What happened to leaning in videogames, and what happened to Tactical Shooters?

[Decepticon]

ALL, move to BUSH, 2 O'Clock!

Then watching as all of the platoon gets shot up in the middle of the street, best AI ever.

ONE, is DOWN!

FIRING!

UNKNOWN, MAN, TWO, O'CLOCK!

ENGAGING!

[Ad Bot]

[Ronin]

Pretty pathetic and also funny when it's OH NO, 2 IS DOWN

[Harm94]

Pretty pathetic and also funny when it's OH NO, 2 IS DOWN

*deep voice*: GOD DAMNIT! They wasted our truck.

[ZombiLoin]

Payday? Planetside?

read OP pls

also to answer your question there's a big problem in the video gaming industry right now that been pretty much translated from the movie industry. nobody wants to make a mid-budget game targeted at medium or small groups now, it's either a massive triple A blockbuster that tries to appeal to anyone or everyone (and is safe, generic, and easy) or a small indie game made by 1 or 2 people (that can present interesting new ideas within some boundaries but without a budget are capable of moving gaming forward as a whole.)

the only real middle-budget games I can think of off the bat in the past 2 years are Payday 2, Dark Souls, DayZ, Wolfenstein, Paradox Interactive games, and Arma.

compared to triple A "appeal to everyone" games such as: GTA5, Watch_Dogs, Far Cry 3, Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Mario, Most sports games, etc.

I mean, having triple A appeal to everyone games are cool. It's not bad. Indie games are great. But only having the extremeing without anything in the middle is just plain bad for gaming as a whole.

[SeventhSandwich]

what I don't get about these realismcigarettes is why they actually want shooters to be realistic?

In real war, the teams are stacked, the maps are unfair, the guns take way too long to reload, one side always has better stuff, one side sometimes doesn't even get any vehicles, and occasionally you'll just get dronestriked by an npc controlled by some character who is immune to any damage because he's miles away.

I'll take unrealistic any day.

it's either a massive triple A blockbuster that tries to appeal to anyone or everyone (and is safe, generic, and easy) or a small indie game made by 1 or 2 people (that can present interesting new ideas within some boundaries but without a budget are capable of moving gaming forward as a whole.)

That's because studios cannot be studios unless they release content that is economically viable to produce. It has to sell a lot because it costs a lot to make. Do me a favor and become a professional at something, and then tell me how you feel when people on the internet tell you to sacrifice your profits and livelihood so that a small niche group of people can enjoy your product more.

The real irony here is that the 'blockbuster games' that you think are such a big problem are actually the only reason that videogames are a thriving industry.

[ChexGuy331]

bf3/4 and wolfenstein has leaning

with absolutely no reason to use them in any of those games

you'll never use them except for where the game forces you to

[ZombiLoin]

That's because studios cannot be studios unless they release content that is economically viable to produce. It has to sell a lot because it costs a lot to make. Do me a favor and become a professional at something, and then tell me how you feel when people on the internet tell you to sacrifice your profits and livelihood so that a small niche group of people can enjoy your product more.

The real irony here is that the 'blockbuster games' that you think are such a big problem are actually the only reason that videogames are a thriving industry.

something can be economically viable without being incredibly expensive. while the profits you may gain are generally lower than triple a titles, there's much less risk involved in making these budget niche titles because you know that there's a group out there that wants what you make. Dark Souls and Payday 2 are not triple A titles by any stretch of the imagination but they're incredibly popular and profitable because they're good games and because their target audience enjoys them. I don't think the same can be said of a flop like Medal of Honor: Warfighter or any of the other stuff studios produce to rake in the most profits with the least amount of work.

if you had actually read what I said I didn't say triple A video games were bad, I just said it'd be nice if publishers like EA started publishing mid-range budget games that take some risk instead of having everything be a generic washed down game.

Also to answer your question about "realismcigarettes" is that some people actually like that because much of it depends on tactics, teamwork, and patience more than twitch shooters. Holy stuff, does someone like what you don't like? Unfathomable!

[SeventhSandwich]

if you had actually read what I said I didn't say triple A video games were, bad, I just said it'd be nice if publishers like EA started publishing mid-range budget games that take some risk instead of having everything be a generic washed down game.

What you're saying is that too much money makes a game bad, but that's not true. Studios like EA Games spend those millions of dollars making the blockbuster games appeal to all demographics possible and getting a ton of advertisement, and it works. If EA can't make a good game with $300 million, cutting their budget will just make it worse.

Also to answer your question about "realismcigarettes" is that some people actually like that because much of it depends on tactics, teamwork, and patience more than twitch shooters. Holy stuff, does someone like what you don't like? Unfathomable!

Except that it's stacked and unfair because it's realistic, which is a dumb thing for a game to be. Want realism? Go enlist.

[ChexGuy331]

Want realism? Go enlist.

that is a terrible "argument" and you should feel bad for saying it

[SeventhSandwich]

that is a terrible "argument" and you should feel bad for saying it

That wasn't the crux of my argument. That was more said just to spite the guy who I was talking to. That's some great tunnel vision you have there, and you should feel good for nitpicking my stuff to pieces when I wasn't even talking to you to begin with.

go away

[ChexGuy331]

no forget you I'm going to tunnel vision even more

and you should feel good for nitpicking my stuff to pieces when I wasn't even talking to you to begin with.

you don't have to be talking to someone directly for someone to respond to you when you're on a forum where posts are publicly visible

[ZombiLoin]

What you're saying is that too much money makes a game bad, but that's not true. Studios like EA Games spend those millions of dollars making the blockbuster games appeal to all demographics possible and getting a ton of advertisement, and it works. If EA can't make a good game with $300 million, cutting their budget will just make it worse.

I didn't say that. I even pretty much said the opposite of that. Payday 2 and Dark Souls (I'm going to use 2 as an example now.) were good and profitable. The thing is, if EA tries to make things accessible to everyone but in the process makes a terrible, watered down game (recent Assassins Creed games, MoH: Warfighter) then they were probably better off spending the money in games that they know will have an audience.

Who the hell knows. If you give some talented and creative people a little bit of cash something good might come out of it. If you just gave some proven studios (BioWare, DICE, Etc.) some free reign and a 1/3 of the cashed used to make Medal of Honor Warfighter something good might come out of it. It really couldn't be worse than what they're doing now.

[TristanLuigi]

Video game companies aren't obliged to cater for you. There's no middle ground for a reason - the middle-ground games get crushed by the big ones. They're not spectacular enough to get players on the basis of quality, and not innovative enough to be significant. Thus, they die. It's better to be really great at one thing than to be merely mediocre at many.

EDIT: I would love to see the best of both worlds, of course - I just don't think that the way you're proposing it is how it should work. Rather than cutting the budget of big corporations, the big corporations just need to take risks and hire the indie guys. Risk is the only way the industry can move forward, but many companies aren't comfortable with it - I don't blame them, though. I wouldn't want to give away millions of dollars if there's a potential for it to go to waste.

[SeventhSandwich]

you don't have to be talking to someone directly for someone to respond to you when you're on a forum where posts are publicly visible

Yeah I know, but while I was having a nice, heated discourse with this other guy who has something to actually argue, here you come along to nitpick the intricacies of my writing and completely ignore what I have to say about the imbalances in realistic simulator-type games. Not only that, but all you have to offer me in this conversation is that you didn't like how I told the guy I was arguing with to go enlist if he wants realistic army games. I don't even think you misunderstood what I said as literally telling him to go enlist, you just want to nitpick my stuff because you don't even have anything on-topic to argue about. Don't post if you don't have anything to say.

Who the hell knows. If you give some talented and creative people a little bit of cash something good might come out of it. If you just gave some proven studios (BioWare, DICE, Etc.) some free reign and a 1/3 of the cashed used to make Medal of Honor Warfighter something good might come out of it. It really couldn't be worse than what they're doing now.

I agree with this. Indie developers are a great market because they have the potential to release really spectacular stuff that big developers can't produce because of the routine, mechanized way they pump out yearly titles like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed.

[ZombiLoin]

Video game companies aren't obliged to cater for you. There's no middle ground for a reason - the middle-ground games get crushed by the big ones. They're not spectacular enough to get players on the basis of quality, and not innovative enough to be significant. Thus, they die. It's better to be really great at one thing than to be merely mediocre at many.

You're terrible at reading previous points and paying attention to the thread. Money != quality.