The state of videogames

[Jebus]

Though I have the feeling that games have not really evolved as a medium. When I look back to my youth, where I played titles like Jagged Alliance, Baldurs Gate, Fallout, Unreal Tournament, Half Life etc. I had the feeling that at least over time you would get titles that really pushed the medium forward. Some kind of evolution, just with movies or photography where it started to become a serious form of art and profession.

But I don't have the feelings like games are there yet. Its not so much that there are no quality games out there or that you cant enjoy a round of CoD or what ever. But it simply feels like they still cant find their own pace. Games like Mass Effect for example, its not a bad game. But its really more of some kind of ... interactive movie. It it has a reason when people make fun about modern shooters being more about cut scenes then gameplay ... I have as well the feeling that there is less room for experimentation, this might be because there are a lot more game developing companies out there and big publishers. But in the past you had games like Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, XIII and many more, and they all had their place. Now you can almost only find those kind of games only in the independed genre. Games like Deus Ex HR are rather pearls. To many game developers I think try to compete with movies here as far as story telling goes and all that stuff but they forget that the way how movies are told (very linear kind of story telling) isn't really using games with their full potential, the player interaction, interacting with the game world and a lot more.

Again, I am not saying that everything is doom and gloom, I just think that right now they spend to much time to focus on making games "mature", a "serious" business and using movies as guidance instead of finding their own pace. For example there should be a lot more games out there like Stalker or Deus Ex. Those are not perfect games but good examples I think. Bioschock would be another decent example. Or Fallout New Vegas. So the "great" games do exist out there. But definitely not enough.

I've been playing games for even longer than you have it seems, and it appears to me your memory is quite selective... Sure, you had gems like PS:T or Jagged Alliance back in the day - but you also had a huge amount of goddamn shitty games. About the same proportion of good games vs. shitty games, actually.

Secondly, games *have* gotten better, it's just that we're more used to it. Take X-Com, for example: for years and years, there wasn't a single game that was as good as the original X-COM. They've made a remake now. If you put the two side by side, you can't not admit that it's a better game in almost every possible way: better strategy, tactics, mechanics, etc. Game makers have learnt so much over the decades, even a relatively mediocre game - take Company of Heroes 2, for example - is still lightyears ahead in simple things like mechanics and ergonomics you can't compare them to games past.

If I think of the best non-strategy games I've played in the last few years, I think of these: Deus Ex, Stalker, the Bioshock series, Fallout: NV (as you all mentioned), but also Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dark Souls, Dishonored, Far Cry 3, The Last of Us, Red Dead: Redemption, Borderlands, Spec Ops: The Line, The Walking Dead and holy shit look at that that's already quite the list. That's already more damn good and damn mature games than I've played in all my teenage years. And those are just the games from the last few years...

Of course there aren't enough of these games out there. There are never enough of these things out there! But there are more of them out there than there ever were.

He wanted to turn the turtles in to aliens dude ...

So? It makes more sense than a bullshit story about radioactive waste - plus it doesn't add to the fearmongering on nuclear energy. If anything, it's a step forward.

Why don't you show me some recent FPS and RPGs which are made for adults as opposed to teenagers or pretentious adolescents.

You can't.

Fuck yes I can, you arrogant twat. FPS? How about Spec Ops: The Line? Red Dead Redemption? Arma?
RPG? The Witcher series. Fallout: New Vegas. Dragon Age: Origins.

And I'd like you to tell me about any RPG's that weren't made for teenagers or pretentious adolescents. Even Fallout was made for teenagers and pretentious adolescents, ffs.

The RTS genre is the only one that evolved, through maintaining some appeal via increasing complexity of mechanics. However they, like everyone else, fail to create stories and worlds that can draw you in.

Starcraft 2 was admirable in that respect, but about it. Even the best attempts at writing in games usually max out at the level of an average TV show, and they're so very rare, practically non-existent.

Fuck you, you ingorant cunt. You think to lecture me on games, and the best strategy game you can think of that caters to adults is Starcraft 2? How about everything Paradox ever made? X-COM? Men of War? Company of Heroes?

When was the last time you saw a game with writing quality of Planescape: Torment? Which was amazing for games, but merely decent in the scope of "all mediums".

Probably never.

There never was another game like PS:T. Holding up all stories to the standards of the best one ever made is pretty damn stupid.

And if you want stories from books, then read a goddamn book. If a game featured as much text as a book, snobs like you would be the first to complain that there's too much reading. If a game featured as much acted scenes as movies, people like you would be the first to complain that there's too much hand-holding and cutscenes.

 

[mobucks]

Tact, gentlemen; let's have some.

 

[Wumbology]

I think we're all fully aware that the videogame industry sucks.

Can we stop talking about it? Thanks. Every time any forum has this conversation, it devolves to the same shit-flinging.

So please, let's stop acting grim over videogames and I don't know, talk about GOOD games.

 

[Ilosar]

Albeit I don't condone the attitude, a big +1 to Jebus's post.

I'll add in the strategy genre Sins of a Solar Empire, *some* games of the Total War Series, Civilization which reached its pinnacle at 4 IMO, and of course ARTS like DOTA or League of Legends. The latter particularily have a mechanical finesse probably unrivaled in any game of any genre ever made. They require tremendous skill to master. And it's not like they're niche titles as well.

For FPSes, I'd add Planetscape 2, Team Fortress 2 or World of Tanks (well, not strictly an FPS but you get the idea). Far Cry 3 was also a great FPS. The first FEAR and Hard Reset were good as well, and I had tons of fun with Just Cause 2 if you want to stretch the definition.

Other random games from 1-2 years ago: Telltale titles (The Wolf Among Us really drew me in), Hitman: Absolution, Path of Exile, Warhammer 40K Space Marine (guilty pleasure, eh), Portal 2, Amnesia, Bastion and Mass Effect series (shoot me).

There really is no shortage of good or great games unless your tastes are very specific or your standards incredibly high.

 

[shihonage]

Wumbology, when a messenger arrives and tells you that a town is burning, you can of course focus on something else. That doesn't change the fact that the town is burning, nor is it the messenger's fault for being negative when acknowledging a negative fact.

You don't like to discuss that particular reality... feel free to find a topic not dedicated to it? God knows they are in the majority on most of the Internet. Lack of scrutiny, discernment and taste among the fanbase is what keeps companies like Bioware and Bethesda and many others, in business.

_______


Jebus, I was gonna reply on topic but then noticed your vocabulary.

While my tone can be patronizing at times, and I can sound elitist to some, I try not to use words that would get me punched in the face if we conversed in person.

Among them are derogatory references to female genitalia.

Plus, you think that a mediocre TPS with a twist ending is a great game. And you can't read - Starcraft 2 was mentioned in writing quality context, not strategy depth context.

I'm gonna stop here before you blow a gasket.

 

[Wumbology]

Shihonage, the videogame industry is not a town. That's an really laughable analogy, actually. There are no lives at stake, nor is conversing about a burning town as opposed to DOING something the proper course of action.

What I mean is this: I feel like I've seen this conversation again... and again... and again. It's the reason I really don't go on 4chan as much.
Now, I'm simply suggesting that this conversation is pointless. I'm not suggesting we DON'T acknowledge that the videogame journalism is laughably dead, either. I'd just like to avoid the umpteenth bout of useless complaining about it. If this thread came to a constructive conclusion, like to support indie developers or to make a poll about this or SOMETHING, I'd fully support it.

That isn't happening, though.

 

[shihonage]

And conversations praising games are somehow less pointless?

I've seen those again and again and AGAIN, the Internet is overwhelmingly covered with people thinking that Batman: Arkham Asylum or Dragon Age were some kind of a gaming breakthroughs, while I found them exceedingly boring and more-of-the-same.

The corners where I can complain about, and criticize games, without being burned at the stake by the peace-loving forum denizens, are few and far between.

NMA used to be one of them.

 

[Wumbology]

Did I say "don't criticize games"? Did I say "enjoy every game"?

No, I didn't. I didn't even remotely SUGGEST that. I did say we should ACKNOWLEDGE fault. There is nothing wrong with a thread that deconstructs a poor game. It actually helps people decide which games to buy and to avoid certain games.

What is pointless is this thread. This thread is nothing other than complaints we've all heard before and are well-familiar with.

And I'll say it again: if SOMETHING productive came out of this thread, I would support it. Nothing is. It's a circlejerk of opinion.

You're not being burned at the stake, you sensationalist. Sorry if not everyone agrees with you.

To turn this thread to something preferable, I'll post an example of a solid indie game, Receiver. It's really a tech demo... but whatever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GCThInmzjXw

 

[fred2]

For those who interested in games as an art form, maybe something like Stanley Parable will work for you..

 

[shihonage]

Wumbology...

At some point you may arrive to this basic truth - criticism results in improvement.

You never know who is reading or what they learn from it. I certainly learned a lot from reading negative things about the industry and specific games both on NMA and RPG Codex.

Those posts are usually the most interesting of the bunch, because even when I perceive the poster to be "wrong", they ignite my thinking.

The original post in this thread falls into that category. I found it sufficiently detailed to be entertaining and informative.

...

Now, your complaints have a lot less insight in them than the original post. They're, more or less, a kneejerk reaction to negativity you perceive to be "irrational". A collection of vague damning statements.

Predictably, your content contribution is not a critical thought either, but a link to a pretentious indie engine experiment.

If you think this thread is tiring... "complaints about complaints" like yours are even more so.

 

[Wumbology]

Pretentious indie engine experiment? And you call MY reactions kneejerk? Jesus, your head is so far up your ass...

 

[shihonage]

I saw that video many months ago.

It's a half-baked tech demo with a physics plugin, where missing features like saving are touted as design decisions.

It is pretty much the definition of "pretentious indie engine experiment", sorry to say.

 

[Wumbology]

...he explicitly states that was to provide a sense of consequence to death in the game. It's not a missing feature.

 

[fred2]

@shihonage, There is nothing wrong with a thread topic or the conversation. There are great informative post presenting pros/cons in a constructive manner. As Wumbology tactfully noted, such threads tend to derail into a predicatable pattern, for example if someone would only make post that has no constructive component, laced with insults and only server to enforce his perceived intellectual superiority(which is misguided at best and ignorant and overcompensating at worse), turning the conversation into argument.

 

[Ilosar]

And conversations praising games are somehow less pointless?

I've seen those again and again and AGAIN, the Internet is overwhelmingly covered with people thinking that Batman: Arkham Asylum or Dragon Age were some kind of a gaming breakthroughs, while I found them exceedingly boring and more-of-the-same.

The corners where I can complain about, and criticize games, without being burned at the stake by the peace-loving forum denizens, are few and far between.

NMA used to be one of them.

All I read is ''Whahhh, not everyone agrees with me, everyone but me is a tasteless primate, woe is my self, waaaah''.

Not liking modern games is one thing. Creating a thread where you proclaim almost every single modern game sucks and that anyone who disagrees has no taste is quite another. You've been presented counter-points and you haven't even refuted them. You make a condescending arse of yourself and then expect people to respect you. Sorry mate, doesn't work that way.

If you want to discuss, you're welcome. If you want to act as if NMA is some sort of anti-modern-games hive-mind that must accept your opinions no strings attached, tough luck, you won't get this here. Get off your high horse.

 

[shihonage]

All I read is ''Whahhh, not everyone agrees with me, everyone but me is a tasteless primate, woe is my self, waaaah''.

I'm sorry to hear about your reading issues.

Not liking modern games is one thing. Creating a thread where you proclaim almost every single modern game sucks and that anyone who disagrees has no taste is quite another.

Another point detracted from reading comprehension - I didn't create this thread.

You've been presented counter-points and you haven't even refuted them.

Counterpoints?

Feel free to quote Jebus' rant minus the Tourettes and present it from yourself, and I might respond to those so-called "counterpoints", known by reasonable men as strawmen.

However I doubt that you can, since your mouth needs as much of a thorough washing as his does.

 

[Jebus]

I'm actually not all that invested in this, it's that I quit smoking four months ago (damn it felt good to let of some steam).

Anyway, I respectfully disagree and all that jazz. Cfr. supra for my arguments, as formulated by a recent ex-smoker frothing at the mouth.

 

[fred2]

I'll add in the strategy genre Sins of a Solar Empire, *some* games of the Total War Series, Civilization which reached its pinnacle at 4 IMO, and of course ARTS like DOTA or League of Legends. The latter particularily have a mechanical finesse probably unrivaled in any game of any genre ever made. They require tremendous skill to master. And it's not like they're niche titles as well.

I think what alienates most about mainstream titles, is its target audience and little bit bitterness. After all it can be frustrating to see how much effort is put into games and how much is achieved and how little it offers to us. Even the good ol' titles are getting mainstream remakes, changing what we consider core mechanics or becoming less cultural relevant.(for some its even worse, finding them self playing at the same game as kid half their age) As for target audience, it might come as a surprise to some, but the largest target audience is not teenagers, but casual players, which include most adults. Yes, between life, wife and taxes most of us, find very little time to play games.

By large casual players prefer simplified and streamlined games(not be confused with dumbed down). Some mistake complicated with complex, or "having depth". If anyone familiar with Dwarf Fortress and Paradox games , its a perfect example of complicated vs complex gameplay. Streamlined interfaces is how you present complex gameplay without pointless tedious mind numbing busy work, which only misguided people mistake for depth. For example Sins of a Solar Empire mention by Ilosar, has one of the best interfaces I seen in 4x space games to date.

Recent titles in Civilization and Total War series are good examples of casual games. For example Civ V which was poorly received by hardcore fans of Civ IV, is in fact better in every way than its predecessor for casual audience. It place emphasis on core concept such as strategy and automated many micromanagement aspects of the game which added very little to the experience and was ignored by the vast majority of players who never played on harder difficulty levels. It also allows for MP experience in which you didn't have to be unemployed, have no life and or do chores/contemplate suicide while waiting for other players to finish their turn. However, does it add in complexity beyond than CivIV? Absolutely, not. It's a step back, especially if you visited the modding section on civfanatics.(I still have PIE mod installed) Was it dumbed down? no, for the majority of fan base it was improved in every aspect and provided a far better entertainment value. Obviously those who enjoyed the freedom in micro managing their empire CIV IV didn't like it as much, however, you cant expect them to shell new AAA titles in that direction every time, its just not economically viable. So unless you care more for new graphics than context, you'll have to do with CIV IV or try one of paradox games. Same goes for Total War its a great mix between turn base strategy and real-time combat, it provides superb immersion, even with all the bugs the new Rome total war is gorgeous and something that I personally will enjoy playing at least once, even though I fully aware that compared to other titles i own from paradox its complexity is laughable.


Anyway, I am not trying to praise the developers, just point out the simple reality of supply and demand. I also want to stress, that today we have an insanely wide variety of games, in all genres, as long as you willing to look and keep an open mind.

 

[valcik]

So unless you care more for new graphics than context, you'll have to do with CIV IV or try one of paradox games.

There's also Call to Power 2. As for game mechanics, I consider it much better game than Civ IV. In comparison:
- smooth 2D graphics instead of that hardware demanding Gamebryo.
- the same mechanics, e.g. espionage, corporations, culture, religion and even some more! Terraforming, futuristic undersea buildings and warfare..
- 400 MB of data, no need of DLC or other expansions unlike that ~3GB monster Civ IV
- price (6 bucks on GOG)

In fact, Civ IV is just dumbed-down CTP2, especially without the expansions installed.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

It reminds me of all the shit Michael Bay gets. Sure, his movies are vapid. Sure, there's a mess and there's too much explosions. But... that's because you're not the target audience. His target audience is teenage boys. And what's wrong with that?

They are bad even from that angle. Michael Bay is a terrible writer/director.

Secondly, games *have* gotten better, it's just that we're more used to it.

Stealth games? Worse. Old style FPSs? Worse. Graphic adventures? Worse. Beat'em up? Nonexistant. Action adventure a-la Tomb Raider? Nonexistant.

Take X-Com, for example: for years and years, there wasn't a single game that was as good as the original X-COM. They've made a remake now. If you put the two side by side, you can't not admit that it's a better game in almost every possible way

The remake is not a better game in almost every way possible. Smaller teams, smaller maps, reduced inventory customization, reduced inventory, less stuff to research, action points are gone, you can free aim only with explosives, base managmenet is gone... The remake is a good game, it does fix some stuff and adds a few interesting things but the original is still waaaaaay better.