I agree, if it's there, you take it! thats not our fault, its the developers who have to come up with a solution for it, not us.

Arkham City almost did that successfully by including the one-time-only-redeemable Catwoman codes. I think someone eventually managed to make a keygen though, or that's what I heard anyway.

I'm more a movie person than a gamer, I've never paid more than ten bucks for a movie I wanted thanks to the Exchange. That's a whole different ball game, as we know the film industry is an evil tyrant who actually has plenty of money and all the piracy and second-hand distribution in the world has yet to stop them from churning out a new 200-million dollar Michael Bay film every year.

The only games I've ever bought new were the Oddworld games, or Doublefine's, and not because I wanted them to see that money. I just wanted to play the games the second they came out.

The film industry has figured out something that the games industry hasn't though. Yes, you need to have big games with big explosions, but to thrive and grow you also need more cerebral content. It feels like the games industry is getting close to figuring that out, but just hasn't quite grasped it yet.

Also because most of the money made from movies is made in theaters, not from DVD sales. And the entire 3D hype gave theaters a new live, since watching 3D at home is pretty shit.

Games, on the other hand, have pre-order gimmicks. A lot of them simply don't use this to their full potential.

There are plenty of cerebral, story-driven games out there, but nobody plays them - even when they're backed by major companies. We all saw what EA did to OWI.

I do think that we're going through a period where gaming innovation and creativity is critically low, and they're starting to follow the wrong examples from the film industry. Namely, overproducing games that are all cut from the same mold and focus almost exclusively on aesthetic value. People get major boners for "groundbreaking" games like Mass Effect and Skyrim, but if you take a few steps back and squint, you realize that all of these games you spent 60+ dollars on are basically the same.

Then you have games like Limbo, Journey, and the Ico series that more than make up for the drought of creativity in the industry, but they also rake in less than half the revenue that these popcorn games do. I'm grateful for Steam. It's the last bastion for innovative gaming and it's a great stage for small, creative developers to strut their stuff.

I actually think that this is incorrect. While big publishers keep churning out the likes of Call of Duty, there’s an ever-increasing amount of small teams and indie developers creating more and more creative and innovative games. Minecraft, Braid, Limbo, Super Meat Boy, Fez, and And Yet It Moves are all games developed and released by small teams. All of them have had great reception, and some have sold in ludricous amounts. Oddworld itself is now being handled by a small publisher-independent team.

Digital distribution and the possibility of being able to release games without going through a publisher is creating this steadily growing movement of indie games, and these guys are more than happy to try out new, creative things. And I think that movement will have an effect on the industry as a whole very soon, if it isn’t already.

I kind of said the exact same thing in the second half of my post...
When I was talking about innovation being critically low, I was talking about more main stream games.

I know, but your post as a whole makes it sound like the creativity and innovation is disappearing. I’d argue that it’s increasing overall.

I didn't say it was disappearing, I said we're at a low point, and that's the fault of both the developers and the audience. If it wasn't for Steam being such a popular showcase for smaller developers, I'm confident that there would be almost no market at all for games like Super Meat Boy and Limbo.

You could make the same argument in the film industry. Films are easier to make than ever nowadays, and there are always independent auteurs unhinged from the Hollywood regime who can turn out some pretty awesome shit. But on the whole, the movies that take the box office by storm are utter garbage, and without websites like Youtube and Vimeo, smaller, more innovative filmmakers would be struggling for air.

Oh, there are plenty of intelligent games being made, but the publishers don't know what the fuck to do with them, and most of them just get made outside of the traditional publisher ecosystem. It's not that the gaming industry doesn't produce great shit. It's that no one in a position to help it succeed either knows what to do with it, or cares to take the chance.

^ This.

Game companies, like film companies, would rather produce a piece of shit with a bloated budget they know will sell than invest in a slightly less accessible concept that is anything less than a sure thing. And it's not because these industries are malevolent devils bent on waging war on creativity, they're just protecting their investments. It's an unfortunate cycle.

I feel like it’s been that way for a hell of a long time, though. The main innovations produced by the industry have been related to graphics and processing power, or streamlining/improving existing genres and mechanics. Genuine innovation and creativity besides this has always been pushed to the side.

It’s less “the big companies are getting worse”, more “the big companies are the same but it’s more noticeable now”.

game developers are now doing one of two things: changing their games into something that fits a wider audience, but will be a big letdown for the die-hard fans, or continuing to make good games for the hardcore fans. Pretty much all game companies are doing the first because they get more money, i mean, just look at what happened to Resident Evil, a fantastic survival horror franchise that had been going for years, succumbed to the pressure, and now, the more mordern Resi games are nothing more than regular shooters (except 4), its like they don't give a shit about their games anymore, everythings just turning into COD or FIFA. Soon games won't have anything special or unique because it'll just be about the money.

Not necessarily. Gaming is a comparatively new market, and they've only really started to settle into this trend in the last five years or so. Console processing power and graphical capabilities peaked, the major engines have been established (at least for a while). From that point on, companies have just been recycling the same concepts, slapping on a different wrapper.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we've established a kind of status quo, and that games have a strong, functional skeleton to be built on top of. It allows for companies to build out an impressive product in a timely manner, but I also think it can be a creative hindrance.

I'm reminded of those Mighty Muggz figures. Plain white figures that are designed to be a canvas for customization. I've seen some pretty sweet paint jobs on those little fuckers, but in the end, it's still just a Mighty Muggz figure. There are those who go above and beyond with their customization, to the point where it becomes something totally new, but they are few and far between.

I'm not so cynical as to say the industry will become devoid of uniqueness, like Nepsotic here. There will always be the independents who create a palatable remedy for my big game blues, and I'm happy to give them money to keep me satiated.

I will probably never pay full price for a major retail game. Not necessarily because I don't want to give them the satisfaction of taking my money, but because I'm a cheap ass who doesn't want to pay full price for something that doesn't completely blow my mind.

Developers are now focusing on Preorder Bonuses and Multiplayer to keep people playing their games and not trading them away.

As for handheld games, in the old days they used to be things you could play in the car to pass the time, such as Tetris and Pokemon. Nowadays, they're trying to copy the console market far too much, Resident Evil, Uncharted, Metal Gear (which I love, and actually some of the best PSP games). I can't really handle games with too much motion while in a car, I'm not sure how many other people share my view.

I think it's good that they're allowing you to take more complex and advanced games on the road.

No, they're trying. But you can always tell a handheld game from a console one.

There are some awesome as fuck games on handheld consoles. I enjoy a game for what it is, not for what console it's released on.

You can always tell a handheld game that tries to be a console game from a handheld game that's made for a handheld.

Question is, when can we ditch the "Mini/Lite/Portable" releases and have something like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Mass Effect, Fallout or Elder Scrolls on a handheld console. That's what I really want to see.

There are plenty of amazing full length hand held games.

Name some.

MGS Peace Walker (Haven't played)
God of War CoO & GoS (as well)
Patapons

No, but you can play about a billion other homebrewed/emulated that are tremendously better.


Seriously, not liking 'Handheld Gaming' based on the potential quality capable by the medium itself is the kind of argument poor kids used to make on the schoolyard.


What exactly stipulates 'full length game'? The vast majority of current console games are MAYBE 8 hours in length, but the Megaman Battle Network series are 30 hours+ a pop and they're all pretty excellent GBA games. There are 2 full length God of War games on the PSP, which were deemed quality enough to port directly to the PS3 (with some resolution tweaks). Resident Evil 4, best game of last gen and all, is available for iPhone for about 5 bucks. The PSP has more Monster Hunter games on it than any other console and those games easily dwarf Skyrim in length and content.

Current gen shit? The PS Vita has an entire Uncharted game, Rayman Origins (and it looks fucking excellent) and probably some Disgaea game, and the Disgaea games are like a trillion hours long.

You're talking total poppycock. Go buy a PSP and play some MH.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/gam...ary-nav;item;6

A game isn’t bad because you have carpal tunnel and can’t see small screens.

I don't have a problem with the screen, and the PS Vita actually looks pretty good. What i'm saying is, I can't figure out why I don't like handheld gaming, I just don't. There was actually a port of Resident Evil 1, from the PSX to the DS.

By today's standards, RE1's a bad quality game, but on the DS, I loved it just as much. So it's not the device itself, it's something to do with the games made for it.
PS Vita doesn't even look like a handheld (Not phisically, like size and all, I mean quality ect).
The point is, I don't know why I don't like handhelds, I mean, I have my reasons, I just don't know what they are. They are there though, trust me. It's just my opinion though, why's everyone having a go?

Because you said handhelds don't have any good full-length games.

I love handheld gaming. I've spent countless amounts of time on my Gameboy Colour/Advanced, DS and 3DS.

What kind of argument is that? The Vita doesn't count because it has nice graphics?

We're not having a go, we're trying to figure out what the fuck you're trying to say and why.

I've racked up the most hours ever on some handheld games, especially Pokémon and Final Fantasy.

It sounds to me like you just prefer games that attempt to be a little more immersive – more emphasis on storytelling, exploration, that kind of stuff.

And that’s fine. I’m the same, handheld games never really hold my attention for long. I prefer to sit down and sink a bunch of time into a game all at once, and really get into the meat of it. Handheld games don’t typically offer that in the same way console/PC games do.

That doesn’t mean handhelds are bad.

^ This. Well the Pokemon part anyway. I've must of spent at least 1000 hours total on all the Pokemon games. :p

No, it just doesn't seem like the typical handheld console.
I think it's because the majority (not all) of handheld games seem to be focused at kids, they're too childish, and theres nothing wrong with that, its just not my cup of tea.

This

Is going to turn into a Nintendo thing

Isn't it

Legend of Zelda games, Mario games, Final Fantasy games. I don't know man, I've had a ton of handheld games that I spent easily 40 hours on, and they were fantastic.

Nuh-uh.

Zelda games and Mario games are focused at kids, dummy.

So?

What d'you mean, so? I was defending it. It looks pretty cool.

Defending it relative to what?

The fact that you think 'Doesn't seem like a handheld console' is a defense against something indicates that maybe you should rethink your assumptions.

It just seems better. I don't know how to explain it, it all comes down to the games, yet again, the ones on the vita look more sophisticated.

Also, go to bed!

I think their objection/confusion was not to your support of the Vita, but rather to your denigration of all other handheld consoles.