a depressing truth?what gamers want...

R

rikus

It Wandered In From the Wastes
is a game with the highest replaybilty value, because otherwise he tossed his money and time just to see the end of the movie/game.

only problem is (depressing problem) that high replaybility means you won't buy games soon because you can still play that game.

while companies could make more bucks making new projects...could be that is the major lacking of every good rpg company, from the 1 minute of thinking i did about the subject:
they have to invest alot of time and resources and get much less rewards, and not only that-the real money, as interplay stated, was in console games.

so why are we so damn suprised and biased about the whole fallout3 thing?
not even that, even about any great rpg.
linearity sells-but who's replaying linearity?

damn contredictions always is what you get in life...

see you guyz, keep up the faith...i do, even after all i said.
 
I know a lot of the fans here have played Fallout 1, 2 and even tactics a few times because the fallout system- both the character design and the different options while playing the game, offer players a different fallout experience.

I actually think the problem has more to do with systems and costs. Consoles are all fairly identical boxes. They bring the same game playing system regardless of who owns the console. Not true with PCs. Each PC can be configured a different way and a program has to be made that can accomodate different hardware.

That makes game design more costly. ALso computers are more expensive than consoles. But more importantly, making a game for a PC is probably more expensive than a console. I am not really sure on this, but one of the more knowledgeable here can correct me if I am wrong.

Finally I think it's also the McDonald's affect. Commerce sells to a bigger audience so you want to sell the same thing over and over again. You want to minimize risks (because people are risk adverse and the more expensive the more risky).

THe problem is innovation and art is risk and costs. Just as it is risky to venture into being an artist (because maybe no one will recognize your art as brilliant or maybe it takes years to make brilliant art work, and if you're famous perhaps not till your dead) companies are not about making quality but about making money.

The good side of this is that eventually their is a cycle. Mass produce becomes boring and people want something new and interesting, and so edgy becomes the trend.

I sometimes think the computer game industry is just waiting for "the next big thing" to take over.
 
welsh said:
The good side of this is that eventually their is a cycle. Mass produce becomes boring and people want something new and interesting, and so edgy becomes the trend.
Click to expand...

But the mass produced are already boring. We are already bored. At least I am. *whines* Me want instant gratification now! Hehe.

I don't think trends will change anytime soon. We are still in the transition to mass market super games. Blizzard games are just the beginning. IMHO, games were previously targeted to an older audience i.e. RPG and PC games in general, are being marketed to a younger and younger audience. The past generation of gamer, who was introduced to the Nintendo, Atari, and the Hero's Quest stuff on the PC, is fading. The new gamer is the 13 year old with 3 of the new consoles, with ADD, and hungry for the game that blows up the most shit, or has the best graphics, storyline, and especially linearity. Games today, while trying to be quality, kind of render what quality they do have pointless, due to the fact they are marketed to the modern ADD audience.

Hmm, whatever. I didn't even grow up with Nintendo, etc. My first games were Doom and Fallout. Kind of a misfortune to be exposed to the best games of each genre, and being disappointed by most of the other stuff out there..... :\ whatever.
 
The funny thing is that a game that can be replayed a bit offten sells better than most people put down wthin a month (hype dependig).
 
welsh said:
That makes game design more costly. ALso computers are more expensive than consoles. But more importantly, making a game for a PC is probably more expensive than a console. I am not really sure on this, but one of the more knowledgeable here can correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm anything but more knowledgable, but i remember reading that the console industry might be facing future problems because they're development costs have risen. There was an estimate that one console game would soon reach a 20$ million cost for development, specially from developers that were more popular, like Squaresoft (with the abuse of graphical quality and movies used in their main franchise, its no wonder).

I remember reading this on some online article, but i have long lost the link to it :?
 
What surprises me is that these companies think they can't have success with an add-on, or using a slightly modified engine. Personally, I would have been happy to buy a new Fallout adventure with the Fallout 2 or FOT graphics. What I've hungered for is new territory to explore. I wouldn't even mind revisiting 'some' old locations. This is a very big world we live in. Imagine this, some people get to keep their jobs, potentially a lot of people get a new adventure, and we're not left waiting forever for something 'free.'(a mod created by fans) I happen to be a part of the Mutants Rising Team and I'll tell you I'm proud of that. These guys are going to surprise you! I couldn't sit on the sidelines waiting forever. I joined and now I know truly where the phrase 'By Gamers, for Gamers' motto belongs...With people who are willing to do it for free, not just because they can, but because they love what they are doing.
Thanks for your attention.
 
I completely forgot about that 'For gamers, by gamers' motto at the beginning of Fallout. Its so true though, which is why its an alltime classic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top