AN INDUSTRY OF PITIFUL COWARDS (that tells us what's not popular without telling us why)

[berto]

I wish I had this kind of eloquence and ability to just spew what I see when this sh!t happens.

 

[Railazel]

I think that was kind of harsh... With the growing popularity of FPS and multiplayer titles, of course the businesses started making those assumptions. They thought that we thought that certain genres and titles were no longer good enough because we put more money into other titles. You can't blame them for making up crazy ideas when they are getting those ideas off of what our money tells them. So, if we want to change those companies' view, we have to put our money where our mouth is and let it speak for us like it did with Bravely Default.

 

[berto]

I think that was kind of harsh...

You think so?

It wasn't an issue of games suffering because other did better, it was an issue of developers wanting to do better so they turned their brands into what they thought would sell based on what was popular. How much did RE games suffer from the success of CoD? They didn't, but Capcom wanted those sales figures so they traded what worked for what they thought would bring in the largest audiences. There was nothing wrong with what they were doing they just wanted more money for their product.

This mentality is why there aren't any horror survival games on council. Since when are they unpopular? Why was there this large unanimous agreement that no one liked them anymore? Who told them that? Was it based on Silent Hill sales? Their logic has always been twisted and skewed and when it's obvious to the fans and audience they constantly miss the mark and go with the most random reasons for why they think something didn't sell.

Too many things have morphed into what they are not in the name of making money and it's backfired.

I don't think it's a little harsh, I think it's spot on, specially because the fans have been trying to tell them this for a long time, literally and with our wallets. This is not a bad thing, this is progress.

 

[Railazel]

You think so?

I don't think it's a little harsh, I think it's spot on,

But I wouldn't go as far as to call them "pitiful cowards" for it. They are businesses and that's how they think.

This mentality is why there aren't any horror survival games on council. Since when are they unpopular? Why was there this large unanimous agreement that no one liked them anymore? Who told them that? Was it based on Silent Hill sales?

Because of the popularity of Resident Evil 4, ironically. Since that was possibly one of the most popular horror games in history, would it not make sense that horror games would become more action- oriented afterwards? Now that some of those games failed, the companies probably thought that horror games just lost their luster.

They didn't, but Capcom wanted those sales figures so they traded what worked for what they thought would bring in the largest audiences. There was nothing wrong with what they were doing they just wanted more money for their product.

That's my point. One game grows popular, the company wants to mimic that game to get that success. Basic business strategy, if not anything else.

 

[berto]

But I wouldn't go as far as to call them "pitiful cowards" for it. They are businesses and that's how they think.

Fair enough.

Just the same, I have to agree that the need to alter things that worked because they 'didn't' was a foolish and baseless mistake. Cowardice? Perhaps not. Greed? Maybe, I've certainly seen some of that from Capcom. Whatever it was I certainly don't agree with the strategies that took place in Japan during the PS3/360/Wii era. It was uncalled for and I spend most of my time reading game news banging my head against a keyboard wondering why something wasn't as obvious to them as it was to us.

Because of the popularity of Resident Evil 4, ironically. Since that was possibly one of the most popular horror games in history, would it not make sense that horror games would become more action- oriented afterwards? Now that some of those games failed, the companies probably thought that horror games just lost their luster.

This is what I mean with skewed logic. Any fan of the genre could've told you that they still wanted them, that RE4 was a single case result, but instead they go with numbers and studies among demographics that might or might not be interested. It didn't need to come to this, to have the PC market revitalize the genre and Mikami having to announce that the genre needed to go back to it's roots.

That's my point. One game grows popular, the company wants to mimic that game to get that success. Basic business strategy, if not anything else.

You don't turn your Coca-Cola into a chocolate bar because you see how much better they are selling. You want to get into the chocolate business you make a chocolate product, you don't morph something that has established itself as a drink into something else altogether.

 

[Railazel]

Just the same, I have to agree that the need to alter things that worked because they 'didn't' was a foolish and baseless mistake. Cowardice? Perhaps not. Greed? Maybe, I've certainly seen some of that from Capcom. Whatever it was I certainly don't agree with the strategies that took place in Japan during the PS3/360/Wii era. It was uncalled for and I spend most of my time reading game news banging my head against a keyboard wondering why something wasn't as obvious to them as it was to us.

Because they were about to go through a financial crisis and were kind of desperate?

This is what I mean with skewed logic. Any fan of the genre could've told you that they still wanted them, that RE4 was a single case result, but instead they go with numbers and studies among demographics that might or might not be interested. It didn't need to come to this, to have the PC market revitalize the genre and Mikami having to announce that the genre needed to go back to it's roots.

The thing that I thought was odd was that no one thought to simply replicate Resident Evil 4's formula (with some slight tweaks) to see if that would garner just as much success.

You don't turn your Coca-Cola into a chocolate bar because you see how much better they are selling. You want to get into the chocolate business you make a chocolate product, you don't morph something that has established itself as a drink into something else altogether.

Actually, Coke used to be a wine before it was a soda. Essentially, that's the same process going on with some gaming companies right now.

 

[berto]

Because they were about to go through a financial crisis and were kind of desperate?

Hang on. Didn't the financial woes of the Japanese gaming industry come about because of all this decision making and not after?

When the 7th generation started I never heard of any of these tactics taking place, they started a year or two after the prospect of DLC started, from what I remember.

The thing that I thought was odd was that no one thought to simply replicate Resident Evil 4's formula (with some slight tweaks) to see if that would garner just as much success.

Dead Space tried it. Eventually it went the way of RE and focused on co-op and action.

Actually, Coke used to be a wine before it was a soda. Essentially, that's the same process going on with some gaming companies right now.

Well, aren't you just full of fun little facts.

 

[Railazel]

Hang on. Didn't the financial woes of the Japanese gaming industry come about because of all this decision making and not after?

Yes and no, the reaction to financial problems existing in Japan caused the developers to cut some of their staff and create games to try to appeal to a larger, worldwide audience. Doing so, in turn, created some other problems.

Dead Space tried it. Eventually it went the way of RE and focused on co-op and action.

I actually wouldn't blame them for that one. Dead Space 1 was a poor- seller, Dead Space: Extraction gave a good impression that Dead Space can work with two players, and the writer of Dead Space 1 said that the focus on action was because they wanted to make the game more epic in scale while another member said they wanted the game to be scary because of the stuff that happens not because of crappy controls. Of course, I'm not mentioning that Dead Space 2 did have a higher focus on action than it did in Dead Space 1 but some would disregard it because it wasn't as heavy as it was in 3.

Still, at least their reasons for it have more substance than Capcom's explanation of basically trying to market to a larger audience.

Anyway, Dead Space is kind of a bad example because the first one didn't sell well while the second did a lot better thanks to the reception of the first.

Well, aren't you just full of fun little facts.

They help sometimes.