EPT@ghrur yes, some of this is my opinion. I'm not trying to prove anything here, but I'm saying that i'm seeing a trend. IMO there is nothing wrong with the DMR, saying it is luck based is bullshit.
Are new games really worse than old ones? - Page 2
| Blogs > deathly rat |
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
@ghrur yes, some of this is my opinion. I'm not trying to prove anything here, but I'm saying that i'm seeing a trend. IMO there is nothing wrong with the DMR, saying it is luck based is bullshit. | ||
|
soullogik
United States1171 Posts
we grew up on the idea of , game play > graphics unfortunetly a lot of the main companies prefer the opposite | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On April 08 2012 08:57 mewbert wrote: its 90% nostalgia No it's not, it's because games today are catered towards casuals and are therefore excessively dumbed down. The idea of nostalgia doesn't even make sense for video games. Once you buy a video game you can play it whenever you want. So people are directly comparing Game A vs Game B instead of Memory of Game A vs Game B. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On April 08 2012 10:43 deathly rat wrote: There is no way you can say that CoD4 is balanced. Martyrdom? 3 nade spam? M40? Stopping power/Juggernaut? @ghrur yes, some of this is my opinion. I'm not trying to prove anything here, but I'm saying that i'm seeing a trend. IMO there is nothing wrong with the DMR, saying it is luck based is bullshit. I never said it was luck-based. I said it was less skill-based, which is true with bloom due to randomization. Halo players have said it too. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On April 08 2012 11:12 ghrur wrote: I never said it was luck-based. I said it was less skill-based, which is true with bloom due to randomization. Halo players have said it too. how is "luck based" not the same thing as "less skill based due to randomization"? Managing Bloom is there as a skill based mechanism. You can fire more quickly the closer you are to your target. It's actually an extremely common mechanic in FPS games, just Halo ppl never had to consider it before. | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
On April 08 2012 08:57 mewbert wrote: its 90% nostalgia Nailed it. My oldest brother (who is 10 years older than I am) talks about how music is such crap now, even the music I listen to (although I would think that if he actually listened to it, he wouldn't say that), but what he is really saying is that he likes the music he grew up with, because he has memories attached to it - therefore making any other music that is NOT that music sucks. So yeah, almost all of it is pure nostalgia, and the lack of willingness to submit oneself to the new trends. There's nothing wrong with that though - well, at least there's nothing wrong not liking new things. But not liking them purely because their new is a different story. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 08 2012 10:43 soullogik wrote: games were wayyyy harder back in the day we grew up on the idea of , game play > graphics unfortunetly a lot of the main companies prefer the opposite What are you talking about? Companies have been pushing graphics since Day 1. And we were just as sucked in back then as are now. Or did you forget just how cool it was to see an N64's 3d graphics for the first time? Or Final Fantasy 7's first cinematic movie? The problem is that as we get more experience with more content, the less that's new and exciting. If you were someone who touched Pong when it was first created, it was absolutely mind blowing. For most of us here, Pong just has a novelty factor. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On April 08 2012 10:43 deathly rat wrote: There is no way you can say that CoD4 is balanced. Martyrdom? 3 nade spam? M40? Stopping power/Juggernaut? @ghrur yes, some of this is my opinion. I'm not trying to prove anything here, but I'm saying that i'm seeing a trend. IMO there is nothing wrong with the DMR, saying it is luck based is bullshit. 2v2s were incredibly fun there was rarely a time when you blamed the game | ||
|
miicah
Australia2470 Posts
On April 08 2012 08:36 deathly rat wrote:If you released CoD4 at the same time as MW3, everybody would play MW3 Yeah right, I'd definitely give up dedicated servers, promod, and non retarded killstreaks for a few pretty graphics. CoD4 only CoD. | ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
You've probably never played it if you're saying MW3 is better. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 08 2012 08:36 deathly rat wrote: 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. an appeal to hypothetical popularity? wtf | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
This actually might in fact be true. But this is akin to saying Lady Gaga is "better" than Mozart since everyone (or most) would rather listen to her than Mozart. It may have more mass appeal since it has catered to the lowest common denominator, but that's all there is to it. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10344 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
Hopefully funding paradigms like Kickstarter will fix this, c.f. Wasteland 2 | ||
|
Nerv3z
Canada4 Posts
On April 08 2012 11:19 deathly rat wrote: how is "luck based" not the same thing as "less skill based due to randomization"? Managing Bloom is there as a skill based mechanism. You can fire more quickly the closer you are to your target. It's actually an extremely common mechanic in FPS games, just Halo ppl never had to consider it before. Most of the Halo community (myself included) was actually very excited when we first saw the DMR. The hardcore community actually wanted a more skill-shot weapon as the problem with the Battle Rifle was that if only 1/3 shots hit the dmg was still the same as all 3 bullets hitting. The BR was also extremely random in H3, the inconsistent and random spread made it so that medium and far ranged 1v1's were decided on luck rather than skill. What players wanted was a BR that either had 0 spread, a consistent/controllable spread, or a single shot weapon. What the community got was a single shot weapon, but with the same bs inconsistencies of the H3 BR. Bloom/recoil I feel is a great addition to FPS's. It increases the skill-gap significantly, punishes players that are inexperienced and panic, and rewards players who have trained to stay calm and react more on instinct in tight situations. The problem is is that bloom/recoil is often implemented poorly. CS 1.6 is the obvious example of perfect bullet spread/bloom and gun recoil. The learning curve to the guns alone are enough to scare away any newcomer as Players who have been playing for 15+ years will not EVER lose to a new player. They actually know how the guns work in the game and know how to manipulate recoil to aid them. CSS however, is the "newer" version of CS, but in terms of the hardcore crowd it has 0 merit. The recoil is random, the spread is uncontrollable and unpredictable. The skill gap is still large enough for experienced players to dominate, but if there were still professional CSS tourneys today you'd get a lot more random undeserving upsets because of the recoil and bloom system. Halo Reach's Bloom is comparative to CSS, but to an even greater extent. There is very little skill to it. You can control the bloom a little, but it is still extremely random and trying to control it actually hurts you. Spamming as if there was 0 bloom just praying youll kill the other person first often worked better then controlling it for a lot of reasons. - The bloom resetting rate was way to long for the guns ideal controlled fire rate. - Somebody in the MLG community did tests, and proved kill times were barely faster for a perfect 5-shot kill by the DMR compared to just spamming the trigger ( the only difference was at far range) - THe same guy proved that spamming did have small, but way too high of a chance that a spammer could 5-shot (resulting in a MUCH faster kill time) - Bloom wasnt halo. Now I don't know how to describe it to someone who didn't play halo2/3 hardcore. The way Halo works, the speed of the game, the map control, the teamshooting, the close quarter combat battles, it just wasn't Halo. On another point, anybody giving the nostalgia excuse is just kidding themselves. The biggest game that comes to mind for me is the Smash bros series. Sm64 was an awesome game, i still don't personally view it as anything competetive but it was, and still is, awesome to get a few friends over and have a blast with it. SM:Melee was SM64, but just better. It was the same game, but with a ton of new characters and 1 additional move. Additionally the tricks the community found made the game unbelievably depth. Melee is a top level fighting game when played at it's best. The amount of timing, precision, finger dexterity, and defensive maneuvers make it such an amazing game it is still played competively in NA, Mexico, Europe, and Japan even today. After 4 years of not touching that game the past year this is all me and my friends play when we get together because we have yet to find a game that is as fun, as depth, and as social as Melee. Brawl is... what current gaming is. A casual player's dream. The game is fun, and essentially the same game as melee and SM64, but it doesn't have the depth melee or even 64 had, the removal of L-cancel, wavedash, SHFFL'ing, really hurt the game. Even the changes to move balancing has made the game more boring and easier then it should be. There is even a character that cannot be beaten (Metaknight) at high level play and it was a DECISION to have him in the game. Combine this with the addition of tripping and the gimmicky final smash and you get the current game design philosophy. Have the game be easy to pick up, easy to master, reward players with item unlocks instead of a personal achievement of getting better, streamlined, linear, etc etc... That's not saying games today are bad. MOst are fun and enjoyable. But when compared to the games of yesteryear when games were fun, enjoyable, challenging, thought provoking, puzzling, and had actual depth. I personally find it laughable that you say current versions of games are "the best they'll get". | ||
|
GigaFlop
United States1146 Posts
I've played Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. When I played them each, I wasn't thinking of the others. In effect, I was playing them in a vacuum. I enjoyed them all within their separate vacuums. In my eyes, this implies that they all had their merits. However, when I compare them to each other, I find that Oblivion < Skyrim < Morrowind. If you notice, they aren't ordered by age. This is a very subjective measure of quality, though. Not much can be asserted from my observations alone. If a very significant portion of others who share my experience agree with me, however, that might change the validity of the argument that one is better than another. In short, you're being very subjective. What makes a game good? What makes it deserve "AAA" status? | ||
|
Battleaxe
United States843 Posts
1. They aren't as hard as they used to be. Compare a franchise as simple as Mario. Super Mario Bros. for the NES was quite a long game if you played it start to finish without warps, and even with warps was still pretty difficult to the point of getting a game over. Looking to a game like Super Mario 64, despite the fact that progress could be saved, I've personally rarely seen anyone get a game over, and even though, you get to start back from the last star you had. Imagine if game over = losing all your stars, not only would it be more challenging, but also a more rewarding experience. 2. They experience isn't as good as used to be. Now, this isn't necessarily the result of current games having a bad experience, it's just the same bullshit recycled experience over and over and over. Take a game like Goldeneye. One of the most hallowed games to ever grace the N64, and why? Well obviously the multiplayer, but it was the experience of getting to play as James Bond during the single player and smashing your friends in multiplayer (or getting smashed in multiplayer if you weren't that good :D ). Look ahead to game like Call of Duty which you mentioned in your post. The original CoD was an excellent game, great story, multiplayer, an overall excellent experience as a franchise. As a shooter fan, it started as "meh, another fps in WWII", but quickly found it's place for me as a title of its own. Now look to the recent games starting from MW. It's all essentially the same experience. Sure you get some new maps, new guns, new perks, but its all details, the core of the game actually never changes...ever. 3. Less originality. As I know at least one other poster pointed out, much of the games being released today follow what seems to be the current prevalent business model of repackage what's worked in the past with some new/fixed things on top and sell it as something brand new. Again, the CoD series comes to mind right off the bat, with Halo coming in at a close second. You know why a lot of people don't like Reach? Halo was originally planned to be a sequel, Microsoft realized they could still milk money from gamers so they throw some shiny armor and some bloom on their already existing models with some new maps a working single player and VIOLA! Instant cash cow. Look at all the big "blockbuster" games that were announced during the "Big 3" conferences at E3 last year. Pretty much all sequels. You wonder why gamers get mad? Cause they aren't playing anything new. This may be my only point where I don't blame game developers. I blame gamers, as consumers, for buying the same repackaged shit over and over. 4. Game developing is no longer an art (for the large studios). Back in the early stages of gaming, when even the technology of hooking an external device up to your tv was newish, game developers used to pride themselves on delivering the best product possible as not only a game, but as an artistic expression. As the business side and popularity of gaming has increased, the creativity games needed to succeed in the past are no longer needed since there's a formula that works. This is another reason why we're seeing less original games from big studios. 5. Parents are dumb. Now this is probably where I feel my strongest argument lies, however I'm sure most people will disagree with this point entirely, and those that agree probably will not that it's a major point, but here goes. Many of the people who complain about games being too easy, unoriginal, lacking detail, are the gamers who grew up on the older consoles like the Commodore, Atari, NES, and I'd even lump in SNES and Genesis. Growing up on variety, originality, and challenge were the reason video games were so great in the first place. With many of the newer titles, that same sentiment is now lost. These should (hopefully) be the same gamers that do not buy every new iteration of a game that came out. Now, what does that have to do with parents being dumb? Well, assuming the older gamers are not buying these titles, it leave the new generation of up and coming gamers. These are the gamers that know only of CoD, Halo, and all the other major franchises. This is the majority of the gaming population. Interestingly enough, this segment of the gamer population is the largest, but also has no income. Then how do these gamers get the games in their hands? Parents. Now ask yourself, if your parents bought a gun last year (CoD:Black Ops), and were then contacted a year later by the gun manufacturer saying, "Hey, we know your gun still works and all, but we've got this new model coming out this year and it comes with a flashlight! And you can even get the gun in different colors if you want! (CoD:MW3)" Would said parents purchase the new gun? Probably not. I'd hope most people would question, "But if it's just a flashlight and the gun works the same, why can't I just buy the flashlight?" Bringing this back to games, the reason parents deny the upgrade on the gun and permit their child to have the latest installment of a game, I'd imagine a large part of this would be because the parents just do not understand exactly what they are purchasing. If I was to show a gameplay demo (without the HUD) of Black Ops and play it side by side with a MW3 demo, I'd venture most parents would not be able to tell the difference. Tell the parent that the game on the left is the one their child currently owns, and that the one on the right is the one they are asking for, I think you'd have less parents buying CoD games every year for xmas. What I'm hoping is that now the original generations of gamers are becoming parents, we'll start to see more pushback from consumers to create real quality products. I could probably go on with a larger section on DLC, but if you're a gamer and still thinks DLC is good as far as additional content for games, you're just plain dumb if you haven't seen what it's already done to the industry. TLDR: Games aren't as hard, are less engaging, less original, and bought up dumb parents who don't realize they're buying the same repackaged garbage for their kids every year. DLC also sucks, and I think you're a fool if you think it doesn't. | ||
|
Stratos
Czech Republic6104 Posts
IMO, the main difference really comes mainly from the different markets. At times when only a few people owned a PC/console those were usually adults. And if you want to sell your game to a 25+ community and a 15- community, the games better be different. I'd be interested to see the age distribution for games like PST and Diablo 3. From what I've observed, it stands out pretty clearly. And I'm almost certain that if a similar comparable games were to come out now, the distribution would be similar. The teenage gamer doesn't want a challenge. He wants to feel like a mastermind and a hero without putting in any effort + graphics. If he gets stuck in a certain point in the game, he calls the game bugged or stupid and quits playing it. | ||
| ||
