"and I'm not talking here just about visual material", this little sentence of mine tells you I'm not only referring to a simple thing such as levels (AC, Skyrim and Pokemon don't even have levels per se), you should really learn how to read with understanding. No answer to my question yet again, I guess third time's not a charm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
Level content is not a simple thing. Maybe the word content, as in same level content should help you more. I'm not just talking about level appearance.
Again, I'm not only refering to visual content you are so eager to stick to. Take Zelda for instance, same protagonist, same villain and NPC's for the most part, near indentical story told anew every time, both story and characters with little to no depth, barely fleshed out, same items, same location with few exceptions, even order of dungeons and their layout began to repeat, recycled visual material be it from the game itself or worse, former games, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You yourself just refer to levels it seems, even though some games don't even have levels per se.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
I'm still waiting for that answer if you don't mind.
Hey, I didn't say Nintendo games aren't similar as well. I haven't played the new ones, but OoT and Majora's Mask and LTTP were all pretty different in content and design. And it seems you're comparing levels between games, when I said that all levels per game are very similar. Not same thing. AC is mostly towns with crowds and guards. Each town might have a different look, but the content is pretty much the same. Bethesda has a world map with pretty similar terrain. There's hilly terrain, plains, forests, urban. But once you get to the caves, dungeons, forts and even towns, they all look very similar to each other in each game. That's what I meant by similar ingame content.
Similarity in Nintendo games often goes beyond visual content, it's constantly seen in characters and story, often going as far as being identical... yet, that's somehow less worse than than let's say similar terrain in a far larger game as far as both scale and content goes... this doesn't seem quite right if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
The content is pretty much the same, and you know why... weirdest thing, towns, both in real life and video games, consist out of structures and people in and around them (I know, hard to believe). Let's ignore how detailed those towns really are, dozens of historically and visually accurate structures, things you can do in them and how much towns themselves affect gameplay.Quote:
AC is mostly towns with crowds and guards. Each town might have a different look, but the content is pretty much the same.
Bethesda created a massive open world you can explore as you see fit, if games such as Pokemon can recycle it's visual material I don't see any reason why Skyrim can't, and for a dozen times bigger world. Dungeons are indeed similar, though each and every one of those dungeons has a completely different layout. All major cities are different though, compare Markarth, Solitude and Windhelm with each other and you'll see what I mean. One thing you seem to forget is how massive Bethesdas games are, both in and out.Quote:
Bethesda has a world map with pretty similar terrain. There's hilly terrain, plains, forests, urban. But once you get to the caves, dungeons, forts and even towns, they all look very similar to each other in each game. That's what I meant by similar ingame content.
Edit: I'm genuinely curious by now, what's with you avoiding my question?
I'm not avoiding your question. Both Nintendo and AC/Bethesda can recycle settings, protagonists, storyline. I don't mind that. The only thing I mind is dungeons, towns, forts, caves and other elements that make up levels all having same textures, appearance, etc. With AC, it's more of the same playstyle throughout each game. Fighting crowds of enemies, jumping on rooftops, escaping, repeat. It's only towns, crowds, etc. You don't have to really be good at anything, once you get the hang of the aforementioned. I guess I don't like how things always happen in towns and relying on parkour and fighting in the same way is what AC is mostly about. And fighting in AC is not challenging at all, when you learn the know hows of it. Now do you finally understand what my concerns with these games are? In my games, I like playstyle to change. I want different challenges, pacing, puzzles, exploration, not just hacknslash around like crazy. I also wanna see variety in architecture, textuers, etc. When I see that cave that looks exactly the same, just has a different layout, it starts to bore me out. Especially, if you progress enough in the game, where fighting is not a challenge anymore.
You don't read other people posts, do you. What's wrong with you man, that's not my question and I don't plan on repeating it for the fourth time... I'll give you a hint though, it has something to do with linearity.
Goddamn, by that logic why play 2D Mario games, I mean all you do is go right/up and jump on enemies... or FPS and Racing games for that matter. That is indeed the only thing you can do in those cities, unless you don't count collecting feathers, treasure chests, investing in and rebuilding your city, deciphering glyph codes, recruiting and training your own assassins, develop and send them on missions, Leonardo missions, assassin contracts, search for ultimate armor...
I think I finally got it, you don't mind if setting, characters, and story are constantly recycled as long as textures are as diverse as possible... weird, and here I though every RPG fan plays it's game for characters and story.
I also don't mind linearity, as long as levels don't use same copy pasted textures, appearance and design or the game doesn't offer very similar and linear (monotonous) gameplay. Happy now? If the game has good content, replayability, challenges, varying gamestyle, then it's a good game in my book.
Good for you, that still doesn't answer my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
I myself prefer story & characters over anything else, yes, even textures, and what game offers me in terms of content (not visual apearance you seem to mix with). Looking at what you prefer in games I imagine you avoid playing 2D platformers, Fighting and Racing games in general.Quote:
If the game has good content, replayability, challenges, varying gamestyle, then it's a good game in my book.
Sorry, you just don't get what I'm trying to say and keep asking me the same retarded question over and over again. You're either tying everything I say to linearity or consoles or whatever, I don't care. Just to let you know, we're comparing modern games to old school ones now and why people think they're worse (modern games). You know: caves, textures, difficulty and content variety, that sort of thing. That's why this thread was made in the first place, aha. I thought you'd start getting it as time went on, but you're too fixated on your believes and too ignorant or dumb to understand me. I really don't want to waste my time and talk with you about this anymore. I've got better things to do, buddy.
I asked you a genuine question, more than relevant to this discussion seeing as it has something to do with one of your points against modern video games (which you yourself said we're discussing), linearity to be more precise. If my question is indeed as stupid as you say a simple answer to back up your own words and shut me up should be easy to come by, don't you think.
See it from my point, you have to admit... a person who thinks gun variety has something to do with console limitation, who quite honestly doesn't know what linearity truly is, doesn't mind plain recycled story, characters and setting, but apparently has a beef with recycled textures (which as it happens every game does, yes even those with a far smaller world, out of necessity), makes points he himself admits aren't very true and has difficulty reading other people posts... is a little bit difficult to understand.
When I said easy and linear as hell, I also meant linear, as in monotonous in gameplay. AC, for example. That's what I meant to say.
Third time I edit this post, wrote some stupid shit earlier on. My question still stands "if games are indeed becoming more and more linear, what made older games less linear?".
Less linear or monotonous? From my experience, more secrets, harder, as well as games never scaled to you and had better level design. That's just me though.
Linear, it's frightening you even have to ask seeing as you yourself claimed video games are becoming more and more linear on several occasions (I can even provide an actual quote)... those things you just wrote have nothing to do with linearity at all, wait a minute, don't tell me linearity meant monotonous in your dictionary this entire ****ing time, don't do it to me man.
And also they are more linear nowadays: shorter, shallower, less rpg, more arcade and more linear. And no, I won't bother to give you any proof. Let other people do that. I'm kind of tired of having to type so much now.
Make a claim... refuse to back it up throughout entire discussion, tell other people they are wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
Attachment 22590
Honestly, I don't think games will ever be as they were in the 80s and 90s. However, I don't think they become "more and more mindless" as time goes by. The way I see it, game designers (mainstream) make games to appeal to the everchanging taste of gamers. Indie designers tend to make games that appeal to a specific group of gamers, like nostalgia gamers for example.
Let's pretend you have a small group of people in a room, and you ask them "In which decade were the best video games made?" A 21-year-old says the 90s, because he grew up playing 90s games. A 31-year-old says the 2000s; because though he grew up with Atari, he prefers the graphics of the newer games.
Basically, it's all just one's opinion. One could say the current games are better, another could say the 80s games were. Chances are that there will be a debate like this 20 years from now. Maybe one will say that 80s and 2010s were great, but 90s games were crap. Games will get better for some, worse for others. That's just how it is.
As for me, I find there to be games that I like and games that I don't like; no matter what year they were made. I like newer Zelda games, but can't stand the older ones. I prefer Final Fantasy II to Final Fantasy XIII. I have been playing video games for nearly 23 years. I am crazy like that, I guess.
If one was to make a quick summary of present trend of games, how would you summarize it?
I'd say:
-way too much slo mo effects.
-health regen. So hip.
-enemies auto leveling.
-attaining special skills over more rpg type skill building. You gotta wreck face and you don't wanna bother learning. Special powers ftw! Especially with Matrix style combat.
-battle through games by learning merely a few combat moves and engage everyone like a pro.
-Slo mo execution animations. Gotta feel like a boss every time.
Did I miss anything?
Wait, so if I'm understanding this, by enemies auto leveling, you mean enemies scaling to your level? This is a problem to you, yet earlier you complained that Skyrim becomes too easy after you've gotten to a certain point.
The point of enemies scaling is to prevent them from becoming too easy. You want difficulty but don't want enemies to be relatively strong. Did I get that right?
In my experience, very few games have any of those things you mentioned. Would you mind naming more than a few games that have them? A few games does not make a trend.
I find enemy scaling bullshit unless its an intricate system designed to allow you to become more powerful than your enemy and give you the option to eliminate challenge. In ff8 case, this would be junctions. In every other game ive played, enemies that scale to your level dont just make the game more 'challenging' it makes the effort to level up absolutley pointless and feels like you are achieving nothing.
Because picking health packs/food was so much more realistic and better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
Seeing as you want games to be as "hardcore" as they used to be enemies leveling up in any way or form (especially in Rowans scenario where you leveling up is more of a punishment than a reward) should be a plus in your book.Quote:
-enemies auto leveling.
You do realize you are asking him to back up his words and use concrete proof while he's at it... good luck getting your answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluffy
The problem with Japanese games currently is there is so much emphasis on Graphics and such in the West that it's too expensive to cater to the West which just wants simple gameplay mechanics. Actually that's not really much of a problem, rather it just means the focus has gone elsewhere as it's better to make games for the loyal fanbase than to try and please everybody which I think is the problem with Western games.
Recently I came back to console gaming after spending so much time on WoW and there are so many games to keep me occupied but I'm finding that there are a lot of older titles from the PS/PS2 era that I missed out on where as there is little from this generation especially and the ones I do want to play have prequels on older systems. I want to stick to the Ps3 but at the same time I do not like starting off from the current ones, I feel like I missed part of the History behind these games which is why back when I played the FF games I went back and finished the first 6.
This current generation is all about money from big name companies, everybody is trying to make the next CoD (which I don't understand, it removed so many good factors of games like Quake and Duke 3D). It's all about making interactive movies. How ever there are still smaller devs out there trying to push out games they want to make, I try to support them when I can.
With Open world games I think they're really hit or miss for me, I tried to like Fallout 3 but I just couldn't yet I found Red Dead Redemption fun and addictive. I like old JRPGs like Diablo and Baldurs Gate, the closest we've got now is Demon's Soul's which I haven't really sat down to play just yet. There are plenty of great JRPGs out there though I'd say the PS2 is better in that regard.
I was being sarcastic there. Don't like health regen at all. Very cheap game design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanatos
A trend means something is going in that direction. Bethesda games have turned to it, so that's a trend. They don't make up alot in gaming industry, but still their games are always "big" and catch alot of attention and have a big likelihood of being copied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluffy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan
Exactly. Leveling up doesn't feel like leveling up anymore, except for getting skill points. Cheap. FF8 had an awesome autolevel sytem though. Totally agree.
Very well summarized, especially the interactive movies part. The Western trend is ruining alot of good games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angantyr
Video games are heading into that direction, yet you couldn't name at least five games for the sake of this discussion... lol. Even if Bethesda games had each and every one of those issues, and they don't, that's still only Fallout and TES (and TES has always been the same)... don't tell me you base your entire point on two games... goddamn, you're an even bigger kreten than I initially thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
Thanks to junction system itself (which was easily exploited) and overpowered limit breaks leveling up in Final Fantasy VIII had no sense whatsoever, you could create uber powerful characters on low levels while opponents had little to no HP, the game pretty much encouraged you not to level up.Quote:
Exactly. Leveling up doesn't feel like leveling up anymore, except for getting skill points. Cheap. FF8 had an awesome autolevel sytem though. Totally agree.
So I may have gotten 1 assumption wrong about auto leveling trend. Sure, I'm a kreten. I said games have a good chance to copy Bethesda. So what? What have you contributed, other than "prove this and prove that"? Why are you so bent on defending modern games? Are you a butthurt CoD/Halo fanboy? To me it seems like you are. If not, prove me wrong, lol.
Xanatos named 10+ games when he wanted to make a point. You just make outrageous claims with nothing to back them up. At least for me, I'm confused how you can come to these conclusions yet you can't seem to name the apparently numerous games that are doing these terrible things. I honestly want to know what games you're talking about. So far you've mentioned Bethesda games, so you've got like 1%, if that, of current games right there. I can think of maybe 2-3 game series/franchises that do any of those things you mentioned. What are the rest?
Enemies leveling can be done right. FF8 had the perfect example of a bad enemy leveling system. The junction system is exactly why. I don't see how you can think it was an awesome system when it does the opposite of what you want. Leveling up doesn't just mean nothing, it makes you comparatively weaker.
I'm not really into FPS, besides I'm not defending a specific genre here nor are COD & Halo only modern games out there, which makes your COD/Halo reference rather stupid. One assumption wrong, I beg to differ. It's one among many, you tend to forget your lackluster examples on console limitation, your "if any game was easy, it'd be short" which you yourself said is not very accurate, finally your point on linearity and many other you have yet to back up... it's simple really, you are the one making these points, not me, either be prepared to back them up or STFU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin1199
You guys have been doing pretty good so far so please remember to be civil.
Success in the video game market today is a lot harder than it was in the last console cycle. It is the reason why we are seeing fewer games released. The recession and studio closures certainly are not helping matters, but budget is an important thing. Because of how polarizing things have become this generation, you have the big game companies and the small ones, there is almost no middle ground anymore. Since visual quality can reach higher marks, it is easier for one product with less money to look significantly worse than a product with a ton of money. Even as early back as just the PS2 graphical quality between good and bad games were not as extreme to the untrained eye. Gamers knew the difference, but the more casual ones would not necessary know. The further back the less graphics could really divide the games. So gameplay had to support things rather than visuals. However, because graphics are improving people who are easily swayed by visuals will end up ignoring things that might be more enjoyable, but not look as good.
This is probably one reason why most niche Japanese companies are going for the anime style rather than realism. They can't compete with their small budgets, and something that was never designed to look realistic visually won't be judged harder for not being it. And they can focus on other areas. But all of the middle ground companies that usually made their living off of breaking even or doing a little better than that have all fallen away. They can't compete in the new market focused on visual appeal. So you end up with the two extremes big games and small games. The only way small game companies have stayed alive is keeping their scopes small and budgets small and iterating on their product. If you look at GUST and Compile Hearts, they are both using an engine and combat system they started with at the beginning of the generation. They just keep fixing it and growing it with each new game, rather than scrapping it. They recycle assets and save time. So the more games they make the less they have to spend on the next game. So they end up making money over the long run. However, many Japanese studios have fallen into pleasing the moe crowd of fans as way to increase sales, but it is a marginalized effort overseas.
Because times have changed, you're going to get a different breed of games from the past. I suspect that twenty years from now people will probably be making some similar claims about games of that day versus now. However, I because people have found a comfort zone recently and we are nearing the end of the console cycle, that we will start seeing some new and interesting games. Games like Remember Me and Watch Dogs both have a very different feel to them from the rest of the AAA titles on the market. Then there are the indie games they continue to want to hold on to old memories for people who enjoy the more hardcore old days like Meatboy and Slenderman. Plus there are games like the Unfinished Swan, Journey, Flower and Flow which are unique experiences that are blooming in a market that is so heavily filled with the big budget titles.
The problem I think people have is that nostalgia makes something look better than it actually was. How many games were made in the 80 and 90s? Probably thousands and how many of them were good versus bad? I don't know myself, but I doubt everyone of them was great or even that most were great. We look at them favorably because we were younger or times were different then. I suspect the number of truly good games then and now has not really changed. What has changed is that we have gotten older or we have more developed tastes and opinions than when we were kids.
^^ Totally forgot Unfinished Swan was out. I should probably get that