Prepare to face Saikyo's wrath. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I summon thee, [MENTION=771]Saikyo the Teemo[/MENTION]! [video=youtube;oU2yvAf4I74]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU2yvAf4I74[/video] All jokes aside, I say EA or Activision. Or Square Enix, considering they're now making RPGs that are not Final Fantasy, but are obviously very much the same... I mean, seriously, wtf Enix?
Speaking of indie, I can't remember the name of this 3D platformer that was funded by Kickstarter. It was about this boy and his pet, and he lives with a professor and his wife. Sorry if that's too vague, but that's all I can remember about it.
If Capcom didn't exist, we wouldn't have this. [video=youtube;KS7hkwbKmBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7hkwbKmBM[/video] Or this. [video=youtube;4MAcqScj4Gc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MAcqScj4Gc[/video] Or this. [video=youtube;Va7lYoUL3bo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va7lYoUL3bo[/video] Or this. [video=youtube;VKxNHooO5Mk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKxNHooO5Mk[/video] Capcom brings the hype and it keeps people happy. So what if they had crappy business practices at times? They make good, fun games that last ages. EA on the other hand is nothing more than a money-grubbing corporation making crappy games and shoving sports games down general throats. Screw EA. God bless Capcom.
Capcom does make some some good games, but they're afraid to try anything new. While other companies are constantly trying to be innovative, they keep pumping out clones of the same games that they've been making for decades. They just seem stuck in the past. This was never more obvious than it was with the Dead Rising series, which was plagued with horrifically outdated gameplay elements and ended up playing like a last-gen game.
That's just the Japanese market for you. You see a lot of that with Japanese game devs; not to mention half the time when things change people complain like it's the end of the world.
I wonder how many other companies do that? I'd say most modern day games usually end up being a clone. This mostly applies to FPS games though. I wonder what could be a good example of people flipping out over a change. A certain pretty purple pony princess comes to mind.
I wouldn't mind terribly if the studios associated with CoD were to drop off the face of the earth...that's just me, though. /) x 1,000,000,000
I want to say Microsoft. Outside of Halo, they don't seem to have made much of an impact on the world. That's positive anyway.
However Microsoft has published a lot of games, to great success (my favourite being crackdown). They also haven't been detrimental to the gaming industry, so them leaving it would accomplish little. Unless you go all the way and include the Xbox, which would simply be a detriment to the gaming industry. Sent from my SGH-T899M using Tapatalk
Microsoft shouldn't have gotten into consoles in the first place. I wonder how good the PS4 would have been if they didn't waste all this energy on competing with another company. And let's face it, there were no Microsoft consoles until they made an Xbox, which came out long after the PS2. Sony was first, they were good, and they got dragged down into a pointless console war just to keep up. Now neither consoles are what they could've been. Playstation always has and will be, the most popular console, despite the fact that it's pretty much on par with Xbox. Funfact: The last Xbox game was released in 2007, a mere 6 years after it's release, whereas PS2 games are still being produced today, running a course of 13 years and counting. (though production of the PS2 console itself halted in january 2013) So yeah, Microsoft should, if not the gaming industry entirely, at least leave the console industry.
Why all the Microsoft hate? The Xbox was in no way a bad console, and the fact it caused competition for Sony can only be described as a good thing. Competition drives companies to produce better and newer products. The fact that PS2 games are still being produced is just a clear sign of a poor decision on Sony's part; there was no real reason for the PS3 to drop legacy game support, beyond Sony not wanting to deal with the hassle of making them run on newer hardware. The only reason the PS4 and Xbox One are what they are is because if they were anything less, they'd be blown out of the water. The PS3 and Xbox 360 were among the best consoles the decade was for similar reasons. If Microsoft left the gaming industry, we wouldn't see a new Play Station for the next 10 or so years because of a distinct monopoly on Sony's part. They'd have no reason to spend money on new hardware when they can milk what they have for everything it's got, and I'm not saying that's just Sony, any company would do the same in their place. From the stand point of a company, no incentive means: Don't do it. As powerful as the PS4 may be, it's still no contest when compared to PC gaming. In 3 - 5 years, PC will be the cheaper choice as well (in many cases it is already). Monopolies in industries like gaming or computing thrive for a a few years, then die altogether. Microsoft owes it's success to Sony, and vice versa. If you try to argue that Sony will still have Nintendo to compete with, take a look at the present market: Nintendo isn't even trying to enter the same category as Microsoft or Sony. Without the competition, I'd hazard a guess that the PS3 would've come out quite recently and would be the present generation console. That's how businesses and markets work. If you don't believe me, recall that our technology is what it is only because of the great conflicts in the 20th century, the events that pushed development and research forward harder than ever because it had to be better than that which opposed them. Same idea here, just a smaller scale. Sent from my SGH-T899M using Tapatalk EDIT: Caveats: Both sides have created excellent consoles, and I will not even try to say which one is better; I see them equally, each with its own flaws and its benefits and its own trade-offs. That's the nature of what compteting products are, if they didn't have these differences, they wouldn't be competeing porducts, but rather simply knock-offs of one another. Both companies have done things wrong, both have done things right, and both have done things that are better or worse than their opposition. No one console can be strictly better than another unless the competing console is by every single parameter worse, with no notable differences not convered by the opposition. People argue that the Xbox LIVE subscription is expensive, other argue that this expensive results in a better nd more mature community of players. Which side is right? Both and neither. Both sides made statements of opinion, and opinion inheritantly cannot be wrong (not to say it cannot be factually innacurate, but it always reflects the belief of its holder, and thus is right in their own mind), and neither side is entirely factually conrrect. Any individual can pick either side, and some can pick both or neither. Any individual can choose to like one console more than another, and any single individual can choose to disagree with the opinion of another. Any individual can dispute the factuality of the opinion of another since an opinion cannot be wrong, nor need it be right. If it were right, it'd be a fact rather than an opinion (and simply prefacing an opinion with the pemise that it is fact does not make it so). The console market is what it is, and in my opinion: It's currently doing quite well. Would it be better without one of the companies in it? In my opinion: No, it would be much farther behind. Is my opinion correct? Who knows? Unless we cn create and observe an isolated universe wherein one of the companies on the market did not exist, we cannot know for sure; we can only speculate. But the morale of this all is: When you speculate, try to be kind and considerate, and at least acknowledge the opposing side, lest you wish to come across as ranting.
