What's Wrong with Video Games These Days?
 

We often hear about games being gimmicky in the interest of appearing innovative. There is also a serious problem with nobody buying the truly amazing games out there, like say Eternal Darkness, Psychonauts, or Okami. The games that do sell and the ones that get the most advertising tend to get torn apart by the people who will tell you why the game was terrible, and will also tell you that they know how they could've made it.

So the one of the purposes of this thread is to discuss big name titles that were atrocious, and give details as to how it could have been done better. Perhaps a game was too brief, and focused too much on graphics, or some gimmick element that was supposed to be revolutionary, or maybe a game played itself too much and didn't really allow the player to become immersed in the game.

Apart from that (or rather, entirely close to that) there seems to be a problem with video gaming in general. I'm not the best source on the subject, as i only own a Wii, and don't have the money to buy many games, let along other current generation consoles. I hear lots of people talk about how the general level of quality in the industry has dipped, and that change needs to happen. What are these changes? Is there a blanket statement that covers the greater industry these days? Who's to blame?

A game that i was largely depressed with was Final Fantasy XII. I found myself unable to relate to any of the characters, and it seemed like SquareEnix was under the impression that people played MMO's because they liked the battle system. If they went to a more traditional battle system, and tried some new character archetypes i probably could have enjoyed the game alot more. Unfortunately, that won't happen, as Final Fantasy has become the flagship for RPGs these days, and seeing as how it sells like hotcakes why would anyone want to try and fix it? This brings me to my next observation.

Does gaming just have to be for the Hard Core? As time goes on, more and more companies are trying to cater to a wider audience, creating the casual gamer. I'm ok with that, but as soon as that flood gate is open, it gives developers an excuse to dumb down games to the lowest common denominators, and the games that actually have time and care put into them are too "uninviting" or "complex" for the lay gamer to approach. I guess this boils down to, then, were we better off when we were the social outcasts, with only the people who truly cared about gaming making the games as opposed to the corporate money makers at the top?

So my questions to you. Games you didn't like that you thought could have been better, and what needs to happen to enter a new golden age of gaming?

EDIT: Forgot to categorize the thread. If a mod wants to do that that's fine.

The problem I personally have with games is that they're too action-oriented, which just bores me terribly for the most part. I love games like Shenmue, Persona 3 and 4 or Planescape: Torment, which are more about having an "adventure" in the game world, and fighting is just a relatively small part of it. And in the case of the former two, the modern setting is also a huge plus for me. I'm disappointed that there aren't more games like that, but I imagine most people don't share my preferences, so what can you do.

I don't think games are generally being "dumbed down'', though. They just have better interfaces and usability.

The next Final Fantasy will have a traditional battle system, by the way.

Personally, I think most games have too much 'flash' and little to no 'substance' in them. Developers say shit like improve lighting and graphical improvements but the story blows (interaction also limited), characters are too shallow and the gameplay does not involve a lot of thinking (Go to point A, kill enemy, etc).

You guys need to stop acting like if there's a lot of flash, there can't be substance. If they'd dumbed down FF XII's battle system, they would have had better character development.

No. If they'd had better writers there would have been better character development. You're also using revisionist history. Every system had this happen. There were a handful of quality titles, and then a whole lot of filler. Yes, the SNES had FF IV, FF VI, Chrono Trigger--to stick to the clear RPG bias this thread seems to be taking on--but it also had Paladin's Quest, Dungeon Master, Drakken, Secret of the Stars, Lord of the Rings, and Dragon View.

But its not like games have finished innovating all of a sudden. LBP is a game of near perfection, you listen to racing enthusiasts and there's an endless stream of quality out there, the only thing not happening is they aren't making games exactly the same as they used to. Now, to me, I miss the stories of games like Final Fantasy Tactics, but a lot of people don't. And we just have to accept that video games aren't as niche anymore. It used to be you made a game for the small core of people who would play it, whereas in the current market, you make a game for the masses. That's how it works. So we're not going to get classic Secret of Mana gameplay, because if we did, all of us would buy it, but people who never played SoM would think it was too simplistic. With good reason.

I agree the game industry needs some talented writers infused into it. But can we focus on that instead of saying the other aspects need to grow stale and pointless while we do so?

Without innovations, we don't get gems like LBP, or Ico, or Shadow of the Colossus. Or do we all forget how blown away we were by how good FF VI looked when it first came out?

And by the same token, you can't expect John Q(warky)* Public to appreciate innovative games off the hop, because they're usually very, very niche. So be happy they happened. Be happy you got to enjoy them, but don't be annoyed when the public doesn't run out to buy a game where you play a wolf spirit of the Japanese god of creation where you get to use ink brushes to paint bridges.

Seriously.

*relax, Qwarky. I know you think you know games good. It was a joke.

High Definition gaming (PS3 or 360) is killing the innovation or evolution of gaming. This generation is basically the exact same as the last but with a shiny coat of paint. Developer costs are huge, and companies aren't willing to innovate or make risky games because there's the chance they won't sell. That's why the games that sell well are getting churned out like a motherbitch. Unfortunately we now have a plethora of games with burly men shooting aliens and shiny racing cars. It's getting stale.

HD gaming has also basically killed console exclusives, instead now opting to bring out the game through as many avenues as they can to try and get the most sales. The only exclusivity is now exclusive features or DLC. Of course there are a few exceptions, but nothing that could greatly influence one console choice over another.

The there's the Wii. Now I am not suggesting the Wii is the saviour of gaming or anything like that, far from it, but it's taking a step in the right direction even though very few games have utilised the thing to its potential. The Wii is still flying off the shelves and this comes with a major drawback, everyone is trying to cash in as qucikly as they can. That's why the Wii's catalogue is plauged by horrible, horrible mini-game collection, Wii Sports rip-offs and second-rate PS3 and 360 ports. These "casual" games are just as bad as the uninspired "hardcore" offerings.

The Wii-more hasn't changed anything drastically either, it's possibly created improved control set-up for already established genres, but people aren't buying it for that. They're still buying the thing to play Wii Sports.

Basically this generation of consoles is shit. Sure there are a few stand-outs, but nothing too mind-blowing. The next generation is going to be the interesting one.

Yeah, because there wasn't all that on past consoles. It's not like we got a new NHL 0X every year, or a Madden/ESPN/Joe Montana on the regular. It certainly isn't like we got a bunch of zelda clones, or Contra clones. The only things that have changed is capabilities and the rise of the FPS from PC to Console.

Okay, now explain to me how more people getting to play a game hurts its abilities. Explain to me how broadening a player base is a bad thing for the industry.

No, no. It's fine. I'll wait.

Please explain to me how the wii has been the step forward in gaming. How useless gimmicks and no games whatsoever with any art, story or push to them is fantastic. Please explain how regressing is progression. And while you're at it, please tell me all about how swinging my arm would make for a greater experience, a greater depth, to a game.

Again. I'll wait.

Oh yeah. Not like Uncharted basically redefined the action-adventure genre, implementing itself in a pristine way never seen before. It's not like LBP has taken user created content to a new level, incorporated fun like no game in over a decade, and formed a userbase so strong it encompasses people from 4 to 80.

Man, it's not like the 360 has managed to bring players together on a console for online play in a fashion never before seen. It certainly isn't like any of that is true.

Man, not every game is brilliant. Not like on the old consoles, where every game was fucking perfect

http://homepage.mac.com/chris_johnst...bubsy3dbox.jpg

I can't see how that's a bad thing.

Games are dumb because gamers are dumb. HTH

I think what he's getting at, and sort of what i was getting at, is that as soon as we try to cater to everyone, the industry tries to cater to everyone. This is the standard, cause it makes the most money. The bottom line has ruined the experience because all anyone ever wants anymore is a halo clone.

Actually, i agree with what NovaX said. The Wii has lots of potential, but as soon as what i presented above is taken into account, nobody wants to buy a Wii intensive game because that's all they see it as, swinging their arms around, and there's no manly men shooting aliens and driving big cars. The Wii has a lot of potential, i just wish developers would use it. I personally would love more shooters using the motion sensitive controls. I hate having to aim with those shitty analogue sticks.


I agree with you here. This generation has done a lot for the industry, but it just seems to me that for every step forward the big names take, they take 1 or 2 steps back. Sure we have online play that is the best in gaming history, but story has taken so many hits lately in the interest of improving graphics, and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

It just seems to me that innovation today means innovation by brute force. Progress is making things faster, and look shinier, and maybe adding some tits. I praise the Wii for at least trying something different. Sure it's cocking things up pretty good, but at least they're trying.

Okay. So then why are more games not Halo clones? Sure, there's Saints Row and a handful of others. But how many Mario Clones were there? As many if not more. I get what you're getting at, and what I'm saying is after we say boohoo games don't cater to me, we need to use logic and realise we're the old man on the front porch yelling about how things were better in our day.

Guess what. It wasn't. It's just that we remember the good and not the bad. Selective memory, it's a bitch. You can say certain genres are more pervasive now than they once were, and others are less so, but that's about it. That's not better or worse, that's sales figures and more people wanting a certain type of game.

That's not something wrong with games, that's something wrong with gamers.

So you bitch about halo clones, and then claim the best innovator is motion controls that might make a halo clone better? Again, explain to me how motion controls are great for the industry. Explain how buying games because they make aiming in an FPS more natural would somehow make games have depth, meaning and artistry.

It wouldn't. The wii is just motion controls on a less-powerful system. That's it. It's not a step in the right direction, it's a step sideways. We have light guns. Every system pretty much has had one. Play duck hunt. OMG innovation.

No. It's not about innovation, it's about quality. And the wii lacks it more than any of the next gen systems. If you want to be a classicist about things, great. But don't then muddy your argument with bad examples.


But what you're slagging the other guys for, innovating graphics at the cost of others is exactly what the wii does: innovating motion controls at the cost of graphics, story and everything else.

Do you get why your argument is asinine, now? And story has -not- taken a hit. I dare you to give me a dozen titles in the history of gaming that have great story. Not storytelling. A few have done that fairly well. But a great story? If you read more than just pulp fantasy novels, you know gaming has never been a bastion of great literature. I'm not saying modern games have a great story among them, but neither did the classics.

There's been some classic games with stories I've loved. FFT, Kartia, Mark of Kri, and FF VI as examples, but I'd put Uncharted right up there with them for a well implemented storyline. So if you prefer the old games, fine. So do I. But these arguments you've put up are laughable. Just say you're a nostalgia-guy and move on. Just because you like it doesn't mean it has to be perfect.

Not that I agree with most of what NovaX is saying, but I love how Deni is saying Uncharted redefined anything (besides acceptance for mediocre content with a nice coat of paint), while the Wii is suddenly the useless gimmick no games console, how the likes of Super Mario Galaxy, De Blop, BoomBlox, No More Heroes and Smash Bros Brawl magically don't count when talking about well designed/artful/rich gaming experiences.

I agree with most of what Deni said though. I may not care for HD gaming, but it's certainly not killing videogames.

You are the new Cetra, I swear :3

You don't understand a damned lick about storytelling if you don't get why Uncharted is important.

And as for my thinking the wii is terrible, I don't. I like my wii. But I wouldn't call it anymore of a step in the right direction than any of the other consoles. And neither would you. Because you're not an idiot.

Alas, poor Qwarky, you confuse my not agreeing with people about how wii is the most innovative thing ever to mean I don't like any games on the system. How foolishly you overstep yourself. Again. And again. And again.

You're just mad about the John Q(warky) Public joke

This was almost my thoughts exactly when reading that current gaming has apparently given up the ghost with regards to stories, which is utter bullshit. We're still not at a point where games have great stories (though I'd argue that there's been plenty of good stories in recent game experiences), but there's more professional writers working with the game's industry today than there ever has been, and people are working harder towards those great stories than ever before.

You're truly living in some fantasy land if you think gaming has gone downhill in the recent years. The industry may not have developed how you would have liked, or innovated in the areas you prefer, but that doesn't mean it hasn't moved forward.

As Deni says, there's always been good games and there's always been plenty of bad games (and clones and rip-offs of whatever had done well at the time). Nostalgia and selective memory don't get to rewrite history.

At the end of the day, if old games were that fantastic, go back and start playing them again. I have a funny feeling you might find that most weren't as amazing as you remember, but hey, it won't be this corrupted, sterile HD gaming we have now.

I think I'd like HD gaming if I had the proper setup. Have you tried reading text messages in GTA4 while on a regular TV? It's freakin' brutal. But, anyway, the idea of everything being in HD just for the sake of being in HD seems like a common practice. Kind of like how color TV replaced the old black and white ones.

I'd like to have more games that are graphically appealing while still having an intriguing story. Maybe hire better writing teams. Then again, if a game's fun, the writing sometimes doesn't matter... like, MGS4. More than half of that shit made no sense to me, but it was still a hella fun game to go through. Sure, it'd be nice to have a great, coherent story, but I guess sometimes you have to give up one for the other.

The argument of "if the game is fun the story doesn't have to be fucking genius" might hold water better if you didn't for some reason use a series known for being considered interactive movies more than games as your benchmark for good gameplay.

Like, for instance, Saint's Row 2? The story is completely retarded. You start out escaping from an Alcatraz-like prison after being blown up in a boat explosion and emerging from a coma. On a helicopter. And that is probably one of the least retarded stuntss you pull in the game. The actual gameplay is fun, and the wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude the game has towards its own campiness just makes you not care anymore about how impossible what you're doing is. You just want to see what ridiculous lengths it'll go to next.

Hey, if we want to talk about great gameplay and no storyline to make a top notch game, we just have to look at Grandia Xtreme. Well...at least I can. :(

But not every system has had a light gun that could do fancy motion tracking and possibly do a rad job of emulating arcade light gun games such as Police 911 and those others which track your entire body. Or, you know, they could make the FPS actually feel like a real shooter instead of me sitting on my couch fiddling with some knobs.

Also, I'll be the first to admit that I feel Wii Tennis has more potential than any other Tennis game I've played. I mean, I can't wait for them to come out with a full-fledged Mario Tennis using controls like Wii Tennis.

It's ok, though. You can just ignore me since I only play games that nobody cares about anymore because they're more than a month old.

Earthworm Jim's revival got canned twice, that's what's wrong with vidya games these days. :( Entire genres fading away probably hasn't helped, either. If you want a platform game you pretty much have to slog through some licensed bullshit like Spongebob's Hernia Factory.

Oh yeah, don't forget the embarrassing 'hardcore' vs. 'casual' meme! Man, I remember the hardcore term being used for people that sunk unhealthy amounts of time into something until they could break da law. Now you just have to play Call of Duty online every now and then. Casual gamers? Man, fuck them for wanting to play video games. Tetris isn't a video game!

Edit: LANDSTALKER REVIVAL GOT CANNED TOO. >=|

As much as I hate that division, I really think that's just a creation of nerds who hate the idea that someone older than them plays games.

My mom has been playing Call of Duty: World at War over the past couple of weeks, and my dad's been playing Wind Waker. My mom's getting ready to pick up a 360. In recent years my mom's also played all three of the new Metroid games, and in years past she beat Super Metroid in... 1 hour 45 minutes, somewhere around there, with 99% items. Depending on who you ask, my parents, who work 50-hour+ weeks and play video games sparingly, are hardcore gamers simply based on their game choices.

That's a fucking horrible definition. Can't we PLEASE just get back to using hardcore gamer for those people who have 10,000 XP in Halo again? It fits them so much better.

Can't we get back to ignoring idiot distinctions like 'hardcore' or 'casual' games at all. You play games, great. Need a label? Not really. Move along now.

But then how will we know who are the gamers that we should look down our noses at and be condescending?

they post on gamefaqs.

It's been my observation that gaming became too serious. The rise of the FPS, and realism in general, has lead developers away from creating games that are fanciful flights of imagination. I'm not saying such games don't exist - Okami, Professor Layton, Katamari Damacy are shining examples in their field - but overall, games lack the same whimsy and charm they did even just five or six years ago. No, of course a Tom Clancy game isn't supposed to be charming, but just the same, it feels as if there's a kind of saturation taking place, a gaming algorithm which states that for each title that truly captures the heart and soul of our imaginations, like Metal Gear Solid, we must slog through six, cookie-cutter titles such as Crackdown or Killswitch.

Perhaps it better allows us to appreciate the true milestones of creativity, but so many games have a grim, forboding mood now - and that's not what I personally seek. I like a little whimsy in my gaming; a game can be realistic and still possess an upbeat charm. This is the difference between Burnout Paradise and Gran Turismo: one is meant for having fun, the other is meant for being pretentious without leaving your armchair.

Maybe it's a super-conscious move on the part of developers (and audiences) who believe that as technology becomes more sophisticated, so too must the subject material. For the longest time, gamers were forced to use a lot of imagination to accept a game on its own terms because there was just no way to reflect reality. Seriously? Floating blocks, magic mushrooms, invincibility stars, enemy turtles? We bought into it! Realism has its place - remember how your jaw dropped repeatedly during Resident Evil 4? - but I like the lighthearted stuff too. Dead Rising took the same formula, pushed it over the top, and became a loltastic thrill.

But when you see all these titles - Rainbow Six, Gears of War, Halo 3, Team Fortress, Call of Duty, etc. - and they all seem like the same game with different paintjobs, that's what's wrong. If I want to see that kind of grim depiction of warfare, violence and mankind's bleak outlook upon itself, I'll watch the daily news. Video games are supposed to transport me away from that shit, not reinforce it.

Maybe we just take ourselves too seriously now, maybe we think we've come this far and now we're too good for some of the stuff that provided gaming sustenance over the past years. It's okay for games to be silly. That's part of their charm. I think it's why I prefer Pokemon over Halo: Instead of a gun, I get a giant, fire-breathing dragon. That's pretty cool.

YouTube Video

Threadsniping here because FPS are my life~*

Your comparison seems a bit farfetched there. I don't think I'll look on the news anytime and see mankind's bleak outlook against invading aliens or any Team Fortress-esque wackiness anytime soon. Part of what makes First Person Shooters so much fun to play is part of the ability to run around and shoot things with guns and feel all manly without having to actually you know, put yourself in any real danger. It's a flight of imagination just like any other genre. Come on, rail guns, rocket launchers? Your fire breathing dragon ain't got shit on a Proton Cannon Spartan Laser.

The genre is also greatly varied. For every Halo there's crazy shit like Serious Sam or Duke Nukem, which is far too silly to be considered grim and bleak. Most of them play differently as well, but then I'm just being asinine in that regard since in the end you are at it's most basic, shooting guns at other things.

Also mirroring the sentiments that nothing has really changed. There's tons of Okami's, No More Heroes, Little Big Planets, Patapon's and so on that take games in an interesting and new directions. Hell, even old titles get awesome makeovers, like Kirby did with Canvas Curse. If you aren't seeing enough variation or innovation it's just because you aren't looking hard enough.

*Grammar and shit may be wacky, I blame being up at 5am.

Games like Serious Sam and Pain are exceptions to the rule. Most FPSes these days are new Halo clones, WW2 shooters, or a different variant on Tom Clancy's shambling corpse of a tactical franchise.

I can't even think of a recent game that went balls to the wall rockin with your cock out endless stream of bloody gibbing enemies to annihilate heavy metal riff festival.

Additional Spam:
I really fucking hate WW2 shooters by the way. It wasn't even a "good war" but that doesn't stop you idiots from buying Call of Duty: World at War and playing through the same scenarios that were in the first Call of Duty.

If it makes you feel any better the leaderboards clock 29 GFFers with Call of Duty 4 and only 9 with World at War.

I know russ bought it to play with people he works with and Frank is just dumb, but how dare you even assume the rest of us would buy a Treyarch game. Ever. :mad:

Seriously though yeah, fuck WW2 shooters

All gamers are equally culpable for the crimes against good taste.

Yeah, and I can't think of too many games that involve shooting pink pigeons with explosive javelins to the tune of Irish hip-hop, either

Sorry Crash, but you pretty much invalidate any point you may have had by calling Crackdown a cookie-cutter title. Have you ever played the game? I can't believe you have if you're going to dismiss it so easily (and incorrectly).

Again, wrong. Rainbox Six is as different from Gears (and Halo 3, and TF, and CoD) as Burnout is from Gran Turismo. They may not be your cup of tea, but to claim they're all colour-swap versions of the same game is massively incorrect.

Quoted for truth.

Excellent post Crash and wonderful sentiment.

You are a true Blue Skies Gamer.

Click the banner.

http://www.ukresistance.co.uk/blueskybanner2.gif

I think what's crippling a lot of games nowadays is not so much the overflow of mediocre games but the constant re-release of older titles on newer systems just to have them on a new system. What's worse is that even I'M guilty of this. Why do I need two copies of Ikaruga, damnit? I already have it on the Dreamcast!

See, we get all these ports for old games to newer game systems and it's becoming a pain in the ass to sift through old stuff that, quite frankly, I already have on other systems. It's not that I think that distribution platforms like Steam, Live Arcade or Wii Virtual Console are a nuisance. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We just have such a downpour of such old games that have seen releases and re-releases over the past few years that it's hard to see the incentive for bedroom coders to develop truly great games when people are just going to spend their money on yet another version of Frogger, Pac-Man and Sonic 2; you know, in case you missed those on the GameBoy, PSOne, PSP or their original platforms and shit. Sure, we get absolutely amazing and mindblowing titles like Braid once in a while, but those are few and far between.

That and an endless stream of WWII FPS games. Seriously guys, we know it was "The Necessary War™" but how many different ways can Easy Company take center stage in a game?

You can never own enough copies of Ikaruga.

Hmm maybe you missed my point. It's not nessecarily the clones themselves that are the problem, it's the cost of development that restircts too much deviance from what's already been proven successful. Companies can't afford to have their game flop so they stick to what has been selling, and saturatind the market with identical titles. It's the games you don't see that's the problem, in the past companies could try something different without losing their company.

You don't really think companies following essentially the same path with a few minor differences is a positive thing? Where's the growth, where's the competition? I'm sorry that's not broadening anything.

lol useless gimmicks. I'm not even dignify that with a response.

Now art and story is a different matter, you can't fault a system for that. That's upto game developers, good art and story can be achieved anywhere, not only through HD graphics. Have a look at games like Wind Waker and Okami, they remain two of the most beautiful games ever made and they didn't need HD graphics to achieve that. To be honest the only game this generation that has come close to anything near those two games is the new Prince of Persia.

I'd even argue that because the Wii is a less powerful system developers have to rely more on art style to make an impressive looking game, because if they try and make a realistc looking game it's just going to look like shit compared to the HD counterparts. Of course nobody apart from a few developers seem to be taking this route.

As for you argument against motion-controls for the most part I agree with you, most games seem to just have motion-controls as a button replacement instead of actually utilising the motion controls for anything meaningful. Unfortunately for Nintendo, Wii Sports still seems to be the best use of the Wii-mote.

Admittedly I haven't played Drake's Fortune, but I haven't really heard it being as praised as highly as you seem to anywhere else. LBP though is a great game and I agree with you that it'll probably remain a highlight of this generation.

It just feels like this generation is just merely an improvement of the last generation, as opposed to an evolution, without offering anything that wasn't possible last generation. Now with graphics almost at the ceiling it's going to be more important to offer something new and different from what we've already seen and to be honest I can't see Microsoft or Sony leading the way in that department, can you?

I can if it's a game that I will NEVER BE ABLE TO BEAT. :(

Services like Steam re-releasing old games are a godsend in terms of PC Gaming because the stuff we used to love to play we can't have a go at anymore because Vista or XP won't have anything to do with it.

They just recently released an X-Com bundle, and everybody loved X-Com.

I'm seriously hoping they'll someday release Crusader or Syndicate.

So you think that companies could better afford to put out a game that failed when there was a much smaller market, and as such, a much smaller user base to cater to. Back in the day, the number of people buying games was much smaller. If you failed to connect with a prime user base, you were fucked.


Please. A lack of exclusives doesn't harm anyone except console fanboys. Get over it.

And then you go on to agree with me that almost no games on the wii actually use the motion controls. :thumbs up:

And Prince of Persia is ridiculously flawed in a lot of ways, anyway. And no, you don't need high definition graphics to create beautiful art, but they still aren't doing it without them, either. Also, you really need to play Wipeout HD if you want to see just how good an HD game can look. HD graphics have nothing to do with art, but nor do they have anything to do with the lack of it. Which undercuts your point about how something must be wrong with the spiffy new graphics.

That's hilarious. "Man, that chevette looks like shit. The engine must be absolutely amazing."

No, slick, that's just not true. Okami pushed the limits of what you could do with graphics on a PS2. Odin Sphere did too. That's part of what made them look so good. That's like saying the story has to be great because the graphics are half-assed. No. No it fucking doesn't. A story is great if you have good writers.

Period. End of discussion. That's it. It is NOT one or the other. Get beyond that.

That's the bit when you agree with me after telling me I'm wrong.

You haven't played it, you don't get it. It's a proper film game. Solid story told well. A rarity in the video game world. Indiana Jones V.

Yeah. And Nintendo. Huge strides.

Get a grip. All three of these consoles have dropped the ball in some ways, but please, explain to me the HUGE differences between the NES and the SNES. The massive technological leaps forward between the Genesis and the Sega CD. The Dreamcast.

But yeah. Man. Modern gaming.

Wicked stagnant.

I own six copies of Klax and it's still nowhere near enough!

My real :nerdrage: with it is the fact that the industry has picked up on it in a serious kind of way. I mean, we have publishers crapping out all these spin-off labels for 'casual' gamers now, like EA's All-Play, Take-Two's 2K Play and Ubisoft's... well, Ubisoft. Why... why not just release them normally? I'm pretty sure the average consumer doesn't give a shit about this vidya game forum war that originated because Wii Sports became a success. They don't shoulder barge into Target asking for the latest 'casual' games. DO YOU HAVE THE NEW ONE? I ALSO NEED THE NEW CASUAL PENS AND CASUAL BAGS OF CHIPS.

Might as well release the next GTA game under some wacky casual label while they're at it. It makes more sense than some sales-failure like Randy McFlannington's 30 Fun Family Party Disco Go Time Games.

Just going to throw this question out there: do you know what evolution means? I'm guessing not, since you just said "It feels like A, not A". I believe the term you're looking for is revolution, and that's not something the games industry needs.

Also, you do realise that any criticism levelled at the current generation also includes the Wii, which you seem to be pretty fond of championing. Just saying.

Also also, got to love how everyone points to Wii Sports and Wii Tennis as one of the best examples of what the Wii is capable of. Yep, the first game made for the system as little more than a tech demo is the best the system has been proven to do. And how are they topping it? By releasing an add-on that makes the hardware more accurate. Enjoy spending $30 x however many controllers you have on that little addition.

I think the Wii has promise, it has potential, and it's a worth additional to the line-up of consoles. I honestly encourage anything that gets more people playing games. But I don't believe that anyone is making use of the potential of the Wii. Re-releasing old GameCube games and adding unnecessary waggle isn't my idea of innovation.

That's just a product of natural supply and demand though. If people didn't buy the shitty games, they'd stop making them. As gaming has become an entirely mainstream passtime now, of course developers are going to make some easily accessible, cheap as fuck games to cash in. It's the same reason tv companies make stuff like the X-Factor. It's not exactly highbrow but it makes them a fuck load of cash.

The thing some of the kids here are missing is that having a mountain of shitty cash-cow games is a good thing for those of you who want something a bit more art-house. With all the money rolling in from mainstream, obvious games, the developers can afford to try something a little risky now and then. Without wads of cash from all these poor idiots who bought Madden 09 or what have you, developers would have to make sure that every game they make is a guaranteed high seller so they'd take even fewer risks.

Also, to claim there's been no innovation in the current generation is just retarded and shows that you basically know nothing about any games that have come out lately.

Burnout Paradise gave you a high speed street racing game, just like all the Need For Speeds and Testdrives and other Burnouts only now, because of the huge processing power available in an Xbox 360, they let you run the race in an entire fucking city, rather than a pre-laid route. You're playing online against 7 other people and if you want, you can ignore the race and go for a quick drive down by the lake. I mean, what old school game ever gave you that level of freedom? How can you possibly say that's not an incredible step forward? I don't even like the game that much but that they were able to manage that technically means the same open world ideal can be applied to all sorts of other games. A flying game where instead of being dropped in a small arena for a mission, you take off from your base and fly across an entire planet to get there can't be too far off now for example.

On the same level, look at Oblivion or Fallout 3. Sure some old rpgs were pretty good but you were never really roleplaying as you never had any choices. Final Fantasy tells you you need an item from inside a castle so you go down the linear path laid out in the sewers, through the linear path inside the castle and fight the boss they put at the end of it. Oblivion doesn't even tell you you need the item but if you want it, you can sneak in after dark or you can slaughter your way in through the front door or whatever you want. There's little decent character development in Oblivion and the story is pretty generic but the actual amount of roleplaying you can do blows pretty much every Japanese "Roleplay" game out of the water.

Less successful but hugely innovative none the less was Too Human, an action game where you don't press buttons to attack your enemies. Last Remnant is an rpg where you can't choose your companions' equipment and the fights are entirely tactical with several units and your position on the battlefield making a big difference to the fights. Frontlines gave you the chance to play with 49 other people online for the first time. GRID has a damage system that not only realistically reflects the damage done to your car visually but that effects it's performance in a pretty accurate way. Add to that an AI that bears a grudge against you and 20 cars on the track at once and again, you have an experience that simply wasn't possibly a generation ago.

As Deni says, a lack of innovative story telling is nothing to do with improved graphics or what have you. What's happened is that developers have had these massively capable machines dropped on their laps and being the speccy nerds that they all are, their first reaction is to see just how many polygons they can make it spew out at once or how many decisions they can make the AI take every second. Now they've got the hang of that, the groundwork is in place to allow them to concentrate on other aspects of the game. They don't need to pay software engineers to optimise the graphics engine, it's already optimised so instead they can hire a decent script writer.

At the end of the day though, gaming for the majority of people is about the immediate experience more than it is about the end result. People play games because they enjoy playing them, not because they want to know what happens at the end of the story. If that's what you're after, go read a book or something.

Also, Crash, you've not played many FPS games have you? Rainbow is as different from Halo as Pokemon is from Kingdom Hearts. They share some features sure but they're completely different experiences. Also, Crackdown is one of the silliest games ever made. If you can't laugh at throwing your teammate up a building in a car because they can't make the jump themselves then, well, what can you laugh at?

No, I'm saying companies could afford to put out a game that failed when production costs weren't as high as they are these days due to High Definition graphics.

There's a difference between a useless gimmick and a feature not being used to it's full potential. All I wrote was in a lot of cases the motion controls are being used a replacement for a button, and in a lot of cases this does work well. The Wii-ports of Bully, RE4 and The Godfather all just replaced the button configuration with a motion-sensing one, but were improved because of it. Now I wouldn't call that utilising the controls to their full potential, but I wouldn't call it just a useless gimmick either.


My argument was there is very little difference between the PS2 and PS3 apart from spiffy new graphics. The approach to making games is exactly the same, just as it was with the PSX.

Exactly, but they didn't do it through realitic high definition graphics, they did it through art style. The Wii can still make fantasic looking games like Mario Galaxy, Wario Land, de Blob and MadWorld without all that expensive horsepower.

You're right. There wasn't a huge difference between the NES and SNES, just as there wasn't a huge difference between the N64 and the Gamecube, just as there wasn't a huge difference between the Bame Boy and GBA. But then look at the jump from SNES to N64, Gamecube to Wii, GBA to DS.

There's a little bit of a pattern forming here, it's almost as if Nintendo bring out a console that is new and innovative and exciting (NES), they improve on the console in the next generation (SNES). Then they completely change approach for the next generation (N64), then again improve on the console in the next generation (Gamecube). Then yet again completely change approach in the following next generation (Wii). That can't be a conicidence.

Now I really can't find a huge distinguishable difference in approach between the PSX, PS2 and PS3 or even the PSP for that matter. Just a pretty new coating.

Additional Spam:
No, you're right I did mean to write revolution.

It's no different to Super Mario brother being one of the finest examples of what the NES had to offer or Super Mario 64 being on the finest example of 3D gaming on the 64. Heck even Halo remains the best game on the Xbox.

There is the exact problem with RPG's these days. The new and great way to play the game has left out the meat and potatoes for me.. the STORY. I enjoy a "role playing" game when I feel like I am part of whats going on. Maybe the old turn based games give you more time to enjoy, idk. But the new battle systems are just that... more to learn more to distract from what made some of the old games great. I can only talk about RPG's other genres are geared for fighting and tactics but as to whats wrong with games these days. They forget the role playing aspect that gamers had enjoyed.

What is wrong with games these days is faggots who think that having a "story" spoonfed to you is somehow crucial to an interactive experience

Library's right down the street kids

If you think hi-definition graphics are the driving force behind the rise in costs, then you're sorely mistaken. Sure, they're a factor in rising development costs, but there are bigger implications in robust online modes, physics based components and increased world interaction of games. Just having HD graphics doesn't mean a game's costs are going to leap up massively.

Except you're talking shit. Halo 2 may have had a worse story, but had improved game mechanics and provided a fairly substantial online mode which acted as a key influence for many subsequent online offerings. Not to mention any of the other excellent titles on the Xbox that made brilliant use of it's facilities, such as the online features, custom soundtracks, the HDD, etc.

You didn't read my post, did you?

As Pang suggests, watching a bunch of cut-scenes and following a proscribed path is not roleplaying, it's storytelling. Roleplaying is taking on a role or persona and playing through the game as that persona, in the way you want.

Final Fantasy telss you where to go, when to go there and what to do when you get there. KOTOR tells you where to go but gives you a choice of when to go there and although there are certain things to go when you get there, you have a range of choices of how to approach each situation. Final Fantasy tells me I have a bunch of characters, one's a kid with a sword, one's a mage, one's a healer and so on. KOTOR tells me I'm a jedi and leaves it up to me to choose whether to be a force-user, a lightsaber fighter, a rifleman, a sneaky stab-people-from-the-shadows type or whatever. Final Fantasy tells me that in order to reach the next section I have to follow this path through the dungeon and kill this boss. KOTOR tells me I need to sort out a problem in the underwater lab and then leaves me to decide whether I fix everything the hard way and save the planet or just kill the giant shark and destroy the planet's economy, getting myself permanently banned in the process.

If all you want is a good story, try books or films perhaps. If you actually want to interact with a game, go buy Fallout 3 or Oblivion or KOTOR and stop bitching.

Sure, but it doesn't hurt my point. The games cost a shitload to make and thus there's a lot more at stake if the game fail to attract an audience.

Of course it hurts your point, you're just not seeing it (or you've forgotten your own point). Your argument is that the 360 and PS3 lose out to the Wii because HD gaming is expensive. I'm saying current-gen development is expensive and that includes the Wii (do you honestly thing programming for motion sensitive controllers is easy?), and that the need for HD graphics is just one facet that adds to the development costs, not the main contributor.

Just in case you'd confused yourself, let me remind you of your point:

nope and glad i didnt

nice guys...

I don't think you really know how to express yourself coherently after reading this.










SENSE != YOU

actually did not have enough time to fix the post before you jumped me, another nice guy :confused:

Editing a quote into a post isn't a 4-step process. Plus there's the whole reading books thing that you (wisely) decided to leave out after I quoted you.



Except now your edit to respond to Pang is utterly and completely pointless.

You made a post complaining that having to learn a few extra button presses distracted you from the story which is what you like about rpgs. I pointed out that watching a few cut-scenes isn't much of an interactive experience and is more like reading a book, Pang said the same thing. We were saying that maybe, instead of playing crappy old rpgs, you should, you know, go read a book.

And you then say that you didn't even bother to read the nice, sensible reply I made to your post and you say I'm not nice! I'm quite upset actually, having gone to all that effort to try and improve your life only for you to dismiss what I said without reading it. I think that's very rude and you should apologise.

Classy. So your stance is one of "I'm not paying attention to what you're saying, but I think you're wrong". Thanks for taking part.

If you did pay any attention to what had been written you'd see people pointing out the fact that you've got confused between role-playing and following a set story from a set perspective as determined by the writers. However, don't let petty things like information and knowledge get in the way of being ignorant.

And here's a challenge for you, instead of being a cheap punk and just dissing my post (as you're likely to do given historical evidence), try arguing your point and prove me wrong: why do you think a game series like Final Fantasy offers a good 'role-playing' experience?

It is roleplaying though, provided the role you want to play is that of a brain damaged guy with a big sword who doesn't speak much and wants to save the world by visiting each town on the planet one at a time in a set order.

Half-Life 2: Best RPG ever

Isn't that Brady's character in the D&D campaign?

Ha ha, I suppose it is, yes.

Yeah. You don't really understand how development works, do you? See Omagnus' post for a large portion of why what you say makes no sense.

If the motion controls don't add anything specific to the game, they're a gimmick.

How in the fuck is the N64 a huge departure from anything? Good god, you really are just a nintendo fanboy, aren't you?

Yeah, I'm done trying to talk logic to someone who's been outed as a useless lackwit. Go back to GAF or GameFAQs.

Tebian it's you.

You are part of the problem.

Plus his homie kills the flower girl. Man, fuck those idiot savants.

Sure HD may not be the only contributor, but it also the other facets of the games that you mentioned, the physics, world interaction etc. that are far more advanced in PS3 and 360 games. Development for the Wii is nowhere near as much as a game for the PS3 or Xbox 360. Barely even in the same ballpark.


The N64 isn't a huge departure from the SNES? Fuck off.

So you're not saying that you were all WOW when you saw the N64 graphics in person for the first time?




I know I was.


And let's not forget that Mega Man 2 had high resolution graphics.



IT'S HD. YEARS IN ADVANCE.

Man. That stick on the controller.

innovative.

Cheers, Nova. The argument. You lost it.

We're done here.

Development costs are not the only method used to judge why or how the Wii has a larger market-share then the other two consoles. Communication between the console makers & third party developers is a critical component, how complex the API development kits on the consoles, or how user-friendly they are to a development house is a component (Its been said by multiple developers that the PS3's cell architecture makes coding difficult compared to the 360, of course this will change over time as they become more familiar with the system) the type of demographics a developer of any given title and what consoles are most centric to their target demographic is a component as well.

Now here's the flip-side of the cost argument. All three consoles have terrible games on them, its a fact of life even disregarding mostly subjective opinions on taste, but the Wii's low development cost allows for developers to create poor games of questionable entertainment value. The higher development cost in its own way, acts as a barrier for entry, so that if the developer makes some game on the 360 or PS3, then the overall quality of the game will have to be higher. This is not all inclusive by any means, but its something I've observed. The same thing happened on the PS2 in the last generation, but the sheer amount of marketshare (Helped by the PS2 doubling as a DVD player), low development cost, good relationship between Sony and third party developers and overall cheaper games (New PS2 games, IIRC, usually debuted new at $50, where-as current generation console titles are about 10 bucks more expensive) all contributed to not only a sea of enjoyable games, but also a sea of crap games by the same effect. Its a double-edged sword in some ways. Of course, this is mostly my own observations so I probably got some fine details off.

Oh man I'm gonna go take the role of some dude making high quality dump EXCLUSIVELY in my toilet. I think I can make all the right decisions and pull this off. Wish me luck!

Additional Spam:
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYEEEEEEAAAH BABY! I JUST SAVED A PRINCESS.

Are you kidding? I'm still in awe at the N64's graphics! Once I get my hands on a 64DD and that Mario Paint game--man, it's gonna be wicked-awesome. I should probably also learn Japanese.

My main problem with the industry is that there is not enough variety. Yes we have our Okamis, our Braids, our Psychonauts, our Worlds of Goo, our Little Big Planets, our Katamari Damacys and other handful of games that tend to buck the trend. I really don't mean games that just dress up a genre in a pretty new gown of graphics.

Where are the games that take place in the Victorian era? Games that take place in the Stone Age? Games that show an alternative history that isn't riddled with zombie Hitlers and werewolves? What about chick flick equivalent games? I don't mean Barbie dress up games with extremely mediocre gameplay but something with substance that a woman or even a guy could be proud of to play.

Games hold a lot of potential to be more than just 'entertainment'. I've always felt that games could combine the best of all the other mediums out there. It could have the best stories of books, the best storytelling of movies, the best soundtracks of music all within an interactive package that the user can change the outcome in some cases. I'm not saying get rid of the formulaic games but have more of a variety. There's only so much that you can do with science fiction, fantasy and World War II/Modern warfare.

I'm glad for Wii's success on opening the gates of gaming to a much broader audience but deplore the developers who just use it as a flea market to peddle shovelware. The Wii was purposefully designed to be less powerful so developers will take more risks as the cost of development will be cheaper. There are a handful of games on the horizon that I feel have some unique aspect to them such as Fragile, Let's Tap and a few others.

I don't feel that this generation is worse than previous ones or that the previous generations had more gems than what this one has. I feel the ratio has been constant and in fact the past few years for gaming has been pretty damned exciting overall. While I do want to see more variety, a lot of the genre staples are perfecting the formula to grant a great gameplay experience which trumps all storytelling. However, why can't we have our cake and eat it too?

Loving the anecdotes.

Not really.

If I really wanted to splice on about genres, then I'd just take solace in the store return rate of Grand Theft Auto 4 being higher than other games in the series. Moreover, Nintendo had 20 of the 30 top selling games of last year. What is it that they're known for putting out?

I'd be able to take Crash and Brady seriously if I didn't know that most folks who play FPS games do so for competitive reasons, so the skins their games implement aren't as large of a factor as the kind of game provided. Will a person who plays Team Fortress 2 be able to spot the differences and similarities between it and Tribes 2? Rainbow Six: Vegas? Who fucking cares? If you want to get into a game, maybe the aesthetics shouldn't exactly be your first priority over learning the damn game.

There's room enough for EVERY kind of game and player. Whether that space is small or large, whether you're in a tiny box of interest or a large room, you're gonna get in there in some capacity. Perhaps if you don't see something you like, you should make it or shut the fuck up if you're not going to. I'd like fighting games to be more prominent, but I understand why some folks just don't get down like that. I do not blame Mega Man 9 or Gears 2 for the obscurity of my preferred genre, nor do I engage in tunnel vision about genres or preferences.

Hardcore vs Casual is the dumbest non-argument in existence anyway. Someone care to define what makes a "hardcore" gamer and a "casual" gamer and then signal us when they start seeing the holes in the swiss cheese that is said argument?

I'm not sure where I knocked on genres, exactly. Ragging on a genre game for being another FPS is not the same as ragging on an FPS for being another WW2 game or another variation on Halo, a franchise that outstayed its welcome with the first sequel.

What's "wrong" with games are gamers, and the market is going to cater to their demographics. So if you're a white male aged 15-25 who possibly smokes pot and loves Family Guy then there's nothing wrong with the games these days.

There's nothing wrong with playing an FPS for competitive reasons, but the end result of gaming solely for the competitive (achievement unlocking) aspect has led to a rabid case of sequel-itis. It makes less and less sense for companies to try and compete for that marketshare and innovate the genre when it all gets soaked up by the next Bungie or Tom Clancy game.

What's Wrong with Video Games These Days?
 

I never accused you specifically of it, I addressed points made about it. Your argument is something else entirely.

Saying a game is another WW2 game is a personal gripe, saying that another FPS is another variation on Halo is a retarded simplification. And your personal feelings on a game series you don't even like is sending all kinds of signals at me as to how much you actually know about the games you're criticizing outside of "It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck." You, like most of us, probably don't know shit about what you're criticizing other than something that amounts to "I'm not interested" and "These people eat this shit up." For instance, not every fighting game plays like Street Fighter, not every FPS plays like Halo. It gets pretty ridiculous, but it's nothing as homogeneous as, say, Madden.

Here you are, falling into the same trap, not believing that there's a wide enough market to fit in every kind of interest group at this point. When it comes to genres, you have to account for the majority of the audience who plays those games. I really don't think a person like Crash is looking to play an FPS. As much as he makes it seem like if they tried REALLY hard to make one for him, he'd bite the hook of competitive games.

Of course game are made to cater to their respective demographic interests, Brady. Last I heard, some folks like making money as well as making something fun. Why is this a bad thing? I know folks don't always like Street Fighter, but Nintendo got around to making Smash Bros., so now you folks who can't zone can pretend that zoning doesn't happen in a game that offers you slightly more immediate enjoyment and get just as frustrated when folks who know the game better sap all the entertainment away.

Fact of the matter is, you're asking for a disposable, one time experience when there's a market of people who will play this shit and follow all the minute little changes and graphical faggotry because they enjoy the scene you're so repulsed by. Give them a better reason to make the games you suggest.

And if you're a serial rapist who wears purple panties on his head then yeah, the game industry is stagnating

Don't project your personal experience onto me. I actually have followed these trends and don't exclusively play Street Fighter 4. I have no comments on the fighting game genre because I don't actually play fighting games to feel like I can make a comment.

I play FPSes a lot, though, and I know the kind of people who play them. A friend of mine used to be so hardcore he spent all the time at college playing Diablo 3 just so he could come in third at Quakecon. He wasted his life. He's also not really a friend anymore but that's another story.

I've played Gears of War and Gears of War 2 and they're pretty much clunkier Halos with more grit and personality that unfortunately got driven into the ground as internet memes by posters like Tails. The Tom Clancy games are also stuck in a rut following the same rail shooter formula with the only thing that significantly distinguishes each title being the locale.

Call of Duty 4 on the other hand was a great game. The single player stunk and was dumb as shit, but the change in setting and weapons design really gave something new to build upon the basic multiplayer formula from the first two Call of Duties.

But it's all just sequels. Sequels sequels sequels. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about gamers not being the problem with video games. My point is that video games are a problem if you're not like the average gamer. Gamers don't care what they're playing as long as they can play it. It's cheap escapism that lets them forget about the financial dead end that is their retail job or their soulless materialistic lifestyle fueled by their engineering degree. I can go on with these backgrounds because I'm intimately familiar with all of them.

No opiate has ever been greater than gaming, and those people use it as a void to fill the space where normal people place social fulfillment or awareness.

Putting the onus on me to change things is an unrealistic demand because producers don't respond to the people who don't buy their video games, and I have better things to do than design video games. Modding and design is a luxury for people who are rich enough to sperg out in front of a computer for hours at a time hunched over lines of code they may never profit from. Maybe I'm just getting too old and my prior experiences make it all seem like the same old bullshit, but it should be readily apparent to even the casual observer that in terms of quality the industry is broken. There's no feedback for the consumer aside from his purchase, no meaningful consumer advocacy (94% for fucking Far Cry 2?), and very little room for hobbyists to affect the industry at large.

There are plenty of independent and innovative games and game designers out there, but that's not what people talk about when they mention "games these days." If you want to find out why gaming isn't seriously considered as a medium of art, look in the mirror.

I'm not projecting shit, Brady. You, on the other hand, are the one trying to pass out personal stories about "Friends placing third at Quakecon." So let's talk about the games, if that's what it's gonna be about. Or are you too butt hurt to not sling insults? Dabbling into something doesn't mean you have something of worth to say. I know a few folks who actually play competitively in tournaments, it really doesn't say anything about what they know of fighting games. You're full of shit if you think I'm gonna take you at face value. You are, in fact, the fuckstick who was worried about Fallout 3 not being a great game.

Was that last line dumb enough for you? STREET FIGHTER FOUUUUUUUUR.

For all the complaining you do about how FPS games are only about competitive multiplayer, why do you choose to complain about Rainbow Six Vegas? A game that is heralded for its single player mode over its competitive mode? You're trying to say that the more action than simulation based squad controls aren't worth noting as a contributing factor (if not, sole reason) to its unique single player experience, and I'm gonna ask "why?" Why is the game "in a rut", Brady? You draw a comparison between Call of Duty and Rainbow Six: Vegas here, yet both games are offering ENTIRELY different experiences from each other. Call of Duty is a game about its competitive multiplayer offerings, while Rainbow Six: Vegas is mostly appreciated for its single player campaign and cooperative campaign modes? What are you trying to say?

And, no, if you're not the "average gamer" you're not shit out of luck. Again, the market numbers read that titles on Nintendo's platforms sold better than games that are played by "The average gamer." Did you know that one of the top ten DS games on Amazon was a compilation of 100 classic books? That's funny, given that the DS should be the platform of Japanese RPG masochism and shitty 2D action platformers. The "average gamer" isn't getting the kind of representation that the supposedly untapped markets that Nintendo's disruption is getting involved. You can talk all this bullshit about how you know these demographics, but why the fuck aren't you actually saying something of substance? What perceptions can we make about video games and their interests and what can we say that's actually of worth regarding sales and how games actually play?

It's funny that you talk about how games are the ultimate opiate and aren't about social involvement, yet you complain about competitive gaming. The irony being that competitive games are one of the few ways players get together and actually, you know, communicate. I realize it isn't the most cerebral of gatherings for some folks, but that's what video games tend to be for some folks. Games. Not that serious, just meant for a quick spice to social gatherings. Competitive games or shit on the Wii are great for this kind of thing, they offer a function that single player experiences can't. Competitive games are often a form of self-improvement via understanding the nuances of a game, therefore understanding the self and having to apply logic and reasoning to various situation.

You say your friend or acquaintance wasted his life placing third at a convention, but I have friends who are rather successful that just went to a tournament for the social experience. Who's word and experience are we going to take into account? Thinking about that, you're talking all this shit about how much games you've played and how much experience you've accrued to say the things you have. However, you confess yourself to potentially be a cynic and someone who doesn't believe in what's available in any capacity.

Why should anyone listen to what you have to say about the matter? Where are your facts, where are your meaningful comparisons? I'm not SEEING any. You've certainly got jokes though. "Rotor r like fighting gaymes." How about we dig deeper? Did it interest you to know that games like Battlefield do vehicles better than Halo does? Should we talk about asymmetrical map design versus symmetrical map design?

No, Brady. I really don't think you're saying anything of worth other than "I hate Gears and Halo and games that seem like them." Killzone 2 is coming out soon, it looks great. And it may very well offer up a completely different experience, but what have you said about it and its predecessor here? It is, afterall, said to be Sony's "Halo wannabe."

I made the challenge of changing things not just to, but to others as well. I've seen Crash say he should be in charge of the Mega Man games in some capacity. I would ask myself "Why?" Why do you have to offer as far as making the product successful in a new and interesting way, what could you hope to refine as a fan that the creators haven't already done with Mega Man 9?

More to you, I ask YOU to change things because that's what you're asking for. And at your level, making an idea that could be considered profitable would be a realistic way of attaining that change. Yes, you admit you don't have the resources, talent, or interest in doing so... so that leaves me at processing the knowledge and insight you have to offer. Something completely suspect at this point.

Yeah, there are a lot of independent developers out there and they aren't necessarily paid attention to. But there are far more meaningful reasons for why that is other than "The average gamer is killing gaming." I don't believe games are art, Brady. But I could tell you how my opinion has been slowly changing when you aren't making accusations and assumptions about what I believe.

Personally, I tend towards the expectation that anything can be good if someone is given enough time to work on it.

It's my belief that because gaming has become more popular, it has become more industrial. Where before you might have a studio that was made up of like-minded individuals who had the same vision of their perfect game, now the publishers and to a lesser degree the dev studios themselves make it a point to stick to the dev cycle. A studio might have a great idea, but in order to get the money to have it published, they have to agree to get it done in a year, or a year and a half.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but working under a stopwatch has never been good for my own creativity. I imagine the same goes for anyone who isn't totally committed to the game they're making (and sometimes even if they are).

Producers have always been present in game design, but it's only more recently that an expanding userbase has increased their expectations.

Let's take a game like Diablo, for example. I was on the internet around the time it was released, but I never heard a thing about the game until I got word of mouth from my step-brother, who had bought it and showed me a bit of it. The features on it were amazing for the time, but this was a game that had been under construction for 4 years, IIRC.

Compare that to something like Advent Rising, which had a huge hype train running behind it at the time of release, but got slammed because of the bugs and general disorganization in the game. The actual gameplay was great, but it was obvious it hadn't spent long enough in the oven, so that even if the whole team felt committed to making a stand alone universe, ripe for a trilogy, they were still committed to putting something out on the shelves, because their publisher had demanded it be so.

There's nothing sinister about publishers or producers, because it's their job to ensure tangible results from the creative side of things. But, the expectations people have about video games today is that if they haven't surfaced for some time, they're probably dead in the water. (See Team Fortress 2) So because most studios don't have the leisure of whittling away large chunks of time and money on an assuredly great game, they settle with a publisher and do the best they can in the time they're given.

Which, I suppose, has simply become less than it used to be. The thought seems to be that as long as they get a large enough quantity of bodies in a room, they'll make a cash cow, when really what they need more of is time.

And of course, because there's no guarantee that something as good as, say, Shadow of the Colossus or Odin Sphere will make big returns, most publishers would rather play it safe than take chances.

It's really no one's fault that gaming got this way. It just got popular, is all. Attract enough attention to something and you'll get it standardized and riddled with bureaucracy in no time.

Duke Nukem Forever is so going to be the best game ever.

You bring up a person who wasted their life for a con and then somehow extrapolate that into that kind of person being the average gamer. You say that that kind of gamer doesn't care about what's in front of them. You're right, a real average gamer wouldn't care, hence the sales of shovelware being ridiculous. The kind of gamer YOU are asserting is average cares TOO MUCH about what is in front of them. A gamer that can seriously play one game for years on end while playing nothing else is so god damn particular about what game they want to play that they're willing to not buy anything else.

And therein lies the problem. They have to cater to both audiences at once. They cater to the moron gamers by giving them the same game but upgraded, keeping them buying new games, hence why there are so many sequels. This also fulfills the average gamer's needs, because they don't really care and just want to play the latest and "greatest" games.

I think you need to draw a distinction between "average gamer that posts on the Internet" and "average gamer".

Sorry Brady, but you destroy pretty much any pretense that you know what you're talking about buy saying shit like that. Let's skip past the fact that Gears isn't an FPS and Halo is (something of an inherent difference), but pretty much the only things they really share are aliens and guns.

Again, I'm calling bullshit. Of the top 20 games of 2008 we voted for here at GFF six are entirely new IP. And that ignores some of the year's bigger new IP entries such as Mirror's Edge and Dead Space, indie IP such as World of Goo, Braid, Castle Crashers and the Pixel Junk games. And how about non-sequels like Patapon, The Club, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Sega Superstar Tennis, No More Heroes, Race Driver: GRID, Lost Odyssey, Dissidia, Frontlines: Fuel of War, End War, Haze, de Blob, Boom Blox, Audiosurf, The Last Guy, LostWinds, Too Human, Army of Two, Spore, The Bourne Conspiracy or even Wii Fit. So yeah, what was that about it being all sequels?

Then there's the pure fact that sharing an base IP doesn't make a game a generic sequel. If you need proof of that just take a look at Burnout Paradise, which plays to the base values of the series but is actually pretty far removed from any of its forebears. And what about Far Cry 2 that you mention, which is only a sequel in as much as it has the name (seeing as how it was a new team, new engine, new gameplay mechanics, etc, etc). I could name more, but I think you get the idea.

Definitely a worthwhile position to take and one I try to take.

Yes, yes, yes. All fine and good. But you miss the point of what is actually wrong with video games, OP.

And that is obvious: Only one of them is narrated by Stephen Fry.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...topics/fry.jpg

And that's not nearly enough.

Deni, you're close but not quite there. There is a three-pronged approach to making video games good again.

At least one but preferrably all three of the following:

Patrick Stewart
Samuel L Jackson
Christian Byrd

should be in every video game ever.

Patrick Stewart did his best, but it didn't quite save Oblivion.

I would suggest since Norio Wakamoto makes anything awesome, he'd naturally make more games awesome as well, just look at Crysis.

Did you have something to contribute or are you going to busy yourself with a strawman?

I never really thought too deeply about this aspect of development. I know that things were cut from Street Fighter IV as well as King of Fighters XII because of lack of time due to the need to meet a projected release date. I don't quite know how I feel about the time limits set on production. Especially since you make a good point about how players feel in regard to a game that's spent too long in the development cycle.

I liked Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix (go figure) for the fact that even though it hit a massive delay due to a problem with redrawing the sprites, Sirlin managed to keep folks interested by talking about rebalanced mode and such. I know that having a transparent development doesn't always help with keeping folks' attention, though. The subject just makes me curious as far as what games have suffered greatly for limited development time.

Mass Effect, both KOTORs, Fable, Little Big Planet (Which without the patch was broken as fuck) and Gears of War 2 (Equally broken without a patch) spring immediately to mind and that's without actually giving it any thought. Admittedly the prevalence of online access for consoles means that developers can at least fix bugs post release but without that capacity, and for anyone playing without internet access, these are essentially broken games. It's a worrying trend in console gaming, this releasing of games that don't work properly then patching them and symptomatic of the pressure to meet release dates. Rockstar were seen as brave or even foolish for delaying GTAIV to April rather than rushing it out for the previous Christmas but luckily they held off, a decision probably made easier by the knowledge it was inevitably going to be one of the best selling games ever, whenever they released it.

As OP pointed out, there were a fucking ton of great games that weren't sequels last year. Of my whole 360 collection, the only games with numbers in the title are GTA IV, Halo 3, Fallout 3, Rainbow Six V2 and the Guitar Heroes. A lot of the games I spent most of last year playing, Too Human, Frontlines, Last Remnant and Crackdown for example were original IP's and all quite different from other games in their respective genres. Those game I have which are sequels are generally considered to be some of the best games released in recent times. GTAIV brought a whole new level of believability to the city and although the basic gameplay was much the same as the previous few titles, the attention to detail was unprecedented and they create such a distinctive world with each of their releases that, assuming you like that kind of game, each seems quite different, despite them all being basically the same.

Halo 3 on the face of it is just like Halo 2 and the first one but to anyone who's spent even a brief amount of time playing them, the differences are clear. Halo is all about the multiplayer and Bungie have worked to refine this, balancing the weapons, adding equipment and designing levels that work well with the gametypes that are popular. Sure, it's a game designed for fans of the series and hardly breaks new ground but in a series as hugely popular as Halo, I fail to see why this is a bad thing. If you were a developer of a series that had an installed fan base millions strong and rather than tweaking and improving your system, you released something completely different in an attempt to appeal to a different audience, I'd call you a fucking idiot and all your investors would ask for their money back.

Rainbow is "Just like all the other Tom Clancy games" insofar as it features pseudo-realistic squad combat and again, it's not a huge departure from previous games in the series in terms of plot or setting but the innovative cover system makes it a completely different game to what's come before. A game that used to be all about spotting the bad guys before they saw you and killing them quickly has become a game all about managing fields of fire, whether alone and ordering around your team mates or as a group online. The addition of increasingly "clever" AI has made the difference between the older Ghost Recon games where the terrorists would run around a corner blindly into a hail of machine gun fire and Rainbow Vegas 2 where you can easily be flanked and have your whole squad wiped out by one dude with a shotgun. It's a massive difference but one you'd only notice if you'd played both games.

To accuse Halo and Rainbow of being the same thing is beyond ridiculous. Halo is all about wading your lone soldier into hordes of enemies, actively dodging attacks, constantly moving and jumping and calculating how much incoming fire your shield will take up before you die and as such, whether to charge in or hold back. Rainbow is all about working out how to get the angle on the defenders, to take them out without exposing yourself to their fire, one bullet of which is normally fatal (If you're playing it properly on the hardest setting). They're quite different online too with Halo being essentially one big deathmatch, even in the team games where nobody really plays tactics and even so, the best tactic is always kill as many people as possible whereas Rainbow is a game primarily played co-op, either working through the campaign or playing terrorist hunts where cooperation is essential and running off on your own just results in you being dead very quickly.

Now as you all know, I'm not the world's biggest jrpg fan and to me, most of them are pretty interchangable but there's plenty of people here who'll tell me that Mother 3 is nothing at all like Persona 4 or Lost Odessey or whatever. My self confessed lack of interest means I view them all as pretty interchangable but that doesn't mean I don't see their worth in the eyes of people who play them. A lot of people enjoy linear games like those and as such, of course companies will keep making them to meet demand. I don't really see how that affects my own game playing.

Of course, I'm lucky in that according to you lot, I'm a pretty "average" gamer. I'm a few years above Brady's demographic but I'm white, male, smoke a bit of pot and enjoy gaming as a form of escapism from my boring job. I have no problem with buying sequels for games I enjoy as in my opinion, they allow me to extend the enjoyment I got from the original. Much as I enjoyed the first Halo, after a while I knew where every single bad guy was going to spawn from, the campaign had grown stale as a result. Halo 2 mostly kept the system, tweaked it a bit and added a new set of enemies in different places, essentially extending the lifespan of the game I already enjoyed.

That's not to say I won't embrace new ideas. I'm probably one of the more vocal supporters of Too Human and Last Remnant here, both brand new games and systems. I'm looking forward to Too Human 2 as I enjoyed playing the first one and would like to play a game using the same system but with some new challenges. Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

All those of you complaining about games all being identikit, can you explain what exactly it is you are looking for in a game? There's lots of calls for innovation and less recycling but nobody has any suggestions it seems. It's like you're complaining for the sake of it. I find this especially amusing in the light of a few people here posting and implying that they are abnormal gamers and in fact, somehow above normal gamers, like your playing of games is somehow a higher calling or more worthy than mine, simply because I like games that are widely popular. Looking down on people for buying into something popular doesn't make you superior, it makes you weird, a bit sad and ultimately, in line for a lifetime of disappointment. I'm not denying your right to moan about not being catered for by the games development community but until you come to realise that this is a commercial industry and not an art form and that snobbery and commercialism just don't go hand in hand I fear you'll never be happy as gamers.

It's not at all. I, like yourself, am more than happy to see sequels to games I enjoyed, and I'm especially happy to see sequels to games where they really push to expand upon the previous titles. This is exactly why I'm highly anticpating Street Fight IV, Professor Layton 2, Call of Duty: MW2 and am hoping for a Crackdown 2. The only time I find issue with sequels is when you get people churning out lazy sequels that don't even try to mix up the challenges or gameplay, or titles like sports games that have done little more than change the team line-ups.

Lazy rip-offs are valid things to be annoyed about, and that's the issue I have with Call of Duty: World at War: Treyarch haven't tried anything new, they've taken the systems proven to work in Call of Duty 4 and copied them as closely as they could manage. When you're playing the same game again with a different skin, that is taking the piss. However, to call Gears 2, Crackdown, Halo 3 et al. lazy rip-offs or money spinners is not only insulting to the developers, but to people's own intelligence.

Whilst I agree to some extent, if one views games like that as expansion packs rather than new games, their validity increases. One of the best selling titles last year was that World of Warcraft expansion and as far as I'm aware, that changed the skills around a bit (Akin to a new weapon set in CoDWaW), let you add a few levels to your character and stuck in a big old new area to wander around. That could be a bad example, I've played neither the original nor the expansion so there could be a lot more to it than that but the premis is basically that people enjoy interacting with a game world and an expansion of this kind allows them to continue to do so in a fresh setting. One could argue that charging full price for a game that is little more than an expansion is cheeky but if the consumers weren't willing to pay that much, they wouldn't charge that much.

Even in the case of sports game updates, they do add new features and controls and tweak the AI so it's not exactly just a roster change but even then, if people are willing to fork out for a new Fifa every 9 months then more fool them. Some people just buy one every two or three years when they feel there's been sufficient upgrading to warrant a new purchase and at the end of the day, the sales figures speak for themselves. If these things didn't pay for themselves they wouldn't get made. The development costs involved in updating the rosters in Fifa probably aren't very high so EA get a load of cash from the franchise. This at least gives them the option to be a bit more daring with some of their other releases whilst still keeping the shareholders happy. Whilst you might not agree with the practice, nobody is making you buy EA sports games and the money from people who do is paying for the new Syndicate game or Mass Effect 2 or Lord of the Rings Conquest or the next Burnout or another Left 4 Dead or whatever else, you see?

Oh no, I agree, I'm talking about lazy sequels from the point of view of a gamer who wants more from those experiences. I understand their necessity, to an extent, as a business practice. Doesn't mean I have to respect the games it produces (though it would be fair to say people like EA and EA Sports have been improved with how much they put into their yearly releases as compared to a few years ago).

But yeah, if I don't think a game is worth what they're asking for it, you can bet your ass I won't be buying it.

Fair enough although again, the ambiguity of the titles works in your favour here. Take the new CoD as an example. Most people bought it because they liked the last one and perhaps it failed in that respect as I've heard people say it's a step backwards but then, the internet being what it is, these opinions were freely available within days of the game's release. If you were a fan of the last CoD, you could have read a few customer reviews (Because seriously, who listens to trade reviews any more) and seen that criticism then possibly waited for the price to fall a bit before you bought it. Perhaps you pre-ordered it because of some pre-order bonus but then you're just a sucker for the marketing, the reason they offer pre-order freebies is precisely so everyone will get the game on day one, at full price and before they've had a chance to be put off by negative comments.

You might also have got it early because you wanted to play it online when the community was at it's biggest. It's certainly true that the number of people playing any given game online drops off pretty sharply after a month or so but personally I find the people still playing after that month are more likely to be fun to play with as they're the ones who really enjoy the game. There's probably no more tha a couple of thousand people playing Frontlines online any more but none of them scream into the mic or run round team killing or any of that other shit.

If you were thinking of getting the new CoD because you like WW2 shooters, rather than necessarily the CoD engine, thanks to the surfeit of such games you won't have to wait long for another one to come along and with any luck, whoever makes it will have learned from Treyarch's mistakes and made a better game, you benefit in the long run.

Even if you don't realise it, there is a fairly complex economic decision gong on every time you buy a game. You're weighing up whether the additional cost and risk of buying on day one is worth the bigger online community and free tat you get for pre-ordering and of course, whether it's too much to pay to not have to wait a couple of weeks for the second hand copies to hit the shops.

Games are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. A combination of a lack of personal time to play them and wanting a bargain means I rarely pick things up on day one anymore, instead I wait a couple of weeks and buy a used copy for cheaper. I often play demos first or read peer reviews so I know what the game's actually like rather than buying into the hype but that's my decision.

The problem is perhaps that people are so easily swayed by advertising and hype that they'll rush into things these days. The promise of some Halo 3 levels and an in game flaming Warthog has probably increased pre-orders of Halo Wars by a few thousand, with people not wanting to miss these limited (And yet largely pointless) offers, at the cost of waiting to see if the game's actually any good.

I'm getting slightly off-topic here but I guess my point is that the problem with games these days is that the end users, the gamers are too easily swayed by cheap offers and advertising gimics and as such, developers can hide a sub-standard product behind a raft of pre-order bonuses. The advertising department is now as important as the development team.

In the same way that a democratic country gets the government it deserves, I feel that the gameplaying community gets the games it deserves and whilst people continue to get feverish over day one purchases, developers will continue to cut corners to meet deadlines and save money. Essentially I think if people would take more time to consider their purchases they might be disappointed less often.

So very true. The flashy aspects of a game are irrelevant to the substance. The two aren't related in any way. I've played flashy games this generation that had a ton of substance. I've also played flashy games this (and previous) generation which were as shallow as a coat of paint. It can go either way. It isn't like there's a slider bar that can go to either end of a flash/substance scale.

This is what I came into the thread to say. I'm not a young gamer, and I've got a long perspective on games as a form of entertainment. I'm finding just as many quality games to buy as I ever did. I'm also finding just as much trash to ignore as I ever did. Sure the DS and the Wii are full of shovelware, but wasn't that also true of the SNES and the PS1? It happens to popular consoles.

Although I'm not really a fan of FPS games, I have to say a few words in defense of the genre. It happens throughout gaming history that the most popular genre attracts a lot of games which may appear to the casual observer to be very similar. Right now FPS are extremely popular, and it may well be the case that the differences between them are only visible to those who take an interest in the genre, but much the same could be said of RPGs. The FPS fan sees the vast array of RPGs on the Playstation series of consoles and wonders what exactly is the difference (other than story) between all these games involving turn-based battles.

When platform games were popular, the SNES and Genesis were positively flooded with titles. It just happens to whatever genre is the most popular at the time. It doesn't mean that the various games are all the same, it just means that most of them are aimed at the enthusiast, and the differences may not be readily apparent.

As for the question of gaming stories... I have to admit that games will never rival film and television, much less great literature. I generally view the story in a game, even in an RPG, as an interesting way of presenting the player with motive and objectives, rather than purely as a narrative. It is nice if the story is well presented and coherent, but I don't expect as much from it as I would from any typical TV show.

Ok, so Gears is a third person shooter. I've still played the game and god forbid I lump it into the same genre that has everything else except a cover system. You'd go into a conniption if I called Dead Space an FPS, even though I'm playing it right now. I really don't give a fuck.

Saying that Gears and Halo only share aliens and guns ignores all the other themes they share. Badass space marines killing waves of aliens in exotic locales. What differentiates Gears from Halo is the cover system and an environment caked over in 36 flavors of mud and grit. The game was designed to appeal to the Halo crowd, and the fact that there's such a huge overlap speaks to that. Being a shooter in the spirit of Halo isn't a knock on the game. My main complaint was that everything compelling about the game is ruined by the people that play it.

You just listed off a lot of derivative games and movie tie-ins. Too Human, a God of War clone, Star Wars: Force Unleashed, an extreme version of the Jedi series, Haze, a Halo clone. Not many of the games you even listed are very good, which is kind of why this thread exists in the first place. And a lot of the ones that are good are 10 bux on Steam or Xbox Live. But if you were paying attention you'd notice that I'm not talking about Indie titles, I'm talking about AAA releases.

Far Cry 2 is a piece of shit.

Man, where to even begin. They share a theme, that's just about it. The two are about as far removed from each other gameplay wise as day and night, proof you haven't spent enough time on either title.

Halo focuses on long range and vehicular combat as opposed to Gears' close range shotgun fests. That's it at its most simple, but really?

The vehicles for one are a huge standout. Gears has maybe all of, two vehicle sequences in the game? And that's in a tank. Halo has a large number of missions/sequences played in the games large array of vehicles, not to mention fliers like the Banshee. None of that exists in Gears. The MP in Gears features guns. The MP in Halo relies upon a variety of weapon tactics, vehicle usage, and teamwork on a larger scale.

Where is Gears' equivalent to the Spartan laser? The brute hammer? The energy sword? Active camo? Overshield? Not to mention the ability alone to jump, the man cannons, the significantly larger maps both online and offline? The game types?

Anybody that's spent a decent amount of time playing both games know they're two different things in their entirety. Hell, even the campaign in Halo focuses more on large scale battles and field tactics where as Gears' has always been about small stop and pop/adrenaline rush affairs.

They aren't even close to the same thing. The only part you have right on this is that they both are about shooting aliens with guns. Once you get past that it's a whole different ball game. I'm not even going to comment on the game being a "meme" because I play it thoroughly (my stats will attest to this) and enjoy it. That's just ridiculous and makes zero sense.

Oh, and calling all the titles Omagnus listed as not good? Ahaha, just how many of those have you played?

Enough to know that not all of them are very good. You don't have to play Big Mutha Truckers to know it's not that great either from things like gameplay videos and word of mouth.

I certainly know a lot of them aren't worth paying 60 bucks.

Gears probably would not exist if it weren't for Halo. I don't need to go through all the differences in Frontline: Fuel of War to explain why it wouldn't exist without Battlefield.

All of those games weren't 60 bucks. A few were arcade titles like Castle Crashers and Braid ($10 or so), stuff like Patapon was $20, SST retailed for $40, and I'm pretty sure NMH was less than full. I'll go back and check the rest but not right now.

Also just because one wouldn't exist without the other doesn't mean they're the same thing. Not that I agree with you on that point at all but you're more or less ignoring the huge differences between the two.

That and I doubt the game was made to appeal to the Halo crowd. Most of the fanbase of Halo abhors GoW for being shotty roadie run bullshit while the Gears fanbase hates Halo for being a Sniper/Battle Rifle snooze fest. There are obviously people who enjoy both, but you know. It's a huge testament to the fact that they both have their own unique play styles and are separate games.

Of the 27 games I named a grand total of two are movie tie-ins (one being somewhat dubious since there's no movie that covers The Force Unleashed). Now, if you'd like to give non-retarded examples of how the rest are derivative I'll be waiting.

For example, not ever FPS is a Halo clone. I know this is clearly difficult for you to grasp, as boy all those games feature guns, but give it a try.

Of course, the state of the games industry only takes into account AAA titles. What was I thinking.

Entirely not the point of why I was bring it up as an example, but whatever I guess, it's not like you're paying attention to the point.

Nobody would deny that Frontlines owes a lot to Battlefield and to the casual observer they're basically the same thing. Only anyone who's played both would tell you that when it came out, Frontlines improved on the previous Battlefield games in every possible way. Frontlines allowed for 25 a side battles (I'm comparing console games here) to Battlefield's 16, Frontlines had a single player campaign that was actually fun and worth playing as opposed to Battlefield 2's pointless effort that nobody ever bothered with. Frontlines had a really good balance of vehicles and infantry which worked equally well on the smaller battlefields and the fucking massive ones (Which were massive compared to Battlefield) rather than Battlefield's Helicopter+Tanks=win formula. The balance in Frontlines meant squad cooperation is damn near essential to succeed whereas Battlefield caters for lone-wolf tactics, essentially making it a deathmatch game. Frontlines keeps the combat close by shifting the current objective to where the action is rather than allowing you to skirt roudn the battlefield and pick up the unguarded one at the back. The list of ways in which Frontlines is superior to the previous Battlefield game on 360 is almost endless and as such, why does it matter than it draws a lot from it's predecessor?

From your point of argument, it looks like you're saying that once a game of a certain type has been made, companies should never again make a similar game. That improving on a concept is verboten and all new games must be entirely original ideas and frankly, that's just stupid.

By that logic there would have been no Fallout 2, no Suikoden 2, no Quake (Which was basically Doom, which was a dressed up Wolfenstein), no Command & Conquer, Red Alert, Starcraft, Warcraft or any other RTS after Dune 2, no Galaga (Which is a tarted up Space Invaders after all) and so on and so on.

You simply can't criticise a game because it draws on another game for inspiration, especially when it's something like Frontlines which was made by Kaos Studios, the people who made Battlefield in the first place before Dice took over. Yes, as OP says, direct copies are lazy and pointless but then people very rarely buy direct copies. What people buy are games that are similar to game types they already enjoy but that develop the concept and move the genre forward. Of course there are completely original games from time to time, look at Loco Roco or Katamari for example but these are rarely massive sellers. People are creatures of habit and like the familiarity of a game that's similar to things they already played.

If we were talking about music, would you agree that GWAR are basically pointless because deep down they're just Slayer? (Or some equally silly comparisson, fucked if I actually know who GWAR sound like but I hope you see my point).

Wait, you console people used to play Battlefield with 16 person servers? That's too small even for a decent match of TF2.

I just wanted to point out that time in development doesn't necessarily make a game any better. I mean, if you want another example, try Daikatana as one which was released, but probably shouldn't have been.

I don't think anyone will fault Blizzard for their continual late releases since all of their games that are released late are absolutely top notch and have benefited from the extra polishing they give to it.

But take my favorite game at the moment, TF2. Do you really think it takes as long as they're waiting between patches to create the new content, or do you think they're just dragging their feet for no good reason?

32 man servers, 16 a side but yeah, over a whole map it can get a little lonely, hence why Frontlines upping it to 50 plus the frontline concept meaning only the objectives currently on the frontline are capturable makes for so much better gameplay as all 50 people are generally focused in a smaller area rather than wandering all over the map looking to sneak a capture of an unguarded map at the back (Or spawn camping which to be fair, does happen in Frontlines, especially with the auto-sentrys but a camera switch as you die to show who killed you plus a 5 second spawn invulnerability and the choice to spawn by your squadmates rather than at a base cut that right down). I think the Battlefield maps were slightly smaller on the console versions too.

With Valve? I'd say yes, truthfully. Depending on how many people they have actively working on it, they do a lot of playtesting and balancing before anything sees the light of day.

It doesn't hurt that the staggered releases help keep interest levels high in the game and produce good word of mouth, but I don't think they squander the time that they're given, by any means.

Valve happens to be the exception to the rule in the gaming industry right now, however. They are running counter to a lot of business models that other companies hold dear, and fortunately for us it seems to be working well.

I don't think longer=better, which is why I responded the way I did. But the tendency is to push the deadline aspect of it, and put the product out in a functional state, instead of trying to see that it reaches its original vision. It's a disappointing fact of the industry, but it's also sometimes with good reason. Vanguard was doomed to failure from the start, if the behind-the-scenes stuff about the main producer being a paranoid drug addict are to be believed. But they salvaged something out of it to make a product that was, if substandard, at least playable. (As opposed to nothing at all)

My point is that there's a threshold. When you involve enough people who don't share the original spark that started the project in the first place (or if no one cares about the project they're working on other than to get a paycheck), you get poorly made games. So, in other words, trying to say that there's too many games of this genre or that this kind of gamer is ruining everyone else's fun, or even that games X years ago had it all figured out is not seeing the bigger picture.

They didn't have it all figured out, there just weren't as many people breathing down their neck about it. Gaming wasn't a cash cow (at least not as big of one) as it is today.