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

Originally Posted by tebian

nope and glad i didnt

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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?

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Half-Life 2: Best RPG ever

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Shin

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.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by wvlfpvp

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

Ha ha, I suppose it is, yes.

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

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?

Tebian it's you.

You are part of the problem.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shin

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.

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

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

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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 kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by NovaX

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Originally Posted by wvlfpvp

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Rotorblade

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."

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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."

Quote:

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.

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.

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

:words:

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".

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