The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Are games less complicated than they used to be?
Are games less complicated than they used to be because developers know they have to catch the gamers attention within the first 20 seconds or so of booting the title?
Are games less complicated than they used to be because thanks to our ‘all-new’ MTV attention spans the majority of game players cant be bothered to put in the extra time to discover the delights of anything more complicated than Lara’s latest outing… or a game with ‘real maracas’?
---
Much like American TV, where the highest common demoninator wins every time…
Is intelligence, innovation and individuality being exchanged for familiarity, mediocrity and advertising budgets?
---
Will the direction of computer games be for them to become less and less complicated, with the emphasis on continually bigger and brighter graphics, with the latest teen band playing in the background whilst Cola adverts, are garishly splashed over the backgound, (updated daily thanks to the power of the Internet), and the main characters oft repeated catch phrase seems strangely familiar and makes you think of buying a certain chocolate?
Or am I wrong?
Are games less complicated than they used to be because developers know they have to catch the gamers attention within the first 20 seconds or so of booting the title?
Are games less complicated than they used to be because thanks to our ‘all-new’ MTV attention spans the majority of game players cant be bothered to put in the extra time to discover the delights of anything more complicated than Lara’s latest outing… or a game with ‘real maracas’?
---
Much like American TV, where the highest common demoninator wins every time…
Is intelligence, innovation and individuality being exchanged for familiarity, mediocrity and advertising budgets?
---
Will the direction of computer games be for them to become less and less complicated, with the emphasis on continually bigger and brighter graphics, with the latest teen band playing in the background whilst Cola adverts, are garishly splashed over the backgound, (updated daily thanks to the power of the Internet), and the main characters oft repeated catch phrase seems strangely familiar and makes you think of buying a certain chocolate?
Or am I wrong?
Page:
New Jimmy wrote:
Sequels dont discourage innovation therefore they
> encourage it although from competitors!
But why? Why should a competittor be any more innovative than its competition...
Just up the graphics, use realy names, tweak controls a little more...
Nothing new is added... its just more of the same...
If theres no incentive for innovation... why innovate?
Although... we digress from the original question... :)
Sequels dont discourage innovation therefore they
> encourage it although from competitors!
But why? Why should a competittor be any more innovative than its competition...
Just up the graphics, use realy names, tweak controls a little more...
Nothing new is added... its just more of the same...
If theres no incentive for innovation... why innovate?
Although... we digress from the original question... :)
At the moment yes Konami is milking its new baby ISS for all its worth, eventually though something will be brought out that betters it.
Innovation is slow, and occurs in small steps sequels just provide the industry with the cash to take risks and be innovative.
Sequels dont discourage innovation therefore they encourage it although from competitors!
Innovation is slow, and occurs in small steps sequels just provide the industry with the cash to take risks and be innovative.
Sequels dont discourage innovation therefore they encourage it although from competitors!
New Jimmy wrote:
Let me illustrate my theory with an
> example... for years FIFA was the king of console football, each
> release a mere carbon copy of the last with new stats.
This
> eventually forced the competition to offer more in their game in
> order to take away FIFAs crown, that competition was ISS Pro
> Evolution.
Who now release carbon copies of their previous releases?
However... if FIFA have been being innovative from the beginning... then ISS would have had to have been designed to an even higher standard...
We would be playing better games had we not been subjeted to year upon year of same game diferent titles...
Let me illustrate my theory with an
> example... for years FIFA was the king of console football, each
> release a mere carbon copy of the last with new stats.
This
> eventually forced the competition to offer more in their game in
> order to take away FIFAs crown, that competition was ISS Pro
> Evolution.
Who now release carbon copies of their previous releases?
However... if FIFA have been being innovative from the beginning... then ISS would have had to have been designed to an even higher standard...
We would be playing better games had we not been subjeted to year upon year of same game diferent titles...
How does making easy money by repeating the same game make the competition more innovative?
Surley it makes them develop the same programs so they can make the same easy money for the same code?
In reply:
Let me illustrate my theory with an example... for years FIFA was the king of console football, each release a mere carbon copy of the last with new stats.
This eventually forced the competition to offer more in their game in order to take away FIFAs crown, that competition was ISS Pro Evolution.
Surley it makes them develop the same programs so they can make the same easy money for the same code?
In reply:
Let me illustrate my theory with an example... for years FIFA was the king of console football, each release a mere carbon copy of the last with new stats.
This eventually forced the competition to offer more in their game in order to take away FIFAs crown, that competition was ISS Pro Evolution.
New Jimmy wrote:
although we complain about
> these sequels theyre actually a good thing as they provide easy
> money for the industry. They also force the competition to be
> innovative!
How does making easy money by repeating the same game make the competition more innovative?
Surley it makes them develop the same programs so they can make the same easy money for the same code?
> advert!, however if it is regulated then it should give more money
> to the industry and mean better games.
Why does this mean better games? More moeny has been given for advertising for films... and the films are no better for it... the execs are just richer...
Your topic seems to be
> asking "are games better or worse since theyve become
> mainstream??", if thats the case then Ild have to say theyve
> become better on the whole, although I will admit there are now more
> really bad titles than there have ever been available in the
> past.
I'm really trying to ask where games are going... and given their current direction, and the direction of other entertainment media (Music, movies, TV) top be simpler, shock value, high advertising with little content... will games follow the same path?
although we complain about
> these sequels theyre actually a good thing as they provide easy
> money for the industry. They also force the competition to be
> innovative!
How does making easy money by repeating the same game make the competition more innovative?
Surley it makes them develop the same programs so they can make the same easy money for the same code?
> advert!, however if it is regulated then it should give more money
> to the industry and mean better games.
Why does this mean better games? More moeny has been given for advertising for films... and the films are no better for it... the execs are just richer...
Your topic seems to be
> asking "are games better or worse since theyve become
> mainstream??", if thats the case then Ild have to say theyve
> become better on the whole, although I will admit there are now more
> really bad titles than there have ever been available in the
> past.
I'm really trying to ask where games are going... and given their current direction, and the direction of other entertainment media (Music, movies, TV) top be simpler, shock value, high advertising with little content... will games follow the same path?
First thanks for posting such a thought provoking topic Armitage S.
In reply to your question "Are games less complicated than they used to be? ", well they are certainally easier than they used to be with the ability to save your progress at any point in a game now the norm. Your point about RPGs well they seem to be getting easier to.
However I wouldnt say that games are now less complicated, infact because of the move from 2D to 3D gaming games are probably more complicated.
Games developers have always tried to catch a gamers attention within the first 20 seconds or so of booting the title its just today the graphics are flashier (as anyone who experienced the loading screens of the Commodore 64 will testify!).
As for sequels being dished out buy the bucketload well that seems to be the norm, and its quite sad. But it did happen in the past to, look at the Dizzy games each had the same basic gameplay but with different puzzles much like the Resident Evil games of today.
However although we complain about these sequels theyre actually a good thing as they provide easy money for the industry. They also force the competition to be innovative!
As for advertising becomming commonplace, well this has been going on since the days of Robocod (Penguin buscuits) and Superfrog (Lucozade). Infact the biggest mass advert in a game was Cool Spot (7-up), and that was a good game!
I dont think advertising in games is all good though, it definately has to be regualted, i.e. so only a small percentage of a game can be an advert!, however if it is regulated then it should give more money to the industry and mean better games.
Your topic seems to be asking "are games better or worse since theyve become mainstream??", if thats the case then Ild have to say theyve become better on the whole, although I will admit there are now more really bad titles than there have ever been available in the past.
My advice is to read the reviews on this site before you buy a game, that way youll buy something that isnt a mass maketed advert with no gameplay! :-)
In reply to your question "Are games less complicated than they used to be? ", well they are certainally easier than they used to be with the ability to save your progress at any point in a game now the norm. Your point about RPGs well they seem to be getting easier to.
However I wouldnt say that games are now less complicated, infact because of the move from 2D to 3D gaming games are probably more complicated.
Games developers have always tried to catch a gamers attention within the first 20 seconds or so of booting the title its just today the graphics are flashier (as anyone who experienced the loading screens of the Commodore 64 will testify!).
As for sequels being dished out buy the bucketload well that seems to be the norm, and its quite sad. But it did happen in the past to, look at the Dizzy games each had the same basic gameplay but with different puzzles much like the Resident Evil games of today.
However although we complain about these sequels theyre actually a good thing as they provide easy money for the industry. They also force the competition to be innovative!
As for advertising becomming commonplace, well this has been going on since the days of Robocod (Penguin buscuits) and Superfrog (Lucozade). Infact the biggest mass advert in a game was Cool Spot (7-up), and that was a good game!
I dont think advertising in games is all good though, it definately has to be regualted, i.e. so only a small percentage of a game can be an advert!, however if it is regulated then it should give more money to the industry and mean better games.
Your topic seems to be asking "are games better or worse since theyve become mainstream??", if thats the case then Ild have to say theyve become better on the whole, although I will admit there are now more really bad titles than there have ever been available in the past.
My advice is to read the reviews on this site before you buy a game, that way youll buy something that isnt a mass maketed advert with no gameplay! :-)
As RPGs go, it's not a very good one.
It's more of a free-roaming adventure. I nearly completed it without having to think that much. All I remember was a lot of running around.
It's more of a free-roaming adventure. I nearly completed it without having to think that much. All I remember was a lot of running around.
RastaBillySkank wrote:
Have you seen how complicated some of the puzzles
> are!
Yeah... I own the game...
Its pretty much a 'pick up and play title'...
It is admitidly more involving than most titles around...
and as such is the exception that prooves the rule...
But when you compaire it to standard RPG's, it is obviously cut down...
Have you seen how complicated some of the puzzles
> are!
Yeah... I own the game...
Its pretty much a 'pick up and play title'...
It is admitidly more involving than most titles around...
and as such is the exception that prooves the rule...
But when you compaire it to standard RPG's, it is obviously cut down...
Armitage Shanks wrote:
> RastaBillySkank wrote:
> You're wrong.
> Look at the Zelda
> games!!!
That kinda prooves my point... the Zelda games are very
> simplified RPG's ...
Have you seen how complicated some of the puzzles are!
Especially in Majora's Mask!
> RastaBillySkank wrote:
> You're wrong.
> Look at the Zelda
> games!!!
That kinda prooves my point... the Zelda games are very
> simplified RPG's ...
Have you seen how complicated some of the puzzles are!
Especially in Majora's Mask!
Page: