-Dark Martin- The dark is most certainly not your friend
Registered 05/06/2008
Points 21
20th September, 2008 at 14:46:11 -
Remember when games used to be ACTUALLY good, games like Castlevania SoTN, TLOZ a link to the past and everyones favourite Super Metroid.
Back then people didn't make games just for the money but because they wanted to make something that would be remembered and would become a work of art (Quotes Codemonkeys article), now big time game development companys like Sega and Nintendo are going south in there games because of the cash they could make involved.
What happened to making games for the entertainment they could bring rather than just for the cash it could bring.
A few good examples of my points are:
Castlevania PoR
Sonic Dash
Halo 2 and 3 (Don't judge me on that because they weren't as good as the first one)
Metroid Prime 3 Corruption (I like the metroid series but this one just had no replay value whatsoever in my opinion)
and all those god awful movie games (They make me sick!)
We they ever go back to how it used to be when games weren't just money machines...
Games have ALWAYS been money machines. I would elaborate on my thoughts on this issue, but I have to go. Suffice it to say that yes, there were a lot of good games... but there are just as many if not more good games now. It depends on when you start being a gamer. Nostalgia is the key word here.
Originally Posted by -Codemonkey- I'd take a snes over a ps3 anyday.
Me too. But then again I'd take a SNES over most consoles. Part of the reason why I like the Wii - legal emulation of all the amazing games of yesteryear, plus a few I never got the chance to play.
But to the OP. The problem now is that publishers enforce strict deadlines on games, and big mofo 3D games take much longer to make than what they used to. They also run out of ideas (Halo 2-3). Metroid Prime 3 was alright but it felt much more like Halo in its linear format, better than Halo 2 and 3 mind.
Well its not like i download millions of games and sell them or anything.
Its just something to do when your home sick/bored, and dont have one of the actual game systems to play.
Your just jealous that you're not as awesome as me.
(And my megaman avatar )
Despite what you may think, all games are released with money being the number 1 priority. Even back in the "Golden Days". Look how many absolute crap NES games there are. Look at all the movie tie ins. Gaming has always been a money generation business. If anything, we're closer to the "golden" age right now with all the people making freeware games. Those are the people doing it for the love of the game, not the companies (who love gaming, but also love money).
Emulation never quite does it for me. It was really cool when the first working SNES emulator came out (1996 or so?) but after that I had to get the real thing. Got quite a collection here now, shoeboxes full of old cardridges for whenever I need inspiration.
If you go far enough back, most games were made for arcades before anything else. They were most certainly the kind of games that were designed to make as much money as possible. Even the granddaddy of them all, PONG. They still had to be good games though otherwise no one would play them.
Nowadays, once you have bought a game thats that. The company gets no money from you replaying the game again and again.(with the exception of downloadable content) So what do they do? Make more games!
Which is fair enough but it takes more people and more time to make them and therefore costs more money to fill a DVD or BLURAY disk than it would a Romchip.
Anyway games aren't worse than they used to be, they're actually usually more polished than old games.
But in most cases its quicker and easier to make something we've seen before then either add a quick gimmick or tweak it a bit then get it out before the deadline so they can turn a profit.
It works really well for games like Sonic 2 or any of the Mario kart series. So why do people like replaying those old styles yet if we get a new First person shooter it's a bad thing.
The problem is, that the nowadays games lack originality. It is hard to create a game, which is original. All the ideas have been used. Even THE SIMS, was not original. That kind of gameplay existed already with the old Little Computer People.
I don't know, haven't tried SPORE, maybe that game has some originality about it.
Another problem with modern computer games is, that it is all about graphics, sounds and action, especally graphics, but no gameplay. I don't want to watch a movie when I play a computer game, I want to PLAY a computer game and have fun with the interaction. I would prefer a computer game with stick figures and an awsome gameplay, before a game with the most modern DirectX 10 graphics, and no gameplay.
When it comes to emulators. I have the VICE emulator ( it emulates the commodore computers up to Commodore 128 ), and then I have the AMIGA FOREVER emulator. Best emulator on the market for the Amiga. It is like playing with the AMIGA on my power tuned DirectX 10 machine, with no changes. Even the floppy disk sound is emulated. He He. That is nostalgia for all the money. You should try it.
I had an IBM laptop in 2001 that came with interchangable CD/Floppy drives and that sound WAS an Amiga. It's like they just recorded it or engineered the drive to sound exactly like an A600.
And Hayo. We're just dinosaurs. Like them people who swear that vinyl sounds better than CD and MP3 (I mean they are right but still).
Originally Posted by Dr. JamesThey also run out of ideas (Halo 2-3). Metroid Prime 3 was alright but it felt much more like Halo in its linear format, better than Halo 2 and 3 mind.
It isn't that Bungie ran out of ideas for Halo 2, it's that they poorly managed their time and didn't get to use all of their ideas. As a result a lot of the game feels like something is missing. Campaign, anyways. At least the multiplayer was enjoyable.
Here's what I think about the OP: Back in those days, developers had the control. You want to make a best-selling single title and then move onto a different franchise? That's fine. Try that nowadays and you'll find yourself on the street looking for a new job. And then if you do stick to the publisher's demands of sequelization, then you have to make the games good enough to sell well or you're on the street looking for a job.
I blame EA. And Guitar Hero/Call of Duty/Activision. Not Blizzard, though, because they made StarCraft and didn't go for the sequel until a decade later.
I had a lot more fun playing SNES games than playing more recent games, but i think it's because I was a lot younger when I played games on the SNES. I think a lot of this idea of the early 90's being the Golden Age of video Games is really just nostalgia.
Originally Posted by Ricky Garces I had a lot more fun playing SNES games than playing more recent games, but i think it's because I was a lot younger when I played games on the SNES. I think a lot of this idea of the early 90's being the Golden Age of video Games is really just nostalgia.
Nostalgia is the key word. Video games were something that made me go, "WHOA!" Especially since I didn't own any. You know how that is, things are always cooler when they aren't yours.
Obviously people are just missing times they can't ever get back and they don't care about new games cause they think weren't as good as the other games. It gets boring playing the hundreds of new FPS and they liked Doom or wolfenstein cause the idea was new and now its just old and repetetive. So really the only thing to do is not buy new games and get back the old ones you remember.
Lol, the SNES-Sega Genesis era was the most money-focused era of all! Anyone remember all those games starring soft drink mascots? There were just too many damn platformers which sold out. At least these days, what you get are billboards in games advertising real life products. There were only a handful of actual good games.
Heck, these days, Nintendo is as money focused as Microsoft. Maybe even worse when you consider the fact that Microsoft actually spends a lot of money on charity and Nintendo neglects environmental effects of its products completely. Of course, if you do want originality, you could pick up most Nintendo games.
I think the real problem today is that a lot of people loved the old games so much that new companies decided to give them what they liked, but did it wrong. Most of the time, a top game is all about getting lucky enough to get the parts right (like with Diablo 1, Starcraft, The Sims, Halo, Sonic). When they try to go back and use the old formula, it just goes to heck.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Fish20 Obviously people are just missing times they can't ever get back and they don't care about new games cause they think weren't as good as the other games. It gets boring playing the hundreds of new FPS and they liked Doom or wolfenstein cause the idea was new and now its just old and repetetive. So really the only thing to do is not buy new games and get back the old ones you remember.
Its a myth. No games have expired under copyright law, it takes at least 75 years before stuff falls into public domain. So in the year 2060 or so NES games will start becoming "legal". The difference is that you have a 0.000000001% chance of being sued for downloading a game, so who cares?
Anyway, the real issue of why game quality has gone down is fairly complex. Back in the "Golden Age" of video game design; the SNES era, video game programmers were virtually OWNED as slaves by their parent companies. For instance, both Sega & Nintendo would make you sign ridiculous contracts that would essentially prevent you from ever getting a job again if you quit, etc. The companies were jealously protective of their workers. This is because the vast majority of quality games were done by a minority of the workers; the super elite programmers. You'd see people like Koji Kondo work only for nintendo, only on AAA titles, etc. However, being owned by these superpower companies, there was essentially no pressure on the worker to RUSH the titles. Deadlines became abstract. You were owned by the company, and you could make your brainchild, exactly in your style, without fear of losing your job or your company going bankrupt. The problem of course, is that being owned like a slave made the market AWFUL for programmers. Video game designers were forced to work absurd hours, like 12 a day 7 days a week (not really exaggerating here, which is scary). However, through a series of unions & labor laws, the market started becoming softer. As 1st party companies started getting shaken (sony joined in, sega crashed, nintendo faltered), development switched over the 3rd party companies. Now adays, all big name games are done by small-name studios. Bungie? Bioware? Epic? these 3rd party companies feel ENORMOUS pressure. If you follow the news, these companies pretty much make 1-2 games, and then fold, and all the programmers are shuffled into new jobs. Even successful companies like Blizzard North get destroyed, after their blockbuster titles (notice how Diablo 3 is being made by completely different crew than Diablo 1/2). Megagiants like Vivendi & EA go around absorbing the 3rd parties that make a blockbuster hit, force them to whore out 1 or 2 games, then fire them / dissolve them. The net result is that the majority of games become produced by 3rd party developers, who feel immense pressure by their parent company overseers to rush their title, get it out in time for christmas, and essentially do everything FOR PROFIT as opposed to FOR QUALITY. In the SNES days, it was all about making the 99% game instead of 95% game. Now adays, its about rushing a 60% game out in time for the holidays, and relying on consumer manipulation to sell it. Its 100x as profitable, and the more profitable companies choke out the lesser ones like weeds. Once EA consumes your startup company and forces your crew to make "Madden 2011" or something, your pet projects, your brainchild creations, are dead and gone. Video games are a victim of corporate culture, and if you plan on going into a job in the field, you should be mighty aware of the instability in the past, future, and present.
Originally Posted by Johnny Look Just to clear up something: Emulations is legal, downloading and playing roms is legal too, as long as their rights expired.
Actually no, some systems have copyrights on their respective BIOS still. Some let you rip your own (Amiga) and use that, some don't let you emulate it at all.
And how long do media copyrights last for, 75 years after the death of the artist? That applies to music and video at least, and games are likely lumped in there too unless they've been made free by the copyright owner.
Heck, these days, Nintendo is as money focused as Microsoft. Maybe even worse when you consider the fact that Microsoft actually spends a lot of money on charity and Nintendo neglects environmental effects of its products completely. Of course, if you do want originality, you could pick up most Nintendo games.
Partially correct. They're recycling program isn't as stringent as the others, but on the other hand the Wii uses a peak of 18 watts compared to 186/199 for the 360/PS3. Therefore not having much of one of dem carbonk footprints.
Nintendo also refuse to open another Wii production factory. Factory=baaaad for environment.
Also in the UK all Wii accessories and systems ship in cardboard boxes compared to plastic for everything else but I hear its different in the US.
Originally Posted by -Mistah Bodgah- ... shame i can't change the title of the thread now.:/
Lol, that's what happens when you talk about the olde days with people older than you.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by Pixelthiefnyway, the real issue of why game quality has gone down is fairly complex. Back in the "Golden Age" of video game design; the SNES era, video game programmers were virtually OWNED as slaves by their parent companies. For instance, both Sega & Nintendo would make you sign ridiculous contracts that would essentially prevent you from ever getting a job again if you quit, etc. The companies were jealously protective of their workers. This is because the vast majority of quality games were done by a minority of the workers; the super elite programmers. You'd see people like Koji Kondo work only for nintendo, only on AAA titles, etc. However, being owned by these superpower companies, there was essentially no pressure on the worker to RUSH the titles. Deadlines became abstract. You were owned by the company, and you could make your brainchild, exactly in your style, without fear of losing your job or your company going bankrupt. The problem of course, is that being owned like a slave made the market AWFUL for programmers. Video game designers were forced to work absurd hours, like 12 a day 7 days a week (not really exaggerating here, which is scary). However, through a series of unions & labor laws, the market started becoming softer. As 1st party companies started getting shaken (sony joined in, sega crashed, nintendo faltered), development switched over the 3rd party companies. Now adays, all big name games are done by small-name studios. Bungie? Bioware? Epic? these 3rd party companies feel ENORMOUS pressure. If you follow the news, these companies pretty much make 1-2 games, and then fold, and all the programmers are shuffled into new jobs. Even successful companies like Blizzard North get destroyed, after their blockbuster titles (notice how Diablo 3 is being made by completely different crew than Diablo 1/2). Megagiants like Vivendi & EA go around absorbing the 3rd parties that make a blockbuster hit, force them to whore out 1 or 2 games, then fire them / dissolve them. The net result is that the majority of games become produced by 3rd party developers, who feel immense pressure by their parent company overseers to rush their title, get it out in time for christmas, and essentially do everything FOR PROFIT as opposed to FOR QUALITY. In the SNES days, it was all about making the 99% game instead of 95% game. Now adays, its about rushing a 60% game out in time for the holidays, and relying on consumer manipulation to sell it. Its 100x as profitable, and the more profitable companies choke out the lesser ones like weeds. Once EA consumes your startup company and forces your crew to make "Madden 2011" or something, your pet projects, your brainchild creations, are dead and gone. Video games are a victim of corporate culture, and if you plan on going into a job in the field, you should be mighty aware of the instability in the past, future, and present.
Edited by the Author.
I actually bothered to read that, and I guess you're right. That's what indie gaming is supposed to be against. I'm sure a lot of good indie sites would love to re-post that.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
well, i've always planned to go into video game design as a career, and I'm majoring in computer science, so I figured I'd do a lot of research on the field to see what the careers are like. And yeah its pretty ugly. But then again, what jobs aren't? I've got a friend in hollywood living on day old bagels while his movie is being edited
I didn't read that long post... sorry. I just wanted to say that no, emulating is not legal yet. ROM's, no matter how old, are still under copyright for now. By the time it's legal nobody will remember what an NES is. Typically, if you emulate games, you don't care if it's legal though.
Lol, that's what scared me out of the gaming industry. I'm happy in the fertile and morally ambiguous ground of electromagnetic wave engineering I think all 'glamorous' industries like game design, music, movie, and drug industries are too competitive to really survive in. You'll either get filthy rich or be dirt poor.
I'd be happy selling shareware games at $5 to 5 customers a day. DF makes an average of $2725 a month on donations only. That's.. about as much as I'd make as a senior lecturer in Malaysia.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I don't think its an industry I'll stick around in. Frankly I want (and have the opportunity) to jump head first into it, take what I need in terms of experience and funs then come back down to earth as a college or university lecturer person. I'd much rather be a producer or other higher up than a regular designer purely for job security.
Originally Posted by OldManClayton ... I just wanted to say that no, emulating is not legal yet.
Some emulation is legal. For example to get my Amiga Emulator, I had to pay for license. It is a totally legal emulation software, and it it the best Amiga Emulator I know about. Not that expensive. Check it out on www.amigaforever.com
Back in the day, a quality game like The Lost Vikings could be made with a small staff of 19 people. Nowadays blockbusters like Halo 3 are made with about ten times the number of people.
if i would take donations or gain money for selling games, i wouldn't use them for my personal use. in fact, i would buy a larger server, improve things out, then when people will come to me and donate too much, i would use the money for me. Plus, if i would have a good management team on my community, why not paying them too
you see, too much people around the internet wants money. i say if you want to do something nice, you first have to put hearth in it, then you could take money if you worth them
of course, i'm not talking about The Daily Click...people from here donate because they want, and TDC Staff are making good job here, plus we all feel good eh?
this is only my opinion, everyone is free to tell his own, so everybody is doing what he wants!
Edited by the Author.
Visit Sciisoft Support Forum! This is totally new and cool!
Originally Posted by Adam Phant Back in the day, a quality game like The Lost Vikings could be made with a small staff of 19 people. Nowadays blockbusters like Halo 3 are made with about ten times the number of people.
I liked Lost Vikings.
Not all teams are massive and stuff, the Metroid Prime team only had about 30 people and they systematically pumped out epic 15 hour adventures every 2 years.
Originally Posted by Adam Phant Back in the day, a quality game like The Lost Vikings could be made with a small staff of 19 people. Nowadays blockbusters like Halo 3 are made with about ten times the number of people.
I liked Lost Vikings.
Not all teams are massive and stuff, the Metroid Prime team only had about 30 people and they systematically pumped out epic 15 hour adventures every 2 years.
It would seem GameFaqs has some incomplete credit listings. I consider my point moot until I can verify that my numbers were correct.
Go as far back as 1984 and you had people making games solo. Manic miner was made single handedly by Matthew smith. (if you don't count people that produce the art for the packaging and various other things)
But i think nowadays there are more credits like:
marketing teams, voice actors, quality control, translators. You know, things that weren't required 20 years ago.
The original Worms was made by one chap in his bedroom too before Team 17 took over.
Someone round here used to do the same and now works on big Xbox games in the states. Every detail escapes me though except that he did the art for Assassin.
I think there's always been crappy money-maker games and great games.
For example, I think Spore is a really good game. I think too that these days most of the
awesomest gaming goodness comes from the indie community.
I agree with that statement and it's easy to understand why when you think that each and every game is unique in that all indie games are made by individuals who are only influenced by their own tastes and talents. The experiences that indie games offer differs from commercial games because they are influenced by one (or few) person's thoughts, not that of a team - there is no compromise in decision making. And that comes through in bucket loads for players to see and feel!
-Dark Martin- The dark is most certainly not your friend
Registered 05/06/2008
Points 21
24th September, 2008 at 17:59:21 -
Originally Posted by Mark Radon What a fascinating thread! (and i was being serious in case you were wondering)
I always question sentences like that... but thats basically because adam really screwed me up to start thinking that way.
Either that or i'm just ridiculously gullible.
Anyway...
Games are starting to become more... well crap because they just seem to have lost what matters the most (Not the money.-_-') and maybe someday they will realise that.
Some new games are being released soon... maybe these will be good?
Maybe we are growing out of games. I've been playing for years and every so often a really enjoyable game will come out, usually a couple per year but none of them really make me feel how the old ones did. Maybe because back then it was like losing my video game virginity.
I dunno.. I never get tired of new games. The non-commercial ones, that is. When I do, I pick up an ancient game again, like Master of Magic and find that I'm enjoying it a lot more than I thought I did.
I think the problem with new games is Game Design theory. Game designers are so obsessed with things like Game Balance and Features, that they forget that games are supposed to be FUN. Counter-Strike has screwed balance. Fallout 2 has really screwed up balance (i.e. the San Francisco exploit). Both of them are possible the best games ever made.
There's plenty of games which swear that they'll kill Counter-Strike. The designers claim they're better. "Experienced gamers" claim they're better. They have plenty of new features. They're "balanced".
But they seem to neglect the fun that comes from running in a small room and blasting the head off enemies, surviving a 3 on 3 battle or shooting all 3 enemies from behind. There's just a certain rush that comes from playing Counter-Strike that you don't get from FEAR or the Battlefield games. People will say that it's fun to play those newer games, but in the end, it doesn't approach the joy from Counter-Strike.
I don't think games are getting any worse. It's just that a good game is a matter of luck and love. The Black Isle guys were lucky they ended up with Fallout, and even luckier that the sequel was better. That's why they went bankrupt - because they thought they were heroes and made a whole load of other not-so-good games which other eople didn't like so much. It's like that guy who slays an invincible dragon by accidentally hitting him in the heel.
I guess you can't blame people for going for profit. Games are an art, like music or movies. If you try to clone art, you'll get a cloned art.. pretty much the same thing. It actually works for movies and music (try use the Winamp playlist generator and see how many of your songs sound exactly the same). It works for games too, but with the stupid games industry, it's just mix and match, or clone and change the surface. Spore could have been a great hit, but they decided to play it too safe and ruined a lot of things. It might have been an even better game if Will Wright decided to screw game balance and make everything totally random (and more organic feeling).
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I guess you can't blame people for going for profit. Games are an art, like music or movies. If you try to clone art, you'll get a cloned art.
Heh, my first thought here was The Underside
But I quite like how balance is affecting new games, take TF2. Some characters were horrifically balanced originally. They were all playable but you needed more skill to be an efficient pyro without dying too often. So they fixed that by giving the player the option (once they unlocked them) of new weapons that aren't better. They've just got different strategies attached to them. And thats it for me. I love a game that has been balanced so much that the only difference in class, weapon, whatever is the change in strategy.
Even old games had copious amounts of testing and balance though. The golden gun in Goldeneye (multiplayer version) had to be reloaded after each shot. The BFG churns through ammo, the chainsaw is brilliant but only for close combat etc.
IMO the problem now is that tech is overtaking the gameplay design. For all the new tech in GTA IV it's still not as fun as San Andreas or Vice City. And all that kinda nonsense.
I don't think you can generalise games. I've played a lot indie and commercial games and they both seem to have a portion of amazingly fun and well designed games.
I don't really think it's the tech. Tech has always been there. It ruined Baldur's Gate 1. It ruined Duke Nukem 3D and the Quake games (really, the quake games are rubbish gameplay-wise, they were just good for the time). If anything, excessive reliance on technology is a sign of a bad game, because the people who made it are thinking sales first, over quality.
I do like balanced games, but some games focus so much on balance, that everything becomes the same! There are no variety in a lot of balanced games. It really showed in Warcraft II, but I think Starcraft was a thing of beauty - perfectly balanced, but with 3 very different gameplay styles. Too bad it relied a bit too much on build orders.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
-Dark Martin- The dark is most certainly not your friend
Registered 05/06/2008
Points 21
8th October, 2008 at 14:16:21 -
Where did Muz go!?
Some games these days are good... for example that new sonic chronicles was epic.
The more newer series i guess are the good ones, which basically means any sequels are gonna suck.
The vast open nature of some of the levels and the big battles in them, I mean yea the corridor levels were absolute pants. It added little droplets of strategy with the limited number of weapons you could carry. The pacing was nice and the atmosphere was very well done too (this is my biggest beef with the other 2 Halo games. The setting made it good for me, being able to look up at this ring planet. Great concept that was squandered later on). The story was pretty good too - what with them ancient weapons and 'security systems' and all that. And they didn't have the age old problem of FPS games... They had good and easy to control vehicles.
And the multiplayer! Well originally I liked it because it was a good pace and wasn't a twitch shooter like HL2: DM, Counterstrike or the Unreal games. It was accessible to all my college friends. Shame you can't even pick a level when playing Halo 3 online but that's more a complaint about faulty lobby systems in console games.
The music was also very well done.
IMO it seeped quality which is why I friggin hate Bungie for messing the series up. By far the best console shooter since Goldeneye with its single player gameplay and accessible multiplayer.
I play my snes, sega genesis, nintendo 64, master system, dreamcast and saturn more than my wii and 360. I buy a new game and play it maybe 2 or 3 times. I think I played smash bros brawl twice and assassin's creed once. I usually go, oh that's cool, and then go and play sonic 3.
Originally Posted by Ecstazy What's so good about it?
It's just a average (back then, now even less) FPS with copy+paste level design.
You see, that's the problem with games these days. Everyone looks at things from a technical perspective. Are the graphics good? Does it use modern technology? Does it have cool features?
Heck, the only thing I care about Halo 1 was that it was fun from beginning to end. It made you feel like a hero. It made you feel like you were stepping inside the shoes of a hero and kicking some alien arse. It might have been the same as other FPSes, but it certainly felt different.
Same goes for Knytt Stories. There are just so many people out there who don't "get it". But for those of us who played it without judgment, it was a beautiful, beautiful game.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I suppose it boils down to taste in the end.
I can relate to what you say about how games makes you feel, for example whenever I play Fallout I nearly always take the good path, and everytime I help someone it makes me feel like I really made a difference in the life of that person, as silly as it may sound.
But Halo just didn't cut it for me. I felt much more of a hero when playing Half Life 2, and it enjoyed it a lot more. I think the difference (aside from being practically bored when playing Halo due to the constant feeling of deja vu with every turn I take) is also in the way the story is told. And maybe also that I can hardly relate to a person you never even see his (or her?) face.
I can't help thinking it's got a lot more to do with originality, or rather the lack thereof.
Modern games may be more sophisticated and graphically impressive (and that's arguable - I personally prefer good pixelart over 3d graphics anyday) than games of the '80s and early '90s, but they are, almost without exception, basically just copies of those older games. It's so rare now for a whole new genre of game to be created.
I'm not saying modern games are bad, but you're always going to be left with the feeling that you've seen it all before.
It seems to me that the Nintendo Wii, with it's unique controllers, could be the most interesting thing to happen to gaming for quite some time. Admittedly, I've never played on one, so I don't know if any of the games are any good, but at least it has the *potential* for developers to come up with some more innovative games.
I don't know how relevant this is, but the other thing I noticed recently, is that a huge number of the games now considered "classics", were created by just a handful of people (think Shigeru Miyamoto, Peter Molyneux et al). Maybe we just aren't getting more of these kind of people in the industry anymore, or maybe their creativity is somehow stifled now that development teams are bigger and more money is involved? I don't know - just a thought.
I think the problem is that people are forced to work in teams now and to look at the market before anything. Any creativity is stifled because the big companies see selling games like selling toys, not art.
It's not that there's anything wrong with big teams, it's just that they're forced to squeeze their vision into a narrower box. Look at Spore.. it's obviously a well thought out idea, but dumbed down greatly from what Will Wright first explained. The Sims on the other hand wasn't dumbed down or anything, it was just a light project till it became so rich that EA had enough money to buy out most of their competitors.
One interesting thing is that most of the "classics" didn't really sell well. Sure, they were great, Fallout, Dungeon Keeper, etc, but they ended up bankrupting the company almost every time. I don't know.. maybe art and money don't mix. Maybe games are meant to be indie.
What I do know is that the most ambitious game of all time, Dwarf Fortress, is being made by a single person based on stories written by his brother. Sure they listen to fans, but even though they could work as a huge team, they don't.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Yea. Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Lemmings, Street Fighter, Worms, Counterstrike, Starcraft, Pokemon didn't sell well at all.
It seems to me that the Nintendo Wii, with it's unique controllers, could be the most interesting thing to happen to gaming for quite some time. Admittedly, I've never played on one, so I don't know if any of the games are any good, but at least it has the *potential* for developers to come up with some more innovative games.
It does and it doesn't. It makes some games feel brilliant to play and actually makes the FPS format almost as enjoyable as the PC does, and stuff like Lost Winds is just brilliant to play. But it isn't a sweeping new setup that can play everything before it perfectly - stuff like Brawl is best with the standard controller still.
But without the Wii I'd likely have dropped out of the console market and stuck to handhelds and PC only.
For me handhelds now are like the late 90's in console gaming. There's little immersion and potential for great graphics so more effort is put onto the gameplay. Or so it seems. I could happily drop consoles now so long as I had a constant stream of handheld games and PC games will always have indie games that value inventive gameplay and alternative business models compared to PC games (WTF Blizzard want us to pay 3 different games for SC2?!).
I totally agree, handhelds have some great games. Infact, a lot of my favourite games have been for handhelds - MoleMania for gameboy, AdvanceWars, Fire Emblem and GoldenSun series' for GBA, etc.
Originally Posted by Dr. James For me handhelds now are like the late 90's in console gaming.
A lot of the best games on nintendo handhelds at least are remakes of '90s (and '80s) console games. Looking at my list of faves, FireEmblem and AdvanceWars were both essentially SNES games, while GoldenSun started out on the NES. Then there are the remakes of Zelda, Mario,...
I personally prefer good pixelart over 3d graphics anyday
I agree. I recently played through Monkey Island I,II,III, and IV. The graphics for all the games are different - I and II has some great pixel art, i loved those 2 games more than any other before or since. III goes completely different and goes cartoony but is still beautiful....then along comes 4 and for some stupid reason some idiot decided to make it 3D.No, no no no no no no ! What are you doing. It was awful.
Same thing with Simon the Sorcerer - Who thought making that in 3D would be a good idea? some games are best left in 2D
The other thing i thought of is the difficulty level. Maybe I was just very uncoordinated when I was younger, but I'm sure games are easier these days. There's not such a feeling of accomplishment when you do complete a game. I guess everyone wants instant gratification (and it's cheaper and easier to make short games too).
I personally prefer good pixelart over 3d graphics anyday
I agree. I recently played through Monkey Island I,II,III, and IV. The graphics for all the games are different - I and II has some great pixel art, i loved those 2 games more than any other before or since. III goes completely different and goes cartoony but is still beautiful....then along comes 4 and for some stupid reason some idiot decided to make it 3D.No, no no no no no no ! What are you doing. It was awful.
Same thing with Simon the Sorcerer - Who thought making that in 3D would be a good idea? some games are best left in 2D
Like worms. Who the crap thought 3d worms would be a good idea?!
You can log off any time you like, but you can't ever leave.
That's just it. Everyone wants to make a game that sells more these days. Games have become like the music industry - you could make a lot of good stuff, or you could make something that the reviewers and magazines will love.
What I hate is that modern games are getting their theories wrong. Look at games like FIG, Counter-Strike, Fallout, Knytt Stories. They were made without any theories. Look at Empire Earth 2 and 3, or any modern FPS.. those games are stuffed full of game design theories.
Formulas and trends don't work with art (except in the case of movies, where it works wonderfully!). You can't say "Worms = fun", "3D = good", thus "Worms 3D = AAA game!"
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
A lot of the best games on nintendo handhelds at least are remakes of '90s (and '80s) console games. Looking at my list of faves, FireEmblem and AdvanceWars were both essentially SNES games, while GoldenSun started out on the NES. Then there are the remakes of Zelda, Mario,...
GoldenSun never started out on the NES. The first game was on the GBA. Was there even an Advance Wars on the SNES? That started on the NES but it didn't come into its own until the GBA versions. There has only been 1 Zelda port, and no Mario/Zelda/Metroid ports at all on the DS.
Originally Posted by M
What I hate is that modern games are getting their theories wrong. Look at games like FIG, Counter-Strike, Fallout, Knytt Stories. They were made without any theories. Look at Empire Earth 2 and 3, or any modern FPS.. those games are stuffed full of game design theories.
Wasn't Fig a MMF version of some Flash game though? Hmm.
But I disagree. You're just using your list of fave games again Muz (and picking bad games with obvious design flaws as examples). Looking over the good games that sell (Mario, GTA, Pokemon) they do have a formula or theory that they follow through on all their games. It's incredibly short sighted to say that theories=bad.
I wasn't saying that Worms 3D was good BECAUSE it was 3D, I just liked it.
I liked it better than the 2D ones. I thought it was more fun.
And you can have all the special effects, and great graphics, and hardware acceleration, but FUN is what games are about.
Your just jealous that you're not as awesome as me.
(And my megaman avatar )
DrJames: You're right about Golden Sun. It turns out some chinese company had just ported it to the NES - why I do not know. They did the same with Tomb Raider and a few others. There was indeed a super famicom wars. Metroid?
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by an Administrator.
i win.
He He. That is nostalgia for all the money. You should try it. 
Typically, if you emulate games, you don't care if it's legal though. 
