this post was submitted on
141 points (86% like it)
168 up votes 27 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

top 200 commentsshow all 275

[–]Pxtl 53 points54 points ago

Imho, the gaming industry and gaming public needs to start focusing on the names of dev-teams.

We need to follow the approach of books, where the author is up top and the title is a subscript. It doesn't matter if it's Call of Battlefield 5, it matters who made it and left their distinct impression on it.

Otherwise, you get crap sequels that are farmed out to the lowest bidder as publishers exploit the franchise and run it into the ground.

Plus, if players were focusing on what team did what, we'd see more interest in new IP. I mean, NeverheardofitX goes from being a confusing title to "holycraplookithis ToysForBob is making a TBMMOFPRTS!"

[–]kah-boom 17 points18 points ago

A closer analogy would be directors in film. If I say Allen or Spielberg you know what you are getting when you walk into a theater. But there are very few of those people in Hollywood and fewer in gaming. Sid Mier ... Will Wright.... and ??

Maybe it is the production house. BioWare has a known style and has good will. If the writing staff changes hands or the Doc's decide to retire is it the same company?

[–]Lesmothian 21 points22 points ago

Paul Dini wrote both of the Arkham games. I bought the first one largely because he was associated with the project (and also because Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamil back together again gave me a nostalgia boner).

Hironobu Sakaguchi makes basically the only JRPGS I enjoy. Aside from the Final Fantasy series, Lost Odyssey was an amazing game.

Casey Hudson is a director I like and trust (Mass Effect series, KOTOR). I will give any game he's directing a fair shake.

For better or worse, I always know what I'm getting when I play a Peter Molyneux game. Or Hideo Kojima for that matter.

And, of course, there's Shigeru Miyamoto.

There are more, I'm sure. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

[–]oneordinarylife 20 points21 points ago

Tim Schafer, the creator of Psychonauts/Grim Fandango. Founded Doublefine. I will buy anything he's associated with.

[–]NuclearPornStar 0 points1 point ago

Brutal Legend.

[–]oneordinarylife 2 points3 points ago

Brutal Legend is not the best game Tim Schafer has ever made, but when you look at that next to a game like Grim Fandango or Psychonauts, the range of genres Schafer works in and the stuff he chooses to experiment on is pretty fantastic. Whenever Schafer's name is attached to something, I at least know I am going to get a funny, mostly original/twist-on-a-genre, well-written game instead of a genre rehash. Plus the guy just seems truly excited about games, still, after all this time in the business.

[–]Cerbyn 1 point2 points ago

I loved Brütal Legend. Got a bit disappointed with some of the gameplay changes towards the 2nd half but I actually finished it, which says something for a game.

[–]Pxtl 8 points9 points ago

That's what I'm getting at. Those names should be on the damned box, in letters as big as the title.

[–]rakkar16 1 point2 points ago

What you need to keep in mind,though, is that, while most books are written by a single person, games are typically made by many.

[–]kah-boom 5 points6 points ago

Few know who the games directors are. Everyone knows Warren Beatty but few know Arthur Penn. Penn is a fine director, responsible for some great films but few know him. The further you go back in film history the truer this becomes. Name the films of Edward Dmytryk without the internet. Very influential visual style but generally only known by cinephiles.

In the early studio controlled system (inception to about 1940) it was the studios building their image. There were some well known directors (Chaplin, Keaton, others) but the studios name carried films. A Universal Product was distinct from a Warner Brother product. The studios stars were actors because they were the most visible part. I'd say game are at this stage. Characters and titles are the stars in the current game market. Most buy a Bethesda or BioWare product because those name through marketing have a distinct product; open world vs story driven.

At some point the gaming industry will break down like the studio system broke down. When that happen the individual driving creative voice will become marketed. Hudson's name will become more important to the marketing of the product than Shepard's. Eventually... one day.

For now more people know who Ms Pacman is than anyone you listed. Until the marketing needs to change, that will be true.

[–]onmach 6 points7 points ago

It is starting to already. To starcraft players, david kim, dustin browder, and chris metzen are well known. Browder's reputation will probably follow him for the rest of the time he is in the gaming industry.

I think the only thing missing is crappy game reviewers don't mention names as much as a movie reviewer like ebert would.

[–]ergo456[!] 0 points1 point ago

If you're trying to imply David Kim and Dustin Browder have achieved widespread popularity among the starcraft fanbase, I think you're wrong.

[–]asmodeus1 0 points1 point ago*

Chris Metzen is probably the only one who is truly known of those people. Here is a cool gallery of some of the things he made back in the days. Samwise should definitely also be checked out.

http://www.sonsofthestorm.com/gallery.php?artist=metzen

[–]zurratype 2 points3 points ago

I honestly see dev teams and such becoming big names in the next 10-15 years. Right now they already are for niche markets. For instance, for the most part I like TRPGs and bullethell SHUMPS and if you are into those genres then you know which companies/dev teams you like for the most part. I'm pretty partial to NIS and touhou, but I also try other dev teams. I just see a shift to things like that becoming the focus of what people look for in 10-15 years aside from the biggest mainstream games.

I dont know why, but I think the current form games exist in will kind of go in this direction. You'll have a huge "hardcore/casual" market, a "casual" market, and a "hardcore" market. We already do, but it will become even more separated. You'll have the big blockbusters that the hc/c market will buy because thats what they buy. Then, for the other two markets the teams behind the games is what will be important. People think this doesn't matter for the casual market, but I think that is wrong. The casual market knows what groups make their games and already look for more of that. They know to look for pop-cap games to get certain games. I just see this being the way of the future and I hope I'm right. If I am it will mean that you'll have your big market (platformers in the 90s and FPS games now), but the niche markets of today will still be a niche, but much bigger than they are today. Sure, they won't have the budgets of the hc/c games, but they don't need that budget.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

I would add David Cage to that list after Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit. You can now count on a solid story driven game.

[–]zurratype 0 points1 point ago

I've never played lost odyssey, but I'll check it out. I tend to like JRPGs for the most part. Well, let me rephrase that: I tend to like tatical JRPGs. Although, I do play normal JRPGs from time to time. If you happen to enjoy TRPGs you should check out the Disgaea games. Also, check out other NIS TRPGs as they are king of that genre IMO.

[–]Lesmothian 0 points1 point ago

I do like NIS games. Phantom Brave is one of my all-time favorite games.

[–]asmodeus1 0 points1 point ago*

Interplay, Black Isle Studios, Chris Avellone and Brian Fargo. Some of the people from these companies later transferred to obsidian and troika games where they made nice games like kotor 2 and fallout new vegas and arcanum.

[–]Nimbility 5 points6 points ago

You forgot Ken Levine

[–]GloriousPaperWait 4 points5 points ago

Bioware has already adopted several studios and slapped the Bioware name onto them so I no longer look at Bioware products the same way.

The growth of the RPG/MMO Group as part of Electronic Arts in 2008+ has resulted in three additional studios being added to the BioWare Group outside BioWare's original home base in Edmonton. The first, located in Austin, Texas and headed by industry veterans Gordon Walton and Richard Vogel, was created to work on the Star Wars: The Old Republic MMORPG project. Both the studio and the project were announced on March 13, 2006. On March 2, 2009, BioWare announced it had opened a new studio in Montreal, Quebec to assist with existing projects as necessary.[14] In 2009 Mythic Entertainment, based in Fairfax, Virginia, became part of the RPG/MMO Group, later being renamed BioWare Mythic in early 2010.

Bioware had a known style, but i'm not it has survived the rapid expansion they've gone through in recent years. DAII is something of a canary in the coal mine in that respect and in a lesser way ME2.

All of the new studios they have brought on board outnumber the "original" Bioware.

[–]kupoforkuponuts 0 points1 point ago

I like to think of modern day Bioware as "EA Sports for RPGs"

[–]zurratype 5 points6 points ago

I agree with the main point you are making. Also, people bitching about nintendo kinda confuses me. I understand the bitching when they release the same games again, but the complaints about the same IPs being used. I could understand if they were a really stagnate company, but they aren't. They constantly do new things in their games that are both fun and exciting. They take chances (sometimes shitty chances, but chances none the less). They also do create new IPs fairly often compared to most other companies who release sequels.

edit: also, sometimes you want more of the same game world. It also isn't like Nintendo is making yearly releases of the same IPs. I just really can't understand the shit that Nintendo gets about sequels because they are actually usually good.

[–]Quazifuji 2 points3 points ago

Dev teams consist of large numbers of people, though, and they get spread out. How exactly do you define a dev team in a way that you can list on a game box? You could point out the director, which could help, but that's not always the determining factor: there are franchises that were run by the same person the whole time but still varied dramatically in quality, and there are franchises that changed directors every game but were consistent throughout (I can think of God of War, off the top of my head). On the other hand, if you try to go with the full developer, that doesn't usually work either, since most of the series being discussed were still developed by only one or two developers throughout their lifespan - it wouldn't save anyone from Final Fantasy XIII or Dragon Age 2, for example, and meanwhile it could still scare people away from Bioshock 2, which was technically a different developer but featured many people who worked on the original and was still a great sequel (even if it wasn't quite as good as the original in some ways).

Honestly, I can't think of a single reliable way to determine the quality/originality of a sequel solely by looking at facts sheets. I just don't think there's any one position (or group of positions) that has any sort of consistent correlation with whether a franchise stays innovative and high quality or goes through a steady decline. Release dates are often the best measure - sequels that come out a year later are almost always less innovative and often (but not always) not as good - but that's not a guaranteed measure. In the end, I think the only real solution is to wait until after the game comes out and check some combination of reviews (particularly reviewers whose opinion you trust) and word of mouth opinions if you don't want to buy it blindly on release day and risk disappointment.

[–]ExOAte 2 points3 points ago

Won't this invoke the superstar-syndrome like we see in so many soccerteams? Where everything is focused around the developer (e.g. skyhigh income) and if things don't go well they just march out and move to another studio?

If you mean dev as a whole team, sure =) (What soccer needs aswell, instead of individualism).

[–]buber88 0 points1 point ago

This, definitely this! Maybe this new Final Fantasy will be better! No, no it won't because the people that made the good ones, don't work at square anymore. Follow the developers/teams, don't follow the series.

[–]ameoba 0 points1 point ago

They'll still be able to subcontract or get a 2nd-string dev team to crank out the sequels.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points ago*

I think my worst offender is the Need for Speed series. I think NFS:Underground was the best street racing, and one of the best overall racing games, of all time. But then it started to be more of the same, and less of the good. Underground 2 was fun, and followed the Underground formula well, most wanted was... almost Underground 2. Undercover was almost Most Wanted. Then I made the mistake of picking up Pro Street. I think there is still some gold in the NFS series, with Carbon and Shift being great experiences. I don't buy them new anymore though, as I'm tired of paying 60 yen-coin just to be burned.

[–]bellybuttonrapist 2 points3 points ago

ahahah nice comic. I agree though, I waited and got MW3 at 35 bucks, Skyrim for 45, and I'll wait again for soul calibur 5 to drop.

[–]Forbichoff 0 points1 point ago

The last burnout on the original xbox burnout takedown was my favorite. Underground reminded me of it for some reason... great games though might have to dig out my copies.

[–]BJ_Blazkowicz 0 points1 point ago

You forgot Hot Pursuit, which was amazing.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I actually haven't played either of the Hot Pursuits. I started with Undercover and ended with Pro Street. I hear the new Hot Pursuit is pretty good, and I might check it out in the future.

[–]V2Blast 0 points1 point ago

...Which one?

I'm assuming you mean the newer one.

(I initially only played the original Hot Pursuit and Porsche Unleashed, but I downloaded the new one a few months ago... Obviously nicer graphics, but it feels kinda repetitive (not that the first wasn't).)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I loved the original, but absolutely hated the way the cars handled in the new one.

[–]V2Blast 1 point2 points ago

That comic was awesome.

Thank you for linking it.

[–]pdxphreek 0 points1 point ago

I normally don't like racing games, but NFS: Underground was really fun.

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 53 points54 points ago

Dragon Age 2...

I pre ordered the stupid thing and felt excited by reviews that failed to mention faults like recycled dungeons or the waves of enemies in every encounter.

I'm still getting ME3 though, because even though I didn't enjoy what they did with ME2, it didn't ruin the series like DA2 did for me. I believe that they can make a good third game in the Mass Effect series, but there's really not much I see salvageable in a DA series.

[–]Flavioliravioli 13 points14 points ago

I also bought DA2 without blinking an eye. It taught me three things: 1) Never trust pro-reviewers. 2) Companies that make nothing but excellent games can still create trash. 3) Bioware is no longer dedicated to making games for people that liked their classics.

With 3), I made up my mind and decided I will not buy DA3, no matter what anyone says, mostly out of spite towards Bioware. As a person whose favorite hobby is RPG gaming, I feel that what Bioware is doing lately is a betrayal of their most ardent fans, so they don't need my money. My friends have agreed to follow suit as well, for the same reasons, and will not be buying or playing their next game. Sure, we're only a handful of people, but I hope others will do the same. Never thought I'd be retaliating against my formerly favorite game company. Wow, that was all a bit dramatic... the mention of this game always gets me a bit worked up.

[–]hchan1 9 points10 points ago

I feel that's a bit of an overreaction, though. Certainly, DA3 shouldn't be an immediate buy for you, but if, a few weeks after release, word-of-mouth says that Bioware recognized how bad a flop DA2 was and returned to the awesomeness that was DA, would you still hold that against them? Bioware's track record is stellar, one terribly mediocre sequel shouldn't sour you towards the company completely. Give it a chance, at least, see what others have to say about the game first.

signed, another Bioware fan horribly let down by DA2.

[–]Landeyda 3 points4 points ago

It taught me that Bioware is no longer Bioware.

[–]TheBlackSpank 4 points5 points ago

This. Bioware is one of those company's that's never made a bad game, in my opinion, so I didn't think it was too presumptuous to pick up the sequel to one of my favorite RPGs ever, made by the same company that makes all my favorite games.

But I'll do the same for Mass Effect 3, even though it sounds like a lot has changed in the game, what the the multiplayer somehow having an effect on your single player campaign, and having a melee specialization class. I hope they've learned from their mistakes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nothing wrong with improving it, just don't change what was so fun about the game in the first place. Save that for new projects.

[–]InfinitePower 4 points5 points ago

The multiplayer has an effect on the single-player, but it's nothing you can't achieve through single-player alone. Furthermore, ME3 is going to be more of an RPG than ME2, with non-regenerative health, far deeper skills (you can now even upgrade certain attributes of skills, so if you want an incinerate that does massive damage at good range, but aren't too concerned about area of effect, you can go for that) and the return of the loot system, with drops that allow you to customise your weapons. Additionally, the customisation system isn't just a banal +1 damage, -1 fire rate affair like it essentially was in ME1 - each addition to your weapons will increase their overall weight, and the more your weapons weigh, the longer your powers take to recharge. I am fucking pumped for Mass Effect 3.

[–]TheBlackSpank 1 point2 points ago

You have just ended any worries I had. These are all fantastic changes.

[–]cyberpunk_werewolf 2 points3 points ago

There's no "melee" class in ME 3. The guy just misspoke when he was talking about each class having a heavy melee attack.

[–]KaiG1987 0 points1 point ago

The disappointment I felt regarding DA2 after looking forward to it for so long shook my faith in Bioware, which previously I'd have considered unassailable.

I've still preordered ME3 blind, because I'm already so invested in the storyline and I enjoyed ME1 and 2, but I'm thinking of it as my acid test for Bioware. If they've managed to mess up ME3 I'll accept that they're no longer the same company. If ME3 is up to their previous standard I'll treat DA2 as a blip, or a rushed experiment that didn't pan out.

[–]pdxphreek -1 points0 points ago

As much as I loved DA1, ME1 & 2 (though I'm mad about the changes in 2) and NVN, I won't be buying ME3 or probably DA3 (I skipped 2 after hearing about all the outrage). Yeah, Bioware seems to have"jumped the shark."

[–]brian5476 16 points17 points ago

I never played Dragon Age Origins, but did buy Dragon Age 2. Overall it was a decent enough game and entertained me. However, the recycled dungeons really started pissing me off. It was like Star Trek with how often they reused the damn sets. It's not a huge game and there was no reason why they had to use the recycled dungeons instead of actually coming up with new ones every time.

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 13 points14 points ago

I think the sting was even worse if you were a Dragon Age fan, or if you bought into Bioware's statements that the Dragon Age franchise was supposed to be an updated Baldur's Gate-like series.

Even if you weren't though, there were issues I couldn't see even an outside fan giving a pass. Like our aforementioned cookie cutter dungeons.

[–]brian5476 3 points4 points ago

Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 were far more epic than Dragon Age 2. I thought the feel of Elder Scrolls: Skyrim was like the Baldur's Gate series. By that, I mean the epic quest occurring while everyone else lives their lives. In all three games you could find all sorts of quests just by walking around. Each dungeon had its own story and each town had its own politics.

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 6 points7 points ago

I completely agree. Bioware said that Dragon Age was supposed to be a return to Baldur's Gate and while it wasn't up to that standard they at least fell short of a great series.

Dragon Age 2 went off the rails.

[–]Flavioliravioli 3 points4 points ago

Dragon Age 2 went off the rails.

To me DA2 was like Bioware saying "Ahh, fuck it, screw the BG fans. Let's go back to doing what everyone else is doing."

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 1 point2 points ago

I see it more like EA anticipated a weak quarter and needed to show the stock holders some nice pre-order numbers and strong opening release date sales to offset it.

End result is the same though.

[–]Moh7 0 points1 point ago

It wasn't EAs fault... There was a long discussion about it here on truereddit.

[–]korvanos 1 point2 points ago

yeah I felt that sting. I really enjoyed DAO. DA2 wasn't bad, but they really betrayed the game style of DAO.

[–]Neato 23 points24 points ago

You liked DA2? Man, you should go play DA:O. It was a truly epic game.

[–]dbe 5 points6 points ago

I played both, it's hard to go back to Origins for me for the sole reason that the combat is slow in comparison.

[–]Neato 2 points3 points ago

I paused a lot during the combat, especially as a mage to set up spells and traps. I find it was more akin to KOTOR than Skyrim if that makes sense.

[–]Carighan 1 point2 points ago

Interestingly the fast combat was one of the worst points of DA2 for me.

Personally I see DA2 having some things damn well, though. Some of the character interaction was brilliant, and felt much more fluid and urgent than in DAO. The skill-trees were a godsend compared to the lists of DAO because they didn't force you to go through as many then-unused abilities, and fewer classes had mutually exclusive abilities they both took just to get to the interesting later ones. Sure it was reduced, but it was reduced in a good way. Also, passive upgrades to existent skills work much better than just more skills.
It also - overall - seemed to play quite well and the funny moments were often genuinely funny - like the overdone physiques of your siblings in the beginning.

Ofc, it did much wrong, and what it did wrong it did terribly wrong.
Recycled environments, combat-waves, predictable sidequests (find entrance, kill 1-2 waves on the way there, inside hold of 4-5 waves, done), too much scripting in some parts leading to broken story-flow. Also, the Black Market thingy (forgot the name ;_;) was bleh in that it kinda broke the game. And the game was much too easy even on the higher difficulties, but the health of enemies exploded to obscene levels. So you had boring but 30m lasting fights.

That being said, all in all I enjoyed playing it, so I ain't too sad about it. Witcher II, despite being a really awesome games, annoyed the piss out of me by comparison.

[–]brian5476 2 points3 points ago

I might. Maybe I screwed up by playing Dragon Age 2 without having played Dragon Age Origins. Oh well.

[–]Flavioliravioli 6 points7 points ago

If you like games where you have to plan battles, you will like DA:O a ton better. If you prefer fast-twitch action RPGs, you might not like it as much. The latter was the target demographic for DA2. Nothing wrong with that if you ask me, except the use of the name "Dragon Age" and the fact it was developed by Bioware.

[–]allonymous 7 points8 points ago

I don't see why. The combat in Dragon Age 2 is pretty much exactly the same as in DA:O. Actually, it's better in some ways because it emphasized cross class combos, instead of just putting three mages in your party and blowing everything to hell with fireballs. The way I remember it, AOE damage was pretty OP in DA:O.

[–]afrobotics 7 points8 points ago

People manage to forget how unbalanced and simple DA:O combat was. DA2 was actually a big step up in terms of gameplay for me, just the environments and quest grind really deaden the memory of it.

[–]Carighan 1 point2 points ago

Exactly. The abilities, synergies, skilling up and your side of the combat worked much much better in DA2, though I would have wished for a proper top-camera.

It was the enemy side (waves of clueless mobs just bullrushing you) which was problematic.

[–]Flavioliravioli 2 points3 points ago

I don't see why. The combat in Dragon Age 2 is pretty much exactly the same as in DA:O.

I don't really agree... I found myself very bored and frustrated with combat in DA2, and never really got that feeling in DA:O. Initially I was interested in the whole cross class combo system, but in practice I never got to see it play out much in combat, especially because the ability cooldowns were so high. I got off a few stealth combos and some other frost combo, but they never were of much use it seemed.

As far as the skills went, there were too few and the cooldowns were too long, so it just felt like I was spamming attack ala-Diablo and occasionally hitting an ability ala-WoW. Turning the difficulty up didn't fix the issue because all it did was make the enemies beefier and made my guys die in less hits, so it would just cause me to have to reload more often and spend more time spamming attacks at the same one or two enemies.

Then there was the waves, which made strategic positioning both useless and unnecessary and made it so that I had to run around the combat field just to survive battles. Strategy never seemed to make any difference whatsoever.

For a game which I reviled every minute of, I still gave it a solid 20 hours before finally putting it down, and the combat never got better for me. It's not like I went in wanting to hate the game either... quite the contrary.

[–]kah-boom 2 points3 points ago

You're not missing much in terms of game play with DA:O. The story was better but the combat and character development was a mess. Every fight was the same after the first act.

Waves don't bug me. ME2 used them frequently. Its was DA2's paratroopers just bugged the crap out of me. You develop your plan set everything in motion and the game basically cheats to make the fight harder. Also the disconnect between the boss fights and the game style. The Mario Brothers mob at the end of the first act was so incongruous with the rest of the game's style it completely threw me out of the experience.

[–]Neebat 1 point2 points ago

You develop your plan set everything in motion and the game basically cheats to make the fight harder. longer.

FTFY. Waves added nothing but time to the fights.

[–]spaceindaver 0 points1 point ago

Are you misusing the word 'epic' (see: "I just had an epic dump", "I made a really good pun in my single-frame comic. It was epic"), or are you suggesting that one game is better than another purely because it's more epic in scale? Because I'd say that's definitely a matter of taste and doesn't really mean the game is objectively "better" or "worse".

Some people prefer the more character-driven nature of DA2, and appreciate that it doesn't feel the need to have you saving the world from a giant planet-shitting space octopus to be entertaining. So I'd say this advice is potentially misleading.

[–]Neato 0 points1 point ago

From your description of the games, both would work.

[–]KingOfComputer 7 points8 points ago

I don't see how one disappointingly mediocre game makes an entire franchise unsalvageable.

[–]Quazifuji 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, if nothing else they could just forget it ever happened and base Dragon Age 3 purely on Dragon Age 1.

[–]The_Magic 2 points3 points ago

Like DMC 2.

[–]allonymous 5 points6 points ago

but there's really not much I see salvageable in a DA series.

I don't understand the backlash against either ME2 or DA2. It's true that Dragon Age 2 was not as good as the original in some ways (more recycled dungeons, endless waves of respawning enemies, etc.), but it was also an improvement in a lot of ways. The addition of cross class combination tactics added more depth to combat, and the cast of characters was much more fleshed out and interesting (same as ME2, basically).

Oddly enough, the hivemind can circlejerk over the recycled dungeons in DA2, and in the same breath say ME1 was so much better than ME2, despite the fact that area recycling was a much worse in that game. Honestly, I haven't heard a scathing critique of DA2 that rang true for me besides that fact that it had the temerity to not be exactly the same as the original. I have no idea how you can come to a conclusion like "there's really not much I see salvageable in a DA series", wth?

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 0 points1 point ago

The developer's attitudes toward the fans has varied greatly between the two franchises.

People complained about wonky driving, the terrible inventory systems and repetitive environments in ME1, so in response the devs apologized and tried to fix all those problems. They stumbled because instead of refining all those issues (besides the environments) they just chopped them from the game. When fans complained about this the developers basically admitted they went too far and would take those considerations into making ME3. From all the previews I've seen they seem to be doing just that.

If you look at interviews in response to the poor reception of DA2 you'll see the team leads not taking any responsibility for any of the shortcomings in DA2. It's all the fan's fault for not liking change seems to be their defense to every criticism. Not only that but they've basically said to expect more DA2 goodness in DA3.

So, one bad game doesn't break the series in and of itself (Devil May Cry 2 would have ended the series in that case), but if the developers refuse to address issues that fans have had with the game there's little hope of it improving in DA3.

In the end, all the mistakes that Bioware made with ME2 didn't make the game a chore to play through, and the developers have basically apologized and said they would do better in 3. Dragon Age's mistakes made the game less fun to play through, and the developers have blamed the fans for not liking the game, and told them to expect more of the same in DA3. Maybe both DA3 and ME3 will be amazing, but I'm putting my hope into the team that owns up to its shortcomings and promises to improve rather than the one that blames everyone for not "getting it" and is dismissive of criticisms.

[–]BrutalJones 4 points5 points ago

Same here, though I would have still bought it anyway even after reading the reviews due to make overwhelming love of Dragon Age: Origins.

[–]dbe 3 points4 points ago

Wow I had the exact opposite experience. Played both DA1 and ME1. Liked both. ME2 for me was such a pile of trash I wouldn't play ME3 if it were free. However, DA2 was awesome. Yes the caves are recycled, but everything else was fantastic.

[–]InfinitePower 0 points1 point ago

Why did you feel that ME2 was so bad?

[–]Izazen 0 points1 point ago

Why would you shell out for #3 is #2 was only just okay? Why fill your hours with mediocrity?

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 0 points1 point ago

For one, I didn't say that I didn't enjoy the game. It wasn't mediocre it was good, but instead of surpassing the original like a sequel should it took a few steps back in certain areas. I disliked the direction they took with the story and portions of the game design.

Secondly, from what I've seen and heard those are being fixed in ME3 so the series is evolving and improving as it should now.

Also, I'm interested to see how the trilogy ends. The first ME set up an entertaining premise, 2 didn't really seem to go anywhere, but everything seems like it will pay off in the conclusion.

[–]Acidictadpole 32 points33 points ago*

CoD is a good example of this. The best reason I've heard for purchasing the new one is to keep up with other people playing multiplayer. That in itself is circular logic, but people seem to do it anyway.

As for assassin's creed. I would put forward that design changes in a game based largely around its narrative are not necessary each release. Bugs and issues should be taken care of between iterations, but large design changes can actually hurt the story. Halo 1-3 were pretty much the same games. Same enemies, new graphics, different skins on guns. Nobody really minded that the games were almost functionally equivalent until they finished their main story of John.

I feel the best games with sequels are ones that had a planned story from the start. I.e. Mass effect is supposed to be a trilogy, and so I'll be picking up the third because I really enjoy the story and want to play through the finale. Though if they release another one after this I think I'll consider it a lot more before diving in.

Edit: "Growth of stagnating franchises" sounds awkward >_>

[–]faschwaa 8 points9 points ago

It's not really circular logic, per se. I bought MW3 because I like playing online with a friend of mine, who got MW3 because his friends got MW3. At some point, the friends are the ones who got it because they genuinely enjoy all the CoD games. It's a cycle, and it could be broken in the same way any major political movement could work if only we all agreed on it. As long as someone is there to start the cycle, it'll continue, and I won't feel guilty for taking part because I want to play a game with my friends.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]zurratype 1 point2 points ago

I totally agree. I posted up above about how I enjoy playing zombies with my friend/his girlfriend. While I think 60 bucks is an absurd price for any game it is the going rate nowdays. Although, if you wait a little bit you can usually pick the game up for 30-40 bucks. Either used at a store, used via craigslist, or you can look for really good sales.

[–]wryme 0 points1 point ago

The argument isn't so much "stop having fun" as it is "imagine how much more fun you could have if you pressured game designers to innovate"

I think people settle too easily. And that would be fine with me were it not for the fact that those people create a demand for more of the same, rejecting anything new or interesting, and that affects the variety of choices that are available to me and other gamers because it drags down the overall quality of what developers are willing to put out.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]gizza 0 points1 point ago

But are you having more fun playing MW2/3 for that $60 than you would if you just continued playing MW1?

[–]hchan1 0 points1 point ago

Yes, because his friends - and the majority of the community - moved on to the new game to play it with him. If you want to talk value, $60 for the hundreds of hours many choose to spend playing it multiplayer isn't bad value either.

[–]bellybuttonrapist 0 points1 point ago

If someone starts the cycle, you leave them there to do it on their own until someone else joins the cycle for some reason eventually screwing you over when a majority move over! I'd rather keep playing Black Ops because the Dedicated server system on it is 1000000x better than that faux one they got on MW3, but the number of players during my hour of play is down 90 percent.

[–]laddergoat89 4 points5 points ago

You are in no way mentioning that a lot of people may also enjoy the changes and additions in the new games, as well as keeping up with everyone else.

[–]mooseifer69 3 points4 points ago

Agreed, I don't buy them just because I want to keep up with what's popular, there are a lot of legitimate and balancing changes that really do affect how the game plays. Maps are tighter, guns (for the most part) feel nice and balanced, perk tiers work better, the entire killstreak system was reworked to reward teamplayers, solo players, and people who want to earn perks instead of killstreaks. Outwardly it's easy to see how people can think we're just fools buying the same thing, but if you get into it and jump from CoD to CoD there's a lot of little intricate changes that make it different and effectively a better experience. Another good example I guess could be my playtime, I bought Black Ops on launch and put in a great 120 hours in it, good fun. I then traded that in and bought a used MW2 for $10, put in another good 60 hours. Now on MW3, working on 60 hours and only getting higher. I am getting my money's worth and an enjoying what I'm getting.

[–]laddergoat89 2 points3 points ago

I agree 100% except for maps being tighter, I've been disappointed with the MW3 maps.

[–]bellybuttonrapist 0 points1 point ago

Some people do, You are in no way mentioning a large group of people who are moving over because their friends have essentially made them move over. The benefits to gameplay are debatable, there are people who strongly dislike many of the game play changes(I'll admit I like quite a bit of them but I hate many many more). Alot of people just moved over because it has the tag "new" next to it. I'd still be playing MW4 if my broadcast 24/7 server were still around.

Back to my original point, I would still be on Black Ops if 90 percent of the diminished number of servers still running black ops weren't playing Nuketown.

[–]faschwaa 1 point2 points ago

To me, it's not really a matter of which game is superior when I'm playing with friends. It's more democratic, and if they want to play MW3, I'll play it with them or I'll play alone. I like playing with friends.

[–]ProbablyLying 0 points1 point ago

This is exactly the reason I buy Madden Football and similar games every year.

[–]zurratype 0 points1 point ago

I know that people bitch about the CoD games and although I've never bought one (don't own a ps3 or 360) I play with one of my friends pretty often. I personally don't like the single player part of the game or even the main multiplayer part of the game. Instead, we just play zombies. It is pretty insane that he bought all of the DLC mainly just for the one zombie map that came with it. Aside from the last DLC that was actually a pretty good deal for all of the classic zombie maps. Also, compared to WaW zombies was greatly improved. From hitboxes, dog stuff, and knives just to name a few things.

Also, they have supported the game very well. They still patch out glitches that can be patched and try to fix any bugs that happen because of patches. They also added mule kick (perk that gives you the ability to carry 3 guns) to every map which is super fucking awesome. He and his girlfriend like playing the normal multiplayer also, but we all 3 play the hell out of zombies. So, they bought MW3 and we have been playing spec ops. While it isn't zombies (we still play blops for zombies) spec ops is a shitload of fun. I couldn't really justify spending 60 bucks on the game, but then again I can't honestly justify spending 50-60 bucks on literally any game. Admittedly I'm a huge pirate, but I do buy games when I can (I only buy indie though). Anyways, I guess I just don't understand all the bitching and moaning that the games get.

[–]John_Unfil 16 points17 points ago

I think most of the problem with EA/Activision being able to pump out endless sequels and still make billions of dollars is that professional reviewers will keep praising the game. If the game is taken in a vacuum I'm sure it would be fun, but the fact that essentially the same game came out last year definitely has to be taken into account, which I don't think a lot of reviewers do. People see these good reviews, and head out to pick up the game because they think it's good. Honestly, I don't think there's much the consumers can do about that besides voting with their wallets, specifically buying original IPs and not just blindly purchasing sequels because the first game was good.

[–][deleted] ago*

[deleted]

[–]John_Unfil 1 point2 points ago

I can totally see where you are coming from and completely agree with almost everything you are saying, I just think that original IPs should be given a bit of a bonus for creativity or trying something new when compared to repetitive sequels like COD which I don't think has really innovated since the first Modern Warfare. I can't say that I have seen a lot of things like that in reviews. To me it seems like the worst reviews are always given to the original games rather than a bland sequel and i think the sequel should be held to a much higher standard than an original game rather than the other way around.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Neato 8 points9 points ago

Reddit, Ars, Zero Punctuation and occasionally MetaCritic are the only decent ways of gauging a game's quality these days from what I've found. If all of the above liked it (or Yahtzee not absolutely hating it), then it's a good bet it's actually a good game.

[–]Sneeoosh 18 points19 points ago

Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a great resource as well.

[–]Neato 2 points3 points ago

Indeed. I forgot about that one!

[–]smectite 2 points3 points ago

RPS is my go-to resource for PC games.

[–]IdeaPowered 9 points10 points ago

Zero Punctuation is more of a comedy series than a review. He even hates what he likes. It's entertainment, not really "reviews".

[–]Neato 5 points6 points ago

Indeed, but I can find most of the major flaws in his review. If it's some stuff that's obviously nitpicking, that's good. If the core combat system is what he rants about for 60%, that's bad.

[–]IdeaPowered 2 points3 points ago

Eh... well, to each his own.

I never take his word for anything since he is expected to talk about the bad as much as possible to get as much snarkiness and cynicism across as he can in as little time as he can all while making comparisons to as many funny and ridiculous things as his mind can conjure up making sure that it seems like he is not really taking a single breathe or reading as if there were a comma or period anywhere then continue bashing whatever he is on unless he really likes it because it helps him be snarky and cynical about another game and that way he can use it to trash it for free for the first time to preempt an episode or again in case the first one time he bashed it he thought it was funny.

For real reviews the internet has more than enough sites.

I'm not really going to take George Carlin's advice from his stand-ups either.

[–]Neato 2 points3 points ago

Worship the sun, pray to Pesci. His is an easy life.

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 0 points1 point ago

He doesn't work for those who easily get offended by someone not liking the same thing you do, but if you're more grown up than that you can use his criticism to judge whether you'll like a game or not.

Basically it's like you said. If you like brown/gray shooters with regenerating health and chest high walls for cover, and those are the only things he mentions you'll probably enjoy the Battlegears of Duty game he's "reviewing".

If he rails on things that make you say to yourself, "well, that sounds terrible/I think that would annoy me/Why did they dumb down Final Fantasy's game design to Call of Duty levels..." it's probably a good indication that the game may not be for you.

[–]Hometown_Monster 1 point2 points ago

This is a very important point that many people seem to overlook. Yahtzee himself has said that he writes for entertainment, not as an actual analysis of a game.

[–]30thCenturyMan 0 points1 point ago

Just like The Daily Show...

[–]Niflhe 7 points8 points ago

GiantBomb, as well. They don't pull any punches.

[–]John_Unfil 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, I would agree with that. I've found that PC Gamer usually has pretty good reviews too. However, many more people check places like Gamespot and IGN for their reviews, which are definitely not nearly as fair and unbiased as they could be. Then tons of people flock to buy the new game and are disappointed when it is almost exactly the same thing. Everyone says they won't buy the next one, but most reviewers still give the next one good scores, so everyone goes out to buy the new game and the cycle repeats itself.

[–]LazyNecromancer 1 point2 points ago

Not metacritic, as most of the data-points are from pro-reviewers

[–]Neato 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I don't look at the reviews so much as the general score for a very...ungood opinion. I used to look at all the major ones for the total score just to filter out the crap. Now I can use it to find out which games are total failures and which need more research.

[–]Quazifuji 0 points1 point ago

I find the best way is generally just to read a whole bunch of reviews. Find a few particular sites or reviewers you always trust, of course, but I've found even among the less-respected sites if you look through them you'll tend to get an idea of what the overall pros and cons of the game are. For example, a lot of people are complaining that the reviews vastly overrated Dragon Age 2 and didn't mention any of its major faults, but I remember reading about all the complaints people have in quite a few reviews when it came out, even if the reviews mostly ended up giving it pretty good scores (better than many people would say it deserved).

[–]BrowsOfSteel 1 point2 points ago

Ars is good, and Metacritic is usually in the right ballpark, but I take Zero Punctuation with a grain of salt, and Reddit is just a big circlejerk.

[–]Neato 0 points1 point ago

Reddit is a circlejerk, but they usually don't jerk around bad games. I mean, I stay the fuck away from /r/gaming, but the rest is usually pretty solid advice. /r/gamedeals is usually spot on.

[–]hamlet9000 1 point2 points ago

"...the fact that essentially the same game came out last year definitely has to be taken into account."

Does it? Why?

This may have some relevance for the multiplayer experience, I suppose. But it has almost no relevance to the single player experience, and although stats are hard to come by the few sources I have seen suggest that the majority of game players never play multiplayer.

It's also, of course, irrelevant to new players who have never bought a game in the franchise before. (And, as the OP points out, these are likely to be the ones most likely to actually be looking to a review for guidance on whether or not to pick up the title.)

[–]John_Unfil -1 points0 points ago

I think the fact that the same game came out last year should simply hole the new version to a higher standard whereas the original IP should not be held to as high a standard because there is no previous title to directly compare it with and the developers have not had as much time to perfect the formula and fix everything in the game. Sequels, however, can (and should) rely on input from fans in reaction to the previous game, which an original IP does not have.

[–]ameoba 0 points1 point ago

Game reviews have never really been good. Critics don't want to be so harsh on a game that they no longer receive prerelease copies. Without those prerelease copies, they can't write reviews before a game comes out. If they don't write reviews before the game comes out, they don't get the pageviews. Writing reviews post-release makes you no different than some random asshole on a forum.

[–]kyborgi 2 points3 points ago

I just ordered Soul Calibur V. The previous game I bought blindly was GT5. Both are games that are fairly certain to be entertaining quality products, both series have been in my opinion the best examples of their respective genres. Usually I'm very careful with my purchases though. I almost never buy games based on hearsay only, I have to try before I buy, because I don't trust the opinions of others. Buying games based on opinions on your friends is a bit of hit and miss too. For example, some of my friends claimed Mass Effect 2 to be better than the original, which for most parts it in my opinion was not .

[–]TheHanna 0 points1 point ago

I was very close to buying Soul Calibur V without knowing a thing about it. Then I read Joystiq's review. The lack of single player content, and the huge changes to the Guard Impact mechanics gave me enough doubt to allow my better judgement enough time to kick in and convince me that I didn't need it day one.

[–]Alahr 13 points14 points ago

The error that I see you (and many others) making is judging your games as products rather than experiences. If you enjoy FXIII-2, awesome! The end. Maybe it has nothing to do with FXIII; maybe it is a cynical money-grab - who cares? Do you have fun with the new Call of Duty every November? Is it worth sixty dollars to you? If so, you are not being cheated. If not, perhaps you are and you should reconsider purchasing them (watch some gameplay videos, read a few reviews first).

Could you read the Mass Effect plot on a wiki and play the upcoming finale instead of buying the first two? Absolutely, but the first two (in my opinion) are excellent games with great experiences that a wiki cannot capture. If you lack the time, money, or inclination to experience them yourself, though, how is accessibility in the sequels a weakness rather than a strength? Also, Mass Effect is full of significant references to previous entries, and has been overhauled each game - not negating your point, but that example is off the mark.

I can identify with your Assassin's Creed example. I enjoyed one and two, but I do not care enough to play through Brotherhood or Revelations. This does not make them bad, or exploitative, or say anything about them (though these things could be said, perhaps) besides the only relevant, tangible quality: I am not interested in playing them - the end.

It seems like you are manifesting unnecessary reasons to dislike games you would otherwise enjoy, or assuming that criticism of a game must detract from your appraisal of it. I would argue that Portal 2 has poor writing, for example, but would I argue that people who enjoyed the writing should rescind that? Of course not, good for them!

tl;dr - Whether a given game is worthwhile is a personal, case-by-case decision that you cannot make by analyzing the overarching industry.

[–]Moominpappa 4 points5 points ago

If not, perhaps you are and you should reconsider purchasing them

It baffles me that there are people who actually buy games they know they (probably) won't like. I've bought every CoD from 3 to MW3 because I've liked each one, the sole exception being MW3. Because of this I won't buy MW4. I won't be buying FFXIII-2 on release because XIII itself was decent, but nowhere near great. If anyone ever makes a Bayonetta 2, I will buy it as soon as it comes out because Bayonetta was amazing.

People complaining (I mean like r/gaming rage, not what we have here) about bad sequels seems strange to me, because the number of great games is just as high as ever, so the only reason you have to complain is if you're spending your money over and over on these things and never leanring.

[–]faschwaa 2 points3 points ago

I bought MW3 expecting a mediocre game. I bought it because I have friends who play it, and playing a game with friends was more important to me than playing the highest quality game.

[–]ladysansa 2 points3 points ago

I wish they would make a Bayonetta 2.

[–]IdeaPowered 2 points3 points ago

I don't. Bayonetta doesn't need a sequel. Platinum Games is better off making new IP after new IP.

This insane NEED for sequels of everything is what is killing innovation.

People want more and more and more of the same until they are sick of it. They LIKE the Activision model with the same breath that they support the system of sequels.

[–]Izazen 0 points1 point ago

How about an original idea that is about as good as bayonetta?

To match the brilliance of Bayonetta 1 you need to use a Bayonetta quality production staff to make a rehash rather than using their considerable talents to develop new ideas and push the art forward.

[–]Git_Off_Me_Lawn 0 points1 point ago

They're too busy making Metal Gear Rising aren't they?

Raiden looks just as good in heels as Bayonetta I don't see why we need a Bayonetta 2 at the moment...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

I actually liked Brotherhood and Revelations much more than the first two. Orders of magnitude more. It got into a little more meta-gaming in that you build a small cadre of assassins loyal to you. Got to the point where I didn't even have to do the hits, I just walked down the street and marked targets for my apprentices to take out.

[–]V2Blast 1 point2 points ago

Everyone likes other games in the AC series more than the first one, considering how repetitive it was. (That is, AC1 is nobody's favorite in the series.) Not really a useful comparison point. :P

Haven't played Revelations yet, but yeah, Brotherhood was definitely an improvement on AC2.

[–]Lasseastrup 8 points9 points ago

I predict a lot of purchases for Mojang's upcoming game Scrolls will be made because of this.

[–]cookedbread 8 points9 points ago

"wtf this isnt minecraft 2 i want my money bak"

[–]kolossal 4 points5 points ago

I remember buying Diablo II and Warcraft III without ever caring much about what a reviewer said. I think it has more to do with how much you've followed a game. I remember following both of the mentioned games since the moments they were announced, so I knew they would be excellent games.

[–]HumerousMoniker 1 point2 points ago

I do this too, but I hate it. It becomes a sunk cost. You've invested not only that money, but that time into the game.

[–]kolossal 1 point2 points ago

Me too man, that's why I have pretty much ignored DIII's developing process until like 1 month ago.

[–]CDRnotDVD 3 points4 points ago

I guess it wasn't totally blind, but I purchased Starcraft 2 on release day because I loved Starcraft: Brood War. I still prefer brood war, but I'm probably going to buy Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void no matter what.

[–]konawwww 2 points3 points ago

My SC2 purchase was stupidly blind, I still regret it.

I also loved BW. I still follow it but not as religiously as I used to. So of course when SC2 was announced I had to have it. I got into the beta early on and really disliked it. The whole game just felt wrong. The units lacked any imagination beyond "this unit will counter that one". Not to mention the countless issues with the new battle.net and regions.

Now, despite all this, I still pre-ordered the CE...

I stupidly thought that Blizzard understood what made Brood War great, I thought they understood the failings with battle.net and everything would be fixed by the time the game came out.

Nothing changed. It was the first time I had been absolutely let down by a Blizzard game (second would be Cataclysm). As a result I highly doubt I will be buying any SC2 expansions or lining up for the midnight launch of Diablo 3 or Pandaria. It's possible that I'll play D3 or the next WoW expansion if I hear good things but they went from a day one purchase to a "wait and see".

So yes, I agree with OP that there should be more emphasis on who (meaning the people) are developing a game rather than the company or series.

[–]passwordisGOD 1 point2 points ago

I haven't played sc2 in at least 7 months. I was excited every moment it was in production. Might as well give my account away now -_-

[–]kualtek 1 point2 points ago

It's a harsh truth and prettied up lie that what you see in beta isn't the 'complete game'. If they are letting fan's see the game then what you are getting is final bug cleanup and balance changes. The game will not change heavily from that iteration. I can't think of a AAA game beta that has changed in a significant way from beta to version 1 release.

[–]konawwww 0 points1 point ago

Exactly. The worst thing is that I knew this was the case too. I just somehow convinced myself that because it was god damn Starcraft 2 it would somehow end up differently. I waited years to even hear the words "Starcraft" and "2" uttered by Blizzard in the same sentence.

The disappointment still hurts :(

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

Honestly, pre-ordering games is just silly.

Most people (see 99%) that preorder have no clue if the game will actually deliver. It's a stupid business decision, so stupid that it influences the market by rewarding creaters of shitty sequels because the money that preorders gives them is just too good.

So if it's a stupid business decision, why do people keep buying promises? It's all about the marketing (hype).

Not to mention that purchasing PC games 6-12 months after their initial release is so much cheaper, not only in game prices but also keeping your hardware up to date to be able to play these games at reasonable settings.

[–]Catman789 1 point2 points ago

A big thing that gets people to get preorsders is the bonuses. I constantly feel that i have to get the game because i get "a panda suit" or "a unique camo". If you dont get the preorder, you just might miss an awesome feature.

[–]V2Blast 0 points1 point ago

I preorder BioWare games primarily because they have good bonus content: soundtrack, free DLC, and a few other game-specific goodies.

[–]Marcob10 2 points3 points ago

The only sequel I buy every year is NHL games but I never felt screwed over cause I know exactly what to expect. The game hasn't changed much for years. I mainly pay for updated rosters and following the online community. I know what I'm getting into. I like up to date rosters and playing with lots of people online enough to pay 60$ every year.

As for other franchises, there's really none that I purchase blindly except for Mass Effect. I'm super excited for ME3 and I'd still buy it if every review scored it under 5/10. I still haven't bought many popular sequels from last year cause they weren't worth full price to me.

[–]Drakengard 2 points3 points ago*

I've been pretty good about CoD. But not perfect. I let my friends talk me into getting MW3. Played about 40 hours just to get my money's worth out of it. Haven't played it in a good month and not sure I ever will again.

I didn't get Blops. I didn't get WaW. But I gave in and wasted $60 and I will not do it again. I've managed to avoid AC by just downright hating the game series core design aim and what I deem a rather poor writing.

And when it comes to FF, I avoid all of the games that are made by the 'A' team. They've made nothing but utter **** since FFVII. Only IX and XII have managed to make me fall in love with the series again so I just automatically know now based on who is making it whether I'll even have a chance of liking the end product.

And Skyrim, well, I learned everything I needed to know from Morrowind to Oblivion. It wasn't going to get better. It was just going to progress down the same path I hated. They're not going to fix it so I didn't buy it and won't until there's a GotY version and tons of mods have made the game...not suck as much.

It is bizarre how I've enjoyed the middle-class games far more this gen (at least mostly) than the huge AAA ones. Singularity, Alpha Protocol, Mirror's Edge, Demon's Souls, WotS 3, Nier, Majin, etc. Those have been the highlights of this gen for me. Sure, Batman, Bioshock, MGS4, inFamous and Uncharted have been good, too. But I guess there's something to be said about finding the gems hidden in the dark and dusty corners of the shelf.

Anyway, I've done it. We've all done it. And we should all learn from it. I think the bigger problem is that only the big games sell enough. Marketing is more important than anything else and that leads to stagnation as companies whore out franchises since it's just easier to do than coming up with something that's actually new.

[–]El_Knavo 0 points1 point ago

Are you... me?

[–]bongo1138 3 points4 points ago

I blindly bought Mass Effect 2, which turned out okay because I loved that game ( it's honestly the best game I've ever played ).

EDIT: Scratch that, Metroid: Prime is the best game I've ever played, but ME2 is my favorite.

[–]crazindndude 2 points3 points ago

Battlefield 3

Pre-ordered because I loved BF2 and BC2, and it looked fantastic. I even played the beta and I think the rose-tinted glasses made it seem great. Once I got it though, I realized the problem.

I was playing BC2 in college, when my commitments consisted of about 3-4hrs/day of classes and minor other things. I had lots of time, so I could play and keep up on unlocks. Now that I'm working 9-5, I get about 2hrs/day free time, so I fell drastically far back in BF3. Now I hope into a game with my M4 and get immediately destroyed by someone with a max level gun, all the upgrades, etc.

Also, fuck mortars.

[–]Jasboh 1 point2 points ago

I think most people can see the danger of us as consumers investing in "Stagnant Franchises".

So the question is, How to change that? I personally have not purchased the regurgitationware that came out this year. And have bought some indie games.. other than voting with my wallet what else is there?

IMO we will never slay the beast that is EA/Activision, we just need to make sure there is fertile ground for new contenders to flourish in.

[–]Harabeck 1 point2 points ago

I typically end up reading about any game before I purchase it, even if it's a sequel to a game I loved. In the past, it wasn't about making sure the game was worth buying, I just couldn't wait for the release to learn something about it.

Lately however, I have been checking out games just to make sure they're worth buying. I don't know if it's a change in how sequels are made of if I'm just becoming more discerning, but I refuse to buy any game blindly now. Bioware epitomizes this trend for me personally. For instance, despite loving DA, I knew from the demo alone that DA2 wouldn't be enjoyable to me. I also loved ME1/2, but I probably won't be touching 3.

[–]basically 1 point2 points ago

Dark souls (because of Demon's Souls) - I was actually happy with this purchase, but that doesn't change the fact that I didn't look at any reviews/listen to what any of my friends had to say.

Gran Turismo (because of developer/genre) - I am a very heavy offender of this. I buy it every single time... and nothing changes every single time. The car damage in 5 was laughable (and not even applicable to every car, it had to be a "special" car to have car damage), and there seemed to be less content per normal Gran Turismo games.

I think the age of the sequel is here, Battlefield 4 will sell 1824971983791703785091789305 copies, and pretty much be a carbon clone of Battlefield 3. There's only so far you can go with your "twist" on a genre before you should just crank out another original game.

[–]sokz 7 points8 points ago

How can you claim BF4 will be a carbon copy of BF3? BF3 is nothing like BF2, so you don't really have much basis to say that... It's even significantly different than the BC games.

[–]basically 1 point2 points ago

BF3 is significantly different than BF2. I hope DICE stays in the game and continues innovating, because the temptation to carbon-copy (and seeing it works, look at what games are selling) versus spending a lot of resources making an excellent innovation is pretty high.

[–]CannaeLoggins 2 points3 points ago

Have DICE ever took the easy way instead of trying to innovate? Not having a pop, it's a genuine question.

[–]basically 1 point2 points ago

I have no reason to doubt them, I really just threw in BF3 as an example of a great game that could lead to stagnation (because it's so good).

[–]Izazen 0 points1 point ago

You still hold a variety of guns and shoot guys in the face in first person perspective right?

[–]TrandaBear 1 point2 points ago

I'm a huge offender of this. COD, Metal Gear, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Pokemon, God of War... the list goes on.

What I've realized is that I'm a fan of the series'. Whatever they're doing, in my mind they're doing it right. So I don't mind shelling out for the latest sequel because I know what to expect. I enjoy that kind of security. The only time I feel stagnant is when I played a singular genre over two or more series. I beat the hell out of Onimusha on PS2, but by the time I got half way through Prince of Persia, I was just bored with it.

[–]Neato 1 point2 points ago

Sequels make my skin crawl. I'm always super wary of how the studio has cashed out or screwed the game up by changing everything. Pretty much every sequel ends up being this way with a few exceptions. Sequels in the games industry as in the movie industry quickly became about low-risk cash-ins on consumer good will.

[–]bellybuttonrapist 1 point2 points ago

Is there really a problem of more of the same? I like the continuation of certain things, like the ES Sequel last year. My problem is more so with the pricing models of these games, they charge me like they're a brand spanking new game but in reality they're a re-skinned expansion pack.

Also when it comes to FPS games too much innovation has made me hate a ton of games cause they all seem gimmicky trying, nothing annoys me more when I hear kids go oh man this killstreak is sooooo badass or some variation or the other. What happened to good ol you pick up a gun you get your self a secondary and a knife and you go around with your team shooting shit up, wtf do we need perks or landmines for. The last innovation they should've gone for are weapon attachments. Maybe I just miss my old CS days (I'd go back but I'm too used to recent graphics) but everytime a predator missile or hind kills me in MW3 I scream in anger.

[–]ThaHarterIII 0 points1 point ago

Source has decent graphics, it's not much like "real" (1.6) CS anymore but you'll have fun anyway

[–]IdeaPowered 1 point2 points ago

Killstreaks and perks are what broke the MP experience in CoD.

You punish new players with no perks and give good players even MORE power to keep killing people with the killstreaks.

It's beyond retarded.

[–]nimchip 0 points1 point ago

Zelda, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil. No more MGS for me since the series ended (though I will check out any future iterations before I buy - I'M LOOKING AT YOU GAIDEN OR W/E YOUR NAME IS).

These are my top 3.

I hated FFXIII with a passion. I will no longer blindly follow this series.

I loved RE5's gameplay as an action shoot-em up. Story-wise it was TERRIBLE and didn't live up to RE1, CV or 4. Reading reviews for 6 when it comes out before I buy (hey zombies are back so who knows).

Zelda has never dissapointed me yet, but we will see.

[–]kah-boom 1 point2 points ago

1) There are no human stars in the gaming industry as there are in Hollywood. I like Jenifer Hale's work but her name won't drive me to buy a game.

2) Titles are the stars in gaming. BioWare was trading in on the good will Knights of the Old Republic built as it was on Star Wars name. Diablo is a star at the Blizzard dream factory.

3) That good will can be lost quickly is mismanaged. Just like Tom Cruise or Arnold Schwarzenegger , Tomb Raider and Duke Nuke 'Em abused their fame and lost good will. They may never get it back, but they are trying.

4) It is hard making a new star. For every Portal there are tons of titles that do well but not enough to stick in a communities mind. Easier and cheaper to build off an existing titles good will. There may have been better actors to cast in Total Recall, but Arnie's name recognition brought people to the box office.

[–]DyceFreak 1 point2 points ago

I do this very same thing with Serious Sam titles ever since the first classic. 2nd encounter? k, Serious Sam 2? looks cartoony, hope it's good, bought it. Oh they are remaking the original in HD? Bought both 1st and 2nd encounter twice one for my main steam account one for my alt. Serious Sam 3? Sign me up.

Worst part is I have less than 10 hours in each game :S

[–]wizardneedsfood 1 point2 points ago

I blindly bought Fable 3 almost as soon as it came out...and boy, did I regret that decision. I played 1 and 2 around the same time, actually (as I never owned an original Xbox before the 360 came out), and while neither game was without its flaws, they were more than enjoyable enough, and 2 made enough improvements over 1 that I thought 3 would surely take more steps in the right direction.

Nope.

I suppose they did try to innovate/streamline the game to some degree, but it seemed to me like they thought "streamlining" and "removing features" mean the same thing (No expression wheel, no Inventory screen, 2 magic attacks at most, WORST MAP EVER). Not to mention the lack of innovation where it was most needed (e.g., magic attacks are still "PRESS B TO WIN").

I still played it once through for the story (which was the best of the three, IMO), but compare that that to the 2 playthroughs of the first, and the 4 or 5 of the second, and you see where the problem lies.

Anyway, that was the game that finally taught me my lesson when it came to blindly buying sequels...or maybe not, as I still bought Arkham City and will buy ME3 sight unseen. So maybe I'll never learn.

As to the "buying the last installment only" thought...that may be, but if a game's story is good enough (see again Arkham City and Mass Effect), I really don't see playing the game and reading the story as having the same effect...especially in a franchise like Mass Effect, where the decisions you make in one game have ramifications, however minor, in the next. I've built an emotional connection to my Commander Shepard over all these years ;)

[–]IdeaPowered 0 points1 point ago

(e.g., magic attacks are still "PRESS B TO WIN").

Every single "Tree" in that game is massively overpowered if you go to the max. Every single one.

Tap Y to win. Tap X to win. While you hold down B to charge up and win you can just tap Y and be done in about the same time.

[–]spaceindaver 1 point2 points ago

I bought the special edition, the special edition guide, and plastered my (shared) living room in posters given to us by a Microsoft rep. If I see Peter Molyneux, I will wipe a bit of my own turd in his hair.

[–]TelstarGlitch 1 point2 points ago

I don't buy on impulse anymore, even with franchises I know I'll love. Halo Reach burned me bad, and I can't purchase a game now without extensive research and waiting for reviews.

[–]Draxxar 1 point2 points ago

While your position is a respectable one, I have to ask, what about Reach did you dislike so much?

[–]HydroV2 0 points1 point ago

I, many times have bought Games on Impulse due to the face that it is part of a Chain of games. (I.E. CoD, Halo, Mass Effect, Diablo, Etc, Etc.) The only Thing that REALLY Disapoints me is when they don't change...a..single....thing..Like CoD. All they do, is make new characters, and "New" Weapons. Halo, Diablo...Atleast they change things(Halo3-Reach, they added Suit Specifications.) So, i Will but a game on Impusle..but only if it has added content.

[–]Catman789 -1 points0 points ago

Gotta disagree, every halo feels as similar as every cod

[–]Snizza 1 point2 points ago

I bought the relatively recent Wolfenstein game blindly the day it was released. I was a HUGE fan of Rtcw; played hours of multiplayer each night, had a clan, etc. The single player of the new one isn't bad, but oh boy... the multiplayer is an abomination. Never again will I buy a sequel without researching beforehand

[–]hamlet9000 0 points1 point ago

This applies to movie franchises, too: The opening day box office of the current movie (and often the box office as a whole) is more reflective of the quality of the LAST movie in the franchise than of the quality of the actual movie itself.

[–]vertice 0 points1 point ago

Last game I did that with was Spider-Man 3, because I enjoyed spider-man 2 and loved ultimate spider-man.

all the same developer, but it was obvious no3 was rushed.

[–]Maxpayne5th 0 points1 point ago

The problem with the industry is that money is not as easy to come by. One slip up and its curtains for most companies. There are very few out there that could fail and come out OK.

When the financial crisis hit, Acti/Blizz loss a bit off their shares, going from ~$17 a share to ~$12. Yea, a bit of a hit. EA was even worse off at about $60 a pop, now down to $18. Companies don't have the luxury of taking risks in a volatile market at the moment, where one slip up will be your doom.

So what does this have to with Stagnating Franchises? Well companies aren't feeling game to spend money on ventures that don't pay off, so they stick with things that make money. WHy do you think they pump CoDs out every year? Because it sells. FIFA/Madden? Sells. Its a very common thing nowadays that rather than take gambles that could put their very jobs on the line, they go with safe bets that will make them loads of cash.

So why do these games get popular? We follow the same rule of thumbs as companies. We buy what we percieve to be good, and trust brands that have provided us loads of entertainment. When money becomes tight, we only buy games that we are sure will be awesome games. Would you be willing to spend your only $60 on Completely Different FPS, or would you buy BF4/CoD9 with that $60? Most people would go with the latter, because they know the brand is worth the price. They have no idea about the brand new FPS that hit the scene, and will wait for friends to try it out before they buy it.

Blindly Purchasing Sequels, and the Growth of Stagnating Franchises are because of most people being strapped for cash. Maybe when the economy becomes better, and we have cash flowing out of our ears, perhaps we can give new and exciting games a try, instead of BF4/CoD9.

[–]TheBlackSpank 0 points1 point ago

I suppose I'm a perpetrator in the "impulse sequel buying" sense, with some exceptions. I have played most of the COD franchise, but I avoided Call Of Duty 3 and World At War, because I've played more than enough WW2 shooters. I'll admit to blindly buying the Modern Warfares and Black Ops, even if not much has changed. I do genuinely enjoy the single player campaign, though, and of course if all of my friends are playing the most recent COD, it doesn't matter if I'm fine sticking with "last year's model". The majority have moved on, and I wanna be in that party.

For the most part, though, when I buy a sequel without waiting for some reviews, it's because I know what companies I like, and that even if they falter in their run (Final Fantasy has fluctuated in the quality of their games forever), I will usually still get my money's worth.

I will blindly buy any Bethesda game, because with the combination of Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3, they have sucked away months of my life (in a good way), and I give them the benefit of the doubt. But that only goes so far. Obviously, if they develop a racing game, I'm not immediately jumping on board. If the company I like is doing what I think they do best, I don't need much convincing.

[–]MartokTheAvenger 0 points1 point ago

The last sequel I got without knowing anything about it was God of War II. I enjoyed the first so much I grabbed the second as soon as I could. I almost got the special edition of the third, despite not having a PS3. Finally managed to get it this Christmas, but we had to fix the car with the PS3 money :(. I don't regret having it on the shelf though, even though my friends have said it's not as good.

I agree with some of the other posters though. I don't think franchises should be trying to innovate with sequels, but refining instead. If a game is fun enough, you should want to play the whole series, rather than the latest one.

[–]iiSaviour 0 points1 point ago

I blindly bought Fable 3 after shoving many days of my life into the first and second game. Never. Again.

[–]AmuseDeath 0 points1 point ago

Th few times where I thought it was justtified in buying a sequel was Street Fighter. Of course Capcom has an update problem, but at least when you look at SF2>SF3>SF4, each edition had been spaced out and play significantly different. The only thing redeeming about MW3 from MW1 il the ability to play online with 2 players. I can justify a singleplayer game having sequels as I believe their worth is related to their stories. But multiplayer game does not need to be redone if a simple patch can add a new feature.

[–]curiouslolcat 0 points1 point ago

Capcom are the fucking worst: Sf2, SF2 next gen, SF2 WW, SSF2T SF3: FI, SF3: Second something, SF3: TS SF4, SSF4, SSF4 turbo

[–]Catman789 1 point2 points ago

Metroid other m. I beat and loved each and every other one except the handheld ones and the very first one. It will alway be my favorite franchise. Still, other m was disappointing. I don't give a damn about samus's character. It was just too much redundant action and not enough creative puzzles.

Another thing, almost all of other m was set on a ship. The setting got redundant. The other games traveled through different biomes, and i would stare in amazement with every next room i entered.

[–]Deafiler 1 point2 points ago

All the Assassin's Creed games I've played have had very significant changes (and, of course, the continuation of what I feel is a quite enjoyable story). The first game was the first, II was a MASSIVE improvement in the platforming, along with better weapon selection, world involvement, and gameplay variety, and then Brotherhood took everything II had and improved upon it with more, better missions, a better DNA replay system, secondary objectives, more easily tracked collectables, and all sorts of other fun stuff. The design stays roughly the same, but go back and play the first game (I'll wait), and it should be incredibly obvious how much things have changed.

[–]13143 0 points1 point ago

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but companies pump out sequels because they bring in revenue. But even more so, people will buy COD MW3 because most people will:
1. Believe that it is somehow better then 2, and
2. Because they believe that everyone will no longer be playing 2, and will have moved on to 3. When 4 comes out, everyone will assume that no one is playing 3 and will move on to 4, and so on.

I think this is really apparent in the Madden series, and similar sports sims, that pump out titles each and every single year. They don't really change anything, besides updating the graphics and rosters, but people consistently purchase new titles because they assume the new title is what everyone else will be playing, and they don't want to be left out.

[–]mike413 0 points1 point ago

I got sucked into two disappointing sequels. Should have been more cautious after the first one.

I really enjoyed Dungeon Siege, and didn't have any problem with Dungeon Siege II.

But then I blindly bought Space Siege thinking it would be similar but it was SO dumbed down and dull, I didn't even finish it.

Ok, so even though I threw away good money on a bad game, I didn't learn. I bought Dungeon Siege III when it came out on Steam... but wow, they just screwed it up. Disappointing.

[–]JonTheAnt 0 points1 point ago

Yes, the games in the Ratchet and Clank series. Bought every one at launch. Love of the series, love of the gameplay, love of the developer, all factors. Basically if a game has such a huge impact on me I will jump at a sequel. If that is as good or better (See: R&C: Up Your Arsenal) I will stick with the series because I know what the developer can do.

And it helps that Insomniac tries to change enough gameplay elements to make each game unique while still having the same overall play style.

So bottom line it's the developer that I trust. If Insomniac (god forbid) passed the title onto someone else I would at least wait for some reviews before giving it a go.

[–]Ovyx 0 points1 point ago

Silent Hill 4. Most disappointing game I have ever blindly bought. Loved the first 3.. Why are you saying Innovation in gaming is slowly stagnating?? I don't know the future but 2011 wasn't a bad year for gaming to me, so I really don't see why you are saying this. Sure Battlefield 3 and COD MW 3 came out, but that doesn't negate the merit of every other game that came out this year.

[–]DocFreeman 1 point2 points ago

AC: Revelations was where I finally drew the line on that series. I really like the universe and want very much to know what's going to happen next to Demond and the Assassins...

BUT I WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER REHASHING OF AC2. It's really gotten absurd. Like Brotherhood, I was willing to tolerate it even if just a little. Multiplayer, Rome in all its glory, assassin training system, ok whatever. But having see AC Revelations there was NOTHING NEW AT ALL.

[–]MoltenMustafa 1 point2 points ago

The only franchises I blindly purchase are Nintendo games (Like Mario and Zelda), because I know they will at least be decent quality, and provide lots of entertainment.

[–]jmarquiso 0 points1 point ago

I would say that video games are a rare exception where games can be better (I said "can", I'm not saying "is"). A proven new IP tends to get more investment in technology and polish by its publisher.

Also, by sales, sequels tend to do better - which means that the customers didn't buy the original, but buy sequels on hype. It is less a question of creativity, and more marketing.

[–]Technohazard 1 point2 points ago

I just impulsively bought Final Fantasy XIII-2 while sitting in my morning class.

This is why these bad sequels get made. People still buy them. Stop buying them, convince other people to do the same, and they'll stop getting made.

[–]shadow1515 1 point2 points ago

I tend to blindly purchase titles in a series until I'm disappointed, then I stop and don't buy any more until reviews/demos convince me. For example, I didn't enjoy FFXIII that much. I bought it on release because I had yet to be disappointed by a main series Final Fantasy title. Now that I've been disappointed, I will most likely not buy another for a few iterations. Similarly, I'm reading reviews and watching Youtube videos before buying another Mario game ever since NSMB.

I also agree with Pxtl's comment about focusing on dev teams going forward. Things shift around enough that I'm going to start paying more attention to names of people instead of names of games. For example, I've been following Quantum Conundrum quite closely because of Portal (same lead designer for those unaware) and I bought Lost Odyssey without knowing a thing about it except that Hironobu Sakaguchi was in charge. That game felt more like what I had hoped FFXIII would be than FFXIII did, and it's not surprising when you follow names in the industry instead of franchise titles.

[–]whoshotgr 1 point2 points ago

As a gamer over thirty with limited time to play these days, I pretty much only play sequels to the games I played in my teens, with few exceptions. Zelda, GTA (& Red Dead), Civilization & Elder Scrolls/Fallout. I guess it's probably nostalgia. Playing in a familiar world feels easier than getting sucked into something new. Now that I think about it, I've actually had BioShock - a game that I really wanted to play based on reviews - for years now, but have never actually put it in the machine. As for mindlessly buying sequels, I'll probably stop when it's no longer any fun for me. And then maybe I can get around to playing BioShock.

[–]Teroc 0 points1 point ago

I finished The Witcher and I instantly pre-ordered the 2nd episode. Best decision ever.

On the contrary, I loved Dragon Age, and thankfully, I tried the demo of DA2 before I made a decision. Hated it.

I also bought Splinter Cell Conviction on a steam sale expecting something like Chaos Theory. I was hugely disappointed.

[–]BarkingToad 0 points1 point ago

I blindly purchased ME2, and now I'm blindly purchasing ME3. I tend to do this only for the games that excite me the most, though.

The only other recent games that I've done it with are Dawn of War II (major disappointment), Civilization V (awesome), and Space Empires V (which was okay). So I guess my experience is a bit mixed.

[–]yougurt87 0 points1 point ago

Although I would agree with you that many games do have this problem, I can safely say that FFXIII-2 is not one of those games. I have played it pretty much every moment I have had since I recieved it yesterday, and so far the entire story is a perfect continuation on the first one.

While I understand what you are saying about changes and shifts, why would you want to play a completely different game from the previous entry, when the reason you are playing the sequel is because of your fondness for the original. Sure it would be great if they added new features and modes in every game, but sometimes it just doesn't make sense. COD for instance, the reason so many people like it is because of its tight gameplay, multiple modes, and what some people would argue is a better story than some shooters. When you are the best selling game year in and year out, why would you want to change up what you have going for you?

[–]Laniius 0 points1 point ago

I only blindly by sequels if it advances the story of previous titles. Right now that is basically Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Other than that, I couldn't care less.

[–]ryopyon 1 point2 points ago

There's a few things I'll purchase blindly, and it's all based on development houses. Anything from Platinum is pretty much guaranteed to be awesome, I'll definitely won't think twice about getting CD Project's next game. After Fate/Unlimited Codes and (Ultimate) Marvel vs Capcom 3 any new Eighting-fighter also is a guaranteed purchase. As is anything Valve make.

I don't feel bad about any of these the way you do though, but then lack of change definitely isn't a problem with any of those studios, even when it comes to direct sequels like in the Witcher series. I'm simply completely confident that I'll enjoy anything these people make in the future at least as much as their previous efforts.

[–]DinofarmGames 1 point2 points ago

Have you ever blindly purchased a title based on a previous iteration?

Not since I was a little kid, since doing so would be a stupid use of my money.

[–]VVarlord 0 points1 point ago

I blindly got skyrim, but I already knew that was going to be good. Did not expect the kind of explosion following it got though, I expected something more like oblibion tbh.

Also blindly got space marine, but that's only because I'm a huge 40k fan.

Besides that, I never blindly buy any game. The least I do is look at gameplay videos.

[–]sbartok45 0 points1 point ago

I actually like the way Assassin's Creed sequels have been going. With each game, they add features (although they may be miniscule in some areas) and continue to build upon it with each coming game, making the features stack. Although I don't find Revelations to be my favorite Assassin's Creed game, I do believe that this is the most polished and broad. With the addition of bombs, there are so many ways to go about completing objectives. And the ways to assassinate a target seem to expand with each coming game. So although they may appear the same, at least they are continually building upon the game and not going backwards.