Triple-A Ain't What it Used to Be

[Kolyarut]

Is there any need for this attitude?

When you show no knowledge of it, yes. I know you want to write it all of quickly because you are oh so right.

Actually, I'm having to re-read each post a few times before replying, because I really don't understand what your POV is founded on, and you're offering very little to support your opinions about the standard of modern gaming. I'm certainly not ragetyping speedy responses to be judgemental, and I apologise if I've come across that way, but I'm really not sure how?

Well, yeah, it does seem kind of weird that between Google, Steam, news sites and message boards you can't find anything to satisfy your interests, but given the variety of stuff coming out at the moment (quality titles may not grow on trees but they may as well do - as someone said earlier, this is a frickin' gaming Renaissance we're in at the moment), I find it deeply suspicious that you can't find anything and won't name a genre for fear of... hearing about good games?

Gaming renaissance is posh. Absolute rubbish. And I knew you were one of those who made assumptions. You're as bad as the other guy, because there must be something wrong with me cause you can find what you want. It's not as great as you make it out to be. 97% is generic and shallow, and the rest doesn't interest me at all. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not making assumptions that "there are a lot of games, ergo they must be good". I'm playing a lot of games, from a lot of different, varied genres, and the only problem I'm seeing is the lack of time and resources available to play them all. This is why I've been asking what genre it is we're talking about that's being underserved with quality titles, because I'm just baffled. I've thought of two genres that aren't being particularly well served at the moment - RTSes and skateboard games - but neither are dead (skateboard games look like they're struggling, though).

Your 97% statistic is hugely hyperbolic, and I'm sorry, I don't buy into it at all.

And so I'm scared now. You can go work for Scientology and tell everyone they're depressed too. Seriously

What?

You even said there is no subtle hint on how to run. Are you kidding? Super Metroid did all of this, that's why I mentioned it. It's great in that it doesn't rub all this information in your face, just how to select it, and then it gives you an obstacle to test it on. It didn't even need to bring up the running.

I'm just going to have to take your word on Super Metroid - but if you say it does tell you how to select it and gives you smartly placed obstacles to test it on, great! Historically, many games were not so cleverly built - some gave you dry tutorial levels, others (especially strategy games and RPGs) just expected you to read the manual (I remember the Civilization 2 manual was a pretty hefty tome - I killed at that game once I'd memorised it, but the information could have been delivered better).

It's really easy to design a game and not tell people how to play it.

I really hope you're not just saying I'm ignorant. What games were you thinking of when you wrote this?

It's up to you mate. If you want to keep talking to me like a clueless bint then I'll return the favour.

See, then you just go ballistic again. That line wasn't directed at you at all, why are you taking offence? I just said that, as a game design challenge, it's harder to teach players interactively and engagingly than it is to not bother - I didn't expect that to be a controversial statement, it's just "doing something is harder than not doing something".

I don't think you're clueless, but I do think you have a chip on your shoulder in this conversation and I don't understand why.

 

[Thanatos2k]

The fact that you quit one of the best video games of all time because it didn't have a perfect tutorial and because of the graphics is what dumbfounded me.

Did you know I didn't even know there was a tutorial at first? That I found it after I was 8 or so hours in? And that it didn't impact my play experience at all? That fact that you need a tutorial reflects the sad state of AAA gaming these days.

I didn't say it wasn't a perfect tutorial, I said it failed in every possible way a tutorial can possibly fail.

It's not like I wasn't raised on old and arcane games, I've been gaming since the early 90s (and just happened to miss Deus Ex at the time), but there's no shame in saying that modern games are better at providing information, and better at frontloading some interesting content to show you what makes the game special. No tutorial at all is better than a bad tutorial, but better still is a sensible learning curve that's properly integrated into the game, and modern AAA games are *far* better at that.

You do know the point of the game wasn't the tutorial, right? You don't need it to learn the game, and it doesn't have anything to do with the game.

Deus Ex is still a better game than any AAA game that has come out in the past decade, "failed" tutorial and all.

Given that different games map their controls differently to prioritise different sets of actions, it's not unreasonable to expect a game to tell you how to play it.

When you play a PC game, you don't immediately go to the options menu and go to the screen where you can remap your controls? Then you can see all of them. THERE'S your tutorial.

 

[Kolyarut]

The fact that you quit one of the best video games of all time because it didn't have a perfect tutorial and because of the graphics is what dumbfounded me.

Did you know I didn't even know there was a tutorial at first? That I found it after I was 8 or so hours in? And that it didn't impact my play experience at all? That fact that you need a tutorial reflects the sad state of AAA gaming these days.

I didn't say it wasn't a perfect tutorial, I said it failed in every possible way a tutorial can possibly fail.

It's not like I wasn't raised on old and arcane games, I've been gaming since the early 90s (and just happened to miss Deus Ex at the time), but there's no shame in saying that modern games are better at providing information, and better at frontloading some interesting content to show you what makes the game special. No tutorial at all is better than a bad tutorial, but better still is a sensible learning curve that's properly integrated into the game, and modern AAA games are *far* better at that.

You do know the point of the game wasn't the tutorial, right? You don't need it to learn the game, and it doesn't have anything to do with the game.

Deus Ex is still a better game than any AAA game that has come out in the past decade, "failed" tutorial and all.

Of course the tutorial isn't the point of the game, but if it's not representative of the rest of the game then it's a bad tutorial, and there's no reason a game shouldn't put its best foot forward. How long should someone be expected to persist with a bad experience in the hope it might get better later, with nothing put forward by the game to suggest that it will?

From a similar era, I'd personally nominate Planescape: Torment as one of my favourite games ever, but that doesn't stop me acknowledging that it does a terrible job of sucking you in. You get a really compelling conversation with Morte, followed by forty minutes of wandering around a mausoleum talking to generic zombies in the hope that one of them might advance the plot. It does a decent job of putting out an atmosphere, but it's a very very slow burn. You're several hours in before you actually start to advance the plot rather than meander around.

Like I say, I LOVE that game, but that love isn't so unconditional that I refuse to accept its faults. Nostalgia is fun but it shouldn't blind people to the fact that old games had flaws too.

[EDIT: And the point of that sidetrack, which I forgot to make, because I'm an idiot, is that I'd never judge someone for a second for trying Planescape: Torment these days and giving up after finding no people to talk to, learning no combat skills other than the autoattack, and just being left to their own devices.]

Given that different games map their controls differently to prioritise different sets of actions, it's not unreasonable to expect a game to tell you how to play it.

When you play a PC game, you don't immediately go to the options menu and go to the screen where you can remap your controls? Then you can see all of them. THERE'S your tutorial.

That works for a limited pool of first person games. How does that teach me that I can run on the walls in Titanfall, or how much food is needed to grow a city in Civilization, or how to reinforce squads in Company of Heroes, or how to train a crafting skill in an MMO? Teaching a game is more than just the button prompts.

 

[Racecarlock]

Anyone who seriously thinks these trends are new need to go and watch the AVGN episodes for Virtual Boy and Sega CD. Companies have always been trying bullshit gimmicks. The only thing that has changed are microtransactions and DLC. They've been pushing graphics ever since the bit wars, for god's sake. As for the negativity, I refer you to the great crash of 1987.

 

[Nazulu]

Actually, I'm having to re-read each post a few times before replying, because I really don't understand what your POV is founded on, and you're offering very little to support your opinions about the standard of modern gaming. I'm certainly not ragetyping speedy responses to be judgemental, and I apologise if I've come across that way, but I'm really not sure how?

No ones opinion has any support in this talk. All I'm saying is it's not as great as you two are making it out to be, that there are many people very disappointed with the industry right now. I did say in my first post here that I can find games to pass the time, but nothing I really want.

Shiny said it's getting on his nerves and we must all have problems because we're not pleased, and I'm pointing out how lame that is. I've done what I wanted. I wasn't trying to prove anything, especially to people who think like that.

If I wanted to prove a point I would have to go into great detail about the common problems that arise and whats lacking and what particular games don't fill the void. It would take me ages. I've tried it before, but I rather just tackle each thing individually like Yahtzee, Jimquisition, and others. Stick around to see what I think of the new Smash Brothers.

I'm not making assumptions that "there are a lot of games, ergo they must be good". I'm playing a lot of games, from a lot of different, varied genres, and the only problem I'm seeing is the lack of time and resources available to play them all. This is why I've been asking what genre it is we're talking about that's being underserved with quality titles, because I'm just baffled. I've thought of two genres that aren't being particularly well served at the moment - RTSes and skateboard games - but neither are dead (skateboard games look like they're struggling, though).

I repeat, I can look it up myself, I didn't want to talk about genre at all. Somehow you thought this was just about genre. I never mentioned it. Every time I bring up how I have a problem with the industry, a lot of people feel they can solve the problem by looking up certain game genre's for me, which is not only missing the point but completely ignoring it too.

I also don't want to bring up a genre because I feel like your just going to dump whatever you can find and I'll have to tell why I don't give a damn. It's counterproductive. I'll tell you this though, it's not just about genre, it's DRM, design, animation, lighting, macroing, worth, options, size, etc. etc. I'm not just looking at one thing here. To me it's lacking.

See, then you just go ballistic again. That line wasn't directed at you at all, why are you taking offence? I just said that, as a game design challenge, it's harder to teach players interactively and engagingly than it is to not bother - I didn't expect that to be a controversial statement, it's just "doing something is harder than not doing something".

I don't think you're clueless, but I do think you have a chip on your shoulder in this conversation and I don't understand why.

That wasn't ballistic, just from the previous assumption it's what I expected you meant. Because there was no point in telling me this either so what was I going to take away from it?

The other parts I left out because they didn't need to be repeated. Now go play Super Metroid, it's definitely one of Nintendo's masterpieces everyone should experience.

 

[Qvar]

I don't buy any game that costs more than 30?. And that only for the ones I'm extremely sure that I will enjoy. Usually it either costs 10? or less, or it won't be seeing my money. And god help it if it doesn't get unanimously good reviews.

I'm not sure what are we supposed to do beyond that.

 

[Therumancer]

The problem is that gamers can't really resolve the problem. This was exactly why people hated casuals and games going mainstream, and what we saw coming. The average person playing games doesn't visit sites like this, pay attention to what the companies are doing, or really care... they just want their shiny product, and line up like bleating sheep to get it, and the mainstream market does this with everything. What we're seeing is games being marketed pretty much like any other product directed at the masses out there.

To be fair, a lot of sites and "gamer personalities" did contribute by saying "Casuals" aren't an issue, and how we should welcome the mainstream, and how all the money they brought in would wind up making games better. That never happened, and instead it saw games being dumbed down, but then the gaming media said "well this isn't a problem, because they still make other kinds of games, let the casuals have theirs", and of course this lead to the state we're at now where almost everything has become what amounts to a short, glittery, casual game even if pretensions are made of it being something else. We've gotten to the point where we tend to look for the exceptions to this general rule among the piles of over promoted, steaming, crap. You can almost feel the irony when certain people and sites who were once championing casuals and the changes to the industry, are now some of the most vocal critics, sadly now that it's too late.

At one point gamers probably could have stopped this, especially if the media that supported us went far more elitist, and we were actually more aggressive (as opposed to demonizing the aggressive and elitist), but right now even if pretty much every serious gamer and personality from sites like "The Escapist", "Destructoid", and others were to achieve some kind of unity, we'd still lose, because for every one of us, there are 100 sheep. For every personality we can bring to the forefront from the gaming community, a company can basically create three from professionally trained actors, ad campaigns, and officially sponsored sites if they choose to. Short of some kind of violent revolt, where say we all arm ourselves, become a terrorist organization equivalent to Al-Quaida, start murdering people in the game industry (say having Jim Sterling decapitate some secretary who works for EA on his show to frighten the general employee and show the authorities can't protect them), we aren't going to do crap at this point... and really we're pretty sane so it's not like we're going to kill anyone or engage in massive terrorism over bloody video games. All jokes and rants aside, as much as I love turn based RPGs, and as POed as some people are that they don't make "real" Sonic games anymore, or whatever else, nobody is actually going to engage in armed insurrection about this kind of thing... even against EA or Team Sonic.

In short, I personally continue to fight, and admit there are a few tiny glimmers of hope once in a while, but I'm not very optimistic. We're pretty much at the point people have been saying for many years now we were going to reach if trends continue, but nobody wanted to accept. "Real gamers" are a big market, but even voting with our wallets we're not the biggest market and can be cut loose easily now. Sort of like how there is plenty of money to be made just within the subset of "serious RPG gamers" who want crunchy turn-based games, but not enough money compared to other markets, so again they can be easily ignored. The last real hope is that the casuals would turn their back on gaming as some passing fad, but that didn't happen, and right now saying that the industry can't bank on this kind of thing is equivalent to saying Television is a passing fad, and network executives are fools, with everything inevitably going back to Radio once people get tired of it... it's not happening.

 

[C14N]

To me, AAA just refers to the budget of the game and it comes up a lot more these days to contrast games from big studios to independent games.

I do agree that it's ridiculous that some games (like Titanfall) just seemed to be destined to be successful from their conception. It seemed perfectly engineered to sell several million copies regardless of actual quality. The same could be said about some movies though, there was never a chance that Man of Steel wasn't going to be a hit even before anyone knew anything about it.

I think a big problem in this industry is that we do shit like give games awards at E3 and start talking about how good these games will be when they're still incomplete. At E3 last year there were articles being written up on every game website telling gamers what they should be excited for. You don't see this kind of crap in the other forms of mainstream entertainment like film or music. There shouldn't be "awards" for doing well at E3 and more than there should be awards for having a really good 30 second song preview on iTunes. You're basically giving a reward for promotional material.

Look at it this way, the big gaming event of the year is usually E3, a place where we celebrate games that we have never actually played. In the movie world, the big event is probably the Oscars, where they celebrate movies everyone has already seen and decided, after much deliberation, that they liked them.

 

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

The Hollywood Blockbuster imitations were never good to begin with.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

I don't have the time right now to read all of the responses so far (though I wish that I had the time) but my opinion is that this article could also apply to the current state of the music industry, especially since Clear Channel's meteoric rise and its cannibalistic business model. Many "local" radio stations are no longer local since Clear Channel bought most of them out, closed them, and consolidated everything to their Texas headquarters. Now, one DJ can do multiple shows in multiple cities over the course of their workday.

Where does that leave us? We're left without a voice because the monolith doesn't care about what the unwashed masses think (read: EA) a lot of great DJs out of work (like small game developers without publishing because their titles are too innovative) and a populace that still tunes in either out of ignorance or willful blindness. Clear Channel, with the financial backing of Sony Universal, Warner, and BMG (you know, the three who strong-arm all music off of YouTube) makes or breaks artists by shoveling their crappy, overproduced music onto listeners. Chart placement has little to do with actual quality and more to do with the moneyed music industry's hype machine. Too many people don't even know about other options. It's come to the point that indie music (called such solely because their labels can't pay Clear Channel's exorbitant prices to get their songs on the air) is so far outside of the public eye that only hardcore music junkies take the time to seek out these labels' gems. The big three labels are so greedy that they won't even consider anything that won't make them millions upon millions of dollars, thus homonogenizing the sound of popular music.

Imagine it: today, Sub Pop records would never reach the public consciousness, which means we never would have heard of Nirvana, Soundgarden, Dinosaur Jr., or The Butthole Surfers.

The current state of gaming hearkens back to the days of disco on the airwaves, punk on the streets: glossy packages of dross numbing the brains of those who don't know any better, while music created with passion and drive is overlooked as the media machine tosses it aside. Like in gaming, we now have AAA developers buying media presence for lackluster, lazy games, and little-known indie studios creating the innovative, meat-and-potatoes titles that so many gamers say they want, yet only consume what's easy and well-known.

Back in 1977, the Buzzcocks, one of the greatest punk bands of all time, broke their record contract with a big-name label after the label disallowed the release of one of their songs, a fan favorite called "Oh Shit!". The Buzzcocks subsequently created DIY Records, considered one of the first indies. We're now starting to see this happen in gaming with some of the big-name artists leaving their studio overlords to found companies that allow them to pursue their creative visions.

Hopefully this trend will continue!