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

Forums - Gaming - Same Engine? Same Gameplay? Same Basic Features? In a New Game?

mirgro on 07 December 2009
richardhutnik said:

Now that you are all done remembering, let's look at what we have today. Best example is Modern Warfare 2. Same engine, same gameplay, a handful of additions and tweaks, $60. Look at Uncharted 2 (yes, I went there), same engine, same gameplay, a handful of additions and tweaks, $60. Left 4 Dead 2, same engine, same gameplay, FEW MINOR additions and tweaks, $60 (or $50). It seems only Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy 13, and Gran Turismo 5 are a few of the handful of true sequels this generation. Everything else would have fit right under Expansion Pack, and cost accordingly, 10 years ago.

Excuse me a moment here.  Uncharted 2 is an entirely new story, with a bunch of new dialog, and they also threw in a multiplayer mode.  Left 4 Dead 2 is in the same boat, and also upgraded, and has new weapons and added a melee attack.  I won't comment on MW2, but it is similar.  Hiring voice actors and doing a new storyline isn't free.

The issue now is that the costs aren't in the engine, and the hardware, but in the paying the talent to utilize the engine, and craft a new storyline. 

So in Uncharted, MW1, L4D1 I got the following:

-Graphics engine, by far the most expensive part of developing HD games

- Many brand new developed characters

- New gameplay

- Paid $60

 

WHat you get in UC2, MW2, L$d2:

- Slightly upgraded engine, nowhere near the cost of the intial's development.

- Few new characters

- Few gameplay additions

- Paid $60

 

Does that not seem little effed up to you, if you have your head on straight?

@Onyx

Yeah I meant 87% for DK64... freudian slip or something....



Around the Network
ph4nt on 07 December 2009

The only time I hate sequels is when the game is short (HELLO every single action game on the PS360).

Modern Warfare: $60 Ok for the first dip.
Modern Warfare 2: Modified online and only 6 hour campaign? COME ON
Gears 1- 6 hours, Gears 2-6 hours. Gears 3? probably 6 hours.
If Gears 3 follows this trend, thats 18 hours of game for $180 with the same online component slightly modified across each game. Meanwhile I can get games like Mass Effect (35 hours for me) and other RPGs. or Zelda (60+ hours) Mario (20 hours+) that are longer than an entire trilogy of these games. And when they make a sequel to these games, they are very long too and worth the purchase.

I'm sick and tired of 6 hour shooters.

I think a good way to put into perspective how ridiculously short these games are.

Take Zelda.

Now it costs $60

has three dungeons and thats it

The multiplayer included 10 maps across hyrule.

Additional maps at $10 for a pack of 3, two packs.

Sequel comes out.

three dungeons included

8 new maps, 3 pack of previous maps "updated" for $5, 3 pack of new maps for $10

and it keeps going

 

I hate the idea that multiplayer somehow gives the developers an excuse to make absurdly short games.



Moren on 07 December 2009

too long to read



Ataraxias on 07 December 2009
ph4nt said:

The only time I hate sequels is when the game is short (HELLO every single action game on the PS360).

Modern Warfare: $60 Ok for the first dip.
Modern Warfare 2: Modified online and only 6 hour campaign? COME ON
Gears 1- 6 hours, Gears 2-6 hours. Gears 3? probably 6 hours.
If Gears 3 follows this trend, thats 18 hours of game for $180 with the same online component slightly modified across each game. Meanwhile I can get games like Mass Effect (35 hours for me) and other RPGs. or Zelda (60+ hours) Mario (20 hours+) that are longer than an entire trilogy of these games. And when they make a sequel to these games, they are very long too and worth the purchase.

I'm sick and tired of 6 hour shooters.

I think a good way to put into perspective how ridiculously short these games are.

Take Zelda.

Now it costs $60

has three dungeons and thats it

The multiplayer included 10 maps across hyrule.

Additional maps at $10 for a pack of 3, two packs.

Sequel comes out.

three dungeons included

8 new maps, 3 pack of previous maps "updated" for $5, 3 pack of new maps for $10

and it keeps going

 

I hate the idea that multiplayer somehow gives the developers an excuse to make absurdly short games.

Except it does for certain games,  there are polls and research out there that show that over 50% of people that played CoD4 and Halo 3 NEVER even touched the single player once.  I'm sure there's many other games out there in similar situations.



Gamerace on 07 December 2009

When video games began 2 guys could work for 2 weeks out of someone's garage and make a game, sell it for $40 and make a killing even if they only sold a new thousand or a few hundred.

Now it costs 20-40 million, upwards of 200 people 3-5 years to make a game. With that kind of investment why in God's name wouldn't you pimp that engine, game play and franchise to the max?? You have to! You can't be risking make brand new games all the time. New IPs and especially new game play mechanics flop all the time. People would rather buy CoD 11 which they know they'll like than something they have no idea about.

The only one bucking this trend (and it's been around for about ten years now) is Nintendo. That's why the Wii is the way it is. To create new game play to expand the market instead of having to spend insane amounts to fight for a small part of the gaming elite who's gaming taste is becoming ever more narrow.



 

Around the Network
mirgro on 07 December 2009
Gamerace said:
When video games began 2 guys could work for 2 weeks out of someone's garage and make a game, sell it for $40 and make a killing even if they only sold a new thousand or a few hundred.

Now it costs 20-40 million, upwards of 200 people 3-5 years to make a game. With that kind of investment why in God's name wouldn't you pimp that engine, game play and franchise to the max?? You have to! You can't be risking make brand new games all the time. New IPs and especially new game play mechanics flop all the time. People would rather buy CoD 11 which they know they'll like than something they have no idea about.

The only one bucking this trend (and it's been around for about ten years now) is Nintendo. That's why the Wii is the way it is. To create new game play to expand the market instead of having to spend insane amounts to fight for a small part of the gaming elite who's gaming taste is becoming ever more narrow.

License out the engine. Epic has been doing that since UE1 first came out. Pimp it out to as many companies as possible. Epic's biggest income has been its engine licensing, they probably made all their money back and then some.



rocketpig on 07 December 2009

Dude, you must REALLY hate Unreal Engine if this is your stance on gaming.

And you should be complimenting this generation, not bashing it. You are completely ignoring how online-enabled consoles with built-in memory are allowing small developers to get back into gaming with low cost, new ideas about what constitutes a video game.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

richardhutnik on 07 December 2009
mirgro said:
richardhutnik said:

Now that you are all done remembering, let's look at what we have today. Best example is Modern Warfare 2. Same engine, same gameplay, a handful of additions and tweaks, $60. Look at Uncharted 2 (yes, I went there), same engine, same gameplay, a handful of additions and tweaks, $60. Left 4 Dead 2, same engine, same gameplay, FEW MINOR additions and tweaks, $60 (or $50). It seems only Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy 13, and Gran Turismo 5 are a few of the handful of true sequels this generation. Everything else would have fit right under Expansion Pack, and cost accordingly, 10 years ago.

Excuse me a moment here.  Uncharted 2 is an entirely new story, with a bunch of new dialog, and they also threw in a multiplayer mode.  Left 4 Dead 2 is in the same boat, and also upgraded, and has new weapons and added a melee attack.  I won't comment on MW2, but it is similar.  Hiring voice actors and doing a new storyline isn't free.

The issue now is that the costs aren't in the engine, and the hardware, but in the paying the talent to utilize the engine, and craft a new storyline. 

So in Uncharted, MW1, L4D1 I got the following:

-Graphics engine, by far the most expensive part of developing HD games

- Many brand new developed characters

- New gameplay

- Paid $60

 

WHat you get in UC2, MW2, L$d2:

- Slightly upgraded engine, nowhere near the cost of the intial's development.

- Few new characters

- Few gameplay additions

- Paid $60

 

Does that not seem little effed up to you, if you have your head on straight?

@Onyx

Yeah I meant 87% for DK64... freudian slip or something....

You make out that doing the likes of UC2 (they hired Claudia Black to do voice overs, and brought back the other actors, plus added multiplayer), and also the other games are some sort of mods that people create in garages at their spare time for free, because they love it.  And then you get appauled thinking people actually have to pay money for it.

Here is an article on the costs of Modern Warfare 2:

http://kotaku.com/5407981/how-much-did-it-cost-to-make-modern-warfare-2


Despite what you wish it would be, it costs millions to not only to make the game, but to market and promote the game.  People don't work for free.  And they charge whatever the market will bear.  That is the game.  And it doesn't matter if they reuse resources, level design and writing do cost, as do voice actors and so on.  And even if were cheaper to make, it wouldn't mean you would pay less.  The market is willing to pay $60 for a game, so that is what they charge.

As far as Left 4 Dead 2, I paid $40 for it.  And that is how much you can pay for it in a sale this holiday.

If you don't like to pay full price, then don't.  It is none of your business what it costs them to make the game, or how they made it.  Your business is how much you pay and how much you personally get out of it.  To go muck, muck, muck, whine, whine, whine (developers are lazy and greedy) is pathetic.



The Ghost of RubangB on 07 December 2009

But that's exactly how the film and music industries work, and it's always been this way for games as well.

The NES had 6 Mega Man games. I think the notable changes were ... they added sliding in 3, and the charge shot in 4. That's it.


But it doesn't have to be this way. Support indie devs. World of Goo was made by 2 people. Braid was made by 2 people. The BIT.TRIP games were made by 3 people. These games were cheap for them to make, and cheap for us to buy, and they're beautiful and trying new things. Luckily most of the big companies are bleeding tons of money and scrambling for new ideas (or new ways to dress up the old ones), while these little guys can sneak in and make some money.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Linkasf on 07 December 2009
mirgro said:

So I have become disgusted with the gaming scene recently. It seems that a company can release 2 or 3 games, which are basically the same game, over the course of 2-3 years and still make millions of money. Also it seems developers can release a very similar game to another developer's game, and still sell millions and earn praise.

Does anyone remember gaming even 10 years ago? Games were "Zelda Clones," "Mario Clones," "Quake clones," "Diablo Clones," "Half-Life Clones" etc. etc. Do you remember any game lebeled as a clone would automatically be labeled as such and the grading would automatically start off at 6 points, and THEN the reviewers and people would start marking down for problems in the game? Remember when sequels were actually that, sequels? Half-Life to Half-Life 2 is an undbouted sequel, Diablo to Diablo 2 was undoubetly a sequel, Zelda OoT was undoubtedly a sequel, Mario 64 was undboutedly a sequel. Do you remember Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction, it cost $30, which was considered a lot of money for the game, and probably expanded the game and offered more new content and play time than most of today's new $60 games? Remember how that was an expansion, and not a seque, and priced as suchl?

Now that you are all done remembering, let's look at what we have today. Best example is Modern Warfare 2. Same engine, same gameplay, a handful of additions and tweaks, $60. Look at Uncharted 2 (yes, I went there), same engine, same gameplay, a handful of additions and tweaks, $60. Left 4 Dead 2, same engine, same gameplay, FEW MINOR additions and tweaks, $60 (or $50). It seems only Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy 13, and Gran Turismo 5 are a few of the handful of true sequels this generation. Everything else would have fit right under Expansion Pack, and cost accordingly, 10 years ago.

My other point was all the "clones" this generatoin has. It seems that every game needs to get over an 80. Spin it however you want Killzone 2 is a clone of Halo. Is it different? Yes it is, is it a clone? Yes it is. What scores did it get? Too high for a clone. Then we have the whole Forza 3, which spin it however you want, is a clone of Gran Turismo. Don't even start me on all the JRPGs that have come out recently, I think only Valkyria Chronicles wouldn't fall under the "clone" category this entire generation. Why do such games sell so many units, even worse, why are they allowed to have any reviews above a 7? The best "diablo Clone" would be considered Titan Quest, by most, and what's its rating? 80, it also came out 5 years after Diablo 2.

Final issue that I have with modern gaming, DLC. Some guy did the math on LBP DLC, it totaled to $142.45. What.. the... f***k....? I don't feel like I have too explain this point more other than the fact they charge for skins and appearences.

In my last paragraph, I really don't wanna wag fingers and play the blame game, but I really want to know why developers think they can push off expansion packs and clones at full prices, sell millions, and get reiewed so highly. The original games this generation can be counted on your fingers, original games that also inovavated can probably be counted on 1 hand.

 

/end of rant

I completely agree.