107 replies to this topic

[J03_b]

There is little evidence suggesting CoD and Halo are substitute goods. It's a logical explanation to jump to, but the data just doesn't back it up.

You're right about that, and all I was saying originally is that I think that the percentage of players who bought CoD and didn't buy Halo would probably choose Halo over CoD if they had to pick one (and for whatever reason, they did pick one), if they were introduced to both games with the same hype and marketing. So to say that I'm assuming they are substitute goods is wrong. I provided the sales figures to show that some people do buy CoD without buying Halo. And now that I'm explaining what I was trying to say before do you understand my opinion, whether you agree with it or not

I know I don't always say exactly what I mean at first, which I kinda sarcastically hinted at earlier in the thread. That's why I wanna be a programmer, not a journalist

[swiftcoder]

all I was saying originally is that I think that the percentage of players who bought CoD and didn't buy Halo would probably choose Halo over CoD if they had to pick one (and for whatever reason, they did pick one), if they were introduced to both games with the same hype and marketing.

What evidence do you have to suggest that CoD is more successful purely due to differences in marketing?

Remember that the Halos are XBox platform-exclusives, have very significant marketing campaigns, and in many cases are bundled with the console itself (for example, every XBox sold a present includes a copy of Halo: Reach - whether or not you want it. That has to inflate sales figures).

[J03_b]

Well that's just where my opinions and personal experience comes in. I've seen tons of accounts of players who agree with my opinion on CoD, like this one in the Halo forums, this one in the CoD forums, pretty much all my friends who play games, and some people on this site. I also know plenty of people in person who own and play Call of Duty, but haven't played Halo and haven't even heard of most other fps games. I also remember that the Reach ads were following the more artsy, creative style while MW3 had Jonah Hill screaming and cussing like a hooligan in the "Noob and Vet" ads, which seemed to be more targeted at casual players who don't play a lot of games. And to top it all off, I don't recall anyone actually explaining to me why they like CoD more than Halo or more than any other game until way2lazy2care's post. Given all this I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a good amount of CoD players just bought into the hype. Don't take that to mean that I think all players just bought into the hype. I know that some people really value the aspects like realism, solo-oriented emphasis, etc that you don't get(as much) in Halo. I'm just not sure the majority would value those over the strengths of other games. (and this is all based on the players who buy it for the multiplayer, btw)


Edit:

So anyway, who else thinks they've played an over-rated game

[Jarwulf]

COD/Battlefield is just a dumb shooter with scarcely more complexity than Doom or wolfenstein but that is part of why it is popular. Not to many people want to bother to develop an appreciation for more complex titles.

[J03_b]

COD/Battlefield is just a dumb shooter with scarcely more complexity than Doom or wolfenstein but that is part of why it is popular. Not to many people want to bother to develop an appreciation for more complex titles.

Yeah this is going to be a great year for shooters though, I just hope the good devs can find the money to market their games

[Creslin]

COD/Battlefield is just a dumb shooter with scarcely more complexity than Doom or wolfenstein but that is part of why it is popular. Not to many people want to bother to develop an appreciation for more complex titles.

Gonna have to disagree with this.

The single player gameplay in Doom and Wolfenstein revolved around just finding keys to unlock doors and eventually get to the end of the level while killing bad guys all along...pretty simple. And the multiplayer in Doom (2?) was simple as well, it was basically just death match...kill the other guy more than he kills you.

BF on the other hand has:

1. Tons of rideable vehicles offering totally different gameplay experiences such as helicopters, planes, tanks, jeeps, artillery, and anti-air. You could also consider these vehicles games in and of themselves.

And both BF and CoD have:

1. Lots of different multiplayer options and game types.

2. Scripted story driven campaigns.

3. Leveling up systems in multiplayer and stat-tracking.


Soooo...I know that a lot people have issues with the lack of innovation in recent CoD and BF titles, and there is definitely a good argument for this. But to say that the CoD and BF franchises are as simple as Doom and Wolfenstein is ridiculous.

[J03_b]

I think that's why he said "scarcely". Which is true in the grand scheme of things considering all the possibilities. Dust 514 is an example of a game coming out that's going to try to take shooters to a level of complexity that's never been seen before in the industry. If you wanna read a little about it I posted a thread about it a while back

[way2lazy2care]

I think that's why he said "scarcely". Which is true in the grand scheme of things considering all the possibilities. Dust 514 is an example of a game coming out that's going to try to take shooters to a level of complexity that's never been seen before in the industry. If you wanna read a little about it I posted a thread about it a while back

Dust doesn't look that complex. Not nearly as complex as many other games I've seen, and from what they've showed it doesn't look close to as complex as battlefield. It does some cool things, but I wouldn't really go so far as to call it more complex than anything else.

[J03_b]

Dust doesn't look that complex. Not nearly as complex as many other games I've seen, and from what they've showed it doesn't look close to as complex as battlefield. It does some cool things, but I wouldn't really go so far as to call it more complex than anything else.

If Dust isn't complex then I'm not sure what you mean by complex, unless you mean unique gameplay mechanics like ME3 or something. What exactly are you looking for?

[way2lazy2care]

If Dust isn't complex then I'm not sure what you mean by complex, unless you mean unique gameplay mechanics like ME3 or something. What exactly are you looking for?

Explain to me what you find extremely complex about it. It looks like a fine game, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it any more complex than everything that's come before it. It looks like a skirmish based version of planetside that happens to be attached to an existing mmo.

[J03_b]

Sure,

Firstly the customization is going to be deeper than any fps that I know of, including a skill system like the one in Eve and customizable weapons, armor, and vehicles. It's going to be more heavily team oriented than any fps that I know of, because of the the vastly different combat roles combined with the heavy emphasis on winning. On that note, the Dust players earn and lose their in-game stuff and money by killing/dying and winning/losing so the matches should be very hardcore and exciting in a way you only see in games like Ultima. But by complex I assume you mean having many significant options and requiring a high level of involvement. I don't know of any FPS games that have done it like Dust is planning to

[way2lazy2care]

Sure,

Firstly the customization is going to be deeper than any fps that I know of, including a skill system like the one in Eve and customizable weapons, armor, and vehicles. It's going to be more heavily team oriented than any fps that I know of, because of the the vastly different combat roles combined with the heavy emphasis on winning. On that note, the Dust players earn and lose their in-game stuff and money by killing/dying and winning/losing so the matches should be very hardcore and exciting in a way you only see in games like Ultima. But by complex I assume you mean having many significant options and requiring a high level of involvement. I don't know of any FPS games that have done it like Dust is planning to

So like planetside attached to an existing mmo?

[J03_b]

So like planetside attached to an existing mmo?

I've only read about planetside, can you tell me about its skill system, loot system and combat roles. What does planetside have that dust doesn't

[way2lazy2care]

I've only read about planetside, can you tell me about its skill system, loot system and combat roles.

Just check out the wiki: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/PlanetSide
And some gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koaualkABug&feature=related

What does planetside have that dust doesn't

As far as I can tell, an existing mmo attached to it.

[GninjaGnome]

marketing team ... has a larger budget than the development team...

..Is that total crap or what!? ...I wouldn't have believed that, but I just read a proposal from a company offering 30k for our game, and 50k for marketing. I know that's just good biz, but still, wtf?

...and so's not more derail, Skyrim. It was awesome technically, and had a lot of cool things going for it, but it seemed a little weak after a day of playing it.

....oh, and same for Spore.

[alnite]

marketing team ... has a larger budget than the development team...

..Is that total crap or what!? ...I wouldn't have believed that, but I just read a proposal from a company offering 30k for our game, and 50k for marketing. I know that's just good biz, but still, wtf?

...and so's not more derail, Skyrim. It was awesome technically, and had a lot of cool things going for it, but it seemed a little weak after a day of playing it.

....oh, and same for Spore.

Hehe. Worse part, the marketing team gets to decide what goes in the game because they think that "cool feature" will "sell the game".

[J03_b]

As far as I can tell, an existing mmo attached to it.

Huh?

I've only read about planetside, can you tell me about its skill system, loot system and combat roles.

Just check out the wiki: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/PlanetSide

Anyway, from what I can tell Planetside didn't have the level of customization that Dust will. Dust has all the combat roles of PS, but with control over specific stats with equipment mods and a skill system. There is also complexity in the fact that Dust will have its own player-driven market and economy that is integrated with Eve's. Also there doesn't seem to really be any overall objective or goal in PS, whereas in Dust you will participate in taking down factions and empires in Eve by fighting over their planets. There may not be as many players per battle in Dust, but the teamwork and interaction will definitely be present at all times because there will be so much on the line in each battle


Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of my assumptions about PS though, like I said I haven't played it

[way2lazy2care]

As far as I can tell, an existing mmo attached to it.

Huh?

I've only read about planetside, can you tell me about its skill system, loot system and combat roles.

Just check out the wiki: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/PlanetSide

Anyway, from what I can tell Planetside didn't have the level of customization that Dust will. Dust has all the combat roles of PS, but with control over specific stats with equipment mods and a skill system. There is also complexity in the fact that Dust will have its own player-driven market and economy that is integrated with Eve's. Also there doesn't seem to really be any overall objective or goal in PS, whereas in Dust you will participate in taking down factions and empires in Eve by fighting over their planets. There may not be as many players per battle in Dust, but the teamwork and interaction will definitely be present at all times because there will be so much on the line in each battle

All of those assumptions are wrong except maybe the economy bit.

[J03_b]

I'm really interested in learning about PS, but there is hardly any information on the wikipedia page. It doesn't say anything about the customization except that you can upgrade your equipment(whatever that details), implants(whatever those are), and appearance. I'm not entirely sure about the complexity of those features, which is why I asked for an explanation. Dust allows you to change your actual stats and characteristics to specialize and enhance specific play styles. For example you can probably set up your sniper rifle to shoot farther but do less damage, or trade shields for enhanced movement speed, stuff like that. It also says there are only 38 vehicles and 28 weapons in PS, while in dust there will be many more options in the form of weapon and vehicle fittings, and the more skill points you earn, the better you do with specific weapons/vehicles. As for an overall goal in PS, I'm pretty clueless. You say there is one, but it's not like any of the factions can actually win the war right? Wouldn't that mean that your fighting has about as much meaning as playing a deathmatch in Halo or CoD

This time if I'm wrong could you tell me why, or at least give me a better source of info on Planetside?

[Sirisian]

As far as I can tell, an existing mmo attached to it.

Huh?

I've only read about planetside, can you tell me about its skill system, loot system and combat roles.

Just check out the wiki: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/PlanetSide

Anyway, from what I can tell Planetside didn't have the level of customization that Dust will. Dust has all the combat roles of PS, but with control over specific stats with equipment mods and a skill system. There is also complexity in the fact that Dust will have its own player-driven market and economy that is integrated with Eve's. Also there doesn't seem to really be any overall objective or goal in PS, whereas in Dust you will participate in taking down factions and empires in Eve by fighting over their planets. There may not be as many players per battle in Dust, but the teamwork and interaction will definitely be present at all times because there will be so much on the line in each battle


Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of my assumptions about PS though, like I said I haven't played it

Umm you're talking about a game that came out in 2003. You should be looking at Planetside 2 which is releasing probably 2013. It's a 666v666v666 aka 2000 player per continent (map) persistent FPS. (Planetside 1 was 133v133v133 for 400 people per continent). It has a resource system for buying upgrades (tradeoffs, not really strict upgrades). So you can get a grenade launcher or upgrade the barrel of a gun for more damage but a lower rate of fire or more accuracy and less damage. It's fairly massive. Whatever you can imagine Planetside 2 has it for upgrades. (Especially vehicles. You can change he engine out of a tank for a faster one with lower acceleration if you wanted and change the secondary guns for AA from the stock anti-infantry). It uses the EVE off-line training for unlocks (if you play the training goes faster). In Planetside 1 the goal was to take bases (by hacking adjacent connected bases either via time based hacking or capture the flag type modes). In Planetside 2 it's a bit more complex because of the number of players. (It involves capturing 3 of 5 capture point in a base among other things like disabling doors). Basically the new one has classes and within each class there is a skill-tree of unlocks. Then each vehicle has a skill-tree. Unlocks just unlock something that can then be purchased with resources in the game. (Resources are independent of the cash shop which deals with mostly cosmetics).

I played Planetside 1 off an on since it's beginning which was like 9 years ago. My favorite game. (You'll get the same story from most Planetside 1 players usually).

You say there is one, but it's not like any of the factions can actually win the war right? Wouldn't that mean that your fighting has about as much meaning as playing a deathmatch in Halo or CoD

Halo and COD have an end. Planetside 1 was always about the unlimited battle. You fought in circles. It could take 30 minutes to an hour to take a base from the enemy. These were huge battles. It's impossible to fully describe it. You had snipers on ridges (perfectly balance) vehicles on the ground with cloaked spawn points, aircraft in the air dogfighting, bombers, soldiers with AV. Even mechs were in the game. (Fun for me at least long story.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCPvmkcF49o
// edit updated the video. Linked the wrong one.

^ // edit that's Planetside 2's WIP alpha footage from GDC.