Have games lost their way?

[Admiral Donutz]

I don't buy games that often but quite obviously gameplay (storyline, gameplay hours etc.) are much more important then having super awesome grahpics. I rahter have a reasonable looking game (or even ugly) which is fun to play and keeps you entertained for many hours on end and many days on end (and is fun to replay if possible aswell in a few months or even years from now). I think the last game I bought was NWN2.

But as Serio said, it's not uncommon for developers to be pressured into release by their publisher. The short time gain ( a short, perhaps not even fully worked out, game with fancy graphics) of a quick release and thus making money seem to dominate over long term gain (giving developers more time to "deepen" their game with more storyline, features and such). Afterall, why release a game in 6 months if you can sell it today for the same price? People will still buy tyour games untill more and more consumers realize they are getting screwed over... EA anyone?

[Mr. Pedantic]

I didn't actually like Neverwinter Nights too much, it just seemed really bland for some reason, and the reason I didn't buy the second was I thought it was too similar. Icewind Dale 2 was much better, IMO.

But as Serio said, it's not uncommon for developers to be pressured into release by their publisher. The short time gain ( a short, perhaps not even fully worked out, game with fancy graphics) of a quick release and thus making money seem to dominate over long term gain (giving developers more time to "deepen" their game with more storyline, features and such). Afterall, why release a game in 6 months if you can sell it today for the same price? People will still buy tyour games untill more and more consumers realize they are getting screwed over... EA anyone?

That's why I've realized that there wasn't all that much point in buying my new computer, what's the point of it if all the games out there cost the same as they used to, but with half the content? There used to be a time when $100 here could buy you a decent game, newly released (or maybe four or five packaged together a few months after), with weeks and weeks of original gameplay and decent replayability, whereas now it's just a week of light gaming at most. Sure, the graphics look good, but is it really worth paying $100 for?

I have to agree that games these days seem to generally focus more on looks and bang than anything else.

I guess I still consider sort of the golden age of games to be something like 95-01 or so.
Definitely most of my favs lie in that time period.

I would actually extend it, from about 92-2004. Definitely around about then is when the most 'best' games were released.

[N88TR]

It's way the fuck too big of a statement.

When more indie developers can get in on the action we'll see better games, games that take a leap in concepts and executions.

Myself, I don't mind sequel on top of sequel as long as it's better than the previous game.

But with developers that don't take chances or choose to dismiss platforms because they're hard to port or they fear piracy, those people need kicks in their asses. You always try to do better than you did before. If you don't, there are hundreds of other developers that will take up the reins, and how knows, maybe they could make the next big thing.

[nazoa93]

I think the problem is the game developers currently didn't grow up on games, or grew up on the old ones. So they themselves are awed by what they are able to do, and they want to show that off to the community. I'll wager that in a couple years when the kids who grew up on games that had good graphics start making games, they won't be awed as much, and will concentrate more on the gameplay and storyline and the like. At least that's what I'm somewhat hoping for

[crisissuit3]

i think they are kind of losing it. but its not too bad of a lost. but i think devs are now putting a little more effort into their games.

but i think the prices are a little outrageous...

[starforce2]

I find some games like battlestations pacific take everything good about their first version and f*** it up for the second. The first one was hard enough, some controls were only key controlled yet to get to those they had amouse control, and the window that opened would have been better moused than hotkeyed, since the display took up half the screen or more anyways, and you couldn't do much else with it open except use it. They have gone and made the controls so dificult and hard to remember (played only the demo, but still couldn't reliably figure out how to get things to work, even when applying the keys as instructed) that the game isn't worth playing. I'm not that much of a hardcore gamer, I need an easy control interface that is quick and simple in a game as busy as battlestations..I can't be fumbling around or putting on pause to dig out the manual and look up what button I need to launch a dang plane, or select a different building on my base. Make the gameplay dificult, but have an easy mode too, but don't make all the games dificulty in mastering the controls. RTS games have proven that doesn't need to be the case. There is nothing that needs to be done or controled in battlestations pacific (or midway) which couldnt be done with controls as simple as those found in startrek armada for crying out loud. I love the pacific naval campaign, and to that end I got BS midway, silent hunter 4 (and 3, though I am not thrilled about being on the german side) it's still ww2 navy. Silent hunter is a dang sim and is easier to operate than BS pacific, which is not a sim, more of an arcade shooter, historicly based. Besides that, sh3 and 4 can be entirely key controled, but only IF YOU THE PLAY DESIRE. PC's have nice for a reason. If you need to command a fleet of battleships and destroyers you click a ship, then click a spot on the ocean and it goes there. Or you get in the unit and drive directly with throttle keys and rudder with the arrows and such. BS pacific was totaly destroyed by over complex controls. Sorta the same way I hear some of the ww2 flying games were screwed over for the wii ebcause they don't handle the motion stick controls as well as they should..cuz the devs were too lazy to do it right. Tech is heading in the direction of making the traditional xbox/supernintendo type control obsolete anyways. it's going to be hud's and motion controls so they better start getting it right.

[Schofield]

Originally Posted by crisissuit3

but i think the prices are a little outrageous...

Not at all. Think of the hard work they put into making a game, even if it's a graphic based game like Crysis. It isn't easy, $60 isn't much when the game could have taken $300 million to make (if it actually has care put into it). Then again I come from a "family of money," so many people will probably disagree with me. But I stand by what I just said.

That said...

Look on the bright side, in a few years they can't do any improvements on graphics, what are they going to do, make it look more real than real life? They'll spend time getting the graphics top notch, and then they'll have the rest of the time to work on story/gameplay. So maybe the lack of games with good content will pay off in the long run?

For all those who says ArmA II is a good example of a good game:

Bad graphics
Bad voice acting
HORRIBLE controls
Half decent missions
Not bad gameplay

But it is hard to play the game when you don't know how to pick up a weapon. It took me a while to figure it out. Then I uninstalled it...

[Mr. Pedantic]

Not at all. Think of the hard work they put into making a game, even if it's a graphic based game like Crysis. It isn't easy, $60 isn't much when the game could have taken $300 million to make (if it actually has care put into it). Then again I come from a "family of money," so many people will probably disagree with me. But I stand by what I just said.

If you think of it that way then any price would be cheap. However, if you think of all the other millions of people worldwide who will buy the game, then it becomes slightly less enticing. And in the end, it's how much of a deal it is for the buyer that counts. If I buy a game for $100, all well and good, but if that only lasts a few hours, then I would consider that money wasted, no matter how good the graphics are.

And as I've said before, I think $100 for a game is completely outrageous, when I have most of the money from my job going to other, more pressing things.

Look on the bright side, in a few years they can't do any improvements on graphics, what are they going to do, make it look more real than real life? They'll spend time getting the graphics top notch, and then they'll have the rest of the time to work on story/gameplay. So maybe the lack of games with good content will pay off in the long run?

I doubt it. It will take decades, maybe more, to reach DVD-quality realtime video. Take a look at the sort of technologies we have right now for ray-tracing, and see how immensely resource-consuming it is if you apply 60 of them every second for top resolutions (2560x1600, anyone?). And ray-tracing could be much better. Today's ray tracing looks good, but it doesn't really look real.

And then after DVD-quality you will have today's current HD-quality, then so on and so forth. Higher and higher resolutions, almost ad infinitem.

[gravy666]

Well, no, to be honest. The technology just keeps getting more and more amazing and immersive, such as in Red Faction: Guerilla and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Guerrilla has an unprecedented amount of destruction that you need to see to believe. The buildings are constantly being affected by the game's physics, so much that the developers needed to learn a bit about architecture so that the buildings wouldn't fall down. And there is no slowdown, not even on the Xbox 360. Call of Duty 4, on the other hand, well, All Ghillied Up should be all the evidence you need.

The thing is, with technology becoming less and less of a limitation, games are becoming better and better. Bigger levels, better graphics, better sound, better controls even (Metroid Prime 3 on the Wii, anyone?).

I've just noticed two major downsides:

1) Costs are through the roof
2) Storylines usually suck (Gears of War and Infamous, I'm looking at you)

If you can get past those two factors, you will find good games beneath.

~~~

But to join in on the 'uncreative' argument, I have to agree to some point. There are times when I feel like the games that I'm playing are really just last-gen games with better graphics and sound design- mostly stuff that developers wanted to do last time around, but didn't have the technology or resources to do so. Like Battlefield 1943, for example. It's a fun game and all, but it's only really bringing us a typical Battlefield game with destructible environments, the ability to use controllers, and just better graphics (ghillie suits actually don't give away your position anymore), and several other small adjustments to the gameplay to make it more accessible to other players. Unless you couldn't stand prone-hopping and camping in previous Battlefields, there's not much reason to buy the newer ones.

[The Soleutator]

Originally Posted by Admiral_Antilles

It all depends in what you look for in a game. From some people, sure, they might have. but for others, they could see games at the top of their game *Pun intended* right now.

I mean if your looking for graphics, games are defiantly going that way. If your looking for Content, you just have to be picky on your games, there are good ones out there. And if your looking for one with both, well thats rare. But they do happen. Like I said, all depends on what you want, and your style of gaming.

I have to agree

Overall, I think games may be losing their hype a bit, as technology rapidly progresses towards that limit of practicality. They've come a long way graphics-wise, and the 98-04 years were excellent years as far as story goes. I don't own anything newer than JK:JA(03 or 04?), so I can't vouch for quality. 2007-2008 seemed to be good years for games though, with the release of Crysis and its amazing graphics, MGS4, Halo3, Far Cry 2, Assasins Creed, etc. Maybe those were just big releases, but they got my interest, though I've only played Crysis demo and Halo 3.