Do you still enjoy games

[Anton P. Nym]

Depends. I think rather than quality going down, it's the EXPECTATIONS that go up.

Bingo.

You've got a bunch of folks complaining that games aren't as good as they were in the 16-bit era, when they first got into gaming, but that's because they're expecting modern games to blow them away in the same way 16-bit games blew them away... and that's an impossible demand, not because the creativity is gone but because the jump in experience from "no video game" to "16-bit game" is vastly greater than "16-bit game" to "next-gen game". It's expecting the current generation games to so surpass previous generation games that they'd cease to be video games as we knew them, in order to recapture the same level of novelty.

That's an awful lot to demand. Me, I think it'd be nice if this happened but I don't expect that kind of quantum leap any time soon.

And, frankly, I think that such a dramatic change would alienate as many of the grumbling nostalgists as it would placate... because some of them would be put off by the differences from their prior experience and reject it as being too different with little or no trial of the new genre, and others would find the change genuinely not to their tastes.

I'd like to close this with a quote from a friend of mine:

The common factor in all your problems is you.

...which, in this context, I'd like to reinterpret as:

If everything stinks and looks like crap these days, you may have your head up your arse.

Oddly enough, he's still a friend.

-- Steve

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Depends. I think rather than quality going down, it's the EXPECTATIONS that go up.

Bingo.

You've got a bunch of folks complaining that games aren't as good as they were in the 16-bit era, when they first got into gaming, but that's because they're expecting modern games to blow them away in the same way 16-bit games blew them away... and that's an impossible demand, not because the creativity is gone but because the jump in experience from "no video game" to "16-bit game" is vastly greater than "16-bit game" to "next-gen game". It's expecting the current generation games to so surpass previous generation games that they'd cease to be video games as we knew them, in order to recapture the same level of novelty.

That's an awful lot to demand. Me, I think it'd be nice if this happened but I don't expect that kind of quantum leap any time soon.

And, frankly, I think that such a dramatic change would alienate as many of the grumbling nostalgists as it would placate... because some of them would be put off by the differences from their prior experience and reject it as being too different with little or no trial of the new genre, and others would find the change genuinely not to their tastes.

I'd like to close this with a quote from a friend of mine:

The common factor in all your problems is you.

...which, in this context, I'd like to reinterpret as:

If everything stinks and looks like crap these days, you may have your head up your arse.

Oddly enough, he's still a friend.

-- Steve

Quake 2 to Quake 4
and Clive barkers undying to Jericho pretty much sums up the main trend in gaming today, rushed, bland, pretty but shallow casual gaming.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Quake 2 to Quake 4

STFU, noob. Marathon2 >> Doom2 > Quake2

(Do I have to put a sarcasm tag here?)

and Clive barkers undying to Jericho pretty much sums up the main trend in gaming today, rushed, bland, pretty but shallow casual gaming.

Just like ET and Custer's Revenge, then. Or all those Breakout clones and Tetris knock-offs.

Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be. (And never was.)

-- Steve

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Quake 2 to Quake 4

STFU, noob. Marathon2 >> Doom2 > Quake2

(Do I have to put a sarcasm tag here?)

and Clive barkers undying to Jericho pretty much sums up the main trend in gaming today, rushed, bland, pretty but shallow casual gaming.

Just like ET and Custer's Revenge, then. Or all those Breakout clones and Tetris knock-offs.

Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be. (And never was.)

-- Steve

(just so you can comprehend what I am saying, I am focusing on designs and non frustrating or boring game play mechanics)
rrriiiiiiiiggghhhhtttt lets try it like this Q4 has AI,upgradeable weapons over time(but becuse of the non alt fire anture of them they are bland and overly realistic) and of coarse graphic and physics shininess, quake 2 has better level design more weapons, a working inventory/item mechanic, my point is its not a gun and run corridor game with corridor wider than average corridors.

And everyone can pretty much agree Jericho is a joke.

Or better yet comapre JK2-3 and Q4 Raven devs all these games and Q4 got poo'd out the wrong end of the quality shaft.

I have played Q2 and Clive bakers undying recently,I am a gamer who pours over designs and mechanics and then compares them industry wide, what I come up with time after tiem is fewer and fewer good ideas,a lot of rehashing and a "lesser content" casual focus, if you can not comprehend what the casual focus is doing to gaming then perhaps you are the boob...er..noob....hehehehehe

I'll admit I am a game nazi, hell I have even shave off my wool and donned the magical black paint and tinfoil hat of the jaded sheeple because gaming once had a less corporate zombie focus and since 00 its gotten worse and worse broken port after broken port, rushed game after rushed game the truth is there, but if you see it you will find its not dirt you are happily rolling around in.


And what dose marathon 2 have to do with how Q2 compares to Q4? I can say Duke 3D and blood are better than both M2 and Q2, hell most of the mid and late 90s FPSs were great better than most of all of the 0X FPSs, the trade off to the fun weapons and solid level of old is physics, graphics and AI(altho looking at Bioshock,Alpha Prime and Jericho some AI has not left the mid 90s).

Todays shooters have 3 core design themes realism in physics and weapons, small bland level design compare that to to leaning to FUN FPSs of the 90s of coarse there has been a change in things you'd be blind not to see it.

 

[NickyT]

I don't know about the rest of you but I like to look at the good of a game instead of the bad I mean honestly you're all saying that nowadays video games are bland but really your not necessarily right or wrong I find you're just being closed minded. Not open to anything new. Just because it's different doesn't make it bad it makes it different. I think all of your standards are extremely high now and your being way to serious, if you like the game awesome if you don't like it stop playing it and quit complaining.

 

[Credge]

Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be. (And never was.)

-- Steve

Except for the fact that I'd rather buy a new sidescroller game than, say, your run of the mill FPS. This is coming from a guy who has competed in FPS for about 8 years :|. Hell, I'd rather play Serious Sam (1 or 2) over any of the other popular FPS out there. In fact, I do. Even more hell, I'd rather play coop Quake 1 or 2 over Serious Sam. In fact, I do.

It's got nothing to do with nostalgia. It's got everything to do with good game design. There is a reason Starcraft is still played the way it is some 10 years later. Because it's a good game.

You won't see people still playing Halo 3 10 years down the line much like 99% of the games of this gen will be forgotten. That 1%, though, still won't stand up to the test of time as that 1% will have borish and out dated gameplay. There's a reason why people buy tons of games; they don't last long. That is the biggest issue.

Take, for example, any stellar game on the PSX or SNES. What is it about those games that still make us talk about them? Why can we >>>download<<< them to play on our brand spanking new consoles? The reason is simple:

They are good.

Games now, instead of being something you can enjoy in short spurts, long spurts, 10 years from now, immediately, etc... they have been reduced to about 8 hour sit downs that you beat once and toss away. Instead of having actual replay value (I.E. the ability to want to play the game again) they put in things like "FIND ALL THE SECRET CHARMS TO UNLOCK A SCREEN SAVER!"

To be honest, I can't name a single single player game that has had any replay value to it that was made in the past 8 or so years. However, I can name more than a dozen games made 8 or more years ago that have insane single player replayability.

I don't know about the rest of you but I like to look at the good of a game instead of the bad I mean honestly you're all saying that nowadays video games are bland but really your not necessarily right or wrong I find you're just being closed minded. Not open to anything new. Just because it's different doesn't make it bad it makes it different. I think all of your standards are extremely high now and your being way to serious, if you like the game awesome if you don't like it stop playing it and quit complaining.

It's the fact that there isn't really anything different between Halo 1 and Halo 3. It's not about being closed or open minded; that's irrelevant. Compare the differences of Halo 1 to Halo 3 and then compare them to Mario 1 to Mario 3. This is the sort of stuff that a lot of us are complaining about. Lack of innovation coupled with the industries want to make sequels using formulas that were just 'ok' to begin with has saturated us with nothing but lackluster games that offer nothing more than the same crap we've been shoveled since the PS2/X-Box was released.

This is the only industry where change is considered bad. Can you imagine if cars only looked smoother and didn't perform or handle any differently than they did in the mid-50's? The same thing is going on here.

 

[NickyT]

Personally I really enjoy at least 4 or 5 games released every year and I don't give a crap what a bunch of nerdy dorks have to say about everything sucking, and if you think games were better in the SNES era you are a retard.

Ah, another intelligent, meaningful post from a new user to the forum. Oh how I love the foolishness of this forum is graced with an intellect such as yours, telling all us 'nerdy dorks' how wrong we are with eloquence and wit. You know, if this forum was full of people like you, it would be a much, much better place. Seriously, you are the pinnacle of gamerkind and I am SO glad to have been blessed by your presence.

Or...

Piss off until you've got something sensible to say, dumbass.

Yes If you are one of those people that think everything sucks now and can't possibly be as good as the glorius heyday of videogames that was the 16 bit era then you are a nerdy dork I hate to break it to you, but it's true. And yes if this forum had more people like me in it rather than the nerd/dork pack mentality that rip on Halo 3 because it isn't Half Life or some such dumb logic then it would be a better place. I'm sorry if I hurt your tender feelings with my choice of words, and try to get some sun the light in your mom's basement isn't good for your complexion.

THANK YOU!!!!!

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I don't know about the rest of you but I like to look at the good of a game instead of the bad I mean honestly you're all saying that nowadays video games are bland but really your not necessarily right or wrong I find you're just being closed minded. Not open to anything new. Just because it's different doesn't make it bad it makes it different. I think all of your standards are extremely high now and your being way to serious, if you like the game awesome if you don't like it stop playing it and quit complaining.

No no don;t get me wrong I might lean to believing all new games suck but thats not the case there are good new game titles they are just few and far between, the game industry has issues with rushed bland cash in projects but there are still good games to be found but its mostly outside the supposed AAA titles the gems are found.


Credge
APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Of course things are worse today than you remember before '00... because you're forgetting all the crapware that came out before '00. There were tons of broken ports, knock-offs, bad tie-ins, and just plain bad games in the aulden days. However, the crap games died off and were forgotten. (Save for a few so egregious that they became notorious.)

Sure, there was more room for indie developers back in the time when good AI consisted of having your NPCs able to find and use doors... but I can't say that the percentage of good indie games was higher back then. Let's just focus on the Commodore 64, for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commodore_64_games:_A-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commodore_64_games:_N-Z

It had its dogs too, but who remembers "A View to a Kill", "Infidel", "Strip Poker 2", or "Thomas the Tank Engine: the Video Game" these days? They remember "Impossible Mission" and "Archon" instead.

Today's generation of games has its issues, but to claim that they're dramatically worse than previous generations is surrendering judgement to nostalgia.

-- Steve

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Of course things are worse today than you remember before '00... because you're forgetting all the crapware that came out before '00. There were tons of broken ports, knock-offs, bad tie-ins, and just plain bad games in the aulden days. However, the crap games died off and were forgotten. (Save for a few so egregious that they became notorious.)

Sure, there was more room for indie developers back in the time when good AI consisted of having your NPCs able to find and use doors... but I can't say that the percentage of good indie games was higher back then. Let's just focus on the Commodore 64, for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commodore_64_games:_A-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Commodore_64_games:_N-Z

It had its dogs too, but who remembers "A View to a Kill", "Infidel", "Strip Poker 2", or "Thomas the Tank Engine: the Video Game" these days? They remember "Impossible Mission" and "Archon" instead.

Today's generation of games has its issues, but to claim that they're dramatically worse than previous generations is surrendering judgement to nostalgia.

-- Steve

Oh please look at the amount of good AAA titles back then and today most of the todays AAA titles are watered down casaul crapfests.

There has always been more bad and mediocre games than good, but today there are less good titles.

 

[second only to The One]

a game can have a bad story, strange physics, or just abnormal reactions from the AI and as long as it is fun i still will play the game, i dont see why i shouldnt get it. i never want to go back and beat assassin's creed again... but... i do go back to levels just to attack civilians. i cant say i really like halo but i go back once in a while to try and finish legendary. i think that playing a game less lets someone appreciate it more, which is probably why portal was so good: it was short and sweet.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

OK, maybe this is a dumb question, but if games are getting worse all the time and nothing will ever make you as happy as you were in the days of 8- and 16- bit gaming, why not get out while the getting's good? And I'm not saying this to be snotty. Here's a comparison. At one point in my life I was heavily involved in the slam poetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry_slam] scene, both as a competitor and as a audience member. But after a while, I kept hearing the same old love poem, the same old anti-war poem, the same old road-trip poem, the same old We Are All God poem, the same old anti-corporate poem, the same old...you get the picture, right? So I did this really weird thing...

I quit going to poetry slams.

If something does not make you happy, doesn't it make sense to go do something else? If I get to the point where I feel like I did then, that every new game I play is one I've played before and better, then I will quit playing. You'll see all my games and stuff up on Craigslist at bargain prices.

In all seriousness, if I were as bitter about games as some of you sound, I'd never pick up another game again. So I guess the question then becomes not, "Do you still enjoy games?" but rather, "If you honestly feel that way about games, why are you still playing?"

 

[Joeshie]

Oh please look at the amount of good AAA titles back then and today most of the todays AAA titles are watered down casaul crapfests.

There has always been more bad and mediocre games than good, but today there are less good titles.

I disagree. I think there are just as many great games released today as there were in the past.

I think you should take those rose-tinted glasses off.

 

[stompy]

I disagree. I think there are just as many great games released today as there were in the past.

I think you should take those rose-tinted glasses off.

I agree. I like games made now. Sure, some of them are hyped to no end, but if you get past that, then you'll find some real gems.

Maybe ZippyDSMlee means that the AAA titles now-a-days are hyped more than yesteryear?

- A procrastinator

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I disagree. I think there are just as many great games released today as there were in the past.

I think you should take those rose-tinted glasses off.

I agree. I like games made now. Sure, some of them are hyped to no end, but if you get past that, then you'll find some real gems.

Maybe ZippyDSMlee means that the AAA titles now-a-days are hyped more than yesteryear?

- A procrastinator

Getting past the hype of finding out the over hyped crapfest is not so bad or finding gems beyond the mainstream hyped titles?
^^

 

[Weaver]

Maybe we're all just becoming old and bitter.