Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Should every dev just copy bungie for every halo

OP RowdyGringo

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. ...
  9. 13
343 does not need to "copy" bungie, they need to build off what already existed. They have improved their own creations, but have not improved Halo as a whole. Imagine if Disney (who now owns the rights to star wars) changed what darth vader looked like simply because they wanted to seperate themselves from the original movies and make their own legacy. It makes no sense. Change for the sake of change is a terrible direction. The same applies to 343 and Halo.
Yeah, I mean halo needs to stop following trends and start setting them again. -Yoink- your ADS and thruster pack. I don't care about Spartan charge or slide. I want something that's gonna blow my mind.

PS. I'm writing this as I'm watching Totoro. That cat-bus-thing is sooooo cool.
343 needs to take what they did with H2A and continue down that road of gameplay. Also I want vehicles back in 4v4. Just my opinion though.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.

Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
no. I'm not. Team fortress isnt the trend I'm referring to.

You have the entire moba genre introducing cohesive teamwork and characters with ults (as well as borderlands in the fps genre). you see games like battleborn, smite, paragon, and overwatch doing the large cast of heroes. That I mention how Overwatch looks so similar to TF2 is just to show that OW stands out for reasons other than the obvious.
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.

Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
no. I'm not. Team fortress isnt the trend I'm referring to.

You have the entire moba genre introducing cohesive teamwork and characters with ults (as well as borderlands in the fps genre). you see games like battleborn, smite, paragon, and overwatch doing the large cast of heroes. That I mention how Overwatch looks so similar to TF2 is just to show that OW stands out for reasons other than the obvious.
The only one of those that is relevant to the Overwatch discussion is Battleborn which came out at the same time as Overwatch.

If you wanna keep on the same road as that other guy, I tell you the same as I told him: there's really nothing to say to someone that actually think MW wasn't innovative or that Overwatch followed trends. Unless you're joking that is.
I like how you make a title for your thread saying one thing. Then in the very first sentence you say the exact opposite. I'm going to have to agree with the second thing you said. Halo 4 had a great story and it built off of what Bungie did wonderfully. But then Halo 5 came and dashed it all away. But I do like Halo 5 for the most part. It does have a good amount of flaws though. Most shouldn't have even happened in the first place. It is too late obviously for 343 to build off bungie. But it's not too late for 343 to build off 343.
The Dnend Legion
I just wished they didn't take away the UI Reach had.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
Are you seriously saying that Economics is not focused on market trends? Or that the gaming industry is not subject to economic forces? That's like saying mechanics don't work on mechanical things.

Overwatch is following the hero based gaming trends, it's innovation was moving it to fps.

Modern Warfare 1 was just a twitch based shooter. Golly, nothing like that existed before 2007. 2009's COD MW2 was better balanced, but again hardly changed. If you don't think that is the case, and you don't think that that is the model on which COD operates, and you do not think COD is the most played and profitable console shooter, as a result of a 7 year winning formula, then...you're on your own.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
OK, I think it is well established that you don't know any economic theory. Economics is not focused on market trends? That's like saying mechanics don't work on mechanical things.

Modern Warfare 1 was just a twitch based shooter. Golly, nothing like that existed before 2007. 2009's COD MW2 was better balanced, but again hardly changed. If you don't think that is the case, and you don't think that that is the model on which COD operates, and you do not think COD is the most played and profitable console shooter, as a result of a 7 year winning formula, then...you're on your own.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
OK, I think it is well established that you don't know any economic theory. Economics is not focused on market trends? That's like saying mechanics don't work on mechanical things.

Modern Warfare 1 was just a twitch based shooter. Golly, nothing like that existed before 2007. 2009's COD MW2 was better balanced, but again hardly changed. If you don't think that is the case, and you don't think that that is the model on which COD operates, and you do not think COD is the most played and profitable console shooter, as a result of a 7 year winning formula, then...you're on your own.
And there it is. The proof that you don't quite know what innovation. Because that ain't it, but that's clearly what you think people are talking about.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
OK, I think it is well established that you don't know any economic theory. Economics is not focused on market trends? That's like saying mechanics don't work on mechanical things.

Modern Warfare 1 was just a twitch based shooter. Golly, nothing like that existed before 2007. 2009's COD MW2 was better balanced, but again hardly changed. If you don't think that is the case, and you don't think that that is the model on which COD operates, and you do not think COD is the most played and profitable console shooter, as a result of a 7 year winning formula, then...you're on your own.
And there it is. The proof that you don't quite know what innovation. Because that ain't it, but that's clearly what you think people are talking about.
Then inform me, what are you talking about? It's hard for me to understand your train of thought, especially after that remark about trends not being a part of economics.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.

Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
Isnt that what a trend is in so many words
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
OK, I think it is well established that you don't know any economic theory. Economics is not focused on market trends? That's like saying mechanics don't work on mechanical things.

Modern Warfare 1 was just a twitch based shooter. Golly, nothing like that existed before 2007. 2009's COD MW2 was better balanced, but again hardly changed. If you don't think that is the case, and you don't think that that is the model on which COD operates, and you do not think COD is the most played and profitable console shooter, as a result of a 7 year winning formula, then...you're on your own.
And there it is. The proof that you don't quite know what innovation. Because that ain't it, but that's clearly what you think people are talking about.
Then inform me, what are you talking about? It's hard for me to understand your train of thought, especially after that remark about trends not being a part of economics.
I don't really wanna bother continuing that discussion. I feel like I'll inform you and then you'll challenge what said and we'll be back where we started. Anyone else here should be able to tell you if they're familiar with Modern Warfare. Or perhaps ask yourself what MW did that other shooters didn't do.

For some reason you keep saying that I think trends aren't part of economics. I never said that. I said you don't understand what a trend is as it applies to gaming.
Raven XCVl wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.

Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
Isnt that what a trend is in so many words
Nope.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
OK, I think it is well established that you don't know any economic theory. Economics is not focused on market trends? That's like saying mechanics don't work on mechanical things.

Modern Warfare 1 was just a twitch based shooter. Golly, nothing like that existed before 2007. 2009's COD MW2 was better balanced, but again hardly changed. If you don't think that is the case, and you don't think that that is the model on which COD operates, and you do not think COD is the most played and profitable console shooter, as a result of a 7 year winning formula, then...you're on your own.
And there it is. The proof that you don't quite know what innovation. Because that ain't it, but that's clearly what you think people are talking about.
Then inform me, what are you talking about? It's hard for me to understand your train of thought, especially after that remark about trends not being a part of economics.
I don't really wanna bother continuing that discussion. I feel like I'll inform you and then you'll challenge what said and we'll be back where we started. Anyone else here should be able to tell you if they're familiar with Modern Warfare. Or perhaps ask yourself what MW did that other shooters didn't do.

For some reason you keep saying that I think trends aren't part of economics. I never said that. I said you don't understand what a trend is as it applies to gaming.
I sincerely thought you were referring to trends not being part of economics, and that it didn't apply to gaming. But I'll take your word for it.

Well we certainly won't convince each other. And I feel like it's pretty well established that hero style games are a trend. But I think Modern Warfare's blandness and lack of innovation is one subject that is close to being unanimous on this forum.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
OK, I think it is well established that you don't know any economic theory. Economics is not focused on market trends? That's like saying mechanics don't work on mechanical things.

Modern Warfare 1 was just a twitch based shooter. Golly, nothing like that existed before 2007. 2009's COD MW2 was better balanced, but again hardly changed. If you don't think that is the case, and you don't think that that is the model on which COD operates, and you do not think COD is the most played and profitable console shooter, as a result of a 7 year winning formula, then...you're on your own.
And there it is. The proof that you don't quite know what innovation. Because that ain't it, but that's clearly what you think people are talking about.
Then inform me, what are you talking about? It's hard for me to understand your train of thought, especially after that remark about trends not being a part of economics.
I don't really wanna bother continuing that discussion. I feel like I'll inform you and then you'll challenge what said and we'll be back where we started. Anyone else here should be able to tell you if they're familiar with Modern Warfare. Or perhaps ask yourself what MW did that other shooters didn't do.

For some reason you keep saying that I think trends aren't part of economics. I never said that. I said you don't understand what a trend is as it applies to gaming.
I sincerely thought you were referring to trends not being part of economics, and that it didn't apply to gaming. But I'll take your word for it.

Well we certainly won't convince each other. And I feel like it's pretty well established that hero style games are a trend. But I think Modern Warfare's blandness and lack of innovation is one subject that is close to being unanimous on this forum.
I doubt that. It's innovation seems to be common knowledge, at least elsewhere on the Internet. Maybe it's different here.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Raven XCVl wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.

Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
Isnt that what a trend is in so many words
Nope.
Well every buisness class ive ever been in it was explained in that way. EMO is a trend right? Everyone having to go out and buy the new iphone that comes out every 6 months, thats a trend or other phone companies making a similar phone, its part of the trend. Someone or something does something or creates something and then everyone has to have it or do it or experience it, then someone takes that trend then adds on to it, it may not be right away, it could be 30 years after a trend dies like with fashion, and then someone opens up their closet and can still fit into their bell bottom jeans and starts wearing them again and people see it, could be friends that see it or family or perfect strangers see it and break out their jeans. Then some dude that works for a clothes company sees it while hes walking down the street, goes home , draws up some ideas and takes it to work and shows his boss, the boss likes it and orders a limited run on a new line of bell bottom jeans in a local market, it does well, people wear them and the clothes company take the line national then to other countries and there it is, the new trend, new way to look cool is to wear these jeans. Everyone is wearing them, now it may be popular for 5 years and then die down again, but a trend is a trend and isnt limited to 1 or 2 markets, just about everything started out as a trend. There is probably better examples such as music and so on. Is that to hard t understand? Shall i try again with a smaller more simple explanation? Tho what i said is pretty simple
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
I doubt that. It's innovation seems to be common knowledge, at least elsewhere on the Internet. Maybe it's different here.
Correct. Even people that don't like CoD4 agree that it was innovative for its time. (At ~4.10: "What developers don't realize when they try to copy Call of Duty is that it was a major market disruption in two ways." Etc, etc.)
Raven XCVl wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Raven XCVl wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.

Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
Isnt that what a trend is in so many words
Nope.
Well every buisness class ive ever been in it was explained in that way. EMO is a trend right? Everyone having to go out and buy the new iphone that comes out every 6 months, thats a trend or other phone companies making a similar phone, its part of the trend. Someone or something does something or creates something and then everyone has to have it or do it or experience it, then someone takes that trend then adds on to it, it may not be right away, it could be 30 years after a trend dies like with fashion, and then someone opens up their closet and can still fit into their bell bottom jeans and starts wearing them again and people see it, could be friends that see it or family or perfect strangers see it and break out their jeans. Then some dude that works for a clothes company sees it while hes walking down the street, goes home , draws up some ideas and takes it to work and shows his boss, the boss likes it and orders a limited run on a new line of bell bottom jeans in a local market, it does well, people wear them and the clothes company take the line national then to other countries and there it is, the new trend, new way to look cool is to wear these jeans. Everyone is wearing them, now it may be popular for 5 years and then die down again, but a trend is a trend and isnt limited to 1 or 2 markets, just about everything started out as a trend. There is probably better examples such as music and so on. Is that to hard t understand? Shall i try again with a smaller more simple explanation? Tho what i said is pretty simple
I'm really not gonna read that wall (at least it looks like a wall on mobile). If only two different games share a mechanic over the span of 20 years, that's not a trend, that's just something two games have. It's that simple. Why are people doing these mental gymnastics? This isn't complicated.
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Raven XCVl wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
pajama dad wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
Zr0Fear v2 wrote:
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Just make it better.
That's what most, at least I think most "Halo 3 clones" want.
At least that's what I want, a better version of Halo 3 with some slight changes, not drastic and that's the problem.
The difficulty is how do you determine what is "better"? What if the community is split on prefefences? Or even the Devs themselves? Or even the publishers?. Change is usually incremental. I don't think anyone was overly satisfied with Halo 5's campaign. But the pvp is very well received. I think thrusters make it better. Sprint? Meh. It's just so impossible to determine.

I mean, if you want sales and popularity, Halo should carbon copy Call of Duty.
They would carbon copy CoD if it weren't illegal. The closest they got was Halo 4.
Ok? The fact is that games that follow trends and have frequent updates (Read: not DLC, but frequent new game releases) are the most profitable and most played.

Also, the most popular TV shows in terms of viewership usually suck. Popularity/sales does not equal quality.
Um what? That's not how it works, not for shooters anyway.

Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Destiny, Gears of War and Overwatch were some of the most profitable and most played games of their time and none of them followed trends.
That's exactly how it works for shooters! At least for the last decade.

First, let me be clear I like each game you listed (except Overwatch).

MW was somewhat innovative compared to the WW2 games, but COD MW2 was where it got crazy popular, and I can't really tell a difference between the 2 gameplay/graphic wise. And every iteration of COD is only marginally different than the previous year and they totally dominate the shooter market. So I don't understand why you think that isn't how the shooter market works, it practically defines it!

Halo 3 wasn't that much different than halo 2 gameplay wise, just slower paced.

Destiny is great imo, and it in a way you are right, it is a relatively new concept for fps, but the way the game works is very WoW in function. Certainly not innovative to the mmorpg.

Same with Overwatch, it's new to fps, but it is just another hero game following the likes of LOL and heroes of the storm.

Both Destiny and Overwatch are borrowing from EXTREMELY popular gaming trends, they are just applying it to fps.

EDIT: I'm not looking to argue. But it's extremely evident that games that follow popular trends make a whole lot of moolah.
Modern Warfare did not follow trends, it set them. Halo CE did not follow trends, it set them (perhaps Halo 3 wasn't the proper choice). That's the fact of the matter, so that's not even debatable.

Destiny is is not a MMORPG and Overwatch is not a MOBA. They're shooters, so what they did as shooters was innovative and not following trends. Loot based, MMO style shooters were not trending and neither were hero shooters.
Ya halo CE set trends, but so did the Ford model T, which is useless information regarding sales and popularity in modern times. Innovation is always sought after, but hardly ever does it stray far from the pack once the industry is established. All markets tend toward homogenization, whether it's toothbrushes, cars or videogames.

No, Destiny and Overwatch are not strictly mmorpg's and moba's respectively, but they are pretty close, even more so in principle.

This is kinda going all over. Essentially, mainstream products in an established market will be the most financially successful 99% of the time. Reverting to primitive products that were profitable against little competition at the origins of an industry is not a recipe for success.
Well, thankfully you're pretty much alone in however you're coming to these conclusions, so I don't need to try to convince you of something everyone else already knows. I don't know if you're just misunderstanding what "trends" are or what "innovation" is or what, but I'll end it here regardless.
This kind of response is what makes forums so particularly useless and quite frustrating.

Sure zr0fear v2, you know more about economies than economists. Have fun with that.

(One clarification: distinction is good for advertising/loyalty bases, but products are generally quite similar between firms).
My last post has nothing to do with economics. My point was that you're misunderstanding what a trend is and what innovation is, at least as it applies to gaming.
Trends and innovations are some of the fundamental components of both macro and micro economics. And the gaming industry is not excepted from the application of economics.
Maybe it's just you then?

I mean, you said Modern Warfare was only "somewhat" innovative and that Overwatch followed trends. There's not much to say to someone who says that seriously. Maybe you were joking?
I dunno... Looking at Overwatch I cant point to one particular element that makes it extraordinary (maybe how it handles objectives?). I was watching a comparison between it and Team Fortress 2 and occasionally had trouble distinguishing between the footage.

Overwatch definitely follows trends, but its the quality and some of the minor design choices that allow it to be so stand out despite being so derivative.
You're mistaking something existing as a trend. Just because another game did something doesn't make it a trend.
Isnt that what a trend is in so many words
Nope.
Ok, live in your world, but consult a dictionary before you enter the real world.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. ...
  9. 13