Why modern gaming sucks.

[BryanM]

Another thing along those lines that Udderdude brought to my attention is that Doom 1 is exceptional in that it has a shotgun at the start of almost each level.

You'd think this would be self-evident for any design.

In the ~7ish Super Mario World levels I made, they all have a mushroom at the start of the level.

[dcharlie]

IMO, Half Life is all cinematics, no gameplay.

... what?

[Acid King]

Modern gaming sucks cause they don't make the style of games I like anymore.

What style is that?

Arcade games made by people who know how to design arcade games.

[Wonderbanana]

IMO, Half Life is all cinematics, no gameplay.

Dude.. the entire first 15 minutes of the game is you on a train ride during opening credits. There's not even the first hint of action until way after that. Just because you can move around does NOT mean that the game isn't all cinematics (just like Dragon's Lair).

You compare Half Life to Dragon's Lair? All cinematics?

You, er, didn't get the point of the opening?

Words almost fail me, seriously.

[Sumez]

People who see themselves as "retro gamers" tend to miss out on a lot of modern classics, as well as spending too much time delving in nostalgic junk that was never as good as you seem to remember.

I see myself as a "good game gamer". I love Super Mario Bros 1. I love Parasol Stars. I love Super Metroid. I love Gunstar Heroes. I love Monkey Island 2. I love Final Fantasy VI. I love Symphony of the Night. I love Banjo-Kazooie. I love Metal Slug 3. I love Diablo II. I love Demon's Souls. I love DeathSmiles, and I love Assassin's Creed II (a huge "Hollywood blockbuster" game with a team spanding hundreds of people across the globe)

Games are so incredibly diverse. They have been it since at least the beginning of the 90's and only get more and more diverse over time. It can be difficult to compare two completely different games against eachother, but quality will always be there if you know how to look.
What is sad is when all the mediocre crap sells the best and is what the general public commonly relate to (console) gaming. When people see my collection of X360 games they usually tend to point out stuff like The Orange Box and Call of Duty IV and comment on them being excellent games, and wondering where stuff like Forza or Fifa are. Anything with Japanese letters on it usually gets the "cool, it's like one of those old time games from the arcade machines at the local grill back in the 80's" treatment.
There is so much gold out there that is lost on the mainstream, and I keep feeling sorry about it.

[Siren2011]

You, er, didn't get the point of the opening?

What was the point of the opening? I guess it was there to immerse you into Gordon Freeman's everyday world. Of course, it could have been misleading to the player who gets bored easily, but to others it could have aroused anticipation for the unknown events that would soon follow. You look away from the opening sequence and down at the box, and you're like "things are far too quiet for a game with a tentacle monster in the screens..."

[Observer]

Oh man, I can't believe I'm saying this, sounding like an old magazine reviewer. This is what Half-Life did with the opening sequence: the total opposite of what was common in FPS back then. Unreal, which was released earlier in 1998, tried to pull off something similar before presenting you the Skaarj, but it was nowhere nearly as well done as the whole train sequence.

If you guys paid attention, you could see a chopper dropping marines at one of the entrances, scientists messing up with the energy stuff you would later use in the game, the G-Man was already there walking around, you could notice parts of the train system also weren't working properly.

But, most importantly, it was the fact that you didn't shoot jack shit for 15 mins other than watching the scenery. The antithesis of what FPS were until then. It also let you test positional sound and other sound effect delicacies as the closer you were to the speakers, the clearer you heard the system commentary about Black Mesa.

Oh, and after that you still didn't get to shoot anything for another 20 mins or so. The HEV suit chit-chat was pretty cool as well.

And Half-Life had the awesome VOX announcement system. Nothing kicked more ass than this manly robotic voice telling you ACCESS FUCKING DENIED. GlaDos? Ha!

http://youtu.be/9l1j139o_zI (more of VOX, this is why Black Mesa rocked so much with all those ambience beeps and techno noises)

[louisg]

IMO, Half Life is all cinematics, no gameplay.

Dude.. the entire first 15 minutes of the game is you on a train ride during opening credits. There's not even the first hint of action until way after that. Just because you can move around does NOT mean that the game isn't all cinematics (just like Dragon's Lair).

You, er, didn't get the point of the opening?

I dunno, was the point to bore me to tears while I'm trapped in a little box watching a slow motion train ride? Cuz that's what it did. Then I had to talk to the damn security guard and wait for him to open the door, like I hadn't been tortured enough. Seriously, nothing happens in that game until about the 30 minute mark. The action after that is plenty sparse, short, and not especially bug-free. That's what I mean: it's paced and designed to deliver a cinematic experience, with the gameplay taking a back seat. Maybe it's more comparable to Out of this World: OOTW is filled with awesome cinematics that you get to control where *it feels like you're in a movie*. But, when you boil it down, it's a game about kicking slugs. ;P

Anyway, I don't want to argue Half Life (or Bioshock). But I do want to point out that newer FPS games do seem to be more gameplay-oriented, and appear to think things through quite a bit more akin to the way a good shmup does. Late-90s FPS games by contrast are like the shmup where the author doesn't understand that they have to put enemy bullets on top of other sprites, or doesn't understand that players are not supposed to just use infinite continues

Summary: rose. tinted. glasses.

[Rob]

But I do want to point out that newer FPS games do seem to be more gameplay-oriented, and appear to think things through quite a bit more akin to the way a good shmup does.

The only modern FPS I've played that feels similar to anything good in 2D shooters is Left 4 Dead. A few others might be 6 hour R-Types on their harder difficulties (video game hell).

[Despatche]

In 1983-1985 when the console market was in the middle of the crash. Arcades were hopping. You could play Dragon's Lair, Q*bert, Pac-Man, I Robot, Karate Champ, Robotron, Xevious, Galaga, Elevator Action, Qix, Crossbow, Gun.smoke, Yie Ar Kung-Fu; this list really could go on. Point is the arcades in this time frame have no equal for the depth and diversity of the games on display, all lined up you you to sink your quarters into. Everything evolved from this point. Every. Thing!

Yes, everything.

[Ruldra]

Modern gaming sucks?

Even though I'm very selective about the games I pick, I still have no problem finding good games to play nowadays. I play almost as much as I did back in the 90's. And I play almost exclusively on the PS3, which is rumored to have NO GAMES™.

3D Dot Game Heroes, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, Demon's Souls, SSF4, Way of the Samurai 3, Lost Planet 2, MAG, Dead Space, Pinball Hall of Fame, Zen/Marvel Pinball, Thexder Neo, Spelunker HD, F1 2010, Dirt 2, Rush'n Attack: Ex-Patriot, Valkyria Chronicles...and my backlog is just getting bigger.

If you can't find anything you enjoy nowadays...well, I think you should look harder. Or at least open your mind and give yourself a chance to try the new stuff.

[EinhanderZwei]

Modern gaming sucks?

Even though I'm very selective about the games I pick, I still have no problem finding good games to play nowadays. I play almost as much as I did back in the 90's. And I play almost exclusively on the PS3, which is rumored to have NO GAMES™.

Hell. THIS!

[neorichieb1971]

In the old days the gems found me, now I have to look for them?

[CMoon]

Modern gaming sucks?

Even though I'm very selective about the games I pick, I still have no problem finding good games to play nowadays. I play almost as much as I did back in the 90's. And I play almost exclusively on the PS3, which is rumored to have NO GAMES™.

Hell. THIS!

QFT. I get a different thing out of games now than what I used to, but at nearly 40, I'm finding I don't always have the reflexes to play non-stop shmups and fighters. There's a lot of slower paced games out now that keep me busy. It isn't the same, but I like it.

[ED-057]

problems with the current state of the gaming industry (IMO):

1) too much focus on graphics, leading to extravagant development budgets and higher retail costs for both software and hardware. Making games that are visually appealing by using good artwork and detailed animations is something that has always been worthwhile. But now it seems like they are throwing more and more computing power at rendering just for the sake of more realism. The technology may be useful for making movies and fake photos, but I don`t see how it adds anything to games. Surely, what is happening in the game is more important than what it looks like on the screen? (with the exception of pr0n games...)

2) console hardware feature bloat. They used to do one thing and do it well. Now they are closer to PCs, but with a lot of cons and not so many pros

3) DRM, mandatory internet connections, games that can`t be resold, and so on... It`s kind of unavoidable for online games, but I should be able to play single player without having to deal with any of this BS

Obviously there are still good games coming out on occasion, and all of my oldschool ones still work. So it`s not really that gaming sucks, just that the mainstream doesn`t appeal anymore. When I used to see commercials on TV for NES and Genesis games I was actually interested, now when an ad comes on for latestgreatestFPS I don`t give a crap.

[Sumez]

I've heard people complain about too much focus on graphics for about twenty years now.

[neorichieb1971]

I don't think modern gaming sucks per se. I think the modern day gaming culture sucks. Its not what games come out, its what type of games people get excited about when you don't give a toss.

If a few million converts went to shmups/platformers/arcade games and got excited about them, I'm sure the community in gaming would have a bigger buzz about it from our perspective. For that to happen we need AAA budgets on the types of games that have been forgotten for a decade or two. Unfortunately the types of games we like are bargain budget fodder or get swept away by the mainstream elite of FPS/Racing and PC games that are coming out these days. What we need is a movement.

[Obiwanshinobi]

That's it - PC games are officially a genre now and one responsible for lack of big budget games in genres royal "we" like at it. Who cares what those PC games are all about?

[Udderdude]

It's ok guys, I'm going to save modern gaming (and shmups in general) with my awesome gaems, so you can all relax and sit back while watching me save videogames from the casualfag menace. :3

[neorichieb1971]

That's it - PC games are officially a genre now and one responsible for lack of big budget games in genres royal "we" like at it. Who cares what those PC games are all about?

Well for me personally, I couldn't tell you any of the top 10 PC games currently available. I'm also feeling alone in the world of videogames right now. 10 years ago I felt part of a pact of maybe 10-15 gamers that shared a whole lot of gaming culture between us. I feel that games being online played a big part of losing that aspect of gaming. Instead of the BBQ's we had in 1999 we now have messaging on facebook. Instead of 8 player bomberman we have the isolation of playing Halo 3 across at network. Perhaps gaming has gotten better on the basis of the games themselves, but something was definitely lost in the process.

[dcharlie]

Richie, between what you just posted and what you have been saying in the Facebook thread it just sounds like it's your gaming circle that has fell apart(?)

[louisg]

Well, it is true that online play is the main mode of multiplayer these days. One thing you can do though is that some games allow you to play splitscreen *and* online. That's usually a lot of fun because it's you and a friend vs. the world

[neorichieb1971]

Richie, between what you just posted and what you have been saying in the Facebook thread it just sounds like it's your gaming circle that has fell apart(?)

True, but its my reason modern gaming isn't as cool as it was way back then. I'm not generalizing.

[Obiwanshinobi]

To be fair, I'm a bit out of touch with contemporary PC gaming as my computer is fairly old, but - judging from what I see on Eurogamer - the latest truly mainstream PC game (i.e. designed primarily with PC in mind, endowed with top-notch production values and released with big-ass hype support) is Shogun 2: Total War. Mods and add-ons are almost certainly going to appear, but I've no idea if the sales figures will guarantee another RTS with this much oomph to ever come out. The previous one I can think of would be StarCraft II (first episode), also going to be continued, but not necessarily to receive a full-fledged sequel. Other "mainstream PC games" released in recent years I can put my hands on: C&C: Red Alert 3, WH40K: Dawn of War II, Civilization V, Might & Magic: Heroes VI (announced). Of all these BIG names everybody and their dog who at some point played PC games will recognise, all are (broadly speaking) strategies, the youngest franchise being the seven year old Dawn of War. The only reason this much money is still being pumped into PC exclusives is that most of them wouldn't work quite as well on consoles. Another money soaker is the MMORPG genre, but all those wannabe WoW-killers fail to kill WoW. The only (!) upcoming sure-kill hit, practically guaranteed to sell well and keep the masses busy for years is Diablo III - PC gaming doesn't get more mainstream than that. I can hear some underdogs barking (Guild Wars 2), but I can hardly imagine a new HUGE franchise (like Civilization-huge, StarCraft-huge or Half-Life-huge) emerging on the PC.
Even first person shooters of kind that have never been working well on consoles - blazing-fast paced ones - while not utterly extinct, are nowhere near as BIG as Quake or UT in their heyday.
In short, "mainstream PC gaming" (if you exclude multiplatform games) - stuff supposed to earn its numbers on the PC first and foremost - boils down to strategies, WoW, plethora of niche curiosities (Mount&Blade, Bloodline Champions...) and small fries (mass-produced Asian MMOs, Peggle...). Feel free to prove me wrong (I know I'm simplifying things), but the likes of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Witcher remain cult hits at best.

[ED-057]

I've heard people complain about too much focus on graphics for about twenty years now.

I believe you. Twenty years ago there were bad games with great graphics, and good games that were perceived as not getting their due respect because of unimpressive graphics. But today, we also have GPUs that eat 200W and occasionally unsolder themselves from the PCB, and development budgets that can reach much higher. Although I wonder if these trends will continue much longer. Maybe the market for expensive cutting-edge games will plateau and devs will shift to handhelds.

[Sumez]

Well for me personally, I couldn't tell you any of the top 10 PC games currently available. I'm also feeling alone in the world of videogames right now. 10 years ago I felt part of a pact of maybe 10-15 gamers that shared a whole lot of gaming culture between us. I feel that games being online played a big part of losing that aspect of gaming. Instead of the BBQ's we had in 1999 we now have messaging on facebook. Instead of 8 player bomberman we have the isolation of playing Halo 3 across at network. Perhaps gaming has gotten better on the basis of the games themselves, but something was definitely lost in the process.

Back in the mid 90's it was somewhat rare to find people to talk about games with.
Nowadays people talk about games all the time, but I really don't care about Counter-Strike, World of Warcraft, Angry Birds, FIFA or Gran Turismo any more than I care about soccer or reality TV.

If it wasn't for the online communities available today I'd probably have lost all interest in video games by now. Even if it's only a couple of times a year, it's great to meet up with fellow losers and discuss lame stuff like the decay of Sonic as a valuable mascot, what Cave shooters have the best scoring system, and how awful Mortal Kombat is.

[Ixmucane2]

I've heard people complain about too much focus on graphics for about twenty years now.

I believe you. Twenty years ago there were bad games with great graphics, and good games that were perceived as not getting their due respect because of unimpressive graphics. But today, we also have GPUs that eat 200W and occasionally unsolder themselves from the PCB, and development budgets that can reach much higher. Although I wonder if these trends will continue much longer. Maybe the market for expensive cutting-edge games will plateau and devs will shift to handhelds.

There has always been a focus on advanced graphics on cutting edge hardware, except for a minority of "retro" or deliberately austere games. The problem is that this constant pressure to look good has grown to larger and larger amounts of effort, often directly or indirectly damaging other sides of game quality.

In the "8-bit era" game graphics production was drawing little sprites of very few colours on graph paper and converting them to raw data, and bleeding edge graphics programming was playing tricks with the video DAC to display more pixels and/or more colours.

Then graphics resolution increased, and drawing sprites became proportionally more demanding and expensive; memory amounts increased, and the number of graphics assets increased too. The same kind of game needed a much higher graphics budget.

The switch to 3D graphics complicated both game code and graphics production; then the relentless development of new techniques added further complexity to 3D engines, while the push towards quality demanded more complex and detailed 3D assets.

Creating game graphics and displaying them requires vastly more skill and effort than it used to; most game developers tend to increase graphics budget at the expense of attention to everything else [1], or simply to make less games (usually sticking to trite "mainstream" designs).

Moreover, the increased complexity of graphics assets makes them too important and too inflexible.

While an old shmup could easily budget a modest amount of sprites and scripting for a later loop or a TLB that the vast majority of players wouldn't ever see, the complex 3D environments of modern games need to be toured according to an iron-fisted script, or they are wasted money.

Consider the difference of cost and turnaround time between arbitrarily modifying a tile map in a game like Commander Keen or Xenon 2000 (two examples for which I've seen the level editors) and adding even an extra house to a Call of Duty level: the design of modern game levels is too inflexible, another reason to focus on scripts and storyboards and graphics rather than on really good design.

[1] Another episode of me vs. modern FPS degeneracy: the main gimmick of Crysis 2 is putting the player in a fairy powder suit that, among other superpowers, can make him temporarily invisible (with a very nice blur effect on the visible hands and weapon).
The novelty fell apart when I turned invisible to approach and shoot cowardly soldier A (this tactic in itself itself a far cry from the thrilling combat of Doom or Unreal) and soldier B, a couple of meters away, stood idle (turning his back to me and screaming "Where is he! I don't see him!" on the radio to add insult to injury) without joining the firefight, not even looking around. Boom! Headshot!
I can easily imagine the decision that the suit powers have to matter because players have to use them because they make the game cool, even if they ruin basic aspect of the game like fighting, and the decision that cannon fodder AI isn't a priority.

[louisg]

I wonder if the dwindling of the PC game market has to do with the stagnation of hardware, given that the role of PC games in the past has largely been to demo cutting edge graphics cards and processors. At the height of the mainstream PC gaming craze (mid/late-90s), consoles were only briefly better than PCs in a purely graphical sense-- PSX and N64 might have briefly leapfrogged the 486 and early Pentiums, but it wasn't long before 3d accelerators offered a more fluid and high res version of what the N64 was attempting to do. Now that PC games look pretty much like 360 or PS3 games, except not as convenient, maybe that appeal is gone.

I've heard people complain about too much focus on graphics for about twenty years now.

Yeah, I think it's been true for about 20 years, too!

[neorichieb1971]

I don't think its graphics either.

In 1995 when the PS1 got a massive sales boost I imagined games today to be absolutely amazing. But then I thought of Tekken being amazing, Ridge Racer being amazing.. I thought of Street Fighter looking absolutely fucking fantastic in 1080p 2D with unbelievable anime type animation.

What do we have? Well, we don't have any of that. Ridge and Tekken turned shit, Street fighter turned into polygons and anything that remotely caught my interest then and still does, is not on cutting edge hardware anymore. (yes I'm looking at you Nintendo).

So as you can see modern gaming went into some parallel universe to the one I wanted to go in.

[MadScientist]

the likes of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Witcher remain cult hits at best.

As far as I'm aware, both of those games sold over a million copies. That's a bit better than 'cult hit'.