What happened to the good games!?

[sgtshock]

COD4 was one of the games that did look the same in almost every bloody way, but pulled it off so much better that I actually considered it good, in fact great. Other games (in every genre) I find innovative are games like Gears of War (shooter), Jak & Daxter (adventure?), Kingdom Hearts (Action RPG), FFVII (JRPG), Mirror's Edge (action + parkour) and many others. They all have in common that they do significant changes or invent new ways of gameplay that gives a little variation, and that's all I'm asking for (mostly). What is so horrible is that 90% of all games are ripoffs of these kind of games,usually done very bad,
again.

When you complain that 90% of games are unoriginal ripoffs now, are you implying that in times past, almost all games were original and creative? The past few years have seen a slew of original titles (Bioshock, Mass Effect, Braid, Mirror's Edge, and Assasin's Creed to name a few). You can't honsetly expect a majority of games to take risks when they cost so much money to make.

It may seem like there used to be more original games coming out years ago, but in reality there was just as high a Creative:Ripoff ratio as today. Remember, all of your favorite old games probably came out over a wide spectrum of time.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

COD4 was one of the games that did look the same in almost every bloody way, but pulled it off so much better that I actually considered it good, in fact great. Other games (in every genre) I find innovative are games like Gears of War (shooter), Jak & Daxter (adventure?), Kingdom Hearts (Action RPG), FFVII (JRPG), Mirror's Edge (action + parkour) and many others. They all have in common that they do significant changes or invent new ways of gameplay that gives a little variation, and that's all I'm asking for (mostly). What is so horrible is that 90% of all games are ripoffs of these kind of games,usually done very bad,
again.

When you complain that 90% of games are unoriginal ripoffs now, are you implying that in times past, almost all games were original and creative? The past few years have seen a slew of original titles (Bioshock, Mass Effect, Braid, Mirror's Edge, and Assasin's Creed to name a few). You can't honsetly expect a majority of games to take risks when they cost so much money to make.

It may seem like there used to be more original games coming out years ago, but in reality there was just as high a Creative:Ripoff ratio as today. Remember, all of your favorite old games probably came out over a wide spectrum of time.

Okay, you got me there with my hands up, I expect too much of the developers, but I believe that if they aren't planning on learning from their mistakes, they can fuck off, cause then they're horrible at their job. Video games are made for the consumers, not the producers. If you can't afford to make good games, then leave the game to the real professionals, like SquareEnix and Ubisoft. Although, with that attitude of mine, there won't be any developers left. But what I expect is that good games will be a reward, and bad games are a lesson to developers for future reference. But many developers do the same mistake, and that's what really boggles my mind. Mirror's Edge is an example of a failed experiment. It's not a bad game in itself, the concept was great and innovative, but they didn't do it right the first time unfortunately. If they make another game with the same concept, but better gameplay, I will love them for it. But if they keep releasing games just as bad, I will hire chimps to fling poo at them.

 

[Citrus]

Please, game developers, please... Stop assuming that making games open-world is always a good decision.

I'm looking at you, Ubisoft.

 

[Sewblon]

I basically agree with you but other mediums do this crap too, TV abuses reality TV and films abuse romantic comedies.

 

[Booze Zombie]

It seems that the blame for good games not being sold goes to the simple fact that worse games seem have bigger advertising budgets, which basically can be summarized as: "I can hardly play a good game if I don't even know it exists."

 

[Alphavillain]

Videogames are like movies nowadays: franchises, formulas. They're popcorn events with joysticks tacked on.

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

Was there any originality back in the 8-bit era?
I recall many franchises back then as well.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Videogames are like movies nowadays: franchises, formulas. They're popcorn events with joysticks tacked on.

A guy with a Mario avatar talking about franchises? Oh the delicious irony.

 

[Alphavillain]

Was there any originality back in the 8-bit era?
I recall many franchises back then as well.

It goes further than that now. Videogames really try to be like films. They're cinematic, which means a lot of money is invested in them. Developing a game engine alone can take 18 months, which means paying professional people salaries for 18 months. And the more money invested in something means the safer it has to be. One major failed game for virtually any developer nowadays and they go under.

 

[Alphavillain]

Videogames are like movies nowadays: franchises, formulas. They're popcorn events with joysticks tacked on.

A guy with a Mario avatar talking about franchises? Oh the delicious irony.

Yeah, you got me there!

 

[Sweet Potato Vines]

Please, game developers, please... Stop assuming that making games open-world is always a good decision.

I'm looking at you, Ubisoft.

Seconded. The problem with Ubisoft open-ended games (I.E Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2) is that it's just the same crap over and over and over again. Assassin's Creed followed the same fourmula every freaking mission, Get mission, ride a pony, go to city, climb buildings, do the same activities like every other mission, watch a cutscene, assassinate some guy, more cutscenes.

At least Far Cry 2 was a little more generic, though most (if not all) missions required blowing something up. At least I was able to finish far cry 2 after, like, three months. I got Assassin's Creed a Year ago and I still can't finish it, it is just so boring.

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

Was there any originality back in the 8-bit era?
I recall many franchises back then as well.

It goes further than that now. Videogames really try to be like films. They're cinematic, which means a lot of money is invested in them. Developing a game engine alone can take 18 months, which means paying professional people salaries for 18 months. And the more money invested in something means the safer it has to be. One major failed game for virtually any developer nowadays and they go under.

You really didn't answer my question. How many almost identical side-scrolling action/platformers were made back then in the days when developers were so small a single failure could cause bankrupcy?

 

[Alphavillain]

Was there any originality back in the 8-bit era?
I recall many franchises back then as well.

It goes further than that now. Videogames really try to be like films. They're cinematic, which means a lot of money is invested in them. Developing a game engine alone can take 18 months, which means paying professional people salaries for 18 months. And the more money invested in something means the safer it has to be. One major failed game for virtually any developer nowadays and they go under.

You really didn't answer my question. How many almost identical side-scrolling action/platformers were made back then in the days when developers were so small a single failure could cause bankrupcy?

So why are we having this thread at all, then? I suppose you have a point: There never was any widespread originality, and any claims to such can only be recounted to a few isolated games over the last three decades. Any claims to a halcion era are merely nostalgia. That is the more realistic answer.

 

[Therumancer]

All the games are the same. Rather than truely developing games, you have a handfull of game engines like GRAW or Unreal that are used for all of the action games out there, oftentimes combined with things like Havoc Physix. They play the same and look more or less the same because your mostly dealing with new skins and tweaks to the same bloody engine.

Also producers are likely to go to a dev team and say "I want a game like this to make money off of" and so they imitate the existing formula. Writing and stuff becomes seconday, especially when you consider that the typical shooter player doesn't care much about the storyline as long as they are shooting something.

Really the only ones who care about story seem to be RPG players, and generally speaking most producers are trying to emulate things like Diablo that are relatively easy to develop, as opposed to seeing engines (like the old Black Isles Infinity Engine) developed from scratch, not to mention that RPGs are something of a niche market. The potential sales aren't anywhere near as high as selling a bunch of shooters and sports games to the masses with an alleged IQ of 98 who are quite probably going to be drunk or stoned when they play.

I say IQ of 98 because some pop up claimed that this was the average American IQ, and invited you to call their site to take a test to see how you compared (I have no idea what their cash-making gimmick is, I generally speaking avoid ads because you never know what the site one of these things leads to might try and stick on your computer).

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Lets contrast Valkyria chronicles with its sales. Innovative gameplay (a mixture of turn based strategy and Third person shooting is eautifulpretty damn innovative in my book), beautiful looking environments, an engrossing story (basically a JRPG spin on the European part of WWII), and absolutely dismal sales.
I also bring up LittleBigPlanet. The fact that you mentioned neither suggests you are part of the problem.

Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, the list goes on Dingo. I guess the real problem is that most people buy games that appeal to base interests, and games like Valkyria and LBP don't appeal to them. Only licensed stuff or the latest "OOH KILLFEST OF BLOOD AND GORE" game. While great games like Half-Life and Bioshock sell well, so does absolute crap like 50 Cent: Bulletproof.

Yada yada yada, we've all seen it before. While games with great writing and great gameplay sell well (see God Of War, Bioshock, and Half Life - even if I missed the so called great story in that), those that sacrifice gameplay for story (Psychonauts, which decided it had been born a generation too late), or even worse, try to do something new (Valkyria Chronicles, Beyond Good and Evil), tend to sell badly. Its very easy to blame this on the market, but the sales of Shadow of the Collosus seem to say otherwise. I'm not saying a large portion of the market isn't a problem, but I think another part of the problem as a whole comes down to the publishing company overestimating (slightly) the percentage of dumbasses. They're still more than happy to publish it - not that big a loss, considering what copies of the game cost to make and distribute - but advertising for a game that people will go out of their way to avoid? Put yourself in Segas shoes last year. Do you want to spend your money advertising the breathtaking, beautiful and innovative RPG Valkyria Chronicles, which because of its ambitious nature and high requirements has a limmited market, or on the new Sonic game, something everyone from nearsighted God Of War fans, to old school gamers, to people who like blue hedgehogs are likely to buy? Its never been the case that we're running out of great games, its just that the not-so-great games are the ones that get shoved in our faces. To put it another way, if you want quality in games these days, you need to read between the lines.

This is where I come in (work with me here). How many people, after hearing me describe Valkyria Chronicles, feel like trying it for themselves? Gamers need to actively spread the word about great games, and vent on games more often. And everyones got to try something (Bags not Ferrari Challenge). And we need less self righteous dickheads saying there are no good games, cause thats just going to make people branch out even less.

It's a vicious circle the publishers are doing. But I say to all game companies: "Grow a pair!" Sure, they won't make as much money when they publish a game that isn't shit with a Sonic tag on it, but if they took a chance, an unknown great game could be pulled out into the open world, and people would love it. Then they can start all over with making sequels (although if they do, I hope they will at least try to make it good, instead of throwing shitty games at us. You know who I'm speaking of, Sonic Team). When the game companies first started, they had nothing, and look at them now, they can afford starting over. Take DICE, for example. They have made several Battlefield games (but I have to admit, the latest one was awesome!), and then they created Mirror's Edge, a completely new game with a brand new gameplay mechanic that's nobody used before. Sure, it isn't the best game, but at least they're trying, which they deserve some points for.

 

[sokka14]

there's a lot more money to be made in games now, and with a more mature industry, naturally there is more risk in making an innovative game.

i do agree with you about the colours though, and i don't understand why bright colours = childishness. i guess on this front i'm not too bothered however, because i know loads of people prefer the "gritty realistic" look.

 

[Simalacrum]

oh i dunno, EA went pretty unique-crazy last year... shame that sales plummeted and now they've returned to "we're going to release the exact same sport game evey year with a different number on it!"

 

[MiracleOfSound]

"Good" is subjective.

Now as for the lack of creativity...its all down to selling units.

This.

We keep buying the unoriginal shooters, so the devs keep making more for us to buy. Sometimes life is wonderfully simple when you stop to consider it.