Where have all the good games gone...
- Thread starter Pietho
- Start date
Recommended Videos
20 years ago had 20 years to give us games. Just as 10 years ago had 10 years to give us games. Give this generation time and it will reward us. It's simple. Plus, we're not tiny children anymore. The close nostalgic memories and attatchments aren't as easy to get to because we've seen it all before. But alot of the time, a big issue with gaming is how the older gamers are searching for meaning in their games, and not the mindless platforming fun of previous generations. Silly games with little-to-no plot don't exist as often as they used to because now the current generation wants fancy things like online play, good graphics, an immersive story, relateable characters, and better controls. And it's been a sudden leap from one to the other. Suddenly the companies are expected to create good stories, interesting characters, and enviroments that can be interacted with when just a while ago games were "run! jump! jump! attack! jump! run!" type stuff. Then there's how most genres became niche crowds. Only certain people will get certain games, and with them costing more (as toooons of people have mentioned by now), now it's less rewarding to make a game that fanservices only the highbrow crowd. So basically, the very issues people point out about modern games are incredibly true about the 'golden oldies'. It's just that now it'd be a bit awkward for the simple fun gameplay to be portrayed with awesome graphics. So games need to find that happy medium between "pop the game in and press buttons" and "get told a story that you can interact with to a point". Games have yet to do that. We either get bland button mashers, bland fill-in-the-blank stories, or incredibly good stories with clunky gameplay.
It's a twofold problem. One side is yes, the greater section of gamers. When something even remotely original comes out, a small fraction will support it, and the rest will do one of two things: ignore it, or crap on it's content. A prime example of this is Psychonauts. Yes, it had gameplay issues, but it's writing was brilliant as always expected of Shaffer and did enough interesting things within it's gameplay (Milkman Conspiracy level, the main inspiration for Mario Galaxy). Or how about Braid? You still see people complain "it's not that special, time manipulation has been done", and they're right. Mostly. About as right as they can be if they never played past the first world and saw the other strange things you begin to do, like reversing time to make your shadow do things for you.
The other half is developers/publishers/manufacturers. Lots of developers are simply out for money, most publishers are, and Nintendo in particular is. They don't want to do something original or different, because when people do, it typically fails and/or doesn't turn a profit. Mirror's Edge and Dead Space are good examples. I'm not a huge fan of Mirror's Edge, but it tried something, and I'm a huge fan of Dead Space. It may be a throwback to 90's sci-fi horror films, BUT THAT'S FINE. At least your aren't a generic space marine fighting the evil alien menance. You're an engineer, suffering dementia and simply trying to keep your ass and your friends alive. Or Left 4 Dead. Yeah, zombies, nothing special there right? Constantly taunted for being "a hyped up mod" Left 4 Dead did something new, by being the single most co-op centric game in exsistance. It literally beats you in the face with a claw hammer if you don't work together, and in versus it's even more important, if that's possible.
PS: Plenty of original titles have continued to come out, none of them do exceptionally well. Katamari Damacy, Patapon, The World Ends with You, etc.
The other half is developers/publishers/manufacturers. Lots of developers are simply out for money, most publishers are, and Nintendo in particular is. They don't want to do something original or different, because when people do, it typically fails and/or doesn't turn a profit. Mirror's Edge and Dead Space are good examples. I'm not a huge fan of Mirror's Edge, but it tried something, and I'm a huge fan of Dead Space. It may be a throwback to 90's sci-fi horror films, BUT THAT'S FINE. At least your aren't a generic space marine fighting the evil alien menance. You're an engineer, suffering dementia and simply trying to keep your ass and your friends alive. Or Left 4 Dead. Yeah, zombies, nothing special there right? Constantly taunted for being "a hyped up mod" Left 4 Dead did something new, by being the single most co-op centric game in exsistance. It literally beats you in the face with a claw hammer if you don't work together, and in versus it's even more important, if that's possible.
PS: Plenty of original titles have continued to come out, none of them do exceptionally well. Katamari Damacy, Patapon, The World Ends with You, etc.
Um, I'm sorry. Age should not equate fanboyism.Pietho said:
EVERY first person shooter, according to your vague classification, is a clone of the first person to impliment the concept of a FPS. Should I be condemned as a clone of the first impressionists if I create my own impressionist painting?
You sound quite a bit fanboyish yourself, lauding specific games of old. I mean, seriously. They were great, original games. You make the point that no one's made a new gaming genre in a long time.
Still, what do you have agianst Halo? Metal Gear? To me, it seems like you are merely strutting about, saying "Mainstream games are bad. I am cooler than other people because I know Zork and Psychonauts."
If you're going to say something as inflamatory as what you said about beloved games, state why. Then your point appears sound and well thought out. Or better yet, just omit the random game bashing in favor of letting your point be made.
~~~
And back to the point, its as hard as hell to make new genres, but just because they aren't 100% original, doesn't mean that they aren't wonderful works of art.
Oh, and *points to username*
I really don't care if an game is original or not as long as it's fun. Most developers feel that they don't care if an idea is original or not as long as it makes money.
The good games haven't gone anywhere you miserable old trout. Games today are as good as they've ever been, go back 20 years and I think you'll find that even back then there were droves of shitty unoriginal releases and horrid just-in-it-for-the-money crapfests (E.T anyone?)
We are still getting good games today, but so many people, in their infinate misery, just refuse to acknowledge this.
Left 4 Dead is good and it only came out a month or so ago. Ok it's not a super original piece of pure brilliance but whoever said it needed to be? It's fun, it's enjoyable, it is a good game.
Fallout 3, I know I'm gonna get called out on this one "AHA! THREE! THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL AT ALL!", maybe not, but it's damn good. I have played Fallout 1 and 2 (and uh, tactics) and find them good too, but not as good as fallout 3. Fallout 3 made me "become" my character which really is what the whole roleplaying thing is all about. It was a good game.
People are too obsessed with this idea of originality, and seem to be completely overlooking the point of, "is this actually enjoyable?"
Come on guys, you don't hate modern videogames as much as you say, or you wouldn't still be gamers.
We are still getting good games today, but so many people, in their infinate misery, just refuse to acknowledge this.
Left 4 Dead is good and it only came out a month or so ago. Ok it's not a super original piece of pure brilliance but whoever said it needed to be? It's fun, it's enjoyable, it is a good game.
Fallout 3, I know I'm gonna get called out on this one "AHA! THREE! THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL AT ALL!", maybe not, but it's damn good. I have played Fallout 1 and 2 (and uh, tactics) and find them good too, but not as good as fallout 3. Fallout 3 made me "become" my character which really is what the whole roleplaying thing is all about. It was a good game.
People are too obsessed with this idea of originality, and seem to be completely overlooking the point of, "is this actually enjoyable?"
Come on guys, you don't hate modern videogames as much as you say, or you wouldn't still be gamers.
Erana said:
Preface:
Never say "I'm sorry" unless you actually are. It makes you seem insincere; especially when you put the "um" in front of it.
First...
The games I mentioned are the "GOOD" ones, as I see it. I'm sure you don't beleive that every game of one generation or the other was good. And art, in all of it's forms, only has meaning to those who enjoy it.
Second...
You missed the point. I'm NOT looking at this purely from my subjective opinion, I'm looking at it objectively as well. I own over 200 games just for the PC; another 50 for the PS 1/2 and ten or so for the XBOX (Like everyone here, I've played more, but those are the ones I hold on to). I've played games that people chastised just because of the publisher/developer/designer/genre wasn't popular, and I still have many of them because there was a nugget of true innovation there. But as time goes on, the ideas are just being recycled, ad infinitum.
Third...
What do I have against HALO? It didn't do anything new, but that didn't stop people from squealing like school girls at an Elvis concert when HALO3 came out. I still haven't discovered the appeal of HALO, or most FPS games of the most recent years. Of them all only Painkiller actually made me want to finish it (No, I haven't tried Team Fortress 2 yet, but with all the recommendations I get, you can believe it's on the list).
Fourth...
Most MAINSTREAM games are bad, by my definition. Most of them are regurgitations of previous games produced in different colors, because everyone want's a sequel. I don't want sequels, I want original IPs. I'm not satisfied swallowing the same garbage over and over and over again.
Fifth...
You may not believe this, but I've live a very eventful life. I've written reports and documents for fortune 500 companies, I don't need your advise on how to properly write a post. What I wrote, as strange as it may sound to you, was exactly what I wanted to say. I don't play the game where I act like I'm being objective, but I'm actually a dick. I leave that to others who have the time.
One final thing...
You put in "*points to username*" at the end of your post. Let me explain something fairly quickly. I don't know who you are and I don't want to. I'm not impressed one way or the other by your attempt to hose down this forum with testosterone (regardless of gender)and prove some point about yourself. If you want to talk about yourself, start your own post. I don't care if you are listed as having made, thousands of posts and that your participation is legendary. I have a life, and unless posting on forums is your job, you might consider getting other hobbies.
Granted, but it didn't stop them from producing best selling title after best selling title, most of which were the same core game with different plot or game play elements.not a zaar said:
Besides, there's nothing wrong with a cartridge system. Flash memory can hold more information more securely than a CD or DVD(where one scratch can put you out $60.00)and there was a strange kind of fun when you could just toss a game in a drawer while you rooted for another (hard plastic cases). I would have loved to see NINTENDO pull off a cartridge system with superior graphics, but CDs are cheap to make... and we're back to money again.
Innovative games? For a tight defintion, Mirror's Edge, Little Big Planet, Braid, Ico and Shadow of the Colussus. But I don't really want to argue that way. I prefer the argument that memories of the past are always rose tinted, that all the really different ideas are gone anyway and that there's nothing that bad about trying to improve on an old formula. Like in the case of Halo 3, no it didn't do anything massively new, but it does provide one of the most polished multiplayer experiences available with more customisation tools than almost any other game.
Ugh, not one of those people who will evaluate any game to a horrific degree just to show that actually nothing has been new since Pong. It just reinforces the argument that games are just as innovative as ever but becuase they're in a more tightly packed field of games (both old and new) people have to analyse every detail until they can attach it to another game. The fact that you suggested No More Heroes was the most unqiue game in the list was truly hilarious.Monkeyman8 said:
Having a go at someone for trying to look big (which I don't think he was) seems a little hypocritical. After all, you were the one who was showing off how big your game collection is, and saying you know what's fun and what isn't based on how long you've been playing and how hardcore this makes you.Pietho said:
Good games still exist and are still being made. The reason for the perceived decline is fairly simple.
First, realize that thanks to the sheer number of games that have been made it has become incredibly difficult to be truly innovative without being accused of ripping off game x.
Second, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of games published every year. Of those, maybe a half dozen are truly great games, maybe a dozen are actually worth my time and the rest is shovelware. Oftentimes it's difficult to discern the good stuff from the garbage. Couple this with the trend where reviews generally refuse to be honest about a game and many of the best games might never even get on the radar.
Third, graphical fidelity has increased to the point where it takes an immense amount of effort to get a character to walk across a room. It seems that as games progress technology becomes the focus of the development team, where in past ages the core gameplay was the most important bit.
Of course, a lot of the trouble people have is with handily dismissing certain games because of their pedigree while embracing other games even though they suffer many of the same issues. I honestly enjoyed deadspace and found it to be a solid game all around. Sure the story and environment are nothing new: the game itself was solid and quite a bit of fun to play. I might even go through it a second time.
First, realize that thanks to the sheer number of games that have been made it has become incredibly difficult to be truly innovative without being accused of ripping off game x.
Second, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of games published every year. Of those, maybe a half dozen are truly great games, maybe a dozen are actually worth my time and the rest is shovelware. Oftentimes it's difficult to discern the good stuff from the garbage. Couple this with the trend where reviews generally refuse to be honest about a game and many of the best games might never even get on the radar.
Third, graphical fidelity has increased to the point where it takes an immense amount of effort to get a character to walk across a room. It seems that as games progress technology becomes the focus of the development team, where in past ages the core gameplay was the most important bit.
Of course, a lot of the trouble people have is with handily dismissing certain games because of their pedigree while embracing other games even though they suffer many of the same issues. I honestly enjoyed deadspace and found it to be a solid game all around. Sure the story and environment are nothing new: the game itself was solid and quite a bit of fun to play. I might even go through it a second time.
OK... for the umpteenth time... why do you people want to argue. I believe that I've been talking about games that * I * find innovative and original, or actually the multitude that aren't.Geo Da Sponge said:
This thread isn't about me "telling you how big I am" and then you coming in like a 12 year old defending his 3DO. This is where we compare our comprehensions of reality and what constitutes innovation.
Why, when a good discussion is rolling along, is there always someone who wants to shoot off his/her/its mouth. I want to discuss, that's what "forum" means. If you want to argue, find the thread with cursing in the title and knock yourself out.
Literally.
Here, we're having a discussion, and while I may not like everything that's been said so far, I respect everyone who has given an opinion and suggestions and general comments, rather than to pick a fight.
Grow up, and then come back. Don't just jump on and trash someones opinion because you want to increase your number of posts and you feel like being an immature dick.
BTW - I know that I'm an anomaly; 1) I'm the guy who started playing games when the first ones came out and just didn't stop. 2) I'm the guy who started studying games and how they worked in a practical sense, I don't play games as much as I analyze them, and that's not fun for most people.
But this is my hobby, one of them at least, and I like to analyze and get opinions and discuss things and look at other points of view.
Too bad you don't.
There are some good games out there, granted. I'm playing a couple now that are nothing new, but it doesn't mean I'm not enjoying them, it just means that when I'm done, they're going back to the game store for trade in.Eclectic Dreck said:
I, personally, would rather they spend twice as long on the games and give me a good gaming experience instead of just cranking them out like they do now. And it's not like programmers aren't gamers... how can to work on a project and not look at it from the other side of the controller? (Sonic Unleashed!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?)Eclectic Dreck said:
AMEN!!!!!!Eclectic Dreck said:
Hey, I love a game that's fun to play, the only saving grace in the recent years is that, most of the time, the controls are easy and intuitive, and that's half the enjoyment in my opinion.
Indigo_Dingo said:
It's a platformer with cute characters. Most people won't say anything about it in terms of innovation because "they don't make platformers any more," no to mention my favorite, "that looks stupid."
As for myself, I'm holding judgment until I actually play it. I'd buy it for the character design if nothing else!
Speaking of that, I just downloaded the DEMO for AUDIO SURF!!!!Grimm91 said:
Why hasn't this sold a million copies yet? I said earlier that I wanted a game that wasn't just in a genre but redefined it... That's AUDIO SURF!
Basically, it's Pole Position, with the track layout being assigned based on the song you tell it to play. Not a song in the game, but one you have in your play list. I only got to do five songs, but Alice Cooper's Vengeance is Mine was awesome!
It's Guitar Hero, with SciFi race cars!