well I think they went to a place where the unoriginal pretentious assholes werent completely drowning in nostalgia. here. clearly im wrong, because they arent here either, maybe a magical place where we all have magical unicorns, marketing departments are kept in check by the people with the actual talent, and idiots buy the same things smart people buy. now excuse me i need to go find a piece of wood or something. im not a strong swimmer.
Where have all the good games gone...
- Thread starter Pietho
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I sort of agree. I cut my teeth on 8-bit games and nothing can compare with the thrills we had with Mario 3, Excitebike etc. But then again, I was really young at the time so those sort of things were more likely to thrill me then, before I became a critical, cynical bastard.
The truth is that everyone will most likely enjoy what their generation was first exposed to. I'll always prefer the old games, horror movies, music etc, but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate what gets done today.
The truth is that everyone will most likely enjoy what their generation was first exposed to. I'll always prefer the old games, horror movies, music etc, but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate what gets done today.
JUST TO CLEAR THE AIR
I'm not saying that old games were all good and that new games are all bad. I'm saying that old games were innovative and a lot of that has been lost somewhere along the way.
Have any of you seen FRANKENSTEIN. You may be able to find it in a bargain bin somewhere for about 5.00 US. This is a horrible game, a truly horrible game. Tim Curry is in it and even he can't save the games bugged and broken flaws, but the designers were trying to do something new. melding photo realistic backgrounds and game elements with live action video. It didn't work but at least they were trying to pull off something new. I still have the game (playing it is like trying to shave with a cheese grater) and I won't get rid of it because it's sort of a land mark piece, like a missing evolutionary link.
There used to be dozens, maybe even hundreds of these games in the 90's then, suddenly they disappeared. It's almost as if no one wanted to do anything different from the established "genre's" of the time because that's where the money was. Now only big money (i.e. big corporations and publishers) seem to be able to produce these games with current generation graphics.
But even this is hard to swallow because the CGI for the movie UNDEAD (Australian and amazing, a must see!) was done by two guys on laptops! And it was awesome!
What the point of all of this really boils to is this; why isn't there more innovation when the technology for creating games has never been more available. Why are we drowning in a sea of the same rehashed ideas?
In short: WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD GAMES GONE?
I'm not saying that old games were all good and that new games are all bad. I'm saying that old games were innovative and a lot of that has been lost somewhere along the way.
Have any of you seen FRANKENSTEIN. You may be able to find it in a bargain bin somewhere for about 5.00 US. This is a horrible game, a truly horrible game. Tim Curry is in it and even he can't save the games bugged and broken flaws, but the designers were trying to do something new. melding photo realistic backgrounds and game elements with live action video. It didn't work but at least they were trying to pull off something new. I still have the game (playing it is like trying to shave with a cheese grater) and I won't get rid of it because it's sort of a land mark piece, like a missing evolutionary link.
There used to be dozens, maybe even hundreds of these games in the 90's then, suddenly they disappeared. It's almost as if no one wanted to do anything different from the established "genre's" of the time because that's where the money was. Now only big money (i.e. big corporations and publishers) seem to be able to produce these games with current generation graphics.
But even this is hard to swallow because the CGI for the movie UNDEAD (Australian and amazing, a must see!) was done by two guys on laptops! And it was awesome!
What the point of all of this really boils to is this; why isn't there more innovation when the technology for creating games has never been more available. Why are we drowning in a sea of the same rehashed ideas?
In short: WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD GAMES GONE?
It's difficult to tell by your muddled narrative who you are upset at. Is it the topic of the forum? Are you railing against the idea that older games were innovative and newer games are not, or the opposite? I also don't understand the reference to the "piece of wood" and the fact that you're not a "strong swimmer".742 said:
Could you please clarify?
Wii Fit is only EyeToy: Kinetic in so far as they're based around exercise, using that logic you could argue that Doom = Contra as they're both based around shooting people.Monkeyman8 said:
You've got me with Ever Blue, google and wikipedia reveal nothing, what is it?
De Blob was orginally a Tech Demo on the PC, that doesn't stop it from being a unique game that is on the Wii.
Yes Boom Blox is other games combined into one, combined in such a way as to make it unique.
Oh how soon do we forget:Pietho said:
But the Virtual Boy did have a big impact, it forced Nintendo back into a conservative mode for years. The N64 still used cartridges when the PSX and Saturn were already moving up to CDs, and the Gamecube used (tiny) CDs when the Xbox and PS2 had already moved up to DVDs.Pietho said:
As time progresses, it's harder to come up with ideas that can truly be called original because of the increasing mass of games behind you. As a result, it's a much safer bet to focus on trying to take something that was both innovative and good in the past and turning it into something even better.
Besides all games are a combination of elements, it's just the particular combination that makes the game unique. You referenced Halo as a rehash in your first post, but that's a load of crap. Sure, you can probably point to a prior instance for just about everything in that game, but it's the combination of game elements that makes it unique. It's the pacing, the setting, the little elements being put together - like recharging shields, vehicles, the particular weapons, and the online - that make it different. It's like designing a building. The materials and styles may have all been used before, but that doesn't mean you can't make a unique creation from existing ideas.
Besides, there's a reason people look forward to sequels. It's the hope that someone takes a treasured game (or one with perceived potential) and makes it better. That's the goal, really. Of course, sequels can be profoundly innovative - look at the progression of Ultima games - but even if we ignore that, the new games at least are upgrades and reconfigurations of titles people love.
Think of Counterstrike Source. It is, in many ways, a carbon copy of the original Counterstrike. People still play it, though, because the original Counterstrike was a brilliant multiplayer game. Getting more of the same but with some visual and minor physics upgrades is all a lot of those players really wanted.
Anyhow, there are so many components in modern video games that minor tweaks that would have been hugely noticable in the 1980s are completely ignored. I mean, remember the differences between Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man? Like how ghosts in the latter had sort of randomized movement? Or how there were new maze styles? That counted as a big deal back then. Now, something like new levels and better AI would be almost completely ignored in the dozens of other facets in a game. Halo and Halo 3, for instance, probably use significantly different AI. The levels are obviously much more varied than in Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man. But that's not the kind of thing we count as different anymore - at least not as a notable thing.
Plenty of good games still come out, at any rate. Probably more than ever before, which really means nothing stands out as much. Really, I don't think you should discount Fallout 3 or Europa Universalis III just because they're sequels. Nor should Halo be considered generic because its gameplay elements are traceable to other sources. On top of that, there are games that use some awesome gameplay elements, but the games themselves may fall a bit flat on the overall. Assassin's Creed is a good example of this, where the character motion and fluidity is fantastic. Something could be certainly done there to incorporate such things into an even better game, whether it be a sequel or just a new game entirely.
This has already become quite a wall, but my point is that games don't have to add an nth dimension to be great. Often times just shuffling up the Rubik's Cube is enough to give you a whole new challenge.
Besides all games are a combination of elements, it's just the particular combination that makes the game unique. You referenced Halo as a rehash in your first post, but that's a load of crap. Sure, you can probably point to a prior instance for just about everything in that game, but it's the combination of game elements that makes it unique. It's the pacing, the setting, the little elements being put together - like recharging shields, vehicles, the particular weapons, and the online - that make it different. It's like designing a building. The materials and styles may have all been used before, but that doesn't mean you can't make a unique creation from existing ideas.
Besides, there's a reason people look forward to sequels. It's the hope that someone takes a treasured game (or one with perceived potential) and makes it better. That's the goal, really. Of course, sequels can be profoundly innovative - look at the progression of Ultima games - but even if we ignore that, the new games at least are upgrades and reconfigurations of titles people love.
Think of Counterstrike Source. It is, in many ways, a carbon copy of the original Counterstrike. People still play it, though, because the original Counterstrike was a brilliant multiplayer game. Getting more of the same but with some visual and minor physics upgrades is all a lot of those players really wanted.
Anyhow, there are so many components in modern video games that minor tweaks that would have been hugely noticable in the 1980s are completely ignored. I mean, remember the differences between Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man? Like how ghosts in the latter had sort of randomized movement? Or how there were new maze styles? That counted as a big deal back then. Now, something like new levels and better AI would be almost completely ignored in the dozens of other facets in a game. Halo and Halo 3, for instance, probably use significantly different AI. The levels are obviously much more varied than in Pac Man and Ms. Pac Man. But that's not the kind of thing we count as different anymore - at least not as a notable thing.
Plenty of good games still come out, at any rate. Probably more than ever before, which really means nothing stands out as much. Really, I don't think you should discount Fallout 3 or Europa Universalis III just because they're sequels. Nor should Halo be considered generic because its gameplay elements are traceable to other sources. On top of that, there are games that use some awesome gameplay elements, but the games themselves may fall a bit flat on the overall. Assassin's Creed is a good example of this, where the character motion and fluidity is fantastic. Something could be certainly done there to incorporate such things into an even better game, whether it be a sequel or just a new game entirely.
This has already become quite a wall, but my point is that games don't have to add an nth dimension to be great. Often times just shuffling up the Rubik's Cube is enough to give you a whole new challenge.
True, but it's still a Rubik's Cube, changing the colors doesn't change the core mechanic of the object and by that definition, it's not a new challenge, it's an old challenge that looks new.Pyrrian said:
I'd rather have a new challenge than grind away on the old one. This is why, I believe, that video games have become "disposable media." We have millions of people who want to play Half-Life again, but since there isn't a new one out there, they'll play any rip off there is. Then, when another, prettier (none of this has anything to do with being a good game) game comes along they abandon the former and move on.
The gaming industry used to be about games, now it's about money; and when it's about money, everything ceases to be new and innovation is destroyed in favor of the grind of garbage games that produces money through volume.
So, I guess the answer to this thread is simple, as long and gamers are willing to pay to play the same game concept no matter who produces it, innovation will always be hard to come by.
... and people wonder why I haven't bought a next generation console yet...
This is true but while PSX and Saturn was going to CD's the N64 was still generating great games. Iis a system that you can go back to, play a few games, and want to do that. I don't think I knew a single person who had or currently has a Saturn. I will agree with you 100% that the Virtual Boy did slow down Nintendo's progress.not a zaar said:
I don't think its a terrible thing that games get copied and remade. Sometimes thats how we get BETTER games. The FPS genre may have originally started with Wolfenstein and Doom (as far as I can remember, they were the first. And yes I was a gamer way back then), but in my opinion, the genre didn't really get any good until Half-Life came out. Half-Life essentially is a Doom rip-off, but I think it took the basic concept of Doom (action packed, suspense/horror shooter) and made a much better game with it.