System Wars is a one of a kind destination where gamers can discuss, rant, and debate about systems, platforms, handhelds and the games. Not many people survive System Wars. The mightiest system warriors back up their arguments with facts.
Rules are simple:
- Read the Terms of Use and System Wars Survival Guide.
- Must be Level 10 or higher to create topics.
- Keep your discussions around what belongs here: platforms, games, developers, publishers, and stats.
- Don't quote more than one image in your post.
- Do NOT post or bump extremely abusive discussions (adult material/illegal activities/illegal advertising/etc).
We live in a f*cking backwardsasss society
- Apr 8, 2012 11:19 am GMT
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
EVGA GTX 680 | Alienware AW2310 120hz | X6 1090t BE | ASUS Crosshair IV Formula | G.Skill ECO 4GB DDR3 1600 | Storm Scout | SS Kana B&O | Cyber Snipa V2Thanks for letting me know about To the Moon. It's a must-have, and I'll buy it.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:20 am GMTStop Indie Games FREE MANSON 2012
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:21 am GMT
Can I give you a hug?
famicommander wrote:Platinum Games has more talent than the entirety of Take-Two Interactive and all their subsidiaries.Can I give you a hug? :)
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:21 am GMT
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]
PC DD is the same sh*t, there's thousands of games released on Steam that nobody will ever care about. XBLA has endless crap on it too, despite being a market that requires a publisher (so indie!) and Microsoft certification to release on there.[/QUOTE]
And there's 100's of niche full retail crap out there as well, If you want I can compare the bottom spectrum of each platform. Will include Mirrors Edge, don't worry.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:22 am GMTLithos_ wrote:
Thanks for letting me know about To the Moon. It's a must-have, and I'll buy it.
No problem.Joedgabe wrote:Can I give you a hug?
[QUOTE="Lithos_"]Thanks for letting me know about To the Moon. It's a must-have, and I'll buy it.
[/QUOTE] No problem. [QUOTE="Joedgabe"]Can I give you a hug? :)
[/QUOTE] :oops:- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:23 am GMTIn the end, it is all a matter of opinion. I have played my good share of indie titles this gen, Have a great time with titles like Braid, Machinarium and some other point and click games for my PC. But, as I've stated, it is all a matter of preferences. While I sure loved these games. Nothing has topped for me experiences like MGS4, U2, SMG for this gen. Sure SMB was kind of fun for the first hours, but then it got a little repetitive for may tastes. And you will find crap in big budget titles as in indies titles. The difference is that you will hear way less of those bad indie titles due the lack of it's nature.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.
Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:25 am GMTarkephonic wrote:
You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.
Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.
Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game?
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.
Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.
[/QUOTE] Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game? :o- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:29 am GMT
"I've been wallowing in my own confused, insecure delusions
For a piece to cross me over, or a word to guide me in."
This dude is on crack. Games like Super meat boy better then Uncharted 3? l0l Someone cut your crack with rubber and petrol.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:30 am GMT[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Games like Super meat boy better then Uncharted 3? [/QUOTE] mhm
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:31 am GMTSlashless wrote:Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game?arkephonic wrote:
You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.
Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.
I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.
My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.
It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.
[QUOTE="Slashless"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.
Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.
[/QUOTE] Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game? :o[/QUOTE]
I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.
My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.
It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:33 am GMTarkephonic wrote:Slashless wrote:Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game?arkephonic wrote:
You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.
Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.
I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.
My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.
It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.
Good points. Though I'd also argue some Indie games outmatch retail titles in content and gameplay as well.
Do you think Video Games will get in the 70$ area next gen. I hope not.
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="Slashless"][QUOTE="arkephonic"]
You can argue story, gameplay, artistic graphical design and content all day, but what really separates these Indie Arcade Games from Full Retail Games are the graphics. That's the one main thing that this thread is failing to take into consideration. I see arguments about story and gameplay, but those things don't cost money, they just require talent. The things that require money in making a game are advanced game engines, graphics, sound design, animation, that kinda stuff. For example, take the RAGE Euphoria Engine that Rockstar created, used in games like GTA4, RDR, and soon Max Payne 3. That's where the money goes to, that's why full retail games cost as much as they do. The higher development costs are directed towards things like graphics and sound.
Show me an Indie Arcade game that looks as good as Modern Warfare 3, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3 and you may have a point. You ask the question how could an Indie Arcade Game have better story and gameplay than a Full Retail Game? Very simple, just like how many retro games have better story and gameplay than a lot of current Full Retail Games. That isn't what costs money, the money is in the graphical and sound design/technology, something that Indie Arcade Games are lacking in, and that's why they're priced how they are.
[/QUOTE] Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game? :o[/QUOTE]
I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.
My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.
It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.
[/QUOTE]
Good points. Though I'd also argue some Indie games outmatch retail titles in content and gameplay as well.
Do you think Video Games will get in the 70$ area next gen. I hope not. :(
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:34 am GMT"DanielDust wrote:are you the kind of stereotypical lazy American that can't find out where to go even if he has signs pointing towards that direction, but no clear "go there"?God what do they teach you lazy Americans in school.
You spelled "Por que" wrong. Other than that, no wait, that post was terrible and you should be ashamed.
Why not blog it? Nobody cares about your opinion.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:35 am GMT
[QUOTE="jhalter1"]
You spelled "Por que" wrong.
[/QUOTE]
No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:37 am GMTSlashless wrote:arkephonic wrote:Slashless wrote:Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game?
I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.
My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.
It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.
Good points. Though I'd also argue some Indie games outmatch retail titles in content and gameplay as well.
Do you think Video Games will get in the 70$ area next gen. I hope not.
Yeah, I actually said that Indie games outmatch retail in content and gameplay, as well as story.
I think they'll probably be $60 again, but the advanced game engines, graphics and sound design will require more money and resources, so if developers are sometimes having trouble breaking even this generation with the way things are, a $70 standard wouldn't seem too far fetched.
[QUOTE="Slashless"]
[QUOTE="arkephonic"]
[QUOTE="Slashless"] Modern warfare 3 uses an outdated 10 year old engine. Why I used it in my example. Does this possibly show that devs should stop focusing on graphics and try to improve the actual game? :o[/QUOTE]
I think that it isn't a matter of developers focusing on graphics over story and gameplay, because development studios are branched out into different teams, different divisions. It just comes down to the fact that development studios for many games which excel in graphics don't have that same talent in the divisions who are directing the gameplay and story. It doesn't require cutting edge technology to write a good story, it just requires talent. Good game design doesn't require cutting edge tech either, it just requires talented people with vision and a good idea of how games should be played.
My main point was that the rising costs in games, and the reason Full Retail Games are priced the way they are is because of cutting edge technology in graphics and audio, and the development of new engines. These sorts of things lend themselves to more bugs, more problems, and it just requires a larger team of people to iron everything out.
It's really no surprise at all to me that Indie Arcade Games can have a better story or better gameplay than a Full Retail Game, because a lot of retro games excel in these departments as well over current gen games. When it comes to graphics and sound tech, though, along with game engines, Indie Arcade Games are way behind, and that's really why they're priced how they are, and why they don't cost much to make.
[/QUOTE]
Good points. Though I'd also argue some Indie games outmatch retail titles in content and gameplay as well.
Do you think Video Games will get in the 70$ area next gen. I hope not. :(
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I actually said that Indie games outmatch retail in content and gameplay, as well as story.
I think they'll probably be $60 again, but the advanced game engines, graphics and sound design will require more money and resources, so if developers are sometimes having trouble breaking even this generation with the way things are, a $70 standard wouldn't seem too far fetched.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:38 am GMT
[QUOTE="Slashless"][QUOTE="jhalter1"]
You spelled "Por que" wrong.
[/QUOTE]
No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.
[/QUOTE] Pourquoi?- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:39 am GMT
---
Lil B=Nintendo
People walking away=3rd party developers
The only indie game I can honestly say that I've ever enjoyed was VVVVVV. I didn't enjoy Minecraft due to its dull lack of direction. Super Meat Boy was hard for the sake of being hard and when I beat the game I didn't feel the sense of accomplishment that I usually get with platformers.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:40 am GMT
Xfire | Raptr | Steam | Next Generation SW Begins | SWG
"Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?"
What did I just read.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:42 am GMT
[QUOTE="freedomfreak"][QUOTE="Slashless"]
No one cares about spanish, it's all about French.
[/QUOTE] Pourquoi?[/QUOTE]
:3
[QUOTE="arkephonic"] a $70 standard wouldn't seem too far fetched.
[/QUOTE]
Such a shame. Will have to buy a lot less agmes next gen than I do currently.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Apr 8, 2012 11:43 am GMT
[QUOTE="nintendoman562"]
The only indie game I can honestly say that I've ever enjoyed was VVVVVV. I didn't enjoy Minecraft due to its dull lack of direction. Super Meat Boy was hard for the sake of being hard and when I beat the game I didn't feel the sense of accomplishment that I usually get with platformers.
[/QUOTE]
Didn't like Minecraft either, need to play vvvvvv.
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]What did I just read.[/QUOTE]
A drunk slashless rant stevo. A drunk slashless rant.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
