It's Hard To Blame Them...

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:53:41 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
People BUY that shit. Happily. Year after year. If you have the choice
of pouring your heart and soul (and a lot of money) into a new project
that may or may not be accepted by the masses versus some garbage
project you can easily hack up without much effort, can you really
blame somebody if they go the easy route?

No, I can't. Your list really says it all. I have always blamed
gamers, not the studios firstly, and your list is the reason why I do.
We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk.

JAB

2024-10-27 11:56:41 UTC

Post by Mike S.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:53:41 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

No, I can't. Your list really says it all. I have always blamed
gamers, not the studios firstly, and your list is the reason why I do.
We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk.

Not sure really but maybe it's us that are the 'strange' ones as we
don't just stick to what we like. I even catch myself doing it when
idling flicking through Netflix/Amazon/Sky. After twenty minutes of
browsing what do I do, oh maybe just rewatch Kicking Bishop Brennan Up
the Arse which I've lost count of the number of times I've watched.

Ross Ridge

2024-10-27 14:11:02 UTC

Post by Mike S.
No, I can't. Your list really says it all. I have always blamed
gamers, not the studios firstly, and your list is the reason why I do.
We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk.

I don't blame publishers or gamers, as I've never had a problem with
sequels. How can I complain about there being countless Call of Duty
games or Madden games when I bought so many sequels myself?

I have Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Heroes of Might
and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, plus Civilization 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
On the consoles, I have Final Fantasy 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2, 12,
13. and 13-2, plus Disgaea 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, D2. I won't list all the
Total War games I have, but I have 10 of them, plus 7 Tales of games
and 8 Harvest Moon games. There's also the 5 Grand Theft Auto games,
plus 4 Borderlands, 4 Thief, 4 Deus Ex, 4 Jedi Knight, 4 Saints Row,
and 4 Europa Universalis games.

Now some of these games I could live without, and there's more than a
few I haven't gotten around to playing yet, but for the most part I
think my video game collection would be much worse off without all
these sequels.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] ***@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

Mike S.

2024-10-27 18:16:59 UTC

Post by Ross Ridge
I have Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Heroes of Might
and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, plus Civilization 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
On the consoles, I have Final Fantasy 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2, 12,
13. and 13-2, plus Disgaea 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, D2. I won't list all the
Total War games I have, but I have 10 of them, plus 7 Tales of games
and 8 Harvest Moon games. There's also the 5 Grand Theft Auto games,
plus 4 Borderlands, 4 Thief, 4 Deus Ex, 4 Jedi Knight, 4 Saints Row,
and 4 Europa Universalis games.

That is an impressive list of sequel games you have there. The only
one I can compete with you on is Might and Magic because I have all
10. I also have two copies of the first one. C-64 and PC.

Anyway, my other post might make it sound like I have the same
interest in new innovative titles that Spalls does when I really
don't. So let me make it clear that I do not care about innovation in
the video game industry. I am mostly a retro gamer. I like old games.
I like old games with a fresh coat of paint (remakes). I am not
bothered that gamers want to play what is familiar rather then
something that is new because I am the exact same way. I never blamed
any company in the video game industry for not innovating because I
simply don't give a damn if they do or don't.

I responded to Spalls post because I think he was just pointing out
that at least some of the blame must lie with us, which I agree with.
How much exactly you can debate endlessly to the end of time.

Mike S.

2024-10-29 18:24:22 UTC

It's less impressive that it looks. I bought almost none of those games
at full price when they were new. For example, while I did pay full
price for the Might and Magic VI collector's edition, it came with all
the previous Might and Magic games. The Total War games almost all come
from a single bundle, except those that I already had from a bundle I
bought before.

Ah, ok. I own physical copies of all the Might and & Magics including
the collector's edition of M&M VI. I don't usually do collector's
editions but I did for M&M VI. My box is a bit messed up though,
unfortunately. Hopefully yours is in better condition. :-P

Personally, I do like innovation, but I don't expect it or need it
from the big publishers. There's plenty of innovative games being
released all the time, so it doesn't matter if Ubisoft, EA and
Microsoft/Activision/Blizard are squeezing every dime out of their
franchises or not.

I don't even think I would know if something I was playing was
innovative or not.

Ross Ridge

2024-11-01 20:08:16 UTC

Post by Mike S.
Ah, ok. I own physical copies of all the Might and & Magics including
the collector's edition of M&M VI. I don't usually do collector's
editions but I did for M&M VI. My box is a bit messed up though,
unfortunately. Hopefully yours is in better condition. :-P

Well, I'd argue my copies of Might and Magic 1-5 count as physical copies
because they're on a CD-ROM included with the M&M6 collector's edition.
I also have a physical copy of 7 and 9, but for 8 I just have GOG.com
version. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I had throw out the collector
edition's box when I moved years ago. I never really considered it a
collector's item though, I just got that edition because it included
the other games.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] ***@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

Mike S.

2024-11-02 13:05:00 UTC

Post by Ross Ridge
Well, I'd argue my copies of Might and Magic 1-5 count as physical copies
because they're on a CD-ROM included with the M&M6 collector's edition.
I also have a physical copy of 7 and 9, but for 8 I just have GOG.com
version. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I had throw out the collector
edition's box when I moved years ago. I never really considered it a
collector's item though, I just got that edition because it included
the other games.

That's fair. I should have said I own physical copies of the original
releases.

JAB

2024-10-30 09:37:51 UTC

A trend that does bother me in games is gambling, because it's obviously
taking advantage of people's addictions. I'm concerned that the "whales"
spending thousands of dollars on gatcha games and lootboxes aren't all
rich people with money to burn as many people assume.

It isn't gambling, it's surprise mechanics!

As for the last part, as part of a government committee looking into
this issue in the UK their conclusion was the idea it's just whales so
doesn't matter just isn't true. What is true is that there's a
correlation between problem gambling behaviours and lootboxes. But heh,
who cares about exploiting vulnerable people when your bonus is at stake.

Justisaur

2024-10-31 13:53:57 UTC

Post by Mike S.
No, I can't. Your list really says it all. I have always blamed
gamers, not the studios firstly, and your list is the reason why I do.
We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk.

I don't blame publishers or gamers, as I've never had a problem with
sequels. How can I complain about there being countless Call of Duty
games or Madden games when I bought so many sequels myself?
I have Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Heroes of Might
and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, plus Civilization 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
On the consoles, I have Final Fantasy 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2, 12,
13. and 13-2, plus Disgaea 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, D2. I won't list all the
Total War games I have, but I have 10 of them, plus 7 Tales of games
and 8 Harvest Moon games. There's also the 5 Grand Theft Auto games,
plus 4 Borderlands, 4 Thief, 4 Deus Ex, 4 Jedi Knight, 4 Saints Row,
and 4 Europa Universalis games.
Now some of these games I could live without, and there's more than a
few I haven't gotten around to playing yet, but for the most part I
think my video game collection would be much worse off without all
these sequels.

I don't really do series like that. The only couple I've done are all
the Fallouts and all the Dark Souls (actual Fromsoft games)

FO 1, 2, T, BoS, 3, NV, 4, S, 76. The real rarity is I enjoyed and
finished every one of them that are finishable (though haven't played
the DLCs for NV & 4.) Which reminds me I need to get around to FO London.

DS is only 1, 2, 3, ER, BB, and DeS and I can't even say I truly enjoyed
all of those, parts yes, but parts no. I didn't even finish DeS, or the
DLCs for 2.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

vallor

2024-10-31 14:55:06 UTC

Post by Justisaur

Post by Mike S.
No, I can't. Your list really says it all. I have always blamed
gamers, not the studios firstly, and your list is the reason why I do.
We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk.

I don't blame publishers or gamers, as I've never had a problem with
sequels. How can I complain about there being countless Call of Duty
games or Madden games when I bought so many sequels myself?
I have Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Heroes of Might
and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, plus Civilization 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
On the consoles, I have Final Fantasy 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2, 12,
13. and 13-2, plus Disgaea 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, D2. I won't list all the
Total War games I have, but I have 10 of them, plus 7 Tales of games
and 8 Harvest Moon games. There's also the 5 Grand Theft Auto games,
plus 4 Borderlands, 4 Thief, 4 Deus Ex, 4 Jedi Knight, 4 Saints Row,
and 4 Europa Universalis games.
Now some of these games I could live without, and there's more than a
few I haven't gotten around to playing yet, but for the most part I
think my video game collection would be much worse off without all
these sequels.

I don't really do series like that. The only couple I've done are all
the Fallouts and all the Dark Souls (actual Fromsoft games)
FO 1, 2, T, BoS, 3, NV, 4, S, 76. The real rarity is I enjoyed and
finished every one of them that are finishable (though haven't played
the DLCs for NV & 4.) Which reminds me I need to get around to FO London.
DS is only 1, 2, 3, ER, BB, and DeS and I can't even say I truly enjoyed
all of those, parts yes, but parts no. I didn't even finish DeS, or the
DLCs for 2.

I found Just Cause 2 and 3 fun, looks like I didn't finish
JC4.

Finished Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon and FC 5. I liked FC, so I bought
FC4 then didn't play it -- but did put 51 hours into FC New Dawn.

Of the two series', I think I liked Just Cause best, because you're
basically a superhero.

Oh, and I did put about 15 hours into Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY, but
didn't finish it.

--
-Scott System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.5 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"1st rule of intelligent tinkering - save all the parts"

Justisaur

2024-11-02 05:07:23 UTC

Post by Mike S.
No, I can't. Your list really says it all. I have always blamed
gamers, not the studios firstly, and your list is the reason why I do.
We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk.

I don't blame publishers or gamers, as I've never had a problem with
sequels. How can I complain about there being countless Call of Duty
games or Madden games when I bought so many sequels myself?
I have Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Heroes of Might
and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, plus Civilization 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
On the consoles, I have Final Fantasy 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2, 12,
13. and 13-2, plus Disgaea 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, D2. I won't list all the
Total War games I have, but I have 10 of them, plus 7 Tales of games
and 8 Harvest Moon games. There's also the 5 Grand Theft Auto games,
plus 4 Borderlands, 4 Thief, 4 Deus Ex, 4 Jedi Knight, 4 Saints Row,
and 4 Europa Universalis games.
Now some of these games I could live without, and there's more than a
few I haven't gotten around to playing yet, but for the most part I
think my video game collection would be much worse off without all
these sequels.

I don't really do series like that. The only couple I've done are all
the Fallouts and all the Dark Souls (actual Fromsoft games)
FO 1, 2, T, BoS, 3, NV, 4, S, 76. The real rarity is I enjoyed and
finished every one of them that are finishable (though haven't played
the DLCs for NV & 4.) Which reminds me I need to get around to FO London.
DS is only 1, 2, 3, ER, BB, and DeS and I can't even say I truly enjoyed
all of those, parts yes, but parts no. I didn't even finish DeS, or the
DLCs for 2.

Oops I think I missed a bunch of games on that list, Oh well. I've got
all the Mass Effects, but didn't really enjoy #3 and didn't buy the
DLCs. Also GTA 1, 3, VC(the best), 4 and 5. 2 is apparently not
available at least on PC.

I probably have most if not all the Elder Scrolls games, but didn't
really enjoy the majority of them. Only Daggerfall and Skyrim. I still
bought or obtained them.

I've got tons of Star Wars games, but that's only because I bought a
huge bundle with tons of old games in it. Twice, once in a box and once
on Steam (because it had a lot more for less.) Deep discounts.

Post by vallor
Finished Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon and FC 5. I liked FC, so I bought
FC4 then didn't play it -- but did put 51 hours into FC New Dawn.

Blood Dragon's great, but it took a 2nd attempt to get into it. I don't
know why but I found it insanely hard in the beginning the first time
and gave up. Maybe after playing some more AC & FC games I got the hang
of it. Primal was great and very different. I tried one of the other
'normal' FCs (I think it was given away) but quit about halfway through
out of not caring and it started to feel like a slog, so haven't bought
any of the others.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

JAB

2024-11-02 11:29:45 UTC

Post by Justisaur
I probably have most if not all the Elder Scrolls games, but didn't
really enjoy the majority of them. Only Daggerfall and Skyrim. I still
bought or obtained them.

I was late to the party with Dagger Fall and the graphics made my eyes
bleed and it also didn't help that I didn't really get the format of the
game. Oblivion I liked until I realised just how much of the content was
procedurally-generated and the main quest was go to tower, kill
everything, repeat at next tower. Skyrim, loved it.

Xocyll

2024-11-02 13:04:47 UTC

Post by Justisaur
I probably have most if not all the Elder Scrolls games, but didn't
really enjoy the majority of them. Only Daggerfall and Skyrim. I still
bought or obtained them.

Daggerfall (all one word) had proceduralized generated random
landscapes.
instanced dungeons were hand crafted.

Oblivion was even more generated content and ever tower was the same,
kill shit as you climb tower(s) and flip between towers til you reach
own and close rift.

Literally the same thing over and over again.

Daggerfall had its issues, but it was the peak of the series.

Skyrim was so small it basically happened in the back yard, whereas if
you look at the space on the map, it's supposed to be the size or larger
than Daggerfall.

Supposed to be the size of the mid west, but actually the size of Maine.

Next elder scrolls game - suppose to be thousands of sq kilometers,
actual size, living room in tiny apt.

Xocyll

JAB

2024-11-04 08:51:20 UTC

Post by Xocyll

Post by Justisaur
I probably have most if not all the Elder Scrolls games, but didn't
really enjoy the majority of them. Only Daggerfall and Skyrim. I still
bought or obtained them.

Yep that was the problem I had. Oh a dungeon to explore, what story and
secrets does it have to tell - the answer, absolutely nothing!

Post by Xocyll
Daggerfall had its issues, but it was the peak of the series.
Skyrim was so small it basically happened in the back yard, whereas if
you look at the space on the map, it's supposed to be the size or larger
than Daggerfall.
Supposed to be the size of the mid west, but actually the size of Maine.

I can't compare it to Daggerfall but Skyrim although it felt compact I
did just enjoy wandering about to see what I could find. It's the same
reason I really like FO:3/NV.

Post by Xocyll
Next elder scrolls game - suppose to be thousands of sq kilometers,
actual size, living room in tiny apt.

But think of the MTX there will be!

Mike S.

2024-11-02 13:08:06 UTC

Post by JAB
I was late to the party with Dagger Fall and the graphics made my eyes
bleed and it also didn't help that I didn't really get the format of the
game. Oblivion I liked until I realised just how much of the content was
procedurally-generated and the main quest was go to tower, kill
everything, repeat at next tower. Skyrim, loved it.

I didn't think to highly of Arena but I am still going to try
Daggerfall at some point. You can improve the graphics these days with
Daggerfall Unity.

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-11-02 14:24:27 UTC

Post by Mike S.

I didn't think to highly of Arena but I am still going to try
Daggerfall at some point. You can improve the graphics these days with
Daggerfall Unity.

Which, incidentally, is free on GOG. I agree it's probably the best
way to play the game right now.
https://www.gog.com/en/game/daggerfall_unity_gog_cut

That said... it's really hard to recommend "Daggefall". I can
appreciate it for what it attempted to do -create a vast world with
lots of options- but that procedurally generated world just isn't very
good. Everything looks alike, and there's really very little to
actually do except engage in unexciting combat and do fetch quests.
(Yeah, okay, there's the main quest... but guess what that consists
of? ;-)

There's no memorable characters, no really memorable locations, no
jaw-dropping visuals; you don't really ever feel like you're making an
impact on the world. It's _dull_; a giant world you can explore
near-endlessly just because, so long as you never expect to actually
accomplish anything.

From a technical perspective, it's awesome... especially considering
the game came out in 1996! It's map still ranks as one of the largest
game-maps ever made. But it has all the depth of Pong.

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-11-02 14:18:41 UTC

Post by Justisaur
Oops I think I missed a bunch of games on that list, Oh well. I've got
all the Mass Effects, but didn't really enjoy #3 and didn't buy the
DLCs.

The problem with "Mass Effect 3" was that so much of its content was
ripped out to be resold as separate DLC. The combined package actually
is a much more enjoyable game; the base title was too combat focused,
and the combat itself was a pretty watered-down take on the
multiplayer game. But the DLC added all the exploration, side-quests
and character interactions that made the previous games worth playing.

If you ever get a chance, try "Mass Effect 3" with all the DLC. If you
happen to have the "Legendary Edition" (which was a freebie at one
point, so you may) it has all the DLC.

Post by Justisaur
Also GTA 1, 3, VC(the best), 4 and 5. 2 is apparently not
available at least on PC.

Grand Theft Auto 2 was available for PC. It added better support for
3D acceleration but otherwise was pretty much the same as the
original. I recall lots of lens flare. ;-)

For a while it was available on Steam and GOG, and then there was a
period when Rockstar was giving it away for free, but now it seems
unavailable for legal acquisition.

Post by Justisaur
Blood Dragon's great, but it took a 2nd attempt to get into it. I don't
know why but I found it insanely hard in the beginning the first time
and gave up. Maybe after playing some more AC & FC games I got the hang
of it. Primal was great and very different. I tried one of the other
'normal' FCs (I think it was given away) but quit about halfway through
out of not caring and it started to feel like a slog, so haven't bought
any of the others.

I always found "Blood Dragon" too one-note for me to really get into.
Oh, ha-ha, its riffing off 80s action-movies and cartoons, neat, cool.
But that theme grew pretty tiresome as the game dragged on. Even
amongst Ubisot games, it was a pretty shallow experience.

I enjoyed "Primal" more, if only because the visuals were more lush
and green. The gameplay itself wasn't that exciting -its biggest add
to the franchise was the controllable animal friends- but at least it
had more variety than "Blood Dragon".

But all the "Far Cry" games are a slog, to one degree or another. They
all confuse quantity with quality. Giant maps don't instantly make for
a good game; you need to fill those maps with interesting content. And
Ubisoft just doesn't have the writers / game developers to do that.
It's the biggest difference between them and Rockstar.

Xocyll

2024-10-27 00:49:01 UTC

Spalls Hurgenson <***@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
So, there's some new information from Circana (a market research
group; it's okay if you've never heard of them) showing the top-ten
selling PC/console games from the last 23 years*. I put a list of the
highest-selling games each year below.
And, you know, looking at the list, I can't help but think. I give
companies like EA and Ubisoft and BlizzaVision a hard-time for
constantly putting out uninspired sequels year after year rather than,
you know, investing in something new that might challenge gamers more
than the same ol' pabulum... but at the same time, it's hard to blame
them.
People BUY that shit. Happily. Year after year. If you have the choice
of pouring your heart and soul (and a lot of money) into a new project
that may or may not be accepted by the masses versus some garbage
project you can easily hack up without much effort, can you really
blame somebody if they go the easy route?
Triple-A publishers are a definite scourge on the hobby... but we
gamers deserve a lot of the blame too. 12 years Call of Duty was the
best selling game! No wonder the industry is in the state it is.
2000 Pokemon Gold/Silver
2001 Madden NFL 2002
2002 Grand Theft Auto Vice City
2003 Madden NFL 2004
2004 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
2005 Madden NFL 2006
2006 Madden NFL 07
2007 Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
2008 Rock Band
2009 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
2010 Call of Duty: Black Ops
2011 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
2012 Call of Duty: Black Ops 2
2013 Grand Theft Auto V
2014 Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
2015 Call of Duty: Black Ops III
2016 Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
2017 Call of Duty: WWII
2018 Red Dead Redemption
2019 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019)
2020 Call of Duty: Black Ops - Cold War
2021 Call of Duty: Vanguard
2022 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2022)
2023 Hogwart's Legacy

I can happily announce I bought exactly *none* of these games.

Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.

Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!

GTA5 was never even an option.

Never even thought about buying any of the Call of Shitty games.

Xocyll

JAB

2024-10-27 11:40:29 UTC

Post by Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs

I can happily announce I bought exactly *none* of these games.
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!
GTA5 was never even an option.
Never even thought about buying any of the Call of Shitty games.

GTA 4 is the GTA game I have (I'm not including GTA 2) so the closest I
get is I keep getting tempted by RD 2 not that, that's on the list either!

Ross Ridge

2024-10-27 13:11:33 UTC

Post by JAB
GTA 4 is the GTA game I have (I'm not including GTA 2) so the closest I
get is I keep getting tempted by RD 2 not that, that's on the list either!

Red Dead Redemption II is actually on the list as 2018's best selling
game. Spalls just left out the "II" when copying it.

I actually have a few of the games on that list: Grand Theft Auto:
Vice City, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Madden NFL 07. The last
two games I bought cheaply in bargin bins, Vice City I bought a few
years ago as part of a GTA bundle on Steam.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] ***@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-10-27 15:40:54 UTC

Post by JAB
GTA 4 is the GTA game I have (I'm not including GTA 2) so the closest I
get is I keep getting tempted by RD 2 not that, that's on the list either!

Red Dead Redemption II is actually on the list as 2018's best selling
game. Spalls just left out the "II" when copying it.

Typing (and maths) is hard ;-)

Post by Ross Ridge
Vice City, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Madden NFL 07. The last
two games I bought cheaply in bargin bins, Vice City I bought a few
years ago as part of a GTA bundle on Steam.

I've a number of the games on the list. I'm a fan of the "Grand Theft
Auto" games, and I think they well deserve their place as
best-sellers. The games aren't annual
shit-it-out-because-its-profitable games but obvious labors of love. I
think I have "Rockband", just because I wanted to see what the hype
was all about. I've the "Call of Duty" games up to the first "Black
Ops" (a game so terrible it killed any desire to play future COD
games). I may have a few others too, that got added through bundles or
freebies (or extremely good sales. I can't resist a bargain ;-)

I don't actually have a problem with sequels. There's nothing wrong
with making a sequel, if the setting supports it and there's enough
new ideas to make it worth it for the player. "System Shock 2" was a
sequel, and it was great. "Master of Orion II" was far superior to the
original. 2012's "XCOM: Enemy Unknown" was a refreshing take on the
classic.

But I do have a problem with annualized sequels, or publishers which
rely entirely on sequels as their primary source of revenue. It only
results in the same game being made over and over again, because
taking chances --in gameplay, in setting, whatever-- threatens that
profit. These games don't say or do anything new; they just wallow in
the same small pool of ideas. (Remakes are just as bad) Sure, release
a sequel to a game here or there... but release as many new games too.

And while I point fingers at we gamers who buy this tripe, ultimately
the fault lies with the publishers. We can only buy what's available,
and if all you pump out is the same game year after year (Activision,
I'm looking at you!) then it's not too surprising that those games
sell better. Gamers -just like publishers- don't like throwing away
their money. "Call of Duty" is a safe bet for both sides. It's like
McDonalds; you know it won't really be that good, but it's probably
something you'll like -even if only for its familiarity- and that's a
better bet than risking $70USD on something weird like "Helldivers
II".

So I get why publishers follow the easy money... but even though video
gaming has _always_ been a business first, there used to be more
interest in the creative side. The idea of trying something new or
chasing after new audiences used to have a much greater influence on
what game to develop next. But now it's just 'pump out the same shit
every year because we can take advantage of people's natural
caution/nostalgia/stupidity'. And I hate it.

Anyway, I have to go play Mechwarrior 5 now. ;-)

shawn

2024-10-27 23:17:01 UTC

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 11:40:54 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson

Post by JAB
GTA 4 is the GTA game I have (I'm not including GTA 2) so the closest I
get is I keep getting tempted by RD 2 not that, that's on the list either!

Red Dead Redemption II is actually on the list as 2018's best selling
game. Spalls just left out the "II" when copying it.

Typing (and maths) is hard ;-)

Agreed. Sequels are fine so long as it's being done to truly extend
the game's story and not just a money grab. Which is what I see the
annualized sequels as being.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
But I do have a problem with annualized sequels, or publishers which
rely entirely on sequels as their primary source of revenue. It only
results in the same game being made over and over again, because
taking chances --in gameplay, in setting, whatever-- threatens that
profit. These games don't say or do anything new; they just wallow in
the same small pool of ideas. (Remakes are just as bad) Sure, release
a sequel to a game here or there... but release as many new games too.

I look at games like the Saints Row Games 1/2/3, Borderlands 1/2/3 and
Starcraft 2 games and see games that extended the story and brought
something new with each release.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
And while I point fingers at we gamers who buy this tripe, ultimately
the fault lies with the publishers. We can only buy what's available,
and if all you pump out is the same game year after year (Activision,
I'm looking at you!) then it's not too surprising that those games
sell better. Gamers -just like publishers- don't like throwing away
their money. "Call of Duty" is a safe bet for both sides. It's like
McDonalds; you know it won't really be that good, but it's probably
something you'll like -even if only for its familiarity- and that's a
better bet than risking $70USD on something weird like "Helldivers
II".

What I would love to see is companies like EA take their massive
influx of cash from games like COD and use some of that to fund new
development of games that aren't just a rehash of old ideas. Sure,
breaking new ground is risky but a company like EA/Rockstar/Activision
has the money to spend on new ideas while still supporting their cash
cows.

Post by Spalls Hurgenson
So I get why publishers follow the easy money... but even though video
gaming has _always_ been a business first, there used to be more
interest in the creative side. The idea of trying something new or
chasing after new audiences used to have a much greater influence on
what game to develop next. But now it's just 'pump out the same shit
every year because we can take advantage of people's natural
caution/nostalgia/stupidity'. And I hate it.
Anyway, I have to go play Mechwarrior 5 now. ;-)

JAB

2024-10-28 08:43:44 UTC

Post by JAB
GTA 4 is the GTA game I have (I'm not including GTA 2) so the closest I
get is I keep getting tempted by RD 2 not that, that's on the list either!

Red Dead Redemption II is actually on the list as 2018's best selling
game. Spalls just left out the "II" when copying it.
Vice City, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Madden NFL 07. The last
two games I bought cheaply in bargin bins, Vice City I bought a few
years ago as part of a GTA bundle on Steam.

I'm going to claim half a game then!

Xocyll

2024-10-27 19:47:55 UTC

Post by Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs

I can happily announce I bought exactly *none* of these games.
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!
GTA5 was never even an option.
Never even thought about buying any of the Call of Shitty games.

GTA 4 is the GTA game I have (I'm not including GTA 2) so the closest I
get is I keep getting tempted by RD 2 not that, that's on the list either!

Why not include GTA2?

I played GTA, GTA2, GTA: London 1969 before they went 3d.

Oh look Hare Krishnas, GOURANGA!

Xocyll

shawn

2024-10-27 23:12:11 UTC

Post by Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs

I can happily announce I bought exactly *none* of these games.
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!

I have 4 and 5. GTA 4 I bought, but GTA 5 came from Epic Games.
All of the other games I don't own.. Well, maybe I do own some of
those COD games over on EA Origin, but I didn't pay for them.

Post by Xocyll
GTA5 was never even an option.
Never even thought about buying any of the Call of Shitty games.
Xocyll

candycanearter07

2024-10-28 03:00:07 UTC

Post by Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs

I can happily announce I bought exactly *none* of these games.
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!
GTA5 was never even an option.
Never even thought about buying any of the Call of Shitty games.
Xocyll

I've technically played some of these bc my brother, but I never bought
them.

--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Anssi Saari

2024-10-29 22:02:14 UTC

Post by Xocyll
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.

Same here.

Post by Xocyll
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!

GTA4 was kinda sad so no surprise. And had a lame drive model for cars
although decent with sports cars but those weren't easy to come by. And
no garages, just a little parking spot outside safe houses.

And bikes were basically on ball bearings so almost impossible. That
they fixed in the biker DLC finally. So not much fun driving cars or
bikes, initially. Kind of lost the point, why make game where driving is
a big part of it and then make driving not fun?

The transition from Microsoft's thingy was handled decently, at least in
my case. I had the game on DVD and the two DLCs in the Microsoft
thingy. Those were converted so that I can now install the game with DLC
from Rockstar's launcher. It even offers to look for Games for Windows
saves on my computer.

Post by Xocyll
GTA5 was never even an option.

I did play this but I wasn't too keen on it. The little details in the
world were cool, there was a longish list somewhere. But the actual game
was meh. Same old stuff, nothing much new and unlikeable characters and
writing. The most memorable stuff was the weird stuff which was really
weird. You smoke some pot and suddenly you're gunning down brain sucking
aliens? Sure I like weird and wacky but that was just too much weird. At
least they tried though.

Xocyll

2024-11-02 13:10:13 UTC

Anssi Saari <***@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> looked up from reading
the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the

Post by Anssi Saari

Post by Xocyll
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.

Same here.

Post by Xocyll
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!

GTA4 was kinda sad so no surprise. And had a lame drive model for cars
although decent with sports cars but those weren't easy to come by. And
no garages, just a little parking spot outside safe houses.
And bikes were basically on ball bearings so almost impossible. That
they fixed in the biker DLC finally. So not much fun driving cars or
bikes, initially. Kind of lost the point, why make game where driving is
a big part of it and then make driving not fun?
The transition from Microsoft's thingy was handled decently, at least in
my case. I had the game on DVD and the two DLCs in the Microsoft
thingy. Those were converted so that I can now install the game with DLC
from Rockstar's launcher. It even offers to look for Games for Windows
saves on my computer.

And suddenly I don't feel bad about not being able to play it.

Love bikes in GTA vice city -less so in san an

since gta4 never would install - thanks to games for windows live no
longer existing at all, I never even considered any game further in the
series.

I bought your game and cannot install it because of some third party
piece of shit, no longer buying ANYTHING from you.

Xocyll

Justisaur

2024-11-01 00:31:24 UTC

Post by Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs

I can happily announce I bought exactly *none* of these games.
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!
GTA5 was never even an option.
Never even thought about buying any of the Call of Shitty games.

I sort of bought GTA V and RDR as I bought a used XBox 360 that had them
among other games as a bundle. Didn't finish either though.

The rest nah.

That's a lot of CoD.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Dimensional Traveler

2024-10-27 17:44:34 UTC

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Ant

2024-10-28 01:55:57 UTC

Exclude consoles please. Frak the consolers. ;)

--
"But some troublemakers said, 'How can this fellow save us?' They despised him and brought him no gifts. But Saul kept silent." --1 Samuel 10:27. LA's big sport teams R winning again! :O
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

2024-10-28 02:19:56 UTC

I can't blame them either. COD Black Ops 6 is out, with mixed
reviews.

I haven't played a COD game probably since before Black OPs came out I
think so you can't blame me! :-)

I don't think I have any of those games listed!

-pw

JAB

2024-10-28 08:48:37 UTC

Post by PW
I can't blame them either. COD Black Ops 6 is out, with mixed
reviews.
I haven't played a COD game probably since before Black OPs came out I
think so you can't blame me! :-)
I don't think I have any of those games listed!

I bought Cod:1 and its expansion and very much enjoyed them. CoD:2 + 3 I
found on the high seas. 2 was ok but it was already showing more leaning
to set scene spectaculars. 3 I finished but can't say I enjoyed.

I did toy with the idea of getting Cod:WWII but I'm not paying that
price for something I'll finish in a few days.

JAB

2024-10-29 11:03:15 UTC

I stuck with the franchise through the "Modern Warfare" trilogy, again
largely because memories of the first game gave me hope that the
franchise would reach such heights again. The gameplay of those games
wasn't too bad, but the ra-ra-America-So-Great! attitude of that
trilogy games (existant even in the original COD but somewhat subdued
by its international mission structure) was a real turn-off. So too
was the heavy-handed reliance on scripting (to the point you sometimes
couldn't even open a door without the AI doing it for you), and the
player character changing from a simple grunt into a super-human
killing machine.

That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance
been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-10-29 16:07:20 UTC

That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance
been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.

The original "Call of Duty" was very cinematic too; it was in fact one
of the major complaints about the game. You don't really have much
option of where to go and what to do; it's a corridor-shooter through
and through (even if the 'corridors' are cleverly disguised as outdoor
locations).

But the sequels were increasingly limited in what the player was
allowed. I recall one scene - I think it was the second Modern Warfare
game?- where you had to escort a tank through a battlefield or
something, and the soldiers would just spawn endlessly until you
performed the necessary mission goals. It completely destroyed any
sense of immersion.

But all that was different from the super-soldier problem. In the
first Call of Duty titles, the game gave the illusion that you were
just one grunt amongst many, all working together towards a common
goal. It did this by having AI team-mates who could actually kill
enemies, and by showing friendly NPCs accomplishing goals all on their
own (even if they were just pre-canned animations that only played
once you got close). Momentum in the game was still tied entirely to
the player's progression, but it was much better disguised.

The Modern Warfare games were different. Because much of the action
was focussed solely on your small squad --and because your teammates
were worthless in combat-- you really only moved forward after you
personally killed enough bad guys. Neither were there other squads
doing stuff around you to make it look as if it were all a team
effort. The progress of the battle was entirely tied to your own
superhuman killing ability. That, coupled with the gung-ho
America-can-do-no-wrong attitude that permeated the rest of the game
(something too common in post 9/11 America) completely changed the
tone of the game.

I didn't play much of the original COD's multiplayer (I was more into
Unreal Tournament at the time), but from what little I did, I seem to
remember the game felt a lot more cooperative than did the later
Modern Warfare games. I wonder if that was a reflection of the
gameplay mechanics, or just a change in the audience.

JAB

2024-10-30 09:42:17 UTC

Post by JAB
That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance
been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.

I thought it got a better balance between the two and also although it
is a corridor shooter it still felt like there was flexibility in what
you could do and less scripted.

As for MW, i think I remember that one as well!

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-10-30 20:39:11 UTC

Post by JAB
That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance
been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.

I thought it got a better balance between the two and also although it
is a corridor shooter it still felt like there was flexibility in what
you could do and less scripted.

Oh, it was definitely the superior game in the franchise. It certainly
was less scripted than later games too, if only because its arenas
were slightly more open. But any freedom was definitely an illusion.
This wasn't necessarily a bad thing; by restricting the player and
guiding the action, the developers controlled the pacing of the
action. You'd get moments of extreme action followed by brief lulls;
the combination made the former all the more exciting.

(One of my problems with the later games was that it was all-action,
all the time. Lacking any moments of quiet, the constant action
started to get quite monotonous).

But what the original Call of Duty did well is hide how well it guided
you forward, to the point you barely noticed that you were going
exactly where the developers intended.

Post by JAB
As for MW, i think I remember that one as well!

JAB

2024-10-31 09:17:03 UTC

Post by JAB
That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance
been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.

I thought it got a better balance between the two and also although it
is a corridor shooter it still felt like there was flexibility in what
you could do and less scripted.

Oh, it was definitely the superior game in the franchise. It certainly
was less scripted than later games too, if only because its arenas
were slightly more open. But any freedom was definitely an illusion.
This wasn't necessarily a bad thing; by restricting the player and
guiding the action, the developers controlled the pacing of the
action. You'd get moments of extreme action followed by brief lulls;
the combination made the former all the more exciting.
(One of my problems with the later games was that it was all-action,
all the time. Lacking any moments of quiet, the constant action
started to get quite monotonous).
But what the original Call of Duty did well is hide how well it guided
you forward, to the point you barely noticed that you were going
exactly where the developers intended.

I feel that corridor shooters are somewhat unfairly maligned compared to
open world games. In the latter you obviously do get more freedom in the
order of which you do things but also how much of it is, oh you want to
do that quest well just head towards the quest marker and once there
it's a set path to follow and just to make sure we'll give you more
sub-quest markers as you progress so you don't get lost.

Is it really that much different being explicitly told where to go
compared to the level being designed to 'guide' you?

Something I remember from World of Tanks was the change in emphasis from
more open maps to those that could effectively be considered not only
corridors but also designed to suit certain classes of tanks. There was
lots of complaints and WG effectively said our players prefer more
corridor style maps so they don't get confused as to what they are
supposed to be doing. Another way of looking at it is it's all very well
having more open maps but you still end up with 75% of it being a death
trap.

Spalls Hurgenson

2024-10-31 14:06:14 UTC

Post by JAB
I feel that corridor shooters are somewhat unfairly maligned compared to
open world games. In the latter you obviously do get more freedom in the
order of which you do things but also how much of it is, oh you want to
do that quest well just head towards the quest marker and once there
it's a set path to follow and just to make sure we'll give you more
sub-quest markers as you progress so you don't get lost.
Is it really that much different being explicitly told where to go
compared to the level being designed to 'guide' you?

I don't have a problem with corridor shooters. In fact, I sometimes
have a preference for them; I find open-world FPS games so damned
exhausting! Corridor shooters have much greater control of the pacing
of the narrative, and can better direct the emotional tenor of the
experience because the developers know where (and, within a certain
degree of accuracy, when) you're going next.

But the best of these games hide how limited the ride is from the
player, to the point where many don't even consider going off path
because the design of the game discourages them from even considering
it. There are a variety of tricks that can be used for this; brightly
lit rooms on the expected path, or putting loot (or enemies) visible
in the direction you're supposed to go, or dozens of other tricks. The
best games offer _just_ enough area to wander in that -should you have
an exploratory bent- there's somewhere for you to go if you want to go
off the path, but not so far as to destroy the overall pacing.*

But other, less-skillfully designed games don't do this; they rely
instead on invisible walls blocking obvious paths, or scripting so
heavy-handed that even when you want to do the obvious thing (such as
open the door to the next arena) you can't until the game lets you. It
completely destroys the immersion of the experience. You're reminded
of how little control you have, and that's galling.

The early "Call of Duty" games fell into the former category. The
later of the franchise** games fell into the latter.

* There is a disadvantage to corridor games, of course; they tend to
be shorter and are severely lacking in replayability, for example.
This was usually made up for with a 'multiplayer mode' where the
action could continue infinitely played against other humans.

** Well, of those I played, although I haven't heard much good said
about the series after I quit.

JAB

2024-11-01 11:37:52 UTC