and armor abilities really hurt the competitive experience and it didnt come off as well as it could have. but i think with a shootergame that actually uses your gun ( theres a reason why they are called shooter games and not explosive games) the competitive space they created would be great. everyone in arena is in it to win it, and its a very good atmosphere but oddly pair with overpowered thing - a bad experience because people will exploit anything and everything.
a new big thing in games is invisibility, and its complete bull. a game where you can be invisible is just not right it violates the rule of knowing where the general area your enemy is at. crysis 2 looks like a great game but i know invisibility is a game breaker. i think in killzone theres an ability to appear as the enemy team, and when i watch games on youtube it just confuses me how the guy will be shooting at red names and blue names or whatever.
a lot of people say 3rd person games aren't for them and that they prefer fps games, and the main reason that is one, call of duty was likely the first game they played, and two 3rd person games have yet to be perfected. the character movement has always been a little sluggish and then the fact that looking down sights is a challenge, where gears actually does this pretty nice. call of duty as good of a change in game it was when it came out is having some very bad effects on the game industry mainly because during this time is when gaming blew up, almost every boy in middle school and highschool has a console now playing online. these consumers not used to any type of games that were good, think because call of duty was their favorite game that no other style games have a shot. i like the gaming boom, don't get me wrong its nice that now a days playing video games and the internet are now not nerdy things. its pretty cool knowing i grew up during a revolution where, calling ones self a nerd or a geek wasn't a bad thing. its very historical. people think about the past and say what have we done in the 2000s? people generally can't think of anything historical. we have by now pretty much gotten rights straightened out pretty nice,to were anything changed is just minor. just think about how different old people are going to be in the year 2050. now its like old people don't understand our need for technology/entertainment, and for the most part until this time period old people have been the same pretty much up until now, other than the fact that they live longer. kids these days might not have been the pioneers of the new generation, but we are the ones to embrace it.
the future is great and now i think i will end my book, seeing as i just spent like an hour putting what i think out there,
AjBlue
The Future is amazing
Comments
I think the app store is a unique environment where, as you say, customers expect the earth for $.99
Whether developers can (continue) to provide it is debatable.
I must say a few words about your proposed console game taking three years/no sequels/free content etc etc.
Every decision you make, as a developer, costs money.
How do you employ people for three years to make a top quality game? You need cash to pay them. People do not work for free usually.
The additional content you suggested (map packs for multiplayer) - costs money to design, build and test.
The reason there are so many sequels is because games cost so much to make, it's hard to take risks. If you spent all your money on making your 'Game of the Year' and it flops after three years of development, you're effectively screwed.
If a game's a hit, a sequel *must* be considered because the risk factor is significantly reduced.
Most of this is negated on the app store. Development times are far shorter. Costs are less (though still pose a risky investment). Because of this, developers have greater freedom to experiment. Indie devs more so. People like us.
As to your ideas about skills, as a much younger man I would have agreed with you! In my old age, I find co-op play is far more satisfying.
As to 1st vs 3rd person games.. well, 3rd person games have been doing fine for around 15 years (Mario 64/Tomb Raider leading the way I believe). I'd like to think that people will try a myriad of genres, rather than sticking to just one. There are so may great games out there across such a wide variety of genres, it seems almost tragic that you would stick to playing just one type of game because it was the first type you played.
I do like hearing the opinions of younger people though. What I think is cool usually isn't in their book, and it's fascinating to hear their points of view.
My cousins, for example, are all in their late teens/early 20s. I love meeting up with them as while I can recommend games to them for their iphones, it's what they've discovered themselves that I really like to hear about, as usually it's something I'd never have considered interesting or valid!
Thanks again for the post!
QS
Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io
Yea i agree with the money aspect, no one really knows if it would work but i believe it can. popular iphone games kind of developed this new style in development. also for the new content i figured the newer developers on the team would practice their skills creating the free content while the lead developers find where they want to go with the next project. I really think if a game were to have free content, that it would end up selling lots more copies like how iphone games do.
anyways the only way i see myself ever owning a game company is if i make iphone apps that sells enough to fund the console project.
Thanks for even reading the post.
It was refreshing not read another post about iads/in-app purchasing/sales
Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io
i have a 3 page thing about life that i wrote, i won't share it though because i don't want to have to clean up the lil tid bits, when everyones mind explodes. I enjoy writing about my thoughts on things to look back on later and not forget when i was 110% non-biased, i'm the kind of person that if you say god is made of cheese, i wouldn't say your crazy i'd always think it is a possibility but i choose to make of things how i please in the end. i don't subscribe to any one way of thinking. which brings me to how stupid i think it is for the u.s. to have 2 political parties, its so dumb everyone should just run for what they believe in.
I agree with the appstore part and the "whole world for a buck" attitude.
It's bad.
However, I stopped reading your rant about the console games.
When I was a player, I thought the same way. Since I have a company and I try to be professional, I had to learn some rules by the hard way and now I absolutely understand, why companies do, what they do.
For example back the days I translated complete RPGs, like Gothic or Dungeon Siege into hungarian, because there was no localisation for that. I ranted about companies, who don't translate games into hungarian.
Now I stopped to translate my iphone games to translate into hungarian, because it is noth worth the effort even for those few lines.
And to get back to the 99 cent misery and making sequels, I think, both things go hand in hand.
Look at angyr birds and Doodle Jump.
They release every fart for 99 cents and they make even more money.
Sure, a few people rant, but other few millions buy without a question.
Why would they make free updates only? Sure, they have to to keep actual customers happy, so they buy their other crap too, but only free updates do nothing, just cost money.
They know, why they make sequels rather than new games. Not because they have no ideas.
I even heard a story, where the company KNEW that their sequel for a flopped game would go down in the second it's released, but they still wanted to make it. They had their (probably tax related) reason too :-P
They wanted to make it to flop.