I think the BF3 vs MW3 argument is fine because they play differently. I find CoD games to be more fast-paced, if that's the right wording. What I mean is, you tend not to have to be as careful, just faster (when comparing the original MW and BF:BC2).|
In terms interaction methods, I think there is a lot that can be done to remedy the issues he has with this. I don't understand why we can't have a little Wii nunchuck-esk device to go with Kinect. Probably because they'd loose their main marketing line, but it makes perfect sense to me because my living room is smaller that most game levels are supposed to be, so I can't run around very much. The nunchuck was one of the things I liked about the Wii controls.
His arguments about the use of peripherals probably has a cause not too distant from the reason there are masses of similar themed games. It's all about risk Vs. reward for businesses. I know I said that BF3 is different enough from MW3 to allow for nice arguments to arise, but they are still similar enough that some people haven't decided which they want yet...
On to the sequel bashing. The only place where I can see this being a fair point is when things don't change. As much as I loathed Dragon Age 2, I can appreciate the fact that they were trying to make things better for the majority. Granted, the reasons weren't golden, they undoubtedly noticed that the Mass Effect series sold a lot better than Dragon Age: Origins decided they should glue a new face on Mass Effect, but still, it was an attempt at change, albeit a lame one as it just transferred to another franchise. This is what annoyed me BTW, you want Mass Effect, play Mass Effect, I want Dragon Age!
But I digress.
Anyway, changes. The Elder Scrolls series is a crowning example of what I want to say here. Think back to TES: Arena and how things have changed game-to-game (we don't talk about Redguard ;o) ), it's almost like watching the developers slowly realising their original dream as better technology allows them to do more of what they wanted to in the first place. It's brilliant. Randomly generated terrain -> Pre-built environments -> NPCs with jobs and dynamic quests. I like sequels that expand upon what already exists and they are completely justified. I'm not so keen on regurgitations, which is why I barely played Fallout: New Vegas after spending hours playing Fallout 3, more of the same.
The security stuff he's probably right about. I only say that because I've given up hope being a PC gamer, though Ubisoft's "stay online all the time" DRM seems to have faded and I don't see OnLive, or similar systems, taking off until we see broadband speed increases and steadier connections. Having said that, I was a slow adopter of the digital download, which I have now switched to because every game I buy needs registered and can't be sold on anyway.
I kind of agree with the last couple of points, but only so far as gaming has a long way to go in terms of developing. Through my youth (I'm 23 now, played 2D Duke, Cosmo and Commander Keen as child), most new titles touted shiny visuals and, I'll be honest, I lapped a lot of it up.
It's only recently I've been playing games and been...well...bored. The only titles that still grip me are those with immersing world or story lines, good characters etc. They are few and far between and it tends to be moments of immersion rather than consistent experiences. The original Witcher springs to mind. Personally, if games are going to stick with the "What if the world was like this and you were this guy." plan, then writing is something I would like to see focussed on next (if we must do one thing at a time...).
Hmm, I appear to have gone on a bit.
#7574350, By teh_MBK The 6 Most Ominous Trends in Video Games
teh_MBK 197 posts
Seen 5 days ago
Registered 8 years ago