• 80 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

That scares me.

How expensive are games going to get in the later years? How many game developers and publishers are going to falter in their failed attempts to create well designed, addictive, enjoyable, engaging, balanced, and "not-frustrating" games for the next generation? Will the desire to experiment end as a result of fear from creating a "mediocre" game? Will it come to an area were we, as gamers, are going to complain about how "dated" or "last-gen" certain games are going to be in the future with such games not having fully mo-capped facial animations and movements, ala Halo4 and LA Noire (if, by chance, that truly becomes the standard for cut scene direction)?

We have Jeff Gertsmann pointing out flaws such as gliding animations upon ladders in Shadowrun and, in Deus Ex Human Revolution, how the AI couldn't shoot through glass windows to murder you. Will the standard rise, making game development next to impossible? Will new comers fall and certain studios like Bethesda, Valve, Epic, and whatnot will be the last remaining?

Halo4 is just a simple shooter. This isn't some open-ended role-playing game with fuck loads of detail, dialogue, animations, and deep elements -- nothing overtly ambitious in Halo4 other than its 'core'; the game is going to be adorned with great looking cut scenes, high quality voice actors, plenty of polish, and tons of weapons and content that will make it last for quite a few months. But if you remove all of that expensive stuff, I think we can all agree that Halo would just be a really, really simple shooter that any decent game developer could possibly program and build. Give a game like Serious Sam 3 tons of fame and resources and I'd bet you all that we'd see some hefty blockbuster stuff going on. It's amazing what high production values can do to such a plain concept like Halo.

But knowing how much money and resources is going into such a simple game, I fear for the things going beyond the shooting and the cut scenes. To think, Todd Howard is going to be alive for the next generation and we're going to see an Elder Scrolls VI in the next 5 or 6 years. With the visual standard to be expected, that game is going to be really fucking expensive. But if it's for the sake of making good ideas not go to waste by the case of death, then so be it. I just hope they're careful.

#2 Edited by Benny (1950 posts) -

Halo is more than a simple shooter. Just look at the difference between it and MOH for example (the 'combat puzzle,' crazy weapons, vehicles, wide open areas, armor abilities, etc.)

I recall reading the game was around $50M to make, and then some crazy number like double or triple that was all marketing.

#3 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

@Benny said:

Halo is more than a simple shooter. Just look at the difference between it and MOH for example (the 'combat puzzle,' crazy weapons, vehicles, wide open areas, armor abilities, etc.)

Every good shooter, besides the usual CoD4 clone, has a combat puzzle. It's nothing special. A "not-simple-shooter" would be one that goes beyond the veils of shooting and introduce environmental puzzles, exploration, or some form of squad tactics ala SWAT or the old Rainbow Six games. Half-Life 2, for example, is not a simple shooter. Even today it surpasses some of the stuff that currently gets released when it comes to physics, variety, player interaction, ect.

#4 Edited by believer258 (11775 posts) -

Coming from a guy who enjoys stupid "classic" shooters (Painkiller, Doom, etc.), Serious Sam is boring. Granted, all I've played of the games are demos, but each time I've just shut it off halfway through the demo out of sheer disinterest in it.

I've beaten Halo 3 in one sitting, just for comparison. Personal opinion, yes, and I can't fully qualify my views on Serious Sam because I haven't played the full product, but based on what I've played I could probably make a case for Halo being the game more deserving of popularity. I could make something of a case for that right now just by pointing out that Halo has developed more subtlety and depth than Serious Sam ever could simply by having a coherent story that's fairly interesting.

Anyway, you're right that game development costs have been rising, but you can be guaranteed that there are people working on ways to figure out how we can reduce game development costs while keeping them up to a standard. Case in point: Witcher 2. That game looks gorgeous but I doubt that it got anywhere near the same budget that, say, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 did. The technology used to make games is getting better and more efficient, and since those who fund these games care about their money, you can bet that they're going to try to wring all they can out of a dollar.

On a related note, we've seen the rise of the lower budget, indie games this generation. No generation before this one could have seen the success of Minecraft or Braid or Mark of the Ninja. I think a bigger problem may be the focus on stupid, degenerative marketing than games costing too much.

EDIT: Also, Half-Life 2 is not that much more complex than Halo. Go play both on their hardest difficulties and tell me that Halo requires less planning, strategy, and quick thinking than the relatively piss-easy Half-Life 2. This is less a matter of opinion and more a matter of Christ, four elites, two Wraiths, and some Banshees, plus Grunts, and I've got one grenade and half a plasma pistol!?

I'm really getting tired of people lumping Halo in with the word "simple" just because it's pretty popular. It isn't. It really, really isn't. It may bore you, yes, but it is not simple to play on the higher difficulties.

#5 Posted by big_jon (5723 posts) -

Yeah, I am not sure what you think a "simple shooter" is, but Halo is not that.

And I think it was 100,000,000 to make, about a quarter of that was most likely marketing.

#6 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

Lots of folks are going to be offended by the "simple shooter" statement I lent. It wasn't meant to be offensive. A shooter doesn't have to be Half-Life 2 to be good. Heck, I consider Painkiller to personally be one of the best FPSs I've ever played. But nevertheless, in a simple shooter, you just go across a level and shoot things until they die. Halo is about this and it's got some in-game dialogue and some cut scenes to lend respite, but nothing else. It is a pretty simple game no matter how you look at it.

#7 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

This is dumb; anything "stripped down" is simple and stupid. A Ferrari without all the crazy expensive stuff is just a combustion engine that rotates wheels; a giant leather couch stripped down is just a simple sitting device.

If you don't like a game you haven't played yet, just go to the comments section of Jeff's review.

#8 Posted by believer258 (11775 posts) -

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Lots of folks are going to be offended by the "simple shooter" statement I lent. It wasn't meant to be offensive. A shooter doesn't have to be Half-Life 2 to be good. Heck, I consider Painkiller to personally be one of the best FPSs I've ever played. But nevertheless, in a simple shooter, you just go across a level and shoot things until they die. Halo is about this and it's got some in-game dialogue and some cut scenes to lend respite, but nothing else. It is a pretty simple game no matter how you look at it.

So elaborate on what Half-Life 2 does differently.

#9 Edited by Gahzoo (361 posts) -

I wanted to get hyped for Halo 4...

but A GREAT EVIL AWAKENS

Fuckin' really?

Most of the money probably goes to advertising and for that?

#10 Posted by yoshisaur (2700 posts) -

@Tru3_Blu3: I don't think your statement on it being a "simple shooter" is what will get people riled, but your intent behind such a comment. Your words depict a condescending tone that you think games need to evolve from this or that to be relevant. Halo is a fantastic franchise; it earned that popularity. It helped standardize a genre that was otherwise strictly on the PC. On those merit's alone allow the franchise to be immune to that sort of commenting.

I think we all understand that what you are saying is that you wish developers would put more time into games mechanics to improve on the customers experience, but in the end, maybe we just want a wild ride that looks pretty, sounds explosive, and leaves us feeling like a hero at the end.

Every movie "stripped down" is nothing but a couple of people acting out scripts, and music is just people who learned an instrument plucking strings or hitting on drums. It's a silly way to look at things, and will only lead you to looping around and getting nowhere.

#11 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

@ck1nd said:

@Tru3_Blu3: I'm trying to decipher your thought process on why it's a negative to have this sort of game being released. I enjoy games like Halo for their simplicity, and so does the majority of people. There is a reason complex games do not become mainstream, and it's because the general population wants to enjoy their game instead of feeling like every single motion they make is a form of homework. I enjoy puzzle games from here to there, but when it gets down to it, I want to progress in a game without feeling like I'm learning an entirely new skill.

Don't get me wrong, this sort of discussion has a place in the world, but to go as far as to say that AAA title developers are doing something wrong when spending this much money on titles like Halo is a bit asinine. If they fail in the process, let that be the lesson; not the assumed doom-saying of a minor-voiced crowd. We have plenty of innovative titles that release each year, and most of them flop. Why? Because this far-fetched notion of "new and improved" isn't as sound to both the consumer and developer as, let's say, "tried-and-true."

I didn't say anything about it being a negative. But to bring it as fact, almost every game that gets released is a negative on an economic standpoint as risk factors can take a serious hit on an industry. It's only on the long term that the negatives are washed away from the revenue. But that's not the point.

Simplicity isn't a problem. It's just that, for a simple game like Halo4, it's pretty freaking expensive to make it. The standards coming about are going to make probable ambitious titles in the future seem like Russian roulette. If Halo4 takes 100 million to make (50 million if the advertisement stuff is out of the way), then imagine the other stuff in the future. That's my point.

#12 Posted by Freshbandito (677 posts) -

@Vinny_Says said:

This is dumb; anything "stripped down" is simple and stupid. A Ferrari without all the crazy expensive stuff is just a combustion engine that rotates wheels; a giant leather couch stripped down is just a simple sitting device.

If you don't like a game you haven't played yet, just go to the comments section of Jeff's review.

What Vinny_Says says, you can't just take away the very thing you're talking about then use what's left as a basis for your argument that what you've taken out makes no change/difference.

#13 Posted by EuanDewar (4873 posts) -

you just fuckin reference Shadowrun

#14 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Lots of folks are going to be offended by the "simple shooter" statement I lent. It wasn't meant to be offensive. A shooter doesn't have to be Half-Life 2 to be good. Heck, I consider Painkiller to personally be one of the best FPSs I've ever played. But nevertheless, in a simple shooter, you just go across a level and shoot things until they die. Halo is about this and it's got some in-game dialogue and some cut scenes to lend respite, but nothing else. It is a pretty simple game no matter how you look at it.

So elaborate on what Half-Life 2 does differently.

Half-Life 2 is more than a shooter. It's an adventure; you face environmental dangers, you go through platforming segments and you have to use physics to get passed certain genius puzzles that obstruct your way. You do shoot stuff in Half-Life 2, and yes the shooting is easy, but harsh difficulty doesn't make a game "deep" or "complex". It's about what a game does beyond its challenges that make it truly something else. Does this make HL2 better than Halo? That's subjective. HL2's shooting sucked but it did more than that, and that's a deep game in my book, if not a good one.

Halo does shooting right, but doesn't do anything else beyond that. Even Jeff agrees that Halo4 took a very safe route, and that's fine towards a lot of people, even me.

#15 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Coming from a guy who enjoys stupid "classic" shooters (Painkiller, Doom, etc.), Serious Sam is boring. Granted, all I've played of the games are demos, but each time I've just shut it off halfway through the demo out of sheer disinterest in it.

I've beaten Halo 3 in one sitting, just for comparison. Personal opinion, yes, and I can't fully qualify my views on Serious Sam because I haven't played the full product, but based on what I've played I could probably make a case for Halo being the game more deserving of popularity. I could make something of a case for that right now just by pointing out that Halo has developed more subtlety and depth than Serious Sam ever could simply by having a coherent story that's fairly interesting.

Anyway, you're right that game development costs have been rising, but you can be guaranteed that there are people working on ways to figure out how we can reduce game development costs while keeping them up to a standard. Case in point: Witcher 2. That game looks gorgeous but I doubt that it got anywhere near the same budget that, say, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 did. The technology used to make games is getting better and more efficient, and since those who fund these games care about their money, you can bet that they're going to try to wring all they can out of a dollar.

Agreed. In fact, The Witcher2's management was pretty damned good from the looks of it. The size of CD Projekt wasn't huge, so not a lot of money was needed on the employee standpoint. It goes to show that you don't need 100 people to make a game like The Witcher 2 and you don't need the 10 million dollars to make it also.

#16 Posted by ez123 (1955 posts) -

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Even Jeff agrees that Halo4 took a very safe route, and that's fine towards a lot of people.

You know what else Jeff agrees with? The statement "Half Life 2 sucks." So where does that leave your argument about that game being something special if Jeff's opinion is the be-all end-all.

#17 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

@ez123 said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Even Jeff agrees that Halo4 took a very safe route, and that's fine towards a lot of people.

You know what else Jeff agrees with? The statement "Half Life 2 sucks." So where does that leave your argument about that game being something special if Jeff's opinion is the be-all end-all.

It's the end-all-be-all on this site usually. And if he thinks HL2 sucks, okay then.

#18 Posted by WarlordPayne (698 posts) -

I don't know where you got the idea that people like Halo for it's cutscenes and voice acting, they like it because it's a well made game. Hell, Halo 4 is the first time that a Halo game has even been particularly impressive visually, outside of maybe Halo 1.

The AI and enemy encounters are what make Halo Halo. And it's pretty damned obvious that just any developer can't do that well since almost none do.

#19 Posted by supamon (1333 posts) -

I am no expert on the subject but I think you need to understand what exactly happens in game development. Where and how the money is spent for each game and different developers are not the same. Halo 4 is the most expensive game for Microsoft? Sure I can believe it because Halo is Microsoft's crowning king, it literally saved the first Xbox from a fate similar to Dreamcast.

Also, Halo is a simple shooter? What difficulty were you playing on? Easy?

#20 Edited by believer258 (11775 posts) -

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

@believer258 said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Lots of folks are going to be offended by the "simple shooter" statement I lent. It wasn't meant to be offensive. A shooter doesn't have to be Half-Life 2 to be good. Heck, I consider Painkiller to personally be one of the best FPSs I've ever played. But nevertheless, in a simple shooter, you just go across a level and shoot things until they die. Halo is about this and it's got some in-game dialogue and some cut scenes to lend respite, but nothing else. It is a pretty simple game no matter how you look at it.

So elaborate on what Half-Life 2 does differently.

Half-Life 2 is more than a shooter. It's an adventure; you face environmental dangers, you go through platforming segments and you have to use physics to get passed certain genius puzzles that obstruct your way. You do shoot stuff in Half-Life 2, and yes the shooting is easy, but harsh difficulty doesn't make a game "deep" or "complex". It's about what a game does beyond its challenges that make it truly something else. Does this make HL2 better than Halo? That's subjective. HL2's shooting sucked but it did more than that, and that's a deep game in my book, if not a good one.

Halo does shooting right, but doesn't do anything else beyond that. Even Jeff agrees that Halo4 took a very safe route, and that's fine towards a lot of people, even me.

But focusing solely on combat doesn't mean that a game can't have many complex systems governing that very combat. Those complex systems are present in Halo and the player is required to understand them thoroughly in order to progress at all on Legendary, and to some extent on Heroic as well. You don't seem particularly antagonistic toward the game, no, but you are discrediting one of its strongest points. Maybe many other shooters do a sort of combat puzzle, but there are very, very few that do it anywhere near as well as Halo.

Yes, Half-Life 2 has more variety in its design, and has more depth because of it, but you wouldn't say that a random point in the middle of the ocean is shallow because it's not Mariana's Trench. Halo has a whole lot going for it in terms of combat complexity, and that in and of itself is an accomplishment that discounts it from the title "simple".

#21 Posted by beeftothetaco (421 posts) -

This has always been a concern. What else is new?

#22 Posted by laserbolts (5317 posts) -

I would have to disagree with you here. The most important part of a shooter to me is the shooting. If half life had focused more on the shooting and less on the dumb puzzles I think it probably would have been a better game. Obviously this is all based on opinion since clearly we value things differently.

#23 Posted by Gamer_152 (14065 posts) -

I don't think Halo is a simple game, and it's certainly not a "really, really simple shooter". A simple shooter would be something like Doom or Quake and if you want to talk about really, really simple games then we're talking about early console games or stuff from arcades, and Halo is certainly much more complex than that. Halo doesn't just have quite a bit of content, the amount of different mechanics that are in play at any one time during a game of Halo seem to be about average for any game. You seem to be saying that having high production value or lots of content are the same thing as having a complex game and that's just not the case, I don't see why more nuanced lighting models or better voice acting are supposed to translate into a greater degree of depth in a game. Padding out a game with nice aesthetics and more guns doesn't really make your game more complex, at least not that much more complex, complexity comes from your gameplay design, your writing, and similar things, things which are obviously largely independent of budget.

Talking about the main issue though, it's not that surprising that Halo 4 is Microsoft's most expensive game, production costs for AAA games have been ever-rising and there's no reason to think that's going to stop any time soon. This isn't a case where people not experimenting and trying new ideas is some far-off theoretical thing, it's something that's already happening for the industry and has been for some time. AAA games already cost millions to make and publishers and devs are rarely willing to gamble that money away on risky innovative projects. I don't see a future where it's next to impossible for games to be made, it just doesn't make sense that an industry would run itself in a way where it's job is next to impossible, but it's already very hard for new developers to get their foot in the door and as the staff here have noted the whole B-grade kind of game that used to fill the gap between low budget titles and AAA games is kind of disappearing.

I think in many ways it is a legitimate problem for the medium and it is very worrying. Us just feeling like old games are outdated, that's going to happen no matter how much money gets pumped into games. But the fact that this medium which is in it's infancy and still has a long way to go as a form of art or entertainment, is ever-spiralling into a place where people have less opportunity to push it forward and do new things with it, doesn't exactly seem like a good thing.

Moderator
#24 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@Benny:Actually, the game is just a simple shooter. Yea you have some "toys" but you go from point A to point B by blasting your way through enemies. So simple that 8 year olds can play it.

#25 Posted by EXTomar (4635 posts) -

If one wants to break it down, Halo 4 is expensive because the technology and production process that created it is expensive.

On the question "Is it worth it?" I have to go "Maybe". The issue I see is that in general I am not going to play "another shooter" where the reason I suspect Half-Life 3 isn't out yet is that they are struggling with this very problem. It isn't a matter of cost but of distinction.

#26 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@supamon: Difficulty creating simplicity is different then simplistic game mechanics. MGS is a complex stealth game (unless you are incredibly good at it), but putting it easy makes the game easier, but all the complex mechanics are their, just dumbed down.

Halo is a simplistic shoot no matter what difficulty you play it on. Easy, yea you can just run and gun. Legendary, yea you have to take cover and pop out. Please elaborate on how taking your time and popping out of cover to take pop shots at enemies is considered complex? Difficulty does not always dictate simplicity in terms of gameplay. The gameplay for this game is simple. Pick up guns and shoot things and try not to die.

#27 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@ez123 said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Even Jeff agrees that Halo4 took a very safe route, and that's fine towards a lot of people.

You know what else Jeff agrees with? The statement "Half Life 2 sucks." So where does that leave your argument about that game being something special if Jeff's opinion is the be-all end-all.

Since when do you have to agree with with every opinion a person makes? Just because you agree with one statement doesn't mean you automatically agree with everything he says.

So where is your argument that what he is saying is wrong?

#28 Posted by RollingZeppelin (1956 posts) -

@Tru3_Blu3: I honestly don't know what your point is. Games are expensive? Expensive games are conservative? Costs are rising? Yeah, this has been the case for quite a while now. So what?

#29 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

I don't think Halo is a simple game, and it's certainly not a "really, really simple shooter". A simple shooter would be something like Doom or Quake and if you want to talk about really, really simple games then we're talking about early console games or stuff from arcades, and Halo is certainly much more complex than that. Halo doesn't just have quite a bit of content, the amount of different mechanics that are in play at any one time during a game of Halo seem to be about average for any game. You seem to be saying that having high production value or lots of content are the same thing as having a complex game and that's just not the case, I don't see why more nuanced lighting models or better voice acting are supposed to translate into a greater degree of depth in a game. Padding out a game with nice aesthetics and more guns doesn't really make your game more complex, at least not that much more complex, complexity comes from your gameplay design, your writing, and similar things, things which are obviously largely independent of budget.

You are comparing some of the first FPS games to a more advanced one. The problem with that is, at the time Doom and Quake were considered complex. Nothing had been done before like that. They only had certain tech to work with. So when comparing those games to Halo, yes Halo is obviously more complex, but just about every game made a few years after those are.

Halo CE created a formula that most game dev's took off and ran with. In today's gaming world, Halo is a simple game. That is what makes it so popular. My Dad who has never played video games before could play it and so can 5 year olds. You pick up guns and shoot things with them. Sure, they added something like sprint and equipment, but those are standard things in games now a days.

System Shock 2 is a complex game. Of course that adds RPG elements, but even the "basic" shooting is complex. Guns can jam, break, etc. In Halo, the only thing you have to worry about is running out of ammo. I fail to see how popping in and out of cover taking pop shots while you wait for your shields to charge make a game complex.

#30 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@RollingZeppelin: The point I get from it is that MS spent all this money on developing this game, but it is practically the same game. See, people seem to be getting confused with "Same game" and "Bad game". If that was true then no one would ever buy Call of Duty again.

From what I have read from reviewers, Halo 4 is just like every other Halo game. It has the same mechanics with a few new features. It plays the same.

I just think more research needed to be done on what that money went to. Inflation and also advertising costs money and we all know this game is advertised up the ass.

#31 Posted by RollingZeppelin (1956 posts) -

@HellBound: I still don't get the point of this. No one expected the gameplay for Halo 4 to be different or even the slightest bit evolutionary. What is the issue here. Everything mentioned is well known, established fact, there's nothing to talk about.

#32 Posted by Redbullet685 (6031 posts) -

@Gahzoo said:

I wanted to get hyped for Halo 4...

but A GREAT EVIL AWAKENS

Fuckin' really?

Most of the money probably goes to advertising and for that?

I think the ads are great for Halo 4. Also, it's "An Ancient Evil Awakens".

#33 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@RollingZeppelin: You are taking a big liberty saying "No one expected anything to be different". I had doubts, but I still had some hope that they would at least try something new, take a few more risks then they did.

#34 Posted by ez123 (1955 posts) -

@HellBound said:

@ez123 said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Even Jeff agrees that Halo4 took a very safe route, and that's fine towards a lot of people.

You know what else Jeff agrees with? The statement "Half Life 2 sucks." So where does that leave your argument about that game being something special if Jeff's opinion is the be-all end-all.

Since when do you have to agree with with every opinion a person makes? Just because you agree with one statement doesn't mean you automatically agree with everything he says.

So where is your argument that what he is saying is wrong?

Right there. The point was that using someone's opinion with this type of argument is dumb.

#35 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@Redbullet685:

Even though I know a lot of money went into advertising, besides from like one TV commercial I haven't seen much else in my area.

#36 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@ez123:

Not all the time. Yes, using hearsay for defense and proof is not very good or credible, but it is still someone backing up a point.

#37 Edited by EXTomar (4635 posts) -

I do think there is something to the observation that taking Halo 4 in the direction of a more realistic art style was not a good thing. One of the things that made Halo distinct was the exaggerated, colorful and shiny forms. I joke that "Halo is the most candy colored FPS there ever was" but that means it is distinct where this game is moving away from that and making it less interesting.

I also believe the story is "meh" where there are kernels of interesting ideas but are surrounded by uninteresting characters. The relationship between Master Chief and Cortana is as good as it has ever been but the rest of the cast is just there as dressing where especially some characters appear to exist only to be contrary to Master Chief even when there is no justification let alone logic.

With those in mind, one can ask "They spent so much money but where did it all go?" but I think that is the wrong way to look it. There is little chance the money is going to be "wasted" and will easily make that back for Microsoft where instead we should be asking "is this the right way to take this?"

#38 Posted by RollingZeppelin (1956 posts) -

@HellBound: Ok, so...

Halo 4 didn't introduce as many new concepts as you or the OP hoped it would, even though the precedent set for the past games is that it has been mainly a stagnant IP. And it was expensive. Again, I don't see any talking points here.

#39 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@RollingZeppelin: Even though the precedent was set, that trilogy was over. Bungie was done.

Even though personally I kfelt like it would stay the game, I don't see how you can deny there was hope.

#40 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

"is this the right way to take this?"

Sadly as long as it sells like hot cakes the answer for MS will be yes.

#41 Edited by RollingZeppelin (1956 posts) -

@HellBound: If you were already mostly expecting the game to be the same, then when it came out the same, why were you affected at all by it? I had the same bit of hope as well, along with a great expectation that it would be more of the same. Turns out it's more of the same, I move on with my life.

#42 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

I assume a chunk of that budget was for Forward Unto Dawn?

It is fairly spectacular and I seem to recall it cost about 20 mil alone.

#43 Edited by Jeust (10537 posts) -

That's one of the key problems of the "next" generation - cost. Cost for the consumer and cost for the developer. How much is a game cost to develop, and how much more will a consumer pay for a game? How many developers will afford it, and how many consumers will spend the asking price?

#44 Edited by supamon (1333 posts) -

@HellBound: EDIT: Whoops forgot to separate it out.

I asked whether you were playing on easy because I simply don't believe you can say Halo is a "simple" shooter when you see how dynamic the enemies react. They will dynamically take cover, listen and react to warnings from their allies, use grenades to flush you out of cover, attempt to distract you while some others flank you, dive away from their allies or even towards you if you stick them with a plasma grenade. This was mind blowing considering the fact that the first Halo already did this and to this day no other shooter has been able to replicate that completely. You will see less of this if you play on the easier difficulties. It's how the game ramps up the difficulty besides more damage and it's how you have to deal with the enemies performing these more complex tactics. So no, you don't just take cover and pop out.

You claim Halo "isn't some open-ended role-playing game with fuck loads of detail, dialogue, animations, and deep elements". You know why? Because Halo is a shooter, not a Role Playing Game. It doesn't aim to be anything other than that and it excels in being just that. A shooter.

So I don't understand what your claim is, that Halo is just popular because of high production values, many weapons and good voice acting and that you feel any shooter given the same treatment would sell like hotcakes?

#45 Edited by big_jon (5723 posts) -

@Tim_the_Corsair: 10 million.

I think the think that the OP is missing is that just because Halo is not some open world game does not mean that it requires less work and, or money to make. Half-life uses its physics for puzzles, those puzzles I doubt would require a massive increase in cost. Halo has advanced peer to peer network code, the best in the business, AI, the Visuals are the best they can be on a 360, motion cap, marketing, voice actors, and a massive amount of high quality art assets that need to go into it, on top of that the Q&A would be huge on a game like this, halo is a game that cannot have bugs, because of its online competitive aspect, just because this is not Skyrim does not mean it is any easier, or cheaper to make. The budget goes in to different things.

#46 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

@supamon said:

@HellBound: I asked whether you were playing on easy because I simply don't believe you can say Halo is a "simple" shooter when you see how dynamic the enemies react. They will dynamically take cover, listen and react to warnings from their allies, use grenades to flush you out of cover, attempt to distract you while some others flank you, dive away from their allies or even towards you if you stick them with a plasma grenade. This was mind blowing considering the fact that the first Halo already did this and to this day no other shooter has been able to replicate that completely. You will see less of this if you play on the easier difficulties. It's how the game ramps up the difficulty besides more damage and it's how you have to deal with the enemies performing these more complex tactics. So no, you don't just take cover and pop out.

You claim Halo "isn't some open-ended role-playing game with fuck loads of detail, dialogue, animations, and deep elements". You know why? Because Halo is a shooter, not a Role Playing Game. It doesn't aim to be anything other than that and it excels in being just that. A shooter.

So I don't understand what your claim is, that Halo is just popular because of high production values, many weapons and good voice acting and that you feel any shooter given the same treatment would sell like hotcakes?

That WAS a mind blowing concept. Now it is just standard issue. Sure not all games do it well, but that doesn't take away from the fact all you have to do is pick up guns and kill them. I don't see how that makes a shooter complex. The most advanced tactics is to just take cover. I am not bashing Halo, it is what it is, but saying it is a complex game is pretty hilarious.

Also I am not OP so most of those other comments don't apply to me.

#47 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11587 posts) -

Halo is a fine series, and I don't see the problem with it being Microsoft's most expensive game. It's not like Microsoft does much first party development anyways. They have Halo, and then they have Epic making Gears of War. That's pretty much the extent of their "AAA" exclusive properties, and Halo is easily the bigger of the two. Thus, while it's still expensive as far as games are concerned, I'm sure it still cost less than say... Resident Evil 6. Or, if we want to get really nasty, The Old Republic. Context and all that.

While the increased cost of games is something to be concerned about, it's not like indie games made for like a dollar will go anywhere.

#48 Posted by huntad (1930 posts) -

I like how a lot of Halo threads devolve into negativity and questioning whether Halo stacks up to ____ game.

In regards to the topic, yeah it's pretty crazy, but like someone else said it really is the only exclusive that Microsoft has right now.

#49 Posted by DarthOrange (3858 posts) -

I'm worried about how many people have been whining like little bitches on these forums lately. Like writing off amazingly fun games such as Resident Evil 6 and Need for Speed Most Wanted (to a lesser extent). Manage those expectations people! Some people are just miserable and can't even find joy in video games anymore.  If budgets get higher in the next gen, great. If the entire industry crashes and the only new games we get are social networking ones, that's fine too. As long as games continue to be fun, I will continue to be happy. And the jaded assholes will continue to be jaded assholes.

#50 Posted by Dan_CiTi (3233 posts) -
@Tru3_Blu3: While I agree Half-Life 2 does things differently is not because it has puzzles (because most of them are not all that), but because of just the structure of the game, the tone, and atmosphere, as well as the kind of story telling in the game are unique (or it was at the time), while it does have some pacing problems where some parts of the game could have used more polish or trimming. And while the shooting isn't fantastic, I do love it, and there have been plenty of times playing it with great combat situations, though I feel Episode 2 fixed almost all of the issues I had with Half-Life 2.