Ugh... the most frustrating type of person to debate with is the type that redacts everything they bloody say in the first place. You DID say those things. I think the person that needs to go back and read your posts is YOU.
Sigh. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea what Sony and Microsoft have been/are focusing on. Do you work for them or something? Are you in on the developer sessions and corporate emails? You have no idea. Just because a game comes out with fantastic graphics on one of their systems doesn't mean it was their focus, it just means their machines are powerful enough to output high-quality graphical fidelity. As far as their actual "focus," you literally have no idea.
And to (ugh) touch on the "dudebro" thing again, you do realize some of the most popular, "mature" shooting games that have millions of players ("dudebros," by some of your estimations) are wicked old by this point and have relatively simple graphics? On the PC, CounterStrike is still the go-to shooter, along with crazy old stuff like Unreal Tournament. Millions of "dudebros," horrible graphics. But yet, here are many of you purporting that graphics are the bedrock of what makes "dudebro" games. You guys are creating your standards and calculations in a bubble - this is so silly. That's the problem with stereotypes.
You can't do this kind of thing, end of story. So once again, and to actually get back to the topic, Nintendo focuses on gameplay in their E3 reveals because they have a smaller number of games coming out and can afford to do so. Sony/Microsoft have way more games and roughly the same amount of time to talk about them. That, generally, equals settling for trailers and quick demos from developers during their big stage presentation. But sit down with them afterwards on "the floor" of the show, and you'll get just as much gameplay explanation from those games.
I have no idea what "dudebro" actually means. But if we're talking about a certain demographic that each respective console is trying to cater to, there can be no denying that PlayStation and Xbox are vying for the same demographic while Nintendo is not. Nintendo decided to not engage in the arms race past the GCN era because they saw it as a failure. Since then, it has been Sony and Microsoft going at each other in that sense.
When a game uses its visuals to make up for lack of gameplay, lack of quality, story, etc., that is a shame. However, it's a trend that is happening right before us. Let's not kid ourselves, the majority of games are marketed as "look at the awesome new graphics". Now, great visuals does not mean a game is automatically lacking in gameplay or storytelling, or any of the things that make a game good (great graphics do not make a game good). One can have a great-looking title that is a good game, but one can't have a good title that has bad gameplay.
I don't think anyone can argue that the marketing trends are leaning towards a certain demographic that prefers the latest and greatest visuals over gameplay. That doesn't mean these people do not also enjoy gameplay, but when purchasing a game, gameplay is not their main focus. It seems to appear that gameplay is more of a happy accident these days.
There's a reason why so many heavily marketed games, with incredibly robust budgets have gotten criticized heavily by the media and fans alike. Some people are speaking out, but when those games still sell like crazy, money speaks. And the money says "Hey, as long as we advertise with awesome CGI movies, maybe team up with Taco Bell and give away our game if you buy a chalupa, we can sell millions of copies of our crappy game, because people will get it as long as it looks good."
I mean, that demographic exists. it's vocal and boisterous and buys yearly iterations of certain franchises no matter what. As long as that demographic exists, certain companies will continue to market to them, and they will continue to give them what they want. This is a business, after all.
This is the first on-topic post we've had for the last 2 and half pages...and arguably one of the best posts in the thread. Better late than never.
I have no idea what "dudebro" actually means. But if we're talking about a certain demographic that each respective console is trying to cater to, there can be no denying that PlayStation and Xbox are vying for the same demographic while Nintendo is not. Nintendo decided to not engage in the arms race past the GCN era because they saw it as a failure. Since then, it has been Sony and Microsoft going at each other in that sense.
When a game uses its visuals to make up for lack of gameplay, lack of quality, story, etc., that is a shame. However, it's a trend that is happening right before us. Let's not kid ourselves, the majority of games are marketed as "look at the awesome new graphics". Now, great visuals does not mean a game is automatically lacking in gameplay or storytelling, or any of the things that make a game good (great graphics do not make a game good). One can have a great-looking title that is a good game, but one can't have a good title that has bad gameplay.
I don't think anyone can argue that the marketing trends are leaning towards a certain demographic that prefers the latest and greatest visuals over gameplay. That doesn't mean these people do not also enjoy gameplay, but when purchasing a game, gameplay is not their main focus. It seems to appear that gameplay is more of a happy accident these days.
There's a reason why so many heavily marketed games, with incredibly robust budgets have gotten criticized heavily by the media and fans alike. Some people are speaking out, but when those games still sell like crazy, money speaks. And the money says "Hey, as long as we advertise with awesome CGI movies, maybe team up with Taco Bell and give away our game if you buy a chalupa, we can sell millions of copies of our crappy game, because people will get it as long as it looks good."
I mean, that demographic exists. it's vocal and boisterous and buys yearly iterations of certain franchises no matter what. As long as that demographic exists, certain companies will continue to market to them, and they will continue to give them what they want. This is a business, after all.
Why isn't there like button for forum posts? Or in general?
Because I really want one now.
Your post reads very nicely and, like the others above me, I want to hop on board and say, "Yay! I agree! Thumbs up!" But there are parts that are just parroting what you hear circulated on the internet. One part in particular really irked me:
"It seems to appear that gameplay is more of a happy accident these days."
I have to disagree. A lot. There are plenty of new games coming out for either of the three current consoles that have new, unique gameplay elements; some even include elements that are completely revolutionary - never done before (ZombiU, I would even argue for the Tomb Raider isometric twins, as well). How quickly we seem to forget the past. I mean, gosh, think back to the Genesis/SNES days. Talk about samey gameplay and little innovation! It was literally platformer after platformer, RPG after RPG, ad nauseum and very little real gameplay innovation aside from a few stand-out titles.
I really don't think much has changed in terms of the games, but I DO agree with you that EVERYTHING has changed in terms of the marketing of said games and consumption of these games. We rip through games faster than ever, spread opinions fast than ever (thanks to the internet), and are more and more jaded due to the instant wealth of knowledge at our fingertips. Back in the Genesis/SNES era (I didn't own a Genesis), I had no idea what something like Golden Axe was because I didn't have that console and didn't subscribe to Sega magazines. But now, even if I don't own a PS4 or Wii U, I can go on the internet and pretend I'm a pro at judging quality and gameplay from some Youtube videos and forum posts, and eventually come to some pretty outrageous conclusions.
@rallydefault Now might not be any better than 3rd and 4th gen, but it still pales in comparison to 5th, 6th, and Nintendo's 7th gen. That was when we got some huge innovations like 3D and motion controls which drastically changed the industry and paved the way for new gameplay styles. Also, there wasn't as much as a clear domination of genres then (a lot of developers did experiment with 3D platformers, but they didn't dominate the market nearly as much as other eras of gaming) and even the most popular IPs experimented with their gameplay, even in 6th gen when there was no innovation to speak of. Definitely the golden age for this industry (or at least for gamers).
I'm not really clear on numbering of the generations, so I can't really say much to that unless I sit down and do some research; I usually just refer by the machines out at the time. But I agree with your points about 3D and motion control.
I'm not really clear on numbering of the generations, so I can't really say much to that unless I sit down and do some research; I usually just refer by the machines out at the time. But I agree with your points about 3D and motion control.
5th gen = N64, Saturn, and PS1
6th gen = GC, DC, PS2, and Xbox
7th gen = Wii, PS3, and 360
The irony being that Jak and Daxtar and Rachet and Clank both being games where the player uses platforming to traverse the world and kill enemies with guns of various type.
Yet Sunset Overdrive is dudebro
Dudebro is a form of setting to aim your game at an audience (Like retro, or photo-realism).
"I'll take a potato chip... AND EAT IT!"
Light Yagami, Death Note
"Ah, the Breakfast Club soundtrack! I can't wait 'til I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff!"
Phillip J. Fry, Futurama
Because Sony and Microsoft want to sell you style* over substance*, where Nintendo tries to sell the substance over the style.
Both are successful and unsuccessful in their own ways for varying reasons.
When the majority of games lack any real substance, quality gameplay does become a happy accident. Most games follow tried and true formulas, because it's safe. I'm not even interested if gameplay is innovative or not, as long as it's a focus. There's nothing wrong if you're a huge shooter fan and that's all you play. If that's the type of gamer you are, that's fine. But there's a HUGE difference in a game like Skyrim and CoD. And I don't just mean in genre.
But developers don't innovate as often anymore because that's not what fans want. The majority, or at least the most vocal of subgroups, are fine with yearly iterations. I believe it's because the average gamer reflects a disturbing trend in society in general, which can be described by a lack of attention span, instant gratification, and a few other things, which I won't get into because I don't want to turn this into another psych/socio/philosophy discussion (I already derailed one earlier).
sony gameplay = get angry, drink red bull and shoot teh bad guys
microsoft gameplay = get angry, drink red bull and shoot teh bad guys
not hard to remember
I don't think I'd go as far as to blame Sony and Microsoft themselves. It's the publishers. They're the ones that decide what games go on which platforms, and they're the ones that have shoehorned those qualities onto the respective consoles. There's no reason why the Wii U couldn't have games that make you angry and shoot stuff while you drink a Mountain Dew or a Red Bull. But publishers decided that the Nintendo audience isn't that type of audience and Sony's and MS's are.
It's basically the same problem that Hollywood is having. We are seeing fewer big budget original movies because they do not sell as well as reboots, adaptations, etc.
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
"When the majority of games lack any real substance" - but that's exactly where I disagree with you. I don't think it's something we'll really convince one another to change our minds on, though, but I do think you are being very narrow in your judgments, or maybe you just don't have access to a lot of games across all platforms.
Thank you for the list. I would agree that this gen pales when contrasted to 6th gen (absolutely AWESOME age of gaming, in my opinion), but I would argue that it does hold its own against the others.
The more likely reality is that I have a very different definition of "substance" than you.
While substance is subjective, it's useless to talk about it unless you layout what your definition of substance is. Clarify, man.
What's the point? He just said that we're not going to change each other's minds. In fact, it's not even my intention. To be honest, I don't care what he thinks or what he considers substance or lack thereof. I was never trying to convince him. I don't know him or anything about him (he could be the nicest person in the world for all I know), but I think it speaks volumes that a person who does not own a system comes into a dedicated message board to argue with people who are obviously fanatics of the company the message boards discusses.
I'm simply speaking of marketing trends and the tendencies of today's society. I feel that the majority of games today lack substance because people have shorter attention spans, and do not take the time to enjoy a full game like they used to. This is why phone games are becoming so popular. You can spend 5, 6 minutes playing CandyCrush, while your order is ready at whatever fast-food place you frequent, and you've lost nothing. You didn't spend any time playing that you wouldn't have spent waiting anyways. Sitting and playing a game like Xenoblade Chronicles, Skyrim, or even Zelda, however, is a commitment for that day. You can't "casually play" those games; at least not if you're trying to accomplish anything in them.
Most people either do not want to make that commitment, or simply can't make that commitment. Which is why the average game today has to rely on fast action, flashy visuals, and the like, to capture the attention of gamers. When they announced that Xenoblade Chronicles X could take up to 300 hours to fully complete, how many people groaned and moaned? Who has time for that anymore? I mean, I love that the game is that deep, but I'm in the minority, man.
Why do you think crap like Twitter and Vine exist? People don't want to take the time to read a long post or watch a long video. You have 15 seconds, and I'm either hooked or I'm not. And if I'm not, I'm outta here.
Because of this, I stick by my statement that games lack substance. They can be fun without it. I played the crap out of Saints Row 1 & 2, and those games were as shallow as they come. Same with Gears of War. I really had fun with them, but they were short and shallow. No character development, no real gameplay innovation, no real story, but I still enjoyed it for what it was. But to say that those games — as fun as they are — have substance? Nah.
What's the difference between older generations any now? Because a lot of games over the years didn't really require that kind of stuff you define as substance. That's where I'm confused. Most games in general don't really meet that criteria. Not to say your definition is bad, of course, simply saying that I don't think you have the timeline quite in perspective.
"I don't know him or anything about him (he could be the nicest person in the world for all I know), but I think it speaks volumes that a person who does not own a system comes into a dedicated message board to argue with people who are obviously fanatics of the company the message boards discusses."
...
I own all of the current-gen systems (including Wii U... almost every darn game released for it, too), and a gaming PC. I've stated that a few times in this thread. Also, this "substance" thing wasn't even mentioned until your last post, so I don't know why you seem to be getting so heated over it out of the blue. I haven't even typed that word in any of my responses yet. Give other people a chance to respond before you start assuming their answers, man!
Forums
Topic: At E3, why does Nintendo explain gameplay more than Sony or Microsoft?
Posts 101 to 120 of 126
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.