PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: clowd on October 01, 2002, 07:49:45 PM
-
I have noticed that over the past years the quality of video games have been going down.
I thought about this when I set down Kingdom Hearts for Super Mario 3...
Developers seem to be more interested in getting a hot license and making a pretty game that lasts about 10 hours and has no replay value or options.
I dont know if this is caused by the time it takes to develope for the powerful consoles or are developers thinking quanity over quality?
I know you have seen this one coming but ever since FF7 was released, no game has come close to it. They are just getting worst. FFX didnt even have a real world map. Also it was so linear like most of today\'s games.
So, me thinks that if another FF7 quality game isn\'t released soon the video game industry will lose interest to me...
Right now I\'m stuck with racing and sports games...maybe I should pick a GC and Mario Sunshine?
Anyways, do you think the video game industry is getting better or worst?
-
nobody in thier right mind would say the console industry is getting better
unless, their too young to remember the glory days
-
I also agree it is some what going towards a downward trend. I just rented TUROK:EVOLUTION, and realised the series is getting worse and worse. Of course it always wasnt that great- but it sucks even more.
I really think the game industry should prioritize its values;
1)Their customers
2)Their money
Not the other way around
-
*Me dusts off the trusty old amiga*
-
Most of my time is spent PC gaming anyway. You are right Clowd, there are very few games that have any replay value. That is why Gun Grave was in collection for about 48 hours. What a shame...
-
I didn\'t read Clowd\'s first post. Figure it\'s about FF7 being the pinnicle of gaming and how no game has been as good since? Yah probably.
Anyways, I have no problem with the gaming of today. It\'s certainly not getting better, but it\'s maintaining an adequate level.
-
blah blah blah...you\'re all a bunch of whiners.
The glory days...when was that? If you are referring to the days of Genesis/SNES then I have to disagree. While I had a blast during the 16-bit days...I had more fun on my DC than those 2 systems combined.
Seriously...Zelda: OoT, Super Mario Sunshine, Skies of Arcadia, Final Fantasy IX, Final Fantasy X, NiGHTS, Shenmue, Halo, Banjo-Kazooie, Devil May Cry, ICO, Jak & Daxter, and the recent Kingdom Hearts.
I wouldn\'t trade any one of those titles to revert back to the "glory days."
Oh, as far as FFX and the world map goes...there is absolutely no way that Square could have pulled off a detailed enough map to compliment the rest of the game\'s quality. I was bitter about it too, but then I got to thinking what if they had included it? More than likely it would have been full of jaggies, pop-up, slowdown...or just not as detailed as the rest of the game. I wouldn\'t settle for a sub-par map.
Cloud, if I remember correctly, you only play PS2. Perhaps you should spread your wings a little and see what the other systems have to offer...this fall is as good a time as any.
-
In my gaming experience, I can think of tons of great games I\'ve enjoyed in every generation of gaming machines (ok, the Atari 2600 games were not all that deep, but at the time I was a kid and there wasn\'t much to compare to).
But, since the NES, I\'ve never had trouble finding games I really enjoy. I\'d say I\'ve enjoyed my PS2 games as much as I did my NES, Genesis, and Saturn games. I haven\'t been playing as many PC games lately as I used to, so I can\'t make an accurate comparison there right now.
:alien:
-
ginko
compare replayability with games today with games 10 years ago
-
IMO Games are much better now there are just to many to choose from and it is hard to see them all and know which ones to try or you even like. I have all the platforms so I can get the best all have to offer and I work in the sales of games where I can compare try then choose.
I can understand a lot of feelings longing for the old days but how can you compare football games of yesterday to what we are getting now? The problem is games might not be as fun as they used to be. Then you had to use a lot more imagination which might have added to the experience and the mystic.
Now with graphics approaching the real world that quality of using the imagination might be going out the door leaving the player with a empty feeling. You need both. Imagine for a moment playing Dragon Force on the Saturn hours of fun with graphics that would be laughable by todays standards but the memory is so sweet. But that was the best for that time.
It was a great game but unplayable now at least for me(theres an Empire Earth running around out there now). Remember the video game industry is as big as Hollywood now. I believe we have become spoiled too much too good and if a game like Turok was avaliable then we would have sold our sisters to the to Arabs for it.
Now, compared to whats out there its a second rate game. No, gaming is the best its ever been. Its just grown up. Sit down on some BF1942 and tell me gaming is going down. Not!
________
Nexium Injury Lawyer (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)
-
With the exception of DC, the NES/SNES/Genesis were the "glory days".
Games are mostly flash and little substance.
-
jiggs - meet the enter key
enter key - meet jiggs
as usual, ash nails it
-
We have found him...Its Imotep! You have to admit when you were playing those "Glory Games" of yesteryear you could not help but think what it would be like if you had more gameplay and better hardware like now. I just believe it had to evolve. Flash and pomp? Could be. But its still good.
________
DesireDiva (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/DesireDiva)
-
Originally posted by mm
compare replayability with games today with games 10 years ago
I agree with this 100%. I can remember playing the original Contra and Super Contra hundreds of times each. And the first 3 Super Mario Bros. games on NES were fun to me long after I\'d finished each of them many times. But now, as much as I enjoy playing some of the really enjoyable current generation games, I rarely play through them more than once or twice, let alone many times.
:alien:
-
more gameplay?
define more gameplay
-
gameplay variety? What you could actually do as a part of the gameplay?
example..
Metal Gear -> Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
:)
-
Reminiscing about Contra games was giving me some warm fuzzies, so I looked up some pics on GIS. These games hold some great memories.
http://www.classicgaming.com/contra/superc/superc12.gif
http://www.classicgaming.com/contra/superc/superc13.gif
http://www.classicgaming.com/contra/superc/superc11.gif
:alien:
-
I think most of you are getting fond memories confused with substance and quality.
Who here would try to make the claim FPSs of today aren\'t better in every way than they were 10 years ago? Certainly not me. Yet I have no real desire to play the latest and greatest FPS simply because I had my fill of them. Doesn\'t mean I\'ll never enjoy one again but I\'m fairly sure I won\'t find myself playing an FPS every spare minute day after day for a month or two.
Listen; in the days of yore, possibly before anyone ever imagined video games, I remember as a kid playing Yatzee! for hours on end, even by myself if you can believe it. You could say I was easily entertained. Pathetic? THat\'s for sure. The spell was finally broken when I managed to get five Yatzees in a row.
What\'s my point? Substitute a simple game like Yatzee with something maybe a hundred or a thousand times more entertaining like FFVII and you might see where a magical bond could be formed in a young mind that would be tough to ever break. By extension the same could be said for a particular gaming era or (dare I say it?) game maker. Think of clinging to the goodness of yesterdays gaming as the breeding ground for fanboys and jaded gamers. The sooner it\'s left behind, the more you\'ll appreciate the games of today.
Okay, there is a large volume of crap games being put out. Just don\'t be so insistent yesterdays crap was better than nowadays ;)
-
I try not to think about how games are getting worse. I just try to enjoy them for what they are and just rate them on the quality and not compare them to the classics.
-
What\'s my point? Substitute a simple game like Yatzee with something maybe a hundred or a thousand times more entertaining like FFVII and you might see where a magical bond could be formed in a young mind that would be tough to ever break. By extension the same could be said for a particular gaming era or (dare I say it?) game maker. Think of clinging to the goodness of yesterdays gaming as the breeding ground for fanboys and jaded gamers. The sooner it\'s left behind, the more you\'ll appreciate the games of today.
Very well said, I was thinking along the same lines
-
The industry is going downhill, the games aren\'t.
Well, not exponentially anyway. I think the general consensus is that games can ride their graphics alone today.. while this wasn\'t as true 10 years ago. You bought Sonic to play Sonic, not to gawk at the visuals.
-
Meh, Blade, There were graphics whores back then too.. and lots of them too. Some of the most bitter arguments between the Genesis and SNES had to do with graphics. Anyhow...
I think Heretic touched on the root of the problem without realizing it. It\'s the simplicity of games. Games tend to be much more fun and replayable the simpler they are. Strange.. but it\'s true from what I\'ve seen. Even up to the point of the DC, who\'s games were more "arcadish" and simple than most other console\'s high profile titles which were very complex by compairison. Today, the industry is pushing games closer and closer to being like interactive movies.. and like movies it seems people are getting into them for the story and visuals.. and then put them back up on the shelf to collect dust after the story and experience isn\'t new to them anymore.
Do you all know what the most popular game in the world right now is? It\'s not made by Nintnedo.. on a Sony platform.. It\'s not online.. and it doesn\'t have flashy graphics. No.. it\'s the simple card game of Solitaire, bundled with all MS OS\'s. Of course, this could simply be because it\'s a good time waster at work.. but by compairison, Minesweeper/Hearts/Pinball doesn\'t even come close to Solitaire\'s popularity.
-
Cloud, if I remember correctly, you only play PS2. Perhaps you should spread your wings a little and see what the other systems have to offer...this fall is as good a time as any.
:laughing: Yeah, that might help Cloud.
To me, gaming is getting better and better! Hi tec Hardware, New types of controllers, systems with DVD playback, Online ready, better graphics and not forget, better games. :D
-
give it a few more years pstwo
yer dissapointment will grow
-
give it a few more years pstwo
yer dissapointment will grow
LOL! I gave the PS2 half a year before i decided to use it to hold my books on quantum physics up.
Yet i have this strange feeling PS3 is going to be hell of a console, if they pull it through. Maybe it\'s just the hype in the back of my mind, but it seems to me sony is working 5x harder on PS3 then they did with PS2
-
Sonyfan got it...the only reason those games of yesteryear had more replayability is because they were short and simple.
FYI: NiGHTS (I\'ve played through over 50 times), Halo (at least 10 times), Devil May Cry (3 times), Banjo- Kazooie (7 times), Jak & Daxter (2 times), Zelda: OoT: (3 times)...
Games have evolved since then, I\'m still having fun. I\'m sorry that you\'re not, mm.
Games are mostly flash and little substance.
Dare I ask to give some examples?
-
I think Sonyfan was right with his whole spiel on simplicity. Yes, games are more fun when they are terribly simple. I mean, look at the facts, how many buttons does the Xbox controller have? PS2? GCN? How many did the NES have? See the difference? That’s why people are bringing up Contra and other simple games that they exclaim are just so much more enjoyable then “today’s drivel.” I’m sorry, but I can’t say that games today are all fluff or all flash. There are some truly original ideas out there that people just refuse to accept. I still think that Metroid Fusion will be one of the top tier games after accepting the fact that an FPS Metroid can and will work, besides that, we are getting a 2D version regardless on the GBA. That brings me to another point…
If gaming is so contrived and horrible, then why not just buy a GBA and not touch all the other consoles that are out there? Honestly, if you can complain about games being oh so terrible, then why have a PC that’s top of the line? Why own every console? I fail to see the point if most everything out there is crap to begin with, but that’s going to be something I’m sure mm will have a quick answer for. ;)
compare replayability with games today with games 10 years ago
I have. The replayability is the same, it\'s just now we\'ve come to expect a whole lot more based on what we have already seen. For the first time ever in console gaming, people are actually complaining about length. In fact, I\'m told to mention length in reviews, something I never EVER had to do in the 32/16/8-bit days. Since when did length ever affect a games fun factor? Take a look at the Bouncer and check out it\'s main critique from reviewers and you\'ll see what I mean.
If you tried doing the same exact contra format with flashier graphics and absolutely no change to the format (shattered soldier is a change in the format so we\'ll leave that out for now) reviewers and gamers would just complain that it was "just another shooter" just like how you complained that UT2K3 was just another Quake clone today. Still though, the point stands.
And by God, there is one thing that rings true today as it did well over a year ago when we first saw it: gamers can\'t take change. Gamers want more realism, and gamers want flashier better graphics. Don\'t believe me? Go check out 90% of the message boards out there and search in their archives for their utter outrage when Zelda took that enormous graphical turn from ultra realisim with so many lighting effects and such a high polygon count, to the toon shaded format. Myself and a handful of other on this board accepted it, the rest thought Miyamoto was a tool of the devil. Would you believe that most of the people complaining about the change were those who grew up with Zelda in the first place? Just think about it...
-
SonyFan: I remember some such arguments.. but it wasn\'t as complex as it is today..
-
No, mainly because it was kids who were arguing the point and if you didn\'t agree with each other chances are one of you ended up with your head dunked in a toilet. Still tho, if you read the reviews from magazines back then.. or hell even ads.. graphics prowess was a HUGE selling point. I mean, this was the first time in gaming history that the PC market even sat up and took serious notice of the graphics on consoles, and commented on how good they were and what it meant for PC games.
-
I fully agree, SonyFan!
But.. these days graphics can be a selling point. A reason to buy one game over another.
This was around in the past, but didn\'t prevail quite as much as it does today. I\'ve actually heard people say that they didn\'t get into the video game scene until the 32-bit generation because the visuals weren\'t realistic enough!
-
Originally posted by mm
more gameplay?
define more gameplay
I just wanted to comment on your query mm. To me gamplay is what I got in spades with GTA3 no game of yesteryear came come close to the variety featured in that game. Of course I can see yor point aswell.
For example before Tomb Raider and FF7 I never played any type of games but sports titles they were the only games that really held my intrest because the outcome was never the same and they were multiplayer. Yes I would love to see a remake of Starflight (genesis) Dragon Force (saturn) but remakes to me can never capture the flavor of the original.
RE on the Cube is a piece of work but it has not held me like the first. To me gameplay has improved with all the options and longevity of some games now.
With JK2 I am on my third trip through with different charaters and villians not to mention multiplayer. I find some of those great games really had no competition and stood tall over all other offerings of the time which allowed you to focus on one game at a time.
We played Pong for 8hrs straight and it was simple but too much fun. I equate it to the time there was no cable TV and you had to watch Get Smart and The original Batman great shows then but you had nothing else to chose from. We can disagree and I can respect your feelings.
Games were more fun then because a lot of it was still new to us and was novel. Whats out there now is overwhelming which makes it easy to put a game down quickly and move on to the next one. Its just plain over kill.
________
KALISSTA cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/KALISSTA)
-
jiggs, i refure to read anything you write unless you learn to hit
the
enter
key
-
Well I don\'t think the gaming industry is getting worst. And I surely would take my ps2 and xbox over any 10 year old piece of crap system from the past.
-
Like I said before, I think today\'s games are as enjoyable as any from previous generations, but there is a difference in re-playability. SonyFan is absolutely right about simplicity being a factor.
When a game like Super Mario Bros. first came out, you could finish the entire game in one sitting (making it more simple), but you still had to play it over and over to get good enough to get all of the way through. In other words, you had to "master" the game, and since you couldn\'t save your progress in a game like that, you had to increase your skill at playing to get to the end with the limited number of lives and continues available. Mastering the game gave a sense of accomplishment that could be felt over and over by continually beating the game again and again in a fairly short time period, and it was fun to be good at the game.
This is why fighting games are still so addictive to so many people. When you\'ve played enough to master a character\'s abilities, its fun to play again and again.
In today\'s games with much deeper stories, you may master a set of moves, but once you get past a certain part of the game, there isn\'t much to "master" in each particular section of the game, and once you finish a game that takes 10-40 hours to finish, it\'s not as easy to access the sense of accomplishment that comes from finishing a shorter game like the first couple of Contra games, which had to be finished in a single sitting.
There will always be exceptions, and not everyone will feel the same about what kind of games they like to replay, but this is basically why I find as much or more depth story wise, but not nearly as much replayability in today\'s games.
:alien:
-
Originally posted by mm
jiggs, i refure to read anything you write unless you learn to hit
the
enter
key
Ok. Should have asked you what exactly you ment the first time. Im no writer like a lot of you. Just a key pusher here.
Did not realize it was a problem.
No one had complained to me before.
But if thats the case I got no problems with that.
Perhaps I am too old to know it was annoying and never wrote too many long responses.
I am sorry if thats the case.
See an old dog can learn new tricks after all.
________
Monique_Amore cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Monique_Amore)
-
i sense a large generation gap in the members here
-
Take any 2-D game from the "glory days"...
Then take its 3-D update/sequel...
Which one would you rather play?
-
2-D baby!
w00t!
example #1 earthworm jim
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ciudadfutura.com%2Fgamesworld%2Fjim.gif&hash=5fea2f164ca0cf2ada00b8fb0255142eb96c421d)
or
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F216.40.211.9%2Fgfx10%2Fi_earthwormjim3d_ss_2.jpg&hash=962ab61380b90e89191f22fe9169c25318c60e15)
-
Example 2
Metal Gear
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
(no pics :D)
Yah, I know which one I\'d rather play :)
-
actually, i wouldnt classify metal gear as an epic 2d title, not like zelda, mario, or DK for the NES
sonic the hedgehog is another fine example of 2D > 3D
regardless, we could throw up titles all day long, and the vast majority of winners would be the 2D versions
-
Only because games such as Grand Theft Auto 3, Medal of Honor, Twisted Metal, Resident Evil, Silent Hill don\'t have 2D iterations.
Games have changed. Whether you preferred playing 2D platformers over cinematic "scare the shit out of you" fests, or "blast the hell out of Insane Clowns"-action games is your choice.
But using the old 2D - 3D as a basis for arguement is flawed in the fact that many huge titles of today aren\'t using standards from that era.
-
GTA 1 and 2 were 2D, but thats moot
look at the games that have converted from 2D to 3D
how many were worth it? very, very few
3d games are using standards, thier based on 2d formulas
-
The conversions werent good because they are based on the 2D formula. The games that aren\'t based on it are the games of today that we love. (like the ones I listed earlier and many many more) There are lots of 3D games that are better than many and most 2D games.
Just like many 2D are better than 3D. Thing is, along with the times, your standards have changed. If a game was put out today with the following characteristics; Side scroller, jump button, shoot button, weird enemies, a few platforms, took 30 minutes to complete. Would you buy it? Would you think it\'s good? 10 years ago, that would have been the best game it the world.
I maintain my point, that games have maintained their level.
-
I think Metal Gear Solid is one of the few games that didnt lose anything from the feel of its prequels despite being 3d.The controls,cameras and style remained intact.I admire Kojima for that.
But other games like Eartworm Jim3D lost whatever made the older ones fun.Controls change,looks change,camera change,style change etc.They are like completely different games with just the same name and main characters.The difference is like the Final Fantasy series compared to FF:TSW.
(THAT 3D EARTHWORM JIM IS A PURE PEICE OF TRASH!!WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COOL ANIMATION AND CONTROLS OF THE 2D VERSION?EVEN THE WORLDS WERE SHITY DESIGNED!!OR THAT STUPID CONTRA GAME THEY MADE FOR PSX1!!)
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Yet i have this strange feeling PS3 is going to be hell of a console, if they pull it through. Maybe it\'s just the hype in the back of my mind, but it seems to me sony is working 5x harder on PS3 then they did with PS2
Yes, PS2 didnt quite make it as Sony\'s all in one entertainment system, mainly because of it not being strong enough and taking forever for it to go online.
I am hoping that when PS3 is launched it will also be online ready that same day with a browser so we dont have to wait 3 years to surf the internet like PS2
I do agree Sony is working on the PS3 much harder, with the last PS2 only bumping up the polygons by about 100x the PS3 may bump up the polygons 500-1000 times, also it will be online ready with hopefully some sort of HDD available (I rather buy it seperate for several reasons)
To be honest I think Sony may have rushed a bit on the PS2
-
Sony prmoised so many things for the PS2 as a computer entertainment system.Compatibility with cell phones,digital cameras that would let u put your face in the game,printers,compatiblility with many USB devices,even compatiblity with minidisk,an add on that would let u record from ur TV.Sony seems they found it hard to offer us all this.
-
or they found out noone wants to do all that with a console
-
True.True.Especially if almost everyone already owns a computer that can do all that.