ThatRighteousNixon: Oh so in other words I'm a cheapskate for complaining right? Well besides that unnecessary subtle insult, that sounds like bull****. Back then I used to get N64 games for about $50-$60 and that was the FULL GAME. Cheats, unlocks, EVERYTHING. To say gaming is cheaper nowadays is nonsense.. never have I seen it more expensive. To get a full game like Battlefield 1 or Star Wars Battlefront, I have to pay a whopping $120! And that's cheaper?!? BS man. Massive BS. And the fact that gaming is more expensive is irrelevant. If the game is expensive to make but the experience doesn't show that quality, then it's a no buy. And I know I'm not the only one here who operates like that.
So pretty much no company is gonna stop with the "standard version" and OH THE "COLLECTORS EDITION" as in "IF YOU WANT THE FULL GAME YOU GOTTA PAY A LOT MORE!!!"
Gone are the days where you can get the FULL game for $60... as tech evolves, I don't want to even imagine how expensive games will be in 30 years...
Are people actually supporting this ****!??? Are people actually going along with these ridiculous prices for the "FULL" game?!?? It's effin ridiculous!
@RogerioFM: Yeah I think COD needed more evolution in its games for it to continue to succeed... if they added much more gore and a NEW ENGINE for example, maybe that could've helped.
Yeah I understand that series get 'spent' and need change but what I would argue instead is to always keep what makes it great so that it keeps its identity and just evolve it's technology which could include new variations to the game. The best example I would say is the RE Remake. They upped everything in the technology department which also allowed zombies to push outside certain doors where in the original they couldn't. That to me, is evolution. And also how you could stab a zombie in the head with a knife or stick a grenade in its mouth when it grabbed you or dead zombies turn into crimson head running zombies on their second awakening.
With that example, they keep its identity in place while evolving its overall system as a whole as the new tech evolves and is able to expand its vision further and pack it with even more depth.
@RogerioFM: Yeah but Souls games used to get a 9 so by that standard, it underscored.. I think he's right in the sense that these games are SLOWLY getting lower scores over time just because it's the same ole' type of game... It annoys me that people need constant change all the time..some things don't need to change, just evolve.
@silversix_: Yeah it's pathetic... It seems the more games like this get released, the more people get tired of them including critics forcing the developers to change up the WORKING formula and **** up what made it great in the first place...
Much like Resident Evil, people got tired of the same ole' RE and complained about "too much of the same thing" so developers changed it and several iterations later, people are demanding it return back to its survival horror roots once more! So what's the freaking point of getting tired of too much souls!??? People should learn from this example and keep what works..and if people get tired of it, **** it, let them. But the true fans won't. It's a bad thing to demand change in something that already works. I get it, it needs to evolve but to change what made it great is a bad thing because people are eventually gonna want it the original way again anyway...people are just ****ing weird.
Sorry I needed to say that even if it was off topic... It just annoys me of how that specific process "unnecessarily" works.
clay544888's comments