Gabotron ES
Member
Might have something to do with ranks, it might also be Knight's shielding changing the colors.
Look how the orange turns into pinkish/blueish when the Knight starts taking damage.
WTF
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo |OT5| Believe, Again
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
- Status
Might have something to do with ranks, it might also be Knight's shielding changing the colors.
Look how the orange turns into pinkish/blueish when the Knight starts taking damage.
WTF
Der Flatulator
Member
Gabotron ES
Member
You guys should check RvB's new episode, the animation is mindblowing man.
Good catch.
ElzarTheBam
Member
Has anyone seen Marty's prometheus "review"? Harsh.
The Henery
Member
Nah brah, gamers don't want ranking systems anymore, it's definitely nothing to do with Arena being a rancid satchel of toss droppings.
People who don't want 1-50 back are the ones taking it too seriously, not the other way round. Do people care if it's a 'mostly personal' achievement? People like seeing numbers go up or down immediately after games, stop taking it so seriously. When you take it too seriously you end up with Arena. And if people cheat it means that it's something worth cheating over. Use the banhammer more, if needs be. You don't abolish the Olympics because a few competitors used steroids.
That's certainly true for me - but it's probably worth noting that things might have changed since the TU.
For example:
I've played 810 total games in Team Slayer.
Bungie.net stats (which end on 3/31/12) show 761 games - so I've played 59 games since 3/31 (.74 games/day).
Before the TU went live in mid-September, I played about 600 games in TS - averaging just under 2 games/day. Between September and March (TU was live), I played 160 games - .83 games/day. And as stated above, in the last 3 months, it's dropped even more.
In those same 3 months, I've played an average of 2.3 games/day of Anniversary Classic.
Tastes shift.
Der Flatulator
Member
Try using this URL: http://social.zune.net/podcast/343-Sparkast/548d416f-70b0-494e-a15e-af19319ba946
From Zune:
The Henery
Member
Seriously? No wonder most of HaloGAF hates Reach lol.
Is it fun? I watched two episodes of the latest RvB season, decided they lack what made RvB so good and didn't bother since.
Is the 3rd episode fun?
Rand0m TAG
Member
Don't think I've touched ts in awhile
Gabotron ES
Member
Fun is subjective, I personally enjoy watching them.
StalkerUKCG
Banned
Sparkast was neat. Thanks to Frankie and Ellis (Josh and KiKi aswell)
Nice to have something to listen to while i play ME3 MP with randoms
Nope, Let me guess "5 out of 5, horrible movie"
Nice to have something to listen to while i play ME3 MP with randoms
Nope, Let me guess "5 out of 5, horrible movie"
Der Flatulator
Member
Thank ALL the deities!
http://www.r18games.com.au/2012/06/r18-bill-passes-senate/
(Australian thing). We currently don't have an R classification for video games. Yeah, it sucks.
http://www.r18games.com.au/2012/06/r18-bill-passes-senate/
(Australian thing). We currently don't have an R classification for video games. Yeah, it sucks.
Barrow Roll
Member
Yeesh, talk about defensive. Most of us here agree with you in that we want a skill based ranking system back for Halo 4, but can't you see how unlikely that is just based on current trends? It's pretty clear from a developer standpoint that it's not something they want to implement anymore, that's all Steely meant when he said that "ranked" systems are pretty much dead in console shooters. I don't really see how you can disagree with that statement just because you and your friends and the MLG community want it back. Sad to say but you guys are very far from being the majority. Most people simply don't care. The evidence is right in front of you, just look at the rankings systems in current blockbuster shooters.
Yeah I lol'd
bobs...onGaf
Member
You could have said the same thing when halo 2 brought in ranked, just because no other game can handle it well/ doesn't bother with it doesn't mean it's unwanted. It doesn't work with the structure other games have but I'm sure if cod had a competitive playlist with things like drop i drop out removed, people would try it.
I don't care too much either way but I do miss having ranked playlists as a area where I knew I was going to play good people. I mean snipes on reach is boring because half the time you play against people who don't care and the other half of the time those people are on your team, but on halo 3 except for the derankers most people I meet in matchmaking want a competitive game. You don't nessicarily need a ranking system to make people play competitively I just hope they find a way of grouping players who play competitively against eachother more often.
Edit: don't know why I mentioned snipes , it works the same with all playlists including team slayer. Social slayer is boring in comparison if you want a close match.
I would love to get good at sniping in gears, that game needs a snipers playlist!
Barrow Roll
Member
Oh I'm sure they would. I guess I'm just pessimistic now. I don't see devs taking many risks these days, just a lot of copying what works going on. It may not seem like a long time but the gaming landscape has changed a hell of a lot since Halo 2.
Why did Bungie stop taking risks since halo 3?
They can't afford to take risks. Seems like every couple of months we get a story about how Company X was shuttered because their AAA title didn't sell a billion copies. The games industry isn't in a particularly good place right now, though a lot of it is their own collective fault for sticking to outmoded business models. Nobody stood up and said "Hey, let's keep pretending we're making software when it's obvious to everyone this is an entertainment industry now", but they've all been following along to the tune without much notice.
Barrow Roll
Member
Yeah, it's not looking too good. Did you see EA say (regarding Dead Space 3) that an IP like Dead Space needs to have a broader appeal and sell 5 million? Christ, that's just ridiculous.
Here's the thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=478566
No, but I did see that THQ requires the South Park RPG to go 2m in sales to break even. Considering they hocked the UFC license to EA because they didn't break even on that, that doesn't bode well for... well, anybody. I mean, I'm not into UFC or anything, but it seems like anything MMA-related these days is a big ticket item, and bailing out on the license because it's not immediately paying out to their (unrealistic, especially in this economy) expectations seems short-sighted.
Of course, just about everything coming out of THQ these days is pretty messed up. Good thing the South park game looks halfway entertaining.
Marketing has really inflated sales expectations. I get the principle that you need to spend money to make money, but when you’re spending more marketing then the actual budget of the game – I would call that insane and you have to rethink your priorities.
Yeah pretty much what Retro said. The stakes are too high. The game's the same it just got more fierce. There are a lot of people taking some amazing risks, though. I think the "Indie" scene (which could probably use a new name at this point) is more vibrant and incredible than ever. Look at something like Antichamber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT2VlffrSMg
That's about as far from COD as possible.
The games industry is a weird type of art. You can paint something for very little price. You can record an album for basically the cost of buying instruments. You can write a book on a typewriter. You can film a movie with a handheld camera and nothing more. The asset generation necessary for even the smallest game is something that is impossible to escape. You can film two people in Beijing and the whole city will already be there. Set a scene in Beijing in a game and you have to render every streetlight, every trash can, place all the lighting, etc. Then you have to allow player control, the complexity of which adds a layer of variables that nearly no other major form of art has to worry about. It's inherently a long, laborious, and costly process. I don't know if we'll see another games industry crash but we're moving in that direction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT2VlffrSMg
That's about as far from COD as possible.
The games industry is a weird type of art. You can paint something for very little price. You can record an album for basically the cost of buying instruments. You can write a book on a typewriter. You can film a movie with a handheld camera and nothing more. The asset generation necessary for even the smallest game is something that is impossible to escape. You can film two people in Beijing and the whole city will already be there. Set a scene in Beijing in a game and you have to render every streetlight, every trash can, place all the lighting, etc. Then you have to allow player control, the complexity of which adds a layer of variables that nearly no other major form of art has to worry about. It's inherently a long, laborious, and costly process. I don't know if we'll see another games industry crash but we're moving in that direction.
Zeouterlimits
Member
This is a good point (albeit you went in a weird direction with it).
While scripting languages have made things easier, the tools are still super complicated in the way being able to film something with a $500 camcorder (or even your phone) is not.
The barrier of entry, even for indie stuff, is significant, unless you're of a techie inclination.
That's more of an industry marketing problem than the games that do it. The ones you're talking about are generally super high budget already, so the risk is even higher. AAA blockbuster movies do something similar, but in terms of the amount of eyes they recieve because of it, are generally more effective.
Again, you're throwing logic out the window. Why would I be defensive? A ranking system isn't my own, and I want it like most other people in this thread, as you say.
You've not listened or digested any of the perfectly sensible points I made, and instead have defaulted to some pseudo 'whatever' posture to hide the lack of logic.
I'll reiterate succinctly, for Steely and yourself: ranking systems were never popular within this segment of the market; that didn't stop Bungie from introducing one that people of all skill levels and motivations enjoyed. It's illogical to claim ranked systems are dead on consoles, and use that to bolster your argument, because ranked systems were never prevalent outside of Halo. As 343 are taking the mantle from Bungie, and as Frank has already admitted they're looking at skill based solutions, I think you and Steely, to be frank are barking up the wrong tree in your assumptions.
Yeah, I have a hard time justifying $60 for a AAA title when I spent the better part of last year playing Terraria for $10. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say the same thing about stuff like Minecraft, The Binding of Issac, Dungeons of Dredmor... hell, even stuff like Draw Something or Angry Birds originated out of little indie game companies.
Asset development is always going to be a problem, but compared to even 10 years ago when I was making shareware board games and distributing them on AOL, things are so much better. There's stuff like Gamemaker, Flashpunk, Flixel and BlenderGE out there now and if you dig around (and are self motivated) there's plenty of free places to learn stuff like Python, Actionscript, etc. out there. As Outer says, the barrier is still pretty high, but compared to where it was when I was in high school it's INSANE.
There's stuff like GIMP, Blender, etc. for the visual stuff too and the price of Wacom tablets was surprisingly lower than I ever remember it being. It's not 'there' yet, but I'll be damned if it isn't easier for a kid to poke around the internet and make something and get it distributed.
You guys have heard my "Gaming is like Hollywood in the depression" rant before, right? Can I skip rehashing it just this one time?
Asset development is always going to be a problem, but compared to even 10 years ago when I was making shareware board games and distributing them on AOL, things are so much better. There's stuff like Gamemaker, Flashpunk, Flixel and BlenderGE out there now and if you dig around (and are self motivated) there's plenty of free places to learn stuff like Python, Actionscript, etc. out there. As Outer says, the barrier is still pretty high, but compared to where it was when I was in high school it's INSANE.
There's stuff like GIMP, Blender, etc. for the visual stuff too and the price of Wacom tablets was surprisingly lower than I ever remember it being. It's not 'there' yet, but I'll be damned if it isn't easier for a kid to poke around the internet and make something and get it distributed.
You guys have heard my "Gaming is like Hollywood in the depression" rant before, right? Can I skip rehashing it just this one time?
Rehash away!
What?
ElzarTheBam
Member
The problem in terms of risk, is (I think) due to the convoluted nature of the gaming industry today. I don't think the industry has an idea of where its going forward. For instance, you now have social gaming, apps, free to play system, digital distribution via streaming services. These are just a few of the elements trying to shape the gaming culture, and if I was an investor, I would be pretty nervous about taking risks in such an environment.
All I see is a lot of diversity, which means a lot of options. The game industry is the most flexible, immediate, value rich entertainment property around.
Edit: I'm being a dick, ignore this post.
ElzarTheBam
Member
True, but I personally see a lot of options for distribution of said product rather than a lot of options in terms of creativity.
My references are in short supply.
Ha, caught you before you changed it!
My references are in short supply.
Ha, caught you before you changed it!
I swear Elzar is a smut genius. His pun works for the original post and the edit, I said cotdamn.
You have brought me shame Elzar, I deserve it.My references are in short supply.
Ha, caught you before you changed it!
*Stands in the rain*
ElzarTheBam
Member
In fit magnificently in place, didn't it? : )
The flip side of that is Epic making 1 Billion in total revenue on Gears 1, Gears 2, and Gears 3 combined.
A billion literal dollars in total revenue, over the course of what... 8 years?
I think the gaming industry is likely moving closer and closer to very few, but very large companies pumping out huge productions, particularly in the next generation.
Tha Robbertster
Member
Try using this URL: http://social.zune.net/podcast/343-Sparkast/548d416f-70b0-494e-a15e-af19319ba946
From Zune:
Late reaction but that link isn't available in my region (Holland)
I'll just listen to podcasts on my computer.
Nah it's already settled down in pretty much the same way Movies have. The big guys will always be given funding to make stuff, smaller studios have to beg publishers, and small guys that make cool things bubble to the top and wow everyone every once in a while to become a big guy. And then the huge pile of niche games people will always keep making for fun no matter how much money they get or how many people play them.
Has it? I'm not sure you can say it has settled down yet...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/curt-schillings-video-game-company-38-studios-is-bankrupt.html
38 Studios... look at those numbers 150 million owed 50 million in assets... and that's a small company.
Just the last 10 months THQ has closed, what, 3 studios?
Ubisoft closed Ubisoft Vancouver this year...
What you described is pretty much exactly what my post was pointing at... primary games coming from huge studios and huge productions, while the plebs are left to scratch by - it seems to me increasingly there are extreme haves and have nots... or at least that being the trend.
Heh, alright.
Basically, in the 1930s to the 1950s (with the business practices lingering on into the 60s and even the 70s), Hollywood was a completely different beast than it is today.
Films were produced by large studios that kept everyone under long-term contract; actors, writers directors, animators, the crew setting up the cameras and lighting: everybody. People held on to their contracts and settled for peanuts (compared to today) because the perceived glamor and success of Hollywood in the "Golden Age" meant there was a high supply of people trying to break in and replace them (not to mention the studios blacklisting anyone who broke away).
The studios also held all creative rights to anything produced, so writers were reluctant to give up their best work. Not that they would have had a chance; the studios were controlled by businessmen who had tons of money but very little interest or understanding of film. Like the Koticks of today, studio heads back then only saw entertainment as a means to an end and put a laser-like focus on only what sold. Ernest Lehmen (wrote Hitchcock's North by Northwest) has a great quote on this;
As another example, once MGM figured out Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney paired well together, they churned out eight movies over six years. The 30s was pretty much dominated by remakes, sequels and rehashes to silent films. In the 50s and early 60s it was historical epics (Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.). Following formula almost destroyed Fox (1963's Cleopatra was a huge loss, the studio limped along on fare like The Sound of Music until Star Wars saved it). Once they had something that worked, they churned it out until something new came along.
The studio-driven method really didn't break up until the 1950s, due to two things; Television became a serious challenger and the government came after the five major studios (MGM, Fox, Universal, RKO and Warner Brothers) for anti-trust. Not only did they completely control film production, but they also controlled and manipulated film distribution, either by owning all of the theaters outright or controlling them with practices like blockbooking (forcing theaters to buy and run 4 or 5 shit movies that came contractually bundled with one good one) . That was in the late 40s, if I remember right.
. . .
Compare that to games now; publishers buy up and manipulate developers. Developers retain all creative rights and churn through staff because there's a ton of kids who have a dream of making video games. Piss the wrong people off and you get sacked like West and Zampella and that sleazy "Project Icebreaker" bullshit.
There are no 'freelance' game designers, the guys who green light games don't even possess a working vocabulary of the concepts they're choosing between. Large companies dictate the distribution method so people working outside can't get in.
Budgets are so huge that only proven successes can be made. The industry avoids risk because one AAA-budget flop can completely destroy a company, so only sequels and clones of proven successes are made. Meanwhile, the publishers are engaging in shoddy business practices like Day One DLC, Pay-to-win and all the anti-used game/DRM garbage.
A lot of it has to do with the way games emerged from the software industry and is still using their model. Very good at making studios, very bad at making games.
squidhands
Member
The gaming industry is a microcosm of what's happening everywhere
Nice summary Retro, and pretty good condensed summary of the film industry.
I'm not sure we're really going to see any sort of "renaissance" in the games industry. Indie games *are* being made, regardless, and I don't think any sort of tech is going to upend the more monolithic publishers.
But really, I don't think we can complain. We live in a world where there's more media being created--and more good media being created--than at any time in history. Our only real issue is picking what we spend our coin on, and finding the good stuff amid the large piles of crud and dreck.
I'm not sure we're really going to see any sort of "renaissance" in the games industry. Indie games *are* being made, regardless, and I don't think any sort of tech is going to upend the more monolithic publishers.
But really, I don't think we can complain. We live in a world where there's more media being created--and more good media being created--than at any time in history. Our only real issue is picking what we spend our coin on, and finding the good stuff amid the large piles of crud and dreck.
Gabotron ES
Member
Pre-ordered my Limited copy at Xtralife.com, I'm getting the circuit skin too which is prety nice.
Yeah I preordered from Amazon because I figure I might as well run around in the game dressed like Spiderman. I just hope there's halfway decent armor (WITH A ACTUAL VISOR) I can pair it with
This is similar to what happened with film in the 50s and 60s; they had television to compete with. So they started doing gimmicky, sometimes stupid things to get audiences back in the theater. Stuff like bigger, wider screens (Cinemascope, etc.), 3D and bigger big-budget blockbusters. This, in turn, made them even more risk-adverse.
Games now are struggling to adapt to shifts in technology too; they have stuff like social networks, 99 cent mobile games and cheap digital distribution to compete with. So they start doing gimmicky, sometimes stupid things to get gamers back. Stuff like better, sharper graphics, Motion Control/Kinect and bigger big-budget games... I think you know where this is going.
Thanks man. It's one of those little thought processes that sits like a spark in the back of my mind, and any time the discussion turns towards the state of the games industry, it flares up. Part of it is reading stuff by guys like Tim Carter, part of it is having a couple friends who are hardcore movie buffs that have respectable taste in games (whereas I am a hardcore game buff that, in my opinion, has a respectable taste in movies).
Plus, in all honesty, a good chunk of it is sour grapes, as a hobbyist designer who, for whatever reason, wasn't able to get in but would still like to get more involved. The parallels between writers then and game designers now (considered expendable by the more hands-on staff, their role/contributions nebulous and poorly defined, etc.) are pretty clear. There's almost no chance to into the industry without programming, drawing or crawling through the QA Pit first. And the current business model will never allow that to change.
Thanks. I did leave out some stuff, just for the sake of brevity. For example, the comment about Judy Garland could have been framed by her abuse of amphetamines and barbiturates to maintain the frenetic pace the studio forced her to work, which eventually lead to her death. There's some parallels there with the way the game industry carelessly burns through employees (especially the stories that come out of EA crunches). I'm actually surprised we haven't had a developer die from stress. There's also some of the sleazy shit the studios did to control people, forced changes and compromises to increase profits and generally just manipulated everything. Trimmed a lot of stuff like that so it didn't become a mega-post.
They aren't identical situations, but there are parallels and there are things that games could learn from the current film model. For example, there needs to be either a major change or move towards acceptance on behalf of one of the entertainment unions or the game industry needs its own "Game Developers Guild". And the huge budgets could be trimmed by reducing overhead by switching from a studio-based model to what Carter calls the "Bivouac Game Studio" in which a huge amount of pre-production is done by a small, creatively nimble team, and then the majority of the technical talent comes together for a short, highly scheduled 'shoot' and then dissolves, without the need for an office, salary, etc. Rather than keep a ton of people on staff in a cubicle farm where they work on whatever they're told to do, it would be more akin to film where people who do their job well receive work based on merit and can pick and choose which projects they're involved with.
The concept needs work, but anything would be better than having all of these amazing studios shut down because "Game X" didn't reach some insanely unfair benchmark set by a non-gamer executives, during a recession at the end of a console lifecycle.
I only partially agree with this part having worked at a game company. The problem with the games industry is most medium sized companies don't know how to manage a studio in the game industry.
Software companies (not in the gaming industry) don't have the same big cycles that games do. So if people do come from a software background, they usually have a hard time dealing with a project lifecycle that needs to start with only a few people working on pre-production and design, then ramp up to a huge team, with groups of completely different disciplines.
And they're also often run by a combination of creative people/programmers, who don't really understand the business side of things, and businessmen, who don't really understand game development.
Perhaps we're saying the same thing, but they might know how to build a studio and not manage it.
Yeah, I think we're touching on about the same thing; small and medium studios struggle because the guys who broke off from the Big Evil Company are creative individuals without any business sense. Result; a lot of creative talent comes together and maybe creates something amazing briefly, but falls apart thereafter (Free Radical, for example).
Guys at the large studios are forced to deal with business guys who don't have any vocabulary when it comes to games and can only go by business sense; what's selling now, what's sold in the past, etc. So there's a cycle of Big Company making sequels and clones, creative guys getting burned out and starting their own small studios, which are mismanaged and are then either bought up by a Big Company or fall apart and the creative guys end up in other small studios or back at a Big Company.
Or, more likely, they leave the industry entirely because they have families to support and they can't risk another small studio and can't handle the stress of a large one. Hopefully they have a skill set that can translate to other careers, which is one of the reasons all of these narrowly-focused Game Development degree programs that keep cropping up are bad news in the long term for everyone involved except the colleges that are slapping them together.
The success stories are from companies that carefully walk the line between business and creativity. Nintendo does this well; they're a business and they make business decisions, but they also let their creative talent do things that outwardly look like bad business (motion control) but end up being tectonic shifts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked