E3

[Bubbaganoosh]

Cracked agrees the gaming industry is running out of ideas.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18609_more-proof-video-game-industry-out-ideas-e3-2010.html

[Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet]

This 3ds thing looks sweet.

[Farley4Fan]

Looks like MGS Rising will have some stealth elements.  Fuck yes.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1098800p1.html

[comicsserg]

Looks like MGS Rising will have some stealth elements.  Fuck yes.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1098800p1.html

And some freaking slicing system  :D

[Farley4Fan]

Noticeably absent from the demo is the ability to give orders to your fellow Ghosts -- something GRAW was known for. I'm told that you'll be able to give limited orders such as "attack" or "regroup," but the game is less squad-command based because they're aiming to make it playable for four players cooperatively. That's right, while you won't really be giving your team a hardcore set of commands, the game is being made for four players to work together. I admit, I'll miss giving a ton of commands to my team, but being able to play with my friends is a pretty nice trade off

So.  Much.  Fail.  I called it.  This is a quote from an IGN preview about Ghost Recon.

So, you can't give intricate commands or even tell your squadmates where to set up because they want you to play coop?  Why does there have to be a "tradeoff"?? That's the lamest excuse for going casual I've ever heard.  God dammit.

[Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet]

Uhh... what's the problem with implementing both commands to the AI and coop play?
I can't see any real conflicts between those things.

[Farley4Fan]

It's probably the lamest excuse ever.  It's just so that they can swoop into a piece of the casual market.

  "Oh hey!  Look!  A "tactical 3rd person shooter" without the tedious methods of commanding your squad.  Finally, a "tactical 3rd person shooter" I can enjoy.  I always wanted to play Ghost Recon because it looked cool, but I could never wrap my head around the way you point out where you want your teammates to take cover.  It's just too complicated for me."

Are there really so many people like this out there!?  Seriously?  Was it enough to remove the staples of the series?

You know, I don't think Ubi even knows their targeted audience.  They don't know who the fuck they are going for.  This should lead them down the road to having no audience whatsoever. 

There's no need to have tradeoffs.  Ubisoft is the most delusional and lazy developer of this console generation.  Redundant fact.

[Gawain]

it kinda seems to work out for them xD

[Farley4Fan]

Sad but true. 

[Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8BRbM52gpc

[Farley4Fan]

Yup.  Playing now.  Amazing.

[Succubus Dryad Of The Undying Comet]

Yup. Even though I don't like Metallica, it's one of their best songs. Right after Blackened.

[Spekkio]

Windwaker and Majora's Mask are both piles of shit, and Adventures of Link is borderline.

I liked MM. It had interesting ideas.

I guess. But you could also call baby link sailing around the open ocean on a raft an "interesting idea." It still isn't very fun.

[Wh1tE_Dw4rF]

You seem to be going on about sailing on a boat a lot yet that doesn't say why you hate MM?

[Spekkio]

Cracked agrees the gaming industry is running out of ideas.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18609_more-proof-video-game-industry-out-ideas-e3-2010.html

I disagree with a couple of points regarding this article...

First, it was the gaming industry that set the precedent of releasing a new console every 5 years or so, not the consumer who demanded it. I'm sure Nintendo would have rode the waves of the NES longer than its 7-year tenure if it could, but SEGA had to come along with its fancy Genesis and screw that all up. Then the SNES moved back into first place eventually until Sony released the PSX. It is only natural that the consumer is going to want the latest and greatest technology once it's released. Companies know this, and that's why they build new consoles. You get better graphics, smoother gameplay, and bigger games with more memory (theoretically, when they don't waste all the memory on bling). The real problem is that Nintendo is the only exclusive gaming company in the industry that produces consoles. Both Microsoft and Sony sell products in other areas, so their marketing strategy was to subsidize the cost of their systems with their other profits, and then attempt to make the money back on royalties from software sales.

But yes, consumers do get bored with games, just like consumers get bored with watching the same movie repeatedly. Movie producers still manage to come up with original ideas in film, which have exponentially higher production costs and thus more to lose if the movie flops, so I don't know why software developers can't do this.

Second, he claims that this turnaround has an adverse effect on games. While it's true that console makers (with the exception of Nintendo) don't make money on their systems, these are not the same people who produce games (with the exception of Nintendo). Ergo, money lost by Microsoft and Sony on XBox 360 and PS3 sales does not affect the profit of a company like, say, Ubisoft, who only makes software. It is not the console makers fault that the only games being showcased at E3 are sequels, most of which are first-person shooters that give the player infinite health and infinite lives.

Now, the reason that Nintendo only has typical Nintendo games to show off is because it insists on being different. Different is bad when it comes to software companies, so they'd rather support the more robust Xbox 360 and PS3 than Nintendo, since making a game for one of those systems is essentially the same as making it for the other.