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

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

... 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.

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).

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tails

If you aren't seeing enough variation or innovation it's just because you aren't looking hard enough.

Quoted for truth.

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

Originally Posted by NovaX

It just feels like this generation is just merely an improvement of the last generation, as opposed to an evolution

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

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.

Quote:

Heck even Halo remains the best game on the Xbox.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by NovaX

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:

Originally Posted by NovaX

High Definition gaming (PS3 or 360) is killing the innovation or evolution of gaming. ... The[n] there's the Wii.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by tebian

nope and glad i didnt

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?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

But it's all just sequels. Sequels sequels sequels.

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.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Shin

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?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

You just listed off a lot of derivative games and movie tie-ins.

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.

Quote:

But if you were paying attention you'd notice that I'm not talking about Indie titles, I'm talking about AAA releases.

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

Quote:

Far Cry 2 is a piece of shit.

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.

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