[Game] Star Wars: Force Unleashed

[Profe]

Pshh, it's not like they just started doing that. They have been selling video games like this for about a decade, no more, since the days of nes and sega. I figured people had wise up by now, you can't stop hype, hype sells, you'll just have to live with that.

 

[SheepDip]

Anyways, the point is, there's too much bickering over trivial stuff. Like why would you rant about a company saying good stuff about their product(veracity aside). Do we really expect, I'm gonna say EA just for the frenzy, to make a video where they say "we are making this game, but it's really not that good, don't bother"? So what if they lied or stretched the truth? And do we really need to constantly expose the industry's brilliant masterplan to make TONS of money? Money making is oh so wrong, boo video games, booooo. Are we really so cheap now that we have to ***** about every minute detail or overlooked feature?

EA is a big enough company, and has swallowed up enough developers to make games which actually do what they brag about their **** games doing (when they don't).

It's because they are whores, they don't.

They have the capacity to do these great things. That is why we complain.

We all want this industry to be as artistic and genuine as it used to be, and not just about the next big money making title.

PS. <3 Murphy

 

[Profe]

Look, you expect too much. There are great unique games, but they generally don't sell very well. Red Orchestra is great, one of the best FPS, but it doesn't share the comercial success of titles like the call of duty series, or battlefield. Looking glass studios, the makers of classics like thief and system shock, folded because the games didn't sell well. That's a fact.

Companies need to make money to continue making games with increasingly large budgets, that's why some are turning to in-game advertising and other methods for revenew.

I don't know what you are talking about how artistic and genuine it used to be. Video games have always been mostly about sales, that's why we remember a few memorable titles out of hundreds of thousands that are produced. It's also not very easy to be innovative in such a saturated market. With so many titles it gets harder and harder to make a game that's fun and unique.

Look, if you don't like most video games, I agree with you, but I'm not about to spam every thread with negative comments. Take note from your sig, bashing games, even before they are released, is the latest fad.

 

[SchutzeSepp]

why would any company that want's to make lots of profit make a game that is better than average? they make alot more profit by making shallow average games by the dozen with big advertisement campaigns. if they would make a quality game by spending less money on advertising, and more on development, then they would have a game that is "too" good, and people would play it for too long and thus not buying any of their new games.
this is not their fault, its the fault of the people who buy those games who create a market for this.
and to get on topic, if you buy a game like this star wars force unleached then you do nothing but encourage the industry to make these kind of games.

 

[Profe]

That is simply not true. Watch the video here http://www.islandofrhodes.org/

Games have budgets and deadlines, they have lots of employees to pay for every hour of work. THAT is why games like fable don't turn out like what they are hyped to be.

 

[REZ]

The reasons for Looking Glass going under are much more complex than their games not selling well... as the following article explains. They had a couple of bombs, but they also made some poor business decisions. The article should be interesting to some because it explains why we have so much slop being produced by the industry, and only every once in a while a quality game emerges. They need to have several games on board at a time in order to hedge the possible bombing of a title. It's like buying options against your stock - you are buying protection from loss.

I know I'm not the only one who can see these 'filler' duds coming down the pipe. I know I'm not the only one who thinks the whole system of developing/publishing/releasing games is part of the problem. I can only speak for myself when I say it pisses me off to see people getting excited about the 'filler' games - the games that are specifically made to hedge their risk - the games devoid of anything innovative, artistic and completely lacking in any sort of connection to the user. Ok great, fancy graphics and some fleeting omnipotence.. where is the connection? Where is the need to use your mind? (I won't even mention spiritual, moral and ethical avenues of exploration) The reason I speak harshly upon these 'fillers' is because I want people to wake up and become more discerning as consumers of games - not because it's the latest fad to bash. It seems as though a huge portion of gamers are content with these 'fillers' and so the industry doesnt even attempt anything of value anymore. You buy it, so they think it's what we want! As soon as the gaming industry eclipsed the movie industry in revenue all the business boys came flooding in looking for dollars.. so if you keep buying the 'fillers' like Sepp said, that's what they're gonna make!

To be honest, I work in the money field and if it's money you want to make, the gaming industry isnt it. Unless! ..you exist solely to make 'fillers' as some companies do. Which serves to make the discerning gamer frustrated because we have to wade through all these 'fillers' sometimes for years before something, usually made by a gamer, is created. In the meantime it's up to us to help them make what we want, simply with our purchasing power and our voice.

No one should take the slamming of a 'filler' game (which this is) personally. If you find it fun then buy it! But don't buy anything and everything 'hoping' it will be good, because what you've done is enabled them to continue on the same path.

Here is the article - http://ttlg.com/articles/lgsclosing.asp

 

[SheepDip]

Look, you expect too much.

Quite frankly, no.

The amount of money spent paying developers & development is not even close to what the publishers get in return. It's not like they're struggling to break a profit, they get absolutely astronomical returns. Saying "well they're in the business to make money" is all well and good but what's the f**king point in supporting them when you know it's actually damaging the industry?

Gaming has not always been about making money...Do you think Tripwire developed RO for the money?

Let's try and get back on topic now.

 

[Profe]

Rez, I mostly agree with you, except your belief that the industry doesn't try anymore. Mass Effect may not be very innovative, but it is a great game with great production. The God of war series, Shadow of the Colossus, and many more. And I don't expect anyone to agree with me on these games, but those are the ones I like, and those are the ones I buy. Keep in mind that a lot of developers, just like tripwire, are also gamers, but they have budgets and deadlines to meet, they can't always meet their own standards. Also, if people buying this "filler" as you put it, helps the companies financially so that they can afford to take a gamble with a barrier breaking title, so be it, I'm not the one buying em.

Sheepdip, if you read the article just above posted by Rez, it says the exact opposite.

Tripwire is one of many companies, all of which need money to keep operating.

I know it's offtopic, but it's a far more interesting discussion than bashing an unreleased title.

 

[Coey]

Anyone remember Ico? That's what happens to innovative games. They get critically lauded, and then no-one buys them.

 

[Murphy]

Keep in mind that a lot of developers, just like tripwire, are also gamers, but they have budgets and deadlines to meet, they can't always meet their own standards.

Developers =! Publishers !

Also, if people buying this "filler" as you put it, helps the companies financially so that they can afford to take a gamble with a barrier breaking title, so be it, I'm not the one buying em.

The paradox thing is, the bigger and the more financialy able the publisher gets, the more "fillers" they produce and the few innovative games that are still put out are probably accidents...
Also, it's not like the "filler" games are those that don't cost much and generate money for the uber-game. Fillers like the anual version of Madden cost a whole lot because of stupid liscenses, Call of Duty versions cost a whoe lot because of their production value, etc. pp.
Now look at the innovative/realistic/niche games (those they were "saving up" to):
Realistic games have a tendency to looks ****ty or to be bugged. Why? Because the publisher doesn't care for them. They don't generate money => the budget is low => the dedlines are short.

There are only a few companies who can even attempt to make good games and those are newcomers who HAVE to do something innovative to get into the business, because they can't compete with quality products ala CoD4 so they have to win customers over with innovations. Newcomers and people who already made a name, like Peter Molyneux.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

people who already made a name, like Peter Molyneux.

Pah, PM also degrated to a mere marketing attribute. Honestly, what was his last game that wasn't crap? Dungeon Keeper 1.

 

[Murphy]

Pah, PM also degrated to a mere marketing attribute. Honestly, what was his last game that wasn't crap? Dungeon Keeper 1.

Black and White, while it might not be pleasing everyone was undeniably an innovative game.
Fable wasn't anywhere near as innovative and not even similar to what it was hyped to be but it was still a good game and sold very very well (and that's what counts in this case).

 

[Profe]

Murphy, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Tripwire are not developers? Or that developers don't have budgets or deadlines?

And common, what kind of argument is "they are probably accidents...", yea right, like they'd just start throwing content into a box and hope it turns out alright.

Games like Madden, NBA Live, sell well and make money because they appeal to a very wide audience of sports fans, and they don't have problems with stuff like ESRB ratings. Call of Duty sells well because it's already an established franchise, like Coca-Cola. EA however did gamble on their EA Skate, with a new control scheme and gameplay that does away with the button pressing mechanics of other skating games like THPS.

 

[Murphy]

Murphy, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Tripwire are not developers? Or that developers don't have budgets or deadlines?

...
I said developers are not publishers and publishers are not developers because I had the distinct feeling you mixed those two up in the post above my own one where I made that statement. I thought a mathematical equation could not be misinterpreted but appearantly I was wrong.

And common, what kind of argument is "they are probably accidents...", yea right, like they'd just start throwing content into a box and hope it turns out alright.

They are probably accidents was a supposedly funny remark with the non-literal meaning that EA chews out game after game and if there happens to be an innovative one amongst them it is the exception not the rule.

Games like Madden, NBA Live, sell well and make money because they appeal to a very wide audience of sports fans, and they don't have problems with stuff like ESRB ratings. Call of Duty sells well because it's already an established franchise, like Coca-Cola.

So?
I know games sell well because they exploit the famous name of their predecessors. That doesn't change the fact that EA spends money on a new sequel again and again to milk the franchise without any real innovations. On the contrary, it even proves that fact!
Why don't they leave Madden where it is and release a patch with the updated playernames every year? They could try and charge people for it and I'm sure some football enthusiasts would be dumb enough to pay for something like that, but No, they have to make a completely new game every year that is basically the old one but has the updated player names and slightly updated graphics.

You pretended it was like that:
Poor EA doesn't have the money for their next barrier breaking game, so they produce a bunch of "filler games" that are basically cheap crap so they can generate money so they can finally create Das Uber Game some day.

That is not the case. They buy potentially great studios (based on their previous games and whether those were a success) and force them to work on soulless sequels because sequels sell regardless of quality and if the quality does happen to be high then that's all the better for the next sequel.

EA however did gamble on their EA Skate, with a new control scheme and gameplay that does away with the button pressing mechanics of other skating games like THPS.

So, EA is going to release another skating game (surprise, surprise) but this time they changed the controls to be about as dumbified as the "trick-stick" in the gamecube version of Soul Calibur 2 or in Capcom VS SNK 2?
Call that innovative 'cuz I don't.

What surprises ME is that the game doesn't have Tony Hawk somewhere in its name...

 

[myzko]

My only question is if you can pick a stormtrooper up and wiggle him around a bit, and then sort of put him down on the ground again.. to me it looked like they where 'dead' but still doing things, but they die when put down

 

[SchutzeSepp]

i liked star wars because of the laser combats and cool looking stormtroopers, this game totally disrespects the original balance by turning stormtroopers into useless puppets.

 

[Coey]

i liked star wars because of the laser combats and cool looking stormtroopers, this game totally disrespects the original balance by turning stormtroopers into useless puppets.

Stormtrooper Effect

 

[Profe]

Murphy you must be delusional, cause in that quote, I don't mention anything about publishers. So your equation (actually an inequaction) is absolute incoherence.

You like to demand innovation, I'd love to see how many great innovations you can come up with. It's not as easy as bickering. If EA wants to milk their franchise, they can, and should, it's ****ing good business. You really think they should stop selling games that make them money? Is your business motto "we are making money, let's change what we are doing"? It's not like they are twisting anyone's arm to buy them, people buy them because they want to, or because the advertising worked, and here you are sitting on your high horse calling people dumb for buying a product they probably enjoy.

And AFAIK EA hadn't release a skateboarding game since Street Skater(1999) and before that Skate or Die 2(1990) so you might aswell be surprised. EA bashing blah blah, the fact is while EA has published a lot of mediocre games, they have also published plenty of good ones, including a whole list of Janes Combat Simulators, nintendo classics like the strike series(desert strike, jungle strike), knockout kings, medal of honor(say what you will, but at the time everyone had a boner for moh), black & white, which you mentioned, and many more.

Lol @ Coey

 

[Murphy]

Murphy you must be delusional, cause in that quote, I don't mention anything about publishers. So your equation (actually an inequaction) is absolute incoherence.

No you don't mention publishers and that's the problem. Developers don't set their own deadlines (some mod teams set their own release dates though, because they think they have to) or their budget. Both is set by the publisher.
There are some exceptions like some developers who don't have a publisher yet and have to fund their own game before getting one (like Tripwire with RO:O if I am not mistaken), but well, those are the exception.

You like to demand innovation, I'd love to see how many great innovations you can come up with. It's not as easy as bickering.

Slightly delusional, are we? I never demanded innovation.

For my own innovations please refer to the forum search and read my suggestions topics (the ones with the typos in the title, lol) and the numerous suggestion threads I helped to derail by offering alternative suggestions... I also wrote a fantasy novel parody of 70-80 pages and created my own cover for it (it's in German. You want to you read it? PM me)... I don't need to prove my creativity on a forum. What am I doing here...?
Now please point me to a written source were you got the idea that someone has to be able to do something better in order to critizise it!
I can sue pharma companies if I got a third eye due to their medicine although that was NOT the reason I baught it. Imagine their lawyer to say: "Well, can you make a better one? No? Then shut up." If that ever happens to you be sure to youtube it.

If EA wants to milk their franchise, they can
Yes!
, and should
No.
, it's ****ing good business.
Yes!
You really think they should stop selling games that make them money?
No.

people buy them because they want to, or because the advertising worked,

No. People want to buy them because advertising worked.
Personal question:
Do you like being lied to?
When I read some descriptions of EA games and then I put them in to play them I feel like being tricked by a transsexual...

What I hate about EA isn't that they got more money than me.
What I hate is how they treat customers who might happen to need more than a transaction of money towards EA in return for a game.
I also hate how they treat the developers studios they swallow. Often games are released without a proper beta testing because the publisher wants the income in this or that quarter. Especially a giant like EA has no reason to do that! A smaller publisher, struggling for survival might have to be forced to do such unfortunate acts, but it doesn't matter for EA if they get their money now or a few weeks later, but why would they care? Their hype-machinery and the famous title of the game ensure loads of sales anyway. If it's buggy crap, who cares?
And I absolutely hate being bombarded with not-so-subtle Ads in my games when I still had to pay full-prize for a game that did definately NOT need the Ads to be funded.
Most of these problems aren't even EA specific (!), but EA provides such a great enemy that I am tempted to suggest it as a new antagonist for the James Bond movies, now that the Russians aren't considered enemies anymore.

and here you are sitting on your high horse calling people dumb for buying a product they probably enjoy.

I think I should stick you into a Cold-Delusion-Reactor and see if I get any usable output...
Where did I call people dumb for buying a product they probably enjoy?

 

[Profe]

Developers may not set their own deadlines, but they do have to meet deadlines, it doesn't matter who sets them, they usually have deadlines to meet.

Look the whole reason for this discussion is that a lot of you are bashing this unreleased game because of lack of innovation, because the physics, particle effects, etc they are hyping aren't really as new as they say. Maybe demand was the wrong word, but you are still falling victim to the hype and expecting them to really come through with all these "new technologies", and getting angry because you know it most likely won't be what they say it is. I mean, if you are buying games because of THEIR description of it, don't be surprised when it doesn't meet your expectations.

I don't like being lied to, no one likes it, but EVERYONE lies for one reason or another. I've learned to live with that, bull**** sells, it's OUR responsibility to not fall for it, *****ing about it is not gonna change anything, no one is gonna stop lying because it makes you angry.

You may have not said dumb but I know you are thingking it , you did however say naive, but did it ever occur to you that some people might actually enjoy the games, even if they aren't what they are hyped to be? Where do you get the idea that people buy games solely because of ad and hype. People don't buy sports games because of the hype, they buy em because they like sports, racing games because they like racing, shooters to get the enjoyment of shooting people without the consequences, etc. Advertising helps reach a wider market, it doesn't create it, games are designed towards a market.

I think that's the actual reason for a lot of the ranting, the realism niche aren't getting what they want, but if you ask me it's a poor business decision to lop a big budget on a niche market like realism.

The point is, instead of angrier consumers, we should instead try to be smarter consumers. We won't change the industry by getting angry, we can however research a product before buying it, and instead of falling victim to hype and camping out in front of best buy to be the first to get the latest thingamaboob, why not be patient and get some reactions and impressions before being the first to be disappointed.