I think more games are designed with a story in mind - very much along the lines of watching a motion picture. There is so much bredth in the world of games that there will always be something for someone. With the costs of game production spiraling out of control games companies are taking the same line as the film industry in making their titles appeal to the lowest common denominator. This means that AAA titles will become easier and less complex so that they appeal to the maximum target audience.
Despite this I think that mod makers and "indie" developers will continue to cater to a smaller and dare I say more elitist crowd. In short there will always be something for the die hard gamer but you may have to look to less traiditional outlets to find your fix. However if you are a sucker for advertising and only go for games listed in the top 10 by rank of sales then you may well find yourself dissapointed.
Despite this I think that mod makers and "indie" developers will continue to cater to a smaller and dare I say more elitist crowd. In short there will always be something for the die hard gamer but you may have to look to less traiditional outlets to find your fix. However if you are a sucker for advertising and only go for games listed in the top 10 by rank of sales then you may well find yourself dissapointed.
Haven said:
I would agree wholeheartedly with that. In fact, all the games I have completed have been because I've wanted to see the end of the story. In fact, to deny me the end of the story because I can't be arsed to spend dozens of hours repeating the same mechanic until I've got it "perfect" so I can proceed just provides me with frustration not fun.
And that is where I vehemently disagree with that article's author. Many of those old school games weren't fun for me. I've been playing computer games practically as long as there have been computer games (acknowledging that video games came before and were around somewhat longer than that). Some games were more challenging but they were also frequently rise-and-repeat style designs, just now do it faster until it becomes almost humanly impossible to keep up. Ya ya, you get the boasting rights for having made it to level 147 and scored well into the hundreds of millions of points. What else occured? You learnt one or two mechanics and refined them 'til your fingers ached and your wrists and eyes hurt.
Old school design was so frequently about acquisition; if you get more points, more experience, more guns, more power, more anything then you must be succeeding. More more more. The point of the game then became how to deny you that "more" for the longest possible time. Games became arbitrarily long by making them very very difficult, rather than allowing themselves to express different themes, different concepts or mechanics and then let you figure out where to go from there.
When we think back to the "old school" of games we remember a handful that were great. The Secret of Monkey Island II, for example, or Crackdown, Ranarama, Alien Breed... But somehow we seem to forget that many of the games then were just tedious; red box attacks blue box with green triangles until blue box is moving so quickly that humans can no longer keep up. They were "fun" because that was all there was and there was kudos in being "the fastest" or "the best", making it onto that high score table.
Sure, these days we've more than our fair share of rise-and-repeat games; utterly derivative shooters with laughable stories and poor graphics, glitches and so on. But now, just as then, some games shine through the dross and present interesting themes, challenging scenes and mechanics that are designed to allow you to move forward through the game once you figure the technique, or remember a pertinent piece of early dialogue. Resident Evil 4 and Max Payne... twenty to fourty hours of play in each where each scene uses a twist on a previous theme to present a different challenge, or presents and entirely new style of problem. I've enjoyed all these games and, unlike Pacman or Pole Position, when I reached the end and saw "Game Over" I smiled and wished the main character well... until we meet again, kind of thing.
Games aren't crap just because they lack challenge. Games are crap because they are poorly executed, full of glitches, or simply constitute tedious repetition.
Maybe old school gamers actually appreciate frustration through repetitive failure? Personally, I ask myself "is this really worth it?" and largely come up with a negative response.
Tetsuo_Shima
In Cryo Sleep
I have an awful lot to say about that post, but I'm finding it difficult to put it down in words.
I myself love to take a dip into both sets of games; old school arcade and next-gen cinematic (if you will). For me, old school games represent a hell of a lot more than the sum of their parts. R_S, you appear to have the ability to break down a game into whats its worth. For example, you might refer (thats might, im just assuming here based on your post) to an old school platformer as an 'endless series of scrolling screens where you hold a direction and tap a button occasionally', which would probably be very true. However, for me it means a lot more than that. Super Mario Brothers 3 was not exactly a huge expansion on that premise, and yet it is my favourite game of all time. How do you explain that? It didnt have (much of) a story, the graphics have been well and truly surpassed, the game controller consisted of four buttons in total, and yet for me it provided one of the finest gaming experiences in fifteen years.
On the flipside, you take a current gen game that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce (Im just going to take Max Payne here, as a basis for argument) and it just doesnt satisfy me at all. It had a well thought out and superbly detailed storyline, big-budget graphics, intuitive controls and all the rest of it, but I just didnt find it ... fun? After the bazillionth room of 'run in, dive, slo mo, all dead', it just didnt appeal for me anymore. Probably in the same vein as 'run onto the next area, stomp the baddy, run into the next area' didnt hold any interest for you.
Thats not to say that I despise story-driven gameplay. I mean, I absolutely LOVE the Final Fantasy series, which is no more than a deep and outlandish story held together by an extremely repetitive levelling system which forms the entirety of the 'game' part of the game. Perhaps it could be more accurately described as an interactive manga.
So once again, how do you explain it? If I was to try to, I would just say that people are individuals, and not one single game is ever going to appeal to absolutely everyone, no matter how much it cost to make or how much effort was put in. Videogame developers have to try and appeal to each set of individual niches, rather than blend them all into one to make an ultimate videogame, as several developers have markedly been trying to do recently. (i.e. Need For Speed Underground, where you have your basic driving simulation but glossed over with an RPG-esque story of sorts where the aim is to build up your machine through experience, in the same way that you level up your character in a Final Fantasy game. It doesnt very well work for me).
Okay, Ive completely lost track of my argument ... I cant even remember what it was that I was arguing about. Mum?
EDIT: Ok, Ive just had another thought I want to add in - old school vs new school. Old school games tended to focus more about perfecting a technique and putting it into practise, like if you entered a boss battle and he fires at you in a certain pattern, you have to learn the correct sequence of jumping, timing and firing your weapon to progress. Whereas in new school (Max payne, Call of Duty etc.) a lot of the focus tends to be on increasing your chances of survival as much as possible, such as aiming in the right direction and then subsequently hoping you get all the luck as far as bullet spread is concerned.
In that light, I much prefer old school games where you can stop, take a look and say 'that was my fault that I died, I messed up the timing. Ill try and again and figure out a better way to get past that spiky wall'. In new games, there is just far too much that is left up to chance, such as (as I previously mentioned) the accuracy of your weapon and the way that an enemy is going to try and dodge your attacks. For me, that 'grey area' is far more frustrating than any kind of repetitiveness an old school game has to offer. An example: Call of Duty (admittedly one of the finest FPS's Ive played).
When youre playing the game online, nothing is more frustrating than a twat spraying you at five hundred yards and bagging a headshot whilst you are perhaps far more 'skilled' as far as the game is concerned. The same applies to offline as well, where the enemy bots share the same kind of characteristics. Ill admit that the gameplay element they were trying to add was probably realism, and maybe a way to make the game more accessable to less experienced players, but I say its a videogame, this is supposed to be a detachment from real life.
Ill leave it at that for now.
I myself love to take a dip into both sets of games; old school arcade and next-gen cinematic (if you will). For me, old school games represent a hell of a lot more than the sum of their parts. R_S, you appear to have the ability to break down a game into whats its worth. For example, you might refer (thats might, im just assuming here based on your post) to an old school platformer as an 'endless series of scrolling screens where you hold a direction and tap a button occasionally', which would probably be very true. However, for me it means a lot more than that. Super Mario Brothers 3 was not exactly a huge expansion on that premise, and yet it is my favourite game of all time. How do you explain that? It didnt have (much of) a story, the graphics have been well and truly surpassed, the game controller consisted of four buttons in total, and yet for me it provided one of the finest gaming experiences in fifteen years.
On the flipside, you take a current gen game that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce (Im just going to take Max Payne here, as a basis for argument) and it just doesnt satisfy me at all. It had a well thought out and superbly detailed storyline, big-budget graphics, intuitive controls and all the rest of it, but I just didnt find it ... fun? After the bazillionth room of 'run in, dive, slo mo, all dead', it just didnt appeal for me anymore. Probably in the same vein as 'run onto the next area, stomp the baddy, run into the next area' didnt hold any interest for you.
Thats not to say that I despise story-driven gameplay. I mean, I absolutely LOVE the Final Fantasy series, which is no more than a deep and outlandish story held together by an extremely repetitive levelling system which forms the entirety of the 'game' part of the game. Perhaps it could be more accurately described as an interactive manga.
So once again, how do you explain it? If I was to try to, I would just say that people are individuals, and not one single game is ever going to appeal to absolutely everyone, no matter how much it cost to make or how much effort was put in. Videogame developers have to try and appeal to each set of individual niches, rather than blend them all into one to make an ultimate videogame, as several developers have markedly been trying to do recently. (i.e. Need For Speed Underground, where you have your basic driving simulation but glossed over with an RPG-esque story of sorts where the aim is to build up your machine through experience, in the same way that you level up your character in a Final Fantasy game. It doesnt very well work for me).
Okay, Ive completely lost track of my argument ... I cant even remember what it was that I was arguing about. Mum?
EDIT: Ok, Ive just had another thought I want to add in - old school vs new school. Old school games tended to focus more about perfecting a technique and putting it into practise, like if you entered a boss battle and he fires at you in a certain pattern, you have to learn the correct sequence of jumping, timing and firing your weapon to progress. Whereas in new school (Max payne, Call of Duty etc.) a lot of the focus tends to be on increasing your chances of survival as much as possible, such as aiming in the right direction and then subsequently hoping you get all the luck as far as bullet spread is concerned.
In that light, I much prefer old school games where you can stop, take a look and say 'that was my fault that I died, I messed up the timing. Ill try and again and figure out a better way to get past that spiky wall'. In new games, there is just far too much that is left up to chance, such as (as I previously mentioned) the accuracy of your weapon and the way that an enemy is going to try and dodge your attacks. For me, that 'grey area' is far more frustrating than any kind of repetitiveness an old school game has to offer. An example: Call of Duty (admittedly one of the finest FPS's Ive played).
When youre playing the game online, nothing is more frustrating than a twat spraying you at five hundred yards and bagging a headshot whilst you are perhaps far more 'skilled' as far as the game is concerned. The same applies to offline as well, where the enemy bots share the same kind of characteristics. Ill admit that the gameplay element they were trying to add was probably realism, and maybe a way to make the game more accessable to less experienced players, but I say its a videogame, this is supposed to be a detachment from real life.
Ill leave it at that for now.
Thanks for the response, Tetsuo. I've some following thoughts and a response or two myself.
From games I seek an excellent experience; something that I can go away and muse on, appreciate and then drag away some of the concepts for use in my own designs. Some of the concepts I take away were poorly implemented in the original and I want to take the same premise and do it my way ("properly"). Some were excellent and I want to take the method and use it again for a different situation.
In that, some of the more recent themes in computer games design play towards what I'm looking for: an excellent experience. I wanted Max Payne to succeed and, by playing him through the action, I go his character that step closer to the story's resolution. Max Payne wrapped up and while there were one or two sequences I might have cut or done a little differently I appreciate the game's outlook and conclusion for making the game a worthwhile experience.
Contrarily, Pacman was a few hours of tedium for me. A short while of getting used to the controls. A little longer ramping up my reflexes to cope with the games acceleration and learn the basic patterns for avoiding the ghosts. A little longer still in search of the thing that seemed to attract people to play the game. And then, after all that searching, I was done because, for me, there was nothing to keep me playing. The "addictive" element in this game somehow passed me by, but it appears to do that in many of these (old-school?) games that others tell me are so addictive. That's only a reflection of me, clearly; I don't mean that to be disparaging of the games or people who play them, simply an indication of how little common ground I find for me in the old-school design.
Mmm, true, though I'd replace "occasionally" with "rapidly in some predetermined order and tempo to allow you to succeed".
Indeed. That will, I hope, remain a permanent truth. Unfortunately the industry at large appears to be forgetting this. Games development doesn't take risks because of the large sums of money involved, so it's better to produce a cookie-cutter shooter than something with a novel and potentially more interesting play experience.
Along those lines, I saw a BBC article on Peter Molyneux talking about the benefits of being bought out and owned by Microsoft (article at the BBC). Broadly he says that no longer having to worry about money means he can focus on the stuff that matters in games:
I'd rather if he'd said "an excellent experience" rather than "quality" but I'll settle for quality just fine.
All that said, I think we share some similar frustrations...
Ya. There are times when you think "I've just put six rounds of 9mm into your chest and you're moving like it never even hit you" and I do find that frustrating. I was faster off the mark, I layed a pattern across my target with textbook accuracy, but because the game judged my shots as only taking 80% of his health where his "spray and pray" PKM got a lucky round in my face, killing me instantly. This is where we need to play the game in front of us, not the game we wish it was. If the mechanic works that the PKM is "the best" weapon then that's what we, in a game where we support a team, should take. When any weapon can realistically do you in then it's back to personal preference and situational appropriateness (Raven Shield, anyone?)
However, I can't agree with:
I see no reason why we can't have excellent real life simulators and find them fun. After all, the entire flight simulator genre exists on the premise "this is like flying the real thing, just without needing your own Cesna".
Maybe that could be phrased "it's a video game, it need not be realistic" or "it's a video game, and as such it should be immersive regardless of the reality it represents". I'd agree that games are wonderful things to pitch our minds into, to be there, if only a bit and only for a while, but when I hold a virtual rifle and shoot a virtual someone in the chest I have a part of me that finds disbelief difficult to suspend when that in-game avatar just ignores it and keeps on coming. As long as I can be there, in the game, it can be as realistic, or not, as it cares to be.
For me, as always.
From games I seek an excellent experience; something that I can go away and muse on, appreciate and then drag away some of the concepts for use in my own designs. Some of the concepts I take away were poorly implemented in the original and I want to take the same premise and do it my way ("properly"). Some were excellent and I want to take the method and use it again for a different situation.
In that, some of the more recent themes in computer games design play towards what I'm looking for: an excellent experience. I wanted Max Payne to succeed and, by playing him through the action, I go his character that step closer to the story's resolution. Max Payne wrapped up and while there were one or two sequences I might have cut or done a little differently I appreciate the game's outlook and conclusion for making the game a worthwhile experience.
Contrarily, Pacman was a few hours of tedium for me. A short while of getting used to the controls. A little longer ramping up my reflexes to cope with the games acceleration and learn the basic patterns for avoiding the ghosts. A little longer still in search of the thing that seemed to attract people to play the game. And then, after all that searching, I was done because, for me, there was nothing to keep me playing. The "addictive" element in this game somehow passed me by, but it appears to do that in many of these (old-school?) games that others tell me are so addictive. That's only a reflection of me, clearly; I don't mean that to be disparaging of the games or people who play them, simply an indication of how little common ground I find for me in the old-school design.
Tetsuo Shima said:
Mmm, true, though I'd replace "occasionally" with "rapidly in some predetermined order and tempo to allow you to succeed".
Tetsuo Shima said:
Indeed. That will, I hope, remain a permanent truth. Unfortunately the industry at large appears to be forgetting this. Games development doesn't take risks because of the large sums of money involved, so it's better to produce a cookie-cutter shooter than something with a novel and potentially more interesting play experience.
Along those lines, I saw a BBC article on Peter Molyneux talking about the benefits of being bought out and owned by Microsoft (article at the BBC). Broadly he says that no longer having to worry about money means he can focus on the stuff that matters in games:
Peter Molyneux said:
I'd rather if he'd said "an excellent experience" rather than "quality" but I'll settle for quality just fine.
All that said, I think we share some similar frustrations...
Tetsuo Shima said:
Ya. There are times when you think "I've just put six rounds of 9mm into your chest and you're moving like it never even hit you" and I do find that frustrating. I was faster off the mark, I layed a pattern across my target with textbook accuracy, but because the game judged my shots as only taking 80% of his health where his "spray and pray" PKM got a lucky round in my face, killing me instantly. This is where we need to play the game in front of us, not the game we wish it was. If the mechanic works that the PKM is "the best" weapon then that's what we, in a game where we support a team, should take. When any weapon can realistically do you in then it's back to personal preference and situational appropriateness (Raven Shield, anyone?)
However, I can't agree with:
Tetsuo Shima said:
I see no reason why we can't have excellent real life simulators and find them fun. After all, the entire flight simulator genre exists on the premise "this is like flying the real thing, just without needing your own Cesna".
Maybe that could be phrased "it's a video game, it need not be realistic" or "it's a video game, and as such it should be immersive regardless of the reality it represents". I'd agree that games are wonderful things to pitch our minds into, to be there, if only a bit and only for a while, but when I hold a virtual rifle and shoot a virtual someone in the chest I have a part of me that finds disbelief difficult to suspend when that in-game avatar just ignores it and keeps on coming. As long as I can be there, in the game, it can be as realistic, or not, as it cares to be.
For me, as always.
P
Phryxus
Guest
I've been reading the link and studying the posts here, but I have to say that I disagree with the general suggestion of this and similar articles - that games are somehow losing their greatness because the difficulty is no longer there - and Tetsuo's (sorry!) musings that games of the past were part of some 'golden-age' that was free of the current faults and mistakes, whilst somehow being better than anything on offer today. I've played many games of many different types, but I fail to see where this sudden concern with the difficulty of games has sprung from. What I can see however, is that games are becoming shorter, more refined, and, as Haven said, an overall experience that tells a story. One example of shortened but polished games is the more recent Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. Clocking in at only 6 to 8 hours for the full single-player campaign, it is by no means a long game. What it is however, is a solidly crafted piece of gaming media that provides a logical progression and ending, leaving you thinking "I enjoyed that, it was pretty, exciting and offered both challenge and fluid completion" with a generally well paced degree of action, movement and set-pieces that ramp up the exhilaration.
In terms of gaming, wouldn't you rather have something like that, than:
Personally, i'd rather earn the right to progress through my own skill, not a programmed way of defeating an enemy - it's just not viable in today's market either, we want more than old-school pattern gameplay. It seems to me that in gaming, there are two 'cliques' that exist, the more experienced gamers and the not so experienced newcomers. At the moment, we, as the older, more battle-hardened group, naturally want the games that are made to pander to our own desires, possibly alienating the new interest that has been gained from next-gen improvement and the explosion of computer games as a form of expression. For gaming to survive we do need to inlcude more people in its products and that may take the form of changing the structure as we see it to something that more accurately represents the tastes of many.
As Haven also says:
and this may very well prove to be true, but isn't it a similar situation at the moment? EA Games normally always top the sales charts, The Sims and its sequel for example and the numerous sports franchises. Whilst not all of them turn out to be epic games, there is one thing that they do right - they cater to practically everyone - as everyone can relate to The Sims and practically everyone can relate to sports.
You get this feeling sometimes that just like sci-fi fans, gamers are very reluctant to let the past go. I couldn't count the number of people for example, that continually state how great GoldenEye was in favour of more advanced, more accomplished games that we have now. The truth is that whilst undeniably great in their time, progression is something that all of us need to accept, no stifling the creativity of development houses and demanding they make their game our way. Games aren't getting easier, but their perception and structure is changing - and I think it's for the better.
In terms of gaming, wouldn't you rather have something like that, than:
Personally, i'd rather earn the right to progress through my own skill, not a programmed way of defeating an enemy - it's just not viable in today's market either, we want more than old-school pattern gameplay. It seems to me that in gaming, there are two 'cliques' that exist, the more experienced gamers and the not so experienced newcomers. At the moment, we, as the older, more battle-hardened group, naturally want the games that are made to pander to our own desires, possibly alienating the new interest that has been gained from next-gen improvement and the explosion of computer games as a form of expression. For gaming to survive we do need to inlcude more people in its products and that may take the form of changing the structure as we see it to something that more accurately represents the tastes of many.
As Haven also says:
and this may very well prove to be true, but isn't it a similar situation at the moment? EA Games normally always top the sales charts, The Sims and its sequel for example and the numerous sports franchises. Whilst not all of them turn out to be epic games, there is one thing that they do right - they cater to practically everyone - as everyone can relate to The Sims and practically everyone can relate to sports.
You get this feeling sometimes that just like sci-fi fans, gamers are very reluctant to let the past go. I couldn't count the number of people for example, that continually state how great GoldenEye was in favour of more advanced, more accomplished games that we have now. The truth is that whilst undeniably great in their time, progression is something that all of us need to accept, no stifling the creativity of development houses and demanding they make their game our way. Games aren't getting easier, but their perception and structure is changing - and I think it's for the better.
Tetsuo_Shima
In Cryo Sleep
Phryxus, you make a lot of good points. Perhaps I am just desperately clinging on to an age gone by, maybe I should just move on to games that are far more technologically advanced, and offer a 3rd dimension to the gameplay. However, as I said, it is most certainly an individual thing. Personally, and I swear to it hand over heart, I would rather play Final Fantasy 9 or Mario 3 or Super Metroid over any other game you can throw at me. If you asked me to choose between any of those games, or Battlefield threethousandandfiftynine, theres no doubt in my mind which I would pick.
I do hear where you are coming from, when you get people claiming that Goldeneye could top anything that has been released right now. Fact is, if Goldeneye's development had been delayed a decade and it came out right now alongside Call of Duty 3 and Battlefield 2142, there would be a grand total of 2 sales for Rare. However, if you compare your initial thoughts and feelings on the game the first time you experienced them, you would probably say 'Yep, I definitely loved Goldeneye better. Considering the age when it came out, it was a groundbreaking title at the time, I had a lot more fun with that game than ... GRAW.' It obviously holds no candles to any current-gen software, but you cant deny it wasnt a good game at the time.
And learning and perfecting the technique for defeating a boss isnt skill? I can see a variance in taste here, obviously you'd rather opt for games where skill constitutes learning lots of things well rather than a single set-piece very well. Which is fair play, and I wouldnt really expect any old-school pattern gameplay to be realeased nowadays (aside from Gameboy games, which is precisely the reason I have one).
Actually, that throws up another excellent point. Metroid: Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission. Both old-school type pattern gameplay, 2-dimensional graphics and relatively low production values. Released only a couple of years ago beside titles such as Halflife 2 and Warcraft 3. Which games do you think I had the patience to play through, complete and unlock everything in? Furthermore, which games do you think I like to take a little revisit and play through again once in a while? Yep, you guessed it. So, in a kind of upside-flipping of my argument, perhaps old school games are just as fun now as they ever were, so long as they have a new adventure. Hmmmmm, one to muse upon methinks.
I think this basically just turns it back around to the whole 'individual taste in games' thing, because theres no way Im going to be able to explain to you how I manage to get more enjoyment tapping a couple of buttons to run and jump rather than crouching under a bush in sniper mode with my gunsights trained on a Nazi.
I do hear where you are coming from, when you get people claiming that Goldeneye could top anything that has been released right now. Fact is, if Goldeneye's development had been delayed a decade and it came out right now alongside Call of Duty 3 and Battlefield 2142, there would be a grand total of 2 sales for Rare. However, if you compare your initial thoughts and feelings on the game the first time you experienced them, you would probably say 'Yep, I definitely loved Goldeneye better. Considering the age when it came out, it was a groundbreaking title at the time, I had a lot more fun with that game than ... GRAW.' It obviously holds no candles to any current-gen software, but you cant deny it wasnt a good game at the time.
And learning and perfecting the technique for defeating a boss isnt skill? I can see a variance in taste here, obviously you'd rather opt for games where skill constitutes learning lots of things well rather than a single set-piece very well. Which is fair play, and I wouldnt really expect any old-school pattern gameplay to be realeased nowadays (aside from Gameboy games, which is precisely the reason I have one).
Actually, that throws up another excellent point. Metroid: Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission. Both old-school type pattern gameplay, 2-dimensional graphics and relatively low production values. Released only a couple of years ago beside titles such as Halflife 2 and Warcraft 3. Which games do you think I had the patience to play through, complete and unlock everything in? Furthermore, which games do you think I like to take a little revisit and play through again once in a while? Yep, you guessed it. So, in a kind of upside-flipping of my argument, perhaps old school games are just as fun now as they ever were, so long as they have a new adventure. Hmmmmm, one to muse upon methinks.
I think this basically just turns it back around to the whole 'individual taste in games' thing, because theres no way Im going to be able to explain to you how I manage to get more enjoyment tapping a couple of buttons to run and jump rather than crouching under a bush in sniper mode with my gunsights trained on a Nazi.