Poll: Game Play vs. Flash and Glitz

Recommended Videos

Shadowtek

New member
Jul 30, 2008
501
0
0
Most games today are focused on pushing out a flashy game that looks good but has no real lasting appeal. Game developers are frequently choosing to push out a game a year instead of releasing a game every few years when they have a good story and all the "kinks" worked out. These same publishers seem to have it in their mind that a game needs to start with an explosion, gun fire, sexiness, and flashing lights. Although these things are interesting, they have their own place. Once you get involved in a story then start adding action into the conflict. Game studios have clearly forgotten how to create a good game. If I want a game with no original story line where I can blow up random things and kill bad guys by the throng, then I'll pick up the latest war shooter and expect around six hours of play time. If I want a game with a good story and action, with some plot twists and to truly enjoy the experience then I'll go to my time machine I keep in my back yard, go back 5-10+ years to when they knew how to make games with good stories and pick one up there.

Recently game prices have gone up and the quality, game play, and replay value have all went down. Spending a large chunk of money on any item that gets you only a few hours of enjoyment is a pretty sad practice. You could buy a box of ice cream bars and get the same amount of enjoyment out of a container of a dozen treats then the previous option. I personally have no problem handing over money for something that will get me 12-25+ hours of enjoyment.

My real question is, Why do we settle for games that are all flash glitz and no/very little story? Since when did we become complacent to pay our hard earned money to settle for 6-8 hours of game play? Does anyone besides a select few remember when games had involving stories and people played them for that quality? What were your favorites at the time? Did you really mind spending the money then?

This goes out to those who miss the way games were meant to be played.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,175
0
0
Baldur's Gate 2 is the only valid answer to this thread. Though KOTOR is also acceptable.
 

Shadowtek

New member
Jul 30, 2008
501
0
0
The CoD series if one of my recent complaints. However, I just find it really diffucult to spend $50-$60 on anything that im not going to enjoy for more than a week. I grew up on many games that cost $30-$40 and provided at least a (fairly) original story and a few weeks up to a a month or so of play time. Mostly my complaints go out the industry. I know that there are only so many variations on the story lines but at least more effort could be made toward some of the lower aspects (replay value, character development, time involved to play throughout).
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
I can't answer the poll because I believe both are needed. Not nessisarily in equal measure, thats to the setting of each game. When companies rely on one or the other, we all suffer. But more basically its down to risk management. Until these companies start taking actual risks, we aren't going to see much innovation or creativity.
 

Gxas

New member
Sep 4, 2008
3,187
0
0
Shadowtek said:
Most games today are focused on pushing out a flashy game that looks good but has no real lasting appeal. Game developers are frequently choosing to push out a game a year instead of releasing a game every few years when they have a good story and all the "kinks" worked out. These same publishers seem to have it in their mind that a game needs to start with an explosion, gun fire, sexiness, and flashing lights. Although these things are interesting, they have their own place. Once you get involved in a story then start adding action into the conflict. Game studios have clearly forgotten how to create a good game. If I want a game with no original story line where I can blow up random things and kill bad guys by the throng, then I'll pick up the latest war shooter and expect around six hours of play time. If I want a game with a good story and action, with some plot twists and to truly enjoy the experience then I'll go to my time machine I keep in my back yard, go back 5-10+ years to when they knew how to make games with good stories and pick one up there.

Recently game prices have gone up and the quality, game play, and replay value have all went down. Spending a large chunk of money on any item that gets you only a few hours of enjoyment is a pretty sad practice. You could buy a box of ice cream bars and get the same amount of enjoyment out of a container of a dozen treats then the previous option. I personally have no problem handing over money for something that will get me 12-25+ hours of enjoyment.

My real question is, Why do we settle for games that are all flash glitz and no/very little story? Since when did we become complacent to pay our hard earned money to settle for 6-8 hours of game play? Does anyone besides a select few remember when games had involving stories and people played them for that quality? What were your favorites at the time? Did you really mind spending the money then?

This goes out to those who miss the way games were meant to be played.
I can't help but think that you're considering all the recent FPS games in this. And, when I look at those games, sure, you get a five hour campaign, but you also get a huge multiplayer feature which is where most of the replay value comes in.

Go back to the Sega Genesis and throw Lion King in there. Sure, it was a difficult game and yes, Hamlet Lion King was a great story, but seriously, is there any replay value there? You could finish that game in under an hour if you knew what you were doing.

Games haven't sacrificed story, they're just reusing stories that are known to work. Games are a business and businesses don't usually take risks. They stick with what they know works. These games sell, very well. Companies aren't going to try something new if they can rake in millions from reusing a story formula.