cbronson Posted February 5, 2011 To me, it all started to go to hell when The Gaming Industry showed up. When games became Franchises. Sure, no one can stop the evolution of a small company, and making money IS their goal, right? But apparently, the more money they make, they start to get lazy... I dont know, who am I to say anything? All I know is when I watch that Visit to id Software video I smile, because I see people who absolutely love what they are doing. Yes, maybe thats it. All we need is love. 0 Share this post Link to post
Aliotroph? Posted February 5, 2011 When games became franchises? So in the 80s? :p 0 Share this post Link to post
Spleen Posted February 5, 2011 cbronson said:To me, it all started to go to hell when The Gaming Industry showed up. When games became Franchises. Sure, no one can stop the evolution of a small company, and making money IS their goal, right? But apparently, the more money they make, they start to get lazy... I dont know, who am I to say anything? All I know is when I watch that Visit to id Software video I smile, because I see people who absolutely love what they are doing. Yes, maybe thats it. All we need is love. Easy, buy indie games. Small, successful companies become big companies, but small ones continuously appear. Magicka's a good example of what I would consider a fun, recent indie game. 0 Share this post Link to post
DuckReconMajor Posted February 6, 2011 Game Company: OK we releasing Call of Duty 12 Gamer: Stop trying to cater to everyone and making the same game over and over Game Company: OK *Game Company makes original game. Gamer is the only one to buy it since it only appeals to him.* Gamer: Whoa man you so radical look at you bein all anti-industry and going against the grain you are the coolest Game Company: WE SOLD ONE COPY THAT WAS A BILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT Gamer: Well screw those dudes man they don't know what an good game is. Game Company: Yeah, that really pays my bils. *lays off all workers* In other words, what Spleen said. If you want an original game that appeals to a smaller subset of gamers, look to a smaller group of developers. 0 Share this post Link to post
Craigs Posted February 6, 2011 Main stream developers can still take risks and develop unique games while still raking in considerable amounts of cash. See Portal, STALKER, and L4D for examples. Honestly, I don't even think Treyarch gives a shit about creativity. I've got the feeling the only reason they're complaining is because people actually expect them to come up with something original or at least put effort into making sure their games are playable. 0 Share this post Link to post
Xeros612 Posted February 6, 2011 On Treyarch, you've go to at least give them credit for the Nazi Zombies mode. Sure it's another "horde mode" gametype, but I've yet to see another game do it in Treyarch's style. 0 Share this post Link to post
scalliano Posted February 6, 2011 Zombie mode? Bloody hell, I've never come across one of those before ... Treyarch's statement is the definition of hubris. It completely steamrollers any acknowledgement of any possible issue within the industry and attempts to justify production-line game development by questioning the judgement of its bankrollers (ie gamers). Apparently it's our fault for not liking games? Pardon me, but when I drop £50 on a game, I expect it to last me more than a few hours before being forced play a glitchy online mode to extract any extra enjoyment from it. Fuck that. Gamers are negative because the games are: 1. too short, 2. too expensive, and 3. too focused on online multiplayer. I didn't bother buying an extra controller for my 360. What's the point? Most games don't even bother with local multiplayer anymore, leaving the only reason to have 2 joypads is so you can use one while the other is charging. Case in point: Quake III. The PS2 and Dreamcast versions both had 4-player split screen modes. Does Quake Arena Arcade on the 360 have that? Take one goddamn guess. 0 Share this post Link to post
Technician Posted February 6, 2011 Xeros612 said:On Treyarch, you've go to at least give them credit for the Nazi Zombies mode.I don't know what's more over used. Nazis or Zombies? 0 Share this post Link to post
Craigs Posted February 6, 2011 scalliano said:1. too short, 2. too expensive, and 3. too focused on online multiplayer. This. Yahtzee said it best, a game needs to stand up on its single player if it wants to have any lasting appeal. Multiplayer's going to be fun for a while but eventually people are going to stop playing it. When that happens, what's the point of even playing? Deus Ex is a good example of a single player game done right. I could probably spend days, weeks, hell maybe even months at a time trying various combinations of skills, finding various paths through the levels, trying different means of taking enemies down, achieving different endings and even trying different dialogue options throughout the game before I had finally exhausted all of the replayability it has to offer. 0 Share this post Link to post
Aliotroph? Posted February 6, 2011 Where are these mythical long games you all speak of? Really, it doesn't take long to play through most FPS games. Sure, some games take bloody forever the first time through because they are hard, but they aren't necessarily long. Compared with nearly every other form of entertainment people regularly pay for gaming is pretty damn cheap. The longest games seem to be RPGs (killed a whole summer in one game of Morrowind) and some RTS games (Supreme Commander). What I don't understand is why Treyarch would bother making their BS argument. Every time around they sell so many games it doesn't even matter if a pile of people whine about them. EA seems to have that figured out. They know there is a market for those stupid sports games everybody mocks, so they just try and justify other things instead, like violating labour laws and breaking people's computers. The more I think about it, the more I think I'm ultimately as satisfied with games as I was when I was a kid. I never played most games anyway. There were a few kinds I liked. Most of those are gone now, but there are other things that occupy me anyway. The dodgy marketing I remember from then is replaced by different dodgy marketing and the crappy clones of things are just crappy clones of different genres. 0 Share this post Link to post
DuckReconMajor Posted February 6, 2011 Craigs said:Yahtzee said it best, a game needs to stand up on its single player if it wants to have any lasting appeal.True. It's a shame no one played Quake 3 or that stupid browser remake of it. And how bout that Counter Strike single player? Mmm hmm. 0 Share this post Link to post
DeathevokatioN Posted February 6, 2011 The newest game I've played and enjoyed in the last few years, was Unreal. There are no games that were made this century that can blow me away and make my jaw drop like Unreal, Quake, Duke Nukem, DooM and Heretic did. So I guess I'll just stick with those. I can't complain about modern games though, because I'm having too much fun with the games I grew up on that I don't even care what modern games have to offer anymore. 0 Share this post Link to post
Craigs Posted February 6, 2011 DuckReconMajor said:True. It's a shame no one played Quake 3 or that stupid browser remake of it. And how bout that Counter Strike single player? Mmm hmm. There are exceptions yes, but with a lot of older games that focused heavily on multiplayer it's not too uncommon to only find one or two servers with people playing on it. Besides, isn't it safe to say it's better for a game not to have to rely on other people playing it for you to go back and play it again a few years later? 0 Share this post Link to post
Mr. T Posted February 6, 2011 Craigs said:There are exceptions yes, but with a lot of older games that focused heavily on multiplayer it's not too uncommon to only find one or two servers with people playing on it. Besides, isn't it safe to say it's better for a game not to have to rely on other people playing it for you to go back and play it again a few years later? CS is still huge, and the latest incarnation (1.6 / CS:S) of it is what, 8 years old now? I think more than anything, if a game offers a compelling experience as opposed to the cheap rank / perk / hat based thrills of the popular games now it will last a very very long time. 0 Share this post Link to post
DuckReconMajor Posted February 6, 2011 Craigs said:There are exceptions yes, but with a lot of older games that focused heavily on multiplayer it's not too uncommon to only find one or two servers with people playing on it. Besides, isn't it safe to say it's better for a game not to have to rely on other people playing it for you to go back and play it again a few years later? But isn't this thread about games that didn't get a lot of attention? Not to mention, times have changed. People are interacting more and more over the internet. I think in time single-player video game experiences will die out. 0 Share this post Link to post
caco_killer Posted February 6, 2011 Mr. T said:CS is still huge, and the latest incarnation (1.6 / CS:S) of it is what, 8 years old now? I think more than anything, if a game offers a compelling experience as opposed to the cheap rank / perk / hat based thrills of the popular games now it will last a very very long time. What's so bad about a reward system to keep you interested in the game? 0 Share this post Link to post
Clonehunter Posted February 6, 2011 DuckReconMajor said:Not to mention, times have changed. People are interacting more and more over the internet. I think in time single-player video game experiences will die out. Yah, but Multiplayer will real multiplayer gaming will probably die out though in favor of FaceBook and FarmVille. 0 Share this post Link to post
Alter Posted February 6, 2011 The thing is guys. The better technology/graphics we get, the more *beep* the games are and that's a fact of life now. And it will keep progressing worse and worse. At this rate, I may dump gaming by the time next gen of consoles hits. Because I have enough of those *beep* ultra-linear FPS *beep* games which are apparently AAA by reviewers which were paid by developer's soccer moms. There's many more wrong things with gaming but everyone knows them. Including simplified manuals, simplified gameplay (press A to win the game), simplified online. *beep* that *beep*, i'm leaving modern gaming by the time next gen of consoles (PS4 etc.) hits. Gonna stick to oldies. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scripten Posted February 6, 2011 caco_killer said:What's so bad about a reward system to keep you interested in the game? And, even if there is a reward system, who says that it affects the players' interest in the game, anyway? I don't know anyone who plays for anything but to have fun, and without much regard at all to the item system. 0 Share this post Link to post
Xaser Posted February 6, 2011 DuckReconMajor said:I think in time single-player video game experiences will die out. I sure hope not. Online multiplayer is fun but usually depthless. Not that story is super-important or anything, but it tends to get stale for me since it doesn't feel as if I've achieved anything at the end of the day. MMOs are maybe an exception, I suppose, but I won't touch anything MMO-ish anyway so those are right out for me. All that and what if I want to play a game when nobody else is around or the 'net happens to be down? alterworldruler said:The thing is guys. I sure hope not. I prefer girls. 0 Share this post Link to post
Mr. Freeze Posted February 6, 2011 caco_killer said:What's so bad about a reward system to keep you interested in the game? It's too easy for bad devs to fall back on in an attempt to artificially lengthen the life of their games. Obviously this doesn't apply to nearly every game, but it seems that the chief justification for 6-8 hour titles is "BUT IT HAS ACHIEVEMENTS! ISN'T THAT ENOUGH REPLAY VALUE, YOU SELF-ENTITLED FUCKWIT?!" 0 Share this post Link to post
Clonehunter Posted February 6, 2011 alterworldruler said:Gonna stick to oldies. Best fucki... erm... *bleep*ing advice I say. 0 Share this post Link to post
DuckReconMajor Posted February 6, 2011 Xaser said:Online multiplayer is fun but usually depthless.Right now I can agree with you on the most part. However I do think multiplayer gaming is going to get much deeper to where the story will be driven by the actions you take, you will be fighting real enemies with real motives, and the experience will be even more grandiose than anything we've seen in today's single player games.alterworldruler said:lots of *beep* with some fillerAre you being serious? 0 Share this post Link to post
The Lag Posted February 6, 2011 alterworldruler said: [Bi'm leaving modern gaming by the time next gen of consoles (PS4 etc.) hits. Gonna stick to oldies. [/B] since oblivion came out (whatever year that was) the only new games i've bought are: orange box, bioshock, borderlands, dead space, dragon age and fallout 3. and because of how much i hated fallout 3, and how simplified bioshock was (i didn't expect system shock 2, but ugh,) and how simplified oblivion was (was expecting to make crazy enchantments like morrowind, etc. etc.) i won't be buying many new games at all. the only reason why i will buy a few is because everything about the orange box kicks ass, dragon age has some nice throwback gameplay and deadspace was an enjoyable horror game, if not original. other than that, i'm having a blast with GOG...there are so many old classics that i've missed. i'd rather play these old games. 0 Share this post Link to post
Jodwin Posted February 6, 2011 Single-player gaming isn't going away, at least as long as hand held games and JRPGs are around :P, and if that's not your thing just grab Oblige and play Doom till the day you die, problem solved. There's no need to buy modern FPSs (and nag about them) if a) you don't like them and b) you like Doom and have got the whole /idgames and all Oblige maps to beat. The only PC games I'm looking forward to are Torchlight 2 and Trine 2 (and whatever Frozenbyte comes up with after Trine 2), everything else that's coming on the PC can go fuck themselves for all I care. Personally I've been playing almost nothing but Etrian Odyssey-games since November and haven't had so much fun with games in ages. Modern? Technically yes. Unique? Fuck no. Fun? Hell YES. 0 Share this post Link to post
Spleen Posted February 6, 2011 Mr. Freeze said:It's too easy for bad devs to fall back on in an attempt to artificially lengthen the life of their games. Obviously this doesn't apply to nearly every game, but it seems that the chief justification for 6-8 hour titles is "BUT IT HAS ACHIEVEMENTS! ISN'T THAT ENOUGH REPLAY VALUE, YOU SELF-ENTITLED FUCKWIT?!" When achievements first started coming out in games, it seemed such a silly idea that I wondered whether it was trying to make a mockery of bad video games. I don't understand what is interesting about them at all. 0 Share this post Link to post
Aliotroph? Posted February 6, 2011 Achievements are cool. Well, they can be cool. The well-designed ones do a good job of highlighting when you manage to do insane things many of us do anyway: jump into a nearly inaccessible place, run through the game with one weapon, etc. Some of those things are well regarded among Doom players, at least as feats of clever macho silliness. Having them in a game hurts nothing. Having the "walked out of the tutorial area" achievements really sucks. I suspect those are put in there so people unsure of the whole experience can feel like they got a reward for sticking with it for a few minutes. 0 Share this post Link to post
Craigs Posted February 6, 2011 Right now I can agree with you on the most part. However I do think multiplayer gaming is going to get much deeper to where the story will be driven by the actions you take, you will be fighting real enemies with real motives, and the experience will be even more grandiose than anything we've seen in today's single player games. That's a pretty good joke man. Fire up L4D2. Join a server. Chances are everytime one of the characters starts some dialogue, whoever's playing Nick suddenly interrupts the conversation by spamming "TITS, GOD DAMN IT, SHIT, THIS IS ALL GOING TO HELL" while whoever's playing Rochelle is spamming the laugh voice command. Soon the dialogue devolves into Ellis saying "THAT AIN'T RIGHT", Nick screaming long strings of profanity like he's got tourettes, Rochelle laughing nonstop, and coach saying "NO" over and over again. Sorry man, but if you look into pretty much any online multiplayer game, pretty much nobody gives a shit about the story line or their characters' motivation for what they're doing. as for achievements, I think this pretty much sums them up: 0 Share this post Link to post
DuckReconMajor Posted February 7, 2011 Craigs said: nobody gives a shit about the story line or their characters' motivation for what they're doing.uh, well duh. I didn't say one day everyone would start role playing. I'm not talking about following the story some video game writer came up with. I mean someday people are going to get so involved in this stuff they are going to do some crazy shit. Crazier than any villain a writer's ever come up with. 0 Share this post Link to post
printz Posted February 7, 2011 Jodwin said:and b) you like Doom and have got the whole /idgames and all Oblige maps to beat.I sometimes get bored of Doom. Does it count? 0 Share this post Link to post