I know this may start some debate, but hopefully it will be productive. I read this article this evening, and it echoes a lot of what I've been saying when describing certain game genres. IGN: Ten Trends That Are Destroying Videogames Everyone makes the next Space Marine game, and everyone uses the Unreal Engine. And look at that graph. The Wii is tops in the games scoring 4.0 and below, because Devs are forced to support a motion control that doesn't work. There was a time when developers were all taking risks and coming up with something new. Now everyone is making the Next FPS with only a slight theme change. On the bright side, it makes the risk-takers stand out... On the dark side, people are so milked on FPS, that when a new game comes out and presents a fresh angle, people compare it to Halo and turn the other way, discouraging developers from taking the same risky route. It also forces developers to split developing costs and drop good single-player experiences, in favor of making sure the game has multiplayer online mode (Warhawk). Hats off to Bethesda for not NEEDING to make Fallout 3 multiplayer. Anyway, I hope with time we see a new explosion of fresh ideas.
The 60 dollar price point is killing the market. The high risk of buying a game only to have it suck then trading it in gets you like 30% of it's value is another. my
60 bucks is a lot of bones. I don't mind plopping that down for a game like Fallout or Mass Effect, where I know the value is worth the time spent on the game, but when I spending that for a clone of another game, that's when it hurts. I know games look better now, thus it takes longer to perfect the artwork and textures, sound, music, etc, etc, and paying more for that doesn't bother me, but paying 60 bucks for a copy and paste Madden game does.
There's a lot of whining in that article while it skillfully avoids the single biggest issue facing 'risk taking' in both video games and every other market. The world economy is shit right now. If you take a risk, you stand to either gain big or lose big and with things the way they are, if you lose big, chances are the entire studio dies too. People aren't willing to risk everything on a single venture, not when it's guaranteed money to buy the $200 wii devkit and throw out a ton of shovelware that cost pennies to produce and are almost certain to bring back at least a token sum. Bottom line is, we can complain all day long about the lack of innovation, but that's not going to solve anything. As you sit there, ask yourself one question. When was the last time you picked up an 'innovative' game? (such as Zak and Wiki, for instance) Did you pay full price or did you wait for that sucker to hit clearance?
i stopped playing fps's a while back. well, after i got my fill of halo 3. and for some reason i don't count left 4 dead i think street fighter 4 might inject some life into the beat em up genre at least... and it makes me very sad hearing lbp isn't doing too well.
Over-reacting, over-reaching, over-thinking. Also, the economic climate has zero to do with risk taking. That won't effect the games market for another 12-18 months in terms of what's being produced. There's a 2-3 year lead time on most games, and studios can't react that quick. Anything that hits production in the next year or two will be affected, but nothing yet other than studio closures and the resulting games being canned. Also; people don't want innovation. The sales charts prove it. You only have yourselves to blame.
Uh... Wii doesn't -require- motion controlling in their games. Any more then DS games -require- touch screen. And quiet frankly, I'd rather play MKWii with the Wheel any day of the week. Lair was just a mess.
It's true. Even if there is no conceivable way to make it work, you still have to do it. And it's true, most gamers don't want innovation, they want the best graphics, the most 'enjoyable' multiplayer(determined by some kinda ladder systemy thing, I never got it, just give me a game that I can play other people in without glitches and I'm happy) and the most swearing/violence/'hot' 3D chicks.
Well just looking at the games I got this year for christmas most were shooters of some kind. Fallout, FarCry, Socom, Resistance, Bioshock and I am not sure if Metal Gear belongs in the shooter catogory. Anyway so many are shooter my wife asked me why that is all I want to play. Well it's not I like LBP, Grid, Uncharted, Motorstorm, Ratchet & Clank but it seem that games like that are few and far between and when they do come out there is no way to know if the game will be any good. With so many shooters there is a greater chance that one will be worth a purchase.
Then explain Fire-Emblem? No motion.. No pointer. Nothing but the controller sideways. Hell.. People kept saying that the DS had to have touch controlls.. but now it's obvious they don't.
I was being sarcastic? About all the games, especially licensed ones, that just tack on the motion/touch controls in bizarre and clumsy ways.
Oh jesus, seriously, are you going to be so freaking anal as to point out an odd title here and there that doesn't have motion control shoe-horned in? And ones published by Nintendo at that? Really? Really? Here are the facts; Publishers think motion controls make the Wii the Wii. Publishers think motion controls = sales. Developers are forced to stick it in, for better or worse. Everyone cries. Is this the case with every single game? No of course it's not. But of course you knew that already.
No.. I'm saying.. Don't say bullshit.. Specially when there is direct evidence to the contrary. Developers are stupide.. Pure and simple. They're even taking control schemes they've learned from the wii.. to use on the other systems. AND THEN.. Get this... THEN they complain that the wii is full of shovelware. THEIR OWN shovelware.
