Ever feel like the fans should decide an all-star roster? Here’s why that’s a bad idea.
I hate whatculture.com's 5 page article for a small opinion piece, but they are right about a few of these. #5 is really the reason, though. Gamers need to learn that video games is about business before it is about pleasure.
That's a terrible mindset. Yeah for the companies they think business first, but if we the gamers, the consumers are not having a good time with the products they are putting out they will end up getting hurt. They need to think of our pleasure so that they can make good profit.
I agree with you. And if there's any big corporation that while obviously trying to make money, they try their damnedest to please their fans, it's Sony Computer Entertainment (or whatever official name they're going by these days).
***That's a terrible mindset.*** You can't change reality. And this article is why the fans shouldn't choose the roster. Not why they shouldn't care about the roster. And, part of the business of this is deciding what will get more fans to buy the game. But, that doesn't mean you can get it all and that you shouldn't do what is best both for the business and the fans.
No pleasure, no business. Games were made to let people have fun and create a new "art" long before it became a "business." The main goal SHOULD be enjoyment, pleasure, and overall people liking the game. Not "how well will this sell?!"
The enjoyment and pleasure is a part of "how well will this sell?" but if the analysist says it won't sell well, you won't be getting any of it.
It's too bad businesses are all about money. The best restaurants are always the ones that just want to make everyone happy, and don't look to profits first. Sure they want to make some profit, but it's not the main reason. There is more to satisfaction in life than acquisition. I don't think anything in reality is exempt from that. Many trade humanity for cash.
Terrible attitude, videogames weren't always "about" business, and there's no reason why they need to be today. Your attitude is the exact one that's made so dominant exploitative, aggressive, competitive corporatism and capitalism.
Actually, it's the other way around. My attitude about how games are made has been changed by how businesses make video games. An environment that has grown as video games has become the third biggest money maker in the entertainment business (movies, music, and then video games). I don't buy games because a business tells me I will like it, I buy games because I think I will like it. But, I'm not ignorant to know that this is how all big entertainment business is run. ***videogames weren't always "about" business, and there's no reason why they need to be today*** You invest a few million of your own money into a video game like this and then say that. Even then, you don't think Atari ruined 80s video games for a few years by not putting out repetitive crap just so they can make an easy buck? It's nothing new.
People need to make money, but that mustn't eclipse the creative aspect, it's really obvious when it does and the game fails. I suppose an exception is COD, but I think people are finally coming to their senses. Making a unique and engaging experience is in the minds of all the best game creators, but many need to learn to strike a balance between this and their desire for profit, and sometimes a risky creative venture can end up yielding a lot of profit by virtue of it's novelty. I mean it's all very subjective, but ultimately you can tell the difference between a game created for business purposes and one in which a lot of creativity and heart was invested. The best artists out there seek returns from their work simply so they can continue producing and enjoying that art, and you seem to be rather coldly overlooking the importance of creating and crafting for yourself and others when it comes to the human spirit.
***you seem to be rather coldly overlooking the importance of creating and crafting for yourself and others when it comes to the human spirit.*** No, I'm only being realistic. As I said, these games come to fruition by people who want money back on their millions of dollars of investment. That doesn't mean that the people who are working on the game don't have their heart in it or that the game isn't an endeavor of the heart itself. I look at games like Borderlands, Torchlight, Mirror's Edge, and other titles and see the heart that went into making the games. I buy those games. Day One. Not only are they fun, they are games made from people who had wanted to do something a little different and still fun. Something in the spirit of those games. Having said that, though, you need to understand that these games getting made went through the hands of analysts who said whether or not they could do one thing or another. And, if they didn't like the idea from the perspective of making the publisher money, they wouldn't have funded the game to begin with. So, it's possible to make creative and 'honest' games and make money off of it. But, for every game like that, there's a Dragons Age 2, Diablo 3, Crysis 2, and so on. Or, even worse, there isn't a Mirror's Edge 2 (yet). You see, I make the honest statement that business comes before pleasure but people seem to think that I mean there is no pleasure in video games. That's not true. But, you're not going to get that pleasure until there's a value placed on it from a business perspective.
Fans are the ones buying the game, so i think they should have a say in it, to a certain extent.
I just dislike the lack of Japanese characters in it, so far I think we (might) have Raiden... But I can't think of any more... Since they choose Etnad, we don't get Dante. Just a very western roster.
Toro,Spike and Heihachi? all out of Japanese games.
spike and the cat (I forgot his name) are Japanese characters. edit: Dante is also a Japanese character
Yeah the cat's called Toro. As long as they're good characters and represent Playstation it doesn't matter what country they were made in.
I'm I the only one who wants "Claude" (GTA 3) In Playstation All stars? I can't think of another franchise that blew up on PS2 as big as GTA
Okay Superbot has been listening to use for most of the time. But like they said 'We will try to put as many characters that people are asking for in the game. Many of the characters that people have thought about we have too. But not all characters will make it into the game. Like the last5 point stated it is all business. Just because you say you want something it won't just happen. It business. It is more complicated then that. Sony can't force any to give them anything. They can negotiate and haggle and make deals. but who says that the people who own these characters are reasonable people and they will just give you anything just because you want it? If Activision is being difficult about using Crash for instance are Superbot and Sony supposed to knuckle under to every demand they make? Activision, Capcom and SE aren't exactly the most reasonable developers out there but somehow people seem to think that they suddenly will just get nostalgic and say 'Here Sony, take anyone and anything you want 'Take Crash, take Cloud, take Spyro, take Chris take it all no charge'. This is a very childish approach to the situation.People didn't seriously think that we would get every character we wanted did you? Sony can use their own characters as much as they want but third parties aren't just going to give them up just like that. @ HarryMasonHerpderp. Very good point. @ Soldierone. So no matter how unreasonable any developer is they should just do anything and pay anything for your 'enjoyment' so everyone can just not buy it and call it a clone and nitpick every detail. Oh yeah that is good business sense. Pay tens of millions of dollars to get every character everyone wants so your ungrateful fanbase can buy a million units of it.good thing no one on this site owns a company or takes financial advice from anyone here because you would be bankrupt in a matter of months
You are acting like Sony has absolutely no power here. What about "Let us have Crash, then you can put a character from another game and we will promote it." Or the simple fact third parties NEED a relationship with Sony for advertising purposes, schedule releases, and being available on the console? I don't really think ruining a relationship like that is worth it when its just an old character Activision doesn't even use. Sony also has the power to say "we tried, but they wouldn't agree" and guess who the fans will attack? Why do you think they put the new Dante from DMC in and not the old? They knew fans wanted the old, but Capcom got free promotion for the new game.... and also calm down and re-read my comment, stop spinning it in negative light. I said nothing about paying for characters, I just said yes fans should have a say in it because they decide who an All-Star is.
I never said they have no power at all. But if Activision has no interest in lending out Crash for instance Sony can't make them do it. Like I said if you actually read my whole post they can haggle and deal and make offers but if they can't come up with something that both parties can agree on they have to let it go. Synergy is a vital part of any agreement or joint venture and if you don't have it then it is pointless to work together in any way. Like you said Capcom's deal with them probably included using New Dante instead of Old Dante to promote the game.The situation probably involved either New Dante or no Dante at all. So Superbot and Sony made the choice of having one more character to fill out the roster instead of just walking away and not having him at all. That could have been the outcome but it wasn't. Also like have stated before I never said Superbot should stop listening to us. As a matter of fact they have been listening to us a lot. So much so that they delayed the whole game after listening to everything we had to say about what we want fixed. But we in turn need to give back some understanding too that they can base every single thing on what we want as they have limits and restrictions on what they can and cannot do. I am sure if they had the freedom they could have a hundred characters and put in every single one we could think of and every thing that we want. But unfortunately in the business world it is not that simple. Don't you think comic book artist and the people who make cartoons and movies wish they could just do whatever they want and not be held back by anything? That they could just spend as much money as they want and use all there resources to make the vision of what they want come alive? But they have budgets, have to compete with other projects, restrictions, limits to what resources they can use, limits to what characters they can obtain etc. It's easy to say from our side 'put every single thing I say into the game' but in the end it isn't you that has to take every resource into account and have to explain to the rabid fans what you can't do and take the flak for it. I have an associate in Business. It is much harder to do what you want then you think.So many factors in the hierarchy can hold you back or slow you down.
It's Sony All-Stars, how the hell do they know who the All-Stars are without the fans? I agree the devs should have a say so they can bring back characters or make other characters popular and fine tune the game, but at the end of the day its a game for the fans.....thats like saying fans of a sports league should get no vote in who makes an All-Star game because some nobody from the less popular team will make the cut. They let people vote, because the All-Stars are what people want to see. Meanwhile the league has a certain few that they personally select as well. The difference? It's carefully organized, that way you dont have an All-Star game ranging two teams..... Also you are meeting "demand" more than "everyone" SOME character say, not FULL "what do you want.". Which would mean not EVERY character will make the list, just the ones with noticeable amounts of fans. I also disagree with statement 2. With all the requests going on there is a big diversity, and the interesting thing about PlayStation is people actually like villains....Resistance, Killzone, and Disgaea have villain requests more than actual main character requests....Plus you see most people wanting platformers or older PS1 people, not the same current gen people over and over....If anything the developers just add in people we really don't care about, and still won't care about when the game releases. Fat Princess? Doubt any of my friends will use her.
I doubted anyone would use Pikachu or Kirby from Super Smash bros, first time I played it awhile ago. And now look at them, you can be a BEAST with those characters. Trust me, they may look like jello, fluff, and bright colors, but those characters are the ones to watch out for. I won't be using them though, aside from Ratchet and hopefully Crash, of course.
I would have. Kirby was awesome since day one.
Choosing obscure characters? I'd say most kids playing this game haven't heard of Parappa, and I wasn't even aware of Fat Princess or Toro. So they may as well throw in some more lesser known ones. Tombi for instance. It needs to be collaborative with the fans, and compromises need to be made. Also there's the issue of asshole companies and rights (No evidence of Spyro yet / New Dante instead of Old etc). Bottom line, you can't exclude fans from this game, we had a pretty big role in making these characters iconic in the first place.
If you had me choose the characters for Marvel vs Capcom 3 I would not have picked characters like Amaterasu, Spencer, super skrull but what Capcom did with those characters made them an instant favourite of mine. Marvel 3 got me even more interested in Okami since I haven't played it. I'll rather they suprise us with the cast, having a mix of well and not so well known characters.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.