geordiemp
Member
So whats a killer app then ?
Mario kart 8 (EIGHT). OK, sounds innovative. Smash bothers 24 ?
Plat formers sound innovative right ?? Kart racers, not played many in last 20 years LOL...
Don't know what you mean ?
"Just looked like a last gen game with next-gen graphics, who cares?"
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
So whats a killer app then ?
Mario kart 8 (EIGHT). OK, sounds innovative. Smash bothers 24 ?
Plat formers sound innovative right ?? Kart racers, not played many in last 20 years LOL...
Don't know what you mean ?
CassidyIzABeast
Member
7-14 year old well established franchises vs a new ip.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I WISH they were all "last-gen, but better/prettier/more polished", but I can't even get that. Ryse looked really nice, and its gameplay was one dimensional and dreary. InFamous looked nice, but played like every other quantity > quality 7/10 sandbox game you ever played since GTA3. Killzone looked nice, but the campaign was one of the worst FPS experiences of my life.
I mean, hypothetically The Order might be some super polished awesome version of something we played last generation, but it sure looks boring as all the fucks, now doesn't it?
So far only Nintendo has given me that "last-gen, but better/prettier" with Tropical Freeze/3D World/Pikmin 3 and by all accounts Mario Kart 8 and inevitably Bayonetta 2.
I'd say the closet to genuinely "new" game I played was Wonderful 101. You can pick the influences up from DMC to Pikmin to Viewtiful Joe, but it really didn't play like anything other video game, and it was an excellent, exciting game to boot.
I mean, hypothetically The Order might be some super polished awesome version of something we played last generation, but it sure looks boring as all the fucks, now doesn't it?
So far only Nintendo has given me that "last-gen, but better/prettier" with Tropical Freeze/3D World/Pikmin 3 and by all accounts Mario Kart 8 and inevitably Bayonetta 2.
I'd say the closet to genuinely "new" game I played was Wonderful 101. You can pick the influences up from DMC to Pikmin to Viewtiful Joe, but it really didn't play like anything other video game, and it was an excellent, exciting game to boot.
UberTag
Member
I would like to believe your idealistic vision of what expectations people have for their new next-gen toys but the very fact that god awful tripe like Call of Duty: Ghosts is the most played and most purchased game on both the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One is a clear statement to the contrary.
The ironic part about Nintendo being so inept at marketing, online and revenue generation of late is that they haven't forgotten that the essence of gaming should be about fun. Not achievements, not DLC, not perks, not in-app purchases... but fun. Unfortunately for them they're not being rewarded for it.
Sephiroth_GR_
Member
The first Assassin's Creed,hell even the first Dead Rising, couldn't be done on a 6th gen Console and they are open world-designed games as much as GTA and TES.
Assassin's Creed for it's rich-detailed open world environment where you could interact and climb every building and Dead rising for its unbelievable (at that time) amount of enemies on screen at once.
Also, battlefield: bad company 2 with its destructible environments,thus changing the level design and the tactics of your opponents in multiplayer
"These" were the moments for me when we entered 7th gen and left 6th gen for good.
So far i haven't seen something similar with the few "Gen 8" games shown so far
Regarding Advanced AI
When you shoot an enemy, the enemy could run and hide for his life instead of taking the same position again trying to shoot you after you shot him on the leg.On his way to find a hideout he could try another weapon at you in order to slow you down or even kill you,throwing you rocks,sand etc..
Agree with these posts completely.
I have no interest in a next gen console until I see a dozen or so games that show me that I need to upgrade. So far The Witcher 3 and Phantom Pain are announced games I actually want. Halo 5, Gears 4, GTA VI/Red Dead 2 are the games I'd buy a next gen console for that haven't been shown at all.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Infamous 4? Killzone 5? Uncharted 4? Uncharted's younger brother 2?
CoD 3000 A.D.?
Halo 8?
"LOL"
KaiserBecks
Member
So we're always going to have to deal with enemies who just form a line in order to get shot by the player? Because in a game that focuses on shooting people, that's not a lot of fun.
The thing is though, we don't even necessarily need an improvement. Have you played Halo? Or F.E.A.R.? These games had an exceptional AI that more recent games still refuse to match. I find that very frustrating and it's exactly what I'd call "last gen gameplay" (even though that term is bullshit, but you get the idea).
For example, yes. Or basically the way the game actually handles my interactions. Destructibility would be an obvious choice for a shooter. Or have a look at "Next Car Game" if you want to know what my ideal next gen racing game looks like.
EventHorizon
Member
I did not question that. My basic point is that human psychology is such that we get a gut reaction to things and then consciously try to justify it afterwards even if that isn't the real reason why we dislike it. What Amir0x is picking up on is that people simply don't like what they've seen of the game, and are giving an incomplete explanation as to why. What they are really saying is that The Order looks like a bad game and the pretty visuals aren't enough to cover it up. However since 'cinematics' has been the main selling point of the game, it is flavoring the criticism.
Although there is still the valid point that tastes change over time. Gameplay that worked 2 years ago doesn't have the same appeal today. Arguing that because you liked a game before you should still like it now is like saying that clothing styles should never change, or that WWII shooters shouldn't have been replaced by the modern shooter. After all, at one point people liked them.
7DollarHagane
Banned
People complain about everything. People who are looking at every little thing and get disappointed Post lost of knee jerk garbage. People like me who don't pay much attention to early videos and previews don't post because I think it looks interesting but not much reason to talk until it comes out.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
People are hypocritical plain and simple. People want new things and when we do get new things they are quick to rebuke them and call them a gimmick. i.e. motion controls, 3d, vr etc, etc...
NinjamicWZ
Banned
So an innumerable number of factors that aren't software are leading to a platform's success or lack thereof. You made my point for me.
Vire
Member
Did you get a chance to play Transistor yet? Feels pretty fresh, at least it feels like something that hasn't been reasonably done well since Parasite Eve or Vagrant Story.
gundamkyoukai
Member
None of what you are talking about is new all of it is refinement .
For eg you talk about the numbers on enemies on screen in DR but that was done on PS2 only it did not look as good thanks to lack of power .
EDIt Y2kev explain it much better than i did .
That's not true. There are plenty of games on PS2 with large crowd volumes. They behave about as intelligently as your AC or Dead Rising zombie crowds. Things just look better. Again, this is refinement.
Again, not new. Assassin's Creed's innovation was in tools and production. Jade Raymond said that creating Assassin's Creed without Ubisoft's then next-gen tools would take an army of level designers. There's certainly nothing new about large, open, interactive worlds, especially in the PC space. Being able to climb buildings is just a function of design.
I think the last game we saw that was creative enough to be called genuinely innovative was Super Mario Galaxy and it has nothing to do with the technology.
ricardokenshin
Member
yes, I don't think we will get much improvements in A.I. this or the next generation. Like I said and like you said with Halo or F.E.A.R, these are games that didn't require much in terms of power and they did very good A.I. it's not like the knowledge is not there is that they don't want to put it. No amount of "next-gen hardware" is going to change that.
As for the interactions, well that's different from physics. But yeah, I know what you mean. I wish my virtual representation was more capable than it is. You really don't get many options as to what your character can do. For example in the final fight in MGS4 where you fight ocelot, cutscenes show a lot of different moves, but when you get control of your character back, you are really limited. Sucks but that's the way it will remain because of controller input (IMO)
PeakPointMatrix
Member
Yep, but Mario Kart 8 gets a pass for having totally new gameplay and innovation.
Mario 3D world? GOAT.
Pikmin 3? Not at all the same old gameplay, just prettier.
NSMBU? hey there innovator.
Smash? Smashed all previous gameplay expectations!
UHGG KILLZONE SHADOWFALL?? MORE LIKE BROWN OL' RETREADED GARBAGE. BLECH.
Mario 3D world? GOAT.
Pikmin 3? Not at all the same old gameplay, just prettier.
NSMBU? hey there innovator.
Smash? Smashed all previous gameplay expectations!
UHGG KILLZONE SHADOWFALL?? MORE LIKE BROWN OL' RETREADED GARBAGE. BLECH.
oh and hey look, I judged two games only based on video/screens before they've even been released. See how that works?
Paracelsus
Member
It doesn't look bad, it doesn't even look like it plays bad. It merely looks like a more-of-the-same third person shooter, and while graphics are very nice there's the good old corridor compromise, at least seemingly so. If you told me "this game has Halo 3-sized battlegrounds" at least I would "wow" but it probably won't. Ready at Dawn co-founder commented on the game somewhere else, on an Italian board
Don't worry about framerate, it was just a streaming issue, live it runs smoothly. As for the AI, in that scene where they are dragging that other guy, enemies are scripted to do just that in that very moment.
One of the strongest points (alongside graphics) will be the plot so...on that regard you can relax
At the end of the day its all about the games. The other factors just make consoles sell better or worse.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
AAA games are like summer popcorn flicks of gaming. I don't need them to reinvent the wheel, but if they play sous, look good, and are fun? Then I'm in.
I'd love it when they reach above that but the amunt if years and dollars that going into ten I understand where we are at with the big budget games.
The true innovation and creativity lies not with new hardware but the smaller, indie/digital only games. This is like the indie film scene that give you affordable creative gaming experiences.
The problem is a lot of posters don't think these are real games or something. Or want the small digital game creativity merged with the hundred million dollar blockbusters. And that's just not happening.
On top of it, this gen is starting slowly. The complaints expressed In The OP are the same ones I've heard at the start of every gen, except the switch from 2d to 3d.
Early snes/genesis, ps2,ps3/360, from a amperage standpoint could be done last gen. No different here.
I'd love it when they reach above that but the amunt if years and dollars that going into ten I understand where we are at with the big budget games.
The true innovation and creativity lies not with new hardware but the smaller, indie/digital only games. This is like the indie film scene that give you affordable creative gaming experiences.
The problem is a lot of posters don't think these are real games or something. Or want the small digital game creativity merged with the hundred million dollar blockbusters. And that's just not happening.
On top of it, this gen is starting slowly. The complaints expressed In The OP are the same ones I've heard at the start of every gen, except the switch from 2d to 3d.
Early snes/genesis, ps2,ps3/360, from a amperage standpoint could be done last gen. No different here.
SnoutBaron
Neo Member
This. The Last Of Us as a prime example.
You know what's the difference? Fun. And I think this is the issue with The Order, it doesn't look like fun. That's why Titanfall got away with worse graphics, because it looked like fun. Because in the end, why does one play games?
And what seems fun to you might not be fun for others.
and you have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about Pikmin 3. And SM3DW.
KingJ2002
Member
Yet sales have shown a sharp decline compared to black ops 2. I can't speak to return rates either but overall it is safe to assume that people might have bought ghosts only to be disappointed with the release.
...a quick google search brings up a 60% return rate at one gamestop retailer due to it not being better than MW3.
Initial sales are misleading if they don't speak to churn.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
Entirely missed my point. By and large, we're not seeing the genre defining gameplay breakthroughs that people are expecting from games like The Order or Infamous in Nintendo's roster upgrade. Yet these Sony/MS games get shat on for keeping similar gameplay styles from the past. The games I listed kept the same gameplay and spruced it up with some new bells and whistles. The core gameplay is the same. Still fun! Agreed! But the same.
Also, get a clue. Pikmin aside, I've played every game on that list, 3DWorld included, 3D land on top of that. And before you type your retort, unhide my spoiler in the previous post.
here's the fundamental problem I have.
We've hit the proverbial glass ceiling in terms of graphics, and we did so late last generation. Yes, things can and will be improved graphically, but do new graphics alone constitute a need for new hardware when software solutions continue to outpace pure hardware might. Not only that, can we really applaud new graphics when they're becoming an increasing burden on gameplay and enjoyment from games. Does a round pipe really improve the game over a pipe with 24 sides and normal mapped to look round? Does making a game look marginally better at the cost of clear communication to a player really constitute a better experience, an experience worthy of new hardware. Is that new chromatic aberration effect, and new motion-blurring/dof or lens-flares, actually adding to immersive qualities in games? (hint, we dont see these effects anywhere but in cinema which gaming should not be aspiring to). Instead we just get a growing list of complaints, with enemies who look painted into rocks because new textures and better models have all but eliminated spatial recognition and enemy visibility. Or is it really so much more fun to play multiplayer games now that characters in grass texture outfits can go prone in tall grass and disappear almost entirely?
Instead games like dead rising and assassins creed display clear changes in game-mechanics which occurred directly to the increase in technical power from the xbox and ps2 generation to the 360 and ps3 generation. These games utilize the hardware to produce better graphics, but also simulate crowds which directly influence gameplay in meaningful ways. GTA is another game that benefits from the hardware by offering more novel introductions to the sandbox mechanic. Games like forza were able to produce larger and more robust physics calculations, and better livery and decal editing so those graphics could actually show you're custom paint job (while producing an economy around the system, fostering community), skyrim provided larger domains to roam and explore within.
If we tolerate stagnation in game-design at the cost of better graphics we're only producing an ecosystem where innovation and design suffers. Making more of the same is not making growth for the game market, and it's not producing experiences that help the medium branch out and develop. Halo was an amazing and innovative game in 2001, if we start expecting more of the same and an increase in graphics, then there will be no new halo, no new gta.
If we look at the most competent and highest played games, graphics are clearly not at the forefront of the developers interests, infact, many of those developers are willing to sacrifice graphics for the sole benefit of the game. Games like halo 4 on the otherhand, which place an emphasis on graphics over gameplay of previous installements, show that graphics do not ensure longevity and instead marginalized and shrunk their user-base. Games like lol, tf2, diablo, minecraft, and dota 2, which are on the lower extreme of the technical innovation side, show us that gameplay is what keeps gamers playing.
If we're willing to passively accept new iterations of the same games with fresh paints of coat then we're sabotaging our own, and the industries, interests. Inflating development costs were already the result of many studio closures and buyouts, and we'll probably see a new set of developers leave us as next generation development continues to ramp up because we, the gamers in general, are more interested in the most expensive and short-sighted elements of our favorite medium.
so a better question is why should we care about a last gen game with better graphics?
We've hit the proverbial glass ceiling in terms of graphics, and we did so late last generation. Yes, things can and will be improved graphically, but do new graphics alone constitute a need for new hardware when software solutions continue to outpace pure hardware might. Not only that, can we really applaud new graphics when they're becoming an increasing burden on gameplay and enjoyment from games. Does a round pipe really improve the game over a pipe with 24 sides and normal mapped to look round? Does making a game look marginally better at the cost of clear communication to a player really constitute a better experience, an experience worthy of new hardware. Is that new chromatic aberration effect, and new motion-blurring/dof or lens-flares, actually adding to immersive qualities in games? (hint, we dont see these effects anywhere but in cinema which gaming should not be aspiring to). Instead we just get a growing list of complaints, with enemies who look painted into rocks because new textures and better models have all but eliminated spatial recognition and enemy visibility. Or is it really so much more fun to play multiplayer games now that characters in grass texture outfits can go prone in tall grass and disappear almost entirely?
Instead games like dead rising and assassins creed display clear changes in game-mechanics which occurred directly to the increase in technical power from the xbox and ps2 generation to the 360 and ps3 generation. These games utilize the hardware to produce better graphics, but also simulate crowds which directly influence gameplay in meaningful ways. GTA is another game that benefits from the hardware by offering more novel introductions to the sandbox mechanic. Games like forza were able to produce larger and more robust physics calculations, and better livery and decal editing so those graphics could actually show you're custom paint job (while producing an economy around the system, fostering community), skyrim provided larger domains to roam and explore within.
If we tolerate stagnation in game-design at the cost of better graphics we're only producing an ecosystem where innovation and design suffers. Making more of the same is not making growth for the game market, and it's not producing experiences that help the medium branch out and develop. Halo was an amazing and innovative game in 2001, if we start expecting more of the same and an increase in graphics, then there will be no new halo, no new gta.
If we look at the most competent and highest played games, graphics are clearly not at the forefront of the developers interests, infact, many of those developers are willing to sacrifice graphics for the sole benefit of the game. Games like halo 4 on the otherhand, which place an emphasis on graphics over gameplay of previous installements, show that graphics do not ensure longevity and instead marginalized and shrunk their user-base. Games like lol, tf2, diablo, minecraft, and dota 2, which are on the lower extreme of the technical innovation side, show us that gameplay is what keeps gamers playing.
If we're willing to passively accept new iterations of the same games with fresh paints of coat then we're sabotaging our own, and the industries, interests. Inflating development costs were already the result of many studio closures and buyouts, and we'll probably see a new set of developers leave us as next generation development continues to ramp up because we, the gamers in general, are more interested in the most expensive and short-sighted elements of our favorite medium.
so a better question is why should we care about a last gen game with better graphics?
blankempathy
Member
I love when people think that a series being out longer an x amount of years before another series means its worn out its welcome sooner. The last Mk game we got was over 2 and a half years ago. There have been what? 8 mk games ever released with the first one coming out in 1992. There have been 6 assassin's creeds games coming out soon to be 7(8?) coming out this year and the series started 7 years ago. Its not about how long a series has been out. To me what matters is game fatigue. If i have cake every month I won't get tired of it. If i have it everyday I'd most likely get sick of it.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
When did you play smash?
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
That's not why people are so down on The Order. The phrase that most accurately sums up the criticism of the game is this:
"Just looked like a boring game with next-gen graphics, who cares?"
Game looks dull as dishwater.
"Just looked like a boring game with next-gen graphics, who cares?"
Game looks dull as dishwater.
You say this as though the last generation had a consistent trend of games that were at once popular, financially successful, and innovative, but that's really not the case at all. Most of the time, you can get two of those three at most.
Part of it is just the difficulty of finding totally uncharted territory after so much has already been discovered, e.g. we haven't mapped a good portion of the ocean floor, but that's quite hard to do in addition to being something that relatively few people care about. Maybe some huge technological advances will let us get over those hurdles, but paradigm shifts aren't easy to predict.
The other part of it is an inevitable trend toward safeness and sameness in AAA games, which is driven by market forces and won't change any time soon. I expect it to intensify, if anything.
Part of it is just the difficulty of finding totally uncharted territory after so much has already been discovered, e.g. we haven't mapped a good portion of the ocean floor, but that's quite hard to do in addition to being something that relatively few people care about. Maybe some huge technological advances will let us get over those hurdles, but paradigm shifts aren't easy to predict.
The other part of it is an inevitable trend toward safeness and sameness in AAA games, which is driven by market forces and won't change any time soon. I expect it to intensify, if anything.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
So, the 137 hours I spent in the KZ:SF MP weren't fun? Wow, news to me. Thanks a lot of opening my eyes.
You don't see Nintendo games shat on because they are more of the same? I think we don't read the same forum. The difference is that usually Nintendo games are shat on at reveal. Because they do such a poor job revealing the games. But they get better and better with each trailer, video, always showing the gameplay, until finally the game is launched and sometimes it's even better that anything shown (Pikmin 3 being the perfect example here - just go through every damn thread before the launch of the game and all the up-ressed Wii game talks).
While Sony and Microsoft reveal the games in a very spectacular fashion but showing things that have little to do with the actual content. And sometimes the game or what they show later doesn't live up to the expectation set up by their own reveals. And then it backfires. And the console launches also promised "new experiences", "next gen games" and people projected this in different ways, And mostly these didn't happen yet.
The Last of Us wasn't some new revolutionary game either, but it was well done, it had a good story, it was nice to play and it was praised around here. It's that easy. A game has to be good, besides being prettier. If a game is good enough, it is accepted with minimal innovation. The same holds for some of Nintendo's games. While other have subtle changes in the gameplay mechanics that actually make enough difference.
My point wasn't that KZ:SF is less fun, but that most of the people enjoyed the Nintendo sequels that he listed. But I already expanded my point above,
Ambience7817x
Member
Another quality topic by Amir0x.
A Next gen game for me, aside from graphic updates, would be something that couldn't be done before on the previous version of that system, something that uses the game's hardware or RAM to its full potential. Something extra needs to be done with those to flow more seamlessly into the gameplay and experience.
So for the PS4, anything that used the touchpad and gyros well. Killzone, while it looks fantastic, just used the touchpad as a second D-pad. Infamous just used the light bar and speaker for karmic alignment and a spray paint sound effect. I'm not too sure about how the lightbar can be used for a non-casual game (unless Project Morpheus really can use it for tracking), I liked Killzone's usage of it as a life meter king of thing, but it didnt really make it easy to see when I was playing it during the day time. Again, using Killzone, the audio logs from the game speaker was a cool idea, and it worked well in my opinion.
Not too sure about Xbox, as the only real hardware change aside from graphical updates was the Kinect and trigger updates, and its apparently harder to retrieve memory usage from (or just not as fast a PS4, but that's not the real point here). Kinect has significantly enough input delay to be used well as a game play mechanic (see Fighter Within), and with it being not included in the new model makes developing a game around it not too great an idea for a developer. If it really can detect a heart beat, using that as a sound method in a horror game could be cool. like if a jump scare gets you you can hear the music react to your heart beat. I really want to see a true next gen Xbox game, but i will need to wait a while for that.
Wii U just needs to use the gamepad well in a way that makes sense. A constant inventory screen, a cool input mechanic like W101, a map for a metroidvania, something useful that isn't just a black screen. No developer in their right mind made the second screen useless in a DS/3DS game, so why do it with the Wii U?
Tearaway on the vita was phenomenal as a next gen handheld game. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, because of who the OP is, but whatever. it used all the Vita's controls and inputs in a meaningful way. no other vita game really did this that I can think of.
The 3DS cant really do anything to tell me its more than a graphically updated DS game, because the main mechanical update was introduction of a screen gimmick, and not a second analog stick. While it may look great, there really isn't any game that is ruined without it, and that's why the 2DS is a success. Unless a game is designed around the Circle Pad Pro, but I cant see that happening with the 2DS being as popular as it is. Which is a shame, because the second analog stick and 2 extra shoulder buttons would help the games have camera control, freeing up LR controls and add ZL a d ZR controls.
A Next gen game for me, aside from graphic updates, would be something that couldn't be done before on the previous version of that system, something that uses the game's hardware or RAM to its full potential. Something extra needs to be done with those to flow more seamlessly into the gameplay and experience.
So for the PS4, anything that used the touchpad and gyros well. Killzone, while it looks fantastic, just used the touchpad as a second D-pad. Infamous just used the light bar and speaker for karmic alignment and a spray paint sound effect. I'm not too sure about how the lightbar can be used for a non-casual game (unless Project Morpheus really can use it for tracking), I liked Killzone's usage of it as a life meter king of thing, but it didnt really make it easy to see when I was playing it during the day time. Again, using Killzone, the audio logs from the game speaker was a cool idea, and it worked well in my opinion.
Not too sure about Xbox, as the only real hardware change aside from graphical updates was the Kinect and trigger updates, and its apparently harder to retrieve memory usage from (or just not as fast a PS4, but that's not the real point here). Kinect has significantly enough input delay to be used well as a game play mechanic (see Fighter Within), and with it being not included in the new model makes developing a game around it not too great an idea for a developer. If it really can detect a heart beat, using that as a sound method in a horror game could be cool. like if a jump scare gets you you can hear the music react to your heart beat. I really want to see a true next gen Xbox game, but i will need to wait a while for that.
Wii U just needs to use the gamepad well in a way that makes sense. A constant inventory screen, a cool input mechanic like W101, a map for a metroidvania, something useful that isn't just a black screen. No developer in their right mind made the second screen useless in a DS/3DS game, so why do it with the Wii U?
Tearaway on the vita was phenomenal as a next gen handheld game. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, because of who the OP is, but whatever. it used all the Vita's controls and inputs in a meaningful way. no other vita game really did this that I can think of.
The 3DS cant really do anything to tell me its more than a graphically updated DS game, because the main mechanical update was introduction of a screen gimmick, and not a second analog stick. While it may look great, there really isn't any game that is ruined without it, and that's why the 2DS is a success. Unless a game is designed around the Circle Pad Pro, but I cant see that happening with the 2DS being as popular as it is. Which is a shame, because the second analog stick and 2 extra shoulder buttons would help the games have camera control, freeing up LR controls and add ZL a d ZR controls.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
Hey, how about actually reading my whole post and unhiding my spoiler earlier in the page?
Here's a hint: it has to do with judging a game based only on very little footage/screens.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Oh my bad. When you said you'd played every game in that list except for one, I should have realised you meant you'd only played 40% of the list.
Compelling argument.
...Did you read his post? He said two.
I agree with your point but I also understand what people are complaining about. There is no inovation in some of those games, nothing that really differenciates.
Let's take the Order reveal per exemple, there was no "awesome destruction", the AI felt as dumb as in every other game, what they were doing was the same many games did before (rescue teammate that is hurt, protect him). The only thing that differenciates the game right now is the amazing graphics.
Now, it may be a good game but people are always expecting new things right? New mechanics or great improvements to old ideas.
Let's take the Order reveal per exemple, there was no "awesome destruction", the AI felt as dumb as in every other game, what they were doing was the same many games did before (rescue teammate that is hurt, protect him). The only thing that differenciates the game right now is the amazing graphics.
Now, it may be a good game but people are always expecting new things right? New mechanics or great improvements to old ideas.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
chemicals
Member
It's because when the 360 first came out, HIGH DEF gaming was a new thing... the new games looked wayyyy better than standard def and it was clear to see the upgrade. I can totally understand the "last gen game with better graphics" complaint.. because if graphics are the only upgrade, there are some of us who can't see the point in the new consoles.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Sony and MS are also selling like a bajillion more units, so by and large those games are being played by a niche Nintendo uber fan minority.
But this is all hypothetical, because I've seen people whining about WiiU games a lot lately too.
Ok, I only saw the initial post. I assumed he wouldn't change the number. He needs to do something about his flip-flopping stance ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°
HueyFreeman
Banned
I think it's unreasonable to expect a new gen to usher in all new gameplay experiences - devs are still wrapping their brains around the tech and usually have to rely on old genres initially - BUT I think this just generally speaks to the growing fatigue with the lack of genuinely new ideas/execution that's out there right now. A new generation just crystallizes that fatigue, but it's there regardless.
hokagespit
Member
tell me more about these fp dungeon crawlers please
JordanN
Banned
Nobody said this about the SNES or PS2 despite graphics being their main draw.
I don't get why graphics have to be a bad thing. Do people play their video games with their TV's turned off? You're going need to look at something and oh look, it's graphics.
UberTag
Member
Pretty much. Until they back up their criticism with their wallets these AAA publishers won't have cause to listen.
It doesn't even matter if COD: Ghosts is the most returned game under the sun if the next COD game still outsells everything else right out of the gates.
The stagnation of game development under the existing bloated AAA game development ecosystem will only stop when these companies are punished.
Watch_Dogs setting sales records for a new IP next week just goes to show that people will only pay for more of the same thing. Even while they complain about it.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
The SNES maybe not...but the launch window of the PS2 was rough and had a lot of heavily panned games that didn't really live up to the next-gen experience.
People weren't too down on the PS2 as a platform though, mostly because the trailers for upcoming games were incredible.