[aweir]

Quote:

Storylines are still a core part of titles, of course, but more and more, developers are letting you explore the worlds they create when and how you want â€" letting you roam at will, performing non-essential missions that boost your enjoyment of the game and extend your playable hours.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/p...-games/1404235

Quote:

The games industry might be feeling the effects of the global recession, but 2010's output of video games hasn't declined in quality

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/p...n-2010/1404454

 

[Zinxe]

And this is overclock.net.

 

[OmegaNemesis28]

hasn't declined in quality?

Hmm.....
-Games have short and unoriginal singleplayer campaigns.
-Most campaigns are linear and do NOT let you explore as much as the article indicates.
-Multiplayer is the primary focus for most games, and of them usually end up sucking with the exception of AAA titles.
-Have very little replay value.
-Cost $60+
-Now we're moving into mass motion gameplay geared games.
-PC gaming keeps getting stabbed multiple times by devs.

I'd say they're declining just a tad.

 

[DrDarkTempler]

^This

Is this Writer on Crack?

97% of the game release today is all crappy
and all Hyped up PC game have DRM

Are you kidding me?

Videogame is becoming more restricted and game quality is on the poop hole

and Call of Duty don't count, mostly fanboy play that game and think is the best game in the world cuz of CoD:MW1 (which they seriously mess it up on MW2) like Apples effects

 

[Drizzt5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28 hasn't declined in quality? Hmm..... -Games have short and unoriginal singleplayer campaigns. -Most campaigns are linear and do NOT let you explore as much as the article indicates. -Multiplayer is the primary focus for most games, and of them usually end up sucking with the exception of AAA titles. -Have very little replay value. -Cost $60+ -Now we're moving into mass motion gameplay geared games. -PC gaming keeps getting stabbed multiple times by devs. I'd say they're declining just a tad.

Not all games... more and more games are being released so don't go by percentage..

ME2 is a perfect example of a good game to prove this article and also from 2010 (otherwise I'd say dragon age from 2009 or fallout3 from 2008.)

And I've noticed more devs are saying that they think the PC is a great market and stuff like that.

I agree with the $60 thing though... thats just BS.

But yea... I think it's getting better tbh, slowly.

 

[Zinxe]

There have been pretty awesome titles this year... Red Dead Redemption, Heavy Rain, and God of War 3.

 

[OmegaNemesis28]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drizzt5 Not all games... more and more games are being released so don't go by percentage.. ME2 is a perfect example of a good game to prove this article and also from 2010 (otherwise I'd say dragon age from 2009 or fallout3 from 2008.) And I've noticed more devs are saying that they think the PC is a great market and stuff like that. I agree with the $60 thing though... thats just BS. But yea... I think it's getting better tbh, slowly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinxe There have been pretty awesome titles this year... Red Dead Redemption, Heavy Rain, and God of War 3.

ME2, RDR, HR, GoW3 are all AAA titles. Give me a game that didn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars and teams of a 500+ people to make. No, I don't necessarily mean an indie devs either, of which are on the decline themselves I might as well toss in there, but like the guys behind STALKER or something. The only one that comes to mind would be Alan Wake but even then that was in development for 6+ years and barely has any replayability itself. 3D Dot Game Heroes was decent too, and would be probably the only legit one I can think of right now.

Everything these days are sequels and multiplayer smash-hits. It's sad when you compare them to how games used to be imo. Games that had like 20+ hours of gameplay and would be an honor to experience over again.

And while GoW3, Heavy Rain, and Red Dead Redemption were good games - they were short and really don't have too much replayability. While Heavy
Rain did have it's whole story changing thing, not much actually does change and while I did replay it - it wasn't worth it.

I won't go through ME2 again I don't think either. Not that it was a bad game, but personally I never got into the game that much as I did the first one. Therefore I'm not discrediting it because of my own personal preference, but I'm sure I'm not the only one out there.

EDIT:
And think about the multiplayer games here for a second. They're all becoming more and more similar, and less and less unique.
Medal of Honor for example is almost exactly like CoD MW2 but worse.
MW2 and all of those rank-up/unlock weapons came from Battlefield franchise.
All those games basically just have the typical Deathmatch, CTF, and all that other garbage. The last unique FPS gameplay I've seen multiplayer wise was the Titan mode for BF2142 or in Crysis - the capturing of different buildings for stuff.

I just wish they were a little more unique.

EDIT2: lol sorry for the loooong post. Didnt feel like I typed that much

I gotta take a break from OCN. ugh

 

[TestECull]

Good, I say. Games need to go up in quality, need to focus more on single player.

 

[OmegaNemesis28]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TestECull Good, I say. Games need to go up in quality, need to focus more on single player.

Agreed.
imo - that is the area that needs most work on for games these days if I didn't get that point across in my posts.

 

[TFL Replica]

My last genuinely enjoyable singeplayer experience was Machinarium.

 

[shadman]

Its hard to tell, but to judge it right now, I'd say decline.

but What does everyone think about Borderlands?

It didn't rely too much on multiplayer..heck, the story allowed co-op but only if you wanted, but I played it alone. And the fact that you had several characters to use did add, but I didn't really play all the way again with my 2nd character.

 

[HowHardCanItBe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28 ME2, RDR, HR, GoW3 are all AAA titles. Give me a game that didn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars and teams of a 500+ people to make. No, I don't necessarily mean an indie devs either, of which are on the decline themselves I might as well toss in there, but like the guys behind STALKER or something. The only one that comes to mind would be Alan Wake but even then that was in development for 6+ years and barely has any replayability itself. 3D Dot Game Heroes was decent too, and would be probably the only legit one I can think of right now. Everything these days are sequels and multiplayer smash-hits. It's sad when you compare them to how games used to be imo. Games that had like 20+ hours of gameplay and would be an honor to experience over again. And while GoW3, Heavy Rain, and Red Dead Redemption were good games - they were short and really don't have too much replayability. While Heavy Rain did have it's whole story changing thing, not much actually does change and while I did replay it - it wasn't worth it. I won't go through ME2 again I don't think either. Not that it was a bad game, but personally I never got into the game that much as I did the first one. Therefore I'm not discrediting it because of my own personal preference, but I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. EDIT: And think about the multiplayer games here for a second. They're all becoming more and more similar, and less and less unique. Medal of Honor for example is almost exactly like CoD MW2 but worse. MW2 and all of those rank-up/unlock weapons came from Battlefield franchise. All those games basically just have the typical Deathmatch, CTF, and all that other garbage. The last unique FPS gameplay I've seen multiplayer wise was the Titan mode for BF2142 or in Crysis - the capturing of different buildings for stuff. I just wish they were a little more unique. EDIT2: lol sorry for the loooong post. Didnt feel like I typed that much I gotta take a break from OCN. ugh

Well Said Omega

 

[AblueXKRS]

I took one look at the article title and went, "What rock have you been living under?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drizzt5 I agree with the $60 thing though... thats just BS.

Imagine how many more games they'd be selling if they sold them for $30. Valve realizes this. Sell games for small amounts and people are more likely to spend the money, even just to try it out.

Maybe not in this economy, but in happier times...

 

[AtomicFrost]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmiralThrawn I took one look at the article title and went, "What rock have you been living under?" Imagine how many more games they'd be selling if they sold them for $30. Valve realizes this. Sell games for small amounts and people are more likely to spend the money, even just to try it out. Maybe not in this economy, but in happier times...

That is the reason why I don't buy many new games. Example ( $60

for that new 4th sequel to a 10 year old IP with just a few new features.

)

At $30 new games would be flying off the shelf.

 

[Keatonus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28 ME2, RDR, HR, GoW3 are all AAA titles. Give me a game that didn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars and teams of a 500+ people to make. No, I don't necessarily mean an indie devs either, of which are on the decline themselves I might as well toss in there, but like the guys behind STALKER or something. The only one that comes to mind would be Alan Wake but even then that was in development for 6+ years and barely has any replayability itself. 3D Dot Game Heroes was decent too, and would be probably the only legit one I can think of right now. Everything these days are sequels and multiplayer smash-hits. It's sad when you compare them to how games used to be imo. Games that had like 20+ hours of gameplay and would be an honor to experience over again. And while GoW3, Heavy Rain, and Red Dead Redemption were good games - they were short and really don't have too much replayability. While Heavy Rain did have it's whole story changing thing, not much actually does change and while I did replay it - it wasn't worth it. I won't go through ME2 again I don't think either. Not that it was a bad game, but personally I never got into the game that much as I did the first one. Therefore I'm not discrediting it because of my own personal preference, but I'm sure I'm not the only one out there. EDIT: And think about the multiplayer games here for a second. They're all becoming more and more similar, and less and less unique. Medal of Honor for example is almost exactly like CoD MW2 but worse. MW2 and all of those rank-up/unlock weapons came from Battlefield franchise. All those games basically just have the typical Deathmatch, CTF, and all that other garbage. The last unique FPS gameplay I've seen multiplayer wise was the Titan mode for BF2142 or in Crysis - the capturing of different buildings for stuff. I just wish they were a little more unique. EDIT2: lol sorry for the loooong post. Didnt feel like I typed that much I gotta take a break from OCN. ugh

Plants vs. Zombies

 

[RayvinAzn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keatonus Plants vs. Zombies

You think Pop Cap is an indie developer?

 

[angrysasquatch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFL Replica My last genuinely enjoyable singeplayer experience was Machinarium.

Really? I found it frustrating as hell. I got a few hours in, and then realized I was either raging at being unable to figure it out, or being a slave to a game guide. That's when I stopped playing and realized that I should never pay more than $5 for an indie game that isn't full-featured.

(full-featured being something like natural selection, which is a full blown FPS with its own engine, etc)

 

[jackeyjoe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmiralThrawn I took one look at the article title and went, "What rock have you been living under?" Imagine how many more games they'd be selling if they sold them for $30. Valve realizes this. Sell games for small amounts and people are more likely to spend the money, even just to try it out. Maybe not in this economy, but in happier times...

steam sales FTW?

I'd spent more money in that sale on games in those few days than i have in the last year or two.

 

[john55576]

I think the only developer still close to producing anything worth while isn't pushing to release anything that isn't completed first. They create their in their own dimension of time and space. Any guess who I'm referring to?

 

[C-bro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmiralThrawn I took one look at the article title and went, "What rock have you been living under?" Imagine how many more games they'd be selling if they sold them for $30. Valve realizes this. Sell games for small amounts and people are more likely to spend the money, even just to try it out. Maybe not in this economy, but in happier times...

In the past year and a half I purchased 1 game, Far Cry 2 *shutter*. In the past week, with recent Steam Sale, I purchased 9 games over 2 days. I think 3 of those I would have never even considered, but the price was right so I figured what the heck. I'm almost willing to throw away $30, even just try something out, but as the prices climb to $40, $50, and $60, there's a huge psychological barrier that I don't plan on breaching any time soon. Even if I love the game I won't bother. I wish Valve would release sales figures from the recent sale. They had to have made a killing, and it would be nice to see other devs/publishers follow suit.

Edit: Scratch that. I DID buy 3 other games within the past year. Sup Comm and CoH were on Direct2Drive for $4.99 each. Surprise, surprise, a lower price convinced me to buy it. I actually hate both the games, and haven't played them since I bought them, but they got $15 out of me that they wouldn't have other wise, and I don't mind at all.