Games nowadays...

[Altanic]

Video games are on the decline?

I thought I read that the gaming industry raked in significantly more cash during some recent measurable period of time then any other entertainment field. Recession? Hasn't scratched gaming.

I still see tons of great games. Some of you folks who've been playing games for 20+ years should realize doing *anything* for that long will get to you. Somebody who's followed or participated in anything for 20 years will get "desensitized" and swear it was all better way back when. Sure, way back when they were wide eyed n00bs and couldn't absorb enough of it.

It's hard for me to see how things are going in the pc vs' console arena. I'm just not attracted to console gaming much anymore. I bought a N64 the christmas season they were released and played the hell out of it. But that following spring I bought my own computer and the original WarCraft quickly filled up all my gaming time.

I still have the N64 and my kids have enjoyed it but my 8-year old is already starting to prefer the PC to the console. Maybe this would change if I bought a PS2/xbox/gamecube, but I really would rather use the money to upgrade my 2nd computer instead. :P

So I guess I have no desire to even see whats going on in the console world. I go to yahoo.com and play backgammon, gin, chess, checkers and even scrabble against real people. For FREE!!! On this same machine I can play UT, DAoC, D2, WC3... IRC, message boards, news sites, email... I gotta say, the console has a ways to go yet before it can match my PC for entertainment flexibility.

[keenduck]

One of my favorite game(s) is Europa Universalis (and it's sibling - Hearts of Iron).

I was wondering if these are straightforward adaptiations of board games (sort of like realtime Diplomacy and Axis and Allies), or if there have been other PC games that are similar to Europa Universalis. I happen to think these games are quite unique, I'd like to know if I'm wrong (or right.)

[WarBlade]

Roland: The console history I am familiar with is the New Zealand one and if one thing is clear about console histories it's that they can vary widely from region to region. As an example, the XBox was released here late last year and has what might be described as a mior toe hold in the market. Playstation has market saturation and most people with a non-Playstation platform are people who already have Palystations and can find justification in buying another console.

This is another interesting aside to the PC versus Console debate that often gets overlooked, but actually favours PC in a sense. Computers, being of modular construction are a fairly simple matter to build for a world market. In a basic sense you just grab the latest technology and stuff it in a box with whatever power supply fits the local demands. Consoles OTOH are going to wind up with a variety of different export models and even the software itself can come in PAL and NTSC formats.

[Elric of Grans]

Hail Pete,

"Perhaps it is we, the gamers, that have become more jaded."

Perhaps so; I do not see it in myself, but perhaps that is the reason. I do not think I expect too much, and I believe my expectations are the same as they always have been, but I am only one person. The general market expects fancy graphics, and fancy sounds; thinks I care not for. Really, I'm one of them oldies that are living in the past: after all, by the time we reach puberty, we are past our gaming prime. I know I cannot play anything like I could when I was 14 - I just find that exhausting to think about today :P

As to the money out there, you're probably right: I was not really thinking about the average programmer, and how little they get out of it.

At any rate, I find modern gaming very disapointing - perhaps for similar reasons I find many recent films a tad lacking. All CGI, no plot. Man... if my mates were reading this, they'd probably think me twice my age ;)

[Premezilla]

I think in many ways, console games are not being innovative but rather are merely catching up to PC game standards.  Goldeneye was a reinvention of Duke3D and even that was hardly revolutionary -- that honor goes to id for its masterful Doom and precursor Wolfenstein 3D.  Halo isn't anything special, just a fine polish on the same old formula, as was Half-life and a hundred other Quake-clones.  Even the weapon-limit has been done before, in Rise of the Triad.  Doom had co-operative play, as did Duke3D.  Half of the Halo weapons are the same old weapons, except for a handful that seem to come from an Unreal-style design, and the plethora of grenade types can be seen as far back as Team Fortress for Quakeworld.

I don't think the PC crowd is very innovative either, to tell you the truth.  Diablo is simply an Ultima interface laid on top of nethack.  Civ2 was polish on Civ1, and virtually every "nation builder" game has stolen elements from either Civ or Simcity or Populus.  Adventure games like Monkey Island * are simply the combination of the ever-forward march of computer technology with the old text adventure styles of Zork et al.  WoW looks to be your standard EQ/DAoC/etc, Starcraft:Ghost a blend between MGS and a first person sneaker - all tried and true paths, just not one taken by Blizzard before.

If anything, I think the industry is slowing down as it is rapidly maturing.  Gone are the heady days of 1999; now, people are trying to create stable businesses developing entertainment software rather than making games out of a garage.  This means inevitably less risks and more decidedly mediocre games.  I think part of the "less risks" implication

Salutations Aurikan,

I understand where you're coming from, however I named Goldeneye as "innovative" simply because it came out at a time when the new generation had not even heard of "Wolfenstein" or "Doom". I should know, for I myself am one of them. I mean, come on, I grew up on the Super Nintendo, Playstation, and N64, simply because I wasn't introduced to the computer world.

And I mention games like Civ2 and Monkey Island because those were the first computer games I played. (Aside from Wolfenstein, and a rather obscure title known as Marathon.) Besides, I don't care what anybody says, those two games always have, and always will be in my computer game collection.

I also agree with your perspective on the "mediocre, tried-and-true" approach many companies are now taking. With so many effective games set as shooters nowadays, companies like Blizzard would do well to toss their names into the hat, if just for cash's sake.

Also, I would have to argue "Mortal Kombat." (You misspelled it, by the way. ;)) If you are talking about the breakthrough fighting game, then it would be a close tie as to whether Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter II would take the honors. Both games utilized "combos" and "button-mashing", yet they were both subtly different as well.

My 2 cents have been collected. This has been a transmission of DPT. Over and out.

[WarLocke]

I'll stay away from the "console vs PC" and "console history" subthreads in this post -- or at least try to, anyway.

Regarding XBox mods, they seem to be surprisingly easy to do. Just awhile ago, in fact (last week, or the week before), the Screen Savers did a full week of XBox modding stories. Stuff like installing Linux (as previously mentioned), swapping the XBox's basic HD for a larger one, and even copying XBox games to its HD.

For more info, check the TSS site here. That's the article dealing with copying games, and at the bottom under "Related Articles" are several other mod links.


Edit: I have to argue with both the Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter II picks for "revolutionary fighting games". While SFII definitely brought fighters into the limelight (can you tell it was my first?), the 2D fighting game genre has yet to make any noticable innovations since then. Even MK hasn't added much.

If I had to pick a revolutionary fighting game, I would have to choose Tekken. It was the first in so many ways:

- Unique characters with more than 6 "moves" (Something like 36 characters with 80+ manuevers each in Tag Tournament)
- Robust throwing system (tap-outs, rollovers, linked throws)
- Reversals (linked reversals, "chickens")
- A manageable 3D movement system (not as cumbersome as "8 Way Run")

Yeah, I think Tekken is just a bit more revolutionary than SFII or MK.

[FoxBat]

I say good! Without as low a common denominator to appeal to, maybe we'll see the return of adventure gaming! :D

Hey, I can dream, can't I. :P

[Zedd]

I say good!  Without as low a common denominator to appeal to, maybe we'll see the return of adventure gaming! :D

Hey, I can dream, can't I.   :P

Mmm....Full Throttle 2 anyone? :-D

Few heros as cool as Ben. "I ain't puttin' my lips on that" :)

[[wcip]Angel]

I get the impression that PC gaming is in a decline, but then again, there are 3 consoles for which games are being made, and just 1 computer. PCs are also used for different things than playing games, therefore there's a bigger market for other software. As most consoles mainly deal in games, they have an unfair advantage on the computer. I also believe that there's a bigger chance the consoles will get more varied games as there are probably more developers making games for the three consoles than for the 1 PC.

PC-games vs Console games.
First off, there's been an increase in porting the last couple of years. Console to PC and vice versa. Very often the ports are lesser copies of the original and should never have been ported. But I suppose this is a way of making more money off of a popular game for a platform with very little effort. (easier to port a game then make a new one, perhaps one of the reasons why the ports are so terrible.. not enough money isn't spent on it.)

There are some games the console just can't handle:
First person shooters (medal of honour) and strategy games (thinking of red alert for the playstation) mostly due to the lack of a mouse and keyboard. (also because most people play console games from a sofa instead of on a desk built for platform-usage... consoles are not really designed for having a mouse, as one of the perks of playing on a console is relaxing in a nice sofa/recliner)

When it comes to the games, either on PC or console, I suppose it's easier for me than most people. We all want games to be original, but there's a cap on originality, and there's certainly a cap on the amount of time game developers wish to use thinking up new ideas. We can't expect games to be completely original. (I suppose Black and white is the newest completely original game? .. and that's the only game I can think of.)

I remember enjoying games when I was younger. I remember Hero's quest, Eye of the beholder, Outrun europe (for the Amiga) and various mario-games for mye nintendo. I've come to realise that I cannot play videogames for fun. There are some exceptions, like Gran Turismo and Counterstrike. Games like mario, wintergames, mind-numbing first person shooters or strategy games. I just don't enjoy playing games. I did enjoy playing games when I was younger. Beheading an adversary in Barbarian (atari) was as much fun every time as it was the first time.

I just can't play games and be entertained.

So why do I play games?
For the storyline.

Some people read books, most people watch television; and although I too watch some television, I use my games as storytellers; as sources of a good story with fascinating characters, unpredictable plot and detailed depth.

Consequently, games like Deus Ex and Metal gear solid appeal to me the most. Although the former is a first-person shooter, it isn't included in the same category as the rest. (I could make a list of about 10-15 crappy first-person shooters, but we all know who they are) Needless to say, if you've played Deus Ex, you should already know why I love it.

First of all, the storyline is nice and thick. I appreciate that. This in it of itself is a great plus to any game. A fabulous storyline is a great asset to a game. What was special about Deus ex is the player's ability to affect, not only the outcome of the game, but also to choose his way of getting there. The fact that you can do things in a hundred different ways adds replayability to a game.

Max payne was fun to play. It added something new to the genre. It was cool. But it lacked replayability. I finished it a couple of times and every time except the first one I really didn't enjoy myself. If I was a reviewer for a magazine i'd give it roughly 80%, whereas I would have increased that number by 15 if it had the replayability of Deus Ex.

It's also nice when game companies don't patronise us by simplifying everything. I love it when tv-series and games challenges me, and forces me to think and feel. A complex storyline, is a great storyline. I didn't understand Silent Hill II until I read a plot analysis which explained almost every piece of detail I'd missed while playing the game over and over. By reading the analysis, I felt I enjoyed the game even more as I played it again. I had more information, I knew more, therefore I enjoyed it even more, because I understood more. It's like reading a poem. It may be beautiful and moving in it of itself, but I get more pleasure out of a poem if I understand exactly what the poet wants to say and how he says it.

About Metal gear solid.
Depth. Plot. Storyline. All good things, but what really made me cry while playing this game, was the characters.

I love movies, series and games where you sympathize with the villains. Remember "The Rock" with Ed Harris? How cool would that movie had been if we didn't understand Harris' (character's) motives?

When you play a game and get to a "boss" ... you can tell whether or not you're affected if you find yourself thinking "I don't want to kill this person, as it'll be the last time I see him/her." I felt sorry for Psycho Mantis because of his father. I felt the injustice of Sniper Wolf's upbringing on a battlefield. A child shouldn't have to live like that. I felt a bond between myself and Vulcan Raven.. as if we were close friends who just happened to be on the opposite team. I didn't like killing him, and the scene where David walks away as the crows start pecking on his corpse, and you hear his voice in your head ... it really got to me.

I can never enjoy mario or snowboarding games as I have no attachment to what happens in the game. In shoot-em ups, it's less important for me to have a hundred different ways of killing someone, but more important to know -why- I'm killing them, and what the repercussions will be. In roleplaying games, character development is fun, but it alone will never make a great game. Morrowind with its "do whatever the hell you want-we don't care"-attitude is absolutely brilliant as it gives the player a non-linear storyline he/she can shape themselves.

Why does a fat plumber grow big when he heats mushrooms? Why does he collect gold coins? Are cold coins valid currency where he lives? He wants to save the princess from the big spiky bad turtle-person, but why does the big spiky bad turtle-person have the princess in the first place? And where is the prince? Or the king for that matter? If he's a king, he shouldn't have to rely on plumbers to rescue his only daughter from big spiky bad turle-people.


If a game lacks storyline, it's worthless.

As I said.. there are exceptions, two of which being Counterstrike and Gran turismo, which both lack depth, plot and great characters. Only car-related game with a storyline would be Interstate76 I suppose.. (which was, and still is a fantastic game!)

[kandrathe]

Hmmm, perhaps a lull.

If you think of games as big entertainment, then as big money interests are pressing for "success" to be built in. Sort of like the difference between a multi-million dollar blockbuster and a low budget independant film. Occasionally, there is a crossover, and Hollywood remakes the film as a blockbuster. And, so I think then the "BIG" game companies want to be assured of ROI, so they springboard off the known formula of a successful predecessor.

But, if you think of games in the traditional sense, then you need to be concerned about human psychology and motivation. Why should I continue to play the game, rather than walk away and watch TV, or do something else? What is the hook? When I used to work for a software publisher, our mantra was "Hot, Deep, and Simple"... So we found that as long as you can find a way to implant the hook, and you follow that mantra, then your game/software has a chance of being successful.

Another thought; I recall an article I read recently entitled "Are we entertaining ourselves to death?" Which questioned the ever increasing portion of disposable income that we are devoting toward entertaining ourselves.

[FoxBat]

I've been gaming since '81, and have seen a lot of clones. Consantly rehashing old things isn't just a big-market strategy. It's just plain easier to design. We had genres of clones back in the old days too, like adventure games, shoot-em-up's, DM clones, platformers, etc. People just get sick of it eventually at different times, and then remark how there's no originality. But in the long term, the amount of initiative vs unoriginality hasn't changed much.

Main thing in consles vs. PCs, as metioned before, is standardized hardware. The early days of home computers were much closer to this as well. You didn't have tons of different parts for your Texas Instruments, Atari STs, Amigas, Apples, etc. So things like word processing, programming, etc. are not necessarily sinonymous with the modern hardware headache. Would be curious if someone knows a bit of the history as to why the customizable PC eventually took off and wiped out these other competitors.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The early days of home computers were much closer to this as well. You didn't have tons of different parts for your Texas Instruments, Atari STs, Amigas, Apples, etc.

Nowadays there's basically three home platforms to develop for: Mac, Wintel, and Linux. Most game developers totally ignore Linux, develop for one of the other two and (usually) do a half-assed port to the remaining one.

But I think back to the '76 to '81 period (pre IBM-PC) and there were more platforms than you could keep track of. The closest to a "standard" was the S-100, but that was a hardware standard. People ran all kinds of processors and systems on that. CP/M was more or less a standard for OSes, but everyone and their uncle were tweaking it.

The Apple ][ was about as close as you could come to an appliance computer back then, and almost right from the start it had all sorts of plug ins. B&W cards, color cards, sound cards, speech cards and speech recognition cards.

There was a card for the early IBM-PC and clones that was effectively a complete Apple ][. The PC acted as an I/O interface for it.

So, no. Things are really a whole lot cleaner now. Apple always had its standards pretty well together. The Wintel world is a little bit more cluttered, but the PnP standards and the various flavors of DirectX have all made development a whole lot more straightforward. Most of the problems with compatibility have either come from driver programmers who don't understand what they are doing or game programmers who are taking shortcuts.

But screwier than it was in the early days? Hahahahahahahah! Half the people I knew that had personal computers then had home brew wire wrapped jobs.

--Pete

[Premezilla]

Word up to tha masses,

Hey everybody, I just can across an old-school gem, that I find EXTREMELY entertaining. My friend told me about this game known as "Zork", a text-based game (it appears to be like MS Dos) in which you type commands and the computer then reacts accordingly. Anybody heard of this? Anyway, if you want to check it out, go to http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Infocom/zork1.html
Anyway, there ya go.

My 2 cents have been collected. D.P.T., over and out.

[Elric of Grans]

Hail Premezilla,

I have Zork 1, 2, 3, Zero and Beyond Zork - I'm a bit of a fan ;) I also have ADVENT (original 350pt version), which predates Zork by just a tad ;) Classic gaming though: they are some darn good games!

[FoxBat]

Pretty dumb to bring up the apple I guess, but those other examples were computers that didn't have a whole lot of expansion capabilities. The keyboard and console were one unit, and there wasn't any room for adding in any sort of new cards, save maybe swapping out your old memory if you were willing to soder some new stuff in. There were competing platforms, but on any one of these platforms, the hardware was standardized. You also got better sound and graphics capabilities than on most PCs for cheap, and combined with the standardized hardware, this was a fertile ground for developing new games, while many PCs were still stuck in EGA. Also quite good for image creation and music sequencing, the ST in particular had a decent GUI at a relatively early stage.

I really didn't know much of the larger market enviornment at the time, but it seems like these things were more minority in america, were a big deal in europe for a while though. But these have basically disappeared now.

[Premezilla]

I have Zork 1, 2, 3, Zero and Beyond Zork - I'm a bit of a fan ;) I also have ADVENT (original 350pt version), which predates Zork by just a tad ;) Classic gaming though: they are some darn good games!

Word up Elric,

Now whydja hafta go and do that? I didn't even finish the first one, and you tell me there's five more....grrrrr......

*Moves half the kitchen by the computer so melding with the chair becomes easier*

My 2 cents have been collected. D.P.T., over and out.