Are Gamers Taking Things "Too Seriously"?

[Raiden]

Hello fellow video game fans,

As most of you can tell from the rest of the treads in the Gaming section of the forum that I am a massive fan of the Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil franchise. However, this discussion is not to be based on one or two series' entirely...

I want to focus more on the psychology of gamers. Recently, it was confirmed that Hideo Kojima (creator of the Metal Gear franchise) had brought the series to both the Xbox 360 and the PC, as well as the PS3. I mention him and his games because of some of the slightly disturbing discussion I've read on other forums that center themselves around video games. It seems that gamers are starting to build some kind of a complex that keeps them feeling as if they are entitled to a exclusive gaming franchise just because they bought a certain system.

So, what do you think? Do you think that these gamers are off base like I do or do you think that this is a legitimate concern for most gamers?

As far as Kojima goes, I'm just looking at this as him spreading the love.

Discuss.

Shane

[Draconic]

It is offbase to believe that a single franchise should stick to one console. The industry has shifted to where they port across a spectrum of consoles to broaden the audience that experience their games. Besides, consoles are so similar to a PC nowadays it isn't even funny so it's much easier to port games than ever. People arguing about system loyalty should understand times have changed and stop living in the past.

[Wolf-Bone]

As far as Kojima goes, I'm just looking at this as him spreading the love.


Yeah, and also because the days of every kid on the block owning every system are pretty much over, exclusive titles are a stupid idea in the first place. If it costs xx-million to make a game, you need every God damn person who can possibly own that game owning it.

So "spreading the love" is great and all, but the importance of making a decent return on your investment is something these "fanboys" don't grasp. Probably because none of them have ever really worked for a living.

BTW, am I the only one who thinks it kinda sucks that the Wii can't have a version of RE 5 that would still look decent just because the Wiimote was so awesome for RE 4?

[Raiden]

Yeah, and also because the days of every kid on the block owning every system are pretty much over, exclusive titles are a stupid idea in the first place. If it costs xx-million to make a game, you need every God damn person who can possibly own that game owning it.

So "spreading the love" is great and all, but the importance of making a decent return on your investment is something these "fanboys" don't grasp. Probably because none of them have ever really worked for a living.

BTW, am I the only one who thinks it kinda sucks that the Wii can't have a version of RE 5 that would still look decent just because the Wiimote was so awesome for RE 4?

I have to agree with you when you are talking about Resident Evil 5 not having a Wii counter part. However, I can see something like that happening in the near future like Resident Evil 4 did. Considering that I've killed the game, I don't think I'll be buying the Wii counter part if/when it releases.

Back to Kojima, yeah, speading the love is nice indeed but as you say, having a good return on your creation does take the cake in this situation.

Now, here's something that a bunch of these "fanboys" are preaching. Some are saying that multi-platform games aren't nearly as good as console exclusives are. Now, personally, I can say that this is nothing but bull brownies because of Resident Evil 5 and how good of a game it really was regardless of the system you played it on. Do you agree with the fanboys here or do you feel the same that I do on this subject?

Shane

[DarkWolf]

Some are saying that multi-platform games aren't nearly as good as console exclusives are.The problem with multi-platform games is that the creators need to go through the final product multiple times over to make it cross-compatible. Id est there's different coding for a X-Box 360 game than there is for a PS3. This is because the console software itself is different and they work differently.

So, it actually takes longer to make a game for multiple platforms than it does to make one exclusively. That being said, the game itself shouldn't vary that much. The coders should know how to get the same results and the Next Gen consoles aren't that incredibly different than each other anymore.

But are exclusives better or not? There is no answer. Neither possible answer is more likely than the other. It's only a per-game judgement.

Frankly, I can't see how it matters. In most cases there shouldn't be any difference playing a game on a PS3 or on X-Box 360, as far as the game itself goes.

[Raiden]

The problem with multi-platform games is that the creators need to go through the final product multiple times over to make it cross-compatible. Id est there's different coding for a X-Box 360 game than there is for a PS3. This is because the console software itself is different and they work differently.

So, it actually takes longer to make a game for multiple platforms than it does to make one exclusively. That being said, the game itself shouldn't vary that much. The coders should know how to get the same results and the Next Gen consoles aren't that incredibly different than each other anymore.

But are exclusives better or not? There is no answer. Neither possible answer is more likely than the other. It's only a per-game judgement.

Frankly, I can't see how it matters. In most cases there shouldn't be any difference playing a game on a PS3 or on X-Box 360, as far as the game itself goes.

I see what you mean, and honestly, I'm the kind of guy that will pay for quality over quantity. However, in this case, I'm basically saying that I'd wait however long needed for a game to be created as long as it's well worth the wait and done correctly. Then again, I guess most people would, right?

I agree what what you say about games not really showing a difference if they are multi-platform. In essence, it's the exact same game with maybe one or two miniscule differences.

Shane

[UnseenEYES]

I only see the problem within the realm of competition, with all these non-exclusive games there is almost little to no reason of buyoing one system over the other beyond that of basic hardware, and gimmiks.

the advantage of exclusives is the competition factor which in turn gives us great games, much like those of 1999-2005 years which bred some of the best games I've ever played soul calibur, fable, Kingdom under fire(the 360 offshoot does not do it justice) Mercenaries(the first), so on and so forth.

Without exclusives I think we are in for subpar games, and game companies competing with only eachother wont get the same financial steam power as if they'd been a console staple just look at the Beasts in question MGS and Halo.

[Raiden]

I only see the problem within the realm of competition, with all these non-exclusive games there is almost little to no reason of buyoing one system over the other beyond that of basic hardware, and gimmiks.

the advantage of exclusives is the competition factor which in turn gives us great games, much like those of 1999-2005 years which bred some of the best games I've ever played soul calibur, fable, Kingdom under fire(the 360 offshoot does not do it justice) Mercenaries(the first), so on and so forth.

Without exclusives I think we are in for subpar games, and game companies competing with only eachother wont get the same financial steam power as if they'd been a console staple just look at the Beasts in question MGS and Halo.

I see exactly what you mean about having subpar games because of the lack of needing exclusives, but does that keep a multi-platform game from being great?

The reason I brought up Metal Gear Solid in the first place is because it was well known to be a game on Sony's consoles, even though we all know that the franchise had indeed ventured off to systems like NES, PC, and even the Nintendo Gamecube. But, anyway, now that Metal Gear Solid: Rising is coming out, people are already writing it off as something that's going to be terrible mainly because of it's non-exclusivity. Another reason people aren't taking too kindly to it is because it's starring Raiden, but that's a thread for another day...:D

Do you think this is fair?

Shane

[fenrir]

As a gamer I’m not really bothered when a long exclusive series goes multi-platform (unless of course doing so set back the release date significantly, then I’m probably going to be annoyed), for the most part I’ve just accepted it as an increasingly likely action to take with the cost of developing games going up.

Mostly I think fans get annoyed when this happens because its almost a point of pride that only their chosen console can play that game, especially if it’s a long running series; GTA 4 being a good example, having eight games exclusive to Sony before announcing the latest as multi-platform was sure to make a lot of people angry, and releasing 360 exclusive content later on was just rubbing salt in the wound.

As for exclusives being better games; I think that probably true, not simply because there exclusives but because the developers that make exclusives usually have a lot more experience making games than other company, not to mention all the financial backing they get from whatever company makes the console there making the game for. Competition between consoles is certainly going to play a part as well, especially if the game in question is a first party production, i.e. a game made by the same company that makes the console it will be released on.

As for Metal gear Solid 4 and Resident Evil 5, you can’t really use those as fair examples because they are both parts of a long running, established series made by companies with lots of experience. Being made into multi-platform games at this point wouldn’t have had much effect on the final outcome; those two are examples of developers having to make a game for multiple consoles in order to cover the rising production cost.

[Wolf-Bone]

I have to agree with you when you are talking about Resident Evil 5 not having a Wii counter part. However, I can see something like that happening in the near future like Resident Evil 4 did. Considering that I've killed the game, I don't think I'll be buying the Wii counter part if/when it releases.

Back to Kojima, yeah, speading the love is nice indeed but as you say, having a good return on your creation does take the cake in this situation.

Now, here's something that a bunch of these "fanboys" are preaching. Some are saying that multi-platform games aren't nearly as good as console exclusives are. Now, personally, I can say that this is nothing but bull brownies because of Resident Evil 5 and how good of a game it really was regardless of the system you played it on. Do you agree with the fanboys here or do you feel the same that I do on this subject?

Shane

I think it was more true in the last generation than the current one. Part of the reason the RE 1 remake and RE 0 were Gamecube exclusive had something to do with the Gamecube hardware being better suited to a lot of the techniques used to produce the visual effects. And when Sonic Adventures (Dreamcast) ended up getting ported to Gamecube with "enhanced" graphics, I didn't see much enhancement, just less impressive lighting effects and more framerate problems. Even if Microsoft didn't own Halo, a lot of the rendering techniques that gave that game its unique look wouldn't have been doable on PS2, even though PS2 and Xbox shared a lot of games with little observable difference between versions except Xbox having slightly improved textures.

I've seen side-by-side comparisons of several different games on 360 vs. PS3 and the only difference between the two seems to be 360 has slightly better antialiasing and PS3 games have slightly sharper textures. I say slightly because neither of these are exactly poorly handled on either system.

As for exclusives always looking better, um, Forbidden Siren, anyone? No, it didn't have exactly bad graphics, not at all. But it did look like a watered-down Silent Hill (non-exclusive).


It just seems with this generation, not counting the Wii which, much like the company that created it is sorta drifting off into its own little world, there's less inherent difference between two systems' ability to run a certain kind of game. But even taking into account what differences there might be, it's kinda ridiculous to assume a title is going to be better just because it's, ooooooh, exclusive, as if there's something magical about a copyright status that makes a product automatically better.

[UnseenEYES]

it's simply the drive to out do the other guys it's human nature which has brought out some of the best and shot down the worst, not all exclusives are that great, but "some" the greatest games and innovations come from exclusive games, and the other competitors go "holy shit we gotta start stepping up" right now the Wii is the one leading innovation and the other two are starting to lean in their directon.

I would rather have them battling it out instead of sharing if you see what I'm saying, always one upping eachother that's what Exculsives do the provide a measure between the two.

[Raiden]

it's simply the drive to out do the other guys it's human nature which has brought out some of the best and shot down the worst, not all exclusives are that great, but "some" the greatest games and innovations come from exclusive games, and the other competitors go "holy shit we gotta start stepping up" right now the Wii is the one leading innovation and the other two are starting to lean in their directon.

I would rather have them battling it out instead of sharing if you see what I'm saying, always one upping eachother that's what Exculsives do the provide a measure between the two.

I see where you are coming from. From what I'm reading, it seems that you think that from competition breeds excellence in originality and innovation, am I right? Kind of like, if two companies keep pushing themselves to be better, we all win.

Shane

[UnseenEYES]

yeah look at WWE they didn't have the WCW to kick around(Befor TNA showed up) so what did they do, they divided the company into three shows Smackdown, Raw, and ECW they built a system that allows for competition without any "real" competition until TNA showed up.

WWE is blown outta the water by UFC so I didn't involve that in the example.

a good idea for the consoles if they are going to have non-exclusive why don't they link multiplayer between systems, create a whole new venue of competition.

[Wolf-Bone]

wrestling is shit and so is UFC. Seriously man, they need to have a show where they just drop the charade and have two guys competitively jerk each other off. That's all it is. Real fights is in the streets, fuck that televised garbage!

[UnseenEYES]

keep it cool kido im just talking about good business decisions
dare you to pick a fight with one of them UFC guys
and lay off the fightin in the streets are you a freedom fighter or something but lets not get off topic

[Raiden]

Yes guys, let's keep this ON topic.

Back to what we were talking about. I see what you meant about the WWF and the UFC. But, back to the consoles...

It would be highly interesting if all three companies somehow found a way to link together and create a massive multiplayer plane for people who own the same game, but different systems. Then again, there would probably be massive arguments, and who wants to hear that mess when they are trying to unwind?

Shane