The developer is a scumbag liar and the game was pure garbage on release, but everyone I know that went and bought it a few months ago when it was on sale said that it was a solid game. My brother and his friends put about 100 hours into it.
I won't buy it because I refuse to support such a douche, but according to a lot of people who went back and gave it a chance, it isn't a bad game (anymore).
I wasn't implying so much that it was still as bad as it was, but the dev utterly lied about it and scammed people left and right with it while it was still a buggy, worthless piece of s***. I don't care how much it might have improved since then, I'm never touching that game.
It was just the first game that came to mind when I saw mention of "false advertising" and "terrible." heh --- "How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi "Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
Cracked.com usually writes some very interesting articles, but yeah, I wouldn't expect them to be the leaders in gaming news. I usually go to cracked.com for stuff like "Top 5 things that you have in your kitchen that could kill you" or "Top 10 events that nearly ended the world" or something like that. --- http://astats.astats.nl/astats/astats_card_76561197969913402.png http://i.imgur.com/Im803Gk.gif
Cracked.com is definitely not what I'd call a "hard news source" or anything - it's an entertainment website. But this article actually did make some good points I thought were relevant. --- "How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi "Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
I read that article earlier today. The observations are generally accurate, but it simply doesn't follow that they would lead to another crash. They've been true for years, and what it's led to is creative stagnation, and endless big budget sequels designed by committee to appeal to as broad a market as possible with no risk taking or innovation. It's not unlike pop music - they're calculated, soulless products, but they do meet a basic quality threshold, and are virtually guaranteed to turn a profit.
Probably the biggest difference between games today and before the '83 crash is that the developers know what they're doing. The late Atari 2600 era was flooded with bug-ridden, virtually unplayable pieces of crap that nobody wanted to play. Nowadays programming is easy, game design is driven by tried-and-true formulas, and endless playtesting ensures plenty of broad appeal and that nobody gets stuck or frustrated for too long. Marketing is very good at anticipating market trends, and has techniques for influencing them. The unlicensed Atari 2600 developers didn't have any of this - they just made stuff quickly and tried to sell it. --- http://thecrankyhermit.wikispaces.com/ Year-by-year analysis of the finest gaming has to offer, and (eventually) more!
Video games are too big of an industry to just disappear.
A crash? Yeah, that's a big possibility. I actually weirdly kinda want it to happen, so that we can finally have a change of pace.
Yeah, it's not like millions of people born into the video game generation and have no other hobby besides games will suddenly give them up because some big publishers decide they can't afford to make AAA games anymore. Someone will fill the niche, indies, a few sure-fire AAA franchises like Elder Scrolls, pay-to-play, etc. Games are not going to go away.
And if development tools continue to improve, indies will continue to improve in graphics and content because one or two developers can do so much more than they used to be able to. Now one programmer, one graphics artist, and one sound composer can make a SNES quality game in a year or two. Who knows? Maybe in 20 years five people will be enough to make a game like Skyrim. That's probably a stretch, but expect some technically impressive games made by very small teams. --- I am a well-known troll. Please don't fall for my shenanigans.