[Rant] What's Wrong with Video Games These Days?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by NovaX

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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



There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Helloween

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Qwarky

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by House Hippo

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by NovaX

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by NovaX

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by NovaX

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

Man. That stick on the controller.

innovative.

Cheers, Nova. The argument. You lost it.

We're done here.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

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.



And that's not nearly enough.

Jam it back in, in the dark.