Bethesda buys id Software

[Purkake]

Oh, I don't play them, I just call it what it is. The Japanese game industry has been stagnating for a while now.

 

They are stagnating, because they spent more than 10 month with developing a game... Of course you sell less, if you spend making the game 5 times longer...

 

Most of the Japanese companies prefer quality over quantity...

 

Maybe that's because Half-Life 2 is a totally different game from HL1 and takes the story forward while introducing a lot of interesting things for the whole genre.

 

The exactly same can be said about Final Fantasy XII for example...

 

I'm not sure you understand what I mean by stagnating. That the whole JRPG genre is pretty much at FF1 with it's story and characters, there is no innovation, the only thing they are changing is the combat system. Having a real-time combat system was a great innovation...

 

JRPGs are pretty much the definition of quantity over quality, there is so much grinding and going back to save points and redoing stuff. I'm not saying that short annual crap is any better, but at least it ends before you do(die of old age that is).

Edited June 24, 2009 by Purkake

[Oner]

There aren't really innovations anymore, so they might as well stick to the recipe now. The fans buy it anyway, and if they like it, then why the hell not.

I'd like a different story for DMC 5 too, but I won't die if they make the same again if it'll be fun. (Then again, I'm not sure if there's any real way to make those stories different.)

[Mamoulian War]

Oh, I don't play them, I just call it what it is. The Japanese game industry has been stagnating for a while now.

 

They are stagnating, because they spent more than 10 month with developing a game... Of course you sell less, if you spend making the game 5 times longer...

 

Most of the Japanese companies prefer quality over quantity...

 

Maybe that's because Half-Life 2 is a totally different game from HL1 and takes the story forward while introducing a lot of interesting things for the whole genre.

 

The exactly same can be said about Final Fantasy XII for example...

 

I'm not sure you understand what I mean by stagnating. That the whole JRPG genre is pretty much at FF1 with it's story and characters, there is no innovation, the only thing they are changing is the combat system. Having a real-time combat system was a great innovation...

 

JRPGs are pretty much the definition of quantity over quality, there is so much grinding and going back to save points and redoing stuff. I'm not saying that short annual crap is any better, but at least it ends before you do(die of old age that is).

 

 

when did you played JRPG last time for more than 30 minutes? Or all your oppinions are based on reviews?

 

oh yeah... absolutely different at west right... you know FPS are still the same concept as was wolfenstein 3d... just with 3d graphics... all RTS are same concept like Dune 2 was just with shinier graphics... all RPGs are sam concept as Dungeon Master I just with shinier graphics... all Racing games are same concept as Stunts...

 

 

you know as good as me that all this is absolute bull****... and same bull**** is saying this about JRPGs...

[Oner]

There aren't really innovations anymore, so they might as well stick to the recipe now. The fans buy it anyway, and if they like it, then why the hell not.

I'd like a different story for DMC 5 too, but I won't die if they make the same again if it'll be fun. (Then again, I'm not sure if there's any real way to make those stories different.)

[Mamoulian War]

There aren't really innovations anymore, so they might as well stick to the recipe now. The fans buy it anyway, and if they like it, then why the hell not.

I'd like a different story for DMC 5 too, but I won't die if they make the same again if it'll be fun. (Then again, I'm not sure if there's any real way to make those stories different.)

 

You can't make those stories different anymore, to many games released already, thats why the main story of dragon age is so similar to warcraft 3 for example...

 

Spreading blight - check

Big bad Demon Lord - check

Old God emerging - check

[Purkake]

There aren't really innovations anymore, so they might as well stick to the recipe now. The fans buy it anyway, and if they like it, then why the hell not.

I'd like a different story for DMC 5 too, but I won't die if they make the same again if it'll be fun. (Then again, I'm not sure if there's any real way to make those stories different.)

 

I seriously doubt that video games have reached their peak.

 

That's why we need more experimental indie games, sure some of them will probably suck, but others will bring awesome new ideas. Speaking of innovations, have you seen Achron, the time-traveling RTS?

 

You can't make those stories different anymore, to many games released already, thats why the main story of dragon age is so similar to warcraft 3 for example...

 

Spreading blight - check

Big bad Demon Lord - check

Old God emerging - check

 

Just because Dragon Age is unoriginal doesn't mean that you can't have better stories in games. The possibilities for new and interesting ways to tell stories with an interactive medium are staggering. You can have branching story lines, multiple independent stories that fold out differently each time, storytelling by an interactive world...

 

People just need to try new things.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Purkake

[Meshugger]

A shame really. As someone said, it is like an end of an era. Valve will be bought by Microsoft and Epic will be bought by Activision.

 

Oh well, maybe something new will come instead. As they say, "nothing changes".

[Oner]

I seriously doubt that video games have reached their peak.

 

That's why we need more experimental indie games, sure some of them will probably suck, but others will bring awesome new ideas. Speaking of innovations, have you seen Achron, the time-traveling RTS?

Good point with Achron, I forgot about that. But really, the most innovative background story of a game I can remember was HL 2's Orwellian world but Orwell (duh) already did that too. Just not in a video game.

 

Mamoulian: My point exactly. All they can do is tell the story differently - which is by no means a bad thing in itself. At least someone will eventually make it the way I like it the most.

 

Just because Dragon Age is unoriginal doesn't mean that you can't have better stories in games. The possibilities for new and interesting ways to tell stories with an interactive medium are staggering. You can have branching story lines, multiple independent stories that fold out differently each time, storytelling by an interactive world...

 

People just need to try new things.

Multiple story lines only make the story more complex, not more original.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Oner

[Mamoulian War]

I seriously doubt that video games have reached their peak.

 

That's why we need more experimental indie games, sure some of them will probably suck, but others will bring awesome new ideas. Speaking of innovations, have you seen Achron, the time-traveling RTS?

Good point with Achron, I forgot about that. But really, the most innovative background story of a game I can remember was HL 2's Orwellian world but Orwell (duh) already did that too. Just not in a video game.

 

Mamoulian: My point exactly. All they can do is tell the story differently - which is by no means a bad thing in itself. At least someone will eventually make it the way I like it the most.

 

yay, i found a soul with similar thinking

 

Just because Dragon Age is unoriginal doesn't mean that you can't have better stories in games. The possibilities for new and interesting ways to tell stories with an interactive medium are staggering. You can have branching story lines, multiple independent stories that fold out differently each time, storytelling by an interactive world...

 

People just need to try new things.

 

Yes you are absolutely correct, but my point is that DA even though with absolutely unoriginal story can still be very very good game... (although with EA in charge i have still my doubts about it )

 

Judging quality of games by their story is never good idea...

Edited June 24, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[Purkake]

A shame really. As someone said, it is like an end of an era. Valve will be bought by Microsoft and Epic will be bought by Activision.

 

Oh well, maybe something new will come instead. As they say, "nothing changes".

 

Valve would be stupid to allow themselves to be bought, Steam is making them tons of money and their games aren't selling bad either.

 

Epic, I couldn't care less about.

 

Mamoulian: My point exactly. All they can do is tell the story differently - which is by no means a bad thing in itself. At least someone will eventually make it the way I like it the most.

 

Multiple story lines only make the story more complex, not more original.

 

People figured out that there are only a limited number of story types a long time ago - "the hero's journey", "the coming of age" etc. Yet people still make awesome movies and write great books.

 

If you use the interactive medium creatively, you can make great stories. Any story can be made complex, that's the fault of the author, not the medium.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Purkake

[Oner]

Epic, I couldn't care less about.

:handshaking emote: Cliffy more-guns-in-mirror's-edge B

 

yay, i found a soul with similar thinking

[Mamoulian War]

Epic, I couldn't care less about.

 

Epic might not be the best game creator ever, but let be honest... could you imagine today's gaming without their 3D engines?

[Purkake]

Epic, I couldn't care less about.

 

Epic might not be the best game creator ever, but let be honest... could you imagine today's gaming without their 3D engines?

 

I blame Unreal Engine 3 for all the weird shiny models in Bioshock etc.

 

UE1 was a great improvement, though.

 

EDIT: If you think there's no more innovation, check out the last Game Developer's Conference Experimental Games

Edited June 24, 2009 by Purkake

[Dark_Raven]

Better that they get it instead of those turds from EA.

[Mamoulian War]

Epic, I couldn't care less about.

 

Epic might not be the best game creator ever, but let be honest... could you imagine today's gaming without their 3D engines?

 

I blame Unreal Engine 3 for all the weird shiny models in Bioshock etc.

 

UE1 was a great improvement, though.

 

ye i still remember the day i seen Unreal 1 for the 1st time the engine and what you could do with it was brilliant at that time

 

and about UE3

 

if it is good optimized it can make wonders...

 

my PC could be marked as utter-crap (single core AMD Athlon 3500+ 2GB RAM and GeForce 9600) and i was able to get from Unreal 3 constant 60FPS at 1680x1050 resolutions... what current gen engine can offer similar results?

 

EDIT: and i never said there is no innovation in games, but expecting it from every single game which is released is not good idea

Edited June 24, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[Syraxis]

Better that they get it instead of those turds from EA.

 

Especially Activision. The CEO... has no soul.

 

[Dark_Raven]

EA is the Borg of game companies. They destroy what they assimilate.

[Purkake]

my PC could be marked as utter-crap (single core AMD Athlon 3500+ 2GB RAM and GeForce 9600) and i was able to get from Unreal 3 constant 60FPS at 1680x1050 resolutions... what current gen engine can offer similar results?

 

EDIT: and i never said there is no innovation in games, but expecting it from every single game which is released is not good idea

 

Source engine? But Valve is super awesome anyway...

 

I just want more innovation, and less annual sequels. I understand that AAA titles can't really be experimental, that why we need indie games.

 

Better that they get it instead of those turds from EA.

 

Especially Activision. The CEO... has no soul.

 

Edited June 24, 2009 by Purkake

[Mamoulian War]

EA is the Borg of game companies. They destroy what they assimilate.

 

And Activision is very close to the same position, what is the most strange thing to me is how Blizz got into Activision they generate like 3/4 of their income and that was the case even before the merger

 

to Purkake: I will not yell against Source engine, althought i did not get similar results from Source than from UE3, and Source could be marked as last gen engine, because it is pretty old already (dont shoot me please for saying that please )

Edited June 24, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[Purkake]

EA is the Borg of game companies. They destroy what they assimilate.

 

to Purkake: I will not yell against Source engine, althought i did not get similar results from Source than from UE3, and Source could be marked as last gen engine, because it is pretty old already (dont shoot me please for saying that please )

 

I don't really have anything against UE3 either, at least it keeps the costs down and (potentially) allows them to focus on other things like story and gameplay...

 

It's super crazy that a lot of companies still make custom engines for all their games.

[Mamoulian War]

IMO having your own engine can be good thing, you just have to use it for more than 1 game, or your expenses will skyrocket... good example is Bethesda, although we all know that their engine is one of the clumsier But they still can use it for all their games, and from what i have seen in Oblivion and Fallout 3, they are upgrading the engine aswell...

[Rosbjerg]

I'm almost looking forward to the time when EA, Activision and every other major company merges into one supermassive ****hole. I think something like that is impossible to avoid (trying hard not to sound like some kind of Karl Marx of the computer game industry), followed of course by a surge of independent developers and low-budget games.

 

Only to be bought by Wallmart..

 

Man the future is looking bleaker by the minute..

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

EA is the Borg of game companies. They destroy what they assimilate.

 

to Purkake: I will not yell against Source engine, althought i did not get similar results from Source than from UE3, and Source could be marked as last gen engine, because it is pretty old already (dont shoot me please for saying that please )

 

I don't really have anything against UE3 either, at least it keeps the costs down and (potentially) allows them to focus on other things like story and gameplay...

 

It's super crazy that a lot of companies still make custom engines for all their games.

 

I really wonder why people don't use Assassin's Creed's engine or Frostbite. I know MT 2.0 (Resident Evil 5, etc...) isn't something Capcom can license to others, but damn, wouldn't it be awesome?

[jjc]

Rogue Warrior is supposed to be out in October and they haven't shown any gameplay footage yet. Casting Mickey Rourke is about as cool as getting Ironside for Sam Fisher, though.

 

Anyway: there's an interview with Aaron Guy from Rebellion where he talks about changing the game's setting to the 80s and trying to capture an 80s action movie vibe. He specifically cites John Carpenter, Michael Mann, the movie WarGames.

 

Combine that with the Grindhouse stuff in Wet and all the celebrity voices. Are they consciously modeling themselves on Rockstar?

[Hurlshort]

Huh, I'm a bit surprised Bethesda would make this move, they don't buy studios all that often and this is the first big name one. Although id doesn't have a lot in the pipeline that I can think of, Doom and Quakewars...have they worked on anything else in the last 5 years?

 

All this really tells me is that Bethesda is doing very well for itself, and I don't see that as a negative at all.