RolStoppable said:
I pay for content and how good that content is. It doesn't matter how much this content did cost to make, all that matters is how long that content lasts and how much I enjoy it. If you think about it this way, it's easy to see how $10 games can be overpriced while $50 titles look like a steal. |
So which of these $10 games have you played that are overpriced?
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
RolStoppable said:
Both Lost Winds, Nyxquest, Max & The Magic Marker, Cave Story and Sonic 4 ($15). Those are the games I actually bought, I am not including demos here. There are $10 games that are actually worth it, but those are in the minority. |
I see. I'd suggest trying Super Meat Boy, Shadow Complex, Trials HD, and Castle Crashers to see what $10 or $15 gets you before making full judgment on downloadable games.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
<table style="width: 90%;" border="0"><tr><td><strong>mrstickball said:</strong><br /><table style="width: 90%;" border="0"> <tbody><tr> <td><strong>RolStoppable said:</strong><br> <table style="width: 90%;" border="0"> <tbody><tr> <td><strong>mrstickball said:</strong><br> <table style="width: 90%;" border="0"> <tbody><tr> <td><strong>RolStoppable said:</strong><br> <p>I pay for content and how good that content is. It doesn't matter how much this content did cost to make, all that matters is how long that content lasts and how much I enjoy it.</p> <p>If you think about it this way, it's easy to see how $10 games can be overpriced while $50 titles look like a steal.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p>So which of these $10 games have you played that are overpriced?</p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p>Both Lost Winds, Nyxquest, Max & The Magic Marker, Cave Story and Sonic 4 ($15). Those are the games I actually bought, I am not including demos here. There are $10 games that are actually worth it, but those are in the minority.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p>I see. I'd suggest trying Super Meat Boy, Shadow Complex, Trials HD, and Castle Crashers to see what $10 or $15 gets you before making full judgment on downloadable games. <br><br></p></td></tr></table><br /><br />
mrstickball said:
You assume that budget = ambition. It doesn't. The thing about indie titles is that it allows a developer to make a different stylistic and value proposition, as they don't have to design the game to be a $40, $50, or $60 title, which may leave out certain conventions because the title needs to be more mainstream to succeed for whomever published the title. Thats why we see a lot of titles that look cool (like Bob's Game) fail to get a publisher - the publisher knows how many units a title is likely to sell at market, and if it is unlikely to break even at retail, then it never gets picked up, no matter how good a concept the title has. By and large, I think you see indies take far more risks, because they know that the market can support such ideas, and they aren't being pushed into having a massive scope of requirements because the game must sell 500,000 or more copies to even survive, much less thrive. Going further, look at the arguments we make about the audience of the Wii, PS3 or 360. We always argue that the Wii does well on certain genres, while the PS3 and 360 do well on other genres. Not so with downloadable titles. After all, look at some of the great-selling titles on downloadable platforms - Trials HD, Castle Crashers, Dead Rising: Case Zero, Fat Princess, Mega Man 9, Lost Winds, and so on. None of them would exist as full-price releases, yet are fantastic titles that are wonderful to play, and have a great value proposition. Likewise, they've been met with great sales on their respective platforms. Eventually, all of the Big 3 will figure out how to really get the most out of promoting the downloadable platforms, and give them the structure to succeed. When that happens, you'll see an even larger paradigm shift towards downloadable games as opposed to retail releases by smaller studios. When that happens, I think you'll see a lot of the argument about genre superiority fall by the wayside, as value propositions take over. After all, you can argue that SMB: Wii did well because its on the Wii. I say it did well on the Wii because there's no analogue on PS3/X360. That may change when downloadables become bigger, as more developers would seek to push out a unique downloadable title that may become a proper analogue, with the right value proposition to garner SMB: Wii-like sales patterns. |
It does. Budget = ambition. I don't mean that a HD game who would cost 5 times more than SMG is more ambitious, but an ambitious game has to have a minimum of budget and time of developpement.
Games goes on download platform cheaper because they don't possess the value to be sold at retails. They are considered like inferior, sub games that you will play 1 hour between two real games, that's the truth.
Consumers don't value these games, that's why they don't buy it and that's why they don't bother to release it.For me these games are not worthy to mention in this thread. I am talking real, full game platformer, not negligeable, quarters of games.
Back on topic, it's clear that platformers should be created for Nintendo Wii, seing that the public for this game is almost exclusively on Wii.
Lucas-Rio said:
Games goes on download platform cheaper because they don't possess the value to be sold at retails. They are considered like inferior, sub games that you will play 1 hour between two real games, that's the truth. Consumers don't value these games, that's why they don't buy it and that's why they don't bother to release it.For me these games are not worthy to mention in this thread. I am talking real, full game platformer, not negligeable, quarters of games.
Back on topic, it's clear that platformers should be created for Nintendo Wii, seing that the public for this game is almost exclusively on Wii. |
Let me ask you:
What ambition did Shadow Complex lack? What about Castle Crashers? Please give examples of how they were sub-par.
Also, your argument that downloadable games are best played in between other games shows that you may not have played many of the 'must play' downloadable games. There are quite a few that I can think of - totally new IPs - that I put every other game on hold to play. Finally, you have series like Mega Man that were certainly not lacking in content at the $10 price point. Mega Man 9 and 10 were full-fledged titles that were worthy of the Mega Man series. I fail to see how most people that purchased them, desired to merely mess around on them, rather than play them to completion. I can think of a lot of games like that, honestly.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
| oniyide said: You guys could keep your overpriced nostalgic games with new coats of paint and that adds nothing new to the genre. I'll play my cheap budgetware games on the WiiWare & PSN, at least they are trying to do different things |
If you're talking about games like Braid, that's more 'being puzzlish and artsy' than adding something new. Not to discredit those games, they have their place, but I'm getting tired of people lifting them up above the big ones.
What you're doing is basically comparing Runescape to World of Warcraft.
2D platformers probably have the most basic gameplay there is, and that is exactly their appeal. When I was a kid, and thought of 'game' I thought of 2D platformers before anything else, becasue they are among the purest form of game there is. This is why games like Limbo and Braid fail to get the followings of giants like Mario and DK, they move away from game purity.(and the ones doing well on dowloadable services, like Super Meat boy, are mostly pure games)
When playing 2D platformers the fun comes from the levels, from surviving what they throw at you, and how you interatct with them, and finnally emerging victorious from your struggles, not from solving elaborate puzzles, watching a clever cutscene in the end and then having the privilege of reading incomphrehensible confusing texts that even the creator can't give an explanation to, like Braid. (Although I do admit that puzzles have their appeal, and this is why I keep saying that Braid is a puzzle game first, and platformer distant second)
Of course, if you like the kind of games that are 'doing something different', then that's fine, everyone has his own taste, but everytime I see you post about this subject, you seem so convinced that that approach is the healthy and appropriate approach to platformers, when in reality, people would flee the genre if most games were like that.
What makes a good platformer is a good challenge, solid, finely tuned gameplay mechanics, and good design of the challenges in the levels, not gimmicks like time control or explosion attacks. It may look basic, but it's actually very hard to do judging from the neverending list of bad platformers made in the past.
And what games do these things the best? Why it's the 'overpriced nostalgic games with new coats of paint and that adds nothing new to the genre' type of game of course! These games, by the way are no more 'new coats of paint nostalgia games' than Halo 3 is, which is one of the most fun shooters I have ever played in my life.
What you see as new and fresh platformers, most people view as niche and quirky. You simply have a taste for more niche games. Nothing wrong with it, but stop claiming their superiority over the genre staples, please.
I LOVE ICELAND!
KungKras said:
If you're talking about games like Braid, that's more 'being puzzlish and artsy' than adding something new. Not to discredit those games, they have their place, but I'm getting tired of people lifting them up above the big ones. What you're doing is basically comparing Runescape to World of Warcraft. 2D platformers probably have the most basic gameplay there is, and that is exactly their appeal. When I was a kid, and thought of 'game' I thought of 2D platformers before anything else, becasue they are among the purest form of game there is. This is why games like Limbo and Braid fail to get the followings of giants like Mario and DK, they move away from game purity.(and the ones doing well on dowloadable services, like Super Meat boy, are mostly pure games) When playing 2D platformers the fun comes from the levels, from surviving what they throw at you, and how you interatct with them, and finnally emerging victorious from your struggles, not from solving elaborate puzzles, watching a clever cutscene in the end and then having the privilege of reading incomphrehensible confusing texts that even the creator can't give an explanation to, like Braid. (Although I do admit that puzzles have their appeal, and this is why I keep saying that Braid is a puzzle game first, and platformer distant second) Of course, if you like the kind of games that are 'doing something different', then that's fine, everyone has his own taste, but everytime I see you post about this subject, you seem so convinced that that approach is the healthy and appropriate approach to platformers, when in reality, people would flee the genre if most games were like that. What makes a good platformer is a good challenge, solid, finely tuned gameplay mechanics, and good design of the challenges in the levels, not gimmicks like time control or explosion attacks. It may look basic, but it's actually very hard to do judging from the neverending list of bad platformers made in the past. And what games do these things the best? Why it's the 'overpriced nostalgic games with new coats of paint and that adds nothing new to the genre' type of game of course! These games, by the way are no more 'new coats of paint nostalgia games' than Halo 3 is, which is one of the most fun shooters I have ever played in my life. What you see as new and fresh platformers, most people view as niche and quirky. You simply have a taste for more niche games. Nothing wrong with it, but stop claiming their superiority over the genre staples, please. |
So your talking about Super Meat Boy, right?
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
mrstickball said:
So your talking about Super Meat Boy, right? |
Yea. The gameplay in super meat boy is good. And that't precisely because the game isn't trying to do something new. Everything in that game has been done before, I've played tons of similar flash games, but the game is still good, and there are still many interresting level designs.
Ironically, I don't like its presentation though, I think it's too... weird.
I LOVE ICELAND!
@rolstoppable no wonder you feel that way, those games were mediocore at best. WTH were you paying for Cave Story anyway, wasnt that originally a free PC game???
@mrstickball preach man, I dont know why some people try to downplay the LIVE/PSN games im almost sure they dont even have a console that has access to either of those services
@kungkras I think something is better im gonna say something is better, I dont give a damn about these "staples" just because Mario has been around forever, he's above critiscm??? BS, Street Fighter is my favorite series in my favorite genre but even that is not above criticsm. IMO everything else you said is tre but really Ive had my fill of those pure platformers in the 16 bit and 32 bit era. God forbid somebody adds some elements to break up the monotony. And no adding a local multiplayer with no online and charging 50 for it is not innovation
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
