On the new state of gaming...An editorial.

R

Ricedaddy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
1,127
Alright, this is just a perspective thread. My opinion, like an editorial in a newspaper so please adjust the flame guns accordingly. This is not meant to bash any particular games I mention or to imply that they are bad games and have no merit.

Anyways, the concept of gaming certainly has changed since I started. I'm 26 and the landscape of gaming has had a large revolution if you ask me. The norm is now open world, nonlinear, multiplayer games and there is no problem with that, but allow an old school perspective on the matter.

Games now seem to have to be infinitely replayable, whether that be by design in the single player experience, or with heavy multiplayer. There is little room for a wholly single player, highly story-driven such as Planescape: Torment or Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. They are some of my favorite games ever, and both were almost like reading a book. Each had a definite start and finish. Neither exactly blew up sales charts when released, but each holds a very special place in gaming history (in the case of Vampire, the way to notimplement a licensed engine). My ideal game certainly doesn't have to be something that I can endlessly replay, but something that I enjoy a lot and makes me feel like I haven't wasted my time.

Reviewers seem to think that it is a con against a game for being "linear". I do not envy a person with a job reviewing games, because the job is to appease everyone and that is impossible. However, just because a game is doesn't always make it bad. I am a fan or great stories in games, much like I am great stories in book form. No one ripped on The Dark Tower or Harry Potter series for being linear. Of course books are a very different medium, but I feel like the comparison holds true. A reviewers job consists or telling people if product A is worth their money more than product B, a ridiculous responsiblity seeing how games, movies and books are largely subjective. I do feel that some games would benefit from more linearity, such as Assassin's Creed and Fallout 3.

I was very excited for Fallout 3 to be released, because I played and enjoyed the previous games in the series. Fallout 1 and 2 were very good games that I a lot of people seem to have liked, and were relatively open but maintained a strong narrative. Fallout 3 contained a lot of character for what it was, but to me was nothing more than a hollow game. I realize many people like what Bethesda does, but Fallout 3 felt like The Elder Scrolls: Fallout. I wasn't looking for that in the game. It was ultimately boring to me. I must admit that I kind of knew what I was getting into with the Bethesda/Fallout 3 situation, because I tried to like Oblivion, but just found it foul as well.

I think most of the fame/infamy for this sandbox revolution can fall squarely on one game: Grand Theft Auto 3. It blew the world away with it's style of play. It was fun. For a while. Eventually I just stopped doing any of the missions and just drove around shooting people. My real problem though is that this new idea quickly became the status quo, and was followed with many of the same games from Rockstar. San Andreas, GTA4 all just seemed like the exact same thing with a new coat of paint.

As I said before, this is not to imply that these games have no merit, because I played and enjoyed Assassin's Creed, Fable 1 and 2, and a couple other games that might not have been around if it weren't for the sandbox revolution. Also, I agree that some of the games i enjoyed the most in the past, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Planescape: Torment, KOTOR 1 and Two could have the same criticisms levied against theme for not changing the formula and just keeping with what has worked. I say to that though, that a new chapter in KOTOR, for instance, was the continuation of the story. A feeble argument probably, but still.

I feel like there are only a handful of really talented studios operating today. Bioware and Blizzard both come to mind, thought EA has made some strides with games like Dead Space, which I really enjoyed a lot.

If you look back over the games that I really liked in the past, you'll see that a lot of the studios that made them are defunct. Maybe that has something to do with and the reason the type of game I like is few and far between is because they aren't as commercially viable. Gaming is really an artistic medium, and like musicians and artists, it's very difficult to "make it big" with something that is more or less a niche.

A much longer post than I planned on, but this is what I get for working nights and having lots of free time on the job. Maybe I'm just jaded and nostalgic, or maybe i'm getting old as far as gaming goes.

I'm looking forward to other's opinions on this.
 
Last edited:
I think that consoles have alot to do with this because it seems like gaming has taken a step back recently. Many of the games you mentioned I also enjoyed, and games like Freespace 2 no longer exist, or if they do they are dumbed down significantly. I look forward to see how the IL2 game for consoles compares to the PC version.

However, I do not believe this will continue forever, I think that when the 360 became popular we pretty much had to start over due to a new audience that had never played any of the old classics on PC, so to them this is all new. Many of the newer games that have received high marks are basically all remakes of old PC games, and I can almost guarantee that another golden age of gaming will be here in the next few years. Sadly it seems like we got knocked back 10 years in terms of gameplay, but at least progress is being made now. I look forward to Dragon Age, and I really enjoyed Mass Effect and look forward to Mass Effect 2.

I think that story will come into play heavily in a few years, and at least now everyone has broadband, so there is hope for the future once people get tired of mindless shooters and generic multi-player, which I think is happening currently in the console world. I am basing all of this on what my friends say, since most of them are new to gaming and all have 360's, while I am the only PC gamer of the bunch.
 
It's the evo of gaming. I remember when story/imagination had to make up for lousy graphics ala zork, sierra games, the ultima's and the like. Then the cdrom got cheap and everybody wanted to do FMV. People got tired of that and it went to a pre-drawn/rendered environment with a linear story. Fast forward to Wow and GTA and now everybody wants to be a sandbox and multiplayer is tacked on to everything. The combo of multicore processors, cheap storage and big-ass video cards that now need their own plug off the power supply ushered in the age of crysis and the like with fancy reflections and real time physics modeling with little or no thought to game play besides making the prettiest water. I bet in a few years it will change again... maybe towards interactive consoles i.e. natal. Who knows.

Imho, I would have to agree that with a few exceptions the single player story narrative has been dying for some time. Aw well, by that time I will be too old and busy to care as long as my r4'ed ds still keeps working. Personally, I can't wait for the time my grandson turns his head away from me in shame after figuring out that you actually have to push the buttons/screen manually instead of using a neural interface.

I can hear him now, "get with the times gramps, manual buttons are sooooo 2010."
 
I have to agree with the OP on this one. Not all narrative works in a sandbox game. In fact, i generally do NOT like sandbox games, simply because they don't have any point. FO3 was the exception to that rule, as i enjoyed it immensely.

I find it telling when people go on and on about games like "mass effect", saying it had a deep story. To me, mass effect (while a good and enjoyable game) was not a deep story. As mentioned, Planescape torment, FO1-2, KOTOR 1-2, had much deeper stories.

To me, there is nothing wrong with linear game play. In fact, i would say it's almost a requirement in any type of RPG or adventure game that is story driven. Personally, i'd take a well written linear story based game over an FPS or sandbox type game any day.
 
The other thing to keep in mind is that lots of different types of games nowadays have RPG elements even when they aren't RPGs at heart. What one person sees as an RPG with a weak story another person might see as an action game with character advancement and deeper gameplay.
 
spugnor said:
I find it telling when people go on and on about games like "mass effect", saying it had a deep story. To me, mass effect (while a good and enjoyable game) was not a deep story.

. Personally, i'd take a well written linear story based game over an FPS or sandbox type game any day.
Click to expand...

I agree. Mass Effect was a great game if you ask me (so great that I had to buy it twice in the first week because my first copy was stolen from me the day after I got it) and the story was interesting, it doesn't hold a candle to many others.

I think the main problem is that sandbox/open-world games have reached the saturation point. One or two a year is good, but we are getting dozens. The focus on narrative is being washed away.

Being linear has become a naughty word when it comes to game development. Look at the most successful console of this generation, the Wii. Immersion comes from the novelty and the novelty is wearing thin.
 
Last edited:
I call this the Oblivion vs. Legend of Zelda/Half-Life debate. In Oblivion the entire game world is open to you, you can do anything and go anywhere in any order. In Zelda, there is a large gameworld but you are more or less confined to certain areas until you make progress on the main quest. Or you have a game like Half-Life that channels you through the game even more linearly.

I personally prefer games that give you the best of both worlds--the immersion of feeling like you are part of a larger, living world, combined with a well crafted game that keeps you on track. I'm not a big fan of having to use maps and compasses to figure out where you have to go next. I don't like getting stuck. Some people love that open world element.

The problem with games like Oblivion is that they tend to give you very large portions but the food itself isn't very good. I honestly don't really remember the name of a single character or place from Fallout 3 outside the capitol itself. There are a few good ones but the locations just aren't that memorable. In contrast, Half-Life 2 takes you on a linear rollercoaster ride but each stop, and in some cases each room, is memorable.

Personally, all I really need is a sense of scale and adventure. I don't need to be able to explore every nook and cranny of the game world. I'd rather the developers take me on a well crafted ride.
 
Last edited:
This is something I've been noticing as well, as I have been continueing to be surprised by the sheer number of GTA clones make it out onto our shelves. Personally I don't really lack open world games (exception Fallout3) they definitely lack direction, which makes me lack motivation to continue. I think that companies are just trying to rush things out to get money at the moment and don't really want to spend a lot of time writing up interesting stories to tie in with the open world. Because it is completely possible, but few games have made it any more interesting then steal this car, bring it here, kill that guy, heres some money. I think society is suffering from GTA syndrome where people HAVE to have open play, they feel that a bigger map = better game. Where story falls short of interesting. And the textures and feel of the city are so generic that it sucks.
Mass Effect fell victom to this by all of it's side missions taking place in chambers/buildings that only had 3 different versions.
Oblivion I just got lost in so I lost interest.
GTA type games all have a very generic feel people have no personality,
Prototype - lost it when people are all acting way to normal for being in such a Fed up version of NY.
Fallout 3 - kept my attention mainly due to the atmosphere of the game. I think it's a great game, and holds very true to what it should be.
Assasins Creed - lost interest after combat felt lack luster and travel was boring.
WoW - sucked my life away but hated the traveling. so boring... but thats why you can chat and autowalk!

I guess I'm just looking for a more realistic feeling open world game. Because with games that of which are more linear easier this may be why I love my some HL2 and Zelda so much!
 
This is the bang for your buck theory. If you're gonna ask someone to pay 60 bucks for a linear game with a great story and no multi-player or sandbox elements and to boot not terribly long well good luck with that. A lot of gamers will either buy used or at a later date on sale. People simply want more for their money. Games like Mass Effect, KOTOR, and COD 4 offer tremendous value for the price whether it be a great story or outstanding multi-player. I personally think that this industry has made great strides and is far better and more inclusive(not a bad word people) than it has ever been. Is there a lot of crap yeah but there was a lot of crap in the so called golden age of gaming. There are a lot of good in depth games out there and I really never quite understand the complaint?
 
One of my favorite games is Uncharted: Drake's Fortune,a title that is essentially linear and lacks multiplayer.

However, my favorite games are flightsims- the original open world games. Literally go anywhere on Earth (and Mars with X-plane)
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
The other thing to keep in mind is that lots of different types of games nowadays have RPG elements even when they aren't RPGs at heart. What one person sees as an RPG with a weak story another person might see as an action game with character advancement and deeper gameplay.
Click to expand...
That is very true. It's yet another point that games cannot be simply one thing anymore. It has to be a miasma of different styles to make a dent. If it's not an action/strategy/rpg/adventure/puzzle/smoothie hybrid then people tend to think they are getting less value and it's unfortunate. Oftentimes with video games that take loads of time and resources to develop, quality is inversely related to quantity. Case in point: movie licensed titles that are just shit out the door in order to coincide with a movie release and not thought through.

Blackstone said:
The problem with games like Oblivion is that they tend to give you very large portions but the food itself isn't very good.

...I'd rather the developers take me on a well crafted ride.
Click to expand...

This first statement sums up my point extremely well. I wish I would have thought of it for the original post. Well said sir. To continue the food analogy, It's really a matter of whether someone would have an excellent steak once a week or have all the mediocre hamburger they can eat.

Value shouldn't get considered as getting more for less, despite the quality of the more you are getting. We have to pay for quality, and I'd rather pay a significant premium for a great game rather than one I thought was okay and just alright. The game Prototype was mentioned earlier, and I thought it was a really fun concept for a couple hours and then my rental period lapsed without me turning it on again. There was a lot to do in Prototype, but I wouldn't call it a game with great replay value.

On another note, I agree that it really hurts to play $60 a pop for games. I have significantly more disposable income than when I was a kid (hahaha, well maybe not really because I have rent and responsibilities now) but it's still a large justification to buy all the games i want during the flooded holiday seasons.
 
Ricedaddy said:
Fallout 3 contained a lot of character for what it was, but to me was nothing more than a hollow game. I realize many people like what Bethesda does, but Fallout 3 felt like The Elder Scrolls: Fallout.
Click to expand...
I think the main flaw with Fallout 3 lies with the lack of emphasis on the main quest. It's very brief and realistically only requires that you hit a very limited number of settlements. In Fallout and Fallout 2, the main quest ran like a thread through most of the settlements, and there would be various side-quests that you'd encounter as you advance through the main quests and encounter new areas. You could skip a number of areas, but it wasn't in your best interest to as far as being able to beat the game was concerned. I mean, you absolutely had to hit the L.A. Boneyard so you could score the Turbo Plasma Rifle, right? ;)

Primarily, though, the original games were about information seeking. Your goal was to seek information that would lead you to the next chapter in the story, and sometimes coming across this information wasn't exactly straightforward. Sometimes, you were unsure of where to go or who to talk to, so you'd spend some time exploring (with a specific goal and purpose in mind) or talking to anyone who might have anything to tell you. In Fallout 3, you're led to the cheese like a rat in a maze, constantly told where to go, who to talk to and what to do as the directional arrow on your compass updated continuously. The exploration aspect is separated entirely from the main quest thread and is generally purposeless. If you follow the magic arrow, you'll find the cheese and "win" the "game".

While the magic arrow can be easily disabled, the game itself is dependent on it being there and becomes tedious and annoying when it's no longer there. It demonstrates a basic flaw in the way Bethesda approaches game design, relying on a 2D overlay to guide the player through the game rather than using the game itself and its virtual inhabitants, and providing at least some element of mystery. If you don't mistake an omniscient directional arrow as an immersible gameplay mechanic, you're a smart player, and you have fine taste.

Ricedaddy said:
I think most of the fame/infamy for this sandbox revolution can fall squarely on one game: Grand Theft Auto 3.
Click to expand...
The problem with sandbox games is that they're now highly marketable. You tell the average guy that he can "go anywhere and do anything" in a game and he won't care about a central narrative. The storyline takes a back seat to killing 30 Yakuza for a $3000 reward or finding 100 gold stars. If you tell that same guy that he's going to be taken on a linear ride, he'll probably tell you to fuck off. He wants to get out of the car and frag an old woman with a baseball bat, because that's the only kind of immersion the majority of gamers seem to be able to understand.

Sure, there's an appeal with those games, and their lack of seriousness is welcome when some games are too serious for their own good, but it's becoming too pervasive. You're giving players a plethora of options and fun little time-wasting minigames, but none of them truly amount to anything. The options and possibilities become the central focus of the gameplay rather than purposeful tasks driven by a central narrative.

I think Doom 3 is probably one of the ultimate examples of how to execute on a linear experience. Yes, there are bad elements to the game (flashlight annoyances and monster closets, and it's a tad on the long side), but on a fundamental level, it's a genuinely perfect linear experience. You move from A to B; you shoot things in between; you find keys; occasionally you backtrack from B to A; you unlock doors and solve simple puzzles that allow you to proceed through the game. It's littered with pre-scripted cinematic moments, and there's always a feeling that the advancement of the storyline is always in the next room, just waiting for you to encounter it. It's simple, one-dimensional and it requires next to no brain power or independent thinking on behalf of the player.

Often times, games execute well on some core elements of linear gameplay but attempt to add too much to the mix. They become complicated as developers attempt to blend genres for the sake of increasing marketability. There are some great games that have been the result of genre-blending (Deus Ex), but generally these games are much more of one thing than they are the other, and trying to add openendedness to the mix is generally disastrous. I think Fallout 3 is that type of game. You go in expecting a focused experience but end up spending too much time wandering around looking for fun things to do (rebelling against the magic arrow, primarily).
 
Wow, some really good points made. I think a game with a great story can suck you in like a good book or movie. I would gladly trade cutting edge graphics for well written story. And it doesn't matter if its linear or not. That's why I loved the old Wing Commander games. You will never see that level of Hollywood production in a game again.
 
By the way, I think another trend that I would like to see die down is making games take place out doors. Is a digital reproduction of Capitol hill, a beach, or a forest really more interesting than the confines of Black Mesa Complex (Half-Life) or the depths of Planet Zebes (Metroid).

Can you imagine the awesomeness of a CryEngine 2 based game that took place entirely indoors without all that framerate busting foliage. Crysis was a great looking game but for all its glorious graphics, ultimately I think there were more interesting things to see in Quake 4, even if that game was somewhat mediocre. Certainly, I thought the antlion tunnels in the technically "inferior" Half-Life 2: Episode 2 were more interesting than any environment I encountered in Crysis or Warhead. Hell, the meatlocker/freezer in Half-Life 1 was more interesting to me and that was one room!

I personally think exploration and adventure is something more than admiring the foliage and being able to explore everything you see. We know this is a game and there are invisible walls and barriers somewhere. Pushing the walls back doesn't help me forget they are there if there isn't sufficient content to entertain me in between them. I'd rather be a well entertained rat running through a well constructed maze than a buffalo free to roam the land but with little to do. The latter would work for me if it was something truly visually astounding that is just teeming with a level of detail never before seen with art style to match. We don't have a game like that yet. Crysis had the tech but not the narrative or atmosphere to match.

It works in Zelda to the extent that you constantly run across something you know will probably be of significance to your quest later on (a mysterious owl statute embedded in the land, or a broken bridge or circle of stones) but in Oblivion and Fallout 3 there is very little incentive to explore, in my opinion. The wasteland really is a wasteland!

Also, Fallout 3 was a great game with some great moments but I never shook my head and said to myself "that was incredible" from the gameplay itself the way I do with Half-Life. Just thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I feel the same way about Fallout 3, but my dad would disagree, as he is new to RPG style games and has literally been hooked on Fallout 3 (the PS3 version even lol) and has spent the time to get all the bobbleheads, all the special weapons and armor, etc, and still hasn't finished the main quest. Maybe he really is rebelling against the magic arrow telling him where to go from the beginning, but I now realize that I was the same way when I first got into RPG's. That was way back on the SNES with Final Fantasy 3/6, Secret of Mana, and Chrono Trigger. Back then I would play the game until I had everyone maxxed out with all of the best armor and weapons. He never gave those games a chance, but now I think these are the types of games he really enjoys.

I think this shows how the current generation of consoles have brought gaming to a whole new audience, even if many of us recognize it as all too familiar. My first FPS games were Duke Nukem 3D and then Quake, but most people playing 360 today had their first FPS experience with Halo, so it was all new to them. Eventually they will tire of the same old boring games and when that happens I really do believe story and gameplay will take a front seat. I say 3 years tops (I hope lol).
 
I was looking through the posts, and realized that everyone posting on this topic has been on the forum a minimum of two years, the majority five or more.

This amuses me because it seems like we may be a bit older than the current crop of most gamers.

I remember my favorite game (still one of my favorites) being Secret of Mana. Secret of Mana would die a lonely death in today's gaming climate I think.
 
Blackstone said:
Personally, all I really need is a sense of scale and adventure. I don't need to be able to explore every nook and cranny of the game world. I'd rather the developers take me on a well crafted ride.
Click to expand...

Well said. People get all too caught up with this linear/open world stuff. If the creator is any good, the game will be great linear or not. HL and HL2 were some of the most memorable games I've ever played because it was all very well crafted.
 
OP, if we are at the same game convention hall filled with 1000 Fallout 3 fans but I being at the front and you all the way back, I swear we would yell and cheer at the same time. Sadly, that will lead to 998 pairs of eyes looking at us like we are crazy people.

Fallout 3 is blend and unexciting. It is very similar to what Oblivion offers. It has a very huge place to explore, but I find myself virtually struggling to finish the main content. I tried hard to complete it but at the end I just uninstalled it. Rewind to the past, I was guilty myself in doing as many side quest as possible while playing BG2 and Planescape: Torment because I simply don't want it to end. Except that there is a major difference. The story was too captivating. Still, there is no excuse for Oblivion as the story is very dull and uninspiring.

Bethesda is laughing all the way to the bank and nothing we say will change their future games. But then what really is happening is they simply lack the capability of doing story driven open ended games. We all understand that open ended world, simplistic gameplay and zero story is easier to make above anything else. This really begs the question. I am pretty sure we are the first generation of PC gamers. Our numbers must be strong for sure. But why is it that the current development of games except Blizzard and Bioware are turning the other way around?
 
It doesn't matter if the game is linear or Sandbox. I use to think sandbox was the only way, loved Oblivion and Morrowind. I didn't even bother with Half Life 2! Then I came out from under the rock and played half life 2 for the FIRST time a few months ago. Throughout the game I kept getting amazed, thinking, wow, they just pulled that off, awesome! Valve did stuff in a linear game no open sandbox could hope to achieve given limited budget and time.
Anyways, both sandbox and linear are good.... what's more important is that the developers play to the positives (of sandbox or of linear), meaning a linear game should maximize the use of advantages that a linear game offers while and open sandbox game should maximize use of it's advantages. Sure you can borrow from the other side a little, but that's not what makes the game great.

I'll just add that mods make a big difference for sandbox games.
 
Another nugget of "wisdom" i have noted over a loooooong time playing computer games, is that things happen in cycles. Right now we are at the trailing edge of FPS, and starting to swing back to other types of gameplay. Or rather, FPS's are evolving and including other kinds of gameplay and evolving into something new.

I can remember a time when there were at least 2-3 flight sims out every year. Now there are none. I can remember when RTS was the rage, but not seeing too many of those these days. You'll always have some of each genre around, but they tend to be in the minority.

I can say i have seen a resurgence in the "storytelling" aspect, and i like it. Bioshock was a shooter with story. Mass effect, shooter with story. HL2, shooter with story. RTCW, shooter with story.

Now they just need to make the stories even deeper, and i'll be happy. That's one of the reasons i loved KOTOR and KOTOR 2 so much. Playing them was like watching a movie and i was the hero.

And on another note, linear games do have replay value. Played KOTOR several times, bioshock twice, mass effect twice, and so on. As long as the game is good, it's fun to play through again later on.
 
spugnor said:
Playing them was like watching a movie and i was the hero.
Click to expand...

I find myself saying this a lot. I'm frankly thrilled to see people feel this way. I've gotten tired of "pointing and clicking" at things on the screen to make them go boom. I've gotten tired of seeing a huge console with one "clickable" button on it and just pushing it not knowing what it does, but that it must advance the "story". I've gotten bored following the arrow or the flashing beacon on my map knowing that this one person will give me a mission, but not knowing why I'm talking to him.

Please take me on a wild ride. Hold my hand and tell me a great story or drop me in the middle of a world and let me find my own way. Let me get lost. Force me to follow the clues to find the solutions to my problems. Make my actions in one area influence the results in another. Let me mess up and paint myself into the corner. Right now you're putting me in a sandbox and holding my hand, but showing me nothing on consequence.

I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread. Now that we've identified the problem, is there anything we can do to fix it?
 
redman223 said:
I think that consoles have alot to do with this because it seems like gaming has taken a step back recently. Many of the games you mentioned I also enjoyed, and games like Freespace 2 no longer exist, or if they do they are dumbed down significantly. I look forward to see how the IL2 game for consoles compares to the PC version.

However, I do not believe this will continue forever, I think that when the 360 became popular we pretty much had to start over due to a new audience that had never played any of the old classics on PC, so to them this is all new. Many of the newer games that have received high marks are basically all remakes of old PC games, and I can almost guarantee that another golden age of gaming will be here in the next few years. Sadly it seems like we got knocked back 10 years in terms of gameplay, but at least progress is being made now. I look forward to Dragon Age, and I really enjoyed Mass Effect and look forward to Mass Effect 2.

I think that story will come into play heavily in a few years, and at least now everyone has broadband, so there is hope for the future once people get tired of mindless shooters and generic multi-player, which I think is happening currently in the console world. I am basing all of this on what my friends say, since most of them are new to gaming and all have 360's, while I am the only PC gamer of the bunch.
Click to expand...

^^
I agree with this. Damn consoles. :mad: However I foresee a change coming. I can't help feel PC gaming is or will be soon on the upswing again. The gaming hardware is cheaper than it ever has been. There is an army of PC gamers waiting for the next thing and we just need one developer to take advantage of this and show the rest of the devs the way forward.

If anything I think consoles are the ones in trouble :eek:. This current generation was the most expensive (except for 3DO and NEOGEO) to go mass market while at the same time PC hardware plummeted. They are within fingers reach of each other in price. Any smart person would just buy a gaming PC and if they need that couch feeling hook it to their tv. Personally I plan on skipping the next generation of consoles after 30ish years of buying them. PC is where its at.
 
So games were too linear...now they're too open. Christ, make up your mind.

This place should be called oft|Forum with all the aimless bitching and whinging that happens here.
 
HL2 and all the episodes are linear, and are still championed as part of the greatest series ever. We needs more HL.
 
samduhman said:
^^
I agree with this. Damn consoles. :mad: However I foresee a change coming. I can't help feel PC gaming is or will be soon on the upswing again. The gaming hardware is cheaper than it ever has been. There is an army of PC gamers waiting for the next thing and we just need one developer to take advantage of this and show the rest of the devs the way forward.

If anything I think consoles are the ones in trouble :eek:. This current generation was the most expensive (except for 3DO and NEOGEO) to go mass market while at the same time PC hardware plummeted. They are within fingers reach of each other in price. Any smart person would just buy a gaming PC and if they need that couch feeling hook it to their tv. Personally I plan on skipping the next generation of consoles after 30ish years of buying them. PC is where its at.
Click to expand...

The problem is people are buying notebooks instead. Desktop sales are dropping fast.
 
The problem is XYZ (insert your bitching here).

I will generally agree with others, and I will agree with Plague_Injected, as well. The problem isn't that games are too open, or to closed. The problem is that there's an unhealthy inbalance between the two, in the current generation of releases.

My personal disdain for the gaming market is the advent of this ridiculous notion that PC Games need to cater to the console crowd, because they will ultimately be ported over, to increase their market penetration, and sales numbers. I don;t know about you guys, but there is NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING that I would rather play on a console, that I can get for the PC. I remember buying the Janes ATF game back in the mid-90's. The fucking thing came with a manual thicker than most text books I owned, up until college. Kids these days, on the consoles, would not be likely to invest the time into reading the manual like that.

Game developers, I think (hope) understand this, but the publishers...that's probably another story, entirely. I do not agree with the philosophy that the PC crowd needs to have its games dumbed down in the controls, the story, the interface, whatever...to accommodate the inevitable port (instead of a re-write from the ground up, or otherwise parallel development) that will be coming down the pipe.

It's gotten even worse now that there's simultaneous platform releases of the same game. Developers are taking the ports into account right from the outset, and with many titles, it seems that the PC version is the amalgamation of the worst of the console worlds, with no concession for the PC platform, itself.

Instead of the old days, where games like DOOM that were first on the PC, and then on the console (and many years later, I might add), now we have the opposite happening. GTA4 on 360 and PS3 simultaneously, and coming to PC later.

I'm not saying that I like all of the titles, but the Games for Windows initiative seems to have helped in this category, a least a bit.
 
Cliffs?

tl;dr.

After reading the first couple lines, I assumed I've read this before. Like, last week. And the week before.
 
Consoles destroyed gaming as we know it. It is why gameplay was dumbed down to a lower standard to where even the dumbest gamer can play without thinking. Pc gamers in general are more educated and games were at one point a lot more complex than the games on consoles. Those were the times when the AAA games were out. That was the golden age of gaming back then. I think in the future games will be simpler and dumber and less artistic and creative. The talent behind many studios have left the building. We use to get new ideas in games. Games use to have a lot more creativity and talent in them. Now its turned like the music industry where most music is trash now due to corporate intervention. To me the only hope now is mods. To tell you the truth about that Wolfenstein beta, i think its going to fail big time. RTCW was one major hit because of the multiplayer. From what i heard the beta has even xbox 360 button guides onscreen in some situations meaning consolized.Console first then pc second. Thats what ruined it for gaming in general. Tons of console gamers would accept manure wrapped up in a tortilla. I think we will get hits but its up to the gamers to create them such as mods or games from the people based on engines that went public domain or open source. We're going to have to start over because pretty much the industry has lowered itself to retard mode.
 
cliffs, from a GenMay'ers perspective:

used to have good games
don't have good games
<insert arbitrary reason / whining here>
sand in vagina
we're old
games suck
 
Conker said:
To tell you the truth about that Wolfenstein beta, i think its going to fail big time. RTCW was one major hit because of the multiplayer. From what i heard the beta has even xbox 360 button guides onscreen in some situations meaning consolized.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it has the Games for Windows sticker on the box and therefore supports the 360 pad?

sabregen said:
cliffs, from a GenMay'ers perspective:

used to have good games
don't have good games
<insert arbitrary reason / whining here>
sand in vagina
we're old
games suck
Click to expand...

That sums it up.
 
Nostalgia is nice but does anyone remember the flipping hourglass? Many more crashes? Swapping CDs?

Gaming reminds me of cars. Nostalgia promotes the great muscle cars and obscures the feckless box-boats.

Things are pretty sweet now. Games are much more readily available and especially for less than $50. Story-driven games without great graphics are available, they just don't fill the 22"+ $170 monitors. Remember the 15" behemoths? Once can buy a netbook or 15" laptop and fill it with high-grade low-power games.

Is there some stagnancy in creativity, especially with story elements? Yes, but there are also MORE people to please, though in our experience for the most part we were watching Coconut Monkey and modding Half-Life (so surely there must be many of US, right? how about that Napster?). Also, BioShock might be even more bold than Half-Life, which is pretty much the best Area 51 interpretation.

Valve and Blizzard are kind of slow, but HL E3 and SC2 will be great.
 
Last edited:
I think PC Gaming overall is pretty amazing right now, even if we are still munching on the leftovers of all those great 2007 releases.

Actually I don't mind the console ports at all as long as they include all the PC features like anti-aliasing and widescreen support. I don't really miss the days of games that would bring my PC to a crawl. Crysis was nothing but frustration and still is unless you are on SLI, in my opinion. I think there is something to be said for using the PC as a "high-end" XBOX that can hit that true 1080p output, anti-aliasing, and filtering that XBOX can't. Not to mention superior control options and sound quality with the right sound card.

You can look at it as the glass is half full or the glass is half empty? Are the games easy to run or is the hardware just really fast? Is PC an afterthought or are we getting titles that normally would be reserved for consoles only (Resident Evil, Street Fighter,).

I just played a game called Batman: Arkham Asylum and even though it is Unreal Engine 3 and a console port, it looks damn good, full anti-aliasing support, ect.

Part of the problem is that we let Nvidia and ATi convince us that we should all be running two graphics cards when in fact the PC game market is and always has been keyed to what is going on in mainstream and high-end single GPU systems.
 
Old man agreeing with OP.

ME was overrated...recycled maps, models and missions. It was pretty, the voice acting was great, but your choices were essentially limited to Kirk vs. Picard dialogue trees that didn't affect the story line.
 
Ricedaddy said:
I was looking through the posts, and realized that everyone posting on this topic has been on the forum a minimum of two years, the majority five or more.

This amuses me because it seems like we may be a bit older than the current crop of most gamers.
Click to expand...
I think you are very correct there.

Ricedaddy said:
I remember my favorite game (still one of my favorites) being Secret of Mana. Secret of Mana would die a lonely death in today's gaming climate I think.
Click to expand...
That game rocked. Did you ever play it with a friend? I thought that was coolest feature at the time. I played that game non-stop.

I have no problem with linear games as long as there is a point, the game mechanics are sound, and there is a story to keep me moving forward and hold my interest. I'm playing GTA4 again but this time to actually follow the story, cuz I'll admi that all of that open world shit was a real distraction when I first played it, I spent hours just running people over, and just being an ass. I'm over that now.
 
Conker said:
Consoles destroyed gaming as we know it. It is why gameplay was dumbed down to a lower standard to where even the dumbest gamer can play without thinking. Pc gamers in general are more educated and games were at one point a lot more complex than the games on consoles. Those were the times when the AAA games were out. That was the golden age of gaming back then. I think in the future games will be simpler and dumber and less artistic and creative. The talent behind many studios have left the building. We use to get new ideas in games. Games use to have a lot more creativity and talent in them. Now its turned like the music industry where most music is trash now due to corporate intervention. To me the only hope now is mods. To tell you the truth about that Wolfenstein beta, i think its going to fail big time. RTCW was one major hit because of the multiplayer. From what i heard the beta has even xbox 360 button guides onscreen in some situations meaning consolized.Console first then pc second. Thats what ruined it for gaming in general. Tons of console gamers would accept manure wrapped up in a tortilla. I think we will get hits but its up to the gamers to create them such as mods or games from the people based on engines that went public domain or open source. We're going to have to start over because pretty much the industry has lowered itself to retard mode.
Click to expand...

I think you're totally wrong. There are many console games that have brought new ideas and innovative ways of playing that the PC hasn't. You talk about console games being bad, yet go off about mods? There only a few respectable mods, while the rest are trash. Also, I'm a console gamer, and I don't accept any shit wrapped up in tortillas. I only play games that are of quality. Killzone 2, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction, MGS4, Resistance 2, and many more are all great games. Looking forward to Demon Souls, Uncharted 2 and God of War 3.

It's really shameful that some of you consider yourself gamers, yet limit yourself to only 1 platform. I also find it funny, how so many of you claim PC gaming "is the best", yet every time I go into Hard's PC gaming forum, you people are still talking about CS:S, Crytek, or games that have been on consoles for months, and you're just now getting the bugged out PC version. PC has a huge flaw, that no one has the same rig. Talk about a game being buggy and blame it on a console, while you have 100,000+ different computer setups.

As for your comment about games being more complex during the golden age. I laughed at that. I have several console games that will rape your world when it comes to being complex and challenging.
 
I have to agree with Baker. Personally, I play games on whatever platform offers the best experience. I'm tired of trying to defend PC gaming. I'm not following the complexity arguments, they just don't make sense. Complex how? Complexity has to fit into the title and be a cohesive part of the gameplay. I hate to see games made arbitrarily hard (DMC4 obscenely hard puzzle level). I'm always up for the challenge and get off on beating hard games but it's gotta make sense.

I just now got around to finishing God of War 1 on the PS2 and God of War Chains of Olympus on the PSP. Best games I've played in a long time. I'm talking action platformer by the way. These are years old games, I have't seen ANYTHING like that on the PC. PC's used to get all the awesome shooters but that's even on the decline. I do find shooters on the console pretty weak and that's besides the whole keyboard and mouse combo port raping a sony six axis thing. Killzone2 and Resistance2 just didn't do it for me. Call of Duty 4 and COD WoW just don't feel right with a controller. That's just me.

I can't wait for God of War 3.
 
Baker said:
I think you're totally wrong. There are many console games that have brought new ideas and innovative ways of playing that the PC hasn't. You talk about console games being bad, yet go off about mods? There only a few respectable mods, while the rest are trash. Also, I'm a console gamer, and I don't accept any shit wrapped up in tortillas. I only play games that are of quality. Killzone 2, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction, MGS4, Resistance 2, and many more are all great games. Looking forward to Demon Souls, Uncharted 2 and God of War 3.

It's really shameful that some of you consider yourself gamers, yet limit yourself to only 1 platform. I also find it funny, how so many of you claim PC gaming "is the best", yet every time I go into Hard's PC gaming forum, you people are still talking about CS:S, Crytek, or games that have been on consoles for months, and you're just now getting the bugged out PC version. PC has a huge flaw, that no one has the same rig. Talk about a game being buggy and blame it on a console, while you have 100,000+ different computer setups.

As for your comment about games being more complex during the golden age. I laughed at that. I have several console games that will rape your world when it comes to being complex and challenging.
Click to expand...

I played the ps3 and 360 already with many games. I have friends that run a gamecrazy. I have a wii but thats mostly it when people come over. What i was trying to say is that the experience isn't the best experience. The point is they are making games aiming at lower hardware while theres better hardware available and they aren't taking advantage of it. They use to but now they aren't anymore because of the console effect on the industry. Although the games run smoother they aren't pushing boundaries and we haven't seen any major graphics increase in years in games due to this console effect. Thats why i was talking about the future of modding and the community doing more because thats what started counter strike and the rest. A few teenagers in high school made that mod. Almost every version of the same game on a console on the pc is better in graphics and controls. I know you talk about complexity and stuff but in general 90 percent of console gamers are girls and boys under 18. Just play call of duty 1 and then play call of duty 4. You'll see they made the spread wider to allow unskilled people to shoot easier. This was because of the console effect. Controller gives you less accuracy. Its just in general its gotten bad. Games use to have more depth and more details put into them. Ever since consoles came out with downloadable content we don't get as many patches and not as many additions anymore. Bioshock was a mess. Cod:waw console version gets map packs first. During the good days everyone got maps and stuff. No one had to pay. Its only recently with consoles that we have been shafted. Microsoft even pays companies to not release on the pc but on the 360 first. We're getting the back end now pretty much. Paying for online play is a scam also. Theres no dedicated hosts. In the future i bet there will be micro-charges on everything in consoles. One thing i notice is that pc gamers always rebel if something isn't good no one would buy it lol. With consoles though a majority just look at how cool the cover is in the store and they buy it. Thats why crappy games sell on consoles. Uninformed. To me from what i've played back than and what i'm playing now, its really changed for the worse. Simplier..less of everything in games. Its probably going to get worse but thats just how it is these days. Theres only a few good games now. A majority are trash simplified for the masses. The next consoles are going to be simplier thats for sure. Microsoft and Sony will pull a wii next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top