522 replies to this topic

[SquigPie]

Yeah, exactly, that's why I tend to stick to Indie developers (like the previously mentioned Frictional Games), Innovation and lack of Publishers screwing everything over. Although Indie Devs tend to have financial problems, and produce horrifically bugged games.

[deltaepsilon]

SquigPie, on 4 Nov 2010, 17:49, said:

Yeah, exactly, that's why I tend to stick to Indie developers (like the previously mentioned Frictional Games), Innovation and lack of Publishers screwing everything over. Although Indie Devs tend to have financial problems, and produce horrifically bugged games.

That problem doesn't always go away with bigger budgets.

[SquigPie]

Heh, right about that

[Alias]

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 9:49, said:

Megatron, on 3 Nov 2010, 21:11, said:

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 5:01, said:

Why does Infinity Ward drop their games on release? Or release buggy and exploitable gameplay that the majority of the playerbase hates? And why does Treyarch think they can make good video games? (Even though I do like the fact that they try something new most of the time) Yeah, DICE has their issues. But I'll pick them over the two companies that release the same game every six months.

wat

DICE is the epitome of a "company that releases the same game every six months". Sure, IW and Treyarch aren't any different with Activi$ion and all that, but it's kind of hypocritical suggesting DICE doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Point taken, but I'm not sure if you can even count Medal of Honor on that list because of the fucktrocity that is that game. I didn't even know Danger Close (Formed by EA) existed until MoH.

Even only including just Battlefield titles yields a far larger list.

Battlefield 1942 (+ Road to Rome and Secret Weapons)
Battlefield Vietnam
Battlefield 2 (+ Special Forces, Euro Force and Armoured Fury)
Battlefield 2142 (+ Northern Strike)
Bad Company
Battlefield Heroes
Battlefield 1943
Bad Company 2 (+ Vietnam)
Battlefield 3
Unknown Battlefield

Discounting expansions, that's 10 games. With expansions, 17.

Call of Duty (+ United Offensive)
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 3
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Discounting expansions, that's 8 games. With expansions, 9.

[TehKiller]

Alias its even worse...IW only worked on some of those titles (mainly CoD, CoD2, CoD4 and MW2)

[SquigPie]

What happened to the guys in charge? The guys who got fired, I remember them starting "Respawn Entertainment" but have they done anything since then?

[Chyros]

Megatron, on 4 Nov 2010, 10:28, said:

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 9:49, said:

Megatron, on 3 Nov 2010, 21:11, said:

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 5:01, said:

Why does Infinity Ward drop their games on release? Or release buggy and exploitable gameplay that the majority of the playerbase hates? And why does Treyarch think they can make good video games? (Even though I do like the fact that they try something new most of the time) Yeah, DICE has their issues. But I'll pick them over the two companies that release the same game every six months.

wat

DICE is the epitome of a "company that releases the same game every six months". Sure, IW and Treyarch aren't any different with Activi$ion and all that, but it's kind of hypocritical suggesting DICE doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Point taken, but I'm not sure if you can even count Medal of Honor on that list because of the fucktrocity that is that game. I didn't even know Danger Close (Formed by EA) existed until MoH.

Even only including just Battlefield titles yields a far larger list.

Battlefield 1942 (+ Road to Rome and Secret Weapons)
Battlefield Vietnam
Battlefield 2 (+ Special Forces, Euro Force and Armoured Fury)
Battlefield 2142 (+ Northern Strike)
Bad Company
Battlefield Heroes
Battlefield 1943
Bad Company 2 (+ Vietnam)
Battlefield 3
Unknown Battlefield

Discounting expansions, that's 10 games. With expansions, 17.

Call of Duty (+ United Offensive)
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 3
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Discounting expansions, that's 8 games. With expansions, 9.

Note: the CoD series wasn't developed by a single developer: since CoD 2, IW and Treyarch have alternated titles so their development cycle is twice as long as it appears to be.

[Alias]

Chyros, on 4 Nov 2010, 20:26, said:

Megatron, on 4 Nov 2010, 10:28, said:

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 9:49, said:

Megatron, on 3 Nov 2010, 21:11, said:

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 5:01, said:

Why does Infinity Ward drop their games on release? Or release buggy and exploitable gameplay that the majority of the playerbase hates? And why does Treyarch think they can make good video games? (Even though I do like the fact that they try something new most of the time) Yeah, DICE has their issues. But I'll pick them over the two companies that release the same game every six months.

wat

DICE is the epitome of a "company that releases the same game every six months". Sure, IW and Treyarch aren't any different with Activi$ion and all that, but it's kind of hypocritical suggesting DICE doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Point taken, but I'm not sure if you can even count Medal of Honor on that list because of the fucktrocity that is that game. I didn't even know Danger Close (Formed by EA) existed until MoH.

Even only including just Battlefield titles yields a far larger list.

*cut for brevity*

Note: the CoD series wasn't developed by a single developer: since CoD 2, IW and Treyarch have alternated titles so their development cycle is twice as long as it appears to be.

Of course, but his argument was Treyarch + Infinity Ward so I included them both. Even together, DICE does way more.

[TheDR]

Ok guys, lets look at the games themselves and an interesting story develops, even if you are a Dice fanboy or a IW fanboy, you can't disagree with this.

Lets start off with the Battlefield games, il split the games into games which are similar (by similar i mean engine, gameplay and overall style).

Quote

Battlefield 1942 (+ Road to Rome and Secret Weapons) & Battlefield Vietnam - Pretty dated now, massive maps.

Battlefield 2 (+ Special Forces, Euro Force and Armoured Fury) & Battlefield 2142 (+ Northern Strike) - Not really like the older two at all, improves on a lot of things.

Bad Company, Battlefield 1943 & Bad Company 2 (+ Vietnam) - Destructible environments, smaller more concise maps and vastly different ways to play.

Battlefield 3 - Unsure how this one is going to play, haven't released enough info.

Battlefield Heroes & Unknown Battlefield (people think its a crappy Facebook game or something) - F2P and wacky, they might as well not be called BF games.

Now we see that although these games are in a franchise but they change drastically as they go along.

Moving onto the COD franchise, i will do the same thing:

Quote

Call of Duty (+ United Offensive) & Call of Duty 2 & Call of Duty 3 - Very similar games, all set in the same time period with the same game play and engine.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World at War, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops & Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 ( I can only guess, but i will asume it will be similar to COD4/MW2) - Similar games with lots of extra content added, but no new engine or game style

They are literally releasing the same game (be it slightly different weapons ect but the same base game) over and over again. Even if IW and Treyarch are different companies, there games are very very similar (although Treyarch can't seem to get it quite right apparently ).

Overall, sure DICE might have lost it's touch and can't see to gather as many fans as BF games used to, but they sure don't release the same game over and over again, at least no compared to the COD franchise.

[Shirou]

What CoD is doing right is that they release the ''same game'' repeatedly but it is based on a very good foundation that was CoD1, and CoD4

DICE, with BF2, got it all right and created a good game although it was different from the previous hit. They also based MoH off BFBC2 but while I think BC2 was good, it is not as good and polished as CoD4 I can see why it has not gotten the universal acclaim that CoD4 received. MoH as a result, with its ostensibly very low development time, was crap, not really doing anything to improve on the disadvantages of BC2 in a less diverse game.

If BF3 turns out to be too much BC2 and thus not the game we wanted it to be, then we do still have one last hope to get a good FPS from EA to compete with Activision, and that is EA's partnership with Respawn Entertainment. The longer respawn stays in the dark, the higher hopes I have that they will create a killer game.

Edited by Shirou, 04 November 2010 - 11:17.

[TheDR]

MOH may be based on the same engine as BC2, but the game plays completely differently. For example there are no destructible environments, no squads, smaller maps and no vehicles.

MOH was a great example of rushed game development (they clearly wanted to get it out before Black Ops) so i don't think you can use that game as a judge of either Respawn or DICE (actually, I'm sure they are annoyed at it). The only company you can judge is EA, but we all know they like to rush games as they don't seemed to have learned that just because it releases first doesn't mean it's better Although, thinking about it they could be going for the "mockbuster" of games, riding the COD wave (which you have to agree it sells far more than the game is worth. I'm not saying it's not good, but it's definitely not the best thing ever made ).

[Wizard]

Dr.TheDR, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:32, said:

The only company you can judge is EA, but we all know they like to rush games as they don't seemed to have learned that just because it releases first doesn't mean it's better

And that is the crux of the matter. No one actually cares about "better" or "quality". They care about shipping as many units as they can, hence why they must be spending just as much on marketing these games as developing them.

As has been said before, it isn't IW, DICE or L. Ously developers fault the games are lacking, in any department. EA and Activision are locked in a titantic "whose sales cock is bigger" war and could not give a monkeys chuff about what it is they are actually selling, just that it sells. The irony of capitalism for you

[TheDR]

Dr.Wizard, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:39, said:

Dr.TheDR, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:32, said:

The only company you can judge is EA, but we all know they like to rush games as they don't seemed to have learned that just because it releases first doesn't mean it's better

And that is the crux of the matter. No one actually cares about "better" or "quality". They care about shipping as many units as they can, hence why they must be spending just as much on marketing these games as developing them.

As has been said before, it isn't IW, DICE or L. Ously developers fault the games are lacking, in any department. EA and Activision are locked in a titantic "whose sales cock is bigger" war and could not give a monkeys chuff about what it is they are actually selling, just that it sells. The irony of capitalism for you

Its quite sad, it's always a shame to see a great game die just because the publisher is greedy. But why does does this only happen in the games industry? Publishers have far too much control over a game than they should have.

Alnough it does open the opportunity for smaller companies to sneak in the side with a high quality game which took years to make. However, they usually end up getting eaten up by a bigger company in the end. Its a vicious circle that only really happens in the gaming industry.

[Wizard]

Dr.TheDR, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:46, said:

Dr.Wizard, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:39, said:

Dr.TheDR, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:32, said:

The only company you can judge is EA, but we all know they like to rush games as they don't seemed to have learned that just because it releases first doesn't mean it's better

And that is the crux of the matter. No one actually cares about "better" or "quality". They care about shipping as many units as they can, hence why they must be spending just as much on marketing these games as developing them.

As has been said before, it isn't IW, DICE or L. Ously developers fault the games are lacking, in any department. EA and Activision are locked in a titantic "whose sales cock is bigger" war and could not give a monkeys chuff about what it is they are actually selling, just that it sells. The irony of capitalism for you

Its quite sad, it's always a shame to see a great game die just because the publisher is greedy. But why does does this only happen in the games industry? Publishers have far too much control over a game than they should have.

Alnough it does open the opportunity for smaller companies to sneak in the side with a high quality game which took years to make. However, they usually end up getting eaten up by a bigger company in the end. Its a vicious circle that only really happens in the gaming industry.

Quite a few people are not going to like this answer but...... consoles and the casual gamer. There are too many 12 year olds with an xBox that don't know what a proper game is about, just that they get to shoot at something and it sounds cool. They have no real understanding of the mechanics, no appreciation for quality and they will not avoid buying it because it lacks a specific feature that turns it from a good game into an awesome one, simply because it's Mummy & Daddy's money and they don't care. Publishers know that a sizeable chunk of their revenue comes out of the pockets of the 30 + but they aren't the consumers of the products, merely the purchaser. They are making poor quality games aimed at an audience that doesn't know better.

[SquigPie]

Dr.Wizard, on 4 Nov 2010, 13:21, said:

Dr.TheDR, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:46, said:

Dr.Wizard, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:39, said:

Dr.TheDR, on 4 Nov 2010, 11:32, said:

The only company you can judge is EA, but we all know they like to rush games as they don't seemed to have learned that just because it releases first doesn't mean it's better

And that is the crux of the matter. No one actually cares about "better" or "quality". They care about shipping as many units as they can, hence why they must be spending just as much on marketing these games as developing them.

As has been said before, it isn't IW, DICE or L. Ously developers fault the games are lacking, in any department. EA and Activision are locked in a titantic "whose sales cock is bigger" war and could not give a monkeys chuff about what it is they are actually selling, just that it sells. The irony of capitalism for you

Its quite sad, it's always a shame to see a great game die just because the publisher is greedy. But why does does this only happen in the games industry? Publishers have far too much control over a game than they should have.

Alnough it does open the opportunity for smaller companies to sneak in the side with a high quality game which took years to make. However, they usually end up getting eaten up by a bigger company in the end. Its a vicious circle that only really happens in the gaming industry.

Quite a few people are not going to like this answer but...... consoles and the casual gamer. There are too many 12 year olds with an xBox that don't know what a proper game is about, just that they get to shoot at something and it sounds cool. They have no real understanding of the mechanics, no appreciation for quality and they will not avoid buying it because it lacks a specific feature that turns it from a good game into an awesome one, simply because it's Mummy & Daddy's money and they don't care. Publishers know that a sizeable chunk of their revenue comes out of the pockets of the 30 + but they aren't the consumers of the products, merely the purchaser. They are making poor quality games aimed at an audience that doesn't know better.

This is why I've given up on Modern-type FPS'es, there are far too many of them, and they're all the same, MoH, CoD, Battlefield, different name same game. There's even more of them coming. Including one named "Homefront". Although that one looks pretty interesting, with a somewhat interesting plot and Half-Life 2 inspired environments.
They may be solid, but I'm more one for innovation.

I agree that PC games being ported versions of Console games is a VERY bad thing. It makes the controls clunky and many of the reasons to play on PC (Dedicated Servers) are lost. Bioshock 2 was a rather bad example, PC gamers didn't get the new patch, nor the 2 single-player DLC's. 2k only started working on them again after the entire fanbase, (yes, console gamers too) flooded their CEO and community manager with angry emails.
*Mutter's to self*
Damnit, stay on topic!

Anyway, I agree with Wizard. Just remember, not all console-gamers are evil monsters dedicated to robbing pc-gamers of the games they enjoy. It's more likely the publishers and developers whom are too lazy and pirate-paranoid to bother throwing the PC-gamers a bone.

Edited by SquigPie, 04 November 2010 - 14:23.

[Wizard]

SquigPie, on 4 Nov 2010, 14:22, said:

Just remember, not all console-gamers are evil monsters dedicated to robbing pc-gamers of the games they enjoy. It's more likely the publishers and developers whom are too lazy and pirate-paranoid to bother throwing the PC-gamers a bone.

No, it's about economies of scale. Why make a game for the PC when you'll only shift 2m copies when you can make it for the xBox and shift 20m copies in week 1? Consoles by their very nature are limited in comparison to their PC counterparts. The unarguable point that it is both easier and more profitable to make games for consoles means that publishers are going to be hoisting their developers by the testicles to produce products for one over another.

I'd ask you this, if consoles were never invented, would we have games as poorly developed and rapidly published as we do now?

[Kalo]

Megatron, on 4 Nov 2010, 8:28, said:

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 9:49, said:

Megatron, on 3 Nov 2010, 21:11, said:

Kalo, on 4 Nov 2010, 5:01, said:

Why does Infinity Ward drop their games on release? Or release buggy and exploitable gameplay that the majority of the playerbase hates? And why does Treyarch think they can make good video games? (Even though I do like the fact that they try something new most of the time) Yeah, DICE has their issues. But I'll pick them over the two companies that release the same game every six months.

wat

DICE is the epitome of a "company that releases the same game every six months". Sure, IW and Treyarch aren't any different with Activi$ion and all that, but it's kind of hypocritical suggesting DICE doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Point taken, but I'm not sure if you can even count Medal of Honor on that list because of the fucktrocity that is that game. I didn't even know Danger Close (Formed by EA) existed until MoH.

Even only including just Battlefield titles yields a far larger list.

Battlefield 1942 (+ Road to Rome and Secret Weapons)
Battlefield Vietnam
Battlefield 2 (+ Special Forces, Euro Force and Armoured Fury)
Battlefield 2142 (+ Northern Strike)
Bad Company
Battlefield Heroes
Battlefield 1943
Bad Company 2 (+ Vietnam)
Battlefield 3
Unknown Battlefield

Discounting expansions, that's 10 games. With expansions, 17.

Call of Duty (+ United Offensive)
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 3
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty: World at War
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Discounting expansions, that's 8 games. With expansions, 9.

Not sure why you did this, I already said "point taken" because I knew all about these games/expansions.



Edit : There's going to be a MW3? not sure if want.

Edited by Kalo, 04 November 2010 - 15:51.

[Wanderer]

if it's up to activision, there will be mw100... but it's to the court to decide who has the rights to the title

[Raven]

Dr.Wizard, on 4 Nov 2010, 21:02, said:

SquigPie, on 4 Nov 2010, 14:22, said:

Just remember, not all console-gamers are evil monsters dedicated to robbing pc-gamers of the games they enjoy. It's more likely the publishers and developers whom are too lazy and pirate-paranoid to bother throwing the PC-gamers a bone.

No, it's about economies of scale. Why make a game for the PC when you'll only shift 2m copies when you can make it for the xBox and shift 20m copies in week 1? Consoles by their very nature are limited in comparison to their PC counterparts. The unarguable point that it is both easier and more profitable to make games for consoles means that publishers are going to be hoisting their developers by the testicles to produce products for one over another.

I'd ask you this, if consoles were never invented, would we have games as poorly developed and rapidly published as we do now?

Graphics wise and performance wise, we may get better games, but considering how PCs are popular nowadays compared to the situation a decade or so ago, the 13 year olds with their PSs and Xboxes would be using the PCs instead. I.e the developers would still be rushing the games and this whole greedy money making cycle would continue. The only upside would be that the developers can concentrate on a single platform.

Having said that, i believe the true start of this soul-less greedy game development accelerated due to the so called next gen consoles. Before that we had the PS2s and Nintendos which had their own set of good titles. The newer consoles sparked a title war which contributes to the situation a lot. Usually in the case of a market war, the quality of the products should increase, but as being pointed out earlier in this thread, its sadly different in the gaming industry :(.

[TehKiller]

GENTLEMEN

I present you with the uber crap announcement of a uber crap game

Shitty Kotaku link

So basically...its a retardedly shitty free to play version of BF2 that apparently has Karkand in it but replaces MEC with Russia

Edited by TehKiller, 05 November 2010 - 10:40.

[Sgt. Rho]

Apparently that other BF game they are working on besides BF3 is a Free to Play version of BF2: http://battlefield.play4free.com/

EDIT: BAH! TehKiller ninja'd me >.<


Anyway: After looking at the Trailer: It's simply BF2 as a Free to Play. Same vehicles, same weapons, apparently even some of the maps are the same as BF2. And me being the beta-whore I am, I applied for the beta, can't hurt, now can it?.

Edited by Sgt. Rho, 05 November 2010 - 10:45.

[Camille]

nothing i've never seen before.

[Pav:3d]

After seeing the video of B4F and seeing the stripped down BF2 with the same sounds as BC2 I realised just how raped the BF franchise is getting atm... DICE must be working overtime

[Alias]

Pav:3d, on 6 Nov 2010, 3:32, said:

After seeing the video of B4F and seeing the stripped down BF2 with the same sounds as BC2 I realised just how raped the BF franchise is getting atm... DICE must be working overtime

That makes zero sense.

>DICE reusing almost all old assets.
>working overtime

>implying porting old content over actually takes time

[Camille]

looking at the rate at which they get churned out, porting assets could really be the only thing they do.