Research. Any smart consumer does research before buying a product.
And the research I did on GTA 4 told me it was a great game. A perfect game, if I'm not mistaken, according to IGN.
No, research all you want, there are just some things you don't find out until you play.
I don't think you're getting my point here. The reward for a "gamer like me" is NOT the mere winning, it's the journey, the "playing" as you claim. And I find it hard to believe you're really arguing against the idea of character and plot development as bad things. You can call them boring if you'd like, I'd call it "making me give a fuck about this game and it's characters". I mean, I love a good platformer, I'm content to sit down and play some old school Mario any time, but do I actually give a shit at all if Mario is killed in the course of my gameplay? Nope. Now, ask me that same question about a game like Dues Ex or some of the GTA games, and I'd say yes. It's really the same basic theory that's used in pro wrestling actually, the more complex and intricate storytelling that makes you actually emotionally invest into the story and characters is the better.
I mean, the games you describe have their merits too. Sometimes I don't want to care about a game I'm playing or the characters in it, and I'll play something as incredibly pedestrian and simplistic as tetris instead. But you won't hear me arguing that tetris is the better game, even if I were to have more actual superficial "fun" playing it than the other game, because video games to me are an art medium and as such I look for, shocking I know, artistry. Which certainly lends it's hand to complexity more often than it does simplicity.
Both times of games have their merits. I don't think one is a fundamentally better genre of gaming than the other, but I do think the complex game that makes you think is better than the one that doesn't most times simply because it requires intellectual stimulation, which puts more value to the time put into playing that game and ultimately makes it a more rewarding experience in my opinion. Fostering stimulation of the brain > having mindless fun (e.g. laughing as you shoot ducks in Duck Hunt, etc) in my humble opinion. The best art makes you think. Deuce Bigalow is probably a more "fun" film to watch as opposed to a Fellini or Truffaut film, but does that make it the better film? No.
And I don't think you understand the point I'M making here.
When I play a game, I don't do it because I want to be emotionally invested, to spend hours replaying the same quest, to have my game experience limited by online play. When I play a game it is specifically because I DON'T want to have to work at it, I want to play.
I spend all day working with my mind. Video games used to be (and I wish still were) relaxation from, not a substitute for, a real life.
That's the point I'm making, and have tried to make all along. I don't mind you would rather spend hours with every nuance of an "artistic" game, I'm telling you I want to play something that I can shut my brain off for. You know, like video games used to be.
Ah, yes, it does. Because each time you fail in that goal, your brain is coming up with new ways to play the game in order to achieve said goal. Literally by definition that is stimulating brain and cognitive thought activity.
And every time you miss a duck and the little dog comes up with his sad face, you think of a better way to aim your gun to hit the duck.
Using that theory, all games are cognitively challenging. Of course, I don't think either of us buys my explanation for Duck Hunt being a cognitively challenging game, so you'll understand why I don't buy your example of Call of Duty being cognitively challenging.
I do wish to point out my problem with Call of Duty is with the focus towards online play, not the in-depth challenging nature of it.
I don't think Rockstar has anything to worry about in terms of their product not selling well. That franchise is HUGE in terms of revenue dude.
No doubt. Like I said, I know my not purchasing a game will mean nothing to them. My point was it's not a problem for me.
And I recognize your lamenting, and I'm telling you simply that what the creators are trying to do is give you the most value for your $60.
No, they're not trying to give ME the most value for my $60, they're trying to give the most value for the dedicated gamers, the teenagers who will spend hours at a time for weeks on end leveling up in Call of Duty online.
My lament is that so many game makers AREN'T giving me my full value. When I can't play 9 minute quarters in Road to Glory in NCAA Football 12, because it would screw up their online leaderboards, that's not maximizing the value of the game for me. That's what I'm lamenting.
Sorry, once I've played something as simple as Duck Hunt or Mario a few hundred times, I'm good with that game for the next few years. But a game as complex and intricate as GTA? Shit, It'll take me a few years just to literally complete all of the missions, side-missions and side-games offered to complete the game 100%.
Ironically enough, I've played the NES version of Mario more times in the last three months than I ever did playing GTA 4.
Complexity does not equal quality. Complex quality does not always equal entertainment. For you? Yes, it does, though clearly not enough to actually purchase/finish the game. For me? No, it does not.
I want a game where I choose how complex the game is, where I don't have to work to play a game. I want the mindless video game, the enjoyment of being, if only in virtual world, a superhero who doesn't have to think about how if I drive too fast to my next quest start point, I'll have to spend the next 5 minutes ditching the cops.
That sounds like a more valuable game to me than one where you just play through a short story mode once and that's it, game over, you've got to start again or turn it off.
Can't hate them for wanting to make their games more re-playable and valuable.
Actually, I agree with you, as that's the point I'm making with the online games.
What incentive do I have to play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, if I'm not an online gamer? The answer? None. A short 8-10 hour (if that) story mode, and that's it. I already have Modern Warfare 1 and 2, why bother with three?
Since I'm not an online gamer, I AM being shortchanged on the value of my game, hence my frustration. Which also explains my anticipation of both Skyrim and Minecraft, two games not limited in single player mode.
Okay. You stick to Minecraft. Have fun. Just understand millions upon millions of gamers disagree with that thought process and that video game creators will continue to create games to appeal to those millions instead of the much smaller demographic you represent. 3 million copies sold? Cool, GTAIV literally did more than that on it's first day released.
I don't think you fully recognize the significance of my statement.
Minecraft is not even a finished product. It's still a beta project, and everyone who purchases it KNOWS it's a beta project. Furthermore, due to piracy concerns, gaming on the PC is a dying medium. Even World of Warcraft is losing subscribers. For a game with no hype behind it other than word of mouth, without a name production company behind it, with no advertising and on a gaming medium that is on it's last legs, the fact Minecraft has sold roughly 40% the number of games GTA has (not including the people who also pirate Minecraft), Minecraft is obviously an example of the fact people DO enjoy the simple things still.
But since we're comparing numbers, the incredibly simple game Angry Birds has been downloaded/played by over 350 million devices. I read roughly an average of 40 million people play it each month. Rovio is looking to go public, and the CEO estimates his company's speculated worth of $1.2 billion is low. Kind of puts that roughly 8.3 million copies sold of GTA 4 in perspective, does it not?
Obviously, the simple games are a little more popular than you wish to make them appear.
So I hope this helps you to understand why game creators and companies are creating more complex games to appeal to that market in a seemingly disproportionate number compared to the amount of "simple" games you're advocating for.
No, I understand completely why those games are being made. I don't question the big moneymakers they are.
I'm telling you why it pisses me off, as it basically chases video gamers like me away from the entertainment medium. I'm also pointing out games like I look for can do very well commercially. But the fact is they seem to be getting fewer and farther between, in favor of games which REQUIRE (not allow) too much time to be spent on quests, or games where the bulk of your money goes towards online services.
Again, I understand it, I'm just saying why it pisses me off.
Sucking people up in a cannon and shooting them miles..SR doesn't take itself seriously, GTA 4 did when the previous 2 didn't.
