Dissatisfied with modern games?

[DoomUK]

Treyarch say it's your fault for being negative.

Personally I don't agree with the whole "games suck these days" thing. But I do find this article pretty amusing.

[boris]

STFU and buy!

[Technician]

40oz should be 'round shortly.

[Mr. Freeze]

The last time Treyarch did anything that wasn't a sequel or adaption was back in 2002. Creativity my ass.

[Xeros612]

Humorous as it may be, there is some truth to it. Developers are often scared to try something different because the community often leaves new ideas and such in the dust (aside from the occasional independent game, i.e. Minecraft), and as such said games only get minimal profits. Minimal profits = dissatisfied publishers, dissatisfied publishers can lead to dissolved developers. It's likely why games like Halo and Call of Duty still lead the market: there's minimal differences between each entry, and the same "winning formula" gets repeated over and over.
Also of note is the latest entry in both series tried something somewhat different from previous titles (i.e. Reach has dynamic weapon spread[you know, something most modern FPS games have been doing for AGES], Black Ops has a slight bit more interactivity in its multiplayer maps, etc.], and both have received a lot of flak for said changes.

[Coopersville]

I pretty much agree.

[40oz]

He's absolutely correct. I'm pretty sure that it was I that mentioned very early in the Borderlands thread that it was almost entirely a mashup of features of high selling games, and nothing original to bring to the table. I also declared my refusal to buy any games that are literally duplicates of each other. What happened then? Everyone got mad.

[Reisal]

I find that a bit hilarious from a developer who hasn't made any new IP of their own in a long time. Gamers make the community, remember that...and we'll bitch out vocal cords off regardless of it being trivial or a major issue with your games, so watch what your mouths say Activision payrollists.

[Aliotroph?]

Gamers bitch about everything, including games that sell 10 million copies in a month. And how is this a threat? Most games have always been derivative crap. Even in the 70s most companies just made consoles that played variants of Pong. So we get to play the indie version of any truly new idea first. Meh. That's probably a better deal, because it won't involve some corporate-funded assholes telling us what we can say about it on the forums.

[kristus]

What a fucking tosspot. The reason games started to fail is because everything now has to appeal to an a wide a market as possible. For example, niche games like System Shock 2 that are truly good are not welcome because some monkeys that lack opposable thumbs and a fully developed brain can't hack it. So they made Bioshock, a game that was a compromise in every facet possible. Making it a completely redundant gaming experience, the only thing kept from the source material it was supposedly a spiritual successor to was the story. The same story. They just changed some names and made everything run on steam.

There are still companies that make good games, but companies like Treyarch is definitely not one of them.

[gggmork]

An essential ingredient of games is controlling stuff, and controlling whatever modern game character around in 3 dimensions is all rooted as the same basic game. Since 3d space has lots of directions, a lot of the controller input is dedicated to navigating around. With more abstract simplicity, you can choose top view/side view/etc and remove unnecessary 3d complexity. Something like nes battletoads uses multiple such views and you never have to aim a cumbersome analogue stick at a target.. the simplicity just guarantees that you're aligned since you can only face like 2 directions and move up and down. This simplicity frees up controls to do stuff like enter a dragon punch key sequence. Something like snes punchout has an illusion of a 3d viewpoint but its all simplified. Pressing down blocks, left dodges, rather than moving some complex camera around or something. And the character responds instantly rather than having to wait for a 3d model to realistically move along. If the character is just a bunch of frames, then on the next frame one of the battletoads fists can become cartoonishly large or something. It'd probably be awkward to make a 3d model do that. The simplicity means less cookie cutter borrowed code and more freedom to create unique things. But programs are complex and simplicity probably isn't the right word for any of them. Making bald bull's eyes animate to roll around between every punch or something takes a lot of thinking to pull off in code. If games are gonna get more complex, I want lots of subtle 'deeper' things like that added to the program rather than necessarily going 3d all the time just because 3d code has culturally accumulated and is easy to borrow.

[Xaser]

Mr. Chris said:

I find that a bit hilarious from a developer who hasn't made any new IP of their own in a long time.

Indeed. Most of the hate toward companies like these is because they never try anything new. I'm not sure how that's supposed to translate to "our fault" when they continue to not try anything new. :P

But yeah, the gaming industry has more or less turned into Hollywood. It's always more profitable to make something popular (with great CGI!) than something good.

[magicsofa]

I'm not dissatisfied with modern games, I just don't want to spend money on them or the systems that run them. I also like the ease with which an old game like Doom can be modded.

Any developer who says it's the gamers' fault can blow a line of salt off my dick. I think the same bullshit goes on with music. It's your own damn fault if you're afraid to be creative in the face of criticism.

[Bank]

Companies wanna make money you idiots they don't owe anyone some karmic duty to make the kind of games you want. Also you're acting like derivative games are some new phenomenon when literally every game has ripped off some other game while sprinkling on something new since the inception of the medium.

Besides there are plenty of good games made within the last 10 years and the tired "old is good" mantra praising game flaws or obsolescence as some kind of advantage is I can only imagine how old timers yelled about movies with sound in them 30 years after they had been introduced. The fact is there were bad games in the 90s too and holding onto a bygone era as some idealized standard is stupid in 2011. I think too many people around here have their heads shoved too firmly up their own asses to actually play a new game before immediately dismissing it so they can be popular/assholes.

[Sharessa]

I don't get the whole "safe" argument. Why would they try to go the safe route and keep making the same game and/or clones of other games? Look at all the games with the most hype and lasting fanbases surrounding them. Half of them were pretty unique games, like Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, Portal, Katamari, Little Big Planet, Castle Crashers, Angry Birds, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., etc. The other half were sequels to games that were fairly old (needed an update), such as Oblivion, Fallout 3, Civ 5, Team Fortress 2, Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Starcraft 2, and the like. All these games made tons of money (even Dwarf Fortress gets enough donations for the programmer to devote himself full time to it), so it's not like one should shy away from trying to make games that aren't just clones. I don't know...I just don't get it.

My only excuse for not buying new games is that I already have a huge library of old games that are fun and I only buy new games when something new in one of my favorite IPs comes out.

[Technician]

kristus said:

What a fucking tosspot. The reason games started to fail is because everything now has to appeal to an a wide a market as possible. For example, niche games like System Shock 2 that are truly good are not welcome because some monkeys that lack opposable thumbs and a fully developed brain can't hack it. So they made Bioshock, a game that was a compromise in every facet possible. Making it a completely redundant gaming experience, the only thing kept from the source material it was supposedly a spiritual successor to was the story. The same story. They just changed some names and made everything run on steam.

I like this post.

[Jodwin]

Danarchy said:

Angry Birds

Crush the Castle came out first, Angry Birds is just a blatant copy of it.

Of course no one cares because Angry Birds came first on iPhone...

[magicsofa]

Bank said:

Companies wanna make money you idiots they don't owe anyone some karmic duty to make the kind of games you want.

I thought we were talking about the company complaining that they can't be creative enough...

[Philnemba]

LOL CoD: Blacks Ops has little to no creativity and it plays the same as its previous installments.

[Bank]

magicsofa said:

I thought we were talking about the company complaining that they can't be creative enough...

Right, because their publisher wants to make money. Also I think their argument is bullshit and an excuse for being incapable of breaking their own formula.

[Mr. Freeze]

quit gettin mad at videogames
srsly

[GreyGhost]

Danarchy said:

I don't get the whole "safe" argument. Why would they try to go the safe route and keep making the same game and/or clones of other games?

It all has to do with MONEY. Publishers control the purse strings and IP, obviously the last thing they want to do is kill off a profitable franchise and upset their shareholders, so they'll play it safe and not let developers stray from known winning formulas.

As for me, I'm not dissatisfied with modern games - I'm disinterested.

[Csonicgo]

Whine, whine, whine. if you weren't such whores for the money, Treyarch, you might have a point.

[Shaikoten]

People bitch. That's not anything new. Treyarch is a company that revolves completely around repeating the same formula over and over. They are probably capable of making a new game, but they like money from Activision, so they will just keep making the same game ad infinitum until it stops making money. But there is one key way to deal with the community bitching that they don't seem to grasp. Or, rather, are entirely unwilling to facilitate.

Involve the community.

From my limited knowledge of Call of Duty (I stopped playing after the second one, and know the others only in passing from watching others play) the community doesn't really have much of a say at all in content that can be added. Mods? Non-existent, cause it's mostly played on a console. No creative outlet for players, no player made items or game modes, just the pure, unadulterated game.

Now for contrast you can take TF2. Love it or hate it, call it a hat simulator or whatever, the community gets legitimately excited over updates. People are given the full run to modify and contribute to the main game. I watched GabeN's GDC2010 speech for whatever odd reason, and he said that basically what they were doing was finding new ways to interact with the community. In a similar interview from years ago, he said that he would like to replicate, or at least make something similar to, the community experience of a game like World of Warcraft in all Valve's games. He knows that good user forums are a place that the community begins and ends. They will answer most of your tech support questions, and they are where people will vent. And hopefully, also express their creative tendencies.

So let's break down what happens here.
Valve gives SDK to players.
Players coordinate ideas on forums.
Players create stand-out content, and Valve notices.
Valve asks players to submit their content, and makes it a community event, an engaging contest.
Buzz is generated within the community about this event, which real players are given the chance to participate in.
Items/maps/descriptions are submitted, Valve selects what they deem to be best and will fit in with their gameplay and art style.
Content is released, community already hyped up with the nearly free buzz goes nuts.
Valve sells more units/keys/etc, players get new content for free (or for pay if they so choose,) and the content creators get respect, and in some instances money and prizes, AND a good resume builder.

In a situation like this, no one really loses. No one. Don't like the new items or maps added? Guess what, you can play on a purist server!

So, bang, you have new gameplay innovation, new content, most of the people are happy, and you are now rolling in money. Treyarch can absolutely do this. There is nothing stopping them. But they go the route of wanting total control over their formulaic game, so the formula stays the same.

[Xaser]

Somebody make Shai a trophy, stat.

I'd do it, but I'm all out of gum.

[ReFracture]

kristus said:

What a fucking tosspot. The reason games started to fail is because everything now has to appeal to an a wide a market as possible. For example, niche games like System Shock 2 that are truly good are not welcome because some monkeys that lack opposable thumbs and a fully developed brain can't hack it. So they made Bioshock, a game that was a compromise in every facet possible. Making it a completely redundant gaming experience, the only thing kept from the source material it was supposedly a spiritual successor to was the story. The same story. They just changed some names and made everything run on steam.

There are still companies that make good games, but companies like Treyarch is definitely not one of them.

QF-fuckin'-T.

40oz said:

He's absolutely correct. I'm pretty sure that it was I that mentioned very early in the Borderlands thread that it was almost entirely a mashup of features of high selling games, and nothing original to bring to the table. I also declared my refusal to buy any games that are literally duplicates of each other. What happened then? Everyone got mad.

You'd probably suffer a violent seizure if you played the pile of uncreative shit Treyarch put out last year, especially if Borderlands pissed you off.

[Craigs]

Now for contrast you can take TF2. Love it or hate it, call it a hat simulator or whatever, the community gets legitimately excited over updates. People are given the full run to modify and contribute to the main game. I watched GabeN's GDC2010 speech for whatever odd reason

Also unlike Treyarch, Valve doesn't charge fifteen bucks for a couple of new maps (hell, they just release em for free). Also calling the maps in Treyarch's map packs is a bit of a stretch since a lot of them are just recycled ones from previous games.

[Jannak]

DoomUK said:

Treyarch say it's your fault for being negative.

Sounds like the Tu Quoque fallacy which is prevalent in this society where people shift the blame on others for what themselves caused to avoid taking responsibility for it so they'll do it again and again.

It's exactly the same tactic where rapists/domestic abusers victim blame and children pointing fingers at somebody shouting "they did it! they did it!" to avoid getting in trouble by their parents.

As for Treyarch's case here, their just attempting to avoid how their actually responsible for their quality declining games and instead of improving them like Shaikoten suggested, they just shift the blame on gamers hinting their just going to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

[Fletcher`]

Here's a tip. If gamers are annoyed by 'black ops' games, stop making 'black ops' games. 'Take risks' as they say and do something different

[40oz]

Why would they try something different? People are buying their shit aren't they?