The New Classics

[Mamoulian War]

[quote name='H

[entrerix]

what in the world is God Hand?

 

never heard of it in my life. Do you mean God of War? that game sold millions

 

edit nm someone already answered!

Edited September 4, 2009 by entrerix

[Calax]

It's pretty much Doom 3 with a few gimmicks...

 

Nope. Prey is much, much better than Doom 3 - in fact the third Doom is no where near as good as this "clone."

 

Could you maybe elaborate on the greatness, instead of throwing out blanket statements one after another?

Prey was better than Doom3 because many of the gameplay mechanics didn't force the character to use something useless (flashlight). Also some of the designs for the weapons and the puzzles were kinda cool (figuring out how to get across a room by going on the right wall, roof, then left wall was interesting). It ran off the Doom3 engine so the characters looked almost vulcan, the characters also had a personality (albeit they were each terrible).

 

Prey was IMHO a better game than Doom3. But then both were run of the mill shooters.

[Purkake]

It's pretty much Doom 3 with a few gimmicks...

 

Nope. Prey is much, much better than Doom 3 - in fact the third Doom is no where near as good as this "clone."

 

Could you maybe elaborate on the greatness, instead of throwing out blanket statements one after another?

Prey was better than Doom3 because many of the gameplay mechanics didn't force the character to use something useless (flashlight). Also some of the designs for the weapons and the puzzles were kinda cool (figuring out how to get across a room by going on the right wall, roof, then left wall was interesting). It ran off the Doom3 engine so the characters looked almost vulcan, the characters also had a personality (albeit they were each terrible).

 

Prey was IMHO a better game than Doom3. But then both were run of the mill shooters.

 

Being better than Doom 3 doesn't make any game a classic, though. Take for example Farcry, as annoying as the Trigen were, it brought something new to the table(open world shooter) and despite other shortcomings, made it work.

 

Prey might just as well be Doom 4, it doesn't distinguish itself from the rest of the shooters, I remember it as the corridor shooter with the Native American stuff.

[entrerix]

i agree with purkake and calax on this one

 

I wouldnt put it on my list of games I think will one day be considered a classic

 

but thats the fun, we can all have our own guesses. though it would work better if people remember this thread in ten years to see who was right.... or if i had a time machine.....

[Calax]

I wasn't saying it was a classic, just that it was better than doom.

[Purkake]

I wasn't saying it was a classic, just that it was better than doom.

 

Which I never disputed.

 

I said it was like Doom 3 as in a corridor shooter, not that they were identical.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Purkake

[Volourn]

If a game can't cover its costs, it is a failure where it matters most even if it is 'critically acclaimed' or someone (including me) personally likes it. I'm very sure that the goal for every game released is to, at minimum, get even whether it's a blockbuster or some 3rd string wannabe release.

[Gizmo]

If a game can't cover its costs, it is a failure where it matters most even if it is 'critically acclaimed' or someone (including me) personally likes it. I'm very sure that the goal for every game released is to, at minimum, get even whether it's a blockbuster or some 3rd string wannabe release.

I disagree with that one. Any game designed from the get-go as a compromising "crowd pleaser" is usually mediocre [like FO3] or occasionally utter crap. If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it, that does not reflect bad on the game IMO, and is no different than kids preferring to eat paste over p

[Purkake]

If a game can't cover its costs, it is a failure where it matters most even if it is 'critically acclaimed' or someone (including me) personally likes it. I'm very sure that the goal for every game released is to, at minimum, get even whether it's a blockbuster or some 3rd string wannabe release.

I disagree with that one. Any game designed from the get-go as a compromising "crowd pleaser" is usually mediocre [like FO3] or occasionally utter crap. If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it, that does not reflect bad on the game IMO, and is no different than kids preferring to eat paste over p

[Mamoulian War]

If a game can't cover its costs, it is a failure where it matters most even if it is 'critically acclaimed' or someone (including me) personally likes it. I'm very sure that the goal for every game released is to, at minimum, get even whether it's a blockbuster or some 3rd string wannabe release.

 

It's same like saying Van Gogh's paintings or Mozart Tunes are failure, because they died as a poor men...

Edited September 4, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The main reason I suggested Prey was because, while I did find it to a above-average game, there seems to be a upswing in positive reviews. In the last week alone I can recall at least three threads -not here mind you, they were at GoG and Steam- lamenting the game's low scores.

[Mamoulian War]

If a game can't cover its costs, it is a failure where it matters most even if it is 'critically acclaimed' or someone (including me) personally likes it. I'm very sure that the goal for every game released is to, at minimum, get even whether it's a blockbuster or some 3rd string wannabe release.

I disagree with that one. Any game designed from the get-go as a compromising "crowd pleaser" is usually mediocre [like FO3] or occasionally utter crap. If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it, that does not reflect bad on the game IMO, and is no different than kids preferring to eat paste over p

[Purkake]

The success or failure really depends on the developer's goals for the game.

 

If an indie developer is making a game to make a statement, the game could be a success just by people experiencing it.

 

Half Life 2 didn't deserved half-the praise it get imo... Diablo II is a classic despite being not original, it was fun as hell and i knew few people who played it in single player mode for 4+ years...

 

Not this again. We had a thread about it. It wasn't even an example of a classic game.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Purkake

[entrerix]

Bioshock

maybe riddick

maybe company of heroes

wow

maybe world of goo

resident evil 4 (but not 5)

shadow of colossus

Rock Band

maybe Braid

maybe the Witcher

maybe stalker

left 4 dead

Far Cry (wait how old is this game?)

maybe Batman Arkham Asylum (mostly because I think it will greatly influence future superhero games)

 

maybe Bethesda's Fallout: Wasteland Explorer (don't go nuts over this, im merely posting it because it might end up creating a newish

subgenre: the EARPFPS - (exploration action roleplay fps)

 

 

 

these are my current guesses at likely candidates of recent (5 year limit) games. I wanted to put BG&E and prince of persia but they are both outside the somewhat arbitrary 5 year limit on "new"

 

not many rpg's on my guesses list...

 

thats also 15 games in 5 years. thats 3 a year if they all made it. im surprised at myself for nominating so many since when i think of my favorite games nearly all of them are much older than 5 years

Edited September 4, 2009 by entrerix

[Purkake]

Farcry is from 2004.

 

You may just as well take The Chronicles of Riddick and World of Goo off the list and add Portal, Mass Effect.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Purkake

[Mamoulian War]

The success or failure really depends on the developer's goals for the game.

 

If an indie developer is making a game to make a statement, the game could be a success just by people experiencing it.

 

Half Life 2 didn't deserved half-the praise it get imo... Diablo II is a classic despite being not original, it was fun as hell and i knew few people who played it in single player mode for 4+ years...

 

Not this again. We had a thread about it. It wasn't even an example of a classic game.

 

 

Diablo II is as much classic as Final Fantasy VII, it does not matter that you do not like them, for many people they are prime examples of classics... Just different cup of tea than you like... If you think it's ****, it's your oppinion and no one is taking it away from you, so is the opinion of other people who like theses games and point them as best of the best games, which are in their own personal top 5 of all time...

[Purkake]

The success or failure really depends on the developer's goals for the game.

 

If an indie developer is making a game to make a statement, the game could be a success just by people experiencing it.

 

Half Life 2 didn't deserved half-the praise it get imo... Diablo II is a classic despite being not original, it was fun as hell and i knew few people who played it in single player mode for 4+ years...

 

Not this again. We had a thread about it. It wasn't even an example of a classic game.

Diablo II is as much classic as Final Fantasy VII, it does not matter that you do not like them, for many people they are prime examples of classics... Just different cup of tea than you like... If you think it's ****, it's your oppinion and no one is taking it away from you, so is the opinion of other people who like theses games and point them as best of the best games, which are in their own personal top 5 of all time...

 

Hold your little horses there Mr. Jumps-to-conclusions.

 

First of all what I said was about you dissing HL2. Secondly, I love both of the games. I said that they weren't examples of classic games because I was using them in another argument with Gizmo, not nominating them. Diablo II is too old and HL2 might just as well be nominated.

 

Also, the internet continues being serious business.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Purkake

[Gizmo]

At the end of the day the developers still go home hungry.

 

What about games with both critical and financial success, like Diablo II or Half-Life 2?

There are thousands of brilliant starving artists, and (and plenty of not so brilliant starving ones). There are also too many non-skilled artists IMOJO ~It has come to pass that ugly art is all the rage, and galleries are filled to bursting with the stuff.

[not so unlike the video game shelves these days].

 

As for the ones that make it (on merit)... That's fantastic, and usually well deserved.

 

Half Life 2 didn't deserved half-the praise it get imo... Diablo II is a classic despite being not original, it was fun as hell and i knew few people who played it in single player mode for 4+ years...

I never played HL2 ~though I loved Portal. I also only ever play Diablo 2 single player.

[Volourn]

"I disagree with that one. Any game designed from the get-go as a compromising "crowd pleaser" is usually mediocre [like FO3] or occasionally utter crap."

 

You call them 'medicore' and 'utter crap' all you wnat, it doesn't make it true. Nor does what I wrote imply that all games have to be made to sell millions or catch the mainstream. You can have a non mainstream game that still breaks even be successful since the goal there isn't to sell a million copies. The point is if agame can't make back what was put into it at a minimum it is a failure.

 

 

"It's same like saying Van Gogh's paintings or Mozart Tunes are failure, because they died as a poor men..."

 

No. No, it isn't. You don't make any sense. ie. If BIO were to no longer exist tomorrow it wouldn't make BG2 any less of a success just because BIO went belly up.

 

Plus, art is a lot different games since the cost of making art is more of a matter of time spent by the artist unlike games which actually cost real money to make. Your analogy, therefore, is weak.

 

 

"If an indie developer is making a game to make a statement, the game could be a success just by people experiencing it."

 

This is rtaher poor reasoning as, say, if only 5 people experience what a lacklustre statement to make. Even indie developers need an audience. Or they might as well just make games for free and not pretend being professionals ie. don't charge for their games at all. The moment you charge for the privlege to play your product is the moment you have to expect to at least go even or the product is auto fail as it tells you and everyone else that not enough people want to play it and you overestimate the number of people who want your game.

 

 

 

"If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it,"

 

Brilliant to who? Personal opinion is irrelevant.

[Purkake]

"If an indie developer is making a game to make a statement, the game could be a success just by people experiencing it."

 

This is rtaher poor reasoning as, say, if only 5 people experience what a lacklustre statement to make. Even indie developers need an audience. Or they might as well just make games for free and not pretend being professionals ie. don't charge for their games at all. The moment you charge for the privlege to play your product is the moment you have to expect to at least go even or the product is auto fail as it tells you and everyone else that not enough people want to play it and you overestimate the number of people who want your game.

 

 

 

"If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it,"

 

Brilliant to who? Personal opinion is irrelevant.

 

I meant free indie games. My point is that sometimes the criteria for success is dependent on the developer's goals.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Purkake

[entrerix]

yeah some authors dont write for money, they write for the pleasure of writing.

 

but they are still glad if they get some $ at the end of the day.

[Gizmo]

You call them 'medicore' and 'utter crap' all you wnat, it doesn't make it true. Nor does what I wrote imply that all games have to be made to sell millions or catch the mainstream. You can have a non mainstream game that still breaks even be successful since the goal there isn't to sell a million copies. The point is if agame can't make back what was put into it at a minimum it is a failure.

I do, and so they are, but I at least acknowledge the reality of a sliding scale in this regard.

 

"It's same like saying Van Gogh's paintings or Mozart Tunes are failure, because they died as a poor men..."

No. No, it isn't. You don't make any sense. ie. If BIO were to no longer exist tomorrow it wouldn't make BG2 any less of a success just because BIO went belly up.

 

Plus, art is a lot different games since the cost of making art is more of a matter of time spent by the artist unlike games which actually cost real money to make. Your analogy, therefore, is weak.

No artist would ever have said that . For one thing what time they spend is not spent on something else (like other commercial endeavors), and also Art materials cost a hell of a lot of money, even a single brush can cost $120 by itself.

 

"

If an indie developer is making a game to make a statement, the game could be a success just by people experiencing it."

 

This is rtaher poor reasoning as, say, if only 5 people experience what a lacklustre statement to make. Even indie developers need an audience. Or they might as well just make games for free and not pretend being professionals ie. don't charge for their games at all. The moment you charge for the privlege to play your product is the moment you have to expect to at least go even or the product is auto fail as it tells you and everyone else that not enough people want to play it and you overestimate the number of people who want your game.

I agree with that first quote, some would consider it a success for having done it ~period. Same as if they'd climbed a mountain together and returned home alive and in good spirits (and with memories that they'd keep their whole lives).

 

 

"If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it,"

 

Brilliant to who? Personal opinion is irrelevant.

You would ask "Brilliant to who"? If I create something brilliant and my neighbor asks "what is it?", and then says, "oh" and continues sweeping his deck... his opinion affects nothing about my design.

 

If one person creates a brilliant contraption and five million people snicker and laugh at it for being foolish in their opinions... that does not affect the design nor deface its brilliant design.

 

The amazing fact is that if even one person recognizes the brilliance of a thing~ that's enough, even if it was only the person who did it.

(but even more amazing... Even if the creator did not understand it themselves ~it could still be Brilliant to others... Just look at Frank Frazeta's incredible works).

Edited September 4, 2009 by Gizmo

[Purkake]

So if I think my toothpick is brilliant, that makes it so?

 

I am now in possession of the singular brilliant toothpick.

 

For something to be considered good, you need someone to agree with you, otherwise everything anyone makes would be equally good.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Purkake

[entrerix]

no moar derail thread!!!

 

was not thread about defining terms!

 

was thread about nominating games as possible future classics!

 

no!

moar!

derail!

thread!