If graphics are advancing at the cost of every other single part of the game then there is a problem... A serious problem. I think that the focus on graphics became a problem when we hit the 'bloom' generation of graphics... Let me state this right now... Bloom is not making anything look better... What it is doing is making my eyes bleed.
These days developers don't even bother to advertise FEATURES of the game anymore...
We want to drool at the graphics on display and complicated things like BEING ABLE TO OPEN DOORS should be left to the AI companions
The Rise of Consoles + Mobile Games and the PC Port + DRM and Always Online:
the best hardware
that's really not an excuse for developers to abandon the PC almost entirely
Remember when playing a game was as simple as putting a CD key in?
Kickstarter
Hipsters
Braid - retro style platformer
Fez - retro style platformer
Super Meat Boy - retro style platformer
Some people consider games art... Well games are supposed to be fun as well. If you game is not fun calling it 'art' does not make it a good game.
DLC
Freemium
Paid-Reviewers
From my perspective it doesn't look bright. Every day I lose a little bit of hope. One day I hope I can get excited about the future of videogames again. Until then I guess I'll always have Dwarf Fortress.
gimmicky "innovative" hardware that adds nothing to their games
Quotethat's really not an excuse for developers to abandon the PC almost entirely
It sort of is. PC's dont have some inherit right to have games ported to, or developed for them, and companies are only going to do so when their is a reasonable business oppurtunity.
To quote Jim of Jimquisiton fame: "When did making money become a holy quest above scrutiny"
Just because a company is expected to care about making money doesn't mean it "has a inherent right" to actively exclude what is quite simply a more advanced platform. Could putting their game out for PC hit their figures? Sure, but its still a nice thing to do, probably isn't going to bankrupt them anytime soon, and will help make them look less evil in the long run, so there is benefit there.
I'm with you about the over-focus on graphics lately and I honestly don't care about the difference between text-based, ASCII, Half-Life 1 graphics and the latest 3D super realistic game which came out.Apropos of nothing, reading this made me have flashbacks to like the late 90s. It's amazing I've been reading basically that exact same line for over a decade and a half.
I'm with you about the over-focus on graphics lately and I honestly don't care about the difference between text-based, ASCII, Half-Life 1 graphics and the latest 3D super realistic game which came out.Apropos of nothing, reading this made me have flashbacks to like the late 90s. It's amazing I've been reading basically that exact same line for over a decade and a half.
*grabs popcorn*You better let me have some XD
SOME of us haven't lived long enough to remember that. ; ) I'm mostly talking about showing Dwarf Fortress or Nethack or Wizardry or Morrowind to someone and them rejecting it out of hand because of the graphics. Which isn't entirely fair to the poor game companies since they don't have anything to do with those people most of the time. And besides, gameplay and graphics aren't mutually exclusive. I mean, graphic designers don't necessarily have the know-how to code games. They just graphics and the programmers just program. Not ALL that much overlap. The performance of the art team and the development team is usually mostly unrelated. Except when the prior gets a vastly higher budget then the latter, I suppose. It looks like, that when there's a major advance in graphics and not in gameplay, the people will shout "ALL THEY'RE WORKING ON IS GRAPHICS" regardless of the actual effort put into either of them. It might just be that its harder to innovative gameplay then it is to art and the latter has more of a noticeable impact per unit of work put into it.I'm with you about the over-focus on graphics lately and I honestly don't care about the difference between text-based, ASCII, Half-Life 1 graphics and the latest 3D super realistic game which came out.Apropos of nothing, reading this made me have flashbacks to like the late 90s. It's amazing I've been reading basically that exact same line for over a decade and a half.
Regarding indie, people trying to sell a game without having to go through a big publisher is far from something new, when i was young i remember the stories of people coding games in their garage and trying to sell them.
I'm with you about the over-focus on graphics lately and I honestly don't care about the difference between text-based, ASCII, Half-Life 1 graphics and the latest 3D super realistic game which came out.Apropos of nothing, reading this made me have flashbacks to like the late 90s. It's amazing I've been reading basically that exact same line for over a decade and a half.
That... that might say something about the actual existence of a recent over-focus on graphics. Unless we're talking recent in the, like, centennial sense or something.
The SOUL of gaming is in decline. As an industry it has always and will always make some kind of money.
If you've been reading the same line for 10 years then there's probably something to that line.
This is really the only thing in your post I find serious fault with. To quote Jim of Jimquisiton fame: "When did making money become a holy quest above scrutiny"
Just because a company is expected to care about making money doesn't mean it "has a inherent right" to actively exclude what is quite simply a more advanced platform. Could putting their game out for PC hit their figures? Sure, but its still a nice thing to do, probably isn't going to bankrupt them anytime soon, and will help make them look less evil in the long run, so there is benefit there.
The SOUL of gaming is in decline. As an industry it has always and will always make some kind of money.
The "soul" of gaming is extroadinarily subjective, vague, and far from being something thats fixed.
If you've been reading the same line for 10 years then there's probably something to that line.
Alternatively they are like the apocolypse preachers, endlessly preaching about something which never comes to be. Which I think is what Frumple was implying. (A better analogy might be "Damn kids and their rock and roll!").
There are occasionally still good games made [heck Minecraft came out in the last 5 years and that was fantastic] but I do believe the overall quality of the industry and games has dropped dramatically.You know, I didn't like Minecraft at all, any of the times I've tried it. Just didn't find it fun. *shrugs*
The first gaming rig I owned was a rig that ran DOS. I loved the crap out of that computer and managed to amass quite a collection of floppy disks. It certainly wasn't convenient or easy to be a gamer... Hardware cost a small fortune and I remember some games being up to 8 floppy disks. Later on I acquired a Super Nintendo and then after that an N64. I remember fondly a bunch of games that I can no longer remember the titles of. One game that particularly caught my fancy was Harvest Moon for the Super Nintendo.The first computer or console I played any games on was a Commodore 64. The 64 meant it had a whopping 64 KB of RAM! The computer was built into the keyboard. Floppy disks were actually floppy. You could fit 8 games on a single floppy disk. There was MULE and Archon and Spy vs Spy (and Spy vs Spy 2) and Lords of Conquest and Repton (the one with the phase-cloaking spaceship/fighter/thing, not the other one) and I'm out of really memorable games to name. Well, Potty Pigeon was certainly memorable and amusing, too.
It was an exciting time to be a gamer. Everything was always constantly improving, game design, technology and game developers seemed to respect gamers.You missed The Videogame Crash of 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983), triggered because of shit games, market oversaturation, too many consoles, etc. The wikipedia article goes into a lot of detail.
Somewhere along the way... It's hard to pinpoint an exact date the focus for developers shifted from game design to graphics. At first this wasn't such a bad thing...I agree that if you throw almost all your money at having amazing graphics, there's an opportunity cost, in that you could have been spending that money on something else. That's not to say that you can just fund a game designer to design "amazing gameplay," because you can't really predict if something will be fun or not without trying it, and it wasn't until this recent indie phenomenon started that you could even get a game with many sales if you "neglected" (e.g. "went retro on") the graphics.
If graphics are advancing at the cost of every other single part of the game then there is a problem... A serious problem. I think that the focus on graphics became a problem when we hit the 'bloom' generation of graphics... Let me state this right now... Bloom is not making anything look better... What it is doing is making my eyes bleed.Let's sidestep bloom for the moment and go back to the issue of whether graphics are advancing at the cost of every other part of the game. I'd like to compare two games.
These days developers don't even bother to advertise FEATURES of the game anymore... They just show things exploding and then fart out their brand name afterwards. You just know somewhere there's a CEO in an office yelling at a group of guys because their modern FPS shooter had three less explosions in their ad than the other teams modern FPS shooter had in their ad.I generally don't watch those things, because I don't want to get hyped about something that might not even be accurate.
Let's get this out of the way straight away... Game developers [at least the big ones] believe you are an idiot... It's OK they believe I'm an idiot too.It's not that they think you or I are idiots, it's that they've learned that to appeal to the most people they have to design their games to be playable by people who don't know what the frak they're doing, or who are having a bad day, or who don't feel like reading the almost-400 page manual (Dominions 4 - I read it), or, yes, are idiots. Idiots should be able to play games too, n'est-ce pas?
What's completely astounding is that gamers do not want to be treated this way... Games that do not hold your hand [Minecraft, Portal, Dwarf Fortress, etc] have been crazy successful.Modern FPSes have trained me to know that in most games, I don't have to worry about anything that looks like a maze or a forest or anything else that one could normally get lost in. Just charge right in and fate will ensure that you go the way you're supposed to go, because every way you're not supposed to go will be impossible to go. If there are actual mazes, well, you can usually still tune out and use the right-hand-path solution to solve them without thinking about it. There are, of course, games which aren't like this. Skyrim, the Assassin's Creed series, and so on. Skyrim gives you quest markers showing you precisely where to go, of course, but it tends to be some cave clear on the other side of the map...
I might be alone in this but if I'm playing the game I want more than just an on-rails experience... Let me wander the halls... Let me call the shots... LET ME OPEN THE GOSH DAMN DOORS.
You know what I love? Spending $2000 on hardware so that I can play a terrible port... Why... For the love of all that is good in the world would you not start development on the platform with A) the best hardware and B) the most possible variations of hardware... Common sense would dictate porting to a simpler, fixed specifications platform would be easy from that position... I really have nothing more to say on this... I'm perfectly happy for consoles, I know that a lot of people love them but that's really not an excuse for developers to abandon the PC almost entirely.It seems logical to me: It's much easier to develop solely for one or two hardware configurations (consoles) rather than all possible PC hardware configurations, which lead to strange incompatibilities and errors and missing DLL files and so on.
Remember when playing a game was as simple as putting a CD key in? Now you need to go through five extensive background checks, report to your local government agency, show them your passport, pass a drugs test, qualify for the Winter Olympics and then after all that you can play.On the XBox 360, you basically put in the game CD and that's it. Or if it's installed on your hard drive and you downloaded it from XBox Live, you don't have to do anything at all. This is the main reason I get games for it. The sales on XBL are kind of shit, though. MS has been giving two free games away per month to XBox Live Gold subscribers, though. (Some good, some crap - right now it's Dungeon Defenders, which I didn't even bother to download.)
Oh wait no you can't because the servers aren't up...You just have to know who has/had the terrible DRM and not buy from them, on the platform where it exists, e.g. Ubisoft on PC, although they have said their new games no longer have it, IIRC.
Dear Kickstarter... I hate you... You are a land of broken promises and failed dreams... The cake was a lie.(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26452959/spockeyebrow_noborder.jpg)
Moving on to the 'indie' scene. You know what you were lacking games industry? Hipsters... Well worry no longer! Because now we have an army of indie developers and just look at the armada of interesting games it has created:I'm raising my eyebrow like Spock again. I think you're probably overgeneralizing, but then I've only played one of these games and only for a few minutes (that being Braid).
Braid - retro style platformer
Fez - retro style platformer
Super Meat Boy - retro style platformer
What's more worrying than the fact that a large part of the 'indie' scene is even less creative than AAA games is the extreme dickishness of the developers:Did you happen to see what said critics were saying to Phil Fish? That's not to say that telling people to "go die" is good promotion or publicity, because it's not. But Fish didn't hire a publicist or anyone to manage his communication with the rest of the world (which has a tendency to include jerks), and he had the kind of personality where if someone attacked him, he attacked them right back. And it snowballed out of control. AAA devs use publicists and the like. Back in the early 90s devs didn't have to deal with people getting on the internet and flaming them on forums, twitter, and facebook, spamming up their emails, and so on.
Example: Phil Fish, creator of Fez: "PC's are for spreadsheets". Phil Fish also told critics to "go die".
From my perspective it doesn't look bright. Every day I lose a little bit of hope. One day I hope I can get excited about the future of videogames again. Until then I guess I'll always have Dwarf Fortress.Have you played Papers Please?
I think that the focus on graphics became a problem when we hit the 'bloom' generation of graphics... Let me state this right now... Bloom is not making anything look better... What it is doing is making my eyes bleed.
PC's are only more "advanced" in the sense that they expose more funcitonality to the end user. What is available and relevant to developers is quite different. The PS3's Cell processor destroyed PC processors for quite a long time, and was coupled with modern hardware was very much advanced (moreso than the PC in many ways).
Are you saying that because it's difficult to measure it can't possibly decline?
Or maybe they're like the countless people who predicted the start of WW2 before it happened and were ignored because DOOMSAYERS! "We shall have to fight another war again in 25 years time." ~Lloyd George, talking about the Treaty of Versailles. People who are able to look at the past and the present and make intelligent inferences about how these things will impact on the future.
PC's are only more "advanced" in the sense that they expose more funcitonality to the end user. What is available and relevant to developers is quite different. The PS3's Cell processor destroyed PC processors for quite a long time, and was coupled with modern hardware was very much advanced (moreso than the PC in many ways).
Yes, and during that time it still had zero games out to use that sexy processor on :P
The big thing about computers is you have access to practically every game ever made.
Wanna play the newest AAA thing? You can do that. Wanna play something from last gen? You can do that. Wanna play something from fucking Atari??? Do so.
Consoles only let you do the first now. Is sads :(
There are occasionally still good games made [heck Minecraft came out in the last 5 years and that was fantastic] but I do believe the overall quality of the industry and games has dropped dramatically.You know, I didn't like Minecraft at all, any of the times I've tried it. Just didn't find it fun. *shrugs*
It was an exciting time to be a gamer. Everything was always constantly improving, game design, technology and game developers seemed to respect gamers.You missed The Videogame Crash of 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983), triggered because of shit games, market oversaturation, too many consoles, etc. The wikipedia article goes into a lot of detail.
If graphics are advancing at the cost of every other single part of the game then there is a problem... A serious problem. I think that the focus on graphics became a problem when we hit the 'bloom' generation of graphics... Let me state this right now... Bloom is not making anything look better... What it is doing is making my eyes bleed.Let's sidestep bloom for the moment and go back to the issue of whether graphics are advancing at the cost of every other part of the game. I'd like to compare two games.
First, Commando for the C64. Here's a video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_789845&feature=iv&src_vid=hDAhixO2t5w&v=ymBBQN45shA
Second, compare that to whichever you may have played of the last few Call of Duty games, or the Battlefield series. Doesn't really matter which one!
Can you say that the only thing that has advanced there is graphics?
The Game industry sucks
I honestly wonder if we might actually be getting close to a Triple-A collapse.
Most AAA games nowadays are pretty shitty, and there are hardly any games on consoles later than the PS2 that I enjoy. (Notable exceptions include Skyrim and GTA V, but I don't consider Valve an AAA company because of their work philosophy, which remains close to the "small teams" philosophy).I've never played GTA 4 so I can't say anything about that, but Skyrim makes me rage. Not because it's a bad game (I think it is "meh" game at best, considered on it's own), but because it was intended to be much better than what it turned out to be on release. There's so much cut content in it (like the dynamic Civil war quests) that was planed and partly coded into the game files but never completed in time for the release, and it wasn't even patched in later or made into new DLC, it was all buried and Bethesda pretended it never existed. Stuff that would have changed the whole game experience wasn't considered important enough, they didn't want to pay for few extra code monkeys since they blew all their budget on those neat auroras and ants on tree stumps and wind blowing leafs around (but only on few prefixed locations, what were you expecting, random enviromental effects?). Looking at the modding community and what they can do with the game system is amazing, but the vanilla game is nothing but bare bones of an RPG, if it even deserves to be called that. It's taking huge leap toward action genre and trends you see in FPS games, railroaded story with cutscenes with ocasional fight with unsurprising outcome (YOU WIN! CONGRATULATIONS! ARCHIVEMENT UNLOCKED!) that's intended to provide "interactivity" to the player. Sure, there's the free to explore world, but all the events and quests you find bring the same railroaded experience you saw in your last playthrough, no mater what you do differently. Unless you manage to break the game, that's allways fun to do.
This reminds me of the rant mode I went into when NPR has some guy on just singing the praises of Nirvana today. Nirvana is "the most influential alt rock band" the same way Harry Potter is "the most influential story of a mistreated or bored adolescent who goes on a fantastic adventure". Its literally true but its so full of shit at the same time.
After both of those works came out my positive experiences in the relevant areas, fantasy literature and non-mainstream music began to decline significantly.
The video game industry has gone downhill in the same sense. In the Golden Age of SciFi it was all about the grand ideas, and similarly for say, punk rock. Now pop punk and modern sci fi is all about relationship drama or mindless action sequences. See Battlestar and like, New Found Glory. The masses care about their irrelevant social dramas and brainless passive entertainment and so accessibility essentially translates to, as they say on the Codex, Decline.
Video games tend to fall into mindless action in order to be "accessible" although we have trivially simple casual games as well. And of course social games devolve into the kind of trivial social garbage that even Jane Austen would be disgusted by.
Indie games, like indie music, decline in a different way. Being focused on the dramas of elitist middle class white people in a way that was once the territory of english lit majors. "God, my game/book/song is so self referential and obscure!" "The minimalist geometry/corridor based space shooter I made is so artsy!"
You can claim all you want that making accessible media brings in new blood but the % of people who know who Clarke or Jello Biafra or Richard Bartle are has not increased, and similarly for their modern day equivalents.
(To OP)While there are some definite stinkers, and if you only look at those it looks terrible over all... honestly theres plenty of other variety out there as far as neat, actually good games go.
As for kickstarter, only really a few of the kickstarter games are out by now, so the verdict is not yet out on that batch (unless you just pick those few and judge the entirety of the large number of KS games by those).
In any case though, since you seem to think its all terrible...
(http://i.imgur.com/bRhdmYT.jpg)
This reminds me of the rant mode I went into when NPR has some guy on just singing the praises of Nirvana today. Nirvana is "the most influential alt rock band" the same way Harry Potter is "the most influential story of a mistreated or bored adolescent who goes on a fantastic adventure". Its literally true but its so full of shit at the same time.
After both of those works came out my positive experiences in the relevant areas, fantasy literature and non-mainstream music began to decline significantly.
The video game industry has gone downhill in the same sense. In the Golden Age of SciFi it was all about the grand ideas, and similarly for say, punk rock. Now pop punk and modern sci fi is all about relationship drama or mindless action sequences. See Battlestar and like, New Found Glory. The masses care about their irrelevant social dramas and brainless passive entertainment and so accessibility essentially translates to, as they say on the Codex, Decline.
Video games tend to fall into mindless action in order to be "accessible" although we have trivially simple casual games as well. And of course social games devolve into the kind of trivial social garbage that even Jane Austen would be disgusted by.
Indie games, like indie music, decline in a different way. Being focused on the dramas of elitist middle class white people in a way that was once the territory of english lit majors. "God, my game/book/song is so self referential and obscure!" "The minimalist geometry/corridor based space shooter I made is so artsy!"
You can claim all you want that making accessible media brings in new blood but the % of people who know who Clarke or Jello Biafra or Richard Bartle are has not increased, and similarly for their modern day equivalents.
I'm not sure if this is intentionally a caricature of the original topic, but congrats on a funny one either way.
For example, everyone holds up MoO2 as the best 4x ever in the history of ever. And maybe it was. But it was also a trainwreck in many ways - The AI was atrocious even on the hardest level with huge cheats. Race creation was so unbalanced it's hilarious (not just pre-patch creative, but so many abusable combinations that break the game) and so was ship creation. Diplomacy was (especially on the harder difficulties) basically non-existent. It was also micromanagement hell, I think I spent more time mindlessly queuing up buildings then anything else because auto-build was so dumb.
I think a lot of this is just nostalgia.Yep, this. Those OMGSOAWESOME classics were seen as amazingly good precisely because the alternatives were things like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Here's a Let's Play of that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm05sIMeRK4), to give you an idea of what an awful AAA video game REALLY looks like. And fun fact, that was sold for $50 in 1982. Or approximately $120 if you adjust for inflation.
Don't get me wrong, I hate dumbing down of games as much as the next guy, but it's very very easy to pretend old games were a lot better then they were.
For example, everyone holds up MoO2 as the best 4x ever in the history of ever. And maybe it was. But it was also a trainwreck in many ways - The AI was atrocious even on the hardest level with huge cheats. Race creation was so unbalanced it's hilarious (not just pre-patch creative, but so many abusable combinations that break the game) and so was ship creation. Diplomacy was (especially on the harder difficulties) basically non-existent. It was also micromanagement hell, I think I spent more time mindlessly queuing up buildings then anything else because auto-build was so dumb.
But nobody ever mentions any of that, it's just OMG SO GOOD. If the exact same game was released today (either with better graphics, or as an indie game to excuse the bad graphics) it would be torn to shreds and get, at best, low-middle reviews.
I think in the end, it's two steps forward, one step back... but it's a LOT easier to notice the one step back and miss the gradual improvements.
As far as developers making the same game over and over.... can you really blame them? Call of battlefield black ops 2033 sells 400 bajillion copies every time they release it. What's wrong with giving the people what they so obviously want?
I think that E.T game was developed in about a month by one guy. Quickly made to bring out along with the movie.
I honestly wonder if we might actually be getting close to a Triple-A collapse.I doubt it, because my 3rd paragraph. AAA's in general haven't been losing money [citation needed] and that's what needs to happen for bad companies to go bankrupt, which coincidentally might free some unutilized IP, like SMAC or Ogre Battle.
snipThis is Bethesda's MO now. I think they realized sometime during production or after release of Morrowind that they could release unfinished games as long as they made modding accessible.
I remember playing Game developer or whatever it was. (you run a game development company).Game Dev Tycoon iirc.
For the people saying only FPS have gotten worse:
- Diablo 3 (RPG) Metacritics user score: 3.9
- Simcity 2013 (Simulator) Metacritics user score 2.1
- Rome Total War 2 (Strategy) Metacritics user score 4.0
- Day One: Garry's Incident (Indie/RPG) Metacritics user score: 0.5
- Company of Heroes 2 (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 1.9
- Legends of Pegasus (Indie/Strategy) Metacritics user score: 1.6
- Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 2.1
- Star Trek The Video Game (Action) Metacritics user score: 2.2
- Jagged Alliance: Crossfire (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 3.7
- Postal 3 (3rd Person Shooter) Metacritics user score: 3.1
- Stronghold 3 (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 3.0
- Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic (Simulator) Metacritics user score: 2.8
- FIFA Manager 13 (Sports) Metacritics user score: 4.3
- Dungeons (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 4.5
Keep in mind that I plucked these off Metacritic in five minutes. Give me an hour and I could have ten times this list. All the games on this list were released within the last 5 years and are not obscure or niche games... Most gamers should have heard of at least 90% of these. None of them are FPS games.
For the people saying only FPS have gotten worse:Sturgeon's law. I bet you could find a fuckton of shitty games from the 80's. Bad games are released in every genre. Also, I'm fairly sure that Day One: Garry's Incident is an FPS. "indie" isn't a genre. Also note that most of these are AAA sequels, and at least three of them by EA.
- Diablo 3 (RPG) Metacritics user score: 3.9
- Simcity 2013 (Simulator) Metacritics user score 2.1
- Rome Total War 2 (Strategy) Metacritics user score 4.0
- Day One: Garry's Incident (Indie/RPG) Metacritics user score: 0.5
- Company of Heroes 2 (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 1.9
- Legends of Pegasus (Indie/Strategy) Metacritics user score: 1.6
- Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 2.1
- Star Trek The Video Game (Action) Metacritics user score: 2.2
- Jagged Alliance: Crossfire (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 3.7
- Postal 3 (3rd Person Shooter) Metacritics user score: 3.1
- Stronghold 3 (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 3.0
- Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic (Simulator) Metacritics user score: 2.8
- FIFA Manager 13 (Sports) Metacritics user score: 4.3
- Dungeons (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 4.5
Keep in mind that I plucked these off Metacritic in five minutes. Give me an hour and I could have ten times this list. All the games on this list were released within the last 5 years and are not obscure or niche games... Most gamers should have heard of at least 90% of these. None of them are FPS games.
Back in the day people could make a game and shovel it yto stores hoping for a quick buck because there were barely any reviewers and people would never know if "insert a game from AVGN" was good or trash. Nowdays with the internet it's far harder to sell a shiny box full of manute to people because i can just google "Legend of Pegasus" and i instantly know what;s wrong with it.
However look at that list again and note that most of those games are sequels of well known series.
Diablo 3 - A sequel of one of hte best hack and slashers out there... dumbed down and armed with one of them ost annoying DRMs ever devised by mankind.
SimCity - Same as above.
Rome Total War 2 - A GLITCH FEST full of stupid mechanics and bugs while being the nevews instalment of a WELL KNOWN and LIKED series.
What we see here is murdering of franchises.
For the people saying only FPS have gotten worse:
- Diablo 3 (RPG) Metacritics user score: 3.9
- Simcity 2013 (Simulator) Metacritics user score 2.1
- Rome Total War 2 (Strategy) Metacritics user score 4.0
- Day One: Garry's Incident (Indie/RPG) Metacritics user score: 0.5
- Company of Heroes 2 (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 1.9
- Legends of Pegasus (Indie/Strategy) Metacritics user score: 1.6
- Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 2.1
- Star Trek The Video Game (Action) Metacritics user score: 2.2
- Jagged Alliance: Crossfire (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 3.7
- Postal 3 (3rd Person Shooter) Metacritics user score: 3.1
- Stronghold 3 (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 3.0
- Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic (Simulator) Metacritics user score: 2.8
- FIFA Manager 13 (Sports) Metacritics user score: 4.3
- Dungeons (Strategy) Metacritics user score: 4.5
Keep in mind that I plucked these off Metacritic in five minutes. Give me an hour and I could have ten times this list. All the games on this list were released within the last 5 years and are not obscure or niche games... Most gamers should have heard of at least 90% of these. None of them are FPS games.
Nintendo's still making 3D Marios, and Sega 3D Sonics, Mirror's Edge 2 is coming, and Cloudbuilt released on Steam in the last couple days. There's not a huge number like there were during the N64 era, but they're still being made.
Third person action games also usually have varying amounts of platforming in them.
2d platformer puzzlers are getting beaten to death. Every single indie dev of note is making one, or has made one. I swear Incredipede has like 12 clones. When I see that as a game pitch, I am immediately turned off. Short of a theme I absolutely adore, there's very little that will get me to try them. If you don't believe what I'm saying, just go read the last 2 months of RPS articles and see how many 2d puzzle platformers you spot.No more than FPS games have been getting beaten to death for the last two decades, where everyone felt the need to push out a shitty FPS, or Adventure Games in the 90s, where they were easy enough to make that you could find dozens and dozens of different crappy adventure games in every single bargain bin (although I don't know anyone who ever tried most of them aside from me).
Isn't Project Spark like... an *engine* for creating 3d platformers, with lots of awesome 3d platformers released in it already?2d platformer puzzlers are getting beaten to death. Every single indie dev of note is making one, or has made one. I swear Incredipede has like 12 clones. When I see that as a game pitch, I am immediately turned off. Short of a theme I absolutely adore, there's very little that will get me to try them. If you don't believe what I'm saying, just go read the last 2 months of RPS articles and see how many 2d puzzle platformers you spot.*snip*
So this thread seems, to be, an equal mix between
Nostalgia Goggles: "Everything was better back in the day, because I've forgotten everything that sucks!"
Entitlement: "I don't understand why every game being made doesn't appeal to me, anymore! Damn these... these OTHER people getting games made for them!"
Blinders: "All the games today suck! What? Counter-examples? I've never played any of those, they don't count!"
Experience: "I've already *seen* this. I've already *done* this. Why isn't everything new and exciting any more?"
Changing Tastes: "I used to like this stuff - the fact that I don't any more clearly indicates something has changed about the games, not me! And no, I don't want to go back and play more of the retro stuff, I don't enjoy that anymore either, why does that matter?"
In my opinion, while there were some rough spots in the aughts, we're currently in a second golden age of gaming - I haven't seen this many awesome games coming out this quickly since the 90s. For all of the problems the game "industry" might be experiencing, there's a lot of good stuff coming out of it for anyone who cares to look, and doesn't approach things with the assumption they are going to be terrible.
Entitlement: "I don't understand why every game being made doesn't appeal to me, anymore! Damn these... these OTHER people getting games made for them!"
QuoteEntitlement: "I don't understand why every game being made doesn't appeal to me, anymore! Damn these... these OTHER people getting games made for them!"
No, I am with the entitled people.
I am tired of mass produced garbage, I want some quality products and not something so bland it will be inoffensively popular. Why should I be happy about this?
Ohh wait but entitlement is a bad thing because you say it is...
So this thread seems, to be, an equal mix between
Nostalgia Goggles: "Everything was better back in the day, because I've forgotten everything that sucks!"
Entitlement: "I don't understand why every game being made doesn't appeal to me, anymore! Damn these... these OTHER people getting games made for them!"
Blinders: "All the games today suck! What? Counter-examples? I've never played any of those, they don't count!"
Experience: "I've already *seen* this. I've already *done* this. Why isn't everything new and exciting any more?"
Changing Tastes: "I used to like this stuff - the fact that I don't any more clearly indicates something has changed about the games, not me! And no, I don't want to go back and play more of the retro stuff, I don't enjoy that anymore either, why does that matter?"
d
In my opinion, while there were some rough spots in the aughts, we're currently in a second golden age of gaming - I haven't seen this many awesome games coming out this quickly since the 90s. For all of the problems the game "industry" might be experiencing, there's a lot of good stuff coming out of it for anyone who cares to look, and doesn't approach things with the assumption they are going to be terrible.
Yes. This is perfectly clear from your post history. Glad you can be up front about it, anyway.QuoteEntitlement: "I don't understand why every game being made doesn't appeal to me, anymore! Damn these... these OTHER people getting games made for them!"
No, I am with the entitled people.
Ooh, someone made a whole list of video game themed fully general counterarguments. Great. Fabulous. Discussion isn't going to be ruined now, not at all. I swear I'm not being sarcastic. Okay I lied, I am.Yes, a discussion based on crappy image memes, vague analogies, cherry-picked irrelevancies, generalizations and nostalgia has been ruined! How could it have possible come to this?
You forgot me.Sorry, I was mostly referring to the arguments of the people supporting the threads premise, rather than those opposed.
It's a bad thing because you've done nothing to earn it.
You're "problem" isn't that good things aren't getting made anymore (they are) or even that things aren't being made anymore that target your demographic (they are), but rather that things *are* being made that target *someone else*.
I guess you don't understand what fully general counter argument means. When someone throws down a WHOLE LIST of the damn things, its already clear that a serious discussion would be a waste of time, at least with them.
QuoteIt's a bad thing because you've done nothing to earn it.
No one "deserves" anything GlyphGryph.
Me siding with being "entitled" is more of a "So, actually wanting to play something we like is terrible?"QuoteYou're "problem" isn't that good things aren't getting made anymore (they are) or even that things aren't being made anymore that target your demographic (they are), but rather that things *are* being made that target *someone else*.
How many I put it GlyphGryph...
My problem is I like Pizza... and a while ago I had it good because the only people who liked pizza was me and an audience who were Pizza Connoisseurs, so Pizzas were marketed towards an audience who generally tried a lot of pizza. Yet slowly over time people started to catch onto how good Pizza is.
Now everyone is eating pizza... but instead of making the pizzas with any flavor, they have to make it to sell to as many people as possible and be as easy to swallow as possible.
So Pizzas are now bland and mushy, because they are there to appeal to everyone instead of this select group... and I am not happy because I didn't grow up on bland pizza, I grew up on tasty pizza. So Bland doesn't cut it for me.
How many I put it GlyphGryph...
My problem is I like Pizza... and a while ago I had it good because the only people who liked pizza was me and an audience who were Pizza Connoisseurs, so Pizzas were marketed towards an audience who generally tried a lot of pizza. Yet slowly over time people started to catch onto how good Pizza is.
Now everyone is eating pizza... but instead of making the pizzas with any flavor, they have to make it to sell to as many people as possible and be as easy to swallow as possible.
So Pizzas are now bland and mushy, because they are there to appeal to everyone instead of this select group... and I am not happy because I didn't grow up on bland pizza, I grew up on tasty pizza. So Bland doesn't cut it for me.
Right, moving past the fact that this still just amounts to entitled whining, do you have any evidence it's even valid.
Any evidence, at all, that there are fewer interesting games ("high quality pizzas") being made today than there were... whenever?
Again, do you have an actual *argument*, or just a general desire to complain?
How many I put it GlyphGryph...
My problem is I like Pizza... and a while ago I had it good because the only people who liked pizza was me and an audience who were Pizza Connoisseurs, so Pizzas were marketed towards an audience who generally tried a lot of pizza. Yet slowly over time people started to catch onto how good Pizza is.
Now everyone is eating pizza... but instead of making the pizzas with any flavor, they have to make it to sell to as many people as possible and be as easy to swallow as possible.
So Pizzas are now bland and mushy, because they are there to appeal to everyone instead of this select group... and I am not happy because I didn't grow up on bland pizza, I grew up on tasty pizza. So Bland doesn't cut it for me.
A good, but ultimately non sequiter analogy. Videogames are literally better in every way, shape, and form than 20, 10, 5 years ago. In some ways videogames have been "dumbed down", but ultimately it's just that you've played it all before. Companies don't have to be innovative, their products are still excellent quality, especially to young gamers who aren't familiar with older games. What i'm trying to say is, the pizza is still tasty as shit, but you've had it so many times you can't eat any more.
EDIT: ninja'd
What i'm trying to say is, the pizza is still tasty as shit
-snip-You forgot me.Sorry, I was mostly referring to the arguments of the people supporting the threads premise, rather than those opposed.
It all boils down to opinion GryphGlyph since it cannot be "proven" either way.
"Entitled Whiners! Provide me with well thought out evidence I will just dismiss with my FGCAs!"Well, it's good to see your ability to make baseless claims applies to areas *other* than video games, I guess?
No.
Ask yourself why you have to post here. If we are just entitled whiners, why not just go play all those fun games out there that are being made these days. I for one, if there were tons of fabulous games to play, would be out there doing that, instead of arguing with people I clearly have no respect for.
since you've gotten to the point where you're apparently going to rely on "because reasons" as your ultimate justification, as if I'm the only one you're failing to convince that your views have any merit
it might be fun to see if I can put together a coherent and defensible argument to represent your point of view.
I read the thread - was there a singly actual argument being made about the "videogame industry" being any worse now than it was at some point in the past? Any evidence presented, any coherent arguments made? Because I just reread the thread (again) and I couldn't fine them. Certainly a lot of claims have been made, but the "it sucks" proponents seem to be a bit averse to mounting an actual concrete defense of those claims.
Want some advice on how to do that? Pick two years - 199x and 2013 would work, I imagine - and then establish a set of criteria by which you think things might have been "better" on the earlier date. Then cite some actual evidence that those claims were true - perhaps comparisons on the number of games released, or something, I don't know, I'm not the one making the claim, I don't have to find the evidence, and I don't even know what specific claims would be made anyway.
Then explain how the evidence presented supports the claims, and then we will respond by pointing out any potential flaws, and accepting the argument if the evidence is strong enough, agreeing with your claims. We may then dispute whether or not those claims are actually representative of the general critique offered by the OP, but that's another level of conversation there.
I'm sorry that you feel bored. I wrote this post primarily for me, you do not have to read it.
How many I put it GlyphGryph...
My problem is I like Pizza... and a while ago I had it good because the only people who liked pizza was me and an audience who were Pizza Connoisseurs, so Pizzas were marketed towards an audience who generally tried a lot of pizza. Yet slowly over time people started to catch onto how good Pizza is.
Now everyone is eating pizza... but instead of making the pizzas with any flavor, they have to make it to sell to as many people as possible and be as easy to swallow as possible.
So Pizzas are now bland and mushy, because they are there to appeal to everyone instead of this select group... and I am not happy because I didn't grow up on bland pizza, I grew up on tasty pizza. So Bland doesn't cut it for me.
A good, but ultimately non sequiter analogy. Videogames are literally better in every way, shape, and form than 20, 10, 5 years ago. In some ways videogames have been "dumbed down", but ultimately it's just that you've played it all before. Companies don't have to be innovative, their products are still excellent quality, especially to young gamers who aren't familiar with older games. What i'm trying to say is, the pizza is still tasty as shit, but you've had it so many times you can't eat any more.
EDIT: ninja'd
Don't think you know what non-sequiter means.
Video games are not in fact better in every way. They are shinier, but that's about it.
if you intend to tell me that games like the new Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, and Uncharted aren't better than the games back in the days of yore, your nostalgia is getting to you
How many I put it GlyphGryph...
My problem is I like Pizza... and a while ago I had it good because the only people who liked pizza was me and an audience who were Pizza Connoisseurs, so Pizzas were marketed towards an audience who generally tried a lot of pizza. Yet slowly over time people started to catch onto how good Pizza is.
Now everyone is eating pizza... but instead of making the pizzas with any flavor, they have to make it to sell to as many people as possible and be as easy to swallow as possible.
So Pizzas are now bland and mushy, because they are there to appeal to everyone instead of this select group... and I am not happy because I didn't grow up on bland pizza, I grew up on tasty pizza. So Bland doesn't cut it for me.
A good, but ultimately non sequiter analogy. Videogames are literally better in every way, shape, and form than 20, 10, 5 years ago. In some ways videogames have been "dumbed down", but ultimately it's just that you've played it all before. Companies don't have to be innovative, their products are still excellent quality, especially to young gamers who aren't familiar with older games. What i'm trying to say is, the pizza is still tasty as shit, but you've had it so many times you can't eat any more.
EDIT: ninja'd
Don't think you know what non-sequiter means.
Video games are not in fact better in every way. They are shinier, but that's about it.yourGlyph'sNeonivek's analogy is non-sensical, it doesn't apply to this situation in my opinion, and in the manner that he is implying that most videogames are just bland pieces of crap because companies attempt to appeal to a wider audience there is a disconnect between argument and outcome, therefore non-sequiter.
If you want to tell me that videogames in general aren't better, or theyre lacking innovation that's fine, but if you intend to tell me that games like the new Tomb Raider, The Last of Us, and Uncharted aren't better than the games back in the days of yore, your nostalgia is getting to you.
Naw I was just trying to explain my mindset Urist McScoopbeard.
That there is a link between "marketed for mass appeal" and "Less appeal" beyond it just not being for me.
I was going to add a line about there still being good pizza... but I didn't want to muddle what was supposed to be a jist.
I hate all those games. Like, hate. Poor examples to pick :P
Appealing to a wider audience is by definition making games more bland and samey. This is inescapable and if you don't understand why that is, your ignorance is getting to you.
Also to the naysayers of the Metacritics scores follow each series through:
Diablo 1: 8.7 released 1996
Diablo 2: 8.7 released 2000
Diablo 3: 3.9 released 2012
You'll find that with most series the same trend is followed.
Here's the problem, MoLAos. I can provide evidence for my beliefs and claims, pretty trivially. Do you want me to? That's a bit off topic, in my opinion, but I certainly can.
You can't do so for yours.
So why do you believe video games are worse today? It's clearly not a belief based on the evidence, evidence you indicate you've made no evidence to uncover despite how passionately you appear to hold your opinion.
Then again, the opposed argument I would make is pretty well supported by fairly obvious element, that being "The video game industry does not suck, as they still manage to turn out a number of high quality titles every year (I simply need to produce a list of high quality titles each year to support this, a much lower burden of evidence, admittedly, than the stance you are taking), and they are obviously not in decline because they are releasing more titles and making more money every year."
Before I bother to provide any of that evidence, I would like to make sure if evidence of reliable yearly output of quality titles is enough, in your opinion, to demonstrate that an industry does not suck, and if it's not enough, what criteria would you consider to be valid for determining whether or not an industry sucks?
The evidence my stance requires to be "true" is a good deal less than yours, on account of how I'm making a much less strong claim (not that the industry is better than it was in the 90s, or that it is worse, merely that it still produces quality products and therefore does not suck), but then, that's the benefit of deciding which claims to support after looking at the actual evidence.
Ronin:
It's relevant to what he actually posted, which was a comment about himself, so maybe you should read what I'm responding to before criticizing.
It's not my problem if you want to stand blindly by a viewpoint you can't find sufficient evidence to support.
Okay, so, it appears you don't actually understand what "evidence" means, but that's okay, we can work on this. It needs to be something that relevant, for one - posting the scores for three games in three different years isn't, on account of how there's a large number of games produced every year, and one can undoubtedly find high and low games from any year. It's a pretty blatant example of cherry-picking, and only supports the argument "bad games have been made recently" and "good games have been made in the past". This is something a lot of people feel passionately about, so I'm sure you can find an argument that is at least *relevant*, if not valid.
(Mind you, I thought the original Diablo was utter shite, but I'm willing to accept, for the purpose of argument, that the "quality" of a video game is independent of my personal opinion, and go by the metacritic scores. Is this acceptable as an assumption by other parties, or would you prefer a different one?)
Well, as long as we're exploring why Platonic Ideals of suck matter for a product whose quality is wholly subjective, I'll grab popcorn, too.
I'd say something, but I find that my opinions have already been stated, and that watching is more amusing.
So...
*grabs popcorn*
Possibly from all that vintage popcorn you had to buy.
Nobody's going to convince anybody of anything related to identity, under any circumstances.
As far as making some titles that don't suck, I would like to see the % of games made that are bad vs not be higher, as well as a control for the amount of money spent vs total titles as well as quality titles. I would accept a % value of good vs bad that was 5% lower now than then, merely because I don't consider that likely. I'd also suggest that we don't consider graphics. Which of course screws over most modern games that rely heavily on graphics for appeal. That might be hard to score though.
Having opinions that are easier to justify isn't a virtue.Having opinions that are justified is a virtue. The alternative is magical thinking, where things are true regardless of the reality. If you hold beliefs without justification, I'd consider that an anti-virtue, at least (a sin, perhaps?).
Metacritic scores are bad because of score inflation. I wouldn't accept that as evidence.Is there any metric you would accept?
As far as making some titles that don't suck, I would like to see the % of games made that are bad vs not be higher, as well as a control for the amount of money spent vs total titles as well as quality titles. I would accept a % value of good vs bad that was 5% lower now than then, merely because I don't consider that likely. I'd also suggest that we don't consider graphics. Which of course screws over most modern games that rely heavily on graphics for appeal. That might be hard to score though.Okay, so this reveals a significant underlying problem, and is why I'm glad I didn't go right to evidence. Why does "% good vs % bad" matter, to you or to me? We're not going to be playing every game that comes out every year, I imagine we're only going to be playing the good ones, why does it matter how many bad ones get released as long as "enough" good ones are?
If you consider "modern video games suck" to be a part of your identity, I... err... I might decide to back out of this conversation after all. I was under the impression we were arguing about reality, not religion, and I'd rather stay out of debates on the second. It suddenly makes a lot of the stuff you've said so far make a helluva a lot more sense, though.Nobody's going to convince anybody of anything related to identity, under any circumstances.
FTFY.
Y'know, I'd call a good measurement of suck to be cash invested vs. total sales, adjusted for inflation and GDP fluctuation. That would, I believe, let you know whether the industry as a whole is getting more efficient at providing the product the people want, which is about as an objective a measure of health as I can imagine for an entertainment industry. If the ratio goes down, it's decline -- the industry is getting worse at doing its job. If it goes up, it's ascension.
Now someone with more energy and will than me go crunch the numbers, plox :P
Y'know, I'd call a good measurement of suck to be cash invested vs. total sales, adjusted for inflation and GDP fluctuation. That would, I believe, let you know whether the industry as a whole is getting more efficient at providing the product the people want, which is about as an objective a measure of health as I can imagine for an entertainment industry. If the ratio goes down, it's decline -- the industry is getting worse at doing its job. If it goes up, it's ascension.
Now someone with more energy and will than me go crunch the numbers, plox :P
This is a terrible metric. Humans are not a monolith.
If you consider "modern video games suck" to be a part of your identity, I... err... I might decide to back out of this conversation after all. I was under the impression we were arguing about reality, not religion, and I'd rather stay out of debates on the second. It suddenly makes a lot of the stuff you've said so far make a helluva a lot more sense, though.Nobody's going to convince anybody of anything related to identity, under any circumstances.
FTFY.
Because I was getting quite excited about the possibility of finding a solid nook within an acceptable shared context, lying out the evidence, and discovering which of us was most likely to be correct based on those assumptions after analyzing the evidence, but if you consider this belief to be a part of your identity, I honestly don't see that happening.
This is a terrible metric. Humans are not a monolith.
I don't understand what this is supposed to communicate.
That's become pretty clear over the course of the thread.Are you sure the problem here is me? Does anyone else understand what he was trying to explain there, and could perhaps clarify for me? (If everyone else understands, and they can't explain it to me in a way to make me understand, yeah... it's me. If they don't understand, will you accept that the problem is you?)
If it helps any, the implied question behind Glyph's statement was "Would you clarify?" Which... I wouldn't mind m'self, since that's a pretty ambiguous statement, and I'm fairly sure Glyph's trouble is more with your method of communication than the concept you're trying to communicate.I don't understand what this is supposed to communicate.
That's become pretty clear over the course of the thread.
Nothing about my belief is "floating", in any way, shape, or form.
I believe the modern videogame industry does not suck, not because I want it to not suck, but because I would consider an industry to "suck", personally, when it is no longer capable of meeting my needs effectively - at the current time, enough games are produced each year that my needs are quite effectively met. In fact, many of my favorite games of all time have been produced relatively recently, providing evidence for an even stronger potential claim that the video game industry is better than it has been in the past... but while the evidence certainly exists, I don't think it's yet managed to become strong enough to base a firm belief around it, merely a strong suspicion.
In no way, shape, or form is the "state of the modern video game industry" a part of my identity. Apparently you not only do, but believe everyone else does too?
If it helps any, the implied question behind Glyph's statement was "Would you clarify?" Which... I wouldn't mind m'self, since that's a pretty ambiguous statement, and I'm fairly sure Glyph's trouble is more with your method of communication than the concept you're trying to communicate.I don't understand what this is supposed to communicate.
That's become pretty clear over the course of the thread.
Regardless, I don't think humans need to be a monolith (assuming such words mean roughly what I take them to) for the metric to give a decent idea of whether the industry is getting better or worse at doing its job. I'd be quite happy to see other metrics, though, if you or others would be willing to provide.
I liked pizza before it was buttered.
Also, I think this quest for nonexistent data seems misguided. You're better off thinking of specific mechanics prevalent in modern games that you believe make them worse, or other aspects that make you dislike their overall design aesthetics (not just graphical aesthetics here). Also also, I'd avoid all the condescension, yah? Like, good god Glyph, I'm sure you're peachy in person, but this thread is starting to give me liquid eyeball cancer from the belittling.
Fakeedit:ohgod4newreplies
No matter what 'evidence' you post someone will always dispute your methods. Case in point I used Metacritic User Scores and was told that this is not a good gauge of how 'good' a game is despite games being you know... A form of popular media with the entire point of being enjoyed ::). Nice counter-argument there to the scores... I guess we should give up having reviews altogether.
In fact in his last post, what he considers evidence is so subjective I don't understand how he can contain the cognitive dissonance in his mind without it physically melting from sheer illogic.
No matter what 'evidence' you post someone will always dispute your methods. Case in point I used Metacritic User Scores and was told that this is not a good gauge of how 'good' a game is despite games being you know... A form of popular media with the entire point of being enjoyed ::). Nice counter-argument there to the scores... I guess we should give up having reviews altogether.
Considering one of the arguments is that games have become "casualized" and made for the mainstream "masses", I would think that that is just evidence that games are better, since more people are enjoying them. Perhaps this "dumbing down" is making games better then?
I also think that GlyphGryph has made a number of valid observations, but some people have shifted their argument from "modern games are objectively worse" to "I am not a fan of modern games" (either that or they meant that to begin with but it wasn't very clear).
In fact in his last post, what he considers evidence is so subjective I don't understand how he can contain the cognitive dissonance in his mind without it physically melting from sheer illogic.
Most people appear to be quite capable of living with a rather significant amount of contradictory and inconsistent beliefs. The wikipedia page for cognitive dissonance lists strategies that are used to reduce cognitive dissonance, of which one is "Ignore/Deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs," but I think most people who hold multiple contradictory beliefs simply do not examine them, or hold the belief that if someone makes a claim, someone else has to provide evidence to prove it false (rather than the other way around), allowing them to hold multiple contradictory beliefs simply because they have never seen evidence disproving them. That, or they are incredibly gullible, but won't believe people that others that they trust have told them to be suspicious of.
Mind you, this is just a general observation of people in general, not of anyone here.
I wonder, both of us are being condescending, and I know I am, but I'm not sure Gryph is even aware of how ironic a lot of his posts are. Like me and neo are entitled, but then he posts his definition of a non-sucky game industry and its like, that's what we've been saying the whole time. Does that make him a better or worse person? Ah well.I mean this? Your first paragraph makes it clear we've clearly failed to communicate, since that's... not what I was arguing, at all. And your second example makes it clear that you still aren't actually arguing from the point of view you claim is hypocritical of me, since none of that is remotely relevant to that point.
As far as your question, MMS, crappy JRPG stuff, WoW Clones. Those are all symbols of decline. The essential end of Impressions city builders, the fact that Majesty has not had a real successor, and similarly for KoDP. All signs of Decline. Although Dominions 3 did finally get a sequel.
MoLAos, GlyphGryph are you just actively trolling each other at this point? Because I'm pretty sure at least one of you is, but I can't fucking figure out which one of you it is.
You've both pretty clearly made this personal and aren't even arguing your points anymore, you're just arguing that the other is wrong, incompetent, and generally a bad/stupid person. This applies to both of you. STAHPIT. The Toad has already paid a visit, and if you keep it up this thread is gone.
You know, you never actually argued that the industry was failing to produce enough games, now, to meet your requirement for good games, as opposed to before, when it used to.
If you had ever actually made that argument, man, this thread would have gone in a whole 'nother direction!
Or I missed it, in which case I will apologize for doing so and admit I was wrong to have dragged it in the direction it went in.
So.
a) Did you ever actually argue this, before now? Because I haven't seen anyone do so.
b) Is this acceptable as a shared starting point for moving forward?
So Twilight is better than Dune and a sign of making books better?
It doesn't actually mean anything more than certain bay12 members being really opinionated about the game industry. Which isn't much different from any large enough community.
Hey I am still on a high from not being the "villain" of the thread for once.
Yeah, opinions are so problematic aren't they.
Yeah, opinions are so problematic aren't they.
I mean the problem with the industry is the same now as it was the last time a thread like this was made, and the one before that etc.
Yeah, opinions are so problematic aren't they.
I mean the problem with the industry is the same now as it was the last time a thread like this was made, and the one before that etc.
Fresh blood comes in, holds similar opinions. The thread dies, most forget about it and go on. A new thread spikes a shovel in its corpse and looses its grip, Rambo hair blowing in the morning wind, ready for a new day.
It's not a big deal.
The idea that we can affect the game industry like this is humorous, so it's no surprise the problems are the same. I suspect most are simply here to vent, not interested in the work required to affect change (which is to say, somehow closing millions of wallets worldwide).
Also, to touch on indie games... the large number of platformers is largely due to how much easier it is for a small team (or one person) to make a platformer using the many existing engines than making a 3D or more complex game. The simple graphic styles are also typically a product of necessity, though many do like the pixel art style. I'd also say that's it's very possible for a game to be graphically unimpressive but still have a good aesthetic, and that games that try to look realistic typically appear dated in a few years (even as graphics advancement does slow down).I would also attribute some to nostalgia. I'm pretty sure I remember from when I was watching Indie Game: The Movie (Documentary about the development of Braid, Super Meat Boy, and Fez) and I'm pretty sure I remember at least the Meat Boy guys saying that they wanted to make the kind of games they would have fanboyed super hard over as kids.
Big listI have nnnnno idea what this is supposed to mean.
My evidence being that there's 12 pages of people that think arguing about whether they do or do not suck or eating imaginary popcorn is more fun than PLAYING games.
"Ronin was completely right and games are terrible".
My evidence being that there's 12 pages of people that think arguing about whether they do or do not suck or eating imaginary popcorn is more fun than PLAYING games.
My evidence being that there's 12 pages of people that think arguing about whether they do or do not suck or eating imaginary popcorn is more fun than PLAYING games.
That there are people willing to do that kind of arguing for pages and pages doesn't necessarily speak to whether they were enjoying it, so much as whether they were under the impression that it would be possible to "win" the argument which they had engaged in, and that doing so would have positive rather than negative consequences.
Your post indicates that you seem to be one of them.
My evidence being that there's 12 pages of people that think arguing about whether they do or do not suck or eating imaginary popcorn is more fun than PLAYING games.
That there are people willing to do that kind of arguing for pages and pages doesn't necessarily speak to whether they were enjoying it, so much as whether they were under the impression that it would be possible to "win" the argument which they had engaged in, and that doing so would have positive rather than negative consequences.
Your post indicates that you seem to be one of them.
That there are people willing to do that kind of arguing for pages and pages doesn't necessarily speak to whether they were enjoying it, so much as whether they were under the impression that it would be possible to "win" the argument which they had engaged in, and that doing so would have positive rather than negative consequences.It... doesn't even mean that. People have been willing to take some time off (if that -- it's a lot easier to play and type than it used to be. I know I was waiting for some turns to finish processing while I was typing some of th'stuff I threw in) from games to talk about them since games were a thing. Not because they want to "win" or anything. Just because they like talking about video games. I enjoy playing video games enough I'm willing to shoot the shit a 'lil in the down time, or while m'doing something else, y'know? And then there's other reasons, o'course.
My evidence being that there's 12 pages of people that think arguing about whether they do or do not suck or eating imaginary popcorn is more fun than PLAYING games.
That there are people willing to do that kind of arguing for pages and pages doesn't necessarily speak to whether they were enjoying it, so much as whether they were under the impression that it would be possible to "win" the argument which they had engaged in, and that doing so would have positive rather than negative consequences.
Your post indicates that you seem to be one of them.
RONIN'S LAW 8)!
You can't argue with internet laws...
We have a new game to discuss though. (http://storestteampowered.com/app/4411/)
Toady you can close this thread if you think it's causing more harm than good at this point.Ronin, we did discuss the state of modern gaming and concluded that it's not shit. #wow #whoa
I didn't start it to cause a shitstorm...
I really did just want to discuss the state of modern gaming.
I guess maybe it's just too contentious a topic to discuss.
There are a few genres that just DIED in the modern day.don't forget the RPGs
Heck even First Person Shooters that aren't Military shooters have suffered quite a bit, with Halo being sort of being the outlier (and it has become REALLY military shooter after the first game)
Real Time Strategies have been really struggling after Westwood just stopped being good at making them. I think Company of Heroes is like... the only one left.
We have a new game to discuss though. (http://storestteampowered.com/app/4411/)
holy absolute fuckery, gaben has delivered!
We have a new game to discuss though. (http://storestteampowered.com/app/4411/)
holy absolute fuckery, gaben has delivered!
Meh.
Am I the only one who really dislikes the half-life games?
We have a new game to discuss though. (http://storestteampowered.com/app/4411/)
holy absolute fuckery, gaben has delivered!
EDIT: April 1st. watch the fuck out,.
We have a new game to discuss though. (http://storestteampowered.com/app/4411/)
holy absolute fuckery, gaben has delivered!
Meh.
Am I the only one who really dislikes the half-life games?
There are a few genres that just DIED in the modern day.don't forget the RPGs
Heck even First Person Shooters that aren't Military shooters have suffered quite a bit, with Halo being sort of being the outlier (and it has become REALLY military shooter after the first game)
Real Time Strategies have been really struggling after Westwood just stopped being good at making them. I think Company of Heroes is like... the only one left.
Toady you can close this thread if you think it's causing more harm than good at this point.Ronin, we did discuss the state of modern gaming and concluded that it's not shit. #wow #whoa
I didn't start it to cause a shitstorm...
I really did just want to discuss the state of modern gaming.
I guess maybe it's just too contentious a topic to discuss.
There are a few genres that just DIED in the modern day.RTSes mostly morphed into MOBAs right.
Heck even First Person Shooters that aren't Military shooters have suffered quite a bit, with Halo being sort of being the outlier (and it has become REALLY military shooter after the first game)
Real Time Strategies have been really struggling after Westwood just stopped being good at making them. I think Company of Heroes is like... the only one left.
Also, Ronin, if you didn't want a shit storm, why did you use the words sucks and rant? That kind of language makes the Defenders of the Status Quo(TM) quite, well, defensive.
There are a few genres that just DIED in the modern day.RTSes mostly morphed into MOBAs right.
Heck even First Person Shooters that aren't Military shooters have suffered quite a bit, with Halo being sort of being the outlier (and it has become REALLY military shooter after the first game)
Real Time Strategies have been really struggling after Westwood just stopped being good at making them. I think Company of Heroes is like... the only one left.
I don't understand how people think RTSes are dead, i've got like 20 good ones in my steam library.
It's Ok by TODAY'S standard. Back in the day, it was the shit.We have a new game to discuss though. (http://storestteampowered.com/app/4411/)
holy absolute fuckery, gaben has delivered!
Meh.
Am I the only one who really dislikes the half-life games?
I find them to be thoroughly mediocre, even compared to their contemporaries. A good example of nostalgia glasses, imo.
It's Ok by TODAY'S standard. Back in the day, it was the shit.We have a new game to discuss though. (http://storestteampowered.com/app/4411/)
holy absolute fuckery, gaben has delivered!
Meh.
Am I the only one who really dislikes the half-life games?
I find them to be thoroughly mediocre, even compared to their contemporaries. A good example of nostalgia glasses, imo.
When it came out, Half-Life 2 was critically acclaimed and player adored. The physics, the graphics, the story: It was all fresh and new. And everything that wasn't new was done very well.
Those of us who played it when it first came out remember those times, and therefore still enjoy the game today, because we remember watching the tech-demo at E3 for the source engine with real-time model bending for non-actors (Things like mattresses), and seeing the in-game video-projection, seeing the awesome physics in action, and then finally playing the game ourselves, and just being wowed.
That's why it was a good game, and still is.
You need to look at it through the eyes of 2004, not 2014.
QuoteI don't understand how people think RTSes are dead, i've got like 20 good ones in my steam library.
I actually would like to know what these are. Since the last really good RTS I played was Tiberium Sun.
MAYBE Company of Heroes but that crashed on me because I was playing "too well". (I didn't just stop playing RTS games... just that... Red Alert 3 isn't... that good)
This is honestly the first time I ever heard anyone say that Half-life's story was particularly good.No, it was pretty great at the time. It was one of the more successful attempts at taking the basic FPS gameplay and putting in an overarching story which was more than a simple excuse plot. It was built around the story itself more than the FPS gameplay. Of course, 'at the time' means a decade ago; a lot of aspects don't hold up quite as well today. If HL3 was simply as good as HL2, it would be considered a major flop by today's standards.
I always thought it was basically an excuse plot meant to be understood but not contemplated.