WorstUsernameEver Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 I doubt Xcom sold better than TR either, but the expectation were probably vastly different. Despite having a very problematic (and long) development cycle, XCOM still probably costed less than Tomb Raider.
Malcador Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 A 'deep' look into Ryse's story. Woo. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
HoonDing Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 TR Legend was already a reboot, and it stank as well despite selling millions. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
AwesomeOcelot Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) Tomb Raider Legend and Fallout 3 I don't see as attempts to reboot franchises, and their failure was down to incompetence. The original Core Design team had taken Tomb Raider down similar paths to Crystal Dynamics, and Bethesda attempted to make a game in the Fallout universe, they're just not very good at making games, plus it was massive arrogance and stupidity to call it "3", it's never a sequel to Fallout 2. I love Sands of Time and Giana Sisters:Twisted Dreams, successful reboots. Prince of Persia was rebooted again, unsuccessfully. XCOM: Enemy Unknown diverges a lot from the original, I can understand people being as pissed about it like with Thief or Tomb Raider. Human Revolution, isn't really a reboot. Edited October 17, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot 1
JFSOCC Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 https://twitter.com/RyseGame/status/390146055494303744?screen_name=RyseGame& Ryse has been worked on in sweatshop conditions. Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.---Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.
Hurlshort Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Tomb Raider Legend and Fallout 3 I don't see as attempts to reboot franchises, and their failure was down to incompetence. The original Core Design team had taken Tomb Raider down similar paths to Crystal Dynamics, and Bethesda attempted to make a game in the Fallout universe, they're just not very good at making games, plus it was massive arrogance and stupidity to call it "3", it's never a sequel to Fallout 2. That sounds ridiculous. Fallout 3 was incredibly successful. You could totally argue that they are both not reboots because they don't follow the same gameplay style, look, and feel of the original franchises. But you sound silly when you call one of the most successful developers out there incompetent and bad at making games. Massive arrogance and stupidity does come to mind, but not for Bethesda. 4
Lexx Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Indeed, Fallout 3 is a really ****ty Fallout game and pretty mediocre here and there, but it made a truckton of money... sadly. "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
AwesomeOcelot Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Tomb Raider Legend and Fallout 3 I don't see as attempts to reboot franchises, and their failure was down to incompetence. The original Core Design team had taken Tomb Raider down similar paths to Crystal Dynamics, and Bethesda attempted to make a game in the Fallout universe, they're just not very good at making games, plus it was massive arrogance and stupidity to call it "3", it's never a sequel to Fallout 2. That sounds ridiculous. Fallout 3 was incredibly successful. You could totally argue that they are both not reboots because they don't follow the same gameplay style, look, and feel of the original franchises. But you sound silly when you call one of the most successful developers out there incompetent and bad at making games. Massive arrogance and stupidity does come to mind, but not for Bethesda. Just because lots of people play it doesn't make it good. The Da Vinci Code, Avatar, The Big Bang Theory, and Call of Duty. Good at making money doesn't mean good at making games. I know there are a lot of Bethesda fanboys here. 1
Guest Slinky Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Indeed, Fallout 3 is a really ****ty Fallout game and pretty mediocre here and there, but it made a truckton of money... sadly. No money, no New Vegas, etcetera etcetera you know the song.
Tale Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 You not thinking a game is good does not make it a failure. The idea that there's some sort of objective good rubs me the wrong way. I say that knowing that I point to a few things and just marvel at how anyone anywhere can like them. It's good for their audience. That's good of a sort. And being unwilling to understand how or why only limits yourself. 4 "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Fighter Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Tomb Raider Legend and Fallout 3 I don't see as attempts to reboot franchises, and their failure was down to incompetence. The original Core Design team had taken Tomb Raider down similar paths to Crystal Dynamics, and Bethesda attempted to make a game in the Fallout universe, they're just not very good at making games, plus it was massive arrogance and stupidity to call it "3", it's never a sequel to Fallout 2. I suppose you think game quality depends on your special cookie stamp of approval. It does not. 1
Guest Slinky Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) Just because lots of people play it doesn't make it good. The Da Vinci Code, Avatar, The Big Bang Theory, and Call of Duty. Good at making money doesn't mean good at making games. I know there are a lot of Bethesda fanboys here. Eye of the beholder, a guy who haven't played games for years and only sometimes casually play something easily to get into might have bit different priorities than someone bit more passionate for the hobby. Neverwinter Nights was my first RPG I have ever played and I liked it back then. That paved the way for Fallout 1&2, BG 1&2 and PS:T and those unsurprisingly made me realize how crappy NWN was after all. You gotta start from somewhere. Edited October 17, 2013 by Slinky
Hurlshort Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Just because lots of people play it doesn't make it good. The Da Vinci Code, Avatar, The Big Bang Theory, and Call of Duty. Good at making money doesn't mean good at making games. I know there are a lot of Bethesda fanboys here. The common denominator in those 4 things is that they are popular. I guess if something is popular it is automatically made by a team of incompetents? I clearly need to become more incompetent so I can start releasing blockbusters. 1
JFSOCC Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Cyan is making a spiritual successor to the Myst series, called Obduction. As much as I am a fanboy, not everything I see I like. Rand and Robin still haven't fixed their falling out, Richard Vander Wende seems not to be involved. And they're proud to mention some names I'm not too enthusiastic about, Like Stephan Martiniere, who contribured to the failed URU: Ages Beyond Myst, and such terrible terrible movies as R.I.P.D and Total Recall (the horrible 2012 remake) Still, fanboy, so backed... http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cyaninc/obduction Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.---Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.
AwesomeOcelot Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 My point is, you fully know, just because something is successful financially doesn't make it successful in being a game. I don't know why people assume "success" automatically means financial, retracing this thread it wasn't clear that anyone was talking about financial success at the start and when people did not everybody was. Also it's not like there isn't a lot of talent and craft that goes into these things, apart from The Da Vinci Code, excluding its marketing team, there's a lot of technical skill that that few other companies match, but they're also terrible for what they lack.
Zoraptor Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Yeah, have to agree. The original point wrt to Thiaf was that it was not a 'good' reboot not because it was likely to fail financially, but because it doesn't use the heritage inherent in the name to full effect, and in fact (well, it's my opinion so is FACT! and anyone disagreeing is wrong) the name and its baggage is a net negative given the approach taken. Shifting the goalposts to financial success is an entirely separate criterion from that. Fallout 3 did well financially, but it had bugs that were present in Oblivion and are still present in Skyrim, the dialogue varies from just about competent to cringingly abysmal and the plotting featured the most utterly stupid and nonsensical finish of all time! Of all time! Calling it a failure in those respects may be subjective- though the ending is about as close to objectively bad as it's possible to get- but it's certainly fair. And if you wanted isometric/ TB then it will be a failure automatically. (I also don't really see how something with "I don't see" in the first sentence can be taken as any sort of statement of objective fact, it's clearly an opinion) 1
Bester Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 Tomb Raider Legend and Fallout 3 I don't see as attempts to reboot franchises, and their failure was down to incompetence. The original Core Design team had taken Tomb Raider down similar paths to Crystal Dynamics, and Bethesda attempted to make a game in the Fallout universe, they're just not very good at making games, plus it was massive arrogance and stupidity to call it "3", it's never a sequel to Fallout 2. I love Sands of Time and Giana Sisters:Twisted Dreams, successful reboots. Prince of Persia was rebooted again, unsuccessfully. XCOM: Enemy Unknown diverges a lot from the original, I can understand people being as pissed about it like with Thief or Tomb Raider. Human Revolution, isn't really a reboot. Indeed, how stupid of them. And I guess of everyone who makes a game that is not a sequel, like Icewind Dale 2 or NWN 2. Stupid devs. IE Mod for Pillars of Eternity: link
rjshae Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 My point is, you fully know, just because something is successful financially doesn't make it successful in being a game. I don't know why people assume "success" automatically means financial, retracing this thread it wasn't clear that anyone was talking about financial success at the start and when people did not everybody was. Also it's not like there isn't a lot of talent and craft that goes into these things, apart from The Da Vinci Code, excluding its marketing team, there's a lot of technical skill that that few other companies match, but they're also terrible for what they lack. So how do you characterize when a game is "successful"? There's many roads to success, and each is only going to appeal to a subset of people. I find a game to be successful when I don't quit from lack of interest, when there are multiple elements I find enjoyable, and when I return to it later for a replay (preferably with mods). For me, Fallout 3 satisfied all three. Other people saying that the game was "unsuccessful" just tells me they have different criteria. Hence I probably wouldn't trust their judgment in deciding what games to play. 2 "It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."
BruceVC Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 Yeah, have to agree. The original point wrt to Thiaf was that it was not a 'good' reboot not because it was likely to fail financially, but because it doesn't use the heritage inherent in the name to full effect, and in fact (well, it's my opinion so is FACT! and anyone disagreeing is wrong) the name and its baggage is a net negative given the approach taken. Shifting the goalposts to financial success is an entirely separate criterion from that. Fallout 3 did well financially, but it had bugs that were present in Oblivion and are still present in Skyrim, the dialogue varies from just about competent to cringingly abysmal and the plotting featured the most utterly stupid and nonsensical finish of all time! Of all time! Calling it a failure in those respects may be subjective- though the ending is about as close to objectively bad as it's possible to get- but it's certainly fair. And if you wanted isometric/ TB then it will be a failure automatically. (I also don't really see how something with "I don't see" in the first sentence can be taken as any sort of statement of objective fact, it's clearly an opinion) I don't buy this whole argument that certain games aren't that good and just because they sold well this doesn't translate into a game that is noteworthy I know this is a common argument we see from gaming elitists but its actually condescending and patronizing and what it means is the fans of these games don't really know a good game from a bad game ..so for some reason they cannot determine the real entertainment factor but blindly support a particular franchise because of marketing or reasons that I can't fathom Many factors constitute a good game, and what I would ask anyone who thinks that Fallout 3 is a bad game is " how come millions of people loved this game? How come hundreds of people have created forums to discuss this game and still design mods? Isn't it possible that in fact overall the positive in the game outweighs the bad in the game...therefore overall its a good game despite some issues ? " This isn't necessarily directed to you Zora, its just a general observation "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Hurlshort Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) My point is, you fully know, just because something is successful financially doesn't make it successful in being a game. I don't know why people assume "success" automatically means financial, retracing this thread it wasn't clear that anyone was talking about financial success at the start and when people did not everybody was. Also it's not like there isn't a lot of talent and craft that goes into these things, apart from The Da Vinci Code, excluding its marketing team, there's a lot of technical skill that that few other companies match, but they're also terrible for what they lack. I just don't get a single one of your examples though. Avatar won awards, was well reviewed, and appealed to a broad audience. The Da Vinci Code is easy to read, stirred up interesting theological discussions, and appealed to a broad audience. The Big Bang Theory...it's a show about a theoretical physicist that manages to appeal to a broad audience, what the heck are you looking for? Even the original Call of Duty was extremely well done, and CoD4 completely changed the way we played online shooters. They seem to only lack an appeal to you. It doesn't seem a bit arrogant to write them as and terrible because they don't appeal to you? Edited October 18, 2013 by Hurlshot 2
Malcador Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 I assume he's looking for things that aren't tailor made for a broad audience, with all that carries. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
NOK222 Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 Bethesda makes Fallout in the East Coast and Obsidian in the West Coast. That's the deal. Ka-ka-ka-ka-Cocaine!
Zoraptor Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 This isn't necessarily directed to you Zora, its just a general observation It's all good. I wouldn't see being described as an elitist as being anything but a compliment anyway, since it's basically saying that I like quality, which I do. I won't like something just because it's highbrow and dislike something just because it's popular, ultimately I'll like something because I like it- but having quality is certainly one of the major factors in whether I'll like it. But popularity is by no means a measure of quality, it's only a measure of popularity- Breaking Bad's last episode isn't fantastic and its first terrible just because 10 million instead of 1.6 million watched it, and Jersey Shore wasn't better than the first ep either just because more people watched that. 4
pmp10 Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 They seem to only lack an appeal to you. It doesn't seem a bit arrogant to write them as and terrible because they don't appeal to you?I'd be careful with that argument on this forum. Obsidian is a developer with quite a few 'bad quality' games that have a pretty vocal fan-base.
Recommended Posts