Title says it all, which gaming franchise that exists right now would you not mind seeing it bite the dust?
Printable View
Title says it all, which gaming franchise that exists right now would you not mind seeing it bite the dust?
Call of Duty would be my first pick.
Other than that, Mass Effect. The Elder Scrolls would be considered if they keep with what they're doing.
FIFA
:|
I was debating between this and Madden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockharted
Yay!
Kingdom Hearts. Spreading sequels and prequels across 6 different platforms is just a kick in the face to players who expected a continuation of the story brought up by I & II. Such disrespect. Die you crazy series!
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete for President
Blasphemy! :hot: The story is continued in CoM (between I and II) 3D and BbS is a prequel, and the side games are also pretty essential to the plot (well, at least Days is). So people should really stop their bitching! Especially because, since BbS, we've been getting some of the biggest questions II left unanswered, answered!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete for President
Can I say I want a whole genre to die? Cause I'm kind of fed up with FPS. How they all look the same. And when non-FPS games try to be more like FPSes to sell better... Seriously, those should just die...
The murderwank franchise.
First-person shooters (ala Call of Duty and Halo).
I consider them all to be the same game, thus within the same franchise.
This kind of misses Pete's point. He was complaining because the games are getting released on multiple platforms, despite some being direct continuations of the main story. For the record, I agree with him frankly. I loved Kingdom Hearts, but I didn't have a GBA at the time CoM came out so I didn't play it. And despite reading plenty of previews for KHII before it came out, no one seemed to be making a bit deal of the fact that CoM was required playing before jumping into it. Cue my buying KHII, having concepts, new characters, and new groups thrown at me with not nearly enough of a recap of what the hell happened in CoM, leaving me to spend most of the game trying to decipher what the hell was going on instead of enjoying myself. Once they started releasing games like 358/2 Days on the DS when I didn't own one at the time I just completely gave up on the series. Since then, they've done subsequent games on the PSP and now 3DS. Sure, I have a GBA, DS, and PSP now, but it's been too many years for me to care anymore. And I refuse to pick up a 3DS anytime soon so I doubt I'll start caring for the foreseeable future. Splitting them up like that really was probably the worst thing they could do. Sure, diehard fans might not mind as much, but it killed the series for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The White Wizard of Fynn
I often wonder if the people who make statements like this play or are aware of FPS titles that aren't COD or Battlefield.Quote:
Can I say I want a whole genre to die? Cause I'm kind of fed up with FPS. How they all look the same. And when non-FPS games try to be more like FPSes to sell better... Seriously, those should just die...
That said, COD does need to die if only so Activision loses the biggest series propping them up right now.
Of course, this I can understand. If it weren't for the fact that my brother and I share consoles, it would probably be impossible for me to play all of the games as well, and I can only imagine how locked-out a person that hadn't played all of them might feel. This is a valid argument. What drives me nuts is how people say how the story makes no sense or, as Pete said, it has no continuation. Because there is a continuation and a pretty good one at that (though YMMV), so IMO, saying this lack of continuation is what killed the franchise for them is a fallacy. Saying the spread between different platforms killed it for them, is not. That is a legitimate reason for someone to lose interest in a game, so if, from what I said, you were under the impression that I thought otherwise, I apologize, because that was not the meaning I had intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22This kind of misses Pete's point. He was complaining because the games are getting released on multiple platforms, despite some being direct continuations of the main story. For the record, I agree with him frankly. I loved Kingdom Hearts, but I didn't have a GBA at the time CoM came out so I didn't play it. And despite reading plenty of previews for KHII before it came out, no one seemed to be making a bit deal of the fact that CoM was required playing before jumping into it. Cue my buying KHII, having concepts, new characters, and new groups thrown at me with not nearly enough of a recap of what the hell happened in CoM, leaving me to spend most of the game trying to decipher what the hell was going on instead of enjoying myself. Once they started releasing games like 358/2 Days on the DS when I didn't own one at the time I just completely gave up on the series. Since then, they've done subsequent games on the PSP and now 3DS. Sure, I have a GBA, DS, and PSP now, but it's been too many years for me to care anymore. And I refuse to pick up a 3DS anytime soon so I doubt I'll start caring for the foreseeable future. Splitting them up like that really was probably the worst thing they could do. Sure, diehard fans might not mind as much, but it killed the series for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The White Wizard of Fynn
As for the FPS point - yeah, I am ignorant when it comes to the genre and I could never tell these games apart. It's just, wherever I look - gaming TV, websites, stores, etc. - everything is now dominated by this sort of game. I kind of feel left out now. it's especially sad that games that are valid to my interests are often not considered modern enough, simply because they lack the "action" of this mainstream genre. And then some games try to change and be more "modern" - just look at FFXIII. I have not played the game myself, but from what I have heard, this game tried to borrow elements from this dominating genre and failed miserably (according to some people, at least). What I am saying here might be strictly personal - I was never attracted to FPSes, and I really don't feel as welcome as I used to in the gaming comunity. I miss the old days, when (to me, at least) there seemed to be more variety, where people wouldn't just assume every game of your favourite genre is of brooding effeminite teens. Then again, this might be just my rambling, me growing old, failing to accept, adapt to the evolving gaming industry...
I think it might just have been a poor choice of words on his part when he said there's no continuation. Obviously there is, but continuing the main story outside of numbered entries is confusing enough. But releasing those continuations across five or more different platforms just makes it worse. And then when you try to only play the numbered entries thinking the others are just spin offs which probably aren't necessary, you get one hell of a rude awakening.Quote:
Originally Posted by The White Wizard of Fynn
So yeah, there's continuity there, but damned if it makes any sense if you don't own multiple consoles/handhelds. And actually, that might bring up another major issue. Handheld releases and spin offs didn't used to be important to the continuity of main entries. It's fairly recent that more companies have been releasing major entries on handhelds (stuff like DQIX, the next Shin Megami Tensai, etc. But even then, they're not usually continuing the story from console franchises. When Kingdom Hearts started doing this it made some sense to not realize how important these games were because pretty much no one ever did that. The entire thing just kind of turned into this convoluted mess for most people. If they ever decide to release a Kingdom Hearts collection with every game though, I might be tempted to jump back in.
I can get behind the KH statement being made. I haven't played any of the games besides I and II and quite frankly, I refuse to. I want a direct smurfing sequel on a console I own or plan to get already, I'm not getting anymore smurfing handhelds.
Dammit. Wrong thread....
I'll have to think of something clever to add here.
Assassins Creed.
*Ducks Wolf's hate*
FINAL FANSTY
Part of me wants to say CoD. Full disclosure, I've never played one. It has more to do with the element it brings to gaming sort of like sports games, but worse. Honestly, it's the types of people who harassed you for being a nerdy gamer now buying an annualized game, many of which still think people who playing non-CoD are nerdy. It's helped make gaming more mainstream, but it's also slowly destroyed the variety that games have by making a clear money-making mechanism for other companies to copy ad nauseum.
I also sort of think Final Fantasy may need to be put down for its own good.
Guys, we should start a thread on KH and the impact of having it spread over multiple consoles. I want to chime in, but I don't want to take things off topic.
Also, I want to kill Modern Warfare. I hate FPS. I can't play them, and they make me nauseous. And driving an hour to see friends you haven't seen in a year and having them play Modern Warfare 2 the entire time hurts your feelings.
You know what they say: if you can't beat them at their own game, just beat them. :smash:
Actually there is thread already for this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs
Mario or Zelda. Come up with something new already jeez.
I'm just sick of those obnoxious Call of Duty fans (and the haters too) so I would kill that so we all have to find something else to talk about. So what if they're generic war games? Don't bitch when there's more generic trout out there as well/ it's nothing special don't think you're some all class gamer just for playing CoD.
The 3D Castlevania franchise so Konami has to go back to making 2D.
Well I would never want to cancel a game if there are people who are enjoying it. I enjoy Call of Duty immensely, it's my bread and butter throughout the gaming year, without which I'd probably be forcing myself through mediocre RPGs that I'm only mildly enjoying. The way the challenges, unlock, Create-A-Class and Prestige systems intertwine makes for such a limitlessly playable yet incredibly accessible experience. And when that same game also has, year after year, more maps than any other shooter, more game types and variants on them, and the most robust Add-On content to keep you going, well it's just like a perfect storm and it's understandable why it's the most popular franchise right now. It deserves to be.
But on the other hand, maybe we could kill a franchise that isn't doing anyone good and is only harming the companies producing the title, and possibly the indstry as a whole. The whole franchisization of Final Fantasy XIII should be put to bed. I liked FFXIII, sometimes I liked it a whole lot, but I don't think anyone wants anymore Lightning stories. Get back to what made Square great, different titles and series all the time, year after year, lots of experimenting, even in the flagships.
I suppose every franchise has it's market otherwise it wouldn't be a franchise. Personally though, I would be fine if FPS's were no longer a thing. Any game that uses this perspective I just find incredibly frustrating and uncomfortable to play. The lack of peripheral vision is extremely irritating. I like to think that if someone was stood two feet away and 90 degrees to my right... with a shotgun pointed at my head... I'd be able to react in a way other than just standing there and having my head unceremoniously detached from my body.
Don't get me wrong, games like Call of Duty have their merits. They look fantastic and are very well put together. I just have too many memories of running (but not moving) into walls while I'm continually getting shot in the back... maybe I just suck at these games.
Warning! Nonsensical butthurt "I'm old-school and I'm totally right" rant that maybe two people will appreciate (and you know who you are):
I agree with many people that many FPS's aren't "bad" as much as their popularity keeping companies afloat in a less-than-ideal economy has contributed to one of the least impressive console generations in a while. Creative bankruptcy is normal, but never before have I been so overwhelmingly unimpressed with the lack of real and constructive innovation in the medium.
For example, the RPG as a genre cannot be marketable anymore without becoming either a hybrid or an MMO. Fallout is an excellent example. While Fallout: New Vegas is probably one of the three best RPG's that came out this generation, both that and Fallout 3 feel somewhat stripped-down to accommodate a new generation of FPS-players with a much lower attention span. Did it work? To a degree, but it still feels different in a lot of bad ways. Oblivion, Mass Effect, Final Fantasy XIII, Skyrim, and Fallout 3 have completely lost a large portion of what make RPG's so great in a variety of fashions, and it's upsetting to watch my favorite genre and franchises cave in to a supposed less friendly market.
Should games evolve? Of course, many of the greatest games are held in such a high regard due to an evolution in ideas and mechanics. However, taking a genre and blending it with a totally unrelated genre is baffling, and I can't help feeling insulted as a loyal fan when my favorite developers consider me as an afterthought.
Of course I realize that this is merely smart business. In a poor economy, people are less inclined to be a risky consumer by playing games they may not enjoy. Naturally, FPS's have a broad range of appeal, so they can keep companies financially stable. I just hope the increasing jumps to the bandwagon doesn't slow down the hike.
Farmville because I want Zynga to die so Brian and Soren can come back to us :(
This is kind of why I want COD to die at this point. At best it's impact on the rest of the industry since COD 4 has been mildly annoying to me. At worst it's absolutely atrocious. I agree with Laddy that iterating on ideas and evolving them slowly has its place. But I don't see a lot of that from what I've seen and played of COD's since COD4. I could forgive someone who's only casually played them for not being able to tell the difference between any of them actually. They may be changing slightly from one game to the next, but it's not nearly enough if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Which is made worse when you consider they're doing yearly releases. Which means every other company is trying to do the same thing. Find something that works then beat it to death year after year. It's what killed Guitar Hero and Rock Band. It's the absolute worst thing about the Assassin's Creed series. There is absolutely no need to release one of these titles every year. Especially when they change so little from one year to the next. I do believe it's harmful to the industry in the long run because it changes the focus from "how can we make a good game that's going to sell well" to "how can we exploit something that's popular for several years to make us some easy money?"
Even worse, because it's so popular, everyone tries to ape that success. So now we have a lot of other games which have to be about modern warfare. Which isn't exactly a new trend mind you since 5-10 years ago it was WWII, but it wasn't quite as bad as it is now considering we have games trying to ape their formula in other ways. One of the reasons stated for why FFXIII was so linear was because they were trying to ape these really successful western formulas (I think it was more because they did dick all for several years then needed to get it out the door, but trying to appeal to western audiences probably did play a role too).
I just look at the industry now and I see a whole lot more me too titles out there trying to take what works for a really popular title and do the same thing. Granted, there's more to it than just COD being popular. There's also a troutty economy and absurd development budgets which probably exacerbate things quite a bit more than would normally be the case. But there's also COD making record amounts of money every year. That's a hell of a big carrot that a lot of people are trying to chase instead of finding their own damn carrot.
If their IPO and (I'm pretty sure anyway) falling user numbers are any indication you might get your wish someday. The sooner the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike
Can I love you ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
I love and adore the 2D Castlevania games and the 3D games are just not the same as the 2D games...
I was going to say either Halo or Final Fantasy. Make Final Fanatsy 15 good, really good and go out with amazing fireworks and then start with a new fresh plate.
And Halo is overated. Ducks quickly under the table.
KH needs to die too, just create KH 3 and again like they should with the future FF15 go out with a good end. Again SquareEnix needs to make a new Final Fantasy and KH.
You guys are getting very emotional with arguments using flowery words like economy and iteration. The simple fact is last generation had the hack-n-slash, 32-bit had the RPG, 16-bit had the beat-em-up and 8-bit had the platformer. And yes, people tried to make games more actioney after the hack-n-slash and RPG elements proliferated in the generation after the 16-bit console.
Vivi, I'll only mention 2 things. 1) I have no clue what you're talking about with Assassin's Creed, as people have loved the series since it moved to annual releases, especially Brotherhood, which was the first to be released after a year. Now people are losing their minds over how awesome ACIII looks.
2) You keep going on about CoD4 as if it's some kind of credibility-badge for you, when in reality I have to question what your relationship is to this series considering you said it looks better than FFXIII multiple time (you're blind). I would agree that MW3 had too little evolution; it was a placeholder title in a year that they had to get a game out after switching teams well into development. It would've been better if they dropped the series for a year and focused on another shooter like James Bond and that would've built more hype for the next one.
But just the previous game Black Ops introduced so much to the series. It was the first with theater mode, for players to record and share their games. It introduced Combat Training, for console players to play and host private games against bots to practice. It destroyed and rebuilt the unlock system, by implementing COD Points. It took a unique take on the challenge system with Contracts. It implemented gametypes based on famous PC mod gametypes like Gun Game and One in the Chamber which then allowed you to gamble your unlock points against other players, which then had a crazy impact on unlocks, contracts, and challenges. It was the first game in the series with interactive multiplayer maps, such as the rocket in Launch sitting over an objective actually taking off mid-match, or the ability to close off certain routes on Radiation. But for the most part it went in to all of the systems of the previous three CoD games and masterfully tweaked each and every one of them to make not only the best balanced game in the series for a while, but also the most robust. It had more maps than any other shooter that year. It had more equipment and cutsomization options than any other title. While all the shooters in the genre try to emulate these systems as well as the whole XP and Create A Class system, they all fall short for one reason or another. It's the best one doing it yet they still add in such a ridiculous amount of content. We had the single player, MP, and Zombies, which were like three games unto themselves. Then it had Dead Ops Arcade, which could've been a full $15 PSN/XBLA title. Then it had Zork, one of the earliest text-based adventure games, hidden like a wonderful easter egg.
So don't tell me about "easy money" because Treyarch probably puts more into their games than almost any other developer.
Call of Duty definitely & I'd probably mercy kill Tekken because it hasn't been good in quite some time
People saying AssCreed are high as balls.
Zelda.
One doesn't need to be emotional to speak well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
First, people have loved AC since AC2 fixed just about everything AC was terrible at. The love for the series amongst reviewers and the general public has been steadily declining since then however because each game was only superficially different from the previous entry for the most part. Which makes sense when you consider they were off loaded onto other teams and turned around in much shorter amounts of time. The only reason people are excited about AC3 is because Ubisoft Montreal has been working on it for the past 3 years and it's actually looking like it could be a big step forward from the previous ones. If it was more of the same I'd imagine the reaction would be much different than it is right now, and I actually have to wonder if there would be even more excitement for it amongst most gamers if it was the game that was made after AC2 instead of the two that actually followed it.Quote:
Vivi, I'll only mention 2 things. 1) I have no clue what you're talking about with Assassin's Creed, as people have loved the series since it moved to annual releases, especially Brotherhood, which was the first to be released after a year. Now people are losing their minds over how awesome ACIII looks.
It's the last one I owned and played extensively. It's also the last time they really did anything to shake up the series and pretty much singlehandedly kicked off the last several years worth of everyone and their mother trying to cash in on it's success by making a Modern Warfare title. So yeah, excuse me if I mention it quite a bit since I know it very well and it pretty much singlehandedly changed the face of FPS titles in the current generation.Quote:
2) You keep going on about CoD4 as if it's some kind of credibility-badge for you, when in reality I have to question what your relationship is to this series considering you said it looks better than FFXIII multiple time (you're blind).
And it does look better than FFXIII because the art style in FFXIII likes to oscillate between mediocre and a god awful mess. Sorry if that offends you, but some of the people who worked on the monster and location designs, 3D models, and textures for FFXIII need to either be fired because they suck at their jobs or get some better medical benefits so they can afford to get their glaucoma fixed up because their eyes definitely don't work properly.
So they introduced something which has no effect on the gameplay then.Quote:
But just the previous game Black Ops introduced so much to the series. It was the first with theater mode, for players to record and share their games.
I'm supposed to give it credit for private games and bots? Even on consoles these have existed in one form or another for over a decade.Quote:
It introduced Combat Training, for console players to play and host private games against bots to practice.
I'll skip quoting the rest because most of it is either they changed how you unlock things which isn't really important as far as how the actual game is played within a match (beyond potentially changing your goals from winning the match to some other goal totally separate from that of the regular match to earn more points if I'm understanding you correctly). The rest amounts to do what other games and mods already did years before and iterate on the previous game to tweak balance and improve on things.Quote:
It destroyed and rebuilt the unlock system, by implementing COD Points.
I'm not saying it didn't change things up with each successive entry. My point was that they aren't really innovating that much. The fact that your best arguments seem to amount to adding modes which already existed in other games and changing systems that already existed in previous COD titles really only serves to demonstrate that fact. Sure, they may be iterating from one year to the next and tweaking things, but they're not going to make another game changer by doing that, and when someone else does, they're going to be playing catch up.
Except innovation. :pQuote:
So don't tell me about "easy money" because Treyarch probably puts more into their games than almost any other developer.
Vivi, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. People loved Brotherhood and Revelations. The series has become more and more popular and Brotherhood has been lauded for its introduction of a unique multiplayer mode.
But interactive maps do change how you play and win matches. The two maps I already mentioned closing off routes radically transforms your ability to complete objectives if they happen in the middle of a round. Another example is the random trains in WMD or the launch pads on Silo which muffle footsteps in the middle of intense Search and Destroy matches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
The wager matches have existed in different mods within niche communities, but this is largely the first time they've appeared on the disc of a mainstream shooter. And if you know a FPS that allows players to gamble currency for their equipment unlocks I would be delighted for you to tell me what it is.
Of course you wouldn't know about these things because you admitted you haven't played these games.
Their latest title is allowing players to livestream matches from their console to the internet. This is something that has, up until now, required expensive equipment to perform.Quote:
Except innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
This ! Assassin's Creed is still exciting, thrilling and fresh. I think Soul Calibur needs to start to die as well. Make Soul Calibur VI and end it.
Agreed. Single player mode hasn't been good since I or II. The new features of every installment you can usually count on one hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by maybeeQuote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
I think Soul Calibur needs to start to die as well.
I'm surprised Metal Gear Solid didn't get it's share of arguments. I used to think the series should die (mainly because I really didn't agree with the MGS4 spoilersuper happy ending they tried to pull off after everyone suffered more bullet wounds than one can count), but Ground Zeroes looks quite interesting.
Just gonna say that Assassin's Creed is one of the finest examples of how yearly releases should be handled.
Madddeeeeeeeennnnnnnnn or Fifa.
And smurf yo all soul calibur should never die, even if I think the latest installment was pretty boring. I just want a better 6.
Soul Caliber III's character design was fun. I made a Gay Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete for PresidentAgreed. Single player mode hasn't been good since I or II. The new features of every installment you can usually count on one hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by maybeeQuote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
I think Soul Calibur needs to start to die as well.
I'm surprised Metal Gear Solid didn't get it's share of arguments. I used to think the series should die (mainly because I really didn't agree with the MGS4 spoilersuper happy ending they tried to pull off after everyone suffered more bullet wounds than one can count), but Ground Zeroes looks quite interesting.
If I could kill one gaming franchise...
Does Shorty count as a gaming franchise?
That's my CK cohort you're talking about there. Tread carefully...
All good things must come to a end, otherwise they'll end up like the Simpsons. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
The Final Fantasy XIII franchise.
Stop making Mana games that don't begin with "Secret of". My hopes always get up for the second coming of Christ and then I'm left disappointed and blowing dustbunnies out of the SNES.
So regarding the Madden/FIFA comments: Why? Is it just because they churn out the same games each year? Because I kind of agree. EA should release the games every couple of years when they actually have updates and instead just allow for patching updated rosters. Simple.
Call of Duty, due to the adverse effects it has had on creativity and experimentation in the industry. Second place goes to Final Fantasy XIII for trying to eke out a trilogy on a character that's not compelling enough for it to be meaningful. If you need an example of trilogies that do this right, see: Assassin's Creed (Ezio), Mass Effect (the main cast), and The Lord of the Rings (the main cast).
Can someone please explain how Call of Duty has honestly been "killing gaming" because I think you're all kids that don't like it and therefore scapegoat it as the problem with ALL GAMES NOWWWWW. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Are you joking? I can't tell if you're joking. There are many practices today which only became widespread after the introduction of Call of Duty (MW+). That stuff is irrelevant now; wanting a game to disappear because of the changes it made to the industry is silly, because those changes have already happened. I just want the franchise to disappear because it's a trout game for :bou::bou::bou::bou:s. :bigsmile:
That, or go back to CoD4 greatness, because that was an excellent FPS. World at War was also quite enjoyable, and I liked the bots in Black Ops, because it meant I could dick about with my friends offline and also try out weapons and upgrades before buying them.
This seems like something of a bipolar post now. :|
There are a lot of series I want killed, picking just one will be nearly impossible.
Madden and Fifa. I am sick to death of these games. Why people keep buying them when the only changes are the players' names is utterly beyond me.
Pretty much every shooter series out right now, especially Call of Duty and Halo. The market is oversaturated, bland, and tired. Even the good series in the genre have plenty of poor elements and poor games just because the entire FPS market seems to have stagnated. Let it go for a while, guys, give shooters a rest, then come back to it with a fresh take on things.
Dragon Age. My gosh, BioWare, what the hell happened to you? You are, for a brief, shining moment, one of the great RPG developers of the current generation, and then, in a few short projects, you have bombed to one of my most hated. Granted, we all know what happened (Hello, EA!), but still, this is pitiful. You rush your games, you gut their writing, you release buggy products, you destroy excellent potential... SWTOR was going strong for a while, but even it is feeling the pressure now, with the latest patch being a new Operation, but containing no new story, quests, planets, or companions, despite what we were specifically told we would get. I shudder to think how painful Dragon Age III will be.
Pokemon. As much as I love this series, it needs to die. Why? Because if the main series can't continue, maybe they'll finally give the spin offs the glory they deserve. The main games have gotten tired and repetitive, and abhor creativity whenever it appears. But the series has a ton of intriguing, well designed spinoffs that exist for one brief moment, and are then abandoned forever, only to watch the main series chug on.
Assassin's Creed is actually on hold on my hit list for the next three weeks. Normally, I'd be more than ready to burn this series to the ground, but the direction they've gone with it has earned them some breathing room. Assassin's Creed was good, and ACII was a phenomenal step upwards, improving a ton of stuff about the game. Since then, however, we haven't seen anything revolutionary, Brotherhood and Revelations brought multiplayer, and that's about it. They are more extra campaigns, expansion packs, than they are full games. A lot of the new ideas that Ubisoft tried clearly didn't work (tower defense minigame, yay), and it does not leave me high hopes for the future. If ACIII is just more of the same, the series needs to die. If it brings even close to the same changes to the series that ACII brought when it came out, then Ubisoft can continue this sales trend as long as they need to. I have no problem buying expansion packs, after all. But the series needs to evolve and improve if I am going to have any further interest in it.
The Half Life Episodes. Valve, you cannot make episodic games. Stop trying. Create each entry as an entire, discrete game, and just go with it. You make good games, but releasing games in episodic parts only works if you can actually release the future parts in a decent timetable. Just drop the concept, learn to count to three, and move on.
Diablo, Starcraft, and pretty much every other game made by Blizzard. Yeah, Blizzard is even more creatively dead than the main Pokemon games. There is nothing new about these games except their graphics. I don't know what else to say about them, really. We're getting obsolete games from ten years ago, and people are buying them like crazy.
I'll probably have more for this list later, but that's all for now.
Wow, I agree on pretty much everything. Especially Pokémon, that's definitely gotta go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
I guess I was a little soft on my first post with just listing Kingdom Hearts. In fact, if I could trade in all currently ongoing series and get all new IP's in return, I'd sign immediately.
I can't quite fully agree with that.
I wouldn't want the Persona series to die, for example. It's moving well, and moving towards something. Each entry has brought a lot of new content, concepts, and ideas. As long as it continues its march forwards, I am all in favor of it continuing.
Fire Emblem is another one. My most anticipated game of next year is Fire Emblem: Kakusei (not sure what the translation is going to be), because, again, this series has had brilliant forward momentum (except Shadow Dragon, but no series is perfect). They keep adding new ideas and thoughts to their games, and I love it. Even Shadow Dragon was an attempt at innovation, and for a remake, that's saying a lot. Freedom to choose a character's class? Gutsy move. And I don't really think it worked. But still, the effort is there, and they've learned from mistakes.
Rune Factory. While I feel Harvest Moon got a little stale (with Harvest Moon 64 being my favorite of the series), holy heck is this not one of the best underrated series ever. The original was a brilliant twist on the classic gameplay, and they have continued to innovate since then. While I wasn't fond of RF2's setup, again, they brought a lot of new stuff to the table, and a lot worked, though some didn't. And RF3 is flat-out brilliant. One of my favorite games on the DS, period. The skill system and stat setup are one of the best I've seen executed in an RPG in a long time. This series also needs to keep going, and I hope we get RF4 released over here soon.
What are you talking about? They clearly did drop the concept. I'm not sure why anyone expects the next game to be Episode 3 at this point. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
I have to disagree with you on Starcraft if only because SC2 actually did make some very necessary changes to the formula. Not to mention that in the time between Brood War and SC2, pretty much no one made an RTS in that style that was half as good as either. I can forgive SC2 for simply building on the original for those reasons. The original was pretty much one of the greatest games ever made, and the UI tweaks in 2 are a godsend compared to the outdated, cumbersome horsetrout that we have in the original.Quote:
Diablo, Starcraft, and pretty much every other game made by Blizzard. Yeah, Blizzard is even more creatively dead than the main Pokemon games. There is nothing new about these games except their graphics. I don't know what else to say about them, really. We're getting obsolete games from ten years ago, and people are buying them like crazy.
Call of Duty created a new standard of FPS aiming systems, with their great ADS system. That's it, how the hell they "kill creativity in gaming" is beyond me. Not every game should have completely unique controls, games would never feel ergonomic if they all did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harle-y Davidson
^ This is another reason why I'm with Boko on this issue. Even if CoD didn't exist you'd still be left with an industry that imitates (poorly) whatever's successful and the real problem would still remain.
Except it's not just a problem of immitators. There have always been immitators for better or for worse, but the problem is one of scale that COD created. AAA development is expensive as hell and publishers don't like to take risks with tens of millions of dollars. So what do they do when a single series is selling in the billions every year while itself changing very little? Take fewer risks and try to copy it's success more than I think I've ever seen before in any other console generation. Sure, it's not COD's success alone that drives it, though their unwillingness to take risks within that series isn't helping. They're basically advertising every year that they can do next to nothing to innovate and make a billion dollars. Point being, much of what COD accomplishes every year only serves to highlight the absolute worst aspects of the industry. It and Activision certainly aren't alone in being unwilling to innovate and take risks, but they're the prime example of it. For that reason alone I would be just about ready to cheer if the next entry were a sales flop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Madden and COD. That is all. Pokemon is sounding the same, but all they need to do is change stuff up. Take a look at... Nah I'll just make a new thread about it.
This is silly, or need I remind you that you are posting on a Final Fantasy forum? A series that has spawned 14 games, many of which have had very similar systems (Job System, III, V, X-2), Turn-based (I-III), ATB (V-IX, XIII), FFXII is the most unique game of the series really. Look at the newest CoD and compare it to CoD II, if you tell me those are the same, then you just hate FPS and don't really have a right in that conversation.
Do you honestly believe that the FF titles are all as similar to one another as every COD since 4 is? Because I don't see it. Sure, some FF's utilized similar mechanics, but most of them play so differently that arguing they didn't innovate any more then recent COD's have just doesn't fly with me. From what I've seen and played of COD's in the last few years, there's been little appreciable difference since COD4, but what should we expect from a publisher who didn't want COD4 to begin with and wanted Infinity Ward to make another WWII game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenboko
I spent more time playing the Zombies mode in BlOps then I did the multiplayer, yes I'd say that part of the game plays entirely different and does not look like any part of CoD4. Look at the difference between FFVII and FFVIII, how DRASTICALLY different is the core, fundamental gameplay between the two. Different leveling systems, and only SLIGHTLY altered battle systems.
As far as sequels go, AC Brotherhood was a decent placeholder, it made enough small additions to AC2's core that it wasn't redundant. AC Revelations however, felt really redundant. I understand though that they were just there to slow the wait for AC3, which looks like a major revamp.
I would agree on ending MGS; I always felt like Kojima wanted to move on to other things. Despite, I'm excited as hell for Ground Zeroes. Plus I heard MGS5 will have Solid Snake in it (he was always my favorite character, though I love Naked Snake).
I think Resident Evil is kinda done. Just looking at RE6, everything seems REALLY silly; the Uncharted level disasters, the plot (though it's really kinda cool to see Sherry again, and have Chris and Leon finally meet), the uninspired third person shooter gameplay. I seriously doubt Capcom will get their crap together.
Zelda and Mario definitely need some mad revamping. Though that's probably impossible; not only is Nintendo incredibly resistant to change, a good portion of fans are too.
EDIT: Oh, and Kingdom Hearts 3 really needs to come out too. With each spin-off, things seem to be getting sillier. DREAM DROP DISTANCE SPOILERSOrganization XIII comes back(What is this, Final Fantasy IV?)? Axel becomes a Keyblade wielder? Now they're just pandering to the fanbase.
It's simple; kill the Batman...
Arkham games. Asylum was excellent, City was alright, so presumably Super Arkham World will be cack.
Too bad you didn't see mine coming from behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Big Hands
Resident Evil. Not just the games, the movies too. Retribution was awful!
Your hate doesn't really phase me though, so I wasn't to worried about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic CactuarToo bad you didn't see mine coming from behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Big Hands
Resident Evil. Not just the games, the movies too. Retribution was awful!
My hate has a katana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Big HandsYour hate doesn't really phase me though, so I wasn't to worried about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic CactuarToo bad you didn't see mine coming from behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Big Hands
Resident Evil. Not just the games, the movies too. Retribution was awful!
I've honestly had to debate this question cause as much as I complain, I don't hold that much animosity towards any particular series or genre. If I had to kill franchises it's for personal reasons...
Metal Gear Solid - I really love the series, MGS3 is easily one of my favorite games of all time and Peace Walker is brilliant, but the series needs to die. Not because the series is in a downhill spiral, but because I would like the series to retire on a high note before Kojima spends the next 15 years churning out sequels for it and becomes bitter about the industry like Kenji Inafune and reading some of his interviews, he sounds like he's heading in that direction. Not to mention that even Kojima is going to start running out of ideas eventually and the series will begin to get weaker and dumber. I'd rather see it end on a high note. It helps that there really isn't anything left to talk about for the series unless MGS5 is going to be a prequel about the Boss (which would actually be really cool) or Kojima retcons MGS4's ending for Snake and revitalizes him with nanomachines so he can start a new story arc, but that idea just sounds terrible. The point is that Snake's story has run its course and it's time to let him rest before he becomes Konami's version of Mario or worse, Capcom's version of Mega Man. Speaking of which...
Resident Evil - seriously, you need to drop Umbrella Corp and come up with some new way to create zombie apocalypse, I mean how many zombie apocalypses can one evil megacorp cause before the U.N. is going to step in have them exterminated? Even Shin-Ra doesn't have as good of PR as UC does. You really should have taken the opportunity that RE4 gave you and give the series a fresh start instead of dragging everyone back into the bulltrout of the previous games. So RE7 better not have UC or any of it's affiliates or you should lay the series to rest.
Silent Hill - Same issue, you need to get rid of The Order and stop torturing Alessa/Cheryl/Heather Mason cause how many times can you retell the plot of SH1? You should have taken a clue from SH2 and instead focused character dramas facing their real life demons in a spooky town called Silent Hill rather than later entries that always make everything tie back into the cult from the first game. Just be rid of them and their plot to resurrect their doomsday cult god and let's all move on with our lives, I'm sure if you put your heads together you can make something just as scary without the backlog of convulated nonsense. Though SH: Homecoming was a nice twist on the cult.
Fabula Nova Crystallis - Here's what you need to do Squenix, cancel Lightning Returns and just make some bulltrout DLC ending for XIII-2 starring Lightning or just don't. Tell everyone in your in-house development to stop what they are doing and put their projects on hold. Pull them all together and make them finish Versus XIII by holiday season of next year (I'm trying to be realistic) after 6 years of development there cannot possibly be any kind of new idea that should be introduced into this game by this stage of development. If you have to lock Nomura into a closet cause he can't stop being an "artist" about every little detail of the game then so be it. I would like to see this game before my hypothetical children have their own hypothetical demon spawn children. I don't care if it has to be rushed and unfinished, it's never stopped you before and if it was going to be any good, I figure six years is more than enough time to show the "meat and potatoes" of the grand design. We as fans are big enough to forgive a lack of polish if the core of the game is good, I mean that was practically every game you made in the PS1 generation.
After this is done, decide if you are going to translate Type-0, then put it to rest. Don't bother waiting for the Vita to get popular, cause it's a few years worth of games away from having an exceptionable gaming library and it needs a price drop before average consumers are going to pay attention. We all have PSPs, just translate that version and be done with it. Once that is done, kill FNC and let us all agree to never speak of this Compilation experiment again. Just make Nomura start working on KH3, and get everyone else back on current projects and FFXV. Thank you.
Keiji Inafune became jaded because he was making alarmingly mediocre imitations of Western games and got upset when Capcom just wanted to make fighting games instead.
He was also upset cause he got trapped dealing with the corporate aspect of the business, which he never cared for, something Kojima has also mentioned being forced to do for Konami with similar annoyance. Both guys have said they wish they could just make a game they wanted rather than have to deal with marketing and the top brass.
I have an article written showing the evolution of the battle system in the Final Fantasy series. There are always major changes. Always. Also something to remember is that Final Fantasy helped shape the RPG genre; Call of Duty has only been a recent addition. I'm not going to argue that it hasn't had some impact but my experience lies outside of CoD so it's not something I'd be comfortable arguing either way. Still, don't try and say the battle systems are the same. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenboko
The beat 'em up genre in general. I miss the PS2/GC/XBOX glory days where Beat 'em ups had your standard arcade and versus modes but they also had fun little challenge modes and adventure modes and ludicrous rules modes and more unlockables than a vault.
Fast forward to Soul Calibur IV which was essentially just marketting for Star Wars: Force Unleashed and Soul Calibur V which was basically an online VS game with a half-assed offline mode shipped for a full box price. It makes me weep. Playing people online is fun - yes. But damnit I want my Chronicles of the Sword and Edge Master modes back!
On a more general note though this whole idea that developers have to be innovative with each title they release just well and truly knarks me off! Having to "innovate" or "streamline" to appease a bunch of overpaid cynical games critics is probably why games I once loved became so bad.
If I buy a sequel it's because I want more of the same, because I *liked* the first one. Sure if there were any naggling usability issues with the previous game I'll expect them to be ironed out but beyond that I want the core formula to remain the same. Assassin's Creed is the perect example of this, stellar overarching story, first game had a lot of kinks but the core formula was solid - they ironed those out in AC2 and it improved the game as a whole. I happilly gave them more money for both Brotherhood and Revelations and thankfully by Revelations they realised that their "flying" sections handled worse than a bicycle with flat tyres - and subsequently got rid of them. AC3 they're still keeping the core formula in tact there but expanding the world beyond the GTA-esque confines of a city.
Borderlands 2 is a great example too. Borderlands was a fun game but got very repetitive with very little varation in textures etc and the setpieces felt rather disjointed. Borderlands 2 they added some colour to Pandora, made the writing even slicker and comical, nailed the set pieces and generally just tightened the nuts and bolts on the existing package (without really changing anything dramatically) and it was by far a more entertaining experience.
Heck, if Square Enix released a game tomorrow that had a decent story and a Battle System and other gameplay systems similar to VI - I would literally throw money at them. Instead I got lumbered with 50 hours of corridors followed by 20 hours of Calm Lands 2.0 and felt notably shortchanged by it all.
It does my head in when people rail on studios for not being "innovative" if the crux of the gameplay remains largely the same.
Like with this new Fable game that I have to faff around with Kinect and hand gestures and it handles terrible. smurf off Lionhead, no! I want a Fable game - something that I can curl up on the sofa under the quilt cover with and lose hours and hours in the wonder of adventure. Not some bulltrout motion controlled experiment with the Fable name slapped onto it so it can be lauded as "innovation."
If a game is a sequel then it carries with it a set of already established expectations that it's fans want and expect to see fulfilled. Not disregarding and thrown out the window for the sake of being "innovative."
Really I think the gaming community as a whole has really got it's wires crossed and has confused "innovatism" with "iteration." Iteration is a necessity, but doesn't mean demolishing and rebuilding from the ground up - nor does it necessarilly equate to being "good" either.
As long as there are games like Tribes Ascend, serious Sam, Painkiller, and unreal tournament, FPS should never die.
Now... modern Military shooters on the other hand... yeah, screw that.
I would kill off either Madden, FIFA, or CoD. At least battlefield has some damned variety (though I'd still never touch it with a 10 foot pole).
Also, if final fantasy doesn't get its act together, I'd kill it off. It's just disgracing itself constantly, though it may save itself eventually....
Also,I'd kill of dynasty warriors. Come on guys, 500 trillion versions of the same game is enough.
I would have to say I would kill final fantasy after 10 came out. Leave it on a high note and leave it like that. I just see the series going down hill from this point. I keep hearing so many complaints about the 13 series. There has to be a time where enough is enough. Fine they can milk the series all they want but isn't that just destroying what made the series good in the first place? I sometimes I really miss the good old days of square soft. Each game was fun and creative and they where trying new things. It just seems like they have lost their way. I don't know if they could fix the series and go back to what made these games popular. I really don't.
Another thing I would just kill would be first person shooters they all look the same and just seems boring to me. I tried to play those games and I did not see the appeal to those games.
If FF died after X, we wouldn't have received the glory that is XII, nor what I hear is the glory off XI and XIV.
Uhm, did you just forget that 11, 12 and 14 actually exist? ....errrrr, those games are pretty damn fantastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabin101
Also, if you think FPS all look the same then you have not explored the genre at all.
Try these on for size:
Half life (the entire series): Half Life 2 Trailer - YouTube
Serious sam: Serious Sam HD - Final Trailer [HD] - YouTube
Painkiller: The Escapist : Video Galleries : Zero Punctuation : Painkiller
Tribes ascend: Tribes Ascend - Focus Official HD Trailer - YouTube
Bioshock: Bioshock Trailer - YouTube
Unreal Tournament: Unreal Tournament 3 Gameplay - YouTube
I did not forget 11 12 and 13 and 14 exist just not my cup of tea and I don't like the way square has been creating final fantasy games at all. Back in the old days final fantasy games used to mean something what do final fantasy games stand for now mediocre crap?
I am horrible at first person shooters I suck at them. I tried and tried to play them and I could not play them. I will pass.
What do you mean by the "meant something"? I'd very much like you to expand on that point as I'm very curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabin101
Final Fantasy doesn't stand for mediocre games, they just had a giant change of direction. While it may not be your "cup of tea" (or mine) it still appeals to quite a few people. I think you're giving way too much praise to the franchise, the older FF games were far from perfect. The "old days" as you call it (do you mean 1-6, or 7-10? old days is very general) were very VERY grind heavy with little emphasis on story or characters (I'm talking about 1-5, excluding 4 because it at least tried). By the time 4 came out they tried to start working on it, and succeeding with 6 and 7. I've never played 8, and they did a solid job with 9.
1-3 had a great many flaws, and that's understandable since the franchise was still trying to discover what they wanted to do with themselves.
The old days were far from perfect, I can't stress this enough. While the games may still be damn good in terms of JRPGs, I think you have your nostalgia goggles on too tight.
Also, I royally sucked at FPS until I started playing with a mouse and keyboard, it makes it so much easier and a lot more fun. Seriously, games like the original Serious Sam (first encounter, not HD) can run on any rock of a PC, and it's a blast to play. They're outrageously difficult, but in a good way that keeps you wanting more. It's very hard to get mad at SS because you're always dying in very creative and interesting ways.
Barbie
Dora
What I met that final fantasy games met something like games like ff 4, 6, 7, 9 to me those games had creativity exploration. Going off to save the crystals or the world you where not stuck on a linear path where you had to go from one place to the next weather you like it or not. I like to explore in games not be stuck on a single path. Final fantasy 6 and 7 and 9 where my personal favorites of the series. I am just a old school gamer. I love the old snes and sega genesis fan. I am not going to say I want a remake of ff 7 I am fine the way the game is. Plus it would take way to long to do. I want a 3ds version of ff 6 now that would rock. Now back to the topic I would just go right ahead and kill sonic the hedge hog good god. Every single time they come out with a game it just is not good. That series is going down hill and should be spared even more torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrollHunterWhat do you mean by the "meant something"? I'd very much like you to expand on that point as I'm very curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabin101
Final Fantasy doesn't stand for mediocre games, they just had a giant change of direction. While it may not be your "cup of tea" (or mine) it still appeals to quite a few people. I think you're giving way too much praise to the franchise, the older FF games were far from perfect. The "old days" as you call it (do you mean 1-6, or 7-10? old days is very general) were very VERY grind heavy with little emphasis on story or characters (I'm talking about 1-5, excluding 4 because it at least tried). By the time 4 came out they tried to start working on it, and succeeding with 6 and 7. I've never played 8, and they did a solid job with 9.
1-3 had a great many flaws, and that's understandable since the franchise was still trying to discover what they wanted to do with themselves.
The old days were far from perfect, I can't stress this enough. While the games may still be damn good in terms of JRPGs, I think you have your nostalgia goggles on too tight.
Also, I royally sucked at FPS until I started playing with a mouse and keyboard, it makes it so much easier and a lot more fun. Seriously, games like the original Serious Sam (first encounter, not HD) can run on any rock of a PC, and it's a blast to play. They're outrageously difficult, but in a good way that keeps you wanting more. It's very hard to get mad at SS because you're always dying in very creative and interesting ways.
If you like non-linear worlds, you should try XI, XII and XIV. :roll2
sabin you need to remove your opinion from fact.
In Final Fantasy XII, you could visit areas and bosses very early in the game if you looked. Sure in the beginning you were nailed along your path to learn about all the battle mechanics of the game, but very soon after dozens of optional marks, areas, espers, quests, and side-bosses where open to you. Hell, I have to replay through that game because I beat it but only scratched the surface. Final Fantasy XII, the next single player game after FFX, was less linear in terms of exploration. Hell, the game was less linear than my absolute favorite entry in the series FFIX.
FFX was linear until you received the airship, that was about 30 hours in for me.
EDIT: As for XI and XIV, there is nothing less linear than an MMO. XIII, was incredibly linear, but that's a mere 1 out of 4 games, and the problem with XIII's world wasn't it's linearity. FFX was equally as linear, but it was presented in a more understandable way, instead of awkward level segments.
I don't mind too much if it's linear. It can be a bit harder to navigate through a 3D game than a 2D one.
Especially when the maze comes and they have save points instead of letting you save YOUR game. :cry:
(don't understand the point of save points as you bought the game so shouldn't you be able to save it whenever you want?...pretty much they just mark down a boss/event...or, in awful cases, a point after beating the boss :mad:)
They're meant to pace out levels. It makes it to where if you die, there's actually a cost to it. It's not just a minor inconvenience in all cases. Sometimes save points are spaced out SO damn far, or are nonexistent (check out the DS version of FFIII, the last 1-2hours of the game had no save points AT ALL, so if you died at the first boss, the second boss, the third boss, the fourth boss, the fifth boss, or the last boss, you had to start COMPLETELY over from the start of the dungeon that leads up to the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming Ice
This really made every encounter intense, and you gave each one your all (or you ran, YOU PANSY). While it was mechanically a godawful decision that caused me hours upon hours of stress... it still made it so much more memorable and made me a god at FF3
But when save points are actually spaced out properly, it evens out the pacing, so you can't just cheese the dungeon and save after every fight to make sure you get through without a scratch. That's no fun...
I'm sure there's also some technical reasons behind it... somewhere. I wouldn't know.
Indeed there are. Save Points mean that there is plenty of information that doesn't have to be saved. You don't have to save everyone's exact position, only which save point they used. This is why nearly all early games utilized Save Points or reset you to the start of the level when you reloaded, because it was much easier to implement. Nowadays not much of a concern, but depending on your system and world, can still save a lot of trouble.
Heyyo TrollHunter Unreal Tournament III is my jam! THAT'S game series that should be resurrected... oops, wrong thread!
But damn why are you guys beating up on newcomers? I played FFXII over 200 hours on 3 playthroughs, but I can totally understand what sabin101 means when he says it just didn't have the same creative magic that older games have. I'm not sure how much of that is debatable, either you got that "feeling" or you didn't. I learned to like the game. But I didn't get "the feeling."
Also, FPS is great and there's a lot of awesome variations on it, including cool innovations of the last few years. You just gotta get into it.
I think star ocean (for the most part) was the same way. 1~2 hours between saves. It makes it so you can't just pick up the game for even 20 mins or so, add the cutscenes (especially unskippable ones) in there and there's a lot of lost time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrollHunter
Yeah, but you could have used that lost time to level up your characters instead or something useful if you knew you wouldn't win. It just gets boring because it feels like a waste of time....FF13 did a good job getting past that though (since you come back before a battle).Quote:
This really made every encounter intense, and you gave each one your all (or you ran, YOU PANSY). While it was mechanically a godawful decision that caused me hours upon hours of stress... it still made it so much more memorable and made me a god at FF3
But when save points are actually spaced out properly, it evens out the pacing, so you can't just cheese the dungeon and save after every fight to make sure you get through without a scratch. That's no fun...
But people saving after every battle, I understand the point of that (it's something I still do), but at least let me save in 10 min or so :) Then they added healing with some of the save points too, that's no fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
The thing about the older games too is that they didn't have so many cutscenes that lasted 10 mins-1/2 hr or so. Made it much easier to handle.
Thank you skyblade, that cleared a lot of it up for me~ I don't know why I didn't consider those things.
I love me some Unreal 3, that game was a blast. It's been such a long time since I picked it up though.
Me, beat up on newcomers? Pssh... okay, I apologize. I guess a few of my replies and posts were too aggressive.
It's strange, I really got the creative magic from that game. The millions of ways you can set up characters, allllll the different attack animations (Pole/Katana/Unarmed anyone?). Hell, I'd go as far to say the character customization is even more open-ended then the world you can explore. I got oodles of creative magic from that game... but I guess that's just me. I'm younger so I started FF with games like X and XII, so I guess that plays a big role in it. A lot of the older games don't give me that feeling, which is probably why I don't finish many of them (3 and 4 gave me that feeling in handfuls though), maybe it's because most of them I've had to resort to emulators to play... I don't know really. It's all up to preference I suppose, considering FF has tried nearly everything imaginable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, FPS is indeed a great genre. The issue is looking past the muck of the really popular FPS titles which have given a lot of people a bad first impression of what a lot of good FPS are really about.
If you take the time to look around a bit, you can even find shooters unlike anything you've ever played before. Serious Sam was the game that actually made me start liking FPS, I had hated them beforehand. I thought I sucked at them due to only ever playing some old CoD games on console. On pc, it's quite hard to suck at FPS. It's so much easier, as aiming isn't nearly as awkward. You can just focus on your reflexes and having a good time.
Me, I prefer the fast paced arcadey doom-esque shooters. Modern Military Shooters all my friends are obsessed with? Gosh, I can't get into them. Especially now that I'm used to the fast paced insanity of arcadey FPS, I have gotten some bad habits from that style of gameplay that makes me quite easy to kill in a slow cover based shooter.
Goodness, I'm in a rant-y mood today.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by krissy
Steady decrease in quality over the years with an ever-increasing focus on aesthetic, rehashing, and spin-offs. Squeenix has lost sight of why the series was great and I think the loss of Sakaguchi plays a big part of it. I doubt I'll buy any new Final Fantasy games unless it's actually something legit awesome. XIII was disappointing as trout and their other missteps with the series in recent years have totally shaken my faith.
On the plus side, Squeenix has become a publishing power house with other studios releasing groundbreaking stuff (Deus Ex: HR comes to mind), so maybe they'll be able to harness creative input from outside sources to make something that isn't trout.
This is pretty much 100% on the money for me, too. I love Kojima, I love MGS, the new one looks killer, but it's time to move on. RE has been a non-starter for me for years, and I used to be a massive fan. SH was Yamaoka's and if Konami wants to make a new survival horror they need to do something original rather than trout on his work. And smurf Fabula Nova whatever the trout. It's a retarded story in a retarded universe that no one cares about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Team Fortress 2 is the only shooter I need. :monster:
I'm sick of these franchises, and if I had the chance, I would extirpate them from existence with no mercy:
Call of Duty
Halo
Metal Gear
GTA
Borderlands
>>> The Sims.
Words cannot describe how much i despise those games..:luca:
Borderlands?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
YOU SPEAK UTTER BLASPHEMY!
Take it back... please? :(
There's only been two of these and they've waited years in between releases. Don't see why the franchise needs to die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
Also, while not adding tons of new stuff, Borderlands 2 is a fun and unique game among the piles of shooters.
You should look at the list I posted up earlier on this page. I feel you'd enjoy yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Cactuar
Of course innovation doesn't equal good. Some of the most innovative games out there have been bad games, widely hated, or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
But innovation is important. If you don't try to change, you get stuck in a rut and stagnate. A lot of long running series show this.
One of my favorite examples is Harvest Moon. When this game came out, there was nothing else like it. However, ten years later, the series has grown, consisting of tons of titles, and they all seem way too similar.
Enter Rune Factory. While a complete opposition to the idea of Harvest Moon (which was to create a completely nonviolent console game that was still fun, something basically not seen at the time), the series director outlined the project because he feared the stagnation and death of the series if they did nothing new. He wanted something that would shake developers up, get them thinking in different ways, and breathe new life to the series.
And it worked. Since then, both Rune Factory and Harvest Moon have undergone substantial growth and improvement. Changes they made to Rune Factory's farming due to the RPG-esque nature of character progression influenced changes and suggested ideas that filtered into the main series.
Sure, it hasn't been a flawless path. I myself did not much like RF2. But it clearly demonstrates the importance of innovation.
Now, take a look at Assassin's Creed. As good as the series is, the last three entries have been pretty much the same. Revelations was little more than a new map and bombs added to the main game (at least Brotherhood brought multiplayer). That's it. Territory control, armor/weapon progression, mission types... It's all stuff we've seen. And it's fun, sure. But that fun wears thin when you realize that you've been paying full price for a game you bought three years ago. Familiarity breeds contempt. If the series doesn't grow, it's going to get stale. It will feel like a corporate sellout, a money grab with nothing to recommend it except its title, a memory of an old, beloved franchise that got ruined by a publisher who milked it to death. With no innovation, there is no growth. With no growth, their is no life. I want my favorite series to live. As for those that have already died, I just want them put out of their misery.
I think we can all agree that Sonic Team deserves a chance to make something else by now.
Call of Duty easily. Most overrated trash in the history of man. It and the wave of replicates it brought completely destroyed the FPS genre for me.
Kinda like SH:Downpour!Quote:
You should have taken a clue from SH2 and instead focused character dramas facing their real life demons in a spooky town called Silent Hill rather than later entries that always make everything tie back into the cult from the first game. Just be rid of them and their plot to resurrect their doomsday cult god and let's all move on with our lives, I'm sure if you put your heads together you can make something just as scary without the backlog of convulated nonsense. Though SH: Homecoming was a nice twist on the cult.
Who says there's no smiling in Silent Hill? :monster:Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
Skyblade, that was such an awesome post but I think I speak for all Sonic fans when I say we want Sonic Team to stop innovating, never think about innovating again and just make another Sonic game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
In some ways, I agree. But when I look at their recent games, I just can't feel that way. The team seems tied to the series. They have ideas, lots of them, but whenever they start to work on them, someone upstairs goes "oh, goody, Team Sonic is working on a new game. It has to be a Sonic game". And they're forced to tie together things that just don't work. They're making Sonic games that aren't Sonic games.Quote:
Originally Posted by BolivarSkyblade, that was such an awesome post but I think I speak for all Sonic fans when I say we want Sonic Team to stop innovating, never think about innovating again and just make another Sonic game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Let the series go. Put it on the shelf and let the Team make the games they so clearly want to make. And either let them come back later, when they want to make another Sonic game, or do what XCOM did, and give it to someone else, someone who's a huge fan of classic Sonic, and dedicated to making the game right.
You're right, though, I have no idea why I ended that way, as it has little to nothing to do with my main point. I guess it was brought out by the "put them out of their misery" comment. Sonic is dead right now, and I don't think even Sonic Team thinks otherwise. If only whoever gives them orders would agree.
I want to see a game that has old Sonic play through various levels, getting stronger and stronger until, at the end of the game, he is able to defeat the final boss: Contemporary Sonic.
Second/Thirding/Fourthing (whatevering) Fifa. It's getting harder and harder to watch my friends buy the 'new edition' every time it comes out, acting like it's some insanely new experience. Maybe I'd be less bitter if I weren't so bad at the game, though. :(
I'm a little sad this thread is getting more posts than the resurrection thread...