Why do excellent games like Beyond Good and Evil fail to find success?

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]Bully was not even close to being best PS2 game last year. I'd rather have FFXII or Okami over Bully.UpInFlames

Final Fantasy XII...dude, that's just nasty. You have horrible taste. :wink: :)

Final Fantasy XII was great game... it was simply incomplete game.

Had Yasumi Matsuno been there to finish the game, it could've been known as greatest Final Fantasy game ever.

Even in incomplete state, Final Fantasy XII offers evolution of ATB system known as ADB system which is quite deep battle system people never seem to realize due to their reliance on gambit system. The amount of strategy you can come up with ADB system is quite amazing. Unlike other RPGs, ADB system makes you think about space management, aggro management, and time management as well as having all the other strategies of typical ATB system.

Many of the fine story detail was cut out and replaced with narration, so it does have some trouble when it comes to telling the story and showing character progression, but game as a whole is still one of the better RPGs out there and since ATB system was first shown in Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy XII finally provided RPGs genre the evolution it needed.

From story telling and pacing aspect of the game, it does come little short, but in terms of gameplay aspect, there isn't much RPGs out there that is strong as Final Fantasy XII.

Bully on the other hand...... it was just bleh. The music was pretty horrible, the story was way too over the top, the school life felt so out of place. You could've had MGS skin over the entire school and it would've felt like it could've worked. Bully never really made you feel like you are playing a role of a student, but felt more like you are building a gang and becoming more of a hitman. Persona 3 did much better job in terms of making you feel like a student and having a school life.

GTA was great because you were a gang member or hitman and the game did exactly that. It made you feel like you are gang member or a hitman and showed their life and progression of those characters. Bully unfortunately did the samething. It was a sad attempt to sell GTA games to younger audience.

It was a sad attempt to sell GTA games to younger audience.TriangleHard

Even if Final Fantasy XII turned out to be the best installment in the series, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me since I pretty much dislike the entire series.

I don't think Bully was Rockstar's attempt to sell Grand Theft Auto to younger audiences - let's face it, Grand Theft Auto does that very well on its own. I felt as if Bully wasn't aimed to those that are in school now, but rather to those who've been through all that and want to revisit those days. It has a lot more in common with teen movies of the late '70's and 80's rather than today's movies which means older gamers would have an easier time connecting with the game than younger gamers.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]It was a sad attempt to sell GTA games to younger audience.UpInFlames

Even if Final Fantasy XII turned out to be the best installment in the series, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me since I pretty much dislike the entire series.

I don't think Bully was Rockstar's attempt to sell Grand Theft Auto to younger audiences - let's face it, Grand Theft Auto does that very well on its own. I felt as if Bully wasn't aimed to those that are in school now, but rather to those who've been through all that and want to revisit those days. It has a lot more in common with teen movies of the late '70's and 80's rather than today's movies which means older gamers would have an easier time connecting with the game than younger gamers.

Well obviously when they started to make the game, they would go with something they are good at. They are good at aiming for more mature audience and that's what they've done.

However, you have to admit the choice of theme was to target younger audience, that's why it recieved T rating. Why did they choose school instead of some other theme? You can't deny that Rockstar must've wanted to get some T rated games in there and wanted a game that would target them less from parents by avoiding guns and drugs and replacing them with sodas and sling shots.

The reason Rockstar made the game is simple. They wanted to make another GTA like game to make more money, but any more PS2 version of GTA would've had not enough improvement to the idea and would've really taken a hit in terms of franchise name and reputation. Also GTA games could've cost to much because it always has that large scale, and Rockstar wanted to make money while putting small budget. So they went ahead and found new theme and this time a theme to avoid pesky parents from bothering them too much while expanding their audience by making T rated game that can reach out to younger audience who has been blocked off from GTA games from parents until now. It is simple marketing idea and failed to be effective as Rockstar wanted. They wanted to spend less money, give GTA fans something similar, don't get any more public trouble, and aim bigger market.

In the end, the game itself failed quite a bit really making people revist anything. The school life was so out of place. It felt like any old GTA games with different skin and much smaller scale. The story didn't really make it seem like school theme but more of gang theme. Almost immediately the story turns right towards building your own group that can fight against other group.

It is basically another GTA game with small amount of school theme in it, nothing more, and I find it rather boring and little sickening how much they try to milk the same formula. You might say GTA games sell well on their own, but securing larger market is never a bad thing. Also these younger audience they couldn't reach before, many of them will become a reachable target by the time GTA IV comes out, and having earlier influence on them is effective.

As for Final Fantasy games, if you don't like them I don't think you have any right to say I have bad taste in games because I like Final Fantasy XII. JRPG has been quite big of a genre in the industry and many people love them. If you can't see the charm of such genre then it might be you who doesn't have good taste in gaming.

Well obviously when they started to make the game, they would go with something they are good at. They are good at aiming for more mature audience and that's what they've done.

However, you have to admit the choice of theme was to target younger audience, that's why it recieved T rating. Why did they choose school instead of some other theme? You can't deny that Rockstar must've wanted to get some T rated games in there and wanted a game that would target them less from parents by avoiding guns and drugs and replacing them with sodas and sling shots.

The reason Rockstar made the game is simple. They wanted to make another GTA like game to make more money, but any more PS2 version of GTA would've had not enough improvement to the idea and would've really taken a hit in terms of franchise name and reputation. Also GTA games could've cost to much because it always has that large scale, and Rockstar wanted to make money while putting small budget. So they went ahead and found new theme and this time a theme to avoid pesky parents from bothering them too much while expanding their audience by making T rated game that can reach out to younger audience who has been blocked off from GTA games from parents until now. It is simple marketing idea and failed to be effective as Rockstar wanted. They wanted to spend less money, give GTA fans something similar, don't get any more public trouble, and aim bigger market.

In the end, the game itself failed quite a bit really making people revist anything. The school life was so out of place. It felt like any old GTA games with different skin and much smaller scale. The story didn't really make it seem like school theme but more of gang theme. Almost immediately the story turns right towards building your own group that can fight against other group.

It is basically another GTA game with small amount of school theme in it, nothing more, and I find it rather boring and little sickening how much they try to milk the same formula. You might say GTA games sell well on their own, but securing larger market is never a bad thing. Also these younger audience they couldn't reach before, many of them will become a reachable target by the time GTA IV comes out, and having earlier influence on them is effective.

As for Final Fantasy games, if you don't like them I don't think you have any right to say I have bad taste in games because I like Final Fantasy XII. JRPG has been quite big of a genre in the industry and many people love them. If you can't see the charm of such genre then it might be you who doesn't have good taste in gaming.TriangleHard

Rockstar isn't like most big game companies out there, I think they are one of the very few that don't rely on marketing focus groups and other nonsense - they make games with themes they're interested in. That's why they did Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Bully, The Warriors, and Table Tennis. That's why they invested in Remedy (Max Payne series) and Team Bondi (a start-up Australian studio working on a stylish 1930's crime game L.A. Noire). That's the whole philosophy behind Rockstar Games - they don't just sell games, they sell a lifestyle.

The T-rating has nothing to do with it. Blood and extreme violence simply wouldn't go with the theme of the game at all. Bully is about light-hearted cheek-in-tongue high school fun, not gangs. Jimmy Hopkins is alone throughout the entire game, he never forms a gang or anything, he doesn't affiliate himself with any of the schools groups, I don't know where you got that from. The game tells about his interactions with each faction over the course of one year, that's it. Your assertions that Rockstar wanted to avoid controversy and aim to younger audiences doesn't make much sense considering they were making a game in a high school setting called Bully with corrupt, alcoholic, and pervert teachers, bullies roaming the school, and a myriad of classic Rockstar jokes on totally overblown stereotypes such as nerds, dumb jocks, and inbred preppies. In case you missed it, Bully got a bucketload of flak from parents and various idiotic self-procclaimed moralist groups. Also, there was never any chance that Bully would get a bigger market than Grand Theft Auto.

You are actually the only person I've heard that doesn't like the game. A lot of people were skeptical about it (including myself), but once they played it, they loved it. It succeeded in everything it set out to do. Bully used Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto formula, but added so much of its own into the mix, it ultimately felt like an entirely fresh experience. Rockstar Vancouver kicked out the extreme violence and mature subject matter and introduced a highly original premise and setting as well as improved and fine-tuned gameplay mechanics. The fighting system is very similar, although simplified, to The Warriors. There is a decent amount of moves and combos to keep the fighting from getting too repetetive. However, it's the weapons that make Bully's fighting system shine. The graphics were great for a PS2 game and the soundtrack was fantastic proving that Rockstar can do an amazing job with an original as well as an licensed soundtrack.

As for my initial comment on Final Fantasy XII, that was more of a joke than anything else. It was not to be taken seriously. I mean, damn, I used two emoticons!

As for my initial comment on Final Fantasy XII, that was more of a joke than anything else. It was not to be taken seriously. I mean, damn, I used two emoticons! UpInFlames

Next time add more emoticons. :D:):P;):):|:cry:

Rockstar isn't like most big game companies out there, I think they are one of the very few that don't rely on marketing focus groups and other nonsense - they make games with themes they're interested in. That's why they did Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Bully, The Warriors, and Table Tennis. That's why they invested in Remedy (Max Payne series) and Team Bondi (a start-up Australian studio working on a stylish 1930's crime game L.A. Noire). That's the whole philosophy behind Rockstar Games - they don't just sell games, they sell a lifestyle.

The T-rating has nothing to do with it. Blood and extreme violence simply wouldn't go with the theme of the game at all. Bully is about light-hearted cheek-in-tongue high school fun, not gangs. Jimmy Hopkins is alone throughout the entire game, he never forms a gang or anything, he doesn't affiliate himself with any of the schools groups, I don't know where you got that from. The game tells about his interactions with each faction over the course of one year, that's it. Your assertions that Rockstar wanted to avoid controversy and aim to younger audiences doesn't make much sense considering they were making a game in a high school setting called Bully with corrupt, alcoholic, and pervert teachers, bullies roaming the school, and a myriad of classic Rockstar jokes on totally overblown stereotypes such as nerds, dumb jocks, and inbred preppies. In case you missed it, Bully got a bucketload of flak from parents and various idiotic self-procclaimed moralist groups. Also, there was never any chance that Bully would get a bigger market than Grand Theft Auto.

You are actually the only person I've heard that doesn't like the game. A lot of people were skeptical about it (including myself), but once they played it, they loved it. It succeeded in everything it set out to do. Bully used Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto formula, but added so much of its own into the mix, it ultimately felt like an entirely fresh experience. Rockstar Vancouver kicked out the extreme violence and mature subject matter and introduced a highly original premise and setting as well as improved and fine-tuned gameplay mechanics. The fighting system is very similar, although simplified, to The Warriors. There is a decent amount of moves and combos to keep the fighting from getting too repetetive. However, it's the weapons that make Bully's fighting system shine. The graphics were great for a PS2 game and the soundtrack was fantastic proving that Rockstar can do an amazing job with an original as well as an licensed soundtrack.

As for my initial comment on Final Fantasy XII, that was more of a joke than anything else. It was not to be taken seriously. I mean, damn, I used two emoticons!

UpInFlames

To say any company isn't interested in marketing would be flat out lie.

Rockstar simply knows how to sell their games. They try to be offensive as possible to give thier target audience the thrills.

They make Manhunt because they know there is a market out there for the game. It's not their form of expression or anything. They are aiming for specific targets when they make such games and they know there are huge number of people who are interested in gore and watching people die in some sick way.

Negative attention is better than no attention, and they do their best to get that negative attention because it comes so much easier than positive attention.

Buly to me was obvious marketing scheme. The system reached the limit for another GTA game, go for different audience and wider audience and you can sell with budget game with same formula.

As for creating group to fight another group thing, I meant it more as in terms of story. That's how the story tries to lead the characters. The association with these different groups that comes out more like a gang, like nerds, jocks, preps, greasers, etc. Main character comes across with characters that immediately talks to him about how to control the school etc. That wasn't my school life for sure.

I was really disappointed in Bully because it lacked originality. I'm ok with following similar formula and making some improvement on it, but when it comes to new IP, I hoped for some creativity and originality but Bully had none. The story moved on very typical GTA fashion which tried to offend you and bring that cheap laughs more than actual attempt at creating good story. It worked well for GTA games because the theme itself was dark and such offensive material was part of that dark theme of gangs, but Bully was just there to give people some of that forced messed up theme.

I wasn't very skeptical about the game actually. I do consider myself more of open minded person, but when I actually started to play, I realized how much of GTA formula is there even in terms of story and found it sickening to know how much Rockstar is trying to build their company image of being bad boys of the industry and milking the same forumla instead of actually trying to come up with anything creative or original and geniune attempt to make a good game. I hoped Rockstar was more about freedom of creation rather than concentrating on that messed up theme to milk their audience for money.

BG&E was sent to die by suits who have no business holding the jobs they hold releasing a game that had little marketing during the busiest time of the year. There will be more BG&E's this year, there always are. And this will continue until game companies stop hiring guys who think the only practical way of doing business is to release when your product has the highest chance of being overlooked.

Meanwhile, the industry nearly shuts down during the summer. Now, we keep hearing about how this industry is growing and how viable it is, and how it's bigger than movies. Well, movie studios don't shut down in the summer -- it is in fact one of their busiest and most profitable seasons. Game companies still believe that their target demographic still relies on daddy and mommy's holiday pocketbook to make purchases, which is flat ignorant.

Which sums it up: BG&E was a casualty of industry ignorance and people in power who try to put their unknown games up against blockbusters, and then scratch their heads in wonderas to why it failed. The very same ilk who are putting Blacksite: Area 51 up against Halo 3. What kind of an idiot does something like that? And who hires him? And further, will he still have his job when the game gets absolutely tidal waved by Halo 3 and the publisher loses millions of dollars?

To say any company isn't interested in marketing would be flat out lie.

Rockstar simply knows how to sell their games. They try to be offensive as possible to give thier target audience the thrills.

They make Manhunt because they know there is a market out there for the game. It's not their form of expression or anything. They are aiming for specific targets when they make such games and they know there are huge number of people who are interested in gore and watching people die in some sick way.

Negative attention is better than no attention, and they do their best to get that negative attention because it comes so much easier than positive attention.

Buly to me was obvious marketing scheme. The system reached the limit for another GTA game, go for different audience and wider audience and you can sell with budget game with same formula.

As for creating group to fight another group thing, I meant it more as in terms of story. That's how the story tries to lead the characters. The association with these different groups that comes out more like a gang, like nerds, jocks, preps, greasers, etc. Main character comes across with characters that immediately talks to him about how to control the school etc. That wasn't my school life for sure.

I was really disappointed in Bully because it lacked originality. I'm ok with following similar formula and making some improvement on it, but when it comes to new IP, I hoped for some creativity and originality but Bully had none. The story moved on very typical GTA fashion which tried to offend you and bring that cheap laughs more than actual attempt at creating good story. It worked well for GTA games because the theme itself was dark and such offensive material was part of that dark theme of gangs, but Bully was just there to give people some of that forced messed up theme.

I wasn't very skeptical about the game actually. I do consider myself more of open minded person, but when I actually started to play, I realized how much of GTA formula is there even in terms of story and found it sickening to know how much Rockstar is trying to build their company image of being bad boys of the industry and milking the same forumla instead of actually trying to come up with anything creative or original and geniune attempt to make a good game. I hoped Rockstar was more about freedom of creation rather than concentrating on that messed up theme to milk their audience for money.TriangleHard

I didn't say that Rockstar isn't interested in marketing. If anything, they're extremely serious about it and have an impeccably detailed approach to marketing as well as development. What I was trying to say is that I doubt they sit around and do market research and then decide what games to make based on that data. Perhaps I just worded it incorrectly.

Manhunt doesn't have a huge market, I specifically used it to drive that point. Most people are not interested in such extreme subject matter and Manhunt's sales are a reflection of that. Yet Rockstar still decided to do a sequel. It's the same deal with The Warriors, the film has a cult following, but it's anything but mass appeal. Same thing goes for Table Tennis...I mean, it's frickin' table tennis! No mass appeal there whatsoever.

I honestly don't understand your views expressed in the last two paragraphs. Bully wasn't original nor creative? There's absolutely nothing, I mean nothing, on the market like it. Bully stands as one of the best examples of Rockstar's creativity - especially the theme. Gameplay-wise, Rockstar fused elements of Grand Theft Auto and The Warriors and added a bunch of new elements as well, I can understand if you didn't enjoy the game, but to call it out on lack of creativity...no.

Also, first you said they were trying to reach a younger audience and avoid parent backlash with Bully, but now you say they used it as a means to further establish their image as bad boys of the industry...so which is it?

BG&E was sent to die by suits who have no business holding the jobs they hold releasing a game that had little marketing during the busiest time of the year. There will be more BG&E's this year, there always are. And this will continue until game companies stop hiring guys who think the only practical way of doing business is to release when your product has the highest chance of being overlooked.

Meanwhile, the industry nearly shuts down during the summer. Now, we keep hearing about how this industry is growing and how viable it is, and how it's bigger than movies. Well, movie studios don't shut down in the summer -- it is in fact one of their busiest and most profitable seasons. Game companies still believe that their target demographic still relies on daddy and mommy's holiday pocketbook to make purchases, which is flat ignorant.

Which sums it up: BG&E was a casualty of industry ignorance and people in power who try to put their unknown games up against blockbusters, and then scratch their heads in wonderas to why it failed. The very same ilk who are putting Blacksite: Area 51 up against Halo 3. What kind of an idiot does something like that? And who hires him? And further, will he still have his job when the game gets absolutely tidal waved by Halo 3 and the publisher loses millions of dollars?

Shame-usBlackley

It sure does suck to see good games crushed by poor marketing. :(

I didn't say that Rockstar isn't interested in marketing. If anything, they're extremely serious about it and have an impeccably detailed approach to marketing as well as development. What I was trying to say is that I doubt they sit around and do market research and then decide what games to make based on that data. Perhaps I just worded it incorrectly.

Manhunt doesn't have a huge market, I specifically used it to drive that point. Most people are not interested in such extreme subject matter and Manhunt's sales are a reflection of that. Yet Rockstar still decided to do a sequel. It's the same deal with The Warriors, the film has a cult following, but it's anything but mass appeal. Same thing goes for Table Tennis...I mean, it's frickin' table tennis! No mass appeal there whatsoever.

I honestly don't understand your views expressed in the last two paragraphs. Bully wasn't original nor creative? There's absolutely nothing, I mean nothing, on the market like it. Bully stands as one of the best examples of Rockstar's creativity - especially the theme. Gameplay-wise, Rockstar fused elements of Grand Theft Auto and The Warriors and added a bunch of new elements as well, I can understand if you didn't enjoy the game, but to call it out on lack of creativity...no.

Also, first you said they were trying to reach a younger audience and avoid parent backlash with Bully, but now you say they used it as a means to further establish their image as bad boys of the industry...so which is it?

UpInFlames

I find it not very creative because it is something they've done it before.

School theme? I've seen it too often in Japanese games to say that theme itself is really original or creative. The gameplay? It is basically doing samething over like you said from GTA games and The Warrior.

The offensive marterials? I think that is just toned down version of their GTA games so nothing original there either.

If they really did create some original gameplay ideas and really changed their way to show different aspects of school life other than sticking with the bad boy theme, then I would've said it was original, but it was incredibly predicatable and completely expected.

Avoiding backlash and keeping the image of being bad boy is different. They avoid the backlash by taking out blood, sex, and other specific things parents can attack, but left their bad boy image there by giving that offensive materials like harrassing homeless person, beating up kids, generally keeping the story go in more offensive materials instead. What better way is there to give big slap in parents face than to make offensive game by avoiding all the issues parents have with GTA games?

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

BG&E was sent to die by suits who have no business holding the jobs they hold releasing a game that had little marketing during the busiest time of the year. There will be more BG&E's this year, there always are. And this will continue until game companies stop hiring guys who think the only practical way of doing business is to release when your product has the highest chance of being overlooked.

Meanwhile, the industry nearly shuts down during the summer. Now, we keep hearing about how this industry is growing and how viable it is, and how it's bigger than movies. Well, movie studios don't shut down in the summer -- it is in fact one of their busiest and most profitable seasons. Game companies still believe that their target demographic still relies on daddy and mommy's holiday pocketbook to make purchases, which is flat ignorant.

Which sums it up: BG&E was a casualty of industry ignorance and people in power who try to put their unknown games up against blockbusters, and then scratch their heads in wonderas to why it failed. The very same ilk who are putting Blacksite: Area 51 up against Halo 3. What kind of an idiot does something like that? And who hires him? And further, will he still have his job when the game gets absolutely tidal waved by Halo 3 and the publisher loses millions of dollars?

LordAndrew

It sure does suck to see good games crushed by poor marketing. :(

To be honest, I didn't have a huge problem with the marketing for BG&E. I actually saw commercials on TV that made the game look sweet to me. If you see my earlier comments (I think I had the 1st response), I sited a number of things that hurt its sales numbers, and one of them ties in to what Shame-us wrote.

But, Shame-us, the thing that shows its not JUST when a game is released is the example of Psychonauts. Released in April of 05 (IIRC), it wasn't battling huge blockbusters or more high profile/familar games like BG&E was. Yet, it failed just as bad (folks, neither of these games sold 150k on all of the platforms they were released on).

Face it, truth is that, last gen, gamers have grown into annoyingly fickle consumers that want to be seen as 'mature' by not buying or playing any game that could be perceived as 'kiddie' ...

If they really did create some original gameplay ideas and really changed their way to show different aspects of school life other than sticking with the bad boy theme, then I would've said it was original, but it was incredibly predicatable and completely expected.

Avoiding backlash and keeping the image of being bad boy is different. They avoid the backlash by taking out blood, sex, and other specific things parents can attack, but left their bad boy image there by giving that offensive materials like harrassing homeless person, beating up kids, generally keeping the story go in more offensive materials instead. What better way is there to give big slap in parents face than to make offensive game by avoiding all the issues parents have with GTA games?TriangleHard

Wow, you respond really fast! English isn't my first language, so I need a bit more time to put together coherent sentences. :wink:

Jimmy is a delinquent, but he isn't really that bad. I think they did show different aspects of school life - you can bully other kids and stuff, but you can also go to class for which you get meaningful pay-offs, you can go on dates, take part-time jobs like paper routes and lawnmowing, you can go karting, biking...there are missions where you can help out teachers...lots of different stuff there.

You can't avoid backlash and keep the image of a bad boy, it's just impossible. You're saying Rockstar took out offensive material such as blood and extreme violence and replaced it with...other offensive material such as bullying. It's the same thing. Every decision Rockstar made about Bully was a design decision, they never pamper to critics. As I said before, Bully didn't have blood and extreme violence simply due to the overall theme of the game, such features would be completely out of place. If Rockstar were indeed intent on avoiding backlash and catering to critics, there would be no Manhunt 2. There would be no Grand Theft Auto IV.

#1 High Development Costs so it's harder to gain profit

#2 Hype

#3 Unappealing

I was really disappointed in Bully because it lacked originality. I'm ok with following similar formula and making some improvement on it, but when it comes to new IP, I hoped for some creativity and originality but Bully had none. The story moved on very typical GTA fashion which tried to offend you and bring that cheap laughs more than actual attempt at creating good story. It worked well for GTA games because the theme itself was dark and such offensive material was part of that dark theme of gangs, but Bully was just there to give people some of that forced messed up theme.

I wasn't very skeptical about the game actually. I do consider myself more of open minded person, but when I actually started to play, I realized how much of GTA formula is there even in terms of story and found it sickening to know how much Rockstar is trying to build their company image of being bad boys of the industry and milking the same forumla instead of actually trying to come up with anything creative or original and geniune attempt to make a good game. I hoped Rockstar was more about freedom of creation rather than concentrating on that messed up theme to milk their audience for money.

TriangleHard

Based on your comments here and in previous posts I have some serious doubts that you've actually spent much time with Bully. Calling Bully a GTA clone is flatly incorrect and your assertion thatit adheres to the GTA paradigm isn't supported by the actual content of the game. Other than the sandbox nature of the game play, Bully shares very little in common with the GTA games and every aspect of its execution, from sports to classroom assignments,was handled creatively and uniquely. You're entitled to your opinion but calling out Bully for being uncreative or unoriginal is nonsensical. I would also point out that there is nothing in Bully even remotely controversial; all the controversy was generated pre-release and rooted mostly in the ravings of Jack Thompson, who knew nothing about the game and assumed from the title that it was GTA in a school, which it most certainly is not.

As for your diatribe against Rockstar,you couldn't be more incorrect.. Rockstar has made all manner of games, fromGTA to Ping Pong, with plenty of qualitytitles in-between.Games like Mafia, Red Dead Revolver, and Max Payne have all been published under their label soto accuse them ofbeing only about milking extreme content is asinine. While it's true that Rockstar hasn't shied away from violent content andcontroversial games, the factthat these games have been of the highest quality negates the notion that they are milkingcontent and prioritizing violence over creativity. If Manhunt was merely a quick, bloody cash-in, the game would have been shoddybut instead what consumers were given was a divergent title with strong game play mechanics. You assume that Rockstar's predilection towards violence and extreme content isn't motivated by creativity whenyou really have nothing to back that up. By way of your logic Stephen King or Clive Barker aren't motivated by creativity because they choose to write primarily about macabre subject matter. Did you ever stop to consider that the designers at Rockstar just happen to like the sort of games they make and publish?

Truth be told, Rockstar has pushed the envelope in terms of creativity far more than most companies. Again, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you seem to be holding Rockstar to an unreasonable standard for reasons that escape me, especially in light of the quality of their work.

Avoiding backlash and keeping the image of being bad boy is different. They avoid the backlash by taking out blood, sex, and other specific things parents can attack, but left their bad boy image there by giving that offensive materials like harrassing homeless person, beating up kids, generally keeping the story go in more offensive materials instead. What better way is there to give big slap in parents face than to make offensive game by avoiding all the issues parents have with GTA games?

TriangleHard

How about by releasing a game where the first action your character does is blow his brains out? I'm not releasing Rockstar of any of the vile acts depicted in their games, but to get all high and mighty about a game being offensive, while on the other hand giving a game a 9 (Shin Megami Tensei 3)that involves teen suicide by handgun (which is sure to get parents all hot and bothered given recent events) seems a smidge off to me.

To be honest, I didn't have a huge problem with the marketing for BG&E. I actually saw commercials on TV that made the game look sweet to me. If you see my earlier comments (I think I had the 1st response), I sited a number of things that hurt its sales numbers, and one of them ties in to what Shame-us wrote.

But, Shame-us, the thing that shows its not JUST when a game is released is the example of Psychonauts. Released in April of 05 (IIRC), it wasn't battling huge blockbusters or more high profile/familar games like BG&E was. Yet, it failed just as bad (folks, neither of these games sold 150k on all of the platforms they were released on).

Face it, truth is that, last gen, gamers have grown into annoyingly fickle consumers that want to be seen as 'mature' by not buying or playing any game that could be perceived as 'kiddie' ...

Darth_Tigris

See, I don't remember seeing any ads for the game save for the occasional print grab.

And sure, release dates aren't the only problem, but they definitely can make or break a release. There are games that I really want to play (would play if the pocketbook permitted) coming over the next few months that I'm simply going to pass on due to the sure-fire hits taking all my coin. I really want to play Timeshift for example, but am I going to allow that to make me miss playing Ace Combat, Halo, Mass Effect, Uncharted, or Mario Galaxy? No way. It's just not gonna happen. Yet this summer I had money just burning a hole in my pocket with nary a thing to spend it on.

I'm not saying that releasing during the non-holiday season is a guarantee that a non-high profile game won't tank, only that releasing in the winter will.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Avoiding backlash and keeping the image of being bad boy is different. They avoid the backlash by taking out blood, sex, and other specific things parents can attack, but left their bad boy image there by giving that offensive materials like harrassing homeless person, beating up kids, generally keeping the story go in more offensive materials instead. What better way is there to give big slap in parents face than to make offensive game by avoiding all the issues parents have with GTA games? Shame-usBlackley

How about by releasing a game where the first action your character does is blow his brains out? I'm not releasing Rockstar of any of the vile acts depicted in their games, but to get all high and mighty about a game being offensive, while on the other hand giving a game a 9 (Shin Megami Tensei 3)that involves teen suicide by handgun (which is sure to get parents all hot and bothered given recent events) seems a smidge off to me.

Doesn't Persona 3 have that nice little feature of blowing your brains out before you summon a persona or something?

I'm not saying that releasing during the non-holiday season is a guarantee that a non-high profile game won't tank, only that releasing in the winter will.

Shame-usBlackley

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Avoiding backlash and keeping the image of being bad boy is different. They avoid the backlash by taking out blood, sex, and other specific things parents can attack, but left their bad boy image there by giving that offensive materials like harrassing homeless person, beating up kids, generally keeping the story go in more offensive materials instead. What better way is there to give big slap in parents face than to make offensive game by avoiding all the issues parents have with GTA games?

Shame-usBlackley

How about by releasing a game where the first action your character does is blow his brains out? I'm not releasing Rockstar of any of the vile acts depicted in their games, but to get all high and mighty about a game being offensive, while on the other hand giving a game a 9 (Shin Megami Tensei 3)that involves teen suicide by handgun (which is sure to get parents all hot and bothered given recent events) seems a smidge off to me.

There is a difference.

The image of shooting yourself in the head might be shocking, but according to story they aren't shooting bullets.

Persona 3 might have shocking image, but nothing about the story is really offensive. Bully on the other hand does have offensive materials because it has many elements goest again moral values.

As for games being offensive, I have nothing against that. I don't think it is bad thing Bully can have some offensive material in the story. Only thing I'm putting it down hard is that Rockstar failed to really step out of the way and be original and creative. Also being offensive is fine, but if you are trying to create some realistic setting, at least try to keep it realistic. GTA, it felt realistic because story of violence did revolve around gang theme story and it fit well, but school violence being so open like that, and things these characters talked about was out of touch.

As for cl@ss room stuff, it was basically same as GTA. chemistry cl@ss had the mini game like clubs in GTA etc. The word scrambling puzzle things in English cl@ss was nice mini-game but let's not kid around here. Bully used very similar game mechanics as other Rockstar games with little tweaks to fit the surrounding and theme better. I really hoped Rockstar would try something more original and really do something different because it was new IP, but Bully didn't do anything that was really radically different from GTA games.

Perhaps some of you did mistaken what I've said. I'm not saying Bully is bad game. It is pretty good game but not a great game that can be considered one of the best in 2006 nor it was that original.

As for image talk, I don't think you can deny that the company does try to put out certain image.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Avoiding backlash and keeping the image of being bad boy is different. They avoid the backlash by taking out blood, sex, and other specific things parents can attack, but left their bad boy image there by giving that offensive materials like harrassing homeless person, beating up kids, generally keeping the story go in more offensive materials instead. What better way is there to give big slap in parents face than to make offensive game by avoiding all the issues parents have with GTA games?

TriangleHard

How about by releasing a game where the first action your character does is blow his brains out? I'm not releasing Rockstar of any of the vile acts depicted in their games, but to get all high and mighty about a game being offensive, while on the other hand giving a game a 9 (Shin Megami Tensei 3)that involves teen suicide by handgun (which is sure to get parents all hot and bothered given recent events) seems a smidge off to me.

There is a difference.

The image of shooting yourself in the head might be shocking, but according to story they aren't shooting bullets.

Persona 3 might have shocking image, but nothing about the story is really offensive. Bully on the other hand does have offensive materials because it has many elements goest again moral values.

As for games being offensive, I have nothing against that. I don't think it is bad thing Bully can have some offensive material in the story. Only thing I'm putting it down hard is that Rockstar failed to really step out of the way and be original and creative. Also being offensive is fine, but if you are trying to create some realistic setting, at least try to keep it realistic. GTA, it felt realistic because story of violence did revolve around gang theme story and it fit well, but school violence being so open like that, and things these characters talked about was out of touch.

As for cl@ss room stuff, it was basically same as GTA. chemistry cl@ss had the mini game like clubs in GTA etc. The word scrambling puzzle things in English cl@ss was nice mini-game but let's not kid around here. Bully used very similar game mechanics as other Rockstar games with little tweaks to fit the surrounding and theme better. I really hoped Rockstar would try something more original and really do something different because it was new IP, but Bully didn't do anything that was really radically different from GTA games.

Perhaps some of you did mistaken what I've said. I'm not saying Bully is bad game. It is pretty good game but not a great game that can be considered one of the best in 2006 nor it was that original.

As for image talk, I don't think you can deny that the company does try to put out certain image.

You're splitting hairs for the sake of preserving your specious arguments and frankly, it isn't working.

Firstly, there is nothing in Bully that even remotely resembles content as violent and disturbing as a person shooting himself in the head. The fact that it isn't real bullets "according to the story" in Persona does nothing to negate the impact of that image.

The most violent aspects of Bully are fisticuffs, a kick to the groin, and trash-canning kids. All of this "offensive material" you keep referring to is the product of hyperbole and mudslinging by certain members of the uninformed media. Bully was only rated T to begin with and I could point to the content of any number of teen-focused TV shows currently airing that feature far more offensive material than Bully.

As for the creativity quotient of Bully, you have provided no evidence to refute it. You keep claiming it is merely just GTA with some tweaking when in reality it's nothing like GTA save for some superficial aspects of the game play. The mini games were one minor aspect of an altogether unique package and the proof of this is the reality that there is nothing else on the market like it. As I posted earlier, your comments suggest a person whose experience with the game has been, at best, incredibly limited and based more on word of mouth and information taken from other sources. Feel free to call Bully more of the same but understand you've failed to point out why you are making this claim.

Lastly, Rockstar execs aren't up on stage at E3 dancing with strippers and chanting "kill the pandas" so your whole notion of them selling some hardcore image is purely conjecture. There is no evidence to suggest they are selling an image or spending all of their developmental assets on violent content, evidenced by the fact that their last two high profile games, Bully and Table Tennis, were not even M rated games.

You can dislike Rockstar and their products as that is your prerogative but your rationale isn't holding up under logistical scrutiny, especially when you give other games and developers a pass for doing the same types of things.

You're splitting hairs for the sake of preserving your specious arguments and frankly, it isn't working.

Firstly, there is nothing in Bully that even remotely resembles content as violent and disturbing as a person shooting himself in the head. The fact that it isn't real bullets "according to the story" in Persona does nothing to negate the impact of that image.

The most violent aspects of Bully are fisticuffs, a kick to the groin, and trash-canning kids. All of this "offensive material" you keep referring to is the product of hyperbole and mudslinging by certain members of the uninformed media. Bully was only rated T to begin with and I could point to the content of any number of teen-focused TV shows currently airing that feature far more offensive material than Bully.

As for the creativity quotient of Bully, you have provided no evidence to refute it. You keep claiming it is merely just GTA with some tweaking when in reality it's nothing like GTA save for some superficial aspects of the game play. The mini games were one minor aspect of an altogether unique package and the proof of this is the reality that there is nothing else on the market like it. As I posted earlier, your comments suggest a person whose experience with the game has been, at best, incredibly limited and based more on word of mouth and information taken from other sources. Feel free to call Bully more of the same but understand you've failed to point out why you are making this claim.

Lastly, Rockstar execs aren't up on stage at E3 dancing with strippers and chanting "kill the pandas" so your whole notion of them selling some hardcore image is purely conjecture. There is no evidence to suggest they are selling an image or spending all of their developmental assets on violent content, evidenced by the fact that their last two high profile games, Bully and Table Tennis, were not even M rated games.

You can dislike Rockstar and their products as that is your prerogative but your rationale isn't holding up under logistical scrutiny, especially when you give other games and developers a pass for doing the same types of things.

Grammaton-Cleric

I do not dislike Rockstar, I actually support them.

It was a mere disappointment I had with their game Bully that just had me unsatisfied.

If you want to go in details how Bully is similar to GTA, it's not that difficult. The controls, the sandbox gameplay, the mission based lay outs, etc all comes near identical with GTA except for lack of vehicles. The mission often consists of fighting enemy through basic combat system very much like GTA, or very situational missions that makes you do simple tasks or go here do this type of missions.

GTA was never really a game that had specific types of gameplay, same with Bully and both games use very similar control scheme, and consists of very similar style missions except for vehicle related ones.

You are getting really way off with the word "offensive" and "violent". Persona 3 may have some shocking image to start the game off, but once that scene is over you understand that the guns to shoot your own head is not really used like a gun but more like injection, and story goes without any action that really cringes player because the character's actions does not cross any boundaries that would make you think that character is doing something morally wrong. It recieved rightful rating with M because it does show some scenes that is rather shocking and some nudity, but that's "shocking", "violent", and "disturbing" stuff, not "offensive" materials.

Bully on the other hand is offensive even if they don't show as strong of violence or sex because their moral values are bit twisted. Making fun of homeless man can be viewed offensive. Beating up poor little kid for fun, lifting up girl's skirts, etc can be viewed offensive.

offensive =/= violence ok? People didn't have problem with GTA because you can beat up some people, they had problem because you can beat up hookers. That's offensive. The fact you can pimp them, is why parents were offended, not because you can shoot guns and saw some blood. Heck, they weren't even worried about sex or they would've been after God of War for showing boobs. Violent and disturbing materials are different from offensive materials.

As for Rockstars, obviously they do want to build their image in certain way, or they wouldn't concentrate so many of their games on certain materials. Manhunt, GTA, Bully, The Warriors, etc. You cannot say if you think about Rockstar, you don't think about games that has materials that can be offensive towards to some people. The idea of mature games and storyline. Their least offensive game would be Max Payne, which has almost no offensive material in it, but it is certainly very mature game. Rockstar = trouble maker can be easily seen as their company image thanks to the vast number of games they made that had some offensive materials in it that made parents cringe. GTA series alone is enough to build that reputation, but they didn't stop there. They went ahead and made games like Manhunt to heighten that image. I don't think Rockstar didn't think about their company image when they made those games. I'm sure they thought about it, and WANTED such image and that is a smart move to do so.

[QUOTE="Darth_Tigris"]

To be honest, I didn't have a huge problem with the marketing for BG&E. I actually saw commercials on TV that made the game look sweet to me. If you see my earlier comments (I think I had the 1st response), I sited a number of things that hurt its sales numbers, and one of them ties in to what Shame-us wrote.

But, Shame-us, the thing that shows its not JUST when a game is released is the example of Psychonauts. Released in April of 05 (IIRC), it wasn't battling huge blockbusters or more high profile/familar games like BG&E was. Yet, it failed just as bad (folks, neither of these games sold 150k on all of the platforms they were released on).

Face it, truth is that, last gen, gamers have grown into annoyingly fickle consumers that want to be seen as 'mature' by not buying or playing any game that could be perceived as 'kiddie' ...

Shame-usBlackley

See, I don't remember seeing any ads for the game save for the occasional print grab.

And sure, release dates aren't the only problem, but they definitely can make or break a release. There are games that I really want to play (would play if the pocketbook permitted) coming over the next few months that I'm simply going to pass on due to the sure-fire hits taking all my coin. I really want to play Timeshift for example, but am I going to allow that to make me miss playing Ace Combat, Halo, Mass Effect, Uncharted, or Mario Galaxy? No way. It's just not gonna happen. Yet this summer I had money just burning a hole in my pocket with nary a thing to spend it on.

I'm not saying that releasing during the non-holiday season is a guarantee that a non-high profile game won't tank, only that releasing in the winter will.

Wow, has this thread been hijacked or what? Anyway, here's the ad that I saw running the month the game came out. Granted, it was on channels like G4, nothing high profile. But that's the case with most games.

As for your statements about release time frames, I couldn't agree more. Its killed many a game and will continue to. Ubisoft, who should know better because of past experiences, continues to do it. I honestly think it has more to do with having a big 4th quarter for stockholders than the artistic success of the product. Even when crowded, games sales are as a whole higher during Q4. I used to fret about it, but I just play games when I have the time and money now. Some end up getting missed all together. BG&E is the first, and maybe only, time that it really made me mad.