Maelstrom declares games are best when spoofing serious things.

[LordTheNightKnight]

theprof00 said:

LordTheNightKnight said:
I do agree he didn't state the point quite clearly, and left a lot of room for misinterpretation.

So I'll just add I support his line in the sense that taking games in general too seriously has led to escalating costs while reducing mainstream appeal.

As in I don't say it's the serious games. I say it's the thought that serious games should be the dominant type. We got plenty of serious games in the 16-bit era, as noted. But not only was there a healthy mix of less serious games, the serious games were not so expensive.

Now the thought of a AAA game isn't that it's really good, but that it costs a lot of money and looks it. That is the kind of serious that is hurting the industry.

Ok, this I can get behind.

Serious games shouln't be the dominant type. However, I think you're being generous with your interpretation. Malstrom wants these games to disappear, but there is quite a big market for it.

Devs make story based games because there is a market for it. Sure, maybe the market is shifting to a more balanced state, but tbh story games will always be here because stories and games interract well together.

Actually, that comment was just from me. Story games can work. Just stop spending so much on them. The market isn't growing to accommodate those increased costs. Start working on better ways to tell the stories. And maybe cut down on the railroading. I'm not going to think your way about terrorism in Modern Warfare just because you force the PC to do things the player doesn't care about when sitting down to enjoy a game.