When I was in high school it was all counter strike, and then halo, and then call of duty and dudes jumped from one to the other. I imagine call of duty will be the shit for a while until the next big thing shows up.
As for dudes who only play call of duty, for them I'd have to concede the point. Thats loyalty to the point of wondering why they spent 200+ dollars on a console to play one game.
Well you can't say Halo, CS and CoD don't have very similar appeals. They are on that one track together, and rarely do any other franchises enter that pantheon of overrated FPSs.
They play wildly different from one another they just happen to be bro games.
I wouldn't say wildly different. I've played all three and jumping between them is hardly a task. It takes maybe 1-2 practice rounds but you're back into the groove in no time. It's not like, say, jumping from Tekken to SF Alpha. But yeah, I don't really mean gameplay, I mean appeal. Sort of how most martial arts movies have the same appeal, despite having vastly different plots. Halo, CS and CoD all have that shooty explody grenady thing going for them, and gamers love that shit.
@matt: SECTION 8, also I fail to see how it's a clone of halo or CoD.
Power Armor doesn't equal halo clone.
Hmm, I agree, Outcast. Power armor doesn't equal a Halo clone.
But nameless, voiceless hero single-handedly fighting off waves of religious/hivemind aliens does equal Halo clone. It's a genre in itself, at this point. Section 8 doesn't fall into this category as its gameplay is infinitely deeper than Halo's MP, but a lot of other games do. It's a type of story/character setup that barely has to justify itself.
Originally Posted by CypressDahlia
But seriously, I think that the last two generations of consoles have really inspired the rise of "grizzly gamers" who only play "macho games" and watch "macho movies". It's more to do with culture overall, rather than just video gamer culture. People who love shallow action movies, simple gore porn zombie flicks and playing sports were not the guys playing N64s in the 90s, but the Xbox/PS2 changed all that- And were a damn sight more effective at gaining cash than even they thought, it seems. Nintendo responded by grabbing a new crowd of it's own; The family market.
My point is, no, video games do not belong to the "video gamers" anymore, in the same way that blockbusters do not belong to the "movie buffs". Music too. Everything becomes soulless with too much money involved. It's the price of a certain media becoming a respected genre, as ironic as that sounds.
No need to be too pessimistic, through, mind. I'm sure as long as our breed exists, at least some of us will keep growing up into new Suda 51s. That's an earmark of popular media too. The "I can make better shit than this myself!" effect. >_>
The doom guy had infinitely more personality than Master Chief. I have no idea how MC receives so many "character of the year" awards. He's barely a character so much as a placeholder.
I agree with Reg - video games have become mainstream and in doing so have become commercialized. They were always commercial, yes, but there genuinely was, I think, more artistry in the past than today. That's not to say we don't have amazing game artists today, because we do, just I think the culture within game development studios was more conducive to artistic and/or fun appeal over profit back when. I suppose you can attribute this to two things, primarily; the fact that game studios were smaller back then and individual designers and developments teams had more freedom and less studio oversight, and the fact that without a large audience for games and with different development costs you could both take risks and/or cater to niche groups without needing to try and worry about demographics.
Call of Duty is in many ways the epitome of the commercialization of games. Well, not necessarily the game, but the business model surrounding it. Activision very clearly intends to do to COD what they did to Guitar Hero - release the exact same game with only minor changes (if even) more or less annually and reap massive profits until even the bro-magnons are so fed up with it that they stop buying it at which point Activision will declare that the game is no longer profitable and stop making it. That's what happened to GH, it's what will happen to COD. It's just a microcosm played out at a higher speed of the general problem with corporate cultures and why America is in the shitter, really - companies seek to maximize short term gain while being more or less unable to even conceptualize the concept of long-term ramifications and costs.
As for the whole sequelitis and remake fever, though - that is nothing new. Sonic had 3.5 games and numerous spinoffs all on one console - so did Mario. Castlevania had 3 games on one console, and a remake on the next console. I can go on with the list. What's new, I think, is how considerably low effort a lot of modern sequels are and how terrified game companies are to take risks - either with established franchises or developing new ones. When it comes to a lot of major studio games you can almost be certain that the pitches for new games in the studio board room probably went something like "it's like X but..." where X is some other game that sold well. I'm almost willing to bet money the pitch for Dead Space probably was "It's like Resident Evil 4 but gorier and in space! And look how well RE4 sold!"
Gonna go out on a limb here (and I have just read al the preceding posts now): Why do devs often seem so distant from the gaming crowd when designing sequels? While I have reconciled the fact that reimagining breeds new experiences and repackages are a result of business, when it comes to these sequels, wouldn't it make sense to go to the gamers first for ideas?
It might end up being labeled laziness, but I'd argue if you went into a sequel with the idea to let gamers come up with all the new ideas, and then spent your design time filtering out the crap and collecting all the good ideas, then finally putting it together, you'd have a masterpiece. As user-created content has shown, gamers can at times be as if not more creative than the developers themselves. Yet the number of games relying on user-created content (i.e. Little Big Planet) are far fewer than I woudl expect.