The point is that Ubisoft won't improve anything, they will toss aside the hardcore games and concentrate on wii like games such as cooking mama, nintendogs, etc...
Now tell me how is that pushing the envelope in ai, interactive envirnments, co-op play etc... ? :nope:
If Ubisoft ditches the SH series for being too hardcore (and you can bet that simulations are hardcore enough not only for pc but also not in the least portable to consoles) no major publisher is going to carry on the torch.
No major simulations and that means no WWI,WWII, Cold War, Fictional Scenarios etc...

You get another point ~ their lack of improvement means they can't beat other game producers. But I think the main issue is over-saturation

In the past few months, there is several good games like World in Conflict. A single player can't play them all, so they just choose some to play

So, the over-saturation problem emerges.

In this situation, only good games survive, and bad games good bye. Ubisoft, unfortunately, doesn't improve, as what you said. So, they lose money and invests less in the next FPS / RTS game. The lack of investment results in lack of quality, and the vicious cycle repeats, and eventually, ...

well, none of my friends play simulation games. I thinks its because online MMORPGs and other creative "new" games has taken over it.

In the past subsim used to be very popular, but now, uh, I think Ubisoft is losing money in the Silent Hunter series these days.

People have different taste these days, I think this contributes to a part of the decline of simulation games

Small companies are better in producing good games, is probably they are more agile in decision making and their fundermental thinking. As a result, innovation makes their product superior

For example, Face of War and Company of Heroes are 2 World War II RTS games released around September 2006. Face of War, despite produced by Ubisoft, lost to Company of Heroes in terms of total sales and reputation. Why? because company of heroes = better thinking!
Face of War is composed of multiple ridiculous missions (for example, giving you a squad of soldiers and ask you to defeat a company of soldiers with superior tanks) Also, their micro-management of ammo of squad member = troublesome
Company of Heroes fared better. They allow infinite ammo for each side, and their special ability is gathered, not by provision, but by the amount of land that country occuplies. Since this type of resource gathering system is better, along with realistic mission, the sale is of course, more

Clearly what needs to happen is to put them together. Maneuver Germany to WWII, then play as a squad shooting polish duc- troops.

They already have done it... look to Rainbow Six Vegas for example.. it's a very nice game but you surely can't call it hard core, the terrorists shoot you, you crouch in a corner for 10 seconds and you are as good as new.
We already have the arcade everywhere.
(same thing with other producers as for example with the call of duty series)

Hardcore standards are being switched to different, more playable, "arcade" levels... unfortunately... because I love simulations! from subs to aircrafts to fps!

:nope: :nope: :nope:

I do own a wii for arcade games, they are fun but it's not the same thing at all!

Ubisoft 'making' First Person Shooters is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

UBI don't make them, they swallow up the smaller development studios and then only publish the FPS title.;)

So, UBI never 'made' a FPS but did market/promote them.

However, if they are cutting all ties with FPS titles, that a really stupid business decision, as rightly already stated the FPS market makes up about 70-80% of the game market.

True, but they'll publish this soon.:cool: - http://hazegame.uk.ubi.com/index.php

I guess we can kiss goodbye to any more Ghost Recon games :cry: :cry:...

Bring on ArmA2 and OFP2!

WooHOO! Bring on those movie license games! http://www.xl-logic.com/emoticon/thumbcool.gif

Right now, unfortunately, what's driving the game industry is graphics. The big game companies are making huge strides and throwing all their resources into big, awesome, in your face graphics for the attention deficite younger market. That's where the money is. They aren't concentrating on anything with depth. Depth is boring to the target market for the most part (What ? They have to read a manual !?! What kind of crap game is this ? etc...)
Writing has suffered (When was the last time you saw a game with an actual plotline ? They are so few and far between I could probably count them on one hand.)
Like the movie industries, they're focusing on big flashy special FX and pretty much doing games a two year old could write. Also, they tend to push games out the door unfinished now and only patch it up if it makes x amount of dollars. :nope:
Otherwise the feck off to the next project with bigger graphics and sound with a tiny budget for concept and actual writing.
And the average video gamer (The teenage to early 20's market) don't care about the substance of a game nowadays.. so long as they have their big flashy graphics. :nope:
The video games of the 80's were more innovative, enjoyable and interesting than 99% of the crap being produced now.

Damn I'm sounding like an old man.:doh:

Sorry for the snip, didn't want to qoute that wall of text.:lol:

What you say is partly true. While certainly true for the larger producers like UbiSoft & EA there are studios who do concentrate on the story/plotline and also manage to get awesome graphics to boot. I keep going on about it, but a title like Metal Gear Solid is a prime example. That game franchise has a huge amount of depth while still appealing to the 'mass gamer' market.

What it requires is a concerted effort from the producers not to stiffle the creativity of the development studios in a bid to get the product 'out there' and earning money. Sadly, as your rightly state, this is a very rare thing these days.

However, as most main studios are moving towards the console market (slowly), I suspect we'll see a huge influx of 'rushed' titles at the outset of any new generation hardware but later in the life of that gen, more evolved titles will appear.

Like those were any good to start with. Only the first Ghost Recon was good. THe current one AW2 or whatever plain sucks. Stupid AI. Mouse maze restrictions. Crackshot AI too. Dumb. COD4 is a much better choice and its not from UBI. Crysis is not UBI. Bioshock is not UBI. Have they ever made a decent FPS? Maybe I'm having brainblock rigt now, but I can't think of one.

-S

From what I've seen, the last good "first person shooter" was Half Life II. Since then, I havn't played a single FPS that really had anything to it. I really didn't like Bioshock and the WWII FPS's I've tried seemed dull and uninspired to me.

I found Hal Life 2 dull. I need more freedom, like STALKER had for instance. I ran through HL2 in about 1 day since its so linear. I found it about as boring a shooter as you can get, but one with nice graphics for its day.

The original Half Life was way better in my opinion. Maybe its a been there done that feeling to me? That is probably why. I expected something revolutionary, but got stuck with old ideas with a shiny cover.

-S

I think the last truely innovative game that came out was the latest Elder Scrolls game.

BTW.. anyone ever play Postal II ? I LOVE that game (I'm a sick puppy). There's something very thereputic about it. I love the fact that you can pretty much run around and do anything you want in that game. It was a riot with very little scripting and a LOT of freedom of movement. I think it was brilliant, but the um... violence will turn a lot of people off, even though it's more of a cartoon parody of violence (and everything else Tipper Gore would say is wrong with the game industry). Ironically, there's a Postal movie coming out soon. I've seen the trailers. :doh: