Let me start this out by saying NO! I do NOT think innovation is dead. I do however, think it could use a nudge in the right direction. Being as almost every title that is being released this year has either a number or subtitle on the end. I am thoroughly ready to play Call of Duty: Kitty Bombs 6 <--- sarcasm. I really do like using lists to prove points but this one would honestly take really long.... But lets see it.
-Gears of War 3
-Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
-Assassins Creed: Revelations
-Dead Rising 2: Off the Record
-Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City
-Halo: Combat Evolved
-The Darkness II
-The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
-Saints Row: The Third
-Final Fantasy XIII-2
That makes nine of the biggest titles coming out in the next year all sequels of some sort. Before we continue however, let me not forget the EA Sports people who make millions releasing the same game every year. Madden, NASCAR, MLB, NBA, and etc. That means around 13 of the big releases are sequels. I wouldn't really be mentioning this if it didn't seem to happen every year. Whoever has the rights to call of duty at the time will release a knew one every year. They are currently at number 8. Halo is on track for halos, 4-6. Add the remake of the first and that is 8. Epic will hopefully end their Gears of War trilogy but it really seems unlikely.
And really, I'm not saying that it is bad when certain games are re-done each year. If the game is good, sure make one or two sequels. But please, please, please, know when something is overdone. Know when you've built something amazing then stop. Of course I am mostly saying this toward Epic. As I have said before, they have a real chance to show what you are supposed to do with games. Make them good, write a decent storyline, and end it when it feels like it's done. Gears of War will be done after this one. This doesn't mean that the masses still won't rush to go buy Gears 4 at midnight if it comes into existence. And really, these things that have been titled cash cows have some real problems, because there are two types of them.
The first type, is a cash cow that starts as a trilogy or single game and then realize that they can make money off of this. They then drag out the so called "storyline" of the game to expand many. They one that gets two that pop into my head are Halo and Ass Creed(assassins creed). I honestly have no fucking clue what the storyline of AC is from the first to the most recent update. Something about an Animus and a glowing ball? Really, when it gets to the point someone like me (an avid reader who retains honestly a lot of detail) doesn't remember, there's a problem somewhere. It means that the storyline is unforgettable or rushed, or it just sucks. When you tell your writers to randomly throw in a plot sequence at the end of your game that makes it so there needs to be another, it really bugs me. (Really, the only thing that this long drawn out story telling works for is books. The reason for that being is authors spend years planning out these stories, not months) Do not think though, that I am blaming the game writers for this. When the design team wants this ending, you have to give it to them. I will at the end of this section say two more things. One, Epic, please end it. It's been great really, but it would show that you guys are smart and that you don't need to have one game you're putting out every year. And two, from what I understand, the developers of Infamous II actually ended this game series. As I've been saying, it doesn't happen often.
This brings us to the other type of cash cow. This type has a long laundry list of games that all belong to their respective company and the same title but have absolutely nothing to do with each other. These types consists of games such as Mario and Call of Duty. A new one is released every year simply because wither the company wants to or due to a large fan demand. Either way, I think it's safe to say that there are 72 billion Italian plumbers running around saving a Princess named Peach, eating hallucinogenic mushrooms, or driving a go-kart with tons of gadgets. There are varying opinions on games like this but really, the companies can realize when to stop. With Mario, I find myself just jumping on a few different platforms from last time and with CoD the campaigns change and that's nice but the multiplayer is all the same. I really don't want to hear the "diferent guns!" bullshit argument. You still have your full-auto, semi-auto, pistols, LMG, and etc. The perks stay relatively the same too. The only reason to get the new CoD every year is to play the multiplayer cause every other smuck will be in there instead of the one only a year old. Therefore saying you're not getting the new CoD is equivalent to telling your friends to shove it up their ass. So with that little penny in the gears stopping the cash cows such as these completely seems very unlikely. However, they can slow their releases. By a lot. Or just stop Mario completely.
Also, there has been some talk around the web saying that there is absolutely no innovation anymore. Well shut up, you fucktard, you're wrong. There are Indie games that are very innovative. However, them being classified as "Indie" automatically make people not what to get them. And this goes for all types of media, games, books, movies, and music. When people hear "Indie" they run. Seriously, when Slumdog Millionaire was released did anyone go see it in the theaters until it was nominated for an Oscar? No? Didn't think so. A lot of people seem to have this HUGE aversion to anything with the category of Indie that is really doesn't quite make sense. And really, Indie things aren't that under the radar anymore. I mean, many people saw "Buried", right?... Wait huh? The one with Ryan Reynolds... Yeah, the guy who plays the Green Lantern now..... *sigh* Okay, well anyways, what I'm trying to get at is you may not watch, read, listen to, or play indie classified things, but you know that they are there. They're the ones who get really innovative while the major companies release the same FPS every year.
But shouldn't there be some kind of middle ground? Large corporations do not innovate as much as they could because they would rather play it safe while with indie developers one bombs can turn into many lost jobs. So why can't the larger companies find some way to work with the indie developers. Yes, I know that sharing may be a hard concept, but can't you try? I mean really, I'm sure you would have loved to have Notch when he came up with Minecraft, he's mad millions and his game isn't even completed. Luckily, the people I consider to be the smarter of the large companies, picked him up and added it to the console. GO MICRSOFT. If only you could do more than one.
(I used the Buried example because it is an indie film and made only 100K its first weekend while a larger production such as Avatar made 77 MILLION its opening weekend, and Avatar is just a pretty retelling of Pocahontus. And Buried, is a much much much better film)
Once again here to rant
- Blue
No comments:
Post a Comment