Re: It's Hard To Blame Them...

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:11:33 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

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

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

Typing (and maths) is hard ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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



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