First off, I only mentioned Super Mario Galaxy 2 as an example of something I wouldn't buy. Rockstar has always bored the piss out of me though, I can't name one of their titles I actually like. Still, SMG2 I will get eventually, its just not a "HYPE OVERLOAD" thing for me.
Vinci said:
Not as much as you think.
Only one of those I'm buying is Galaxy 2, but that's due to the amount of creativity in that title. RDR interests me due to its setting. Don't see westerns running around very much.
I'm pretty similar actually. I prefer indie games this generation. One of my favorite games released in the last several years is Canabalt, for crying out loud; I play the hell out of that.
I want new experiences and ideas, don't misunderstand me. But in the current market, they have to be relatively solid from a fundamentals standpoint. I'd rather a developer not even try to appeal to that rabid AAA market if they aren't able to - scale down, deliver a more focused, more tight, and more solid experience that still delivers on the unique concepts they want to push.
What I'm suggesting is that developers need to recognize their strengths and weaknesses and deliver where they're best able to, not take on something that places them in the worst possible position in which they're basically begging to get ripped apart by the horde.
Alright, I definitely see what you mean. How you put it I thought you actually like how this gen is focused on the next big FPS or open world game. Its no different than the JRPG centric PS2 generation following Final Fantasy blowing up (and ruining that genre completely since no one really tried anything new)
One of the things, which I think is what you are getting at with your last half of the post, is that devs who make smaller games need to really REALLY have lower expectations. If Alpha Protocol was aimed to sell, for example, 150K and be a success I think it could easily meet or pass expectations.
The other problem I have with this generation, which goes right with my "generation getting stale" feeling and everything like that is that is that every game has to be a million seller on day 1. I've never understood that, and it depresses me to no end that what has happened is a lot of games get one shot, the first week. If it doesn't sell millions the stores consider it a bomb and get rid of it.
It basically has made it so everyone has to Day1 the games they want to succeed. I feel bad I haven't picked up NMH2 yet and its down to 20 bucks. I wanted to support the game, I just don't have the cash to get my new Wii yet. Things like that show a market that is hurting.
DVDs can sit on shelves without a major price drop for a year but gaming gets 1 week (maybe 1 month) to be the next big hit. This is causing people to do the "next big FPS!" or "next big GTA clone!" and even with the RPG market we aren't getting unique attempts (Robotrek was one hell of a flawed game but I loved every bloody second of that back in the day)
I truly hope devs get past this "WE NEED A MILLION SELLER" thing (which I think is really REALLY hurting the industry, if a game bombs it takes a company with it and thats just sad) and start trying to reach a smaller loyal base and then fix up their games. Final Fantasy wasn't mega huge until its 7th installment ffs!
If Alpha Protocol were a B tier game trying for 200K sales and that would be perfect I would say this game is a masterpiece, but where it goes wrong is I think that the devs wanted it to be a AAA million seller (they might not, but I don't know what their goals are) and if so they will see it as a failure.
Its just my rant on the industry. We have an industry of bare bones indie titles or else big blockbusters, we don't have people going smaller scale but still trying something unique and fun without being tiny and indie. Is 300K sales really that bad if thats what a dev aims for?
i was wondering if this would show up before the US release
