What's your idea of a "perfect" video game industry?

I didn't say for game makers not to advertise their shit, that's ridiculous. I just mean consumers shouldn't just see some pretty flashing lights in a trailer and go preorder before finding out what the actual gameplay is like

One where developers are free to make their own decisions without being bound by the demands of publishers

One where gaming sells well based on the complexity and richness of it's mechanics, NOT based on the graphical fidelity or how "cinematic" it is

One where the critic understands gaming, and is completely unbiased about the product

Fantastic post, buddy, you've truly outdone yourself
Honestly, if it wasn't for your effort, the entire entertainment industry would fall apart

One where AAA stops focusing on graphics and goes straight for depth of gameplay.

People make the games I want to play and they give them to me for free. No one else plays these games so I can feel special

I don't mind biased critics, it's impossible for any human to be unbiased about anything. I think it's important to be up front about bias though. I don't read reviews, but if I did, I'd like an up-front summary of any professional or social connections the reviewer has/had with the company and staff involved with the product being reviewed (ideally the product should only be reviewed by people with zero connections to the product but that's not always possible), along with a concise look at their general preferences.

Of course, a lot more would have to change throughout the industry for reviews to actually be worth anything, but I think that sort of up-front information would be a significant step in the right direction.

>One where the critic understands gaming
Hi can you do us all a favor and teach us how to understand computer games? I would really appreciate it, personally

No remasters, no remakes, no HD ports. No sequels past 3. No DLC, no expansion packs, no early access.

One free of casuals.

one where the video game industry doesn't exist.

/thread

Yea that's what I mean by bias- reviewers that are paid out by the publishers.

Of course there will be bias based on what types of game that critic likes, it's just important to know what those are. For instance, a reviewer might be terrible at, or hate RTS, which means there RTS reviews should be taken with a grain of salt.

That's why I think there's some value to listening to reviewers that you hate or disagree with. If they say "X game is terrible" that could be a good way of saying that you might actually enjoy it.

Let's start by removing false advertising

Well for starters stop reviewing them as if they're films.

This honestly, by getting rid of casuals you also get rid of:
>Political bullshit
>Retarded publishers
>Ignorant consumers
Probably the simplest way to improve it

Hm, I'm kinda stuck on this part. I think if you were to show me an article that reviewed a game as though it were a film, that would really help out with my learning

>one with a rule that all games MUST include THICC women in skimpy armor

1 of 2.

Different user here, this was a really easy request to fulfil. See how much of this review couldn't apply to a film:

eurogamer.net/articles/2016-05-05-uncharted-4-review

Spectacle:
>Naughty Dog's quality control is legendary; its devotion to polish, visual spectacle and entertainment that comes easy are revered throughout the games business.

Writers and directors:
>A little over two years ago, the series' writer and creative director Amy Hennig left Naughty Dog, and Uncharted 4's director Justin Richmond left with her.

Tone, Hollywood comparison, general writing:
>the tone its players love so much - Hollywood high adventure and derring-do, relayed with down-to-earth good humour and a touch of charming sentimentality

>Uncharted 4: A Thief's End is a pitch-perfect sequel that not only harmonises perfectly with the previous three games, but resolves some of their tensions

Story:
>The story starts in the middle, with a frantic boat chase, before rewinding to introduce Drake's elder brother, Sam, and show how they parted ways before Nate's adventures as we know them began. Then - in a very artful reveal - we find Nate retired from adventuring and enjoying domestic bliss with his journalist sparring partner and now wife, Elena Fisher. When Sam unexpectedly reappears, it's to drag Nathan back onto the trail of treasure belonging to the notorious pirate Henry Avery. Nathan has sworn off the fortune-hunting life, but Sam's life is at stake, so Nate has no choice but to join him on an escapade that leads from an Italian auction heist to a ruined Scottish cathedral, and then to the volcanic plains, bustling ports and craggy islands of Madagascar.

2 of 3

>It's another globe-trotting race, then, against another ruthless rival: Rafe Adler, a rich American adventurer with a private South African army. But you can already see how much more cleanly the plot's been constructed. For once, Drake has a clear motivation to stay in the game after things inevitably go south, and a clearly defined conflict - brotherly love versus a promise to his wife, his thirst for adventure versus his nagging good sense. Uncharted 3 unwisely drove the character towards brooding obsession, but A Thief's End pulls back from that - and from a general tendency in the series towards overcooked, last-act lunges into the absurd. It would be a spoiler to reveal where things wind up, but let's just say that Straley and Druckmann are more interested in morality than mysticism.

Set pieces, writing, plot:
>In fact - just as with The Last of Us - Uncharted 4 impresses most with its restraint. It has set-pieces and scenery that will leave your mouth agape, but underplays its drama, keeping it on a grounded and human scale. Druckmann and his writing team even manage to advance Nate and Elena's on-again, off-again romance - always one of the more touching love stories in games - into a convincing take on the troubles of keeping a marriage off the rocks. It's very mature and confident storytelling, assisted by profoundly impressive performance capture and facial animation that allows the actors the luxury of leaving some things unsaid.

Technology, appearance, art, aesthetic:
>You expect cutting-edge technology from Naughty Dog, and in the studio's first full-blown PlayStation 4 release, you certainly get it. A Thief's End is an impossibly good-looking game, with lavish rendering and art budgets spent on every location from windswept cliffs to domestic interiors. This is premium game-making that takes Naughty Dog's heavily cinematic aesthetic to the next level.

3 of 3

Gameplay's importance completely downplayed:
>The charge laid against the Uncharted games is that all they have is surface. In terms of gameplay, that remains a fair complaint.

Conclusion focussed exclusively on narrative finality:
.As accomplished as Uncharted 4: A Thief's End is - as heroically as it bests its predecessors, as gracefully as it sidesteps their pitfalls - it's not possible for it to have the seismic impact and far-reaching influence that Uncharted 2 did. Nor does it redefine the storytelling scope of the blockbuster action game like The Last of Us. It still does something remarkable for a major franchise video game, though: it doesn't overdo its exit. It doesn't immolate itself in a blaze of glory, it tells a story about people and finds peace in its resolution. It just ends. Fin.

>commenting on these aspects on a game that's supposed to be cinematic
Ugh how dare they

user asked for an example of a game review that treated the game as though it was a film. Do you think the example I provided fulfils user's request or not? Because that was my only goal.

Kill Activision, EA and Blizzard

>commenting on gameplay and level design in a film review
Oh this must be new

>The charge laid against the Uncharted games is that all they have is surface. In terms of gameplay, that remains a fair complaint.

It's LITERALLY okay when Naughty Dog does it!

Everything is fun
No one is a critic
No game has cancer fan bases
> a world where im dead

Well, if a film review focussed almost exclusively on 'level design' (the physical construction of the fictional world and the spatial relationship between all elements therein, along with the means of the characters to navigate that space) you might argue the film was being reviewed more as if it was a game than a film, much the same as if a game review focussed almost exclusively on the writing you might argue the game was being reviewed as if it were a film.

Pretty much just what was happening in the late 90s to early 2000s

Dark atmospheric FPS games being shipped out so often
No cod
No EA
No microtransactions
Games released often
Actual testing before release
Interesting story in games(not just man with gun shooting other men with guns)
More FPSRPGs
More horror.

>'level design' (the physical construction of the fictional world and the spatial relationship between all elements therein, along with the means of the characters to navigate that space)
Is this a joke? Games don't have set design and films don't have level design you actual retard

No hardware fanboys
Less dev fans

Day 0 DLC
Broken Unpatched Games
Servers For Online Games Shut Down
Microtransactions For Single Player Games

I think the analogy is solid, but either way you're straying from the initial point, how about another analogy:

The EG review of UC4 is like if someone reviewed 2001 and focussed almost exclusively on the nature of the AI in the film, only giving a token couple of sentences to mention the cinematography and soundtrack in passing.

One without capitalism.

>I think the analogy is solid
It really isn't, when you look at level design you talk about how the player can interact within the level, and you can't do that in film. there is no way to review a film like a game

>The EG review of UC4 is like if someone reviewed 2001 and focussed almost exclusively on the nature of the AI in the film
Not at all, because the main point of U4 is the cinematic aspects + story

All developers are no longer ashamed of the fact that they're making games, and as such mechanics are king

Publishers and devs cease the graphical dick size contest and prioritize proper render resolution and framerate over how many polys they can push

Fair DLC practices

All game genres get some representation in the industry, even the genres I don't like

Denuvo goes the fuck away

>No microtransactions
>No indie developers
>No consoles

One with originality.

>No indie developers

I will never understand this sentiment

Is all you want AAA publisher-funded vidya?

So we both agree that the UC4 review treats the game as if it were a film then?

...

One that doesn't waste time appealing to anti-SJWs.

Denuvo is helpful.

I'd have to refer you back to my 2001 comment then. I do enjoy going round in circles. Would you like to agree to disagree?

really made me think

Denuvo kills future preservation of games if it never end up being properly cracked on that particular game. The authentication servers won't exist forever, and the game will simply cease to be when that happens if the developer either doesn't exist anymore or they/the publisher just doesn't care to take it out

Even if that "analogy" did work, how would it prove the U4 is being reviewed as a film?

The difference is that the U4 review did focus on all the main aspects of the game, and the "review" you made up in your head only focuses on one part of the film

>Games had to be polished as fuck because there were no updates.
That doesn't mean they were all perfect.

Preservation isn't an anti-piracy problem. They have the prerogative to keep their IP safe, whether or not they're required to support it after servers.

>cherrypicking
Have a (You)

Stop treating gameplay enjoyment within a genre as subjective.

Nintendo releasing mainline Pokemon games on Android.

Microsoft releasing all the Gears/Halo games on Steam.

Sega getting back into the console wars so Sony has some competition with Microsoft and Nintendo out of the picture.

Oh, I see where part of the problem in our discussion comes from, you're a bit confused about the nature and usage of analogies, that's okay.

Analogies don't exist to 'prove' or 'demonstrate' anything, ever. They don't work that way.

Analogies are merely comparisons, usually used to explain a point or highlight key similarities or differences between the subject at hand and an alternate subject, ideally for the purpose of clarification.

I see my use of analogy ITT has had the reverse effect, and for that I apologise.

So, I'll repeat myself once again but this time analogy-free:

The UC4 review treats the game as though it were a film, with the exception of a couple of sentences.

In fairness to you, it's true that there are those couple of sentences, and you're not wrong to focus on them. But in my own personal opinion, a couple of throwaway comments that explicitly dismiss the only aspects of the game that can't be found in films doesn't negate the rest of the review. Clearly your opinion on that point differs, and I respect that, but I don't think there's any way either of us will change our minds.

>this bothered over one word
Okay autist, how does your "analogy" ***explain*** how U4 is being reviewed as a film?

>The UC4 review treats the game as though it were a film, with the exception of a couple of sentences.
*5 paragraphs

Which five paragraphs are you referring to?

...

I count 3, well more like 2 and a half since one of them goes on about scenery as well.