12 Things Wrong with Video/Computer Games Today. (Great read!)

Cliff Harris posted a great article at Gamedev.net about what is wrong with the gaming industry today and the problems of where it might be going.  I think it\'s a great read and you should go read it. (long read)

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/business/features/moderngames/

I think game developers should read that.  It might help them while they\'re planning for future games.  I agree with him completely, and the game that I am making now will show that. (Only a couple more months until it\'s done! )  What do you guys think about the ariticle?

I completely agree...totally true, especially the parts about sexism (agh! Tomb Raider!) and crappy sequels (agh! Tomb Raider!)

I like the TR series (except #3). I guess I\'m weird...

I\'ve hated Tomb Raider ever since level 3 of the first one (I couldn\'t find the last gear that I needed!  I spent three days searching for one object.)  That\'s the last time I ever rented a Tomb Raider game.  But don\'t worry Ethugg, there is nothing wrong with liking the game.

It\'s a good article.  The only thing he missed is the length of some modern video games.  
C&C comes to mind.  Sometimes when I play though games, it seems like they\'ve added whole levels/maps/subplots just to make the game a little longer.  I\'d rather finish a game in 5-8 hours, and have fun, than finish it in 15 hours (maybe not even finishing it, cause it gets boring and repetitive).

Good point FatalXception, but there is nothing worse than a game that is too short. (Onimusha and the Bouncer come to mind).  I would rather have a game be too long than too short.  But, now that I think about it,  I\'m kind of glad The Bouncer is as short as it is.  I don\'t think I could stand playing it any longer .  So as long as the game has fun gameplay, it should be as long as they can make it, but if it\'s not very fun or if it gets repetitive...well, I guess they shouldn\'t even release it at all.

BTW, I never finished C&C because it did get very repetitive.

Good article IronFist.  I agree with almost all the author\'s points.  Did any of you look at his company\'s website:

http://www.positech.co.uk/

After what he wrote about game design, I\'m very curious to see what he judges to be a good game.  Namely, his own games.  I think "Starlines, Inc." looks pretty cool.  I\'m going to try it out.  Anyone else played it?

10 things wrong with video games:[list=1]

• cliché
• cliché
• cliché
• cliché
• cliché
• cliché
• cliché
• cliché
• cliché
• cliché

p.s. Tomb Raider series is good (except 3)

Great read, indeed

Longetivity is how you take it. Metal Gear Solid for example, isn\'t long if compared to Final Fantasy - actually, it is quite short, but it is pure, perfect, fun and very well done while it lasts. It leaves a good taste into your mouth. But, take Unreal for example. The first few levels were amazing to look at, and fun to play - but more you went towards the end, the more you got bored, and the game felt repetitive and un-creative. Eventually, you threw the game into the closet and never played it again.

But, I agree that most of the games today rely too much on graphics and such, but there are some \'jewels\' you might enjoy and think they are creative and something \'fresh\'. But, usually these \'fresh\' creations won\'t sell - and game-developers know that. Take System Shock 2 for example - it was a GREAT sequel to a Masterpiece; it brought a really tight and atmospherical plot to the 3rd dimensional FPS\'s, and added RPG-elements to it, and then finished the touch with good graphics. Did it sell? No - as the game was more thinking than shooting. Was it good? Yes. What happened to Looking Glass, the creator of Thief and System Shock? It bankrupted.

Looking Glass is a perfect example of a gaming company wich creates perfect games but doesn\'t sell. And many game-developers are too frightened, just because of these examples, to create something \'new\'. What is the idea, in the world today, to put a lot of effort and time to create something new, when it is almost sure that it won\'t sell? Why not wrap up a gore-fest FPS with the up-to-date graphics, let it have few bad reviews, but sell well, just to save time and money?

Thief - a game wich combined tought, atmosphere and new ideas, was a game wich critics loved, reviewers cheered, but players missed. why? Because Quake II was around the corner. Why try something new when you can re-experience the old things you trust to? Why be a mass-gamer? Just because most of the people are?

I never said Wolfenstein 3d was a bad game, but the idea of it is getting PRETTY dull because it is repeated again and again even after 10 years. The add of jump -feature, faster gameplay, new monsters and weapons, and great graphics don\'t make a new game - and Daikatana was a great example of this.

Well, if we take Daikatana into discussion, we could say it was a burger-game wich didn\'t sell. Why? Because it had no name behind it. Not everybody know who Romero is; but let me say that if Daikatana would\'ve been released under ID software and with the name of DOOM III: Demons of Daikatana, the game would have sold millions of copies.

Sorry for the long post, but I had many thoughts to share. *Suddenly Joyda feels like a big rock would\'ve been lifted from his heart*

It\'s too bad developers and consumers are like that.  Without the consumers excepting new ideas for games, the developers will always give the mass consumers what they want, more of the same.  They know what people like, and they don\'t want to take any chances.  I think Sega is the best video game maker because they are willing to try new ideas, no matter how crazy they may seem (Seaman?! ).  I hope other developers follow in Sega\'s footsteps, or games will just be the same and boring.

I only like the first tomb raider and pc games now just piss me off i dont know what i would do if i didnt have a brand new comp, games like thief 2 ask for so much

That was a good read. I agree with many of his points, especially sequels. People keep buying them though, so as long as they do, they\'ll still be around. Notice how many of the great games don\'t have sequels, or they have sequels, but the only come out every few years?
Now look at Tomb Raider, Twisted Metal, Army Men. They come out every year, like clock-work. With a few new features, but the same tired gameplay, or even worse gameplay.

Originally posted by Aaron

Now look at Tomb Raider, Twisted Metal, Army Men. They come out every year, like clock-work. With a few new features, but the same tired gameplay, or even worse gameplay.

It\'s only \'tired\' if you didn\'t enjoy it much in the first place. After the whole 5 sec. it takes to get used to TR\'s controls, I liked the series a lot. It\'s on the same level as RE as far as I\'m concerned. But RE gets a pass despite the same amount of innovation progression as TR and TR gets bashed. I personally like long action adventures, the story, and yes, the controls of TR. I don\'t think it\'s possible to have a better control scheme for that type of game. Every single TR sold well enough that another ones always on the way, so I can\'t be alone in this.

I never got AM or TM3/4 on PSX, but I played a demo of TM 3/4 and didn\'t think it was horrible. And I have AM Air Attack 2, and Sarges Heroes 2 for PS2 as well as Sarges Heroes for DC and I don\'t think theyre that bad either. In fact despite the weal graphics, theyre pretty good games. Certainly better IMO than Ring of Red or ZOE.... heh, that outta piss someone off...

I mean tired like there\'s nothing new there. A few new weapons, or cars, or levels. It\'s just the same game with a few new toys.

I\'m hoping TM:Black will change all this though.

BTW, I think this is an old preview of it, but Gamespot has a 8 page preview of TM:B that says a lot of stuff about the characters, the weapons, and everything else TM:B.  I just found this article a couple days ago.  I was so happy.  http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2692832,00.html