TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- When you buy a game, what do you look at?

When you buy a game, what do you look at?

I think it's bullshit that I have to pay $64.99 for NHL 08 when all they did was tweak the gameplay a bit, and make a 'practice' mode.

What the hell? It probably takes a month of hard work and they just wait until the end of the season to get a roster update to put on the disc (another thing that's bullshit is they havn't even released a new roster online...and its already a month into the season). Also, they have the same shitty songs, and the same play by play as they do in NHL 07.

complete gayness.

Furthermore...

Guitar hero 3.

probably takes an hour to do the programing for each song, and the graphics are weak and lame....i mean they're still using 2D sprites for lamps. That's DOOM technology ffs.

Just because the game is "FUN" doesn't give it the right to charge the same price as the games that take years and years to make.

Guitar hero 3 and NHL should be a low $39.99

/my rant

Positives about PC gaming: You can save money on the shitty games through p2p.



Disclaimer: I buy the games that deserve my money

Well, ive been gaming for 26ish years now, so im really only interested in games that bring a whole lot of newness to a genre (supreme commander) or exemplify how a genre should be done (bioshock). I certainly steer clear of the franchise games, yuk! Have played far too many games to fall in love with any new rendition with slightly better graphics. Especially when I grew up with a C64!

And im STILL waiting on a modern tie fighter-like space battlefest! Fvck, its 11+ years now. Someone make a space sim ffs.

Games to look out for on PC that fit the above criteria imo:

Supreme commander: forged alliance (next week, woohoo!)
Sins of a solar empire (feb 2008)
Alone in the dark (TBA 2008)
Spore

Its getting harder and harder (and more expensive) to make "new" games, so save your cash for the titles that really shine. Its like voting for your favourite developer

I hear ya on that one. The industry has shaped itself so that its become near impossible for a company to gain a real profit off brand new material, because its just too risky to release something 'unique' to a crowd when it doesnt have Mario or Master Chief on the cover. Plus, companies are greedy bastards, just like people. They see that adding a new year on the end of a title 5 years old will be considered a new title altogether in the eyes of a casual gaming audience. I'm actually surprised Bioshock did so well, but maybe thats moreso related to the rave reviews it received, which therefore became good word of mouth. Like pkc said, thats a game thats deserving of a purchase.

This is why Electronic Arts' offices should be burned to the ground, seeing as how they are practically the pioneers of multiplatforming every franchise possible and turning it into a mundane piece of shit with "good production values." Ubisoft is catching up.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Well, ive been gaming for 26ish years now, so im really only interested in games that bring a whole lot of newness to a genre (supreme commander) or exemplify how a genre should be done (bioshock). I certainly steer clear of the franchise games, yuk! Have played far too many games to fall in love with any new rendition with slightly better graphics. Especially when I grew up with a C64! And im STILL waiting on a modern tie fighter-like space battlefest! Fvck, its 11+ years now. Someone make a space sim ffs. Games to look out for on PC that fit the above criteria imo: Supreme commander: forged alliance (next week, woohoo!) Sins of a solar empire (feb 2008) Alone in the dark (TBA 2008) Spore Its getting harder and harder (and more expensive) to make "new" games, so save your cash for the titles that really shine. Its like voting for your favourite developer

holy fuck...how had i not heard about this game?
just watched a half hour thing from some convention of will wright talking about it and demoing it
god damn it looks amazing

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 This is why Electronic Arts' offices should be burned to the ground, seeing as how they are practically the pioneers of multiplatforming every franchise possible and turning it into a mundane piece of shit with "good production values." Ubisoft is catching up.

very true. its sad seeing a company that used to be a publisher of new, interesting games in the state theyre in currently. when i was a kid and i saw a game with EA on it, it meant quality. fuck, populous 2 was brilliant, and imo a better strategy game on a console than anything released by sony or microsoft.

its like anything tho- books, music, tv shows- there's a lot coming out and most of it isn't terribly good. piracy obviously doesn't help either.

and yeah mezzir, spore looks interesting. if they ever get it done. its EA or sierra thats running things there i think? i hate sierra ever since they cancelled their B5 space sim that was going to revolutionise the genre. cvnts.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN And im STILL waiting on a modern tie fighter-like space battlefest! Fvck, its 11+ years now. Someone make a space sim ffs.

I HOPE you've played Freespace and Freespace 2

Welp, looks like everyone here's got it covered... though anyone who's in this thread complaining yet also owns a copy of Halo 3 should be shot in the face.

Welcome to the future, folks - the casual gamers are where the money is made, so no one gives a fuck about what those of us who actually care about innovation and quality have to say.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN very true. its sad seeing a company that used to be a publisher of new, interesting games in the state theyre in currently. when i was a kid and i saw a game with EA on it, it meant quality. fuck, populous 2 was brilliant, and imo a better strategy game on a console than anything released by sony or microsoft. its like anything tho- books, music, tv shows- there's a lot coming out and most of it isn't terribly good. piracy obviously doesn't help either.

Agreed 100%. General Chaos and Road Rash were classics as well. Then right around the late 90's/early 2000's, with all the money they made with Madden and such, they began snapping up all the other 3rd party companies they could find and turning their games into franchises. I DO want to say that there is an occasional EA hit that comes along that I have fun with, but the game usually isnt anything new or creative, and thats what this industry needs.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Welcome to the future, folks - the casual gamers are where the money is made, so no one gives a fuck about what those of us who actually care about innovation and quality have to say.

Hate to say it, but you are correct, sir. I'm guessing its because of the improved technology that game development costs shot through the roof, forcing companies to resort to recognizable franchise names for the casual gaming crowd to drool over so they could make their money back. I want more LittleBigPlanet, more Spore, more games without numbers at the end of them.

Re: When you buy a game, what do you look at?

quote:

Originally posted by BTG I think it's bullshit that I have to pay $64.99 for NHL 08 when all they did was tweak the gameplay a bit, and make a 'practice' mode. What the hell? It probably takes a month of hard work and they just wait until the end of the season to get a roster update to put on the disc (another thing that's bullshit is they havn't even released a new roster online...and its already a month into the season). Also, they have the same shitty songs, and the same play by play as they do in NHL 07. complete gayness. Furthermore... Guitar hero 3. probably takes an hour to do the programing for each song, and the graphics are weak and lame....i mean they're still using 2D sprites for lamps. That's DOOM technology ffs. Just because the game is "FUN" doesn't give it the right to charge the same price as the games that take years and years to make. Guitar hero 3 and NHL should be a low $39.99 /my rant

it is my understanding that games are quite expensive to produce these days and even tho one game could possibly sell for less, it is quite risky for the publisher since so many games these days simply do not make their money back. And believe me it takes much more than just a months of hard work to put out a title. You could even put in a years hard work and get a shitty title. I think with the graphical quality nowadays and the attention of detail developers are putting into games these days, gamers are getting a bargain. If you do not like the game then don't support that company with your dollars. but for most titles out there the developer might just get only 30% of each title sold...the rest going to the publisher, retailer, etc

I agree however EA has not been doing their fans and customers a service by rehashing out the same product essentially year after year.

It's pretty simple:

Despite trying to minimize risk by avoiding innovative concepts in favor of rehashing previous successes, major game developers typically lose money on more than half of the games they publish. Why? Because making modern games with "good" 3D graphics is hugely expensive. That means they have to recoup those losses somewhere, and make a profit to boot, just to remain in business. They do this with primarily two types of games: massive hit games that bring in extremely high sales, and games which recycle enough previous development that they cost much less to make than most games.

Competition between developers to push the boundaries of graphics has all but killed gaming, so what I usually look for is a game with bad graphics - any game developed outside of that paradigm is much more likely to be fun than one developed within it.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter any game developed outside of that paradigm is much more likely to be fun than one developed within it.

I agree with the majority of what you wrote, but unfortunately I don't see how a game developed outside of that paradigm is automatically more likely to be fun than one developed within it.

Shit games come in all colors and sizes.

I do, however, agree that this push to maximize technical aspects of games over actual gameplay in concert with the desire to appeal to the lowest common denominator at all times is what has made the vast majority of what is released every Tuesday utterly unplayable, which is an absolute shame.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I agree with the majority of what you wrote, but unfortunately I don't see how a game developed outside of that paradigm is automatically more likely to be fun than one developed within it.

It's the same way I know I'm more likely to enjoy the music on CD not filed under "country" than one filed under "country." It could very well suck either way, but I know it's especially rare that I'll find something I could tolerate in the country section.

"Automatically" might be a bit strong, but if I purchased twenty games with good graphics, and twenty games with below average graphics, I'd be pretty confident I'd enjoy more of the latter than the former - though there would certainly be some of the former that are better than some in the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by THE_Chris I HOPE you've played Freespace and Freespace 2

i bought freespace 2, it was excellent, but still not particularly "epic" like tie fighter was. not enough ships. i loved the missile trails though

I buy the games that I like, and deserve my money.

When buying a game, You should go to sites like Gamespot.com IGN.com or Gametrailers.com and check out there reviews for it. Also when it comes to PC games, Be sure to read about the system requirements before you buy, If your system is not within the minimum or recommended requirements, You will not be able to play that game. Theres a site where you choose the game and it will analyze your system to see if its capable of running it.
http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srl

I look for something that is fun..that won't require me to become an absolute expert on the game and devote my life to it. So in some sense, I like games that have some depth (RPGs) but still are fun to play (action-RPGs like Diablo). I also like games that are immersive but not so totally immersive that you need to be there a lot (Everquest, WOW..MMRPGs in general). I really liked the original Unreal, because it wasn't so scripted (not really scripted at all) like Unreal 2 and a lot of newer games are. I'm not necessarily playing a game like watching a movie (I think Half Life kind of is a movie-game...scripted, cinematic etc) where the original Unreal, Doom, Quake etc...felt more like you were actually there...in the environment rather than their sequels (or the third or fourth games..Doom and Quake for example) where it had cut-scenes, voice acting etc. Too much of that and it doesn't feel truly immersive...you kind of are watching the game rather than playing it or experiencing it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.