|
Video games in general suck hard. Yes, this is mostly a rant/
NOTE: This post will exclude the mini/arcade stuff in this post for a while at least, (so games like "limbo," or "tetris.") Im talking about the major games: Skyrim, Diablo, Mass Effect, FF, Bioshock, CoD, Halo, etc etc.
* Games are generic, repetitive and lazy. Developers have gone down so many pigeon holes when it comes to design that now its really, REALLY hard to find a unique game, or one that turns the genre on its head. And I dont give a fuck about a single game thats coming out in terms of single player.
* When was the last time you played a game and thought "Oh, dude remember that time when you killed the 368th bad guy on that one level!?" "Yeah, haha that was sick!" --- No. You remember stuff like the nuke going off in real time in Cod4 and your helicopter crashes, or when you have to decide ashleys or kaidens fate in ME1, or the first time you get to the surface in half life 1, or when you jump off the beaten path in Portal against Glados will, or when Andrew Ryan shows his true self... shit like that. and almost none of it has to do with the games gameplay that you've done a billion times before. And, I know, those moments really shine because you've been hacking and slashing and shooting for hours to get there, but still.
* Here are some actual scenes/gameplay of from "Game of the year" winners. and hopefully you will see my point... this is mostly aesthetic things, but still... They suck.
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOIpeUAWCvs
The Skyrim video has multiple things that make me want to vomit.
1. The voice acting is dreadful.
2. After every sentence a charachters says, there is almost a 2 second pause before the game kicks into gear... for example. "Follow the captain prisoner." Ok, waiting, waiting, waiting. ANNNDD girl starts to walk.
3. Animations suck.
4. The writing is literally something that my friends and I would have wrote in middle school. And the whole game is full of these... sure there is some clever stuff or a few quests that make you pay attention to whats unfolded previously, but fuck its bad.
THIS IS A GOTY WINNER! When was the last time a Best picture winner had even 1 fucking scene that had a combination of bad acting, camerawork, etc etc. yet this game and every GOTY winner has these shitfest things happening all the time, but since you are actually "playing" you dont notice them that much.
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZY-sXrQeh0
*The Mass Effect scene has generic string music, (to make things really epic or w.e fuck you.) terrible animations and camera work, i mean half the damn scene is the camera zooming out or in to show really cool stuff or something idk. This is the ending to the god damn game! So shitty! And every fucking game has hundreds of these moments. God damn armeggedon has a better ending than this, and lets be real its michael bay directing.
*Why cant a game come out that has a new gameplay mechanic or multiple for every level. Like take the exampe of the NeoTokyo level in Timesplitters2. Your basic goal is to follow this chick, but the idea is you cant get too close, so you have to stay far enough away, and mulitiple conflicts occure that causes the player to think on his/her feet and solve the puzzle/get to the end. And thats a really basic gameplay idea, that doesnt get enough attention. Like fuck, think of normal every day things you do, that could be translated into the gaming world. And something as simple of a 20 foot radius attached to a charachter and you cant enter that radius isnt hard to program. and adding a quick time event isnt what i mean for a new idea. Seriously, there are INFINITE gameplay mechanics that nobody makes because, who cares right now? But guess what, in 2 years after the new consoles come out or crysis 3, people will realize that its just the same fucking games with slighty better controls and graphics.
Its going to take a 2001 a space odyssey to revive games or a Blue Velvet or a something. games suck and people will start to get sick of them, or maybe im being to harsh. Just imagine a game that has a new twist every level, or every section of the level. If games want to take that next step into the quality of movies which the CAN, they need to step it up. Books to Movies to Games, it's just logical.
*Games can be interactive which just adds a whole new level of awesome that movies and music just cant touch, without being too gimmicky like the movie "Clue" which featured different endings in different theatres depending on which ones you went to. Or Bjorks new album which can be slightly altered with some buttons. I mean even though games are pretty dull atm, the fact that a million people can play 1 game, and all have a different expierence is tremendous, and thats not even bringing up what multiplayer or co-op can do... and I love games I really do, I play sc2 the instant I get done with work, or make Farcry2 maps for my friends when im bored, but my god dont you guys see whats happening? These big important titles are groing stagnant, while the rest of the industry is going mobile, and casual... will gamers really be fine with playing 5 dollar arcadey games on their new smartphones?
I'll close this BS rant with some great movie scenes, these scenes games just havent matched, yet. IN ANY WAY. Heavy rains got some interesting moments Limbo does, Half life does, Uncharted does, Bioshock does etc etc, but at the end of the day they still suck.
And lastly, games need to stop with the shitty fucking writing, i mean jesus christ gears of war or fucking skyrim
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
sorry im a lil drunk dont be hatin, post some of your fav videogame moments or prove me wrong!
 
|
Firstly WniO I just want to say I love Agria Sky, thanks for making it.
You are vastly underestimating the effort it takes to create a good game. While I agree with your criticisms of Skyrim, the fact is that it does offer the player a good deal of freedom within the constraints of the world.
I'm not sure why people hate on the animations of the Mass Effect series. You know how difficult using motion cpautre and refining it is? the music may be generic in your opinion, but to me, it is very emotional.
Since you're slightly drunk...3/5
|
It feels like it is time for you to quit gaming. 
|
Enjoy!
You're welcome :p
(nsfwish)
|
I feel that somewhere out there, there is a kid working on a indie game not giving a fuck about what the standards of game making is currently. He sees what game making is an art form and he is going to show the world how special our little hobby can actually be.
|
NOTE: This post will exclude the mini/arcade stuff in this post for a while at least, (so games like "limbo," or "tetris.") Im talking about the major games: Skyrim, Diablo, Mass Effect, FF, Bioshock, CoD, Halo, etc etc.
I read up to this part and realized you don't know anything, Tetris is bigger than all those games you listed combined. It always was and it always will be.
|
Well people who are really into video games know that all the game you have named are pretty much mediocre.
D1 was good when it was released though but H'n'S are just way to primitive to be exciting, it gets old pretty fast (or at least it should lol). Any game involving massive amount of grinding is a big nono for me.
All the others names you have listed are dumbed down versions of superior games.
SS/Dx > Bioshock
Dx/Bg/Torment/Vtm > FF / mass effect and all the pseudorpgtrash.
Quake/old Ut/CS > Console FPS
The funny think is that i was playing Unreal 1 last week and i realized that the guys who made Halo COMPLETLY copied Unreal haha. Except that almost everything is worse and you don't get level like the Sunspire, cool music and fast paced action.
Also on a pure aesthetic level, all the games you have listed are ugly except D1 (Even if it is technically limited) and Bioshock (but that's the only thing they got it right lol).
|
Sounds like you lost your passion. Mass Effect and Skyrim are great.
And The Social Network is a terrible movie. 
|
How much do you know about indie games?
|
On May 18 2012 19:05 Sinensis wrote:Sounds like you lost your passion. Mass Effect and Skyrim are great. And The Social Network is a terrible movie.
What is Skyrim great at exactly? the only thing great about Skyrim is that there is a lot of content to waste your time with. The quality of the content and the time wasted is fucking abysmal, worse than almost any RPG released the last decade, excluding Bethesda's own games. The acting, the dialogue, the maturity, the combat system, the balance, the storyline, the bugs. It's not great.
And you totally missed his point. Even if you think Mass Effect and Skyrim are great, you'd have to be delusional to believe they have gotten to the point movies has. They're still like 2 year old kids playing around in a sandbox in comparison.
Most games in the 90's had a lot of depth and creativity, a lot closer to rival other mediums than this present corporate greed mainstream industry which is all about pumping out successors and claiming ip rights while trying to squeeze out some last money with half-assed patches which somehow were renamed to DLCs. Give me one, just one fucking game rivaling stuff like Grim Fandango or Planescape Torment in 2012 and I'll shut up.
|
This is why I can't understand the fever surrounding Diablo 3, so dull.
|
On May 18 2012 19:37 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 19:05 Sinensis wrote:Sounds like you lost your passion. Mass Effect and Skyrim are great. And The Social Network is a terrible movie. What is Skyrim great at exactly? the only thing great about Skyrim is that there is a lot of content to waste your time with. The quality of the content and the time wasted is fucking abysmal, worse than almost any RPG released the last decade, excluding Bethesda's own games. The acting, the dialogue, the maturity, the combat system, the balance, the storyline, the bugs. It's not great. And you totally missed his point. Even if you think Mass Effect and Skyrim are great, you'd have to be delusional to believe they have gotten to the point movies has. They're still like 2 year old kids playing around in a sandbox in comparison. Most games in the 90's had a lot of depth and creativity, a lot closer to rival other mediums than this present corporate greed mainstream industry which is all about pumping out successors and claiming ip rights while trying to squeeze out some last money with half-assed patches which somehow were renamed to DLCs. Give me one, just one fucking game rivaling stuff like Grim Fandango or Planescape Torment in 2012 and I'll shut up.
There are still good games and good game studios not all developers are subsidiaries of Activision. Shadow of the Colossus is better than any movie I have ever seen and the HD release on PS3 was just last year.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
You're giving the 90s games too much credit. Try replaying them now, you will find that very few if any actually match that impression, especially regarding the gameplay innovations.
Fallout:NV, Dragon Age 1, Mass Effect 1 and Witcher 1/2 are really really good relatively recent RPGs in my book, on the other hand I think Skyrim totally sucks (feels like playing WoW in single player) and Diablo 3 is OK but nothing special.
How about Portal 2? Isn't that fun fresh gameplay? Or Relic's RTSs?
And to be honest I hate most indie games these days that try too hard to "innovate", because too often their whole gameplay is dependent on one gameplay gimmick, and as soon as that gets old (which is within 15 minutes for me on average) the game gets totally boring.
|
You seem to be arguing that games suck for two reasons: bad gameplay and bad drama/aesthetic/plot execution (non-gameplay stuff).
I'd say non-gameplay stuff has certainly IMPROVED in recent years. It's been slow, steady improvement. You complain about stuff like voice-acting, but a lot of these games see big name, talented actors voice-actors signed up. I think games need to make mroe effort to make better use of these talents, and create more unique and interesting characters, rather than the same old archetypes that we see again and again. But on the whole, this aspect has improved. Furthermore, even if plots remain rather predictable and dull, with the exception of a game like Bioshock (perhaps), the manner of story-telling has certainly improved. Gone are the days of text boxes and cut-scenes as the only way to tell a story. You list a number of great story-telling moments yourself:
You remember stuff like the nuke going off in real time in Cod4 and your helicopter crashes, or when you have to decide ashleys or kaidens fate in ME1, or the first time you get to the surface in half life 1, or when you jump off the beaten path in Portal against Glados will, or when Andrew Ryan shows his true self
These are great moments, and unique acheivments in the field of videogames. I think it's problematic to compare video-games to movies, as you do, (how could any videogame be remotely relatable to The Social Network? They offer entirely different experiences) but if you are criticising the quality of story-telling in videogames, I think there are clear signs of progress rather than the reverse.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with gameplay, which is the most important aspect of a game, in my opinion. Again, I think innovation continues. Portal is the stand-out example of innovation that comes to mind, but also the games that have spawned the huge wave of anonymous carbon copies should be seen as succesful, innovative contributions. Games like the first Halo and Grand Theft Auto 3. It's hard to think of them as anything other than banal, thanks to the endless waves of sequels and imitators, but those titles became influential because they were great games in the first place. Other examples that spring to mind are the Relic games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War, which did amaaaaazzing things for the RTS genre, but didn't explode to the extent they deserved.
There is a lot of monotonous trash in videogaming, but this is also the case in mediums such as movies, music and books. On the whole, I think we can see progress, not decay. Be patient!
TL;DR innovation in gameplay is out there, and games are improving as a story-telling medium, slowly but surely
|
Play shadow of the colossus. It's a PS2 game, and holy shit, it blew my mind. I value it higher than my alltime favorite BW.
fuck, sinensis ninja'd me
|
On May 18 2012 21:18 Random() wrote:
You're giving the 90s games too much credit. Try replaying them now, you will find that very few if any actually match that impression, especially regarding the gameplay innovations.
Fallout:NV, Dragon Age 1, Mass Effect 1 and Witcher 1/2 are really really good relatively recent RPGs in my book, on the other hand I think Skyrim totally sucks (feels like playing WoW in single player) and Diablo 3 is OK but nothing special.
How about Portal 2? Isn't that fun fresh gameplay? Or Relic's RTSs?
And to be honest I hate most indie games these days that try too hard to "innovate", because too often their whole gameplay is dependent on one gameplay gimmick, and as soon as that gets old (which is within 15 minutes for me on average) the game gets totally boring.
Games of that era deserve mucho credit. I have been a gamer since 1988 and have to say that the late 90's espcially was the best period for video gaming I have encountered, FFVII, Zelda Oot and Metal Gear Solid standing out from a great number of games from the same time.
I do agree that games of late are less innovative in many aspects and gameplay wise can be lacking. The aspect which I believe has stopped the gaming industry from failing is the inclusion and widespread use of online multiplayer we see available of a high number of game releases.
As an old school gamer myself at heart, do I play the elitist jerk card of newer age games? - No. I actaully purchased Skyrim and D3 on release and enjoy playing them, otherwise I would just not bother if I found them no fun or thought they sucked.
|
On May 18 2012 21:36 blubbdavid wrote:
Play shadow of the colossus. It's a PS2 game, and holy shit, it blew my mind. I value it higher than my alltime favorite BW.
fuck, sinensis ninja'd me
The HD version on PS3 is better to play, mainly because it doesn't lag during some of the larger Colossi. Even the Ps2 version was released in the past decade though. There are definitely still good games.
|
You should play Braid. Small indie puzzle game but the only game recently (besides Limbo) that has truly blown me away.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On May 18 2012 21:48 Swift118 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:18 Random() wrote:
You're giving the 90s games too much credit. Try replaying them now, you will find that very few if any actually match that impression, especially regarding the gameplay innovations.
Fallout:NV, Dragon Age 1, Mass Effect 1 and Witcher 1/2 are really really good relatively recent RPGs in my book, on the other hand I think Skyrim totally sucks (feels like playing WoW in single player) and Diablo 3 is OK but nothing special.
How about Portal 2? Isn't that fun fresh gameplay? Or Relic's RTSs?
And to be honest I hate most indie games these days that try too hard to "innovate", because too often their whole gameplay is dependent on one gameplay gimmick, and as soon as that gets old (which is within 15 minutes for me on average) the game gets totally boring. Games of that era deserve mucho credit. I have been a gamer since 1988 and have to say that the late 90's espcially was the best period for video gaming I have encountered, FFVII, Zelda Oot and Metal Gear Solid standing out from a great number of games from the same time. I do agree that games of late are less innovative in many aspects and gameplay wise can be lacking. The aspect which I believe has stopped the gaming industry from failing is the inclusion and widespread use of online multiplayer we see available of a high number of game releases. As an old school gamer myself at heart, do I play the elitist jerk card of newer age games? - No. I actaully purchased Skyrim and D3 on release and enjoy playing them, otherwise I would just not bother if I found them no fun or thought they sucked.
In the 90s the games were innovative because the game design was an unexplored field, people didn't know what worked and what didn't, they had to try stuff and whole new genres were discovered. The limited technology available at also played a big role, improvements in computing technology during the 90s were enormous and opened new paths for game development every year but were not yet so advanced that developing content for a video game would cost a hundred million dollars.
But now pretty much everything that is possible within the traditional gaming framework (a controller, a display/sound device and a computer) has been explored, there is not that much new stuff that you can try and expect it to sell (because you know that other people have already tried that before and that didn't work), the technology limitations are mostly gone (not in the sense of improving visuals, but in the sense that probably any sensible gameplay idea that someone could come up with could be implemented without too much problems) and the limiting factor is the profitability of those ideas.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that although the 90s were indeed a golden age in gaming, game devs had much more room for innovation back then, and because the development costs were not astronomical they could afford to release experimental and niche games, which is, sadly, just not economically viable anymore.
|
1/5. Why are you in a gaming forum if you hate games? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Games are evolving. Every genre has improvements in depths and complexity of gameplay. From RPGs now you have MMORPGs, and a ton more features. In RTSs, you can add racial diversity, tech trees, skill trees, heroes, resource management... the list goes on. If you think that the first RTS is the same as the most recent one, you must be living under some rock.
No new gameplay mechanics? Portal would like to have a word with you.
Please think before posting. If you're drunk, please don't post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
