Is it ok to shun the current videogame industry?

[Diabollokus]

Lol I wouldn't say 1995 but more 1998. Due to my fave games all coming out that year!

No arguements just friendly banter

[system11]

I don´t know, with racers I´m not that convinced, really. The only racing game since 64bit that I found truly impressive is MSR, together with its Gotham sequels. Wipeout has gotten worse, Waverace has gotten worse, Colin McRae has gotten worse, Sega Rally has gotten worse, Ridge Racer... everything. The new franchises are also crap when it comes to gameplay: Rallysport Championship, Quantum Redshift, Ford Racing, Splashdown... V-Rally and Gran Turismo were never any good, anyway. Graphics have improved, but car handling has become less interesting over time. Worst of all is the matter of course layout: older games used to have custom courses, fitting to their specific car handling. Nowadays, every new racing game gets the same courses, conversions of real circuits with a few more trees or different lighting. SO boring...

They're not /all/ like that. While I'm currently not that pleased with the new version due to network code bugs and a reduced frame rate, the Midnight Club games are serious blistering white heat racing. MC2 had a lovely 60fps rate. MC3 online is down to 30, a sacrifice made for more building and car detail. I'd have preferred it simple, I understand why they didn't - the tards that make up the wider market wouldn't have bought it.

The car handling is wildly different between cars, leaning firmly on the side of arcade style, with enough subtlety that you can see how different drivers handle the same car. Races are in open cities. Use whatever route you like to cross them. There are jumps, things to smash through, building to drive through, twisty bits to lose the newbies in, akward camber sections, and so on. There is a track editor so you can make your own tracks up when you've finished with the huge variety in 3 cities that have been created. You can race people on these, online. You can play capture the flag in cars if you like (this is total chaos and a lot of fun). The car modding brings more to the table than I thought - while generally people all have maximum upgrades on their chosen cars, it's kind of fun to recognise a car due to its paintjob and decals, rather than just a name.

I'd say the racing genre has hugely improved in this current generation, myself. Also FPS was more or less born in it (in console terms), and while it isn't everyones choice of genre (usually isn't mine), the team based Rainbow Six games are tremendous fun online, trying to outplay and beat the other team. Playing in clan matches becomes really good stuff, you know the other guys you're playing with, you learn how everyone moves and start working as a unit without trying.

Of course for every gem, there are 30-40 bland stinkers, I'm not sure the ratio has increased over the years - but there's a lot more money pushing the generic crap into peoples faces than there ever was before, and every single thing almost is a sequel now - side effect of development costs requiring a return on investment I'd imagine...

[sethsez]

Michelangelo's David is a piece of rock that has been carved to resemble a human bieng. It is made of an innumerable number of atoms, and was crafted according to the capability of man and the laws of nature. The amount of digital data required to even store this sculpture "accurately" is infinite.

Yep.

The very fact that video games are a digital medium means that in some form or another, a game's components will be discrete. The hurdle which you speak of will always be there, its only a matter of degrees.

Once again... yep.

Analog mediums like painting and sculpting cannot and will not ever compare. Yes, graphics can get better, they will always be able to, and herein lies the problem. Games are not art, they are a medium by which art can be conveyed.

I agree, and this is why I have no problem with technology constantly advancing. Graphics are a means to an end, as is everything else in gaming, which is why I want developers to have as broad a palette as possible to convey what they want to. And since, as you said, technology will always have inherant limitations, it will always be progressing. I have no problem with this.

More importantly, games contain gameplay, which i feel pretty comfortable in saying has not evolved much since 1995.

Maybe not in the genres you enjoy. When I play a FPS from ten years ago and compare it to a FPS from last month, I see a huge difference. To someone who doesn't care about the genre, it can all look the same I guess, but it's like the difference between 1942 and Guwange.

Microsoft and Sony will continue to make better and better consoles, but until they take the emphasis off of graphics, the other aspects of games will continue to go by the wayside. When I play La Pucelle Tactics, I don't see blocky textures, and low res sprites, I see cute characters and interesting worlds because the art inspires my imagination (isnt that the purpose of art?). Games will always be a "vague" representation of something, no matter how technologically advanced, its up to you to fill in the rest. Sorry if i sound harsh, but I honestly don't feel that its worth buying a new console every 5 years until the earth runs out of silicon just for what is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor cosmetic touch up.

Except to some of us, it's not just a minor cosmetic touch-up. For FPS, Riddick, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Serious Sam, Painkiller, Far Cry, etc would not have been possible on previous consoles. Not just from a graphics perspective... no matter how much you scaled them down, it wouldn't be possible to keep the fundamental gameplay intact in any of them and run them on the PlayStation. Morrowind and Fable were both scaled back from what they could have been (Fable to a much greater extent than Morrowind) because of limitations the Xbox had, and it had nothing to do with graphics. Daggerfall originally had randomized quests, shopkeepers with some sort of a schedule, you could get a horse and cart, etc. Why couldn't you in Morrowind? Because the Xbox, most powerful console though it may be, still wouldn't have been able to keep track of all that in addition to everything it was already keeping track of (which was a hell of a lot more than Daggerfall, overall).

Every time someone says "well, this is it, games can't go anywhere from here" we get proof that games can. It's not a minor cosmetic upgrade, it's allowing more freedom to the developers in all respects, and they take advantage of it more than you give them credit for. Graphics are just the most obvious and immediate.

[Marc]

A fair point, and well made. But no developer is gonna use this extra horse power to provide us with more inventive, free form game worlds if it comes at the expense of shiny next-gen visuals. Cause then their game simply won't sell. I could live with a Fable sequel that didn't particularily look better, but contained everything that was originally promised for the first. But what's the betteing it'll look ten times nicer, and play pretty similarily?

[sethsez]

A fair point, and well made. But no developer is gonna use this extra horse power to provide us with more inventive, free form game worlds if it comes at the expense of shiny next-gen visuals. Cause then their game simply won't sell. I could live with a Fable sequel that didn't particularily look better, but contained everything that was originally promised for the first. But what's the betteing it'll look ten times nicer, and play pretty similarily?

Compare Morrowind and KotOR to, say, Ninja Gaiden or Final Fantasy X. They're downright ugly. And look at the GTA games, which are pitiful, graphically. Companies are already sacrificing graphics for free-form (or at least far more open ended) gameplay, and KotOR, Morrowind and GTA have all sold a ton.

[silvery wings]

I agree, and this is why I have no problem with technology constantly advancing. Graphics are a means to an end, as is everything else in gaming, which is why I want developers to have as broad a palette as possible to convey what they want to. And since, as you said, technology will always have inherant limitations, it will always be progressing. I have no problem with this.

Don't get me wrong, I definately see where you are coming from, the technological advancement is nothing but beneficial for the games industry as a whole. The problem is that it's all devs seem to care about. Always bragging about tech specs and lifelike visuals, but never about why their game is fun.

Maybe not in the genres you enjoy. When I play a FPS from ten years ago and compare it to a FPS from last month, I see a huge difference. To someone who doesn't care about the genre, it can all look the same I guess, but it's like the difference between 1942 and Guwange.

I do enjoy FPS, Unreal is one of my favorite games ever, and Unreal 2 contains none of the same ingenuity of its prequel, just beefed up graphics. It was sad to see a game with so much potential die so quickly. I also enjoy both 1942 and guwange even though they play and look very different.

Except to some of us, it's not just a minor cosmetic touch-up. For FPS, Riddick, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Serious Sam, Painkiller, Far Cry, etc would not have been possible on previous consoles. Not just from a graphics perspective... no matter how much you scaled them down, it wouldn't be possible to keep the fundamental gameplay intact in any of them and run them on the PlayStation.

I think it is possible, take doom 3, reduce the poly count to a bare minimum, remove all the textures and special effects, and I believe you could make a very ugly version of doom 3 for PS1 that would play exactly like its pc counterpart. Of course the main difference would be the quality of the atmosphere in game, and this is where style comes in. I believe game devs rely on the hardware too much to convey atmosphere, and dont develop any sort of interesting visual style. I think god of war is a prime example of this. From a graphics standpoint the game is stunning, from an artistic standpoint the game is ugly. (thats obviously just my opinion)

Morrowind and Fable were both scaled back from what they could have been (Fable to a much greater extent than Morrowind) because of limitations the Xbox had, and it had nothing to do with graphics. Daggerfall originally had randomized quests, shopkeepers with some sort of a schedule, you could get a horse and cart, etc. Why couldn't you in Morrowind? Because the Xbox, most powerful console though it may be, still wouldn't have been able to keep track of all that in addition to everything it was already keeping track of (which was a hell of a lot more than Daggerfall, overall).

There is a big difference between scaling a game down to fit a system, and designing a game with hardware limitations in mind. Had Morrowind been intended as an xbox game from the beginning, i have a feeling it would have been alot like Fable.

Every time someone says "well, this is it, games can't go anywhere from here" we get proof that games can. It's not a minor cosmetic upgrade, it's allowing more freedom to the developers in all respects, and they take advantage of it more than you give them credit for. Graphics are just the most obvious and immediate.

I never said that, in fact I see alot of potential. Graphics upgrades do open more possibilities for gameplay, narrative and atmosphere, but they seem to be rarely used for anything other than increasing polycount and making things shiny, so they look nice on the back of a box.

Sony needs to stop rejecting games based on graphical prowess, i mean im sure they thought twice about katamari damashi. Microsoft needs to stop wanking about tech specs and try and attract some talented devs (which it does seem they are doing) maybe then they can lose their "Frat boy" stigma which turns alot of old school gamers off. Nintendo needs to get off of their high horse and truly attempt to encourage innovation, its probably their only hope. Developers need to stop making sequels and realize there is a market for more than the typical testosterone induced blood fest and the cartoon license kiddie game.

I honestly enjoy 10 year old games more than modern games. Emulation has let me enjoy many games that i had never played before, so its not just nostalgia. I think the reason is that most games today (aside from shmups) lack any sort of focus. Games of yeteryear generally do one thing, and they attempt to do that one thing well. Games today try to do as many things as possible (to expand that bulleted list on the back of the box?), and almost always end up doing none of them well. As long as console manufacturers keep touting graphics as their trump card, devs will continue to appease them by making games that are more about graphics than anything else.

Lol I wouldn't say 1995 but more 1998. Due to my fave games all coming out that year!

No arguements just friendly banter

Your're probably right, from 1995 to 1998 i was firmly entrenched in mediocre rpgs, because I genuinely didn't know what to play, and I missed out on a lot of good stuff.

[incognoscente]

Don't get me wrong, I definately see where you are coming from, the technological advancement is nothing but beneficial for the games industry as a whole. The problem is that it's all devs seem to care about. Always bragging about tech specs and lifelike visuals, but never about why their game is fun.

It is easier to quantify clock cycle increases and improvements toward lifelike visuals than "fun".

The new 800 MHz processor will allow developers freedoms that were only dreamt about in previous generations. Good-bye 3.58Mhz chips! This is the future.
With High-Dynamic Range lighting techniques, the game makes you feel like you are really there. See sunlight creeping between boards of a fence. Stare into the sun and experience what it is to go blind.

vs.

The weapons in this game will make you cackle with glee. The levels in this game will teach you new levels of enjoyment and then blow your mind. Have more fun than ever destroying your opposition!

I do enjoy FPS, Unreal is one of my favorite games ever

:)

[sethsez]

Don't get me wrong, I definately see where you are coming from, the technological advancement is nothing but beneficial for the games industry as a whole. The problem is that it's all devs seem to care about. Always bragging about tech specs and lifelike visuals, but never about why their game is fun.

I guess I just don't see this. Devil May Cry 3, Viewtiful Joe, Half-Life 2, Morrowind, Grand Theft Auto III, Resident Evil 4, Halo 2... most previews and marketing touched on graphics, but they were all sold on other features. The faster gameplay of DMC3, VJ's old school style, HL2's physics, Morrowind's scale, GTAIII's scale, RE4's complete reinvention, Halo 2's multiplayer. Once again, as I've said in several threads here, I don't understand where many of these accusations are coming from. I honestly think they're more imagined than anything, because if you look at how games are actually marketed these days, graphics (at least as far as technology goes) are barely mentioned. The last games I remember really being pushed on their graphics were Doom 3 and Ninja Gaiden, but hell, those both turned out damn good.

I do enjoy FPS, Unreal is one of my favorite games ever, and Unreal 2 contains none of the same ingenuity of its prequel, just beefed up graphics. It was sad to see a game with so much potential die so quickly. I also enjoy both 1942 and guwange even though they play and look very different.

But on the other side of the coin, Half-Life 2 and FarCry both do very interesting things with the genre, and HL2 is a massive leap over the first game. Unreal 2 is a bad game because the devs lost it, not because of a sign of any ongoing trend (and frankly... go back and play through Unreal again. Now THERE was a game marketed almost entirely on graphics, and it falls apart about 25% through the game when the level design goes to shit. Besides, the UT series has been getting better and better).

I think it is possible, take doom 3, reduce the poly count to a bare minimum, remove all the textures and special effects, and I believe you could make a very ugly version of doom 3 for PS1 that would play exactly like its pc counterpart. Of course the main difference would be the quality of the atmosphere in game, and this is where style comes in. I believe game devs rely on the hardware too much to convey atmosphere, and dont develop any sort of interesting visual style. I think god of war is a prime example of this. From a graphics standpoint the game is stunning, from an artistic standpoint the game is ugly. (thats obviously just my opinion)

What about the other games I mentioned? Doom 3 is definitely the most simplistic of them. And I don't think using lighting to create atmosphere is relying too much on hardware... the lighting is the visual style in this case. Many movie directors rely entirely on things like lighting and sound design to make otherwise benign things scary (David Lynch is good at this). Lighting is just as much a part of artistic design as anything else, and the only reason people think it's relying too heavily on hardware is because it's only recently that we've even been able to do anything with it. But in other visual mediums, lighting is amazingly important, sometimes more than anything else.

I also think God of War is ugly artistically, but I think Ninja Gaiden is oozing style. Looking back on games from the 8 and 16 bit eras, you can't swing a neon colored skateboard without hitting something designed by a 40 year old marketing exec to appeal "cool" to kids of the day (remember Bad Dudes?). It's not a new development in gaming, and frankly I think we've been getting better, not worse in this area.

There is a big difference between scaling a game down to fit a system, and designing a game with hardware limitations in mind. Had Morrowind been intended as an xbox game from the beginning, i have a feeling it would have been alot like Fable.

It was intended for the Xbox from the beginning. In fact, PC fans bitched about this quite extensively because things like NPC schedules and horses were very possible on the PC, but were mostly cut out because of the problems the Xbox rev would have. With Fable, I just think Peter Molyneux bit off more than he could chew and wasn't willing to make his game choppy and muddy (like, unfortunately, Morrowind was) to fit other stuff in. Plus he probably just didn't have the talent to do so (the man's overrated these days).

I never said that, in fact I see alot of potential. Graphics upgrades do open more possibilities for gameplay, narrative and atmosphere, but they seem to be rarely used for anything other than increasing polycount and making things shiny, so they look nice on the back of a box.

Well, that's because despite the added potential a new system gives, sometimes a game just doesn't need to take advantage of all of it. DDP:DOJ doesn't take full advantage of all the PS2 offers, but it's not any less of a game for it. As I said, I want the extra power there so developers can utilize it should it be needed (and often they do, in subtle ways), but I don't want them to use it just for the hell of it. Like I said, technology is the means to an end, nothing more. If a developer's vision just calls for some wireframe models and blaring techno music, then so be it. If another developer's vision calls for a gigantic city with no loading time and throngs of people, I want him to be able to do what he wants too.

Sony needs to stop rejecting games based on graphical prowess, i mean im sure they thought twice about katamari damashi. Microsoft needs to stop wanking about tech specs and try and attract some talented devs (which it does seem they are doing) maybe then they can lose their "Frat boy" stigma which turns alot of old school gamers off. Nintendo needs to get off of their high horse and truly attempt to encourage innovation, its probably their only hope.

I agree with everything you've said here (though I'd add that I think Microsoft has always been trying to get good devs on their side).

Developers need to stop making sequels and realize there is a market for more than the typical testosterone induced blood fest and the cartoon license kiddie game.

We're certainly closer to this ideal than we were ten years ago, though I'd say that's not exactly what we're like now either (looking over my collection, which is over 100 games across the three modern systems, I don't see many at all that fit your description and I have a pretty broad collection).

I honestly enjoy 10 year old games more than modern games. Emulation has let me enjoy many games that i had never played before, so its not just nostalgia. I think the reason is that most games today (aside from shmups) lack any sort of focus. Games of yeteryear generally do one thing, and they attempt to do that one thing well. Games today try to do as many things as possible (to expand that bulleted list on the back of the box?), and almost always end up doing none of them well. As long as console manufacturers keep touting graphics as their trump card, devs will continue to appease them by making games that are more about graphics than anything else.

Eh, I also don't really think this is true. I mean, racing games are all racing, FPS games are all shooting (except for tactical ones, but those are also very single-minded), etc. I guess I could agree if you pointed out some examples, but all I can really think of right now is the superfluous stealth sections that popped up in every game for a while (including, annoyingly enough, Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker). There are some games that try to mix genres, but these have always been around (Guardian Legend, X-Com, Actraiser, Air Fortress, etc).

Go to an NES rom site (or SNES, or Genesis...), close your eyes, and download 10 random roms. Play through them, applying your standards of artistic design and gameplay coherancy to them. When I compare my favorite games of yesteryear to games in general today, yeah, nostalgia wins out. But when I compare favorites to favorites, or the entire market from both generations, it's pretty even IMO, at least from the perspective of gameplay coherancy, artistic design, etc.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I'm not trying to be contrarian for the sake of it. I'm actually enjoying this discussion, partly because for a long time I was a huge supporter of the "old games are better" idea. I'm just essentially verbalizing what I realized when I changed my mind on that (though I'm still a huge fan of old games... otherwise I wouldn't be here )

[silvery wings]

I guess I just don't see this. Devil May Cry 3, Viewtiful Joe, Half-Life 2, Morrowind, Grand Theft Auto III, Resident Evil 4, Halo 2... most previews and marketing touched on graphics, but they were all sold on other features. The faster gameplay of DMC3, VJ's old school style, HL2's physics, Morrowind's scale, GTAIII's scale, RE4's complete reinvention, Halo 2's multiplayer. Once again, as I've said in several threads here, I don't understand where many of these accusations are coming from. I honestly think they're more imagined than anything, because if you look at how games are actually marketed these days, graphics (at least as far as technology goes) are barely mentioned. The last games I remember really being pushed on their graphics were Doom 3 and Ninja Gaiden, but hell, those both turned out damn good.

I work at an EB evenings, and every time a new big budget game is about to come out we either get a promotional kit or a few demo discs, in addition to our EB TV dvd which we must play on the store's tv set. For the past month I've heard nothing but some talking heads droning on about how amazing Republic Commando looks and how realistic First to Fight is. We sold many copies of both games on release date, despite the fact that both are rather poor games. Many times the demo discs we get will contain a video interview section where the devs will talk incessantly about how incredibly realistic their game is, and rarely touch on the gameplay. For instance, the getaway black monday demo disc contains an hour long segment on how they used real pictures of london and all the motion capture, and how they modeled the characters after real actors. The splinter cell chaos theory kit came with a dvd to use in store that details all the improvements over the last game, and a great deal of them have to do with the way the game looks. Alot of games dont have much of a marketing scheme, but it doesnt seem to stop them from worrying about much aside from graphics and/ or sensationalism: Punisher, Narc, Area 51, Predator, Fight Club, etc. The titles that you list are the cream of the crop, and those are the titles that interest me, because it seems that they are coming out less and less, and being overwhelmed by an increasing tide of high budget titles that dont turn out well, and cash grab movie licenses.

But on the other side of the coin, Half-Life 2 and FarCry both do very interesting things with the genre, and HL2 is a massive leap over the first game. Unreal 2 is a bad game because the devs lost it, not because of a sign of any ongoing trend (and frankly... go back and play through Unreal again. Now THERE was a game marketed almost entirely on graphics, and it falls apart about 25% through the game when the level design goes to shit. Besides, the UT series has been getting better and better).

Again those two titles are some of the better games available right now, and while I disagree with your assesment of Unreal's level design, I realize it was marketed on graphics alone. 3d accelerators had just become popular, and like usual, the hardware influences how software is developed and sold. It all doesnt change the fact that next weeks new PC title will probably be "generic realistic gritty war game #234". It just seems like originality is going down the toilet.

What about the other games I mentioned? Doom 3 is definitely the most simplistic of them. And I don't think using lighting to create atmosphere is relying too much on hardware... the lighting is the visual style in this case. Many movie directors rely entirely on things like lighting and sound design to make otherwise benign things scary (David Lynch is good at this). Lighting is just as much a part of artistic design as anything else, and the only reason people think it's relying too heavily on hardware is because it's only recently that we've even been able to do anything with it. But in other visual mediums, lighting is amazingly important, sometimes more than anything else.

Movies are limited in the sense that they use real actors and physical locations (for the most part). Why should video games strive to limit themselves in a similar manner? Psychonauts is a great example of this. I've played the xbox version and its a great game, but I guarantee it wont sell because it sticks out like a sore thumb in the midst of all the other xbox titles. If developers were more often willing to take similar risks, I think the public at large would be less hesitant to try something unique.

I want the extra power there so developers can utilize it should it be needed (and often they do, in subtle ways), but I don't want them to use it just for the hell of it.

The majority of games that get released are relatively poor, and in those titles, it seems that the extra horsepower is used "for the hell of it".

Eh, I also don't really think this is true. I mean, racing games are all racing, FPS games are all shooting (except for tactical ones, but those are also very single-minded), etc. I guess I could agree if you pointed out some examples, but all I can really think of right now is the superfluous stealth sections that popped up in every game for a while (including, annoyingly enough, Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker). There are some games that try to mix genres, but these have always been around (Guardian Legend, X-Com, Actraiser, Air Fortress, etc).

I suppose this has alot to do with personal taste, but if there's one thing I did not like about Morrowind, its that there is no overall structure to the game, and it makes it very easy to die a frustrating death just because you wandered into an unassuming cave in a low level area. I dont particularly like free-form gaming, and Morrowind and GTA 3 seem to do it best, because they do limit their scope in other ways. Games like Driver 3, Mercenaries and even GTA: San Andreas attempt to expand their genre with the "more is better" mentality and dont make any signifigant advances in terms of core gameplay. Games like the recent Jak and Ratchet and Clank games are quick to "me too" and promptly spread themselves very thin. If Irem had spent the time refining the level design in R Type final instead of designing 100 ships and weapons, I think the game would have benefitted. Even most racing games seem complacent to add some more brand name rims and neon lights instead of improving the way the game is played, and dont get me started on GT4's b-spec mode, that's a whole different topic.

Go to an NES rom site (or SNES, or Genesis...), close your eyes, and download 10 random roms

Yes I realize that there have always been a plethora of uninspired titles, but there are more games being released per month than there have ever been before. A quick trip to gamerankings (which only covers domestic releases) reveals these stats:
Genesis (649) + SNES (784) = 1,433
PS1 (1580) + Saturn (288) + DC (329) = 2,197
PS2 (1318) + XBOX (851) + GC (505) = 2,674
I own roughly 40 titles from each generation, and I only keep games that I enjoy. From my point of view it would appear that the number of games keeps going up, but the number of titles that I enjoy stays the same. In my mind this is the reason I prefer older games. As I mentioned in a previous post, its the "sifting out the crap" that really gets me, and while there will be titles in this next generation that I would enjoy, It's just become too much work to find them in an ever expanding sea of crap. I've been disappointed over and over by titles that I thought would be good and ended up hating. I've been disappointed when I miss something I would have liked because the juvenile gaming press advised me to stay away, which is even worse when that title ends up on ebay 5 years later for 300% its original price. I'm also tired of missing good imports because I can't stay totally current on the japanese gaming scene.

All in all I think I'd rather save my pennies and buy older games that I know I will enjoy, rather than plunking down $50 ($60?) practically sight unseen on this month's big blockbuster title. I really do appreciate your point of view, and If my personal preferences were different, I could see myself being very excited over these new consoles. Only time will tell, I suppose, maybe (hopefully) I will be pleasantly surprised.

[sethsez]

Movies are limited in the sense that they use real actors and physical locations (for the most part). Why should video games strive to limit themselves in a similar manner? Psychonauts is a great example of this. I've played the xbox version and its a great game, but I guarantee it wont sell because it sticks out like a sore thumb in the midst of all the other xbox titles. If developers were more often willing to take similar risks, I think the public at large would be less hesitant to try something unique.

I didn't say movies, I said visual arts, which includes things like photography and painting as well. I don't think using lighting as an artistic tool is "limiting" at all, and I really don't understand why artistic lighting is somehow less "valid" in videogames than a more obvious style like Psychonauts (which I agree looks fantastic). I think Doom 3 is a gorgeous game, not because it's technically stunning but because the shadows are absolutely striking. It's what I have an eye for. Different strokes, but there's more to it than just "hey guys look at what my graphics card can do." That's just selling it short.

The majority of games that get released are relatively poor, and in those titles, it seems that the extra horsepower is used "for the hell of it".

Right. The majority of games are poor. The majority of everything is poor. I don't want to limit the best developers because the worst will just make prettier shitty games.

I suppose this has alot to do with personal taste, but if there's one thing I did not like about Morrowind, its that there is no overall structure to the game, and it makes it very easy to die a frustrating death just because you wandered into an unassuming cave in a low level area.

Well, you just described exactly what I love about Morrowind, and why I've put more hours into that than any other RPG out there (except Daggerfall). The feeling of death around every corner is exactly what makes it feel like an adventure rather than a single constructed path of gradually more difficult monsters dotted here and there with towns containing slightly better equipment.

[FatCobra]

If there's one thing I am really tired of in the current market, it's the "GTA element" in almost every game. You know, free roaming environments and mission-based gameplay. It just makes the settings bland and the graphics bad (though I don't give a rat's ass about graphics, it does take alot of power to render a huge world, so some scarifices will be made). Most missions are basically, "drive here, kill that guy" or "drive from point A to B in a limited amount of time" sort of stuff. Blegh. Whatever happened to well designed levels and getting to the end and kicking the boss's ass? Whatever happened to the "fun" of just getting there? Replay value is not unlockable costumes or characters, it's the fun had in the journey made getting to the end. Most games today are also designed to be beaten and not play again, so you rush out and buy the next flavor of the week or month game (renting rocks by the way).

I am also tired of forking out $50 or $60 on a game and finding out that it's a dissapointment. Although I may blow $100 on a Saturn shmup, I know I'm getting a game I may never grow tired of.

[Andi]

I suppose this has alot to do with personal taste, but if there's one thing I did not like about Morrowind, its that there is no overall structure to the game, and it makes it very easy to die a frustrating death just because you wandered into an unassuming cave in a low level area.

Well, you just described exactly what I love about Morrowind, and why I've put more hours into that than any other RPG out there (except Daggerfall). The feeling of death around every corner is exactly what makes it feel like an adventure rather than a single constructed path of gradually more difficult monsters dotted here and there with towns containing slightly better equipment.

I couldn't agree more. I want to feel a real sense of choice and consequence when I play. I think this is why I enjoy American and European games significantly more than Japanese games. The trend in western games is to strive for making the game as much of a "life simulation" as it can possibly be while Japanese games tend to play more like an interactive novel.

[The n00b]

I love the mild "freedom" to explore of RPGs(I won't call them American RPGs since Japanese RPGs are a derivative of the RPG genre in America) like the Baldur's Gate series, Fallout series, and Planescape Torment. They had a way of involving you in the story without going into a Daggerfall like journey and sacrificing story. I think too many Japanese RPGs failed to incorporate this. I also liked how many RPGs gave you input on your hero or at least made him a little different so that you weren't forced to play a spiky haired effeminate angsty kid.

GTA like freedom is just too much for me though, just like I find the Final Fantasy series to be too constricting at times.

[sethsez]

If there's one thing I am really tired of in the current market, it's the "GTA element" in almost every game. You know, free roaming environments and mission-based gameplay. It just makes the settings bland and the graphics bad (though I don't give a rat's ass about graphics, it does take alot of power to render a huge world, so some scarifices will be made). Most missions are basically, "drive here, kill that guy" or "drive from point A to B in a limited amount of time" sort of stuff. Blegh. Whatever happened to well designed levels and getting to the end and kicking the boss's ass? Whatever happened to the "fun" of just getting there? Replay value is not unlockable costumes or characters, it's the fun had in the journey made getting to the end. Most games today are also designed to be beaten and not play again, so you rush out and buy the next flavor of the week or month game (renting rocks by the way).

I think there's a bit of cognitive dissonance here.

First, you say that GTA elements are bad. Okay, fair point, though I disagree to an extent (I enjoy the GTA series, but don't really care for the clones). Then, you say "what's wrong with focusing on the journey" and I begin to get confused. Isn't that exactly what GTA is all about? Isn't the reason most people complain about that series the fact that there's too much journey and not enough destination? Nobody plays GTA so they can get to the end of it. This seems pretty self-contradictory. If people love GTA, then they're obviously not just playing games "to be beaten and not played again."

Also, where are all these games with GTA elements? Off the top of my head, there's:

GTA series
Driver series
Mafia
True Crime
The Getaway
Jak II & 3
American McGee presents Scrapland
Simpsons Hit & Run

aaaand... that's it. If I'm forgetting anything, please tell me. Granted, that's not a tiny list, but I wouldn't exactly call it "almost every game" either.

Sorry, but that just seemed like a regurgitation of common complaints old-school fans have with current gaming, without any consideration of what you're actually saying. If people are getting into free-form games, then claiming in the same breath that they just buy games to complete them and move on is ridiculous. That's ignoring the entire reason people enjoy free-form games in the first place.

[FatCobra]

Ok, so some of us "old-schoolers" are hypocrites, and we complain and bitch and state everything that is wrong with today's games without giving any reason why. I guess I'm jaded and apathic because there's just too much out there and not enough money to waste trying to play them all. This is where rentals and a little game place I know that lets you play all the games you want for a couple of hours or a small fee (or you can pay about $60, which a little more than a new release and play all you want for an entire month), comes in handy, no wait, it's a GODSEND.
So far I've played Mercenaries (ok GTA clone, but gets dull in the end), Timesplitters Future Perfect (very funny FPS, lots of stuff to do and made by the same guys who did Goldeneye 007 for N64), and Midnight Club 3 (Fun racer, even with the GTA elements of drive anywhere. Not too keen on the DUB aspect, but I got to pimp out a '78 Monte Carlo, so it's good fun). I'm sure once my paychecks get bigger I'll be able to afford buying new releases at full price, but why bother when Battle Garegga for the Saturn cost $100 and is a much better game?

[sethsez]

why bother when Battle Garegga for the Saturn cost $100 and is a much better game?

Why bother buying Battle Garegga for $100 when, for the price of a couple rare Saturn games, you could get a PCB instead?

[FatCobra]

why bother when Battle Garegga for the Saturn cost $100 and is a much better game?

Why bother buying Battle Garegga for $100 when, for the price of a couple rare Saturn games, you could get a PCB instead?

Because I don't have the money or space to be building my own arcade.

[sethsez]

And some people don't have the money to spend $100 on a Saturn shmup that's easily playable in MAME and really isn't that fantastic anyway (the ranking system kills it for me).

I think $100 is an outrageous price to pay for a game. You think it's reasonable if it's good enough. Different strokes, but not an inherant indicator of anything other than differing tastes and priorities.

[FatCobra]

And some people don't have the money to spend $100 on a Saturn shmup that's easily playable in MAME and really isn't that fantastic anyway (the ranking system kills it for me).

I think $100 is an outrageous price to pay for a game. You think it's reasonable if it's good enough. Different strokes, but not an inherant indicator of anything other than differing tastes and priorities.

Well, $100 seems like chump change when Radient Silvergun goes for $250.

[sethsez]

But $250 seems like chump change when a DDR machine goes for a couple thousand!

[FatCobra]

But $250 seems like chump change when a DDR machine goes for a couple thousand!

LOL. Not that like DDR anyway. Playing Garegga on MAME just feels wrong and I'm no hardware wizard, so no PCB for me. I'd rather have a nice little CD to pop into the system or have it sit next to all the shmups in my collection than to have sets of exposed computer chips. What's wrong with Garegga's rank system anyway? Aren't shmups supposed to get harder as you go through the levels anyway?

[BulletMagnet]

What's wrong with Garegga's rank system anyway? Aren't shmups supposed to get harder as you go through the levels anyway?

At the risk of Rando grilling me (again) Garegga's rank system goes beyond just getting harder as you get farther; it gets harder the more bullets you shoot, the more enemies you kill, etc...basically it punishes you unless you "purposely suck" long enough to appease it. Oversimplification, I know, but it's definitely more than "getting farther." The game's still not bad though...and if you want a REALLY stupid rank system, play Souky.

[sethsez]

Aren't shmups supposed to get harder as you go through the levels anyway?

Well, yes, but Garegga feels like it's punishing me for just having fun. Playing to win that game is absolutely not enjoyable for me.