Whats wrong with games today.
 

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.

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:

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

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.