The Picard, I agree with you for the most part. I would much rather play a newer incarnation of a game than an older one, without a doubt. Who honestly wouldn't? If it's a good game and you getting that same great gameplay with lucious graphics, crisper sound and overall better quality, what is not to like.
But, my point (If I didn't put it across to well, that is my fault, I tend to wander of topic during my rants from time to time
) is that there has to be some kind of limit with regards to the same thing and the amount of sequels. The guy in the intial article, I surmise was trying to say the same thing. He wasn't saying there is nothing good, because there is, but merely what I am stating.
I am not sure if you read the article on the bottom of my 3rd post at Gamespy, regarding what the developers themselves are saying. They are basically saying what I said initially. I recall even Carmack himself saying he would love to try new things, but they are know for their FPS games and they will continue with that formula.
I will tell you now I am as excited as the next guy with regards to Age of Empires III. It looks amazing and sounds great. If they announced StarCraft 2 I would be the one hopping around like a crazed rabbit - but that shouldn't stop them from giving the title a new name and changing a lot of gameplay.
It is obvious they are riding the success of their earlier creations and who can blame them. Sure they will throw in an improvement here and there. I have no problem with a sequel - NONE whatsoever. It's when its the 3rd, 4th etc. sequel that things start to become ridiculous. Add on your imminent expansion pack and its all going crazy - but that is the market today. Expansions and sequels - all riding on the success to bring in more cash.
You are right with regards to the increasing of production costs and the large amount of people now required for a project. It is getting larger and larger every year and developers just don't like it. They obviously did not enter the industry to work like slaves in a sweatshop. I'm sure a lot of developers entered the industry, because they saw game making as an art, but many now see it as a job.
Let's name my "favourite" publisher. EA. I cannot count the number of FIFA's etc they have made. It is now a yearly thing. Honestly, is there anyone out there that would buy a 2004 version and the next year by the 2005 version and repeat that the following years. They could of course skip and year and actually make it worth people's time to get the new thing.
With regards to developers making the games they are, because the consumers are loving them and wanting more, I must disagree somewhat.
The only reason people think they love those games, is because that is all there really is (I am generalizing here, which is wrong thing to do, there is the odd exception) Publishers won't fund developers unless its a sure thing (At least a sure thing in the publishers mind) If some developer flips the world upside down with something new, I can guarentee that publishers will be all over them like flies to a fresh pile of dung. The point is, for the most part, that the publishers are the ones that pay your check and it is them that call the shots.
Reviewers are also to blame for this as well as over advertising. To prove my point - look at the forums filled with how great Doom 3/Hal-Life 2 was/is going to be, even before the games had been completed, guys were telling each other how game X was so going to kick game Y's behind - based on what, I would really like to know. People have already made up their minds with regards to games and reviewers are guilty too.
I can recall going back a few years already, many adventure games, being given scores of low 70's and low 80's when in fact they were lot better than that. Now when the general public see's a score in the 70's low 80's, they don't say to themselves, "Let me rush out straight away and buy that game" - NO - they pass over that score and rush out to check the game that scores very high 80's and even for the most part in the 90's. If reviewers suddenly started giving adventures (I am just using adventures as an example, so don't bite me for that :bleh
high scores (obviously is they desered it) and started penalizing the so-called popular genres/games that over emphasize the importants of graphics, things would change. It is a simple as that.
I still recall reading a quite a few reviews with regards to adventures. They reviewer (this was said by quite a few of them) said the story was interesting, the characters were great, and the backgrounds were lucious, but the game just wasn't fast paced enough for them, that they didn't like the tricky puzzles and they would rather being playing some other fast-paced action game (For all those out there, I am not trying to bash your favourite FPS games, they may not on average be my cup of tea, but I do enjoy the odd one - so don't get me wrong. There are great games in that genre too)Now with reviews like that is it any wonder why the general public and newer generations of gamers arn't experiencing new things(or should I say old)...
The fact is,that there are some reviewers that say graphics don't make a game in one review, but in the next it is the review. Is it any wonder why we keep seeing the same games then? I am going to bash some people's favourite game, but relax.
Take Doom 3 for an example (stay clear with the torches and pitchforks) -
For the most part this game got good reviews. I have no problem with people liking something that I may not find so great. Different strokes for different folks. If there were more objective reviewers though, they would have said things along the following lines.
Amazing graphics, great sound, cheesy story, cumbersome flashlight execution (even though intentional) makes gameplay annoying. Repetitive gameplay. Find data cube, open locker, get ambushed and kill monsters. Too damn dark.
I am sure what I said, will get some people hot under the collar, but that's what it is. I sure someone is going to point out that you can make a similar argument for any game, and they are right, you can, but Doom 3 is nothing more than a pretty remake of the original - minus the large crowds of monsters. Some people with love it, others will hate it - something said by many reviewers. That statement alone should have been an indication to the reviewers though that the game may not be deserving of their high scores that they finally gave the game. (For all those out there already steaming, I am not saying its trashy game, just no where as good as it was made out to be) I may not be a fan of valve, but at least they give the characters - character and actually try to come up with a reasonably decent story line. Did id have to go for hell breaking out for the umpteenth time.
Flame away
