do you mean games with an A rating?Shycte said:
to answer question, yes i like the way games are evolving
Are games going in the right direction?
- Thread starter SmilingKitsune
- Start date
Recommended Videos
to answer question, yes i like the way games are evolving
We need a variety of different games. The worst thing that the games industry can do is all make the same sort of games and all go after the same narrow audience.
There is nothing wrong with games like Pac-Man and Tetris other than that they are easy to make and widely available. The games industry, as it is, can't exist only making games like this! 2d point-n-click adventure games also suffer from being "too easy" to make meaning that many professional teams do not see them as being worth making. These sort of experiences are like the base of the pyramid of games. Without them there may not be a market for more complicated game as they teach people game literacy and show them how games can be fun. Wii sports is this sort of game.
Another example. Would we have had ICO and SotC for the PS2 if there wasn't a Tomb Raider on the PS1? There is still room for Tomb Raider games after ICO even though some players might have moved on.
If you waste too much time bashing games like Halo and Gears then you may be ignoring the fact that the thriving ecosystem that these games have created may well lead to a game that's more to your taste being made that will sit on "top of the pyramid". But, If the base of the pyramid isn't broad then not as much can be built on the top. If all you can build on top of Halo and Gears is another bland shooter with another pulp sci-fi theme then games as a whole are poorer than if more varied games were in the middle of the pyramid. Variety is important, so, in my opinion, the direction of the game industry should be more directions.
There is nothing wrong with games like Pac-Man and Tetris other than that they are easy to make and widely available. The games industry, as it is, can't exist only making games like this! 2d point-n-click adventure games also suffer from being "too easy" to make meaning that many professional teams do not see them as being worth making. These sort of experiences are like the base of the pyramid of games. Without them there may not be a market for more complicated game as they teach people game literacy and show them how games can be fun. Wii sports is this sort of game.
Another example. Would we have had ICO and SotC for the PS2 if there wasn't a Tomb Raider on the PS1? There is still room for Tomb Raider games after ICO even though some players might have moved on.
If you waste too much time bashing games like Halo and Gears then you may be ignoring the fact that the thriving ecosystem that these games have created may well lead to a game that's more to your taste being made that will sit on "top of the pyramid". But, If the base of the pyramid isn't broad then not as much can be built on the top. If all you can build on top of Halo and Gears is another bland shooter with another pulp sci-fi theme then games as a whole are poorer than if more varied games were in the middle of the pyramid. Variety is important, so, in my opinion, the direction of the game industry should be more directions.
Of course it's a matter of opinion. The OP just wanted to know what we all think of the current trends in gaming.Skalman said:
On topic: I'm a little tired of 'grim realism' that so many games are striving for these days. I'm also tired of developers touting improved graphics as a reason their game is better. If they focused on just making things fun, or even silly, instead of on how much dirt they can get to collect on Lara Croft's tush then I think the world would be a better place. Give me Timesplitters over any other shooter and I'll be happy.
I'm all for realism as long as it's done right. There's a fine line between fun realistic and boring realistic. I simply can't stand seeing something if I think "well that obviously wouldn't have happened in real life" (same goes for most movies) if the game is a serious one, such as Far Cry, CoD etc.Nigh Invulnerable said:
Chosen parts are to be realistic, such as basic laws of physics and ballistics when using guns. For example a shotgun blast won't send you flying no matter how close you stand, and that thin wooden door won't stop a 5.56 round (in most cases)
also If I'm going 120 mph in a big fucking truck, that small pine tree won't stop my car (*ahem* GTA *ahem*)
Such things just gets me frustrated.
Slightly unrelated: I loved the movie "Shoot 'Em Up" however, because it was just too much.
I personally think that games are going in the right direction. I think though, that the Casual games should stay casual games and the serious games should stay for the serious. I'm tired of companies making these big games that are designed for casual gamers to play aswell, be one or the other, not both.
I think the emerssion in games right now is awesome, however I don't like when the realism and emerssion comes at the price of game play. I would also like to see games become challenging again. I find that since FPS's have been moving more to Consoles, the difficulty has been cut down alot to fit that market.
I think the emerssion in games right now is awesome, however I don't like when the realism and emerssion comes at the price of game play. I would also like to see games become challenging again. I find that since FPS's have been moving more to Consoles, the difficulty has been cut down alot to fit that market.
I have a love/hate situation based on the evolution of gaming.
One is the fact that games are getting larger and much more detailed then your average Pac-Man Game. On the other hand, Games are becoming less attractive for hardcore gamers, like myself, where games are becoming easier to the point that you can beat them in a day. Though there are games today that actually put up a challenge such as Fallout 3, Where the game developers give you both a large world to explore that's difficult and beautiful, all that in one game box.
Unfortunately we have to sort out all the games that are distasteful.(short, buggy, outdated, and/or basically bad clones)Only pray and hope that hope that we get another game designer such as Sid Meier(Pirates), Bill Roper (Most of Blizzards Godlike games), and John Carmack(Doom Series) to come along our way and create another classic game that sets standerds in the gaming community.
One is the fact that games are getting larger and much more detailed then your average Pac-Man Game. On the other hand, Games are becoming less attractive for hardcore gamers, like myself, where games are becoming easier to the point that you can beat them in a day. Though there are games today that actually put up a challenge such as Fallout 3, Where the game developers give you both a large world to explore that's difficult and beautiful, all that in one game box.
Unfortunately we have to sort out all the games that are distasteful.(short, buggy, outdated, and/or basically bad clones)Only pray and hope that hope that we get another game designer such as Sid Meier(Pirates), Bill Roper (Most of Blizzards Godlike games), and John Carmack(Doom Series) to come along our way and create another classic game that sets standerds in the gaming community.
they aren't. sure there are some games, but there isn't that spark anymore that we used to have back in the day of like the SNES. developers were imaginative, creative, and pushed the limits of the console constantly. it was to the point where almost every time a game was released by a notable developer (squaresoft, nintendo, sega as examples) it would almost reinvent the genre of that game. games such as super mario world, sonic the hedgehog 2, seiken densetsu 3, secret of mana, link to the past were always redefining everything. what do we have now? the best games according to people now are like killzone and MGS4 where they don't just borrow aspects of some games, the almost rip off games. even games by big game developers aren't always good anymore. look what happened to sonic and donkey kong.
The last game I can think of that took gaming in the right direction was the original Bionic Commando. :[
I don't like the corporatizing of the industry, shoveling out shit to make profit, I'm looking at you EA.
Never understood the whole "sacrificing fun for realism" argument. Some games and themes lend themselves better to a setting grounded in reality, some don't. POORLY RECREATING reality is far different than "sacrificing fun" for realism.Sylocat said:
But then, I grew up playing games like Rainbow Six, so I enjoy the motes of realism a video game can bring to the table.
Sonic's not a victim of gaming evolving he's a victim of a development studio who don't know when to stop and are oblivious to the requests of the fans.BUG.exe said:
Also as I said before games not being as fresh and new today isn't because developers have no imagination it's because so much has now already been done, look at music or film, new genres aren't being created on a daily basis there either.
Unfortunatly they kind of do, games today are so expensive to develop that they really do have to sell well for the devs to make any kind of profit, what you're saying is true though,Low Frost said:
I thought LittleBigPlanet was one of the freshest ideas of last year yet it didn't sell as well as many thought it would, whereas tried and true formulas such as COD:WaW sold like hot cakes, doesn't really give developers much incentive to take a risk and try something new.