PDA

View Full Version : What, 9000? A good article on IGN about the modern games industry? Wut?



Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 18:35
No, it's really true. This is the perfect reference for anyone who wonders what exactly it is that us purists are sick to the back teeth of. The fact that it came from IGN just makes it even creepier.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/112/1120630p1.html

Enjoy thyselves, for great justice. It's a good article.

Badmaker
15th Sep 2010, 18:40
Too bad DX:HR is an example of those game.
Wait, wut ?

NKD
15th Sep 2010, 19:10
Wouldn't really call this a "good" article. It offers no real suggestions, it's just a list of complaints about people who don't live in basements getting into gaming. Typical arrogant tripe.

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 19:10
Yeah, good article - but as you say, very odd that's it's coming from IGN, being as they seem to love regenerating health when it comes to writing reviews.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 19:25
basements getting into gaming.

The usual drivel suggesting that people who see gaming as more than a quaint little way of getting drunk are basement dwellers. A statement invariably linked inextricably with gaming philistinism, as well as a fundamental inability to see the medium as anything more than a mindless exercise in teh funz.

NKD
15th Sep 2010, 19:34
The usual drivel suggesting that people who see gaming as more than a quaint little way of getting drunk are basement dwellers.

No, people who write articles like the one linked above are typically basement dwellers, who dislike the fact that "their" hobby has been "ruined" by the general populous becoming interested in it.

It's the same as the people who liked X band before X band was cool, or your grandpa telling you that your music is bad and that you should feel bad.


A statement invariably linked inextricably with gaming philistinism, as well as a fundamental inability to see the medium as anything more than a mindless exercise in teh funz.

Are you implying that fun is a secondary concern in gaming to be placed after arbitrarily checking off the requisite Nostalgia boxes on the checklist?

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 19:45
No, people who write articles like the one linked above are typically basement dwellers, who dislike the fact that "their" hobby has been "ruined" by the general populous becoming interested in it.

It's the same as the people who liked X band before X band was cool, or your grandpa telling you that your music is bad and that you should feel bad.



Are you implying that fun is a secondary concern in gaming to be placed after arbitrarily checking off the requisite Nostalgia boxes on the checklist?

No, I'm implying that games should not be a vehicle for intoxication at a party, a form of group epic lulz, just something to mess around with for ****s and giggles, or a quasi-realistic-but-actually-just-quake heap of junk designed for over-moneyed 14 year olds. Naturally, these games can and should be allowed to exist, but not at the expense of the development of the medium as art. Give it ten years and your ARMA's and Europa Universalises won't even exist any more.

Unless you would like to explain why regenerating health, testerone filled Michael-Bay style action, a dearth of sequels, DLCs and multiplayers for the sake of it are good for gaming as art? They are there to appeal to the lowest common denominator (see para. 1), and thus in order to further enrich the ignorant companies creating them. Publishers have not reacted to the expansion of gaming into more demographics of society. They have actively pushed it in order to become multi-million dollar corporations, at the expense of their original purchasers.

Shralla
15th Sep 2010, 19:56
No, people who write articles like the one linked above are typically basement dwellers, who dislike the fact that "their" hobby has been "ruined" by the general populous becoming interested in it.

It's the same as the people who liked X band before X band was cool, or your grandpa telling you that your music is bad and that you should feel bad.

Too bad it's a legitimate complaint. Listen to the radio or look at a list of movies coming out in the next month, and you just TRY to tell me that all the garbage has nothing to do with the fact that it's popular. It's not that things become ****ty because the general populous likes it. It's just that the general populous likes really ****ty things, and so people make said things in order to appeal to them.

Irate_Iguana
15th Sep 2010, 20:00
It's just that the general populous likes really ****ty things, and so people make said things in order to appeal to them.

This. The problem isn't that ****ty things are being made. There should be entertainment for every type of taste. The problem is that almost nothing BUT ****ty things get made. If you don't want whatever it is that the general populous wants you are out of luck.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 20:06
This. The problem isn't that ****ty things are being made. There should be entertainment for every type of taste. The problem is that almost nothing BUT ****ty things get made. If you don't want whatever it is that the general populous wants you are out of luck.

A much more succinct summary of my own rambling rage. +1.

NKD
15th Sep 2010, 20:07
No, I'm implying that games should not be a vehicle for intoxication at a party, a form of group epic lulz, just something to mess around with for ****s and giggles, or a quasi-realistic-but-actually-just-quake heap of junk designed for over-moneyed 14 year olds. Naturally, these games can and should be allowed to exist, but not at the expense of the development of the medium as art.

Of course. But I don't see how any of it comes "at the expense" of anything else. If anything, a lot of "heaps of junk" being released should make it easier to create good games and set them apart from the mediocre ones. In fact, it does. There are a lot of indie and small studio games out there that are fantastic and unique. No, they aren't masterpieces of production value due to their shoestring budgets, but they exist.


Give it ten years and your ARMA's and Europa Universalises won't even exist any more.

Heard the same doom and gloom ten years ago, and it turned out to be rubbish, just like the doom and gloom from the 10 years prior to that. Some genres have faded, but it goes in cycles in my experience.


Unless you would like to explain why regenerating health, testerone filled Michael-Bay style action, a dearth of sequels, DLCs and multiplayers for the sake of it are good for gaming as art?

It keeps the industry alive and growing, apparently, or they wouldn't do it.

[QUITE]They are there to appeal to the lowest common denominator (see para. 1), and thus in order to further enrich the ignorant companies creating them.[/QUOTE]

Ignorant? Ignorant of what? Seems to me they know exactly what their customers want. It just so happens that there are a hundred or a thousand customers who want something different for every one customer who wants the same thing you do.


Publishers have not reacted to the expansion of gaming into more demographics of society. They have actively pushed it in order to become multi-million dollar corporations, at the expense of their original purchasers.

They owe you nothing. They provided you with a game, you provided them with dollars. Your "contract" with them ended there. They are free to pursue new or different customers as they desire. These are businesses, not charities or art galleries. Their ultimate responsibility is to the continued prosperity of their company. The more money they make, the better off they are.

Unfortunately, you're not where the money is. In your direction lies an ever-dwindling demographic that cannot carry its own weight. Your demographic demands more, but due to the decreasing numbers of gamers in that demographic, they don't have the collective purchasing power to convince developers they are worth the effort.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 20:10
They owe you nothing. They provided you with a game, you provided them with dollars. Your "contract" with them ended there. They are free to pursue new or different customers as they desire. These are businesses, not charities or art galleries. Their ultimate responsibility is to the continued prosperity of their company. The more money they make, the better off they are.

Unfortunately, you're not where the money is. In your direction lies an ever-dwindling demographic that cannot carry its own weight. Your demographic demands more, but due to the decreasing numbers of gamers in that demographic, they don't have the collective purchasing power to convince developers they are worth the effort.

Wait, are you agreeing with me here? :D

Of course, the nebulous "they" don't owe anyone anything in a contractual sense. Some of us, however, believe that the medium deserves better than this crap, even if the crap still exists.

I still support the "fine wines" principle, which is to say that better games get priced higher. Why does a CoD game, made in a year for idiots, get priced higher than, say, a Total War game, out of which you can get literally many thousands of hours (guilty as charged, here)?

Ashpolt
15th Sep 2010, 20:15
No, people who write articles like the one linked above are typically basement dwellers, who dislike the fact that "their" hobby has been "ruined" by the general populous becoming interested in it.

1) I'm glad to see you thoroughly researched this broad sociological statement, and have backed it up with supporting evidence and references. Good job.

2) The guy who wrote this article gets paid - probably reasonably good money too - to write about something he loves doing. You complain about people on an internet forum. Are you really in a position to be calling anyone a basement dweller?

3) And you have the cheek to call other people on this forum trolls?

Anyway, that point fairly thoroughly covered, let's move on to the next bit:


Are you implying that fun is a secondary concern in gaming to be placed after arbitrarily checking off the requisite Nostalgia boxes on the checklist?

No, he's saying - to make a comparison to movies - that he doesn't want all movies to be Michael Bay's Transformers when the medium is capable of Citizen Kane.

In before "Citizen Kane was crappy movie, it didn't have enough explosions and car chases. And what was the song all about?"

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 20:20
^^^Win.

NKD
15th Sep 2010, 20:40
1) I'm glad to see you thoroughly researched this broad sociological statement, and have backed it up with supporting evidence and references. Good job.

Piece of supporting evidence #1 personal experience. See my third response in this post.


2) The guy who wrote this article gets paid - probably reasonably good money too - to write about something he loves doing.

For the record, IGN pays its people terribly. I used to work for Vault Network shortly after IGN purchased them. Helped cover ramen costs while I was in college, but that's about it.


You complain about people on an internet forum. Are you really in a position to be calling anyone a basement dweller?

Given that I'm a Software Engineer making near-as-makes-no-difference 6 figures, and a former basement dweller myself, I think I'm in a pretty good position, yes.


No, he's saying - to make a comparison to movies - that he doesn't want all movies to be Michael Bay's Transformers when the medium is capable of Citizen Kane.

I agree with his sentiment. Not a big Michael Bay fan myself. But I find at least two dozen good movies every year, so that doesn't seem to match up with his claim that you can only have one or the other.


In before "Citizen Kane was crappy movie, it didn't have enough explosions and car chases. And what was the song all about?"

It's a pretty good movie. Not among my favorites, but I don't think anyone who has actually seen it would call it crappy.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 20:47
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/111/1119630p2.html

I take it all back. Read.

Donvermicelli
15th Sep 2010, 20:49
That article was actually really good and nailed all of it.

ok...:
Though past Halo games were filled with repetitive landscapes and circuitous, difficult to follow plots, Halo: Reach does not suffer from these problems.
Ok you think it's good that a game decided to drop the plot to make it more appealing?

In general response to the review this is what I am reading: "The game has all of the same, but in depth elements were left out to make it more appealing to the rest of the crowd." How can this be a good thing? He even contradicts himself, first he goes on about how people love to immerse themselves into the lore then he states the above ^^^^

WildcatPhoenix
15th Sep 2010, 20:52
I'm with those who find it oddly unsettling that IGN would publish an article expressing these sentiments. Kinda like if Michael Bay suddenly released a film like "There Will Be Blood," or T.I. released an album like "Abbey Road." Does. not. compute.

Bad analogies aside, this article neatly summarizes my problems with DX:HR. It's not that I find any of these elements completely repulsive (Jebus knows, I've played my share of Halo and Call of Duty and found no problem with the regenerating health).

But it's all so damn derivative! Deus Ex should be the absolute last franchise to start lumping in every "flavor of the week" game design concept out there. And I do feel like there is a saturation point approaching. Games, if they continue on this path, will not enjoy the same widespread popularity they currently hold. It's already almost driven me completely away. Less than two years ago I would've been the first in line at midnight to pick up Halo: Reach. Now I'm not sure I'll pick it up at all.

Same goes for DX:HR.

Pretentious Old Man.
15th Sep 2010, 20:56
I'm with those who find it oddly unsettling that IGN would publish an article expressing these sentiments. Kinda like if Michael Bay suddenly released a film like "There Will Be Blood," or T.I. released an album like "Abbey Road." Does. not. compute.


At the 1993 Oscars, Steven Spielberg actually said "we have lost our romance with the word".

Sadly, that is not a joke. Perhaps he was trolling?

Cronstintein
15th Sep 2010, 20:57
Yes game companies should get whats coming to them, but they also should adjust their prices downward if they plan om having us purchase a game and then inundate us with "essential" DLC after the fact. Make a game $35 to boot..make it stripped down to the core experience. If the game has merit and you enjoy it, purchase the additional content to get the full experience
by Htiberius on IGN forums

That's actually a really interesting idea. Make it $20 (a more pick it up and see price point imho) and it's basically a really big demo, say 4hrs. Then if you think it's good you can DLC (or likely unlock) the rest for the other $40. Could that actually work? Is the problem with DLC the ratio of content to money? Could be, I know I'm unwilling to spend 10-15 for 1 hour of content.

Anyway a very interesting idea. It would only work with games that were actually good which is why it won't catch on :D

Edited the numbers a bit so I wasn't contradicting myself so much :cool:

nomotog
15th Sep 2010, 21:18
I agree with most of that stuff. Especially the multilayer statement. They keep trying to put multilayer into games where it doesn't belong.

Really all the complaints work there way down people not innovating enough.

nomotog
15th Sep 2010, 21:20
by Htiberius on IGN forums

That's actually a really interesting idea. Make it $20 (a more pick it up and see price point imho) and it's basically a really big demo, say 4hrs. Then if you think it's good you can DLC (or likely unlock) the rest for the other $40. Could that actually work? Is the problem with DLC the ratio of content to money? Could be, I know I'm unwilling to spend 10-15 for 1 hour of content.

Anyway a very interesting idea. It would only work with games that were actually good which is why it won't catch on :D

Edited the numbers a bit so I wasn't contradicting myself so much :cool:


They did something like that with fable 2 and they are doing it again with fable 3. You get the first part of the game for free then you can buy the rest as DLC.

hem dazon 90
15th Sep 2010, 22:01
1)


In before "Citizen Kane was crappy movie, it didn't have enough explosions and car chases. And what was the song all about?"


Well Citizen Kane isn't that good when compared to the greatest movie of all time

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/lawrence-of-arabia-DVDcover.jpg

beastrn
15th Sep 2010, 23:23
Interesting article - though it's all too console focused. Sounds like the complaints of someone who just realized he paid full price for the same game for the fourth time in a row. Namely, CoD:BlackOps and Halo: Reach. :rolleyes:

And what about the stale idea that FPS actually works with a controller?

pringlepower
15th Sep 2010, 23:29
Interesting article - though it's all too console focused. Sounds like the complaints of someone who just realized he paid full price for the same game for the fourth time in a row. Namely, CoD:BlackOps and Halo: Reach. :rolleyes:

And what about the stale idea that FPS actually works with a controller?

It works perfectly well.

Romeo
16th Sep 2010, 00:17
Wouldn't really call this a "good" article. It offers no real suggestions, it's just a list of complaints about people who don't live in basements getting into gaming. Typical arrogant tripe.
Not really. I have to say, the article is 100% right. If you actually bothered to read it, you'll notice they didn't condemn or say those concepts are stupid, they call them over-used, which they are. It isn't arrogance at all, it's a valid observation.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 01:08
It works perfectly well.

No it doesn't.

NKD
16th Sep 2010, 01:11
Not really. I have to say, the article is 100% right. If you actually bothered to read it, you'll notice they didn't condemn or say those concepts are stupid, they call them over-used, which they are. It isn't arrogance at all, it's a valid observation.

Over-used is a pretty relative term though, and they offer no suggestions.

Just because something is common, doesn't mean it is overused. Point by Point:


Regenerative Health Systems

They acknowledge that the health-pack approach was equally lame, and they say they want to see something new for health systems, but offer no suggestions. Regenerating health systems, in its various incarnations, are used because they are fairly flexible and don't require any additional UI complexity. Partial regen systems where you only heal up to 20% are pretty common, or partial regen systems like Assassins Creed where you can regen the top half of a health square but if it is lost entirely you have to use medicine or visit the doctor are pretty good too.

They don't specify what they have a gripe with, which makes it more useless. I'd love to see some new approaches to health management too, but that doesn't make the article well-written.


'Used' is the New 'New'

This one I agree with. Something needs to be done about the parasite that is GameStop. But again, the article is bad because they didn't even mention the recent ruling by a US court that First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to software and that if a license agreement says you can't resell your game, then you can't. What's their thought on absolutely gutting consumer freedom just to stop GameStop? Again. Paper thin and goes into no depth.


Motion Control = Gameplay

He's not even clear what he's complaining about here. What's wrong with motion control? Each platform will have a selection of motion control games that specifically take advantage of the strengths of that motion control scheme, and any game not designed for it won't require you to use it. So what's the problem?


The A.I. Question

This is complaint rooted mainly in ignorance of game development, AI in particular. They act as if no effort is being put into enemy AI. That's not true at all. There's a hardware limitation. A human being is a very dynamic and difficult opponent and even in a highly structured game like Chess with a supercomputer doing minutes of number crunching per move, a skilled human can still win.

Start talking about letting it run on a mid-range PC and in a far more dynamic and realtime game and it crumbles.


Downloadable Content Goes Awry

What he says sounds great, but from a business perspective it doesn't work like that. The budget available to a developer is often contingent on whether or not they will have DLC to push. Without the promise of DLC, they'll have less money to spend, and will produce less content.

In other words, we either get paid DLC, or no DLC at all, and potentially even less base content. I'll take the extra base content that DLC income gets them, and the option to buy DLC over the games being stripped down to meet a smaller budget.

Plus they wouldn't make DLC if people weren't buying it. If something is selling like hotcakes, they'd be incredibly stupid to stop.


Music Games

People seem to buy these things constantly as well, despite only incremental improvements. It's like Madden. Again, it's not overused because people don't seem to be sick of them yet.



Every Game Needs to be Epically-Epic-in-Every-Single-Epic-Way-Epic-Epic

This point isn't so bad, but is again pretty vague. He seems to be griping about high production values over substance, which is a valid concern.


Everything is a Franchise

He says the user should decide if something gets a sequel. They do. It's called sales. If you buy a lot of something, you're likely to get a sequel. If a game bombs, it's unlikely to get a sequel.


Every Game Needs Multiplayer

Agreed, to a point. We DO need more games with co-op modes. That has suffered immensely lately. But I agree that sticking a deathmatch mode in every game is absolutely stupid.


"Casual" Means "Minigames"

Not a big "casual gamer" myself so I can't really speak on this one.

Fluffis
16th Sep 2010, 01:51
They acknowledge that the health-pack approach was equally lame, and they say they want to see something new for health systems, but offer no suggestions.


"While the alternative (running around with a tiny sliver of health, searching for a health pack) might seem archaic"

Not really saying that it is lame. In fact, he seems to say quite the opposite, but that it is old and "has been done".



Regenerating health systems, in its various incarnations, are used because they are fairly flexible and don't require any additional UI complexity. Partial regen systems where you only heal up to 20% are pretty common, or partial regen systems like Assassins Creed where you can regen the top half of a health square but if it is lost entirely you have to use medicine or visit the doctor are pretty good too.

They don't specify what they have a gripe with, which makes it more useless. I'd love to see some new approaches to health management too, but that doesn't make the article well-written.


He's saying that he wants to see what game companies could come up with. It's not like he's going to hand them something for free - if he has a suggestion. That would be fairly stupid.
It's also not his job to design games. He reviews them.



This one I agree with. Something needs to be done about the parasite that is GameStop. But again, the article is bad because they didn't even mention the recent ruling by a US court that First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply to software and that if a license agreement says you can't resell your game, then you can't. What's their thought on absolutely gutting consumer freedom just to stop GameStop? Again. Paper thin and goes into no depth.


Written by IGN AU... as in Australia. Why the hell would he bother with US legislation?



He's not even clear what he's complaining about here. What's wrong with motion control? Each platform will have a selection of motion control games that specifically take advantage of the strengths of that motion control scheme, and any game not designed for it won't require you to use it. So what's the problem?


So, they're just going to exclude the people that want motion control with all their games? Of course they're not.



This is complaint rooted mainly in ignorance of game development, AI in particular. They act as if no effort is being put into enemy AI. That's not true at all. There's a hardware limitation. A human being is a very dynamic and difficult opponent and even in a highly structured game like Chess with a supercomputer doing minutes of number crunching per move, a skilled human can still win.

Start talking about letting it run on a mid-range PC and in a far more dynamic and realtime game and it crumbles.


He's talking about being less fixated on graphics, and putting more effort into developing A.I.
How is that "ignorance"?
I think it's ******* commendable.



What he says sounds great, but from a business perspective it doesn't work like that. The budget available to a developer is often contingent on whether or not they will have DLC to push. Without the promise of DLC, they'll have less money to spend, and will produce less content.

In other words, we either get paid DLC, or no DLC at all, and potentially even less base content. I'll take the extra base content that DLC income gets them, and the option to buy DLC over the games being stripped down to meet a smaller budget.

Plus they wouldn't make DLC if people weren't buying it. If something is selling like hotcakes, they'd be incredibly stupid to stop.


So we should be happy that companies try to squeeze us as much as possible?



People seem to buy these things constantly as well, despite only incremental improvements. It's like Madden. Again, it's not overused because people don't seem to be sick of them yet.


Ah yes... Taking money is good, developing new experiences is bad... eh...



This point isn't so bad, but is again pretty vague. He seems to be griping about high production values over substance, which is a valid concern.


No, he's griping about trying to do too much, with too little content.



He says the user should decide if something gets a sequel. They do. It's called sales. If you buy a lot of something, you're likely to get a sequel. If a game bombs, it's unlikely to get a sequel.


I'd say that a lot of companies probably start thinking about sequels before the game has even finished development.
There seems to be a thought that if you market something as part of a larger picture, you'll get copies sold due to people wanting to see "how it turns out", as it were. It's the same kind of thing with movies.



Agreed, to a point. We DO need more games with co-op modes. That has suffered immensely lately. But I agree that sticking a deathmatch mode in every game is absolutely stupid.


Not every game needs multiplayer. In fact: a lot of games really suffer in MP or co-op.
Also, if you develop MP alongside the SP game, the SP game is fated to suffer for it. (Time and budgetary constraints).



Not a big "casual gamer" myself so I can't really speak on this one.

Actually, this part hits on something that is being touted for DX:HR; mini-games (hacking, specifically). Breaking up a game into smaller parts, to attract casual players. And the fact that these things do not attract casual gamers as such, but rather the way they are presented and how the gameplay is.
I agree with him completely here. Mini-games are not what draw casual gamers to play.

lithos
16th Sep 2010, 05:37
It works perfectly well.

Once you add autoaim.

Of course, that's become so familiar, people stop mentioning anymore in reviews. Like regenerative health or checkpoints.

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 05:43
Once you add autoaim.

Of course, that's become so familiar, people stop mentioning anymore in reviews. Like regenerative health or checkpoints.

Do you mean GTA-style autoaim or FPS-style aim-assist?

If you mean aim-assist, sure that's compensating for analog sticks, but it's well done, imo anyways. It's subtle, serves its purpose well, and just works.

nathanj
16th Sep 2010, 06:03
i love the article.........my biggest pet peave listed is the "must have multiplayer" no matter what the game is. tons of games get released with multiplayer that only has filled servers for a couple of months at most.

basically they took resources that could have been used to improve or polish aspects of the singleplayer game which someone might play years down the road like i do with deus ex, bloodlines, morrowind and a few other games and instead dump them into stupid multiplayer additions that die out as soon as the next game comes out.

regenerative health is tricky in that if its done right i actually like it. the key is to keep is very slow and its has the same gimmickyness level as finding "healing packs" mysteriously lying around in weird illogical locations all the time. stalker games fixed this with having a reason for oddly placed items. they were stashes that were hidden by other stalkers. :)

there arent very many hard games any more. even the stalker games which are my current favorite i play on master level. play fallout 3 on veryhard. warband i play with normal damage settings etc. the only game ive played recently on anything other than hard was dragon age and that was simply cause i hate menu hopping and it was the recommended setting for playing realtime. pausing games to issue orders is basically just cheating. if you want to look at your menu while standing out in the open then you should get shot or mauled to death........another thing i like about stalker. i find a hiding spot whenever i want to mess around with something in my inventory and it adds tension to the game.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 06:48
Do you mean GTA-style autoaim or FPS-style aim-assist?

If you mean aim-assist, sure that's compensating for analog sticks, but it's well done, imo anyways. It's subtle, serves its purpose well, and just works.

Exactly.

So what you're saying is, Controllers work "perfectly well" - well, as long as there's aim-assist, enemies don't dodge anything, and the game is really slow... :rolleyes:

Deus_Ex_Machina
16th Sep 2010, 06:50
I agree with the article 100%.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 06:52
NKD destroyed yet again - well said Fluffis sir

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 06:59
Exactly.

So what you're saying is, Controllers work "perfectly well" - well, as long as there's aim-assist, enemies don't dodge anything, and the game is really slow... :rolleyes:

Right, I don't mind compensation if it is implemented well. Plenty of people can go ahead and say "oh ho ho the consoles be dummin down FPS", that's fine. PC's also have their control flaws, e.g., for driving, but if compensation is good enough, it's hard to notice, and the gameplay works just fine. And console FPS's are definitely not slow.

And what, on PC enemies can dodge bullets? PC does not equal the Matrix. If you mean grenades, plenty of console games have grenade dodging/running away.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 07:10
And console FPS's are definitely not slow.

Listen. I know the past few years have changed people's perception of what FPS truly had the potential of being. Sometimes I get harsh on people because I assume everyone has been playing games for as long as I have - but I'm really holding myself back here so I will merely say;

You're wrong.

And then link a demonstration;

http://www.livestream.com/suibrielgaming/video?clipId=pla_73ffb335-1ee7-49cd-94f9-f823736ec569 Skip to 7:00 would you kindly.

And then I will link apparently the most competitive players in the most competitive and fastest/hardest FPS on console.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXg55y8pCo

Console FPS, not slow?


And what, on PC enemies can dodge bullets? PC does not equal the Matrix. If you mean grenades, plenty of console games have grenade dodging/running away.

Hm, alright. What I see as dodging, I mean, enemies actually struggling to stay alive and take you out. Rarely do you see anyone trying to stay away from your crosshair in a console shooter, no matter the difficulty. It's not conducive to the entertaining and accessible experience console shooters strive for.

So no, not the matrix - dodging as in using their speed and the enviroment to try and do something other than mimic the ducks in duck hunt. For example, the Skaarj in 1998's Unreal, as shown here;

lSQ8Et5c0LY

pringlepower
16th Sep 2010, 07:28
Listen. I know the past few years have changed people's perception of what FPS truly had the potential of being. Sometimes I get harsh on people because I assume everyone has been playing games for as long as I have - but I'm really holding myself back here so I will merely say;

You're wrong.

And then link a demonstration;

http://www.livestream.com/suibrielgaming/video?clipId=pla_73ffb335-1ee7-49cd-94f9-f823736ec569 Skip to 7:00 would you kindly.

And then I will link apparently the most competitive players in the most competitive and fastest/hardest FPS on console.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXg55y8pCo

Console FPS, not slow?



Hm, alright. What I see as dodging, I mean, enemies actually struggling to stay alive and take you out. Rarely do you see anyone trying to stay away from your crosshair in a console shooter, no matter the difficulty. It's not conducive to the entertaining and accessible experience console shooters strive for.

So no, not the matrix - dodging as in using their speed and the enviroment to try and do something other than mimic the ducks in duck hunt. For example, the Skaarj in 1998's Unreal, as shown here;

lSQ8Et5c0LY

I guess I'm missing your point, but I don't see a problem with the Halo video (guess modern FPS's have corrupted me. heh). I have played Unreal and the UTs a lot a few years back (hell there was a club in high school where we had a tradition of playing Quake II every month), and I don't see a huge problem with Halo. It's simpler and has less options, but I don't see that as a flaw, just different. I still enjoy Halo immensely, it's just fun. And especially well-polished.

Dead-Eye
16th Sep 2010, 07:37
This is complaint rooted mainly in ignorance of game development, AI in particular. They act as if no effort is being put into enemy AI. That's not true at all. There's a hardware limitation. A human being is a very dynamic and difficult opponent and even in a highly structured game like Chess with a supercomputer doing minutes of number crunching per move, a skilled human can still win.

Sept humans almost never win.

Dose anyone get the impression that this article was written in response to Warrens PAX speech?

NKD
16th Sep 2010, 07:57
"While the alternative (running around with a tiny sliver of health, searching for a health pack) might seem archaic"

Not really saying that it is lame. In fact, he seems to say quite the opposite, but that it is old and "has been done".

Yep that's certainly true. But he should tell us what he wants to see. What type of regenerating health does he have a problem with? All of it? If any health comes back of its own accord, it is bad? Making generalized statements does no one any good and is poor journalism.


He's saying that he wants to see what game companies could come up with. It's not like he's going to hand them something for free - if he has a suggestion. That would be fairly stupid.
It's also not his job to design games. He reviews them.

He isn't reviewing a game in this article, he's listing some gripes he has with many current games. Common sense says he should give a few suggestions to spark intelligent discussion. This article has only a few specifics and gets more generalized as it goes on.


Written by IGN AU... as in Australia. Why the hell would he bother with US legislation?

As you know, these sorts of things have a habit of going well beyond the border of the countries they are in. When there is no precedent locally, courts often look to what other countries have done. Given Australia's similarities to the US when it comes to copyright law, it is a major issue that needs to be discussed.

Do we ignore this article just because it comes from Australia? He's talking about issues that face the industry world-wide. Given that there is very little in the way of a game development industry in Australia, what happens in the US affects them quite a bit.


So, they're just going to exclude the people that want motion control with all their games? Of course they're not.

Developers aren't going to spend time putting a lot of support for motion control into their cross-platform games. The motion control schemes for each console are fairly different, and the PC doesn't have it at all. In a way, the "consolization" and "lowest common denominator design" people complain about will ensure that motion control remains a gimmick for gimmicky games.


He's talking about being less fixated on graphics, and putting more effort into developing A.I.
How is that "ignorance"?
I think it's ******* commendable.

He acts as if it's one or the other, when it's not. AI has improved in games over the years but unfortunately there is no vast hardware empire like Nvidia or ATI behind it pushing it, so it's much more slow to progress. As I said, there are issues when it comes to designing an AI for a fast paced and dynamic game like a shooter.

Much of how a typical AI works for a PC game is based on giving them enough time to think. In a shooter the response times have to be lightning fast, which means the AI scripts have to be very simplistic. Compare this to my chess example, or a strategy game where the AI can sit there and think for quite a while.


So we should be happy that companies try to squeeze us as much as possible?

Absolutely not. However, our complaints are going to fall on deaf ears as long as people keep buying the DLC. If we buy the DLC and then complain about it, they are just going to laugh at our stupidity and shove some more DLC down our throats.


Ah yes... Taking money is good, developing new experiences is bad... eh...

Thats the message we send the developers every time some pile of garbage like Madden sells every year despite nothing but roster updates. Why take risks when they can shovel the same shiz every year and make a boat load of money?


No, he's griping about trying to do too much, with too little content.

That's what I said.


I'd say that a lot of companies probably start thinking about sequels before the game has even finished development.
There seems to be a thought that if you market something as part of a larger picture, you'll get copies sold due to people wanting to see "how it turns out", as it were. It's the same kind of thing with movies.

That's true, but still the largest factor is sales. Rarely does a sequel to a game that bombs get made. Same for movies. Crappy movies sometimes get sequels, but generally thats because a lot of people went to see the crappy movie.


Not every game needs multiplayer. In fact: a lot of games really suffer in MP or co-op.
Also, if you develop MP alongside the SP game, the SP game is fated to suffer for it. (Time and budgetary constraints).

Agreed. You can't put it in everything. However there are a lot of titles released without MP that could REALLY have used it, too.


Actually, this part hits on something that is being touted for DX:HR; mini-games (hacking, specifically). Breaking up a game into smaller parts, to attract casual players. And the fact that these things do not attract casual gamers as such, but rather the way they are presented and how the gameplay is.
I agree with him completely here. Mini-games are not what draw casual gamers to play.

Well I think he's talking more about Wii Sports and that kind of nonsense. Not minigames hidden within hardcore games as fluff. Like I said, I don't really play those sorts of games and neither does anyone I know personally, so I don't know what the fans of the casual/family game genre really want.

Again he makes some fair points, and I can see why you'd be inclined to overlook his journalistic shortcomings since you feel he is on "your side" in a debate, but it's still an article with a lot of complaints and very few points for discussion.

He places a lot of the blame on developers and says they need to stop doing certain things, but the developers aren't going to listen to a word he says because 2 days later IGN publishes an article giving a rave review to a game with almost all of those flaws, and it will sell like mad.

A lot of blame lies at the feet of the consumers who seem to really want these "overused" mechanics since they buy them up.

beastrn
16th Sep 2010, 08:24
Nobody ever said the people who think modern games are stupid were the majority.

Yes, games are now business only. We get it. The issue is they're in the perfect position to push gaming forward towards unexplored territories and ideas and yet they're content to just release the same old sh.t (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsFswQ7W81c) and rake in money from the league of morons who don't know any different.

Fluffis
16th Sep 2010, 12:10
Yep that's certainly true. But he should tell us what he wants to see. What type of regenerating health does he have a problem with? All of it? If any health comes back of its own accord, it is bad? Making generalized statements does no one any good and is poor journalism.


No, it's not poor journalism. He never claimed that he would offer answers. He's simply criticizing the gaming industry.



He isn't reviewing a game in this article, he's listing some gripes he has with many current games. Common sense says he should give a few suggestions to spark intelligent discussion. This article has only a few specifics and gets more generalized as it goes on.


Don't look now, but... we're having an intelligent discussion right now. ;) He actually got us to start thinking for ourselves. I think he succeeded admirably with this article.



As you know, these sorts of things have a habit of going well beyond the border of the countries they are in. When there is no precedent locally, courts often look to what other countries have done. Given Australia's similarities to the US when it comes to copyright law, it is a major issue that needs to be discussed.

Do we ignore this article just because it comes from Australia? He's talking about issues that face the industry world-wide. Given that there is very little in the way of a game development industry in Australia, what happens in the US affects them quite a bit.


Maybe that US law doesn't affect Australian gaming as much as you think...? I don't know, but it's a possibility. Or it could be that this whole article is just him letting off steam, and he never intended it to be a journalistic masterpiece.



Developers aren't going to spend time putting a lot of support for motion control into their cross-platform games. The motion control schemes for each console are fairly different, and the PC doesn't have it at all. In a way, the "consolization" and "lowest common denominator design" people complain about will ensure that motion control remains a gimmick for gimmicky games.


For now...



He acts as if it's one or the other, when it's not. AI has improved in games over the years but unfortunately there is no vast hardware empire like Nvidia or ATI behind it pushing it, so it's much more slow to progress. As I said, there are issues when it comes to designing an AI for a fast paced and dynamic game like a shooter.

Much of how a typical AI works for a PC game is based on giving them enough time to think. In a shooter the response times have to be lightning fast, which means the AI scripts have to be very simplistic. Compare this to my chess example, or a strategy game where the AI can sit there and think for quite a while.


But it is one or the other. That's the whole point. As long as developers consider graphics to be as important as they do, they won't have time to develop A.I. in any major way.
And if they managed to develop A.I. further, they may not have to make it "very simplistic".

He's talking about what the gaming industry needs to do, in order to bring gaming further. Because, let's face it: we've kind of hit a plateau at the moment.

This quote from the article is a really good, and succinct, point:

"You know what's ultimately going to move gaming forward? It isn't the complex physics simulation; it's not the multiple texture passes or volumetric fog. No. It's disguising the artifice of the characters that populate the game – be it players on a field, racers in a car or combatants in a shooter. "

I'm not saying it would be simple to do, but it may be worth it in the end.



Absolutely not. However, our complaints are going to fall on deaf ears as long as people keep buying the DLC. If we buy the DLC and then complain about it, they are just going to laugh at our stupidity and shove some more DLC down our throats.


So... maybe it would take, say, an article pointing out the flaws of that system?



Thats the message we send the developers every time some pile of garbage like Madden sells every year despite nothing but roster updates. Why take risks when they can shovel the same shiz every year and make a boat load of money?


This is one of the reasons why an article like this exists.



That's what I said.


I just wanted to point out that he didn't mention high production values.



That's true, but still the largest factor is sales. Rarely does a sequel to a game that bombs get made. Same for movies. Crappy movies sometimes get sequels, but generally thats because a lot of people went to see the crappy movie.


Yes, it's the largest factor, but not the only one.




Again he makes some fair points, and I can see why you'd be inclined to overlook his journalistic shortcomings since you feel he is on "your side" in a debate, but it's still an article with a lot of complaints and very few points for discussion.


I'd say we have at least 10 points that we're discussing at the moment.



He places a lot of the blame on developers and says they need to stop doing certain things, but the developers aren't going to listen to a word he says because 2 days later IGN publishes an article giving a rave review to a game with almost all of those flaws, and it will sell like mad.

A lot of blame lies at the feet of the consumers who seem to really want these "overused" mechanics since they buy them up.

I'd have thought that the sub-heading "What are your gaming pet-peeves? Sound off in the IGN forums!" and the finisher "What old ideas does gaming need to steer away from? Vent your spleen in the IGN forums!" would tell you that this is not meant to be constructive criticism (though his comment about A.I. is an attempt at it). It's a list of things he thinks the gaming industry should stop using, or at least cut back on, or change. Nothing more, nothing less.

He's not exactly going for any journalistic prizes. This is more or less just a blog entry, and that's all it's supposed to be. The only thing is that he hit on a couple of points that resonate with me and, by the looks of it, a couple of others on this board.

Actually, I'm just happy to find someone with the capacity for independent thinking on IGN.

lithos
16th Sep 2010, 13:36
We do have EB Games, GAME and Gametraders (think GT is Aus-specific,) here, and, yes, sames as the US, most of their profit probably comes from flogging the same game three or four times. The IGN author is speaking from experience.

It does bug me. A lot. People ***** about piracy hurting the industry? Absolutely right. But trading games is tantamount to piracy, given the standard definition for piracy: the act of using someone's IP without paying them for it. When you pirate a game, you get to use the IP without paying the owner for it. When you buy a used game, same thing. And not only that, a third party is profiting from IP they didn't create.

Yes, IP laws are being brought into line with the US. Yay, AFACT. (It's funny that they'll send a team of lawyers halfway around to the world in an instant to prosecute someone for copyright theft, yet they won't get off their arses and make their product more available in that part of the world, but I digress.)

Having said that, if more games aspired to have decent, proper replayability (beyond "once you finish, you can replay the game with the PC wearing a new hat!" or "there are four difficulty levels, so you can replay it four times,") there'd be less incentive to do that.

That and wise up about digital distribution - though we're getting there.

Also, if you want some money, gaming industry, EB made US$2 billion from used sales alone in 2008. Just sayin'.

Deus_Ex_Machina
17th Sep 2010, 05:28
It's a damn shame what's happened to the industry, and that IGN article sums up the majority of the problems.

At this point, unfortunately, all we can do is vent on forums (like so) or post articles like IGN, because, ultimately, we have no power over the industry. Sure, there are a few boycotts here and there (like the L4D2 boycott, amirite?) and there are "forum uprisings" on a fairly regular basis. However, none of anything listed above can or has helped fix the problems plaguing the industry.

So, the real question is, what can we do? Just sit back and watch Rome burn, or is there a real solution? Anyone? Because I can't think of one and it's pretty ******* depressing.

Rest In Peace (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/4998017370_6241bd180e.jpg)

nomotog
17th Sep 2010, 06:02
So, the real question is, what can we do? Just sit back and watch Rome burn, or is there a real solution? Anyone? Because I can't think of one and it's pretty ******* depressing.



Well we could show support to the games that are fresh and new. You know by buying them.

Dead-Eye
17th Sep 2010, 06:08
Well we could show support to the games that are fresh and new. You know by buying them.

Lol wut?

Ninjerk
17th Sep 2010, 08:18
Well we could show support to the games that are fresh and new. You know by buying them.

Name 10 of them.

Deus_Ex_Machina
17th Sep 2010, 08:59
Name 10 of them.

This make mah rofl knife go slice slice slice and it makes me sadface at the same time.

beastrn
17th Sep 2010, 09:36
Name 10 of them.

Demon's Souls
Bayonetta
Demon's Souls
Risen
Demon's Souls
Amnesia: The Dark Descent
The Whispered World
Demon's Souls
Heavy Rain
Brutal Legend

VectorM
17th Sep 2010, 10:30
1)No, he's saying - to make a comparison to movies - that he doesn't want all movies to be Michael Bay's Transformers when the medium is capable of Citizen Kane.


Wanna know a fun fact? Citizen Kane didn't win an Oscar for "Best Picture" when it first came out :whistle: Instead, it was given to a movie called "How Green Was My Valley", a movie that 90% of the people on this forum have never heard of. And if they have, it's only because it stole away the price from "Citizen Kane" :whistle:

But of course, NOW movies are bad :scratch:

Here is another fun fact: your brain tends to remember the good memories, as opposed to the bad. That's why people who lived in the Great Depression still think that their time was better, even though they starved, had low wages and blacks were not allowed to even sit next to whites.

So, that's pretty much the reason people like you tend to hate everything that is out these days. Your brain simply thinks that everything that you played 10 years ago was the ****, when in reality, there was probably even more mindless **** back then.


At this point, unfortunately, all we can do is vent on forums (like so) or post articles like IGN, because, ultimately, we have no power over the industry. Sure, there are a few boycotts here and there (like the L4D2 boycott, amirite?) and there are "forum uprisings" on a fairly regular basis. However, none of anything listed above can or has helped fix the problems plaguing the industry.

So, the real question is, what can we do? Just sit back and watch Rome burn, or is there a real solution? Anyone? Because I can't think of one and it's pretty *** depressing.

You can simply NOT buy the games that you don't like. Do you still see WWII shooters these days? Not really, because people got tired of those and stopped buying them as much. This happens all the time. Change cannot happen over night you know.

And over use of the same Game mechanic is something that was happening way before the invention of the regen health system. Were the early 90s a HELL for console games, because too many games had side scrolling animal mascots?

beastrn
17th Sep 2010, 10:43
You can simply NOY buy the games that you don't like. Do you still see WWII shooters these days? Not really, because people got tired of those and stopped buying them as much. This happens all the time. Change cannot happen over night you know.


How many times do you need it explained to you? How do you not understand that ignoring something doesn't fix the problem? You seem to think there's some amazing choice for gamers that don't want to play retarded $90 tutorials. The only reason for this that I can think of is that you personally enjoy pretty much anything due to low standards so to you, there's lots of variety.

Baffles the mind :rolleyes:

VectorM
17th Sep 2010, 11:28
Actually, this part hits on something that is being touted for DX:HR; mini-games (hacking, specifically). Breaking up a game into smaller parts, to attract casual players. And the fact that these things do not attract casual gamers as such, but rather the way they are presented and how the gameplay is.
I agree with him completely here. Mini-games are not what draw casual gamers to play.

I really don't think that the mini games are there to attract casual players. How do you attract people with something that's just a small part of the game? You seriously think some soccer mom is going to give 60$ for the game, simply because there are a few mini games in there? Ridiculious.

Ashpolt
17th Sep 2010, 11:30
Wanna know a fun fact? Citizen Kane didn't win an Oscar for "Best Picture" when it first came out :whistle: Instead, it was given to a movie called "How Green Was My Valley", a movie that 90% of the people on this forum have never heard of. And if they have, it's only because it stole away the price from "Citizen Kane" :whistle:

But of course, NOW movies are bad :scratch:

You'll notice that I never said movies used to be better - I just happened to use an example of a great old movie and a terrible modern movie, I could equally have used Lost in Translation and Big Trouble in Little China (great fun, but still a terrible movie.) I'd say movies have actually kept a reasonably even pace, to be honest.

I also would never equate "critically acclaimed" directly with quality. The Shawshank Redemption didn't win any oscars either.

And I've heard of How Green Was My Valley, not because it stole the oscar from Kane (didn't know that actually) but just because I find the title amusing because it can be construed as vaguely sexual. :D


So, that's pretty much the reason people like you tend to hate everything that is out these days. Your brain simply thinks that everything that you played 10 years ago was the ****, when in reality, there was probably even more mindless **** back then.

I don't deny there has always been a lot of crap in gaming. Sure, back in 200 there were loads of terrible games. I don't even deny that there are still good games coming out. All I am saying is that good, [i]deep[i] and challenging games are becoming a rarity. Where's the modern equivalent of Hidden and Dangerous? Rainbow Six: Vegas is puddle-deep comparitively. Where are the modern Baldur's Gates? Dragon Age 1 was a slight step down from them, but Dragon Age 2 seems to have lost the plot altogether. Where's the modern Deus Ex? Oh, Human Revolution. And look how that's going.

Deep games I have played in the past year:

Demon's Souls: A real rarity, and struggled to get released outside of Japan because of it.
Napoleon Total War: a continuation of a series that started 10 years ago, and has honestly changed very little since.
Starcraft 2: A sequel to a 10 year old game that has honestly changed very little.

...In all honesty, I'm not sure there are any others. And I've played a lot of games over the past year.

That's why I made the Kane / Transformers comparison: there's nothing wrong with Bay's Transformers (OK, there's lots wrong with them, but bear with me: the point is, there's nothing wrong with mindless action flicks) but if that was all that was being made, the movie industry would be in a terrible state. And that's - pretty much - where the games industry is.

VectorM
17th Sep 2010, 11:40
How many times do you need it explained to you? How do you not understand that ignoring something doesn't fix the problem?
Baffles the mind :rolleyes:

How many times do I need to explain to you, that when something sells less, companies tend to stop making it? How do you not understand that every $ that you don't spend on a WWII shooter and spend on Penumbra instead is one step in the right direction?

Again, do you see WWII shooters being made as much as they used to 3 years ago? No, because people STOPPED BUYING THEM AS MUCH. Economics 101.

Baffles the mind :rolleyes:


That's why I made the Kane / Transformers comparison: there's nothing wrong with Bay's Transformers (OK, there's lots wrong with them, but bear with me: the point is, there's nothing wrong with mindless action flicks) but if that was all that was being made, the movie industry would be in a terrible state. And that's - pretty much - where the games industry is.

So, movies like The Dark Knight, Inception and Iron Man 2 are not made at all? Really? (No, i am not comparing Iron Man 2 to Inception, it's just one of the good movies that came to my mind).


Where are the modern Baldur's Gates?

Dragon Age, that you even mentioned? Oh, but you don't count it as the modern BD, because of reasons you don't even point out. And let me guess "Oh, this and that wasn't the same as the old game". Give me a break.

Pinky_Powers
17th Sep 2010, 12:06
Dragon Age, that you even menioned? Oh, but you don't count it as the modern BD, because of reasons you don't even point out. And let me guess "Oh, this and that wasn't the same as the old game". Give me a break.

This is not going to go well for you. :D

I know precisely what Ash is going to say, and he's right.

beastrn
17th Sep 2010, 12:08
How many times do I need to explain to you, that when something sells less, companies tend to stop making it? How do you not understand that every $ that you don't spend on a WWII shooter and spend on Penumbra instead is one step in the right direction?


You only perceive this as an option because you are in the majority market of players. People that are dissatisfied with modern gaming aren't a majority. Me and a few friends not buying Black Ops isn't going to stop them from making another four sequels of the exact same game.

"if you don't like it don't buy it" is the stupidest thing anyone can possibly say. It should be OBVIOUS that I'm not buying it - alas I am but a small drop of wisdom in a rather large ocean of ignorance. :rolleyes:

Oh wow, you just said Iron Man 2 was a good movie. I think we're done here.

lithos
17th Sep 2010, 12:50
Wanna know a fun fact? Citizen Kane didn't win an Oscar for "Best Picture" when it first came out

Ask Martin Scorcese about Oscars...


You can simply NOT buy the games that you don't like. Do you still see WWII shooters these days? Not really, because people got tired of those and stopped buying them as much. This happens all the time. Change cannot happen over night you know.

That's not what happened. It happened PRETTY MUCH overnight on the WWII shooter front. Remember, COD: WAW was released AFTER Modern Warfare. Once IW took a punt on the reboot, and made billions, everyone followed suit.


And over use of the same Game mechanic is something that was happening way before the invention of the regen health system. Were the early 90s a HELL for console games, because too many games had side scrolling animal mascots?

That's characterisation, not gameplay.

Icarus AI
17th Sep 2010, 12:57
Much of how a typical AI works for a PC game is based on giving them enough time to think. In a shooter the response times have to be lightning fast, which means the AI scripts have to be very simplistic. Compare this to my chess example, or a strategy game where the AI can sit there and think for quite a while.



The chess example is completly false. Computers have been able to beat the very best players for 5 years or so. You can have a chess program that is more sophisticated than deep blue on your mobile phone.

Ashpolt
17th Sep 2010, 12:59
So, movies like The Dark Knight, Inception and Iron Man 2 are not made at all? Really? (No, i am not comparing Iron Man 2 to Inception, it's just one of the good movies that came to my mind).

Are you capable of reading? At all? Seriously? I said in my last post that I think the movie industry is still broadly doing fine, and explicitly stated that I was not suggesting that old movies are better than new movies. I brought up movies simply as a comparison to the games industry, to highlight the problems that I see with the latter.

Before you even think about arguing this, read this and the above post again and make sure you understand it this time, because you're not even close to the mark. Sometimes I don't explain things clearly, but this isn't one of those times. What I am saying here is not rocket science. It baffles me that you misunderstood my post so badly.


Dragon Age, that you even mentioned? Oh, but you don't count it as the modern BD, because of reasons you don't even point out. And let me guess "Oh, this and that wasn't the same as the old game". Give me a break.

Dragon Age I personally enjoyed a lot and would be willing to count as the modern Baldur's Gate (Pinky, please feel free to jump in and tell VectorM otherwise here though!) - I brought it up mainly to mention the sequel, which has removed the tactical overhead camera and placed more emphasis on making the fights action-packed at the expense of tactics. But regardless, even if we count Dragon Age and forget the sequel's happening altogether, that's 1 decent CRPG from a major developer in the past 4 years or so (since NWNW2, I can't think of any others since then.)

And even then, that's just one of the three examples I gave, and I could go on and on if you like. Where's the modern Commandos? Where's the modern Rainbow Six? Where's the modern Perimeter? Where's the modern Close Combat? Come to think of it, where are any modern turn-based games? (OK, we have Civ 5 coming out, but that's, again, a sequel to an old series that hasn't changed much.) Hell, we don't even have to ask for that much depth for the modern games industry to struggle - where's the modern FFVII? Have you played FFXIII? Where's the modern No One Lives Forever? Where's the modern Ground Control? And so on and so on.

And so on and so on.

I figure this is pretty obvious, but you do seem to struggle, so I'll spell it out: when I say "where's the modern x?" I don't necessarily mean a sequel, just a modern equivalent.

beastrn
17th Sep 2010, 13:09
inb4

"see, you just want the same thing over and over"

"ff13 was great, it's just different from ff7 and not an easy/stupid game at all"

Pinky_Powers
17th Sep 2010, 13:11
(Pinky, please feel free to jump in and tell VectorM otherwise here though!)

It would be terribly inappropriate... I've never played the Baldur's Gate series.

:eek:

beastrn
17th Sep 2010, 13:36
And nobody was surprised

nomotog
17th Sep 2010, 16:56
Demon's Souls
Bayonetta
Demon's Souls
Risen
Demon's Souls
Amnesia: The Dark Descent
The Whispered World
Demon's Souls
Heavy Rain
Brutal Legend

You listed Demon Souls 3 times. :P

MechBFP
17th Sep 2010, 18:48
It's not that things become ****ty because the general populous likes it. It's just that the general populous likes really ****ty things, and so people make said things in order to appeal to them.

So apparently the general populous likes really ****ty things yet somehow gamers (who are part of the general populous) didn't like ****ty things back then?

Statistically improbable, but alright.

Shralla
17th Sep 2010, 19:05
So apparently the general populous likes really ****ty things yet somehow gamers (who are part of the general populous) didn't like ****ty things back then?

Statistically improbable, but alright.

way to completely warp the meaning of "general populous." No, gamers didn't used to be part of the "general populous." Video games used to be a very low-key thing. Even in the late nineties when they were really rising in popularity, really the only people who played them were the "nerds." Now gaming is super popular, and Joe Football loves it. So what do we get? We get games that appeal to Joe Football, instead of games that appeal to nerds. We still get those, but nowhere near as many as there used to be, which is kind of depressing, since games just keep getting better and better in a lot of ways, so it sucks to see the potential going to waste on Madden 11 and Call of Duty.

PillsAgainstOrders
17th Sep 2010, 19:08
Games are art.They should just stop trying to push everything for "majority". Its all just niche, niche and niche.

Ninjerk
17th Sep 2010, 19:58
You listed Demon Souls 3 times. :P

I was pretty excited until I saw that. I'm going to have to figure out how to get a hold of that game (and for that matter what platform I have to get it on).

Ashpolt
17th Sep 2010, 20:05
I was pretty excited until I saw that. I'm going to have to figure out how to get a hold of that game (and for that matter what platform I have to get it on).

It's PS3, and it's now out the US and EU as well, not just Japan anymore. And it's brilliant. I'm not kidding when I say I own 3 copies. (Well....I've given one to a friend now. But I have bought 3 copies.)

Shralla
17th Sep 2010, 21:05
So what does everybody like so much about Demon's Souls? I watched a friend play it and it seemed pretty slow paced and pointless.

nomotog
17th Sep 2010, 21:33
It's PS3, and it's now out the US and EU as well, not just Japan anymore. And it's brilliant. I'm not kidding when I say I own 3 copies. (Well....I've given one to a friend now. But I have bought 3 copies.)

Did it come out on the X-box and why did you buy 3 copies? Do you keep one under your pillow for luck or something :p

Ashpolt
17th Sep 2010, 21:39
Did it come out on the X-box and why did you buy 3 copies? Do you keep one under your pillow for luck or something :p

Not out on XBox, it's PS3 exclusive. As for why I bought 3 copies:

-Imported the US standard edition first.
-Loved it, so imported the US collector's edition.
-When it finally got released in Europe, bought the collector's edition partly because it had some new stuff in, partly because I wanted to support Namco Bandai for actually bringing such a title to Europe when no-one else would touch it.

@Shralla: Try playing it instead of watching it. Once you get past the initial difficulty, it's one of the most rewarding games you'll ever play, and the combat mechanics are nigh on perfect. Taking down Tower Knight for the first time is a remarkable achievement, and he's only the second (if you play the "most sensible" order for the levels) proper boss.

nomotog
17th Sep 2010, 21:49
Not out on XBox, it's PS3 exclusive. As for why I bought 3 copies:

-Imported the US standard edition first.
-Loved it, so imported the US collector's edition.
-When it finally got released in Europe, bought the collector's edition partly because it had some new stuff in, partly because I wanted to support Namco Bandai for actually bringing such a title to Europe when no-one else would touch it.

@Shralla: Try playing it instead of watching it. Once you get past the initial difficulty, it's one of the most rewarding games you'll ever play, and the combat mechanics are nigh on perfect. Taking down Tower Knight for the first time is a remarkable achievement, and he's only the second (if you play the "most sensible" order for the levels) proper boss.

That explains it, but that all adds up to about $200. Too much for me.

It's a same it's only on the PS3 exclusives bug me to no end. I would like to try it (and heavy rain), but I dont have a PS3.

Ashpolt
17th Sep 2010, 22:04
That explains it, but that all adds up to about $200. Too much for me.

Don't worry, you only have to buy one copy to play. :P

(And those 3 copies came to a chunk more than $200 combined, being as 2 were imports.)


It's a same it's only on the PS3 exclusives bug me to no end. I would like to try it (and heavy rain), but I dont have a PS3.

I also (as of today) have 2 PS3s. :lol:

Heavy Rain is worth no more than a rent, IMO. I've completed it, and it's an interesting experience, but it's barely even a game. Fahrenheit (aka Indigo Prophecy) was better, as far as I'm concerned, even despite the terrible ending.

nomotog
17th Sep 2010, 22:13
Don't worry, you only have to buy one copy to play. :P

(And those 3 copies came to a chunk more than $200 combined, being as 2 were imports.)



I also (as of today) have 2 PS3s. :lol:

Heavy Rain is worth no more than a rent, IMO. I've completed it, and it's an interesting experience, but it's barely even a game. Fahrenheit (aka Indigo Prophecy) was better, as far as I'm concerned, even despite the terrible ending.

I just really want to play a murder mystery type game.

beastrn
18th Sep 2010, 00:03
Aw I missed the Demon's Souls love. Ashpolt did a good job, though :) Except for the Heavy Rain slant, booo.

Anyway - the servers go down sometimes in March so if you want to play it you better get cracking! - You can still play it singleplayer, but 50% of the reason why it's so great comes from having that internet connection.

I've also got three copies;

The Korean version first (the best version as far as I'm concerned - the playerbase on that server is simply amazing. Everyone bows to you, everyone is super concerned with being polite... it's just so great. Well, until they invade your world and kill you with one backstab then bow.)

US version (to play with some friends who got it)

Aus Collectors edition (because I'm a sucker for quality)

lithos
18th Sep 2010, 02:28
I think it's the money that's made things worse for gaming. Now that you need a budget of $40 mill to make a five-hour game, people stop taking anything that could remotely be construed as risky.

Ubersuntzu
18th Sep 2010, 03:42
Listen. I know the past few years have changed people's perception of what FPS truly had the potential of being. Sometimes I get harsh on people because I assume everyone has been playing games for as long as I have - but I'm really holding myself back here so I will merely say;

You're wrong.

And then link a demonstration;

http://www.livestream.com/suibrielgaming/video?clipId=pla_73ffb335-1ee7-49cd-94f9-f823736ec569 Skip to 7:00 would you kindly.

And then I will link apparently the most competitive players in the most competitive and fastest/hardest FPS on console.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXg55y8pCo

Console FPS, not slow?



Hm, alright. What I see as dodging, I mean, enemies actually struggling to stay alive and take you out. Rarely do you see anyone trying to stay away from your crosshair in a console shooter, no matter the difficulty. It's not conducive to the entertaining and accessible experience console shooters strive for.

So no, not the matrix - dodging as in using their speed and the enviroment to try and do something other than mimic the ducks in duck hunt. For example, the Skaarj in 1998's Unreal, as shown here;

lSQ8Et5c0LY

Wow. A game based on Quake III that's all about running and teleporting through the same route over and again while shooting enemies with a rocket launcher. There's a reason nobody makes games like that anymore. There's no demand, not even from the people that like those kinds of games. Everybody that wants Quake III already owns Quake III. Unreal Tournament survived by continually adding more. If they can't add even more next time, there won't even be another UT.

You also ignore the fact that today's slower games are slower deliberately, not because everybody forgot that games are capable of being much faster. Not everybody agrees with the idea that twitch adrenaline fests are the height of gaming. Rainbow Six and Counter-Strike began the trend toward slower paced combat and they're not watered down console games. (Not counting the recent R6 games which actually WERE watered down by giving them a much FASTER pace.)

AI hasn't gone anywhere. A game like Halo has much better AI (including cover and strafing patterns) than it does on easy or normal. You're also ignoring the fact that running and strafing don't mean as much in "realistic" games with significant recoil and low health.

Overall you sound like someone who's favorite musical genre has gone out of style and you interpret this as being the end of all good music.

Ubersuntzu
18th Sep 2010, 03:48
I think it's the money that's made things worse for gaming. Now that you need a budget of $40 mill to make a five-hour game, people stop taking anything that could remotely be construed as risky.

That trend will eventually be forced to end due to a number of factors. Genre stagnation, a slow economy, indie competition and decelerating hardware advancement will eventually force developers to spend more time on the actual design than on the art. Hiring enough artists to keep up with an increasing attention to minute details is too costly for anyone but the biggest of publishers.

beastrn
18th Sep 2010, 05:30
I have no idea why you bothered to type that load of rubbish. You sound like someone who is defensive about liking modern bands that are just rip offs of bands that are rip offs of original bands.

Someone said that Console FPS is as fast as PC FPS. I told them why that's wrong by comparing two modern competitive FPS titles.

pringlepower
18th Sep 2010, 05:38
I have no idea why you bothered to type that load of rubbish. You sound like someone who is defensive about liking modern bands that are just rip offs of bands that are rip offs of original bands.

Someone said that Console FPS is as fast as PC FPS. I told them why that's wrong by comparing two modern competitive FPS titles.

You compared 2010's Halo Reach with 1998's Unreal.

beastrn
18th Sep 2010, 06:12
You compared 2010's Halo Reach with 1998's Unreal.
No, I used Unreal to help explain what I meant by dodging.

Not that there's anything wrong with comparing those two games. In Unreal the enemies dodge and give you a hard time. In Reach, they stand still and sometimes do a retardedly slow sidestep. Console FPS is slow.

lithos
18th Sep 2010, 08:07
That trend will eventually be forced to end due to a number of factors. Genre stagnation, a slow economy, indie competition and decelerating hardware advancement will eventually force developers to spend more time on the actual design than on the art. Hiring enough artists to keep up with an increasing attention to minute details is too costly for anyone but the biggest of publishers.

I was kinda hoping that we'd start seeing devs focus less on graphics (or, failing that, optimising their damn engines to run efficiently,) with the inevitable decay of the Xbox, but it's kinda fifty-fifty at the moment ('Spose we're in the middle of the Xbox's lifespan.)

They don't seem too concerned by genre stagnation, as the constant requirement to appeal to non-gamers is designed to sidestep that ("This is a boring, clichéd idea." "Not if you've never played a game before!")

From what I hear of the industry, it's still very much a "If you're not a coder, get !$@%ed," sort of place.

And it doesn't help that every single reviewer out there places the most weight on graphics. I suppose when you have a limited amount of time to review something, the graphics are what hits you first. Gameplay takes time to ease into. That's probably why more games are focusing on hard-hitting set pieces, fancy animation, and whether or not you've got Linkin Park doing the theme (wish I were joking about the last one.)

I don't think indie competition's that viable. Ask Mike Capp. As soon as they get good, they'll be bought out by a mega-dev, and be put to work on Zombie Space Marine Shooter XI.

VectorM
18th Sep 2010, 09:36
You only perceive this as an option because you are in the majority market of players. People that are dissatisfied with modern gaming aren't a majority. Me and a few friends not buying Black Ops isn't going to stop them from making another four sequels of the exact same game.

"if you don't like it don't buy it" is the stupidest thing anyone can possibly say. It should be OBVIOUS that I'm not buying it - alas I am but a small drop of wisdom in a rather large ocean of ignorance. :rolleyes:


"If you don't like it, don't buy it" Is way more legit than whining illogically on forums.


alas I am but a small drop of wisdom in a rather large ocean of ignorance

More like and elitist hipster who thinks he is way smarter than he is.

I am sure people will get on your side when you treat them like this all the time. You call everyone that doesn't egree with you ignorant and stupid and then you wonder why they keep buying MW2 instead of what you want.


People that are dissatisfied with modern gaming aren't a majority. Me and a few friends not buying Black Ops isn't going to stop them from making another four sequels of the exact same game.

That's EXACTLY what people said about any WW2 shooter that came out 2-3 years ago "But me and couple of friends not buying Call of Duty 3 won't change ****". And I ask you again, where are the WW2 shooters these days?

As time goes on and they keep doing the same ****, more and more people will stop buying it and it will go away.

You are essentially whining that you are not getting what you want immediately. Well the world doesn't work like that.



And even then, that's just one of the three examples I gave, and I could go on and on if you like. Where's the modern Commandos? Where's the modern Rainbow Six? Where's the modern Perimeter? Where's the modern Close Combat? Come to think of it, where are any modern turn-based games? (OK, we have Civ 5 coming out, but that's, again, a sequel to an old series that hasn't changed much.) Hell, we don't even have to ask for that much depth for the modern games industry to struggle - where's the modern FFVII? Have you played FFXIII? Where's the modern No One Lives Forever? Where's the modern Ground Control? And so on and so on.

And so on and so on.
[/i]

Most of those are gone because THEY DON'T SELL, but since you asked, here are 2 modern turn based games: King's Bounty, Elemental: War of Magic. Yes, there are less coming out these days, but it's not like they were ever that many (or if most of those were any good at all).

The industry goes were the money is and that's how it's always been. The only way you could ever go back to those type of games, is if more people are brought in to gaming, so that more people could start playing the more complex titles. Since right now pretty much only old school players play those, the industry is loosing money on the way bigger market that is the people who don't play games. And the way to get those in to gaming is with titles like Fallout 3 and what not.

Once they get in to gaming with the more simple titles, only then can they move on to something more complex.

Remember, people like you and me learned to play games on that simple Nintendo NES, while today people new to gaming have to struggle with 1000 buttons on the PS3 controller and the keyboard. So we NEED games that are more simple and easier to get in to. Only when we have a 90% of people playing games, then we can really see tha market producing more complex titles. But since people like you like to complain about everything that enables that to happen, we still see gaming struggle to get to 50% market share after 30 years, where as television got there way faster.

Sorry, but demandinding more complex games all day is not the solution. The real solution is the one that you oppose, and that's simplicity.

VectorM
18th Sep 2010, 09:58
Bump.

Freddo
18th Sep 2010, 10:01
Very good list that, I totally agree with it.

VectorM
18th Sep 2010, 10:17
Ask Martin Scorcese about Oscars...

That's not what happened. It happened PRETTY MUCH overnight on the WWII shooter front. Remember, COD: WAW was released AFTER Modern Warfare. Once IW took a punt on the reboot, and made billions, everyone followed suit.

That's characterisation, not gameplay.

1) The point was that Hollywood was always filled with bull****, just like today.

2) The reason that gmae even got made was because they noticed that WW2 shooter weren't going to do as well anymore. Did that happen overnight?

3) Missed the point. Gaming always had moments when it seemed like nothing new was being made, yet people act like only now companies are doing the same thing over and over again.

And enough with that "They just focus on graphics these days" argument. There was always a focus on graphics. Just look at some Jaguar commercials from back in the day. Graphics were a selling point in games before some of you were even born.

lithos
18th Sep 2010, 10:56
And enough with that "They just focus on graphics these days" argument. There was always a focus on graphics. Just look at some Jaguar commercials from back in the day. Graphics were a selling point in games before some of you were even born.

Wow, really?

I never said it wasn't a problem X years ago, did I? Kindly point out where I did. I said that I was hoping the industry would mature beyond the point of caring mostly about the graphics. Which also implies that it was a problem in the past, no?

If you're going to try to quote me, at least quote something I actually said.

mad825
18th Sep 2010, 11:12
2) The reason that gmae even got made was because they noticed that WW2 shooter weren't going to do as well anymore. Did that happen overnight?


we just moved onto the Coldwar (more like a hotwar?) where both sides had equally big *****es but I'll have to say both of you are wrong, everyone has been doing the "cold war" stuff since C&C:RA

or if we are going to include books as well, Tom Clancy has a well known careerer yapering on about the Russians

Romeo
18th Sep 2010, 17:19
I did remember how simple games used to be, and yet, that was wonderful. The problem is, while the gamers advanced and matured, they demanded something more complex, which they got, while the newest generation was getting it's simple introductions in the form of Mario and Zelda. And now that we demand even more complex games, the industry is either unable or unwilling to hold up to those high demands. You compare a modern platformer (Assassin's Creed 2) to an older platformer (Super Mario 2) they arn't even close in complexity, Assassin's Creed will walk it in almost every possible way, but we're expecting more out of Assassin's Creed 2, and because of that, it seems to fail us.

lithos
19th Sep 2010, 05:47
You compare a modern platformer (Assassin's Creed 2) to an older platformer (Super Mario 2) they arn't even close in complexity, Assassin's Creed will walk it in almost every possible way, but we're expecting more out of Assassin's Creed 2, and because of that, it seems to fail us.

AC wasn't really a platformer. Mirror's Edge was more of a modern platformer.

AC had complexity, yes, but how much of that was in direct control of the player? I haven't played AC2, because Ubisoft thinks I'm a criminal, but in AC1 you didn't actually do much. It was more like you politely asked the game what you'd like it to do, and the game would let you know if it decided to honour your request.

The entirety of running, jumping and climbing were handled automatically, and to me, were just no fun. Hold down Shift, W and Spacebar, and Altair would then just run, automatically jumping obstacles and climbing walls, with no other input from the player. Mirror's Edge, on the other hand, required player skill to navigate and time jumps correctly. Sure, the failure rate is probably higher, but the payoffs, the rewards, were greater, because any successes were the player's alone, not just because the game automatically timed the jumps to ensure that Altair would safely cross the gap. The highly contextualised controls didn't do much, either.

Pretentious Old Man.
19th Sep 2010, 13:39
AC wasn't really a platformer. Mirror's Edge was more of a modern platformer.

AC had complexity, yes, but how much of that was in direct control of the player? I haven't played AC2, because Ubisoft thinks I'm a criminal, but in AC1 you didn't actually do much. It was more like you politely asked the game what you'd like it to do, and the game would let you know if it decided to honour your request.

The entirety of running, jumping and climbing were handled automatically, and to me, were just no fun. Hold down Shift, W and Spacebar, and Altair would then just run, automatically jumping obstacles and climbing walls, with no other input from the player. Mirror's Edge, on the other hand, required player skill to navigate and time jumps correctly. Sure, the failure rate is probably higher, but the payoffs, the rewards, were greater, because any successes were the player's alone, not just because the game automatically timed the jumps to ensure that Altair would safely cross the gap. The highly contextualised controls didn't do much, either.

Assassin's Creed: Otherwise known as "My first Hitman Game".

lithos
19th Sep 2010, 14:11
Assassin's Creed: Otherwise known as "My first Hitman Game".

Ha! I've been referring to it as "HITMAN: XTREEEM!" Great minds, etc. etc. Because that's what it tried to be. The Hitman for the Bro on the go. There were moments, though: the disclaimer at the beginning, and how Ubi tried to earn some cheap marketing points by getting what's-her-name from Veronica Mars to do a voice...and then Veronica Mars getting axed five months before the game's release. Too late for Ubi to change the actress, and with enough of a gap to ensure whoever-she-was's name to fade from pop culture view.

Also, it manages to be both lowest-common-denominator and pretentious at the same time. Which is a feat, I guess.

Shralla
19th Sep 2010, 19:35
In Reach, they stand still and sometimes do a retardedly slow sidestep. Console FPS is slow.

So you're really trying to support your argument by saying something that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you've NEVER played the game you're talking about?

Tverdyj
20th Sep 2010, 03:52
Demon's Souls
Bayonetta
Demon's Souls
Risen
Demon's Souls
Amnesia: The Dark Descent
The Whispered World
Demon's Souls
Heavy Rain
Brutal Legend

for those of us?who do not own a console, can we get 10 PC titles, please?

Ashpolt
20th Sep 2010, 09:29
Sorry, but demandinding more complex games all day is not the solution. The real solution is the one that you oppose, and that's simplicity.

No, the solution is balance, creating both simple and complex games now, establishing that there are different audiences - not creating only simple games now so that so that people will be "ready" to play more complex games at some unspecified time in the future - because by then, we'll have a new generation of people who (according to you) need to be "eased into it."

I'm not suggesting that companies stop making simple games entirely, just that they make more challengin and complex games as well.

Deus_Ex_Machina
20th Sep 2010, 09:37
No, the solution is balance, creating both simple and complex games now, establishing that there are different audiences - not creating only simple games now so that so that people will be "ready" to play more complex games at some unspecified time in the future - because by then, we'll have a new generation of people who (according to you) need to be "eased into it."

I'm not suggesting that companies stop making simple games entirely, just that they make more challengin and complex games as well.

The industry was more or less balanced prior to 2006. We had both niche and mainstream titles that catered to everybody.

Unfortunately, as Bod Dylan once said, the times are a changin'.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
20th Sep 2010, 14:05
Unfortunately, as Bod Dylan once said, the times are a changin'.
Say it with music... and it always make sense. :cool:

Tverdyj
20th Sep 2010, 15:27
also, looking at Aspolt's list, I want to ask,

where's the next X-COM?







....






oh, wait....

Romeo
20th Sep 2010, 16:45
AC wasn't really a platformer. Mirror's Edge was more of a modern platformer.

AC had complexity, yes, but how much of that was in direct control of the player? I haven't played AC2, because Ubisoft thinks I'm a criminal, but in AC1 you didn't actually do much. It was more like you politely asked the game what you'd like it to do, and the game would let you know if it decided to honour your request.

The entirety of running, jumping and climbing were handled automatically, and to me, were just no fun. Hold down Shift, W and Spacebar, and Altair would then just run, automatically jumping obstacles and climbing walls, with no other input from the player. Mirror's Edge, on the other hand, required player skill to navigate and time jumps correctly. Sure, the failure rate is probably higher, but the payoffs, the rewards, were greater, because any successes were the player's alone, not just because the game automatically timed the jumps to ensure that Altair would safely cross the gap. The highly contextualised controls didn't do much, either.
Well, it's either adventure or platformer, with my own taste leaning towards platformer, but whatever your gripes, you cannot deny that the old Marios arn't close - at all - to the amount of things you can do in ACII. However, because the demand on ACII is significantly higher these days than what they were for the old Mario, it's considered a classic whereas ACII is a failure.

Anasumtj
20th Sep 2010, 17:10
I'm not even sure if there's anything worthwhile to get out of a comparison between an old Super Mario title and AC2...

lithos
20th Sep 2010, 17:10
Well, it's either adventure or platformer, with my own taste leaning towards platformer, but whatever your gripes, you cannot deny that the old Marios arn't close - at all - to the amount of things you can do in ACII.

But YOU don't actually do anything. It's all too highly automated. Since there's no risk of failure, there's no pay off for success.


However, because the demand on ACII is significantly higher these days than what they were for the old Mario, it's considered a classic whereas ACII is a failure.

Might've been their DRM...though it did give ol' Skid Row a few day in the sun. I give them credit for having the game resist cracking for 2 whole weeks.

What demands were placed on it, in your opinion? I haven't played the second - could Ubisoft's new churn-'em-out business model might be responsible for a lacklustre game?

Perhaps the game was just crap.

rubiomhs
20th Sep 2010, 19:22
assassins creed appeals to the teeny boppers. the anachronistic parkour crud was enough to put me off.

hem dazon 90
20th Sep 2010, 19:33
assassins creed appeals to the teeny boppers. the anachronistic parkour crud was enough to put me off.

And people who like good games


Well, it's either adventure or platformer, with my own taste leaning towards platformer, but whatever your gripes, you cannot deny that the old Marios arn't close - at all - to the amount of things you can do in ACII. However, because the demand on ACII is significantly higher these days than what they were for the old Mario, it's considered a classic whereas ACII is a failure.


Who said AC II was a failure? I never saw a negative review of that.

rubiomhs
20th Sep 2010, 19:50
anyone with good taste.

parkour worked for mirror's edge. in renaissance italy, it just looked stupid.

TrickyVein
20th Sep 2010, 19:57
Heh, ok. I can see where this is going.

hem dazon 90
20th Sep 2010, 20:01
anyone with good taste.

parkour worked for mirror's edge. in renaissance italy, it just looked stupid.


Mirrors edge was horrible.

And parkur has been around in one form or another for centuries. It's just recently that people gave it a name

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 20:53
Since there's no risk of failure, there's no pay off for success.

Jesus god! Do you ever say anything that isn't a lie? No risk of failure? People fail at tasks all the time in that game.

NKD
20th Sep 2010, 21:19
Jesus god! Do you ever say anything that isn't a lie? No risk of failure? People fail at tasks all the time in that game.

Tell me about it. I can't tell you how long it took me to kill that one guy on the boat in Venice. And then all the times I pressed my stick in the wrong direction while quick running and ended up back on the ground, or worse. I really enjoyed AC2, and there was definitely a lot of risk involved. Especially in a couple of those tombs. Not a single enemy in some of those, but navigating around the rafters and ledges was fairly tricky.

I've seen people complain about quick run a few times, but invariably it's from people who haven't played the game.

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 21:42
Tell me about it. I can't tell you how long it took me to kill that one guy on the boat in Venice.


And then all the times I pressed my stick in the wrong direction while quick running and ended up back on the ground, or worse. I really enjoyed AC2, and there was definitely a lot of risk involved. Especially in a couple of those tombs. Not a single enemy in some of those, but navigating around the rafters and ledges was fairly tricky.

I've seen people complain about quick run a few times, but invariably it's from people who haven't played the game.

Meh, I'll have to admit, that being a fan of the hitman series and because of AC2's horrible DRM I was biased against the game until I actually tried it for more than an hour.


Even without ever having played the first one, AC2 kinda grew on me and it ended up being a fun game despite what the (maybe) over-contextualised controls. The tie-ins with real life events of the epoch and some of it's characters were rather nice aswell even if a little hamfisted in some point or another.

luminar
20th Sep 2010, 21:47
Mirrors edge was horrible.

And parkur has been around in one form or another for centuries. It's just recently that people gave it a name

Your mom is horrible! Lol JK! Seriously though Mirrors edge is incredible and you suck for saying otherwise.

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 21:56
Your mom is horrible! Lol JK! Seriously though Mirrors edge is incredible and you suck for saying otherwise.

lol. I like where this is going.

nomotog
20th Sep 2010, 21:57
Your mom is horrible! Lol JK! Seriously though Mirrors edge is incredible and you suck for saying otherwise.

The only thing wrong with mirror's edge was the price.

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 21:58
lol. I like where this is going.

You mean where every other thread seems to have gone lately? :hmm:

luminar
20th Sep 2010, 21:59
The only thing wrong with mirror's edge was the price.

Agreed it shoulda been free. Cuz I'm cheap.

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 22:40
You mean where every other thread seems to have gone lately? :hmm:

You mean to a heated debate on the goodness of Mirror's Edge? :scratch:

Mindmute
20th Sep 2010, 22:46
You mean to a heated debate on the goodness of Mirror's Edge? :scratch:

Meh, thought you meant about the general tone of the debate itself from a few posts up: one extreme view clashing with another, ending up in a battle of "AC is awsome and your opinion is not valid" vs "Mirror's Edge is awsome and your opinion is not valid".

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 23:09
I have to admit, bringing in the "moms" did get me excited for blood. ;)

luminar
20th Sep 2010, 23:13
I have to admit, bringing in the "moms" did get me excited ;)

Fixed.

Pinky_Powers
20th Sep 2010, 23:14
I won't deny it.

luminar
20th Sep 2010, 23:19
I won't deny it.

Lol pinky pulled a dugas! Or rather every game developer alive.

beastrn
20th Sep 2010, 23:25
Mirror's Edge sucks?

People died in an AC game?

I weep for this forum. :o

pringlepower
20th Sep 2010, 23:26
Meh, I'll have to admit, that being a fan of the hitman series and because of AC2's horrible DRM I was biased against the game until I actually tried it for more than an hour.


Even without ever having played the first one, AC2 kinda grew on me and it ended up being a fun game despite what the (maybe) over-contextualised controls. The tie-ins with real life events of the epoch and some of it's characters were rather nice aswell even if a little hamfisted in some point or another.

It's a much better experience when you play it after the first AC. You get a nice feeling of how Ubisoft fixed the horrible, horrible decisions in the first game.

luminar
20th Sep 2010, 23:28
Mirror's Edge sucks?

People died in an AC game?

I weep for this forum. :o

Have you played AC? Their are some battles witch are very difficult. Especially if you mess up and get the attention of the guards.

beastrn
20th Sep 2010, 23:57
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1639/1212552477679ms7.gif

luminar
21st Sep 2010, 00:10
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1639/1212552477679ms7.gif

Right, okay. So you just breeze through those battles then? And if your about to make reference to the "kill" button try using it when your overwhelmed and then when you screw up and get punished for bad timing come back to me.

beastrn
21st Sep 2010, 00:16
You hold block and you become invulnerable.
You press a button to counter-insta kill anyone that attacks you.
You spam a button if you get bored and want to mash at someone until they die.

You're messing with me... right?

(it would explain the spelling)

luminar
21st Sep 2010, 00:23
You hold block and you become invulnerable.
You press a button to counter-insta kill anyone that attacks you.
You spam a button if you get bored and want to mash at someone until they die.

You're messing with me... right?

(it would explain the spelling)

Yeah your obviously my intellectual superior. Hold block for too long and someone's gonna smash through your gard with a power attack. If you miss the timing on the "insta kill" you get punished. If you "spam a button" They'll block and others will attack you while your vulnerable. Your messing with me right? Would explain the arrogant/insecure attitude about your intelligence.

AlexOfSpades
21st Sep 2010, 00:23
OMG is that Sol Badguy in the stunned animation after Dragon Install?

Mindmute
21st Sep 2010, 00:24
You hold block and you become invulnerable.
You press a button to counter-insta kill anyone that attacks you.
You spam a button if you get bored and want to mash at someone until they die.

You're messing with me... right?

(it would explain the spelling)

Meh honestly, while it was simple, some targets, namely brutes could hit you even if you were blocking, counter-kills didn't work on any targets bar the agiles and the basic guards you encounter early into the game (unless you're only using the hidden blade counters) and mashing a button will just get you hit from the back.

It *is* very simple, but there's a good balance as far as knowing when to time what action to be honest. It's not as daft as you made it out to be in that post

beastrn
21st Sep 2010, 00:36
Incorrect. Seriously have you people even got eyes? Are you permanently DRUNK?

Nobody can break your guard, you hold block and you are invulnerable. Those stupid power attacks are so slow all you have to do is tap backwards and you're fine. Or, counter it for a weapon-steal-insta-kill. Doesn't really matter though as those enemies are rarer than the amount of times 'you're' has been correctly spelled on this page.

Counter kills work on anyone and everyone. Use your fist, insta kill.

Button mashing doesn't get you hit from behind. As long as you keep mashing you will out pace one person trying to attack you from behind.

And TIMING? What timing? You mean the 3 second long "I'M GOING TO ATTACK YOU NOW, HERE WE GOOOOO... REAAAADYY????" attack animations? And what "punishment"? You mean, if you manage to be so clueless as to actually get struck by someone, you lose one out of twenty hitpoints? Say it ain't so! God forbid more than one person in a crowd of 10 attacks you!

There's no balance. It's all for show. Everything I've said is true. I'd love to sit with one of you guys and play either game. I'm no god of AC, I've finished both once without bothering with any side crap - yet I don't even know what the death screen looks like.

NKD
21st Sep 2010, 00:38
Meh honestly, while it was simple, some targets, namely brutes could hit you even if you were blocking, counter-kills didn't work on any targets bar the agiles and the basic guards you encounter early into the game (unless you're only using the hidden blade counters) and mashing a button will just get you hit from the back.

It *is* very simple, but there's a good balance as far as knowing when to time what action to be honest. It's not as daft as you made it out to be in that post

Yeah it sounds like he's thinking of the first game. The second game you have to swap your weapons around a bit more if you don't want to spend a lot of time going to the nearest healer. The big guys will pound right through your attempts to block, so you have to either dodge, or swap to unarmed and disarm them, then you can use their big weapon against them. Counter-kills are also impossible against some guys, and difficult against others. An enemies resistance to a counter kill seems to drop as you reduce their health.

You can still hurr durr derp derp derp your way through AC2 combat, but its going to be slower and involve using a lot more medicine and trips to the healer.

luminar
21st Sep 2010, 00:41
Incorrect. Seriously have you people even got eyes? Are you permanently DRUNK?

Nobody can break your guard, you hold block and you are invulnerable. Those stupid power attacks are so slow all you have to do is tap backwards and you're fine. Or, counter it for a weapon-steal-insta-kill. Doesn't really matter though as those enemies are rarer than the amount of times 'you're' has been correctly spelled on this page.

Counter kills work on anyone and everyone. Use your fist, insta kill.

Button mashing doesn't get you hit from behind. As long as you keep mashing you will out pace one person trying to attack you from behind.

And TIMING? What timing? You mean the 3 second long "I'M GOING TO ATTACK YOU NOW, HERE WE GOOOOO... REAAAADYY????" attack animations? And what "punishment"? You mean, if you manage to be so clueless as to actually get struck by someone, you lose one out of twenty hitpoints? Say it ain't so! God forbid more than one person in a crowd of 10 attacks you!

There's no balance. It's all for show. Everything I've said is true. I'd love to sit with one of you guys and play either game. I'm no god of AC, I've finished both once without bothering with any side crap - yet I don't even know what the death screen looks like.

Your wrong on all counts and have contradicted yourself in the first few sentences. Go ahead watch me I'm sure you'll get something out of it.

beastrn
21st Sep 2010, 00:45
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1639/1212552477679ms7.gif

Pinky_Powers
21st Sep 2010, 01:12
The combat system in AC is rather straight forward, but it takes a lot of concentration to master it and survive in large encounters. And some of the later fights are just plain hard.

Oh, and lets not forget the most important thing... Assassin's Creed games are brilliant fun. :D

luminar
21st Sep 2010, 01:14
The combat system in AC is rather straight forward, but it takes a lot of concentration to master it and survive in large encounters. And some of the later fights are just plain hard.

Oh, and lets not forget the most important thing... Assassin's Creed games are brilliant fun. :D

+1 Assasins creed 3 ought to be amazing.

Pinky_Powers
21st Sep 2010, 01:35
+1 Assasins creed 3 ought to be amazing.

I have a powerful thirst for renovating Rome and managing my own assassin's guild. It should be awesome. :cool:

pringlepower
21st Sep 2010, 01:50
The combat system in AC is rather straight forward, but it takes a lot of concentration to master it and survive in large encounters. And some of the later fights are just plain hard.

Oh, and lets not forget the most important thing... Assassin's Creed games are brilliant fun. :D

I'm going through AC right now, and I'm just wondering what you guys did. Did you eventually do just the bare minimum of investigations (like the 3 missions) by the mid/end of the game and just move on to the assassinating? Because the core gameplay is still good fun, and I want to finish the game before AC II, just the maddening repitition is starting to grind my gears.

NKD
21st Sep 2010, 02:09
I'm going through AC right now, and I'm just wondering what you guys did. Did you eventually do just the bare minimum of investigations (like the 3 missions) by the mid/end of the game and just move on to the assassinating? Because the core gameplay is still good fun, and I want to finish the game before AC II, just the maddening repitition is starting to grind my gears.

If you're gonna play AC2, just burn through AC1 for the story. AC2's gameplay is improved in almost every aspect.

Dead-Eye
21st Sep 2010, 02:31
The only thing wrong with mirror's edge was the price.
I paid 5 dollars, it's was ok.

Oh and Assassins Creed is hard if you try and find all the Templars. They mess you're s** right up. Edit: Actually let me rephrase that: Assassins Creed has hard battles, they are called Templars.

Pinky_Powers
21st Sep 2010, 03:14
I'm going through AC right now, and I'm just wondering what you guys did. Did you eventually do just the bare minimum of investigations (like the 3 missions) by the mid/end of the game and just move on to the assassinating? Because the core gameplay is still good fun, and I want to finish the game before AC II, just the maddening repitition is starting to grind my gears.

Indeed. AC1 is repetitive to the state of agony. I took the game VERY slowly. Played a bit for a few days, then left it alone for something like a month. Then played some more. I did this maybe three times. But the story and gameplay is awesome, all the way through. But the missions are way too repetitive, and there are a few ugly frustrations that can seriously affect your enjoyment.

But by the end, I just had this sense of wonder. It's got some serious flaws, but they are overshadowed by its virtues.

Do the bare minimum, and get through the story. As NKD says, AC2 is so much better and has nearly eliminated all the flaws of its predecessor.

lithos
21st Sep 2010, 10:54
People fail at tasks all the time in that game.

Especially Ubisoft.

Romeo
21st Sep 2010, 13:54
Incorrect. Seriously have you people even got eyes? Are you permanently DRUNK?

Nobody can break your guard, you hold block and you are invulnerable. Those stupid power attacks are so slow all you have to do is tap backwards and you're fine. Or, counter it for a weapon-steal-insta-kill. Doesn't really matter though as those enemies are rarer than the amount of times 'you're' has been correctly spelled on this page.

Counter kills work on anyone and everyone. Use your fist, insta kill.

Button mashing doesn't get you hit from behind. As long as you keep mashing you will out pace one person trying to attack you from behind.

And TIMING? What timing? You mean the 3 second long "I'M GOING TO ATTACK YOU NOW, HERE WE GOOOOO... REAAAADYY????" attack animations? And what "punishment"? You mean, if you manage to be so clueless as to actually get struck by someone, you lose one out of twenty hitpoints? Say it ain't so! God forbid more than one person in a crowd of 10 attacks you!

There's no balance. It's all for show. Everything I've said is true. I'd love to sit with one of you guys and play either game. I'm no god of AC, I've finished both once without bothering with any side crap - yet I don't even know what the death screen looks like.
Are we drunk? This coming from the individual who seems to over-look the fact that Brute guards will always smash through a block, and the buggers with long-reach weapons will hit you with a power attack even if you scamper backwards (And are immune to counter-attack).

Counter-attacks pretty much become useless with agile guards, and most of the time don't even result in an insta-kill.

Get a few guards (Which is more common than stumbling upon one lone guard) and keep tapping the attack button, let me know how far you get. Especially when the guards start using counter-attacks.


And that's all figured out from a one-week rental. It honestly seems like you haven't played the game at all. Because I'm no fan of ACII (Or that entire genre in general, if we're being honest), but if you ever handed me that game, and Mario, and asked for my opinion, I'd tell you Mario is awful in comparison. If you told me Mario is older than I am, I'd suddenly be lauding Mario as a paragon of the gaming industry.


But YOU don't actually do anything. It's all too highly automated. Since there's no risk of failure, there's no pay off for success.



Might've been their DRM...though it did give ol' Skid Row a few day in the sun. I give them credit for having the game resist cracking for 2 whole weeks.

What demands were placed on it, in your opinion? I haven't played the second - could Ubisoft's new churn-'em-out business model might be responsible for a lacklustre game?

Perhaps the game was just crap.
I played it via console, no DRM. And just demands of the industry in general. People are expecting the sun and the moon from devellopers, and are pissed when they only seem to get the moon. ACII is an exagerrated example of that. Previewers were going nuts for it, and when people picked it up and played it, it was hard to see what all the fuss was about (See: BioShock).

lithos
21st Sep 2010, 14:59
People are expecting the sun and the moon from devellopers, and are pissed when they only seem to get the moon.

Who's paying for these games, again?