Why Games Are Not Entertaining Anymore?

[Devogen]

Yeah Morrowwind was an exception, also I rememberd a great one called Homeworld, a bit sci-fi for most of these rpg freaks, but it was a fantastic game.

[Anna Comnena]

What exception? Morrowind is old. There were still decent games in general back then.

Homeworld is probably the best RTS I've played (the R.U.S.E. demo was neat but they had things to work out).

[Murdoc]

I think this thread is fucked up. It's a relative viewpoint. I happen to find lots of games entertaining now, depending on how long i play them for (til i get bored). Some I dont find so entertaining. To make a general statement like : why arent games entertaining anymore…. is like saying "why isnt sex good anymore?" to which Id reply "well who you havin it with? better find yourself a hottie fast!" Not to mention, f just smoke some grass all games are more fun since you'll feel more like a kid again. Anyway, I give this thread an.....


[Anna Comnena]

I think the point is, games have not really developed. Most of the new games are for all functional purposes, _the exact same games we played ten years ago!_ It's just a generalization, it doesn't mean there weren't crappy games back then too, or that there isn't any good games recent or upcoming.

Basically, to go to your metaphor with sex, the video game industry has pretty much had the same sex positions for a long time, so for people who've been in the relationship long-term will find it boring until interesting new things are attempted.

[azure]

Anna you get the butt plugs I'll get the wii. :)

[silentdemonic]

Well to extend the sex metaphor I do not think it has anything to do with new things being attempted, I believe it is those in long term relationships having too limited a knowledge base to even KNOW what is out there to attempt.

I have been gaming across all genres since the 80s, completed my first game when I was 4- was Rocky ^_^. There has been entertaining games from all genres but the problem is most who complain only access the Top 10 on some Chart made by some guy being paid to place said products there.

The reason I make this assumption is because I know all to well how many people will avoid a game based on negative reviews.
Just recently a game called Alpha Protocol has been released by Sega, it has been panned by critics, developers of the game who left said it is bug ridden and yet I have not played such an amazing game this year it currently tops my others.

Games like The Last Remnant, Deus Ex, FF Series, Alien Homid, Im not going to generate a list here, but my advice is - if you are not finding games entertaining you need to find a new genre or you need to stop reading the Top 10 charts to find games. You should do some cross internet research, check Forums and so on, even track Japanese releases that are bound for translations - those who seek are rewarded.

[Anna Comnena]

@Azure:

> Anna you get the butt plugs I'll get the wii. :)

Fuck off with your gimmicks!  :P

@silentdemonic:

> Well to extend the sex metaphor I do not think it has anything to do with new things being attempted, I believe it is those in long term relationships having too limited a knowledge base to even KNOW what is out there to attempt.
>
> I have been gaming across all genres since the 80s, completed my first game when I was 4- was Rocky ^_^. There has been entertaining games from all genres but the problem is most who complain only access the Top 10 on some Chart made by some guy being paid to place said products there.
>
> The reason I make this assumption is because I know all to well how many people will avoid a game based on negative reviews.
> Just recently a game called Alpha Protocol has been released by Sega, it has been panned by critics, developers of the game who left said it is bug ridden and yet I have not played such an amazing game this year it currently tops my others.
>
> Games like The Last Remnant, Deus Ex, FF Series, Alien Homid, Im not going to generate a list here, but my advice is - if you are not finding games entertaining you need to find a new genre or you need to stop reading the Top 10 charts to find games. You should do some cross internet research, check Forums and so on, even track Japanese releases that are bound for translations - those who seek are rewarded.

Very good points.

[Murdoc]

@silentdemonic:

> Well to extend the sex metaphor I do not think it has anything to do with new things being attempted, I believe it is those in long term relationships having too limited a knowledge base to even KNOW what is out there to attempt.
>
> I have been gaming across all genres since the 80s, completed my first game when I was 4- was Rocky ^_^. There has been entertaining games from all genres but the problem is most who complain only access the Top 10 on some Chart made by some guy being paid to place said products there.
>
> The reason I make this assumption is because I know all to well how many people will avoid a game based on negative reviews.
> Just recently a game called Alpha Protocol has been released by Sega, it has been panned by critics, developers of the game who left said it is bug ridden and yet I have not played such an amazing game this year it currently tops my others.
>
> Games like The Last Remnant, Deus Ex, FF Series, Alien Homid, Im not going to generate a list here, but my advice is - if you are not finding games entertaining you need to find a new genre or you need to stop reading the Top 10 charts to find games. You should do some cross internet research, check Forums and so on, even track Japanese releases that are bound for translations - those who seek are rewarded.

Basically what you're saying (to extend the sex metaphor, EVEN MORE!) is that we should be refering to the karma sutra (of games) instead of the "sex for dummies". Thats what I got out of it anyway.

[Robin]

A lot of recent games are bad sex. Drunk fumblings with random girls you have no emotional connection with.

Then you get ones where it's not sex at all. You didn't bother going to the pub and making a fool of yourself trying to pull. Instead you sit in the corner, tighten a belt around your arm, slap your inner-elbow to get your veins to raise then inject some cold, hard heroin and have a fantastic night.

You then wake up the next day and your sex drive is dead, you're feeling like shit and you can't stand the thought of that awkward, drunken sex, so you keep going back to the heroin.

tl:dr; You play an awesome game and it makes your standards higher, making average games look even more shit.

[Kusy]

All this "games are not fun anymore" shit is funny. Games are fun, that's why people are buying it. When you actualy take a little bit of time to check it or think about it - those old "classics" cannot be even compared to present games. I hear people saying how awesome, sandbox and vast Daggerfall was… Daggerfall is pice of shit, I tried it recently and it's unpleyable. I hear how people diss Fallout 3 and say how awesome previous Fallouts were... but previous fallouts are pices of shit - I launched Fallout 2 recently and it was unpleyable... and I don't really want to imagine how the first one looked.

As much as I loved to play CivilizationI when I was 6 years old - it's a pice of shit, as much as I loved Doom - I don't like it anymore. Saying that "oooh... I remember the days when games were fun..." is like to compare friggin PACMAN with Quake1 or Quake1 with MassEffect2\. Those oldies were awesome when they were the only thing you could play. Even KOTOR seems to archaic to me, I recently tried to launch it but gameplay wasn't what I remember and I couldn't play it for too long. How can you say that story was better in the 1990? TES before Morowind had shit story. Games were shit back then but people tend to remember only the pros, because a) they were young b) that was everything they could expect back then. Number of games that doesn't age is incredibly small.

I dare you:
Play TES Oblivion for a week and then launch Daggerfall or Arena and tell me that Oblivion sucks.
Play Fallout 3 for a couple of days, then launch Fallout or Fallout 2 - and tell me that Fallout 3 suck ass compared to them.

[Murdoc]

@Martin:

> All this "games are not fun anymore" shit is funny. Games are fun, that's why people are buying it. When you actualy take a little bit of time to check it or think about it - those old "classics" cannot be even compared to present games. I hear people saying how awesome, sandbox and vast Daggerfall was… Daggerfall is pice of shit, I tried it recently and it's unpleyable. I hear how people diss Fallout 3 and say how awesome previous Fallouts were... but previous fallouts are pices of shit - I launched Fallout 2 recently and it was unpleyable... and I don't really want to imagine how the first one looked.
>
> As much as I loved to play CivilizationI when I was 6 years old - it's a pice of shit, as much as I loved Doom - I don't like it anymore. Saying that "oooh... I remember the days when games were fun..." is like to compare friggin PACMAN with Quake1 or Quake1 with MassEffect2\. Those oldies were awesome when they were the only thing you could play. Even KOTOR seems to archaic to me, I recently tried to launch it but gameplay wasn't what I remember and I couldn't play it for too long. How can you say that story was better in the 1990? TES before Morowind had shit story. Games were shit back then but people tend to remember only the pros, because a) they were young b) that was everything they could expect back then. Number of games that doesn't age is incredibly small.
>
> I dare you:
> Play TES Oblivion for a week and then launch Daggerfall or Arena and tell me that Oblivion sucks.
> Play Fallout 3 for a couple of days, then launch Fallout or Fallout 2 - and tell me that Fallout 3 suck ass compared to them.

That's kinda where I was getting at. Of course games are still fun to play, unless you're boring as hell.

[Helladen]

@Cheshire:

> @Martin:
>
> > All this "games are not fun anymore" shit is funny. Games are fun, that's why people are buying it. When you actualy take a little bit of time to check it or think about it - those old "classics" cannot be even compared to present games. I hear people saying how awesome, sandbox and vast Daggerfall was… Daggerfall is pice of shit, I tried it recently and it's unpleyable. I hear how people diss Fallout 3 and say how awesome previous Fallouts were... but previous fallouts are pices of shit - I launched Fallout 2 recently and it was unpleyable... and I don't really want to imagine how the first one looked.
> >
> > As much as I loved to play CivilizationI when I was 6 years old - it's a pice of shit, as much as I loved Doom - I don't like it anymore. Saying that "oooh... I remember the days when games were fun..." is like to compare friggin PACMAN with Quake1 or Quake1 with MassEffect2\. Those oldies were awesome when they were the only thing you could play. Even KOTOR seems to archaic to me, I recently tried to launch it but gameplay wasn't what I remember and I couldn't play it for too long. How can you say that story was better in the 1990? TES before Morowind had shit story. Games were shit back then but people tend to remember only the pros, because a) they were young b) that was everything they could expect back then. Number of games that doesn't age is incredibly small.
> >
> > I dare you:
> > Play TES Oblivion for a week and then launch Daggerfall or Arena and tell me that Oblivion sucks.
> > Play Fallout 3 for a couple of days, then launch Fallout or Fallout 2 - and tell me that Fallout 3 suck ass compared to them.
>
> That's kinda where I was getting at. Of course games are still fun to play, unless you're boring as hell.

Are you saying this because of the graphics? Because in my opinion graphics should come absolutely last.

[Kusy]

Why?

[Helladen]

I play a game only for the story/gameplay. Sure good graphics catches the eye, but it only lasts for a few hours then your like whatever.

[silentdemonic]

I totally agree, I can stomach a game with poor graphics but good gameplay but not the other way round. To play game with poor game play and next gen graphics is a Tech Demo, not a game.

There are occasions when Games get both right and thats when you end up with the timeless classics because a) they stun upon entry with the graphics and b) survive through time due to their gameplay.
Mario
Street Fighter
I am pushed to find many other examples but Im sure they exist.

There is a major thing I realised as I mentioned in another thread however, as you grow up without you noticing your Genre love changes and if you do not switch to a new Genre you will find yourself getting Bored of Gaming. I personally used to devote my life to Final Fantasy then I got older, bills needed paying and I no longer had time to power level my characters to ungodly amounts - that required electricity of which I now needed to pay lol.
So now I play games that I can pickup for like an hour or two and put down, currently my eyes and hands have just finished New Super Mario Bros *all coins I might add* and now playing Alpha Protocol which is a action packed thriller of a game - Tom Clancy on Crack, the mission based play means I can stop once Ive done a mission and feel like progress has occurred.

So yeah I think its all about finding your new Genre once you find you are bored Gaming. Its like Food, everyone eats something you just have to find what it is you like to now eat unless of course you truly do not like to eat Food full stop in which case maybe its time you found something else to fill the void completely.

[Murdoc]

@Martin:

> Why?

People who say games arent as good as they used to be will usually point out that graphics in games have become substantially better, but that gameplay is failing. I disagree completely. A good example is Oblivion which has rich gameplay and good graphics. The same type of games that were being made in classic eras, are STILL being made, just with better graphics. But as far as new styles, genres, or anything new in games, there probably wont be, since just bout every idea that can be done, HAS been done.

If I think about how I used to wholeheartedly enjoy Mario Bros 1 for Nintendo (I beat it in a day)… and if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much... this leads me to believe I'm really just spoiled with all the games there has been since then. In the words of my mother, we're "a bunch of spoiled bratz". Am I right, or am I right?

[silentdemonic]

@Cheshire:

> People who say games arent as good as they used to be will usually point out that graphics in games have become substantially better, but that gameplay is failing. I disagree completely. A good example is Oblivion which has rich gameplay and good graphics. The same type of games that were being made in classic eras, are STILL being made, just with better graphics. But as far as new styles, genres, or anything new in games, there probably wont be, since just bout every idea that can be done, HAS been done.
>
> If I think about how I used to wholeheartedly enjoy Mario Bros 1 for Nintendo (I beat it in a day)… and if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much... this leads me to believe I'm really just spoiled with all the games there has been since then. In the words of my mother, we're "a bunch of spoiled bratz". Am I right, or am I right?

Oblivion even when it was released to me was not a Good game, sure it got high reviews but as a game I just didnt enjoy it. Sure the story and the way it got you inside the game world was fun but - it was TOO big of a game for most people who werent looking for something so dedicated. Oblivion was a game that appealed to hardcore gamers who had the time to play/appreciate it so for people like me the gameplay wasnt appealing and thus to me - bad design, it could have easily provided some form of progression in sequences but didnt.

There are many games out there that are fresh and exciting to play and are trying new things but the problem is the dreadful game charts. Stores get games in and rank them in store based on what a small selection of people think the worst for this is GameSpot. This limits the games people are exposed to look how long awesome games like World of Goo where around yet only a little while back was it in stores and getting the appreciation it deserves.

If Gamers didnt play it safe and took a gamble on other games they were not used to they would find a world of fun. I downloaded a game called Luxor, a puzzle game just for the sake of being random and its a game I truly love to wind down the end of the night with.

"if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much"
Take the risk and go play it, this is the voice of many other gamers too, well I doubt Ill like it Ill just grab something from the Top 10 charts.

[Murdoc]

@silentdemonic:

> @Cheshire:
>
> > People who say games arent as good as they used to be will usually point out that graphics in games have become substantially better, but that gameplay is failing. I disagree completely. A good example is Oblivion which has rich gameplay and good graphics. The same type of games that were being made in classic eras, are STILL being made, just with better graphics. But as far as new styles, genres, or anything new in games, there probably wont be, since just bout every idea that can be done, HAS been done.
> >
> > If I think about how I used to wholeheartedly enjoy Mario Bros 1 for Nintendo (I beat it in a day)… and if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much... this leads me to believe I'm really just spoiled with all the games there has been since then. In the words of my mother, we're "a bunch of spoiled bratz". Am I right, or am I right?
>
> Oblivion even when it was released to me was not a Good game, sure it got high reviews but as a game I just didnt enjoy it. Sure the story and the way it got you inside the game world was fun but - it was TOO big of a game for most people who werent looking for something so dedicated. Oblivion was a game that appealed to hardcore gamers who had the time to play/appreciate it so for people like me the gameplay wasnt appealing and thus to me - bad design, it could have easily provided some form of progression in sequences but didnt.
>
> There are many games out there that are fresh and exciting to play and are trying new things but the problem is the dreadful game charts. Stores get games in and rank them in store based on what a small selection of people think the worst for this is GameSpot. This limits the games people are exposed to look how long awesome games like World of Goo where around yet only a little while back was it in stores and getting the appreciation it deserves.
>
> If Gamers didnt play it safe and took a gamble on other games they were not used to they would find a world of fun. I downloaded a game called Luxor, a puzzle game just for the sake of being random and its a game I truly love to wind down the end of the night with.
>
> "if I was to play it now how that I probably wouldn't enjoy it HALF as much"
> Take the risk and go play it, this is the voice of many other gamers too, well I doubt Ill like it Ill just grab something from the Top 10 charts.

I already know I don't enjoy games like I used to because I'm spoiled. That's my reality anyway. And you say you didn't care for Oblivion, eventhough it did have enriched gameplay. This is another reason why I earlier posted that the question for this thread is a fail, because its ALL RELATIVE. I may like a game, that you don't. Someone may like only classic games, except for a few new ones. Someone may like only new games and not classic ones. Some people like classic and newer games. I could go on…

Debating a relative viewpoint cannot be done. If I was to even try to prove one way or the other that games ARE or they ARE NOT entertaining anymore I'd end up only stupider and not smarter, since there's no absolute answer for either stance.

[silentdemonic]

The question is why Games are not Entertaining, in other words are you noticing the Trend (which the OP must have noticed) that Games being released have shorter shelf lives and are just not making the impact that they used to back in the older days.
Many points can be debated such as the trend of Game making engines or reinventing a tired feature (How many Games have released 'bullet time' and called it something else). These are factors that influence a game being entertaining or not.
As for Oblivion I said the way it got you into the Story was fun but the actual gameplay was crappy to me - it was aimed at people with TOO much time on hands when a simple rethink could have still aimed at that market but also those with limited amount of time each day.

So to me there is much to debate - but my viewpoint is that it is the Gamers knowledge at fault when they cease to be entertained.

[Murdoc]

@silentdemonic:

> The question is why Games are not Entertaining, in other words are you noticing the Trend (which the OP must have noticed) that Games being released have shorter shelf lives and are just not making the impact that they used to back in the older days.
> Many points can be debated such as the trend of Game making engines or reinventing a tired feature (How many Games have released 'bullet time' and called it something else). These are factors that influence a game being entertaining or not.
> As for Oblivion I said the way it got you into the Story was fun but the actual gameplay was crappy to me - it was aimed at people with TOO much time on hands when a simple rethink could have still aimed at that market but also those with limited amount of time each day.
>
> So to me there is much to debate - but my viewpoint is that it is the Gamers knowledge at fault when they cease to be entertained.

Part of the reason games have a shorter shelf life (eventhough thats not the original question) , is simply that theres MORE games being made.

As far as games being made for people with "too much" time on their hands. Well, some games take patience, and cannot be beaten in one day. To me, some of the best games (not all), are those games in which the developers took a lot of time to make it. Those types of games also take a lot of time to play, and were meant to be that way for those of us who like substance.

But anyway, yea we can debate til the cows come home on what games are good or not in today's era. But questions like "why arent games entertaining anymore" are stupid, when clearly some of us find a large portion of games are still entertaining, and always have. And for those of us who have lived past our teen years, and still manage to enjoy video-gaming, its probably because we asked ourself at one point "why dont i find games AS entertaining as I used to?" and then realized it's probably because we dont find ANYTHING as entertaining anymore, but were still gonna play video games, gosh darnit!


[silentdemonic]

You took what I said out of the context I stated it within. If a game has a short shelf life it is due to it not being well received, you dont see great games landing in the bargain bin a week or so down the line. People buy Games to be Entertained just like people play sports for fun, unless it is your job to test games - nobody plays a game without drawing some form of entertainment from it and thus my above point is reflective of the question.

There being more Games being made does not have the impact you would imagine upon games - if I asked you right now how many active games are on Eclipse you could go to the Active Games thread and go look. If the ideal game for you happened to be entry 11 and you only be bothered to search the first 10 you would miss out on an ideal game for you not because of the number of games as such, but because you didnt spend the time to search hard enough.

I am well aware of Games that take patience, New Super Mario Bros was a game that I played for 2-3 months until fully completed. The design of completing a level which was part of a world which was part of the quest to collect all coins it was all linked and yet broken down.

Oblivion is not a game of patience it is a Sea of Time draining Gameplay whereby should you spend a short burst of time you could very well exit halfway through a quest in a land related to a side quest and if you do not have the time that the game requires to come back a week later you would find yourself a little bewildered even WITH your quest log.

Having Patience and Having ample Free time are two different topics.

Im in my 20's and as soon as I grew out of my love for RPG's I moved on to Action Shooters such as Alpha Protocol currently which is engaging, unique gameplay and fun as heck and even with its twists and turns and dialog in which YOU control the outcome, they still managed to get it right and break it down into linked mission gameplay.

There are many games in history that follow that game design and games that do not are the ones in my eyes that fail - because there is no excuse not to appreciate your player market.

You said your self that this question is largely relative - therefore it is possible to draw the conclusion that the fault is not with the games but the gamer themselves.

I wouldnt play games just for the hell of it "gosh darnit" my time is money and if Im not playing a game because I find it entertaining and a good way to unwind then I and anyone else with that line of thought should not be gaming.
There is lots to find entertaining, sport, cooking, sex, rapping, heck the world is filled with entertainment and when you get bored of something you just switch. You shouldnt ever be in a state where you cease to find things entertaining it is too bold a statement and one that relies on having experienced everything.

[Murdoc]

@silentdemonic:

> You took what I said out of the context I stated it within. If a game has a short shelf life it is due to it not being well received, you dont see great games landing in the bargain bin a week or so down the line. People buy Games to be Entertained just like people play sports for fun, unless it is your job to test games - nobody plays a game without drawing some form of entertainment from it and thus my above point is reflective of the question.
>
> There being more Games being made does not have the impact you would imagine upon games - if I asked you right now how many active games are on Eclipse you could go to the Active Games thread and go look. If the ideal game for you happened to be entry 11 and you only be bothered to search the first 10 you would miss out on an ideal game for you not because of the number of games as such, but because you didnt spend the time to search hard enough.
>
> I am well aware of Games that take patience, New Super Mario Bros was a game that I played for 2-3 months until fully completed. The design of completing a level which was part of a world which was part of the quest to collect all coins it was all linked and yet broken down.
>
> Oblivion is not a game of patience it is a Sea of Time draining Gameplay whereby should you spend a short burst of time you could very well exit halfway through a quest in a land related to a side quest and if you do not have the time that the game requires to come back a week later you would find yourself a little bewildered even WITH your quest log.
>
> Having Patience and Having ample Free time are two different topics.
>
> Im in my 20's and as soon as I grew out of my love for RPG's I moved on to Action Shooters such as Alpha Protocol currently which is engaging, unique gameplay and fun as heck and even with its twists and turns and dialog in which YOU control the outcome, they still managed to get it right and break it down into linked mission gameplay.
>
> There are many games in history that follow that game design and games that do not are the ones in my eyes that fail - because there is no excuse not to appreciate your player market.
>
> You said your self that this question is largely relative - therefore it is possible to draw the conclusion that the fault is not with the games but the gamer themselves.
>
> I wouldnt play games just for the hell of it "gosh darnit" my time is money and if Im not playing a game because I find it entertaining and a good way to unwind then I and anyone else with that line of thought should not be gaming.
> There is lots to find entertaining, sport, cooking, sex, rapping, heck the world is filled with entertainment and when you get bored of something you just switch. You shouldnt ever be in a state where you cease to find things entertaining it is too bold a statement and one that relies on having experienced everything.

I said we may not find them "as" entertaining than when were young. This happens with everything in life like you said.

[Robin]

@Cheshire:

> Oblivion which has rich gameplay and good graphics

TES games have never had rich gameplay. Bethesda always come out with horribly cliché quests and bland, boring characters.

I could never stomach Morrowind or Oblivion without extensive modding.

Oblivion actually turned out to be a grind.

Pickup quests -> Kill monsters/Find items/Run to destination -> Hand in for items/money.

If you wanted to do something else, the only real challenge you had outside of the quests were the dungeons and Oblivion gates. Once you'd been in one of these, however, you'd been in them all. Every single one had the exact same tileset.

I'm not saying as a rule that all new games are bad compared to the old games, and I'm not saying all old games are good. I'm saying some of the best games of all time were released back then and we've become so wound up in the graphics race now that I've yet to see anyone top the kind of emotional experience you receive when playing something like Final Fantasy 6.

[azure]

It could be argued that that's nostalgia talking, robin, but I agree with you. I think that too many games concentrate on one gimmick or another any few really tell a good story or bring something new to the table. If you don't mind grind too horribly, and want a good story ff 13 is pretty good.

When it comes to scouting for games I usually read up on the game, and try to catch the X-Play review. For me games that get a 3 are a rent, but 4 and 5 are usually worth a buy.

[Robin]

Not really nostalgia. I didn't play it till I was 16 or so.