Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RoBroCop

Too many games?

Recommended Posts

I've noticed lately, as I'm sure we all have, an influx in FPS games, particularly those set in WW2. I can't help but feel that this is a detriment to the gaming community as a whole. It occurs to me, that the rate of increase in the games critically outpaces the rate of increase in gamers to populate these games, therefore reducing the number of players and reducing the lifespan of the games.

I have compiled a list of games set during the second world war, both released and in development, and while it may be incomplete, it certainly shows a heavy market saturation.

Festung Europa
Westwall
Hell Let Loose
Post Scriptum
Days of War
Battalion 1944
Rising Storm
Red Orchestra 2
Traction Wars
Enlisted
Call of Duty: WW2
Day of Infamy
Heroes and Generals

Combined with games from other genres and other eras (Insurgency, Squad, etc.) I worry that truly great games may fall down by the wayside due to more affordable, less immersive alternatives. Does anyone agree or am I off my nut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're basically saying WWII themed games are becoming more popular but have worst retention of players? I guess so. I mean I personally like games set in modern times such as Squad & Arma. Never been a fan of WWII themed games at all.

 

On that note I think Squad is doing the right thing by giving freedom with mods. This is crucial for the longevity of any game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that if there's 100 players on two servers, that's 50 players per server. If there's 100 players on 5 servers, theres only 20 players per server. The more games, the less players per game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RoBroCop said:

I'm saying that if there's 100 players on two servers, that's 50 players per server. If there's 100 players on 5 servers, theres only 20 players per server. The more games, the less players per game.

Don't confuse yourself here. You can have multiple servers of the same game such as SQUAD for example when you load the server page there are multiple servers that come up (USA Legacy, 2fjg, Desmo, squadops, etc...). You originally listed entire games and within those games you'll find multiple servers. 

 

So is your beef with the amount of servers per individual game? Or are you basically concerned about the sheer amount of games in totality that are WWII themed? 

 

Also it appears to me that you're approaching this idea thinking there's only a finite amount of players but you're not taking into consideration time zones, server locations, newer installments of the series, overall popularity, original release date, modding support, active communities, etc....These all factor in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RoBroCop said:

You're really not getting this, are you?

Well first of all I wouldn't consider the 13 games listed as 'heavy market saturation'. WWII themed games will continue to be released in the future (just look at BF1 with WWI almost the same thing) so you're playing whatever game you want to play. You might have to make sacrifices in order to play a game that is slightly more populated than another. 

 

As I said before, being able to have community-released-mods and maps are an integral factor to the longevity of the game. That is the reason why Arma series were such a successful underdog for all those years. Hopefully Squad's modding community would surpass that of Arma and we could all benefit from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each of those games is definitely going to play differently, with different goals... I'm in for finding the one that I like best, and maybe a few others along the way. =)

 

It does seem like we're in a time in gaming where you can have a large crop of games, not just fighting for Quake versus Unreal basics any more. Pretty awesome, imho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here's the thing. There is a finite number of players to populate PC games and with more and more games coming out every year, each game's player base gets thinner and thinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2017 at 7:08 AM, EA_SUCKS said:

I noticed that too... but 10+ years ago

likewise.

,

 

too many WW2 games - that's the only real issue i see here. if too many games come out and peeps don't play them then that's the fault of the devs of those games and/or the marketing that led to the decision to start making the game in the first place.

 

we are told these days that we need to do our own thing and get it out there so we can be noticed and become successful - by marketing companies. numerous ads now tell us to just download the software and make you own - just a few easy clicks away. this is of course all BS aimed at our egos and designed to make the marketers/producers very wealthy regardless of actual product performance. and so every man and his dog want's to make an awesome game (where's that MakeGame button again ?...) hence an explosion of games.

 

i think we we need to concern ourselves more with the power of the 'AAA' companies that more and more these days shovel the same regurgitated tripe onto our plates every 12 months and expect us to swallow - leading of course to large portions of the gamer world being brainwashed into thinking these games are actually good - being taught that mediocrity is good when dressed up in shiny things. (GR:Wildlands, BF:entire franchise, omg-not-another-f&#@*g-CoD!) - the only thing keeping peeps playing these AAA titles is the reward/unlock/ranking systems they use to lure you in and try to keep your interest, because aside from those reward systems there is very little else in these games to keep ones interest for more than five minutes.

 

thus i agree with your assertion that some (many maybe ..? ) actually-good games will fall by the wayside due to the sheeple effect and marketing taking the route of maximum profit with least thought/effort.

 

of course it also depends on your definition of what is or constitutes a good game.

 

it makes for the sadness ...

Edited by LaughingJack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2017 at 5:23 PM, Randall172 said:

too much western theater, BORING

I've said it before.

 

best campaign by far immersion wise for me was the Eastern Front CoD WaW.

all western front missions make it seem like the soldiers don't want to be there. with this they add a level of hunger that isn't there with other campaigns.

Edited by Randall172

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

i think we we need to concern ourselves more with the power of the 'AAA' companies that more and more these days shovel the same regurgitated tripe onto our plates every 12 months and expect us to swallow - leading of course to large portions of the gamer world being brainwashed into thinking these games are actually good - being taught that mediocrity is good when dressed up in shiny things. (GR:Wildlands, BF:entire franchise, omg-not-another-f&#@*g-CoD!) - the only thing keeping peeps plating these AAA titles is the reward/unlock/ranking systems they use to lure you in and try to keep your interest, because aside from those reward systems there is very little else in these games to keep ones interest for more than five minutes.

 

I just can't see the AAA companies as the only devil in all of this, as Indie developers have been doing much the same thing.  TWI seems to be repackaging a single game mode in each release, merely changing the era...thankfully they finally added a new mode to RS2: Vietnam.  NWI is tweaking Insurgency by adding a SP campaign to Insurgency Sandstorm on a new engine, but it's looking like the MP heart of the game will be similar to the current game, with some additions. Playerunknown has been rehashing Battle Royale across multiple games over the years.  So far, even OWI is basically tweaking and repackaging PR into a commercial game on a new engine.

 

It's not just the AAA companies that are regurgitating games.  I think there's a lack of creativity or originality across commercial fps games in general. Maybe that's why many gamers will migrate from a game that's been out for a year or 2, to one that's just been released....chasing the hope that they might find something new and different from what they've already been playing.

 

*edit*

 

I like that there are more and more games coming out, grants a better opportunity to potentially find something fun when you get bored playing what's currently available.

Edited by Verdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Verdin said:

I just can't see the AAA companies as the only devil in all of this, as Indie developers have been doing much the same thing.

agreed, certainly now that it's become more normal for some Indies to follow the AAA's mentality. i think it might even come down to personality traits of individuals that play these games and want more or want to dev them - those that require rewards for perticipation. it also appears to be a mindset of not only younger peeps (teen to adult) but also many older ones, including up to my age (wrong end of forties) that now accept rewards/progression/unlocks and the oh-so-dreaded and becoming-ubiquitous microtransactions, as normal and acceptable practice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah and none of those musket warfare games are as good as M&B Napoleonic Wars yet. Graphics wise yeah, but gameplay nah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×