Ben-DutkaInnovation and mass market appeal simply don't go hand-in-hand. They never have.
And that's why Ubisoft Toronto boss Jade Raymond says the increased expectations for big-budget AAA productions infringe on originality. During a recent Digital Spy interview , Raymond said that as costs rise and teams get bigger, innovation will take a back seat:
"That's for sure one of the things that is going to stifle innovation eventually. Anytime you want to make a big triple-A, you're spending, let's say $100 million, you're not going to want to take a chance. It's got to be, I'm making the next Call of Duty or the Assassin's Creed and I know it's going to make 'X' amount, so we'll make money. I think that's the tougher thing."
So how to get out of the quandary? Raymond says that if designers want to push forward with original concepts, they must find ways to reduce costs via new developer tools and business models. She says that this could allow developers to "perhaps make ten times the amount of content" with about the same effort and resources. Also, as the way people consume games continues to change, game makers must adapt:
"What's the business model that makes sense to you? What's going on with free-to-play, what does that mean for the console market? I think there are a lot of questions around profitability, and I think that's probably why the reason the new sexy thing is the indie game, because ultimately everyone who is in games has a game idea and wants to be creative, and it's harder to get your game idea to life when there's that much cost behind it."
She believes that free-to-play and microtransactions "absolutely" have a place in the AAA market, and her team is currently examining ways to take advantage of those newer models. However, she did add this-
"You have to be careful about how you do it though, right? You can't set up the microtransactions to be, 'I pay money to be a better a gamer', because that's not obviously not going to work."
Hard to argue with anything she's saying.
Jade Raymond's sexiness sure isn't gonna stifle anything 🙂
Ahem, Quantic Dream proves it doesn't have to be this way if people just aren't greedy. That attitude is what's killin summer movies.
And free to play for non-MMOs needs to die a horrible death.
Yawn! Shut up and go make another assasin's creed; its almost the end of the year.
Raymond's team isn't making Assassin's Creed.
burn
The industry needs to wake up to the fact that you don't have to spend massive amounts of money or employ huge teams to make games. Episodic gaming, modestly budgeted niche titles and one-and-done IPs all have their place. The industry is becoming too focused on big-budget titles and when a publisher can sell $200 million dollars worth of a game and not see a profit, then it doesn't take a visionary to see trouble ahead.
I honestly think of microtransactions as being one of the worst things to happen to gaming this gen. Most of the time they're just blatantly transparent pay-to-win schemes or an attempt for a publisher to take another bite at the apple without really contributing anything of value to the gamer. It's almost quaint to look back to 2006 when Bethesda caught hell for horse armor. At least that DLC, didn't alter the gameplay.
I'm getting very tried of people hamming up all this indie-gaming scene. I have yet to see an 'indie' game that is anything substantial. I recently bought Journey for half price. While it had some, wonderful imagery but nothing much to it. I felt exactly the same with Limbo, I was enjoying it halfway through but by the end I was dreadfully disappointed.
Then that word 'innovation'… What has that given us this gen? Motion controls, Console DLC, The lack of side by side co-op… I do fear every time I see that word within a gaming article.
I just feel the industry is turning away from everything I once loved about gaming. We live in a generation that likes content in bits. Games with DLC, people buying tracks from i-tunes rather than the full album. Even movies are beginning to have two parts to them. It just ruins the spectacle for me. I like to be presented wit ha full package of content but now the industry has just got rid of that notion from being greedy.
What really makes me sick is the rise of indie-consoles. You may have heard of Ouya but it hasn't stopped there. Over the past few months I have seen tons of independent consoles released – Heck even our UK retailer GAME is now releasing there own console.
My fear with all this independent garbage on the rise, people will reduce expectations of quality and will take anything. Just look at Youtube, people would rather watch a video of a cat on roller-skates than anything substantial. And because of this audience rising to becoming the norm… it just makes any sense of creativity seem pointless. I don't mean to sound so bleak but I am getting so tired of it.
The indie scene is receiving a lot of hype these days – borderline overhyped, imo. It's important for everyone to realize exactly what it is, or they will enter that scene with too high expectations.
The indie scene is essentially small teams with small budgets – sometimes even just one guy – making games. Cut to the core that's all it is.
So obviously, a huge share of the "indie scene" games are not worth spending time on. And they are not all innovative – in fact most of them are extremely retro, 2D, with the oldschool (read: outdated) feel to them.
Then there's the gems. Some of them are great. And a few of them can be called masterly. But most of them are small, short, with a very limited scope.
Hey, Its a fad that'll pass. On the other hand, we have had the Last of Us topping sales charts everywhere.
Oh I am not expecting something to the standard of the Last of Us from an indie team. But they seem to get just as much credit which I find a little insulting. Should something like Angry Birds really be released as a PS3 title, you can buy it on disc now…
Here in the UK the 360 version of Minecraft… Has regained top position on the charts over The Last of Us… That is just heartbreaking.
Not sure if you meant "heartbreaking" in a positive or negative way but personally I believe that particular title (Minecraft) deserves every single little bit of success it gets. That a game that to this extent trigger the gamers creativity and with such non-aggressive, non-violent content without being a kids game can become such a global phenomenon is just wonderful, and gives me hope for the entire mankind.
Don't get me wrong: The indie scene is important! Very important. it's a major recruitment channel for the future developers of AAA titles, and like Raymond says, it's the scene where one can *really* experiment with both very niche content, and very experimental content.
There are indie game projects out there who are really inspiring and that I closely follow.
People just need to understand what the indie scene IS, that's all.
I know exactly what you mean! There's absolutely NOTHING out there that intrigues me when it comes to Indie games. People come across as such hypocrites when they say the big budget games like TLOU aren't doing anything innovative, then cite Indie games as this beacon of hope. It's like, because it doesn't have that 'scope' as you say Beam, to aspire to be anything other than an Indie game, it gets extra points. It's like the kid in class who isn't as able as the other kids, is put on the same podium as the top of the class kid.
I agree with what you said; it's turning gaming into some sort of Youtube mutation. It's a craze that's been going for a few years now. I mean, youtube was great about 5 years ago – there really wasn't that much crap like advertising and self-promoting videos on there. But then it got real popular, and well, look what happened…you will struggle to find anything substantial. I still love the whole concept of youtube and all, but…
You don't have to agree with me here (and I know a lot of people don't), but TLOU is doing things that Indie games would be scared to try. Things that you can only do with a big budget and a partner like Sony. Things that you would only do if you had absolute passion for games. Remember that Fish guy? He quit because he got some hateful messages and cancelled his next Indie game. To me, that kinda shows his heart was never in it.
Stuff like Flower and Journey are more like works of art than fantastic video games, there's your innovation, it's somebody using a medium to overcome that medium's limitations.
But those are still pretty big-budget games. They actually ran out of money making Journey, even though it became the fastest selling PSN title ever. And they now have decided to release future games on multiple platforms, showing that they need more money from sales to even the development costs.
And they were contracted with Sony for each of those releases, so they were technically Indie only after the release of Journey.
Also, those games are great as one-off, unique game experiances. But as for innovation, well…their games are pretty abstract. There's not a lot you could take as inspiration and put it into modern game design. And y'know, talking as real gamers, when's the last time you turned on your PS3, excited for some gaming time, and thought "I'm gunna go play me some FLOWER!". Y'know? If you feel like trying something new sure, but for core gaming…it doesn't really come under it.
Mark of the Ninja, Shank, The swapper, Trine, Stealth inc, Joe danger,Guns Of Icarus online, Torchlight 2, Jamestown, Monaco, Zeno Clash.
This are games on my steam list that either did something new and creative, or did a tried and true formula RIGHT, without caving to the mainstream expectations.
Mark of the Ninja was the first really excellent stealth game I have played since Tenchu.
Shank was like a 2D Devil may cry, and had excellent art work and a deep combat system.
The swapper is using incredible cool ideas you can create clones of yourself and swap between them, the art is also incredible.
Trine was a harken back to excellent side scrolling gameplay and was rich with environmental puzzles and an excellent narrative.
Stealth bastard and stealth inc are incredible stealth games in a world where the only AAA stealth game is Dishonored, and while it is a great game these indy games are up there in the gameplay department.
Guns of icarus online is something that would have never existed if it wasn't an indy title. The game is a multiplayer airship combat game where you do battle with other ships and have to manage your speed, positioning and weapons as well as making sure you keep your shit repaired, its truly awesome.
Torchlight 2 was what Diablo 3 could only dream of being. It was the true successor to diablo 2 and is one of the best ARPGs to be released.
Jamestown was a throw back to bullet hell games and it is a true delight to play.
Monaco is an incredible addictive co op heist game that uses cool new teamwork ideas that I haven't seen in AAA games yet.
Zeno Clash was a weird unique FPS with a fist fighting system, and a very intriguing story and absolutely stunning art direction.
That is just a few games I can think of off the top of my head.
There is a reason people are praising indy games, and it is a combination of the fact that indy devs are taking risks, the games come out at 1/4th the price, and the devs listen to the fans and for the most part give as much content as they can for free.
While great AAA games are released every year, a lot of them are starting to feel the same, all shooters follow a formula, I can tell when something is about to explode in a CoD game, all RPGs have basically been sped up and turned into action RPGs, everything that is mainstream is usually streamlined. Indy games aren't afraid to overwhelm the player with deep mechanics.
I would argue that the people who are watching roller skating cats on youtube are the brain dead sheep who buy Call of Duty every year because they dont have the mental capacity to realize it is the same crap every year with busted multiplayer and re used assets out the wazoo.
Have to concede I haven't played most of those. But I've played two of them – Shank and Joe Danger. Don't call them innovative…they aren't. They are very well made 2D side-scrollers. How exactly can you be innovative with this – in this day of modern game design? As in, something you can take away and change how games are done in general.
Infact, most of these are 2D side-scrollers, and the ones that aren't, are just really meh looking. Guns of icarus and Zeno Clash for example (I mean UGH, couldn't interest me less if they tried). These 2D side-scrollers, while they look really great, stem from game design we left behind a long time ago.
I can tell people are getting bored with me going on about TLOU, but it's the best AAA game that has recently came out so I'm using it as an example. You have a fully realised character that is with you most of the journey. Through dynamic stealth and combat, and in exploration where she'll interact with the enivornment, instigating optional conversations. Building a bond in gameplay. That is such a hard thing to do…and no-one has done it before. Maybe ICO, but that was a much simpler game.
It has deeper mechanics than ANY of the games you listed, and it has the added challenge of being grounded in a realistic world and story – one where you can't just use a character to spew instructions in the most expositional manner, as seen in the games you mentioned.
And that's going back to the thing I mentioned: you're gunna give the game a free pass because it's indie-developed. It isn't trying to move gaming forward in some incredibly innovative way. The fact it's a 2D side-scroller tells you as much; it's old school design.
TLOU is one of the few games that fully immerses you. You feel like a survivor – you will find running away is the better option. You've never done that in a video game!
It makes you feel an essence of what the characters are feeling through gameplay. There are NO games that have done this to this level. It'll use those game mechanics, like using ladders to get Ellie up – remember the scene in the bus depot? It guides your attention to the fact Ellie is unresponsive. Or using the gun mechanics, where Ellie flanks the guy with the shotgun. You can't shoot him like you've been doing the whole time; it makes you realise you can't do it without Ellie.
And guess what? These are things that Joel's thinking!
There are many things this game does that we haven't actually seen before. Kinda makes you think whether gamers even want gaming to progress like this, or stick to indies that, for the most part, are stuck in the past.
Sorry liam the last of us is shallow, you can't just say its deeper than all the games I have listed because you haven't played even half of them. The last of us uses a stealth system that is the same as any stealth system except Mark of the Ninja does stealth better and no I don't care if Mark is 2D, it does stealth better.
The last of us melee combat is one button, Shank has more involving deep combat than that, heck even Trines combat is deeper than that.
The gunplay in The last of us is what you will find in any other TPS except the aiming is weighty and clunky(not to the games detriment)
I also stated in my first paragraph that these games are either innovative or do the tried and true formula right or expand on it and bring it up to the next level.
Just because you aren't interested in Guns of icarus online doesn't mean it isn't one of the most innovative games on the market right now. It is incredibly fun to play with a group of friends and I haven't ever played a game yet where you fight giant battle blimps against other players in a massive online map.
By your logic then the Last of us isn't innovative either because third person action games have been around forever too. How the heck does it matter what perspective the game has. What matters to innovation is what the player is doing, and how it affects gameplay and I'm sorry but the last of us gameplay has been done a million times before, I really think everyone is blinded by that games production values.
Not all of the games I listed were innovative but several of them are, as the gameplay hasn't ever been seen before in a game. It doesn't matter if the perspective is 2D or not.
You want to play a game where you feel like a survivor? Go play Day Z or one of the other survival FPS games. They do much more at making you feel like you are actually scavenging to stay alive and because everyone is real and can kill you at any given time there is a constant sense of dread and fear you feel.
Yeah I actually have run away in other games before, Tenchu, Metal Gear, Rainbow six, Ghost recon, Assassins creed and probably a bunch more I'm forgetting. In those games I listed fighting head on is not always the best option and in Tenchu it will get you killed. In Rainbow six if you get rushed, tactical retreats are common as you throw down smoke to cover your retreat, where you regroup and move in again. Assassins creed games sometimes required you to run away although in the newer games you can just kill everyone but in AC1 it was much harder to do this.
So don't tell me what I haven't done in a game when I have played games like The Last of us many times before. Ellie coming in to save you isn't innovative, its just a scripted event to make you attach to the narrative, its not gameplay.
Nothing in the last of us hasn't been seen before, I don't even know how you can make that statement with a straight face. Its a good game, but its gameplay has all been done before and whats there is very shallow and streamlined and not everyone wants that. I told you I would have liked deeper melee combat, a better scavenge system, and AI that would surrender. Those things would be better, but what we got is AI that is slightly better than most and a TPS stealth game. If you take away all the graphics, all the sound and production value then you can see exactly how shallow the last of us actually is. It gets most of its praise from the production values. Bioshock infinite while fun was in the same boat, a great story masking out dated FPS gameplay.
Indies and in fact every dev get inspired from the past, the difference is that a lot of indie devs are experimenting with the old formula and trying to create new experiences.
"the last of us is shallow"
"The gunplay in The last of us is what you will find in any other TPS except the aiming is weighty and clunky(not to the games detriment)".
NO it goddamn fricken isn't! You're just taking a shallow look at the game! You talk about Shank having a deeper melee system – dude, the game is beat-em up. Why don't I just ahead and say TLOU has deeper gunplay.
In TLOU you have 3 systems which you can flow from and to at any point. You can run away and go into stealth, you can scavenge items and craft them while stuff is still happening, and then go in for gun/melee combat. And you have the A.I which forces you to think which of those you're gunna do – and the Infected changes your perspective completely. There isn't another game out there that has this 'moment-to-moment' gameplay. And this is just ONE faceat of TLOU.
(Oh, and you can make enemies surrender, I told you how to already. And running away is never the better option in AC; just wait for the counter and attack. That's an example of shallow gameplay, considering you can play the whole game like that. In the TLOU, you can't – you can't just use melee; you can't just use gun combat; you have to use both and stealth and scavenge and craft, depending on what situation the dynamic A.I puts you in. NOT SHALLOW GAMEPLAY)
You then your have your exploration and obstacle solving. Not strictly a gameplay system, but you can look around and get a sense of the history of a place, looking at objects or articfacts, answering Ellie's questions. Because yeah, a lot of TLOU is about downtime, looking through enviornments and interacting with Ellie. This is one of the few games where just looking and thinking about the enivornments is interesting and has real links to the narrative.
And then the game will pace these two elements of gameplay perfectly. It merges it with the narrative of the story to create a sort of perpetual motion that you only see in rare games, like Uncharted or MGS. You just don't GET games like this, despite what you're making out.
"By your logic then the Last of us isn't innovative either because third person action games have been around forever too. How the heck does it matter what perspective the game has."
Uh, quite a lot? 2D games have gameplay that goes up,down, left and right. Level design is COMPLETLEY different; how you play it is completley different. You couldn't put the design elements of TLOU into a 2D side-scroller. Modern game design is predominantly 3D. For a reason.
"Ellie coming in to save you isn't innovative, its just a scripted event to make you attach to the narrative, its not gameplay."
God, there you go again. It's something that can only be triggered by the player getting cornered or in real danger from the (dynamic) A.I. It happens completely dynamically IN GAMEPLAY.
I mean, yes for godsake, Naughty Dog don't make super hard niche games that require you to die dozens of times before you figure stuff out. There is a certain element of accessibility. But streamlined? No dude. TLOU doesn't have shallow gameplay and it isn't a shallow game. I don't know how you can keep a straight face while saying that.
Last edited by Ludicrous_Liam on 8/7/2013 5:20:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKzVwbs-lsg
Just take 20 mins out of your day to watch that. Maybe it will give you some new perspective.
Because It is shallow thats how I keep a straight face while saying it. I don't care if it blends stealth, gunplay and crafting together, the witcher 2 blended combat, stealth, making potions, and magic pretty smoothly and that was 3 years ago. Not to mention the Witcher 2 had an awesome story one which your choices affected the outcome drastically.
You completely miss the point on what innovative means. The fact that you don't think a 2D game can be innovative is a testament to how ridiculous your stance is on this topic. Just because you have limited movement in a 2D plane doesn't mean you can't make innovative gameplay in that space, like Swapper, like Ibb and Obb, like Terarria, like Trine.
Half of what you are saying is innovative in the last of us has to do with pacing, and atmosphere and production value, NOT GAMEPLAY.
Take away all the production value of the last of us, take away the graphics and the shine and the story and leave yourself with just gameplay, no voice actors just crude 3D models and environments.
Now picture yourself playing the game and you realize that there isn't a whole lot going on for the game gameplay wise. It is the story pacing and atmosphere that makes it good not the gameplay.
Dishonored for example was a much better game in most ways than The Last of Us except in the story department. Dishonored had better stealth options, a nonlethal option, and brutal offensive options. In the harder modes the AI made you run away and have to regroup just like the last of us.
The last of us is a good game but I still fail to see where this ridiculous praise is coming from. Almost feels like I played a different game. Would like to sit in a room with you while you play it and have you point out to me the parts that are cool exciting and innovative to you because I fail to see any such things in the game.
"Would like to sit in a room with you while you play it and have you point out to me the parts that are cool exciting and innovative to you because I fail to see any such things in the game."
LOL. Oh man, that was my exact thought when I posted that comment, because I know my sentiments aren't getting through to you. I mean like this little bit:
"the witcher 2 blended combat, stealth, making potions, and magic pretty smoothly and that was 3 years ago."
But the way TLOU does it, is it makes you feel like a survivor, improvising, given the circumstance. And y'know it's like the unspoken things, like how Joel moves and how he goes into cover. You have so much control over Joel, so that going into cover is just a natural thing. It is the most smoothest 'flow' of mechanics I've ever played. You just…FEEL like Joel in this situation.
"Just because you have limited movement in a 2D plane doesn't mean you can't make innovative gameplay in that space"
But listen, we've moved beyond 2D side-scrollers. You can ONLY make innovative gameplay in that space – in that 2D way of playing. The modern day game is 3D, so how can it possibly bring new innovative ways of playing – OUTSIDE of that space?
"Half of what you are saying is innovative in the last of us has to do with pacing, and atmosphere and production value, NOT GAMEPLAY.
Take away all the production value of the last of us, take away the graphics and the shine and the story and leave yourself with just gameplay, no voice actors just crude 3D models and environments."
One: it's a story and character-driven game. The gameplay weaves through the narrative, so naturally if you take those things away the gameplay will lose it's impact. Pacing is absolutely apart of the gameplay. This is the kind of game that you can't review it on it's game mechanics alone.
AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO UNIQUE! You are experiancing what Joel and Ellie are in the story – through gameplay. Go watch that video link I posted, it's interesting even if you don't agree with it.
But seriously, even outside of the story and going into the multiplayer where it IS just pure game mechanics, it's a unique experiance. You STILL get that sense of tension – that feeling of "what can I craft; how many of them are there?". If there are too many, guess what – running away is actually the MUCH better option. I can say with confidence this time that you haven't done that in a FPS/TPS multiplayer game! You've got the persistant health, scavenging, crafting, stealth – all of this taken from the singleplayer.
Obvisouly multiplayer is different because the objective is to kill all of the opposing team, rather than just surviving – but that's because this isn't done in a story-told environment. But the feeling of being a survivour – it's there.
I am amazed at the negative comments towards indie developers. Use do realize you are on a website that would NOT exist if it wasn't for the indie scene? This industry as a whole was built up because of the concept and ideas from indie developers. 40 years ago no one in the business world took videogames serious, in fact only one person truely believed in it, his name was Nolan Bushnell. Without him and woman this industry most likely would still belong to the indie scene or not exist at all. Use should really look into the history of this industry before bashing its roots.
Almost every game mechanic in existence started within an indie project several years or even decades ago.
I'm talking about Indie development TODAY. Of course the industry was built by Indie developers. Even so, you look at the games that changed the industry, mario, wolfenstein 3D, MGS, and hopefully TLOU….they weren't indie games. Nintendo and Sony have done more innovation in this industry – I wouldn't be on this website if it wasn't for Sony.
Video games have changed a whole lot since 40 years ago. Gaming wouldn't have gotten very far without Nintendo or Sony.
And y'know what, I just realised something: you guys are probably the same people that didn't like MGS, or GTA, or Resident Evil 4, or Uncharted 2 – games that changed perspectives on how games are played. So I'm probably wasting my time trying to get through to you guys.
I agree that the multiplayer was quite fun and actually my favourite part about the game. But I think that is because playing against humans was so much more dynamic than anything the AI ever did in the game to me.
I guess my spoiling comes from the fact that I was a semi pro day of defeat player, and in general have been playing online shooters for about 15 years pretty much since they existed.
That is still my point though, 2D is a create way to make great concepts a reality and to innovate. Those ideas while some will never work in a 3D space, sometimes get worked into a 3D space eventually. Also Guns of Icarus online is 3D and hugely innovative in that I've never played a game like it and its dang fun to boot.
Taking away the production values was just my way of illustrating that the gameplay does rely on the story a lot and thats not a bad thing but for me from a pure gameplay perspective I have played this game before or games very similar. It might be just that I almost literally have played every game I can on the PC, indy, triple A, and mods for other games. So I have seen games try and do similar things as the last of us.
Not to burst your bubble, but I'm telling you in games like the Day Z, you have health, scavenging, crafting, and stealth to worry about, and what makes it more tense is that your death is permanent.
Day Z is a multiplayer only game but I'm telling you the tension you get in that game for me was more than anything I felt in the last of us, and it has pretty deep mechanics there is stealth, gunplay, crafting, scavenging etc. Heck in Day Z you can break your limbs and have to craft a splint, and take antibiotics etc.
I'm not saying the last of us is bad, I'm saying for me I felt bored after a while, and even the multiplayer couldn't hold me longer than a month, and to me the gameplay was lacking a bit.
I'm also saying that there are a lot of creative and innovative things happening in the indy scene on PCs and PSN, and while not all innovate the ones that do are a real treat, and the ones that don't like Torchlight 2, stick to the tried and true formula and just polish it and enhance it.
I liked all those games you listed except for certain elements in RE4. I hated the babysitting in that game.
MGS and the Original GTA were actually "indy" at the time of being created.
You need to realize now that a handful of indy games are being helmed by industry veterans and not kids.
Also GTA is not a game for everyone, to be frank GTA 4 while I beat it was not that great of a game. It suffered from the same things most open world games suffered from. I get where it did things differently but I personally just dont like GTA games that much.
Red Dead I adored though.
Dayz is f**king awful. Hard to take you seriously regarding games and how good or bad they are Xenris. Dayz? Puahahaha! What a joke!
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/8/2013 1:52:28 PM
What's creating the tension in Day Z? Look at this video from 3:25:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw77TqUs9V0
Certainly not the zombies. This game that you're comparing doesn't have the 'moment-to-moment' gameplay that I'm talking about. It doesn't have the flow between mechanics. It doesn't make you improvise using those free-flowing mechanics.
I know this is pre-release, but just look at it! It's unbelievable you would compare it to TLOU. The only thing that creates tension is the fact dying is permanent. And that just screams to me of fustration: I've said this, but Naughty Dog don't make super hard niche games – they make fun games. Permanent death feels like a cheap design trick to me. It's makes for a hollow-feeling game.
And then you look at the other things that make a game, because believe it or not games do involve things that aren't gameplay, but do affect it. How DRAB do those enviornments look? I can't lose myself in that world; the general quality of everything like animations, level design, game structure and communication to the player…it's a joke to compare it to TLOU. Then you look at the A.I…it's so unfair that you critisize TLOU like you do, then cite a game like this.
I hope you watched the TLOU video I posted, because there's not much more I can argue. TLOU is a unique game – you haven't played a game like it before. Look at the bit where he puts the helmet on. It's not pretentious. You're controlling him; you've built up a relationship with Ellie. You experianced his loss with Sarah while carrying her – just as you carry Ellie at the end. This thematic mirrowing (from story into gameplay) makes you think from Joel's perspective – so even if you don't agree with Joel, it can make you change your view. So, something you can only do in a game medium – with GAMEPLAYYYYY!!!!
And it's never been done before. If that's not innovation for you, then I don't know what to say.
( "MGS and the Original GTA were actually "indy" at the time of being created."
You realise I mean MGS1 and GTA 3…right? )
DayZ looks like armatures modded a poor 1998 demo version of counterstrike. Lol
It's quite unbelievable that you sit here and claim the things you do about TLOU while using garbage like DayZ as a standard that something like TLOU should have met. It's quite clear you have terrible taste in games Xenris. Sorry, but that's my opinion.
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/8/2013 4:41:18 PM
Day Z was a mod made in about 6 months by a small team. Day Z was an example of an INDY team making a completely unique game experience, to hell if you don't like it its bloody innovative. It is a true online survival pvp game with crafting, and healing systems in place.
Jawknee buzz off you are a terrible person to discuss anything with. Your two responses added nothing you just said Day Z is f#$king awful, have you played it, with a group of people? Do you even own Arma 2? Or have you just watched a video of someone bashing it and came to your own conclusions about the game? There is plenty wrong with Day Z, but they are making a stand alone game and my point was that the tension and mechanics were there in that game. Its on the Arma 2 engine, so if you think it looks like a CS mod from 1998 you should get a new glasses prescription Jawknee because you are blind.
Liam you are completely missing the point, I was using a game to illustrate tension in a game, and the features that it has. I don't care if it doesn't have the flow you speak of or you demand, not every game needs that, and the slow pace of Day Z is what makes it tense.
And there you go again, saying how you don't like permanent death so therefore the game can't be good……you are just using your casual gamer perspective to declare what games are good and what games are not and more ridiculously what is and isn't innovative.
I'm telling you why the last of us became boring, why I don't think it deserves the praise and you sit here telling me I'm wrong. Then when I show you a game that is innovative you just say, well I don't like it. What kind of ridiculous person are you to think that because you don't like the "idea" of something that it isn't innovative? I hate minecraft, its boring but I'll be damned if I don't recognize how innovative it is.
As for the video you picked a terrible Day Z video, not only are there better ones online that show the intensitity of the game, but my personal experience with the game is that its tense, and zombies were and actual threat. He also must have been playing an older version because I couldn't sprint forever when I played.
Its not unfair that I compare TLOU to that game, that was one game that I was citing for tension, and you haven't played it so unless you did you wouldn't know what I was talking about, and its clear that you would just say I don't like it because you like easy mode games with shallow gameplay like TLOU.
You aren't arguing here, you were saying that I've never played anything like the last of us, and I'm saying yeah I have it felt like a lot of other games I have played, and I listed off indy games that were innovative because that was the original debate and its turned into this pissing match where you think your opinion is right even though I show you a game thats pretty much objectively innovative and you brush it aside because it doesn't interest you.
How am I supposed to know which games you are talking about when you didn't put the numbers beside them. You could have been talking about any GTA and any metal gear game.
That video liam does nothing to change my mind.
I agree that the blending of story and gameplay is taken to different places and is perhaps unique to the last of us in its pacing etc. But the core gameplay, the shooting, stealth and gunplay GOT BORING for me because it never evolved and I was never put into situations where I NEEDED to craft a bomb, where I NEEDED to have a molotov and that is why I got bored.
Sure it gave you the freedom to do everything how you wanted, but it would have been less stale if they had enemies that say needed to be set on fire with a molotov, or parts where setting a trap is pretty much required or using the bow was required etc.
That is where I got bored with the gameplay, not with the story or the characters but with that moment to moment gameplay you loved for me I got bored after 10 hours.
UGGHHHHHHHHHH
"I don't care if it doesn't have the flow you speak of or you demand, not every game needs that, and the slow pace of Day Z is what makes it tense. "
I'm not demanding anything. I'm telling you what makes TLOU unique/innovative. You tell me that pacing has nothing to do with gameplay and is to do with production values – now you tell me that's what makes Day Z tense and innovative?
I've told you why I find TLOU innovative – you tell me Day Z does the same things. Except it doesn't. So please, tell me why it's innovative in pure gameplay terms, because remember, pacing has nothing to do with gameplay. 🙂
"And there you go again, saying how you don't like permanent death so therefore the game can't be good……you are just using your casual gamer perspective to declare what games are good and what games are not and more ridiculously what is and isn't innovative."
Dude for fuck sake stop twisting my words. I said it was a fustrating design trick. I'm someone who can just appreciate good games – the casual and the hardcore.
"Then when I show you a game that is innovative you just say, well I don't like it. What kind of ridiculous person are you to think that because you don't like the "idea" of something that it isn't innovative?"
Hang on, one: I never said I didn't like the game – I am finding the faults in the game, and therefore in your argument. Two: You make out that games like Day Z do survival and tense gameplay in a more innovative way than the TLOU. THAT is what I don't like.
"where you think your opinion is right even though I show you a game thats pretty much objectively innovative and you brush it aside because it doesn't interest you."
…which is exactly what you're doing from my perspective. Except I've told you why I find TLOU innovative – fuck it, I've exhausted a hour or so trying to tell you – and you basically say 'meh, I found it boring'. Huh. How bout that!?
"How am I supposed to know which games you are talking about when you didn't put the numbers beside them. You could have been talking about any GTA and any metal gear game."
What would you have said was the most innovative GTA/MGS? Certainly weren't the prior ones. Y'know, the 2D ones. Kinda goes back to that thing I was ta…nevermind.
"Sure it gave you the freedom to do everything how you wanted, but it would have been less stale if they had enemies that say needed to be set on fire with a molotov, or parts where setting a trap is pretty much required or using the bow was required etc."
Okay, let's go through this: 1. Generally, if you find a pack of clickers, throwing a molotov and setting them alight, with them running into other clickers, is what people did. 2. I used bombs as traps when in the hotel basement, because you get ambushed when the sound of the generator comes on. Or, when an enemy won't come out of cover so you can't shoot him, and you can't get to him for some reason. Remember when I told you…in the sniper section…when I was up the stairs in the house. Or you can use them just to save ammo. 3. You mean like, with the deer? Or in the tunnel section?
But you know what, I don't even care if TLOU is innovative or not. It's a fun game – you simply don't get bored in this game. I genuinly feel sad you can't appreciate what a great GAME it is. Oh well.
Last edited by Ludicrous_Liam on 8/8/2013 7:30:47 PM
Okay last time I'm going to go through this, this started as not anything to do with TLOU or Day Z.
Pacing in Day Z was not the same pacing as TLOU because pacing in Day Z isn't story based or enemy encounter based. I was saying slow paced in terms of how to do things. Crafting takes a while, looting takes a while, aiming is even harder in some ways than TLOU etc. I was purely stating that Day Z is slower gameplay wise than TLOU nothing more, but that that wasn't a down side. IT would be like saying all Turn based JRPGs are inferior to Action based JRPGs because one is smoother and faster, know what I mean?
Day Z did it before TLOU, it did surviving except it is different in that it is an online only game, and mmo lite if you will. The gameplay CONCEPTS were done first by Day Z, and I'm almost positive that for the multiplayer Naughty Dog heavily borrowed from Day Z but streamlined it and condensed it down which is fine because MP was pretty fun.
Its a frustrating design "trick" to you, but it adds incredible weight to your decisions in that game, and some people love perma death.
There are no faults in my argument because I used Day Zs concept as a point of reference for ideas that were done well over a year before TLOU, and conception for Day Z started even earlier. I'm talking about pure gameplay ideas, the idea of really having to survive in a world against zombies and people a game that felt a lot like the book The Road.
Of course it doesn't play like TLOU I never said that, I just was saying the concepts were done FIRST by an indy dev even if they weren't executed perfectly because it was a small dev team self funded.
Also I was not talking about Day Z at that point anymore, I was talking about some of the innovative indy games that I listed in my first post that you just scoffed at.
Guns of Icarus was the example I was using, for you saying that and I quote "Guns of icarus and Zeno Clash for example (I mean UGH, couldn't interest me less if they tried)." Both games are innovative for when they came out, I mean Guns of Icarus is a multiplayer blimp combat game and I have NEVER seen that done before, you need a crew of 6 real people to keep the ship working and repaired. Zeno Clash has an incredible story but was a first person fighting game, which had been done once before on the PS2 but was terribly executed. Zeno clash also allowed you to flow from gunplay to fisticuffs very smoothly.
So you brush off innovation right there because they don't interest you, that was my problem. I told you that I am not interested in Minecraft but that I realize it is innovative as hell.
Remember this started as me simply saying indy devs are doing innovative things and you saying that they weren't look up that is how this debate started.
Now we are back trying to explain why I don't praise and you do praise TLOU.
All of your points of what you can do through gameplay aren't required except for the deer section. I was never in a situation where the ONLY option was lighting up clickers, and then I was forced to find the resources to do so. What about an environmental puzzle that didn't involve just ladders and floating boards? Here is a cool puzzle idea, maybe make it so that there are 5 unique puzzles through the game on top of those boring ladder ones. Have it so that maybe in one section you need to gather resources to blow a hole in something, they could have even used the bomb crafting if they wanted but unique items would have been better, like make shift c4 to clear a path etc. How about a puzzle that required you to use a molotov to burn something in your path? What about a puzzle where joel needed to use a rope to lower ellie down outside a building and hold her there suspended while she went into a window to unblock a door or something then has to pull her back up. I mean these might look like crude puzzle ideas on paper but TLOU for the sake of keeping things "flowing" never allowed you to get stuck doing puzzles. I just think they could have done way more interesting things with puzzles in this game.
I never had to use bombs, that section you talk about I just ran because in survivor mode that is the way smarter option.
The deer section did force you to use a bow and I actually loved that section, more section like this in the game, maybe not bow sections but more forced item sections would have been greatly appreciated by me, the tunnel section I just avoided everything and shot maybe one clicker with my bow. Because in the hardest mode you really need to just sneak as ammo is even more limited it seems.
The way TLOU combines elements from different genres and games is unique and innovative to TLOU. But the ideas it borrows are not unique, the stealth isn't unique, gunplay has a different feel and is probably the most unique aspect of the game, the melee combat I'm sorry but I really didn't like it and was bored after a while, even if I was supposed to be combining all these things fluidly together, I personally think that each element should be able to stand on its own and the melee combat to me was the weakest link. That might be because I am heavily into fighting games and I need to stress that I didn't need it to be like Tekken in its combos, I just wanted like blocking, dodging or something, it all felt too contextual and automated to me, but it did keep things flowing.
I thought I explained that It was an 8.5 or 9 out of 10 in another post so I will reiterate.
Its a GOOD game, but one that I had some problems with. If it didn't have multiplayer I would have honestly given it an 8 the multiplayer really boosted it for me. The only reason I stopped playing the online is because the leveling system is a grind, and I prefer competitive shooters to be with a mouse and keyboard.
If TLOU was on the PC I can guarantee you I would play the multiplayer for years.
That all aside lets get back to my main point, Indy devs are doing innovative things even if those games don't interest you.
"The gameplay CONCEPTS were done first by Day Z, and I'm almost positive that for the multiplayer Naughty Dog heavily borrowed from Day Z "
"I used Day Zs concept as a point of reference for ideas that were done well over a year before TLOU."
"Zeno Clash has an incredible story but was a first person fighting game, which had been done once before on the PS2 but was terribly executed."
See this is where your argument kinda falls to pieces. The gameplay of TLOU was cemented in the E3 2012 demo, and everything that is in that demo is hinted in the teaser from 2011. And the game has been in development since 2009 – it takes a long time to develop those systems. So there was no borrowing from Day Z.
Then for me, Zeno Clash is TLOU, and Day Z is that terribly executed game. Except, even then, the concept for TLOU actually came before Day Z.
To summarise what I was saying, Naughty Dog brought action elements from Uncharted. That game already had the flow between movesets. But then it changed it into something 'survival-action', along with it just feeling more intimate. This is something unique…there's a unique feel to the game. There's a 'TLOU' mindset when you think how to play it.
Those puzzles you're talking about…way too intricate. Uncharted can get away with those kind of puzzles, but not TLOU – it's a grounded, realistic game. The fact you have to do mundane things like use ladders just reinforces this.
Not to kickstart all this again because we obviously have major diagreements, but I feel like I've layed out all the reasons why I find it innovative when you put it up against games like Day Z, or just any game in the genre.
"That all aside lets get back to my main point, Indy devs are doing innovative things even if those games don't interest you."
To be honest, I think this comes down to interpretation of the word innovation. If it just doing something new, or doing something that can change how we play games? TLOU certainly does a better job of connecting you to the character's feelings in gameplay, while still being a technically brilliant game, unlike your Walking Deads or Heavy Rains (much as I love em). And for me this is what other games can learn from TLOU.
I mean right, I've often considering how this can be done in a game outside of doing things that, on a very BASIC level anyway, we've done before, with the shooting or combat all together. But then I stop thinking like that – I start thinking what game do I actually wanna play? And for me, it's The Last Of Us.
"Okay last time I'm going to go through this, this started as not anything to do with TLOU or Day Z."
Well, it does. Look at the title. I don't think we resolved this in that other article either, so it was bound to come up. These string of replies are getting out of hand though, so we're gunna have to stop it here, maybe open up a thread or something. Because there's a lot to be discussed here.
Fair enough, but Day Z was in concept since something like 2009 but they didn't have the engine to use it. They tried the game on other engines but it just didn't work so they put it on the back burner.
Innovative to me would be Minecraft, it did something new even though I didn't like it.
The last of us was innovative in how it handled story and gameplay and blended them together but I just can't express enough in text that I found myself bored with the core gameplay the meat of the game. EXCEPT when I played online, so it wasn't that the gameplay was inherently bad but that the AI and the scenarios weren't nearly as enjoyable as playing against other people.
I disagree that the puzzles would be too intricate, for me the game needed something like that to slow down the gameplay instead of just making long sections of doing nothing, even though i liked the atmosphere and that pacing.
I don't see how having to blow something up or use and axe to destroy debris isn't grounded in reality :
I wasn't trying to put TLOU up against Day Z I can't stress this enough it was just an example of a survival game doing things that TLOU did.
Again the game was good, but I dunno it just needed something more with the gameplay.
Its obviously just my personal experience with the game.
Watch this, it gives you some idea of my problems with the game, even though I find this guy to sometimes be overly picky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFhRFWSmFGg&feature=c4-overview&list=UUb_sF2m3-2azOqeNEdMwQPw
I'm not sure if the video is at the beginning or not but if you can watch it from the beginning you will get an idea of what I had problems with it.
( Oh god no. This guy can be INSANELY nitpicky. Not to mention he misses out many subtle things. It's not a great representation of the game for me. )
I mean, he says the first half hour in the quarrantine zone, you basically follow other characters. He basically says it would work better as a movie. Except there is visual storytelling all over the place, something you can't do in a passive medium. It is SO interesting to get a sense of the world, looking at all the dilapidation and how people now live, at your own leisure, y'know take as long thinking about it as you want (I should mention my playthrough was double his at 28 hours), BEFORE getting into the combat that explores how people outside the quarrantine zone survive. Such a superfical way to look at it.
Then he calls it a bland enviornment…? Not sure how far I can go into this without smashing a table with my face, lol. He says some stupid stuff. Like 'it makes no sense that clickers can only see you if you move'. That's because they can sense moving objects, and they still have certain cognitive abilities. So of course they'd be able to tell. The fungus manipulates the brain to do this. So stupid.
He says the reason the game fails is because he can't take the game A.I seriously. And the reason he says this is because the A.I don't spot Ellie. That's fair enough – that's one of my main problems with the game. But it's SO easy to dismiss, it's not something to get hanged up on. The other thing he says is that it gets ridiclous when Ellie will bump into enemies and just move on past them, breaking the immersion. But this happens SO infrequently, it is not something that stops that bond being made. Yet he makes it out as it does. As I say, it's not a true representation of how the game can be experianced.
I like how he praises the game, like when he talks about the weight of the guns, because I can finally understand where he's coming from, because I had that experiance too. But then he'll just go on about how the Giraffe scene didn't have the desired impact. How many gamers have said this? I mean, just after winter, everything you experianced as Ellie. Yeah, he neatly skips around that and leaps onto the fact you are 'forced' into this situation, just to add a negative connotation. It's a very superfical way of looking at it.
I mean yeah sure, he picks up on certain issues like the spawning enemies with the Ellie cutscene & the fact you can't shoot the sniper. These perhaps are bigger issues to other people than they were to me. Because, believe me, I did notice them. But it's soo goddamn easy to turn a blind eye to these things, because the game lets you suspend your disbelief so well – it grounds you in the world so well. I know this can make it all the more jaring for some people, but for me, it just clicked instantly – not something I got hanged up on.
To further explain this, I mean like in the sniper section. The game design means that you can never get your sights on him when you're dead-centre with him – otherwise you'll get shot. So you have to go in the houses either side. And because of this, you always view him at a 'blind' angle, and with it all boarded up…I don't know for me, it was something that clicked and I could suspend that disbelief.
But I should point you to the guy in the video link I posted, where he says "When you start complaining that a video game feels too much like a video game…you know you should probably just, shut the f up". I believe that applies here. Though I agree this is something that exsits as a problem in the game, even if it is minor from most perspective. And from mine, so little I wouldn't even bring it up.
Then he goes to this story, says it is cliche, that he would've liked for it to be less generic. lol…no comment. But then he goes on to say about how the game "cheats" by skipping time enitrely, just as it "starts to get interesting". Meaning that character development isn't seen. Just the fact he says "and they act like nothing has happened in the next season" really made my blood boil. How could he miss the subtle way Ellie acts after Winter? You can tell things haven't been resolved; it was only the Giraffe moment and the prospect of it not "being for nothing" that brings her out of that 'distant' state. You'll notice she'll start being inquizitive again, giving the picture to Joel and everything. And then you look at that video again, and what he says is so true – "Why show that part, let them get their feelings out? It's gunna be sh*t".
And then stay on that video I showed you, and he talks about how things that happened between chapters is implied – there is enough there for you to work it out yourself. And in my experiance, it couldn't be more true. This is one of those things that made me angry when you said it 'craves to meet mainstream expectations'. It's a smart game, and it treats the auidence with respect. It knows you can work that out for yourself because you're not an idiot.
( Naughty Dog said they expected the reviews to be more polarizing – they should've watched these two LOL. )
But you know, I think there is actually something I can take from all this. I think I've learned that, as games get ever more closer to being art, to being something more personal and intimate, the more room for divided opinions. Because honestly, TLOU hit me very personally. I freakin love this game and the Naughty Dog way of making games. I sincerly wish you could too because…woah, what an experiance it was.
Just for the record, I actually enjoyed this. I can sorta see it from your perspective even if sure isn't gunna change mine, but it's nice to know I got something out of this INSANELY LONG STRING OF REPLIES. I mean oh my jesus christ. PSXE record or what, lol.
Yeah I did say he was very nitpicky and I don't agree with all the nitpicking. I for one loved the intro and the slow pace and watching people get gunned down around me etc.
I think its important to note that he still thinks its a great game overall and well so do I.
In fact there are problems he has with the game that I totally don't, like the jumps in time, the intro, etc. In fact the story and atmosphere are all totally great for me.
He felt the combat was excellent and chaotic and I partly agree, my only problem was I got tired and bored of it because it didn't evolve enough and the puzzles needed more variety IMO, but you knew that already 😛
I also hugely disagree with his multiplayer point of view. While it might have been tact on, I think that the multiplayer holds so much promise for the future games in this series. The multiplayer made me feel all the things you were feeling in the single player that I just wasn't feeling.
I think as far as big budget games go if its this game against Bioshock Infinite this game beats it hands down. I had even more problems with Bioshocks gameplay than I ever had with TLOU.
I would like to stress I can see the appeal and I can see how people are really digging this game, but I didn't have that experience when playing this game. The first half or more I was so engaged in the game, but after a certain point I didn't want to fight anything anymore, I just wanted to get to more story parts and of course that is my problem not the games, but I think it does say something about the gameplay to a degree. Because I know many people who also felt like the gameplay was lacking a bit and that excludes people from this site.
But maybe thats how Joel felt, he just wanted to get this stuff over with and enjoy life with ellie….if thats the case then bravo naughty dog you made me feel exactly like Joel 😛
Yea, yea, I'm a terrible person because I called out your wretched taste in video games. Man up you sissy. You spend much time whining about a game that everyone and their mother agrees is fantastic then try and claim garbage like DayZ is better. Expect some push back if you're going to make such asinine statements, or whine about it some more….
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/9/2013 7:24:47 PM
lol…well I really am gunna have to end it here, even though
"my only problem was I got tired and bored of it because it didn't evolve enough"
and
"The multiplayer made me feel all the things you were feeling in the single player that I just wasn't feeling"
and
"but after a certain point I didn't want to fight anything anymore, I just wanted to get to more story parts and of course that is my problem not the games, but I think it does say something about the gameplay to a degree."
…make me so confused when I think back to my initial experiance of the game. It isn't necessarily a game where the gameplay needs to evolve. What would that actually add to the game? A sense of progression? For me, the gameplay changed per how the characters evolved in the story. So you feel that progression in gameplay.
Makes me think your expectations were screwy before coming into it. And because there were only 1.5 hours of cutscenes in my 28 hour playthrough, story cutscenes were actually surprising when they popped up, so weren't something I was looking forward to. For me, the pace of the game, the richness of the world – it could never get boring.
One thing I did in my playthrough, was actually try to role-play as Joel a little bit. I know, the game doesn't force you to – but it doesn't stop you doing it either. So what I mean by that is, taking time in the downtime enivornment bits. Really looking at the history of the environments, what is was like before the outbreak.
Because like Joel, we have that information – the game, pre-the outbreak, is set in our world. So then you think how it relays back to what's happening in the story, and what you're actually doing in gameplay, it really makes for an experiance I haven't felt before – it makes you feel so much like Joel in that situation. Then when I'm in combat, I try my best to never get hit. If I feel like I will, I'll run away and come in from another entrance. For me, this is where the game comes into its own.
I don't know if you read my comment awhile ago where I played like this in the hotel sequence. But it was like, each time I felt out-numbered, I was like "If I was Joel with Ellie right now, I'd get outa here". And so I did – I came in stealthily through the hole in the ceiling. And I did this each time, and this all felt natural to me even if it might sound convoluted to you. Eventually I get to 3 last guys, and I swear I couldn't find them. I thought the game was getting annoyed with me taking so long so just derendered them lol. So imagine the shock when they come walking down a hallway to me, STILL looking for me.
I don't know exactly what was going on, maybe the weren't looking for me the whole time, but that was an awesome feeling. So I take two out, and it leaves the molotov guy. He almost gets me so I run away again. And I swear, I was playing cat and mouse with this guy. Everytime I tried coming in from another entrance, he'd stalk me from behind. Happens 4 times until Ellie notices, I take cover, and stealth kill him.
I look at my last saved checkpoint? 1 hour ago. So I'm just saying, you can experiance this game VERY differently. I felt like the game sorta encouraged me to role-play as Joel anyway.
We've only been over this 20 times now though so I really will leave this here.
( I watched his MGS reviews by the way (you can tell I have way too much time on my hands), and he really does have an odd way to critique. Nitpicky as hell, but then will gloss over other things, contradicting what he said. He generally comes across as smart, but there are some things that I just flat out disagree with. Would love to see an Uncharted 2 review from him. )
Jawknee,
I never said Day Z was better, I was talking about gameplay concepts. I did say that Day Z playing with a group of friends on a populated server was more tense than anything I felt in the last of us, but I didn't say the game was better.
Learn how to read and then maybe I will ask for your opinion on anything, this was a conversation me and Liam were having no one asked you to come in and talk about a game you have never played(Day Z)
Nor was I ever saying TLOU was a bad game, its still about a 9/10 for me because it is good, I just didn't think it was the Citizen Kane of gaming like some people did, and found myself getting bored with the gameplay half way through the game.
Liam
The type of roleplaying you did in the last of us is kind of like what my friends and I did in Day Z, we got all into our characters and because it is perma death we were always really serious. We would have one person stay behind and be our scout with binoculars while the others would move up in formation etc. The game has no story but you make your own and playing with friends was really fun. It isn't a "better" game than TLOU but I did feel more tension playing it, and put more hours than I think I would like to admit 😛
As for that guys critiques, he is very critical of things, more so than I am, but I actually have friends who are like that. Thing is they still enjoy the games but they just notice these things that most people brush over or appreciate differently. I appreciate his reviews but what I would like him to do instead of say I liked this, or this was jarring would be to explain what he would have done differently kind of like how I tried to explain what I would have changed in TLOU to make it the perfect game for me.
Anyway good chat, I also had a lot of time on my hands today XD
This woman is a Frenchy classy goddess. I would die to work for a bombshell such as this!
obviously the more money you spend the more the market question comes into play, but hey that has not stopped games like assassins creed, the last of us, bioshock, tomb raider, just to name a few, now has it?
hell the most innovative games of this generation would of also been the most expensive to make, and also not record breakers in the sales department.
no doubt they sold well, but besides AC, neither really have seen massive popularity that they so plainly deserve!
TBH i wouldent be surprised if shes just using this as a excuse, it just seems like a simpleminded excuse.
big amounts of innovation is lacking in the big productions i mean bf4 is makin sme steps as is ac4 but there isn't enough.
but the industry as a whole lacks it majorly and this lack of innovation is the risk to money making fear but then skyrim and TLOU and heavy rain and well it seems like not much in the way of it and that needs to change way better ps2 gen.
happy gaming =)
Well, one thing I am seeing in the industry that has been starting the last 5 years are a reduction in salaries for employees. The market, has been pushing older vets out of the industry and grabbing the newer and younger debs/designers… the cheaper ones. On top of that the companies demand, not all, demand absolute commitment. One, which shall not be named, demands you be available for overtime or when necessary… all the time. A number of people I know quit after a few years due to burnout and stress. Some again, leaving the industry completely at a young age.
But yes, although I do not think she said it, the developers/publishers along with their execs I think NEED to rethink their model. Its about money, or that is what it looks like these days for the most part. Question is are we the gamers demanding them to create these all expensive AAA games, or are the Devs using us as an excuse for them allowing themselves to grow in to these huge monsters. Both probably.
Anyway, good luck to us all.
Keep playing!
wow shès pretty hot
sorry – what is she talking about
Wow, that was a news article I didn't see coming.
I haven't heard anything from or about Jade that I can recall for the last 4 or 5 years.
It's nice to know that she's still in the industry and is still doing what she does best at Ubisoft, although it would be super sweet if she defected to a major Sony studio.
And on another tangent, yes, her looks are holding up quite well. 😉
Thanks Jade for yet another common sense observation, I don't know what we would do without you.
Sad but true. $$$$ talks; BS walks.