Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ME3 Ending PetitionFollow

#1 Mar 14 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
To start, I haven't played ME 3 and won't be playing ME 3. I tried ME & ME 2 and didn't care for them (yes, I'm a bizarre specimen) so there's no love lost or gained from me on this. I just found it interesting.

So as most of you probably know, there's a bunch of people upset about the ending from ME 3. What do they hate about it? Beats me, I haven't played. Apparently it invalidate your previous hard work and people think it sucks. To that end, a bunch of people are petitioning BioWare to change the ending. Facebook page. I think it's a fool's errand but, hey, if people want to grouse let them grouse.

Perhaps more interesting, someone decided to link a petition to Child's Play, the charitable organization linked to the Humble Bundles. Instead of just ********* you can ***** AND make a donation which I suppose adds a little more weight to your sincerity than just random ******* and moaning. Will it matter? Beats me and I suspect probably not but the worse case scenario is that some people complain and some sick kids benefit. Better than the status quo which just involves complaining.

I posted this separate from the ME3 thread because I didn't want to hijack that but also there's a larger question here of how legitimate it is to expect a developer to change a game after the fact based on people not liking the plot (vs game mechanic/bug fixes). To be clear, everyone has a right to make noise with their noise-holes but should there be any expectation of results?

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 11:48am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Mar 14 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
******
44,313 posts
Square has spent the last decade plus trying to make up for that crap ending of Final Fantasy 7, though they didn't have the benefit of online patching to change it directly I guess. It's an online petition, so that weighs about as much as the paper it's printed on. I think the only real benefit to this is it's link to Child's Play, even if it's only a few extra bucks this year for them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Mar 14 2012 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
-shrug- People should just make a mental note about what they like and don't like about a company. When making purchases from that company in the future they should keep in mind what that company has done in the past with their games and use it to weigh the pro and cons about a game. But of course that would require more thinking than the average gamer is willing to put into purchasing. Especially when it comes to a popular franchise such as Mass Effect.

The developer won't change the ending like that. I swear people are getting more needy about their wants and this industry grows. I remember back in the day if you had a crappy ending from a game you complained but you didn't expect the developer to create a new ending. Smiley: oyvey

On a side note I think that people were expecting so much from this game that it would have never lived up to what people wanted.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#4 Mar 14 2012 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
A few of the more vocal game critics have been saying that this is emblematic of a growing sense of "gamer entitlement" that's becoming problematic for the industry. I'm inclined to agree with them. They've every right to petition, but I think it makes them seem like petulant brats.

lolgaxe wrote:
Square has spent the last decade plus trying to make up for that crap ending of Final Fantasy 7...


You keep saying that, and I still think you're off your rocker.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#5 Mar 14 2012 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Criminy wrote:
I swear people are getting more needy about their wants and this industry grows.

I agree but I'll also note that the cost keeps growing as well. I may feel more bitter about a sucky $60-$80 game than a sucky $30 game.

I know the obvious answer to that is "Don't buy it for $60" but the publishers are relying on that initial rush of first wave players before the game winds up in the Steam/Amazon discount rack. Not to mention console players. So there's some give and take from both sides.
Eske wrote:
They've every right to petition, but I think it makes them seem like petulant brats.

I assume that's partially what the charity petition is supposed to represent. You're not sounding as much like "Gimme free stuff because I deserve free stuff" when you follow up by dropping an average of $25 into the Childs Play kitty.

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 12:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Mar 14 2012 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I agree but I'll also note that the cost keeps growing as well.


Not reallly http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.ars
#7 Mar 14 2012 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,313 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Square has spent the last decade plus trying to make up for that crap ending of Final Fantasy 7...
You keep saying that, and I still think you're off your rocker.
I'll stop being annoyed at it's ending as soon as someone explains how Red XIII grew a/n uterus using in game evidence.

Edit: A uterus? An uterus? An uterus looks correct, but doesn't sound correct ...

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 1:29pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Mar 14 2012 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
It's "a".
#9 Mar 14 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
KTurner wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I agree but I'll also note that the cost keeps growing as well.
Not reallly http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.ars

Comparing PC games to Sega Genesis games fails on a couple fronts, the most obvious being the availability of console game rentals. Comparing PC games now to PC games over time would make a lot more sense. Also, what was the price of games five years ago instead of fifteen? The $60 sticker shock didn't happen because everyone's been paying it since 1995.

Edit: Now I'm curious. Trying to access reviews for older games fails to give me their original retail price or else all the site pages are defunct. I have a bunch scanned PDFs from Compute! Gazettes at home but those would mostly be Commodore 64 games.

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 12:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Mar 14 2012 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
I don't mind the ending, to be honest.
____________________________
Banh
#11 Mar 14 2012 at 12:05 PM Rating: Decent
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
I think comparing PC games to those sega genesis games (only one example, all consoles were the same way) is fine. Especially since those older console games typically were beatable in one sitting.

Look at money spent per hour of gaming rather than cost of the disk/cartridge. The hobby is definitely cheaper than ever.

Regarding the cost jump in PC games, what's most painful about the 60 dollar price is the cost relative to alternative means. I think 60 dollars for Skyrim is straight up ridiculous when I can buy the game a few months later for 33% off.
#12 Mar 14 2012 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
KTurner wrote:
Look at money spent per hour of gaming rather than cost of the disk/cartridge.

That's just getting into nonsense. Many of the old games were replayable due to their basic nature. Versus plot based games that, once you finish them and see how the story ends, there's not much to go back to. I'm more than willing to compare prices from the same platforms and see how they stock up. Jumping platforms or saying "Oh, but these were better so they're worth more" just dilutes the argument.

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 1:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Mar 14 2012 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Money spent per gaming hour of Mario 3 is probably fractions of a penny/hour for me at this point.
____________________________
Banh
#14 Mar 14 2012 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,817 posts
I haven't bought ME3 yet, but the whole 'ending' thing didn't bother me until Bioware responded to it. Between the lines, they said that they're listening to the feedback and their DLC will reflect that.

In other words, you have to buy more stuff to get a better ending.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all **** for a basement"

#15 Mar 14 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I probably have literal months of my life tied up in Paradroid which cost me all of $15 in 1988 ($27 in today's dollars).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Mar 14 2012 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
It's an impossible comparison in any case. Productivity tools are massively better now than then, but so are expectations for things like graphics, which are not cheap at all to produce. Honestly, the fact that games still cost roughly the same, considering the quantum leap in objective quality (graphics and other quantifiable content) that they contain, is pretty amazing in itself and mirrors the tech world in general.

More on topic, I don't disagree with the idea of this petition because the general consensus is that the ending feels a lot like "EA forced Bioware to push this out the door unfinished" and that this isn't the intended end to the plot. If this is true, I feel Bioware has an obligation to deliver the intended product. This series, more than almost any other, is wrapped around the idea of your choices having a huge impact in how the story plays out. Removing the player's role in actually deciding how things will end is a huge blow to Bioware's customers.

I found this Forbes article a pretty interesting read, in any case. They take a much different view from most gaming review websites, which seem to just back Bioware.

ETA: Oops, I meant to link this article up above.

Edited, Mar 14th 2012 2:43pm by Majivo
#17 Mar 14 2012 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I probably have literal months of my life tied up in Paradroid which cost me all of $15 in 1988 ($27 in today's dollars).


Yeah? well you're olde!
#18 Mar 14 2012 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Majivo wrote:
It's an impossible comparison in any case. Productivity tools are massively better now than then, but so are expectations for things like graphics, which are not cheap at all to produce.

True enough and I'm hijacking my own thread with something I don't care that much about Smiley: grin

Suffice to say that the perception by consumers is that they are paying more, hence they should receive more. Defending it by pointing to the cost of Golden Axe in 1995 is going to be as effective as people saying "But gas is cheaper than it was in 1979 if you just..." No one gives a ****, they care about what they're paying today.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Mar 14 2012 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,817 posts
Majivo wrote:
I found this Forbes article a pretty interesting read, in any case. They take a much different view from most gaming review websites, which seem to just back Bioware.

ETA: Oops, I meant to link this article up above.


Those are both pretty good reads, thanks for sharing.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all **** for a basement"

#20 Mar 14 2012 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske wrote:
They've every right to petition, but I think it makes them seem like petulant brats.


I assume that's partially what the charity petition is supposed to represent. You're not sounding as much like "Gimme free stuff because I deserve free stuff" when you follow up by dropping an average of $25 into the Childs Play kitty.


Mmm. Jim Sterling has been suggesting that some folk have been ******** Destructoid out over the charity thing, as well.

Good on the charitable and level-headed folk, obviously. It just seems like there's a lunatic fringe out there that's being very vocal.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#21 Mar 14 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Default
Repressed Memories
******
20,586 posts
It's quite possible some sort of plot fix will be worked into a DLC, because I can see that as being fairly profitable concept for DLC. Outside of that, no.

I think expectations go hand in hand with what will realistically occur, but for those who might consider it in the context of some sort of deserved end for all they've been through I'd say this: "The very end of the last game game (hopefully) in the Mass Effect series, and you're disappointed? What took you so long?"
#22 Mar 14 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Allegory, you're such an anti-Bioware hipster.
____________________________
Banh
#23 Mar 14 2012 at 5:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT

I wonder if it's worse to sound entitled or worse to sound like a colossal ****.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Mar 14 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,586 posts
Sir Spoonless wrote:
Allegory, you're such an anti-Bioware hipster.

Being super cool is just a side effect of ineffectual ******** about the stagnation of RPGs.
#25 Mar 14 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I wonder if it's worse to sound entitled or worse to sound like a colossal ****.


Meh, it's his schtick.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#26 Mar 14 2012 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Never read him so I'll take your word for it. Doesn't look as though I've been missing out by not reading him either.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Mar 15 2012 at 1:59 AM Rating: Good
After playing in Bioware's sandbox over the course of 3 games making the choices you want to make, ultimately, ME3 only gives you up to 3 choices at the end (with slight variations depending on a choice made at the end of ME2).

The ending cinematics, for all 3 choices, are the same aside from the color of the beam that's sent around the galaxy and maybe 10 seconds of footage at the very end (who survived on the Normandy, and whether or not Shepard survives).

I liked the ending of ME3, as I knew my Shepard would sacrifice herself to stop the Reapers & that's pretty much what she did.

I would have liked there to be more variety in the endings, and something similar to the end of DragonAge when it tells you how the decisions you made during the game effect the immediate future of that "world", but it being ambiguous leaves room for more stories in the ME universe (ME4, ME Online?).

I find it silly that the people playing ME 1-3 who've praised Bioware for the freedom given them to make choices are mad that at the end they were given up to 3 choices they maybe didn't want to make. You stopped a million+ year old cycle of the elimination of all organic life in the milky way & stopping said cycle may have resulted in the deaths of lots of different people you maybe didn't want to die. Sorry?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#28 Mar 15 2012 at 2:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,826 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I would have liked there to be more variety in the endings, and something similar to the end of DragonAge when it tells you how the decisions you made during the game effect the immediate future of that "world", but it being ambiguous leaves room for more stories in the ME universe (ME4, ME Online?).

I find it silly that the people playing ME 1-3 who've praised Bioware for the freedom given them to make choices are mad that at the end they were given up to 3 choices they maybe didn't want to make. You stopped a million+ year old cycle of the elimination of all organic life in the milky way & stopping said cycle may have resulted in the deaths of lots of different people you maybe didn't want to die. Sorry?

For a lot of folks, it's the incomplete feeling of the ending, that specific ambiguity you mention. I have no problem with Shepard making the ultimate sacrifice, or the Mass Relays going down, but not knowing what happens to all my friends beyond that tiny little shuttle scene or how my other decisions shaped the immediate fate of the galaxy after the cycle has ended bugs the **** out of me.
#29 Mar 15 2012 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
Poldaran-

I agree with you there. But on the other thread, I mentioned that it was similar to Lost in that aspect. It ended with resolutions for all the important characters yet left a lot of details & explanations out which further fuels speculation as to what actually happened. What happens after your choice at the end of ME3 is really up to your imagination, but can be extrapolated based upon various decisions you made throughout the series and at the end.

Also, this is pretty funny:

Screenshot


Edited, Mar 15th 2012 5:18am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#30 Mar 15 2012 at 3:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,826 posts
Smiley: laugh

Awesome.

Edit: Yeah, I couldn't stand Lost, so it being like Lost really isn't helping me. Smiley: tongue

Edited, Mar 15th 2012 3:27am by Poldaran
#31 Mar 15 2012 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Never read him so I'll take your word for it. Doesn't look as though I've been missing out by not reading him either.


He's a contrarian, by and large. Sometimes that means that he sounds like a nice bit of sanity among a sea of crazy, and sometimes he seems like he's picking nits or being abrasive simply to stir the sh*t. Sometimes a bit of both, which I think is the case here.

Either way, the charity thing exists in a wholly separate world from complaints about the game. It's nice that they're doing some good, but it's got nothing to do with their message about ME3.

Edited, Mar 15th 2012 10:51am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#32 Mar 15 2012 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
He's a contrarian, by and large.

Using smaller words, a troll.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Mar 15 2012 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
He's a contrarian, by and large.

Using smaller words, a troll.


Quite.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#34 Mar 15 2012 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:

lol im olde
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Mar 15 2012 at 11:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,325 posts
I didn't have any problem with Final Fantasy 7's ending. Was a fantasy game and I always just figured it was the planet, which from I recall was a living organism, finally cleansed itself of its infection (Humans). Through evolution, magic, whatever that allowed more of Red's Tribe to start populating the planet since they were not destroying the planet.Another posiblity is somewhere else on that planet there was a female that he finally found, that's not impossible either?

Far as the price of Video Games go I don't remember what they were for Atari when it first came out but the average NES game was $50 when it was a new release and there wasn't too many games that dropped down to $20 within a few months of release. MY mother once told me Atari 2600 games were over $50 when they first came out but I don't know how true that is. I always seen them for under $20 as a kid but that was mid 80's when it was dieing so don't know.. II think Genesis/SNES was between $50 and $60 as well. Supposedly I always heard that it cost Nintendo $15 to make a NES cart?. You look at modern media I doubt it costs more than $3 to put a game on a DVD/cd/blu-ray case and we won't even go into digital downloads. I guess in that since they are getting more money per sale but I am sure it costs ALOT more to make a game now then it did for older systems.

I remember the Nintendo 64 when it first came out some of those 3rd party games where $80 each at first (Shadows of the Empire). I imagine alot of it was Nintendos, in my option poorly thought out decision, to use cartridge as the media instead of cd like the rest of the world was using. So really $60 for a new game isn't too bad when you look at inflation and what your getting. I remember paying $50 for NES games as a kid in the 80's and within a couple of days beating them. $50 was alot more money in the late 80's than it is now.

The average NES game could be beaten in some cases less than an hour once you got good at it. Now a days you get a good rpg/adventure game you can expect 20+ hours of game play just going straight through the game. I know a lot of people who have 200 hour save games on Elder Scroll games.

____________________________
Hi
#36 Mar 15 2012 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
fronglo wrote:
I remember paying $50 for NES games as a kid in the 80's and within a couple of days beating them.

Time Traveling Pro-Tip: $5 to rent for three nights.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Mar 15 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
I think that the example advertised prices in that article are exceptions though. I don't remember walking into a game store and seeing many games outside the $50-$60 range back then (with most being in the $20-$40 range instead). Today, with the exception of the occasional very obviously crappy/old games, it's hard to find anything less than $40 for a console. I think they're pointing to the wrong time period too. Early 90s was when there was a re-emergence of console gaming (which had died out somewhat after the initial boom of the early 80s) and prices were still high(ish). Compare to the late 90s/early 2000s, when the availability of better programming tools and cheaper memory and media drove prices down and the typical new release was right at around $40. It's gone up significantly in the decade since then

Adjusted for inflation, I wouldn't say that games have gotten more expensive, but they certainly are not less expensive. And given that the media and programming costs have (theoretically) decreased over that period of time, they should be cheaper than they are. I suppose you could counter that the games are "better", that's also subject to opinion. Better graphics and effects, sure. Better stories? Better gameplay? That's hard to say. As some have pointed out, SC2 really didn't change much from SC1 and in some ways had a less advanced/full story and plot. So we waited 15 years for what? Same game with improved graphics and cut scenes?

Not even saying that's typical, but it's not like human story writers have improved their trade as dramatically as the tech parts have improved. There's a reason why there are some 30 year old computer games, which (once you get past the graphics) are often more engrossing than games released today. Back then, they knew that they were limited in terms of graphics and game mechanics, so they focused on the parts they could make better. Today, it seems like better graphics and more advanced interaction is how gameplay is measured, but I'm not sure that's the best way to do it.

Edited, Mar 15th 2012 4:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Mar 15 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
SC?

Anyway, as long as we're back on this, MSRP pricing from some 1990 issues of Compute!

Champions of Krynn (SSI Gold Box) - $39.95
Altered Beast - $34.95
Shinobi - $23.95
Paperboy - $25.95
Blue Angels - $49.95
Beyond Dark Castle - $29.95
Battletech - $27.99
Gauntlet II - $29.95
Sentinel Words I - $34.95
Might & Magic II - $39.95
SimCity - $29.95

I stuck with titles I remembered and which were fairly popular titles. So a AAA "RPG" title was $40, most other stuff was around $30 and I don't know what the Blue Angels (some flight sim/combat game) people were smoking. I saw mail-order ads for these titles for cheaper but went with the prices listed in the game reviews. According to the inflation calculator, $30 in 1990 was roughly $50 and $40 is roughly $65. So an argument can be made that games aren't more expensive adjusted for inflation but that's hardly going to soothe people who remember paying $35 then for a game that costs $50+ now. It certainly isn't notably cheaper for computer (not console) games now than it was back then even adjusted for inflation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Mar 15 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
SC?


I'm guessing Starcraft.
#40 Mar 15 2012 at 9:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Today, with the exception of the occasional very obviously crappy/old games, it's hard to find anything less than $40 for a console.

Define "old", though. Since console hardware (obviously) doesn't change within a generation, games from early in the generation can still be a very good value in comparison to those from later, while frequently reaching the $20 or less price point.

gbaji wrote:
I think they're pointing to the wrong time period too. Early 90s was when there was a re-emergence of console gaming (which had died out somewhat after the initial boom of the early 80s) and prices were still high(ish). Compare to the late 90s/early 2000s, when the availability of better programming tools and cheaper memory and media drove prices down and the typical new release was right at around $40.

I'm not really sure what cheaper memory has to do with it, since that would relate to the console's price and not the games. But yes, programming tools are better and media is cheaper. Consider what else has changed, though. There's now sufficient room on media for a full-fledge soundtrack, which means hiring a music team. Similar for sound effects - you don't have to just reuse a few dozen anymore. Graphics have obviously scaled exponentially, not just in fidelity, but in how many there are. Things that used to be sprited or tiled are getting unique textures now, which takes more time from the graphics team. Higher polycounts necessitate more QA due to a greater opportunity for visual glitches. Ditto for the advancing lighting and shader techniques that come with using modern engines.

Most of all, though, consider the simple fact that video gaming is finally an industry of its own. With that comes all of the overhead of industries - high level managers who didn't exist in the small teams that worked previously, marketing departments, that sort of thing. Personally, I find the accessible cost of games today to be pretty amazing, and helped in no small part by the much greater volume of games being sold.

I completely agree with you about gameplay - the limited resources of earlier days stimulated some serious innovation. I think that's why we're seeing so much great work from indie studios these days. They don't have the budget to compete based on production values, so they innovate instead.
#41 Mar 15 2012 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,826 posts
Today's Nerf Now! has a take on some potential new endings for ME3.
#42 Mar 16 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
#43 Mar 16 2012 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Today, with the exception of the occasional very obviously crappy/old games, it's hard to find anything less than $40 for a console.

Define "old", though. Since console hardware (obviously) doesn't change within a generation, games from early in the generation can still be a very good value in comparison to those from later, while frequently reaching the $20 or less price point.


It just seemed to me that games used to fall in price much faster after release than they do today. This is the same for both computer and console games from what I've seen. Used to be, you could wait 6 months after the initial release was done, and pick up a title for about half the price as initial release. Today, there seem to be two pricing approaches: Anything that is physical media costs about as much 6 months later, or a year later as it did on day one, with downloadable content made available for relatively cheap (which can be smaller full games or extended content for games).

I'll freely admit that I'm not nearly as avid a video game player as I used to and my perception is based almost entirely on swinging through the game sections at Best Buy or Fries and noting that "holy cow, they're still asking $45 for that game that came out 1.5 years ago?" or trying to pick up Wii or DS games as gifts for my numerous nieces and nephews and noting pretty much the same trend.

It's just strange because this effect doesn't seem to be occurring with other media, like film. I can walk through the video section of those stores and easily find films released last fall that were going for $25-$30 are now $12-$15 in most cases (or less sometimes). Anything released a year or more ago is often in the sub-$10 range. So it's not about the media, it's about the market I guess.

Quote:
I'm not really sure what cheaper memory has to do with it, since that would relate to the console's price and not the games.


Just covering all the bases. It does affect the cost for systems to do development on though. Those games aren't written on optical media. They're just copied to them for shipment to end customers. I was just commenting on the total cost of development.

Quote:
But yes, programming tools are better and media is cheaper. Consider what else has changed, though. There's now sufficient room on media for a full-fledge soundtrack, which means hiring a music team. Similar for sound effects - you don't have to just reuse a few dozen anymore. Graphics have obviously scaled exponentially, not just in fidelity, but in how many there are. Things that used to be sprited or tiled are getting unique textures now, which takes more time from the graphics team. Higher polycounts necessitate more QA due to a greater opportunity for visual glitches. Ditto for the advancing lighting and shader techniques that come with using modern engines.


Yeah. Some of this I see, some of it, not so much. The music team stuff I get, but then that's part of what I was talking about with more "stuff" in a game that doesn't necessarily add to the actual gameplay at all. I'm more about the actual game, the mechanics, plot, controls, objectives, etc. While I appreciate good sound and some music, it's not the most important feature of a good game, and I think that some projects go a bit over the top with that.

Graphics and more basic sound effects and music falls into the "better tools" category. It's 100 times easier to program graphics, and edit/score music and sound than it was back then. As I'm sure you're well aware of, most games are developed using somewhat standard sets of graphics engine tools. Sure, they push the envelope a bit over time, but that's also spread out over a whole bunch of titles that use the same toolset and engine to create their graphics. The greatest amount of time isn't really spent actually programing the graphics themselves, but on the design of the things the graphics engine shows to the player in that game. And the tools they have for that today make it super ridiculously easy compared to just 10 years ago.

Quote:
Most of all, though, consider the simple fact that video gaming is finally an industry of its own. With that comes all of the overhead of industries - high level managers who didn't exist in the small teams that worked previously, marketing departments, that sort of thing. Personally, I find the accessible cost of games today to be pretty amazing, and helped in no small part by the much greater volume of games being sold.


Yes and no. While maybe not so applicable to the mid to late 90s era that I was talking about, but game developers used to pretty exclusively work at just a handful of "big" game companies. That actually changed in the 90s as development costs came down enough that smaller outfits could design games and then market them (either through a larger company or directly). This is where companies like Blizzard and Bioware came from. Prior to that time period, it was basically Nintendo, or Sony, or Atari, or a handful of other related companies that did all the games.

What we may be seeing is these smaller studio style companies have now become bigger, with more management layers, attorneys, overhead, and whatnot, and that's having an effect on the efficiency of their own operations and the resulting costs to the consumers.

Quote:
I completely agree with you about gameplay - the limited resources of earlier days stimulated some serious innovation. I think that's why we're seeing so much great work from indie studios these days. They don't have the budget to compete based on production values, so they innovate instead.


Yup. Which kinda echoes what I was just talking about. I think the guys who were the indie studios 10-15 years ago, are now the "big dogs" of today. So maybe the rule is that things don't really change that much? I guess it's also a timing thing for me. I remember the first console game bubble (and crash) in the late 70s through early 80s, but I was a kid then. And while we were all in awe at the idea of playing video games on our TVs, to be honest, most of the title were pretty darn horrible (and most of them designed mill-like by the big companies of the day). I also watched as console gaming (and computer gaming) emerged in the 90s. The massive increases in technology allowed for a rapid growth of the industries. The existing console folks latched on to that, but still weren't making much of interest. It was in the computer games that the small studio model emerged. And they were incredibly innovative and interesting. These same guys moved into the console arena and essentially forced the old school guys to innovate as well.


It just seems like today, while the production value has increased, it's rarer and rarer to see something really new and interesting come up. It's easier and cheaper to just take an existing title, write a new storyline, toss in some new characters, spruce up the graphics a bit, and sell it than it is to make something new. That's not to say there aren't some interesting titles out there, but most are still rehashes of the same basic concepts. I think the last game I saw that I thought was a really "new" idea was Portal. And it was pretty basic and simple. Didn't need super amazing music, or sound. It just needed a neat concept and to execute it well.

Playing yet another variation of the same RPG long ago bored the **** out of me. Simply changing the UI and story isn't really making a new game. I still find RTS games interesting, but honestly no one's really improved the genre since Warcraft2 came out ( they've just produced modified versions with different resources, things to build, and units to use). Maybe I'm just jaded, but I honestly think that the game industry could do better. And given that they so often *aren't* doing better, I do find the costs a bit higher than I think they should be.


It may also be that I do remember the 80s, when console game were milled out and I really do see a similar trend going on today. The graphics are better, but they're still doing the equivalent of releasing 12 versions of the same game and just changing the name, the levels, and the graphic appearance. And while I suppose the high polygon counts of today make it a bit easier to conceal that it's still just a stick figure with stuff on it compared to the old 8bit graphics, are they really doing anything different? Are game companies really that much more innovative today than the guys back then who actually marketed games by thinking "Ok. It is just another side view game, with a character that you jump or swing over obstacles like the 5 games we released last year, but this time you're playing Indiana Jones! And see, he's got kind of a hat, and a whip. If you squint really hard anyway."?


I do hope you're right and that some new blood will flow in and start producing games that actually innovate. There's presumably no end to interesting ideas that one could incorporate into a game. It just seems like not nearly as many have appeared in the last 10 years compared to the 10 years before that.

Edited, Mar 16th 2012 6:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Mar 17 2012 at 12:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Also, Gbaji would appreciate it if you were to remain off his lawn.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Mar 17 2012 at 1:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
I think they should add more wombats.

Smiley: wombat

That makes any game better.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#46 Mar 17 2012 at 2:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
That might be the longest post gbaji has ever made...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#47 Mar 17 2012 at 3:45 AM Rating: Good
From Crunchyroll

Quote:
The anonymous source went on to explain about the contents of the DLC and its purpose, talking about the leaked script from some time before the game's final release:

"The ending was half-assed because of the leak. They changed it at the last minute so they could have more time to prepare the real ending via DLC.

"It’s called The Truth and it’s being released in April or May. You WILL be able to continue the story if you picked any of the endings. Your decision during that sequence will have a big effect on your ending of The Truth. The Truth adds two new sets of enemies, new classes, and multiplayer maps including “Firebase Hive”, which is a small area of the last remaining collector ship included in the DLC, which, by the way you should definitely bring Javik the Prothean along if you have him.

"The picture here shows some of the leaked multiplayer classes and races. One race that isn’t shown is the Prothean Adept and Vanguard. This DLC also enables the ability for owners of the preorder and From Ashes DLC to find their DLC weapons in reinforcement packs.

"All that content, and this might as well be labeled an expansion pack.

"And it’s free.

"You’re welcome."


So some free DLC that resolves the ending should be forthcoming, unless the source is full of it.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#48 Mar 17 2012 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,817 posts
Good find. I know they can't go back and change their release but if it does fix the ending and if it is free it'll help restore my faith in them.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all **** for a basement"

#49 Mar 17 2012 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
It really sucks if that's true, though, and some ******* ruined everything... Wouldn't be surprised if it was, in any event.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CST
Jophiel, Poldaran, Shojindo, Anonymous Guests (60)