Lowering the bar

[Mr. In-between]

MW3 was a good game. I just finished the campaign about an hour ago, have yet to take it online. It really tied up the loose ends that you were left with in MW2, but I'm also the only person on here who actually pays attention to the story in CoD titles, so take that for what it's worth.

I paid attention to the story too and I don't see how people say it makes no sense. It all ties together very well as long as you pay attention. It may just piss them off that it was essentially a 1980's action movie. Which was at least twelve and a half levels of awesome.

I was a little bit surprised that the invasion of New York was the first level. I had figured that they would have saved that for a bit later in the game.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

MW3 was a good game. I just finished the campaign about an hour ago, have yet to take it online. It really tied up the loose ends that you were left with in MW2, but I'm also the only person on here who actually pays attention to the story in CoD titles, so take that for what it's worth.

I paid attention to the story too and I don't see how people say it makes no sense. It all ties together very well as long as you pay attention. It may just piss them off that it was essentially a 1980's action movie. Which was at least twelve and a half levels of awesome.

I was a little bit surprised that the invasion of New York was the first level. I had figured that they would have saved that for a bit later in the game.

It seems that the Russians moved up the coast from Virginia in MW2 to NYC at the beginning of MW3.

The only plot hole I can think of is why would they invade the east coast first, when the west coast is closer and they wouldn't have to fly over all of Europe and the Atlantic.

 

[Hussmann54]

Sorry I wasted your Christmas here.

You had better be.

I personally enjoyed (or am enjoying) everything i have gotten to play this year.
Gears 3, well... never was a tremendous fan, but the storyline kept my attention right up until an ending which admittedly still left me with questions.... you all know what im talking about. Gameplay was sound, I mean, it wasnt horrible in the first game and they didnt change much, so if the shoe fits....

MW3, i guess, yeah, i liked it. And i dont really care what others think on this subject; but i really enjoyed the plot line for what it was (as somebody here mentioned "an 80's action flick") and I had fun with stuff like survival with friends. Gameplay was also the same, but certain aspects kept it interesting (again, survival)

Skyrim I enjoyed, and never saw how...

What are you talking about? What does time spent playing a game have to do with anything? If I play a game which everyone is calling "outstanding", and that game requires me to play for 200 hours to get through the bulk of the game, then whether or not I do play those 200 hours depends not on how good it is but how much I am into games in general to put that much effort into discovering a good game. If I play tetris for only 20 minutes, does that mean it sucks? There are plenty of short games out there which are great and long games which suck. I wouldn't play a game like Limbo - one of the best games of 2011 - for longer than the main quest, which is only a few hours. That doesn't mean it's not a good game.

.. is a good argument. For example, do you spend large amounts of time hanging out with people you hate willfully? No, if you do you probably have alternate motives for doing so.
You invest time in people you enjoy being around. Herp da DERRRRRRRRRR

Now as to the original issue
Admittedly, IMO, i have found some parts ofSkyrim to be repetitive, but its in such a small quantity, i dont mind it so much myself. Gameplay was an elder scrolls game, so I came in with the understanding that it wasnt going to sell immersion and that part of the task in that department fell to the responsibility of my own mind.

L.A. Noir.... video game I happened to enjoy, with a very cinematic feel at times.... talk to Jim Sterling about the whole video games/art/respected media topic and that will clear that up.

Saint Row 3.... well i didnt find much depth and it didnt rock my world or raise the bar, but the 14 yr old inside me loved it. Life I suppose....

 

[Zantos]

It's threads like this that make me wonder if I'm the only person that appreciates that even if I don't like a game, someone else who is into that sort of thing probably does. Similarly for "There's a flaw in this game" and "it's bad".

Maybe my bar has been lowered, but I'd rather that then not liking an otherwise good game because the controls are awkward, or it's quite similar to another game that I really liked. I enjoyed a lot of games this year, there were some solid titles and a few surprise gems, along with a few that were still entertaining. And I enjoyed all of them.

 

[Lilani]

Then comes a colorful and engaging rpg with dragons, wenches, and all the hacky slashy fun you've been starved of.

Dragons?

I'll go play a Spyro game.

Ooooooooooooh. I like you.

Anyhow, I really have no clue if the bar is going up or down as I have no modern console so this year I've really only been catching up on the games I've missed in the last five years through Steam. I completed all of the main components of the Half-Life series (except for the first, which I've almost completed), and for Christmas I got Mass Effect 2, which means I also went on steam and bought ME1 so I could know what the hell is going on when I install ME2. Also I finally dove into Minecraft to see what the fuss is about, and man is it addictive. Due to a lack of monies and time I'll probably not touch Skyrim until next summer, and the Call of Duty series has never appealed to me in the least so I really couldn't care less about MW3. The next FPS's I'll touch after I'm done with Mass Effect will most likely be L4D and L4D2, so that I should have the full Valve experience completed by this time next year.

So, yeah. I'm a bit behind. But now that I've discovered Steam I'm slowly catching up and learning what the fuss was all about with these games people were excited about like three years ago.

 

[Vault101]

.

ohhhhh booo hooo hooo...somone didnt enjoy this years games?

well good for you then.

IMO aside from the usual problems of "dumbing down" and all that this year has been very good


(and portal 2 took all my expectations and blew them into space it was that good)

there was plenty to choose from OTHER than brown shooters....IMO anyone who says otherwise needs to shut the fuck up...because that complaint is getting old (but hey..just my opinion)

"Wrapping up a year with no good fantasy rpgs (yes Dragon Age II sucked get over it[/B]

also regardless of weather or not DA2 was good or bad, stating your opinion as fact kind of rubs people the wrong way

 

[not_you]

Not every game this year was horribly over-hyped...
Only most of them...

I mean, Deus Ex 3... no, wait, that was overhyped (Although still a good game by most standards)
Rage was over-hyped, ending up being an incredibly linear FPS with an "open" world tacked on for laughs...

I don't think it's that the bar has been lowered, I think it's just because there are so many bad games that once a month -or it adds up to that I believe- a GOOD game is released...
So, is 12 (arguably) good games this year enough? Considering how many bad games were released this year is it an acceptable ratio?

No...

That's why the above average games of the year are sent to "BEST GAME EVARRR" standard.... Although sometimes, rarely, they actually deserve the praise...
(The numbers here are estimations, if you want to name some, then go for it... The list I had has been and gone...)

 

[dyre]

I'll hold back the hate because if those are the only games you've played this year, then you understandably would be a bit disappointed.

This year, the new releases I played were DA2, The Witcher 2, and Deus Ex HR, of which one was pretty bad, but the next two were quite excellent, and two of the best roleplaying experiences I've had since BG2, Planescape Torment, and Arcanum (trying to think of a good RPG between then and now, and I'm coming up blank. Maybe KOTOR?).

So my limited knowledge on this year's games tells me it's an amazing year for gaming...

PS: I don't see what you could've expected out of MW3 and Skyrim besides what they delivered.

 

[Westaway]

Deux Ex, Dark Souls, and the fact that none of the games mentioned above are bad (excluding mw3) completly negate your points. This was a fantastic gaming. The best since 2007, and even better.

 

[Odinsson]

"Wrapping up a year with no good fantasy rpgs (yes Dragon Age II sucked get over it)"

I think a certain Witcher might have a word or two to say about that. Or a (non-innuendo-y) sword to stick up your arse.

YES, YES, YES! I know this is just my opinion talking, and the Witcher 2 definitely had problems but it was one of the best games I've ever played.

 

[A Free Man]

anip.

while having little substance which is only discovered after a substantial time with the game.

I don't know if I'm reading you wrong, I'll agree that Skyrim wasn't as in depth as their previous titles but how can you discover a game has little substance "after a substantial time with the game". If you spent a substantial amount of time playing the game I would think that means it has at least a bit of substance lol.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

"Blah blah blah, I didn't care for any of the high profile games this year".

I didn't myself (but then, I don't tend to be), but I didn't make a big writeup about it, either.

 

[The Hero Killer]

Why is it when lists like this are always made that people forget Arkham City? Other than its length, it was one of the best games to come out this year.

 

[The Pinray]

What ever happened to "fun game = good game"?

Seems the gaming community as a whole has really lost it's way.

Oh well. Complaining is fun!

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

I politely disagree with you, sir or madam.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

anip.

while having little substance which is only discovered after a substantial time with the game.

I don't know if I'm reading you wrong, I'll agree that Skyrim wasn't as in depth as their previous titles but how can you discover a game has little substance "after a substantial time with the game". If you spent a substantial amount of time playing the game I would think that means it has at least a bit of substance lol.

What makes you think that the amount of time spent with a game indicates its substance?

If I sit through a 3 hour movie does that mean it automatically has more substance than a 90 minute movie? Or should I have left the 3 hour movie as soon as I started to get a little bored? If I did that with all movies I would barely have seen a movie in its entirety in my whole life.

 

[Olas]

If you weren't able to enjoy a single game that came out this year, I feel sorry for you. However, I can assure you that the problem isn't the entire gaming industry.

Personally, I think Checkers is a terrific game. All of the games you mentioned seem to be better than checkers(In my opinion). So how bad can they really be?

Have you considered that perhaps it's YOUR expectation of the gaming industry that needs reevaluating?

 

[Phlakes]

...Okay,

This is a big effing rant so if you came for short blurbs, please find another forum.

Way to already paint yourself like a dick in the first paragraph. I respectfully decline.

second paragraph snip

"*whine whine whine* modern games aren't as good as older games".

...but the puzzles were simple, the game held your hand, the story seemed to intentionally not want you to get in it's way...

...da fuq? The story... didn't want you getting in its way? ...You mean like... It was... linear? I don't think I can handle this. I need to sit down for a minute.

MW3 did gangbusters because it was known as a reliable FPS series with intense multiplayer and relatively engaging single player.

Did anyone ever expect it to be more than that, or ever say it was more than that? I don't see a single problem with the game if this is the standard it has, because it met that perfectly.

Skyward Sword...Well brand loyalty mostly.

Because if someone likes a game that you don't, obviously you're right and they're just sheep.

Wrapping up a year with no good fantasy rpgs

Yeah, already been said, but Witcher 2 and Dark Souls.

our standards from the whole year had taught us that at least if we're having fun, we can forgive a lot.

No, that's been our standard forever. Oblivion was glitchy and repetitive and we loved that, Morrowind was glitchy and repetitive and we loved that. Ask anyone on this forum, and an overwhelming majority of the time they'll tell you that the most important thing in a game is being fun.

That's basically what this all comes down to. Last year is a little bit to blame too but this was the year where so much trash came out that we took what we could get and worshiped them as gods even though what we were getting at best was a fat pope who occasionally told a funny joke. The standard used to be "most games are ok, some are good, a few are great." Now the standard seems to be "most games are bad, but the second coming of christ may pop up every now and then." K I'm finished. Sorry I wasted your Christmas here.

That is absolutely incorrect. You look through this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_video_gaming#Game_releases], you see LittleBigPlanet 2, Bulletstorm, Killzone 3, Mortal Kombat, LA Noire, Infamous 2, Shadows of the Damned, EDF: Insect Armageddon (so bad it's good is still good), Limbo, Bastion, El Shaddai, Deus Ex HR, Dead Island, Gears 3, Rage, Arkham City, Uncharted 3, Rayman Origins, Saints Row 3, and SWToR more recently, excluding the games you and I have already mentioned.

Yep. This year was so bad.

So don't try to tell us that our opinions are wrong. You think modern games are overhyped, good for you, people have been ranting about that for years. If you don't like something, all that means is you don't like it, although I'm sure it feels good to think that the entire industry is following your views. Skyrim and Deus Ex HR are two of the best games I have ever played, and I've played damn near everything from the NES up. Am I wrong or right? Hell no. Are you wrong or right for thinking they're not that good? Hell no. But when you start trying to tell us otherwise, you've crossed the line.

 

[Erttheking]

Human Revolution, Space Marine, Skyrim Gears of War 3...yeah I'm not complaining about this year. It seems like a lot of people like to jump on the nostalgia bus.

Also not original =/= bad....also Space Marine. It seems rather ridiculous that you're expecting people to come out with something new each year, like you expect them to make one game and drop it forever. I'm no developer but I imagine that that would be expensive, not to mention more likely than not a lot of new franchises (if they did this) would be crap.

 

[Jingle Fett]

snip

Agree 100% and it's for this reason I'm still highly hesitant to buy Skyward Sword. To be honest, Twilight Princess was shit. I loved the story and all, but as a 3d zelda game it was shit. I've noticed a decrease in quality in Nintendo games since they became so successful with the Wii. Mario Galaxy was great and all, but it was barely competent. As someone who beat SM64 and Sunshine, Galaxy was embarrassingly easy (srsly, what Mario game regularly GIVES you lives for free? Like 5 at a time).
I think its coming down to lowered expectations. When everyone expects games to be shit, when one decent one comes around, it's like the greatest thing ever. The same has been happening with movies. Perfect example? I loved The Dark Knight, it was a great movie. But the reason it did so well was because there was literally nothing else to watch at the time. So everybody saw it and it was hugely successful. When a big movie comes out and it's actually good, it's hailed as the greatest thing ever. Same with Skyrim, great game but because it came out when there was little else out to play (aside from the flood of brown shooters), it's considered the greatest thing ever. It's like people have forgotten what good games are supposed to play like and what good movies are supposed to be like.
I agree with you on Portal 2 also. I have it but I haven't really beaten it yet or anything, sort of lost interest. Portal 1 however, I was playing it all the time until I finished it.

Part of it too I think is due to what I've come to call Popularity Syndrome. Basically when a company or franchise becomes too successful, the quality starts declining because the creators don't have to try as hard. Example: Star War Originals vs Prequels. George Lucas starting out vs George Lucas already successful. Or another example, Nintendo during N64/Gamecube era vs Wii era.
And as long as those things print out money, there's literally no reason at all to change their practice. Hell, I probably wouldn't either, if you can print money by doing the same thing over and over again, why change?

Activision sure as hell isn't going to stop making CoD exactly the same as the previous ones, not until they start losing money anyways. If anything, their sales go up the less they change, so why would they change?
Our games aren't going to start becoming better until people start having higher standards and simply don't buy crap. Right now, many developers simply have no reason to innovate; they're just cashing in. If that means only buying 2-3 games a year, then so be it. In other words, people need to be more disciplined with their spending if they want better games. Instead, people are simply being complacent and eat up whatever they get.