Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/28/14 12:00 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Judge a game on its merits, not by who publish/developed the game. I'm getting sick and tired of people being ignorant of games they should play because EA or Activision made the game, because last time I checked, they rarely, if ever, publish or develop bad games, and that should be the most important thing to gamers. Yes, aggressive DRM is bad and all, but there are plenty of ways around it, and it's not like anyone is forcing you to get what they're making.

Do you not know how evil EA is? Activision may have re-hashed the same formula over and over, but EA...

1. Markets M-rated games to teenagers (see Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2)
2. Created a conference for indie gamers to steal their ideas (see Code Wars)
3. Re-packaged the same game with a different title (no exaggeration, see FIFA 12, FIFA 13)
4. Abandoned their "customers-first" policy and published an unplayable game in the process (see SimCity)
5. Bought out various IPs and game developers and, in doing so, ran their ideas into the ground (see Bioware, Dice, Popcap, etc.)

If you would do anything...

ANYTHING...

...to support a company like that, I reserve every right to hate your guts. Not buying Titanfall is my way of giving EA the middle finger, and it might seem indirect and even passive-aggressive, but it definitely accomplishes more than spewing subjective opinions on some forum. Bam.

Finally, don't play politics with games or the industry.

That sounds like something that came from a politically deficient mind. Just do your research. Is it really that hard?

If you don't like a genre/company/style of games, then leave it alone and let the fans enjoy it.

Good advice, but what does it have to do with the topic?

There are plenty of quality games to go around in both the west and in Japan if you're willing to do actual research, and get sucked up by certain people who sound like they have an axe to grind for no reason.

Aaaaand now you've resorted to being a hypocrite.

As for your comment about "damaging the video game industry", it was damaged the moment "sequels" and "HD remakes" became popular. That's when innovation and new IPs faded from the public eye in favor of re-hashed material.

Frankly, I predict a future where the prime console competitors will be Microsoft, Valve, and maybe some other company, as Nintendo plans to become a fitness company and Sony (surprisingly, even to me) has a 78% chance of going bankrupt in two years. Boom. Research.

---

Um, yes, and it's right now?

Like with any other pop culture I think game reviews are pretty tangential to most people's purchasing decisions. They're certainly a factor, and I can see how a game getting really bad reviews might be a dealbreaker for some, but I would hardly say people "depend" on them.

At 3/29/14 10:02 PM, The-Great-One wrote: The video game world doesn't have someone with a standard yet to review video games, we don't have a Siskel and Ebert like the movie goer world has.

Don't hold your breath. Our modern, highly fragmented and heavily content-saturated media landscape really doesn't allow for that kind of monolithic mainstream critical voice anymore. But it's not like we even need one. Ebert was great and continues to cast a big shadow and all, but great film criticism existed before and alongside him, and it's certainly not like even close to all current film crit is derived from his style. There are all sorts of critics out there writing with all sorts of different styles and focuses and lenses, you just have to actually look for them now, and find which niches are right for you.

Besides, at this point the mainstream games "journalism" outlets are so tangled up with publishers/developers and so entrenched in their thoroughly uncritical and exclusionary reinforcement of the status quo that they're basically a lost cause. Even if it were possible or desirable to have an "Ebert of games," I doubt he or she would be able to flourish in one of those places.

There are plenty of games critics and writers doing outstanding work right now, they just aren't writing for IGN or making shitty YouTube videos. Check out some of the work of Tim Rogers (and everyone at Action Button Dot Net), John Teti (and everyone at Gameological), Aevee Bee, Leigh Alexander, Rowan Kaiser, Patrick Miller, Mattie Brice, Simon Parkin, etc.

Just as an example of the immense variety and talent you can find in games writing if you're willing to look for it, here's "Who Killed Videogames? (A Ghost Story)", Tim Rogers's hilarious, depressing, and brilliant examination of mobile/Facebook "social games." It's basically my favorite piece of games writing ever (it's also very long and very dense, so I wouldn't read it until you have a good chunk of time for it).

---

At 4/2/14 01:52 AM, oobooglunk wrote: 1. Markets M-rated games to teenagers (see Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2)

Guess what? A lot of game commercials target teens all the time, even if they are rated M, how in the fuck can you can say that and not notice all of the 13 year old brats who play online? Plus, the commercial may have been in poorly done, but I didn't think it was that bad as everyone whined about. It's hard to get me offended over a commercial like this, especially when these are the people who aren't going to play it anyway.

2. Created a conference for indie gamers to steal their ideas (see Code Wars)

Which most of those ideas from said indie gamers were ripped off from older games, at worst, it's tit for tat.

3. Re-packaged the same game with a different title (no exaggeration, see FIFA 12, FIFA 13)

It's a little bit more complicated than it seems, When you have to work within a concrete set of rules and regulations, especially from a sporting league like FIFA, of course it's going to be similar-looking. Not to mention to the sports gamers, they don't really care that much as long as it's not a glitchy mess.

4. Abandoned their "customers-first" policy and published an unplayable game in the process (see SimCity)

SimCity was a mistake on their part, everyone knows this. Probably why the game didn't do too well.

5. Bought out various IPs and game developers and, in doing so, ran their ideas into the ground (see Bioware, Dice, Popcap, etc.)

How exactly? Mass Effect had a bad original ending in 3, but other than that, ME was an excellent series overall. It is also worth noting that a lot of the game developers either worked with EA in the past and had success with them, or were on the verge of falling apart, and EA bought them out for cheap. What would you rather have happen, get bought out or go under and lose all those jobs and talent? I would think the answer would be obvious, but to you, I don't know.

If you would do anything...

ANYTHING...

...to support a company like that, I reserve every right to hate your guts. Not buying Titanfall is my way of giving EA the middle finger, and it might seem indirect and even passive-aggressive, but it definitely accomplishes more than spewing subjective opinions on some forum. Bam.

Oooooh, you hate me for my opinions? Like I give a damn what you think. Also, aren't you spewing the same subjective opinions on the forum as I am? Jackass.

Titanfall has sold a lot of copies already, any little protest by people like you isn't going to matter that much. Plus, considering that the game got mostly good reviews, (conspiracy!) it's hard not to see why considering it was supposed to be a killer app for the Xbox One.

That sounds like something that came from a politically deficient mind.

No, it's common sense. The vocal minority will disagree, but they're mostly bark than bite, and the majority doesn't care.

Good advice, but what does it have to do with the topic?

It's pretty fucking self-explanatory, I'm not going to repeat it again.

There are plenty of quality games to go around in both the west and in Japan if you're willing to do actual research, and get sucked up by certain people who sound like they have an axe to grind for no reason.

Aaaaand now you've resorted to being a hypocrite.

No, if anything, you've warped what I just said into your argument against me. You're the hypocrite, or at the very least, uneducated enough to truly believe that.

As for your comment about "damaging the video game industry", it was damaged the moment "sequels" and "HD remakes" became popular. That's when innovation and new IPs faded from the public eye in favor of re-hashed material.

This again? The reason why IPs fail is because they either suck or they're not very popular to begin with. It's disappointing to see a good IP fall apart or be abandoned, but it has happened before in the past, and it will happen in the future, it's business as usual. As for "re-hashed" material and sequels, that is what the fans wanted for a long time, and it would be a good idea to listen to the fans who actually buy and play the game.

Face it, it is better now than it was in the 80's and 90's, where their was a glut of bad IPs and equally bad developers, which made the game industry turn into the Wild West, and didn't get the respect from most people the way they do today.

Frankly, I predict a future where the prime console competitors will be Microsoft, Valve, and maybe some other company...

I know that you are wrong. Sony isn't going to fall apart without a fight, and Nintendo will still make games, even if they are going to be way behind Sony and Microsoft. Considering that you are lousy with predictions, I'd say that you sound more like Chicken Little.

---

At 4/2/14 12:26 PM, orangebomb wrote:
Guess what? A lot of game commercials target teens all the time, even if they are rated M, how in the fuck can you can say that and not notice all of the 13 year old brats who play online?

I know such people personally, and they are exposed to such games through older siblings/friends. That has nothing to do with marketing.

Which most of those ideas from said indie gamers were ripped off from older games, at worst, it's tit for tat.

As usual, your conjecture is baseless.

It's a little bit more complicated than it seems, When you have to work within a concrete set of rules and regulations, especially from a sporting league like FIFA, of course it's going to be similar-looking. Not to mention to the sports gamers, they don't really care that much as long as it's not a glitchy mess.

No, it was THE EXACT SAME GAME. Not "similar-looking", identical in every way.

SimCity was a mistake on their part, everyone knows this. Probably why the game didn't do too well.

A mistake that shouldn't be brushed over. If I sold you a game that was unplayable and three games that were, would you just say "Oh, that's good enough! Nothing wrong here!" Because, for the purposes of that example, 25% of your brand-new games would be unplayable.

How exactly? Mass Effect had a bad original ending in 3, but other than that, ME was an excellent series overall. It is also worth noting that a lot of the game developers either worked with EA in the past and had success with them, or were on the verge of falling apart, and EA bought them out for cheap.

Plants vs. Zombies 2 was a garden of micro-transactions, Sonic Chronicles 2 can and will never happen (meaning that the idea will never be executed better than it was), and Battlefield 4 was just an over-hyped explosion-fest.

What would you rather have happen, get bought out or go under and lose all those jobs and talent? I would think the answer would be obvious, but to you, I don't know.

You sound like Mitt Romney. Buying companies that are about to go under may seem benevolent, but it's actually a widely practiced and very sleazy business strategy. EA is saving money by watching companies fall to their deaths before snatching them away at the last second.

Oooooh, you hate me for my opinions? Like I give a damn what you think. Also, aren't you spewing the same subjective opinions on the forum as I am? Jackass.

Precisely, but unlike you, I'm actively making a sacrifice for my cause. You're sitting on your high horse and throwing your shit in my face with your ad homina.

No, it's common sense. The vocal minority will disagree, but they're mostly bark than bite, and the majority doesn't care.

Titanfall may have been a great game, but again, I'm making a sacrifice. Meanwhile, you're brushing me off because you think I'm too sanctimonious to handle.

It's pretty fucking self-explanatory, I'm not going to repeat it again.

Ohhhh. And here I thought you actually cared that we're having a conversation.

No, if anything, you've warped what I just said into your argument against me. You're the hypocrite, or at the very least, uneducated enough to truly believe that.

You said you didn't want to do research, or should I say "play politics", but then you told me to go do some research. Do you truly not see how hypocritical you're being right now?

This again? The reason why IPs fail is because they either suck or they're not very popular to begin with. It's disappointing to see a good IP fall apart or be abandoned, but it has happened before in the past, and it will happen in the future, it's business as usual. As for "re-hashed" material and sequels, that is what the fans wanted for a long time, and it would be a good idea to listen to the fans who actually buy and play the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q

Face it, it is better now than it was in the 80's and 90's, where their was a glut of bad IPs and equally bad developers, which made the game industry turn into the Wild West, and didn't get the respect from most people the way they do today.

Hey, the Wii U did exactly what the Virtual Boy did, and now the XBox One resembles the CD-i. I say we're repeating our history here.

I know that you are wrong. Sony isn't going to fall apart without a fight, and Nintendo will still make games, even if they are going to be way behind Sony and Microsoft. Considering that you are lousy with predictions, I'd say that you sound more like Chicken Little.

Did you not look at the link I posted? Do you not remember the losses Sony suffered because of the PS3 and PSVita? If anything, you're deluding yourself, not I.

---

At 4/2/14 01:52 PM, oobooglunk wrote: I know such people personally, and they are exposed to such games through older siblings/friends. That has nothing to do with marketing.

Oh, but it does. It may not be the main way that young teenagers played M-rated games, but you can't tell me that regular marketing doesn't have some sort of effect, just take Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto as examples. Considering that they're on TV, have Internet and print ads up the wazoo, {the ones that care at least} it's kind of hard not for anyone to not notice them, much less kids.

Which most of those ideas from said indie gamers were ripped off from older games, at worst, it's tit for tat.

As usual, your conjecture is baseless.

Not entirely. How many indie games are out there that are clones of old games with the serial number filed off, or do look suspiciously similar enough to tell what it is? I know that not all of them are like this, but there is only so many ideas that they have before we start getting into borderline plagiarism, or the ironic comparison of indie developers creating similar games to whatever is the most popular indie game is, when they accuse AAA developers of doing just that?

No, it was THE EXACT SAME GAME. Not "similar-looking", identical in every way.

Even if it was, people seem to rate both games highly, though I'm sure that you'll probably say that there is some sort of conspiracy instead of just general bias on the reviewers part.

A mistake that shouldn't be brushed over. If I sold you a game that was unplayable and three games that were, would you just say "Oh, that's good enough! Nothing wrong here!" Because, for the purposes of that example, 25% of your brand-new games would be unplayable.

Which is probably why not very many people played with it in the first place, and considering that SimCity's popularity essentially faded in the 90's, the damage that they got wasn't really that bad.

How exactly? Mass Effect had a bad original ending in 3, but other than that, ME was an excellent series overall. It is also worth noting that a lot of the game developers either worked with EA in the past and had success with them, or were on the verge of falling apart, and EA bought them out for cheap.

Plants vs. Zombies 2 was a garden of micro-transactions,

Of which you're under no obligation to buy any of the upgrades any more than the power-ups on Angry Birds. It's not like they're charging you money just to download and play the game without all of the up-grades that would pretty much make the game a cake-walk.

Sonic Chronicles 2 can and will never happen (meaning that the idea will never be executed better than it was),

What does that have to do with anything? Also Sonic Chronicles was pretty much considered an average game overall, and not too many of those games were going to get squeals in the first place.

Battlefield 4 was just an over-hyped explosion-fest.

BF4 wasn't really that bad of a game, though the campaign was a pain in the ass in more ways than one, though it's worth noting that not many people BF for the single-player campaign.

You sound like Mitt Romney. Buying companies that are about to go under may seem benevolent, but it's actually a widely practiced and very sleazy business strategy. EA is saving money by watching companies fall to their deaths before snatching them away at the last second.

Not always. A lot of the time, the reason why companies like them fall apart is because the heads of those compaines are either total idiots who deserve to go under due to their decision-making, or they simply bit off more than they can chew and aren't able to make a profit on their works. I'll give you it's not the most ideal way to buy them out like this, but you must remember that there are a lot of developers work in those studios, and even with the industry that has a high turnover rate with employees, somewhere that provides any sort of stability is huge, even if it is with EA, Activision or wherever else.

Precisely, but unlike you, I'm actively making a sacrifice for my cause. You're sitting on your high horse and throwing your shit in my face with your ad homina.

*buzzer sounds* Wrong. You sound like a martyr without much of a cause, if any. In your case, it's a mix of crying wolf and being like Chicken Little.

Titanfall may have been a great game, but again, I'm making a sacrifice. Meanwhile, you're brushing me off because you think I'm too sanctimonious to handle.

No one is forcing you to buy the game, much less play it. There are tons of other games available that aren't Titanfall, or Call of Duty or anything like that, yet it seems like most of you only want to talk about the games that you don't play or don't care about. Frankly, you're more sanctimonious and disingenuous in anything you have said here than I am, and I don't pretend to be a Chicken Little when it comes to video games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxhs-GLE29Q

Honestly, this person is a dope. He's simply regurgitating the same spiel that you and some others are saying, and trying to pass the buck towards the fans for not wanting innovation in their games. Are you fucking serious? Most fans don't mind or don't care about stuff like this in the first place, because the games are good and they know what they're getting when they play or buy the games. I'm all for innovation, but not at the cost of alienating fanbases of games, which is why they innovate games on a gradual level to see what they can do while keeping the spirit of the franchise.

Also in some cases, it's hard to innovate something when the source material or license has a concrete set of rules and mythos to work with, depending on the entity. {Just about every licensed simulated sports game as an example} How exactly do you work around that?

Hey, the Wii U did exactly what the Virtual Boy did, and now the XBox One resembles the CD-i. I say we're repeating our history here.

Not even fucking close. The Xbox one may had a rough beginning before it even started, but I know that they will get in gear sooner than later, along with Sony's PS4, I don't know how long, but they will. The Wii U, while pretty much resigned to be 3rd in this generation is still going to do far better than the Virtual Boy, which was a colossal failure right off the bat.

I don't know where you get your comparisons from, but I know you suck at making accurate predictions.

Did you not look at the link I posted? Do you not remember the losses Sony suffered because of the PS3 and PSVita? If anything, you're deluding yourself, not I.

They are still going to support the PS4, it's just that most everything else around Sony are going down the crapper. They're aren't going to throw in the towel on their console just yet.

---

At 4/3/14 12:25 AM, orangebomb wrote: Oh, but it does. It may not be the main way that young teenagers played M-rated games, but you can't tell me that regular marketing doesn't have some sort of effect, just take Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto as examples. Considering that they're on TV, have Internet and print ads up the wazoo, {the ones that care at least} it's kind of hard not for anyone to not notice them, much less kids.

I'm just saying that EA has endorsed this practice multiple times; any other company that does it is doing an equally bad deed.

Not entirely. How many indie games are out there that are clones of old games with the serial number filed off, or do look suspiciously similar enough to tell what it is? I know that not all of them are like this, but there is only so many ideas that they have before we start getting into borderline plagiarism, or the ironic comparison of indie developers creating similar games to whatever is the most popular indie game is, when they accuse AAA developers of doing just that?

Sure, there may be many indie rip-offs, clones, and tributes out there, but the Code Wars in particular were a lot more basic than that. Moreover, they were essentially a fly trap for indie game developers' ideas for EA to use later.

Even if it was, people seem to rate both games highly, though I'm sure that you'll probably say that there is some sort of conspiracy instead of just general bias on the reviewers part.

Contrary to your belief, I am actually a reasonable human being. The only reason we've been arguing like this is that you simply haven't presented sufficient reasons for me to believe you. I can see how reviewers' bias may be present here, but why should I be convinced by your argument?

Which is probably why not very many people played with it in the first place, and considering that SimCity's popularity essentially faded in the 90's, the damage that they got wasn't really that bad.

The series has been going for 35 years. If its popularity really did fade so long ago, I find it unlikely that such a franchise can even last that long.

Of which you're under no obligation to buy any of the upgrades any more than the power-ups on Angry Birds. It's not like they're charging you money just to download and play the game without all of the up-grades that would pretty much make the game a cake-walk.

Anything beyond the basic pea-shooter needs to be purchased. That's like handing a soldier a stick, making them pay for guns and bulletproof armor, and saying that they can still do fine without paying a dime.

What does that have to do with anything? Also Sonic Chronicles was pretty much considered an average game overall, and not too many of those games were going to get sequels in the first place.

It has to do with the fact that SEGA was going to make a Sonic Chronicles 2, since the first one ended on an obvious cliff-hanger, but EA bought Bioware and the idea of a Sonic RPG can never come to life again. Admit it, Newgrounds' own Sonic RPG and Final Fantasy Sonic X games were pretty popular. Why allow the potential for an official product like that to be squandered?

BF4 wasn't really that bad of a game, though the campaign was a pain in the ass in more ways than one, though it's worth noting that not many people BF for the single-player campaign.

I find it astounding that a game with single-player and multiplayer places more emphasis on the latter when it is the former that contains the entire story, setup, and character development. What does that say about the Battlefield fanbase?

Not always. A lot of the time, the reason why companies like them fall apart is because the heads of those companies are either total idiots who deserve to go under due to their decision-making, or they simply bit off more than they can chew and aren't able to make a profit on their works. I'll give you it's not the most ideal way to buy them out like this, but you must remember that there are a lot of developers work in those studios, and even with the industry that has a high turnover rate with employees, somewhere that provides any sort of stability is huge, even if it is with EA, Activision or wherever else.

Good game developers and good companies are separate entities entirely. When Atari fell apart, Activision was formed. When Naughty Dog's employees left, they formed BigRedButton (who are working on Sonic Boom). In this case, however, new companies cannot and will not be formed because EA has bought them out, essentially freezing their potential in place.

*buzzer sounds* Wrong. You sound like a martyr without much of a cause, if any. In your case, it's a mix of crying wolf and being like Chicken Little.

I'm trying to do something about a game company that, popular as it may be, practices disagreeable business strategies and marketing tactics. Why is that so wrong?

No one is forcing you to buy the game, much less play it. There are tons of other games available that aren't Titanfall, or Call of Duty or anything like that, yet it seems like most of you only want to talk about the games that you don't play or don't care about. Frankly, you're more sanctimonious and disingenuous in anything you have said here than I am, and I don't pretend to be a Chicken Little when it comes to video games.

That's exactly what I'm saying! There are multiple great games like Titanfall that AREN'T made by a sleazeball of a company, so why do people buy this one in particular?

Most fans don't mind or don't care about stuff like this in the first place, because the games are good and they know what they're getting when they play or buy the games. I'm all for innovation, but not at the cost of alienating fanbases of games, which is why they innovate games on a gradual level to see what they can do while keeping the spirit of the franchise.

Well, then, what about good games that nobody's buying? What about Okami? Shantae? Even some of the newer Contra games? Each of those is well-crafted and well-designed, but they're simply not selling.

Also in some cases, it's hard to innovate something when the source material or license has a concrete set of rules and mythos to work with, depending on the entity. {Just about every licensed simulated sports game as an example} How exactly do you work around that?

It depends. Are you talking about licensed figures in video games or licensed properties that are being adapted into video game form? Think of games like Kung Fu Panda on the DS or Spiderman: Maximum Carnage, which actually improved upon their licensed properties and added their own pinch of creativity.

Not even fucking close. The Xbox one may had a rough beginning before it even started, but I know that they will get in gear sooner than later, along with Sony's PS4, I don't know how long, but they will. The Wii U, while pretty much resigned to be 3rd in this generation is still going to do far better than the Virtual Boy, which was a colossal failure right off the bat.

It's still the same idea. It's just that video game consoles and video games have become easier to market through the Internet and the rise of a greater variety of demographics. Back in the '80s, people didn't want their kids playing video games for fear of rotting their brains, but today, any parent interested in bonding with a child through video games is sure to buy a Wii.

They are still going to support the PS4, it's just that most everything else around Sony are going down the crapper. They're aren't going to throw in the towel on their console just yet.

Of course not, but console sales and company standings are not correlated. Sony's console is selling miles better than Microsoft's, yet the latter company has the best credit rating by far. You know who has the worst? Sony. Not even Nintendo is as bad as Sony right now, even with the Wii U dragging them down.

---

At 3/23/14 06:25 PM, SSLA12 wrote: Do you think there will be a time when most people won't depend on game reviews to get games.
Kinda like stop having the interest of watching a person about game recommendation on the net.
Basically One opinion vs All others.

We had it, now we will forever have this system. I guess you can be an advocate for the "living under a rock association."