The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The year - 1992. The consoles - Super Nintendo and Mega Drive. Genre of choice - 2D platform.
You can say I'm stating the obvious, but the early nineties were dominated with platforming games. From Mario to Metroid, the words side scrolling encompassed many genres, including platforming, adventure, RPG and shooting. It was great, but limited. 3D meant that first person games couldn't really be made, so everything was kind of rolled into one. I'm not complaining, because I loved the games. Mario, Keen, Metroid, Sonic... I loved them all. But the melding of many genres meant that games were similar, and many refined. It resulted in absolutely brilliant specimens of gaming masterclass.
Today though, 3D has given the opportunity for way to too many genres which are radically different from each other. Developers try to make something unique by going off at a tangent. Metroid is as far akin to Mario as possible, despite them being incredibly similar ten years ago. Some would say it is great, because it means there is more diversity in gaming. But to me, it means that games are overall not as good. If a developer made a shooting game and a platform game now, s/he'd have to use different skills for each. But back in the day, since they were kind of the same (what with platforms and enemies and aye carumba my friends...) it meant skills could be collaborated. If developers just kept to basics, then they'd end up with a much better product. Kind of like what happened with the cross-genre genre (side scrollers) in the early 90's.
What I mean is that there aren't very many games of each genre. As far as I can tell, the GameCube and Xbox have each about two or three good or better FPS games. If it were 1992, many would be better than they are. If you get my point.
What I'm really trying to say, is that 3D hasn't been around long enough for games to mature, become better than they currently are. When developers finally stop copycating each other, and focusing on graphics alone, perhaps then games will start to become universally better. I got Ratchet and Clank today, and it's exactly the same as all that's come before it. It's a perfectly good game, but all reviews and such only say it's amazing because it doesn't do anything wrong.
That's the problem with games now - they don't strive to be something special, but something which makes the most money but isn't frowned upon. Their goal isn't to be amazing, but to be satisfactory. Ratchet and Clank doesn't have anything wrong with it, but it ain't exactly anything special.
This is where I think gaming has reached its peak. There's only so much that can be done in terms of gameplay before the next big breakthrough. At the pinnacle of two dimensional gameplay, everything started becoming the same - genres started merging, but overall it meant better games. At the moment, things are both drastically different but becoming the same.
I'm not really sure what'll end up happening. When developers reach the pinnacle of graphical capabilities, I think gameplay will be more of the focus than graphics. But until then, we'll be left with mainly substandard games with a few shining examples. However, when the gameplay peak does get reached it means that one genre will stand out more than others, kind of like in the 2D age.
The number of genres available now is staggering, but I think when gameplay limits are reached they will become fewer but more frequent. We'll get more games in common with Halo and fewer in common with Mad Dash Racing. Crap games which try to create a genre in itself, such as Nezmix (aweful, aweful, aweful) will just not be there in the first place.
The main thing I'm trying to stress here is that gaming is in a period of transition. The quality of games overall is quite low, but that's because they're so diverse. Each time developers try something new, they're starting from scratch. The moral is not to learn something new, but expand on existing skills. It's like Mario trying to take up hoverboarding for the sake of making a new genre, rather than sticking with plumbing and jumping.
People complain too much about the current state of gaming and fail to see the facts - games haven't reached their peak yet. Sure, many may fail to live up to expectations, but the majority of these expectations hark from an age where we were given constantly great games. An age where developers were experienced, right at the top of the ladder. If given the chance to mature a bit, I'm sure 3D games will end up just as brilliant as their two dimensional counterparts. And I'm not saying that having plenty of genres is a poor thing, because essentially it's not. I would, however, much prefer to play a brilliant Nintendo platformer than a new effort to create, say, a shelf-sorting sim which they made for the sake of 'originality'. Oh well. Games are changing; developers are exploring different avenues of innovation, but in the end it will all end up with a tonne of great games, some perhaps similar, but much fewer poor efforts.
You can say I'm stating the obvious, but the early nineties were dominated with platforming games. From Mario to Metroid, the words side scrolling encompassed many genres, including platforming, adventure, RPG and shooting. It was great, but limited. 3D meant that first person games couldn't really be made, so everything was kind of rolled into one. I'm not complaining, because I loved the games. Mario, Keen, Metroid, Sonic... I loved them all. But the melding of many genres meant that games were similar, and many refined. It resulted in absolutely brilliant specimens of gaming masterclass.
Today though, 3D has given the opportunity for way to too many genres which are radically different from each other. Developers try to make something unique by going off at a tangent. Metroid is as far akin to Mario as possible, despite them being incredibly similar ten years ago. Some would say it is great, because it means there is more diversity in gaming. But to me, it means that games are overall not as good. If a developer made a shooting game and a platform game now, s/he'd have to use different skills for each. But back in the day, since they were kind of the same (what with platforms and enemies and aye carumba my friends...) it meant skills could be collaborated. If developers just kept to basics, then they'd end up with a much better product. Kind of like what happened with the cross-genre genre (side scrollers) in the early 90's.
What I mean is that there aren't very many games of each genre. As far as I can tell, the GameCube and Xbox have each about two or three good or better FPS games. If it were 1992, many would be better than they are. If you get my point.
What I'm really trying to say, is that 3D hasn't been around long enough for games to mature, become better than they currently are. When developers finally stop copycating each other, and focusing on graphics alone, perhaps then games will start to become universally better. I got Ratchet and Clank today, and it's exactly the same as all that's come before it. It's a perfectly good game, but all reviews and such only say it's amazing because it doesn't do anything wrong.
That's the problem with games now - they don't strive to be something special, but something which makes the most money but isn't frowned upon. Their goal isn't to be amazing, but to be satisfactory. Ratchet and Clank doesn't have anything wrong with it, but it ain't exactly anything special.
This is where I think gaming has reached its peak. There's only so much that can be done in terms of gameplay before the next big breakthrough. At the pinnacle of two dimensional gameplay, everything started becoming the same - genres started merging, but overall it meant better games. At the moment, things are both drastically different but becoming the same.
I'm not really sure what'll end up happening. When developers reach the pinnacle of graphical capabilities, I think gameplay will be more of the focus than graphics. But until then, we'll be left with mainly substandard games with a few shining examples. However, when the gameplay peak does get reached it means that one genre will stand out more than others, kind of like in the 2D age.
The number of genres available now is staggering, but I think when gameplay limits are reached they will become fewer but more frequent. We'll get more games in common with Halo and fewer in common with Mad Dash Racing. Crap games which try to create a genre in itself, such as Nezmix (aweful, aweful, aweful) will just not be there in the first place.
The main thing I'm trying to stress here is that gaming is in a period of transition. The quality of games overall is quite low, but that's because they're so diverse. Each time developers try something new, they're starting from scratch. The moral is not to learn something new, but expand on existing skills. It's like Mario trying to take up hoverboarding for the sake of making a new genre, rather than sticking with plumbing and jumping.
People complain too much about the current state of gaming and fail to see the facts - games haven't reached their peak yet. Sure, many may fail to live up to expectations, but the majority of these expectations hark from an age where we were given constantly great games. An age where developers were experienced, right at the top of the ladder. If given the chance to mature a bit, I'm sure 3D games will end up just as brilliant as their two dimensional counterparts. And I'm not saying that having plenty of genres is a poor thing, because essentially it's not. I would, however, much prefer to play a brilliant Nintendo platformer than a new effort to create, say, a shelf-sorting sim which they made for the sake of 'originality'. Oh well. Games are changing; developers are exploring different avenues of innovation, but in the end it will all end up with a tonne of great games, some perhaps similar, but much fewer poor efforts.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
The year - 1992. The consoles - Super Nintendo and Mega Drive. Genre of choice - 2D platform.
You can say I'm stating the obvious, but the early nineties were dominated with platforming games. From Mario to Metroid, the words side scrolling encompassed many genres, including platforming, adventure, RPG and shooting. It was great, but limited. 3D meant that first person games couldn't really be made, so everything was kind of rolled into one. I'm not complaining, because I loved the games. Mario, Keen, Metroid, Sonic... I loved them all. But the melding of many genres meant that games were similar, and many refined. It resulted in absolutely brilliant specimens of gaming masterclass.
Today though, 3D has given the opportunity for way to too many genres which are radically different from each other. Developers try to make something unique by going off at a tangent. Metroid is as far akin to Mario as possible, despite them being incredibly similar ten years ago. Some would say it is great, because it means there is more diversity in gaming. But to me, it means that games are overall not as good. If a developer made a shooting game and a platform game now, s/he'd have to use different skills for each. But back in the day, since they were kind of the same (what with platforms and enemies and aye carumba my friends...) it meant skills could be collaborated. If developers just kept to basics, then they'd end up with a much better product. Kind of like what happened with the cross-genre genre (side scrollers) in the early 90's.
What I mean is that there aren't very many games of each genre. As far as I can tell, the GameCube and Xbox have each about two or three good or better FPS games. If it were 1992, many would be better than they are. If you get my point.
What I'm really trying to say, is that 3D hasn't been around long enough for games to mature, become better than they currently are. When developers finally stop copycating each other, and focusing on graphics alone, perhaps then games will start to become universally better. I got Ratchet and Clank today, and it's exactly the same as all that's come before it. It's a perfectly good game, but all reviews and such only say it's amazing because it doesn't do anything wrong.
That's the problem with games now - they don't strive to be something special, but something which makes the most money but isn't frowned upon. Their goal isn't to be amazing, but to be satisfactory. Ratchet and Clank doesn't have anything wrong with it, but it ain't exactly anything special.
This is where I think gaming has reached its peak. There's only so much that can be done in terms of gameplay before the next big breakthrough. At the pinnacle of two dimensional gameplay, everything started becoming the same - genres started merging, but overall it meant better games. At the moment, things are both drastically different but becoming the same.
I'm not really sure what'll end up happening. When developers reach the pinnacle of graphical capabilities, I think gameplay will be more of the focus than graphics. But until then, we'll be left with mainly substandard games with a few shining examples. However, when the gameplay peak does get reached it means that one genre will stand out more than others, kind of like in the 2D age.
The number of genres available now is staggering, but I think when gameplay limits are reached they will become fewer but more frequent. We'll get more games in common with Halo and fewer in common with Mad Dash Racing. Crap games which try to create a genre in itself, such as Nezmix (aweful, aweful, aweful) will just not be there in the first place.
The main thing I'm trying to stress here is that gaming is in a period of transition. The quality of games overall is quite low, but that's because they're so diverse. Each time developers try something new, they're starting from scratch. The moral is not to learn something new, but expand on existing skills. It's like Mario trying to take up hoverboarding for the sake of making a new genre, rather than sticking with plumbing and jumping.
People complain too much about the current state of gaming and fail to see the facts - games haven't reached their peak yet. Sure, many may fail to live up to expectations, but the majority of these expectations hark from an age where we were given constantly great games. An age where developers were experienced, right at the top of the ladder. If given the chance to mature a bit, I'm sure 3D games will end up just as brilliant as their two dimensional counterparts. And I'm not saying that having plenty of genres is a poor thing, because essentially it's not. I would, however, much prefer to play a brilliant Nintendo platformer than a new effort to create, say, a shelf-sorting sim which they made for the sake of 'originality'. Oh well. Games are changing; developers are exploring different avenues of innovation, but in the end it will all end up with a tonne of great games, some perhaps similar, but much fewer poor efforts.
You can say I'm stating the obvious, but the early nineties were dominated with platforming games. From Mario to Metroid, the words side scrolling encompassed many genres, including platforming, adventure, RPG and shooting. It was great, but limited. 3D meant that first person games couldn't really be made, so everything was kind of rolled into one. I'm not complaining, because I loved the games. Mario, Keen, Metroid, Sonic... I loved them all. But the melding of many genres meant that games were similar, and many refined. It resulted in absolutely brilliant specimens of gaming masterclass.
Today though, 3D has given the opportunity for way to too many genres which are radically different from each other. Developers try to make something unique by going off at a tangent. Metroid is as far akin to Mario as possible, despite them being incredibly similar ten years ago. Some would say it is great, because it means there is more diversity in gaming. But to me, it means that games are overall not as good. If a developer made a shooting game and a platform game now, s/he'd have to use different skills for each. But back in the day, since they were kind of the same (what with platforms and enemies and aye carumba my friends...) it meant skills could be collaborated. If developers just kept to basics, then they'd end up with a much better product. Kind of like what happened with the cross-genre genre (side scrollers) in the early 90's.
What I mean is that there aren't very many games of each genre. As far as I can tell, the GameCube and Xbox have each about two or three good or better FPS games. If it were 1992, many would be better than they are. If you get my point.
What I'm really trying to say, is that 3D hasn't been around long enough for games to mature, become better than they currently are. When developers finally stop copycating each other, and focusing on graphics alone, perhaps then games will start to become universally better. I got Ratchet and Clank today, and it's exactly the same as all that's come before it. It's a perfectly good game, but all reviews and such only say it's amazing because it doesn't do anything wrong.
That's the problem with games now - they don't strive to be something special, but something which makes the most money but isn't frowned upon. Their goal isn't to be amazing, but to be satisfactory. Ratchet and Clank doesn't have anything wrong with it, but it ain't exactly anything special.
This is where I think gaming has reached its peak. There's only so much that can be done in terms of gameplay before the next big breakthrough. At the pinnacle of two dimensional gameplay, everything started becoming the same - genres started merging, but overall it meant better games. At the moment, things are both drastically different but becoming the same.
I'm not really sure what'll end up happening. When developers reach the pinnacle of graphical capabilities, I think gameplay will be more of the focus than graphics. But until then, we'll be left with mainly substandard games with a few shining examples. However, when the gameplay peak does get reached it means that one genre will stand out more than others, kind of like in the 2D age.
The number of genres available now is staggering, but I think when gameplay limits are reached they will become fewer but more frequent. We'll get more games in common with Halo and fewer in common with Mad Dash Racing. Crap games which try to create a genre in itself, such as Nezmix (aweful, aweful, aweful) will just not be there in the first place.
The main thing I'm trying to stress here is that gaming is in a period of transition. The quality of games overall is quite low, but that's because they're so diverse. Each time developers try something new, they're starting from scratch. The moral is not to learn something new, but expand on existing skills. It's like Mario trying to take up hoverboarding for the sake of making a new genre, rather than sticking with plumbing and jumping.
People complain too much about the current state of gaming and fail to see the facts - games haven't reached their peak yet. Sure, many may fail to live up to expectations, but the majority of these expectations hark from an age where we were given constantly great games. An age where developers were experienced, right at the top of the ladder. If given the chance to mature a bit, I'm sure 3D games will end up just as brilliant as their two dimensional counterparts. And I'm not saying that having plenty of genres is a poor thing, because essentially it's not. I would, however, much prefer to play a brilliant Nintendo platformer than a new effort to create, say, a shelf-sorting sim which they made for the sake of 'originality'. Oh well. Games are changing; developers are exploring different avenues of innovation, but in the end it will all end up with a tonne of great games, some perhaps similar, but much fewer poor efforts.