Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What happened to gaming? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perrytheplatypus)
    You mean Command and Conquer?
    yes, C&C - Command and Conquer...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    I did not equate them, I didn't even mention COD in relation to Half-Life. They were separate sentences. The latter sentence designed to outline a very basic example.
    Well it was a natural extrapolation but w/e.

    On topic, Command and Conquer definately belongs in that list too.. Up to Red Alert (Probably the best, though mabye tiberian sun?)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomH999)
    yes, C&C - Command and Conquer...
    Just making sure...

    Yeah, I agree, it was pretty good...

    And I'm not even one of those classics fans :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    You have cherry picked a single game, By "Hitman" I did indeed mean the series spanning between 2000 - 2004 which I thought was clear as I didn't specify a range as I did with the others. Though I more focused on the game's unique concept than how "Painful it is to look at"....

    Regardless, I have not cited the N64 as remotely the epithany of gaming. N64 was a console that did a lot but nothing in particular.

    You are speaking as if I have recently decided that old games are better than new games. I've been playing PC games since I was 4. The games I have spoke of are not flash in the pans, I have witnessed their impact on gaming as a whole. To speak in popular terms, the mediocre but commercially genius COD would not exist if it weren't for the frontier explored by Half-Life (SP) and it's numerous multiplayer faucets (Team Fortress and Counter Strike)

    It's not nostalgia because I still to this day, despite purchasing (I never pirate games) countless modern releases often find myself returning to core games such as (But by no means limited to) those I have already cited.
    I've never understood why people don't think graphics matter. Podracer used to be my favourite racer of all time, and yet looking at it now it is awful to play because of how blocky it is. Graphics are an important element to games, and is why many don't age well.

    It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that. I am saying that over time you will remember what you liked and disregard the bad, inevitably colouring your opinion of past years. For example, retrospectively I think of 1994 as one of the best years for movies. This is purely because three of my favourite films came out then, I couldn't name any dross which was out then. If I were to compare it to this year I could obviously **** it off by saying "look at all of these stupid, cash-grabbing films being pumped out with no substance", like Saw 3D and Skyline. But this wouldn't be a fair comparison, they should be compared to the very best of this year, where films like Inception and Scott Pilgrim are clearly showing that innovation is not dead.

    I feel you are constructing a straw man here, by looking at the very best of the past with the most popular games of today. There are still wonderful titles being constructed if you look for them. It's very reductionist to equate years as you are doing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Looks at the mess that is Tiberian Twilight...
    It totally went against everything C&C stood for IMO.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I've never understood why people don't think graphics matter. Podracer used to be my favourite racer of all time, and yet looking at it now it is awful to play because of how blocky it is. Graphics are an important element to games, and is why many don't age well.

    It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that. I am saying that over time you will remember what you liked and disregard the bad, inevitably colouring your opinion of past years. For example, retrospectively I think of 1994 as one of the best years for movies. This is purely because three of my favourite films came out then, I couldn't name any dross which was out then. If I were to compare it to this year I could obviously **** it off by saying "look at all of these stupid, cash-grabbing films being pumped out with no substance", like Saw 3D and Skyline. But this wouldn't be a fair comparison, they should be compared to the very best of this year, where films like Inception and Scott Pilgrim are clearly showing that innovation is not dead.

    I feel you are constructing a straw man here, by looking at the very best of the past with the most popular games of today. There are still wonderful titles being constructed if you look for them. It's very reductionist to equate years as you are doing.
    I didn't say anything with regard to "Substance". I recently purchased a £6.99 game off steam called Osmos. It has 2d graphics at best and no real story but it has more a game structure than most new releases.

    I'm not sweepingly disregarding modern releases. I'm just finding myself most often extremely disapointed with titles that should and easily could be as inspiring and unique as the ones of previous era.

    It's not rose tinted spectacles like you are saying, for example I enjoy Civ 4 more than I do 2 or 3 (But not 5, ffs they killed it). It's the lack of depth, immersion, gameplay, execution that I'm increasingly left short handed on in exchange for semi-impressive visuals and a "trophy/achivement".

    In gaming that sense of achivement used to be your own...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    And what is that? Commanding and conquering?

    I kid. I agree.
    (Build), Command & Conquer :ahee:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomH999)
    Just look what happened to C&C, that was a legend of a game, now look at it.
    Good point. 20 yr old girls in leather hot pants holding an assault rifle while explaining your objectives!? They've turned the cutscenes in to soft porn. I saw a blonde in there who used to be in Hollyoaks aswell. They must have been desperate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noggins)
    Good point. 20 yr old girls in leather hot pants holding an assault rifle while explaining your objectives!? They've turned the cutscenes in to soft porn. I saw a blonde in there who used to be in Hollyoaks aswell. They must have been desperate
    I hate it when they incorporate real life actors into games, it makes them look so cheap. I cant think of a game that's pulled it off to be honest.

    Just thinking now, games likes Arcanum, Theme Hospital & Theme Park , Cossacks, CounterStrike. I used to spend hours playing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomH999)
    I hate it when they incorporate real life actors into games, it makes them look so cheap. I cant think of a game that's pulled it off to be honest.

    Just thinking now, games likes Arcanum, Theme Hospital & Theme Park , Cossacks, CounterStrike. I used to spend hours playing.
    Trust me - Red Alert pulled it off.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    When the OP said 'gaming has become a powerful medium for story telling, an artform of it's own and plainly the best faucet of social commentary we have ever had' I immediately thought of Bioshock. But that game is an exception rather than the rule of games today.
    Some games may copy aspects of Bioshock but they will actually find it much easier to copy the social commentary aspects, which any A-Level Politics student should be able to spiel, than they will to copy the atmosphere, which takes the imagination of a great director, great set designer, great level designer, great musician etc.

    A problem for me, which I think that the OP suggests, is that games far too frequently try to be like Michael Bay films. It's beyond a joke now. Bioshock and Uncharted are great but they are the exception rather than the rule.

    When I think of the games that were being knocked out up to only just over 5 years ago I don't see a similar amount of having pure gamers interests at heart. I think that the death of the Dreamcast and the creation of the Xbox had something to do with it followed by the relatively lacklustre sales of the Gamecube and Nintendo's concentration on casual gamers- and then everyone's concentration on casual gamers. Battle lines were drawn - games became less subtle. They were either 'use every special effect under the sun even if it's overkill' for Xbox360/PS3 games or 'do the bare minimum graphically to sell games' on the Wii. The general public are too busy trying to cluelessly work out whether playing Mickey's Magical Quest is going to turn their son in to a killer.

    Apart from the games that I have mentioned, in relatively recent years I look with fondness to Crash Team Racing, Banjo Kazooie, Jet Set Radio, the Resident Evil remake, Metroid Prime. There was a proper scene then that resulted in these games, particularly on Nintendo and Sega consoles. They really were pushing the button on what could be done with 3D games - in an abstract sense almost- more to do with level design than special effects (although the graphics remain great too in their relatively uncluttered way). It would take a great will to flow against the tide to make games of that purity and clarity now.

    But the OP is talking from the perspective of a PC gamer and seem to end up berating consoles games. But console games have rarely aimed to be lengthy and dry like some PC games. Console games can be shorter, punchier, more colourful. Console games are the essence of videogames if you ask me - PC games may as well be compared to board games (lots of strategy games) for what difference they bring compared to console games.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    Trust me - Red Alert pulled it off.
    Dont remember the cut scenes too well, been a long time now.

    I prefer animated cut scenes personally, MGS4 did it so well, i loved that game
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why spend time creating a game of a select few, when you can spend the same time making a game for the masses.

    There are more casual gamers than hardcore gamers and more casual gamers are slowly becoming hardcore gamers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting thread.

    I, too, still go back and revisit older games, and genuinely enjoy them. Not just 1997+, either - I particularly love UFO: Enemy Unknown (1994). I don't think, however, that this is because they're the peak of gaming - it just shows that they can still hold their own, that modern games haven't rendered older games totally obsolete.

    I agree and accept that we don't see quite the same level of innovation these days, but to a certain extent, that's because most ideas have now been done, and in 1997, that wasn't the case! I don't begrudge developers taking established franchises and just tweaking them; incrementally making a good formula into an awesome product is no bad thing. COD4, for example, didn't do anything groundbreakingly new - but what it did, it did astonishingly well, creating a masterpiece of the genre. MW2 then built on that, and gave us something even less new, but even better nonetheless. GTA was a great game, really fun - but GTA4 is just in another world. And I don't accept for a moment that no passion went into these.

    Fundamentally, I play games to have fun, and I judge a game by how much fun I have playing it. And I don't think any of the fun has gone over my 20 years as a gamer.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think a large part of it is the enlarged audience.

    Think about it, back when we all started gaming, it was for the select few with consoles or computers. Games cost money and there wasn't a large amount of profit in them. As the years have gone on, the market has increased and so has the output. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of companies pump out cookie cutter games and utter trash, whilst still publishing utter gems. It might be that the ratio of good:bad is a lot worse than it used to, but I would argue that the same amount of gems are still being published as they were in the bygone years of our youth, it's just that the amount of bad games has increased massively.

    I would agree with Phalanges that you're looking at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. You've cherry-picked a list of games that span a long period of time and a number of genres. You also haven't played every single game out there, so cannot comment on them all, really. Hell, half of the great games from Japan never make it to America, let alone Europe, for instance.

    There is also a lot of innovation happening with the indie publishers. Some great games being released on Xbox Live, PSN or whatever it's called and the Wii Virtual Console.


    (Original post by Picnic1)
    *snips*
    I don't know about the Nintendo bit. The console may be aimed at casual gamers, but the publishing section is still making games for their hardcore fans: Legend of Zelda, Mario, Metroid, even Pokémon and Pikmin. Nintendo may publish a lot of of the casual games, but it puts more money, more effort and more love/craftmanship into its hardcore titles these days than ever before.

    To be perfectly honest, I think the real innovative and unique games are to be found on the DS. More companies seem to have got to grips with it and created truly amazing games on there than they have with the Wii, despite them being similar in regards to control systems.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    But the OP is talking from the perspective of a PC gamer and seem to end up berating consoles games. But console games have rarely aimed to be lengthy and dry like some PC games. Console games can be shorter, punchier, more colourful. Console games are the essence of videogames if you ask me - PC games may as well be compared to board games (lots of strategy games) for what difference they bring compared to console games.
    Just to get it out there I play a lot more PS3 nowadays than I do PC due to time constraints what with working and ****.

    Though your comparison to PC/Board games is erroneous. There are more strategy titles for PC granted but that's because the interface is much more suited to such games. Frankly, there are more games on PC overall and most games you can get on console, you can get on PC and provided you have the hardware it runs better, looks better and is more modifiable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    Well GTFO then you ****ing random, why post?
    m8 u just COMPLETELY proved his point
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    Frankly, there are more games on PC overall and most games you can get on console, you can get on PC
    Uncharted? Heavy Rain? Any Xbox360 game by Rare? Even Alan Wake is still Xbox360 exclusive at the moment.

    Maybe most are on the PC now but not in the days of the Dreamcast, N64, Gamecube whose exclusives remained exclusive (unless you are playing them on a PC emulator which doesn't really count - it's like the creative equivalent of playing a pirated game).

    There is definitely a character about console gaming that has contributed to why some games are as they are - more about carefully choreographed fun than strategic realism. If consoles suddenly died out, competition would decrease and so would the incentive to make distinctive games.

    But I understand that, of multiformat games, the PC often offers the sharpest looking version.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)

    I would agree with Phalanges that you're looking at the past with rose-tinted spectacles. You've cherry-picked a list of games that span a long period of time and a number of genres. You also haven't played every single game out there, so cannot comment on them all, really. Hell, half of the great games from Japan never make it to America, let alone Europe, for instance.

    I didn't pick those games out exclusively, they were examples of extraordinary games between 1997 and 2004.

    You could have picked anything, Morrowind, Thief series, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Theme Hospital, Jedi Knight 2:JO etc etc etc.

    The epithet stands, games, were - better.

    I cant objectively measure or quantify that statement, but it's quite obvious if you count the the notable titles out today and their gaming value against what came out in that era..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    I didn't pick those games out exclusively, they were examples of extraordinary games between 1997 and 2004.

    You could have picked anything, Morrowind, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Theme Hospital, Project Eden, Jedi Knight 2:JO etc etc etc.

    The epithet stands, games, were - better.
    1997-2004 is a long time in regards to gaming. You are also, given your bias, picking predominantly PC games. Aside from that and the PS3, which do you have experience with?

    Look at the innovations in gaming caused by the DS and the Wii. Not the casual games, but the "hardcore" games that are on those handhelds. Look how it forced Sony and Microsoft to emulate or attempt to do better.

    Pretty much every DS game for example has been released since 2005, given the machine was first released in the dying months of 2004. Then there's Dragon Age; the more recent Legend of Zelda games; how about Mario Galaxy; Mass Effect; The World Ends With You; Bioshock; Assassin's Creed; The Last Remnant and so many more. All unique, innovative and quality games.

    Obviously, I am coming at this from a RPG angle as those are my games, but to say the golden age of gaming is long gone is just stupid.


    (Original post by FallenPetal)
    *snips*
    The trend of crappy, "casual" games existed long before the Wii came out. Nintendo may have used it to help their sales after the Gamecube failing abysmally, but that's hardly a bad thing, given the amount of great games they publish themselves. After all, it couldn't've succeeded as a "party" console if the 3rd party support hadn't been there, which it most certainly has.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Quick link:

    Unanswered gaming threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.