@Venatus-Deus
But that's the problem. Apart from the Broadway show, all those prices are smaller than $60.
People are more willing to part with money when it's a smaller amount.
Also, for the Broadway show argument, people don't go to Broadway shows every week. I maybe have went to 3 in the past 10 years. But video games I buy at least twice a month. That gets a lot more expensive if every game is $60
True, but apart from Grounded series like COD, Activision doesn't have a good track record with IPs.
Blur was a flop
Singularity was a flop
Prototype was sort of of a flop. I'm surprised Activision green lighted a sequel for that
DJ hero faired OK.
Yeah. That was covered in the article. People will throw money on games with a name behind them, like COD, Fallout, or Mass Effect.
However, when it's a new title like Enslaved, no matter how good reviews are, people shy away from the price because they haven't heard of it before or the time spent beating the game isn't worth the price.
Did you even read the article? Of course publishers care about money only, but that greedy attitude is hurting them. Look at how many great games "failed" in the eyes of publishers because they didn't sell well.
They didn't sell well because they were bad. They didn't sell well because the price point was way too much for the experience given to the gamer.
What about the article is a lie? I read it and didn't see anything that wasn&...
I know, but that's the problem. They slap $60 on a game, thinking it'll sell no matter what. And when it fails to sell at $60, they chalk it up as a failure, which in the end hurts the developers the most as publishers won't want to "waste" money on another IP from them.
If publishers didn't automatically slap $60 on every new title, more games could be sold if the prices were lower on some games.
Because actually paying for video games would be crazy.
@DaTruth
Good. Glad we can agree on that :)
I've gone through all of these comments tho and not one person has made any attempt to so say why any of these points are wrong.
Sure, be mad if this article bashed the game without any backup, but don't be whining when you can't make any counterarguments against an article that tears the game apart character by character.
But why did Madison have those problems? We were just told she had insomnia and we were supposed to run with it.
She's still the most worthless character in the game. Take her out and nothing about the game will change...
At least with Ethan the blackouts can be explained by his traumatic experience having his child die in his arms. But the origamis in his hand are still one of the worst red herrings thrown into a plot.
And with Shelby, h...
Except Cage said the game was only meant to be played once... and I can see why. The more you play it, the more you realize how shitty of a story it really is and how your actions really don't matter.
What is actual journalism? Praising developers for everything and everything, kissing their ass on command?
If that's what you want, then sorry, I don't want to be part of that journalism.
I have yet to see people defend against any of these points this article brought up. If you want real journalism, please... enlighten me as to why this article is wrong. I'll be waiting over here on the side that can see through bullshit.
Did you guys turn off your brain when you played this game?
I could drive the car that hit Jason through the amount of plot holes and inconsistencies this game has.
http://n4g.com/news/671835/...
Do you have any reason why Gears is the worst game ever? I don't like gears much either, but at least that has a better story than Heavy Rain.
If a game's main selling point is an engrossing story that are affected by your choices, and those fail horribly, how can you even defend the game anymore?
This game has so many plot holes that you could easily fill pages about why this was one of the worst told stories ever.
Deleted scenes are not canon. If the game itself doesn't bother to explain pieces of the scene where the majority of it was cut for no reason at all, it then fails at story telling.
And that's not even the entire story. The problems with Jayden and Shelby still exist.
The problem is, I've never had this issue in ODST, or Matchmaking for that matter. It's only in Firefight where it's laggy beyond belief. What would make it so isolated like that?
According to Reach, my NAT is open, and my connection is good and my packet loss is low.
"Quoting someone to make a point is the highest form of douche baggery" - me
If you're showcasing your biggest game at PAX, would you show a crappy Alpha build or the most amazing build and level you can?
EA thinks they've won just because it's Battlefield. That their this cocky about it and give us a mediocre demo is a failure.