Joel: your new angry video game nerd in residence

Bafitis wrote:A few good games come out now and then, but the industry is nothing like it was in the 90s... People didn't care as much about getting rich off the games back then as they do today... They put quality behind their work...

That is a valid point and isn't a a sweeping statement. Game developers now say today that the industry is as big as the film industry and is making more money than it ever has. I suppose this would be attributed to the growth and evolution of console gaming which aims to attract a wider audience rather than connoisseur's such as ourselves. The best example of this is the Nintendo Wii and DS.

Back in the day, I had to work hard to convince my parents that a Nintendo was worth getting and that my school work wouldn't suffer. Now, the marketing and engineering of gaming is so effective, parents can identify elements of gaming that have educational and social development for the players through games which help exercise motor skills and language skills. Game developers, more than ever before, have taken a scatter gun approach to marketing to gamers of all ages.

The truth? It's worked - brilliantly.

Bafitis,

I would argue that just as many crap movies came out in the 80's and 90's as today. For every Robocop there was a Commando, a Rocky sequel, a Rambo sequel and a Chuck Norris film. Street Fighter was crap in the 90's, and it's still crap, so the film industry didn't really learn much.

In regards to games, just remember this. They made a Home Improvement game, based on the tv show. It was a side scrolling game where Tim the toolman Tayler used his trusty staplegun to fight dinosaurs. Why did they make this game? Home Improvement was a great show, side scrollers were all the rage, and boom! The $#it flew right onto the shelf!

It doesn't matter whether you're talking about the 90's or today, just as many crap games came out then as they do now. Remember, for every Tex Murphy game there is a Night Trap, Fox Hunt, Plumbers Don't Wear Ties, X-Files, The 7th Guest (I admit it's arguable how horrible this game is. I argue very horrible.) and dozens more FMV based adventure type games I haven't even mentioned.

I do agree about the red tape thing, though not because people are afraid of quality. It's the money. A large budget is required to make a great game, but this means there's less room to experiment. The best example of this is looking at the PS1 to the PS2 to the PS3. On the PS1 japanese role playing games piled on fast and hard, with everything from standard party battle to the introduction of tactics rpgs. The PS2 was still relatively inexpensive to design for and you got strange rpg's like Breath of Fire V (you'll die if walk around too much, use your dragon powers too much, and then when you restart you'll unlock new cinemas for your second playthrough), or Unlimited Saga.

I don't really know the story behind Gray Matter, or I don't remember the story behind it, but I doubt anything holding it back is a fear of quality. The reason I say this is a quick wiki search tells me the designer is some woman named Jane Jensen. She's attached to a whole bunch of adventure games that I've never played. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that a lot of people haven't played these games.

I think I also implied commentary on why there's no new Tex game either in that last paragraph.

I should mention here that those adventure games you just mentioned a lot of people haven't played, is well-known to people who do play adventure games in general.

What you just said, in film terms, is that a lot of people haven't seen films by some guy named Quentin Tarantino. Which is true, many people have not seen his films. But to people who love movies, Quentin Tarantino is a well-known director and his films are generally praised.

I'm not implying that Jane Jensen is the Tarantino of adventure games. I'm just using it as a simile. Or whatever the term is for when two things are not the same but they are still the same in one important way.

We are the aging gamer generation. We were the ones who wrote down passwords to NES games, who stayed inside on sunny days to see Purple Tentacle foiled. We know about how Project Bluebook became Project Blueprint.

Still... And this kind of pains me to say, the PC is losing as a gaming platform. Consoles are winning, and games that do not push limits or stay out in front of the pack, well... they get left behind.

The reason the PC was the best platform for adventure games back in the day was because the PC was the best platform period. Consoles couldn't hold a candle to a computer. These days though, it's starting to look the other way around. Hell, I'll go you one better - It IS the other way around.

The only games left for the PC these days is RTS games, as they translate poorly to consoles.

Consoles are, I'm afraid to say, the way of the future.

-Fred

And X-Files made for a terrible FMV game. I'd rather cut out the game portion and just watch the FMV.

I disagree, the problem with the game is that it has a story that ends up forking you around even up until the last second of the game. The gameplay however is actually pretty damn solid and if you take the time to play it properly you'll see it actually surpases Tex Murphy in its ability to produce a non-linear story- there is quite a lot you can actually do in that game. If anything I feel X Files was an overly ambitious title that shot itself in the foot by relying too heavily on an established IP, the result is that the fans hated it and the story itself is completely disjointed.

Its the gameplay that I feel sets it apart from most adventure games, not many are so daring to actually allow you to interact in the way they've done- it goes beyond what Tex Murphy did with its inventory management in actually allowing you to use items in the game world and see their concequences- whereas Tex Murphy was more it either worked on Tex said "that's not going to work" whereas the X files made it possible for you to use every item at any point in the game and get pretty interesting results.

I think people are definately too harsh on the game due to it being an Xfiles game- and suffice to say none of the Xfiles games have been any good- but at least this had some similairities to the show and its a guilty pleasure of mine to play. The reason I pitched the idea to my employers is because it was an example that seemed perfect, creating an Adventure game based on a popular TV show (which was our client)- the Gammastura article explains a lot more about the Xfiles game and how it succeeded but also how it failed. Its really NOT that bad if you give it the chance- and the acting is at least acceptable- but the writing can be very nonsensical at times.

That said though, tex will always be a much better written, acted and executed game series in the end.

With Bioware, Obsidan and Bethesda

all three of these companies have produced shooter hybrids- the only one that's actually produced a specific RPG game is Bioware and that was Dragon Age.. and that was ok... but felt too much like an MMORPG at times- it was lacking a lot of the sense in progression that most RPGs usually would have- I blame that on the level scaling. The focus on most modern RPG games is to always associate them with another genre to cover up the fact that they're an RPG- Deus Ex and System Shock invented this initially- but did it in a way that was basically saying "here's the best of both worlds"- System Shock 2 I felt had the best balance, Deus Ex was a bit of a troublesome design- many RPG redundancies occur- which System Shock 2 avoided perfectly.. however System Shock 2 is VERY linear- versus Deus Ex which is non-linear.. Both a brilliant and likely will never be matched.

At the moment though I feel the RPG side is being lowered in favor of the actiony FPS or Shooter elements- and its going to get worse before it gets better. Though this is the same fear people were having back when Carmack and Romero released Doom- only now its become a flooded market as a result of their success.

All I'm trying to say is I'd like at least someone to try and challenge what the industry is doing right now. This is why its safe to say that the future of our industry rests in the hands of indies alone- they're the only developers prepared to take any risks- don't expect anything really revolutionary from the bigger developers- they're too safe for my liking because now they listen to a bunch of Shareholders and CEOs that have no idea what games are about.

I can however be satisfied that at least Sid Meire and Warren Spector are out there pushing the boundaries- Civ5 is still very unique compared to other products on the market, Warren Spector's new Epic Mickey game sounds something raddically different from the average platformer (almost a return to the days of Banjo Kazooie and Donkey Kong in some respects in its uniqueness.)

The biggest concern I have at the moment is that every damn game coming out looks the exact same, same gameplay, same gimicks. I'm a bit fed up really, its been like 6 years since these trends started up.. can we move onto something new now?

mr_cyberpunk wrote: The biggest concern I have at the moment is that every damn game coming out looks the exact same, same gameplay, same gimicks. I'm a bit fed up really, its been like 6 years since these trends started up.. can we move onto something new now?

That's exactly how I feel. Whenever I see a commercial for a new game either online or on TV, the screenshots and video clips look the same for all the games. Sure they change the clothes and make the creatures look different but the action all looks the same.

I saw a video a while back about... some game or other. And the guy actually said:

"It's got all the standards expected of a modern third person game - auto-regenerating health system, a cover-system, and..." blah-blah-blah...

As if any of these things were GOOD things. Yeah, once maybe, but if EVERY film was directed by Uwe Boll, no matter who wrote the damn script - the films will all be exactly the same. It's a different story told the exact same way. Every time.

Please save us, Chris & Aaron, you're our only hope! Please save us, Chris & Aaron, you're our only hope! Please save us, Chris & Aaron... <static>

-Fred

The gameplay in The X-Files was the good part? I thought it was just search through the pixels for what the game expected you to find. I gave it a chance and then ending up just pressing the hint button to get through most of the game because I really stopped caring. And that was back when I had patience.

As for games being made to mimic previous gameplay types, X-Files is still one of them. The slideshow, point and click adventure game was hardly new when X-Files came out. I actually bought it because it was an X-Files game, as I loved the show, so the IP didn't ruin it in my book.

I do agree that it's the Indie development that's going to be the group that brings in the new stuff. Indie developers have more room to experiment, and that's where we get games like Braid or World of Goo or Casebook (even though Casebook to me has the same issues as X-Files). Nintendo is the epitome of re-releases this E3, though. I'd really like them to start a new franchise, but they seem pretty happy making the same game over and over again.

And I agree Dragon Age was kinda boring. It was a nice try, but the combat grew stale and the level advancement wasn't very appealing.

I gave it a chance and then ending up just pressing the hint button to get through most of the game because I really stopped caring. And that was back when I had patience.

Ah now I see why you disliked it, yeah I had a similar experience on my first impression of the game- but eventually when I decided "no this time I'm actually going to play it properly" a lot of the non-linearity came out and started to show itself. If you essentially did that you'd only be seeing the shiny FMVs and totally missing the point of the game. It would be like if you played pandora directive and just relied entirely on the cheat menu to finish the game- that's not fun and it won't show you everything the game has to offer.. its the very same thing with this game. Granted that the story in Xfiles game is poorly written and the result is that its not very easy to maintain interest.

I thought it was just search through the pixels for what the game expected you to find

where it worked its best was in the character interactions, but for the most part you were pixel hunting.. still even Tex Murphy does this- I wouldn't be so harsh of it if I were you as its a very similar concept. Xfiles is one of those games where I could say its not the best, but its not terrible- the clients we were pitching to didn't want a AAA title, they just wanted something different that's why it felt appropriate- granted I probably would have fixed a lot of the issues and complaints people had with its inital design, there were clearly problems yes and even the post-mortem pointed them out- but as a game I think its successful even if it is lacking.

The slideshow, point and click adventure game was hardly new when X-Files came out.

As true as this may be it wasn't anywhere near as over saturated and flooded as what the FPS market was at the time.. or as it even is now. Instead at the time I would have thought it a Niche- unfrotunately yeah I can see why the clients we had may have wanted something a bit more mass market, however in my experience mass market games that exist in an already flooded market usually fail.. and I'm surprised that consumers these days are so guillable to buy the same god damn bejewled game over and over again. This was my way in trying to do something different. Either way no solution was good for the client and has been abandoned.

I just want to point out that my rants are coming from myself as a person still trying to learn and understand the industry as it presently exists.

Cyberpunk, even if I disagree with your rants entirely, I encourage them to the fullest. The industry cannot properly be discussed if everyone agreed on everything. Although I make no promises in regards to going back and playing X-Files the way it was meant to. At least for now.

Mr Cyberpunk makes several good points . . . but blaming the decline of modern "Art" on unfettered capitalism doesn't make sense to me. I'm not aware of any interesting "art" coming out of socialist countries unless it's underground anti-government stuff (I should know since 3/4 of my relatives live in a socialist country).

Truth is, most of the "Art" Mr Cyberpunk rightfully despises is created by socialist-types who themselves despise capitalism but have no issue profiting from it. (Think Avatar.)

So what's the answer to all the crap that's coming out?

Uh . . . capitalism. Don't buy it and it'll go away. It'll take awhile but nothing kills bad art like bad sales. (As we speak the music industry is on life support.)

And no, not everything that comes out is crap. It just take longer these days to wade through the crap to find the good stuff. It's out there, though.

I just want to point out that if I were a total and complete socialist I'd be a hypocrite (as its capitalism that allows me to even survive). No what I'm saying is not complete socialism is the way to another cultural "renassiance" rather a scaling down of the hypercaptialism that exists and focusing on smaller scale economics (ie. Indies).

I beleive that quality works should be rewarded with profit and prosperity.. I don't feel that monoplies should be and I certain don't think that mass produced throw away culture is going to progress the human race in any way shape or form.

Unfortunately I also blame society for putting us in a position where this is seen as acceptable, where simplest and cheap are now the crowning accomplishments of industry instead of quality, honesty, detail and longevity- the core values of classic capitalism and even fine art.

I'm an old fashioned mind- and its so strange because I was always educated in the NEW ways, its more a case that I've seen what impact this has had and I've been told stories of the old ways that just seem so much more ideal compared to what we have today (it was more competitive and everyone was in a position where they could profit... corporation however lead to elitism and excluding everyone from being able to earn an honest living.)

The problem I have with "art" in today's society is that the motive behind it is no longer "how grand can I make this image or scultpure or building" but rather "how can I do this with the least amount of input"- Art has become an industry otherwise known as creative industry and its suffering from the exact same problems as everything else. Art has infact become throw away whereas before it was about creating something that would stand the test of time. Apply that to video games as well, even in today's industry they're still mimicking older designs- why? because they were designed with the idea that they would be remembered for a very long time.. today's games will be forgotten in an instant and have been forgotten as quickly as they have been released.

Cyberpunk, even if I disagree with your rants entirely, I encourage them to the fullest.

Thankyou, that means a lot to me. I don't get that very often in the gaming circles I frequent, and its quite refreshing. This is why the community here is so awesome to talk to.

Normally I don't like the Wii, but looking at previews for upcoming games I have to say that Lost in Shadow looks interesting. It's a platformer game in which you control a shadow of a person who can only interact with the shadows of the objects and platforms. At the same time you also control some sort of faerie like creature who can interact with some of the actual objects in order to move around the shadows.

Then there's Bodycount. It looked like it would be a fun, over the top shooter. Then I watched the developer talk about the game while playing through a short piece of level. He spent several minutes talking about the targeting reticle. He talked about how your aim gets worse as you move or as you shoot, and how the reticle restores it's accuracy when you stop or crouch. These things have been around since what...Half Life 2? Earlier? It's not like I'm asking a shooter game to raise the bar, but hell, you can at least nudge it. Or look at it and realize what people have already done for the past decade and not pretend that it's new cause your game is so shallow you have nothing to say about it.

Half Life 1 actually (it had recoil mostly, but not movement effecting your aim.)

Or look at it and realize what people have already done for the past decade and not pretend that it's new cause your game is so shallow you have nothing to say about it.

I completely agree. Its great when they can acknowledge that there were innovations done, they worked and were great, but reselling them as new ideas is just so fucked up- can't we all just go and say that the ideas worked, and now lets build on them/surpase them and even to another extent invent new ones.

But no the industry is very much "OMFG SHINY AND NEW" as I said, those titles are forgotten faster than they are released.