|
In the past year or so there have been so many triple-A games titles that have received a bad reception from fans of their respective series. Whilst SC2 has been really a huge success, the pre-existing Starcraft fans always maintain that SCBW is a better game. However SC2 is far from alone in this. Halo Reach has gone down terribly with Halo fans and MW3 is not enjoying much favour with CoD fans. Mass Effect 3 has generally provoked a negative reaction. Even BF3, which has generally been received well, has frustrated some long-time Battlefield players so much that they have gone back to Bad Company 2.
Today I played Halo Reach for the first time in I don’t know how long because I just felt like playing some horde mode. I always thought that Reach was a very high quality and good game, and I still do. It’s really great value for money, with a good campaign, a very fun horde mode and extremely solid multiplayer. Lastly the custom map-making “forge” is probably the most powerful customisation tool on any console game. Having said that, the game is going to go down in history as a huge flop. The one that brought the community to its knees.
So what was the massive turn off with Reach? Well, it was basically everything that they changed from Halo 3. People hated the new armour abilities and they hated the “bloom” on the new gun. That’s about all I can think of really. I know that a lot of my friends found it hard to get into coming from CoD because everybody has so much health and armour.
To me these sound like ridiculous reasons. If these things had been a part of Halo 3 then nobody would have had a problem with them. It’s only because people aren’t prepared to take each new game at face value that they find such things to get annoyed over.
On the flip side of games that change too much is games that change too little. MW3 is getting to be little played by people on my friends list, and it’s not that a particular thing is wrong with the game, it is simply that they are getting bored of playing it.
It is this balance of changing the game vs. not changing it that I think is a fine line which is almost impossible to tread. There is absolutely no answer to the problem that I can think of, and it is a problem that complete over-writes any other improvements that are made to the game. Let me tell you something that 99% of people will disagree with. Almost all the latest versions of games are the best versions that have ever existed. If you released CoD4 at the same time as MW3, everybody would play MW3. If you released SC2 at the same time as SCBW then everybody would play SC2. Modern games are just better in (almost) every single way. Standards are higher now, such that classic games simply would not cut it these days.
So my answer to the question, is no, modern games are better than old games, but it has become impossible to satisfy fans of a particular franchise with a sequel. My solution to this is simple. Instead of making so many sequels, developers should make many more new games titles, which do not come with preconceived ideas from the game playing audience. That’s it really, the point that I want to make. Halo 4 is absolutely doomed to fail, and CoD is on a severe down spike that can’t go on for more than 3 or 4 more years.
The time is ripe for new games with new ideas, because the times they are a-changin’.
 
|
The problem with that, is they lose the power of the franchises name in attracting the more causal (and bigger) crowds.
|
On April 08 2012 08:40 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
The problem with that, is they lose the power of the franchises name in attracting the more causal (and bigger) crowds.
How about if the brand was the games company instead of the actual game. I'll pretty much buy (or try) anything from some games developers.
|
Well, a lot of old game praise comes from not only nostalgia, but the fact that those games pushed the boundaries of what was possible to create. I started out with computers when 3d cards were a nonstandard piece of hardware, and let me tell you, seeing quake 2 maxed out for the first time blew my mind more than crysis ever could. Gothic was a game riddled with bugs and ui troubles, but the sheer size of it and the freedom of choice it gave you still etches it into my memory and a game like skyrim couldn't replace it. Sure, modern games push the envelope when it comes to sheer quality of work (apart from rushed releases) and they are in many ways superior to old games, I just know that some of the best feelings I've had in front of a computer screens can never be relieved with new titles.
|
On April 08 2012 08:48 m00nchile wrote:
Well, a lot of old game praise comes from not only nostalgia, but the fact that those games pushed the boundaries of what was possible to create. I started out with computers when 3d cards were a nonstandard piece of hardware, and let me tell you, seeing quake 2 maxed out for the first time blew my mind more than crysis ever could. Gothic was a game riddled with bugs and ui troubles, but the sheer size of it and the freedom of choice it gave you still etches it into my memory and a game like skyrim couldn't replace it. Sure, modern games push the envelope when it comes to sheer quality of work (apart from rushed releases) and they are in many ways superior to old games, I just know that some of the best feelings I've had in front of a computer screens can never be relieved with new titles.
I agree with you, but this doesn't explain why new sequels are rubbished even by young players. Also, I think that as long as you have this perspective you can enjoy new games with a fresh perspective. It's when people don't identify that it is themselves that have become hard to please, and not the games that have got worse.
|
|
|
i agree that a lot of criticism for new games comes from glorifying the old ones.
but for me personaly there is one big thing that bugs me the most about sequels nowadays. even when the first title of a franchise was a big success, developers tend to change the concept of the game so much in the following games,so that those often feel like complete new games.
i dont want to say that progress is bad,but it sucks when the gameplay of franchises that already were succesfull(which means that people enjoyed their gameplay) like Dragon Age,Splinter Cell or Command and Conquer,get complety changed to be "more accessible to a wider audience".
in most cases that ends in sequels beeing way too different compared to the original
|
On April 08 2012 08:44 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 08:40 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
The problem with that, is they lose the power of the franchises name in attracting the more causal (and bigger) crowds. How about if the brand was the games company instead of the actual game. I'll pretty much buy (or try) anything from some games developers.
Should be doable with good marketing. I blind bought Chantelise because it was made (and localized) by the same guys that did Recettear. "From the creators of..."
The reason, I believe, that people say old is better than new (not only games, but movies, music etc.) is because they are comparing the average game of today with the best games of a decade ago. When a mediocre movie or game comes out, people go see it and go "blah, waste of money, not memorable at all." 5 years later, since it was so unmemorable, they... well... don't remember it, and have only memories of the gems and the total failures.
As for milking sequels due to name recognition, this has always happened. Capcom is notorious for this. 6 Mega Mans for the NES, all of them essentially the same game (and thus all 6 were awesome). How many times has Street Fighter 2 been released? Final Fight? And it wasn't just Capcom. You have the Castlevanias, Ninja Gaidens, Double Dragons, Ninja Turtles, Dragon Quests etc. Notice I listed series that are all regarded as friggin awesome. I believe series like Halo (personally haven't played the series) and ME will be looked at as great series down the road.
You do get the brilliant original title here and there, but you get that today too. Bastion was awesome, I'm pretty sure 100% of people who have even touched the game can agree to that. Games like VVVVVV, Super Meat Boy, Braid etc. the list goes on and on.
The problem is that people compare the random generic Wii shooters of today to the Goldeneyes of yesteryear. Let's be fair here, bad games shouldn't be compared to Goldeneye. They should be compared to the Superman 64s and Atari ETs.
|
I am honestly losing a lot of interest in video games, it seems like a lot of games now a days lack creativity, not i mean like players can make halo reach maps or say a call of duty emblem with a street gang symbol to resemble what the person is interested in. but it seems like the people who made the games just slapped it all together for money. look at bobby kotick the guy that's killing e-sports practically making it social and casual and not serious games and letting him get more money for it is plain stupid. i just liked back in the day i could get on brood war or age of empires and make my own little campaign or little cities, that's what i always loved about video games my own creation.
And that's why i only like sc2 for non stop play, its a game i could get bored of and come back to and play over and over and try and copy pros builds or just try and make my own little timings that abuse certain aspects of builds or timings. even if blizzard does fail the hardcore social aspect in hots like they did wol i would still play the game but only on the sole purpose of pure gameplay!
|
I disagree.
In my opinion we have basically two different eras of gaming for most established genres:
Development era and modern era. Basically development era games are the roots of all modern games, these were the titles that worked out a successful formula and gameplay. There are some fun games from these times, but what held many of these games back was a combination of simply not being able to provide a great experience due to technological limitations of the time, and a lack of successful genre examples providing an idea of the optimal way to provide certain features. Some examples of development era problems would be older console shooters who still hadn't worked out how to provide a decent aiming system, or games like the first Battlefield, where they just didnt have to tech to provide the scale and immersion of more recent titles. Once the technology catches up to the concept of the genre, it doesn't really matter if the game is 10 years old or 1, the game could be just as great.
Different genres achieve modern era gameplay at different times due to the tech requirements of providing the basic gameplay of the genre. For example, we havent seen a significant change in gameplay in FPS's since fucking forever, counterstrike is just as good as COD barring cosmetics, because they technology at the time was perfectly acceptable to provide exactly the gameplay the designers intended. Calling MW3 better than COD4 is purely an opinon not based on time, as the technology and know how to provide the experience of MW3 was around when COD4 was made. If the games are different it is purely a design decision and not the fact that anything amazing has come up in the intervening years with FPS development.
Plenty of genres have been in modern era for fucking ever, like platformers, driving games...etc, and some genres arent anywhere near leaving development era, such as MMORPGS and Open World. We are seeing huge leaps in the tech and gameplay of these genres all the time, and older ones are very likely just flat out worse than newer efforts. For example, I'm sure the designers of Morrowind or Everquest would have absolutely loved to have the immense worlds and smooth interactivity of Skyrim or Tera, but the technology to accomplish this immersiveness was simply not available. Gameplay of MMO's is making huge strides right now, moving from turn based point and click into a more freeform combat style more akin to FPS's or fighting games.
|
Well I'm not sure exactly how you would expect FPS gameplay to change more than it has. There are a wider variety of weapons and customization options in new games. Also, the technology has improved and continues to improve to provide a good lag free game with good hit detection. There is also map design and respawning AI to consider, as well as new game types.
The fact that technological developments have allowed developers to create what was once impossible is exactly my point. You say that in some genres that developments are not continuing to happen, but I would say that is incorrect for all types of games that are still popular (you know aside from platformers), and especially in FPS games.
|
To repeat what other people have said, the games which receive flack for being worse than their originals more often than not is because they were dumbed down. Dragon age to dragon age 2, Supreme commander to supreme commander 2. There are plenty of games which their sequels however were on par in terms of their depth and consequently didn't receive much if any flack; demon souls to dark souls, Oblivion to skyrim (although I do know some people who played 1-3 like neither 4 or 5, the point is the people who started with oblivion liked skyrim).
Your post mentions cod/halo/bf none of which I have that much experience with so I can't comment. As for ME3, people didn't like the ending, not the game itself. Apart from a couple of minor complaints (no game is perfect) of the inventory system and the lack of a vehicle people praised ME1 to ME2.
No one would want to play some sport for a long time and then have someone barge in saying they are making the hoops three times the size in basketball so people with bad aim can score or have football/soccer turned into just a series of penalty kicks so people don't have to run around.
|
On April 08 2012 08:36 deathly rat wrote:
In the past year or so there have been so many triple-A games titles that have received a bad reception from fans of their respective series. Whilst SC2 has been really a huge success, the pre-existing Starcraft fans always maintain that SCBW is a better game. However SC2 is far from alone in this. Halo Reach has gone down terribly with Halo fans and MW3 is not enjoying much favour with CoD fans. Mass Effect 3 has generally provoked a negative reaction. Even BF3, which has generally been received well, has frustrated some long-time Battlefield players so much that they have gone back to Bad Company 2.
Today I played Halo Reach for the first time in I don’t know how long because I just felt like playing some horde mode. I always thought that Reach was a very high quality and good game, and I still do. It’s really great value for money, with a good campaign, a very fun horde mode and extremely solid multiplayer. Lastly the custom map-making “forge” is probably the most powerful customisation tool on any console game. Having said that, the game is going to go down in history as a huge flop. The one that brought the community to its knees.
So what was the massive turn off with Reach? Well, it was basically everything that they changed from Halo 3. People hated the new armour abilities and they hated the “bloom” on the new gun. That’s about all I can think of really. I know that a lot of my friends found it hard to get into coming from CoD because everybody has so much health and armour.
To me these sound like ridiculous reasons. If these things had been a part of Halo 3 then nobody would have had a problem with them. It’s only because people aren’t prepared to take each new game at face value that they find such things to get annoyed over.
Okay, I stopped here first because you're making a huge assumption: people dislike bloom and armor abilities because they're new, and that's it. Period. I think that's an erroneous assumption which is un-falsifiable. For one, neither of us are able to prove it by inserting armor and bloom into halo 3, go back to a time before halo 3 came out, and re-sell it. Furthermore, from what I've read, Halo players dislike bloom because of how random it is, not because that it's new. They dislike it because it makes the multiplayer less skill-based and more luck based. It's less consistent. That has nothing to do with time or the nostalgia factor you seem to be arguing for. You can't even prove that nostalgia factor in the first place.
On the flip side of games that change too much is games that change too little. MW3 is getting to be little played by people on my friends list, and it’s not that a particular thing is wrong with the game, it is simply that they are getting bored of playing it.
It is this balance of changing the game vs. not changing it that I think is a fine line which is almost impossible to tread. There is absolutely no answer to the problem that I can think of, and it is a problem that complete over-writes any other improvements that are made to the game. Let me tell you something that 99% of people will disagree with. Almost all the latest versions of games are the best versions that have ever existed. If you released CoD4 at the same time as MW3, everybody would play MW3. If you released SC2 at the same time as SCBW then everybody would play SC2. Modern games are just better in (almost) every single way. Standards are higher now, such that classic games simply would not cut it these days.
You're making way too broad statements here with no support whatsoever. Can you release CoD4 at the same time as MW3 and prove it to me? Can you release SC2 at the same time as SCBW and prove it to me? I don't think you can. And you also fail to really define what you're arguing.
Standards are higher in what sense? The games are best in what sense? Graphics, surely you're correct. Size? Yeah, you're right. Content? I'm not sure. Fun? You're definitely wrong. Why? Because I've play BW, and I play SC2, and I find one more enjoyable than the other. There's no nostalgia factor. It's still current. I just happen to like BW more. Another example: I played the old Deus Ex, and I can honestly say it's an incredible game that I could not put down. Can I say the same about Deus Ex Invisible War even though it came out later? No... Deus Ex was a superior game, despite being older, simply because it was more fun to me. And I first played it in 2011, 2012. I never even heard about it in 1998. Nostalgia had nothing to do with it. Age had nothing to do with it.
So my answer to the question, is no, modern games are better than old games, but it has become impossible to satisfy fans of a particular franchise with a sequel.
So my answer to you is maybe it is for you, but not for me. I don't know how exactly you're judging better because I simply judge it as more fun, and that's subjective. Halo, for me, was more fun than Halo Reach. Partially it's bloom. Partially it's the armor system, but it's also because of the broken shotgun that did enormous damage over a huge range. It's also because of the plasma pistol that shot faster than a plasma rifle. And maybe it's because of the simplicity rather than complexity of the game itself. Those add up to make, for me, a more fun experience in Halo than Halo Reach. Can I objectively say Halo is better? No. But can you say the opposite? No.
So I think your claim is unsupported. You're essentially calling people unsatisfiable whiney bitches for no reason. :/ Seems kinda harsh.
My solution to this is simple. Instead of making so many sequels, developers should make many more new games titles, which do not come with preconceived ideas from the game playing audience. That’s it really, the point that I want to make. Halo 4 is absolutely doomed to fail, and CoD is on a severe down spike that can’t go on for more than 3 or 4 more years.
The time is ripe for new games with new ideas, because the times they are a-changin’.
The problem is people recognize old ideas rehashed under new names. See Hollywood.
Now, on the flip side, not all new games are perceived as worse. People loved Mass Effect 2 just as much as Mass Effect. People loved Baldur's Gate II just as much as Baldur's Gate. People loved Pokemon Gold and Silver just as, if not more than, Pokemon Red and Blue. I think in the end, it all comes down to subjectivity, and trying to objectively force your opinion of which is better on people just doesn't work. :/
|
speaking as a long time halo fan, for reach the problem wasn't the bloom for me, it was the way the shields worked and that grenades were way too powerful and pretty much any serious game (mlg game or competitive MM game) became a nade spam and that just isnt fun in any game imo with the title update that came out a little while ago halo reach is actually the game i had wanted (FINALLY) and the story was okay but ignored some of the halo lore for no reason almost like bungie never cared about the story they had created with their games
not to mention that the reach "beta" was a waste of time because they only made one change while their forums were alight with issues (like the grenade strength and shield mechanics being the exact opposite of what 9 years of halo had taught us) and the posts went largely unanswered and seemingly ignored by bungie to the point where many fans stopped caring because the company that made the game seemed not to care anymore soo why did we?
|
Well my experience is that most single player games have difficulty settings, and if you set it to hard, it really is hard. As for multiplayer games, it is as difficult as the opposition you are playing. I know that modern games often have a lot less mindless "farming" or leveling up sections, and they cut to the chase, but I think that is generally a good thing.
With Reach they really did care. You can see it in the quality of the game and how polished it is. I really think they thought ppl would get used to the changes, because ppl always resist change they have to ignore some criticism because of this.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 08 2012 09:56 ghrur wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 08 2012 08:36 deathly rat wrote:
In the past year or so there have been so many triple-A games titles that have received a bad reception from fans of their respective series. Whilst SC2 has been really a huge success, the pre-existing Starcraft fans always maintain that SCBW is a better game. However SC2 is far from alone in this. Halo Reach has gone down terribly with Halo fans and MW3 is not enjoying much favour with CoD fans. Mass Effect 3 has generally provoked a negative reaction. Even BF3, which has generally been received well, has frustrated some long-time Battlefield players so much that they have gone back to Bad Company 2.
Today I played Halo Reach for the first time in I don’t know how long because I just felt like playing some horde mode. I always thought that Reach was a very high quality and good game, and I still do. It’s really great value for money, with a good campaign, a very fun horde mode and extremely solid multiplayer. Lastly the custom map-making “forge” is probably the most powerful customisation tool on any console game. Having said that, the game is going to go down in history as a huge flop. The one that brought the community to its knees.
So what was the massive turn off with Reach? Well, it was basically everything that they changed from Halo 3. People hated the new armour abilities and they hated the “bloom” on the new gun. That’s about all I can think of really. I know that a lot of my friends found it hard to get into coming from CoD because everybody has so much health and armour.
To me these sound like ridiculous reasons. If these things had been a part of Halo 3 then nobody would have had a problem with them. It’s only because people aren’t prepared to take each new game at face value that they find such things to get annoyed over. Okay, I stopped here first because you're making a huge assumption: people dislike bloom and armor abilities because they're new, and that's it. Period. I think that's an erroneous assumption which is un-falsifiable. For one, neither of us are able to prove it by inserting armor and bloom into halo 3, go back to a time before halo 3 came out, and re-sell it. Furthermore, from what I've read, Halo players dislike bloom because of how random it is, not because that it's new. They dislike it because it makes the multiplayer less skill-based and more luck based. It's less consistent. That has nothing to do with time or the nostalgia factor you seem to be arguing for. You can't even prove that nostalgia factor in the first place. On the flip side of games that change too much is games that change too little. MW3 is getting to be little played by people on my friends list, and it’s not that a particular thing is wrong with the game, it is simply that they are getting bored of playing it.
It is this balance of changing the game vs. not changing it that I think is a fine line which is almost impossible to tread. There is absolutely no answer to the problem that I can think of, and it is a problem that complete over-writes any other improvements that are made to the game. Let me tell you something that 99% of people will disagree with. Almost all the latest versions of games are the best versions that have ever existed. If you released CoD4 at the same time as MW3, everybody would play MW3. If you released SC2 at the same time as SCBW then everybody would play SC2. Modern games are just better in (almost) every single way. Standards are higher now, such that classic games simply would not cut it these days. You're making way too broad statements here with no support whatsoever. Can you release CoD4 at the same time as MW3 and prove it to me? Can you release SC2 at the same time as SCBW and prove it to me? I don't think you can. And you also fail to really define what you're arguing. Standards are higher in what sense? The games are best in what sense? Graphics, surely you're correct. Size? Yeah, you're right. Content? I'm not sure. Fun? You're definitely wrong. Why? Because I've play BW, and I play SC2, and I find one more enjoyable than the other. There's no nostalgia factor. It's still current. I just happen to like BW more. Another example: I played the old Deus Ex, and I can honestly say it's an incredible game that I could not put down. Can I say the same about Deus Ex Invisible War even though it came out later? No... Deus Ex was a superior game, despite being older, simply because it was more fun to me. And I first played it in 2011, 2012. I never even heard about it in 1998. Nostalgia had nothing to do with it. Age had nothing to do with it. So my answer to the question, is no, modern games are better than old games, but it has become impossible to satisfy fans of a particular franchise with a sequel. So my answer to you is maybe it is for you, but not for me. I don't know how exactly you're judging better because I simply judge it as more fun, and that's subjective. Halo, for me, was more fun than Halo Reach. Partially it's bloom. Partially it's the armor system, but it's also because of the broken shotgun that did enormous damage over a huge range. It's also because of the plasma pistol that shot faster than a plasma rifle. And maybe it's because of the simplicity rather than complexity of the game itself. Those add up to make, for me, a more fun experience in Halo than Halo Reach. Can I objectively say Halo is better? No. But can you say the opposite? No. So I think your claim is unsupported. You're essentially calling people unsatisfiable whiney bitches for no reason. :/ Seems kinda harsh. My solution to this is simple. Instead of making so many sequels, developers should make many more new games titles, which do not come with preconceived ideas from the game playing audience. That’s it really, the point that I want to make. Halo 4 is absolutely doomed to fail, and CoD is on a severe down spike that can’t go on for more than 3 or 4 more years.
The time is ripe for new games with new ideas, because the times they are a-changin’.
The problem is people recognize old ideas rehashed under new names. See Hollywood. Now, on the flip side, not all new games are perceived as worse. People loved Mass Effect 2 just as much as Mass Effect. People loved Baldur's Gate II just as much as Baldur's Gate. People loved Pokemon Gold and Silver just as, if not more than, Pokemon Red and Blue. I think in the end, it all comes down to subjectivity, and trying to objectively force your opinion of which is better on people just doesn't work. :/
Pretty much said all that I wanted to say.
The OP is basically presuming that the only driving factor in a gamer's preference for older games is nostalgia and lower standards, when this is not the case. There are a lot of older games that, nostalgia notwithstanding, I find to simply have better gameplay than their descendants, and this is corroborated by the many people that I've introduced to games like Baldur's Gate and BW that simply prefer their gameplay to their newer counterparts, despite never having played the games when they originally came out.
|
Average quality of games is much higher than 10, 15 years ago. While there were many great games that are still the some of the best of all time, the amount of shovelware on older systems was pretty staggering.
Now most games are actually pretty decent but few become a true masterpiece. Like others have said it is likely because developers are focus on creating a game that can reach many audiences they fail on creating a game that is both incredibly complex and incredibly engaging.
|
I can somewhat agree with you on MW3. I was a huge fan of MW2 (lol) but for some reason, I just can't get myself into MW3. It just feels boring to me. I have about 10 or so hours on it, and I haven't played it in a few months now. I think the reason might be is that the friends I played it with have stopped playing.
We're all into Fifa 12 now (:
Your blog was a nice read. I think I'm going to play some M-dub 3 now.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 08 2012 10:15 setzer wrote:
Now most games are actually pretty decent but few become a true masterpiece. Like others have said it is likely because developers are focus on creating a game that can reach many audiences they fail on creating a game that is both incredibly complex and incredibly engaging.
I think it's worth noting that this is not something exclusive to gaming as a medium. This sort of thing happens/has happened in pretty much every other artistic medium. In attempting to reach a mainstream audience, artists/musicians/game designers/etc. have to distill certain themes from past content in order to create content that will reach a wider audience. What this means for us is that if you're interested in more innovative content, the place to look is independent design/development (indie gaming has really picked up in the past few years).
|
there is no way mw3 multiplayer is better than cod4. cod4 was so balanced, the new cods and most games have so much shit flying on the screen like TRIPLE KILL! DOUBLE XP! RANK UPPPPP with loud ass effects. not saying cod4 doesnt have some of that but it was clean and simple... and balanced.
the vast majority of people will say me3 > me2 > me1 yeah the ending sucked but theyve refined that game to such a high level making playing the first game so bland.
Realistically the only things that have improved with time are graphics and controls, everything else older games do better (with some exceptions.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
