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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.