It seems to me lately that the new trend for alot of non action games and sequels (tomb raider, splinter cell, thief, hitman etc) is that they make them into some kind of universal action game with different themes and maybe a few gimmicks here and there to make the gameplay at least somewhat unique. It seems alot of studios arent taking risks anymore and every game has to become playable and fun for the retard 13 year olds :/ . It's less a bunch of guys sitting togehter making a game they think is awesome , and more some stupid studio dictating what should be in it. Splinter cell convinction the best example.
It seems new games arent bad, but not very memorable either.
The seeing through walls thing is the best example. The retard 13 year olds dont want ot bump into a guard and die! if that happens 3 times they go to some other game that does allow them to see through walls. its like all these gamestudio's look at each other and think hmm they are succesfull $$ whise, lets put some of that **** in our game too even tho its totally out of place :/ . Fact that these budgets are so big now sucks all the creativity out of the industry. And with current technology they could make really awesome and unique games iwth smart story lines. Thats the sad part.

Seems like only pure action games like battlefield really benefit from new technology.

thoughts?

ouch, you can see through walls in the new hitman? That's awful. I already knew it was going to be terrible anyways.

This is why indie games are making a comeback, the makers don't have to satisfy ignorant boards of directors and shareholders by appealing to as big a demographic as possible.

Also lol at the control pad on that box art.

You can turn off any extra help in the new Hitman. I dont think its fair to level that as a criticism of the game. If you dont wanna play that way you dont have to.

I agree somewhat with your other points but thats just the way it is. It costs too much money to take risks. The same thing has happened to the movie industry. They would rather make a $250m movie as theres more chance of making a profit rather than 5 $50m movies.

In the games biz you get the big triple A titles that can take their piece of the pie and then you get the small indie games which might make a small profit but everything in between has no chance. It basically sucks all the creativity out and you just have to hope at some point in the future there will be a game which bucks the trend big time and will give people the confidence to take risks again on mid-sized games. I doubt that will be anytime soon though.

Let's be fair: Casuals have absolute **** taste in gaming.

look at D3 changes since release...nuff said

Release: Easy game
First major patch: Make crying people happy by making game easier
Second major patch: Make game even easier for new people that are crying

Sad to say, but only competitive games are where a lot of hardcore gamers will be satisfied. Games like CoD or BF aren't competitive...lol

Kind of reminds me of this:



It's 5 minutes long but it's worth it. Money back guarantee if you don't at least find it somewhat funny but in a sad way because you know it's true.

The problem is: Producing a video game is expensive. So the producers want to produce something that is successful and brings them lots of money. So, don't risk too much, but just take something you did before and that was successful before, because you know, if it was succesful before, people will buy it again. Even if it's not too new. Even if it's not too creative. But as long as you know, that people will buy your products - why spend too much effort in developing something new? At least as long as none of your competitor comes up with something more creative that could be better then yours.

Somehow reminds me of the movie-business, although I think there's more space and better chances for independent companies, so you have more choice as a user.

The Hollywood analogy is increasingly accurate. Part of the reason that producing video games is expensive is that devs/publishers nowadays seem to feel that games must be eye-catchingly spectacular. So they emphasise big explosions and visual style over gameplay. Black Ops is a good example - possibly the worst single player FPS campaign I've played. Ridiculously linear, terrible AI, and tiresome shooting. But it was full of Hollywood-esque moments - I felt like I was playing a game created by people more interested in making a movie. The result is that you end up with a product that looks great in trailers but is really a load of recycled ideas and has no depth. Just like most Hollywood garbage.

On the brightside, PC gaming is stronger than it has been in years, and there's still a ton of awesome games coming out all the time. Indie games are getting better and better, and there are still companies that are creating new IPs and taking chances. Also, there's a lot of backlash against companies like activision/blizzard and ea/bioware to the point where they'll probably start noticing that they can't keep releasing rehashed stuff every year. I'd expect the same with hollywood as well at some point (I think last year was their worst year revenue wise in ages, and they did nothing but release terrible sequels/blockbusters).

I mean don't expect CoD to stop coming out every year, just enjoy the good stuff that is rolling out on a regular basis.

edit: I mean really, there are so many good games out and coming out it's kinda crazy. Not trying to troll PC vs consoles, but at this point PCs are getting the majority of games consoles are getting (re: dark souls) and get so many more updates/mods/indie games, if you're not playing at least some of your games on a PC you're missing out. FWIW I have a PS3/wii/PSP/3DS that I all use somewhat regularly.

I have been saying for years that 360 sucks.... since it came out.... to ridicule. Every game is cookie cutter the same exact thing. Give me older games with good gameplay but less graphics anyday. PC gaming is where it's at.