[Game] Medal Of Honor (2010)

[Nenjin]

So what is it then, in the video game industry?

And remember we're talking supporting a model that produces shallow games, not stuff that's criminal, illegal or so stupid that no one has actually tried it yet and been successful. And if you own stock in a video game publisher, now is probably a good time to disclose that as well.

If people enjoy a game, that's cool. If they enjoy it and go on to say there's nothing really wrong with them, then I'd take issue. There's a lot wrong with them, from other people's perspectives.

 

[Grobut]

It's very simple. Players buy ****ty, underwhelming games, thus developers continually make ****ty, underwhelming games. So supporting an industry of ****ty, underwhelming games = wrong.

Sadly it can't really be helped, thease are the Baysplosions and Uwe Boll flicks of the gaming world, they are made for the hooting fratboy demographic, who would be frightened and confused if you actually dared to challenge them in any way, and there's no shortage of them, they are a very big demographic, and they are very easy to please, so there's lots of money to be made there for very little effort.

It's not going away, no more than the brainless summer blockbuster is, it's Sturgeon's Revelation at work, simple as that.


So yeah, there's allways going to be garbage out there, what really concearns me though, is the buisness models that we are seeing, things like day one DLC, draconian DRM, Astroturfing, paid reviews and so on, because this stuff, if demanded by the publishers and investors, threatens to ruin even the remaining 10% of games that aren't garbage, now that's the stuff that my gaming nightmares are made of

 

[Amerikaner]

Agreed about early DLC and DRM being worse culprits.

I just read this and thought it was relevant to our tangent:

What do you think is the biggest problem current games suffer from?
Fortunately, people are starting to wake up to it, but there's been an alarming trend of focusing on block buster games with huge production budgets that are expected to sell well for a week or so, then everyone forgets about it and moves on to the next one. Not only does that lead to worse gameplay as taking risks gets too expensive, but it also means that games get designed to be played for a much shorter time. Why the computer game industry has chosen to emulate Hollywood rather than the board game industry is baffling.

To answer his question. 2009 sales figures for board games: $808 million 2009 gross revenue for Avatar alone: $2,770,435,630 OR Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: $836,297,228

Still, I like his concern.

 

[Fedorov]

At least... we'll always have TWI (Hopefully)

 

[mamoo]

You know the thing I hate most about this game? The fact that instead of recycling BC2 into another cash cow, they could have been making Frontline 2, or Airbone 2...

 

[Flogger23m]

Sadly it can't really be helped, thease are the Baysplosions and Uwe Boll flicks of the gaming world, they are made for the hooting fratboy demographic, who would be frightened and confused if you actually dared to challenge them in any way, and there's no shortage of them, they are a very big demographic, and they are very easy to please, so there's lots of money to be made there for very little effort.

This. Gaming is much more mainstream than it was 5-10 years ago.

As such, games have become more mainstream. More games are meant to be played by casual people that have little to no experience.

Take Ace Combat: Assault Horizon as an example. They took an already simple game and made it even more basic. They claimed they didn't like the "long range" combat in the older games, even though none of the weapons had a range of over 2KM in the game... so now in AH everything is close up, and when you shoot an enemy plane, it zooms into a giant fireball.

They even cite that modern FPS games influenced it. The names of some of the characters (Nomad, Makarov) as well as the skull masked door gunner really illustrate that point.


Again, more explosions over gameplay. More "badassness". The Ace Combat games were already extremely easy, but apparently they were too hard for your average gamer now days. So they followed the trend - make games with awful stories (CoD) and dumb down the gameplay as much as possible.


Expect to see more games going this direction.

 

[The Masta]

Take Ace Combat: Assault Horizon as an example. They took an already simple game and made it even more basic. They claimed they didn't like the "long range" combat in the older games, even though none of the weapons had a range of over 2KM in the game... so now in AH everything is close up, and when you shoot an enemy plane, it zooms into a giant fireball.

Let me quote Yahtzees HAWX review here:"Real life makes not for entertainment so for this game we'll all just go dogfight in jets like it's 194****ing5."

On topic:
DICE could use someone who can actually make good assault game type maps.

 

[hockeywarrior]

Sadly it can't really be helped, thease are the Baysplosions and Uwe Boll flicks of the gaming world, they are made for the hooting fratboy demographic, who would be frightened and confused if you actually dared to challenge them in any way, and there's no shortage of them, they are a very big demographic, and they are very easy to please, so there's lots of money to be made there for very little effort.

It's not going away, no more than the brainless summer blockbuster is, it's Sturgeon's Revelation at work, simple as that.


So yeah, there's allways going to be garbage out there, what really concearns me though, is the buisness models that we are seeing, things like day one DLC, draconian DRM, Astroturfing, paid reviews and so on, because this stuff, if demanded by the publishers and investors, threatens to ruin even the remaining 10% of games that aren't garbage, now that's the stuff that my gaming nightmares are made of

This! +1 internet cookie for you.

 

[Nenjin]

DICE could use someone who can actually make good maps.

Fixed. I mean, I know it's probably a hardware/performance limitation, but **** shoebox maps, and **** a central choke point that leaves you no options. Every game of BC2, conquest or rush, plays out the same because the maps give you almost no options in some places. The only thing that keeps the games from completely stagnating are the crazy ****s who drop behind the lines to cap a point behind the enemy. Assuming you even get air support in that map.

I like the topography...but the overall shape and design leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Zennousha]

I agree in a lot of ways, though Bad Company (the first one mind you) had amazing maps. Sure, they had chokepoints every now and then, but until that bottleneck was a vast map with several places to go and abuse.

 

[Nenjin]

What I've never gotten about BC2 is, the maps are actually huge. Rush shows you the maps are really 3 to 4 maps connected end to end. For some reason though, they never let you use the full map at once. Makes no sense, the game is clearly loading that information when you load the level, so I don't think it's a performance limitation. I think someone just went "If people go more than 1 minute without seeing another player, the map is too big" and they cut the maps down to shoebox size. It's crap. One thing I liked about BF2 was there was enough room to get organized, fall in formation and fight as a team. In BC2, half the time you spawn you're getting your *** shot off already.

 

[omarfw]

I think someone just went "If people go more than 1 minute without seeing another player, the map is too big" and they cut the maps down to shoebox size. It's crap. One thing I liked about BF2 was there was enough room to get organized, fall in formation and fight as a team. In BC2, half the time you spawn you're getting your *** shot off already.

This. They took the tactical element out of it to try and make it a chaotic run&gun shooter.

There seems to be a fad with run&gun shooters these days. Developers are all basically trying to make their games be the next CoD.

 

[Grobut]

This! +1 internet cookie for you.

Omnomnom.

This. They took the tactical element out of it to try and make it a chaotic run&gun shooter.

There seems to be a fad with run&gun shooters these days. Developers are all basically trying to make their games be the next CoD.

Well ofcourse they are, a bunch of suits at the top sit there looking at sales charts, see the embarassing amount of dosh the CoD franchise is raking in, and say "Me too!".

Ofcourse, you'd think that by now, they would have figured out that it doesen't work that way, the clone never sells as well as the origional name brand, CoD fans want to play CoD, and they will play CoD, just like people still play CS, but nobody plays all thouse CS-clone mods that where so numerous once, people play the origional, because that's where all the other players are.

Honestly, nobody's going to beat CoD at it's own game (not unless they utterly mess up their own franchise somehow), and it doesen't make sense to even try, and yes, whilst there are quite a few CoD players that have grown disillusioned with CoD at the moment (due to franchise fatigue and Activision beeing, basically, a saturday morning cartoon villain), why would they cast their love on a clone of the game they where disillusioned with in the first place? i have no doubt they will buy this one, but would they bother to buy the next one or even continue playing this one for long?


Here's a novel idea, instead of fighting the Windmill that is CoD, why not make something new? something fresh? something that could forge for itself a new fanbase, and perhabs grow to become the CoD of it's niche or genre?

Ahh, but that's risky, and shareholders don't like risky things..

 

[The Masta]

Ahh, but that's risky, and shareholders don't like risky things..

But according to the SAS "Who dares wins".

 

[gusone]

But according to the SAS "Who dares wins".

SAS kill people.

Investors want dividends / and or capital appreciation and would like people not die.

 

[dogbadger]

I got the impression ppl here on the whole quite liked BC2, and it was also a real mainstream challange to the cod series.
I even had a play on the ps3 version and it seemed more interesting, for what its worth.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

SAS kill people.

Investors want dividends / and or capital appreciation and would like people not die.

Maybe it's time to change professions and make a living off of killing

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I got the impression ppl here on the whole quite liked BC2, and it was also a real mainstream challange to the cod series.
I even had a play on the ps3 version and it seemed more interesting, for what its worth.

I got BC2 in part because my clan has a server and the reviews I saw here.
Single player was ok, and there are some decent aspects about the multiplayer, but once the newness wore off, it is definitely nothing special and I am finding more and more things annoy me about it. Glad I bought it on special and nowhere near full price.

 

[Merin Redplate]

I have to agree, BC2 was good for the first bit that I had it, but now it's gone dull.

 

[dogbadger]

I have to agree, BC2 was good for the first bit that I had it, but now it's gone dull.

yeah it seems ppl have gone a bit cold since initially being reasonably impressed (despite no prone)
and as i say, playing half an hour on a mate's ps3 and i thought it was pretty enjoyable, despite my severe hoof-handedness when it comes to pads.
I think the spawing on your squad combined with the dinamic destructable large scale enviroment have an illusion of teamplay in an exciting noisy battlefield.
paps time exposed it to be smoke and mirrors..