We Recommend


  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 17, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    The most popular games in the world are Skyrim (11.24M) and Call of Duty (MW3 - 27 fucking Million). Sure people hail games that are artsy and groundbreaking but they sell like shit (Shadow of the Colossus has only sold 1.14 million as of March 2012 and artfags suck that games dick, Silent Hill 3 sold .71 million) So while we have games that are truly groundbreaking they really don't have spotlight.
  • - March 17, 2012 10:37 a.m.

    Those aren't even remotely close to the most popular games in the world. Compared to Angry Birds and Maple Story, Call of Duty is a blip (though very profitable.) Angry Birds has been bought hundreds of millions of times. Maple Story is up to around 100 million *current* accounts. You're confusing "popular" with "popular among hardcore North American and European gamers". The actual popularity of games is much much different. There are flash games that are more popular and widespread than CoD and Skyrim. Even just in North America, Farmville blows CoD away in both players and profitability.
  • talleyXIV - March 18, 2012 7:57 p.m.

    If you don't think CoD is one of the most popular games in the world, all your journalistic integrity is gone. Your degree in creative writing should be taken from you, as you have just told a ridiculous lie. Farmville is not more profitable than Call of Duty. Modern Warfare 3 made 400 million dollars in its first day. First day. First day. First day. First day. I just wrote that 4 times because of how insanely ridiculous that is. Farmville has probably made that much money too, no doubt... but probably only because it has been running for around 5 years now. Maybe Angry Birds and Maple Story have sold more copies, (which in Angry Birds' case is ridiculous because that game is completely boring and copied from a flash game that came out around 6 years ago) but I am sure that CoD is making a hell of a lot more money. Let's do some hypothetical math to prove this. If Angry Birds sells 10 copies, it makes $10. If Call of Duty sells 1 copy, it makes $60. Now let's go accurate. Angry Birds has sold around 350 million copies apparently. So $350 million dollars. And if Metroid Prime Rib was right, MW3 has sold 27 million copies (I actually think it is higher), that would come out to 1.62 billion dollars. Now in Farmville's case, I can't imagine it is making anywhere near that much money. Maybe lonely housewife's are spending $60 a month on that game but I doubt that there are millions of them. In players? Maybe... in profitability, get the fudge outta town. I think you made up figures in your head.
  • MetroidPrimeRib - March 19, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    He doesn't disagree that Call of Duty makes more money he says that casual IOS apps have more players Those don't really count as games in the real sense
  • talleyXIV - March 22, 2012 3:48 p.m.

    Nah, he said that Angry Birds, Farmville, and MapleStory beat CoD in both popularity and profitability. Guy is an idiot.
  • closer2192 - March 17, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    There are some games that are close to being real stories, and there are games that are little more than action with a lame narrative slapped over them. But why should games try to be like movies? These are two different mediums - one passive, where the audience experience is almost totally dictated by the writer/director/actor, whereas games are an interactive medium that combine what the creators make with the decisions of the players to create a kind of experience that movies cannot equal. Maybe games will never match movies/books in terms of story, but they can certainly provide an interactive experience that movies/books can't even begin to deliver.
  • - March 17, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    The article agrees with you 100%. It said that games have been humping film's leg for decades, and now that they've largely stopped doing that we're much better for it.
  • Moondoggie1157 - March 17, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    For the most part, I agree with DCSniper. It is openly accepted (I think) that modern film and literature has been dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, thus in turn dumbing down all those who read/view it (I'd go as far as to say that this is intentional). Why is it so hard to believe that video games have done the same thing? After all it is no longer an adolescent medium, right? There are definite examples of games which have broken this mold, Deus Ex:HR is the quickest that comes to mind (probably because I have it running) That was a game that invoked a strong response from me, emotional and intellectual. I know that the moral and ethical battle between human modification to acquire the sublime is nothing new, but it still made me think, at least long enough to forget games like CoD (which yes, I play for the zombies, shove it) or Halo. I see video games to be no more adolescent than film, they are both in the awkward stage of not knowing what they want to be, so they are still trying their hand at everything. They are both re-doing past games/films, and both trying to find their "roots". I know Groen doesn't like that comparison, but honestly? What other mediums are as closely related, visually, materially, and in terms of content? To argue the "big brother film" idea, It's not like video games had a choice to be closely compared and reminiscent of film, I think that was inevitable; They are too similar as mediums. To say that because gaming has escaped out of the shadow of film, it has grown into itself, well, I just can't buy that. Both mediums are going to emulate each other, and they do this more and more as time goes by, and because of this there is no "big brother" feeling, they both take from each other. Anywho, maybe I'm just spilling out trash here, but there are always going to be games that appeal to the masses and usually like Michael Bay films, we can call those the adolescent types of games if we want (Cod, Halo, Killzone, God of War). But, there are always going to be a smaller demographic of games that, even though sometimes silly (Shadows of the Damned, Bayonetta, Lollipop Chainsaw) show a spark of maturity, just for being so damn original and well made. You could compare these to the old Tarantino films. Games like Deus Ex, MGS, Mass Effect, and Final Fantasy (just for storytelling and graphical advancement) are going to be considered the "Grown ups". They are no better, quality wise, but they are more mature content-wise. Compared to the "Bay-ish" games, they will always be a minority. That's just the way it is, with any medium. It is easier to appeal to the masses because, well masses of people are pretty dumb. "A person is smart, but people are dumb" - I can;t remember where I heard that. Are we waiting for a specific linear direction for games to run before they are considered "grown up"? I don't think so, gaming is the grown up, who hasn't let go of its childhood creativity and imagination, and that's a good thing. Sorry if that made no sense, it did in my head. Deal with it.
  • lilbuddha - March 17, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    Story about gaming "growing up" No correlation made to industry becoming more about the money than the actual money (which could easily have been wrapped up in the movie industry comparison) No mention that these games "going back to their roots" isn't because gamers wanting that, but that there are millions of new gamers becoming part of the market / People are too stupid to play a complex video game. The mass popularity of video games has done exactly what it did to movies...hold back the format from growing for another 10, 20, 30 years...
  • lilbuddha - March 17, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    *more about the money than the actual game
  • reach110 - March 17, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    I agree with you entirely. Why else would Avatar have been re-released so quickly after it initially came out? Why else would Titanic be getting the 3D treatment. And let's be honest, why did Halo Anniversary come out? At some point, every art form becomes a business, and we've reached that period with gaming.
  • - March 17, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    This is so wrong on so many levels. "Stupidity" of modern gamers"? So they're stupid just because they like a different style of game than you do? Absolute, ridiculous nonsense. Your definition of "Gamers" in this mini-rant is limited to "people who like the same games as me." Get over it, Farmville players are gamers.
  • lilbuddha - March 18, 2012 2:09 a.m.

    Watch some of the Daniel Floyd videos on game design and you'll start to get a concept of real games, and "games" like Farmville.
  • CitizenWolfie - March 17, 2012 5:19 a.m.

    Really good article, very much enjoyed it. And I've got to say, I am pretty happy generally with gaming as it is (except DLC but that's another matter). It seems that games have become much more accepted now in mainstream culture. It's no longer a "geeky" thing and so long as games such as Farcry, Portal, Bioshock, LA Noire and Heavy Rain (to name just a few) exist I find it so much easier to justify gaming when defending it against the Thompsons and Titchmarshes of this world. But even for all those great games, you have things like Lollipop Chainsaw come along and I really would have trouble arguing that games have already grown up. It's a good job those sort of games stay relatively unknown as it'd kill any point I could make about gaming being a "respectable" medium. And before I get the fanboys raging, I'm not saying that LC is (or is going to be) a bad game - enjoy whatever you like. I mean that it's sort of like saying British newspaper journalism is serious business when we have big pictures of boobs of the third page.
  • taokaka - March 17, 2012 5:59 a.m.

    Lollipop chainsaw will be a master of narrative, it will single handedly end the argument of whether games are art by making games the only form of art. But in all seriousness LC looks great and I have to disagree with that it's good these sorts of games are unknown, just what exactly do you mean "those sorts of games"?
  • CitizenWolfie - March 17, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    I mean unknown in the sense of having a small fanbase compared to other games. For instance, Vanquish, Shadows of the Damned, No More Heroes, MadWorld are all good games and the people who bought them love them to bits - Those sort of games. They aren't afraid to be a bit crude with a cock joke or two. It's not good that they're unknown in terms of sales, I agree it sucks when good games don't get recognised. However I could shout about "Games as Art" from the rooftops but my argument is fucked if someone brings up the fact that Shadows of the Damned has a character/weapon called Boner. Or even worse... Madworld's Black Baron! I mean in that sense, it's a good job ignorant video game bashers don't know about "those sort of games" as it'd just fan the flames.
  • - March 17, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    Take heart, CitizenWolfie. Just because something is a little juvenile or stupid has nothing to do with whether or not the medium is art. People make this mistake a lot. They point to Soul Calibur's copious boobs as evidence games aren't grown up. That's as big of nonsense as saying film isn't grown up because of the jerk-off frat comedy I watched on Netflix. It's not the subject matter that counts. Shakespeare made a ton of dick jokes. Anybody who says games are infantile because of stuff like that isn't giving them a fair shake. Look at the best games have to offer, and there's your answer. Journey, Far Cry 2, Dear Esther etc. The medium is incredibly sophisticated.
  • reach110 - March 17, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    But then again, movies are considered art and yet we have movies that are the videogame equivalent of games like Shadows of The Damned. Namely most of Eddie Murphy's work. As far as I'm concerned, art is about provoking a certain kind of emotion, and several games have achieved this. Shadow of The Colossus, Ocarina of Time, and Mass Effect would all be great arguments for Games as Art. Also smaller games like Minecraft and Limbo. The Games as Art argument can't be killed by bad examples any more than the Movies as Art argument can't be killed by films like Twilight. For every Casablanca there is a Daddy Day Care and for every Heavy Rain there is a Rumble Roses.
  • rainn'sgaydar - March 17, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    If someone brings up games like LC to you, why not just mention the tons and tons of movies that come out every year that just put boobs on the cover to sell tickets? It's pretty much the same thing, in my opinion. There are trashy movies the same as there are trashy games. What I mean is that the existence of those movies don't demean film as an art form, so why should the existence of those games demean games as an art form?
  • shebbymanunited - March 17, 2012 3:54 a.m.

    well said mate, very soild arguments and a keen and insightful look into gaming. great article
  • shawksta - March 17, 2012 12:28 a.m.

    Yes, i highly agree games are much more different and in a different "Age" then they were back then.
  • TheDCSniper - March 16, 2012 10:52 p.m.

    So where's our high art, then? I see our equivalent to The Expendables and Clash of the Titans, but where's our equivalent to The Seventh Seal or 8 1/2? The reason I don't see them is because they don't exist. Sadly, the vast majority of video games still target teenage boys and overgrown children like Andrew Groen who are easily impressed by the pseudo-profundity of games like Bioshock and Heavy Rain. It's the video game equivalent of people who think The Matrix is a deep movie or someone who reads garbage like The Da Vinci Code and think that they're a well read person just because they read anything.
  • Hobogonigal - March 16, 2012 11:26 p.m.

    The Last Guardian, Shenmue, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid, Deus Ex, L.A Noire. Sure these games are not poignant novels like Cloudstreet, Atlus Shrugged, the Book Thief etc. but they all contain important themes and mature content which are more meaningful than the usual 'go here, shoot these people, go there, blow that up'. I think the point Groen was making was that developers just need to fine tune games like these so that the themes and gameplay are more linked together and take centre-stage. It is not that games are going to be the same forever or are perfect yet, it is just that games will continue to slowly change the formula until they can do this more effectively. There won't be some sort of videogame renaissance in the next few years I think is his argument. With Bioshock and Heavy Rain, I will agree that whilst the themes are dumbed down slightly by gameplay, they are videogames and in order to reach a wider audience they must act as interactive entertainment. Developers just need to slightly change their methods over time to allow a better integration of these concepts, however these games certainly couldn't be considered as just forms of adolescent media.

Showing 41-60 of 82 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.