Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Xantalos]

Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it. It's like someone offered you  luxury sports car but then stripped out all of the luxury because they thought it might confuse learner drivers. And yes that was their justification for at least only having one kind of sight mode (as opposed to heat-vision, echolocation etc), because people might "think their graphics card was damaged". Seriously.

As much as I agree with what you said here, my biggest problem is that Spore also failed to deliver on its most basic promise. I didn't really feel like I had shaped anything about my species beyond its appearance. Sure, I got to make it a meat eater, I got to make it aggressive, but these are the thinnest shell of what I had created. I gave my species wings it didn't use, I gave it poison spitters it didn't use. Why didn't I have the tribe of ultra-violent flying poison spitting bad-asses I had imagined?

Its not that the older games were better, its just that they didn't have all the glitz that you can have with the modern systems, so they had to be more creative. There are some exceptions, for example, I fully think that Civ 4 is far superior to Civ 2. Civ 3 was crap, but that was mainly growing pains as they introduced resources and territory. Plus the golden ages in 3 weren't very good. I think 4 is better than 5, but that's just because of all the stuff in the expansion packs. I like the changes they introduced in 5, and feel that it will be better than 4 when it gets all its expansion packs. Its a game that's evolving and figuring out what are the best parts to add, and what needs to be changed.

Then you have stuff like Fallout 3. They took the most superficial parts of Fallout, the visual aspects of it, and shoved it into the same engine that Oblivion ran on. Oblivion felt like nothing more than a prettier version of Morrowind to me. Sure, there were some small changes, but overall, it felt like Morrowind. Skyrim has the same feel, like a prettier Oblivion. Sure, they've fixed some parts, but it feels really minor. Well, the loss of attributes and move to nothing but skills is a big change, but I feel its a step backwards. One of the core parts of RPGs, IMO, is the separation of character and player. Not only are there things the character can do that the player can't, the character might be smarter or dumber, the character might be stronger or weaker. However, back to Fallout, that respect of the character's attributes is lost. One of the things that annoyed me was having to squint to see tripwires when my character has a high perception, and therefore should be able to see them, and I, as the player, should have them highlighted for me. And on the subject of intelligence, well, compare these videos.
Stupid in Fallout 1
Stupid in New Vegas

Once again, its the most superficial overlay. In Fallout 1, all you could do is grunt, and the Overseer is speaking slowly and getting frustrated when you don't understand. In New Vegas, you can respond with speech that makes you look stupid, yes, but the scientist doesn't react like he's talking to a moron. He reacts like he's talking to a person of normal intelligence. To me, that's the problem with modern games. They don't put the attention to detail. And its the many small things that will eventually chip away at your suspension of disbelief until you lose it. Or at least its that way for me.

All of this.

[Graknorke]

I have to agree with that too. The methods of sight thing was an example, they wanted to streamline the game (strip away the most interesting features) to make it accessible to players who basically don't know what they're doing.
And it's why cell will forever be the most fun stage to play.

[dizzyelk]

I have to agree with that too. The methods of sight thing was an example, they wanted to streamline the game (strip away the most interesting features) to make it accessible to players who basically don't know what they're doing.
And it's why cell will forever be the most fun stage to play.

Yeah, I get that, but my point is that it went beyond stripping out features all the way to stripping out the basic premise of the game. Features are nice and all, but when you can't deliver on the core that you promise, well to use your luxury sports car analogy, its like they not only removed all luxury, but actually gave you a bicycle.

[CodexDraco]

So in other words, old is better. 

[dizzyelk]

So in other words, old is better. 

No, older games were more creative in how they presented the game, because they didn't have the graphical capabilities that modern systems do. Modern games seem to be glitz over story. But there are exceptions. Dragon Age:Origins, while it had a few flaws, is a truly enjoyable RPG in the vein of great classic RPGs. The Mass Effect games have a truly engaging story, with an amazingly in depth world, despite its few flaws. And going back, Baldur's Gate had flaws, X-COM had flaws, the Ultima games had flaws. It is impossible to create a game without flaws. If the strength of your story, characters, and world outweigh the flaws, you have a good game. The popular games these days are mostly glitz and graphics with weak stories, worlds and characters. The only thing in Skyrim, for example, that I have no complaint whatsoever with is the scale of dragons. I've only put a few hours into the game, and feel they're a little too easy, but I hope that'll change as time goes on, you know the sorting algorithm of evil and all.

[CodexDraco]

Yesteryear had as many bad games as there are today, it's just that we tend to look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days. And their parent say the exact same thing about older stuff. Really it's a constant of life that old people complain about younglins and their satanic immoral hobbies. It's unfortunate because we are currently on the beginning of the golden age of gaming, see: Dwarf Fortress. This game would be impossible 20 years ago.

[Xantalos]

Yesteryear had as many bad games as there are today, it's just that we tend to look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days. And their parent say the exact same thing about older stuff. Really it's a constant of life that old people complain about younglins and their satanic immoral hobbies. It's unfortunate because we are currently on the beginning of the golden age of gaming, see: Dwarf Fortress. This game would be impossible 20 years ago.

Also true. Unfortunately, in 10 years some people will undoubtedly be saying "This game was better in 34.whatever!!"

[TempAcc]

Also, DF is only a year older then the first CoD.
The older is better argument is only half true when applied to sequels, unless its DF, then its backwards

[Waparius]

Unfortunately, in 10 years some people will undoubtedly be saying "This game was better in 34.whatever!!"

Clearly you mean back when it was 2D.

[Delta Foxtrot]

There are those that actually prefer 2D Dwarf Fortress to the current 3D iteration.

[dizzyelk]

Yesteryear had as many bad games as there are today, it's just that we tend to look at the past with rose tinted glasses. Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days. And their parent say the exact same thing about older stuff. Really it's a constant of life that old people complain about younglins and their satanic immoral hobbies. It's unfortunate because we are currently on the beginning of the golden age of gaming, see: Dwarf Fortress. This game would be impossible 20 years ago.

I'm not saying there were no bad games in the past, I'm saying that the good games in the past were, on a general level, better than the good games of today. Especially RPGS. Cause games today are not aimed at gamers, they're aimed at casual gamers, with "streamlined" controls to make everything easy for consoles, cause they can't understand why people don't want to spend money on their crap and pirate it instead.

[Oliolli]

Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.

Bah! You kids and your fancy pop! Music has been no good since the Baroque!

And you're probably older than me...

[dizzyelk]

Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.

Bah! You kids and your fancy pop! Music has been no good since the Baroque!

And you're probably older than me...

I quite disagree, its been nothing but a downhill slide ever since the first caveman banged two rocks together, and created the only TRUE music.

[Neonivek]

I actually liked Fallout 3

My only issue is that Fallout 3 feels like its own seperate game from the Fallouts before it and we ALL know that they arn't going to make another classic Fallout.

There is expanding on a series and then there is genre shift.

[Oliolli]

Speak with any adult and they will consistently tell you that music/TV/radio/whatever was much better on the old days.

Bah! You kids and your fancy pop! Music has been no good since the Baroque!

And you're probably older than me...

I quite disagree, its been nothing but a downhill slide ever since the first caveman banged two rocks together, and created the only TRUE music.

Quite. "Duh Duh Deh" was always my favorite.