Of course, this is all based on a video of an yet unreleased game,
Of course, this is all based on a video of an yet unreleased game,
I posted recently about going through all 3 games, as well as the books
and anime. This new gameplay video brings it all back, and looks fantastic. >My problem with it is the price -- my jaw can't help falling open at the $60 >($70 on PS5) pricepoint, and I just can't justify it. I guess we'll see,
but this remake will just have to wait for a 40% discount for me to bite.
Of course, this is all based on a video of an yet unreleased game,
 I posted recently about going through all 3 games, as well as the
books and anime. This new gameplay video brings it all back, and looks fantastic. My problem with it is the price -- my jaw can't help falling
open at the $60 ($70 on PS5) pricepoint, and I just can't justify it. I guess we'll see, but this remake will just have to wait for a 40%
discount for me to bite.
So, out of morbid curiosity, I watched the a video *featuring gameplay
from the "Dead Space" remake game. I enjoyed the original game (even
if I thought the sequel was the better game) but generally have been
down on the remake because... well, because it's a remake. An
unnecessary remake at that; the reboot is almost entirely a graphics >overhaul, and the visuals of the original still hold up pretty well.
Of course, he has some personal investment in the original remaining untouched; it's his baby, his vision*. The remake dillutes that
vision. Still, I can't disagree with him or the article: 'it's new
games and IPs that help push the industry forward'. The triple-As need
to start pushing out original ideas rather than plastering over their
old constructions with fancier textures and higher-polygon models. And
gamers need to stop falling for their tricks too. The triple-As keep
making remakes because people keep buying them.
Thank God for the Indies. So much of their output is crap but at least it's/new/ crap and not the same old stuff vomited out year after
year.
It's something I don't really understand. A sequel to a popular game,
yeh why not. Yet another one after that, that's pushing it. After that I >don't know were all the sales come from.
On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:09 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
It's something I don't really understand. A sequel to a popular game,
yeh why not. Yet another one after that, that's pushing it. After that I
don't know were all the sales come from.
It's an evolutionary trait; you stick with stuff that's proven to be
safe. Trying new things has risks (and in the wild, those risks can be deadly). It takes effort often to even realize how much we've limited ourselves, and even more to purposefully push past those limits. And - depending on life experiences - we can often become overly cautious
about exploring new options because previous attempts to expand our
options have been disappointing.
(I mean, I'm speaking to the choir here: look at us old geezers all
hanging out on Usenet ;-)
And with games and entertainment, there's even less inclination to
explore new ideas, especially past a certain age. We only have so much
time in our day to play, so why take a risk with "Devils Daggers" when
"Call of Duty" 1 through 72 have given us - more or less - what we
want? Eventually you'll tire of the formula, sure, but it can take a
long time.
(And don't forget the social issue. Sure Alice might be tired of
Assassins Creed by the time the 22nd game is out, but your friend Bob
has only played the last ten games, and so he still gets enjoyment
from them. So now Alice has to make a choice: keep playing a game that
bores her but she can still get some enjoyment playing with Bob, or
risk something new, which may not be fun and might also distance
herself from her friend. Guess which option Alice picks?)
And it's not like sequels are all exactly the same; developers do
tinker with the formula... just enough to seem fresh without being dangerously new.
It's not unique to games either. TV, movies, books all suffer from the
same problem... Often even the authors want to change but can't lest
they lose their audience. And god knows - as much as I rail against it
- I'm not immune to the lure of the same. Oh look, another Star Wars
product? Take my money!
So I don't really blame publishers for crapping out sequels, or people
for buying them. I wish we'd both be braver in trying new things, but
I get why it's the way things are. Still, I have a special disdain for remakes, which abandon any pretense of newness and just reward the
infantile desire to keep everything the same and safe. It's the
ultimate in stagnation and does nothing for the art and nothing for
the consumer of the art. The only thing it benefits is the pocketbook
of the publisher, who is preying - and encouraging - its customers'
fear of the new.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 111:57:40 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,336,029 |