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.

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.