PercyBoleyn said:
Bullshit. Where's modern gaming's answer to the Infinity Engine series, Monkey Island, Chrono Trigger, Prince of Persia, Sid Meyer's Civilization 3, Mech Warrior, Resident Evil, C&C Red Alert, Duke Nukem 3D, Dungeon Keeper, Populous, Total Anihilation, StarCraft, Warcraft, Grim Fandanngo? And that's just off the top of my head.
The decline in quality of gaming is especially noticeable in the RPG and Shooter genre. How do you go from Half Life, Doom, P:T and BG to the current trend of copying whatever CoD does and calling it a day?
Dude, did you forget that there were so many clones of Doom that the word "doom clone" became its own genre? There were more "Doom clones" then there have been CoD clones, if only because games back then were so cheap to make compared to today.
As for good modern day shooters: Bioshock, STALKER, The Half-Life/Portal metaseries, TF2, Borderlands, CS:GO Just to name a handful, and lets not forget other games in different genres such as The Witcher, Dark/Demon souls, Amnesia, just off of the top of my head.
As for how we get from Doom to CoD..... its easy..... instead of making games who had little to no story, and whose maps were basically giant mazes that send you looking for cardkeys just so you could get into another room of enemies who had little to no justification for exciting beyond "they exist for you to kill them", game makers started to focus more on plot, and giving your actions some sort of meaning.
PercyBoleyn said:
As I've told you before, whilst making money was a goal it wasn't the primary goal. Developers were more concerned with creating a great game than making the next multi million dollar "success" story.
Remember, back then budgets were fairly small. It's funny how, even with the hardware, software and budget limitations at the time developers still managed to create amazing games whereas today we've got games with a budget of upwards to three hundred million dollars that are nothing more than rehashes or attempts at copying whatever the FOTM is.
You mean like how back in the day there were tons of doom clones, and BG clones, copying those games which were the FOTM back then?
Also, having a more limited budget, only means that game devs focused more on how to conserve their budget, so they could make as much profit as possible.
PercyBoleyn said:
Morrowind was a game about exploration. You were basically left to your own devices for the majority of the story. I don't remember caves being as repetitive as you describe them, in fact they were usually complex and filled with goodies. I think you're confusing Morrowind with Skyrim here. The only legimitimate complaint against it would be the combat system which was indeed shitty.
Actually, no, I am defiantly thinking of Morrowind.
Most of the caves and ruins were pretty linear, and the NPCs were mostly dead NPCs that walked back and forth between two places and had the same generic dialog as everyone else.
If anything skyrim's dungeons have more diversity then Morrowind's and skyrim's NPCs, instead of walking between two points over and over, walk between 5-6 points over and over, and have their own dialog.
I would defiantly say that in terms of dungeons, and the vast majority of NPCs, Skyrim has IMPROVED over Morrowind.
PercyBoleyn said:
I disagree. I found Morrowind to be a much more complex and engaging experience than any of the other Elder Scrolls. You just need the right mindset to play it. Some people might not enjoy it's style and that's fine because there were games back then that catered to their needs as well.
Lol, the right mindset...... that's rich.
I love games that give you free exploration of everything, which is why I prefer skyrim over Morrowind, because exploring was far better, and far more rewarding.
PercyBoleyn said:
No, the difference between post DA:O and pre DA:O is EA. They basically shat on Bioware and the Bioware label. The "change in audience" as you put it oversimplifies the impact EA had on Bioware. Bioware became a division of EA immediately after the purchase happened. Post 2008 there was no Bioware, just EA masquerading as it.
And who are you to determine what "real" Bioware is? ohh right..... no one.
PercyBoleyn said:
There is a noticeable difference between the complexity of, say, Mass Effect, which was a simple game to begin with, and Mass Effect 2. I have no problem appealing to a different audience. The thing is, EA didn't try to appeal to a different audience, they basically just gutted everything that made Bioware games great in the past and hoped for the best.
Yes there was a noticeable difference between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2
Mass effect 2 had
-A far better skill system
-Shooter mechanics that worked instead of the "I can stand in one spot and never die" mechanics ME1 had.
-A cover system that WORKED
-Considerably less repetitive, and far more detailed, locations
amongst other things
PercyBoleyn said:
Is that why EA marketted ME2 as a hardcore RPG for the RPG crowd whilst omitting the fact that it was basically a badly made TPS? The same thing happened with Dragon Age 2. Also, what possible audience could EA be targetting the new casual Bioware games at? The casual crowd doesn't care, they're looking for something that you can just pick up, play for a few minutes then stop. The hardcore crowd certainly doesn't care, the things that appealed to them were simplified to hell and back. Who were they trying to actually appeal to then?
I would say Me2 was a more fun TPS then say Gears of War was.
Also, considering that tons of people still buy their games, and tons of people have little to no problem with them, apparently people DO care.