The real problem with gaming and why we're all feeling empty

[butterfliesrpretty]

A lot of us here are around the 24-35 age group. We grew up with Atari or NES as our first systems typically. We are used to huge jumps in technology, but that means a lot more than fancy graphics.

Our generation has come to see some of the most significant advances in technology that have ever come to pass period, and this has come hand in hand with entertainment. We've come to experience playing crappy side scrollers that we loved because it was amazing for the time, to 3d games that we can play with thousands of other people at the same time. The problem is the latter has been available for quite some time.

The real issue is not that we are continuing to advance technologically but that we're taking steps backwards in gameplay in every sense. Where has an mmo gotten better since the original ultima online or everquest? Where has an fps gotten better since quake 3, counterstrike, or tribes? They haven't gotten better in any significant way other then making us lose more money by playing the carrot on a stick game and we're damn sick of it.

The point I want to make with this thread is that when someone tells you we as gamers are jaded or that we're living in the past, speak up and tell them why they're wrong. The more we bitch and use our money towards games that deserve it, the more we will see better games.

 

[cthulhuiscool]

I discovered a new game. I call in sniff the glue, takes all your complaints away.

But ya, more seriously it's all about safety in creating tried and true crap for guaranteed sales rather than experimenting and risking loss. As gaming becomes more and more industrialized an almost factory production method of development is expected for efficiency and optimal profits sake, even if it does suck the soul out of gaming.

That's not to say there's no hope. There are still indie devs willing to create things for innovation sake rather that pure profit. That's why im carefully watching the ouya. Looks promising if done right.

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

I discovered a new game. I call in sniff the glue, takes all your complaints away.

But ya, more seriously it's all about safety in creating tried and true crap for guaranteed sales rather than experimenting and risking loss. As gaming becomes more and more industrialized an almost factory production method of development is expected for efficiency and optimal profits sake, even if it does suck the soul out of gaming.

well I do agree with that(especially the glue part), and can't blame them, but I think a huge part of the problem is the vast majority of the population that plays video games has done it on consoles, and hasn't had anywhere near the level of complexity that those of us pc gamers have had and accept the same shoveled in shit because they don't know any better.

All in all it makes me realize how so many people can become drug/alcohol addicts because their lives are empty from repetition and never experiencing any sort of real mental challenge in their lives at all past school.

 

[Jequirity]

Speaking as someone who falls into the 24-35 age group I can say that there are enough decent modern games out there to satisfy my gaming. Granted, there are many re-boots, console ports and dull, unorigional AAA titles out there but there are also a wealth of interesting indy games plus some exceptional games from smaller developers/publishers.

Generally I don't find myself buying games from the big publishers (Activision/Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar etc) and developers but from smaller ones such as CD Projekt, Paradox, Bohemia Interactive etc. There are high quality, innovative pc games out there that suit my tastes (not necessarily everyone's tastes however), you just have to know where to look.

 

[qwertyaas]

I feel my biggest issue lately is I have no patience. I start a game, get a couple hours and and just stop playing, even if it was an awesome game. Portal 2, Witcher 2, Dead Space, Deus Ex... You name it.

The only games that hold my interest are games like Dungeon Defender, Torchlight... Odd.

 

[Rdzona]

well I do agree with that(especially the glue part), and can't blame them, but I think a huge part of the problem is the vast majority of the population that plays video games has done it on consoles, and hasn't had anywhere near the level of complexity that those of us pc gamers have had and accept the same shoveled in shit because they don't know any better.

All in all it makes me realize how so many people can become drug/alcohol addicts because their lives are empty from repetition and never experiencing any sort of real mental challenge in their lives at all past school.

I was going to say something about the mass market of consoles compared to the niche market of pc gaming. But if you really read what the OP is saying its not about this. Like he said, majority of early to mid 80s gaming started on consoles. You can have good games on a console. Its more of the problem that these devs and pubs just reskin CoD every year and sell it for full retail and the mass market (aka consoles) gobble it up like its candy. And this is probably because they are young and don't have the memory that we have. A new gamer is young and his or her parents most like will buy him a console. His first game of a franchise could be CoD #4 or whatever. They didn't play 1,2&3, so thats why they can continue shoveling that crap over and over. They are constantly getting a new audience.

However, the older you get the more difficult it is for the industry to compliment you. Because we have a wealth of knowledge and experience and it becomes increasingly difficult to show us something new.

 

[trick0502]

Where has an fps gotten better since quake 3, counterstrike, or tribes?

i only play fps so i will only comment on the fps.

so, where has a fps gotten better since q3, cs and tribes?

how about portal 1?

how about hl2?

how about cod 4 (dont let the ones that follow influence you!)

games have gotten better sine q1, cs and tribes. are there a lot? i would say no, but there are some.

 

[BiH115]

Games HAVE gotten better, it's just that shit's getting pushed out the door without understand what the game that was being worked on was actually supposed to represent. Re-skinning the same game and calling it a new game, while charging a new game price isn't where we need to be going. The problem is also that continue to pay for the same shit, which gives incentive to the companies to keep doing what they're doing. It'll be a never ending cycle.

 

[kohl]

I really feel that the better graphics and tech easily become a crutch for game devs. Back in the Atari days, you couldn't hide behind the tech; the gameplay was laid bare front and center. Every time you saw a huge jump in the tech, there was a batch of games that fell prey to having all flash and no content. I think one of the best examples was the advent of games shipping on CD-ROM where you had these crap games that were nothing more than loosely strewn together FMV clips.

 

[H-street]

I can somewhat agree with what you are saying (OP)..

over time i've found my tastes changing.

When 3dfx first released the Voodoo it created a storm in PC gaming, i remember getting every game i could that had a 3dfx patch or supported it for the graphics. And each and every new game was measured for how good the graphics were.

During that time, new game play ideas were being thrown out right and left creating a perfect gaming storm. Some of the most unique games came out at that time.


Fast forward to today and graphics are now a secondary, I find myself really looking for a good single player experience or a multiplayer reminisce (like Tribes Ascend, great game, Max Payne, Mass Effect, Oblivion). Gaming has gone from FMV, load screen, shoot bad guys to a very professional presentation and story telling.


What is a nice sign though is with the advent of the mobile market - the "gamerbase" has all of a sudden become extremely tolerant of lower graphics. And as such gameplay is taking front an center.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

I disagree with the OP.
The problem is games in the past were made to be played and have fun. Today games are made for money. Everyone is trying to move to these store front interfaces, inside of games, so they can nickel and dime you for everything and anything. Battlefield Prem, COD Subscription, Diablo 3, Xbox LIVE, PSN, GFWL, all prime examples of games that take the money first, fun second approach.

Side scrollers will never get old. I can't believe you said that. That's really what I mostly dont agree with.
Heres a quote that I can relate too...

40 years into their lifespan they’re still part of childhood to many people; the generation above me remembers them when they first arrived. They were novelties, then. Toys. Things you played at the seaside, beyond the sandcastles and trampolines. It takes a major shift of the imagination to understand what they have become – the most vibrant and truthful artform of the 21st century.

Sure, he's stating games have become something greater, but I believe thats the main problem. Games stopped being games, and started being some fucked up hybrid of hollywood/app store/game. The higher the budget, the less the focus on actual gaming. IMO...

This is what keeps me playing older classics.
I played MDK (the first one) again, this week. Those hours were way more enjoyable than farming inferno in Diablo 3 for the upteenth time.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Fun games mostly come from small studios. Some big studios put out fun games from time to time, but I wouldn't say we lack games that are good. Unfortunately, like music, you just have to look harder for it now. It also never hurts to go back and play games that were considered godlike in the 80's and 90's. Some hold up well, others do not.

 

[piscian18]

This whole problem of games being factoryline or of older games being jaded only relates to games being made by large publishers. Thanks to the internet connecting people for every subpar streamlined game released there's 5 or 6 independently financed titles that are well received or lauded. You can follow the steam new releases and see this.

Yes if the only store you shop at is walmart and the only online store you buy from is Origin all you will see disappointment but if you shop at Desure, and steam, and other online places you'll find far more variety and quality. You have to understand the dynamics. Crap games only appear to be prevalent because the large publishers have push them every where they can to meet their bottom line sales. The guy who makes Braid or swords&sorcery doesn't need to catch every little kids attention at walmart. His bottom line is nothing because he just made a game he wanted people to play. If somebody played it and liked it his bottom line just got made.

 

[boss99]

I don't know, games can still be fun and modern. I just bought Fallout 3 and New Vegas from the steam sale, even though i've played both before, I've never owned them on Steam.

They were a BLAST the first time around, and now, it's fun, but not the same as when I first played them. I think that's the problem with many newer games, they just don't provide that unique experience anymore. The feeling I had when I played MoHAA the first time is not the same experience I felt when I played Airborne, so maybe what we're looking for is a fresh experience on some newer games. I have hope in the Wasteland 2 kickstarter since it's been a long while since I've played a top down rpg like that.

 

[Casus]

There's a renaissance coming.

We're stuck in a rut of most studios trying to imitate what they see as successful from the big AAA titles (Which, honestly, I don't even get excited about, personally).

A successful game needs: Experience, Classes, Progression, Achievements, god knows whatever bullshit the bean counters say it does these days. It's everywhere, and I fucking hate it.

But there's things a stirring behind the scenes. Indy developers are getting more, and more clout.

Crazy, niche games are being developed, and turning a profit for their developers.

The mega studios are going to hit a brick wall at full steam, and when it happens, all of them will say "Wut happen?" and all of us will say, "How did you miss it?"

Also to add to the list of innovators:

Natural Selection
Neotokyo

 

[Bumrush]

The problem isn't gaming - It's us.

We are now part of a generation that needs instant gratification. From twitter feeds, to Facebook, to glancing at articles, we have lost the patience we used to have. Every bit of information is instant. When was the last time you read an entire article on the internet?

With gaming, we tend to give up as well if we don't get that immediate gratification or get stuck.. Forgetting that back in the day the concept of auto health regeneration was ridiculed.

At the same time, it is far easier to play games now than before... Remember all the hours spent tweaking Quake? Playing Half Life 1 at 20 frames per second on a 56k with massive lag? Yet we plowed through it and enjoyed every second of it. Now you get disconnected from a game like BF3 once a week, while playing at all ultra settings, and the game sucks..

 

[eggrock]

It's more than one thing. Personally, it's a case of playing video games for around thirty years and seeing most of what there is to see, and becoming less tolerant of so-so games and padded gameplay. There are also more annoyances now like DLC, in-game ads and developers that don't know that lefthanded people didn't suddenly die off in the early 2000s. OTOH there have been some very nice indie games, which was mentioned upthread.

I don't think game quality has really gone down all that much, just that everyone's opinion is more readily available and there tends to be a herd mentality when it comes to bitching about something.

There's a laundry list of good games I've played that goes all the way back to the Atari 2600, and I haven't seen a real letdown in quality (or lessening of duds for that matter.) 2011 was a pretty good year for the games I like to play.

[edit]

The problem isn't gaming - It's us.

We are now part of a generation that needs instant gratification. From twitter feeds, to Facebook, to glancing at articles, we have lost the patience we used to have. Every bit of information is instant. When was the last time you read an entire article on the internet?

With gaming, we tend to give up as well if we don't get that immediate gratification or get stuck.. Forgetting that back in the day the concept of auto health regeneration was ridiculed.

I notice that too, people jumping from game to game and if it doesn't hold their interest immediately it goes in the bin. Sometimes that's passed off as the try-before-you-buy excuse that pirates like to throw around. Back in the day I'd get a game, play it through and then form an opinion. Rentals were also a big help in the PS1 days, so there is some merit to complaints about the lack of demos.

 

[Domingo]

There have been plenty of situations like this before where graphics were the only major upgrades for a while.
Look no further than the SMS/Genesis and NES/SNES.
Plateaus happen. We went from the Atari/Coleco world to the Nintendo/Sega 2D systems. Then we saw the Sony/Sega/MS 3D era. It might take some time, but we're likely heading to a VR/3D era next.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

The problem isn't gaming - It's us.

We are now part of a generation that needs instant gratification. From twitter feeds, to Facebook, to glancing at articles, we have lost the patience we used to have. Every bit of information is instant. When was the last time you read an entire article on the internet?

With gaming, we tend to give up as well if we don't get that immediate gratification or get stuck.. Forgetting that back in the day the concept of auto health regeneration was ridiculed.

At the same time, it is far easier to play games now than before... Remember all the hours spent tweaking Quake? Playing Half Life 1 at 20 frames per second on a 56k with massive lag? Yet we plowed through it and enjoyed every second of it. Now you get disconnected from a game like BF3 once a week, while playing at all ultra settings, and the game sucks..

I'd say you might be speaking for yourself.

 

[gamerk2]

A lot of us here are around the 24-35 age group. We grew up with Atari or NES as our first systems typically. We are used to huge jumps in technology, but that means a lot more than fancy graphics.

Our generation has come to see some of the most significant advances in technology that have ever come to pass period, and this has come hand in hand with entertainment. We've come to experience playing crappy side scrollers that we loved because it was amazing for the time, to 3d games that we can play with thousands of other people at the same time. The problem is the latter has been available for quite some time.

The real issue is not that we are continuing to advance technologically but that we're taking steps backwards in gameplay in every sense. Where has an mmo gotten better since the original ultima online or everquest? Where has an fps gotten better since quake 3, counterstrike, or tribes? They haven't gotten better in any significant way other then making us lose more money by playing the carrot on a stick game and we're damn sick of it.

The point I want to make with this thread is that when someone tells you we as gamers are jaded or that we're living in the past, speak up and tell them why they're wrong. The more we bitch and use our money towards games that deserve it, the more we will see better games.

Part of the problem is that all the small studios that used to innovate have all been gobbled up, and developing a game is SUCH a large task now, that its hard for independent startups to last long enough and make a good enough game to really be noticed.

In short: The gaming industry is now like Hollywood; too big to innovate, to big to take risks.

 

[BiH115]

I'd say you might be speaking for yourself.

Nah he's got it right. Nothing I disagree with in there either. We want it now, and we expect it to be ungodly and flawless. Just not realistic.

 

[XvMMvX]

Games are fine... the problem is that people grow up. The games that you described molded your childhood and perception of gaming. In fact when those games came out there was an ENTIRE different perception of gaming. Nothing will ever give you the rush that you received as a impressionable child playing games... it just wont happen. I will never have the same feeling as playing Super Mario Bros 3 for the first time again. Or the feeling I got when I fired up the SNES with desert strike.

There are indy developers who make good games, but you wont see them pushing anything graphically. It cost so much to develop these games now, and the market demanding things like on this forum is so small it is a difficult segment to do business in. Think about it... you demand more but want to pay less. You don't want to pay for additional content. You want all control of someone elses IP etc etc etc... all of the name of "it used to be this way".

Just stop and think about it for a sec... I did a few years back, now I know what to focus on for my tastes and gaming is great for me.

For instance I realized all of my time was play COD/BF/SC/HoN online with friends not playing single player story driven games... they just didn't do it for me like they did when I was a kid. No matter how great the game looks or plays it was just emtpy. I took the time to realize that I had grown up and my taste had change. I still read and look at the new games coming out but i know deep down I would never put the time to play them.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Nah he's got it right. Nothing I disagree with in there either. We want it now, and we expect it to be ungodly and flawless. Just not realistic.

I don't. I like complex/old school/hardcore games, and so do many others. Indies are picking up on this and actually making some pretty good profit. Games don't have to be flawless, they have to be mindful of which flaws they have and which don't belong. I've been having a good time with gaming lately. Sometimes it's with a game that came out 15 years ago, sometimes it is a new game.

I gues not being terribly interested in more than a handful of AAA games saves me a little frustration.

 

[Parmenides]

I agree with the general sentiment with the OP, but good games are out there. We just pay too much attention to "AAA" that are better ignored. There's a lot of good stuff out there that isn't getting the "AAA" marketing, yet would blow away games from 10, 20 years ago in terms of graphics.

And there is nothing wrong with taking a break from gaming. I've done that a number of times. And yet somehow I get sucked back in with new energy for gaming after a period of nothing.

 

[Jellylesg]

i only play fps so i will only comment on the fps.

so, where has a fps gotten better since q3, cs and tribes?

how about portal 1?

how about hl2?

how about cod 4 (dont let the ones that follow influence you!)

games have gotten better sine q1, cs and tribes. are there a lot? i would say no, but there are some.

Portal was a first-person puzzle game, not a shooter. And whilst I hear many praise H-L2, I've never been quite so sure about it. I think the last FPS that actually impressed me was [pick any Stalker game].

 

[Nytegard]

I don't. I like complex/old school/hardcore games, and so do many others. Indies are picking up on this and actually making some pretty good profit. Games don't have to be flawless, they have to be mindful of which flaws they have and which don't belong. I've been having a good time with gaming lately. Sometimes it's with a game that came out 15 years ago, sometimes it is a new game.

I gues not being terribly interested in more than a handful of AAA games saves me a little frustration.

But indies for the most part don't sell to any significant means. I agree with him that it is us to a large extent. Sure, that's not the only reason, but it is a major reason. As I mentioned in the Diablo 3 post, I'm getting sick of seeing "OMG, you're still playing that?" when the game is only 2 months old.

My favorite genre of video game is the adventure genre of old (and not what people consider adventure today). I remember several times growing up, being stuck on a puzzle for weeks. Many older RPG's gave absolutely no direction on what do to, and you had to wander mindlessly around until you finally found some hints. Today, if people even don't know what to do for more than 5 minutes, they go to GameFaqs or another place to look up online what to do. And anything that's not hand holding you to the next step is considered bad gameplay.

People often complain about games being too short, but many of the 100 hour games were just filler. And it has to be. Outside of very tiny indie developers, game studios have always been about making a profit. They're purposely designed to keep you interested as short as possible, at least until the next title comes out where you'll have to spend $60 more. It just happens to be that 20 years ago, the next title was 4 months off, where today it's 4 days away. The last time we had turn around like that was the late 70's, early 80's, and we all know what happened. The video game market crashed.

 

[stevedave]

For me I just had to move to different platforms.

SegaMasterSystem > NES> Genesis> SNES> PC>PS1 >PS2>N64>PC>DS>PSP>PC.....Then Likely 3DS>VITA>PC

Most people discount the quality of games release on the PSP and DS those 2 systems saved me from the Trash that Was/is Xbox360 and PS3.

Companies like Atlus still exist Demon Souls is coming out on PC and its got both graphics and gameplay. They could be saving their good content and good Idea's for better consoles than the Xbox360 and PS3.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

But indies for the most part don't sell to any significant means. I agree with him that it is us to a large extent. Sure, that's not the only reason, but it is a major reason. As I mentioned in the Diablo 3 post, I'm getting sick of seeing "OMG, you're still playing that?" when the game is only 2 months old.

My favorite genre of video game is the adventure genre of old (and not what people consider adventure today). I remember several times growing up, being stuck on a puzzle for weeks. Many older RPG's gave absolutely no direction on what do to, and you had to wander mindlessly around until you finally found some hints. Today, if people even don't know what to do for more than 5 minutes, they go to GameFaqs or another place to look up online what to do. And anything that's not hand holding you to the next step is considered bad gameplay.

People often complain about games being too short, but many of the 100 hour games were just filler. And it has to be. Outside of very tiny indie developers, game studios have always been about making a profit. They're purposely designed to keep you interested as short as possible, at least until the next title comes out where you'll have to spend $60 more. It just happens to be that 20 years ago, the next title was 4 months off, where today it's 4 days away. The last time we had turn around like that was the late 70's, early 80's, and we all know what happened. The video game market crashed.

So, we have a problem with the average attention span of people, the effort put into making the games, and the perception of what gamers actually want. It used to be there would be 3-4 flagship games for each major genre that would focus people's attention on what type of game mattered to them personally, now we just shove every genre together into a frankengame and expect people to be satisfied, right?

It seems there is a sense of dread attached to the phrase "niche games", where it used to be that games in general WERE niche. I'd say if the problem is "us" (I prefer "you people"), then make a list of the things you like to see in games in each of your favorite genres. If it so happens that an indie title fits the bill, buy it and enjoy yourself. The market isn't going to understand what we want unless we tell them.

 

[Mungojerrie]

I think the last FPS that actually impressed me was [pick any Stalker game].

I always forget to classify that the stalker games were shooters. My god I loved those games and the story was top notch.

 

[Intel_Hydralisk]

As a 24 year old with expendable income, I think gaming is amazing right now.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

I dont think the sentiment has changed actually.
I think we have been conditioned by the old games that you just turn-on and play.

Now days I get pissed if a game throws an FMV at me when I start a new game.
I pressed 'New game', not 'watch movie'. I wish I could be that way again.

If you ask me, the best example would be any game from codemasters in the last few years.
MOUNTAINS of menus and unskippable cut scenes. I fucking hate codemasters. I cant beat the menu boss thats apparently in all their games, my blood pressure wont let me. Why cant I just have an arcade mode? 2 clicks and be racing? What the hell is this crap, and when did that become the definition of how to make a game?

 

[BiH115]

As a 24 year old with expendable income, I think gaming is amazing right now.

I'd have to say: As a 23 year old with expendable income, I think gaming is pretty OK right now.

But then again that's just my opinion. I want games that aren't even close to being out yet. Also some of the past few months' titles left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Nytegard]

So, we have a problem with the average attention span of people, the effort put into making the games, and the perception of what gamers actually want. It used to be there would be 3-4 flagship games for each major genre that would focus people's attention on what type of game mattered to them personally, now we just shove every genre together into a frankengame and expect people to be satisfied, right?

It seems there is a sense of dread attached to the phrase "niche games", where it used to be that games in general WERE niche. I'd say if the problem is "us" (I prefer "you people"), then make a list of the things you like to see in games in each of your favorite genres. If it so happens that an indie title fits the bill, buy it and enjoy yourself. The market isn't going to understand what we want unless we tell them.

Unfortunately, I'm significantly more cynical than you and probably almost everyone on these boards. I see it as less of the market telling what developers should make, and more of developers telling the market what it should be. As attributed to Henry Ford, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse".

The problem is good games do exist. (Honestly, I dislike this phrasing, as good is extremely subjective, and what you might consider an enjoyable game, I might think is trash, and vice versa). But they don't have nearly the public awareness to be successful. E.G. Two of my favorite games of all time have absolutely no sequels, nor clones, etc., that I'm aware of, and both games are over 15 years old. And even if I developed something similar myself (assuming I had nearly enough talent to do them justice), I see no way of promoting them in todays market of now, now, now.

I also don't really see this as a new problem, because for as long as I can remember, games have always been going down hill. It's similar to how your generation is the worst generation ever, and how your parents had to walk 10 miles in the middle of a snow storm to school. In actuallity, the OP is more about his generation (in terms of gaming) being pushed into irrelevancy.

 

[piscian18]

I'd say you might be speaking for yourself.

I disagree as well I think it's perception thing. I don't game any less today than I did when I was 12 and went to school for 8 hours a day. I may not be playing Wizardry II as I did when I was 12. I'm playing Legends of Grimlock or the upcoming Paper Sorcerer. Instead of Romance of the 3 kingdoms I'm playing Total War. All the same games are still there it's just 3 or 4 retail publishers wanting us to believe they're not.

I will say something that has been bothering me. I think reviewers are a little to blame for some of this.

I picked up a game a couple days ago called Kingdom Under Fire: Crusaders. It's Medieval combination of Dynasty warriors and ROTTK. A main Gamespot reviewer took points away for having a "Steep learning curve". What exactly the fuck is a steep learning curve?
Oh noes I have to go look at the manual. that seems like a completely unreasonable thing to hold against a game.

I also see a lot of highly rating 9/10 games receiving this statement "what it lacks in story it makes up for in intense gameplay". I'm not talking about an abstract Indie game I'm talking Modern warfare. I'm sick of fucking hearing that. Such and such game ticked off the standard FPS checkbox so we can let poor writing and design slide.

 

[BiH115]

I disagree as well I think it's perception thing. I don't game any less today than I did when I was 12 and went to school for 8 hours a day. I may not be playing Wizardry II as I did when I was 12. I'm playing Legends of Grimlock or the upcoming Paper Sorcerer. Instead of Romance of the 3 kingdoms I'm playing Total War. All the same games are still there it's just 3 or 4 retail publishers wanting us to believe they're not.

I will say something that has been bothering me. I think reviewers are a little to blame for some of this.

I picked up a game a couple days ago called Kingdom Under Fire: Crusaders. It's Medieval combination of Dynasty warriors and ROTTK. A main Gamespot reviewer took points away for having a "Steep learning curve". What exactly the fuck is a steep learning curve?
Oh noes I have to go look at the manual. that seems like a completely unreasonable thing to hold against a game.

I also see a lot of highly rating 9/10 games receiving this statement "what it lacks in story it makes up for in intense gameplay". I'm not talking about an abstract Indie game I'm talking Modern warfare. I'm sick of fucking hearing that. Such and such game ticked off the standard FPS checkbox so we can let poor writing and design slide.

A lot of people, let's say the majority, don't want to think when they play games. Sure, there are a lot of people that like to be challenged and puzzled, and like to think when they sit down to play a game. I'm kind of in between, it depends on the mood I'm in, but generally, I want to blow shit up, and I don't want to think. Hell when I play games that require me to think, I still don't want to think. Maybe it's laziness, maybe it's just that I could give a rats ass, but it's what I feel is going on. There's a lot of comparisons being made to old-school games, and it being the golden-age and all that, but I seriously doubt we'll see anything like that again. Wish it wasn't true, but more and more we see it. As games are coming out, not much is changing.

 

[Intel_Hydralisk]

A lot of people, let's say the majority, don't want to think when they play games. Sure, there are a lot of people that like to be challenged and puzzled, and like to think when they sit down to play a game. I'm kind of in between, it depends on the mood I'm in, but generally, I want to blow shit up, and I don't want to think. Hell when I play games that require me to think, I still don't want to think. Maybe it's laziness, maybe it's just that I could give a rats ass, but it's what I feel is going on. There's a lot of comparisons being made to old-school games, and it being the golden-age and all that, but I seriously doubt we'll see anything like that again. Wish it wasn't true, but more and more we see it. As games are coming out, not much is changing.

I think a game should grab a player's attention initially but not present anything overly challenging as that's an immediate turn off for most players. After the player decides they like the game based on core mechanics and base gameplay, the challenges can pile on and a lot of times can be very rewarding for the player as they expand on the core gameplay that they presumably now enjoy to some degree.

 

[michael.pa2]

Portal was a first-person puzzle game, not a shooter. And whilst I hear many praise H-L2, I've never been quite so sure about it. I think the last FPS that actually impressed me was [pick any Stalker game].

I think what made the STALKER series so great is what's lacking in the majority of FPS games these days,a sense of immersion in the story and the freedom to explore the world you're in. I got tired of the same old linear shooters that look and play like they were cranked out on the same assembly line.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I think a game should grab a player's attention initially but not present anything overly challenging as that's an immediate turn off for most players. After the player decides they like the game based on core mechanics and base gameplay, the challenges can pile on and a lot of times can be very rewarding for the player as they expand on the core gameplay that they presumably now enjoy to some degree.

Yes, it is a careful balance how much information you give the player at once. Too much, and people will feel like they are working from home, too little and those of us that like complexity will uninstall and call it CoD trash. At the same time, if it is an RPG, RTS or a game with complex mechanics, I do expect people to RTFM.

The challenge presented is also a careful balance. It gets to the point where I start almost every game on hard or greater now, but I can see how someone less experienced might be put off by having to reload half a dozen times before they've learned anything.

That's why you must target the right audience with your games. I just can't get into games that try to please everyone, because it ends up so boring I want to barf into my keyboard.

 

[Nytegard]

I think a game should grab a player's attention initially but not present anything overly challenging as that's an immediate turn off for most players. After the player decides they like the game based on core mechanics and base gameplay, the challenges can pile on and a lot of times can be very rewarding for the player as they expand on the core gameplay that they presumably now enjoy to some degree.

But what consists of challenge, and how do you define most players? Take Diablo 3. Too many people considered the first 3 difficulties way too easy, yet considered Inferno way too difficult. The broader the audience, the dumber you need to make the game. And grabbing the players attention initially is exactly why we're becoming a society with no attention span. I really can't offer any fixes, because quite honestly, the only way to fix this would cause a massive hit to profits. We need to start limiting games so that they don't have mass appeal.

 

[Dasuchin]

I feel my biggest issue lately is I have no patience. I start a game, get a couple hours and and just stop playing, even if it was an awesome game. Portal 2, Witcher 2, Dead Space, Deus Ex... You name it.

The only games that hold my interest are games like Dungeon Defender, Torchlight... Odd.

This is my problem. Except I actually did finish Portal 1 and 2, those were able to hold my attention. Other than that, it's difficult to actually finish a game.