• BladedFalcon - May 8, 2013 5:41 a.m.

    As for the article itself... I'm sorry Andy Hartup, but you do you even have the slightest clue of what you're talking about? "AAA games are the lifeblood of the games industry. Without mega-budget games like Call of Duty, which have broken into the mainstream consciousness and put game sales on a par with many blockbuster movies, this industry would far smaller than it is now." This for example, is an incredibly ignorant statement. Yes, Titles like CoD have expanded the Industry considerably... Yet not in a way that's beneficial to the industry overall. I don't know if you have heard, but many analysts, INCLUDING games journalists agree that the current "Go big or go home" mentality behind the AAA blockbuster is actually KILLING the industry, and making it crush itself under it's own unreasonable weight, right? Thanks to big sellers like CoD, every company now wants to have games that sell like that, and thus strive to make them as pretty, fast paced, and explosion packed as possible, stiffling actual creativity, and then complaining and closing studios when their games don't sell nearly as much. (EA, Squeenix anyone?) "Not only that, but the sales of more successful games allow publishers to allocate money and resources to better DLC, riskier sequels, or original games" Using that logic, Activision should be a company that would keep dishing out Risky new IP and ideas nonstop, thinks to how much CoD is making... So where are they? every single game activision has put out in the past two years is even a sequel, or a sub-par licensed game. (The bond games, the walking dead game the Beenox spiderman games... should I keep going?) So yeah, talk about an argument that's false and full of holes from the get go. "Look at smart narrative of BioShock, the visual fidelity of Uncharted 3, or the ambitious interactive features of the LittleBigPlanet series--these AAA games are constantly bringing us new ideas and ways to use our technology." ...Did you just seriously call Visual fidelity an innovation? at least, something that's on par with anything that, y'know, actually matters in gaming? such as gameplay? Also... since when is Little Big Planet considered a blockbuster franchise? This entire sentence makes absolutely no sense, specially when you look at the entire AAA game landscape, specially sequels, to see that they are bringing no real innovation whatsoever. "Take Mass Effect as a prime example. ME3 is a better game for all its crowd-pleasing shooter additions than the original. AAA aspirations took that series from ‘decent sci-fi RPG’ to ‘genre-leading RPG trilogy’." If this was true, then ME3 would be unanimously considered to be the best game of the franchise. And yet, everyone, even this site, agrees that ME3 is inferior to ME2, putting ME2 instead of ME3 on the best games of all time, or similar lists. Again, yet another false statement. "Then give AAA some love. Without it, developers certainly wouldn’t have the resources to develop more hardcore, middle-tier games like Deus Ex Human Revolution or Dark Souls. " How is this- *facepalms* Okay, again, you DO realize that Dark Souls was published by Namco, right? And please tell me... What Blockbuster, sales bending franchise has namco made in the past years? How is the AAA games in any way responsible for funding Dark Souls, huh? This has to be the most stupid, baseless and simply WRONG editorial I've read on this site so far. Even when I don't agree with others, they usually are well enough written and have a genuine point to make. This one is just stupid, and feels more like the incoherent rambles of a dude-bro than an actual, educated games journalist. ...UNLESS it's actually meant to be a trolling article? IF SO, then Mr. Hartup, you are a genius! and cleverest of trolls!
  • StrayGator - May 8, 2013 5:54 a.m.

  • GR_AndyHartup - May 8, 2013 5:57 a.m.

    Nice comment! High-five, bro!
  • BladedFalcon - May 8, 2013 6:30 a.m.

    ._. Okay, there is DEFINITELY some trolling going on :P
  • WaInut - May 8, 2013 6:11 a.m.

    This is Gamesradar, you're supposed to shut up and take what the big developers give you, as evidenced by the "Top 7 things people hate that they shouldn't." list with DRM being #1.
  • JarkayColt - May 8, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    All of the nails. All of the heads. Soundly hit.
  • Lucky256 - May 8, 2013 6:19 a.m.

    I haven't always agreed with your opinions Bladed, but you hit the nail right on the head here buddy!
  • pl4y4h - May 8, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    Actually you won the week of hate. This article was a test and you passed haha but on a serious note get this article outta my face i'm trying to get my hate on not acceptance
  • slimjim441 - May 8, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    I was going to throw in my rebuttal to this heinous article, but you already covered it all. Good show.
  • Hobogonigal - May 9, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    Your whole argument is invalid as you stated 'yet, everyone, even this site, agrees that ME3 is inferior to ME2'. I'm sure that there must be one person out there, at least one, who thinks against all odds and reason that ME3 was better than ME2. Also, visual fidelity is an innovation. If there was no innovation in visual fidelity, we would be stuck with pre-PONG levels of graphics, thus there must be some innovation associated with this. Also, this is an interesting segment from a documentary which describes just a few graphical innovations which have taken place only in the last 5 years, #weekofhate
  • BladedFalcon - May 9, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    The ME3 comment was indeed a generalization, since regarding "which videogame" is better, you're always gonna have gonna have at least one bloke arguing for the other side. I thought that went without saying :P Also note that I never said Visual Fidelity wasn't a visual innovation, it is, just not the kind of innovation that truly pushes the medium forward or towards truly new things. As you can argue that pretty much every single new game that comes in a shinier, new engine "innovates" in graphical advancement and visual fidelity. Again, the point I was making was that AAA ISN'T really where the new ideas come from. So yes, try harder if you wish to outhate my hatred :P
  • gegebel - May 8, 2013 5:35 a.m.

    I think someone didn't get why we actually hate SOME AAA games. It's the fact they release almost the same crap EVERY SINGLE YEAR. People have had enough modern FPS for the next years. There's a reason why games like Skyrim or GTA are accepted, they don't get milked to the last drip, until everyone is just sick playing more of the same. It's almost like you'd eat the same every other day.
  • StrayGator - May 8, 2013 5:50 a.m.

    How do you gauge "acceptance"? most of the world measures it by sales (and to a lesser extent review scores)
  • jason-t-ayresa - May 8, 2013 5:35 a.m.

    spell check "this industry would far smaller than it is now."
  • BladedFalcon - May 8, 2013 5:09 a.m.

    Um... GR, you DO remember that the point of the week of hate is to HATE things, and to celebrate that fact... NOT the other way around, right? I mean, with this being the second article that's basically saying "You shouldn't hate this!" aren't you guys going against the entire meaning behind the what the week of hate is?
  • mafyooz - May 8, 2013 5:31 a.m.

    Maybe the point is to make you hate them for not hating in a Week of Hate article?
  • BladedFalcon - May 8, 2013 5:42 a.m.

    I would think that most sites would want their readers to like them, and keep wanting to come back for more, not the other way around...

Showing 41-57 of 57 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.