What's wrong with games these days?

[BAD SANTA]

Hey people,

I don't know if anybody else feels like this but games just don't seem to be as good as they used to be, yer graphics are better but good stories and great gameplay seem to be few and far between.
It's kind of like back in the 90s game developers were making exciting games for the love and enjoyment and now they just want to get a half hearted game finished as soon as possible and move on to the next money making project.
It seems to be getting worse as well, the last couple of years I feel let down by games that should and could have been great. I don't exactly know what it is they are missing but it's something, maybe it's the fact that every game has been made and we are all just bored of the same old thing, maybe it's companies rushing to get games to market, maybe it's that I'm just expecting too much or maybe it's all of these.
I was looking on a well known game site at reviews and nearly all the highest scoring games were late 90s early 00s.

Sort it out.
(end of depressed rant)

 

[Len]

get cs 1.6, £5, sorted.

 

[SrgColman]

I agree. I don't appreciate games as much as I did when I was younger. I feel like I just burn through a lot of games now, and I don't get as wrapped up in the story or enjoy them half as much. At first I was thinking that it was because I was a lot busier, and so I had to pick and choose my games more carefully, so I was more critical of ones I didn't like.

But now I'm thinking almost the opposite is true-because I have more money andI have access to a lot more games, and so I really don't invest as much energy in each game. I remember when I was younger, I used to play games over and over, and not just for achievements or for completion, but just to play it again. That is really rare for me these days, I tend to play a game, maybe go back for some trophies/achievements, and then move on to the next big game. I'm in such a rush to play everything, and I have so little time to do so, that even the games that I should spend lots and lots of time on kind of get rushed through.

Part of me wants to say that means I should stop playing as many games, and try to just pick the games I really want to play and just play those. But sometimes the games that I didn't expect to be the best turn out being the most fun, and sometimes when I build too high of an expectation, a game can't possibly live up to it and it lets me down.

I find that I am drawn more than ever before to the art style and ambiance of games rather than genre these days, and with the fact that hyper-realistic graphics just aren't impressive anymore. It used to be I would fawn over pre-release trailers and fixate on how awesome the graphics were, but since there are so many high fidelity realistic games these days, I just really don't care so much. Unique art styles and a strong aesthetic vision really catch my eye though.

 

[Theunderdog]

I think the greatest game i've played within the last 10 years has got to be some of the Halo games as I find the gameplay very fun yet the games still requires more skill than games such as CoD.

 

[DeadEyeDuk]

Agreed with the basic point. Back in the day, we were happy if there was even one 3D pixel involved!

Now, game companies want to sell games. And how do you sell millions of copies? Make it look nice! Trailers (not in game footage) and vistas that you can never actually see (i.e. cameras way above the land you would adventure in) all paint a rosy picture. Sure, gameplay isnt necessarily awful, but rarely does it match the "potential" that is often banded about in the months before a release.

I like games as much now as I did 15 years ago, and there are a lot of good ones. But yes, I do adhere to the thinking that devs (especially the larger/powerful ones) put a lot more into the visual aspect of games nowadays than story/gameplay.

I think this in part (along with things like Steam offering ease of access to them) has led to the boom in indie games/smaller devs being able to float in the vast ocean of the games market. Many people still value ideas/creativity/gameplay and story driven games over pretty textures and stunningily good looking environments.

Good topic Santa!

DED

 

[Tracker]

One of my pet hates that has flourished with the adaption of the Internet as a method of game distribution : Bugs.

Game breaking bugs, flaws, glitches, errors, inaccuracies, whatever you want to call them.

since games have been patchable via the internet game just aren't as solidly tested and ironed out as they used to be, take any recent game, D&D Daggerdale, Oblivion, Fallout 3 / Fallout 3 New vegas, Fable 3, all of them are littered with hundreds of horrible little glitches and quirks, some completely game breaking ( from data wipes and being forever stuck in terrain) to little quirks such as graphical glitches, being stuck in doors, camera breaking..

now i look back at games 10 years ago, i recall only one of my vast collection of N64 games having a similar glitch ( Turok : rage wars memory wiping, and this was so unusual that i can recall it with ease years on!), none of my ps , ps2 or even gamecube games had a problem such as this, Xbox games occasionally had glitches in them.. and it's just gotten worse since.

it's sad to think that nowadays a game is considered "polished" if it's bug free relative to some of the trash we get in the games market, when a decade ago this "polish" was the Standard for games, and a buggy game was considered outright rubbish. we seem to be going back to the days of R: Tape loading errors and home fixes for things that should've been taken care of with a bit of proper QC ( and again, you can tell what games have this level of care put into em, for all the physics and interactions involved in say, portal/2, i've yet to encounter anything within the same ballpark as the games listed above).

and the quality of games.. well, you can't really compare them can you? so many ideas have been done to death now that companies struggle for something new. take Ocarina of time, one of the greatest games of all time in my opinion, everything is done right.. years on and Nintendo's more recent offerings, twilight princess, wind waker, phantom hourglass, whilst all being brilliant games in their own right, just don't compare. the only thing nintendo can do is re-release what is essentially the same game, though i'm looking forward to seeing how quickly i can finish the mirrored master quest (having finished that on the gamecube when it came out)

Take Duke Nukem for example, back then he was innovative, fresh, doing things nobody'd heard of or seen before. fast forward ten years and it's the same old duke.. but.. times have changed, hookers, drugs and gory violence is pretty much standard in a vast majority of games so it loses its impact, worse still the game itself plays in a mediocre fashion, had this game come out ten years ago in a graphical style to the original, it'd be a cult hit along the lines of DN 3d and M.D.K, but as it is? it's pretty much a flop in all but nostalgic purposes.

But i guess this makes it all the more special when you do find those gems, Plants versus zombies, outlands, Angry Birds, theres still alot of juice left in the industry, it's now a case of weeding through the trash to find those gems, Demos are all the more important as accesible as they are now to judge a game before you make the purchase.

The years started off slowly,but hopefully things will pick up later on with BF3 / MW3, revelations, Spacemarine (woot!) and maybe even the new starcraft 2 expansion.

another thing to consider is that 10 years ago, i'd sit down and play games from dawn to dusk. fast forward to today, i still game heavily, but it's now a hobby as opposed to being my life, i just don't have the time to be immersed anymore.

/end rant

 

[BAD SANTA]

Yer I totally agree with all of you it just isn't the same as it used to be and I think that Trackeri you are right about everything being done but there is the problem, game companies and dev's piggy backing off previous successes take zelda for instance it is a great great great game but the last couple just don't compare to the ocarina of time and that one on the gameboy (I forget what it's called) but I think one of the worst things is take dirt 2 for example was, is, still a great game and dirt 3 was, is, a pile of crap it's the same with everything, c.o.d, fallout, elder scrolls, zelda, fable, gt, tomb raider, I could go on.
Also like you say there are exceptions but we have to spend ££ to go through the hyped up crap to find one game that sticks with you forever, well I guess in the end that's what it's all about, finding a game that in 10 more years people will still be talking about.

Ps. I really hope that game is going to be skyrim.

PPs. After about 10 patches.

 

[DeadEyeDuk]

Nailed something a bit there in the last few comments.

The gaming industry has to a degree morphed, if not completely, into a clone of the film industry.

This is shown as you guys said above by the proliferation of sequels...and then another sequel etc.

However, whereas 10 or 20 years ago, a game sequel only added to a series and was usually far superior (lessons learnt etc) to the original, now they are quite often similar to film series. This of course is rather sweeping as a lot of film sequels are great, and indeed superior to the original, but far too many arent.

Big players in the game industry now do what film companies do, and rely on previous success to draw in the crowd. Most of the time, if its a bit pants, its too late as loads of people bought it (and MOST dont do things like return games etc), furthering the companies mandate to do it again (COD!).

This whole example was of course highlighted by COD:MW2 and SlackOps, in that it was compared in mainstream media to a film release, with its $1billion sales or whatever it reached.


But we love PC games still right?! So i'll finish on a positive. With the growth of the games industry, and as it does match the clout/ambition of the film industry, game companies are now looking more and more to handle game -> film crossovers themselves. We've all seen rubbish films based on games right? (some decent enough ones, but nothing amazing) An example of this move is that Ubisoft have retained control of the proposed Assassin's Creed film crossover. Now of course they wont go it alone, but by not just letting some prat in Hollywood take control, the hope is for a truer take on the game(s) which is a lot of the time what people take issue with (when films seem barely related to their subject matter).

So swings and roundabouts hey?

DED

PS Unrelated point at the end was born out of boredem at this stage on a Friday afternoon!

 

[BAD SANTA]

Lol DED

 

[Kalisnoir]

Have to agree with everything you've all said (Minus Dirt 3 not being a good game, had some very fun times on free play compounds with friends but each to there own )

I agree, now that it's so easy to patch a game online, they have lacked QC compared to when it wasn't possible without a recall. What you have to note now though, back then, games were so simple, small and easy to programme compared to now, creating a game takes ALOT of programming, and when games are as big as they are now, it's so much harder to develop a game without bugs. Publishers are to blame for it all though, from the bugs to the half finished games to the lack of creativity. Publishers want money so they like to play it safe with formulae s they know work as well as getting them out ASAP so they can start on the next IP.

The games that push forwards creativity now are those by indie developers who aren't attached to a publisher and can dare to do what they want.

Alas there are still good games being churned out that without the support of a Publisher just wouldn't happen.
I also hope Skyrim is going to be one of them games. I love Fallout & Elder Scrolls and Skyrim looks so fresh!

 

[Flucky]

Hey people,

I don't know if anybody else feels like this but games just don't seem to be as good as they used to be, yer graphics are better but good stories and great gameplay seem to be few and far between.
It's kind of like back in the 90s game developers were making exciting games for the love and enjoyment and now they just want to get a half hearted game finished as soon as possible and move on to the next money making project.
It seems to be getting worse as well, the last couple of years I feel let down by games that should and could have been great. I don't exactly know what it is they are missing but it's something, maybe it's the fact that every game has been made and we are all just bored of the same old thing, maybe it's companies rushing to get games to market, maybe it's that I'm just expecting too much or maybe it's all of these.
I was looking on a well known game site at reviews and nearly all the highest scoring games were late 90s early 00s.

Sort it out.
(end of depressed rant)

Agreed.

It's why I'm looking forward to Guild Wars 2, as they just refused to set a release date and didn't lead anyone on, giving them time to make the game how they want.

 

[BAD SANTA]

I don't buy the argument that bugs are going to be there because there's a lot of programming involved because that's the job they chose! If they can't do it or don't want to put extra time and money into making sure the product is flawless then they shouldn't be doing.
I understand they have deadlines and need to see a return on their investment but that's tough, it's life, if you are building a car for somebody you can't ship it to them without wheels or an engine and say o well they are harder to make than last years cars but we will come round and finish it next week.

 

[petrow]

I think games have the same issues that films do these days. Too much emphasis on making it a cinematic experience rather than telling a good story. Also, I think people are running out of genuinely good ideas, I mean how many comic book games/films have there been over the last 5 years?

Like Flucky said, I can't wait for Guild Wars 2 either. A company that says after 4 odd years of development they still wont announce a release date must be (I hope) really keen on making sure it is as perfect as a new RPG can be. It is also very good marketing as it keeps people going to their website to check on updates etc. However, I bet their stock holders aren't too impressed lol.

 

[Gorman]

Nailed something a bit there in the last few comments.

The gaming industry has to a degree morphed, if not completely, into a clone of the film industry.

This is shown as you guys said above by the proliferation of sequels...and then another sequel etc.

However, whereas 10 or 20 years ago, a game sequel only added to a series and was usually far superior (lessons learnt etc) to the original, now they are quite often similar to film series. This of course is rather sweeping as a lot of film sequels are great, and indeed superior to the original, but far too many arent.

Big players in the game industry now do what film companies do, and rely on previous success to draw in the crowd. Most of the time, if its a bit pants, its too late as loads of people bought it (and MOST dont do things like return games etc), furthering the companies mandate to do it again (COD!).

This whole example was of course highlighted by COD:MW2 and SlackOps, in that it was compared in mainstream media to a film release, with its $1billion sales or whatever it reached.

Up until this point, i feared DED had been hacked.

 

[DeadEyeDuk]

I'm not sure how to take that! :shifty:

 

[BAD SANTA]

Yer me to but he bought it back at the end though.

 

[petrow]

Oh one more thing, I think the game industry has its hands tied a lot of the time now. They know to sell games they have to make them look as good as possible (because most people want them that way as do the publishers etc). This means games can cost a fortune to make. To get the money, they have to impress the people with the cash, how do you do that? With lots of lovely pictures and the cycle goes on.

There's also the fact that certain people can be exploited quite easily. How many football fans buy every new edition of Fifa or Pro-Evolution, it's the same with Tiger Woods Golf, NFL, NHL, NBA, Football Manager etc. It is so easy to do, I mean, a new Fifa games comes out, then a month later they release a whole new game for the world cup. Now, we all know they should have included that in the latest release of the standard game, by hey there's money to be made!

Also, how many games have been changed because of publishers like EA? A lot of people will comment how much games changed after EA got the publishing rights compared to previous editions.

 

[Tom DWC]

I agree with everything said so far.

Since games have been patchable via the internet games just aren't as solidly tested and ironed out as they used to be.

Exactly!

 

[NilSatis]

All of the above points are very valid.....cant find myself disagreeing with anything here. I love gaming and have been at it for 20 years now; and this may be why my opinion of some games is changing. I have been there, seen this and that done before, and to the same extent as mentioned above this is the same with the game industry. It does bring a smile to my face when i find lots of hidden indie gems being made all the time.... which somehow gives me hope. Far too many titles are rushed these days, and although many are optimised well, as many arent at all, and come with bugs and the patching mentioned above. All for the love of money of course. Debugging? De(veloper)buggery more like!
I do still find certain games producers do it right and cant fault them for a lemon or two in their time; we all make mistakes! Unfortunately too many titles that are deserving of better work far well short of acceptable. I still find myself with a collection of great games however and i wouldnt trade one of them.....or regret buying them. I do however buy too many, and find the best policy now is carefully waiting and being much more picky when it comes to the right game to buy.

Consumer reviews are mostly much better than critics, (Mana pool aside......great stuff there ) as they offer what the casual gamer thinks; and arent swayed by potential shady agreements, and funding. Of course not to mention mutual back-slapping, man-hugging; and all sorts of other unsavoury action that seems to go on between the major labels and online/offline critics which sometimes gives the end user a tainted view of a product. Too many times these reviewers are either given parts of the product that dont contain bugs or are given copies and are under agreement not to mention half of the content that doesnt actually work as intended. This policy now of missing out chunks of games, and then charging you for dlc that should have been in the game anyway is disgusting. Unfortunately as above, the internet is partly to blame for giving them an open window into doing just that. I am pleased to say i have never bought any game or part of a game under microtransactions and would never want to do so...not to mention paying monthly fees to enjoy a game online...are sales not enough to justify using some of that (mostly) profit for server rental?
Each to their own but i cant stand these monthly fee mmo's.....and i love rpgs and online gaming; and personally hope free to play become more popular again and the monthly subscriptions become a thing of the past....just the opposite will happen im sure. When small developers charge monthly fees, that is one thing; but the major labels doing it is beyond profiteering. With all this ranting i can say I still enjoy gaming more than ever, and just like the next guy/girl that plays could be sucked into some of these fees, but my age probably stops me from clicking. I fear for the younger generation of gamers and what they will have in terms of debt simply playing some of their favorite games. And now i will light a pipe and warm my slippers; before settling into some wonderful transistor radio music. Probably bbc radio 2.