| Welcome to Toegoff. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Outgrowing Video Games?; Just a curious observation | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 10 2014, 10:10 AM (425 Views) | |
| Toegoff | Nov 10 2014, 10:10 AM Post #1 |
|
Administrator
![]()
|
Since first getting my Nintendo at 4 years old, I've loved gaming. Something about going to this 'other world' so to speak, getting totally immersed in a story, and just seeing where it takes you. I think I first got this with Illusion of Gaia (which will forever be one of my favorite games), though it continued for years and years across many games. I'm not sure if it's just me getting older and having other responsibilities, but I feel like I'm almost losing that excitement for gaming I once had. I remember this time of year was always my favorite. What new games were coming out? What did I need to pre-order?! Trust me, I'm pumped for Dragon Age Inquisition, but not NEARLY as much as I was for Dragon Age. A part of it is that DA2 has still left a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm unconvinced DAI will be what I want...but we'll see. I guess I wonder, am I outgrowing gaming, or has the quality just not been there? I hate to be the type that says, "back in the day..." or "Today's _______ sucks" though it starts to feel that way. I think what strikes me hardest on it is 'binging' like I would for a show. I remember playing hours and hours and hours straight of some of the RPGs. Run down stairs quick for some food, and right back to the story. I just don't get that anymore. Am I sounding like 'Old Man Toegoff' or has there been a significant drop in quality over the years that makes it hard to get excited? I feel like I'm complaining too much, but eh. I'm tired of DLC content. It started as a great concept...let developers keep working on our favorite games. We'd throw some extra cash out. Like mini expansion packs! It sounds great, but the reality is you get unfinished games. "How can we give the user the least amount for a 'full game' - then give them little DLC addons." Even patching now is insane. It allows developers to release games that aren't ready. How many games have we seen come out that CLEARLY need massive day one patching...or even the first couple weeks are unplayable due to bugs. It feels like the gamer market has become a 'buyer beware' landscape in which it's hard to get hyped for anything. I think a lot of it comes to trust with the developers. You KNEW the companies that would put out amazing games. Bioware? Absolutely sign me up. Squresoft? No question...a great JRPG incoming. I think the only company I REALLY trust today is Nintendo oddly enough. You don't see a lot of bad Nintendo games (at least in comparison to other companies). I don't think I've played a 'bad' Zelda game (produced by Nintendo). I think every Mario Brothers has been pretty quality. It feels like Nintendo is one of the few companies that isn't over loaded with DLC paradise and day one patches for unplayable games. I'm just rambling at this point, but I was curious what you guys all thought. Am I just getting old and losing enthusiasm or has there been a massive shift over the past 10-15 years that has sucked the 'life' from gaming? |
![]() |
|
| Lethargus | Nov 10 2014, 11:12 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Woof Woof Woofies!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm actually starting to feel the same way even though i don't consider myself that old (21), so i think it has more to do with the culture that surrounds gaming today, that did not exsist 5-10 years ago. I have massive library of games on steam (500+), but rarely do i ever play any of them. The only game I've been playing on a weekly basis for the last year has been Hearthstone. I have been hyped for some games that were released this year, but i almost feel guilty buying them, because i already own so many other games that i really should play instead. And as you mentioned, games are released in a horrible state today, so why even bother with it? You know you aren't getting a complete product anyway and that it will still be in development for years to come. It's kinda like you are going to invest in something really big, like how you would invest time and money in an MMO. It just becomes too big of a task to actually start playing, bot to mention all the money you'll need to spend on DLC etc. if you want to play the full game. Indie games are a great alternative to this, but i don't find them as fun or engaging as big titles. So yea, don't worry about outgrowing games. It's just that the gaming environment has changed significantly in the last years. |
![]() |
|
| ReptilePZ | Nov 10 2014, 11:28 AM Post #3 |
|
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think there's no doubt there's been a shift of focus from 'making the game you want to make of the highest quality you can' to 'making the product that will be the most popular among the largest demographic as fast as possible.' That's the result of the industry growing rapidly and a lot more money being thrown at it, which, in turn, has led to there being barely any innovation, merely iteration and streamlining. Too much attention is given to graphics, the quality of the presentation, becuase that's what catches the eye of most people, and not enough on fresh, new ideas, the quality of the actual content. And so we get the CoDs, the ACs etc. Sure, they look good, play smooth and are more accessible, but they don't do anything differently. It's also what happened to DA2 - released only a year after DA:A, with reused maps, models and environments that lacked any detail (I still remember BioWare making excuses about it, claiming artistic vision, when the game clearly looked like it was in Alpha still), an incoherent plot with next to no reactivity to player choices and a heavily streamlied, action-y combat system, clearly aimed at getting a wider audience, lacking any actual good design decisions behind it. That and a rushed ME3 have definitely dampened my enthusiasm for DA:I. BioWare seem to have put a lot of effort into it though, so it should be interesting to see how it turns out. KickStarter's done some good things in terms of allowing creativity - Divinity: Original Sin, which picks up where Ultima 7 left off and improves the concept, and having one of the best (mechanically speaking) turn-based combat systems to date. The new Torment's looking very promising as well, it has some interesting concepts behind it for systems that should bring the freedom in computer RPGs even closer to that of P&P ones. Star Citizen also seems to be trying to push the boundries. We also got gems like Faster Than Light. The problem with KS titles is that the budget isn't quite there, so you need to make a lot of compromises as a player, meaning you can't get quite as excited for them as you do for AAAs. You end up with the reverse of a AAA, you get the same old presentation you had 10+ years ago, but with better, more complex gameplay systems. At the same time, AAA titles rarely excite simply because it's the same games we had 10+ years ago, only stripped down of some mechanics and given a new paint job. Admittedly, there seems to be some movement on that front - CoD changing things up a bit, same for AC. Probably because 'next-gen' consoles aren't a massive upgrade in terms of visuals, so nobody's going to be wow-ed by the graphical fidelity. Maybe we'll finally get to see some nice balance. On DLC: yeah, it has potential and there are a few companies that do it right (ME2 had some brilliant DLC, as did Fallout: NV), but most just abuse it by looking for an easy way to get you to pay more for their product. Finally, having a busy schedule doesn't help - it's hard to immerse yourself in a game when you don't have the time to do so. I imagine the way you feel is a result of a combinations of all these things. I don't think age has anything to do with it though - it's more due to having played a more modern version of the same thing over and over again for so long. Hopefully, that'll change soon. Edited by ReptilePZ, Nov 10 2014, 11:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| beastman721 | Nov 10 2014, 11:38 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Chicka Bow!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I really can't agree with you more Toe, and I have to say as someone who works full time and has a busy schedule, it's just so tough to start up that game when you get home at 7pm pretty much dead tired. I try to make time as much as possible on the weekends but unless I'm really into a game (which hasn't happened in a while) then it's a massive struggle to get through it and it's really not that enjoyable. That being said, I'll never worry about outgrowing games because I simply won't. It's too much a part of me and I'll always be gaming no matter what. Agree 100% with Rep and Kaw. For me, I can't really afford to drop 1,000+ on a gaming rig so I tend to play older/indie games, which is quite fine for me. I was able to discover the infinity engine classics and to that end I'm super pumped for Pillars of Eternity. Right now in games, more specifically RPG's, I'm not really looking for too much innovation in terms of gameplay, but I'm looking for an RPG done right. As long as everything in terms of Story, Combat, Lore, Characters all comes together, I'm in. |
![]() |
|
| Toegoff | Nov 10 2014, 11:53 AM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
![]()
|
I guess the largest part is that I so miss that feeling of excitement. I feel like a grumpy old man starting a new game because, "It has to impress me" so to speak. I can't just bring home a game and go, "Oh man! This is gonna be awesome!" It's more of a feeling of, "Let's see where this takes me." I again feel like that grumpy old man saying that the big companies aren't run by gamers...but by business men. How can we make as much money from our customers as quick as possible? I still wonder what made more profit...DA2 or DA:O. Obviously, DA:O sold more copies, no one will dispute that...but what of the costs? I would bet almost anything that DA2 was MUCH MUCH cheaper to produce than DA:O. I actually don't feel like innovation is the biggest problem, I feel like just the story content (at least for me) has been lacking. Paperback books don't need innovation. Words of a page...been like that forever. I don't think anyone has come and 'rocked' the writing world with new styles or anything that leave us breathless. Yet books are still a tremendous form of entertainment. Great books immerse the reader, have us actually care about the characters, and make us invested in the story and the world of those characters. You'd think in video gaming this would be even easier. You ARE that character. You ARE the root of the story. I think where innovation comes in at least in story telling then is how do you keep your player invested? You can't just give the player every little thing from the start of the game or it's overwhelming and unrewarding. You need to keep giving little cookies that lead to an ultimate goal. Challenges that get progressively harder or puzzles that become increasingly more complex lead to payoffs of experiencing the story. So how do you keep your player willing to complete the 'in between stuff' of major plot points...that's really where the innovation has to lie. I am interested to see how Witcher 3 and DA:I do in the coming months...I guess we'll see. |
![]() |
|
| beastman721 | Nov 10 2014, 12:15 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Chicka Bow!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Pretty much hit the nail on the head there, Toe. The Story, especially the Characters, Game world, and how you fit in as the main character are all extremely important to me. The whole DA2 debacle is the whole reason I joined this forum in the first place. The Bioware Social Forums around the time DA2 was being developed/released was such a s**tshow. As rep said, Bioware claimed artistic vision to justify the fact that the game was simply not finished and being rushed. DA2 I think, has to go down as one of the worst video game sequels ever. Admittedly, I never played it but watched Toe's full LP and shook my head in disbelief about every 5 seconds. This also all comes back to the fact that DA:O was probably one of the greatest RPGs ever, and the series had such promise after the initial game. DA:O didn't blow people away with the graphics or gameplay innovation, it was just a game that did everything right. Like I said above, when all the little things are done right, a game can really start to come together. The characters and world of DA:O were amazing and as the protagonist you felt both special and apart of the world at the same time. It's hard to explain but it made you feel epic and human simultaneously. Outside of BG1, 2, and ToB, I haven't really played an RPG that's come close since, and that was like 5 years ago now. That being said, I'm really invested in the new Torment and Pillars of Eternity games. If the stories are great, I don't see why these games can't be complete gems on the same level as DA:O, you just have to hope but at the same time curb expectations a little because they're not AAA titles, and the budget might impose some restrictions. A great story though, should be able to transcend the budget and as long as the story is there, there's always hope. Edited by beastman721, Nov 10 2014, 12:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Unfie | Nov 10 2014, 12:36 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I bitch about stories and plots a lot in games, but really mechanics are just as important. DA:O, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, etc etc. These were all perfect games imo. I have a bias with NWN mainly because I still play on a couple of active RP servers there. The settings as well as the mechanics the DMs have managed to develop within those enclosed server worlds are absolutely stunning. The game is just an amazing platform that's given birth to some killer communities with great potential to produce jaw-dropping stories that make you think, 'game developers need to take notes.' People are just getting lazy in the gaming industry though. Companies are taking fewer gambles. It's become more a question of 'How can we make money?' instead of 'how can we innovate and develop an intriguing concept?' There are so many copy/paste shenanigans going on in the gaming industry nowadays that it makes me pretty sick to my stomach. |
![]() |
|
| ReptilePZ | Nov 10 2014, 12:51 PM Post #8 |
|
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The story itself doesn't need to be groundbreaking, but the way you interact with it needs to be diversified. In terms of ways you can approach a quest, there has been very little change. In fact, the options we get seem to get fewer and fewer as costs for producing those extra dialogues and content increase. Original Sin, for instance, has a very good variety of ways you can complete a quest, while, say, ME forces you down a certain path. The same goes for TW, there are several ways to resolve a quest, but not a lot of freedom in how you approach it. While that works fine with a pre-determined character like Geralt, I expect a lot more from Cyberpunk 2077, where you should be able to play a variety of roles that each have a different skillset. Another thing would be not limiting choice to dialogues. Spec Ops: The Line did some very clever tricks, using gameplay and hidden options as a way for the player to alter the narrative. Just giving the player more options as to how they can go about accomplishing a task/quest in general, having more diversity and rewarding creativity should improve the quality of interaction between the player and the world/story/characters. NPCs and game world that are more responsive to player activity (and inactivity) is another thing that has been neglected. That's not too relevant for games like DA:O, but seeing how story-driven RPGs like DA:I and TW3 are moving into open world, that is going to become increasingly more important. Sui Generis seems to be a relatively unknown game that wants to innovate there, little has been shown by the dev team to back those claims, however. These are things that, while not directly affecting the story, help the player connect with the world and PC on a deeper level, giving you more agency and ultimately result in being more involved with the story and characters, improving the overall experience. Yet we've seen little to no interest from developers in pushing those aspects further. Edited by ReptilePZ, Nov 10 2014, 12:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Pong | Nov 10 2014, 12:59 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Neener Neener Neener
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm with rep a good bit on this one, for me it's just that nothing new has come out. I shit you not the last 4 years for me has consisted of watching anime playing games, trying to waste as much time as humanly possible in between therapy sections and such. I won 250+ games and I've played maybe 60-70 games. I remember starting up ME2 and DA:O and bck in 2007 when Runescape was the fucking shit and the little of wow I've played. NOTHING has captured my attension like those games, even games like Farcry 2 and crysis was games taht caought me enough to waste a week of time playing, but nothing new and innovative is released. Mmo's most of them are wow clones or just simply boring, they tend to hold you'r hand all the time and never really makes you stray of the path so to speak. |
![]() |
|
| Toegoff | Nov 10 2014, 01:27 PM Post #10 |
|
Administrator
![]()
|
To be honest, I think Dragon Age Origins was one of those games that really did so many things perfect. I've tried to isolate what I loved on it so much. I think by far it's my favorite Let's Play I've done...but it's also my favorite game I've let's played. I've tried to isolate everything about that game that I loved - and to be honest, I think so many things were simply perfect about it. I had a hard time replaying it only because it felt weird...like I already lived 'Toegoff's story' ... so playing Rattler's just didn't feel the same. You felt throughout the game it was your story...and a big part of that was your Origin. You felt attached to your character...and while everyone basically gets to the same place, you feel this special connection that the choices you made really had a massive impact. The landscapes were varied, the 'companions' with you felt like they had depth...ultimately, the game just felt like it did SO many things right. It set an incredibly high bar. I can only hope they put as much time into the writing of DAI as they did DAO. |
![]() |
|
| Shadow Dragon | Nov 10 2014, 01:52 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Chicka Bow!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's less you outgrowing them and more that they just went in a direction you don't like. When it comes to the DLC stuff, more often than not, you should wait a year or so after a game is released. They always release a *insert name* edition of it with the DLC included. Definitely cheaper and you feel less ripped off if the DLC isn't that great. Also, it's a matter of knowing where to look for the types of games you look. In your case, since you want story driven stuff, you're going to have to keep more of an eye on indie games as opposed to the triple A stuff. |
![]() |
|
| ReptilePZ | Nov 10 2014, 02:50 PM Post #12 |
|
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have to agree there, Dragon Age is one of my all-time favourites, it did a lot of things right. But it also had places where it could be improved. Combat had some quirks, the relationship system, decisions that had easy ways out of them - an optimal solution, characters that were interesting but were fairly cliched (same for the story,) extremely linear level design, game world that was little more than a backdrop, it was not in any way dynamic, filler side quests that could have used more fleshing out etc. Those are issues that have been present in BioWare titles ever since BG1, and were never addressed. Those are things that we've gotten used to having in RPGs, but that does not mean an attempt to advance them should not be made. There's only so much polish that can be done before the same idea becomes stale, only being successful when there's a massive technological leap like in DA:O and ME. Because ME was a shinier KOTOR, while DA:O was a shinier BG2. You don't need to wait for a technological leap to make a hit, you can actually work on addressing issues in your product, while keeping the things that worked intact. An idea that made The Witcher 2 into what it is, the reason why TW3 is such an anticipated game and something that BioWare seem to finally be doing in DA:I - adding new elements to the formula, while trying to work on things that were not so great in previous titles, and making sure the things that worked are still there, only better. It is something that I greatly appreciate, even if I don't agree with some of their design decisions. They're clearly trying, and I'm sure it will benefit the final product. Keep things fresh and exciting, and the audience's interest will be there. Otherwise, well, the audience starts asking itself if it's overgrown video games, because there's nothing out there they haven't seen already to pique their interest. And a technological leap that lets you experience what you love in a whole new way, like with DA:O, doesn't happen too often. Something that is important though, when making your game bigger and better, is to make sure you don't overreach, or you may end up with a Gothic 3. The other trap is taking things in directions they didn't need to be taken - that's your Dragon Age 2. Edited by ReptilePZ, Nov 10 2014, 02:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Toegoff | Nov 10 2014, 03:30 PM Post #13 |
|
Administrator
![]()
|
I think the problem with the indie scene is budget. It pains me in that there may NEVER be another game like the Baldur's Gate series. It requires a huge budget simply for the team. You can't have a team of even 10 people writing the story, graphics, engine, etc. It's just too much work. I think what made BG2 so special for me was just how freaking big that game was. That's what impressed me the most on it. I can't tell you how many times I've replayed it and STILL found new content or things hidden in it. That type of commitment requires a passion (which I'm sure many indie gamers have) but also massive budget. To me, Baldur's Gate 2 did such an amazing job of taking the best of a linear story and combining it with an 'open world' - AND another point that bothered me today as I thought... What happened to cooperative gaming in RPGs...why is there so little of it? I'm simply talking playing through the game with a friend and experiencing a great story together. Mass Effect could have done this. Fine...only one Shep, but I'd replay that game again if I could play one of the crew if my friend was Shep. Same with DAO...just use the same system that Baldur's Gate did. One leader, the others follow along. I don't always need to be the star...and this adds to replay value. I'd replay the games again just to see my friends experience the story, and if I can help them along, awesome! I think you also start to lose the 'middle class' in game creators. You have your Triple A studios, and your indie scene. I may be wrong on it, but it just feels like there haven't been any companies really emerging with amazing games lately. Is there a monopoly on the industry or is game creation just too damn expensive today to offer a way in. |
![]() |
|
| beastman721 | Nov 10 2014, 03:43 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Chicka Bow!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I definitely think Indie game devs have the passion and the talent, but as has been discussed above, they lack the budget, which I'm assuming would go into just sheer man power in terms of how many employees you can hire. Take Pillars of Eternity for example, which as now been in development for about 2 years, or maybe 1.5 (2 years since it was funded) and it raised something like $4 million on kickstarter, which at the time was the biggest game that was crowd-funded. And even though to pretty much everyone $4 million is a ton of money, to develop a game over 2 or 3 years I'm not sure how far that goes, especially when you have AAA titles which have much higher budgets and subsequently can have huge teams that allow for faster and more efficient development, as well as just adding more things to the game. To be honest, I don't know how indie devs can amass large budgets outside of kickstarter, which even then seems to have it's limitations in terms of budget. It's unfortunate, but you just kinda have to hope that the passion and talent shines through. Maybe I'm seflish and shortsighted but I just really love huge RPGs. I mean, little 12 hour single-serving games just don't do it for me. I'm looking for 60+ hours of quality gameplay, and I just don't know if indie games can readily provided that due to budget constraints. Look, I've dropped like 80 hours into Avernum, a real nice indie game made by a small studio, which I think is comprised entirety by one guy. And it was kinda fun, but the game had obvious limitations and just really served as a multi-month timesink for me, leaving very little impression on me 2 years on. The bigger the game though, the more budget you need, and thus the circle continues. Edited by beastman721, Nov 10 2014, 03:48 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ReptilePZ | Nov 10 2014, 03:56 PM Post #15 |
|
Big Sweaty Moose Bleepers
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd say there are mid-class devs out there. CDPR are on their way to being AAA, but TW1 and TW2 were not fully AAA games. Dark Souls is a series that I wouldn't call AAA either, it has a lot of attention on it, but the games didn't have a massive budget. Telltale games as well. There are several examples of devs that I wouldn't call AAA or indie that are producing quality titles. On co-op play, I think the reason why they haven't added it to DA:O or ME is the way companions work now. They're deeply integrated into the main story (ME2 was recruit a team - the game) so replacing them with custom characters would be tough. I suppose they could just let the other players control the pre-made team members but then how do you handle the portions where the PC walks around talking to the NPCs at camp or on the Normandy - the host is obviously the PC, but what do the other people get to do? That was never an issue in the IE era, where followers weren't quite as fleshed out. I think that may also be why Planescape: Torment lacks a co-op mode, despite using the same engine. Edited by ReptilePZ, Nov 10 2014, 03:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2















7:16 PM Jul 10