Viewing Thread:
"X-ray visor go vwoom, scan visor go bawwing."

This is my last proper post so it's a farewell post and therefore has more inspiration in it then is standard. I hope you enjoy this as much as I thought I'd enjoy writing this, and I hope you all live and prosper except the forum members which I hate, and I hope they die.

Childs(children, kiddies, sex bundles, whatever you want to call them) have always been a problem in society. They annoy people, turn on people and they go pee pee in their panties. Childs also happen to buy videogames. Childs make their mummies go and buy videogames. These videogames often sell very well. Games such as "Tweenie hop fun stop videogame adventcha!" and "Hitman 2" are well known games that have sold well due to child appealing power. These games often sell so well, games developers couldn't be spanked for thinking: "Why don't I make a bad game that appeals to childs, that will sell better than innovative games?". Such is the modern dilemna in which childs dominate the video games market. And so investigates Melancholy, of um… MelancholyTech (loser) into this crisis.

All the consoles nowadays have much more power than the games exploit. The reason evidently comes from the fact that developers get no money, they might get £5 for every game sold at maximum, and the rest will go to making the fancy covers and in some obscure process, it will make its way to Nintendo. What's the point of making a technically amazing game if you're not going to sell fewer copies if you make the game slightly less demanding and easier to make. Why isn't the grass texture on any game as good as Halo's? Because the Halo developers had some spare time on their hands and decided to make it nice, but most developers won't have such time and will often get strict deadlines from their producers, resulting in flawed games which could have been amazing, such as Body Harvest and were let out because of the need for money.

If a developer could get a fair amount of money from making a game which hasn't had years spent on it to make it fantastic, then why bother? Money has superceded the want to have quality games and so millions of games are produced with the occasional brilliant game, whereas twenty years ago, it was too risky and financially troubling to make a game that was absolutely terrible. The same thing has happened with popular music, such is the motive of the capitalist ethic, but nevertheless, as capitalism decrees, the consumer will suffer for the company's gain. This can be seen in Nintendo's modern "short but sweet games": make a nice game engine, make a few short levels, and people will support them. The point is, the consumer has brought this upon themselves by sticking with these companies. Who keeps the Sims going? The idiots who continue to fund the madness by buying a £20 CD that will make the Sims play with each other’s feet. This degrading spiral continues with the manipulation of lesser beings (childs) into buying games which are rubbish, colourful, and made by money hungry "The Sun" reporters (published by Disney "Interactive").

We are told that this will help a child in education, but this results in the loss of all the things that we play videogames for. Games directed at childs can't help but succeed, as long as they are sufficiently advertised to middle aged parents who don't know what they are doing. Games like Metroid Prime are a small group of games that have had time to develop into a good game, because the company (Nintendo in this case) made sure that they did the series or concept justice. A streak of morality in a pit of corporate hounds tuned into society's Capitalist ethic. Nevertheless, these games are becoming further and further apart, because they cost money to make, and many developers have decided that an art form should be effectively turned into an easy run DVD with no soul. People watch TV, so make cheaper TV shows and people will still watch them, such lost the art of television programs, and now the art and soul of video games is being cancelled out, through the use of a younger and more accessible generation. In the words of Geldhof: "for shame, for shame, for shame." It's what to expect, and nothing can be done about this in our society, so as games fizzle out, we play the greats, and hope that they'll last just a bit longer. It's also likely that the integrity of developers should be questioned, and in order to move the situation, we need fresh developers who share a passion for gaming as an art form, not a passion for money. Otherwise, there is a decidedly pessimistic outcome for the future of gaming.

Signing off: Melancholy.

So true

Why do you people stay here, if not for the free games?

I stay here becasue all my friends are moronic fanboys, they won't listen to a word I say about games and, becuase there's more of them, they assume they must be right.
Although still vast in their numbers, these kind of narrow-minded and slightly stupid people are not so common here.

Bye now.
Can't remeber ever speaking to you, but I'll miss you anyway.

Here's a better pessimistic outcome future games thingy.

And I'm only on these forunms because it's holiday and I have nothing to do, I'm leaving AGAIN, at the end of this holiday.

So there...

Melancholy wrote:

> I'm not going to spam.

Ha! Lies.