I can't play this game and it makes me sad.

(Crytiqal) #21

Most of us who liked previous SD games are STILL playing them.

so i guess their new found fanbase is one of short duration then… ?

(gold163) #22

such is the modern games industry. Buy one $60 game, play it for half a month, move on to the next one.

I’m still baffled as to why people think that’s okay. Personally I’d rather have a game that I can play for years and still remember for years to come. As long as the people buying the games allow that to happen, the people making the games are going to play along.

(zenstar) #23

[QUOTE=gold163;386324]such is the modern games industry. Buy one $60 game, play it for half a month, move on to the next one.

I’m still baffled as to why people think that’s okay. Personally I’d rather have a game that I can play for years and still remember for years to come. As long as the people buying the games allow that to happen, the people making the games are going to play along.[/QUOTE]

Except people are still playing counterstrike and team fortress 2 years later… not to mention borderlands and l4d. Halo and cod get played for years. The whole “they play for a month and then move on” thing is a fallacy. That only happens when the game is short or cannot hold an audience.

(gold163) #24

the fact is this happens often enough for me to consider it a problem. You can pick and choose your examples of what still gets played months later but there are enough counter-examples to that for me to have lost some measure of faith in how games are sold these days. It’s not a fallacy. Not every game is TF2/CS/Halo/CoD. Ubisoft is a great example of a company that likes to pretend their games don’t exist half a year after they’re released, and much of their consumer base follows suit. Furthermore if you’re going to bring Valve’s games into the picture, they’re already popular in the first place thanks to a killer app digital distribution platform/social network that is practically tied to each of their games these days, so they get a lot of promotion, not to mention easy access for customers to sales. As far as online goes, the reason why Halo/CoD succeed is because they have so many installments out. No one installment is “better” than the others since they’re all so similar and so you get fans from every part of the spectrum still playing the games today that they favor. Although once they shut down Xbox Live, you’d be hard pressed to still play some of those online.

So, “they play for a month and then move on” is not a fallacy. If you’re going to say, “that only happens when the game is short or cannot hold an audience,” then I’m going to say, well, that happens pretty often these days. It may have happened just as often in the past, but the number of high-profile, highly advertised games was smaller, games as a medium overall weren’t as mainstream, and we weren’t paying up the ass for them at launch for games filled with promise that failed to live up to the hype. There wasn’t this massive hype machine you see today, and that’s the difference. I can tell you I wouldn’t nearly have been excited for Brink if I had gotten a chance to play it before it came out, which I didn’t and I’m assuming most people who bought the game didn’t.

And now that nobody plays this game, and it’s less than half the price it was at launch? Not to mention the number of hardware problems it has? I don’t have a right to be at least a little bit upset? Because the solution to wasting $50 on one game is, “just move onto the next,” because it’s not like that happens often, right? Whether it happens often or not, I still bought Brink at launch and now I’m stuck with a game that nobody plays but that everybody can still complain about.

(Tatercakes) #25

i think the game was great and intell resently i had fun on it now i cant play it because of a driver prob now i do know it only relay needed was a damn death match system set up why they didnt include it was something we always scratched are heads over shooters need a deathmatch and team death match if it then people wont play them

(gold163) #26

no. you can get deathmatch in any game, and the gunplay in Brink is absolutely not conductive to that gametype. deathmatch would have killed the game FASTER because ET fans would hate it. Brink failed because it didn’t play to its own strengths well enough, like how botched and useless SMART was.

(zenstar) #27

I’m going to say that I don’t fully agree with all your assertions. For example: anyone can use Steam. Valve games do not have a leg up because they use Steam for distribution. The fact that they are fun and well made makes them popular and the fact that Valve continue to support them and add content make them stay popular.
Same (to a certain extent) with Halo and COD. Only instead of adding more content they release another version.

I will agree with you that a lot of games nowadays are brought out purely with cash in mind and the publishers do not support the titles unless they’re wildly profitable. That’s not people playing for a month and moving on because that’s their choice. That’s games only being interesting for a month and that’s the publishers’ / developers’ fault. I think I must have read your statement wrong if this is basically what you mean (since your longer post makes me think this was more your thought line).

I completely agreee that you have a right to complain. Very few games are cutting the mustard nowadays without needed a hefty load of patch work and even then the bitter taste is already firmly lodged in there.

Games are basically becoming akin to fashion accessories that only need to last until the next one is out. But in order to churn them out at that rate the price has to be high and the quality low. Have to lear to stick with the quality publishers who don’t release buggy code and strive for lasting, enjoyable games. I know Bethesda is no longer on that list for me.