By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Consumers ruined Killzone!

DonFerrari said:
Nem said:
That is one of the most outlandish things i ever heard.

How can the consumer possibly ruin something they have no control over? Companies make products and they either appeal to the market or not. Theres no "consumers" ruined it. Thats not how marketing works.


Devs follow the feedback and change the game or make sequels accordingly. So if customers demand certain things and a dev follow it could be said that customers are responsible, not that I'm saying this is the case here.


No, it really cant. Products are made to satisfy needs in the market and make a profit. The consumer might leave feedback but its the responsibility of the product maker to have it correspond to the needs to the market. If it doesnt, its completely their own fault. The consumer makes no decisions on the making of the prodcuts and whatever means of information gathering and decision making are used is completely up to the product maker.

If products dont sell, its the fault of those that made it, not of those that didnt buy it. Its a complete reverse of the marketing concept to sugest otherwise. Its just not how it works.



Around the Network
Nem said:
DonFerrari said:
Nem said:
That is one of the most outlandish things i ever heard.

How can the consumer possibly ruin something they have no control over? Companies make products and they either appeal to the market or not. Theres no "consumers" ruined it. Thats not how marketing works.


Devs follow the feedback and change the game or make sequels accordingly. So if customers demand certain things and a dev follow it could be said that customers are responsible, not that I'm saying this is the case here.


No, it really cant. Products are made to satisfy needs in the market and make a profit. The consumer might leave feedback but its the responsibility of the product maker to have it correspond to the needs to the market. If it doesnt, its completely their own fault. The consumer makes no decisions on the making of the prodcuts and whatever means of information gathering and decision making are used is completely up to the product maker.

If products dont sell, its the fault of those that made it, not of those that didnt buy it. Its a complete reverse of the marketing concept to sugest otherwise. Its just not how it works.

I agree that the dev is at fault if the game don't sell well... but to claim they are at fault of changing elements and that the customers that asked it are at 0 fault is wrong. But in the end putting the blame on the customer is useless. The dev is responsible to checking the feedback with what they plan to do and deliver a good product. And in the end KZ still sold well, so yes the fault on the game becoming something else is shared by both.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Color pallet complaints are some of the silliest complaints I've ever heard. They don't even make sense to me. It's like watching a movie about vampires and complaining that there needs to be more rainbows and flowers.

I only care if the color scheme fits the atmosphere of the game.

It's my wish that the next time people whine about a dark, gritty game having a dark, gritty atmosphere, the developers will simply tell them to play something else if they don't like it.

Though, honestly, I think most of the people who complain don't play this kind of game, anyway. I've seen a lot of people with a particular kind of avatar make negative comments about "grey/brown shooters".



pokoko said:
Color pallet complaints are some of the silliest complaints I've ever heard. They don't even make sense to me. It's like watching a movie about vampires and complaining that there needs to be more rainbows and flowers.

I only care if the color scheme fits the atmosphere of the game.

It's my wish that the next time people whine about a dark, gritty game having a dark, gritty atmosphere, the developers will simply tell them to play something else if they don't like it.

Though, honestly, I think most of the people who complain don't play this kind of game, anyway. I've seen a lot of people with a particular kind of avatar make negative comments about "grey/brown shooters".

I remember a guy making a song about Resistance 3, the brown game according to him. It was ridiculous because that game had a good Sp where the colors fitted each part of the game. 



Stories unfolded with my home made rap songs. Feel free to listen here with lyrics: https://youtu.be/vyT9PbK5_T0

Shadow Fall is the best in the franchise! The control has almost zero of input lag, better frame rate, the most beautiful & colorful in the franchise, better texture, they has better style of respawn point like Killzone 2. The challenge sistem make the multiplayer has the best replay value in the franchise. The only problem is the campaign that is slow, but the multiplayer is wonderful.



Around the Network
pokoko said:
Color pallet complaints are some of the silliest complaints I've ever heard. They don't even make sense to me. It's like watching a movie about vampires and complaining that there needs to be more rainbows and flowers.

I only care if the color scheme fits the atmosphere of the game.

It's my wish that the next time people whine about a dark, gritty game having a dark, gritty atmosphere, the developers will simply tell them to play something else if they don't like it.

Though, honestly, I think most of the people who complain don't play this kind of game, anyway. I've seen a lot of people with a particular kind of avatar make negative comments about "grey/brown shooters".


When devs say to gamers that if they want to play the type of game they make so they should play another they get all ofended and bitch about the dev... you know that every game must please me and fuck the rest mentality a lot of gamers have right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

MoHasanie said:
I played a bit of Shadow fall and didn't like it. Guerilla Games is just an average studio.


Thank you for your well informed and thoroughly thought out reply. Truly inspiring stuff.



I liked Killzone 1 a lot, the second one however... had one of the best moments of the franchise like the Radec boss fight but overall didnt surprised me as much, and i didnt liked the control scheme, plus the multiplayer was... not my favorite because im not a fan of multiplayer games where you have to empty an entire magazine of bullets on one player to just kill him.

Killzone 3 however also had some great moments (not anything as hard or rewarding as the Radec boss fight), but it was more consistent (in quality as in it doesnt become as repetitive) and it had more variety on the levels, including some vehicle levels, and i really liked the control scheme this time arround, (and yes the control scheme is like COD, but who cares thats the best scheme for an FPS), so i ended up liking KZ 3 more than KZ 2.

havent played Shadow Fall and i dont know if i will, maybe it will be on PLUS some time on the future.

EDIT: and in KZ 3 you didnt have to empty the entire guns magazine to kill another player which to me was a huge improvement over KZ 2, this time you only had to shoot half or maybe a quarter of your magazine to take another player down, which is more in line on the type of shooter that i like.



estebxx said:

Killzone 3 however also had some great moments (not anything as hard or rewarding as the Radec boss fight), but it was more consistent (in quality as in it doesnt become as repetitive) and it had more variety on the levels, including some vehicle levels, and i really liked the control scheme this time arround, (and yes the control scheme is like COD, but who cares thats the best scheme for an FPS), so i ended up liking KZ 3 more than KZ 2.

havent played Shadow Fall and i dont know if i will, maybe it will be on PLUS some time on the future.

EDIT: and in KZ 3 you didnt have to empty the entire guns magazine to kill another player which to me was a huge improvement over KZ 2, this time you only had to shoot half or maybe a quarter of your magazine to take another player down, which is more in line on the type of shooter that i like.

That is actually it why I'm not getting. Killzone 2 had a very dedicated fanbase and a lot of people enjoyed it because it didn't play like the other games. If I want to play something like CoD, well, there are a lot of games in that franchise that can give you the experience, no need for another franchise to try and do the same. 



Stories unfolded with my home made rap songs. Feel free to listen here with lyrics: https://youtu.be/vyT9PbK5_T0

Killzone 2 had the most brown and gray colors I've ever seen in a game, but I loved it because it was so well executed. Never finished the game, but I remember the heavy controls very well. I liked that aspect too. I tried the demo of Killzone 3, and while it was fun, I missed a little of the heavier controls.

Playing Shadow Fall right now actually, and think it's great. I'm not the best fps player, and I die a lot, even on easy. Killzone 2 was much easier even with the heavy controls. But it's still fun, and I feel awesome when I clear an area of enemies, that's how hard I think it is. The graphics are terrific too.



Yep.