Why COD and Gears are ruining the Game Industry

@Jackie

Yeah right.

You complained about The Expendables 2 being PG-13 so many times, which is no different than what we're doing. Funny how you have no problems with gaming going to a different market, but when it comes to movies it's srs bsns.

I don't see how Gears of War is ruining the industry if it's other developers that are lazy enough to just donwright copy & paste.

I'd rather blame the ones who DON'T try to be original, the ones who downright COPY from Gears of War and blame them instead.

Speaking like a mini Michael Pachter, TRF, "the developer owes nothing to their original fanbase".

I was expecting a smart respone to my and Chobo's retort on page one but he just avoided them and spewed the same "hurr gamers and their self entitlement" BS he's been saying over and over again.

Weak argument.

Mecha wrote:

@Jackie

Yeah right.

You complained about The Expendables 2 being PG-13 so many times, which is no different than what we're doing. Funny how you have no problems with gaming going to a different market, but when it comes to movies it's srs bsns.

You don't seem to understand my argument. I complained about The Expendables 2 being PG-13, but I never acted like I was owed an R-rated Expendables movie. You guys act like I'm solely supporting the corporations. I'm not. I'm saying that as much as you guys hate bro shooters like Call of Duty and Gears of War, millions upon millions of people do. But the game already sucks in your mind, so fuck what those fans want; Call of Duty should just be scrapped 'cuz fuck it. Did you ever think that these generic war shooters that you guys claim ate killing the industry are actually making millions of people happy? No, you didn't, because fuck all the fans that like a game you don't. The industry should only make games that you personally approve of.

Again, for the five millionth time, a studio does not owe anything to its original fan base. Only being allowed to make games for its original fan base and being criticized for moving to a different market is just a gamer's way of making sure that they're always satisfied, no matter what. Guess what? I don't like the fact that Dead Space is becoming a space marine shooter. That sucks in my opinion. But millions of other people are going to enjoy that, so to say that it's "killing the industry" (which seems to be the wording that gamers use when they objectively wanna throw a bitchfit) is just moronic.

And I feel the same way about movies. I can't stand the Transformers series besides the first one, but never have I thought that the series should be discontinued just because I don't like it. The box office numbers don't lie, and a lot of people enjoy those movies, so demanding that they should stop being made for my own personal satisfaction is selfish.

@Jackie

Once again, you're missing the point. We don't care if games like Call of Duty exist. But when developers start changing the formula on an already established franchise for a wider audience, that's when we draw the line. Transformers knew the market it was going for from the very beginning. So obviously it isn't for us.

Mecha wrote:

@Jackie

Once again, you're missing the point. We don't care if games like Call of Duty exist. But when developers start changing the formula on an already established franchise for a wider audience, that's when we draw the line. Transformers knew the market it was going for from the very beginning. So obviously it isn't for us.

Sweet Jesus, Mecha hit the nail on the head.

So basically what you're saying is that a developer is wrong for changing the direction of a series to appeal to a different group. So like, how Dead Space and Dead Space 2 were horror games, it's now wrong for a developer to put Isaac Clarke in a situation that would make the gameplay more action-oriented? No, that's bullshit, that a developer can only take the series in the direction that you want and that they can't evolve a series past what it initially started at to get more people to play their product.

There is nothing wrong with developers wanting to go a different direction. But they shouldn't dumb their games down to try and appeal a certain crowd. Especially when that crowd is the Call of Duty audience. How are we ever going to move forward in gaming if they keep ripping off Call of Duty? People are not that stupid. The original fan base will lose interest in the series and the Call of Duty audience will just stick with Call of Duty. It's not good for us gamers or the industry. Just look at Killzone 3 and Resistance 3, those games were targeted at the Call of Duty audience. But did that make a difference? No. Those titles sold even less than the previous games.

I already addressed Killzone 3 and Resistance 3. Well, Killzone 3 sold over 2 million copies, which is not bad at all. As for Resistance 3, yeah, it didn't sell well, but that's not because it adopted Call of Duty-like game mechanics. How can you blame the gameplay for poor sales if no one played the game?

I didn't feel like Resistance 3 was a COD Clone. Hell, Insomniac listened to fans and brought back heath packs and the Weapon Wheel. The reason it failed was because of poor marketing and crowded release date.

Now Resistance 2 on the other hand, that was a blatant attempt to attract the COD crowd. And yet it sold only half as much as the first.

@Jackie

I'm using them as examples. Also Killzone 3 sold less than Killzone 2. 2 million isn't bad, but it should have sold more considering that it's a sequel and the developers were targeting at the Call of Duty audience. As for Resistance 3, I'm pretty sure a lot of people have played the beta and demo.

In any case, I doubt Insomniac is gonna go the route they did because it didn't pay off and the market didn't appreciate their efforts. They can either try again or move on, but remember that we're the ones buying the game that ultimately is their game to make. It's their vision, not ours.

Also, you don't have to say "@Jackie" in every post. I know who you're talking to.

Mecha wrote:

@Jackie

I'm using them as examples. Also Killzone 3 sold less than Killzone 2. 2 million isn't bad, but it should have sold more considering that it's a sequel and the developers were targeting at the Call of Duty audience. As for Resistance 3, I'm pretty sure a lot of people have played the beta and demo.

People complain about the controls of Killzone 2 so the developers change the controls to modern standards aka L1 to aim down sight instead of R3 but they did give you the options to switch between Killzone 2 controls and Killzone 3. They simply gave what people wanted. Reason why Killzone 2 sold more because it was the first Killzone game to be on a current gen system and it had super duper graphics at that time.

The controllers in Killzone 2 weren't even THAT bad. People just had to get use to them is all. After playing Call of Duty, of course the controllers in Killzone 2 are going to feel a liitle weird. That doesn't mean it's bad, just different. I didn't mind that they changed the buttons in Killzone 3, but they completely made the controllers more casual friendly. If I wanted to play a casual friendly FPS, I would stick with Call of Duty. Sure there's options, but it still isn't the same. This is exactly what Chobo is talking about. And I doubt that Killzone 3 would have sold less if they sticked to the same controllers as Killzone 2.

You really think keeping the clunky controls of Killzone 2 would have helped Killzone 3 sell more?

Halo set the control standards for console FPS not Call of Duty and Killzone 2 controls simply didn't fit into that modern standard what you would expect in a FPS. Theres that attitude again the whole "If I wanted to play that, I would rather play this instead" like the recent Metal Gear topics. Even tho they fit in the same genre but they are completely different games with a different audience in mind. Killzone 3 sold less simply because it didn't have like long waited hype which Killzone 2 had.

Saying "if I wanted to play that, I'd play this instead" is the same as saying, "I don't want the game to be this way so it should change for me specifically."

Nice, Mecha.

cinemajack is a reverse hipster

@Jackie

I never said it would sell more. What I meant was it wouldn't make a difference.

@Padders

Well I don't have an Xbox 360, so I used Call of Duty as an example instead of Halo. Yes, Killzone 2 controllers didn't fit with the modern standard, but it was different. Being different doesn't mean it's bad. Also I brought Killzone 2 because it was different like you said. It was a game I prefer the most because it wasn't copying Call of Duty like most FPS titles out there. Which Jackie Boy seems to fail to understand. And again, Killzone 3 SHOULD have sold more considering that more people have PS3s now and the casual friendly controllers.

CoD is one of the cancers of gaming, yet it's also the only game franchise Activision have that is good. They ruined Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and Spyro and put out 1 game per year to whore their consumers. For CoD to die Activision must die. Simple as that.

I like your plan, Kendo.

It's simple: we kill the Kotick.

TheCinemaJack wrote:

I like your plan, Kendo.

It's simple: we kill the Kotick.

And exactly how do we do that, TRF?

Duke wrote:

TheCinemaJack wrote:

I like your plan, Kendo.

It's simple: we kill the Kotick.

And exactly how do we do that, TRF?

I'm the general of this operation, as in, get the general plan out there and let my grunts fill in the details. :fuckthat:

I guess you don't get my reference to The Dark Knight.