Why Games Are Not Entertaining Anymore?

[Kusy]

@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.

lol, man, we are talking about games being boring, repetive and so and you bring up FF13? Final Fantasys stopped developing anything new and interesting after 7th one. If I would like to watch a generic story with schematic characters and absolutely no player input in it I would go to a grindhouse cinema… at least I wouldn't be interupted by annoying combat parts and besses that transform eight times after getting killed... like in any Jrpg.

[azure]

@Martin:

> @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.
>
> lol, man, we are talking about games being boring, repetive and so and you bring up FF13? **_Final Fantasys stopped developing anything new and interesting after 7th one_**. If I would like to watch a generic story with schematic characters and absolutely no player input in it I would go to a grindhouse cinema… at least I wouldn't be interupted by annoying combat parts and besses that transform eight times after getting killed... like in any Jrpg.

Jeez and I'm biased for liking it, right? I guess that makes all the people who bought it stupid too? I keep reading about older games are so much better than new ones, but I think all of you need to remove the nostalgia goggles. I've gone back and played games I used to like and asked myself how I ever liked it in the first place. ff 7 was a gfx nightmare, probably the worst 3d rendering I've ever seen, and had game play that was exactly like ff1\. Now I'm not saying that some of the same fundamental flaws haven't carried to the later games, but there has been a lot of improvement too. Franchises that are still around like final fantasy, zelda, mario, etc are perfect examples.

[Kusy]

Nah man, I'm not saying that it's stupid and you suck because you like it. I'm saying that it has no innovation and is a perfect example of how some developers were too lazy or not creative enough to add anything to the genre. And you can't talk nostalgia goggles on this one with me - I never finished FF7… the only JRPG I finished was Grandia2 and when I launched FF7 afterwards it was playing the same game acording to mechanics, gameplay... sometimes even story was similar.

Another aproach to the toppic would be, game developers don't want to be too creative or eager when making new games... the pie is big, and they all get a slice when they release something. I can agree that tons of games feel incredibly the same. Like all are clones, and sure - some have more interesting aspects, some have few interesting ideas - but theyre all the same in the long run.

Now as a matter of warning - I am a BioWare fanboy and I'm not hiding it. What I see is that companies like them started to raise the competition. And other comapnies are defenetly not apriciating it, why? Because if BioWare or anyone else releases a game that is best in the genre then the other developers must put a lot of effort and money to adjust... because this industry (sadly) is not about making better and better games to some companies - it's about adjusting to current standards. And as long as the the standard sells and people buy those standarized games, companies don't see a reason to improve.

Just like LucasArts recently pissed me off (like hell). They had few projects going on: Star Wars the Old Republic, Star Wars: Force Unleashed II, Star Wars: Clone Wars Adventures (another SW mmo, not too many people are aware of), probobly another Starfighter game and Star Wars: Battlefront II. Two tiles I'm most eager to see were TOR and BF2... but BF2 was trashed and they dumped development, why? Because they already have two major tiles for 2011 (TOR and SWTFU2) and they don't want to overdoo it. It makes perfect sense from the comercial point of view. But we don't get to see an awesome game because they don't want to shake the market.

I'm not seeing The Old Republic as a WoW breaker, because WoW is a good game and people will enjoy it even after TOR's release. But if everything BioWare already revealed about that game comes true - the next wannabe-top MMO after TOR will have to do gigantic job to sucess. Because they decided and were given the time and funds to improve the genre.

It's jut more convinient to release standarized games with similar gameplay and milk as much money with as low budget before the competition is taken to another level. It's like with the hardware companies, they already have developed technology far superior than what is sold on the market, but as long as the old stuff is selling and has not depleated - why release it? For an example in games - look at Civilization series, there is no improvment over cosmetical since the first game... you still can shoot down a jet bomber with a roman trireme. Look at The Sims - the only thing that actualy improves besides graphics is how much fucked up the gameplay is (vamipires, werewolves, mummies, ninjas). Some companies went even further making sad games like Unreal Tournament 3... and sorry, nobody will manage to convince me that it was any better than UT2k4, it was inferior. Settlers, they made shitloads of those just to return to the same format of gameplay from Settlers II - I played that when I was 6, and I still prefer the pixel graphics it had from it's present 3D clones.

It's not that games are no fun, they just don't get any better. And as (Robin I think) mentined - after taking for a long time, you have to increase your fixes so they can deliver.

[Robin]

When it comes down to it, all the genres have been analysed to fuck and developers have to stick to the stuff which has worked in the past.

The games industry is about making money, not about making games.

[Kusy]

@Robin:

> The games industry is about making money, not about making games.

That's going a bit too far. They could just rob banks or sell vegetables.
Game industry is about making money with games.

[azure]

Robin's right, it's about making money and only games that will sell will be made by larger developers. Also about your other reply, tl;dr.

[renzo]

Why make a good game if everyone is just going to pirate it anyways? ;D

But seriously, every once in a while a good game does come through.  Its not much different from when games were first being made, there were probably tons of terrible games from the old days, only reason we don't know about them is because they sucked.  Whose going to remember a game nobody played?

I personally don't think game quality has gone down, the quantity has severely gone up so it just looks like its gone down.

[Murdoc]

@[PIERATE:

> renzozuken2002 link=topic=59665.msg647114#msg647114 date=1276149993]
> Why make a good game if everyone is just going to pirate it anyways? ;D
>
> But seriously, every once in a while a good game does come through.  Its not much different from when games were first being made, there were probably tons of terrible games from the old days, only reason we don't know about them is because they sucked.  Whose going to remember a game nobody played?
>
> I personally don't think game quality has gone down, the quantity has severely gone up so it just looks like its gone down.

I like your point that theres always been sexy games.

Edit: lol, did i say sexy? i meant sucky.

[azkanan]

Y'all just aren't playing decent games.

- Sims 3
- Modern Warfare 2
- Medieval 2
- Borderlands
- So many more.

[azure]

@[PIERATE:

> renzozuken2002 link=topic=59665.msg647114#msg647114 date=1276149993]
> Why make a good game if everyone is just going to pirate it anyways? ;D
>
> But seriously, every once in a while a good game does come through.  Its not much different from when games were first being made, there were probably tons of terrible games from the old days, only reason we don't know about them is because they sucked.  Whose going to remember a game nobody played?
>
> I personally don't think game quality has gone down, the quantity has severely gone up so it just looks like its gone down.

That's a valid point. With the gaming industry being as big as it is now(15+ billion a year) it's completely likely that it seems like there are a many more bad games than there really are.

Azkanan, that is very true all of those got really high ratings, and good reviews. Beyanetta, on the other hand ended up sucking arse. I'd guess at this point there are at least four good games for every one bad one. Speaking of slightly older games that are good, I've been playing Beyond Good and Evil.(ps2 version) It is probably one of the best games ubisoft ever made, though it may not be one of their most popular.

[silentdemonic]

Hah I remember BGaE classic right there ^_^

[Kusy]

A more interesting question would be… Why Gamers Are More Whiney?

[azure]

I agree with that. One of my pet peeves about ff 13 is that the story is so mushy.  I'm guessing that as possibilities in gaming progressed the "ideal of telling a story" has become more important to many developers than it once was. I mean where was the story in mortal kombat?

[silentdemonic]

@Azure:

> I agree with that. One of my pet peeves about ff 13 is that the story is so mushy.  I'm guessing that as possibilities in gaming progressed the "ideal of telling a story" has become more important to many developers than it once was. I mean where was the story in mortal kombat?

Every Character in MK had their own backstory and reasons for needing to reach the top, in fact Fighting Games in general have the most developed storylines imo, Street Fighter and King of Fighters being prime examples of this.

[renzo]

MK didn't really need the story, they could have just given the game without one and nobody would care.
But when your comparing an RPG to a fighting game…
An RPG stands for Role-Playing Game, you play a Role in a story.  The story is a requirement of the game.

[silentdemonic]

I have to disagree, the top two fighting games for me are Street Fighter and King of Fighters. They have gone from way back in the day to present day and a lot of it is to do with the Storylines of the characters. People felt a connection with the characters based on their background from those who felt the underdog vibes of Balrog (Boxer not Bison Boss, although depends where you are based), the lone wolf of Ryu, the Charasmatic Ken, the Revenge Seeking Chun-Li etc.
King of Fighters went a different path with their combo systems and faster gameplay but the teams of characters was all built upon Storylines which unless you took the time to know you would be at a disadvantage in-game as including certain characters in teams they do not agree with would lower their mood.
Then you have Games like Killer Instinct which barely anyone remembered despite having a fun pick up and play appeal their was little to no story and it flopped and was forgotten.
People who play fighting games will often have certain characters they feel attached to and this isnt possible without a story - it is part of the game, yes you can ignore it and play the fighting game without said knowledge but the same can be said for an RPG - you are not required to know the Story in FF7 or any other RPG you could just go through and take on the battles.

[azure]

I seriously doubt either of those games would clear the top three of  a greatest fighting games list. I do agree with :renzo:(lol I had too) fighting games never dwell on their story lines. I mean take the soul caliber franchise, In most of the games the only story line you get is via an un-lockable profile. From my experiences in fighting games(and believe me, next to rpgs it's pretty much my mainstream) they're essentially party games with violence.

[silentdemonic]

I dont think you have a good knowledge of fighting games then if you deny Street Fighter and King of Fighters which are essentially the granddaddy to all fighting games that came after. Street Fighter started the Slow Tactical Combat and King of Fighters Fast Combo Combat the elements of which have been updated year after year and are still around.
I find it funny you say that when a quick search for SF4 and KoF Orochi are two of the best fighting games to come out recently. This post is a prime example of what I mean by a Gamers lack of knowledge, Fighting games are my bread and butter and if you spent the time to research the above two games you would realise what I mean by deep storylines that cross over into each other.
Soul Caliber you will notice I did not mention just as you would likely not mention Zelda as a pure RPG, its always be known as an Action RPG, just as I would class SC as a Button Basher Fighting game.

E.g Unless you know the differences between Iori Yagami and Kyo Kusanagi in terms of their flame as a bare basic you are going to be at a disadvantage pulling their moves of.
Likewise in Street Fighter unless you follow the Storylines behind each character you will not understand why suttle differences exist between characters and be at a disadvantage in terms of knowing what moves counter others.

Sure you could just read a guide to explain that and likewise you could just read a guide to explain the story behind an RPG.

[renzo]

I think there has been a misunderstanding, i never said fighting games don't have story, i just said that they don't need them. Anyone can pick up SF4 or KoF Orochi and go straight to multiplayer action.
An RPG is not like that, you have to do what the story tells you to do or you will never progress in the game.  I suppose you could ignore the story and just grind outside, never going where the story told you to go, but then why did you buy the game?
And no, reading each characters background in a fighting game doesn't tell you anything you can use to your advantage in the actual fights.  Or if they are giving out secrets to abuse with the character, i haven't noticed them.

Bottom line is, comparing fighting games to RPGs are like comparing Apples to Oranges.

[azure]

Renzo, I'm in agreement with you. I never find profiles and such more than a side show in fighting games. Though I will say this much, some games really need a decent tutorial. Sometimes I don't want to spend hours to days studying the controls and physics to learn how to play.

Silentdemonic, tl;dr. You're a fan boy of those two games, that's good for you. I looked into it, Soul Calibur 4, King of fighters 11(the last one made, apparently), Street Fighter 4, and Mortal Kombat vs dc all scored about an 8 on IGN, which leads me to believe the games you hold so highly are average in their genre. You label Soul Calibur a button masher, but the irony is that all fighting games can boil down to that. In fact that's been their biggest criticism since day one.

EDIT: I don't care to argue this any further because the last batch of pokemon games got higher ratings then all but one of those games. lol

[silentdemonic]

What makes a game a button masher is what can be accomplished from Button Mashing.
In SF its punches and Kicks
In KoF its Punches and Kicks
In SC its Combos.
Like I said - the problem comes from the very rating sites you use which has been my line throughout this whole debate. Research and play the games in other genres before commenting on them or worse - ignoring them.

[azure]

Wow, talk about not reading. Go back and read my edit. Pokemon games are rated better than most of those games, drop it.

[silentdemonic]

Its an open forum allowed for discussion, you are the one not reading. If you are going to type tl:dr is it even worth commenting in reference to my posts. Why not ignore them and post something not connected to them?

[Anna Comnena]

With fighting games the stories do not matter in the least bit to the gameplay. It doesn't matter that Sakawazaki is mortal enemies with Hoohoocalitki because the gameplay just has each match plays functionally the same way.

With RPGs, or any single-player narrative games, story and characters are prominent to the gameplay because your tasks and goals for whatever "mission" or "level" or anything depend generally on the story and characters. Fighting games they don't matter, even if they are rich and descriptive. I have always liked Street Fighter II and I know each character has an interesting backstory, but it doesn't matter when I play it.

[azure]

Silentdemonic, Now that's just going off topic. I said tl;dr so that I don't have to comment on every bloody thing your wrote. IGN isn't just some random game site, it's probably one of the best that I've ever known on the subject matter. Secondly It has comprehensive scores based off press and gamer opinions alike. Lastly I don't feel like continuing a fruitless argument over what fighting game is better when all of the above mentioned games were second in their ratings to a pokemon game, which is inferior in 90 different ways to the fore mentioned games.

Anna, I've come to realize that over the years. Though I'd enjoy a little more story in story mode, ya know? lol

So to change topics, Why do you think platforming games vanished?