Ubisoft to no longer pursue FPS game titles...

[bradclark1]

Just the cost of the graphucs alone must be 3/4 of the game. The more detailed the graphics can become the more the FPS will cost to produce.
Maybe they'll start producing rewrites of past games like SSG did with Carriers at War. A lot of good old games out there waiting to be reborn.

[d@rk51d3]

HARDCORE is the keyword here. From another report I read the other day, it was in reference to the Tom Clancey style shooters, ie: no healthpacks, one shot kills - real life kinda stuff.

They just want to keep a mainstream / casual gamer market.

[V.C. Sniper]

First person Silent Hunter experience plz Ubi.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

HARDCORE is the keyword here. From another report I read the other day, it was in reference to the Tom Clancey style shooters, ie: no healthpacks, one shot kills - real life kinda stuff.

They just want to keep a mainstream / casual gamer market.

This is a very stupid decision.

[Eddy Lawson]

Originally Posted by d@rk51d3

HARDCORE is the keyword here. From another report I read the other day, it was in reference to the Tom Clancey style shooters, ie: no healthpacks, one shot kills - real life kinda stuff.

They just want to keep a mainstream / casual gamer market.

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!



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

[Steel_Tomb]

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

Bring on ArmA2 and OFP2!

[XLjedi]

WooHOO! Bring on those movie license games!

[Blacklight]

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.
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.
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.

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

Right now.....The video games of the 80's were more innovative, enjoyable and interesting than 99% of the crap being produced now.

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

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

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

Bring on ArmA2 and OFP2!

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

[Blacklight]

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

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