19 replies to this topic

[Valerie Valens]

Nearly a month ago, at New Years day, I was shopping for a good wireless USB laser mouse. I came across a computer supply store next to a video game store whose owner was kind enough to fix up my PSX a while back. He was quite amazed by how uninterested in the newer games I am compared to the ones released in the last decade. He asked this question which followed me around for days.

"Don't you ever get bored of the old games? Why don't you play the newer games?"

While I did initially gave him the answer involving the rise of DRM that screw over legitimate customers. There is a lot more to it than that, which I will get into.

The biggest aspect I saw in games released nowadays is that they tend to be uncreative and homologous in design. Often when I see a new upcoming game release, I think that it is just a game from another franchise, just with this franchise's grille slapped all over it and with a graphics makeover. The biggest offenders I saw of this example is Fallout 3/Oblivion and Dead Space/System Shock 2. While I have no problems with a game franchise taking a successful formula from another and assimilating it into its own, it is very often done with very little consideration as to how the franchise's signature feature would translate into the new formulae. Sometimes, this would result in intrinsic gameplay elements turning into a clunky unnecessary gimmick.

There's even some franchises that are just plain generic, like Halo, that simply does a good job of repeating the same features other games of the same genre has while adding a couple of gimmicky new features that are done not out of genuine creativity, but because of creative laziness. You see the regenerating shield power in the Halo games? Well that is because the map designers are so inept, they couldn't even properly decide where the health pickups should be, if the bland level design in the campaign mode isn't telling enough.

Even within its own franchise, it seems that the people in charge of it aren't even trying any more to keep it fresh and interesting in each release. It could be due to a change of hands, like in the case of the System Shock and Painkiller series. (Bioshock is merely a graphical and mood upgrade to SS2 and Painkiller : Overdose is simply an expansion pack of the original, but with a half-demon and a lame collection of one-liners.) More often than not though, the companies who own the franchises just got lazy. Nintendo and EA Sports are the biggest offenders of them all, every single one of their franchises' current instalment is simply the previous instalment but with updated graphics, not-so-original new content and lame gimmicks slapped on top of it that add nothing to the overall gameplay experience. Some franchises, like the Sonic series, eventually and ultimately cocked itself up due to this. It's all a big sellout.

Speaking of which, why haven't the fad of movie-to-game adaptations gone extinct yet? So far, only two games, in a sea of sad pathetic attempts, has ever been successful in adapting a movie into a game, and that is Batman Returns for the SNES and that Final Fight game based on the horrible movie for the Neo Geo. Yet, we keep seeing game companies today attempting to translate movies to video games and failing because too much effort is spent perfecting that one gimmick that appeared in the movie without any consideration to the plot of the movie, the logic of the movie, or even making the game fun to play. The Matrix games are the prime example of poor movie to game translations. The reasons why Batman Returns is successful and the Matrix games failed are quite numerous, but to cite the biggest ones, Batman Returns did a really good balance between faithfulness to the movie plot and a solid gameplay mechanic while the Matrix games did not, Batman Returns made the franchise signature features a useful part of the gameplay (Batarang, knocking thugs' heads together etc.) while the Matrix games just slapped them on as a useless gimmick and while they both borrowed formulas from well-established gameplay archetypes, Batman Returns executed them very well while the Matrix games just cocked them up.

So, where am I going with this? You may ask. Well see, I noticed these problems popping up and becoming more prominent as the game industry matured and aged on. Even the FPS genre, which came a bit later than other genres of games to blossom into a beautiful rose of blood and guts, have already shown signs of creative decay. I remember the 8 & 16-bit era, and even the Playstation/Saturn/N64 era, how every other game is an A+ experience while most of the rest are pretty enjoyable even if they weren't the cream of the crop. You may think that I am putting on nostalgia glasses, but you know what? Fuck you, you're wrong. I am perfectly capable of telling whether or not a game has aged well. I have no problem in admitting that there are a lot of crappy games in that era, as long as it is recognized that they are greatly outnumbered by good games that have withstood the test of time.

So with the game industry slowly resigning its fate to creative bankruptcy and releasing games of mediocre quality and lazy design, one has to wonder how it became that way. However, with a brief primer on the history of video games, a picture starts to form in one's head that could tell them what had happened to cause it to degenerate so much. It's pretty simple, when Nintendo rebooted the industry with the NES or Famicom, everyone wanted in on it because it is like the promised land for aspiring programmers, but they kept in mind the importance of releasing a quality product. So they did for a while, some failed and died off, some took the world by storm and some even got lost in the zen of their own projects. That is all good, for us gamers at least. Ever wondered why the rivalry between Genesis/MD and SNES/Super Famicom owners was so intense? It is because both systems had so much awesome games, it was a neck-to-neck race of how many quality titles for each system we could add to our collection. Then some company made a game, it was a pretty mediocre one compared to previous instalments in terms of gameplay, but it was the first in the franchise to have unprecedented graphical features. The game took the world by storm, and the reaction was so positive that it forced the whole video gaming industry into the spotlight of mainstream entertainment. This can not be good, not only because it gave developers the false impression that they can make bad games and still turn a profit as long as it has a famous franchise label, but because it also left the door wide open to companies from other areas of the mainstream entertainment industry, companies who had no experience making, marketing and selling games and only cared about making a quick buck, to infest. (This is probably why movie to game adaptations still exist. You've seen what that did to the Atari-era video game industry.) This philosophy of turning a quick penny without consideration for customer satisfaction slowly took hold of the video game industry, slowly eating away at its integrity ; games began to suffer greatly from it. Then, it got to the point where companies feel justified in treating their customers like criminals, as seen by the ever-increasingly draconian DRM measures being employed in games and here we are today.

Of course, there are exceptions ; All throughout this post, I have been tarring the entire industry with a very large brush using very wide strokes and up until now, I have failed to mention Valve. Valve has my respect for being pretty much the only video game development company to continuously try new things with their franchises and doing so successfully, while being opposed to the ridiculously draconian DRM measures, like SecuROM, employed in newer games as well as being actively in support of modding projects involving their games. On numerous occasions, I have had fellow gamers ask me if Valve is the only developer to try new things with their games, and I am very much inclined to say yes as I could not think of any other company acting alike.

So here is what I think of the video game industry today. Hopefully my voice will reach someone in the industry who can, would and will make a difference for the better.

What are your thoughts?

[Kaotix]

Well, when games consisted of nothing but sprites, I guess being creative was a bit easier. Many gamers don't want sprites for the big games, they want real looking 3D models in a real looking 3D world. Games look similar and work similar now-a-days because they use similar engines.

It would have been really stupid for Besthesda to create a new graphics engine for Fallout 3 when they had the superb engine they created for Oblivion. As a player of both games, I say they made the right choice. Who cares if games look similar. Is it fun? That's my question.

Was Halo 1 - 3 fun? You bet.
Was Dead Space fun? Yes. Loved every heart pounding minute.
Was Oblivion fun? Yes. Epicness defined.
Is Fallout 3 fun? Oh yes. I'm having a blast with it. Now excuse mewhile I go into AVTS(sp) with my Combat Shotgun and blow your head into a goey red mess.

Yes, Valve makes new inovations. I am a Valve fan. Love the Half Life Series, Portal, and Left 4 Dead. But it takes them ages to put out a new game.

Companies shouldn't reinvent the wheel all the time. If another franchise has a better way of doing soemthing, use it. If you already have a great graphics/physics engine, use it. If all companies made everything from scratch for every game, we'd never see any new games in a reasonable time.

[Ratty Randnums]

I think you're absolutely right Val, but we also should probably highlight that when these big companies that were not interested in the art of games but only a quick profit, like EA, came in and got established by doing things like buying big licenses etc., it shut down a lot of the competition. The small guys who were trying to make good games, and when the big companies no longer have to compete they'll try to shovel down the throats of customers anything that takes the least amount of effort and time and therefore make the maximum profit. This is I think one of the major if not the main reason companies like "casual" gamers, not only will they buy anything, but if you slap a different name and license (like, ohh, NFL) on something they may buy it 4 or 5 times.

[marsfan]

I like new games but I like old ones even more.

[acstrife]

My opinion on the whole thing is, I am from the old era of when games were old but good. Newer games just dont appeal to me today. Why? Its a combonation of two aspects:

#1 I'm getting older finding it hard to devote time to games as I once did as a teen.
#2 I grew up with super mario bros, the ledgend of Zelda, even sonic. The newer games I cant really connect to them being so radically different. A fault of my own since I am hard to change my routine or in this case games I play.


As for the main issue, two things:

#1 The point of any business is to -Make Money- whether you made a shitty game or a bad ass game. Unfortunate as this sounds that is the way it is.
#2 for those of us in our early 20's and above the companies are relaly not targetting our group mainly. They target younger kids of this era. Most of these games are devoted to kids that can't think for themselves with the attention span of a rodent.




To sum it up, is what the game industry management doing is right for the customer. No, its not right. However, $$$ is all that matters in the end. They arent there for fun they are there to make money. Its a shame that some of these games are designed for kids who don't move too well because they eat too much, so they can live their fantasies of being cool and looked up to. In my opinion, I will agree with Jay Sherman from the animated show the Critic: (slightly altered) If you stop buying bad games, theyll stop making bad games.

Yes, Valve makes new inovations. I am a Valve fan. Love the Half Life Series, Portal, and Left 4 Dead. But it takes them ages to put out a new game.

Companies shouldn't reinvent the wheel all the time. If another franchise has a better way of doing soemthing, use it. If you already have a great graphics/physics engine, use it. If all companies made everything from scratch for every game, we'd never see any new games in a reasonable time.

Like Blizzard in a way, Valve does the same tactic by taking thier time to release a game. They have had alot of success with this.

Absolutely, its nice to see changes. It makes more sense to go with what works, this way you are not only servicing yourself, but you are also serving the customer by cutting production time of a game to get it in thier hands.

So here is what I think of the video game industry today. Hopefully my voice will reach someone in the industry who can, would and will make a difference for the better.

Not on a sonic site you arent.

[Valerie Valens]

In my opinion, I will agree with Jay Sherman from the animated show the Critic: (slightly altered) If you stop buying bad games, theyll stop making bad games.

It's been something I have been putting into practice for a while.

Absolutely, its nice to see changes. It makes more sense to go with what works, this way you are not only servicing yourself, but you are also serving the customer by cutting production time of a game to get it in thier hands.

Like I said, I have no problem with games taking what works and using it in their games, as long as it's done well.

Not on a sonic site you arent.

I am aware, I have cross posted this article to a few other places.

Well, when games consisted of nothing but sprites, I guess being creative was a bit easier. Many gamers don't want sprites for the big games, they want real looking 3D models in a real looking 3D world. Games look similar and work similar now-a-days because they use similar engines.

I dunno about you, but I find 2-D games to be far more richer and vibrant. I see where you're coming from though, the gaming majority these days want a touch of gritty realism with their entertainment.

It would have been really stupid for Besthesda to create a new graphics engine for Fallout 3 when they had the superb engine they created for Oblivion. As a player of both games, I say they made the right choice. Who cares if games look similar. Is it fun? That's my question.

Was Halo 1 - 3 fun? You bet.
Was Dead Space fun? Yes. Loved every heart pounding minute.
Was Oblivion fun? Yes. Epicness defined.
Is Fallout 3 fun? Oh yes. I'm having a blast with it. Now excuse mewhile I go into AVTS(sp) with my Combat Shotgun and blow your head into a goey red mess.

Now I am not one to say that these games aren't enjoyable, no, not at all. However, in the case of Fallout 3, while Bethesda is wise in using their Oblivion engine, there's no question about it, there are a couple of aspects of the gameplay that could have been translated a lot more better. Not only that, I seem to be able to find far more enjoyment in older games that did similar things, even today.

Yes, Valve makes new inovations. I am a Valve fan. Love the Half Life Series, Portal, and Left 4 Dead. But it takes them ages to put out a new game.

Personally, I think the the wait has always been worth it.

Companies shouldn't reinvent the wheel all the time. If another franchise has a better way of doing soemthing, use it. If you already have a great graphics/physics engine, use it. If all companies made everything from scratch for every game, we'd never see any new games in a reasonable time.

I pretty much said the same thing about the gameplay formula. I think that graphics engines are just a means to an end, so I really don't care what engine a game uses as long as it's executed well.

They are wise in using their Oblivion engine, there's no question about it

[Vlad Yvhv]

The trend isn't just with games, but also with TV shows and movies... Companies will milk their products for all they're worth, and then some, so long as there's someone out there who'll put up with the new versions.

I've said for about a decade now that games're focusing too much on graphics and other nonsese, at the expense of playability and overall fun. The other problem is the lack of replayability in otherwise fun games. Take Gun, for example. It's a nice, fun shooter game, but suffers from a serious lack of replayability. By the time you've gotten the cannon nock gun, there're only random ambush enemies and innocentes to blow up with it, and that gets old real fast.

I think the apex of FPSes is (ironically enough) Goldeneye, which also happens to be a movie-based game. It's not exactly purdy or gory, but it's fun and has a very solid multiplayer mode (excluding or including the "hovering explosives glitch" in the bunker level, depdening on yer preference). Even Perfect Dark and Goldeneye Rogue Agent have levels and weapons based on the Goldeneye classics. I've also found levels for Timespitters 2 and 3 based upon their layouts (and have made one Facillity-based map for TS3, myself). No doubt there are probly other FPSes that borrow Goldeneye elements, and possibly have maps based on the old Goldeneye maps, too.

As for older games... I think there's actually less of a hit/miss ratio than there used to be. Way back when, we were flooded with a lot of old games that were unwinnable, poorly made, or just way too hard for most of the people who made the mistake of playing them. A good game is both fun and beatable, but not so easy as to become boring. Very few of the old games had this proper mixture. There were people jumping to make games about everything under every sun in every universe... By the time of the SNES, this had subsided a bit. Now, it seems to be seeing a bit of a resurgance, as the people who were duped into buying/playing many of the old crappy games are reaching ages that're ouside the target window for the companies.

[randomizer]

It's all EA's fault! No, seriously, it is their's and the other publishers. All they do is push short deadlines and make games by the truckload to bring in the cash. Often they will use another title's good name for a crap game. Far Cry was way ahead of its time graphically, but it was a decent game too (although I never finised it). Far Cry 2 has nothing in common with it, except the name. Plus it is a boring, repetitive and overly crap game. The name is what makes the uninformed buyer purchase a game. If they liked the first, they'll buy the "sequel".

Why has PC gaming declined? Console games make more money because more people play them. Publishers are killing off PC gaming with DRM by using the "piracy is reducing our income" excuse to shift more and more people to consoles so that they can focus on those exclusively. Also, with the internet now on consoles, the games no longer need to have strict QA because just like PC games they can be patched (completed) at a later time after release. Consoles also have a set hardware configuration, which makes it much easier to prevent random problems that will always plague PC gaming thanks to the limitless hardware/software configurations.

As for Fallout 3, I thought it was good until I finished the main quest, then I got bored. It has terribly low-res textures which really ruins the look of it. It's also terribly programmed, with many crashes and at least 14 memory leaks (maybe less after the latest patch).

I'm surprised nobody has even made a mention of Crysis, so I think I'll take a stab at it. What makes Crysis? Hmm... let's see:

1) Cliched, thoughtless alien invasion storyline - Nope
2) Seemingly impervious enemies - Don't think so
3) AI who can't see you if you stand in a bush next to them - Nada
4) Overhyped physics where a building's roof can be supported by a single pole in one corner and a grenade going off inside of a hut will just cause walls to fall in - Forget it (IMO)
5) Sandbox Editor 2 - Yes, it's a lot of fun and very flexible if you know how to use it. Who doesn't like towering houses made of explosive barrels?
6) Gameplay - Well the suit is pretty cool, but the whole thing is hardly revolutionary.
7) Graphics - Yes and no. They both make and break Crysis. Many people can't run the game without turning down the detail alot, but the incredibly taxing engine will make the game a benchmark for hardware for quite some time. It does look great on maximum detail, if you can run it. Other games do a better overall job of the "atmosphere" though.

[Dakota Bob]

Far Cry was way ahead of its time graphically, but it was a decent game too (although I never finised it). Far Cry 2 has nothing in common with it, except the name. Plus it is a boring, repetitive and overly crap game.

Oh, so it's just like the first Far Cry then?

[randomizer]

Oh, so it's just like the first Far Cry then?

I liked the first Far cry, because it was non-linear (not always though). Far Cry 2 is non-linear, but there's no direction to the game. I like freedom in games, but when there's no story and you're just driving around aimlessly for little reason it gets old very fast.

[Ratty Randnums]

I just wonder if this is a permanent trend. Surely there's a limited amount of things we can think up to happen in movies, games, and books. Have we already come close to exhausting it?

Today I played a game where I saw a Lopster perform a flying pyledrive to a Griffith, on the Genesis. The game itself was crap, but just thinking about that makes you realize that maybe games *would* be more fun if they weren't all grimy stealth-based (WW2) FPS. Sometimes being out there and gloriously whacky (or tacky) can enhance solid gameplay or even to a small degree redeem bad aspects of it. Sure, you can talk about how the big companies drove all the little creative guys out of buissness and this is the only way they (the big ones) can maintain superiority and whatnot, but that doesn't mean we have to like or support it, or that we have to settle for games that are "good enough". It's like watching a movie, or rather constant remakes of the same movie, over and over again. Quality over quantity for the descerning gamer only makes sense.

[Dakota Bob]

The demo of RE5 doesn't strike me as a game that's going to be particulary scary, instead appearing to be just Gears of War with zombies.

[randomizer]

I saw trailers for it and it looked pretty meh.

[ALIENwolve]

The demo of RE5 doesn't strike me as a game that's going to be particulary scary, instead appearing to be just Gears of War with zombies.

I would've preferred a sequel to RE4, but it doesn't even seem like that.

[Vlad Yvhv]

I definitly consider Resident Evil 4 a good game. Part of this is because there're enough randomized things to make every playthrough a bit different. Though, I could do without all the A/B button tapping sections, Ashley's incompetance, and the interactive cutscenes (especially the knife fight). It is nice, however, to have the Infinite Launcher, Chicago Typewriter, and Handcannon.

[The Man]

Thanks Val. At least someone can get it out. I also don't like certain aspects of gaming. I don't like Sniper Rifles because that's an assasin's weapon not a warriors weapon and has no place in multiplayer. It also encourages camping.

While some things are more popular than others there has to be more than 'one' game out there for people to buy. While some games are too simplistic like Halo that I can play I gladly take it over a game with Barney the dinosaur in it.

A conversation like this is a strength of diversity and you do have a choice in buying only good games and reading about the others. I'm pretty sure I could have created a better game than Brawl if I really put my mind too it but I prefer to play and 'enjoy' the games after taking care of business.

I did learn from another site that there's no way to know how hard a game is what's important is what you think you can make of it. Hopefully not an obsession which is something some people fall into.