Is the 'Competent Game' the new 'Perfect Game'?

Recommended Videos

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
xXxJessicaxXx said:
Gamers are getting a lot harder to impress.
It is not that gamers are getting harder to impress. Is it that studios want to impress more (non-)gamers.

It is all about making games as beautiful and possible and as easy as possible. Because if a game is too difficult, it doesn't sell well. And if the game isn't pretty, we just ignore it.

Games have become a serious business... Very unfortunate I may say, looking at the result.

*points at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3*
 

Veldt Falsetto

New member
Dec 26, 2009
1,458
0
0
urprobablyright said:
(dragons in skyrim are freaking gimmicks)

Lemme just take that and urgh yep here I go

(Boss fights are gimmicks)
(Guns are gimmicks)
(Jumping is a gimmick)
(Free control is a gimmick)
(Text is a gimmick)

...yeah, no. Dragons aren't gimmicks, if they are then any other core mechanic can be, especially boss fights. "Oh I don't like Final Fantasy VII because that thing you fight at the end called Sephiroth, yeah it's a gimmick"

"Mario? Nah Bowser is such a gimmick, it takes away from the fun of the game"

I mean what? That just doesn't stand up...it may not be the greatest thing ever as some people say but gimmick it ain't.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Personally, I say we need game critics instead of game reviewers. Game reviewers state their opinion on the game, and often their scores and opinions are biased by how much they enjoyed said game. It is what they're paid to do.
Game critics, on the other hand, should analyse the game and point out what it does wrong and right, and in the end score it based off that. Something like CoD (Random, easy example. Don't hate me) would get a 9/10 from reviewers, who loved playing it and thus scored it well, whilst from a critic it would likely get a 5 or a 6 due to the problems it has, and its shortfallings too.
Really, we need more people like a serious version of Yahtzee. People who find out what is wrong with the game and laud it for everyone to see and know. Whilst CoD is fun and entertaining to many, it is by no means a remarkable game in either its playstyle nor its technological side, and very little has changed from previous titles. Looking at that stuff, CoD deserves a near perfect score from a reviewer who likes the game, but a mediocre score from a critic who does not let whether or not they enjoyed the game and like the series affect their scores near as much as a reviewer.
Reviewer looks past the mediocre graphics, the terrible lag some people (But maybe not them) experienced, the fact that nothing new has been done and much is the same, the fact that the story is merely mediocre; not brilliant, and the various other problems that CoD as a series has.
Critic plays the game, looks past themselves enjoying it and notices that the graphics are only mediocre, pays attention to the fact that many experience bad lag issues, notices that the game is nearly the same as its predecessor - and its predecessor before that, looks past the action packed campaign gameplay to notice the story is really meh, and tries to pay attention to as many details in the game as they can.
When each gives their score, the critics will end up lower than the reviewers, as the looked past how much they enjoyed it, and saw all of its faults, pointing them out. The reviewer didn't care about these faults and thought others wouldn't either.
This is why I prefer critics to reviewers - I can't trust a single word the reviewer has to say, and honestly don't care if they enjoyed the game or not, only what problems it has, and how it works, leaving me to make my own opinion with as much info as possible.
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
OutrageousEmu said:
As for easier, the term is "not as badly designed". What you're reffering to as challenge was actually design flaws left in because the developer didn't care to straighten it out.
They are two sides to that story. If you are purely talking about graphics, then there are two things I would like to mention:

Graphics vs. Aesthetics: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

The Uncanny Valley: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-uncanny-valley

Graphics isn't everything. Yes, we have come a long way and things have improved (mostly). But now we have become to obsessed with graphical perfection.
 

theonecookie

New member
Apr 14, 2009
352
0
0
Wait what did you even read your own post , you call new games nothing but dull rehashes and then point to metal gear solid , soul caliber and Gran Turismo as your aces in the hole are you high

Metal gear solid was nothing more than an updated metal gear soul caliber was nothing more than a well done arcade fighter and gran turismo was just a slightly more realistic version of racing games that all ready excited

so in reality they where about as innovative as my left thumb so take your head from up your own arse take off the rose tinted specs and come up with a better argument
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
I'm not sure even graphics escapes the unimpressed gamer.

Let's take Final Fantasy 13 for example if that had come out around the time 7 was released we would have gone mental about it just because of the cutscenes.

These days we are chasing a new high and developers are finding it hard to figure out exactly what that is.

I have a lot of respect for Skyrim because you can see how much effort went into it. Meanwhile DA2 despite being on equal graphical ground and has arguably deeper characters seems like a cash in to me because of the overused, bland environments and over simplified gameplay.

I think it's a balance of depth of gameplay and attractive graphics (not necessarily realistic) that gaming is looking for. Funnily enough its indie games like Bastion that are getting this right.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
I agree with you to the extent that a lot of review scores have really lost the plot. When it gets to the stage that people will think you're bashing on a game for giving it an 8/10 then you have a problem, and at times it seems that some reviewers feel obligated to give a game a good score out of 10 even if it didn't light their fire, just because its a big AAA title and people will get all pissy if they don't.

That said however, I'm getting a little sick of the 'this game is too similar to it's predecessor/doesn't completely revolutionize the genre, therefore it is bad and it is stagnating the industry.' Because that is just not true. I don't really need to go into detail about this because Eclectic Dreck said it all for me. The only thing I can add is that I'd rather have an industry full of annual sequels and almost no innovation, than an industry where developers think they have to turn their formula upside down for each new game and make a lot of unnecessary changes, lest someone call them out for 'lack of innovation'. Constantly respond to feedback and look for ways to improve the formula yes, but change just for the sake of change is almost never a good idea, because those changes will be pointless, poorly thought out, and will get in the way of the stuff that was already good.

Final thought... Interesting that when people talk about 'lack of innovation' in the games industry, they choose to talk about franchises like CoD, and yet steer clear of franchises like Mario, which have been around for even longer and changed even less.
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
OutrageousEmu said:
Like I just said - we were always obsessed with graphical perfection. Anyone who tells you differently is talking out their ass.

The pursuit of graphical perfection has been THE single biggest driver behind the creation of a new console in all of gamings history. Always. Even back with the creation of the Atari 2600 - its one advantage over the Magnavox was its graphics. In fact, the fact that not as many ;people are clamouring for a new generation now shows that people actually care about graphics LESS now than they ever have before in gaming.
Interesting. Though I am not getting that impression.

OutrageousEmu said:
And how in the hell can you hold up Modern Warfare 3 as part of this so called "obsession with graphics"? That game couldn't care less about graphics - its got a version on the freaking Wii, for fucks sake.
Not specifically about graphics, but about "games have become a serious business". Which doesn't always turn out well (for gamers):

*points at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (again)*

But it ain't just MW3. It's just the most recent and most popular example.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
I know what you mean and even though they say "don't fix what's not broken" it really doesn't excuse reused plots, themes, gameplay mechanics etc. Sometimes I can see it being acceptable like for example if they were remaking a game like Gradius 3 after years of games coming and going that had moved on. It seems though, the whole game rating system is broken to begin with. It's not just that same-ol' is capable of a perfect/ near perfect score but the fact that it's expected for a game to earn an 8 or higher if it doesn't want to be considered a failure.
 

4RM3D

New member
May 10, 2011
1,738
0
0
OutrageousEmu said:
So, in the face of factual evidence, you are saying "My gut feels different".
It isn't a fact (yet) unless you have a few sources to support your hypothesis. And even then it can be disputed. But I won't go as far as that. However, a source confirming what you have said, is still preferable.

OutrageousEmu said:
Let me get this straight. Modern Warfare 3 does not demonstrate this so called "obsession with graphics" (which is not new in the slightest as I have proved), and yet it is still the best exaple of this so called "serious business thing", which an "obsession with graphics" comprises half of.
That serious business goes much further than graphics alone. I just specifically mentioned graphics and the lack of difficulty of games. I could go into great lengths, but I don't have the time now, because I have to attend to a Christmas party. And it would go way beyond the scope of this thread anyway.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
Revolutionaryloser said:
xXxJessicaxXx said:
I'm not sure even graphics escapes the unimpressed gamer.

Let's take Final Fantasy 13 for example if that had come out around the time 7 was released we would have gone mental about it just because of the cutscenes.

These days we are chasing a new high and developers are finding it hard to figure out exactly what that is.

I have a lot of respect for Skyrim because you can see how much effort went into it. Meanwhile DA2 despite being on equal graphical ground and has arguably deeper characters seems like a cash in to me because of the overused, bland environments and over simplified gameplay.

I think it's a balance of depth of gameplay and attractive graphics (not necessarily realistic) that gaming is looking for. Funnily enough its indie games like Bastion that are getting this right.
I think it was understandable to be awed by sweet cutscenes when even the cutscenes of some games were rendered like shit. Besides, when FFIX came out it boasted 1 WHOLE HOUR of cutscenes spread through 4 disks and an average 40 hours of gameplay. Compare it to the stupid amount of cutscenes we get today and which aren't really that impressive compared to the actual graphics in the games we are playing and the question arises. Why do we have to sit through this boring shit? Why won't you let me play the bloody game?
That was kind of my point. What impressed us then doesn't impress us anymore. It's going to take something else.
 

Magnicon

New member
Nov 25, 2011
94
0
0
Major companies in all forms of entertainment realized a long time ago that they could dumb things down, saving time and money, and the masses will gobble it up if its marketed well.

When the masses showed that they have little to no standards, it showed the companies that this lack of quality was ok, and it started a cycle of quality getting lower every year.

The result are games like Skyrim.

Skyrim is basically a 10 year old game with 1 year old graphics. They have added nothing new of value to the series since Morrowind, and in fact have REMOVED some things.

Virtually every single feature in the game appears to be unfinished, like they just decided at some point that it was enough to be base line functional so why bother spending the time and money to finish it.

They then spent a ridiculous amount of money marketing the game, and what do we get? A generic run of the mill TES game thats touted like its the greatest video game of all time. (ive actually seen many people call it that)

I see some people saying, "if Morrowind was great, and they just shined that up a bit, doesn't that make Skyrim great?". The answer is an enormous NO. That doesn't make it a BAD game, just not a GREAT game.

I've put over 120 hours into Skyrim personally, so it obviously has to be a reasonably good game, but that is a really far cry from the chants of "innovative", "revolutionary", "game changing", and "greatest game ever" that I've been seeing everywhere.

When I judge entertainment, I look at the big picture. I look at the mistakes that were made, and wonder why they let those get through. I look at the unfinished features and wonder why they thought that was good enough.

"Without a doubt, this has been our most ambitious project ever," said Todd Howard, Game Director on Skyrim. "After over three years of development, we're finally excited to get it into everyone's hands."

Think about what that means. Really take a look at what Skyrim actually added and subtracted from the series, and hold that up to "most ambitious project ever".

In my book, it falls extremely short, and thats on par with how the major studios work now. They make grandiose claims that build hype, but the final product simply doesn't hold up anymore.

One final thing to note. They announced more then a month before the release that they were already working on two DLC's. Take from that what you will.
 

Syzygy23

New member
Sep 20, 2010
824
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
I think that the word "iteration" gets a lot of bad press these days. Lots of people like to point to some ancient title and laud how innovative some feature was or how original some idea is while, at the same time, decrying some game for simply "copying" from another. Yes, there are plenty of games that are unashamedly rip-offs of another franchise but that does not mean a game that iterates is somehow unworthy of praise.

No human endeavor, not even any idea has even been constructed in a vacuum - nothing we have ever done is utterly unique. What people do is not innovate. People iterate. We take old ideas and we make them better. This is never more obvious than when we look at video games. Innovation, it turns out, is just a word we use when something iterates and we are unable to determine the original form.

Consider short list of games in the first two posts here: Skyrim, Crysis, Gran Turismo, Soul Calibur, and Metal Gear Solid. The latter group were lauded for innovation without a trace of irony or sarcasm to be found. Consider the following, then:

Crysis: Notable for being a technological marvel. Considering the FPS has, since it's inception, often been concerned with doing this exact thing and further considering that the game presented literally no technology not seen in some other game, this most notable of point becomes quite meaningless. Beyond that, you were given a first person shooter that gave the player a set of abilities that could alter the basic dynamic from run and gun or hide and shoot. This exact set of abilities exists, in some form or another, in dozens of prior games. Mechanically it is obviously iterative at best and narrative it is positively derivative.

Gran Turismo: A game notable for being an early example of simulation as game mechanic. Beyond that, it is a racing game of which there were hundreds of examples before. A racing game with a slightly more rigorous application of physics is hardly a quantum leap or an idea born of whole cloth.

Soul Calibur: Functionally, the game is essentially Tekken played with weapons. The weapons themselves serve little purpose beyond helping justify differences in rate of attack and range.

Metal Gear Solid: This one is painfully obvious, really. Mechanically, it is simply a translation of the old Metal Gear games to 3d and metal gear itself had little to distinguish it from any of a dozen NES games. Narratively, the game simply went the Custscene route which was not new in games by any stretch and, considering movies have been around awhile, aren't new in concept.

Iteration is not a shameful thing; it is how progress is made. Iteration is what eventually lead to the idea that "Racing Game" might refer to something like Mario Kart or something that gives a valiant attempt at simulation like Gran Turismo. And, sometimes, iteration does nothing but further refine what already was. Skyrim is, simply put, an Elder Scrolls game. While there are things about the game I wish was better (that isn't worth going into here), the game made significant strides in constructing a believable and interesting world even if the basic formula remained the same. And I might not understand why people would so eagerly await a game like Starcraft 2 when it, to my untrained eye, seems identical to a game made fifteen or so years ago, having played another RTS at length I can understand that a relatively minor tweak can utterly change how the game plays out.

Sure, not all iteration is a step forward. But sometimes the market simply doesn't want a step forward. We can all say we want Call of Duty to be different but when Activision makes a few hundred million dollars in a week on the latest version, it makes it seem silly to demand it be different. Sure, I want it to be something different but the sales tell me that most people want the last thing but more of it.

And, to be honest, there is something to be said for being able to make the best version of a product with little variation. Reach represents the best Halo as far as I'm concerned even though it rarely strays from the formula. Mechwarrior 4 is my favorite iteration of Giant Walking Tank combat game in spite of all the blasphemy. Human Revolution might not edge out Deus Ex in terms of my favorite, but if I'm being honest I think Human Revolution is the better game.
TL;DR

Ecclesiastes 1:9

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

This was a known fact over 2000 years ago, maybe longer. We need to get over it.