Never stops being fun does it?

[hecticpicnic]

No, its just that you grew up in the 90s, at the moment we are going through a rough patch in the history in gaming but if you look around theres a fair few strange/fun games and a bunch of great ones on steam.(sorry for my aweful spelling im just to lazy to take the time to re-do it)
i would say that square-enix games and modern JRPGs.

 

[randomsix]

A game that becomes fun for some players by making other players angry is doing something very wrong.

So that's most games you've just summed up there.

WoW, CS, hell, Halo: Reach?

You point out those games as if they should be above reproach. I do not believe that assumption is correct.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

A game that becomes fun for some players by making other players angry is doing something very wrong.

So that's most games you've just summed up there.

WoW, CS, hell, Halo: Reach?

You point out those games as if they should be above reproach. I do not believe that assumption is correct.

What does above reproach mean? If it means what I think it means, that doesn't basically change anything.

 

[lostzombies.com]

Team killing (people who deserve it) and explosions never stops being fun either.

 

[Nmil-ek]

That's just nostalgia

Way to dismiss an entire argument with a 3-word cliché.

It also doesn't stand up under cross scrutiny. After digging out the PS2, I played through plenty of other games I considered good in the past too, they didn't stand up to my evolving expectations, yet those three did. Liking a game because of 'nostalgia' is a lie.

My main point was whether or not gaming was going through a sort of 'mid-life crisis', where instead of looking for something worthwhile it has instead opted for the pretty face with little behind it.

Games nowadays seem to be less able to be games that can be played by yourself and still provide solid entertainment without the secondary input of other players or by pandering entirely to a player's magpie-esque instinct to hone in on something shiny/colourful.

A final analogy: Games don't seem like a full course meal anymore that sates your appetite anymore, rather constant snacking that'll keep you going through the day but will leave you constantly hungry.

Way to dismiss the second half of what I've said. Liking a game because of "nostalgia" is a lie because there are some games you've changed your mind on? That's no argument.

Your entire argument did not have anything to do with modern gaming but rather with how much you love FF8 and FF9. You could sum it up in a paragraph.

The truth is, graphics are important. Have you seen Uncharted 2? It's beautiful, beautiful not because of the "hey, lol, this totally looks like real life" thing, but because the designers had the technology to craft the world into what they wanted to. No 8-bit, 16-bit, 64-bit can visually stand up to that, because progress is a constant thing.

Okay, you know, probably the nostalgia thing wasn't enough to sum up what you've said. I forgot to add the "games sold out to mainstream" thing.

Oh, and the multiplayer thing you mentioned. How is Left 4 Dead any less deep than any game of the 8-bit era. It's a simplistic game, yet it contains so much soul and thought put into it that I wouldn't call it an appetizer.

While games did lose some of the charm that they had while being relatively new, the complexity and substance is all, all but gone.

It's a zombie shooter just a zombie shooter it's about deep as Doom. Yeah Farcry 2 looks damned gorgeous akk those textures and mapping and dimensions to bring the world to life know the difference between that and say baldurs gate? Several millions, or hell lets use a better comparison another damned fps Deus EX or System Shock back in the day when tech was limited writing and art staff were far more previlent and had much more respect and imput in the industry.

A game like CoD MW2 if it was on the late 90s era graphics would have been laughed out of the godamned room really what else did it have going for it? Story? nope, character? nope, length? nope, unique mehcanics? nope, strong narrative or dialogue? nope. etc.

Semi-fun multiplayer and a marketing budget more than most games entire development cycles.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Oblivion.

4,000 hours (on a fucking CONSOLE, no less, without access to mods) and I'm STILL enjoying trying different classes and playstyles. Or even just old playstyles.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

[
It's a zombie shooter just a zombie shooter it's about deep as Doom. Yeah Farcry 2 looks damned gorgeous akk those textures and mapping and dimensions to bring the world to life know the difference between that and say baldurs gate? Several millions, or hell lets use a better comparison another damned fps Deus EX or System Shock back in the day when tech was limited writing and art staff were far more previlent and had much more respect and imput in the industry.

A game like CoD MW2 if it was on the late 90s era graphics would have been laughed out of the godamned room really what else did it have going for it? Story? nope, character? nope, length? nope, unique mehcanics? nope, strong narrative or dialogue? nope. etc.

Semi-fun multiplayer and a marketing budget more than most games entire development cycles.

You obviously haven't played L4D if you write it down as being another "zombie shooter".

Also, a game like MW2 has gameplay going for it, and some very good gameplay indeed. And while the story might suck and suck hard, it's very well scripted, presented and played out.

But, yeah, Modern Warfare 2 is not exactly "deep" and, as such, mot the best example here. Left 4 Dead is deep. It's not Doom. It's not Far Cry.

 

[randomsix]

A game that becomes fun for some players by making other players angry is doing something very wrong.

So that's most games you've just summed up there.

WoW, CS, hell, Halo: Reach?

You point out those games as if they should be above reproach. I do not believe that assumption is correct.

What does above reproach mean? If it means what I think it means, that doesn't basically change anything.

You bring up those games in a way that implies that to say something is wrong with them is absurd, and I do not agree with that. I take umbrage with Halo: Reach especially because the franchise started out campaign oriented, but since discovering Xbox Live, the campaign has only really been there to introduce new mechanics and weapons for multiplayer and justify the price tag.

You also imply that it's absurd that I think something is wrong with most (I assume you mean modern) games. I disagree with that as well.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

A game that becomes fun for some players by making other players angry is doing something very wrong.

So that's most games you've just summed up there.

WoW, CS, hell, Halo: Reach?

You point out those games as if they should be above reproach. I do not believe that assumption is correct.

What does above reproach mean? If it means what I think it means, that doesn't basically change anything.

You bring up those games in a way that implies that to say something is wrong with them is absurd, and I do not agree with that. I take umbrage with Halo: Reach especially because the franchise started out campaign oriented, but since discovering Xbox Live, the campaign has only really been there to introduce new mechanics and weapons for multiplayer and justify the price tag.

You also imply that it's absurd that I think something is wrong with most (I assume you mean modern) games. I disagree with that as well.

But it was you who faulted those games in the first place. I don't think that a game that makes one person feel good because he can ridicule others is bad, because that's pretty much how humanity works.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

I can see where your coming from, Modern Warfare 2 stopped being fun because it was un-balanced and too pretty.

But you'll find Half-Life and Deus Ex more fun because more focus was put on fair gameplay and story than making it look nice.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I feel the same way, but I'm pretty sure I'm just growing up.

The video game industry has simply stagnated. They're bound by financial pressures to constantly produce the exact same stuff over and over again. It was fun the first five or six times, but now I'm just checked out - and that's on me and my obnoxious "growth as a person".

It would be fantastic if the industry were growing with me, evolving and challenging me as a gamer with every subsequent release. But they aren't interested in taking those kinds of risks to please a relatively small, out-going market. They're happy to cash in on the younger generation of up-and-coming gamers.

It's not all bad, though. I can still find the occasional gem, and I can still go back and play through some of the classics that originally spoke to me as a gamer. It's just a little depressing when I think about what they could be doing with today's technology. A game with FF13's graphics and Planescape: Torment's storytelling/aesthetic? Jesus...

 

[randomsix]

A game that becomes fun for some players by making other players angry is doing something very wrong.

So that's most games you've just summed up there.

WoW, CS, hell, Halo: Reach?

You point out those games as if they should be above reproach. I do not believe that assumption is correct.

What does above reproach mean? If it means what I think it means, that doesn't basically change anything.

You bring up those games in a way that implies that to say something is wrong with them is absurd, and I do not agree with that. I take umbrage with Halo: Reach especially because the franchise started out campaign oriented, but since discovering Xbox Live, the campaign has only really been there to introduce new mechanics and weapons for multiplayer and justify the price tag.

You also imply that it's absurd that I think something is wrong with most (I assume you mean modern) games. I disagree with that as well.

But it was you who faulted those games in the first place. I don't think that a game that makes one person feel good because he can ridicule others is bad, because that's pretty much how humanity works.

I'm not sure what you mean with your first sentence.

And if that's how you feel about games, I hope you never become a developer, because your games would suck. You are essentially saying that it's OK for a game to provide a crappy experience for one player as long as someone else can get some lulz out of it. Think about the implications of that.

Ans humanity hasn't worked the way you think it does since society was invented, no matter what your experience with certain online FPS communities may make you think.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Most of my favorite games of all time are fairly recent ones. Fallout 3, Saints Row 2, Red Dead Redemption, Final Fantasy XII and the Katamari games.

The oldest game I'd put in my top 10 (at #2) is Castlevania:SOTN.

 

[Moonmover]

Every year since the early 80's has seen hundreds upon hundreds of shitty, shitty, shallow, shitty video games be released, many of which were marketed primarily by the quality of their graphics. Every year has also seen just a bare little few games that are truely great.

This year has been no different. Neither was the year FFX came out.

Go pick up some random games with the same copyright year as FFX at a useg game store and see how they hold up.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

I grew up on Doom and Quake and even the original Warcrafts. I can still go back to them and have fun if I want to. A lot of the reason I don't play games over again unless they have different paths you can take is simply because as soon as I start playing, I remember everything that happened in the game and it sort of kills the fun if you know what's coming around just about every corner. There are still some games that are just damned fun no matter what. Like the time I played L4D2 (which I had beaten several times) with a friend of mine and played Ellis and decided to totally get into his character. I unleashed my inner redneck and used mainly shotguns (I normally use the sniper rifle) and had a blast. Some games are just plain good if you can let yourself go and just get immersed in the game.

 

[badgersprite]

Well, a lot of games today will generally have less staying power because there are, in most cases, many other sources you can turn to for a similar experience. Or, at the very least, if an experience was original and seems like it could be a classic, rival developers can imitate it far more quickly and saturate the market with similar experiences. That kind of blurs the cultural memory somewhat.

I'm not saying games today are worse or less original. Not by any measure. I'm just saying that, in a few years time, going back to play CoD4 (which I adored, and which changed my opinion of military shooters completely) might not feel as exciting as picking up a type of game they don't make anymore. That's simply because, in hindsight, it will probably be indistinct from its sequels, rival franchises like Bad Company, and every other FPS which heavily borrows elements from it in the next few years.

That's why I find going back to games like Oddworld, Monkey Island, or even Psychonauts far more interesting and rewarding than to a game from a few years ago. There's really nothing I've played in recent memory that competes with any of those games, if only because their mechanics and styles are outdated. That means my memory of them is way sharper. They seem more distinct, because there aren't a slew of clones on my shelf that offer the same experience. Hence, they have more staying power.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Most of my favorite games of all time are fairly recent ones. Fallout 3, Saints Row 2, Red Dead Redemption, Final Fantasy XII and the Katamari games.

The oldest game I'd put in my top 10 (at #2) is Castlevania:SOTN.

I'm just the opposite. Nothing post-PS2 makes my top five.