Why aren't PS3 owners more dedicated to their system's amazing games?????

[Squilliam]

Reasonable said:

Squilliam said:

The sales will tell you what the fans want. If the fans want a sequel then they will pay for it. People don't just blindly sit around suffering for no reason because the software vendor deems they should. I don't think Mario fans are suffering... Nor pokemon... nor GT which is the same game with new cars and graphics essentially.

Sony is stupid because they failed to create franchises and they are reaching around for something that will stick. Do you think EA, the father of the milk it till its dead concept is creating new franchises because they want to get on our good books? No, both Sony and EA are similar in that they are looking to create new franchises to milk.

Do you want to know whats stupid? Its not the people going down to the store buying a game like call of duty and passing up something like Killzone. Do you know why? Because its probably a better, more accessible and more fun game for them to play. Its Sony for focusing on graphics and cutscenes and forgetting about simple things like split screen local multiplayer, forgetting that people percieve high latency 170ms+ killzone 2 thank you very much vs 100ms Halo 3 or 60 ms Call of Duty as bad/unresponsive controls and you can thank Sony for focusing on the kids jerking off at the screenshots on the internet and they forgot basic game fundamentals. Yes, Sony is the stupid one and the consumer is the smart one for not buying Killzone 2 for example and buying Call of Duty 6 instead.

Well, I agree that in the end if you want to shift the most units you appeal to the broadest (I'll avoid lowest) common denomonator possible (look at Transformers 2 for a sterling example in another medium), however I do cringe at the bigger implications for this, with the potential to see the ndustry awash in almost annual refreshes of popular stuff (L4D2 anyone) and a huge fear of innovation.

Mind you, I'm a bit of a snob in some ways about this, so maybe the masses should have their fun!

You also have to be mindful of the tradeoffs that you make to appease one group and the expense of the other, and many of these tradeoffs can have an overall negative impact in the reception of a game. The weight in the movement in Killzone 2 could be described as a method they hid the extensively parellelised engines increased latency, the difficulty in moving quickly through a level in Uncharted 2 could be described as a method they maximised the utility of their streaming engine. These are mass market games and they are going for as wide a market as possible.

There is a constant discourse in the industry of tradeoffs between the different potential elements which can make up a games design. If you target 60FPS you sacrafice graphics for gameplay, if you target 30 or less you sacrafice gameplay for graphics. If you make a game with an extensive story line you may put off people who want a simpler affair but if you make it too simple then you put off those who want a more complicated story. However one thing which seems clear is that the best games tend to sell the most in that they strike the best compromise which pleases the most people. Call of Duty 6 has extremely fluid gameplay and their artists and game design makes better use of 16ms than most art/design groups can do with 33ms.