Whats wrong with games today.

[Freiwillige]

Lately I have been forced to play the classics due to video card limitations.
And I have noticed that Simulation manufacturers who were once tied up by simulation limitations often filled in the graphical voids with history and imaginative design. Task force 1942, Red Baron, SWOTL etc all excelled at making you feel like you were there even if the world was 640x380.

In contrast today's Simulations seem stale and surgical. IL2 was a graphic masterpiece of its day yet it felt so disconnected at times. While the Graphics fidelity increases it seems the game playability decreases, Nothing sucks you in to the sim world anymore.

Maybe that's why SHIII stands out is because it was made right in the middle of the technology swap, The game was written to put you there but was beautiful enough to make you feel like you were there.

[Ducimus]

Probably a reflection on modern society as game makers have shifted their focus to what sells. Micheal Bay style explosions and instant gratification.

[Rilder]

Probably a reflection on modern society as game makers have shifted their focus to what sells. Micheal Bay style explosions and instant gratification.

Exactly, wave a shiny bauble in front of the average consumer and boom instant best seller.:nope:


There are still good dev teams out there though, you just have to ignore all the mainstream games and money grubbing publishers.:yep:

[Freiwillige]

Exactly, wave a shiny bauble in front of the average consumer and boom instant best seller.:nope:


There are still good dev teams out there though, you just have to ignore all the mainstream games and money grubbing publishers.:yep:

Like what? Only a few seem to catch my eye anymore.

[Rilder]

Eh anything from paradox. Star Ruler, Dwarf fortress (DF is free) I honestly haven't been looking that hard these days since I don't have any money. :O:

[Sledgehammer427]

Being part of the target dempgraphic, but a simulation player, I kinda see what is driving the direction games are going.

Frei, you hit the spot with the comment about filling graphic voids with history and playability.

I see the same things in movies, while I'm picking out plot holes and other little faults, my friends are entranced by starlets (I like 'em too) and giant explosions.

I love old movies (30's through 60's) for this reason.
heck even TRON had a storyline.
but back then the movies had stories, engaging ones that I was always interested in finding out about.

the teenage-mid 30's demographic is full of people with little to no time to sit and play. I can always jump on GTA 4 and within minutes be creating chaos.

In Silent Hunter, I'd be lucky to wait less than an hour before something exciting happens.
Don't get me wrong, I love SH, more than GTA.
Sims let us sample history and step in the shoes of someone else. be it a submarine captain, a soldier, anything. It teaches you something. todays games are reactions and muscle memory, sims are learning experiences. you can't just jump into one and expect to be good because you have a reaction time like a top fuel dragster driver.

I'm babbling. Its late here X_X

[Castout]

It's the gamers they need more free time and more IQ points

[CCIP]

Well, there is another complication here. A complex, 'deep' game automatically takes a bit more resources to develop - it's very hard to make complex games without a large team of people of different, often very specialized kind of knowledge. Likewise, a complex, 'deep' game also requires a particular kind of audience - often a patient one. With simulations especially (but not exclusively), the learning curve is extremely sharp and you generally have to spend a certain period learning - and in some sense, a period of being absolutely terrible and reaping no 'rewards' except for the learning experience itself. Only after you get through those lessons do you even get to properly play the game. The net result is that this tends to narrow the target demographic - only a few people might be interested in doing the homework on a technically complicated or historically remote topic.

The net result is that, as you might expect, here is the choice faced by publishers and developers: (a) you make a more complex, expensive game that requires more experts in unusual areas to develop, and you try to sell it to a smaller audience that is limited by experience, education, time and willingness to learn, and social pressures; (b) you make a simpler, less expensive game where you can turn expertise savings into a bigger art budget, attach some Steam/X-box Live/whatever achievements and points to it, and sell it to a much less restricted audience that doesn't really need any qualifications - as they say, easy to learn but hard to master, the maxim of every multiplayer shooter out there now.

I think it's clear which one is economically preferable.

But yeah, if there's one recent development in gaming that I am beginning to hate with a passion, it's "achievements". I know many, many, many people who have turned their gaming lives into nothing but obsessive achievement farming - and the game companies have realized that it sells. Increasingly, and paradoxically, games are beginning to regress even from the Michael Bay style cinematics and back to an even more primitive Pavlovian habituation. Because of my occupation and financial restrictions, I work and live with 20 year olds, many of whom game. For many of them, what I do - play games for the simming holy grail that is suspension of disbelief - makes no sense. They're bewildered at how I can play games that aren't about set goals or at least clearly defined stories. For me, what they do - constant achievement farming and poorly-written 'amusement park ride' games - makes even less sense.

So I am wondering if it is a generational thing to some extent. And that current generation really does worry me.

[Freiwillige]

I think it had more to do with budgets and time constraints for the developers.

They are dumping bags of $$$$$$ into making the most realistic 3D worlds and are quite successful but after a 3 year development program the parent company wants the release. So why technically inspiring, they aren't inspiring otherwise.

[Rilder]

So I am wondering if it is a generational thing to some extent. And that current generation really does worry me.

If its a generational thing then I'm totally not in my own generation. I hate goal orientated games and set linear stories, I don't care about achievements either.

Give me an open ended game with no storyline where I can write my own story, where I can fight my own battles and not the battles some writer came up with.

Probably why I love dwarf fortress so much, when you download the game the game world doesn't even exist, it and its history has to be procedurally generated.

[Feuer Frei!]

What's wrong with games today?

It's several things combined. Customer demand and marketabilty are two things that come to mind.
What geographical background do gamers have today that was different from say 10 years ago?
The gamer's expectations and needs has changed, so has the gamer's time constraints.
The typical gamer of today expects a game where they can get replay value, graphical wow factor, a story-driven and immersive plot, and ofc how many things you can blow up at the same time!

The gaming development i believe is facing the same conundrums as the film industry and the music industry.
What hasn't been done before? What hasn't been tried before, and more importantly, succeeded?
People are running out of ideas quiet frankly, that's my opinion.
How many movies, music or indeed games produced in the present time have a de ja vu feeling? I'm speaking for myself there, but i'm sure that that rings true with others.

I don't really buy the 'time constraints' or 'budget constraints' that people are putting forward as an arguement.
Prime example: WOW Cataclysm.
Certainly no budget constraints there, nor was there any time constraints.
Result: the game was made better in certain areas, however, as a whole, the hardcore WoW community felt that the xpac was 'dumbed down' and catered a lot more to a 'casual gamer' crowd.
That's called 'market share, right there!
Dumbing down a game often results in increasing your share market, ie your wallet size.
Not true all the time but true 98% of the time. Perfect business sense. And that is also what's wrong with games today.
The dumbing down, because cooperations are too self-engrossed in predicting profit margins or market capture or forecasting how many millions of copies they will sell, or how 'easy' it will be for a person of casual gaming quality will be able to enjoy it.

Point is, games are being developed more for the general gamer in mind, one who has less time these days to devote hours upon hours, or the casual gamer, who's priorities are elsewhere, but still wants to experience the game everynow and then.

I think most of the games on the market at present are very shallow, void of much quality, certainly in the sense of story and plot, or where you can be 'taken away' and plunged into a dream world where reality merges with fantasy, whilst controlling yourself via a game pad or the humble mouse and keyboard.
Or maybe the OP is being nostalgic maybe as well? :hmmm::O:

Seriously though, i agree with OP, in some cases. Digging out the ole classics and thinking man, what a great game that was.
Games like Armored Fist, or Diablo 1 and 2, or Duke Nukem or Civ 1 on the old 486.
And that says a lot doesn't it?

Conclusion?
Yes, there are some wonderful games out there!
Yes, they push your gpu. Yes they push your skill level with the mouse or game pad.
But really, isn't it the same old mindless shoot em ups, or same old hack and slash mindless drivel with it all being glossed over with some admittedly stunning graphics here and there or cut scenes straight out of the imax theatres.
So?
The meat of the game though hasn't changed, nor will it.

The future of gaming looks bleak.

[Betonov]

Paradox might be the definitve proof that the Freiwillige's state is correct

They sacrifice stellar graphics for a deep and immersive gameplay (altough brutal sometimes :DL)

[Nicolas]

Yes, it's true. I like the games that touch your intelect and heart, new games and movies feels made for childs but at the same time have more graphic/language violence.

[papa_smurf]

One of my favourite games was Combat Mission 1,2 and 3. Not the most graphically advanced games out there but they do require serious strategy thinking.

[nikimcbee]

I think they are in a big rush to get it to market.

eye dropping graphics vs meh gameplay.

I also blame the modding community.

Back in the day, berfore modders, the devs had to hit the mark or the game would be a disaster.

Now, you can half bake something, release it, and rely on the modders to fix it. (see SH 4 & 5)

Quality be damned.

[nikimcbee]

I miss Red Baron, Red Baron 3D, SH1, Gettysburg.

[Tchocky]

Looking at it from a large developer point of view - why bother crafting a game when you can make thrice the money by focusing on a multiplayer engine and bashing out the single player component over a long weekend?

Stupid CoD.

[Platapus]

I blame it on these crazy kids with their Rock and Roll.

And would it kill them to get a hair cut?





Get off my lawn too! :stare:

[Growler]

Here's a big contributing fact:

The Internet, and bandwidth & transfer speeds.

When Microprose (god rest 'em) released Darklands, it was patched shortly after release with a 1.5MB patch that was only available via download from the MPS*BBS - a long distance phone call to Hunt Valley, MD, if you didn't live in the 410 area code. With a 9600 baud modem, that 1.5MB took about an hour to download - a long time on a long distance call.

Because of the difficulties in releasing patches to fix flawed software, the development life cycle took longer in order to increase the chance of getting a working product out the door absent the need for updating or patching.

Today, with the 'net, patches in order of 1GB or more have become the norm, as developers blitz a product out the door, then fix it once it's installed on a bunch of now-unhappy-customer's machines. Look at SH4 and 5 for examples of next-to-unplayable-until-fixed initial releases. And as long as consumers wait in line to buy initial-release-unplayable-drek, the model won't change.

[Buddahaid]

Somebody always buys in first. If no one did there wouldn't be anything to buy later after the fixes.

[Platapus]

Somebody always buys in first. If no one did there wouldn't be anything to buy later after the fixes.

That is actually the reason I bought SH5 when it came out. If no one bought SH5, the chances of a fixed SH5 would be slim. And forget about SH6

[AVGWarhawk]

There are games out today that are great graphically and capture my interest. After CFS1,2,3, IL2 and the SH series I did not think there would be much else for me to play. However, I did like Medal of Honor, COD World at War, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas. Currently I toy around with COD Black Ops. A nice game but I prefer the older models of combat if you know what I mean.

Some games I would like to see updated:

CFS2
Janes WWII Combat Flight Simulator
B-17 Flying Fortress(this could have been a huge winner here if they continued to work on it)
Mechwarrior 3

[MaddogK]

There are games out today that are great graphically and capture my interest. After CFS1,2,3, IL2 and the SH series I did not think there would be much else for me to play. However, I did like Medal of Honor, COD World at War, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas. Currently I toy around with COD Black Ops. A nice game but I prefer the older models of combat if you know what I mean.

Some games I would like to see updated:

CFS2
Janes WWII Combat Flight Simulator
B-17 Flying Fortress(this could have been a huge winner here if they continued to work on it)
Mechwarrior 3

MW3 was awesome in it's rules implementation as well as the expansions, but MS killed it with MW4 when they messed with the hardpoints and the new weapons. I had more fun with MW2 (and mercs) than any other game I've ever owned, the soundtrack had MUCH to do with it. MW5 has been in the works for a few years, looks very good but licensing is holding it up.

[AVGWarhawk]

MW3 was a great imaginative game. I was and still am a CFS2 fan. I enjoyed IL2 but I liked the graphics in CFS2 better. Plus modding was a plus where IL2 clamped that down for a very long time.

[Raptor1]

MW3 was awesome in it's rules implementation as well as the expansions, but MS killed it with MW4 when they messed with the hardpoints and the new weapons. I had more fun with MW2 (and mercs) than any other game I've ever owned, the soundtrack had MUCH to do with it. MW5 has been in the works for a few years, looks very good but licensing is holding it up.

Licensing is holding up the new MechWarrior? I think it's just the fact that the company that is developing it was/is involved in several other games including Duke Nukem Forever.

Looks rather awesome, though, my BattleTech fanboyism makes me unable to wait...

[nikimcbee]

I blame it on these crazy kids with their Rock and Roll.

And would it kill them to get a hair cut?





Get off my lawn too! :stare:

:haha::yeah:

[Growler]

B-17 Flying Fortress(this could have been a huge winner here if they continued to work on it)

*sigh*

B17 - The Mighty Eighth came so close, and yet, fell short. More proof that there was no god, it was one of Microprose's last offerings before they went away. :wah:

[longam]

CFS2 and the Zone was the last time I had any fun playing a combat flight sim.

I was ready for TS2 but MS decided to tank the whole sim thing..:x

[razark]

B17 - The Mighty Eighth came so close, and yet, fell short.
Never played the sequel, but I'll still fire up the original from time to time. Would Mighty Eighth run on Vista, or Dosbox? I really miss the old Microprose games, and their manuals.

[Penguin]

I think CCCIP made a brilliant analysis of the situation which we face today. I take him by his word about 20yr old gamers of today as I am not in contact with them and I am glad that he started to rant about them, so I don't sound like a bitter old man ;).
Maybe this is indeed a generational aspect. I am very prejudiced against this generation who seems to communicate so much without saying anything. One hand texting, the other on the mouse while talking to someone. They seem to have an attention span of a 4yr old, so this explains the longing for a quick gratification.
I am really astonished that this stupid achievement hunt really works. I bought my xbox 3 years ago, solely for some quick games of GTA. I was really shocked to find out that these gaming points are just this: virtual points, and you can not even buy something like a fancy hat for your avatar or bs like this for it - or things that make sense, like additional content :o

To the aspect of "casual games" (how I hate this word). They have always been there. I still remember the days of game machines standing in every corner, when Frogger and Pac Man were the top games of its time - hardly any deep games. But, when gaming at a "homecomputer" started it was very interesting to see how deep games could be and it was a pleasure to use your mind. So I am very pleased to see that people - at least here - still have this demand. It saddens me at the same time to hear that the younger members, who are under 160 like me, seem to be an exception in their generation.

Several aspects have changed over the years.
1. Gaming has become a mass phenomen - even more than it was during Atari 2600 or early Nintendo times. In the early days, adults who play a game after a business meeting were an exception.

2. Due to this the budgets for the big games have risen dramatically, with all its consequences. A big budget is only profitable if you produce for the masses (hollywood analogy)

3. Short-term thinking. Remember lucasarts, microprose, infocrom and all the other great old names. They built up a serious reputation over all the years. Todays big players have a reputation somewhere between oil companies and politicians... Short term profit is all that counts - **** a good name, in a year we'll have a new CEO anyway...

What are the consequences for players like we have here, who get their gratification through mastering complicated games? - and hey I also like my virtual medals in Silent Hunter!

I think we have to face that the market for our products is indeed a comparatively small one. BUT: (attention: car analogy) just like Porsche has its own market share with customers who like sophisticated technology, we still represent a market. Take a look at the old 911 model - not the wimpy one of today. Steep learning curve, but you get satisfaction when you master a beast like this.

We should acknowledge that there is still a demand, at least here. Maybe we have to get back to the old days when a demanding sim was 2,3 or 4 times the price of a "normal" game. This would be the only chance I see today for serious sims. When you regard how many hours you spend on a sim - and all the manpower of the makers behind it - a price of say 150 bucks for a game with 2000 times more playing time in comparision to COD 17 would be the logical consequence of this.

[Growler]

Never played the sequel, but I'll still fire up the original from time to time. Would Mighty Eighth run on Vista, or Dosbox? I really miss the old Microprose games, and their manuals.

Man, razark, you said it. MPS used to publish manuals that could stand on their own as books on whatever subject the game was about. I LOVED that about them. I still have a copy of the Historical Documentary they included with Across the Rhine and glance through it from time to time. Man, I miss those days sometimes.

As to whether it'd run on Vista/DOSBox, I'd wager yes, but that it'd probably require some tweaks. Dunno for sure; last system I had that ran Mighty Eighth out of the box is an old XP desktop.

[Freiwillige]

You know why I am on the subject here is another thing about military simulations that bothers me. Death or lack there of.

I mean you can play FPS even military ones and see the gore that war represents. But as soon as you add a Tank or aircraft or any vehicle they dumb it down and take the human element out of it. Many like that idea.

I would like to see the brutality of war represented as realistically as FPS sims.

I want to see that T-34 I just put a 75mm shell through have the survivors clamoring out and on fire. When I put an explosive shell into a ditch with troops I want to be sickened by the brutality as limbs go flying.

Not because I love death and gore but because death and gore are the reality of war. Why is it okay to show somebody head come apart when your a sniper in Call of duty but not okay to see some enemy tank commander slump over when he gets shot?

Just saying.

[TLAM Strike]

You know why I am on the subject here is another thing about military simulations that bothers me. Death or lack there of.

I mean you can play FPS even military ones and see the gore that war represents. But as soon as you add a Tank or aircraft or any vehicle they dumb it down and take the human element out of it. Many like that idea.

I would like to see the brutality of war represented as realistically as FPS sims.

I want to see that T-34 I just put a 75mm shell through have the survivors clamoring out and on fire. When I put an explosive shell into a ditch with troops I want to be sickened by the brutality as limbs go flying.

Not because I love death and gore but because death and gore are the reality of war. Why is it okay to show somebody head come apart when your a sniper in Call of duty but not okay to see some enemy tank commander slump over when he gets shot?

Just saying.

I agree. That was the kind of thing I liked in CoD2 (the highest # CoD I've played). On the first level I shot a German with my SMG and if it was CoD 1 he would be dead so I started to run past him, then I notice he was still moving and had pulled out a pistol. :o

It freaked me out so much I fired about 20 rounds in to the guy. :haha:

Or in Close Combat: first to fight. It had one of the best gameplay mechanics I've every seen... you take prisoners. Yea the enemy doesn't fight to the death, they will run away, try to hide or give up. If you had an enemy cornered you can yell "Drop you weapon" and some times they will, you then can order one of your fire team members to secure him or do it your self. Some times they will try and pull a pistol on you so you better have one of your buddies cover him.

[yubba]

You will want too go to this site before it is gone, http://www.ww2fighters.org/ (http://www.ww2fighters.org/).http://www.ww2fighters.org/images/p51/Profile_SixgunWhore.jpg (http://www.ww2fighters.org/downloads/p51/P-51Dv2.zip)

[Feuer Frei!]

You will want too go to this site before it is gone, spent last month with it sure turned that game around, http://www.ww2fighters.org/ (http://www.ww2fighters.org/)

Thanks for the link :up:
However, i couldn't help but burst out laughing at this:
http://i54.tinypic.com/11c9mdz.jpg

"RECOVERING AXIS SOLDIERS" :D

[yubba]

http://www.ww2fighters.org/images/vehicles/FollowMeThumb.jpg

[MaddogK]

I agree. That was the kind of thing I liked in CoD2 (the highest # CoD I've played). On the first level I shot a German with my SMG and if it was CoD 1 he would be dead so I started to run past him, then I notice he was still moving and had pulled out a pistol. :o

It freaked me out so much I fired about 20 rounds in to the guy. :haha:

Or in Close Combat: first to fight. It had one of the best gameplay mechanics I've every seen... you take prisoners. Yea the enemy doesn't fight to the death, they will run away, try to hide or give up. If you had an enemy cornered you can yell "Drop you weapon" and some times they will, you then can order one of your fire team members to secure him or do it your self. Some times they will try and pull a pistol on you so you better have one of your buddies cover him.

I still get the willy's when I hear the dogs barking, got ripped to shreds too many times by dogs in COD, the wife can't watch me play that game as she's a dog lover and hates to see me shoot them.

Theres a sequence in COD where you have to drive this tank to a bridge, and IIRC the enemy tanks try to stop you. When (and if) you hit them just right their tank bursts into flames and the crew comes out of the hatch screaming and running away. I sure hated to gun them down while they retreated, but such is war.

[AVGWarhawk]

Never played the sequel, but I'll still fire up the original from time to time. Would Mighty Eighth run on Vista, or Dosbox? I really miss the old Microprose games, and their manuals.


B-17 Mighty Eight runs on Vista. :03:

[razark]

B-17 Mighty Eight runs on Vista. :03:
Well, I might just have to look into that.

[STEED]

I stopped at SH4 and have no plans to buy anymore, unless games manufactures like to slip me £250,000 and I maybe tempted. :D

[Wolfehunter]

Exactly, wave a shiny bauble in front of the average consumer and boom instant best seller.:nope:


There are still good dev teams out there though, you just have to ignore all the mainstream games and money grubbing publishers.:yep:This is correct.

All the big name games suck now. You have to look harder for more lesser known names. To find quality gameplay.

It really hasn't changed much. We're just used to those big names that in the past 80s or 90s made there big game.. Then they crumbled.

You can still find parties working on new inventive games. Who knows they may be the next big name. :up:

PC games are always the underdogs. What changes is those big names.. Not the games.