Enslaved Odyssey to the West

Gears of War

Splinter Cell Conviction, Double agent, 1- 3 as well

Battlefield Bad company 1 & 2

Hitman Blood Money

Rainbow6 Vegas 2

Those are the ones in recent years. Very few games will i go back to beat on its hardest difficulty. I dont like playing most games at it's highest difficulty. Its just annoying.

To be honest, I'm glad that Brotherhood and Revelations are out and both are good games in their own right. However, somewhere along the way, I think Ubisoft did get carried away. Minigames, such as tower defense and first-person platforming, along with little distractions like bomb crafting, are nice to have for variety, but those kinds of aspects loses focus on the series. The first game had you focus on finding out more information about your target, through pickpocketing or ease-dropping on certain people's conversations, before traveling to that destination and figuring out a plan to finish them off without being detected. Whatever happened to that? I know that some of that was kept in the later games in certain missions, but the series focused too much on the combat or through these Leonardo Da Vinci missions. Something has to be done...

Metamania

Whatever happened to that? Reviewers & gamers complained. Thats what happened to that.

I think every game goes through this. They're trying to evolve the series. Developers try new things never knowing whether its really going to fit or not. Its one of those things you just throw out there & see the reaction

For example with AC2 you had the addition of upgrading your villa & such, which was expanded upon in BH. Upgrading the world around you doesnt really sound like it makes sense for an Assassin game. It worked though. Something that really sounded like it had no place in the game people came to accept.

Tower defense is another of those additions. They're trying to expand the gameplay as people expect them to but you never really know what fits & what doesnt. I personally think it has no place in the game but nobody would know that until after releasing the game & hearing the fans reaction. The bomb making really doesnt fit for me either but again i salute them for trying.

I think its the fact that the core gameplay you could say has been full realized. If the series is having an identity crisis its probably because nobody really knows exactly where to go from here. My personal opinion is that BH & Rev. were both just fan service before they take the series in an entirely different direction. I have a feeling the next AC game will take place in modern times with Desmond as the main Assassin. A game with guns, cars & modern times? Who knows. Not what i want but i feel like that's where the story is headed.

I honestly have no clue what to do with it? I would love to see some roleplaying in it with dailogue choices as that would add more depth to the story & characters but others might not like this feature. The stealth, animation& actual game mechanics could definitely use some tweaking but in terms of gameplay changes . . . i dont know. I love the series but wouldnt know what direction to go in. I'll support what ubisoft does right up until the gunplay is added. After that im gone.

I feel like im open to anything. I always play a variety of genres.

The only genres i hate & stay away from are RTS, MMO, or Turn based games ( marioparty being an exception). Ill never play anything to do with a kinect either ( motion controls in general suck).

Games get bigger & more complex as they get better. Of course development costs will keep rising. Development time will also see a major increase.

Games on ps2/xbox/gamecube era took a year to produce. Games this gen take 2 years ( sequels ), New IPs usually can take up to 3 years or more. Next gen all games will have no less than a 3 year cycle.

Cost & time to develop both go hand in hand. Both will see a major increase. This is what worries me. There will probably be a lot less uniqe games, alot less risk taking. If one game doesnt sell for a developer it will permanately shut them down. It will be a scary transition for us & developers.

Games with good online stay active for years. Games with awful online like Bioshock 2 just die fast. BF2 still has a strong community and that game is pretty old now. Also look at quake or Counterstrike or unreal tournament. All games that will be busy even another few years from now

seanmcloughlin

The MP in Bioshock 2 wasn't awful. The design of it was good, the execution of it was good. Its one of those games that just doesnt lend itself to MP very well. Nothing wrong it. Its one of those games you either enjoy or you dont.

To add to the thread there are lots of active MP games, more so on PC. You can keep PC games going forever. Those will always have a dedicated following.

For consoles however its usually only the relevent military type shooters that can survive for years. Those serversonly have a limited time though. Of course you have the obvious games like Cod, halo, GOW, BF but there are forgotten others like Ghost Recon, & Rainbow6 that still have communities. I still like games like Far Cry Instincts, Call of Jaurez BOB, Call of duty 2 & 3. All of these still have active players.

Age does effect certain games. All the sidescorlling games of the SNES/SEGA still hold up today just fine.

The ealy age of 3d however does not. Some games were so well designed that age doesnt affect them at all. Others are just plain broken now. Thoese ealy days of 3d devs were just experimenting, trying to understand how to make a 3d game, trying to make mechanics they didnt yet fully understand how to implement.

Games like Super Mario 64, Orcarina of Time still hold great & will age beautifully. Games like the original Tomb Raider games are just broken & unplayable due to the horrible, horible, clunky, tank control of the character.

It really all comes down to the game. Some hold up well & others dont.

I cant get into a broken game. The age does not matter to me as long as it holds up well.

So basically the topic is . . . . . . . COD: How do we make the game more unbalanced & broken than it already is.

I cant answer your question entirely but a few points i can address.

Linear could be for many reasons. Take Half Life 2. Valve wasnt going to take such a massive game & make every single area, huge & exploreable. Too much wasted space, too much time, too much money for nothing.

Linear & scripting can be a good thing. Take UC3 for example. If it wasnt linear then maybe that plane sequence might not have happened & considering how much effort when into just that one sequence it would be a real shame for it to not have happened.

Devs want to craft an experience, pacing can be weird issue. Too much choice, too much freedom can affect the entire game & the players experience. A reveiwer could easily tear apart a game for a bad experience he may have had

I love open worlds like th elder scrolls game but not every game needs that design. A elder scrolls game has loop holes. Maybe i could kill the final boss & complete the game within 5 mintues of being thrown into it. That's great that the possiblity is there. For something like Uncharted that is suppose to give you an action packed ride you might not want to give them the ability to end the game 5 mintues into it.

Choice is hard for developers to deal with at this point when games are becoming extremely complicated. Pacing & a persons overall experience can be affected in a bad way because of these certain design choices. It really all comes down to what the game is trying to do. I think its just more developers are trying to make a unbelievable experience that rivals movies, or novels

Thats hard to do with choice & freedom. We just aren't there yet. Games also have budgets as well. Something like what you wish for is something you could literally experiement with for a 100 years. What you want can be extremely complicated to pull off correctly. Few games attempt freedom & choice & others do not. Thats just where we're at in game development right now

I myself would like to see the elder scrolls radiant AI in all games. I dont see developers attempting this anytime soon though.

THE GOOD

1. Great games -There were some great games to come out, some great new franchises, sadly there areothers thatwill never turn into franchises because people dont care for anything that isnt Call of CRap military shooters.

2. Nothing - Bring on Next gen because this gen nearly kiilled gaming as a whole.

THE BAD

1. XBL - essentially an online pass. Using your own internet connection peer-to-peer is not a service. They should be investigated and sued for defrauding the public and also fined heavily. Has caused a lot of gamers to think this is acceptable

2. RROD - The biggest failure of any piece of electronics hardware in all of mankinds history. This will surely be remembered forever.

3. The WII -selling a gamecube for the price of a next gen console with piece of crap motion controls, shovelware games, & almost no support of the classic controller

4. The Cod, Halo & Gears phenomenom - People buying bland, terrible, military shooters to run around in circles shooting each other.

5. Dumber than dumber gamers - gamers saying they want innovation, creative, unique games, new IPs, when these games come out they skipp them & buy the new Call a Duty game.

Nice troll TC

PS3 being hacked isn't a game you dumb sh*t. Nice way to muck up an other wise ok thread.

on topic:

Halo 3: Da Sales

Crysis: Da graphics

MGS4: Da Patriots

Demon's Souls: Da Gameplay

Uncharted 2: Da Cenimatic

going to have to add 1 more

wii sports: Da waggle

casharmy

I love how you incorporated da word "Da" all in dere.