WTF happened to games

Video games are not games anymore.  I don't know what they are, but they aren't games.  No matter how much of a graphical facade a video game has on the outside, the real game is about an abstract goal which is achieved through twitch skill or mental skill.  The true fun in video games comes from success and failure of doing these acts.  Any enjoyment from the graphical facade - like an emotionally engaging story or the splattering of gratuitous blood - is merely an added bonus and it is not meant to deliver the main 'fill' of the game.

Too many modern video games have an absolutely crap game underneath.  All these games have to offer is the graphical facade: the story, the characters, the explosions and the particle effects.  To make up for the shit gameplay these types of games try to succeed (and often do) by making the presentation beautiful so that no one stops to notice/care about the mentally retarded gameplay.  It is a cinematic video game disease.  It is especially common in post FF7 RPG's and post half-life FPS's.

Video gamers have already diverged into those who buy into empty shell graphical facades and those who don't.  I don't know what the fuck happened.  The empty shell camp seems to be winning too.

Dragon Warrior had such deep gameplay, didn't it?

>>2
Fine, I get your point.  The gameplay is unplayable by modern standards.  I'm not so sure though if it was successful at the time because of its fantasy facade or its gameplay.  Note also I prefaced the phrase "post FF7" with the words "especially common".  I'm saying FF7 was a turning point.  Never before FF7 did empty RPGs get tons of 'hype'.  Hype is actually an inaccurate word to describe what is going on.   My thesis is that the level of praise over empty games transcends hype and can only be explained if people actually do love them that much, hence the statment about gamers diverging.

>>3
Actually, this hype stuff has been around for alot longer than FF7.

Here is the history on overhype in games.

The pre-NES era had some companies that try to have "more fluid animation" than others, even going as far as having movie licenses.  This resulted in the business crashing, with hundreds of crap titles like E.T. on Atari 2600.

NES came around, along with SEGA master system.  Hype kept Mario around, while Alex Kidd and Psycho Fox fell.

Then the 16-bit era where SEGA try to claim the Genesis (Mega Drive) was better with commercials such as the kid who becomes uber popular when getting the system and the "welcome to the next level" phrase.  Well, both systems became very well recieved, with a nice, even mix of intelligent gamers, like you and I, who choose good games and overhype fools who choose games because of the hype.

Then the Playstation came around.  This is when overhype got out of hand and companies started catering more and more to those who want the hype and less to people who want true gaming.

So you can't really blame FF7 or the hype because the hype always existed.  You can only blame the idiot game designers who only want hype.

FYI, I am not a Final Fail, I just thought that some more accurate information should be present about gaming hype.

>>4
I blame the retards who fell for the hype.

>>6
I still blame the companies for allowing hype to control their decisions.

>>4
Hmm.  OP stands corrected.  I'll trust your word on this.  My perception of hype in the old eras is probably horribly biased by youth.

There is a gradual change that has been going on though, you said it yourself: designers are chasing hype more and more.  Is this what is behind the shift towards style over substance?  And aren't gamers just as guilty then - for rewarding empty games with hype?  It feels like a cruel joke to think that good gameplay will become extinct because there are always enough gamers to misplace hype into shitty games.

I am just waiting for a second collapse of the gaming industry.  But I doubt that would happen, because of constant work towards maintaining hype and capital.  And look at some of the tops.  Nintendo may just get the ball rolling again after hiatus, Sony can maintain capital through discplayers and such, and Microsoft always has the computer.  So shit will stay with the mainstream for life.

That is why I stick to Flash games online and garage games.  I avoid almost all mainstream games.  There is only like, one good original game for every thirty, fourty pieces of crap.

Maybe we'll get lucky and have a crash.  Or maybe there will be some kind of upset where one year a bunch of quality indie games clean up the holiday season against multi mullion hype machines (not bloody likely anytime soon though).

I do hear video game budgets are out of control though.  There is always hope.

How about someone here create an indie game that does that?

Though, I am afraid that the mainstream will rape that idea as soon as it hits.

ITT BAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW

I have had brief delusions of wanting to do that actually: upstaging a mainstream game.  You could take an easy target, like the Star Fox series (saying the series has seen better times would be an understatement) make your own Star Fox style game - but actually based on good design - and release it around the same time.  You could make a habit of always doing this with every release you made too, so every time you released a game people would be forced to compare it to an inferior mainstream equivalent.

Maybe you could build hype and use it as preemptive defense to counter imitators.  Ironically in the indie scene hype has swung too far in the other direction, you get hype just because your game is indie.  It seems that even if the game is 'meh', as long it crosses a threshold of popularity people will start deluding themselves into saying it is great just because "hey look, its indie!".

I call those Gamers Graphic Whores.

I agree, game play should come before Graphics.

THAT'S WHY I PLAY GAMES ONLY ON EMULATORS!

>>1
Nintendo seem to be the only ones that are actually pushing gaming innovation. The Wii haters/trolls around here seem to forget how much innovation Nintendo has invested into their controls and 1st party games. Sure, they churn out their share of sequels, but they have had a real and positive impact upon the direction of gaming throughout history.

Also, in before nintendofag.

Say, me and my friends have been trying to come up with a new way to do the platform fighter genre.

For those who don't know, platform fighters are games like Smash Bros. and Digimon Rumble Arena.

Anyways, not trying to out do what is out there, just provide a different way of doing it.

First is environmental interaction.  In my honest opinion, alot of games that have "interactive environments" just don't seam all that interactive.  They all just have stage hazards and destructable terrain.  I would like to see more than that.

The second, a somewhat different fighting system where defense requires skill.  The reason for defense requiring skill is mostly personal.  Me and my friends strongly despise turtling and not one fighting game has successfully come up with a way to deal with the cheapness of repeated blocking.

Our only big problem is character design, so we ain't got much to work on, per say.

I also have an idea for a point and click, RPG crossover that should work well.  Sadly, I never got it down because I keep failing at getting the story set right.  Basically, multiple paths and player based decisions done right.

I'll contact you when I'm a publisher

>>15 Nintendo seem to be the only ones that are actually pushing gaming innovation

Yes, 8.8 was such an innovative, groundbreaking game.

>>18
lol wut?

>>19
SARCASM

>>16
I hear OpenGL is good.

>>21
OpenGL?

>>1
Sorry, but I have to disagree on every level. RPGs have always been empty shells. Phantasy Star 1, 2, and 3 had you pacing just outside of town to grind for experience, just like most RPGs of the time. FF7 replaced mindless grinding with cutscenes.

FPS games have always been difficult to get right, because the capacity for full-on twitch gaming just isn't there. I don't see any gameplay failing when I compare Halo to Castle Wolfenstein or Quake. One has a bad plot and some good gameplay elements (such as using vehicles), the others have gameplay that isn't better in any way.

You talk about "empty shell graphical facades" as if there are games out there that aren't, but there just isn't. When you take away the graphics, the drama-school plot, and the (occasionally) intriguing gameplay advancements of new games, you're left with an OLD game. This of course ignores strategy games, which are a niche market that generally uses older technology, but that's not the split you're talking about, is it?

>>23
In a sense, I agree, and in a sense, I disagree.

All video game RPGs, even those that have a good fan following, always fail to be like it's predecesor, the traditional RPG.  Some just try to make up for it with a story or characters that would appeal to the potential fanbase.  Others just try for newer systems to appeal to a broader audience.  What >>1 was trying to get at is that the newer games are too cookie cutter and overhyped.  In the past, they just tried to be like the traditional games, which was unpopular at the time.  Now, they try to do whatever is needed to be like what is "cool".  For example, there was Dragon Warrior, now it is Blue Dragon.  That may be a bad example, but it comes close to what is trying to be said.

I won't go into FPS because I always act like an ass with that genre.

Anyways, new games don't really have much.  Graphics does make the new games what it is, for the most part.  In that, it is pointless to go out and actually buy the game.  If graphics is your thing, then your better off going to Youtube and just watch demos of the same game over and over.  For the most part, that is how it is like when playing, so why bother when your just watching rather than playing.

Drama-school plot has been around for a while, so whether or not it stays or goes really won't make the game newer or older.  Though, new games tend to use the same drama-school plot, offering nothing new, giving the game no reason to buy it since you can get the same experience in an old game you may already have.  So why buy a game if it has the same thing you already got.  It's a waste of money.

As for gameplay advancements, I have yet to see a true advancement.  Show me what you think is an advancement and I may show you how non-advanced it really is.

OP here.

>>23
"FPS games have always been difficult to get right, because the capacity for full-on twitch gaming just isn't there."

Explain this, it sounds interesting.

As for a general reply to >>23 and >>24:  Admittely I'm confused and I'm not so sure what I'm trying to get at anymore.  I'll try to collect my thoughts:

"You talk about "empty shell graphical facades" as if there are games out there that aren't, but there just isn't."

Platformers and shmups are a good example.  If you strip away the concrete representation of leaping plumbers and flying spaceships there is still something interesting that is left.  What is left is an abstract game about skill, precision, and technique.  Most of the actual fun comes from this part of the game.  The fun is in the thrill of a quick reaction or barely making a successful maneuver or whatever.  Likewise in a game like Zelda there is something fun about the abstract puzzles of figuring out how you are supposed to use your items to interact with the environment to get through a dungeon.

Still I have to admit you are right and and I was wrong when it comes to many other games.  A lot of games including RPGs never really had an interesting inner game (I contend that there are RPGs that do, but they are outliers in the genre anyways).

Since this is the case, I say it shouldn't be forgivable anymore.  The simple RPG gameplay is getting old.  It only was fun before because the idea of a long adventure in a fantasy setting was fresh compared to style of games at the time.  Wrapping this primitive gameplay in more and more clothing isn't fun;  it doesn't make it feel less worn out.

Another gripe about modern games and all their graphical overlay is that it can actually hurt the gameplay and drag it down instead of just covering it up.  Too much cinematic presentation makes the game slower by adding downtime in between the spurts of gameplay.  Also just in general overuse of graphics and animations make little things take much longer than they used to.

I don't know if what >>24 said is what I was originally trying to say, but I do agree with it anyway.  The fact that the same cookie cutter game with a better facade gets so much hype is annoying.  The problem is that this ridiculous level of hype has shaped the way game progress is perceived.

"As for gameplay advancements, I have yet to see a true advancement.  Show me what you think is an advancement and I may show you how non-advanced it really is."

I would consider the birth of every popular genre to be an advancement.  Take for example Dune II and the subsequent games of Warcraft and C&C which defined the RTS genre. 

Within an established genre I agree with your statement more; advancement is meager at best.  You don't have to be dismissive of it though.  If Starcraft and Warcraft III had the same gameplay as Warcraft 1 then they would have sucked.  When you get down to what exactly changed from WC1 it doesn't sound very advanced.

>>25
This is right on the money.

In my view, a game can engage the players primarily in two ways: stategy/puzzle mental stimulation and quasi-physical twitch stimulation. Plot lines, graphics, etc are arguably inferior sources of engagement.

Final Fantasy 7 is probably an example of one of the best RPGs. There's some depth to the strategy (such as with the materia system and some minigames), at least for an RPG. Contrast that with FF1 that has mindless grinding and FF12 that is inspired by brainless MMOs. It's modest, but I don't agree that it's the worst of the lot.

What the genre needs is a realization that it isn't a real genre. Strategy-RPGs like Disgaea can succeed (despite their faults) because they actually engage the player. Imagine for a moment that Disgaea was without grinding, and was instead a hardcore strategy game like Vantage Master. While it would be even more of a niche product, it would be a solid game with good potential. Cinematics and other plot components would be seen as they should be- as a just reward for going through the difficulty of the game, rather than as filler. Action-RPGs have a similar situation.

FPS games have always had the problem that they cannot and will never be able to match the twitch quality of a true shooting game (R-Type), while at the same time they're too fast-paced (and when it comes down to it, too myopic in terms of what the player sees) to have compelling strategy/puzzle components. Thus, the FPS needs graphical quality and multiplayer competition in order to engage the player.

Gameplay is advancing, but at a slower pace than graphical quality. This isn't a fault of the industry- it's just intrinsic to how things are. Gameplay innovations require a spark of creativity; better graphics just need better technology, since it just means that the artists have fewer artificial limitations to work under.

I agree that it's too bad that 'facade-based' games are getting so much attention, but that really is just a product of what the market desires. Developers would love to pump out cheap games like Killer 7 (which I realize is an all-fluff game, but at least has value thematically) and Disgaea, but the games that get attention are the ones with the big technology. Naturally, those are also the ones that cost the most to make, so we see that split in the industry. When all the kids care about is how many polygons are on the screen, developers are going to play it safe in terms of gameplay, and they're going to focus on genres that are approachable and benefit well from better graphics (FPS, sports).

On the plus side, pretty soon photo-realism in games will be a reality. I think there will be a complete shift in the industry at that point, as graphics will no longer be a selling point at all.

Holy fucking shit, I think that what all of you do need is to remove that large piece of lumber stuck up your asses. Seriously, what the fuck?

>>25
What I said of gameplay advancements, I was refering to recent attempts.  I mean, as a whole, there was alot of advancements.  But from the middle point of the 32-bit era on, there has been little advancements aside from graphics.  Like, the most recent true innovations was a touch screen, and that really isn't saying much.  Especially since so much more can be done with the touch screen, but isn't.

>>26
You sort of told me off with your statement.  I was overlooking so much myself.  Like, I do agree with you about player engagement, but I'm guilty of liking some of the not so engaging RPGs.  But that is mostly because the ones I get interested in have a story I like (I'm a sci-fi nerd bigtimes).
Still, I agree alot with what your saying.  Even some of my favorites I wished was more engaging.

Sort of like what I was trying to say, is that the console RPG should be more like the traditional RPG.  For what made traditional RPG's so engaging for the player wasn't just human interaction or full customization, but control of the flow of the story, given that the game master does a good job of course.  Most console RPGs, even those that do have mountains of customizing options, are not engaging enough.  There should be alot more ways that an RPG can change story.  Then again, I really shouldn't bitch too much about it.  I have tried myself and kept having trouble with such a story.

>>27
Well, alot of us are just pissed that most games out there have nothing worth getting into and that alot of great potential is being tossed aside just because a used up concept sells more.

>>27

is trying to point out that your seriously over analyzing it.

Being a gamer for 16 years myself I can see both sides of it.

On one hand all that is really "new" are the graphical advancements.. So when 360 and ps3 came out.. my question was "what makes it worth it to spend all that money on a high def tv, a high def gaming console..". I personally find its not worth it.

Quite honestly the simple fact of the matter is this. Gaming is becoming "popular". The more popular gaming becomes the more wannabe hardcore gamers we have.

I hate to say it because I just know someone is gunna feel the need to get their pannies in a wad over it. But, Alot of people play halo for hours on end and assume that makes them "expert uber 1337 gamers" and then assume they know everything about the market and consoles and computers in general.

I am picking on halo because, it has bothered me for a while how as soon as you mention video games halo comes up. However, the simple fact is as long as there are people who only play halo calling themselves gamers. The market is going to attempt to make games for the halo gamers.

I am not saying halo is a bad game however, I do feel its way over rated. And thats where the problem lies. So long as there is a huge market of casual gamers willing to bite into whatever is cool at the moment developers are going to target them.

You can really break it down into two groups. gamers and then the people following the fad.

With that being said I personally like RPG's that can change that can be reinacted in different ways that you can go back threw and try to pick up something new and different. However, I must admit I'm a sucker for any with a good story line.

In honesty I can always find a game that I enjoy. I enjoy some of the less herd of and popular games simply because I don't expect anything from them. So whatever I get is great.

I personally play to have fun and really the game I play just depends on my mood or what just pulls me in the most. Sometimes its a playstation 1 game. Sometimes it F.E.A.R. might be a flash game one day. Or RE:4 for the wii. however, I think its worth mentioning I believe in balance. I don't believe any one aspects is so overly important in a game that it over rules all others.

I believe style is more important then graphics. However, I aslo believe that you need a certain level of graphics to achieve any given style properly. I believe game play is important because why play if its not fun? However, I also like story lines because it leaves a feeling of accomplishment.

So on one hand I can agree. with 27. If you can find a game you enjoy then just play it damnit. ON the other hand. I hate how its really about pleasing the people chasing the fad while those of us who believe gaming is its own lifestyle suffer.

>>29

"I am not saying halo is a bad game however, I do feel its way over rated. And thats where the problem lies. So long as there is a huge market of casual gamers willing to bite into whatever is cool at the moment developers are going to target them"

I think this is a view many people on this board share, but think about it; if these people by whatever is cool at the time, who makes it cool? Surely it must be "hardcore gamers."

Another thing I seem to pick up earlier in the thread is that people stay away from mainstream games, because they're all fads. So playing indie games must be really cool!! Don't judge a game on whether its being sold in a high street store or on an obscure website, look at it and decide for yourself. Otherwise your just like the sheep you keep putting down.

I don't see any problem with fancy graphics and deep storylines. Part of playing a game is being pulled into it, and experiencing it. Its a lot easier when what you're looking at resembles the thing its ment to be.

And before someone tells me I'm a wannabe gamer, I have played old school games with rubbish graphics, but I also like games with epic storylines. Take FF7, I really want to play it, but staring at those awful graphics and those loading times, I just hope they bring out a remake.

Fine, if you really hate good looking graphics, don't play games on PS3 or 360, but don't get upset because games companies bring them out. You layout an idea for an innovative game and see if others like it.

2nd industry collapse will happen when companies realise that they can milk more money from Casual gamers, we've seen it happen already on the Wii, and how did that end up? We have about 3 games that aren't shitty minigame collections or that will last more than a few hours, eventually even casual gamers will realise that they're being fed the same crap over and over again, ironic really that Nintendo could cause the collapse of an industry that it saved so many years ago...

Games industry is like every other industry. It goes through the shit periods and unfortunately, we're in the decline, with games being "in" and "popular".

Give it time. People who join the "in crowd" have the attention span of goldfish and will move on to something else and those companies that just ride the wave will find themselves wiped out.

So in this era of gaming. Choose carefully, do not piss your cash away and encourage the lameness as it'll only get worse and for fucks sake DO NOT PRE-ORDER! The only reason game producers get away with it is because of one thing. YOU.

now there is not as much of a market in games that do not have good graphics or story. Look and nintendo, they have some really cool ass games if you play them but the fact is that the people that care don't buy enough to make the game break even. Thats why with the Game Cube did not sell as well, the hardcore gamers that know that graphics are not really that much of a deal don't buy enough, and the majority of people are casual gamers and look at the back of the box and see a kids game.

>>33
Nintendo create their own shitstorm. They close markets, fuck users around and generally concentrate their market in Japan. They were still operating a 20 year old business model during the GameCube days and thats why it died.

The Wii will succeed slightly more but they still believe their main market is Japan and thereby alienate other markets through their own actions.

I agree whole hardy with all the recent posts since I last posted.

However I am not one of those who avoid the mainstream market.  I'll look.  If I see something I like, I'll get it.  If not, then I don't bother.

For me, the biggest thing seams to be the music.  As stupid as it may sound, my decision often times is reflected in the sound track.  Hell, I have Twisted Metal 4 in my disk player right now, with my fav track being Neon City's.

However, there have been games that I got and enjoyed simply because it either required skill, was deep, or both.  The two Lost Kingdom games on gamecube I often come back to, even more so than Paper Mario.  Awesome game, but many put Lost Kingdoms down for it's "card monsters" setup.  I guess that is an example of something awesome being turned down just because of the mainstream.

I disagree with you here. Many games can have gameplay as well as graphics. When I'm saying this I'm thinking of Bioshock and Mario games. I mean the new mario one looks great, but it still has great gameplay (at least from what I've seen in the videos.)

What is so good about Bioshock gameplay?  It doesn't look very challenging.  It actually looks easier than most FPSes.

read reviews about BioShock...play the demo...you will find out

Why dont u apply the whole graphics thing to the opposite sex

tl;dr

the reason you see a lot of games with shitty gameplay and "pritteh" graphics is because it sells. developers are interested in making popular games AND getting paid. as an indie studio, you can only sell a publisher on a title that will obviously market well.

games arent the sort of thing that are finished before they're brough to market. as an indie, you make a short playable demo (if that) and try to get a publisher to pick you up so you can afford to eat.

it even happens indies that have a dream game in mind and sign with a publisher. once those milestone dates start bearing down, you can bet the publisher won't be clammering for the gameplay if the game looks like shit. the developers are inclined to do what the publishers say because otherwise they're broke. sadly, most publishers don't know jack shit about what makes a game fun.

ex: bullet witch is fun - who gives a shit if there's z-fighting issues with the stencil shadows?

the big commercial studios are obviously interested in making money too. they're hard-pressed to stray from proven formats for a reason. why spend an extra three to six months on pre-production design aspects like story and a couple extra months towards the end of the project on gameplay tweaking if you can sell the title almost as well without all that? that's 4+ months salary for 50 or so people that they can just subtract from the total production cost of the project.

the bottom line is, shitty games are being hyped and sold because the hype works. shitty games will continue being made as long as gamers keep buying shitty games.

the only thing you can do about it as a gamer is say 'i dont like shitty games and i wont buy them'. believe it or not, thats a step in the right direction.

>>40

I'm humbled by your intelligence.

I'm not being sarcastic, you just gave me alot to think about.  There are alot of good points that you posted.

Sadly, that is true.  Publishers just want what sells.  The designers, coders, and everyone else are not given the time needed to actually fix any flaws that are present.  And because there are many more people that want outer appearance rather than substance, Publishers will focus on that the most and not give the time needed.

I guess I'll think twice before looking for publishers again.  I'll just wait till I have complete projects before presenting demos.

>>37
Truly, Bioshock isn't easyer than other FPS's

In a sense, it reminds me of the Half Life Series.  Personally, one of my favorite video game series(Second only to The Legend Of Zelda). 

It does this because it's gameplay is fluid and believeable.  Sure the graphics are beautiful, but that isn't what makes me want the game. (The HL Referance in the beginning was cute <3)

 When you get into a game, you should judge on a fair scale.  GAmeplay weighing the heavyist, graphics and sound weighing the same.  like a 5:2 ratio.  unfortunatly, most casual gamers do not judge like this.  they pick something up because its a mainstream game, or because of the hype.  Dispite weather a critic gave it a good review.  Why do you think there are so many naruto games?  Because people buy them. 

In short, don't buy bad games, just because they are pretty people <3

I think gaming has lost a lot of its edge, when you look at most games today, single player modes are shit if you look at metroid prime hunters for example extremely shitty single but a decent multiplayer (and as of yet there is no other good DS FPS) and the failed Halo 2 it seems everyone concentrates on multiplayer.

I guess because when your friends (assuming you have some) buys a game with multiplayer support, you also want to own that game to play along with them, so that generates more sales because if Halo 2 was just like Halo without live support i'm sure the series would have died right then and there the single wasn't as fulfilling i find the levels were less rehash sure but the game didn't have a great feel, the only positive point I have about Halo 2's single player is the AI its actually pretty impressive at Legendary.

I usually only play games in multiplayer mode when I beat the solo and I want more of this game I like the Gameplay I like the sounds (very key for me because im Auditory)
the way it looks and ultimately if it has a multiplayer story.

But there will be times when I play exclusively Multiplayer games its rare because most of them are shite really only CSS comes to mind because the rest are failed MMOs.

I think story in games is not very important I'm not someone who gets very engaged into stories I gave up on listening and especially reading stories in video games they are usually horrid or the same as always, the last story I paid attention to was Ace Combat 5 The Unsung War, at first I skipped all the intros before missions explaining why these people fucking
fly,
but at some point I Began to really pay attention I believe it was when they mention the legends of the Razgriz and I wanted to know wtf does demons have to do with jets.

Ace comabat 5 was a game I wish had a multiplayer I wanted more of the game sure theres all the other Ace Combat but I was really drawn towards this one and I was pretty saddened by the fact they didnt add a multiplayer support.

I think the most recent Gen game I have played was
Rainbow Six Vegas I surprisingly like it but I feel it isn't  doing much justice to the Rainbow Six series which has always been one of my favorites, in the previous rainbow six your team was your weapon and lot more tactics have been involved and when I played Vegas I felt like I was playing gears of war meets splinter cell, I do like the maneuveurs but I find they made it too easy now I know where the enemies are with my back turned to them I know back in rainbowsix and rogue spear you can F1 to go in third person but it wasn't an essential part in the gameplay where as in vegas if you don't use that type of cover you can never really win.

the mutliplayer aspect in Vegas seems too easy now aswell as soon as I started to play I was on top all the time I guess the whole 3rd person view made it all too easy.

All to say that I feel after many years of gaming that single players aren't as Epic and the whole multiplayer experience is trying to whipe that out.

DO YOU LIEK THE VIDYA GAEM?

bump

How telling it is that a post from 2007 accurately describes the current state of the gaming industry today.

Got my Counter Strike GO Key!  :))

www.csgobeta.com