The trouble with games today

[Krookie]

What games have ripped it off?

[thepixiesrock]

What do you mean they ripped it off?

[Krookie]

Who's "they" anyway? Give us names!

[Pidesco]

I think Terra Nova is the only LGS game I haven't played.

[Deraldin]

This game came out in 1996. It was truly awesome. Since then countless game developers have ripped it off brutally and not one has come close to matching it despite the massive advances in computing technology that the last 12 years have brought.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Nova:_S..._Force_Centauri

 

How the hell did Looking Glass make so many awesome games only to have pretty much all of them fail commercially?

[Pidesco]

People generally rather play bland games that don't engage them in any way beyond the most basic emotions.

 

It's the same thing as with books, film, and music, of course.

 

 

Oh, and also their games were usually very, very demanding in terms of hardware.

[Guard Dog]

I think video games have evolved. Maybe you like Fallout more than Oblivion because it's more recognizable to you, but really I think most PC gamers are missing out on what has really been an evolution of online play. Xbox Live has made games 10 times more fun for me than I ever thought possible. I've tried PC gaming, and console gaming is so much more accessible. GuardDog said something about not liking FPSs, but I'd bet you'd like them a whole lot more with a group of friends (cough, us XBL gamers here at Obs) to play them with. Maybe I'm wrong, but RPGs like Oblivion may seem dull or boring to some people because the real center point of gaming isn't a one-person experience anymore.

 

Don't take it for "PC gaming sucks!" because obviously some people really believe the PC is the best platform for gaming, and for multiplayer. But an online service can make a world of difference in gaming today. Look at the PS3's online capabilities when compared to Xbox Live. Sure, PS3 is free, but the service is garbage (or at least until Home is released). Xbox Live has made for some great times and makes it super easy to communicate and interact with people (Jags, Kor, Bok, Pixie) that I would never had talked to if I was playing single player RPGs like Oblivion all the time.

 

I hear a lot of people complain that games today suck (or maybe that's just Gabs replaying Vampires: Masqueradeade or whatever), but really I think they could be having a lot more fun if they played games in a different way for a change.

 

Just my two cents though.

 

You make some good points Krookie. I don't use consoles. I have no prejudice against them, and I was actually going to give Xbox360 a look until I heard Mass Effect was coming to PC. As for online gaming I did a fair bit of that with NWN and it was fun but GW really turned me off to it. Plus I work pretty long hours these days so it's hard to lined up time with friends. My beef with Oblivion was it's lack of variety. Each fort, ruin, cave, etc was exactly the same as every other. They could have done better with fewer dungeons and more variety. Less is often more especially when more is repetative. Plus the dialogue and plot were, to say the least, unispired. But it was a beautiful game to look at though. I must admit though, mods do give it some replayabilty but not in the way NWN 1 & 2 did. As for FPS it would be more interesting in co-op play but it's still shoot this guy....shoot that guy.....shoot those guys over there...got them all....next building.

 

What I'd love to see are more RPGs with some depth and characters that are not so... 2 dimensional. KOTOR2 came close but could not rise above it's flaws. NWN2 MOTB came close. Oblivion, Gothic, EQ and others did not even try. I have pretty high hopes for Dragon Age. Atmosphere is also lacking in RPGs and without that there is no immersion factor. Case in point. In BG2 they would play the cut scenes of Irenicus torturing Imoen. So while you out doing your thing, bad things are going on elsewhere. It added a sense of urgency to the main quest plot. Little things like that can have a big payoff in the feel of the game. Plus the whole save the world theme is tired. What made MOTB, PST, BG2 good was the personal nature of the main plot. You were not saving the world you were saving yourself/friends. It builds empathy and makes you identify with your PC.

 

If I could give a dev advice it would be this: we know you guys can make them pretty, now make them good. Use a real writer to craft your plot and dialog and don't box them in with formulaic and politically correct guidelines.

[LadyCrimson]

Hmm, interesting topic. *ponders a while*

 

I used to think similarly - that games have been lacking the last several years. I could point fingers at a lot of things, but they never feel satisfactory as an explanation for my increasing disinterest in the newer games. So I'll vote nostalgia as well...the emotional memory of certain games being so fantastic (to you) for whatever the reasons, with nothing ever quite duplicating that emotional sensation since.

 

It's a lot easier - well, for me at least - to go back and play a game I know inside-out and still find moderately enjoyable than to spend hours to learn the mechanics of a new game that is essentially the same format as the older game. I've become jaded/too familiar with the way games 'work', so it's never going to feel 'new' and 'exciting' even with a new story or renamed skills or 1000 funny little side quests or items.

 

The one thing I've noticed about more recent games is that most of them lack what I call the addictive factor - that thing that makes you want to replay them over and over. Now, even if the game is an utter blast the first time through, I feel like I've seen everything in the game already, even if I know I haven't, so the replay desire isn't there. Yet, I can/want to go back to older games, even tho I know every nook and cranny of those. Maybe for me, the more vicariously visual the environment becomes and the more important those visual cues are to the "emotion" of the game, the more it starts to fall victim to the 'wow that was a great movie, but it sure wouldn't be the same a 2nd time" syndrome. And I guess I still equate "great game" by the replay factor.

 

I've never been into "the story", so I know that's not my issue. Beyond the obvious nostalgia and burn-out, I still can't put my finger on it. :/

Edited April 25, 2008 by LadyCrimson

[Bokishi]

Man these debates will go on forever, 10 years ago it was about how the games of yore were no match compared to the atari and commodore games "zomg those games were simple fun, now it's all complicated and not fun!"

Edited April 25, 2008 by Bokishi

[Spider]

Atmosphere is also lacking in RPGs and without that there is no immersion factor. Case in point. In BG2 they would play the cut scenes of Irenicus torturing Imoen. So while you out doing your thing, bad things are going on elsewhere.

 

Personally, I hate this storytelling device. For me, it's a total immersion-breaker. I'm not a fan of cut scenes in general, since they take me out of the game and force me to watch instead of play. But these types of cut scenes are even worse (when it comes to RPGs). I really hate knowing more than my character what's going on. Knowing what was going on elsewhere just made it feel pointless to keep charging ahead, because I was running in the wrong direction.

 

Also, this has not disappeared from cRPGs. NWN2 did this, the KoTOrs did this, Jade Empire did this. If anything, it's becoming more common.

[Hassat Hunter]

I think the major trouble is with FPS taking the lead in the market, and people expecting that.

 

The "most anticipated" games are the ones with the most beautiful graphics, but no depht at all (Crysis, Halo etc.), and for some reasons everywhere you go in other genres idiots expect these kind of graphics there aswell.

And since the idiots make the majority, and pay up the producers are going to make stuff for them primarily.

 

Still, there is good to be found, if you just look beyond the major companies.

I am looking forward to Majesty2, and Steam features some nice games as Sam & Max or Audio Surf, that aren't made by the big companies.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Hassat Hunter

[Humodour]

I thought it was just me.

 

Thought maybe it's because I was 8 to 14 when I played all the good games, so maybe games these days aren't as good because I'm older and my brain is wired differently or things aren't as new and fresh to me any more.

 

Actually, it's probably a mix of games these days sucking, and me being older.

 

*goes back to playing Jazz Jackrabbit*

Edited April 25, 2008 by Krezack

[random n00b]

People generally rather play bland games that don't engage them in any way beyond the most basic emotions.

 

It's the same thing as with books, film, and music, of course.

I think the major trouble is with FPS taking the lead in the market, and people expecting that.

 

The "most anticipated" games are the ones with the most beautiful graphics, but no depht at all (Crysis, Halo etc.), and for some reasons everywhere you go in other genres idiots expect these kind of graphics there aswell.

And since the idiots make the majority, and pay up the producers are going to make stuff for them primarily.

Ah, yes. The hard life of the intellectual elite.

[Pidesco]

Ah, yes. The hard life of the intellectual elite.

 

There's a certain type of entertainment that I generally enjoy more and, as such, I'd like more of those types of films and games and whatever to be made. It makes sense doesn't it?

 

And besides I feel that the "unwashed masses" already have more mainstream titles than they can possibly play, while I usually have to wait at least a year to get like one game that's right up my alley.

[Slowtrain]

The standard for computer game mech combat was set by Mechwarrior 2 in 1995. Its never been surpassed. (Other than graphically of course)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechwarrior_2

 

Falcon 3.0 released in 1991 had a full flight model and avionics as well as a dynamic campaign, an entire war being simulated as you flew missions that constantly changed as the state of the world changed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_3.0

[Morgoth]

Nostalgia is a bitch, and that's why I sold all my old games I were sure I'm never gonna playing them again (including more "recent" games like NWN2, Stalker etc.) at ebay. Good deal, because I feel now less is more.

[Hassat Hunter]

ah, yes. The hard life of the intellectual elite.

 

The amount of people on forums who bitch on RTS and RPG's because they don't have the graphics of (enter latest graphic-standerd FPS here) is quite astonishing.

Good thing that doesn't happen here though...

[thepixiesrock]

So people are stupid because they want more out of games and value the progression of them?

[Slowtrain]

Maybe there used to be more diversity and innovation, back when production costs were much lower?

 

Game developers still appeared and disappeared at a regular rate, but there were so many more the smaller ones.

 

I think that may be a good point. Certainly it would seem to me that there was a major change in how many interesting games were developed and released after (and while) all the small computer game developer studios shutt their doors and/or were bought out in the late 90s.

 

I've heard people say that it is much easier to be innovative in a small company but that it is much easier to turn out product in a big company. Maybe the gaming scene is just suffering from the loss of those small and mid-size developers like Looking Glass and Microprose and Sir-Tec.

[Kelverin]

Sports games (that nobody cares about on this board) have definitely been improved, and continue to improve every year. That's even with some EA games being nothing more than a roster update, competition basically taken out of football and in some respects baseball as well. The graphics, computer AI, and options are light years ahead of their older counterparts.

 

Nostalgia, of course plays a part. As does finances. Games simply cost $$$$$$ more to make than they used to. The smaller studios do not really have the capital, man power, maybe even a desire to take the risks that their predecessors did. Or, maybe people have just run out of new ideas.

[Slowtrain]

Sports games (that nobody cares about on this board) have definitely been improved, and continue to improve every year. That's even with some EA games being nothing more than a roster update, competition basically taken out of football and in some respects baseball as well. The graphics, computer AI, and options are light years ahead of their older counterparts.

 

Nostalgia, of course plays a part. As does finances. Games simply cost $$$$$$ more to make than they used to. The smaller studios do not really have the capital, man power, maybe even a desire to take the risks that their predecessors did. Or, maybe people have just run out of new ideas.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I think that graphic improvements are great in sports games and otherwise. I see things in computer games now that I never would have even dreamed of seeing 10 years ago. The incredibly lifelike human avatars, the amazing envirornments, the realistic vehicles, these are all totally incredible things to me.

 

There is a point in Crysis where you are driving uo this valley in a tank surrounded by lots of other tanks being fired on by tanks, (aka a tank battle lol), and while you are doing a huge mountain in the distance starts to fall apart. The whole thing combined for just an amazing moment and I replayed that sequence at least a half dozen times just to watch that mountain fall apart over and over again. It was stunning.

 

But but but....that is not going to stop my copy of Crysis from going into the trash in a year or two while my precious copies of XCOM and Master of ORion and System Shock remain carefully protected in my closet. WHy?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Because Crysis' main selling point is its amazing visuals -something that will quickly become dated-, while the other games make use of something else.

[Slowtrain]

Because Crysis' main selling point is its amazing visuals -something that will quickly become dated-, while the other games make use of something else.

 

 

 

I'd like to order a double serving of "something else" in my next game purchase, please. Bethesda? Bioware? EA? Anyone? ANyone?

[Monte Carlo]

I feel exactly the same way as the person who started the thread.

 

Computer role-playing games are more or less dead, I too never finished NWN2 and found NWN pointless. Toolsets? Pah. I pay developers to make games - I don't have the time myself.

 

The reason that older games feel more immersive is that for me they actually capture the spirit of tabletop gaming. For example, JA2 or the IE games look like you are moving miniatures on a diorama. And, as TOEE proved, you can make that look great too (shame about the rest of the game).

 

I completely understand the pressure to provide spectacular graphics - I like eye-candy too (Medieval TW2 with all the options maxed out is beautiful to watch - the graphics are definitely part of the appeal).

 

However, a good game is a good game. Chess is a great game played with pieces carved out of plasticene as much as if it's played on a computer with amazing graphics. These older games had this in abundance.

 

I know, nostalgia ain't what it used to be, but as yet another WW2 themed FPS with amazing Tiger Tanks and realistic recoil from Tommy Guns gets released I just yearn for a game that allows for a bit of immersion, quirkiness and (gasp) micro-managment.

 

Seriously, when Dungeon Siege came out all the people on this forum correctly identified that it was actually a very expensive screensaver. A few years on, it now looks like a masterpiece of interactivity compared to some of the dreck I avoid in the games shop.

 

I am now an elderly grognard. I know. For me, only the Total War series is flying the flag of innovative, immersive gaming. A lot of CRPGs are now simply screensavers or The Sims with swords.

 

Cheers

MC

[Moatilliatta]

I thought it was just me.

 

Thought maybe it's because I was 8 to 14 when I played all the good games, so maybe games these days aren't as good because I'm older and my brain is wired differently or things aren't as new and fresh to me any more.

 

Actually, it's probably a mix of games these days sucking, and me being older.

 

*goes back to playing Jazz Jackrabbit*

Hardly any of them. I too have played what seems to be the same games as you at the same age more or less, but I still enjoy modern games a great deal AND older games as well.

 

*Goes looking for Jazz Jackrabbit*

Edited April 25, 2008 by Moatilliatta