Eurogamer hits a nerve

Grumpypants

It wasn't a yearly update that killed GH it was that between 2005-2010 they released 25 different variations on the game on different formats with little or no update in the concept.

But at the same time Rock Band did innovate yet RB3 barely made a dent I wasn't even sure it was released it was such a quite release here.

johnny_ultimate

Grumpypants wrote: »

It wasn't a yearly update that killed GH it was that between 2005-2010 they released 25 different variations on the game on different formats with little or no update in the concept.

But at the same time Rock Band did innovate yet RB3 barely made a dent I wasn't even sure it was released it was such a quite release here.

Spin offs aside, the core GH series stagnated pretty much as soon as Harmonix left. No matter how good an idea is, endless repetition will irritate. GH was an extreme sample of oversaturation, but CoD is in danger even with its annual repetition. Now that Infinity Ward are off the radar - who I'm sure we can all agree were the key innovators - it's unlikely the series is going to keep going from strength to strength. I haven't played much of Black Ops. In MP it does some things right, but at the same time the core was established back with MW1, and neither Treyarch game or MW2 has truly innovated to the same degree. It's evolution as opposed to revolution. I don't know where the franchise is going to go, but surely people won't put up with the same incremental upgrades year after year. Or at least I hope they wouldn't. The changes are still novel, but surely there'll be a point when it just feels repetitive or the formula becomes more difficult to alter. Hell, I personally felt it all became too unbalanced with MW2.

I'm playing Assassin's Creed Brotherhood at the moment, a yearly update. ACII was a massive improvement over AC1 with a two year gap between games. In a year, Ubisoft have built upon the ACII improvements, and it's certainly a better game again, but they really need to take a break for a radical departure with ACIII. A year gives time to tweak, but not to truly innovate. Sure AC:Brotherhood has a reason to exist as it makes minor but important changes to a formula, but it's AC2.5 for sure, and I'd be disappointed if they did it again next year.

So what's my point here? I suppose it's just that nothing - no matter how much fun - stays fun for ever. People get bored, and move onto the next novelty. It happened to music games as we're seeing play out at the moment, it's not too much of a stretch to see it happening to CoD. It's the current in-thing, but will it still be the best selling franchise of 2016 as well? It's possible, but something new will always come along. (That said, the popularity of yearly football game updates shows that somethings can succeed time and time again, so perhaps my argument is moot).

I'd also like to say the two year development is much better than the one year one. Realistically things have to be completed within a time scale for sheer economic necessity. Plenty of games and companies work on a two year basis with great success - Uncharted being one that springs to mind, and I see little chance of Uncharted 3 breaking the pattern of quality. It's nice that some people like Valve and Team Ico have all the time in the world to produce quality products, but for others it's simply not practical economically. Look at 3D Realms.

amacachi

Bubs102 wrote: »

People here seem to forget that Fifa games used to be god damn horrible and they still outsold Pro Evo every year. EA made a concentrated effort to get a great game from their great franchise. They worked tirelessly to fix something that numbers wise wasn't broken. That could only ever happen with Computer games so to not give them the credit for making a great game is crazy.

I dunno about that, I remember around 07 or 08 a friend's brother who had been a FIFA man til then got Pro Evo instead as did all his mates. I'd be interested in the figures because while FIFA would've made a profit even if they hadn't bothered trying to compete with Pro Evo I'm sure EA were looking ahead and knew that to keep profits up in future they needed to batter Pro Evo the next time and they'd have those gamers back for at least 3 more editions after that.

Magill

What a thread.... CoD ftw ! :cool:

Bubs102

amacachi wrote: »

I dunno about that, I remember around 07 or 08 a friend's brother who had been a FIFA man til then got Pro Evo instead as did all his mates. I'd be interested in the figures because while FIFA would've made a profit even if they hadn't bothered trying to compete with Pro Evo I'm sure EA were looking ahead and knew that to keep profits up in future they needed to batter Pro Evo the next time and they'd have those gamers back for at least 3 more editions after that.

Pro Evo never came close to Fifa's numbers because kids like real names and real clubs and thats what Fifa had. Pro Evo had limited liscensing meaning you have players like Nessi And Ronaldi

gizmo

Bubs102 wrote: »

Pro Evo never came close to Fifa's numbers because kids like real names and real clubs and thats what Fifa had. Pro Evo had limited liscensing meaning you have players like Nessi And Ronaldi

Hmm, just after looking at the sales figures for both games across all three platforms, the 360, PS3 and PS2. Some interesting results actually..

Fifa 10: 7.89m
Pro Evo 10: 4.59m

Fifa 09: 6.77m
Pro Evo 09: 5.56m

Fifa 08: 6.12m
Pro Evo 08: 6.43m

(360 & PS2 only)
Fifa 07: 4.57m
Pro Evo 07 : 5.21m

Wasn't it around Fifa 09 that EA started to improve the game?

Bubs101

gizmo wrote: »

Hmm, just after looking at the sales figures for both games across all three platforms, the 360, PS3 and PS2. Some interesting results actually..

Fifa 10: 7.89m
Pro Evo 10: 4.59m

Fifa 09: 6.77m
Pro Evo 09: 5.56m

Fifa 08: 6.12m
Pro Evo 08: 6.43m

(360 & PS2 only)
Fifa 07: 4.57m
Pro Evo 07 : 5.21m

Wasn't it around Fifa 09 that EA started to improve the game?

I stand corrected. Nice researching. I can never remember Pro Evo charting higher for some reason and Fifa 09 was the first time I ever chose Fifa over Pro Evo based on the strength of the two demos

5uspect

I remember FIFA 95 (96?) on the SNES when instant response controls were touted as a feature on the back of the box. This at a time when Konami's International Superstar Soccer had superior graphics, amazingly tight controls and basic commentary. Heck you could even go to the bother of editing the teams, strips and all, to match <insert league here>.

And I don't even like soccer or soccer games.

dreamers75

gizmo wrote: »

Wasn't it around Fifa 09 that EA started to improve the game?

Double edged tbh PES went backwards from PES6 onwards so it wasnt really FIFA getting better just being the least **** football game around. FIFA 09/10 had vast improvements tho but its still just less **** than PES.

Also one thing stands out in your numbers, PES was a PS2 exclusive i bought one just for PES and the editing

gizmo

dreamers75 wrote: »

Double edged tbh PES went backwards from PES6 onwards so it wasnt really FIFA getting better just being the least **** football game around. FIFA 09/10 had vast improvements tho but its still just less **** than PES.

Also one thing stands out in your numbers, PES was a PS2 exclusive i bought one just for PES and the editing

You mean the first two?