Print

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

[Kebooo]

Three of my favorite games in the last decade are Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins.  Sometimes people have different tastes.  I played Baldur's Gate back when it was new, Icewind Dale too.  Loved them, but I don't consider them anywhere near the latest Bioware games.  Jade Empire didn't get nearly the critical acclaim it deserved, either.

[nenjin]

Simpler times?! Modern games are far simpler than their older counterparts. Yeesh, just look at the Anno line. Stuff has been largely dumbed down.

No, they're not.

Technically, in terms of hardware, performance, coding....games are 5x more complex than they ever were back in the day. That's why you have everyone doing their own Java JRPG that makes it's way into this forum...the technology is simple enough now end-users can produce the same content they enjoyed over a decade ago.

Yes, sure, games are 'simpler' from our perspective. Or is that we're all a) older b) smarter and c) have a vast repertoire of video game tropes, models, concepts and ideas that we compare everything we play today against? I play an RPG today, and I have their system on cognitive lockdown within 2 hours. Most of the time when I quit games, it's because I have seen everything that is coming down the pipeline, and there's no mystery left to me. I could blame developers for being 'simple'....or I could blame myself for having played 3/4 of all games worth playing.

We do game designers a huge disservice by saying their games are 'simple.' They bust their asses to make the technology work, and we lampoon the ones that fail. I don't doubt they dream of making a 2-d JRPG today because they could do it in a month, as opposed to creating several thousand high-detail art assets, making sprawling game networks supporting millions of people work like we expect, on top of actually trying to innovate in the industry.

I won't say I'm happy with the way games are being made today....but I try to cut many of the people involved some slack.

Yes, we can all point to DF and say that's where gaming should be going....but we always like to ignore the fact it represents hundreds of iterations, more development in years than some MMOs....and it's not even close to done yet. A project like DF might not well survive in the real world for the very fact of what it is. At some point every development team has to say 'stop.' Where they stop is a matter of their contract, not some bottom-feeding ethos when it comes to game design. If you want to see the newest crop of bottom-designers, go look at some FB app games. THAT'S your wretched future of gaming, not because it's casual, but because it's mass-produced. Almost all of the AAA games (and a lot of the indie games out there) we play today are masterpieces in their own right, in some aspect....but art is subjective, so there's never really any agreeing on that.

[MrWiggles]

Though thats not a universal truth, its not uncommon for games to be stopped working on not because they were done with it but because they had to.

Mario 64 was almost not an opening title for the N64, because he was adding content, and mechanics to until the very end. A more recent example was God of War series. How many video games do you know of that had fully textued deleted NPCs and displayed them. There is also TF2 that was simply told to stop fucking working on it and ship.

[Sowelu]

It's the curse of the older gamer that we will always be seeking that same fulfillment we found in simpler times.

Simpler times?! Modern games are far simpler than their older counterparts. Yeesh, just look at the Anno line. Stuff has been largely dumbed down.

Flight/submarine/etc sims...more complicated and realistic over the years.
Sports sims (if you're into that)...MUCH more complicated over the years, in a good way.  (Seriously, give some modern NCAA football game a try sometime.  Signing new players and managing your team's talent over time as players graduate is a surprisingly fun and complex part of the game, even if you're not a football fan.  You WILL be surprised at how complex it is.)
Every SimCity has been more complicated than the last, even if SC2k was one of the better games (SC4 is great with patches).  Oh yeah, and remember how shallow SimAnt was?  And remember how SimLife kind of sucked despite their best efforts?
Every Civ game has, at least, been more complicated than the last.  I'm still looking forwards to Elemental: War of Magic being a nice, complicated spiritual successor to the complex Master of Magic.
Quake 1 was nice BECAUSE it was simple.  You can't really argue that modern FPSes aren't more complex (though you can argue whether it makes them more fun).
The first Zelda game was made in three months by, what, four guys?

Sure, the most recent Railroad Tycoon game is way less complex than older ones, but that's because they changed their target audience from "people who want an economic simulator" to "people who like playing with trains".

In short:  I respectfully disagree with your premise.

[Pathos]

Flight/submarine/etc sims...more complicated and realistic over the years.

Such as? I'm fairly certain this isn't true.

Sports sims (if you're into that)...MUCH more complicated over the years, in a good way.  (Seriously, give some modern NCAA football game a try sometime.  Signing new players and managing your team's talent over time as players graduate is a surprisingly fun and complex part of the game, even if you're not a football fan.  You WILL be surprised at how complex it is.)

Probably but... Sport sims. And there wasn't much to go on, there.

Every SimCity has been more complicated than the last, even if SC2k was one of the better games (SC4 is great with patches).  Oh yeah, and remember how shallow SimAnt was?  And remember how SimLife kind of sucked despite their best efforts?

Never really played SimCity, but I don't think series count - since they're mainly just chucking new features onto an older base.

Every Civ game has, at least, been more complicated than the last.  I'm still looking forwards to Elemental: War of Magic being a nice, complicated spiritual successor to the complex Master of Magic.

See the last thing I said.

Quake 1 was nice BECAUSE it was simple.  You can't really argue that modern FPSes aren't more complex (though you can argue whether it makes them more fun).

Former FPSes had much more strategy and skill involved, because of how simple they were. With more base complexity in FPSes there is less space for a player to make complexity.

Sure, the most recent Railroad Tycoon game is way less complex than older ones, but that's because they changed their target audience from "people who want an economic simulator" to "people who like playing with trains".

In short:  I respectfully disagree with your premise.

When they create a completely new game from scatch, it will be much simpler. Compare DA:O, Oblivion, Fallout 3 with the older titles. It's extremely obvious with RPGs.

[MrWiggles]

Um, FPS had more strategy in the older days? How so?  Doom had ten guns because there are ten numeric keys on top. Thats not in depth game design that practicality/laziness.

[Grakelin]

In the old days, people used to go on and on about the thousands of hours of work put into developing Tetris.

As to Pathos's ninja post:

Flight/submarine/etc sims: What. Why do you think this? Microsoft Flight Sim was at the point where beginner pilots were training with it. Maybe do some research of your own?

Sports Sims: Your prejudices against a particular game genre don't apply to this discussion. I'm not going to say movies went downhill during the 70s because I don't like Crime Dramas.

SimCity: Is your girlfriend posting for you? Did you really say "Never really played SimCity" followed by "They're mainly just chucking new features onto an older base"? Really?

Civilization: Have you played more than one Civilization game? Civ2, Civ3, and Civ4 are all drastically different from one another. I haven't played Civ1, but I imagine it is the same.

FPSes: This is getting increasingly more inane. Quake 1 involved more strategy and skill because you couldn't look up or down and everything was about twitch shooting, whereas CoD: MW2 involves less strategy because it tosses in grenades and a variety of weapons? Really? Are you reading your posts?

This would be a good time to claim it was your girlfriend posting, even if it's not, just to cover up how little thought you put into that post.

[MrWiggles]

Excellent reminder on not being able to have free form looking in the some of the older FPS.

[BigD145]

Civilization: Have you played more than one Civilization game? Civ2, Civ3, and Civ4 are all drastically different from one another. I haven't played Civ1, but I imagine it is the same.

Different, not more complex. The Civ line hasn't changed much over the years, except when modders get ahold of them.

Note: and except Civ Rev. OMG that load of shite is so dumbed down.

[Grakelin]

If you think Civ4 isn't a change from Civ2, you should consider playing both games through again.

[Pathos]

Um, FPS had more strategy in the older days? How so?  Doom had ten guns because there are ten numeric keys on top. Thats not in depth game design that practicality/laziness.

Because players designed their own strategies, instead of the design of the game forcing them into it. It's the same as various sandbox MMOs. With simple rules, complex strategies can evolve. With extravagant rules, strategies are stifled.

Military sims: Flight sims, sure, but submarine sims were definitely more complex in yolden days. Considering Microsoft Flight Sim has been being updated for about 25 years, too...
Sport sims: Sport sims are a fairly simple base with a bunch of stuff added to it. Every year, it's just the same base with better graphics, newer character names and a few features added on. (If even that.) See all the NFL / FIFA games that get released.
SimCity: I did play upto SimCity 3000, but I meant I haven't played Societies or 4. Societies was made from scratch, and therefore simplistic and terrible. I heard that 4 was just some VERY minor building / agriculture changes.
Civilization: Civ2/3 weren't all THAT different, (major rule changes and feature updates, but the core was the same) and Civ4 was pretty bad unmodded. So, yeah.

[Grakelin]

Civ2 and Civ3 were pretty vastly different. I won't argue with you over whether or not Civ4 was bad unmodded, since that is your personal opinion (though, I have played countless hundreds of hours on Vanilla Civ, and it's remained my favorite of the series), but again: Your personal opinion on whether or not you enjoy the game is irrelevant as to whether or not it's been dumbed down to make it easier for you.

Now you're lamenting modern games for not dumbing down the mechanics and allowing you to 'make your own strategies' or whatever. If you just want to argue endlessly, that's fine, but please offer us some sort of warning before we're locked into a circular debate with you.

Have you played the NFL or FIFA games? They are actually incredibly complex. I think you're regurgitating a lot of things you hear in the video game media without actually formulating opinions based on your own research, Mr. Ebert.

[Sowelu]

I'm pretty sure that TF2 players would disagree with the design of the more-complex game forcing them into specific strategies.  And yeah.  TF2 is more complex than TFC which was, if nothing else, much more complex than Q2CTF (and more polished than QTF).

Recent Silent Hunter games are WAY more badass and complex than the sub sims of yore.  Remember how complicated Battlecruiser 3000 was supposed to be, the game whose complexity put all other simulators to shame, the game that was terrible to play and never even got finished?  Well, recent sub sims appear to have taken all the good qualities of BC3k's design spec, actually done them right, and left out the really bad parts.  I haven't seen any preceding games pull this off.

SimCity Societies was designed for a different demographic and a different playstyle, just like SimTown--they were designed to be simpler games for a younger audience.  Don't start comparing those with SimCity, they had different intentions going in.  Societies is very similar to NationStates, you're not supposed to take it seriously but hey, some people play it because they think it's fun.  And it's very nice that you "heard" that SC4 was very minor changes, but that's total bull.  It's some pretty goddamn massive upgrades...well, about as big as you can get while staying within the same genre.  They're adding complexity while keeping loyal to the expectations of their fans.  What else do you want them to do?

Your opinions on how bad Civ4 was have no bearing on whether it was more complex than earlier Civ games.  It was.  Religion, a better culture model, multinational corporations in the upgrade...  Yeah.  I'm pretty sure those weren't in earlier Civ games.

Edit:  And just as Grakelin ninja'd me above, the quality and complexity of sports games has nothing to do with how often they're released.  Just like you had to draw your own maps in old, old RPGs, I found myself taking elaborate paper notes on the strengths and weaknesses of my team and how I wanted to shore them up with recruits.  And, gosh darn it, I enjoyed myself--even though there were options to handle that stuff automatically.

[nenjin]

I just got done playing Company of Heroes with two of my friends, an RTS which makes OG Warcraft look like Pong in terms of complexity. I can say, without prejudice, that it is more complex, and any 'strategies' WC might have offered players, it offers them the same with a host of other options. What was strategy anyways, in OG RTS? Microing your guys out of range?

The seriously ridiculous part about your posts goes again to technology. Processors are, what, about 30x faster than they were 15 years ago? That makes possible all these insane sim games (like CitiesXL, another recent city Sim that puts SimCity2000 to shame in terms of complexity), or all the other fantasies that devs in the 80s and 90s could only dream about because they were limited by the technology. To say it all went into graphics is just being obstinate.

[Shades]

Btw when your comparing the average triple A game today (which is clearly terrible) with older games, make sure you actually compare them with the average older game (which were worse) than the classics. There is a good reason so many games are forgotten.

I'd have said the average game is better now than they used to be, there is a larger games market than there used to be and the number of shockingly good games seem to pop up at about the same rate as before.

Games are also one of the few mediums where series tend to improve too. (I admit this isn't always the case, and it's a lot due to personal taste, but on average I'd say it's true)

There are a lot of old games I love, and ones I'd claim are better than what I've seen recently, but the truth is very few of them I actually go back and play.