The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Let's post pictures of our weiners
Zombiemambo
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I was originally going to put this in the form of a question, but that's not how I feel. I'm not asking if we need to move on, I'm insisting we move on.
I think we've fallen into a game design pit, if you will. All of these unoriginal ideas fill this pit, and the industry refuses to climb out of it. The "next generation" consoles offered nothing new, just shinier graphics and more processing power (the Wii being exempt). I haven't seen anything the last generation consoles couldn't do if they scaled it back enough. The pool is stagnant, and few companies seem to be willing to take a risk and come out with something new.
I find myself really bored with gaming most of the time. I can't think of any games I'm dying to play coming out this year. I would certainly like to play some of them when they come out, but I'm not too excited for anything. Very little of it seems new or interesting enough to warrant my attention and my $60. The mainstream industry has lost its appeal for me. At this point in time, I would be completely willing to throw away the graphics and sound and processor power for games that offered something new.
I'm not alone, the indie gaming market is getting larger and larger. Even casual gaming can offer new experiences that the next 'AAA title' won't provide. There is less to lose in this market, so there is more reason to try new things and experiment. If you're willing to separate the wheat from the chaff, you will find a lot of games that are wildly different from the norm. Even the stuff I play that isn't very much fun at leasts attempts to try something new. In my opinion, those that experiment and fail or more worthy of praise than those that rely on proven formulas and succeed.
On the other hand, I really like God of War. I really like Halo. The games I play the most are usually the ones that don't take any risks. If I want to sit on the couch with some buddies, pick up a controller and have a good time, games like this will provide it. They have their place, but they shouldn't conquer the industry. I hope your favorite movie wasn't directed by Michael Bay, but I have no problems with you enjoying it.
I guess I could be considered somewhat of a snob, the kind of person who goes to the film festivals to see weird experimental movies (:winky:) while everyone else packs into a theater to watch Transformers 27: Optimus Prime Gets His Naval Pierced. I'm really not, but I'm also not spending $60 to watch a two-hour movie with some friends. And here comes a big dilemma: if I am spending so much money, do I want to take a chance on a creative game that might not be very good. I suppose that for me it comes down to how you approach it. If it's an honest-to-goodness attempt at trying to craft a new experience, instead of some pretentious opinionated nonsense, I'm much more likely to give it a shot. Stroking one's ego doesn't appeal to me very much.
Let's just cut to the chase: long live new ideas.
I think we've fallen into a game design pit, if you will. All of these unoriginal ideas fill this pit, and the industry refuses to climb out of it. The "next generation" consoles offered nothing new, just shinier graphics and more processing power (the Wii being exempt). I haven't seen anything the last generation consoles couldn't do if they scaled it back enough. The pool is stagnant, and few companies seem to be willing to take a risk and come out with something new.
I find myself really bored with gaming most of the time. I can't think of any games I'm dying to play coming out this year. I would certainly like to play some of them when they come out, but I'm not too excited for anything. Very little of it seems new or interesting enough to warrant my attention and my $60. The mainstream industry has lost its appeal for me. At this point in time, I would be completely willing to throw away the graphics and sound and processor power for games that offered something new.
I'm not alone, the indie gaming market is getting larger and larger. Even casual gaming can offer new experiences that the next 'AAA title' won't provide. There is less to lose in this market, so there is more reason to try new things and experiment. If you're willing to separate the wheat from the chaff, you will find a lot of games that are wildly different from the norm. Even the stuff I play that isn't very much fun at leasts attempts to try something new. In my opinion, those that experiment and fail or more worthy of praise than those that rely on proven formulas and succeed.
On the other hand, I really like God of War. I really like Halo. The games I play the most are usually the ones that don't take any risks. If I want to sit on the couch with some buddies, pick up a controller and have a good time, games like this will provide it. They have their place, but they shouldn't conquer the industry. I hope your favorite movie wasn't directed by Michael Bay, but I have no problems with you enjoying it.
I guess I could be considered somewhat of a snob, the kind of person who goes to the film festivals to see weird experimental movies (:winky:) while everyone else packs into a theater to watch Transformers 27: Optimus Prime Gets His Naval Pierced. I'm really not, but I'm also not spending $60 to watch a two-hour movie with some friends. And here comes a big dilemma: if I am spending so much money, do I want to take a chance on a creative game that might not be very good. I suppose that for me it comes down to how you approach it. If it's an honest-to-goodness attempt at trying to craft a new experience, instead of some pretentious opinionated nonsense, I'm much more likely to give it a shot. Stroking one's ego doesn't appeal to me very much.
Let's just cut to the chase: long live new ideas.
Zombiemambo on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
The wii of course having suffered the shitty stagnance of the 360 and PS3, except it also looks like ass
I do not anymore.
EDIT: You don't think the next gen provided anything new? Tell me, how many games have you designed?
And you never have to read them.
This is completely natural, too. Back in the day games were created by small teams with tiny budgets who could afford to take risks. Indie developers fill that niche nowadays, and their community is growing bigger and bigger.
edit: What I'm saying is that you seem not to consider indie developers a big part of the development, but with things like Xbox Live Arcade, Steam, and WiiWare, they're going to become a more and more mainstream thing.
no shit
I don't need to design a game to know that this generation is severely lacking in creativity, just like I don't need to be a director to call a movie clichéd
/"Portal"
/No Entry Found
/Failthread
No creativity? Uhhh littlebigplanet, spore, portal, okami (ish), lego game series, physics, cinematic gaming (CoD4), lighting, AI, Relic's entirely overhauled approach to RTS, Bioshock, storytelling, gamer freedom / sandbox gameplay, world-building, new gameplay elements... etc.
And on a less castigating note, games are bigger than ever. Which means there's more stuff in them. Which means change happens in small doses with little bits being tweaked, rather than big, brash, groundbreaking ones. Genres are being mixed - but not diluted.
No, but you sure as hell need to be a developer before you can start claiming "everything thats being done could have been done last gen" because you're dead fucking wrong.
Please, provide some examples of games that are not possible to reproduce on an older console without compromising the idea entirely. I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say that I'd like to know.
Cutting the money flow would bring new and potentially fun ideas.
He hasn't designed shit. All he ever does is sit in the background and he picks and choses whatever criticisms are easy and convenient to make. He completely ignores every facet of game design, every time.
Wow. Don't we have an intelligent argument here. o_O
Nothing helped my appreciation for gaming more than forcing myself into a strict budget. I only buy the stuff I'm going to most likely love and I play the shit out of it.
Like when I was a young lad and I dug a ditch to get the ten dollars from my dad to buy a clearance copy of Low G Man.
A motherfucking ditch, for one of the oddest fucking games you ever did see. I learned to love it because since it wasn't summer nor my birthday I wasn't getting another game for a long, long time.
I could beat that game with my eyes close, I can see every frame of it clearly in my mind.
When I was flush with cash after my first real job I bought system after system, game after game and never really enjoyed it. But now?
I savor games like I did when I was a kid.
God, that's such naive bullshit. Lrn2economics. It doesn't work that way. At all.
Firestarter & TSR are both way ahead in this thread.
More goes into game design than just graphics. New consoles use their power for more than just pretty graphics. Take for instance the amount of zombies pushed in dead rising - impossible on an earlier console. Or GTAIV in it's entirety.
Not to mention there's also a facets of this new generation that every hack who calls "next gen" unnecessary seems to forget about - online integration. The next gen has fundamentally changed the way online works. And it's not because we didn't have online last gen, it's because it's streamlined and built into the console.
Whatever, these topics piss me off. Complain about how graphics have improved and thus gameplay as deminished in a day when gaming is seeing some of it's biggest growth ever.
Absolutely, no arguments here. I wouldn't post this if we were moving in a new direction. But we aren't, and I felt like letting people know how I felt about it. GTAIV is the only game I've played on my XBOX 360 in months because nothing looked interesting enough to even rent.
Dead Rising wolud not be Dead Rising without that many zombies? GTAIII is not at all similar to GTAIV? Neither of those examples are of games that would not, under any circumstance, resemble the same product if they were developed on a weaker console.
Well right here, your entire argument is flawed, because they DO. The new hollywood business model subsidizes independent development with big budget hollywood flicks. Studios like Lionsgate have opened specifically to increase the output of "risky" new ideas, entirely backed by big budget moves.
Yea, I don't know if games have ever been this bastion of creativity that you claim. There are standouts, but there has always been a ton of shit released, as well. It's not like the NES didn't have its Total Recalls, or the GBA didn't have its Mary-Kate & Ashley games, or the industry as a whole didn't have its motherfucking Virtual Boy or Jaguar.
Creativity has always been in the form of a few gems in a sea of mediocrity hidden amongst islands of pure bullshit.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970666737/
So you're saying games should always innovate, and never improve on old concepts? Are you out of your fucking mind?
What upgrades were made to this gen that would enable anything more than better graphics, wii excluded? When a console is made for just that, then that's what you'll get from the games.
Here's a situation I'd like to ask you about. Make up your own world, whatever consoles are made with any potential. What would you expect to happen to show creativity in a next gen game, other than a graphical/processing upgrade?
No, it wouldn't[/quote]
Absolutely not. There are so many layers of integration in GTA IV that are impossible on an older console.
Take away the power behind the game, and the entire product changes drastically.
The Orange box contains 5 first-person shooters, 2 of which were released years ago, one that's an expansion to one of those games, one that is a sequel, and one which is genuinely unique, to a degree.
BioShock is System Shock 2 in a different setting, I haven't seen anything new in AC, and Mass Effect didn't do anything new. Doesn't have anything to do with quality, I liked all of them, but they aren't innovations.
Video Games peaked at Pong IMHO.
This is where you and I disagree greatly. Integration didn't make GTAIV and entirely new game. You could take the story, the characters, the setting and much of the gameplay and comfortably play it on a PS2 just like you did GTAIII.
And you're going to have to do a lot better than "No, it wouldn't" to convince me that Dead Rising could not at all be a similar game with the characters, story, setting and gameplay without that many zombies.
How exactly is this generation of videogames "severely lacking in creativity" compared to previous generations? It's not like previous generations were boundless wonderlands of creativity unfettered by the harsh mistress of commerce or anything.
Edit: And the current generation of game consoles is about 2 years old. Ask the "why couldn't these games simply be scaled down and run on a PS2?" question in 3-4 years.
I'm surprised you are implying Portal is a unique game when it's basically a fucking remake of Narbacular Drop. Why the double standard? Flip flop.
It's arguing with a brick wall when someone says "Mass effect didn't do anything new."
Open your mind a little bit, perhaps? Or better yet, just leave if all you're going to do is tell me you're angry and then, when I offer a rebuttal, say it's like arguing with a brick wall. D&D is a much better place for that.
Clearly you've never played it. Don't comment on it in that case.
I'm not even going to bother with an itemized reply to your post because frankly I doubt you'd get it. But I will say this:
Take out the zombies and the gameplay changes.
Holy fuck what a concept.
Very well, I'll give credit to Narbacular Drop. Portal was a more polished game that got a lot more recognition for the gameplay mechanics, but it's not original.
Because it would be impossible to render 20 zombies on-screen. Oh shit!