Because as mentioned, there was also the PC-generation that was dominant before the console-generation hit big.
Could you explain? I'm not sure if I'm getting your point here.
But at the same time we got even more games that focus on being hardcore such as the souls series and monster hunter, and we have games that drive storytelling in ways that old games never even attempted like the portal series, or shadow of the colossus by having the story be told in the background. Or actually making rpg's where the world becomes ever more expansive and increasingly more intereactive.
Strange that you mention the Souls series, because when Demon's Souls got originally released it's main selling point was it's unforgiving difficulty. It it was the main thing that had set it apart from other games released at that time, so I'm not really sure if it's the best example. But in any case, games like that had been around for a long time, but almost always, they're niche products.
I should probably clarify that when I'm speaking about games being different, I'm talking primarily about mainstream, triple-A titles. There's tons of small games that were released in the past few years that I immensly enjoyed. But what I'm having trouble getting into are the blockbuster hits, games that constantly impress me with great production values and high level of polish, but at the same time fail to capture my attention for longer than a few hours.
There are of course games that break the trend every now and then; I fell in love with the latest Deus Ex, which (despite its flaws) had me glued to my monitor for a long while. I'm still trying to figure out what really makes that difference for me; most likely it's a combination of many factors, primarily of the always changing design principles.
The titles you've mentioned are all some of my favourite games, but I feel that they're not necessarily good examples here. Both Portal and SoTC use the same methods of storytelling as the games that preceeded them. In some way, Portal felt like an extension of the HL series when it comes to its methods of telling the story via the environments, etc. SoTC on the other hand didn't do anything different from ICO in its narrative department; in fact I felt that narrative wasn't a focus there and as such ICO remains far superior in that area. Don't get me wrong here, I love both games, but I felt that their narratives are not the reasons why they felt so groundbreaking.
Never since the beginning of gaming have we had this amount of selection or different genres and difficulties to choose between, the selection of games are beyond the limited genres back then.
I'm a big shooter fan and love the most of them, but my games collection is hardly dominated by them, the games I've bought over the recent years have been very varied.They just got reintroduced to the console market with the dawn of dual-sticks, if you had seen the pc market they were always there and thriving, it's not just for having guns, it's an easy way of understanding a game, which is one of the reasons minecraft hit so big.
That's true, things like digital distribution and the indie revolution opeed up the gates for dozens of smaller, creative titles. But if we focus on the mainstream games for now, then there's a lot less variety than let's say 6 years ago. High quality, 3D platformers are a lot harder to find (unless we're talking about Nintendo :poly124:). Third person games are almost always sandboxes, hack&slashes, or over-the-shoulder shooters. Single player wRPG's are done only by a handful of companies, while party-based ones are almost non-existent.
On the other hand, military FPS's are almost everywhere. I guess it's not bad for people who enjoy them, but for guys like me who prefer a light-hearted adventure over gritty realism it's much harder to find something interesting.
The problem with the complaints is that they're short and narrow-sighted, they look at one part of the industry and see nothing else, the industry expands like a tree, in several different directions, we have the entire indie-games scene now which was non-existant back in the day, we have entirely new groups of people who never played games before that new games are made for. You have to look at the whole picture before saying that the change of one particular area of the industry constitutes the change of the whole industry.
I think I get worked up on it because saying that games got worse means that the person saying it didn't take the effort to actually look for the good games, which is a bit demeaning to the fantastic games we've got in the new generation.
That's true, but I've left out the indie games on a purpose. As much as I look forward to all those small, super creative teams, they simply don't have the resources yet to compete with the mainstream titles. I do believe that indies are the way forward, but I think we'll have to wait for at least a few years before they start making really great titles, that offer complex experiences. I'm not expecting them to compete in terms of production values, but at the moment, most of the indie games I had played were pretty simple.
Of course, there's more to the industry than that. But whenever this topic comes back, people are always talking primarily about games that follow the traditional format; "core" games that they enjoy the most. In fact, whenever I'm speaking about games I never even think about the casual/social/MMO genres. They never appealed to me and probably they never will. I guess that's the main issue with all those discussions; "games" can mean something completely different depending on a person. So for now, you can just assume that whenever I'm babbling about games, I'm talking about the "core" part of the industry (god...I hate that term :P).
On a side note, I would never go as far as to say that games had gotten worse. My point is that they're different and while I'm really happy that they're evolving, it's not the kind of change I was looking for. I can appreciate all the work that was put into them, but on a personal level, I'm just not finding them as fun as I used to. There are games I really enjoyed playing, but I can think of only a few recent "core" titles I would play again.
And then the fact that I've come to experience it even back in the days, people always have a tendency to complain when it comes to this, like the pc-crowd did when consoles became big, and in their rage they refused to experience the entire amount of fantastic games that came out on the consoles, which includes the games that belias mentioned.
I completely agree; having been a PC gamer for as long as I remember I had grown to hate all those PC master race supermacists. If there's one thing where PC is clearly better, it's the emulation scene and being able to play all those cool games I never had a chance to play before. Had it not been for Dolphin, I would have never had a chance to play Wind Waker :poly136:
games are mostly based on marketing concepts NOT gameplay concepts.
Call it lack of imagination, focus on marketing(or just playing it safe). It's always been like that though. There were space invaders clones, when super mario bros came out there were lots of clones of that and so on.
Although, it can be good to play it safe. Economic security can create lots of jobs(for us!). It's the game itself that suffers from it though.
Some games get worse, some get better. I don't think all of the games have gotten worse though.
first our medium is still pretty new. It was just considered a form of art. While mostly people still consider it a toy or a commercial product. SO when you stop looking at what you make as just a commercial "asset" and as a a work of interactive art then you are on the edge of the box. Their is always room for hit and misses. It teaches you that you need to improve on something you may not realize was even missing.
Then again that could be said about movies as well. Movies have been around for over a decade and they tend to use the same tactics.
...Belias is actually right on this one. It really isn't down to nostalgia either.
He gave viable examples of IP's that have gone downhill (not to mention the fact that IP's are being milked for all their worth, instead of studios creating new IP.) Resident Evil is a prime example, so is Silent Hill, so is Final Fantasy. Metal Gear went down the shitter, too. I still play the same games I did as a kid, it has nothing to do with what age I am.
No, it's about opinion and perception.
I play many games I played as a kid, but I also and more frequently play newer games released today.
I started out on c64, atari and nes, so I've got a range of games to compare with. Much of the reason I loved some of the games back then were really because it was a completely new experience and I was a kid.
Just because some games or IP's get worse doesn't mean the industry as a whole is generally producing games of poorer quality.
It might not be the case for you, but I think many people cling to the old games because they want that same feeling back as they had when they were a kid. You do get that feeling again because of associated memories (kind of like a smell can take you back to that vacation or moment) with the game. But that also means you're not really looking objectively at the game.
Winters and summers were better before, cars were better before, youth today oy vey, movies were better before, music was better before, world going down the drain! But not really, it's just that so many only remember the good parts.
I dont think I said that games were better in the past. I think games now are pretty much equal to, in some areas they are better, in accesibility for example. But they are not greater than games in the past in reach or imagination(at least in the mainstream media, discounting indie and digital).
In my opinion if games are going to continue to be great then they are going to have to start learning to master the medium, that means not copying other medias(unless absolutely neccesary and it works, not just copying for ease/cheapness).
There are lots of games in the past that were purely games they werent trying to be anything else, we had Elite, which before we were even getting the grasp of computers someone decided they were going to try and simulate a whole universe. I want play a game where I could make my own choices as if I were in that game world, the closest one I can think of is Vampire Bloodlines.
Imagine the depth and breadth of content with the accessibility we have now.
If your saying we cant create the content for that now, then you might as well give up, all it is, is data, there are means and ways for anything.
I dont know, maybe people dont want to play games like that. Maybe they havent been given the chance.
Imagine where games could be in fifty years, are they even approaching that?
why game producers are concentrating on graphics rather than
[game play, music,....]
This comes up time and time again and I don't believe it's true. Games in the past focused on graphics as well. The reason they look the way they do is because that was the state of the art at the time. Nobody was intentionally making low res art because they spent too much on the awesome game play - it was low res because that's the best they could ship at the time.
If they COULD have shipped Zelda with normal maps and ambient occlusion, they would have.
I dont think Nintendo would, there probably one of the few, whom see the visuals as part of the functionality and gameplay. They'd analyze it, and do it, or not do it in spite of what everyone else does.
i thought part of the whole thing with the wii U is the new whizzbang graphics? sure they're a little behind but they're still going to use whatever tech is available in the hardware. The reason nintendo games like zelda have lacked normal maps and all that is their focus on simple cheap manufacturing
the budget of a game goes up, but the quality and QUANTITY doesn't necessarily follow the same tangent.
how many games with a budget in the millions, or even hundreds of millions, are ACTUALLY worth the money or time invested in them?
because of just that companies don't take risks with big game ideas, rather they stick to what is safe and what will make them money. These days one bad game can sink a developer, the guys who made Bodycount just went under.
I think Extra credits brings up a good point that during pre production and the conceptual phase some of the technical guys and programmers don't have a lot to do. These guys are also really expensive so it costs more to have em on longer. They went on to say having a more Pixar like workflow could help.
Oh and as for music, Look at MGS4 a lot of the team Ico stuff so on and so on. Those are still good, but back in the 8 bit days, cause you had less to work with you focused on composing the melodies, which are typically the most memorable parts of songs anyways. This is how you get your Zeldas, ducktales moon themes, Megaman themes ETC.
i thought part of the whole thing with the wii U is the new whizzbang graphics? sure they're a little behind but they're still going to use whatever tech is available in the hardware. The reason nintendo games like zelda have lacked normal maps and all that is their focus on simple cheap manufacturing
I will say this about Nintendo though, for all of the franchises mentioned that people have thought have gone downhill, the core franchises of Nintendo (minus Metroid, unfortunately) have had incredible titles in recent years. Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Punch Out, Donkey Kong Country, New Super Mario Bros..All great games where they've focused on gameplay first and foremost. Outside of those games there might not be much to play on Wii, but those make owning a Wii more than worth it.
As for the OT though, I don't think games are generally worse, I think it's more the industry growing and changing so much, budgets getting higher, more demands on developers, etc that the amount of average or mediocre triple-a games inevitably grows. But really, there is still a ton of fantastic triple-a games out there.
i thought part of the whole thing with the wii U is the new whizzbang graphics? sure they're a little behind but they're still going to use whatever tech is available in the hardware. The reason nintendo games like zelda have lacked normal maps and all that is their focus on simple cheap manufacturing
Yeah but, I dont think they'll ever give Mario a normal map, he just wouldnt look right.
Yeah but, I dont think they'll ever give Mario a normal map, he just wouldnt look right.
Right, because you can't do stylized cartoony graphics with normal maps or advanced shaders. As soon as you apply a normal map to your model, it turns into Call of Duty.
cmon, normal maps can do whatever you want them to. you can use them simply to make a model appear smoother. it doesn't automatically mean super detailed texture and pores and veins.
i know that's your point too EQ but it seems to need spelling out
I think he means nintendo has a certain style and they rarely stray away from it, much like disney(even pixar) This doesn't mean they're newer products are bad, many are still great.
Ok point taken, and JFletchers mario is great but I dont see Nintendo trying that. There like the Disney of games.
Not that Nintendo's made these(I think) but the figures in the picture has shapes and details that could be added through normal maps. Even if it's a cartoony and simple design, normal maps would still help.
Right, people often misconstrue what a normal map is, because of poor associations and lack of creative thinking.
Most games that have normal maps are the bleeding edge hyper-realism games, so thus, normal maps = hyper-realism.
In reality, a normal map is simply a method for getting more accurate per-pixel lighting. Accurate lighting also does not = hyper-realism. It has nothing to do with noise-overload detail, it has nothing to do with realism, and it has nothing to do with bland green-brown color schemes.
It is simply a method to replace gouraud shading with finer, per-pixel shading. Thats it, what you want to do with the shading, and how detailed you want your textures to be, the style you want your textures to be, the sort of shaders you end up using, that is what is going to determine your overall art style, not whether you're using normal maps or not. Oh and, you know, this little thing called... Art Direction.
Hand painted textures do not own exclusive rights to stylized art content in video games.
I have to say I really like the newer tech stylized stuff like diable 3 and dota2, not sure if they use normal maps but they definietly use newer tech.
Diablo III doesn't use Normal Maps, At least that is what I heard
I thought the characters and mobs used them, they obviously avoided using them as much as possible, but I'm sure there's instances where normal maps would make the most sense to use.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Mario from Smash Bros Wii was rocking normal maps.
But he was definitely rocking dog ugly diffuse maps ZZZZZZZZZZZING! Who thought that dungaree texture was a good idea...
I'd say many of Nintendo's latest use normal maps. I'd say Galaxy 1&2 definitely definitely does. Wouldn't all that smoothyness and lighting in the shaders be majorly helped by normal maps?
user experience has gotten a thousand times better. ideas for the most part are being held hostage by risk averse production companies but whatever. there's still good games coming out.
Dustin, usually when a classic game comes out on for PSN/XBL, I'd go for the PSN version just because of the controller, the DPad on the 360 just doesn't work well.
Since I played the hell out of Earthworm Jim when I was younger, the experience isn't all that now, in fact I find it easier to finish than when I was younger. If it's new to you, then you'll have fun. Remember spending lunch talking about all the goofy stuff I saw in it. Mmmm.. now I want square pizza slices and french fries and a carton of milk.
Picking up a game from years back has plus and minus's. For instance, I LOVE me some Golden Eye. Can't play it because it's so damn low res. How the hell I got headshots from across a map is beyond me...
I have. I downloaded Earthworm Jim on XBLA not too long ago. It's a tad clunky in terms of control mechanics, but otherwise it's awesomesauce. The art direction is tits. I just discovered that you can get Ecco the Dolphin on there as well, so I'm stoked. I didn't have either other those games when they were new, so it's fun for me.
Well I believe that the sprite-era did the best with what they could do then, graphically and pure functionality. They are kick-ass games, even now. However there are way more players these days so it's only natural that things have become more streamlined, easier to play ie more casual.
I don't think modern games are worse though, I do believe that most of them are just as good especially when you kick nostalgia out of the way.
there's awesome games out these days, there's a lot of uninspired stuff too but the OP is wrong in my opinion.
nostalgia as many have said plays a big role, back then (and for me thats like decades... =.=) the awesome games that came out broke new ground and did things/concepts that were never done before. These days its about refining genres and changing platforms that open up new possibilities with interfaces and etc.
Replies
Could you explain? I'm not sure if I'm getting your point here.
Strange that you mention the Souls series, because when Demon's Souls got originally released it's main selling point was it's unforgiving difficulty. It it was the main thing that had set it apart from other games released at that time, so I'm not really sure if it's the best example. But in any case, games like that had been around for a long time, but almost always, they're niche products.
I should probably clarify that when I'm speaking about games being different, I'm talking primarily about mainstream, triple-A titles. There's tons of small games that were released in the past few years that I immensly enjoyed. But what I'm having trouble getting into are the blockbuster hits, games that constantly impress me with great production values and high level of polish, but at the same time fail to capture my attention for longer than a few hours.
There are of course games that break the trend every now and then; I fell in love with the latest Deus Ex, which (despite its flaws) had me glued to my monitor for a long while. I'm still trying to figure out what really makes that difference for me; most likely it's a combination of many factors, primarily of the always changing design principles.
The titles you've mentioned are all some of my favourite games, but I feel that they're not necessarily good examples here. Both Portal and SoTC use the same methods of storytelling as the games that preceeded them. In some way, Portal felt like an extension of the HL series when it comes to its methods of telling the story via the environments, etc. SoTC on the other hand didn't do anything different from ICO in its narrative department; in fact I felt that narrative wasn't a focus there and as such ICO remains far superior in that area. Don't get me wrong here, I love both games, but I felt that their narratives are not the reasons why they felt so groundbreaking.
That's true, things like digital distribution and the indie revolution opeed up the gates for dozens of smaller, creative titles. But if we focus on the mainstream games for now, then there's a lot less variety than let's say 6 years ago. High quality, 3D platformers are a lot harder to find (unless we're talking about Nintendo :poly124:). Third person games are almost always sandboxes, hack&slashes, or over-the-shoulder shooters. Single player wRPG's are done only by a handful of companies, while party-based ones are almost non-existent.
On the other hand, military FPS's are almost everywhere. I guess it's not bad for people who enjoy them, but for guys like me who prefer a light-hearted adventure over gritty realism it's much harder to find something interesting.
That's true, but I've left out the indie games on a purpose. As much as I look forward to all those small, super creative teams, they simply don't have the resources yet to compete with the mainstream titles. I do believe that indies are the way forward, but I think we'll have to wait for at least a few years before they start making really great titles, that offer complex experiences. I'm not expecting them to compete in terms of production values, but at the moment, most of the indie games I had played were pretty simple.
Of course, there's more to the industry than that. But whenever this topic comes back, people are always talking primarily about games that follow the traditional format; "core" games that they enjoy the most. In fact, whenever I'm speaking about games I never even think about the casual/social/MMO genres. They never appealed to me and probably they never will. I guess that's the main issue with all those discussions; "games" can mean something completely different depending on a person. So for now, you can just assume that whenever I'm babbling about games, I'm talking about the "core" part of the industry (god...I hate that term :P).
On a side note, I would never go as far as to say that games had gotten worse. My point is that they're different and while I'm really happy that they're evolving, it's not the kind of change I was looking for. I can appreciate all the work that was put into them, but on a personal level, I'm just not finding them as fun as I used to. There are games I really enjoyed playing, but I can think of only a few recent "core" titles I would play again.
I completely agree; having been a PC gamer for as long as I remember I had grown to hate all those PC master race supermacists. If there's one thing where PC is clearly better, it's the emulation scene and being able to play all those cool games I never had a chance to play before. Had it not been for Dolphin, I would have never had a chance to play Wind Waker :poly136:
reason:
games are mostly based on marketing concepts NOT gameplay concepts.
Call it lack of imagination, focus on marketing(or just playing it safe). It's always been like that though. There were space invaders clones, when super mario bros came out there were lots of clones of that and so on.
Although, it can be good to play it safe. Economic security can create lots of jobs(for us!). It's the game itself that suffers from it though.
Some games get worse, some get better. I don't think all of the games have gotten worse though.
Then again that could be said about movies as well. Movies have been around for over a decade and they tend to use the same tactics.
I play many games I played as a kid, but I also and more frequently play newer games released today.
I started out on c64, atari and nes, so I've got a range of games to compare with. Much of the reason I loved some of the games back then were really because it was a completely new experience and I was a kid.
Just because some games or IP's get worse doesn't mean the industry as a whole is generally producing games of poorer quality.
It might not be the case for you, but I think many people cling to the old games because they want that same feeling back as they had when they were a kid. You do get that feeling again because of associated memories (kind of like a smell can take you back to that vacation or moment) with the game. But that also means you're not really looking objectively at the game.
Winters and summers were better before, cars were better before, youth today oy vey, movies were better before, music was better before, world going down the drain! But not really, it's just that so many only remember the good parts.
In my opinion if games are going to continue to be great then they are going to have to start learning to master the medium, that means not copying other medias(unless absolutely neccesary and it works, not just copying for ease/cheapness).
There are lots of games in the past that were purely games they werent trying to be anything else, we had Elite, which before we were even getting the grasp of computers someone decided they were going to try and simulate a whole universe. I want play a game where I could make my own choices as if I were in that game world, the closest one I can think of is Vampire Bloodlines.
Imagine the depth and breadth of content with the accessibility we have now.
If your saying we cant create the content for that now, then you might as well give up, all it is, is data, there are means and ways for anything.
I dont know, maybe people dont want to play games like that. Maybe they havent been given the chance.
Imagine where games could be in fifty years, are they even approaching that?
If they COULD have shipped Zelda with normal maps and ambient occlusion, they would have.
because of just that companies don't take risks with big game ideas, rather they stick to what is safe and what will make them money. These days one bad game can sink a developer, the guys who made Bodycount just went under.
I think Extra credits brings up a good point that during pre production and the conceptual phase some of the technical guys and programmers don't have a lot to do. These guys are also really expensive so it costs more to have em on longer. They went on to say having a more Pixar like workflow could help.
Oh and as for music, Look at MGS4 a lot of the team Ico stuff so on and so on. Those are still good, but back in the 8 bit days, cause you had less to work with you focused on composing the melodies, which are typically the most memorable parts of songs anyways. This is how you get your Zeldas, ducktales moon themes, Megaman themes ETC.
I will say this about Nintendo though, for all of the franchises mentioned that people have thought have gone downhill, the core franchises of Nintendo (minus Metroid, unfortunately) have had incredible titles in recent years. Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, Punch Out, Donkey Kong Country, New Super Mario Bros..All great games where they've focused on gameplay first and foremost. Outside of those games there might not be much to play on Wii, but those make owning a Wii more than worth it.
As for the OT though, I don't think games are generally worse, I think it's more the industry growing and changing so much, budgets getting higher, more demands on developers, etc that the amount of average or mediocre triple-a games inevitably grows. But really, there is still a ton of fantastic triple-a games out there.
Yeah but, I dont think they'll ever give Mario a normal map, he just wouldnt look right.
?
Right, because you can't do stylized cartoony graphics with normal maps or advanced shaders. As soon as you apply a normal map to your model, it turns into Call of Duty.
cmon, normal maps can do whatever you want them to. you can use them simply to make a model appear smoother. it doesn't automatically mean super detailed texture and pores and veins.
i know that's your point too EQ but it seems to need spelling out
What do you mean by that? Because Disney did an amazing job with Bolt and wouldn't that like adding "normal maps"
Not that Nintendo's made these(I think) but the figures in the picture has shapes and details that could be added through normal maps. Even if it's a cartoony and simple design, normal maps would still help.
Most games that have normal maps are the bleeding edge hyper-realism games, so thus, normal maps = hyper-realism.
In reality, a normal map is simply a method for getting more accurate per-pixel lighting. Accurate lighting also does not = hyper-realism. It has nothing to do with noise-overload detail, it has nothing to do with realism, and it has nothing to do with bland green-brown color schemes.
It is simply a method to replace gouraud shading with finer, per-pixel shading. Thats it, what you want to do with the shading, and how detailed you want your textures to be, the style you want your textures to be, the sort of shaders you end up using, that is what is going to determine your overall art style, not whether you're using normal maps or not. Oh and, you know, this little thing called... Art Direction.
Hand painted textures do not own exclusive rights to stylized art content in video games.
I thought the characters and mobs used them, they obviously avoided using them as much as possible, but I'm sure there's instances where normal maps would make the most sense to use.
But he was definitely rocking dog ugly diffuse maps ZZZZZZZZZZZING! Who thought that dungaree texture was a good idea...
I'd say many of Nintendo's latest use normal maps. I'd say Galaxy 1&2 definitely definitely does. Wouldn't all that smoothyness and lighting in the shaders be majorly helped by normal maps?
Normal maps are only for adding scratches to space marine armour silly.
Forgot to mention that Spec map is to make everyone look like they came back from a pizza eating contest.
Or covered in that shiny body builder oil.
user experience has gotten a thousand times better. ideas for the most part are being held hostage by risk averse production companies but whatever. there's still good games coming out.
don't be a fag.
Since I played the hell out of Earthworm Jim when I was younger, the experience isn't all that now, in fact I find it easier to finish than when I was younger. If it's new to you, then you'll have fun. Remember spending lunch talking about all the goofy stuff I saw in it. Mmmm.. now I want square pizza slices and french fries and a carton of milk.
Picking up a game from years back has plus and minus's. For instance, I LOVE me some Golden Eye. Can't play it because it's so damn low res. How the hell I got headshots from across a map is beyond me...
Well I believe that the sprite-era did the best with what they could do then, graphically and pure functionality. They are kick-ass games, even now. However there are way more players these days so it's only natural that things have become more streamlined, easier to play ie more casual.
I don't think modern games are worse though, I do believe that most of them are just as good especially when you kick nostalgia out of the way.
nostalgia as many have said plays a big role, back then (and for me thats like decades... =.=) the awesome games that came out broke new ground and did things/concepts that were never done before. These days its about refining genres and changing platforms that open up new possibilities with interfaces and etc.