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

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.

Seriously though yeah, fuck WW2 shooters

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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

Most amazing jew boots

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

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Excellent post Crash and wonderful sentiment.

You are a true Blue Skies Gamer.

Click the banner.



What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

FELIPE NO

You can never own enough copies of Ikaruga.

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

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Tails

You can never own enough copies of Ikaruga.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Encephalon

:words:

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.

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

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by House Hippo

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 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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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 Infernal Monkey

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.

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?

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Originally Posted by tebian

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.

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.

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

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 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 Shin

You didn't read my post, did you?

nope and glad i didnt

Originally Posted by Pangalin

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

nice guys...

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by tebian

nope and glad i didnt

Nice guys but anyways i doubt either know how to read a book.

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










SENSE != YOU

How ya doing, buddy?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.