Video game industry sucks

Off Topic Dicussion
Post Limit:
There I said it. They all produce games that use recycled artwork and engines from older games. The new MW3 I don't see any point in buying it because I already know what to expect. A recycled graphics engine and probably the retarded multiplayer system used in blackops. I won't be buying the sc2 expansions either. I mean I already know its just going to be a repeat of the WoL release. Then there is diablo 3 which just looks like a diablo 2 mod with sc2 type graphics engine. Hurray for blizzard for not trying something new.

Why buy new games? I mean does it really matter if you buy battlefield, mw2, or blackops? It's the same exact game. Does it matter if you buy diablo 2 or 3? No its the same game. Does it matter what sc2 expansion blizzard is releasing? No because its just going to be recycled junk.

Anyone who thinks blizzard is going to turn around and suddenly make the sc2 expansion fix all of WoL's and battle.net 2.0's problems really needs to wake up. It's not going to happen. I'm not saying its just blizzard either. It seems almost every other gaming company out there is refusing to actually make a game that is actually new . Hopefully sometime soon the gaming industry gets a wake up call. I can't even remember the last time I saw a video game that was fresh.

I'd like to see things like:
New types of gaming hardware. There was a time when gaming companies were constantly trying new types of hardware out to improve the gaming experience. Remember when controllers actually got joysticks? I do. Remember when they put in tumblers? I do. Fortunately companies like nintendo and microsoft actually tried to put do something new with Wii and Kinect. Unfortunately video game companies are too afraid to try and use this.

New types of video games. How many First Person Shooters, MMORPG's, RTS's, ORPG's, and racing games can you make? Cmon these companies have billions of dollars and they can't make a new type of video games?

Innovative features in video games. So far the only thing I've seen is them using cloud technology and finding faster ways for us to buy their products. Other then that there isn't much being done. The hardware companies gave 3D tv's, motion sensors, and processors with built in GPU functionality. When can we expect video games that take advantage of this stuff? What's really sad is only 1 RTS took advantage of voice commands, and even more depressing the same company will probably be the only one to release a good title for the kinect.

SC2 is fun, but it just doesn't have anything worth noting. It's okay in a lot of areas, horrible in others, and there really isn't anything awesome about it. I feel like this game should have been released 3 to 5 years ago. Between games like End Wars which made a console RTS actually fun, total war that has an awesome AI, and that MMO RTS being produced(hopefully released soon.) this $100,000,000 game just isn't even worth mentioning.


TL;DR

Video game companies are lazy and just recycle what ever they can and call it a new game.

O yeah and their boring. Which is usually a bad thing when your supposed to be releasing stuff that is entertaining.

Please stop releasing video game trailers for an old game acting like its new.
06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
Cmon these companies have billions of dollars and they can't make a new type of video games?


If you're so smart, maybe you could define a new category not covered? I think they've all been covered.



06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
Between games like End Wars which made a console RTS actually fun, total war that has an awesome AI, and that MMO RTS being produced(hopefully released soon.) this $100,000,000 game just isn't even worth mentioning.


I've never heard about the other three you mentioned. I had heard of StarCraft loooooooong before I knew what it was, or what company made it. Isn't worth mentioning? Are you daft?



06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
Why buy new games? I mean does it really matter if you buy battlefield, mw2, or blackops? It's the same exact game. Does it matter if you buy diablo 2 or 3? No its the same game. Does it matter what sc2 expansion blizzard is releasing? No because its just going to be recycled junk.


Because I'm biased against FPSs, I have to agree there. But for the others.... Have you ever heard of a small, tiny thing called 'story?' Didn't think so.

06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
Then there is diablo 3 which just looks like a diablo 2 mod with sc2 type graphics engine. Hurray for blizzard for not trying something new.


If I recall correctly, it's a hell of a whole lot of work to create an entirely new engine. Therefore, it's insanely stupid to hope for video game companies to make new engines for every game. Would you like to wait 10 years for every new release?



06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
Video game companies are lazy and just recycle what ever they can and call it a new game.


Some maybe. Don't buy games from them?



06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
O yeah and their boring. Which is usually a bad thing when your supposed to be releasing stuff that is entertaining.


I suggest you read this gem.
http://kotaku.com/5794775/are-we-expecting-too-much-of-game-developers
And if you still have issues with video games, you should follow these steps:

1) Get off these forums.
2) Throw away all your video games.
3) Don't pay attention to the video game industry.
4) ???
5) Profit.
What new type of game do you want? there have been several very unique games recently. If you are expecting every new game to create an entirely new genre, then I think you should just stop gaming.

Are you high or just dumb?

One it takes ridiculous amounts of money to make new hardware, add to the fact Consoles are supposed to be pretty standard to make it easy on developers.

Two, you obviously dont play alot of games as you'd know their are so many new types of games out there. From triple A titles like LA Noir to indie Games like Braid people are innovating alot.

Add to the fact you're using CoD and Battlefield as your examples its true they are just rehashing the same thing over and over again. However it works those games make money which allows for experimentation in other areas. Honestly if it wasnt for the great success of Grand Theft Auto then even better and more daring games like Red Dead Redemption and LA Noir would never have been made as Rockstar wouldnt have the money to do it.

Add to the fact if you want "Story" play an RPG... who in their right mind is buying a Call of Duty or even Starcraft 2 for Story? Nobody, its a multiplayer game through and through.
My advice to you is play more games you'll find their is plenty of variety to them.

Also you're going to have to learn in life money doesnt grow on trees, innovation is hard as it takes alot of time and money to make a game. Innovation is a gamble and when those gambles fail people lose their jobs. So get off your high horse and actually learn of what you speak of before you make these posts.
06/24/2011 08:09 PMPosted by Towelie
These companies are worth billions of dollars I think they can afford to the resources to invest in new video game ideas.


One bad game has spelled the doom of many a great company.

06/24/2011 08:09 PMPosted by Towelie
Yes because it doesn't innovate a damn thing. It brought nothing new to RTS genre, and considering they spent $100,000,000.00 on it's pretty sad.


I loled. Did you play the single player?

06/24/2011 08:09 PMPosted by Towelie
Because the story on SC2 is soooooo great right? Gaming companies with far less money were able to get better voice actors than the multi-billion dollar video game companies.


This is SCII. An RTS. Not like... Mass Effect. Dragon Age. RPGs. Again, the link I posted. Lower your expectations to something more reasonable.

06/24/2011 08:09 PMPosted by Towelie
Your right sounds like a job for one of the largest video gaming companies in the world. O wait.


I'll say it again. Creating an engine from scratch is absurdly long-term and expensive to do for every new game. It's why engines are leased to developers. It takes a @@#*ton of work.

How dumb are you? They keep putting in new fees and bumping the prices on all their video games and offer NOTHING to justify the cost.

MW3 is going to require an additional subscription through infinity ward to obtain map packs.


Nono. The question is, how dumb are you? New fees? Like... voluntary fees? x.x Bumping up prices? Have you heard of inflation? Simple economics, bro.

MW3 is also a copy-cat, no innovation FPS like the ones you were bashing earlier. What a wonderfully ironic product to use as your benchmark. From what I understand, if you don't wish to pay, you don't have to. But if you're a MW, FPS junkie, you'll probably pay anyways cause, well... you play that game a lot. Seems like a fair deal to me.

u mad bro? or r u just trollin bro?
I agree that gaming industry takes advantage of the consumer ignorance. But then again... which industry out there doesn't?

And you are not satisfied with the look of diablo 3 compared to the old diablo 2? Wow, if you're not, I wouldn't want to have your standards because i'd never be excited for anything in my life....

I personally believe that comparing starcraft 2 with broodwar and diablo 3 with diablo 2, Blizzard is one of few companies out there that really care about innovation in their games. Unlike stupid infinity ward and their cod series >.>
I'm disappointed in the look of Diablo 3 actually but thats mostly because it looks too bright and not Diabloish enough. In a sense Blizzard is going in another direction and I dont like it... Honestly adding a few shades of black to the whole color pallet and I'd be happy lol.
I'm disappointed in the look of Diablo 3 actually but thats mostly because it looks too bright and not Diabloish enough. In a sense Blizzard is going in another direction and I dont like it... Honestly adding a few shades of black to the whole color pallet and I'd be happy lol.


You know sooooo many people complained about how starcraft 2 looked, (air unit models stacking, terran buildings looking like plastic, etc..) but after the game came out, people got used to it and realized that it works fine.

You'll get used to the look of diablo 3 after playing it for a week or so.
My quotes for games today. "Every game now is new but is the same as the old one."
You know sooooo many people complained about how starcraft 2 looked, (air unit models stacking, terran buildings looking like plastic, etc..) but after the game came out, people got used to it and realized that it works fine.

You'll get used to the look of diablo 3 after playing it for a week or so.


They actually changed the look of alot of buildings in the pre-beta days the Toss and Terran looked quite different.
I'd like to see things like:New types of gaming hardware. There was a time when gaming companies were constantly trying new types of hardware out to improve the gaming experience. Remember when controllers actually got joysticks? I do. Remember when they put in tumblers? I do.

nintendo did that, everything was really gimmicky crap and they had to try and turn around as soon as possible.


06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
New types of video games. How many First Person Shooters, MMORPG's, RTS's, ORPG's, and racing games can you make? Cmon these companies have billions of dollars and they can't make a new type of video games?

its the tide of gaming. this always happens, always, its the industry. it used to be JRPGs, before that it was sonic and mario knock-offs, and before that it was side-scrolling beat em ups. if you dont like em, dont buy em, and they wont make em

06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
Innovative features in video games. So far the only thing I've seen is them using cloud technology and finding faster ways for us to buy their products. Other then that there isn't much being done. The hardware companies gave 3D tv's, motion sensors, and processors with built in GPU functionality. When can we expect video games that take advantage of this stuff? What's really sad is only 1 RTS took advantage of voice commands, and even more depressing the same company will probably be the only one to release a good title for the kinect.

once again, this stuff is really gimmicky, and takes away from the experience. if you want to stand in your living room shouting at units to attack, be my guest, but you're going to be on an awfully lonely island there.
06/24/2011 09:44 PMPosted by Ruusaan
One bad game has spelled the doom of many a great company.


EA releases 5 bad games a year and I don't see that company going anywhere. Activison-Blizzard has more money then EA. They afford to take a chance.

06/24/2011 09:44 PMPosted by Ruusaan
I loled. Did you play the single player?


You mean the one that brought nothing new to the table? yeah I did. Not worth 100,000,000.00.



06/24/2011 09:44 PMPosted by Ruusaan
This is SCII. An RTS. Not like... Mass Effect. Dragon Age. RPGs. Again, the link I posted. Lower your expectations to something more reasonable.


Why should people lower their expectations of multi-billion dollar companies? The fact that they have that much money means they can afford better casting and writing.



06/24/2011 09:44 PMPosted by Ruusaan
I'll say it again. Creating an engine from scratch is absurdly long-term and expensive to do for every new game. It's why engines are leased to developers. It takes a @@#*ton of work.


And I'll say it again. THESE COMPANIES HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. They can afford to make new engines.



06/27/2011 09:16 AMPosted by VGMAN
nintendo did that, everything was really gimmicky crap and they had to try and turn around as soon as possible


Really? because I remember N-64 and Wii actually selling well.

06/27/2011 09:16 AMPosted by VGMAN
once again, this stuff is really gimmicky, and takes away from the experience. if you want to stand in your living room shouting at units to attack, be my guest, but you're going to be on an awfully lonely island there.


Gimmicky maybe, but at least these products try to offer something different.

06/24/2011 09:10 PMPosted by Moridin
One it takes ridiculous amounts of money to make new hardware, add to the fact Consoles are supposed to be pretty standard to make it easy on developers.


What part about these companies having billions of dollars do you not understand?

Companies like Intel, Microsoft, AMD, Sony, and just about all the others are all fortune 500 companies.

Actually.. AMD and Intel actually do release good #*!@. The others suck tho.


Add to the fact if you want "Story" play an RPG... who in their right mind is buying a Call of Duty or even Starcraft 2 for Story? Nobody, its a multiplayer game through and through.
My advice to you is play more games you'll find their is plenty of variety to them.


It's not just about the story. Its about the entire games that companies are releasing these days. They are all afraid to actually do something new. Why? They have enough money to afford releasing a few solid games. Not half games.
One very few companies have a billion dollars... actually almost none do. They may be worth a billion but thats not liquid capital to invest in new IP's its in infrastructure, products, and stock. You may not know of stock and share holders but business' do, business' aren't beholden to the customer they are however to the share holders, no CEO or CFO would sign off on a billion dollar gamble its insane.

Also before you type another word by LA Noir the most expensive video game ever produced because I can guarantee you if that game is seen as a failure commercially even less invocation will take place.

Also I suggest you learn more about industry and business before you try and talk about this topic, seriously your ignorance of basic commercial practices is astounding.
Bf3 is coming out on the new frostbite engine :D
You need a wake up call bro. You are looking at all the games from a view of about 100 miles in the sky. When you are looking at them like that, of course they are all going to seem the same. But if you're "so smart" and see something the rest of us don't why don't you go ahead and create a new genre of video games? I wanna hear what ideas you come up with. I really do. And if you really think everything about games is getting redundant, just stop playing them. Seriously.
Erm. A new engine doesn't mean the game suddenly looks different. How a game looks is based way more on what the artists put into it (and what shaders are used) than the particulars of the rendering engine (with a few exceptions). If you think D3 looks like SC2, then it's because you think the D3 art assets Blizzard made look like the SC2 ones, not because they use the same engine (which they aren't- D3 has its own engine). If you imported models and shaders from one game into another game's graphic engine, the differences you'd be most likely to notice would probably be lighting and frame rate, and even that would (obviously) require the engines to implement lighting in different ways or to have different levels of efficiency.

There's a very simple reason sequels come out: People tried something, decided they liked it, decided they wanted more, and companies that produced it agreed. Do you want people to discard genres, game concepts, story universes, etc. the second they're used in a single game? I certainly don't. I'd hate to have a single game in each genre, or to see my favorite stories/characters/universes tossed away, never to be seen again, after one use 100% of the time. Things including variety (between different games in a genre I like, so I don't get burned out replaying a single game from that genre) and story progression (between sequels) are some of the most attractive things in gaming to me. It certainly helps consumers pick games and developers start them if they have a starting point of lore and emotional investment in a universe. I certainly have plenty of crap old games from before I found developers, genres, and series I trusted, when I just bought games that looked appealing to me for one reason or another.

This isn't to say people aren't innovating; it's just that people who are tend to do so within pre-existing genres because they're huge, numerous, broad categories and any games will pretty much inevitably fall into at least one of them. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools

On the topic of innovation: I don't mind it in moderation. In all honesty, though, I feel like too many games try to do things like shove in Wiimote controls where they were entirely unnecessary and actually detract from overall gameplay. And the reason new controllers aren't coming out and changing with such frequency is because, essentially, the current set of controllers have a sufficient number of options to cover the vast majority of games without presenting players with an overwhelming amount of memorization. Companies are trying to find nonintrusive, intuitive ways to add on to that- like the Wiimote and the Kinect- but for the most part, we're at a good point.

Also, recycling what you can is a good thing; you shouldn't discard all your past progress just so you can go 'Hey guys, this game is 100% new!'. There's nothing wrong with bringing over and refining old concepts/assets/etc; That's how progress is made.

With a few exceptions, such as puzzle games, I view games as a medium where I can interact with a story as I progress through it; if the story is enjoyable and isn't exactly the same as the last one, and if the mechanics I interact with are enjoyable, I'll have fun. I don't mind so much if the mechanics are similar as long as there's a story to enjoy and the mechanics that do (or don't) repeat are fun.
While agree that a lot of the stuff is "recycled" there are a few reasons. One is that it takes a long !@# time to make a new game engine. The graphics engine used by reach is, more or less, the same engine used with Halo:CE, not creatively called the Halo engine. It was "made better" for every game, but still the same basic code. Another reason is money. It costs game companies a lot to make games as most take several years ( I like games with three year plus dev cycles.) imagine making $0 profit for three years. That would suck. You of course make millions overnight but still.
I do not like the call of duty series one bit. It is so popular because people are idiots and it appeals to the idiots.
Now if you could name some other type of game, like MMO RPG FPS, then I will think you have a point. Assassin's Creed was different and people loved that. I do. I love the story. To me it goes Story>Gameplay>ingenuity>Graphics. The trouble is when something works and makes money people want to stick with it.
There are some great games that are not triple A titles. Castle crashes, Spolsion man, stuff like that. They are very creative and different from the mainstream. Think about Portal.
06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
New types of gaming hardware. There was a time when gaming companies were constantly trying new types of hardware out to improve the gaming experience. Remember when controllers actually got joysticks? I do. Remember when they put in tumblers? I do. Fortunately companies like nintendo and microsoft actually tried to put do something new with Wii and Kinect. Unfortunately video game companies are too afraid to try and use this.


Compatibility issues galore. Keeping hardware to a minimum is a good thing, it cheapens development cost. Do you really want to pay for a different joystick every time you buy a different game, or have to install x software package to play y game every time?

06/24/2011 01:14 AMPosted by Towelie
New types of video games. How many First Person Shooters, MMORPG's, RTS's, ORPG's, and racing games can you make? Cmon these companies have billions of dollars and they can't make a new type of video games?


I would like to see this. The indie scene has produced some interesting types of videogames, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbtxgQt_R0Y

Innovative features in video games. So far the only thing I've seen is them using cloud technology and finding faster ways for us to buy their products. Other then that there isn't much being done. The hardware companies gave 3D tv's, motion sensors, and processors with built in GPU functionality. When can we expect video games that take advantage of this stuff? What's really sad is only 1 RTS took advantage of voice commands, and even more depressing the same company will probably be the only one to release a good title for the kinect.

SC2 is fun, but it just doesn't have anything worth noting. It's okay in a lot of areas, horrible in others, and there really isn't anything awesome about it. I feel like this game should have been released 3 to 5 years ago. Between games like End Wars which made a console RTS actually fun, total war that has an awesome AI, and that MMO RTS being produced(hopefully released soon.) this $100,000,000 game just isn't even worth mentioning.


I have to agree here; though you do have to understand that there was some expectation that SC2 be very similar to its predecessor.

EDIT: I would also like to address your comments on the engine. Building a new engine from scratch is difficult - very, very difficult. Very expensive, very long, and no matter how long you spend on it, no matter how much money you throw onto it, there will always be bugs. It takes a few years to get an engine to be stable and compatible with everything and many more to eliminate all of those pesky bugs. Especially on PC, where the hardware you have is a crapshoot, not to mention those binaries you forgot or their system is supposed to have but doesn't.
I shall go out on a limb and say.

We're in need of more RPG's on the consoles...

Open world sandbox RPG games. That aren't full of glitches... or bad, or one dimensional...

I demand more!

Join the Conversation