RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[Keyrock]

I have no issue with multiplayer only games at $60.  What really grinds my gears, though...

 

 

...is when the folks making Battlefront announce that they're omitting a SP campaign to concentrate on MP and deliver the best MP product possible then release the game with only 4 maps, missing many of the favorite modes from Battlefront 2, and with hilarious balance and spawning issues.  You cut the SP campaign to concentrate on MP and still deliver a half-assed product?

 

On the flip side of the coin you have Rainbow Six: Siege, which is also MP only (it does have SP, but that SP might as well not exist), and it only has 2 MP modes, but it's main mode is AMAZING.  That main mode has insane depth, is finely tuned, and if just flat out awesome. 

 

You give me a MP only full priced game like R6: Siege and I'll be a happy camper.  You give me a full priced MP only game like Battlefront and I'll give you the middle finger.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Keyrock

[marelooke]

 

 

I think it was John Carmack who said, "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie." 

 

In fairness, that quote was made at a time when most video game stories consisted of "Robot Ninjas Kidnapped the President" and not much more.  Gaming has evolved since then.  I agree not all games need a deep, well written story.  Games come in all shapes, sizes, and varieties.  There are story-driven games and there are gameplay-driven games.  Story-driven games obviously need a good story with well thought out characters or they will fall flat on their face (/glances disapprovingly in David Cage's direction) since story is the core pillar of the game.  Gameplay-driven games don't necessarily need much story at all, though they can still benefit from one.

 

 

As far as I remember Carmack was the technical genius behind the graphical engines that were always pushing the limits of what was possible at the time (would explain why he now works at Oculus) but that doesn't necessarily make him an authority on videogame storytelling since really, which of the games ID Software made had any real storytelling going on? I guess Rage would be the closest to "story driven" they ever got...

 

Now if that quote would have been from MCA...

Edited January 29, 2016 by marelooke

[Fenixp]

Now if that quote would have been from MCA...

If that quote was from MCA I'd really want to see MCA's porn collection.

[Amentep]

 

Now if that quote would have been from MCA...

If that quote was from MCA I'd really want to see MCA's porn collection.

 

 

You say that like you don't want to now.

[the_dog_days]

 

 

 

Now if that quote would have been from MCA...

If that quote was from MCA I'd really want to see MCA's porn collection.

You say that like you don't want to now.

I don't know, man, people have different tastes. Ya don't know what you might blunder into. >_>

[Keyrock]

 

 

 

Now if that quote would have been from MCA...

If that quote was from MCA I'd really want to see MCA's porn collection.

You say that like you don't want to now.

I don't know, man, people have different tastes. Ya don't know what you might blunder into. >_>

 

That's what makes it so enticing. 

[Darkpriest]

I have no issues with MP only games - IF they are done well. The problem is, they usually are just money grab with little content and not really good gameplay.

 

I do agree that i;'d rather have a good MP only game than half assed SP and MP games in a one product.

[ShadySands]

I have nothing against MP only games but I also have no interest in them. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed that some games I was initially interested in ended up being MP only (I'm looking at you cancelled Bioware modern fantasy/horror game whose name escapes me at the moment)

[HoonDing]

http://www.pcgamer.com/bombshell-review/

 

mah diversity

 

well, can't be worse than Space Siege

[Nonek]

 

In fairness, that quote was made at a time when most video game stories consisted of "Robot Ninjas Kidnapped the President" and not much more.  Gaming has evolved since then.

 

 

I'm afraid that I have to disagree here Keyrock, the Ultima games dealt with complex themes and had narratives that were reinforced by the mechanics, and stood quite well on their own, Betrayal at Krondor was fantastically written by Mr Neal Halford and there are many others. I'm also not so sure that gaming has evolved that much, in fact in places it has positively devolved, after all what do you expect when a new game comes out? Features that were present in games decades ago are impossible to implement now, gameplay other than combat and conversation has disappeared, environmental interactivity is non existent, worlds and characters are painted backgrounds that have no life or agency, organic map design and exploration has been replaced by handholding and quest markers, fantastic sound design such as we heard in Thief has been replaced by some manner of idiot vision, magic is simply another weapon to use rather than an art of wonder and utility, loading screens are incessant and yet in games like Ultima and Dungeon Siege there were massive worlds that required none.

 

Of course there are exceptions and in even the most dull and safe AAA+ games there are innovative elements, but I think it has become far too popular to ridicule the games of yesteryear, and dismiss them as regressive when in fact they were introducing many innovative elements that have not been bettered yet, or even emulated, and certainly not built upon. When I look back on what I played many years ago, and see how stale and unambitious the genre has become in comparison, well I am saddened at how little was learned from or built upon the RPGs of the past.

 

Edit: To be fair Dungeon Siege which I mentioned also introduced a positively degenerative design where the game would literally play itself. As we have seen this has become a desired feature now for some players (who unfortunately designers are catering to) who do not wish to play and learn the mechanics of a game, but instead simply wish to be told a story and fed a power fantasy. Accessibility and streamlining run riot rather than used to distil a game into what it needs to be, such as the first Fallout does so well, each feature and mechanic reinforcing the themes of the game.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Nonek

[Keyrock]

 

 

In fairness, that quote was made at a time when most video game stories consisted of "Robot Ninjas Kidnapped the President" and not much more.  Gaming has evolved since then.

 

 

I'm afraid that I have to disagree here Keyrock, the Ultima games dealt with complex themes and had narratives that were reinforced by the mechanics, and stood quite well on their own, Betrayal at Krondor was fantastically written by Mr Neal Halford and there are many others. I'm also not so sure that gaming has evolved that much, in fact in places it has positively devolved, after all what do you expect when a new game comes out? Features that were present in games decades ago are impossible to implement now, gameplay other than combat and conversation has disappeared, environmental interactivity is non existent, worlds and characters are painted backgrounds that have no life or agency, organic map design and exploration has been replaced by handholding and quest markers, fantastic sound design such as we heard in Thief has been replaced by some manner of idiot vision, magic is simply another weapon to use rather than an art of wonder and utility, loading screens are incessant and yet in games like Ultima and Dungeon Siege there were massive worlds that required none.

 

Of course there are exceptions and in even the most dull and safe AAA+ games there are innovative elements, but I think it has become far too popular to ridicule the games of yesteryear, and dismiss them as regressive when in fact they were introducing many innovative elements that have not been bettered yet, or even emulated, and certainly not built upon. When I look back on what I played many years ago, and see how stale and unambitious the genre has become in comparison, well I am saddened at how little was learned from or built upon the RPGs of the past.

 

Edit: To be fair Dungeon Siege which I mentioned also introduced a positively degenerative design where the game would literally play itself. As we have seen this has become a desired feature now for some players (who unfortunately designers are catering to) who do not wish to play and learn the mechanics of a game, but instead simply wish to be told a story and fed a power fantasy. Accessibility and streamlining run riot rather than used to distil a game into what it needs to be, such as the first Fallout does so well, each feature and mechanic reinforcing the themes of the game.

 

Which part of "most" was unclear?  Sure, there were narrative-heavy games even back then, they were the exception to the rule and it's partly because of that that they became famous, because they helped herald in the forthcoming games with a larger focus on story (and those games deserve all the praise they get).  Back in 90 or 91 or 92, when Doom was just beginning to be conceived, which is when that Carmack quote was made, even the Final Fantasy series, in many ways the epitome of the story-driven RPG (at least in terms of mainstream), was only beginning to hit its narrative stride with FFIV (a game the west wouldn't never see for a decade).  

 

My point is that the majority of mainstream games at that time were heavily gameplay-focused with story as an afterthought.  Story-driven games existed long before then, as far as Sierra adventure games in the mid to late 80s or even earlier with the Zork games.  Those games were in the minority.  Most games were like Asteroids or Missile Command.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Keyrock

[Nonek]

Oh don't mind me, I just fancied a moan and took the opportunity, its mostly aimed at the modern industry and not your post.

[Keyrock]

Oh don't mind me, I just fancied a moan and took the opportunity, its mostly aimed at the modern industry and not your post.

It's cool, I get what you mean.  Story-driven games are nothing new, they've existed as far back as text-based adventures.  The gaming public at large likes to pat itself on the back at the progress its made since those "dark days" and in some ways there has been progress, but at the same time some of the narrative spark that existed in the early days has also been lost (mostly) in the pursuit of the shiny object.  Many (though certainly not all) of the big budget stories we get today that are celebrated by the self-congratulatory media are regurgitated, stale, predictable tripe.  Publishers are so sure that giant spectacular set pieces and over the top melodramas are what sell (it's hard to argue they're wrong) that they sometimes overlook, or willingly ignore, that it's the quiet, subtle drama and intrigue that makes a good story.

 

Also, I'd just like to reiterate what you wrote, namely that Betrayal at Krondor is phenomenal (and so underappreciated).  I mean the gameplay is pretty ****, but the story is so freakin' good.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Keyrock

[Nonek]

No worries Keyrock, though i'd just like to say that proceeding Doom was Ultima Underworld 1&2, far better engines, with massive versatility and stories that were tight and reactive. I agree that mainly computer gaming was focused on gameplay in the beginning, and this was to its benefit, some of those old games still stand up as quality experiences now, and I personally see this as no bad thing because devs learned to use gameplay to reinforce narrative rather than rely on cutscenes or blunt exposition to instruct the player, which is the modern trend.

[HoonDing]

"I mean the gameplay is pretty ****, but the story is so freakin' good."

 

Not at all. Gameplay was perfectly fine.

 

Except when you had that useless old coot Patrus around.

Edited January 30, 2016 by HoonDing

[Oerwinde]

Playing the Division beta. Not interested in the multiplayer aspect, but the single player aspect is actually not bad if you like cover shooters. You can play the major missions with friends, or a random pickup group, or solo. Beta only has one little mission chain, took me about an hour to beat then it tries to shoo you off into the PVP area which doesn't interest me. Will probably grab the game when it hits 15 bucks.

[Fenixp]

I'm also not so sure that gaming has evolved that much, in fact in places it has positively devolved, after all what do you expect when a new game comes out? Features that were present in games decades ago are impossible to implement now, gameplay other than combat and conversation has disappeared, environmental interactivity is non existent, worlds and characters are painted backgrounds that have no life or agency, organic map design and exploration has been replaced by handholding and quest markers, fantastic sound design such as we heard in Thief has been replaced by some manner of idiot vision, magic is simply another weapon to use rather than an art of wonder and utility, loading screens are incessant and yet in games like Ultima and Dungeon Siege there were massive worlds that required none.

Why does modern game industry automatically mean AAA games as those are the only ones your comment really applies to?

 

Of course games for masses are going to be created to cater to the lowest common denominator, after all, they're created by companies which are trying to make money. Lowest common denominator of pen and paper nerds who had a tendency to design and play RPGs 25 years ago is entirely different to that of your average, modern consumer so it's quite understandable you'll see a shift in game design. But... There are still games being created by teams as small as in the past, for lower budgets as we have loads of dedicated game development tools now, for the same audience that games were made 25 years ago - and with 25 additional years of experience in developing games to boot.

 

And using Betrayal at Krondor as an example of an old game which successfully merges gameplay and narrative seems a bit like nostalgia talking. Now I love the game. Never played it back then and absolutely adored it about 4 years ago, which is when I finished it so you're absolutely right about it still being able to offer a fun experience. But it tells its story via (almost exclusively) non-interactive walls of text that display at predetermined points in gameplay, sometimes trough some encounters or traps but that's quite rare. Yes, they kinda work like cutscenes.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Fenixp

[mkreku]

Playing the Division beta. Not interested in the multiplayer aspect, but the single player aspect is actually not bad if you like cover shooters. You can play the major missions with friends, or a random pickup group, or solo. Beta only has one little mission chain, took me about an hour to beat then it tries to shoo you off into the PVP area which doesn't interest me. Will probably grab the game when it hits 15 bucks.

 

Yeah, I'm way too lazy to install a beta for just one weekend, but I did check out a Twitch stream on it. I saw this guy run around with two or three other guys, going up against maybe 5-6 enemies. The guy streaming had a sniper rifle and he kept popping an enemy in a grey hoodie 5-6 times in the head while the grey hoodie dude just kept running forward without much of a response at all.

 

It might still be a good game but that put me off a little bit.

[Darkpriest]

If anyone is even remotely interested in Firaxis and Xcom they should be wathcing PAX stream or later th vod

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Playing the Division beta. Not interested in the multiplayer aspect, but the single player aspect is actually not bad if you like cover shooters. You can play the major missions with friends, or a random pickup group, or solo. Beta only has one little mission chain, took me about an hour to beat then it tries to shoo you off into the PVP area which doesn't interest me. Will probably grab the game when it hits 15 bucks.

Yeah, I'm way too lazy to install a beta for just one weekend, but I did check out a Twitch stream on it. I saw this guy run around with two or three other guys, going up against maybe 5-6 enemies. The guy streaming had a sniper rifle and he kept popping an enemy in a grey hoodie 5-6 times in the head while the grey hoodie dude just kept running forward without much of a response at all.

 

It might still be a good game but that put me off a little bit.

Yeah, headshot damage needs to get beefed up. I was full on assault rifling people in the head and it took like 6 or 7 shots

[Vaeliorin]

Playing the Division beta. Not interested in the multiplayer aspect, but the single player aspect is actually not bad if you like cover shooters. You can play the major missions with friends, or a random pickup group, or solo. Beta only has one little mission chain, took me about an hour to beat then it tries to shoo you off into the PVP area which doesn't interest me. Will probably grab the game when it hits 15 bucks.

Huh...the previews I'd seen (admittedly a year or more ago) seemed to imply that if you tried to solo stuff, there'd just be too many enemies and not enough abilities on your side for you to deal with them.  If that's not the case, I might have to look into picking it up when it's cheap (though it'd be nice to have some AI teammates.)

[melkathi]

Arcen laying off devs

https://arcengames.com/great-work-on-starward-rogue-team-now-youre-all-laid-off/

[Nonek]

 

I'm also not so sure that gaming has evolved that much, in fact in places it has positively devolved, after all what do you expect when a new game comes out? Features that were present in games decades ago are impossible to implement now, gameplay other than combat and conversation has disappeared, environmental interactivity is non existent, worlds and characters are painted backgrounds that have no life or agency, organic map design and exploration has been replaced by handholding and quest markers, fantastic sound design such as we heard in Thief has been replaced by some manner of idiot vision, magic is simply another weapon to use rather than an art of wonder and utility, loading screens are incessant and yet in games like Ultima and Dungeon Siege there were massive worlds that required none.

Why does modern game industry automatically mean AAA games as those are the only ones your comment really applies to?

 

Of course games for masses are going to be created to cater to the lowest common denominator, after all, they're created by companies which are trying to make money. Lowest common denominator of pen and paper nerds who had a tendency to design and play RPGs 25 years ago is entirely different to that of your average, modern consumer so it's quite understandable you'll see a shift in game design. But... There are still games being created by teams as small as in the past, for lower budgets as we have loads of dedicated game development tools now, for the same audience that games were made 25 years ago - and with 25 additional years of experience in developing games to boot.

 

And using Betrayal at Krondor as an example of an old game which successfully merges gameplay and narrative seems a bit like nostalgia talking. Now I love the game. Never played it back then and absolutely adored it about 4 years ago, which is when I finished it so you're absolutely right about it still being able to offer a fun experience. But it tells its story via (almost exclusively) non-interactive walls of text that display at predetermined points in gameplay, sometimes trough some encounters or traps but that's quite rare. Yes, they kinda work like cutscenes.

 

 

Betrayal at Krondor was used as an example of brilliant storytelling in a game that is over twenty years old. No this is not nostalgia talking, I played Krondor again recently as I do every few years, however despite its linearity in telling its story it still does allow massive amounts of choice, consequence and reactivity in each chapter, that can play through into later ones. Most of the story is told through text, but its anything but non interactive, it reinforces everything you do, study and use, and provides massive feedback for however one builds the characters. The amount of foreshadowing, gameplay and plot that is in each chapter is not summed up or restricted by the gateways that link each chapter.

 

I still do not see any answers as to why modern game, that are supposedly so evolved and innovative, are not implementing features that were commonplace decades ago, and in fact are busy stripping them away. This is not just AAA+ games either, there are as many indie games that are just as feature sparse and unambitious, in  fact to me it looks like games are busy devolving and fans are cheering this on and excusing this degeneration.

[HoonDing]

I wouldn't replay it now, the sections with Patrus are too annoying.

Edited January 30, 2016 by HoonDing

[Nonek]

What I do to mitigate his uselessness is gather the various stat boosting and sorcerous items that are available, a good range of spells, equipment, and the various stat boosting books together and store them in the poisoned ration Moredhel lockboxes. Immediately after meeting the chap we settle down to boosting his efficacy somewhat, and making him far more playable. He's still not a patch on Owyn at this point but he holds his own far more reliably.