Gaming Developers shorting us on purpose?

[NorykoAngelcry]

[COLOR=darkred]This is a fairly easy question.. but I suppose it could go into great depth fairly easy.

Do we, as gamers, get screwed over on content by game developers, in hopes of garunteeing new content in later games?

What I'm asking, may better be explained by giving an example.. Halo 1 - A very fun game, it's multi-player is sharp, and it's multiplayer maps give something different each time. The weapon selection is very diverse, and there are hardly ever a 'repeat' game due to spawn points, and general flow of battles.

Then comes Halo 2, with the dual wielding weapons, and I'm left wondering, why wasn't this just put into the first one?

I suppose you could say that if a game is fine enough where it is, leave it.. but it seems that the main selling point of the second game was that you could dual wield. For a game that has followed hundreds of other FPS type games, why didn't they just include it in there? Was it to make sure that people would go, "WOW! They really listened to us (years after we first brought this up)! I guess they do care!"

I don't really play a lot of games out there anymore. I'm busy on WoW -_- and just don't have the cash to blow on games like I used to. So, when I get a game, and play around with it, I'm often times wondering why certain things weren't implimented, when all sorts of games well before it's time have had those certain elements included long before it was anything 'special'

Any thoughts?.. (hope this was clear enough)

Aaron.. [/COLOR]

[Petie]

[font=Verdana][color=blue]I'm sure that developers sometimes leave content out to make room for sequels but I do not think this was the case in Halo. Chances are, they just didn't think of it as necessary at the time.[/color][/font]

[font=Verdana][color=blue]Now, before I get into that, I just want to point out that the main selling point of Halo 2 was [i]not[/i] the dual-wielding feature. It was, without any shadow of a doubt, the Xbox Live online multiplayer. The dual-wielding is nice and adds some interesting features but was by no means the selling point.[/color][/font]

[font=Verdana][color=blue]Now, I figure that dual-wielding wasn't included in Halo because Bungie just didn't see it as needed (or didn't think of it). They were taking a chance on a new system with a new title (obviously not a re-make of an older game) and put as much as they could in. If you just look at the difference between Halo and Halo 2, you'll see that they improved a lot, probably based on input from the players. This doesn't necessarily mean that they left out this content originally so they'd have something to add to the next game, just that it wasn't deemed necessary at the beginning.[/color][/font]

[font=Verdana][color=blue]The best example of that relating to Halo would actually be the Live online play. Bungie wasn't sure how the game would be received at launch which is (in my opinion anyway) probably why they didn't include online play in the original Halo. Why spend that much money on a game that could possibly fail horribly? With the success of Halo though, they saw the importance of online multiplayer and included it in Halo 2.[/color][/font]

[font=Verdana][color=#0000ff]So, to answer your question, developers might leave out content sometimes but it doesn't seem to be something that gets done a lot (at least that's how I see it).[/color][/font]

[PWNED]

Well I have to agree mostly with Peties reply; If the game is the companies first shot at the genre or console it is on then they will include enough things to make it seem like a new game without wasting a lot of money. Deus Ex on Playstation 2 was a direct port from PC so it had nothing new but they removed Multiplayer from it because they were not sure how well it would sell on console.
Square also did he same thing; on their first shot onto the PS1 they created the first 3D RPG but it was just incredibly Ho-Hum. Tons of other companies have done the same thing when they do first release; They just make a really average game with something that has never been seen before.




Oh yeah Petie, theres just one small problem with what you said about Halo 1 not having online capabilites; Sega were the only ones which had a console with online capabilites and were rather tight-lipped about it. The X-Box also didn't have X-Box live at the time of release.

[Petie]

[quote name='The Monster']Oh yeah Petie, theres just one small problem with what you said about Halo 1 not having online capabilites; Sega were the only ones which had a console with online capabilites and were rather tight-lipped about it. The X-Box also didn't have X-Box live at the time of release.[/quote][font=Verdana][color=blue]I thought I had Live when Halo was released but I realize now that I didn't get Halo right when it came out so you do bring up a good point there. Come to think of it, I actually got it pretty late which is probably what caused me to think Live was out at the launch of the game. They couldn't exactly include support for a system (in this case, Xbox Live) that didn't exist. Even so though, my point remains in-tact if you apply it to something else, which you did rather effectively in your post.[/color][/font]

[Semjaza]

I think there's really only so much that can be accomplished in a general development timeframe. If developers had to add every last thing everyone could think of, no game would ever be finished.

With something like Halo 2, it probably wasn't much of a consideration for the original and they just noticed players were requesting it. Stuff like that happens a lot with titles and I don't think it's a conscious effort to be like "Leave this out so people buy the next one!!" It's not smart even from a sales perspective.