A little clarification regarding negativity towards the industry

Originally Posted by TheSisko
They are console games with PC versions. Bioware has primarily been a console dev since KOTOR. Dragon Age: Origins was an exception.
And Crysis 2? Sluggish movement, linear levels, constant handholding, onscreen objective markers, Quick-time events, lean and prone removed, 2 weapon limit, no graphics options, "Press START to continue", opens with a 5 minute non-interactive cutscene….could it even be more consolized?

Saying things over and over won't make them true.

The point was that PC gaming wasn't always "consolised" as you put it, and whether or not you think of multiplatform games as console games is irrelevant.

I'd say we should already know better than to expect anything other than a straight port ;-) Or if we're very lucky, a straight port with a different UI.

It doesn't matter if it's a port or not, only whether it's a good port of a good game.

Games like Deus Ex 3 and Skyrim are multiplatform - and they both seem great. So, maybe you don't expect them to be good - and that's your business - but I do.

Something else to think about is that not every development is favoring big publishers. Some that I can think of:

Digital distribution is lowering the cost of entry and has much higher profit margins, meaning digital-only games can either break even with much less sales or simply be priced much lower. Niche games don't have to compete for shelf space. International releases are possible for developers who previously might only have been able to release in their own country.

Smart use of online services such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter enable millions of people to find out about a game without the publisher/developer having to spend millions in TV/magazine advertising.

Word-of-mouth opinions spread quickly and have much larger impact on sales than before.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Saying things over and over won't make them true.
The point was that PC gaming wasn't always "consolised" as you put it, and whether or not you think of multiplatform games as console games is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what your point is either. Were there casual games for PC before? Yes. Are there complex games for PC now? Yes. Did casual games sell much better than complex games before? Yeah, as far back as 1980.

Games like Deus Ex 3 and Skyrim are multiplatform - and they both seem great. So, maybe you don't expect them to be good - and that's your business - but I do.

I guess you consider Oblivion a good game then Deus Ex 3? So far I've seen: Cover-system, health regeneration, one-button takedowns, quest-compass and outsourced PC version so I'm not very optimistic but it could still be fun. I found Alpha Protocol fun after all. But not expecting anything amazing.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I'm not sure what your point is either. Were there casual games for PC before? Yes. Are there complex games for PC now? Yes. Did casual games sell much better than complex games before? Yeah, as far back as 1980.

My point is that the market has changed, and that the casual audience is the primary audience to target today for PC developers - and developers have a much harder time getting funding for complex and innovative games. That's because publishers always go for the money, and with the market climate - most won't even consider taking a chance.

In the past, the creative force had more say - even if they didn't ever control things. That's because investments were smaller - and you didn't need big cash to make an impression. Publishers hadn't established a "method" to maximise profit - because gaming was considered a nerdy passtime, and you'd use nerds to point the way to the gold.

That's my point, and it's hardly rocket science.

I guess you consider Oblivion a good game then

All things considered, it was pretty good. Mods made it excellent. Fallout 3 was much better - especially with mods.

So, I expect Skyrim to follow that pattern - and if it's not good at release, mods will fix it.

Deus Ex 3? So far I've seen: Cover-system, health regeneration, one-button takedowns, quest-compass and outsourced PC version so I'm not very optimistic but it could still be fun. I found Alpha Protocol fun after all. But not expecting anything amazing.

You mean you're looking for traditional console aspects to confirm your theory, and overlooking how it actually sounds like they're trying to create a great game - multiplatform or not?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
My point is that the market has changed, and that the casual audience is the primary audience to target today for PC developers - and developers have a much harder time getting funding for complex and innovative games. That's because publishers always go for the money, and with the market climate - most won't even consider taking a chance.

But I don't agree. I even think they are given more money today to make creative games.

I'm sure Risen had a much higher budget than Gothic 1. Your beef seems to be that the simple games are getting proportionally more money than before.

And I'm not sure even that's true, only that it was previously impossible to spend that much money on the game itself because of tech limitations so it all had to go to marketing. Don't you think that Pong had 100 times the marketing budget of Wizardry in 1980?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You mean you're looking for traditional console aspects to confirm your theory, and overlooking how it actually sounds like they're trying to create a great game - multiplatform or not?

No, I mean that:

Cover-system - discourages mobility in favor of hiding behind a box
Health regeneration - decreases importance of resource management and planning
One-button takedowns - decreases importance of tactics
Outsourced PC version - all design decisions made from a console perspective

Originally Posted by TheSisko
But I don't agree. I even think they are given more money today to make creative games.

I'm sure Risen had a much higher budget than Gothic 1. Your beef seems to be that the simple games are getting proportionally more money than before.

And I'm not sure even that's true, only that it was previously impossible to spend that much money on the game itself because of tech limitations so it all had to go to marketing. Don't you think that Pong had 100 times the marketing budget of Wizardry in 1980?

Risen is the exception, not the rule.

Besides. it's anything but innovative - and is basically just another game by one of the few "safe" middle-market developers.

As for your Pong speculation - I wouldn't know. What I do know, though, is that the vast majority of games back then received only VERY limited marketing - compared with today.

Marketing in the gaming industry was pretty much invisible in comparison to what we're seeing now.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
No, I mean that:

Cover-system - discourages mobility in favor of hiding behind a box
Health regeneration - decreases importance of resource management and planning
One-button takedowns - decreases importance of tactics
Outsourced PC version - all design decisions made from a console perspective

You obviously haven't been following what they've been saying about how they're handling outsourcing.

As for the other things, it depends on how they implement them. There can be several resources to manage outside of health alone, and one-button takedowns don't have to be the primary or only way to accomplish your mission. They can be there as an option when you approach just right - and have invested in the right augmentations. Whether I need to hit an enemy in the head with a weapon - or simply "take him down" doesn't have to be so different. It's all about implementation.

So, you're jumping to conclusions - which is only natural, given what we've been talking about.

However, this is developing into a pedantic "duel" - and I have no interest in bogging down the thread with this.

I suggest we agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Risen is the exception, not the rule.

Besides. it's anything but innovative - and is basically just another game by one of the few "safe" middle-market developers.

I've already listed a few others. I'm sure all their budgets are higher than equivalent games being made 10 or 20 years ago and that the games look nicer.

My original point was, that instead of playing those games, many of us seem to be expecting them to also have the "AAA" features and budgets of a mainstream game, which is unlikely to happen. Instead those people are buying the mainstream games and complaining about them being mainstream games!

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I've already listed a few others. I'm sure all their budgets are higher than equivalent games being made 10 or 20 years ago and that the games look nicer.

My original point was, that instead of playing those games, many of us seem to be expecting them to also have the "AAA" features and budgets of a mainstream game, which is unlikely to happen. Instead those people are buying the mainstream games and complaining about them being mainstream games!

I think that's a shaky assumption.

I would never expect AAA developers to target a smaller audience with a huge investment at risk. I just wish publishers didn't have such a one-track mind. I wish the big boys would invest smaller on occasion, and greenlight innovation over mindless clones. They could stand to learn to invest small but correctly, and let the developers themselves have more say in what their games will do.

Ideally, they'd be able to continue their faceless AAA franchises - while investing on the side in what so many of us want - innovation and art.

But that's probably not going to happen.

So, personally, I'm waiting for the middle-market to expand to the point where it's considered reasonable to innovate again - because the audience will be ready for it.

As always, it's perception over reality - and I think a lot of publishers are underestimating what the audience can handle, and this goes for both PC and console games.

This thread was basically about why I react when I'm being lied to - and not about me expecting them to invest a lot of money in targeting people like me. I'm way past that expectation.

Naturally, I can only speak for myself here.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
This thread was basically about why I react when I'm being lied to - and not about me expecting them to invest a lot of money in targeting people like me. I'm way past that expectation.

Naturally, I can only speak for myself here.

I think that's good. The lies are obviously part of the reason people who want complexity are still buying "AAA" games.
I do think that going digital is going to help the middle-market. It will be a big hit to publishers when they completely loose control of distribution.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I think that's good. The lies are obviously part of the reason people who want complexity are still buying "AAA" games.
I do think that going digital is going to help the middle-market. It will be a big hit to publishers when they completely loose control of distribution.

It seems we finally agree on something

@Dart- if you only accept Mona Lisas, you'll never be able to appreciate Dogs Playing Poker. I understand that hype and marketing will sometimes lead you to unpleasant surprises when you "open the box", but there's always been that risk, just in different forms.

Which leads to…

Is it possible that the driving factor is that our (particularly the "hardcore" gaming set) shopping patterns have changed? I know many of you pups never got to walk into a store and go thru 12 racks of new games, but for those of us that did the fact that we no longer can changes our expectations. We had tons of selection and very little information to guide our choices. The developers didn't have websites with daily diaries detailing their every fart. The few game magazines were always 2 months behind the curve. Publishers generally hadn't gotten big enough to be brand names (outside of Microprose, Sierra for adventure games, and maybe SSI) that would influence sales on their own. Basically, you looked at the back of a couple dozen boxes and decided, "Let's give this one a try." Since we're generally smart enough to know a glorified coin toss when we see it, there wasn't as much disappointment if you got a turd, and there was less emphasis on the "little details". As uninformed consumers "by force", we took the good with the bad.

These days, we have in-your-face coverage of games from the "rumored to be in development" phase all the way thru to "final supported patch". We know every zit on any given game's butt. Often, we even believe we're part of the development process (and with a few indies it might even be true). We can shop for very specific features within a game. We can and do read actual player reviews 5 hours after release. We interact with other gamers far more than ever before. We do the research. That makes us more personally invested. The purchasing decision is no longer a coin toss, which means we have higher expectations, less patience for surprises in "little details", and more indignation if we've been fed bad info (misleading marketing).

Which isn't to say the industry isn't going to shite, but we're not the same consumers we used to be.

OMG there are so many long posts in this thread…..Hey Dart is this some kind of dream come true for you?

Anyways I have the best website for you. It's guaranteed to cheer you up and chip off some of that jadedness. Enjoy: Instagram Cats

If this doesn't cheer you up and just for awhile let you see the brighter side of life then I give up. There is just no hope then

Ok now you can go back to your regularly schedule program of trying to figure out what makes Dart tick….have fun guys.