Do game companies accept ideas?

[Djanki]

Everything is the same. Only random encounter rpgs have that replay value these days.

Grinding really does reduce a games replay value, though; it's why, while I love Phantasy Star II, I can't see myself playing it again until I graduate. Just too much grinding to get the Megid spell...

[Archem]

ANother thing. This realism bull is killing games. Why the hell would you want to make games more realistic? It's a game. I want to do in a game what I can't do in real life, if they REALLY want to be realistic they would have a game about you trying to get a job in this economy. Job loss, failing schools, homelessness... that's real enough for me.

See, as a tactical FPS fan, I can tell you that shooters aren't getting more realistic. If you think Call of Duty is even slightly realistic (not counting setting or weapons), then you don't know what you're talking about. Every shooter these days has aliens, zombies, and/or regenerating health. None of these are realistic. The games are only getting real-world settings, really. They're every bit as fast-paced run-and-gun realism-defying fun that they were in the past. Realism in games only applies to that niche market of realism tactical shooter fans like myself.

Long story short, no. You're pretty much wrong. I'm being blunt right here at the end, but I'm more in-the-know, so to speak.

Oh, and to Prpl, many FPSes aren't as cut-and-dry as you make them sound. The only people that memorize enemy locations are the obsessive players who spend months straight playing the game, or the speed-runnners. Also, many modern shooters have troop placement and varieties randomization (to a point) and enough non-linearity to make one play-through not enough to experience everything. That doesn't even go into the multiple approaches that the modern, sophisticated AIs will use to out-gun you. The random-encounter RPGs are by far less replayable due to the fact that every single element is exactly the same every time through, barring the chance that you'll end up with one of five possible enemy groups showing up while you grind up to level 25 for that boss fight. Then there's the recent shooter/RPG genre-hybrid that's surfaced recently. These have so many different approaches to combat, story, and missions that they don't fall prey to any of those pitfalls.

This post should make it fairly obvious that I play a lot of FPSes, so I know a LOT about how they work. That last paragraph can be thrown out if you're talking about a ten-year old shooter or one of the copy/paste mediocre shooters that nobody remembers, though. Those are pretty much what you're describing right there.

[Djanki]

The thing is, Archem, there is a massive surge of 'gritty' FPSs with dark, grey-colored worlds (See: Gears of War, Halo) with very little in actual originality in terms of the creation of their worlds.

Now, Gears DOES look unique with its uber-macho and buff character design (reminds me a little of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, sans the loveable FAAAAAAAAAAAABULOUSness that the characters have), but as far as creativity goes...well, it fails a little. It's a dystopic world overrun by aliens...in a market full of dystopic worlds overrun by aliens, mutants, and terrorists.

Imagine a FPS made by someone like American McGee or Tim Schafer; a crazy, topsy-turvey world with its tongue glued inside of its cheek. That'd be fun just to see.

[Deathreaper]

See, as a tactical FPS fan, I can tell you that shooters aren't getting more realistic. If you think Call of Duty is even slightly realistic (not counting setting or weapons), then you don't know what you're talking about. Every shooter these days has aliens, zombies, and/or regenerating health. None of these are realistic. The games are only getting real-world settings, really. They're every bit as fast-paced run-and-gun realism-defying fun that they were in the past. Realism in games only applies to that niche market of realism tactical shooter fans like myself.

Long story short, no. You're pretty much wrong. I'm being blunt right here at the end, but I'm more in-the-know, so to speak.

Well, I see what you mean, but I wasn't entirely speaking of shooters, really. What I mean is, all they talk about is realism. Realistic racers, realistic this, realistic that. And I see where you're coming from. I should have been more descriptive, but allow me too. You see, my gripe is, the industry keeps on talk about it. It's okay for there to be realism in a game. But, what I'm saying is, why do they focus so much on that? I am well aware that the plots to these games are unrealistic, but that's what the industry seems to be talking about all the time with these games. Or it could just be the people. I hear it so much, I don't even know I'm sure anymore. And I don't mean just physics or settings. Graphics in general are doing this as well. Not to say that I don't like to see a very well looking CG person. But I like to see wild, creative enviroments and crazy abstract looking characters and creatures. Not even the aliens are really all that original.

But, this brings me to Originality. This is my ultimate problem with games, which I should have said other than realism. They're lacking it. I think they do a good job on making these post-apocolypic and scifi enviroments. But, the thing is, I've seen too many of them that are all to similar. Most of them are gritty enviroments. That's nice and all, but I don't like just looking at grey with the occasianal glowing light.

My problem with shooters is, although they may not be entirely cut and dry. There's too many of them. It's like no one wants to try doing something different nowadays. It REALLY bored me. I barely play them anymore because of it. While they have some differences (Gears being the most different one I've played in a while, thouh I never played Fallout), let's be honest. They narrow down to going to point A to point B shooting the hell out of everything (I'm not counting games with different paths here, really). That's nice and all, but there needs to be a bit more variety. I can say that for the most part, they are the easiest genre of video games I've played.

[Archem]

Ok, that post was much more thought-out. I agree with most points you presented this time. But the wild, crazy, over-the-top elements of games are, for the time being, gone. They were prominent in the 90s, but they were overused to the point that they were mediocre. Look back at the early days of 3D home gaming, and you'll see what I mean. It's the same story again, but instead of wacky and fast-paced, it's gritty and brooding. Give the industry a few more years, and it'll be something else (I'm smelling cartoony and zombie-infested).

Originality is dying a slow, painful death with the recent boom of the casual mainstream market. Nobody wants original, deep, involving gameplay; they want pick-up-and-play, short and manageable, and simple enough for anyone to understand. Originality means learning something new and taking the time to master it. This is risky for the major publishing studios, since there's a high chance that the project won't make the same kind of cash that something filled with explosions and tits would. If there's not as much potential income, why spend the money just to lose out? It makes sense from a business standpoint. There are still original titles, but you have to do some research and be willing to try out something that you might not normally be into, since the innovative titles are few and far between, and those few developers that make these risky new ideas aren't going to make a game custom-tailored to your tastes.

[HobomasterXXX]

Everything is the same. Only random encounter rpgs have that replay value these days.

Only random encounter rpgs have that replay value these days.

these days.

Give me one example of a decent random encounter rpg that has come out "these days".

Anyway, the gaming industry needs more of this-

This has been the best game ever since 2000, and I have yet to see another game come even close to it's quality since.

[Darkfox]

Gotta love those sentry bots. They were freaking cool looking.

[Drace]

Random encounter FPS = Left 4 Dead.

[fruckert]

True, and that game is fun as hell.

[Felix-0]

The best mix of RPG and FPS was Fallout, which really has no Playpack value, but it's one of those games that can be so time consuming you don't WANT to play it back.

[HobomasterXXX]

The best mix of RPG and FPS was Fallout

It was meh. Deus Ex or STALKER are much finer examples.

[Felix-0]

What F'n System is it for.

[Nandez]

Give me one example of a decent random encounter rpg that has come out "these days".

Decent.

Hmm

Enchanted Arms

Infinite Undiscovery? (don't remember if its random encounter or not but it was fun after the boring part was over)

The Last Remnant *didn't play not sure*

[Felix-0]

Last remmenant aws not random encounter, it was like Star ocean, where you can see the enemy on the map itself, which I really like

[Darkfox]

But wasn't Star Ocean random encounter? As I recall, you'd be running around and BOOM, enemies. Though it's been a while since I played it.