It started to go wrong when EA started buying every goddamn company that was making at least half decent games! I have a vendetta against EA for ruining gaming (imo). Now, every one of their games are rushed out and not completed COUGHmoneywhoresCOUGH.
When did Gaming begin to go wrong?
- Thread starter Kronopticon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wouldn't say that gaming has gone wrong, but it definitely became worse when someone realized that you could release the same game every year with slightly better graphics and make a fortune, e.g Fifa, NFL, Madden. Also, when someone else decided to make money by making very poorly made games based on kids films, e.g Rattatouille and Harry Potter 5.
I also hate EA, not because they are buying every company, but because their sole goal is to make money by releasing crap. They rush games through that could have been excellent but are in fact short, repetitive and boring, with graphics that I would have been disappointed with on an N64, that sell brilliantly because they are based on films, or are just the same game that they released last year but with better graphics (See my last post). The few games that they release that are good (Crysis, I can't think of any others), don't sell as well as their crap games.Ownagecake said:
I agree with TheNecroswanson when it comes to milking the cow and it's a profitability issue. Sure, Sierra could stop making extra content for Fear, but would it sell as well? And the only reason FFVII has eleventy-billion different incarnations, action figures, movies and such is because it sells, I know I "HAD" a friend who just wouldn't shut up about all of his damn J-pop.
The reason there was so much to choose from in the retro gaming era was because it didn't cost as much to make a game. It costs a huge amount of money for a game company to make a game for a PS3, so with so much money at stake it's better to take something that's a sure fire success than chance losing millions of dollars because it didn't sell.
Another issue along with non-mold breaking games is a severe lack of testing, especially in the realm of PC games that I'm seeing. EA is famous for this kind of nonsense. Just in general muddy game play and inconvenient game systems, that make a good concept hard to play. On the other side of this, Blizzard spends years play-testing their games, making sure everything works well and the game they produce is fun to play, which is why they're making more money than god right now. I just think that game companies need to tighten up their standards, spend more time debugging and play-testing what they sell because if they are going to be so conservative with their ideas then they should at least present them flawlessly.
The reason there was so much to choose from in the retro gaming era was because it didn't cost as much to make a game. It costs a huge amount of money for a game company to make a game for a PS3, so with so much money at stake it's better to take something that's a sure fire success than chance losing millions of dollars because it didn't sell.
Another issue along with non-mold breaking games is a severe lack of testing, especially in the realm of PC games that I'm seeing. EA is famous for this kind of nonsense. Just in general muddy game play and inconvenient game systems, that make a good concept hard to play. On the other side of this, Blizzard spends years play-testing their games, making sure everything works well and the game they produce is fun to play, which is why they're making more money than god right now. I just think that game companies need to tighten up their standards, spend more time debugging and play-testing what they sell because if they are going to be so conservative with their ideas then they should at least present them flawlessly.
and now, I quote my first post I ever made on this forum. The forum topic was called "Why are gamers happier when complaining then when playing"Zoidbergio said:
So there's one year for you. Let's take another shall we? In 1998, we got:Selka said:
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (aka the best game of all time)
Metal Gear Solid
Baldur's Gate
Grim Fandango
Half-Life
Starcraft
Fallout 2
Star Wars: Rouge Squadron
There's a lot of people out there that talk about how only retro gamers think that gaming is "going wrong." Now here is a concept for you all. We "retro gamers" play these old games because they're the games that are good! I'm still playing through Final Fantasy 5 for the first time, and I'm enjoying it more than I ever enjoyed playing through any Final Fantasy 8 and beyond. Super Metroid: better and more atmospheric than any adventure game that has come out in the past 4 years (RE4 included). Honestly, when a sup-par sequal to System Shock 2 is the best game that's come out in a year, it's a bad sign for the industry.
Now, the reason behind this has been stated many times before. Developers are very unwilling to take a big chance at a new game innovation or something that no one has ever heard of before. Who's to blame? I blame the hoards of people who lined up to buy Halo 3 and Guitar Hero 3 and Call of Duty 4. Honestly, game companies have always been in it to make money from the beginning, and if they keep making money by selling the same mediocre game over and over again, then that's how the industry is going to do things.
Given the average production cost of recent triple-A titles, it takes 1.3 million copies to turn a profit on a XBOX360 or a PS3. No wonder companies don't want to take risks. Now excuse me, a friend of mine just called and is coming over to play some Golden Axe III, have fun y'all.
Note: I'm not even kidding, he called while I was writing this all up. I recommend it to anyone who loves co-op play.
People only think old games are better because gaming used to be a new medium, so everything that was done was *new*, so new games are constantly compared to the old ones. Now, since we've already made the jump from pong to NES to Doom to 3D, everything can be compared to something else, and that diminishes it. OoT is regarded so highly because it was pretty much the first of its kind--but it was only the first because before that people lacked the technology to make it. And frankly, these days we have different standards for games. I mean, really, a painfully stereotypical Italian plumber who runs across a surreal landscape fighting bizzarre enemies to save a princess from a giant fire-breathing turtle? That crap would never fly today.
I don't care that it's the best reviewed game ever, Ocarina of Time is not the best game ever. And Metroid Prime isn't the best shooter ever, either. And I think you can make a case for SMG being GOTY since it is the second best reviewed game of all time (it even unseated OoT for a little bit). Although then again, Fallout only got well above average reviews, and everyone here seems to love it.
You forgot about Mass Effect. And Portal. I haven't played Bioshock (although I want to, but I've been trying to get System Shock 2 to work on my computer without having to buy a used copy for $50 because EA is spiteful), but it's my GOTY, despite its flaws (which are glaring at times). But of course, people compare it to a watered down version of Star Control 2 (which I never played or have even heard of). Or, even more stupidly (don't care that's not a word), calling it KOTOR without Star Wars so they don't have to pay liscensing fees (!).
I don't think gaming is going wrong. There are more money oriented games, but it's always been that way. It's just more pronounced now that gaming can make more money (and they don't care about rising above mediocrity, but I think age difference might have something to do with that perception). People get nostalgic over old games and so declare them untouchable, when really they are only very very good, the highlights of previous years. I don't dispute that Half-Life is a very very good game, but it's only seen as a monolith because it's almost ten years old.
Now, none of my favorite games are very new ones, but we can't always know how good something is until they stand the test of time. Or you can just disregard everything I just said.
I don't care that it's the best reviewed game ever, Ocarina of Time is not the best game ever. And Metroid Prime isn't the best shooter ever, either. And I think you can make a case for SMG being GOTY since it is the second best reviewed game of all time (it even unseated OoT for a little bit). Although then again, Fallout only got well above average reviews, and everyone here seems to love it.
You forgot about Mass Effect. And Portal. I haven't played Bioshock (although I want to, but I've been trying to get System Shock 2 to work on my computer without having to buy a used copy for $50 because EA is spiteful), but it's my GOTY, despite its flaws (which are glaring at times). But of course, people compare it to a watered down version of Star Control 2 (which I never played or have even heard of). Or, even more stupidly (don't care that's not a word), calling it KOTOR without Star Wars so they don't have to pay liscensing fees (!).
I don't think gaming is going wrong. There are more money oriented games, but it's always been that way. It's just more pronounced now that gaming can make more money (and they don't care about rising above mediocrity, but I think age difference might have something to do with that perception). People get nostalgic over old games and so declare them untouchable, when really they are only very very good, the highlights of previous years. I don't dispute that Half-Life is a very very good game, but it's only seen as a monolith because it's almost ten years old.
Now, none of my favorite games are very new ones, but we can't always know how good something is until they stand the test of time. Or you can just disregard everything I just said.
That's nothing new to the gaming industry. Anytime you have products being made with the intent of being sold for a profit there are going to be a handful of new ideas and two heaping scoops of copycats. After Super Mario Bros. hit it big everyone scrambled to get their own similar game out. After Sonic The Hedgehog became popular we got a bus-load of poorly concieved anthropomorphic characters. We still see games that play like every 16-bit Final Fantasy. I've been playing videogames since the 8-bit days and if anything we're seeing more great titles because there's a larger base of gamers who take the time to educate themselves before they make a purchase. Companies know they have to have something special to get noticed. Cutting-edge games come out more frequently and the copycats are, more often than not, actually worth playing.whyhalothar said:
Since The Matrix. Since then, every game has been trying to be more amazing in superficial acrobatics than The Matrix and it's diminished the quality of games to the point where they all feel the same.