Do you really believe the cost will go down? Overtime and with sales yes, but not at the ship date which is what im talking about
Poll: The decline of high quality games.
- Thread starter Jay_The_Beast
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nostalga filter, it's not that games are getting worse, as you get older you're forgetting about the bad to mediocre ones (even the horrible ones eventually disappear from memory). Also, your taste was worse then.
(dunno if you are responding to my post, but whatever)Jay_The_Beast said:
Yes, once we reach the apex of realistic graphics and computers become more powerful the cost of using these high-end engines goes down as it gets older and becomes easier to use. If you look at many indie games, they have graphics that were considered high-end and costly many years ago but now they can easily make an entire game with said graphics for next to no money/time. This will soon apply to the most realistic graphics-engine there is, meaning that graphics (which took up a huge chunk of the developer's budget and time) will no longer become a concern, smaller budget = lower cost of game.
Due to the aforementioned reasons (and the points from my previous post) i want the industry to try as much as possible to reach a plateau in terms of graphics, as the sooner we get there the sooner we will get more games that focus on things like story and gameplay.
Nostalgia filter my ass.AdumbroDeus said:
I'll give you three examples and ask you three questions.
First example being Jagged Alliance 2. You're saying nostalgia is blurring my perception of games. I find that a pretty weak argument, because I played JA2 1.13 last thursday. Maybe I'm just an incompetent fool who can't find the AAA successor to this 1999 classic. After all, it's been over a decade, hardware and software has advanced considerably. I'm sure there's a modern game that has similar gameplay, as much quality and even more depth than this aging JA2. Point it out please.
I don't restrict myself to one particular genre. I remember enjoying a lot of different games. Remember Capitalism 2? I still play it on my EEE, the fool I am I'm unable to find a worthy successor. I also throughly enjoyed the Dungeon Keeper series, but the last game that was more or less similar was Evil Genius. Or Populous-like games, look for Black and White if you can't remember those days. Or the various tycoon titles. Or Battlezone-like titles. If you can, please point me to a title running on modern generation consoles that's somewhat like the mentioned and obviously doesn't lose any of the depth of those games. Or a similar modern mainstream PC title. Because I get the feeling that ever since console gamedev took the lead the number of different genres dropped rapidly.
Now let's talk about game depth as is. Up to, say, 2002 game depth and complexity grew along with computer power. Even though there are a few titles that go against this trend (Dwarf Fortress) I noticed a regression industry-wide. Can you give examples of mainstream games that actually go against the trend? Note that game difficulty, while welcome ('ala Witcher 2 or Demon's Souls, both very good titles) isn't the same as gameplay depth.
tl;dr:
Worse or not, games are getting dumber.
You want them to focus on graphics rather then story and gameplay? Man, i hope you realize those are different departments and are focused on by different people for each game. One area should not lack, and if it does, it should be graphics rather then the gameplay. It's a game, it's also art, but your playing it, not just watching it.Hyper-space said:
I still think that there are good games, what I'm concerned about is the increasing amount of DLC devs are pushing out. Day one being the worst. In the case of bioware some of the DLC is even important to the storyline so you miss out on important plot points. Which is annoying because I don't like DLC. I'm a firm believer that DLC should have always been a part of the game.
Non Sequitararchont said:
Just because a game that's almost exactly like Jagged Alliance but around that level of quality hasn't come out recently doesn't mean that games are getting dumber. It just means that that particular style of game isn't being being developed by the majority of developers at the time. Considering it's a very specific game style, it's not surprising at all. Jagged Alliance wasn't even amazing, sure it was good, but not amazing. Ditto for the other games you mentioned.
You know what was much better and within the current console generation? European Universalis 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Grand Theft Auto 4, Dragon Age, Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect, Starcraft 2 and The World Ends with You.
I could go on for a while but I think you get the point, these are all true gems of the gaming world, and some FAR surpass of the Jagged Alliance series. Of course some of them don't have the complexity, that's not the point, which is ok. Different genres can and will have different concentrations, and when an FPS has as much depth as a RTS for example, something is usually wrong.
The only thing you can say for certain is games are being made more approachable these days, which is a good thing unless depth is sacrificed for it. This isn't true of the games I mentioned and many more quality games out there.
TL;DR: There are plenty of interesting intelligent games out there, the fact that they're not similar styles to any of the games you mentioned does not give them less depth or intelligence then those games. It just means different genres are being developed.
The production costs of PS360 games are greater than they have been the previous few generations and factoring in inflation my answer is no. The consumer cost has remained pretty stable at the £40/$60 mark.
Of course DLC can be seen as artifically inflating the cost of a game especially as it comes out of a singular budget for a game. It depends whether the money put in to the production of a game would have factored in the DLC into the main game if DLC didn't exist.
I should clarify though I don't feel sorry for Activision, EA etc with the amount of revenue they produce.
Of course DLC can be seen as artifically inflating the cost of a game especially as it comes out of a singular budget for a game. It depends whether the money put in to the production of a game would have factored in the DLC into the main game if DLC didn't exist.
I should clarify though I don't feel sorry for Activision, EA etc with the amount of revenue they produce.
I live in Australia. 'Nuff said.
Although now that I think about it all of my favourite steam games I payed less than $20 for (I got Portal 2 for free). So I'm not sure.
As for the issue of declining quality, I don't really think so, I just think that the shitty knock offs are getting more publicity and sales because of what they are knocking off, and are getting more attention. Think of some (relatively) recent fun games;
Portal 1 & 2
Just Cause 2
Team Fortress 2
Minecraft
Starcraft 2
Gears of War 2
Fallout 3
CoD: MW
Mass Effect 1 & 2
LoZ: Twilight Princess
Just to name a few.
Although now that I think about it all of my favourite steam games I payed less than $20 for (I got Portal 2 for free). So I'm not sure.
As for the issue of declining quality, I don't really think so, I just think that the shitty knock offs are getting more publicity and sales because of what they are knocking off, and are getting more attention. Think of some (relatively) recent fun games;
Portal 1 & 2
Just Cause 2
Team Fortress 2
Minecraft
Starcraft 2
Gears of War 2
Fallout 3
CoD: MW
Mass Effect 1 & 2
LoZ: Twilight Princess
Just to name a few.
It might be because I'm young, and I was born into the glorious PS2 era, but no. It's not declining. In fact, gamings future looks pretty bright. I'm also sick of people saying the FPS genre is nothing but sameyness. Bulltetstorm, Brink, FEAR 3(arguebly), and a lot of good-looking FPS's coming down the line. Lay off the FPS's for once.
"Good" or "bad" are highly subjective terms and I can't flat out go and prove Jagged Alliance is superior or inferior to any other game. I am pretty sure however that there won't be very many people playing Mass Effect, Dragon Age or Arkham Asylum in 12 years from it's release date.AdumbroDeus said:
From the games you mentioned only Starcraft 2 has considerable depth of gameplay and that's not only because it's an RTS. The rest are well-made, but have little depth. Mass Effect doesn't hold a candle to Planescape: Torment, even though the presentation and interface is much better.
You've proven nothing here. Ever since video games emerged there have been both highly polished and unpolished productions. This holds true today and will be true tomorrow.
Surpass in what? I'm talking about gameplay depth specifically, because that's what's most important for me in games.AdumbroDeus said:
FPSes can easily have more depth than RTSes. System Shock 2 or Deus Ex 1 are good examples.
As for the "Of course some of them don't have the complexity" - the problem is your use of the word "some". The more appropriate term would be "Absolutely none", I think. Unless you have specific examples, which I asked you to point out in my previous post.
No, you're wrong. Mostly.AdumbroDeus said:
Games are indeed being made more approachable and accessible. You are right there. You could be right on games being made interesting - I do find fewer games to be interesting personally - whatever tickles your fancy. But games aren't being made more intelligent or more demanding. Games are being made LESS intelligent and LESS demanding.
The examples I gave you are just the tip of an iceberg. You're wrong saying the games I pointed out are very specific - they aren't. They represented whole genres which are now dead in the mainstream as they were deemed too intelligent and deep for today's consumers.
You will always sacrifice depth for accessibility, there's no way around it. I like to use simplified models for purposes of discussion, so I'll give you an example, based on card games:
War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_%28card_game%29)
Hold'em Poker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold%27em)
Contact Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_bridge)
Can you see how game depth is inversely proportional to the learning curve and accessibility?
The same is true of computer games.
(PREFACE: This is me letting my bias opinions out, not an argument against all gaming in general. It does, however demonstrate why I can't get into modern AAA gaming anymore. It's divided into spoilers to avoid cluttering the topic. This is quite long, but if you're one of those idiots who just quotes, snips and adds "TL;DR", then please don't post at all, because you obviously have nothing useful to add).
I haven't done much in the AAA market in the last two years simply because almost nothing appeals to me anymore.
Primarily because I feel that these games just don't have any depth to them, or have been dumbed down for broader audience appeal (before you bite, know that this is a common marketing strategy, and AAA gaming is Big Business. It's an ugly truth to be sure, but that's just how it is).
The last AAA game I spent any real time enjoying was Starcraft 2, and while I loved the marriage of mechanics and story (simple and shallow as it was) it just didn't hold my interest like the original did. (also, Bnet 2 can choke to death on an elephant dong.)
Today, I just stick to my Terraria, occasional game of LoL and some older DS games.
There really isn't much in the future that I care about; just Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which I'm keeping at arm's length lest I be swept up in the hype.
I haven't done much in the AAA market in the last two years simply because almost nothing appeals to me anymore.
Primarily because I feel that these games just don't have any depth to them, or have been dumbed down for broader audience appeal (before you bite, know that this is a common marketing strategy, and AAA gaming is Big Business. It's an ugly truth to be sure, but that's just how it is).
The last AAA game I spent any real time enjoying was Starcraft 2, and while I loved the marriage of mechanics and story (simple and shallow as it was) it just didn't hold my interest like the original did. (also, Bnet 2 can choke to death on an elephant dong.)
As far as I'm concerned, First Person Shooters stopped evolving mechanically when the Tribes series died out. Worse, it died because Halo took over and the popularity of that series alone eventually pushed the entire market onto consoles. So rather than having shooters made for both PC and Consoles (which requires two different styles of design) the market moved towards the "Consoles only" market with PC getting direct port-jobs and table scraps.
These console-shooters were ok on their own merits, but they lacked the fast-paced action or tactical edge that I had only just tasted before it was yanked away from me. Even the slower, off-kilter tactical shooters were migrating towards the Halo formula, eventually culminating in Call o Duty 4.
Annoyed, I voiced my complaints, and the masses cried back: "If you don't like it, play something else."
So I did.
And thus, I lost interest in shooters.
They may make more money per pound than any other AAA game out there now, but I can't stand them anymore, and I can't stand the bleating sheep who hype them.
These console-shooters were ok on their own merits, but they lacked the fast-paced action or tactical edge that I had only just tasted before it was yanked away from me. Even the slower, off-kilter tactical shooters were migrating towards the Halo formula, eventually culminating in Call o Duty 4.
Annoyed, I voiced my complaints, and the masses cried back: "If you don't like it, play something else."
So I did.
And thus, I lost interest in shooters.
They may make more money per pound than any other AAA game out there now, but I can't stand them anymore, and I can't stand the bleating sheep who hype them.
Then I lost interest in most RPGs when the grind factor became too much. I recall back when Fable 2 was being lauded and hyped; all I could focus on was how amazingly pointless everything was. I never bothered playing defensively in combat because there was no real penalty for dying. I never had to plan my approach or figure anything out because the game held my hand entirely.
No choice I made, either mechanically or otherwise, mattered at all.
No choice I made, either mechanically or otherwise, mattered at all.
Bethesda's Oblivion and later, Fallout 3 deserved its own section for the rant, but I've uselessly complained about how these games did NOT deserve any sort of "Game of the Year" awards.
In short, it was Fallout 3 that finally killed the illusion of hype. My experience was buggy to the point of useless and nothing I did helped it. People quickly try to rationalize my experience as being the exception, or to play the console version, but that didn't help (and nor was it the exception; even the PS3 port/version of the game had serious technical issues).
But even the gameplay was lacking: I beat the main story and was treated to one of the shittiest, hack-job endings ever. This was in NO WAY a story deserving of a GOTY title, but the sheep bleated and baa'd loud enough and the game was crowned GOTY anyway. Clearly, honest criticism has no place when a game is popular enough.
Fallout 3 showed me how stupid I was for buying into hype. For the first ever with a AAA title, I felt cheated and lied to. Never again could I raise my expectations for anything beyond a "meh, it might not suck".
Of course, now we have Skyrim on the way, and for a game that features all manner of things I find awesome (Dragons, Vikings, a solid world with lore I like) but yet I cannot trust myself to buy into the hype. I hate this cynical, joyless attitude of mine, but better that I endure that then to be fooled again.
In short, it was Fallout 3 that finally killed the illusion of hype. My experience was buggy to the point of useless and nothing I did helped it. People quickly try to rationalize my experience as being the exception, or to play the console version, but that didn't help (and nor was it the exception; even the PS3 port/version of the game had serious technical issues).
But even the gameplay was lacking: I beat the main story and was treated to one of the shittiest, hack-job endings ever. This was in NO WAY a story deserving of a GOTY title, but the sheep bleated and baa'd loud enough and the game was crowned GOTY anyway. Clearly, honest criticism has no place when a game is popular enough.
Fallout 3 showed me how stupid I was for buying into hype. For the first ever with a AAA title, I felt cheated and lied to. Never again could I raise my expectations for anything beyond a "meh, it might not suck".
Of course, now we have Skyrim on the way, and for a game that features all manner of things I find awesome (Dragons, Vikings, a solid world with lore I like) but yet I cannot trust myself to buy into the hype. I hate this cynical, joyless attitude of mine, but better that I endure that then to be fooled again.
I played Diablo 2 for a long time, and how I regret it so...
Eventually I realized that the game was devolving into "Bot-rush-bot-rush-bot-rush for a really broken and shitty PVP metagame".
Hardcore Mode might as well have been named "Griefer's Only". Eventually I became hideously bored with soloing the game; noticing how the only way to try the builds you wanted to meant having to resort to Maphack and bots just to alleviate the MOUNTAIN of required grind.
Of course, Blizzard took notice of how grind could be used to condition a playerbase and how it could be used to pad a game out exponentially. They then released a game designed to exploit that mercilessly.
Enter World of Warcraft.
Behind the social puns, in-jokes, and community following lies a game devoid of fun, but full of grind. WoW was a time-sink that destroyed a lot of social events for me because many of my close friends were stuck playing it on the weekends.
Why? Because they needed to grind.
I figured that even if it were grind-tastic, at least the variety of encounters and quests would make up for it, right?
WRONG.
It became rather telling when my friend would use all of 3 skills for *every single regular encounter*, AND IT WOULD WORK. He used a script for Raiding as his healing Shaman; greatly simplifying his job. Now his role was relegated to playing "Whack-a-mole" with the tanks' health bars.
How fun...
He would raid as a form of group-grinding, and always seemed angry or frustrated at the end.
Perhaps the appeal lied in the challenge then? Nope! They kept raiding the same fucking things because they needed their shinies. Why? So they could get geared up for grinding the NEXT higher Raid...ugh.
Ah, but there is one more bitter irony here: See years later I discovered how WoW was also indirectly responsible for the death of Tribes: Vengeance. See, parent company Vivendi Universal (who owns Blizzard and Sierra) pulled financial backing from Sierra Online to support setting up Blizzard's then-new Cash-Cow.
Just as extra salt in the wound, Vivendi actually pulled the very first patch for Tribes: Vengeance at the 11th hour from release, despite it being done, to deliberately kill the series off entirely (Despite having only been out for a couple of months).
Eventually I realized that the game was devolving into "Bot-rush-bot-rush-bot-rush for a really broken and shitty PVP metagame".
Hardcore Mode might as well have been named "Griefer's Only". Eventually I became hideously bored with soloing the game; noticing how the only way to try the builds you wanted to meant having to resort to Maphack and bots just to alleviate the MOUNTAIN of required grind.
Of course, Blizzard took notice of how grind could be used to condition a playerbase and how it could be used to pad a game out exponentially. They then released a game designed to exploit that mercilessly.
Enter World of Warcraft.
Behind the social puns, in-jokes, and community following lies a game devoid of fun, but full of grind. WoW was a time-sink that destroyed a lot of social events for me because many of my close friends were stuck playing it on the weekends.
Why? Because they needed to grind.
I figured that even if it were grind-tastic, at least the variety of encounters and quests would make up for it, right?
WRONG.
It became rather telling when my friend would use all of 3 skills for *every single regular encounter*, AND IT WOULD WORK. He used a script for Raiding as his healing Shaman; greatly simplifying his job. Now his role was relegated to playing "Whack-a-mole" with the tanks' health bars.
How fun...
He would raid as a form of group-grinding, and always seemed angry or frustrated at the end.
Perhaps the appeal lied in the challenge then? Nope! They kept raiding the same fucking things because they needed their shinies. Why? So they could get geared up for grinding the NEXT higher Raid...ugh.
Ah, but there is one more bitter irony here: See years later I discovered how WoW was also indirectly responsible for the death of Tribes: Vengeance. See, parent company Vivendi Universal (who owns Blizzard and Sierra) pulled financial backing from Sierra Online to support setting up Blizzard's then-new Cash-Cow.
Just as extra salt in the wound, Vivendi actually pulled the very first patch for Tribes: Vengeance at the 11th hour from release, despite it being done, to deliberately kill the series off entirely (Despite having only been out for a couple of months).
This one will be short. I liked individual jrpg series, in particular Squaresoft's Mana series, Chrono games, and Konami's Suikoden series (along with the gameboy series of Castlevania games aping Symphony of the Night's style.)
Seeing how all of those are now dead, that leaves Squeenix's hilariously shitty offerings, and the Persona/Shin Megami Tensei series (I liked Persona 3, and that's about it) for a "stupid American" like me who can't read Japanese.
The lack of interest just built upon itself, and now I just don't pay attention to jrpgs anymore. (this is quite different from the usual "LETS HATE JRPGS BECAUSE YAHTZEE DOES, AND THAT MAKES IT COOL BECAUSE HE'S COOL").
The last true Jrpg I played was a virtually unknown game for the DS called "Infinite Space". It had a great story, but lousy combat. It's also very much NOT a AAA game.
Seeing how all of those are now dead, that leaves Squeenix's hilariously shitty offerings, and the Persona/Shin Megami Tensei series (I liked Persona 3, and that's about it) for a "stupid American" like me who can't read Japanese.
The lack of interest just built upon itself, and now I just don't pay attention to jrpgs anymore. (this is quite different from the usual "LETS HATE JRPGS BECAUSE YAHTZEE DOES, AND THAT MAKES IT COOL BECAUSE HE'S COOL").
The last true Jrpg I played was a virtually unknown game for the DS called "Infinite Space". It had a great story, but lousy combat. It's also very much NOT a AAA game.
Today, I just stick to my Terraria, occasional game of LoL and some older DS games.
There really isn't much in the future that I care about; just Deus Ex: Human Revolution, which I'm keeping at arm's length lest I be swept up in the hype.
Personally, I don't think we're being overcharged. If anything, I'm surprised we're not being charged more in most cases considering how technology has advanced along with the amount of time, effort and money that goes into the development of these games.
Also, games really haven't changed when it comes to quality, you still get some good ones and some bad ones. If you choose to see it as "Waaah, gaming is going downhill" then that's your choice.
Lastly, you can't fault video game companies for trying to make money. While some are doing it for the love of video games, it's not like they're doing this for free. Whether you like it or not, companies (key word here) need money to survive and make more video games. Yes, certain companies, or at least certain employees of those companies could definitely be given the "Asshole of the Year" award *cough*BobbyKotickofActivision*cough*. But largely, they are still companies and still need to make a profit.
Personally, I could do with less gimmicks and shovelware, but without the gimmicks as experimentation then we might not see such things implemented in a better way in the future.
Also, games really haven't changed when it comes to quality, you still get some good ones and some bad ones. If you choose to see it as "Waaah, gaming is going downhill" then that's your choice.
Lastly, you can't fault video game companies for trying to make money. While some are doing it for the love of video games, it's not like they're doing this for free. Whether you like it or not, companies (key word here) need money to survive and make more video games. Yes, certain companies, or at least certain employees of those companies could definitely be given the "Asshole of the Year" award *cough*BobbyKotickofActivision*cough*. But largely, they are still companies and still need to make a profit.
Personally, I could do with less gimmicks and shovelware, but without the gimmicks as experimentation then we might not see such things implemented in a better way in the future.
I'm going to vote "yes". Not because the games I've bought weren't worth the money, but because there are so few games worth buying. So much of gaming these days is just derivative, knock-off trash (with admittedly pretty graphics). But you, yes you!, the "average Joe customer" keeps buying the same darned game over and over and over for full price!
The only really amazing fps's i have played are the Metroid Primes, anything eles except maybe halo tends to be generic and boring, the MP's are an example of how to do it right. I.E. Really amazing enviroments, teriffic bosses, well presented story, good combat, good atmosphere, cool enemies, i could go on for weeks.
Yea let's just all go back to NES days and pay 50$ for an hour long game that was usually a ripoff of more popular titles. Every gen has high quality gems, and quick cash grabs.