Mafia 2

Most of the games you just listed were designed to be trilogies (or more) from the very beginning. For every sequel that was legitmately needed, there are 10 more that weren't. The concept of sequels in the video game industry revolves around money.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Thinking on all the main features of Max Payne and it's story, that short description cuts every possible tie to MP1/2. It leaves the city that made up the games distinct atmosphere, it cuts Max Paynes job, it doesn't mention anything about Valkyre, Mona Sax, Paynes family or anything related to previous storylines. It pretty much makes up an excuse for throwing every possible element or angle of previous games out, just retaining the title to cash in on.

Why would it mention those things? The story for Max Payne 3 is set 12 years after the events of MP2, and in a different location.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier about them not rehashing the same setting, which would be an even bigger money grab.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Most of the games you just listed were designed to be trilogies (or more) from the very beginning. For every sequel that was legitmately needed, there are 10 more that weren't. The concept of sequels in the video game industry revolves around money.

For the American market, this is true.
It still doesn't make a sequel legitimate if it lacks foundation.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Why would it mention those things? The story for Max Payne 3 is set 12 years after the events of MP2, and in a different location.

A convenient way to cash in on the name, without having anything to do with the former titles.

Originally Posted by JDR13
This goes back to what I was saying earlier about them not rehashing the same setting, which would be an even bigger money grab.

If they did, they might have been able to build upon what made the previous games good. Now it just seems they took whatever title they managed to get their hands on to build interest for the game. They could just as well have bought the rights for Soldier of Fortune 3, Far Cry 3 or any other old title that fits the bill, and just as conveniently cut all ties with everything there was about the old games and got the same out of it.

I loathe the "title scavenger hunt" that some bureaus do, where they take an old title, completely cut all ties with it and use the name as a cash-in. It an insult to artists and a capitalistic corruption of artmanship.

That said, it's not written in stone that is how MP3 turns out to be. It may still be a fairly well written piece that does both preserve the themes of the old games and wraps up it perfectly. I just won't expect that before I see it.

Originally Posted by JemyM
For the American market, this is true.
It still doesn't make a sequel legitimate if it lacks foundation.

No, it's true for the video game market.

Originally Posted by JemyM
A convenient way to cash in on the name, without having anything to do with the former titles.

It would be a lot easier for them to "cash in" using the same setting. Instead, they're taking a chance with a fresh setting.

Originally Posted by JemyM
That said, it's not written in stone that is how MP3 turns out to be. It may still be a fairly well written piece that does both preserve the themes of the old games and wraps up it perfectly.

That's the point I'm trying to make. It might be great, or it might be terrible, but I'm not going to pass judgment on a game we haven't even played yet.

Originally Posted by JDR13
No, it's true for the video game market.

The idea of art being a "product" or "industry" is American. Elsewhere it's an expression.

Originally Posted by JDR13
It would be a lot easier for them to "cash in" using the same setting. Instead, they're taking a chance with a fresh setting.

No way. Trying to understand the old stuff and make it tick takes more work, more risk. Now they have a completely blank slate to work on and still get people buying it because they recognize the label. Then we can sit here after purchasing the title and complain that it isn't Max Payne 3, while they are searching for the next label to use in this manner. That's capitalism in it's purest form, where the rationale is to increase wealth and that's the only goal.

Originally Posted by JDR13
That's the point I'm trying to make. It might be great, or it might be terrible, but I'm not going to pass judgment on a game we haven't even played yet.

I always expect the worst, then I never get disappointed.

Originally Posted by JemyM
The idea of art being a "product" or "industry" is American. Elsewhere it's an expression.

I tend to agree, although I'm not familiar enough with american culture.

That's rapidly changing, though.

Business is destroying art everywhere, these days.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
That's rapidly changing, though.

Business is destroying art everywhere, these days.

I have seen this influx during the latest 10 years or so, and I have read some articles on how it's starting to happen in the Japanese market too.

Yeah, but it's not so bad.

Eventually, even the casuals will start demanding something new - and then we'll see innovation again. Finally.

It's either that, or you wising up and supporting a resource-based economy

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Yeah, but it's not so bad.

Eventually, even the casuals will start demanding something new - and then we'll see innovation again. Finally.

It's either that, or you wising up and supporting a resource-based economy

I doubt it… at this moment every promising small developer is sucked up by the big publishers who continue to demand "what the market wants". And with that mindset originality is impossible.

Originally Posted by JemyM
I doubt it… at this moment every promising small developer is sucked up by the big publishers who continue to demand "what the market wants". And with that mindset originality is impossible.

The casuals will catch up and start demanding new things eventually.

Trust me.

Originally Posted by JemyM
The idea of art being a "product" or "industry" is American. Elsewhere it's an expression.

A naive statement, but believe what you wish.

Originally Posted by JemyM
No way. Trying to understand the old stuff and make it tick takes more work, more risk. Now they have a completely blank slate to work on and still get people buying it because they recognize the label. Then we can sit here after purchasing the title and complain that it isn't Max Payne 3, while they are searching for the next label to use in this manner. That's capitalism in it's purest form, where the rationale is to increase wealth and that's the only goal.

No. Using a familiar setting that has already been a proven seller is much less risky. Look at how you've been sitting here pessimistically complaining about the new locale. Do you think you're the only person who says they're not intested in MP3 because it's not the exact same setting? Do you think the developers aren't aware that many people would have that attitude?

In a way, it's a no-win situation for them regarding the setting. Of course they have a bunch of people bitching that it's not taking place in New York. On the other hand, if they used the same locale for the 3rd game in a row then they would have a different bunch of people criticizing them for recycling the same setting.

Originally Posted by JemyM
I doubt it… at this moment every promising small developer is sucked up by the big publishers who continue to demand "what the market wants". And with that mindset originality is impossible.

Unfortunately you are right : http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11140

It appears to me as if the bigger ones merely consider Indies and smaller studios as "fresh influx of personnel, ideas & IP".

Nothing else. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The casuals will catch up and start demanding new things eventually.

I think it's a matter of the targeted group, actually.

Companies might try to define that their biggest target group is simply = "the market".

I think it's a matter of the targeted group, actually.

Companies might try to define that their biggest target group is simply = "the market".

Yeah, the targeted group being: "the casuals".

You know, gamers who enjoy gaming but don't live for it.

That's the mainstream audience - and if you can make them happy, you've got a hit.

As the mainstream grows and "matures" in terms of what they want, and what they like - they will start being more demanding. Not in a big way though, and we need only to look towards Hollywood to understand what's going to happen. The hollow blockbusters will always be there, like Avatar.

But it will eventually mean innovation, even in AAA titles. Mostly, though, it will mean smaller teams can get more funding - because part of the mainstream will become enthusiasts.

This means that in the next 5-10 years, the enthusiast market will be much bigger and it WILL allow an innovative game to both look terrific and make a decent profit.

Perhaps we have different definitions of the "casual games/gamers".

Because what we usually call "casual gaming" here in Germany are rather those puzzle games. Really nothing as complex as an RPG. Simple puzzle games like … let's say Puzzle Quest. Or Adventure games maybe even, to some degree.

In that respect, "casual gaming" would be for older people who just want to relax after they've come home from a long working day.

And that would be only 1-3 hours per day. I assume.

The contrast to that is the target group of the younger generations; those who love all of these Action games, like from Blizzard, or Titan Quest, or Torchlight … Okay, these fall into the "casual games" category insfar as no-one has to think a lot within these games. No complex calculations on how much damage - and what kinds of damage - a new item adds or distracts from. Action-RPGs consists more or less of nothing but "mindless hacking", and that might be good for people who jut want to relax from a long labour day in which they had been thinking enough, thank you.

I rather believe that the main target group for "the industry" is rather the generations of teenager and the people of 20-30 or so. I think that's the biggest group of gamers out there (although I might be wrong as well, of course), which "the indstry" is trying to reach. I just call them "the younger generations" compared to me, because I have no better term for them.

And these target groups have different needs and wants, so to say. In "Links & Stuff" I linked to a kind of study (by German organization called Bitcom) which says (among other facts) that 29 % of all male gamers prefer "action games", whereas only 15 % of female gamers do so.

The same "study" also says that (I havbe it opened in the background right now) that 80 % of 14-19 year olds play games, 63 % of 20-29 , 38 % of 30-39 , 29 % of 40-49 and 17 % of 50-59 (with 5 % of 60-69 and 2 % of plus).

This is - to me - more than an obvious sin as to who actually is the "targeted group". It's the - as I call them - "younger generations", which imho have different "wants & needs" compared to older gamers, but unfortunately the "study" doesn't list it like that.

Well, we agree - and I do use the term "casual" quite broadly. It's probably because I consider anyone who's not an enthusiast for real, a casual gamer.

But you're right, "casual games" refer to those simplistic puzzlers - but I don't think there's an official definition of "casual gamer".

Maybe I should get used to calling them "mainstream" gamers.

Anyone who's not gaming as a passion, but rather a passtime.

There are plenty of people who see games as an intellectual challenge. Puzzle games is the casual games for them. Games that can be started, played and closed in 10-20 minutes without additional effort.

But the trend I have seen is to make games that are "accessible". The less effort demanded upon the player, the more accessible it is. This makes the "games" become more of semi-interactive movies than games. Kinda like a reverse psychoanalysis where the conscious is supposed to go down into the subconscious while playing the game, the player should just sit, relax and absorb the images and sounds on screen.

Many of the "accessible" functions have made games less engaging and less immersive than they used to be. Stuff like "follow the waypoint" ruins many games these days since you do not need to care about the visuals or what you are doing, just the flashing arrow on the minimap. The dialogue wheel in Mass Effect (and in DA2) removes much of the point of dialogues and make them into partially interactive cutscenes instead. The reduction of character options make experimentation and the satisfaction of creating your own unique character null.

I remember spending hours upon hours speaking with friends on how we played Fallout, what we have tried, what we did different to one another. We never did this in Mass Effect since Mass Effect never offer that depth of player choice. There are basically "Paragon" or "Renegade" to get through the game and in essence those are just the "orange bar" or the "blue bar", points to collect.

This suddenly reminds me somehow of Final Fantasy, and the playing style that everything is pre-defined, and the player just carries out these pre-defined actions.
This is how I understood it.

Does this mean that "western RPGs" are … uh … I just try it with "jRPGized" ?

Originally Posted by JemyM
There are plenty of people who see games as an intellectual challenge. Puzzle games is the casual games for them. Games that can be started, played and closed in 10-20 minutes without additional effort.

But the trend I have seen is to make games that are "accessible". The less effort demanded upon the player, the more accessible it is. This makes the "games" become more of semi-interactive movies than games. Kinda like a reverse psychoanalysis where the conscious is supposed to go down into the subconscious while playing the game, the player should just sit, relax and absorb the images and sounds on screen.

Many of the "accessible" functions have made games less engaging and less immersive than they used to be.

Yeah, that's been the trend for ages.

But, the thing you have to remember - is that gaming is widely accepted as a "normal" passtime these days. This means, that a lot more people will find no obstacle when selecting it as their passion, or at least a hobby they can be enthusiastic about.

Gaming used to be for nerds only, and we were the reason for the perceived demands among us. Today, the mainstream is the source of these perceived demands, and the suits will eventually understand that it's an evolving audience - which will definitely start being bored with accessibility. That's when they engage themselves and become enthused.

It's happening as we speak. Just wait a few years, and you'll see

The older one becomes, the more demanding one becomes ?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The hollow blockbusters will always be there, like Avatar.

So the whole 3D thing doesn't count?
You're not an easy man to please are you?