backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by Domicinator.. on Nov 29 at 5:40 PM
Make no mistake about it, the entertainment model is changing

It's easy to get disenchanted with the marvel of technology. I've been writing and tinkering with technology almost as long as I can remember, and its a rare moment when I can stop for a second and say "Wow."

In 2007, I caught myself breathing in a few sighs of disbelief, but this industry has totally knocked my socks off on more than one occasion too.

Sure, we saw the debut of the iPhone, dirt cheap quad-core processors, OLED televisions, terabyte hard drives, a few consoles, nearly ubiquitous high-definition media; but in my opinion the culmination of this year in technology is the video game industry. 

Hollywood continues its downward spiral, television has come to a standstill as the WGA strike endures, the recording industry ran out of fans to sue -- even Broadway threw in the towel.  Yet the video game industry is not only flourishing, but peaking with incredible titles and unbelievable sales. 

When was the last time a movie took in $300 million dollars in the first week?  Microsoft figured out the formula with  Halo 3.  Halo 3's incredible sales were even used as the scapegoat for a poor fall box office.

Hollywood would consider it a miracle if 2.4 million people shelled out $8 for the next blockbuster, yet Blizzard managed to sell 2.4 million $50 expansion packs in a single day in the dead of Winter earlier this year.

And how about those Nintendo Wiis?  A year after its debut, nearly 2 million consoles produced per month, and yet the company still can't load enough of the consoles onto the store shelves.

Even little NVIDIA, a company once regarded as a boutique graphics manufacturer for gaming enthusiasts, managed to gross a billion dollars last quarter. There's some mobile and low-end sales mixed in there, but without a doubt NVIDIA is still a gaming company.

Is the video game industry, today, a paradigm of how entertainment should be? Maybe someday people will look back at 2007 and consider the Jason Joneses and Tim Sweeneys the new Dean Martins and Frank Sinatras of their time. EA and Nintendo certainly wouldn't disagree.

My only complaint is that I couldn't include Will Wright's pending masterpiece in the list of 2007's magnificent titles.  But then again, with the weakness of all the other entertainment industries, 2008 might shine even brighter for video games.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Ringold on 11/24/2007 2:31:23 PM , Rating: 5
Just focusing on PC gaming, it might have been a year of blockbuster sales, but while image quality in Crysis might've shot up an FPS is an FPS.

For example, take the much-delayed Episode Two. What did that bring to the table? The story is interesting, but.. you ran around, you shot things, and you rode in the buggy.

I was even a little disappointed in Supreme Commander. I don't mean to ruffle any partisan feathers, but I've played Total Annihilation and, later TA:Spring, since release. While it was a huge leap forward in many respects, it wasn't a breakthrough. If anyone noticed, TA had *massive* maps as well.

Spore may be one of those little gamechangers; I can't recall anything quite like it. The problem for me is that there aren't enough of them.

They don't have to be first of their kind; they just have to be the first of their kind that's great, such as StarCraft, or perhaps some of the epic Wing Commander games, or, hell, Elite! It gave us Privateer, Privateer I, Freelancer, and even the X - X3 games, at least in ideology.

Moving past originality, where have entire genres gone? The X-COM series has gone down hill (IMHO) from its masterpiece, X-COM UFO Defense, Mech Warrior / Cyberstrike like games seems to have disappeared, and the grand-scale 4X space strategy realm has shrunk from a crowded field of many competitors to a one-man operation as Malfador Machinations. (No, GalCiv doesn't count, it's 4X for kids and coffee breaks) Stars! Supernova died on the vine,MOO3 shoulda, and, well, everyone else just disappeared. What about whatever genre the goofy Star Control series held? Speaking of Elite and Wing Commander earlier, that once crowded realm has also been virtually devoid of big releases since, eh, Freespace 2 or the last WC title, whichever came last.

As far as big releases go, only FPS and variations on RTS remain standing. Is this the inevitable outcome of commercializing computer gaming? I would think not; the more people with money stepping forward in to the internet age, their ought to be more gravy to spread around. Then whats the problem, why aren't more small developers getting in and filling these niches?** Perhaps with graphics being so intense, they require ever deeper pockets. I don't know. I just long for their glorious return.

That's not to say it's impossible for them, though. Space Empires slogs on, and there was that Darwin-something game available on Steam that probably was cheap to make but pretty cool. X3 was released; I assume X4 is inevitable, but I'd rather just keep playing Eve Online.

Speaking of Eve Online, I can't let MMO's escape my ire. EverQuest was the first, all glory be upon them, yes. SW:G, WoW.. Stand near a spawn point. Kill. Wait. Kill again. Grind, grind, grind. Ooooh yay. The variation isn't grinded out, either; Star Trek: Online may not end up far from that formula. I haven't tried Tabula Rasa or Pirates, but generally thats the popular formula. Replace Stormtroopers with an ork or something, and there you go, SW:G -> WoW. The FF MMO, same deal, just worse graphics.

StarCraft, that was a game someone in their early 20s will tell their grandkids about. Wing Commander as well, if we were in to that. They could also note TA, but I bet will completely forget SupCom. They will note Doom and Doom II, but Doom III? If it's remembered at all, "Oh, it was dark.." Most of these myriad of other releases? They're all just fastfood; souped up to look good but ultimately of little unique nutritional value.

Of course, if you're 15 and reading this, you'll think "OMG, how could toss SupCome asides?! It's glorious!!" You just would lack the experience of playing todays games forefathers, nothing wrong with that, but of course you'll remember it differently, just as I don't remember ever actually playing Elite (WC: Privateer was my first similar one).

Maybe this is just the first step of getting old and whining about the "good old days", but it seems to me a legitimate gripe; the bulk of the supply side of the market is just churning out the only thing they know will make mountains of money -- variations on the FPS and the RTS.

** Are they actually filling in the voids left by the major studios, and the masses just aren't aware of their existence?




By Screwballl on 11/24/2007 3:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree... to many games are spinoffs or sequels from other games. Crysis is just another FPS that someone applied great looking scenery to, nothing more. Sure it looks great and is neat as a novelty but the actual gameplay is nothing great. Just a fairly typical FPS with some small barely noticeable differences.
It has become a matter of who can sell the most games rather than releasing actual playable games that keep the attention of the player.
You mentioned some awesome games Ringold, each was great in their genres. Each spawned an entires generation of copycat games. Most FPS games are the same now, they either follow HL, Unreal or Doom style games.
SimCity is another one that defined an entire generation, then the great SC2000 from Maxis... after which EA took over and slaughtered the series much as they have done with so many others (Command and Conquer is the first that comes to mind). Now they release SimCity Societies in which they combine "Sims-like" play with city building and they have..... a complete flop because Sims players want Sims games and SimCity players and a city building simulator, not some "drop a few buildings and you got it mastered" piece of crap. This is where Cities Unlimited will step in and continue the city simulation fanatics gameplay.
Supreme Commander is a great game but after a a few weeks it all becomes the same build, build, build, create massive attack force with a fatboy, attack, then win. It needs more units, more options, more tech levels, and this is hopefully where the expansion comes it (I will pick it up around Christmas).
Almost all games now are clones or upgrades of previous games. Very few actually step away from the "mold" such as Spore but the bad is that it is handled by EA so it will be riddled with bugs, crashes and some sort of proprietary EA junk in it.
This is not the golden age of games as some may think, this is the golden age of clones where little to no game can actually step away from the mainstream genres without becoming like another. I suspect Spore will be a bit too much like a customizable WOW game.


By Ringold on 11/24/2007 6:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
See, Tom C.? Screwball understands me! :)

quote:
This is not the golden age of games as some may think, this is the golden age of clones where little to no game can actually step away from the mainstream genres without becoming like another.


I'm reminded of the idea of the Gilded Age; that seems like what this is now. Good, but old, ideas are being gilded in the form of ever-improving image quality when, really, (the gaming) society is stagnating if not even in some form of retreat. Meanwhile, just like during the Gilded Age, a number of firms are still making billions, and we just eat it up.

Again, not to say we can't have some fun with the likes of SupCom and Crysis; sure, some games have a decent story (Episode 2's primary value to me was the story), but it's just not like the first time playing SimCity, like you said.

I'm not sure I'd buy in to the idea that we've fully explored all possible ways of crafting a PC game as well. Remember, Warcraft predated StarCraft, but Starcraft made it great and made it huge, so some ideas can be recycled in new ways; other games took an existing idea and just made it better. I'm not sure WC was the first of its kind, either, and yet a lot of people in my demographic probably know what a Kilrathi is just as well as they know what a Klingon is (admittedly, they're clones, but thats beside the point). What about the baddies from SupCom? Hmm.. slipped my mind at least.


By Masterrer on 11/27/2007 6:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
OMG. I've read through all the comments and nobody mentioned Fallout or Fallout 2 ?!?
These where the most complete (in terms of story, gameplay, setting, humor, etc.) rpg games ever, EVER!

Yes they where a bit buggy, but nothing that a patch could fix, and let me tell you these games were AMAZING, not only did you have the full freedom to do whatever you like, go where ever you like, complete quests several ways, etc. but also the game evolved around your character depending on your intelligence, luck, past actions, etc.
I don't know if the Fallout was all that revolutionary or not but it sure was close to perfect...

The most recent game I enjoyed as much was Portal, albeit short and no where near the epic scale of Fallout, it had most off the important ingredients: good storyline, action, and great humor...

Also I could probably talk about fallout forever, but the one thing amazes me is that the game is still playable today, as the graphics which didn't look all that special back when I first played the game (2001) neither they look too bad today, and I can still enjoy this masterpiece on my laptop considering that I have Win XP and the original game was released in 1997 and was playable on DOS...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/27/2007 12:25:45 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed :) Fallout changed the way I game!


By murphyslabrat on 11/27/2007 2:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
But what about Portal? There's a game that broke (or, at least twisted) the rules of its primary genres: Puzzle and FPS. That game combined the fast-paced, multidimensional FPS environment with the rehashed-to-death puzzle genre, to get a style of gameplay that differs from any other game. Not to mention, it had one of the best Shodan-style guide/nemesis characters I have ever seen/heard (comeone, Glados?). Something that, I am sure, only Valve could have pulled off.

Then, coming in 2008 you have Fallout 3, an RPG-FPS...But wait, there's more: it's a turn-based RPG-FPS! With a stop-and-go battle system like the origional two, it adds the third dimension. Unfortunately, this results in a fork: Bethesda can either ruin the origional atmosphere, or (judging by the trailers) unbelievably enhance it.

Golden age? No. Unoriginal games? largely, yes, but not entirely. There have been no X-Com's, but there have been some good games. And, besides, the "flashy graphics" are damn pretty!


By TomCorelis (blog) on 11/24/2007 4:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, might want to take a step back and smell the roses, dude.

I disagree completely with your thoughts on Supreme Commander. I played TA, hell I GREW UP on TA. TA was my constant companion at LAN parties for the better part of 6 to 8 years. I even played TA:Spring, though the version that I played so very old and wasn't very much fun. SupCom was TA's spritual sequel, from the words of Chris Taylor himself. Sure, there were lots of things it could have done better, but I don't understand hwo you consider the game to be 'forgettable'. The LAN parties that I have gone to that featured SupCom featured just as many memorable moments as its older father, TA.

And yes, the bulk of the supply side market is sitting on mountains of cash, but then in order to make a game that the mainstream audience will accept (the people that give the devs all that money) it requires mountains of cash investments. Very few people take niche developers seriously because very few niche developers make a game as polished and pretty as the big boys. X3, for example: I love the game. I lost my copy but I really want to get back into it. THe game was fun, the game was pretty, and it was very deep as an economic sim. But the game lacked polish -- the interface was rough and buggy, voiceovers were flat-out bad, and the game itself was too dense. I still loved it, but I love it only cause I'm a geek like that. My sister, who enjoys titles like Halo, KotoR, the Sims, and Mercenaries, would never be interested.


By Ringold on 11/24/2007 5:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I don't understand hwo you consider the game to be 'forgettable'.


The reason why it'll ultimately be lost in the haze of the first decade of the new century, whereas TA will be immortal in the halls of gaming history, is for the reasons you said. It was a spiritual sequel, an incremental (though large) improvement in graphics and the games engine. Total Annihilation was a first of its kind creation, and even included realistic physics and 3d before it was even fashionable. Supreme Commander ploughed the same ground by reinventing an already good wheel; what was completely revolutionary about it? Oooh, could use dual monitors and brought video cards to their knees. Big deal. :P

Now, I think I did say Spore, for example, will not be lost in the same way, because all indications are is that it'll be more revolutionary than evolutionary. According to reports thus far, anyway.

As for X3, I agree. I think it's just a sad state of affairs that developers have to spend such mountains of cash to get anything good out there, and when they do, they often can't make it to the same quality; you say X3 is buggy, and Space Empires V was barely beta-test quality when it was first released about a year ago. I hope that niche dev's can find a way to avoid the expensive parts of development, which I imagine is the ridiculous drive to photorealistic graphics, and take the Darwinia approach; stick to a fun, different sort of PC game, with graphics being secondary.

That's not to say I don't have some fun gaming. I smell the roses. I just haven't been awed for a little while, and definitely none of the top selling titles this year have done it.


By TomCorelis (blog) on 11/25/2007 3:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
I find that an odd argument, though. Doom II wasn't "forgettable." Neither were the follow-ups to the Lord of the Rings movie, nor Star Wars: Episode 4. In each of the aforementioned examples, I think most could agree that the follow-ups were evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary, and yet we still remember them just the same.

SupCom has the added advantage of time, with almost 10 years difference between the two. Many of us were screaming for some sort of update, and have finally been satisfied. While I'm not arguing that SupCom is game-of-the-year material -- the game sorely lacking in tactical and strategic options for managing such a large force -- to condemn it to obscurity simply because it was a follow-up (as opposed to something completely fresh) is unfair.

Besides, to a new generation of gamers, who never had the honor of growing up with the Starcraft/TA debate, SupCom may just be that fresh special somethin' that stands out amongst the CoH's and Warhammer DoW's of this world.


By Ringold on 11/25/2007 7:40:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Besides, to a new generation of gamers


I made provision for that in my first post; such applies to all aspects of life. Today people may rise their eyebrows at the purpose of the Korean War, until they remember the lives of those in power; they'd just lived through fighting WW2 where appeasement failed them. Likewise, I think young folks, who actually give TA a try and play one of the massive 32x32 maps, will forgive me for mistaking SupCom as a beautiful DirectX9/10 expansion pack.

quote:
Doom II wasn't "forgettable." Neither were the follow-ups to the Lord of the Rings movie, nor Star Wars: Episode 4.


I think I made allowance for Doom II as well by pointing out, in one post or another, that StarCraft wasn't the first RTS, it was just the first to bring enough to the table to achieve greatness; Warcraft predated it, and was cool enough in its own right. Either way, I think I was referring more to Doom 3 than 2, and I'm not the only one thats posted about how lame that one was.

Bringing up Star Wars and LOTR I think is good, but I think it also reinforces my view as well. Star Wars presented, and still presents, a fairly unique vision. Sure, there was The Last Starfighter, but nothing I'm familiar with on a similar epic scale. SW changed the game of a genre -- and then dominated that genre. Not only did it do that, it remained a niche, and therefore unique, genre when the vast majority of movies still follow the same formula of somebody sleeping with somebody else and then drama ensues. Crysis, on the other hand, may be good, but it's a big fish in a giant ocean that stretches as far as the eye can sea. There is still no comparable franchise to Star Wars, nor is there one to Star Trek. One exception could be Battlestar Galactica, but again, BSG fundamentally changed the game for the genre; they werent the first to mix grit with SciFi, but sure were the first to do it well. It'll be a long time before we know for sure, but I'd bet BSG has permanently changed the nature of SciFi away from pseudo-socialist idealism (Star Trek) and good-vs-evil adventure (Star Wars) more towards a bit more.. well, darkness. Star Trek tried to do what the gaming industry is doing now and succeeded in knocking the franchise in to a coma. 'Amazing Stories' or whatever that old variety show of sorts was called did something similar to BSG long before, but they'll be completely forgotten.. already basically have been.

Oh, and nice that you picked Episode 4 rather than 1. I still wish to forget about Episode 1, as well as Star Trek Voyager and Star Trek Enterprise, if it's all the same to you. ;) Episode 1 was a hit because it was Star Wars, not 'cause it was great.

It also helps that a whole generation grew up with SW, then indoctrinated their children in to the cult, and then those children might even have had time to induct their own tiny spawns in to the cult. I know I sure will -- starting with Episode 4, as King George intended.

It's been just shy of a decade, I think, since StarCraft was released. If SupCom, or DooM 3 is still widely played at LAN's and fondly remembered by almost all who were in to gaming today in the year 2017, well, I'll be shocked. It's completely anecdotal, but there's only one guy's LAN's I go to, and TA:Spring replaced SupCom fairly quickly; better balance, established mods, still big maps and good frame rates for all. When you're zoomed out to a strategic level you don't notice which DirectX version is being used anyway, and when it hits the fan and you're zoomed in you don't care (if the game is fun, and TA is). Of course, as I've said, we still whip out Big Game Hunters maps without fail as well.

Maybe developers continuing to dump warmed-over remakes will ultimately..reap the whirlwind.


By Screwballl on 11/28/2007 2:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
Relating to movies, the original Star Wars and Star Trek movies were the generation defining movies. Anything after that pretty much was an expansion of the original idea (and personally I thought SW:Ep 1-3 completely sucked as do the new ST TV shows except TNG).
These are the same way of thinking relating to games we are talking about, how many different Star Trek series TV shows and movies has there been? Everything since the originals is a continuation of the story but not nearly as good (and sometimes downright bad). TNG did a good job of capturing peoples minds with ST fans much like SupCom is now with TA and RTS fans.


By Screwballl on 11/25/2007 1:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
That is the exact point, TA was the original, SupCom is the sequel. SupCom is a step into modern gaming but at the core it is overall still the same game. A great game nonetheless but not one to be written into the gaming history books. Few games may get a quick mention such as Crysis but so far this millenia has produced only 1 game worth setting in stone as a defining game, this game is HL2. The popularity of CS:S and the Episodes has kept the story alive and the game going even after the original HL2 has pretty much left the mentions of most gaming circles. Unreal and UT have tried new releases which will no doubt make a lot of money but nothing close to HL2. This is the game of the decade (unless something comes out that just blows us all away in the next 18 months).
Halo 3 sales were subject to the only decent game put out by MS hyped up by PR and series fanatics. People needed a good game for their 360 because everything else was the same re-relased games. The fact remains, it is an update to the same series that has the same target audience. WoW:BC sold so well because people are tired of the same rehashed WoW game that they needed new material to feed their addiction and Blizzard delivered. These companies know that once an addiction fades, the players put their money elsewhere. EA, Ms and Blizzard all know this and they have a timeframe for expansions and new games in the series. This is what kept so many Sims expansions going, why Halo is on 3 now and why Command and Conquer is somewhere around 10-12 unofficially now.
2007 will be known for the Wii, crappy Vista and a small mention about Crysis.
I hope for an awesome gaming year in 08 but the only thing shaping up that I am looking forward to is Cities Unlimited and MAYBE Spore.


By crfog on 11/27/2007 2:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to update you a bit on X3. I am a HUGE fan of X3. I played Freelancer at a friends house once and fell in love. When tracking down a copy of that game, I came across X3 and read that it blew Freelancer away in terms of depth. I was intrigued and bought the game. I agree that in its first iteration, the game was not polished. However, for a game developed by a small team, it was magnificent in detail and scope. The best part is, Egosoft has continued to support X3 even these years after it was released. There are constant updates and expansions offered free on their site which extend the game in many ways. Even better is the community which follows X3. There is a full mod entitled XTENDED which is available on Egosofts forums which adds the polish which was lacking in the vanilla game. A ombination of these Egosoft backed patches and the XTENDED mod makes for, in my opinion, the deepest gameplay offered in any format today.


By ZaethDekar on 11/24/2007 5:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
As for mech warrior. There is a mod being worked on with Microsoft support for a Mech Warrior game. Supposidly you will start off a grunt running around, then as you get credits you can buy a mech or flying vehicle with a ton of upgrades and so on so forth. Almost like an MMO Style game, supposidly. I will see if I can find the link, however I am at work and Websense is picky :-p


By ZaethDekar on 11/24/2007 5:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
By xsilver on 11/25/2007 9:06:29 AM , Rating: 2
They need to keep the flight simulator feel for the mechwarrior series to work. Otherwise it becomes your FPS clone.

For the mature gamer, games are far too easy these days - One key aspect is to be able to make them hard without making them cheap. eg. Doom 3 was so cheap in its attempt to ramp up difficulty -- oooh secret door opens behind you and monsters run out. Rinse repeat. Yawn.

The mechwarrior series had the ability to ramp up difficulty and yet still be fun. eg. secondary and tertiary objectives that were sometimes almost designed to be impossible. So much more satisfaction when you complete them.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/25/2007 3:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Moving past originality, where have entire genres gone?

True, I miss originality. But I don't think originality is a perquisite for greatness either.

Dean Martin didn't create the variety show, but it would be pure folly to think that he didn't perfect it! I think the titles we see today are similar. Half Life 2 didn't create the first person shooter, but the combination of plot arc and gameplay nearly perfected it in my opinion.

I think we'll still see some revival in old genres. RPGs have made a huge comeback in recent years, especially after the MMO backlash. GalCiv might be the only bastion of 4x right now (on the surface), but let's not forget the greatest 4x-ish title of all time: Civilization. Spore isn't 4x, but I'm pretty confident if Spore makes it big we'll see a 4x-ish genre resurge.


By Ringold on 11/25/2007 7:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
GalCiv isn't the only bastion -- Space Empires!

The current iteration, SE:V, got off to a buggy start, and still isn't very Vista-friendly, but it's actively developed and the same large community thats been behind Malfador since the start is still there. No doubt SE:VI will be upon us one day.. SE:V in its current form probably would've got a good bit of attention, but only room for one first impression, and it was pretty horrible.

From a purist perspective, GalCiv is barely 4X anyway; just able to complete it too quickly. Large galaxy, high difficulty, 1 starting planet -- SE4 would take a month. Of course, maybe limited market for that kind of patience..


By XnoX on 11/26/2007 4:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
There are some games like the masterpieces Die by the Sword and Carmageddon 2 that didn't get enough clones to have a 'genre' - If only somebody pushed the physics to the same limit with today's computers...

Mods seem to have become the main source of originality, mostly because they can afford to take the time to evolve (for a striking example take a look at Fall from Heaven 2 for Civ4 development history)

Some few, like Mount&Blade have managed to adopt that modding-community -like indefinite beta style development into a commercial publication. Valve also became a bit like "mod magnate" by assimilating the Portal team.

RPGs have been slowly getting wise of the RP roots - everyone can get their grind and munchkin fix in MMOs, but nothing tickles the brain more than the Witcher's moral choices and the point where you realize the impacts of them.


By Spivonious on 11/25/2007 7:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to know why no one makes point-and-click adventure games anymore? Monkey Island series, Day of the Tentacle, FUll Throttle, King's Quest series, etc. They actually required using your brain and had (as much as current hardware would allow) fantastic hand-drawn graphics.

I believe that the current emphasis on graphics and multiplayer above all else is slowly killing the traditional computer game. Give me a TIE Fighter, give me a Command & Conquer, give me a Wolfenstein, give me a King's Quest, give me Falcon 4.0. I am absolutely and completely exhausted of playing Doom 57 or C&C 25. Where has the entire simulator genre gone? I don't want to connect with hundreds of thousands of people all paying $15 a month to go through the same dungeon crawls over and over again. I want a game that I can sit down, play for an hour (and make some real progress), and be rewarded with a well though-out storyline and entertaining gameplay. Replay value wouldn't be bad either.


By Oscarine on 11/26/2007 9:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
Its not dead, Sam and Max is still being created in episodic content. Theres a few more down the pipeline.

Most of the games you listed lived on through multiplayer. C&C, Falcon 4, X-Wing vs Tie Fighter etc all had multiplayer elements.

Theres alot of games like what you listed, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Assasin's Creed, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, all offer engrossing single player experiences.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/26/2007 12:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
I concur. I want a new X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter game. It was the last great game of the series. (X-Wing Alliance sucked)


By mmntech on 11/26/2007 1:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
XWA was a great game but each to his own. But yes, it would have been interesting to see where the series would have gone. Totally Games hasn't released anything in years.
Speaking of Star Wars, I'm waiting impatiently for KOTOR 3. LucasArts and BioWare are sending mixed signals about it. I hope it's not the MMO that it's rumored to be. That would ruin the series and besides, there's already a Star Wars MMO.


By joemoedee on 11/26/2007 3:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. It's just a matter of "progress" in the gaming world. (Read: Bandwagon development)

FPS came out, took the gaming world by storm. Thus, the majority of publishers gravitated to that, and away from the classic adventure games.

2D platformers were huge, 3D came out, and everyone moved towards 3D.

Single player RPGs gravitated to MMORPGs, etc, etc.

If you look back on it, even the point and click adventure became huge from the progression away from the text based variety.

Alas, I am like you. I miss the days of Sierra On-Line and Lucasarts Adventure games; I also miss the 2D games as well. (Castlevania SOTN anyone? Has a 3D Castlevania even come CLOSE to it? No.)

With all the tools and hardware available now, how great could those adventure games and 2D games look, and immersing the story lines could be?

And don't even get me started on current state of sports games.... Whereas I do enjoy Madden/NCAA, I miss having multiple choices for multiple systems. If it wasn't for Front Page Sports Football, NFL Gameday, NFL2k Series, Tecmo Bowl, etc... we'd still be playing Madden 93 with just updated rosters.

It would also be nice to play a new Baseball game on the PC that wasn't purely sim based.


By Martimus on 11/26/2007 11:17:24 AM , Rating: 3
I agree that the types of games being released are completely limited. When I was growing up, Adventure games were the hot thing, but now they are nowhere to be found. I would love to see something like Under a Killing Moon come out, but alas; it is not a FPS or RTS. I want a new Wing Commander game as well! I had a lot of fun with those games. GalCiv2 is fun, but it gets tedious after a short while. I never played TA. By the time that came out, I was done playing against people at LAN parties on RTS games. I stopped playing because no one could beat me at Command and Conquer, or Red Alert, or Star Craft for that matter. I wasn't as good at FPS games, but it was more fun, because I wasn't dominant, and I would lose pretty often. So I went from RTS games to counterstrike. I would love to buy a new Wind Commander game or Mech Warrior game. Wing Commander 3 and 4 were awesome, at least to me.

I do think that you are being too hard on current games, because they are pretty good. It is hard to innovate on things that have been beaten down so much over the years liek FPS and RTS games, but they are still making fun games. The problem to me is that the other options don't exist anymore. Adventure games are few and far between, and space fighter games don't seem to exist anymore. 4X games are around, but the choices are slim. Maybe things will change over the next few years as smaller publishers (like Stardock) get into filling these other niches.


By Captain Orgazmo on 11/26/2007 11:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Damn was Privateer a good game. I had the double feature CD with Strike Commander... another great but mostly-forgotten game. Star Control II, a classic. A couple other great games (actually genres in themselves) that have been replaced by inferior sequels: Civilization I and II, and SimCity (original and 2000 of course). And don't get me started on the quest games of the early nineties, like Space/King's/Police Quest series, Quest for Glory series, all the other Sierra quests, Beneath a Steel Sky, etc.

There are more recent games that I think will be regarded as classics, like GTA: Vice City, and the Half-Life phenomenon (including probably the most played -in terms of total people*hours- game of all time: Counter Strike).


By TSS on 11/28/2007 6:49:51 PM , Rating: 3
yknow... i thought about this a long time. it's not that there's an lack of innovation. the great gameplay that you and me and millions of others knew is still around. the problem is we have changed.

it's not as much as getting older as getting used to something. it's well known that for say drugs, you need to keep taking increasing quantity's for the same effect. i've played for 20 years, from the commodore 64 till crysis and i notice i long for the old 486 days. crysis is a great game sure... just not as good as doom.

why is that? not because doom changed the face of the world... it's because doom made an impact for you and me. when we first played doom, it was like magic. the fast paced action, the many different weapons, different enemy's, great music... but that was only because there was nothing infront of it. suppose some kid who has been living under a rock for the past 15 years, comes out, gets behind a PC and the very first FPS he fires up is the most crappy FPS we can offer him from this holiday season. he will be blown away! if you show him doom right after that he will call it a mediocre, even a crappy game. there's enough gamers that will not stand for that.

right now innovation has to stop for a good decade or 2. no new stuff just getting used to the old. simply because i'm sure doom cost less then a million to make, which gave me more enjoyment then call of duty 4, even though it's a geat game, which is a multi million/year project. suppose the current generation of gamers (which is nigh everybody, where also nearing the max of "existing fresh blood". the new generation will have to be born) finally get enough of the CoD's and UT's, which alreayd cost millions to make? start spending billions?

the game industry and the computer industry are wearing themselves out in a very rapid pace. it's already costing millions for new games and billions for new technology's.... and instead of slowing down where still pushing the price up. the reason why all the niche's aren't filled is because people are too spoiled with graphics and won't accept anything without good graphics, which is expensive. don't look at me like that i fully admit beeing just as guilty of this as the rest of you.

this will continue until the game industry is spending nearly all their profits till this date on the development of the same games with new technology's and the gamers don't buy it anymore. then it'll burst with a loud bang and it might be years before we see something like that flourish again. if company execs have anything remotely like common sense they'll lower the pace. there are rough times ahead.

how is this true? we just had the most amazing line up of title's we've ever seen and even the news article says that "2008 might be an even brighter year". i for one hope that it'll be a complete fail so that we can get back to basics and move this industry into adulthood where it belongs by now.


By Domicinator on 11/29/2007 5:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
See, this is a disease running rampant in the gaming community these days. Do you actually expect every single game that comes out to have completely new and innovative ideas and gameplay? It's just not going to happen. It doesn't happen in books, movies, TV shows, or music either. These things evolve over time. They get redone with slight variations and shift as time goes by.

If you're going to simplify Half Life 2: Episode 2 to "you ride around in a buggy and shoot things", of course it doesn't sound like anything special. But your take on the game is so overly simplified it's not even funny.

The fact is that currently the sky is the limit as far as graphics. The only current limitation on graphics is the hardware that gamers have in their hands. So we now have the near photo-realistic graphics that we were day dreaming about 10 years ago. In the time between then and now, developers have had a lot of time to work on gameplay. These days the pendulum has swung back to graphics.

At some point you have to just let yourself enjoy the damn games. They're games, not literary masterpieces. If you would just let yourself enjoy them you wouldn't be so disappointed. Your expectations are unrealistic and unreasonable.


Games are Games
By teckytech9 on 11/26/2007 1:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
Olympic Decathlon, Space Invaders, Asteroids, Galaxy, Pole Position, Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, Myst, Command and Conquer, StarCraft, Doom, and Chess anyone?

In all its essence, a computer game has not changed much over the years. What has changed is the vast bundles of entertainment choices (i.e. books, games, television, internet, movies, etc.) which seems endless and ever so time consuming.

The video gaming industry attempts to create an escape to immerse its customers into another sense of reality or "well being." It creates a market where building a better mousetrap means getting the latest and greatest console, and PC video card. Excluding educational games, puzzles, board games, tennis rackets, etc, the majority of games do little to educate the mind. These games (FPS, RPGs) have hidden dangers, such as mass addiction, alienation from society, hyper/muscle tension, sleepless/listless, and losing all bearings of time

Still others can find a balance in playing these "escapes from reality." Where are those cheat codes?




RE: Games are Games
By Hawkido on 11/26/2007 6:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
mass addiction, alienation from society, hyper/muscle tension, sleepless/listless, and losing all bearings of time


Sounds good! Sign me up! oh wait... you said that is the Surgeon General's warnings? Sounds like magazine reviewer's coments.

LOL

Okay I agree with everyone's lament on Quality of content. Bard's tale (the original series) I remember playing for 40 plus hours just to be able to go into the first dungeon and beat the first boss on bard's tale II (I didn't have the BT1 to import my characters from) Dang that was a great series. Now most RPG's can't handle chance, all the RPG's Bosses are IMMUNE to this or that. I remember on Bard's Tale running around with a group of Guards that were protecting one of the toughest bosses as party members because I mind controlled them. That was sweet. The ability to critically hit and instantly kill a boss as a random chance.

"Warrior attacks 47 times for 3854 points of damage."

or

"Your Party Sreams in defiance as you are faced with:
78 wraiths
45 wraiths
68 wraiths
99 wraiths
63 wraiths
68 wraiths
36 wraiths"

and only Mangar's Mind Jab could save you at the lower levels as it could hit all members of all groups so long as they were within a 30 foot range.

Wow, I loved that game series... Thief of Time was the best tho"

And Wizardry 6 Wowzers what a great game.


By extraflamey22 on 11/25/2007 3:53:27 AM , Rating: 3
I'm lucky enough to have a pretty decent PC, a PS3 and an Xbox360. I honestly have no idea where I'm going to find the time to play all these fantastic games, not to mention the epic year that 2008 is going to be for gaming.

To those who are rather miffed at the whole situation, I understand where you're coming from, as I too look with fond memories back at the games of yesteryear. However, do realize that you have to be careful not to let unrealistic expectations keep you continuously dissatisified after comparing the current crop of titles with some idyllic, rose-colored representation of a game you played 10 years ago.

After going back and replaying many of the games I grew up with as a teenager, and rebalancing the nostalgic view I had of them with my broader gaming experience today, I've come to realize that it's nigh on impossible to recreate the sense of wonder and newness of those first few formative years of gaming. Classic titles which hold almost mythical status are often unrealistic comparisons, as I find it impossible to look at them objectively.

Just remember to keep things in perspective.




I'll just say this -
By chorner on 11/27/2007 12:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
Uncharted Drake's Fortune
Company of Heroes
Guitar Hero series/Rock Band
God of War II
Quake 2

-- Never had so much fun as with these titles; the rest? I've never found any other game near as fun.

Oh, and maybe EA's NHL series - a few years those games were spot-on with the fun factor of having 2 + of your buddies up in arms over the last goal.

I think the way of future games needs to go the way of Uncharted Drakes Fortune with a mix of a good story, and great cinematic feel with some intense fight scene breaks - and exploring/puzzle solving (which Uncharted could've used some more/better puzzle solving). Puzzles that end up working like 'the incredible machine' as always fun for some reason - seeing some massive interconnected machine work to open a door etc.

Games need to be made to make people thing more, and become more englufed in the story, or action. I hate all of the current FPS games - can you say boring? They're so old by now it is getting ridiculous. The only way I can see these FPS games getting better is by adopting a multiplayer strategy behind it. Almost a mix of RTS, with ground based battle. You have a commander with an over-head view organzing objective, and strategy points etc. and you work with a team on ground - ie. sniper, artillery, frontmen, tank strikes, air support etc. and really engage players into very specific roles to accomplish. Now THAT would be fun if developed properly.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki