When did gaming become about one-upsmanship?

[StickyGreenGamer]

Ask yourself : You are releasing a brand new FPS, military style. You need to sell copies. You want to build hype. You want to get a fanbase rabid, ready to rip all these copies of the shelf, at full price, to try your game. What is the first tag line you'd attach to it nowadays?

How about Call Of Duty killer.

It seems every year now, there is a new game on the market, promising just such bravado. But really, is that necessary?

What happened to the days past, when rather than trying to out do another game, you admired it for what it achieved, take elements from it that worked, and stamp your own identity?

What happened to playing multiplayer for fun, rather than just trying to out do some asshat's score?

I could list examples for hours, as well as pose questions, but nobody is interested in big blocks of text not printed on paper (nobody is really interested in that anymore either...). But I'm not going to. So I'll pose a simple question, and ask that people expand on their answers below.

Are we, as gamers, responsible for creating the highly competitive unfriendly atmosphere?

Are the developers responsible, for greed and top-dog desire?

Or am I just an idiot, and this is how the industry has always been?

What do you think, where would you rather it go?

EDIT: I had a third option on the poll, but it didn't seem to go through. The third option is basically a cop out anyways.

 

[Diabolus]

I think Call of Duty is garbage, and the people who flock to it are destroying the foundations of hardcore gaming. But I'm old, and have fond memories of playing Earthworm Jim. So it's probably best to just ignore anything I say.

 

[StickyGreenGamer]

I think Call of Duty is garbage, and the people who flock to it are destroying the foundations of hardcore gaming. But I'm old, and have fond memories of playing Earthworm Jim. So it's probably best to just ignore anything I say.

I disagree (as far as you deflating yourself , CoD is for another topic). I feel myself to be a bit of an older gamer as well. I broke my teeth on the old systems, and I've relished in the beauty of what the newer systems have to offer.

But our opinion is VERY important. We've seen what gaming was, what it became, and what its turning into. In a sense (but not really), this question is aimed directly at you!

 

[TheJx4]

MLG.

Alright, here we go.
The tag line does not come from Developers. It comes from publishers. No self-respecting dev will ever market Y saying its trying to defeat X.

The industry has changed. It's much more mainstream now. MLG has contributed to everything being 4SRS BROFESTS. At the same time, you could also blame Bungie. but then again, that would mean you'd have to blame Microsoft.

Things become serious, when a reward is on the line. You can't level up if you can't get a kill, or cap a flag. People get angry. It's cause and effect.

Developers should take as much blame as the players. I'm a huge fan of Treyarch. Instead of just having guns and giant ship raining down bullets, they add in things like a Ballistic Knife or Crossbows. Wager Matches were an unexpected addition to CoD.

I was rather disappointed with Bungie after playing H3's campaign when I realize that a lot of the focus went to the MP. Then DLC was REQUIRED to play.

It's like Poker nowadays. I mean yeah, you can play Poker for fun, have a good laugh. but there are people who play this for money, and take it very seriously. Because there is a reward on the line. If there was no recognition to earn, what would be the point of taking it so seriously?

The number of people who play MP for fun still outnumber the group who play for competitive reasons, but that doesn't mean frustration is inevitable.

I'm fine with the way things are now, but I would like to see more games like Gotham City Imposters and Monday Night Combat.

 

[De-Ting]

They're both to blame.

People are naturally competitive, developers saw that, and now they feed off of it. They're what turned us from trying to be the best at football to trying to be the biggest no-life, dirtbag, shut-in kill count leaders instead, but it's also the people's fault for not caring what they competing for as long as all their friends are doing it too.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

GENESIS DOES WHAT NINTENDON'T!

 

[Diabolus]

Well, I feel that game development these days is catered to the online community. Most companies don't give a rat's ass about single player quality anymore. I'm a gamer who loves single player, and doesn't give a rat's ass about online play. So of course, this upsets me.

I feel that gaming as a whole has suffered lessened single player quality because of this trend.

 

[TheJx4]

Well, I feel that game development these days is catered to the online community. Most companies don't give a rat's ass about single player quality anymore. I'm a gamer who loves single player, and doesn't give a rat's ass about online play. So of course, this upsets me.

I feel that gaming as a whole has suffered lessened single player quality because of this trend.

If a game has bullshit multiplayer, I wait until its $30.
I see SP/MP as 50/50. If one is good and the other isn't, I wait for it to reach half its full price.

 

[danielrbischoff]

MLG

This, fanboys and marketing...
And really, fanboys feed into marketing and marketing feeds into fanboys. I doubt DICE set out to create a "Call of Duty" killer in Battlefield 3. Having met them they're just way too Swedish for that bull shit.
It's the publishers and marketers that create those rivalries.

 

[TheJx4]

MLG

This, fanboys and marketing...
And really, fanboys feed into marketing and marketing feeds into fanboys. I doubt DICE set out to create a "Call of Duty" killer in Battlefield 3. Having met them they're just way too Swedish for that bull s***.
It's the publishers and marketers that create those rivalries.

and Kotaku.
and yeah, it's all PR stuff.

Like how Killzone was the Halo killer, then Resistance was the Halo killer. I mean, how do you even kill a game on a completely different system?

 

[StickyGreenGamer]

Well, I feel that game development these days is catered to the online community. Most companies don't give a rat's ass about single player quality anymore. I'm a gamer who loves single player, and doesn't give a rat's ass about online play. So of course, this upsets me.

I feel that gaming as a whole has suffered lessened single player quality because of this trend.

If a game has bullshit multiplayer, I wait until its $30.
I see SP/MP as 50/50. If one is good and the other isn't, I wait for it to reach half its full price.

I agree with Diabolus on this one. And it is not to say that Jx4 is wrong for that approach, certainly at this current time it is playing smart with money.

But I'm older, and I remember multiplayer often just being a nice bonus thrown in to some games. Single player to me is the more immerse experience, it is where I get most of my joy out of games, and over the last 8 years or so, quality of single player campaigns has just seemed to become nothing more than a footnote. Almost as if there was a complete 180.

Good responses!

 

[TheJx4]

Well, I feel that game development these days is catered to the online community. Most companies don't give a rat's ass about single player quality anymore. I'm a gamer who loves single player, and doesn't give a rat's ass about online play. So of course, this upsets me.

I feel that gaming as a whole has suffered lessened single player quality because of this trend.

If a game has bullshit multiplayer, I wait until its $30.
I see SP/MP as 50/50. If one is good and the other isn't, I wait for it to reach half its full price.

I agree with Diabolus on this one. And it is not to say that Jx4 is wrong for that approach, certainly at this current time it is playing smart with money.

But I'm older, and I remember multiplayer often just being a nice bonus thrown in to some games. Single player to me is the more immerse experience, it is where I get most of my joy out of games, and over the last 8 years or so, quality of single player campaigns has just seemed to become nothing more than a footnote. Almost as if there was a complete 180.

Good responses!

Well, that's the exact reason why I split my money like that. It really all started with Halo 3.

Halo 2 had the best campaign (IMO) and the MP was just as good. Halo 3 made me rethink my future purchases. I love single player, and I love co-op even more. There's just a serious lack of it nowadays, I just have to work with what I have.

Developers are afraid to add Co-op because it ruins the immersion. To hell with that. Is it impossible to play the game alone, then go back through with a friend? At least give us the option. Dragon's Dogma looks like a fantastic co-op game. Funny thing, it's SP.

I'm ranting now...

 

[danielrbischoff]

and Kotaku.

Kotaku used to be a reputable gaming site with a varied community filled with strong voices.

Now it's a ton of sensationalist drivel that takes a piece of news and turns it into a 4000 word essay and community is filled with trolls and weaboos.

As far as being a _____ killer on an opposite platform... It's all about selling the machine. The problem was that the PS2 didn't need a "Halo killer," at all. That's where the marketing comes into to stir up a bunch of shit Killzone was really the start of the bullshit FPS wars. I actually like shooters but when all that stuff gets played out it turns me off.

 

[TheJx4]

and Kotaku.

Kotaku used to be a reputable gaming site with a varied community filled with strong voices.

Now it's a ton of sensationalist drivel that takes a piece of news and turns it into a 4000 word essay and community is filled with trolls and weaboos.

As far as being a _____ killer on an opposite platform... It's all about selling the machine. The problem was that the PS2 didn't need a "Halo killer," at all. That's where the marketing comes into to stir up a bunch of s*** Killzone was really the start of the bullshit FPS wars. I actually like shooters but when all that stuff gets played out it turns me off.

The community is, yes, full of a bunch of trolls. There are quite of few respectable members who stick by the site through every stroke inducing design change. I once got banned for criticizing one of Joel Johnson's articles which was posted just to spark shit-talk. His hate for Sony shows in every single post.

and a lot of sites really focus on the "Our game is better than their game" stuff from the publishers, but they ignore what the actual devs say. It's quite sad, honestly.

 

[StickyGreenGamer]

Developers are afraid to add Co-op because it ruins the immersion. To hell with that. Is it impossible to play the game alone, then go back through with a friend?

No. They aren't afraid to add it. Publishers don't go for it. They would much rather that two copies of the game get sold, rather than one and you two sharing a couch.

 

[TheJx4]

Developers are afraid to add Co-op because it ruins the immersion. To hell with that. Is it impossible to play the game alone, then go back through with a friend?

No. They aren't afraid to add it. Publishers don't go for it. They would much rather that two copies of the game get sold, rather than one and you two sharing a couch.

If that were true, then games & DLC wouldn't be released on PSN.
I'd rather lose 1 sale, than lose 4.

(I'm referring to people Game Sharing, for the non-PS3 people)

 

[lokness]

Kotaku is a joke now. I remember visiting back in 06 when it was actually decent, now its full of dribble and weaboos star commentors.

 

[TheJx4]

Kotaku is a joke now. I remember visiting back in 06 when it was actually decent, now its full of dribble and weaboos star commentors.

http://blog.krylonultraflat.kotaku.com/ ... t=37849860