Amadeo Plaza of Gamer 2.0 writes:
"The 2008 NPD figures came out yesterday, and it's clear that the gaming industry has no intentions of slowing down its tremendous rate of growth. With sales up 19 percent from last year, it's no surprise that people are starting to look up and take notice of an industry that has long resisted the downturn of the economy. The Wii is largely responsible for the amount of growth that the industry has seen, and as a result of that, there has been a dramatic shift of focus to an emerging audience within the community: "casual" gamers."
Talal writes: "I'm talking about having that rush of excitement - that feeling you get when you know you've just made a memory for a lifetime."
There are different games. Some have gamplay at it highest priority, some have the story, some have the replay value and choices... There are a lot of different game experiences.
It is laughable that just now graphics does not have anything to do with that experiene. We have had many games of that type over time. This is just the one that have come closest to feel like playing an actual movie. Just look the the Digital foundry walkthrough it is a masterpiece in that perspective and hence wrth trying. But yes do not do it for the gameplay - but that was never the goal of this experience.
It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!
Pretty much my thoughts. They were technical marvel's on PS and still are. The moment Xbox puts out a graphically intense game is doesn't matter suddenly.
4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. Glad to finally see it in its glory.
FFS, gaming journalism has really gone downhill. At least hire people with a basic grasp of grammar... "Me neither" means the exact opposite of what the "author" is trying to say. That's like saying "I could care less"... lol.
Maybe because the gameplay being dull allowed it to have the amazing graphics and people are not as impressed by graphics alone anymore? I mean there is a lot of sites saying the story and the gameplay are lackluster. So what are we supposed to enjoy then? Cgi graphics are beautiful but since they arent interactive, they dont impress me as much as they used to. Thats an extreme example, but you get my drift.
When Playstation (Sony) does it..its usually a great game and not a cinematic experience..or at least something new at the time..like Until Dawn back in 2015.
@gamer:” It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!”
The game looks as good as any other PlayStation game in my eyes why can’t you and the other hardcore Xbox be happy about it and drag PlayStation into every conversation and force PlayStation hardcore to look into the game and find flaw that most games have in one way or another.
@light: “ 4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. ”
Yes at that time it was only possible on PlayStation SSD how ignorant of you to think that after 4 years the technology wouldn’t evolved and move to a industry standard 🤦🏿I wish your mentality wasn’t so naive and narrow to post stuff like that 😩 in a year or 2 a new game will come out that might look better, it’s the nature of the industry.
Now that the distraction is gone I feel that is a good thing that the graphics in games are starting to hit the rooftop and hopefully the developers will put more thoughts into story and gameplay mechanics than just the next shiny oily skin of old.
So true. Not surprised by all the negativity. It's a really good game and looks better than any game I've ever seen. GOTY nominee for sure. Like I said before, sony screwed up big time by not purchasing Ninja Theory.
Pretty much. It's like how the Switch and Steam controller using haptic feedback in their controllers wasn't a big deal but then Sony did it and it was then a "game changer".
The game runs at as low as 21fps... That isn't much to brag about no matter how good it looks.
We've had graphical gamechangers before, such as Crysis but those games still had gameplay to compliment it. Hellblade pretty much has none, and only achieved such graphics through being incredibly linear and having very small, closed off environments where very little is happening.
GFX does not mean anything if the game is boring. It is simple like that and these major companies need to understand this simple concept.
Games are like your lady, she may be beautiful to look at for a while but then it gets boring if her character isn't interesting and fun to be with.
Replies(7)
I agree and I actually think Forbidden West looks better than Hellblade 2. I easily prefer looking at it at least.
It does look better in my opinion as well. I don't know why it looks better but there's something about the Decima engine or that guerrilla games is using tricks that we don't know of
Can you fly a mount under water in Hellblade 2? I think not! One of the best moments this Gen
They don't make games like this anymore.
Too dated in my book. The AI is way too unpredictable to be acceptable today. It's definitely a game of its time.
Agreed with those sentiments. The quality of the CPU controlled characters make or break a stealth game and they are pretty poor in all the Splinter Cell games by today's standard. This is what led me to playing Spies vs Mercs all the time in later games just to get a better stealth experience from a real person. Arguably Sony are making better stealth games albeit not Tom Clancy stuff.
You should stick with fortnite or one of the countless bloodborne style games then. What a joke.
I had a good time with the game. It is a product of its time. But when it came out it was a must have game for a lot of people. I wish Ubisoft would make another game in the series or at least a reboot.
They are making a remake, I think. I loved the original game when it was released, but I tried to play it again in recent years and just couldn't get on with it. The same with the older Hitman games.
Yeah chaos theory still holds up though I gotta say. If you’re a fan of the series I highly suggest you go back to that one. Ubi has said they are remaking sc for “modern audiences”. I don’t have a lot of faith for the future of that company
Due to the lack of modern stealth games, and me constantly playing the MGS series, I've been looking for alternative stealth games to play, and went back and re-played the SC series recently. I wouldn't call SC1 or SC:PT masterpieces, there are AI issues, they're very much trial-and-error games, and that can lead to a lot of frustration. I also found the stories in this series to be boring, uninteresting, and just sloppily told. Cinematics are also of poor quality for both in-game scenes and CG cut-scenes, the soundtrack didn't leave any impression on me either.
Chaos Theory is better, but there was still a lot of room for improvement, and Double Agent (old gen ver.) was a sloppy mess that ended up a regression from CT. But still, at least they tried back then, these days Ubi-junk doesn't even try to make good games!
Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnessacery Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games.
Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnecessary Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games, they just weren't 100% focused on stealth with Conviction and they remedied that in Blacklist. The only thing they have released recently that I was disappointed with was Watch Dogs Legion, and Skull & Bones. Everyone seems to be salty about the misleading trailer for the original Watch Dogs and The Division. Which are also, both good games, and actually Watch Dogs seems like it was ahead of its time even with all the trailer drama (having gone back and played recently, can say the game didnt deserve all the flak). Yeah the misleading E3 trailer that had better graphics than release is understandable to a very small degree, when most Teaser Trailers, or Game Demo's only have that portion of the game developed so they use the highest quality assets of w/e they have being showed, or what they are showing was made purely for the showing, allowing for extra polish . As to the gripes about minor game design changes, or cut features upon a games release just goes to show how unknowledgeable most gamers are in terms of how game development works or to even understand what what the hell a WIP, let alone titles still in early development.
Good games from Ubi since 2014 (Year that SC Blacklist Released) include:
Watch Dogs 1 & 2
The Division 1 & 2 (Although I had a hard time getting into The Division 2 at first)
R6 Siege
Ghost Recon Wildlands & Breakpoint
Immortals Fenyx Rising
AC Origins, Odyssey, MIrage (Haven't finished Valhalla games too damn long)
Far Cry Primal, and 5 (6 also has a length issue)
Avatar Frontiers of Pandora
Prince Of Persia The Lost Crown
Haven't played a couple of titles those being For Honor (played at launch but didn't honestly give it an actual go), The Crew, R6 Extraction and at the time of writing this xDefiant.
Even if you absolutely hated any of the above titles, they aren't inherently bad games, they're just good, but not always top quality either.
I say give Ubi credit where credit is due, they at least fix games post launch if they start out rough, Breakpoint is an excellent example this and is such an enjoyable experience now compared to it's launch.
Skewed and Reviewed have written an Opinion Piece covering issues in the gaming industry, how current issues were issues years ago, and what can be done to help restore consumer trust.
Nothing. It's up to the gamers to stop consuming content from companies that they don't agree with.
How do you know if you agree with it or not unless you play it? Which without conventions forces gamers to rely on trailers. Perhaps Demos should be made more frequently. But companies need to do better as well.
But is that not what they have now? Tons of gameplay or are you talking about watching actual gamers play it versus the trailers and streams? The big issue is that some companies pay streamers and influencers and they create content but for me; that is hardly a fair, unbiased, and factual look at a game.
They usually are attached to the money sadly. It would be nice to have gamers in charge but you have so much money invested that business people are needed. Hence the issue; you need people who know business but are also gamers who know have an eye to the community. It sounds simple in theory that if you give gamers quality games that they want to play; money will be made. But that is not always so.
I really enjoyed working on this one. I keep reading about how hardcore gamers are feeling as though they're being shafted, and I think to some degree they may have a reason to feel left out in the cold. Developing games that are more involved take a lot more money than developing say Boom Blox. But I'd personally choose Gears of War over Boom Blox any day; and I'm not even a hardcore gamer. I really do hope that the pendulum swings back. There are so many crappy casual games flooding the market at too fast of a rate. Companies are only digging themselves graves if they think they can pump out so-so casual games and expect to continue to do well. A bad game is a bad game by anyone's standards.
Key point from the article:
"IT administrator and avid gamer, Jefferson Scott, believes that “casual” gamers pose no threat to the gaming industry, “As they bring new people into the hobby they also help to bring new development dollars.” He continued, “’Hardcore’ gamers will get the games they want as long as they keep buying them, and the attention paid to the portable and “casual” gaming crowds only help to make sure that money keeps flowing into the developers’ pockets.”"
The terminology is a little difficult to play with. When I think of something like Gears of War, that might be something that the hardcore will love, but I don't think it's a hardcore game. A hardcore game probably isn't one that will sell a whole lot because by definition it's appealing to a smaller segment of the market. Conceptually it's a little more difficult to grasp, and not everybody has the time or the skill to conquer it. Those kinds of games will always be around because the developer in question knows that he's working with something a little headier and is okay with that.
The biggest problem this generation I think is that the market is divided. It's not a huge problem because people know that they still need to buy an Xbox for Halo and GTA and Madden and the Wii for different games. But developers can no longer put a game on the PS2, let's say, by default and expect everything to come together. Each console has a very different fanbase, and there has to be a careful choice of which console to put a game on.
By the way, I think it was Nintendo's intention to fracture the market a little insofar that there are vastly different experiences out there. They forced gamers and developers to choose, and most gamers chose Nintendo.
I really think all of this was blown into full force with the Wii. I agree with mgoblue on that--Nintendo made a very clear market, and for some developers, it's their intention to cater to that casual, play once a week fanbase.
Sadly, some of the games I love the most could be considered "hardcore" in the sense that only a crazy person would commit to them for love of something more than simple entertainment--Jet Set Radio, Ico, Rez, Ikaruga, etc.
But there's also this chasm of massively popular games--the blockbusters, so to speak--that cater to both the casual and hardcore gamers: Halo, GTA, Gears. These are the games that are simply fun to pick up and play, but have enough depth (or achievements) to keep the vets playing, too.
The more I think about this, though, the more depressed I get. Gaming is growing up, and we're a business. And the casuals are where the cabbage is at.
Well the gaming industry is going downhill for who wants real games.
Commerical = always bad quality wise.
Next Gen I am going retro. Its too late for gaming industry to get back to what it was.