surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Gamers are part of the problem when masses upon masses of people willingly shell out $60 for games like Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2, or Gears of War 2 when neither of them tried very hard at all to do anything new.
You can't blame the masses for the stagnation of the games they buy.
After all, we aren't designers. We are consumers.
It's up to the people who actually MAKE the games to sway public opinion. You can't wait for the public to come up with something new. We have to be fed it.
Has always been that way. Always will be...
After all, we aren't designers. We are consumers.
It's up to the people who actually MAKE the games to sway public opinion. You can't wait for the public to come up with something new. We have to be fed it.
Has always been that way. Always will be...
"Gamers are part of the problem when masses upon masses of people willingly shell out $60 for games like Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2, or Gears of War 2 when neither of them tried very hard at all to do anything new."
Sure, none of those games are very innovative, but all received (more or less) critical praise from the gaming press. Innovation is great, but there are other aspects to quality.
Sure, none of those games are very innovative, but all received (more or less) critical praise from the gaming press. Innovation is great, but there are other aspects to quality.
I think one needs to remember that a lot of "gamers" are not of the thoughtful, devoted variety. I don't mean to sound pretentious, but just because someone enjoys playing Halo or (obviously) Madden 24/7, that doesn't make them a proper hardcore gamer. And it's these simple-minded creatures of habit that are dumbing down the industry with their lists of demands. The Soulja Boys, if you will, who can only see Braid as a Mario clone.
While I think we can definitely blame proper, hardcore gamers too, I think a lot of the blame belongs to the general public.
While I think we can definitely blame proper, hardcore gamers too, I think a lot of the blame belongs to the general public.
I see where you're coming from. We need more people like Johnathan Blow and Jason Paladin/Tom Fulp in the games industry to keep shit fresh.
@notdryad
I don't think you read the article properly. Neither Killzone 2 nor RE5 tried to do anything strikingly new, but part of the problem is that a lot of gamers are expecting certain things to come "as standard", even if those things aren't necessarily needed or wanted. And when they don't get those things, they whine and complain and blame the game for not doing things it didn't want to do.
I don't think you read the article properly. Neither Killzone 2 nor RE5 tried to do anything strikingly new, but part of the problem is that a lot of gamers are expecting certain things to come "as standard", even if those things aren't necessarily needed or wanted. And when they don't get those things, they whine and complain and blame the game for not doing things it didn't want to do.
The problem with Resident Evil 5 is that it doesn't work "perfectly fine" at attaining its stated objective with the controls, which is to be more frightening. The action-oriented, wide-and-bright nature of the game clashes badly with the control scheme.
As for co-op, I agree. Co-op is fun, but it shouldn't be a "required feature" in "FPSs these days," unless you don't have a problem with games sucking ass. Play your average obviously-meant-for-co-op FPS on single player. Doesn't it suck? Here's a hint: it's not your problem, it's the game. If you need a friend to enjoy a supposedly single player game, it isn't very good.
As for co-op, I agree. Co-op is fun, but it shouldn't be a "required feature" in "FPSs these days," unless you don't have a problem with games sucking ass. Play your average obviously-meant-for-co-op FPS on single player. Doesn't it suck? Here's a hint: it's not your problem, it's the game. If you need a friend to enjoy a supposedly single player game, it isn't very good.
I'm not so much talking about not buying games that stick to trends. I'm talking about people who complain when something doesn't.
I can see where you are coming from on this and I totally agree that people tend to gravitate to what they are familiar with.
But as someone who complained a lot about RE5 controls, I can tell you that my complaints are not out of a desire for comfort, nor did I want that game to copy Gears of War controls.
I think one can have a legitimate opinion or criticism of a game if they explain their point of view logically. It doesn't mean that all people who disagree with aspects of a game just want sameness and what they are comfortable with.
I love new ideas in games, and I can also appreciate a game that brings nothing new to the table but is executed well.
A gamer may not always be right. But let's not assume that developers are always right either.
But as someone who complained a lot about RE5 controls, I can tell you that my complaints are not out of a desire for comfort, nor did I want that game to copy Gears of War controls.
I think one can have a legitimate opinion or criticism of a game if they explain their point of view logically. It doesn't mean that all people who disagree with aspects of a game just want sameness and what they are comfortable with.
I love new ideas in games, and I can also appreciate a game that brings nothing new to the table but is executed well.
A gamer may not always be right. But let's not assume that developers are always right either.
Sorry, but the final third of RE5 devolved into a poor man's Gears of War, crappy cover system included. RE5's controls + Gears of War's gameplay is not a good mix.
Damn Capcom, can Chris and Sheva get a dash move or something? Maybe a roll move? I still like RE5 a lot, but the control system still baffles me a bit.
Damn Capcom, can Chris and Sheva get a dash move or something? Maybe a roll move? I still like RE5 a lot, but the control system still baffles me a bit.
Good writeup Jim. I agree totally. Unless we as gamers get away from this sort of mindset can gaming begin to move forward, as well as developers willing to stand their ground.
Video games are just interactive cinema like any other type of medium. There are different types of consumer for the video games. Some use video games as a learning tool, others as an art, it all depends on what the industry is marketing their video games to. Are they marketing towards people who want to have fun? It just so happens that video game companies target those who want to have fun because they can make ALOT of money out of them. There are video game companies that market towards learning education like math blaster games. It's educational and used at schools and it's a profitable too. But it's not as profitable as those who want to have pure fun. There's also Bohemia Interactive which market their video games toward the military with their battlefield simulators. They make a profit as well, but not as much money as those who want have fun. Those who want to have fun make up the BIGGEST type of consumers of video games, because of this, it gives the illusion that gamers are overstandardizing the market. So, I don't believe that gamers are over-standardizing the industry, since there's always different types of video game consumers and there's ALWAYS a need for different types of video games, whether it be for art, story telling, fun, learning, or science.
Also, I think its important to remember that the so called "hardcore" gamers who read dtoid and kotaku and websites like that are the vast majority of gamers. Most people who would call themselves "gamers" know shit about when a game is released or what its about, let alone who Peter Molyneux or CliffyB is. We as hardcore gamers need to help educate the mindless masses who buy World at War solely because its the next Call of Duty without knowing anything else about the game.
Great points Jim. Not every game has to fit what mainstream gamers expect. Although some games don't go as far to make the controls break that 4th wall and help immerse you in the game, rather shitty games just are shitty with shitty controls. It takes balls these days to stick true to what the games experience should be, and in the 2 cases you pointed out it works great. Problem is people don't want to think the developers meant it to be that way and it's easier to say "this shit sucks" than to step back and enjoy something the way it was meant.
...Capcom wanted a deliberately restricted inventory and method of combat in order to raise tension...
UGH! Tension and atmosphere arent excuses for outdated inefficient controls! See: Silent Hill!
UGH! Tension and atmosphere arent excuses for outdated inefficient controls! See: Silent Hill!
When it comes to big-budget titles like Killzone 2, gamers are promised the moon by advertisements and their expectations are raised so high that any single detail they don't like is a fatal flaw. This seems to prevent a lot of people from enjoying games they'd otherwise love, and is one of the many reasons I no longer subscribe to magazines like Game Informer.
Me, I'm the kinda guy who loves weird, rare, and unloved games- Chulip, for example. I do buy the occasional big-budget title (Rock Band 2, Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy), but those are few and far in between. Part of the reason a lot of more unique titles don't do well is advertising, or lack thereof- a lot of people on this site knew about Mirror's Edge, but to Joe Gamer, the name meant nothing. And those are the BIG weird games. Katamari Damacy would have been doomed if it hadn't received so much word-of-mouth advertising, much of it based around trying to describe the concept. It's up to us, the actual 'hardcore' gamers, to inform others about all the weird and wonderful games they're missing out on.
Me, I'm the kinda guy who loves weird, rare, and unloved games- Chulip, for example. I do buy the occasional big-budget title (Rock Band 2, Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy), but those are few and far in between. Part of the reason a lot of more unique titles don't do well is advertising, or lack thereof- a lot of people on this site knew about Mirror's Edge, but to Joe Gamer, the name meant nothing. And those are the BIG weird games. Katamari Damacy would have been doomed if it hadn't received so much word-of-mouth advertising, much of it based around trying to describe the concept. It's up to us, the actual 'hardcore' gamers, to inform others about all the weird and wonderful games they're missing out on.
Its odd that people want innovation, but when a company tries something new (see EA) they lose money for trying something new.On the other hand we are so eager to eat out of the hands of a company delivering the same titles every year and ceasing the production of games that cant be a 10 year franchise.(Im not going to give out any names here)
To be honest with you I didn't mind getting used to the controls for either game. I bought both RE5 and Killzone 2 day one and like most I got used to the controls (killzone 2 took me longer). These games aren't broken by any means, so I don't understand why people complain. I think the people that complain about these game are a select few, the majority that bought or played the game are enjoying it. A game doesn't have to have co-op or multiplayer those are just nice extras. However if you aren't having either of those make sure your single player is amazing. Bioshhock is a good example. And a good example of a game that needs online multiplayer would be killzone 2. A decent single player campaign but the multiplayer makes up for it.
In all seriousness, I believe there is a balance point between breaking new walls and keeping things in games that currently exist. When we can find that balance point where innovations from existing games meet new groundbreaking ideas, then everything will be good. Then we wont have over glorified ports like RE5 and Madden, nor will we have games that are far too drastic jumps from the normal like sans-multiplayer Bioshock for example.
There are games out there that have achieved this balance of old/new and they are great. Games like Half Life 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Devil May Cry 3, heck I'll even throw Dead Space in for good measure.
The problem here Jim isnt that some people want just nothing but sequels. Its just that gamers acknowledge that there are some aspects towards games that simply cant be improved upon any further, and avoiding these high points simply for the sake of saying "we're doing this differently so we are innovative and fresh" is stupid, frustrating, and annoying. It's like replacing hamburger buns with chunks of broccoli. Is bread constantly used all the time? Yes. Is replacing it a smart or innovate idea? No, its stupid.
There are games out there that have achieved this balance of old/new and they are great. Games like Half Life 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Devil May Cry 3, heck I'll even throw Dead Space in for good measure.
The problem here Jim isnt that some people want just nothing but sequels. Its just that gamers acknowledge that there are some aspects towards games that simply cant be improved upon any further, and avoiding these high points simply for the sake of saying "we're doing this differently so we are innovative and fresh" is stupid, frustrating, and annoying. It's like replacing hamburger buns with chunks of broccoli. Is bread constantly used all the time? Yes. Is replacing it a smart or innovate idea? No, its stupid.
I buy games like Zack & Wiki, No More Heroes, Trauma Center, Viewtiful Joe, Shenmue, Shadow of the Colossus, Etrian Odyssey, and Mad World. I'm not part of the problem. ;) (Sarcasm, before people come yelling at me.)
really well written article, my 2 cents - people will bitch and moan regardless of the current industry 'standard' - every game that reached legendary status had a background furor of people bitching about it, and every game will always have this - nothing is ever perfect and we live in a predominantly westernised 'complainer-culture' - that is the source of the problem, people will never stop complaining.
Your article made me think of metroid prime 2. Till this day I can not figure out what made nintendo include multiplayer in a metroid game and then people still complained that there was not any online (it was the cube who honestly had those expectations) Gamers cannot to a point be a satiated and redundantly listening to them is and will stagnant the industry.
I'm noticing (at least initially) here in these posts people are trying to pass the blame, "It's not MY fault I don't like new stuff, publishers are supposed to FORCE FEED ME NEW MATERIAL LIKE I'M A FUCKING CHILD"
That kind of crap is part of the problem, and, while no one expects you to come out and say "yeah, I kind of shun away from games that don't fall into my cookie cutters" it would be nice if you at least entertained the thought. I do.
And to the people who still make the control complaint: I made a comparison between this and Chess (as well as some other games), if you don't like the way the pieces have to move, don't play chess. Go back to Halo.
That kind of crap is part of the problem, and, while no one expects you to come out and say "yeah, I kind of shun away from games that don't fall into my cookie cutters" it would be nice if you at least entertained the thought. I do.
And to the people who still make the control complaint: I made a comparison between this and Chess (as well as some other games), if you don't like the way the pieces have to move, don't play chess. Go back to Halo.
My only beef with Bioshock is the fact that it used mechanics used years earlier by System Shock 2, as well as copying some big plot points. It was still really damn good, but that's always bugged me. Instead of coming up with new stuff, they just copied System Shock 2, and probably because no one who played Bioshock would really know anything about it. I still thought Bioshock to be extremely fun and awesome though. (I'm just stating that as many times as possible before someone goes bananas on me.)
But I also think this is the reason why Bioshock 2 is sort of turning out to be a bit of a cluster so far. It has nothing to copy. I'm really hoping I turn out to be proven wrong, since the whole Big Daddy thing seems like it might suck. I vastly preferred being a hard boiled sleuth fighting Russians in Rapture.
But I also think this is the reason why Bioshock 2 is sort of turning out to be a bit of a cluster so far. It has nothing to copy. I'm really hoping I turn out to be proven wrong, since the whole Big Daddy thing seems like it might suck. I vastly preferred being a hard boiled sleuth fighting Russians in Rapture.
Here's a quote from the developers of the "art" video game The Graveyard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the reactions to the game (gathered from the articles, their comments sections and personal messages), fall into three categories.
Of course there is the expected response of the typical gamers whose desire for zombies whenever they see a cemetery is apparently insatiable. They tended to describe The Graveyard as "boring". Of course.
A little bit up the ladder of human civilisation, we find the people who were turned on by the idea but turned off by the actual experience. They were "disappointed". From what we can see, this was either caused by a failure on our part to maximize the qualities of the game or by certain expectations coming from the player.
Despite the fact that games are supposed to be interactive, many gamers still seem to be incredibly passive when it comes to the meaning of their entertainment. They expect to be spoonfed and don't seem to have any experience with literature, modern theater or fine art (or even art films) which require active participation, not just of thumbs and index fingers but also of heart and brain.
A final type of response was the simply "delighted" one. These people really enjoyed the game. And/or they were happy to see the experimentation that we're doing with the medium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody agrees with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the reactions to the game (gathered from the articles, their comments sections and personal messages), fall into three categories.
Of course there is the expected response of the typical gamers whose desire for zombies whenever they see a cemetery is apparently insatiable. They tended to describe The Graveyard as "boring". Of course.
A little bit up the ladder of human civilisation, we find the people who were turned on by the idea but turned off by the actual experience. They were "disappointed". From what we can see, this was either caused by a failure on our part to maximize the qualities of the game or by certain expectations coming from the player.
Despite the fact that games are supposed to be interactive, many gamers still seem to be incredibly passive when it comes to the meaning of their entertainment. They expect to be spoonfed and don't seem to have any experience with literature, modern theater or fine art (or even art films) which require active participation, not just of thumbs and index fingers but also of heart and brain.
A final type of response was the simply "delighted" one. These people really enjoyed the game. And/or they were happy to see the experimentation that we're doing with the medium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody agrees with that?
jim illustrated my point of resident evil 5 quite well. i was trying to explain to a friend the other day that re5's lack of run and gun abilities and real-time inventory system helps create the tension and fear and adds a more realistic element to the game. in real life running and gunning is highly inaccurate and a huge waste of bullets. the inventory system does the same thing, in real life would the swarm of infected accept a "time out i have to heal myself real quick"or "hold on a second i gotta put some ice rounds in my grenade launcher"? no they wouldn't. there is nothing wrong with resident evil 5 per-say, most of the complaints are from the same people who love the gears of war/halo/resistance style of game, changing both of those elements to the game would have put the game into the action/shooter catagory rather than "survival horror".
in summary, theres nothing wrong with resident evil 5, theres just something wrong with you.
in summary, theres nothing wrong with resident evil 5, theres just something wrong with you.
I don't give a shit about Killzone 2's controls, I think they're fine. What bugs me about the game is the fact that everything about it is so goddamn generic. It's beautiful and it plays well, but I just keep feeling like I've played it before, and can't seem to shake the boredom I feel while playing it.
We accuse the games industry of lacking inspiration, but are we too so uninspired and imaginative that we cannot be pleased with new things ourselves?
For the most part, yes. It's not everyone, but it's the mass majority of gamers out there.
Are we part of the problem?
Absolutely. Look at the history of how people have f'd up MMOs post-release and you'll see exactly what's happening with console gaming now.
For the most part, yes. It's not everyone, but it's the mass majority of gamers out there.
Are we part of the problem?
Absolutely. Look at the history of how people have f'd up MMOs post-release and you'll see exactly what's happening with console gaming now.
You're part of the problem if you think Resident Evil 5 and Killzone 2 are "Bucking the trend".
Are you guys friggin' serious?
Are you guys friggin' serious?
I say it's both ours (the gamers/consumers) and the developers fault. Developers choose to make Gears of Halozone: Guns of the Bio Fantasy XIII because they know its a more financially sound decision, than trying to create something more original and demanding of the player. This is especially if there is even a single risk of monetary backlash. But, that's not all they do. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I feel as if more original ideas and concept are being implemented into games nowadays, than in previous eras. Others might feel different about this because (I believe...) because those titles are easily overshadowed.
Personally, I don't think the videogame industry is becoming over-standardized. We would have to see the steady decrease of these niche IP's for that to be true. I think the opposite is happening, but we are too blinded by the adverts and propaganda that "SoNinSoft" drops for Gears of Halozone: Guns of the Bio Fantasy XIII.
Personally, I don't think the videogame industry is becoming over-standardized. We would have to see the steady decrease of these niche IP's for that to be true. I think the opposite is happening, but we are too blinded by the adverts and propaganda that "SoNinSoft" drops for Gears of Halozone: Guns of the Bio Fantasy XIII.
I wouldn't so much call them "comfortable trends" as I would "proven design elements". Frankly, I wouldn't mind if every shooter controlled as velvety smooth and as accurately as Infinity Ward's CoD engine. That doesn't mean I want every game to be Call of Duty, that just means that I want every game to play so well that it gets out of the way... so that *I* remain my own biggest obstacle to success, not a deficient or poorly designed/tuned control system.
Killzone 2, in my opinion, suffers from the latter. People complain because they don't like they way the game controls (myself included). That's not "fear of change", that's "I don't like the way your fu**in' game feels", and there's a big difference. Guerrilla made the decision to go away from certain standards that FPS players have come to expect, and in doing so, took a chance. Their control system was unproven and untested, and when [many] people got their hands on it, they didn't like it. So okay, "Hooray" for trying something new, but "Boo" for executing it poorly. Is that in any way *our* fault? No. You don't have to give me Call of Duty, but I do expect a game that I *like* to play if you want my sixty bucks.
I don't think it has anything to do with being closed-minded or afraid of change, I think it has to do with gamers' current opinion of what works best in any given application, regardless of "trend" or "frequency of use". For example, Dead Space showed that you can aim AND walk and still do "tension" just fine. Yet here comes Capcom well after the fact, and they've decided to continue restricting the player's movement in RE5... and people don't get it. The envelope's already been pushed *for* them (albeit a very minor, natural design progression), yet they still refuse to adapt. Is that the gamer's fault for wanting more? Or Capcom's fault for... wait for it... being afraid of change?
Killzone 2, in my opinion, suffers from the latter. People complain because they don't like they way the game controls (myself included). That's not "fear of change", that's "I don't like the way your fu**in' game feels", and there's a big difference. Guerrilla made the decision to go away from certain standards that FPS players have come to expect, and in doing so, took a chance. Their control system was unproven and untested, and when [many] people got their hands on it, they didn't like it. So okay, "Hooray" for trying something new, but "Boo" for executing it poorly. Is that in any way *our* fault? No. You don't have to give me Call of Duty, but I do expect a game that I *like* to play if you want my sixty bucks.
I don't think it has anything to do with being closed-minded or afraid of change, I think it has to do with gamers' current opinion of what works best in any given application, regardless of "trend" or "frequency of use". For example, Dead Space showed that you can aim AND walk and still do "tension" just fine. Yet here comes Capcom well after the fact, and they've decided to continue restricting the player's movement in RE5... and people don't get it. The envelope's already been pushed *for* them (albeit a very minor, natural design progression), yet they still refuse to adapt. Is that the gamer's fault for wanting more? Or Capcom's fault for... wait for it... being afraid of change?
The software model of a features checklist is the problem. It's difficult to avoid because as a consumer base we put expected features into our requirements. Things such as online modes, unlockables, cover system, save-anywhere, achievements, 3d graphics, busty women, repetitive enemies, unexplained violence, boss fights, unresolved sequel driven plots, and innumerable other cliches get shoehorned into game designs where they don't belong.
It's all about financial risk - big budgets kill creativity in games. The more stakeholders there are in a game, the more watered down the design will get.
The solution of course is to look to the gems that come out of indie games. The high risk means you are going to see a lot of things you don't want to play, but when the risks pay off we will see some amazing stuff.
It's all about financial risk - big budgets kill creativity in games. The more stakeholders there are in a game, the more watered down the design will get.
The solution of course is to look to the gems that come out of indie games. The high risk means you are going to see a lot of things you don't want to play, but when the risks pay off we will see some amazing stuff.
Who buys a resident evil game and expects gears of halo? Who even complains about it? If you like that game, go play it. I've played Resident Evil since it was first release in my country. I think it feels fine and doesn't need what everyone is complaining about. It could be that when I buy a Resident Evil game I don't expect my character to handle like Marcus Fenix, or Master Chief. I expect them to handle like Jill Valentine and Chris Redfield from the first game. The controls fit the game. I've not played part 3, but I'm sure I won't get angry when my character isn't running while shooting. If I want that, I'll play some Doom, Quake, UT, or even Descent. if I want to defeat some crazy ass monsters and try to survive a zombie/deadly virus outbreak, I'll play Resident Evil.
And about people spending $60 on games... I don't. I always wait until the price goes down somewhat or I can find it used (Unless I'm given a gift certificate). That's too much cash to spend on a game that I may or may not like. It's rare that I run out and buy a new game. When I do it's something I know I would like (MadWorld for instance. I know I would like resident evil 5 but, it's $10 more. If I wait long enough, I can find it cheap on Amazon) I remember a time in my life when I would spend $50 on a game, and get it home, only to find out I basically got ripped off(thank god in the early days Babagges took opened games as a return on another new one). I'm very jaded when it comes to buying games, because I know what it's like to be excited about a new game. I spend the loot, and as soon as I pop it in my system, I'm disappointed in everything from the graphics to the crappy gameplay.
That's one of the reasons I come here. Because I get damn good reviews that seem to not be influenced by Sony or MS owning them.
I get HONEST reviews, and real life feedback from gamers.
And about people spending $60 on games... I don't. I always wait until the price goes down somewhat or I can find it used (Unless I'm given a gift certificate). That's too much cash to spend on a game that I may or may not like. It's rare that I run out and buy a new game. When I do it's something I know I would like (MadWorld for instance. I know I would like resident evil 5 but, it's $10 more. If I wait long enough, I can find it cheap on Amazon) I remember a time in my life when I would spend $50 on a game, and get it home, only to find out I basically got ripped off(thank god in the early days Babagges took opened games as a return on another new one). I'm very jaded when it comes to buying games, because I know what it's like to be excited about a new game. I spend the loot, and as soon as I pop it in my system, I'm disappointed in everything from the graphics to the crappy gameplay.
That's one of the reasons I come here. Because I get damn good reviews that seem to not be influenced by Sony or MS owning them.
I get HONEST reviews, and real life feedback from gamers.
Yeah, it's one of those no-win situations. No matter what you do, there is going to be somebody out there to complain about it.
@SephirothX
I wouldn't call standing to shoot inefficient or outdated, it is merely another form of control.
Also, couldn't agree more Mr.Sterling.
I wouldn't call standing to shoot inefficient or outdated, it is merely another form of control.
Also, couldn't agree more Mr.Sterling.
@unangbangkay
I perfectly understood it, thanks. The fact that people don't like change is exactly why Capcom got away with Resident Evil 5 being merely Resident Evil 4 set in Africa with a few new changes. It's exactly why Epic got away with Gears of War 2 just being Gears of War 1.5 with a few new areas, couple new guns, and some new shades of gray and brown. It's exactly why High Voltage Software can make an utterly generic and derivative game like The Conduit, yet it's treated like it's already the 2009 Wii GotY. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Judging by the excitement and hype for RE5 around here, all I can say is that y'all dug your own grave.
I perfectly understood it, thanks. The fact that people don't like change is exactly why Capcom got away with Resident Evil 5 being merely Resident Evil 4 set in Africa with a few new changes. It's exactly why Epic got away with Gears of War 2 just being Gears of War 1.5 with a few new areas, couple new guns, and some new shades of gray and brown. It's exactly why High Voltage Software can make an utterly generic and derivative game like The Conduit, yet it's treated like it's already the 2009 Wii GotY. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Judging by the excitement and hype for RE5 around here, all I can say is that y'all dug your own grave.
@notdryad
You've played The Conduit already? How'd you get your hands on it? Don't like its generic and derivative gameplay, pass it on. Then we could be the two most fantastically awesome and coolest people ever, since we've played a game that not even reviewers got a taste of. Despite how generic and derivative it is. Because you said it is. Way before release date too. Won't pass it on, you say? Then I guess I'll have to invent a way to dig myself through the earth's core, cuz I'm totally hyped and excited for that game, which I highly regard as a great potential for game of the year 2009.
You've played The Conduit already? How'd you get your hands on it? Don't like its generic and derivative gameplay, pass it on. Then we could be the two most fantastically awesome and coolest people ever, since we've played a game that not even reviewers got a taste of. Despite how generic and derivative it is. Because you said it is. Way before release date too. Won't pass it on, you say? Then I guess I'll have to invent a way to dig myself through the earth's core, cuz I'm totally hyped and excited for that game, which I highly regard as a great potential for game of the year 2009.
follow
