Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    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.
    Uncharted and Heavy Rain were epic, I haven't discounted them once though.

    I say again, this is not a generic attack on all new games - this is a critique of the entire generation of games as a whole.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    ...I disagree.

    Personally I rate games on how much they absorb me through the story and gameplay; new technology is giving developers much more breadth to do that.

    But still, a good game is a good game and a good game should be timeless. I still play my megadrive, I still play Half-life, I still play pokemon red (it's actually better than any of the new games), I still play the original Halo (before bungie sold out to online multiplayer :Z) and I'm still going to be playing the games I love right now for years to come (Mass Effect and Fable anyone??).

    All that's really happened is Nintendo have decided to attack the 'casual' market, bringing a sea of crappy, quicksell games along with it, and because they are owning right now Microsoft and Sony are following suit. But that doesn't mean to say that THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE A GOOD GAME EVER AGAIN! The money which MS and Sony make from being good little trendwhores is going to go towards developing better systems with better games: Could you imagine a world where only Nintendo made games and games were only made for Nintendo? Urrghhh.

    Try and look on the brightside, they are removing the stigma that videogames are only for socially inept teenagers who sit in dark rooms all day and the taboo which comes along with it...

    ...but I do wish that people will stop over-hyping series such as CoD, Halo, Super Mario Galaxy and GTA. A 10/10 rating is worth **** all nowadays
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting thread to read, like people have mentioned in previous posts and I think its true to say that nothing is original and some ideas are processed until they are run dry.

    A few modern titles have really shown there colours though, like Heavy Rain forr instance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    But there are ones that do out there. Three of the following games are 2.5 D

    What about Portal?
    World of goo was also pretty good. kind of like a throwback to Lemmings. I still haven't played the full game :ashamed:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    as with everything else in life, it peaked and died. maybe one day it will revive itself in one form or another.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oddworld: Abes Oddysee
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TomH999)
    Oddworld: Abes Oddysee
    YES! One of my favourite games!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    Hi,

    I think it's fair to say, those that were actively gaming at the time will percive 1997-2004 as the real peak of gaming. Especially if you were a PC gamer. This was a time where titles were innovative and unique - Deus Ex, Half-Life 1+2, Fallout 1+2, Operation Flashpoint, System Shock 2, Hitman, Commandoes 1-2, Baldurs Gate 2 etc. The technology was availible and the motivation for developers to really push the boat out started to set in.

    Yet the gaming industry at that point was not commercialised enough, not popular enough to be ran into the generic formulas we see today - captious rehashes that vaugely resemble a 3D hollywood blockbuster film, aptly reflect an investors portfolio. Games today are made for "mass appeal" - made for people who quite plainly have no passion for gaming whatsoever.

    I understand a gaming studio is in essence a business, and it always has been and always will be. However, much like a book, 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. Enough of this corporate bull consistently chimed out by sellouts. Enough raping of high calibre titles into poor, diluted sequels that trade actual gameplay for console-esque mediocre fails of COD proportions.

    The worst thing that ever happened to gaming was that it made a "success" of itself.
    Developers realised that making games for stupid people was a bigger market......
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hello? Ubisoft? Hello? Beyond Good & Evil?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't say the golden age of gaming is dead, but I agree that It's a lot harder to find good titles out there now. Why make a good, deep, innovative and well told game when you can shovel out some crappy sequel with a poor plot and uninspiring gameplay, and make 10 times the profit?
    Don't get me wrong though, there are still some great games out there, just look at half life 2, portal (and soon portal 2) and bioshock. These are all relatively modern classics. Avoid anything well advertised or expensive and there are some excellent titles to be found.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    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.
    ...I didn't say it didn't. All I said was that Nintendo exploited that market with the Wii, thus bringing a large influx of them unto us.

    3rd party support on the Wii isn't great Most Wii games worth playing are Nintendo developed (even so, as I said, SMG1/2 is massively over-rated). They're good, but not amazing.

    ...At least not the Nintendo of 10 years ago amazing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    I say again, this is not a generic attack on all new games - this is a critique of the entire generation of games as a whole.
    As a few others have, I really have to disagree with you.

    Sure, I can readily accept that you personally are perhaps enjoying the average modern game that you play more than the average game that was released 1997-2004 (an era which spans pretty much forever, and covered a period of much faster technological progress).

    But what does that say? There are undoubtedly more games being released now aimed at a broader audience than ever before; but how does this reflect on the games you regularly encounter? You say, for example, that "not popular enough to be ran into the generic formulas we see today". But at what period in gaming's history have the majority of releases not been generic rehashes? Looking back through the annals, gaming has seemed to jump from rehashes of Space Invaders to Asteroids to Pacman to Doom to Tomb Raider to something that "vaugely )(sic) resemble a 3D hollywood blockbuster film".

    And every single year, someone would write an opinion piece talking about how gaming was 'past its golden era', and all that was being released these days was generic same-ish titles that weren't as good as they used to be. The fact that these pieces keep being written and that gaming as a medium has only increased in popularity is testament to the opposite.

    You said that you weren't looking at the past through rose-tinted goggles because "despite purchasing countless modern releases often find myself returning to core games such as (But by no means limited to) those I have already cited." - well, sorry, that's just pretty much your problem, and I don't think that there's much we can do to change this, and the plural of your anecdote isn't a widespread depreciation in quality of games. There are exceptionally few genres out there that aren't being done better than they've ever been done before (as a mean quality: I won't debate that HL2 (+ep1/2, which are newer) is perhaps the best FPS ever - but just because games are getting better overall doesn't mean that the very best examples can't be years old).

    The resurgence of the Indie scene since 2004 has arguably been the biggest game-changer. Hasn't this taken the power away from the big corporates and 'sellout' companies in a way that hasn't been seen since well before 1997 in the heady days of bedroom Commodore coders?

    And with respect to your point on sequels: the oddity of games compared to other media is precisely that the sequels tend to be better than their forebears. It's rare that a title is raped and diluted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slab'o'Butter)
    Well GTFO then you ****ing random, why post?
    Yo' better shut yo' mouth, you only get one life in the real world, fool.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FallenPetal)
    ...I didn't say it didn't. All I said was that Nintendo exploited that market with the Wii, thus bringing a large influx of them unto us.

    3rd party support on the Wii isn't great Most Wii games worth playing are Nintendo developed, and they're good, but not amazing. As I said, SMG1/2, massively over-rated.

    ...At least not the Nintendo of 10 years ago amazing.
    Personally, I felt the "casual" games market properly peaked with the PS2, not the Wii. The Wii may be in more homes, but there were more "casual" games out there on the PS2. I think the Wii is really the PS2's spiritual successor in that area, though, which is a pity, as it is such a great console.

    2nd party/3rd party support has made it the party console, though. Without them, it would've died a death. Nintendo doesn't really tend to make that many games outside of its flagship titles anymore.

    As for Mario Galaxy, well, I've got the first one, but I haven't really played it. Not the biggest fan of those games. Wouldn't call it "massively over-rated", though. Considering how popular it is and the reviews its got, it's hard not to be overrated, mind. Still leaves you with Metroid, Pokémon, Legend of Zelda and a few others I'm forgetting.

    I also think that Twilight Princess, whilst better than OoT, is not as good as Majora's Mask. Otherwise, I think they've only improved with their own games, really.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    consoles and pcs gaming being more accessible to everyone now, seeing as computers or even consoles aren't seen as luxury items. So there is a broader variety of games with more and more titles in the pipeline. Since this means there are larger audiences and more chance of revenue, the gaming companies try to expand their titles by exploring new gaming genres or just copying the best seller.

    Also, things might get rushed, or crappy ideas are considered to meet objectives of the company so we get a few crappy games or games that don't live up to potential.

    I'm also guessing that game development is taught a lot more in University or College so there are more people with qualifications, meaning the gaming companies have a variety of people to choose from. My thought is the gaming company controls the job market and takes on people who are willing to work for less. It might lead to crappy dev teams meaning the game is buggy, generally crap or ideas just aren't good, but the game may be made anyway.

    All assumptions of course....
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    But there are ones that do out there. Three of the following games are 2.5 D

    What about Portal?

    Or LittleBigPlanet?

    Or Limbo?
    I couldn't get in to Portal. The graphics on consoles look a lot less sharp than that. Was there even an explanation as to why you are there or why you need to get out? I'd rather sit back in my cell than be made to solve mind bending puzzles for no particular reason.

    I haven't played Little Big Planet but the action all looks a bit papery - why did they make a make your own platform game that seems to lack solidity? And I hate the raggy little doll Sackboy.

    Limbo looks like it's trying to be too artsy in a European way.

    -

    The more popular gaming becomes as a career choice, the more that it attracts 'the general public', rather than particular talented, passionate individuals, in to becoming qualified enough to know how to do it as a by product of having a few years at university. A 'bedroom coder' so called 'eccentric' like Matthew Smith who made Manic Miner becomes a drop in the ocean rather than the important person that he was.

    We are swimming in games these days as a result and yet there are arguably fewer important games for the generation than there were for the generation 10 years ago. That's because a relatively small number of people make the really great games.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by estel)
    As a few others have, I really have to disagree with you.

    Sure, I can readily accept that you personally are perhaps enjoying the average modern game that you play more than the average game that was released 1997-2004 (an era which spans pretty much forever, and covered a period of much faster technological progress).

    But what does that say? There are undoubtedly more games being released now aimed at a broader audience than ever before; but how does this reflect on the games you regularly encounter? You say, for example, that "not popular enough to be ran into the generic formulas we see today". But at what period in gaming's history have the majority of releases not been generic rehashes? Looking back through the annals, gaming has seemed to jump from rehashes of Space Invaders to Asteroids to Pacman to Doom to Tomb Raider to something that "vaugely )(sic) resemble a 3D hollywood blockbuster film".

    And every single year, someone would write an opinion piece talking about how gaming was 'past its golden era', and all that was being released these days was generic same-ish titles that weren't as good as they used to be. The fact that these pieces keep being written and that gaming as a medium has only increased in popularity is testament to the opposite.

    You said that you weren't looking at the past through rose-tinted goggles because "despite purchasing countless modern releases often find myself returning to core games such as (But by no means limited to) those I have already cited." - well, sorry, that's just pretty much your problem, and I don't think that there's much we can do to change this, and the plural of your anecdote isn't a widespread depreciation in quality of games. There are exceptionally few genres out there that aren't being done better than they've ever been done before (as a mean quality: I won't debate that HL2 (+ep1/2, which are newer) is perhaps the best FPS ever - but just because games are getting better overall doesn't mean that the very best examples can't be years old).

    The resurgence of the Indie scene since 2004 has arguably been the biggest game-changer. Hasn't this taken the power away from the big corporates and 'sellout' companies in a way that hasn't been seen since well before 1997 in the heady days of bedroom Commodore coders?

    And with respect to your point on sequels: the oddity of games compared to other media is precisely that the sequels tend to be better than their forebears. It's rare that a title is raped and diluted.
    I'm aware of the modern indie titles, and Im quite familiar with the ones I expect you're refering to. Afterall CS was once an indie title, as much TF was.

    I resent the acusation that I havent a clue when it comes to new releases. I have played the vast majority of worthwhile new releases and I simply can not relate to most of their value in a gaming sense as I have previous.

    In response - Games like Bioshock, Assasins Creed, Heavy Rain, KOTR etc etc. are plainly granted - I didn't mention them because it seemed irelevant. I already cited I wasn't talking about ALL modern games - and if you were already experienced in gaming, I felt I wouldn't really have to spell out those exceptions.

    From the very begining of the thread I have cited I'm not ****ging off new releases. My wallet appears to agree. But I can't help but see somthing significant is, overall, missing in this generation of games.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FallenPetal)
    ...I didn't say it didn't. All I said was that Nintendo exploited that market with the Wii, thus bringing a large influx of them unto us.

    3rd party support on the Wii isn't great Most Wii games worth playing are Nintendo developed (even so, as I said, SMG1/2 is massively over-rated). They're good, but not amazing.

    ...At least not the Nintendo of 10 years ago amazing.
    Do you think any game deserves a 10/10? If so, which ones?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    I couldn't get in to Portal. The graphics on consoles look a lot less sharp than that. Was there even an explanation as to why you are there or why you need to get out? I'd rather sit back in my cell than be made to solve mind bending puzzles for no particular reason.

    I haven't played Little Big Planet but the action all looks a bit papery - why did they make a make your own platform game that seems to lack solidity? And I hate the raggy little doll Sackboy.

    Limbo looks like it's trying to be too artsy in a European way.
    Nice response cherry-picking.

    Lots of the exposition is Portal is driven by incidental detail. It's rarely made explicit, but the story of why you're there is there to see; and a reason to escape readily presents itself once you reach the stage where that's what you're supposed to do.

    How can action be 'papery'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I honestly despise casual games, but there are still so many good games out there - just this year Mass Effect 2, Red Dead, Reach, Fallout:NV, Starcraft II, MINECRAFT **** YEAH, Civ V, Dead Space 2 is coming out - come on, there are a lot of ****e games out there, but still enough good ones.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

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