Interview Spong interviews the Father of Lies

[SonOfBeavis]

The industry has all the genre pretty well bastardized these days. I was just guessing all the movie and tv tie in games were lumped together in the 'licenced' section of the graph. If that isn't the case I have no clue.

 

[galsiah]

(from next-gen.biz)

The market wants NFL.

No - the market is currently buying NFL.
That graph tells you nothing about potential. It doesn't take investment levels into each genre into account. It makes no attempt to group or weight genre categories using any statistically relevant method.
It's complete crap.

 

[Joe Krow]

(from next-gen.biz)

The market wants NFL.

No - the market is currently buying NFL.
That graph tells you nothing about potential. It doesn't take investment levels into each genre into account. It makes no attempt to group or weight genre categories using any statistically relevant method.
It's complete crap.

Yes. The multi-billion dollar game market is just grasping at straws. They tried to consult you about which piece of shit throw back to make next but you couldn't hear them with your head so far up your arse. If only they had your wisdom...

 

[Bradylama]

Hey Joe, whattya know?

 

[Bluebottle]

[Graph]
(from next-gen.biz)

The market wants NFL.

No - the market is currently buying NFL.
That graph tells you nothing about potential. It doesn't take investment levels into each genre into account. It makes no attempt to group or weight genre categories using any statistically relevant method.
It's complete crap.

Yes. The multi-billion dollar game market is just grasping at straws. They tried to consult you about which piece of shit throw back to make next but you couldn't hear them with your head so far up your arse. If only they had your wisdom...

Wow, analysed like a true statistician. Galsiah makes a sound point about the (pretty major) statistical flaws in the results shows. Those criticisms could have been levelled at those particular results whether they were focused on games, movies or fuck even the frequency of specific medical treatments. Therefore your points mean absolutely nothing.

It's not like there aren't any reasonable counter-points you could have used, like say:

While the results do lack a certain amount of detail and omit the effects of certain factors, they do show the relative popularity among consumers - as the popularity of a specific genre is likely to have an impact on the number of titles produced within that genre (i.e. No one makes NFL games if NFL games don't sell to begin with).

It's not the best counter argument, but at least it would have showed that you can read English and comprehend what is, at heart, a fairly simplistic point.

 

[elander_]

Ultima Underworld > Daggerfall

Ultima Underworld doesn't have faction based reputation, templated optional quests,guild services, quets, affiliation and ranks, secret guilds and secret societies, tons of books about the lore of the world, a small novel size main quest, rogue like procedural generated dungeons, a rogue like generated world with about 50 kingdoms, realistic land scale, about 1000 locations per kingdom, cities the size of a small village with hundreds of houses, etc

While i have sometimes mentioned Ultima Underworld in the ES forums to exemplify how they should bring up the quality of ES dungeons, which are becoming increasingly boring, minimalist and repetitive i don't think the two games compare well.

 

[Joe Krow]

Wow, analysed like a true statistician. Galsiah makes a sound point about the (pretty major) statistical flaws in the results shows. Those criticisms could have been levelled at those particular results whether they were focused on games, movies or fuck even the frequency of specific medical treatments. Therefore your points mean absolutely nothing.

It's not like there aren't any reasonable counter-points you could have used, like say:

While the results do lack a certain amount of detail and omit the effects of certain factors, they do show the relative popularity among consumers - as the popularity of a specific genre is likely to have an impact on the number of titles produced within that genre (i.e. No one makes NFL games if NFL games don't sell to begin with).

It's not the best counter argument, but at least it would have showed that you can read English and comprehend what is, at heart, a fairly simplistic point.

Oh, thank you. I had managed to piece it together myself but thanks. To be honest I didn't think it was worth addressing. Can I ask you a question? Do you know whats really being discussed? Heres a hint: its not that chart. It seems some people here think they know more about the direction the industry should be going in then the game industry itself. They seem to suggest that out of sick spite (and contrary to the profit motive... see above) companies produce games that there is no demand for and then cross their fingers that they'll sell (or manipulate the public into loving something they hate). The fact is, releasing a game like Fallout 2 into todays market (being what it is) would be taking a risk. They get it. You don't. Sorry.

If I had to analyze the chart directly I would draw this from it: In a finite game market games are going to draw from whatever genre is selling best. Its the only viable route for companies to take. If they could make a sports rpg they would (Guildwars?). Rpgs will merge their characteristics into other genres because its the only way they can increase sales. Getting mad because no one is willing to spend a multi-million dollar budget on a niche game makes you sound like a moron. Rpgs "piece of the pie" is not large enough to warrent it.

 

[Lumpy]

The fact is, releasing a game like Fallout 2 into todays market (being what it is) would be taking a risk.

Why should we give a fuck about how risky something is for Bethesda? That's their concern, not ours. We shouldn't praise them for making a shit game just because that was the only safe thing they could make.

 

[Limorkil]

Fallout will suck because Bethesda are making it. None of the counter-arguments here make any sense.

Whether you love or hate Morrowind, it was a product of many years of work by people who cared about the ES series.

Whether you love or hate Oblivion, it was a product of a few months work by people who wanted to build a RPG with a FPS graphic engine.

Oblivion was successful mainly due to the qualities of the Havoc engine. The only part that Bethesda contributed to its success was HYPE. Hell, their big contribution - Radiant AI - had to be abandonned. Anyone who is familiar with the Oblivion Construction Set (editor) will tell you that the actual Oblivion game was thrown together somewhat carelessly, with almost no thought to roleplaying, game balance or long term appeal. It really is GTAiddle Earth.

Fallout will suck, not because it is first person or action oriented or any of that shit, but because Bethesda are doing it and they will rush the design. It will be based on the Oblivion RPG-style design because they are too cheap to come up with anything new. If it is successful it will be because of the pretty graphics and hype. It will be harder for Fallout to be successful in this way because:

1. Fancy modern/Sci-Fi graphics are the norm in FPS games, so it will be harder to compete (whereas Oblivion had no competition for nice fantasy graphics).

2. People will be less inclined to believe the hype (although many still will).

My opinion is that Bethesda knows that it "got away with it" with Oblivion, but they realize that Fallout will be more of a challenge. They are scared of the anti-hype put forward by the Codex and other people who can see the shallow game beneath the graphics. Putting down the so-called 'non-journalists' is just a sign of frustration on their part.

Although I doubt Bethesda will make a game that Fallout fans will enjoy, I really believe that early and constant skepticism and criticism will spur Bethesda to do a better job, even if they will never admit it. The "sit back, say nothing, and leave Bethesda to it" argument is pure bullshit.

 

[Bluebottle]

Oh, thank you. I had managed to piece it together myself but thanks. To be honest I didn't think it was worth addressing.

Which would beg the question, what was the point of that post (other than to insult someone in the thread at random) and why was it quoting Galsiah (who has only posted to highlight a statistical flaw in a piece of evidence cited by someone else)?

Heres a hint: its not that chart. It seems some people here think they know more about the direction the industry should be going in then the game industry itself.

When you say some people here, you think that means pretty much anyone, don't you? Certainly you're not going to do anything so time consuming as actually looking at the views expressed by someone you're about to insult, to see if they're actually arguing against you?

 

[Lumpy]

Fallout will suck because Bethesda are making it. None of the counter-arguments here make any sense.

Whether you love or hate Morrowind, it was a product of many years of work by people who cared about the ES series.

Whether you love or hate Oblivion, it was a product of a few months work by people who wanted to build a RPG with a FPS graphic engine.

Oblivion was successful mainly due to the qualities of the Havoc engine. The only part that Bethesda contributed to its success was HYPE. Hell, their big contribution - Radiant AI - had to be abandonned. Anyone who is familiar with the Oblivion Construction Set (editor) will tell you that the actual Oblivion game was thrown together somewhat carelessly, with almost no thought to roleplaying, game balance or long term appeal. It really is GTAiddle Earth.

Fallout will suck, not because it is first person or action oriented or any of that shit, but because Bethesda are doing it and they will rush the design. It will be based on the Oblivion RPG-style design because they are too cheap to come up with anything new. If it is successful it will be because of the pretty graphics and hype. It will be harder for Fallout to be successful in this way because:

1. Fancy modern/Sci-Fi graphics are the norm in FPS games, so it will be harder to compete (whereas Oblivion had no competition for nice fantasy graphics).

2. People will be less inclined to believe the hype (although many still will).

My opinion is that Bethesda knows that it "got away with it" with Oblivion, but they realize that Fallout will be more of a challenge. They are scared of the anti-hype put forward by the Codex and other people who can see the shallow game beneath the graphics. Putting down the so-called 'non-journalists' is just a sign of frustration on their part.

Although I doubt Bethesda will make a game that Fallout fans will enjoy, I really believe that early and constant skepticism and criticism will spur Bethesda to do a better job, even if they will never admit it. The "sit back, say nothing, and leave Bethesda to it" argument is pure bullshit.

This doesn't make much sense. They worked on Oblivion for about 4 years, as much as they did for Morrowind. And to say that it was successful only because of Havok is quite simply bullshit. Look at the official forums, most people love Oblivion and it's gameplay, 'freedom', 'open-endedness', 'novel-quality story' etc., but the Havok engine is hardly mentioned. In fact, many of them consider it a waste of time.
Also, why would anyone have to have any knowledge of the TESCS to notice that Oblivion was thrown together without much consideration to lore and roleplaying? And they did take gameplay and long term appeal into consideration - specifically, the braindead gameplay their audience likes.
And I agree about Morrowind.

 

[Claw]

To be honest I didn't think it was worth addressing.

To be honest that's how I feel about all your posts. A pity others can't help but waste their time on you.

 

[Joe Krow]

To be honest I didn't think it was worth addressing.

To be honest that's how I feel about all your posts. A pity others can't help but waste their time on you.

I can only imagine what we will all miss; the insights, the undeniable truths. Oh well... I accept your surrender. Putz.

 

[Bradylama]

Getting mad because no one is willing to spend a multi-million dollar budget on a niche game makes you sound like a moron.

You don't have to spend millions of dollars to make niche games. In fact, most people are angry that they're not supporting a niche at all.

The people that played Fallout, Planescape, and BG2 didn't just fall off the face of the Earth. The demand is enough for a potential investment to be profitable, which would be precisely why not every videogame is a sports game.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

I can only imagine what we will all miss; the insights, the undeniable truths. Oh well... I accept your surrender. Putz.

Your Mom told me she had fun last night. Putz.

 

[taxacaria]

You don't have to spend millions of dollars to make niche games. In fact, most people are angry that they're not supporting a niche at all.

Perhaps better / real RPGs would help to leave the niche. The craps they produce and sell under the title 'RPG' is one of the reasons for few and unhappy customers.
On the other hand you have a situation that many customers are expecting action craps, when they hearing of an RPG. If you produce a real RPG, many console kiddies will be disappointed.
Software industry is drivin' into a dead-end-street.

 

[The_Pope]

Oh, thank you. I had managed to piece it together myself but thanks. To be honest I didn't think it was worth addressing. Can I ask you a question? Do you know whats really being discussed? Heres a hint: its not that chart. It seems some people here think they know more about the direction the industry should be going in then the game industry itself. They seem to suggest that out of sick spite (and contrary to the profit motive... see above) companies produce games that there is no demand for and then cross their fingers that they'll sell (or manipulate the public into loving something they hate). The fact is, releasing a game like Fallout 2 into todays market (being what it is) would be taking a risk. They get it. You don't. Sorry.

If I had to analyze the chart directly I would draw this from it: In a finite game market games are going to draw from whatever genre is selling best. Its the only viable route for companies to take. If they could make a sports rpg they would (Guildwars?). Rpgs will merge their characteristics into other genres because its the only way they can increase sales. Getting mad because no one is willing to spend a multi-million dollar budget on a niche game makes you sound like a moron. Rpgs "piece of the pie" is not large enough to warrent it.

My point is that The Sims series sold 54 million copies. Before the sims came out, the market for the genre was 0. The only company I can think of with any real clue how to make money in the industry is EA, and guess what - they don't make shitty action RPGs, generic FPSs or anything of the sort. They make movie licence games, sport games and they try to target markets other than retarded nerds (they target football fans etc.). Of course, the gaming idiocracy hate them for it and call them sellouts, and then turn around and bitch at anyone who wants anything other than another generic shoot em up for being unrealistic. Your favourite games aren't the money makers, and if you are saying a game company should go purely for the big money means you think Elder Scrolls 5 should be a soccer game.

Of course, continue to believe that the non-EA industry is always right if that makes you happy.

 

[Bradylama]

Perhaps better / real RPGs would help to leave the niche. The craps they produce and sell under the title 'RPG' is one of the reasons for few and unhappy customers.
On the other hand you have a situation that many customers are expecting action craps, when they hearing of an RPG. If you produce a real RPG, many console kiddies will be disappointed.
Software industry is drivin' into a dead-end-street.

I don't think that if console kids were exposed to a real-deal RPG that they would reject it outright. They really have no good points of reference.

I only call traditional roleplaying a niche market because that's the best thing the industry could think of it. If anything, it's more along the lines that it acts like we're dead. A real-deal RPG released all-of-a-sudden would be a massive success by the mere virtue of the tremendous lack of roleplaying support.

Look at the success of Galactic Civilizations 2 as an example of a game that's enjoyed tremendous success for supplementing a "dead genre." I'm honestly expecting a similar success for Age of Decadence, if even on a lower continuous scale due to lack of exposure.

I just wish we could get a good space sim zombie.