Slashdot Mirror
Genre Wars — the Downside of the RPG Takeover
Phaethon360 writes "From Bioshock and Modern Warfare 2 to even Team Fortress 2, RPG elements are creeping into game genres that we never imagined they would. This change for the most part has managed to subtly improve upon genres that needed new life, but there's a cost that hasn't been tallied by the majority of game developers. 'The simple act of removing mod tools, along with the much discussed dedicated server issue, has made [MW2] a bit of a joke among competitive players. Gone are the days of "promod," and the only option you have is to play it their way. If Infinity Ward are so insistent on improving the variety of our experiences, they don’t have to do it at the expense of the experience that many of us already love. It really is that simple. If they don’t want to provide a good "back to basics experience," they could at least continue to provide the tools that allow us to do that for ourselves.'"
I must admit I rarely play these games but I thought all of them had Rocket Propelled Grenades in them since Doom?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
It's just one long rambling whine without a lot of substance. The author is crying because they aren't making games exactly the way he wants them now.
The only thing I got from it was "no mod tools == bad". Other than that, no.
The removal of Mod Tools in MW2 has nothing to do with any RPG elements. It is completely feasible for RPGs to have mods, and indeed many popular RPGs have some of the most impressive mods. Also, the summary mentions Bioshock, but that games was a 'spiritual successor' to System shock 1 & 2, and Bioshock actually was LESS of an RPG than those.
I can understand the complaint about RPG elements (in simple form) creeping into other genres, but a similar problem is faced by RPGs; they are being diluted by other genres. Look at something like Fallout 3 for an example. I'd argue that the bigger problem is that ALL game series seem to eventually slowly turn into first person shooters with light rpg elements. It's a lowest common denominator style of gameplay that is pulling in games from all directions.
Someone blogged about some things he doesn't like and made the front page of slashdot.
Basically, more games have character progression in them where you improve your character and/or equipment while playing and he thinks this is a bad idea for competitive multiplayer games.
But it's the only chance a lot of people would have (thus broadening their market)...
http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/11/awesome-by-proxy-addicted-to-fake.html
I think there are two distinct issues highlighted in the story, which don't necessarily have a particularly strong connection.
The first is the creep of RPG elements into other genres. I've certainly noticed this myself, and there are a few obvious manifestations. The most obvious is the idea that the player should get more powerful over the course of the game, and that said power should not be subject to resets. If you look at a traditional shoot-em-up, the player picks up new weapons as he plays through the game, but once he gets shot and loses a life, he's generally back to the pea-shooter he started the game with. This model is now almost dead, at least in its pure form. If you look at any recent action game - Bayonetta, for example - some items (such as health potions and the disposable weapons) may be temporary, but as the player gets further into the game, they accumulate persistent upgrades, such as a longer health bar, more special moves and better weapons. In fact, a lot of games give players who have already beaten them the option of starting over, while carrying over their upgrades from previous cycles.
So why has this happened? I think the gaming industry has realised that, now that gaming is primarily an activity that takes place in the home rather than in arcades, people do not like excessive penalties for failure. Allowing a power-curve in games is pretty much established in most genres these days, but resetting that curve whenever a player makes a mistake results in people switching off the console - and loses future sales for games in that series. There are still a few titles that hold out - Mario, in particular, which even still preserves the obsolete concept of "lives" in some installments - but they increasingly look like antiquated oddities. We always seem to get a few odd cases here on slashdot who like to post on threads about MMOs saying "they'd be more fun if they had permadeath", but it's interesting that commercial MMO operators, who have to put their money where their mouth is, have never seen fit to pursue this. I think they know what they're doing.
The second issue is around the restriction of modding, which I don't really see as being at all related to the spread of RPG elements. After all, RPGs are historically highly moddable, from their roots in the pen and paper market onwards. The Neverwinter Nights games were heavily marketed with their modability as a key selling point. However, there does seem to be a trend towards restriction of modding in some genres, including fpses. I think there are two drivers for this. The first, simply put, is a "hot coffee" reaction. As certain countries (eg. Germany and Australia) adopt wildly restrictive attitudes towards video game content, developers are naturally more paranoid about being criticised (or sued) for game content that was actually added or unlocked by a third party mod. The other cause is the desire to deliver a more consistent experience.
I think this stems from the console market. Consoles have many disadvantages compared to the PC as platforms for multiplayer gaming, but they do have a big advantage; consistency of hardware. While there will still be imbalances due to connection quality, the hardware is the same in every case, so there are fewer non-skill-related variables invovled in gaming. In some ways, this actually makes the game more suitable for serious competition. There may be another factor related to something I remember relating to Quake 3; graphical "vandalism". I remember how when Quake 3 had its brief honeymoon with the gaming community (before being buried by Counter-Strike), almost all high level players (and most of the wannabes) played with graphical details that made the game look more like Carrier Command than a modern fps. I remember reading that ID weren't happy about how their game was being shown off, and that this fed into the more restrictive graphical options within Quake 3.
What does adding RPG elements have to do with removing tools for modding a game? That's right, nothing.
Or Defrag.
Nothing to optimize on something that is perfect.
Defrag in perfection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2hpaKphOtI
CPMA in perfection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4zEge_iWPk
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I didn't see anything in there that was actually a cause-effect relationship between the "RPG elements" and taking away from the games.
Personally, I love the blending of genres. Now we get games like Mass Effect which combine action similar to Gears of War with a real RPG feel.
Surely Bioshock should count as RPG elements creeping out of the game, rather than into it? Compare it to System Shock 2, which it is supposedly a "spiritual successor" to. Which has lots more RPG elements? Its the one more convincing and compelling story.
... Shock 2?
[Grumpy rant]
Every time I play bioshock, even when I force myself, I get bored with it and eventually give up. Maybe its just me, and I'm well aware of all the people that go on about how great it is, but it never felt compelling, and things like pretty unbelievable characters (that artist who froze people sticks in my mind), and the freakin cheap cop out of little sisters leaving teddy bears for you usually quickly ruin the immersion (and fun) for me. I still play Shock 2 however, even though I know the location of every scare.
Ah damn, does the immenant release of Bioshock 2 mean I'll have to stop referring to Shock 2 as
[/Grumpy rant]
Why? I mean you have some competitions like 100m dash where you only measure one thing, but take a sport like soccer. You want 11 different people with different proficiency at dribbling, passing, scoring, tackling, interception and goalkeeping based on speed, strength and skill. Of course you won't find any poorly trained people, nor will you find teams that are all attack or all defense, but they don't end up as opposite blueprints in one min-maxed combination either. The nerfing and new gear is quite like what happens as some people gain skills, some age and lose skills, some retire, some rookies come in and you have to replan to get the most out of your team. Or for that matter, compare it to a troop of marines if you will. It's actually way more "real life" than playing a game that never changes.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
BS.
The author is bemoaning the fact that games currently suck. The fundamental problem is that they are serving the largest market, and as the market has become more mainstream, the average IQ of the average player has gone down. Computer games used to be the preserve of geeks, or other intellectual types willing to do something as non-jocky as play on a computer. Now, every dolt with a dim sense of consciousness is playing Halo, and their dollars are voting smart gamers out of the picture.
Games like XCom, Syndicate and System Shock will not be made any more, because there's too much money to be made serving Mr. Averagely Average.
Today, a game like System Shock would fail because I doubt even 20% of the current market would have the cerebrum to get through the first 2 levels, let alone have a chance of finishing it.
Furthermore, as game houses become more and more commercial in their decision making, risk taking and breaking the mold becomes less attractive. Why risk development funds on a mold breaking game when you can get instant cash by cranking out another FPS based on the current generation 3D engine?
Consoles are dumbing games down even more, with their painfully limited means of interacting. I liked it better in the old days when game developers had to take risks in order to keep their market interested. Being a "Doom clone" back then was a stigma. Nowadays, being just another FPS is quite honorable if you have bump sketching unobtanium enabled shading 3 days before the next game with it comes out.
Yes, I'm being an elitist snob. Yes I know you're about to mod me down. No I don't care, as long as you get off my lawn while I play 15 year old games in dosbox.
I hate printers.
Can be stop complaining about the dedicated server thing? Honestly, I think IW just wanted to make a console game and didn't want to put the effort into a PC release. Plain and simple, no conspiracy. Inspite of the issues with glitching, I've had a great deal of fun playing MW2 on my 360 as I'm sure PS3 owners have as well.
Players already have different abilities (for example I'm no good with sniper rifles but my grenades claim many victims), no need to throw some arbitrary restrictions on there by preventing players from using the same tools.
Besides, this isn't levelling into specific directions, this is merely unlocking new options. There's no specialization happening because a high level player has all the gear to fit any role he wants while a low level player cannot specialize on certain tasks because he's missing the tools.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I don't understand at all how the summary is related to the headline. What do RPG elements have to do with that? I would presume that RPG influences in a game don't stop anyone from making a mod for it? That clearly can't have been the reason why infinity ward did what they have done.
More importantly because they want to sell us DLC without competition. Not that that's a real reason for removing dedicated servers (and neither is console gaming) since Section 8 has dedicated servers, DLC and a console version.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
There were plenty of games back in the day that didn't have mod tools available for them. They got modded anyway by inventive programmers. It'll happen with MW2 soon enough.
I wonder how "unauthorized" modding of a AAA title will stand up in the modern era.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
There is an easy way to remove all RPG elements - use cheats.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
IMHO, RPGs, are the most time consuming type of game you can play and serve primarily to feed the the player's obsessive-compulsive instincts for very little, if any, tangible benefit. You basically run around behaving repetitively & collecting as much virtual crap as you can. Your reward is "experience" which can only be taken advantage of with further gameplay. I find the crack analogies to be very compelling.
It's no wonder that game companies want to extend the model to other game genres. They want you to keep playing & paying.
Granted, many games cater to your inner, OCD afflicted hunter-gatherer but few genres keep you on the hook as purposefully and for as long as a RPG will.
The RPGificataion of the COD series started with the addition of "Perks" & levels. I found this to be immediately detrimental to the game. The number of custom servers was reduced dramatically. Few people wanted to run an 'un-ranked' server despite the fact that all the serious players would rank up in a few weeks, after which time experience was essentially meaningless.
This led to thousands of generic servers with more or less the same set of rules and levels.
Yet players clung on, even ranking up all over again for the ridiculous "prestige" levels. The erosion of gameplay had begun, it's now less about the game play and more about collecting meaningless, virtual experience points.
Now throw in the massive growth of consoles and you can see where this is going.
Millions of lemmings competing for bragging rights over virtual perks. No thanks.
I will even go so far as to say this is bad for IT.
I got into this field because of video games. I learned a lot about computers & networks because games, the modification of games, the modification of hardware to make the games run, (and yes, even the obtaining of games for free from dubious sources), were a big incentive for me to figure out out the damn things worked. I wonder what kind of incentive the average young X-Box owner has.
Maybe I misremember System Shock. I know I remember playing it a lot and enjoying it very much.
But how different are games like Mass Effect? Have you played Eve Online? To the people who play Eve Online regularly, System Shock might as well be Bejeweled. There's quite a bit more "cerebrum" required in that game, I'd wager.
It sounds like you haven't played a game since 1996. That's OK. You're just rusty and cranky. Don't be afraid to get back on the bike, but be ready to be humbled by the "cerebrum" of a 15 year old CEO of an Eve corp who teaches you a thing or two..
You are welcome on my lawn.
Actually, the author said none of those things. He made vague whines about games, and you just substituted in everything you personally hate about games.
If Infinity Ward are so insistent on improving the variety of our experiences, they don't have to do it at the expense of the experience that many of us already love.
With the game almost having made 1 billion dollars, it seems they can pretty much do anything they want: The people will buy it anyways.
For myself, I've decided to boycot the game as I don't agree with dedicated servers, and absence of player-created content. I wish only more people would actually hold to their (announced) boycot...
As for the RPG elements (which I think is an improvement in some FPS games), I think this mainly has to do with creating the same 'addictive' elements that MMORPGs have: As long as you keep dangling that carrot in front of the players, they'll keep playing.
When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
Could this be why EVE Online is a complete niche game with a very limited audience compared to your regular trash console FPS title with a lifespan of 4 weeks?
Modern Warfare 2 does not have dedicated servers. It will never have dedicated servers.
Modern Warfare 2 does not have official mod tools. It will never have official mod tools.
Modern Warfare 2 has made, so far, over $1 Billion in revenue. That is roughly $800 Million over it's production budget.
Please, kindly, STFU and GTFO. This debate is over.
You haven't added anything interesting to the discussion by noting FPSs have added leveling up to the multiplayer experience.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
"RPG elements are creeping into game genres that we never imagined they would" - I really hope the such elements won't creep into my F1 simulator.
RPG and pro-Gamming or e-Sport can work togueter. There are lots of examples, from DoTA, WoW Arena (and games with "WoW Arenas" design, maybe not wow itself because is a RPG design for PVE).
Adding RPG to a FPS don't ruin pro-gamming. MW2: P2P networking and the un-ability to manage a game to be fair does.
-Woof woof woof!
Vote with your wallet.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
You must be one of those guys who pre-ordered Duke Nukem Forever, right?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I'm more bothered by FPS elements creeping into RPGs. Prime offender in my eyes was Oblivion, which required far too much in the way of twitch-shooter ability to play to be any fun at all - I still haven't tried Mass Effect (bought, but yet unplayed) or Fallout 3 to see if either of these titles as more playable for me.
Not saying everything has to be turn-based - although it's still very much my preference, NWN-style "close to real-time but pausable" works, as does anything with time limits, action points etc (some Final Fantasy turn-based variations, Eternal Sonata, etc). Anything where the *character's* ability to hit things is determined by *my* dexterity with the right thumb stick, in an FPS style, is a complete non-starter for me, though.
Removing of Mod Tools is all about controlling shelf-life for games and monopolising the market for extensions/enhancements for those game.
It's all a business decision - outside MMOs, the current way that Game Producers (want to) do business is:
In that sense, user mods are "bad for business" since they:
Games having more RPG elements does relate to the decision of removing Mod Tools in the sense that for RPGs the enjoyement of the game is also related to it's content (as in, zones to explore, items to collect, monsters to fight and levels/abilities to unlock), and thus:
So I do agree with the TFA that no Mod Tools and more RPG elements are correlated, although maybe not in the way they see it.
Which isn't exactly a shallow argument. It basically takes games from being a platform for fun and tries to turn them into a short-lived money maker. Same price as they were before, but severely curtailed replay value so you have to pay for the next version instead of just making a mod.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I wonder how "unauthorized" modding of a AAA title will stand up in the modern era.
Google bnetd to see how it will stand up.
One positive, though I miss visiting regular servers, is that you don't log into some new server only to find all these arbitrary limitations on what equipment you can use. (No martyrdom here pal, oh and no "noob tube", oh and if you kill us with anything else we'll ban that too...)
...then go back to CoD4. Hell, that's what Joel Gardiner did IRL...if it's good enough for the cueball it's good enough for anyone, I say.
Living With a Nerd
RPG elements are creeping into game genres that we never imagined they would
No they're not. Games like Deus Ex, like System Shock and System Shock 2 had RPG elements - games that were truly a clever blend of genres that worked perfectly. Shooting action along with a bit of thought too.
The dumbing down started with consoles and Deus Ex 2. It was completed in BioShock. Awesome graphics, great atmosphere, an interesting story, but hardly any RPG elements to speak of. Any trace of RPG elements in (non-RPG) games these days are so watered down that they just dilute the fun of the shooter, rather than adding any element of challenge of their own.
Especially if it has a few buzzwords thrown in. Blah Blah Blah MW2 Blah. This really is a troll article. And the author makes no sense. RPG = no modding. Its not just misinformed, its in incapability to communicate by the author. He is bugged by something, but doesnt have the right terms or background apparently to actually say what he really means. Let me help a little: no modding = no modding.
How do we vote articles like this off the site?
Oh nevermind. His page was just suspended. LOL
The team behind "Duke Nukem Forever" must really love the game..
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mvPHd6yLON8J:www.couchcampus.com/lecture/genre-wars-downside-of-the-rpg-takeover/+http://www.couchcampus.com/lecture/genre-wars-downside-of-the-rpg-takeover/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&
the other one says the guy had his account suspended.
stephen
You can have all the RPG elements you like and still have a moddable game with dedicated servers. Making that claim and including TF2 on the list makes it sound like the author did little or no research.
No he's whining that it's not possible to teak the games that are not made exactly the way he wants them until they are the games that he wants. You can't take a game that is close to what you want, mod it so it is, and then run a dedicated server with your version to play against other people. Basically, he's saying exactly the same thing that some guy called Richard said about printer drivers in the early '80s.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
BS.
The author is bemoaning the fact that games currently suck.
I call BS on your BS.
Maybe the Author needs to stop following the mainstream games market and buying whatever EA shovels them year after year.. there are games that don't suck, but most are being put out by smaller companies that don't release for 4 platforms, have for-pay DLC, and aren't capable of having a 2-minute advert during the superbowl.
Also, some of the best gameplay I've had on games are not the game as intended.. hell the only reason I bought some games were for mods that got released for them.. I think I've probably clocked under 10 hours of UT2004 proper.. but likely hundreds of hours on various mods for game.
I guess now I'm dont my pointless rant on the articles pointless rant.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
I'm well aware of bnetd. That wasn't a mod of a game, that was emulation of Battle.net.
Although I think things like bnetd are fine, Blizzard argued that without a check for CD Keys (which only they had), pirated copies could be played over bnetd. Disregarding the ridiculously overreaching EULA (as all EULAs are wont to be), nothing about bnetd in and of itself was illegal as far as I'm concerned. But Blizzard used the piracy angle to essentially wipe out a competitor.
Mods require that you own the original software because a mod, at the very least, uses the game's engine and some of the code. Many make use of in-game assets as well. They're legally protected for the most part because they're distributed and created for free.
The modding community and the bnetd situation are like apples and bowling balls.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Which is exactly what this argument is about. Gamers who were a niche market are used to playing the kind of games that were made for their niche. Other people came into the arena and started playing games, and developers started making games for this much larger audience. If you are a niche gamer who doesn't like playing average person games, then don't. EVE is a niche game still made for the non-WoW crowd. I'm sure there are others, go play those.
The one thing the niche gamer cannot expect is that people are going to spend mainstream development money on his niche. He may have to look at some of the smaller dev houses and play those games.
I hate to break it to the writer and most of the clowns who parrot buzz words in the industry but a roleplaying game isn't defined by stats, swords, levels, or anything other mechanic. Mechanics are separate from the genre. One of the few gems to come out of a reviewer was from a fellow named Desslock. He correctly defined what a roleplaying game was and unfortunately too many people were busy trying to attach RPG to every game going in an attempt to give them some sort of claim to legitimacy. I'm paraphrasing because it was quite a few years ago, but:
"A roleplaying game is a game where the players actions and choices have a meaningful and lasting effect on the game world and that world changes as a response to it"
He also pointed out at that time that there were few if any games which actually even approached being a genuine roleplaying game. Even today there isn't. The only thing that really has a chance to actually be a roleplaying game are sandbox games. The player needs the freedom to make choices and those choices need to have effects. They need to be permanent and the world itself needs to change. A game like Simcity (4 or earlier, not that latest atrocity) is far closer to being a genuine roleplaying game than some of the games in recent years full of swords and magic. Certainly much more than say..WoW.
A fairly linear shooter which adds stats, or levels doesn't include "RPG elements" because none of those things have anything to do with making a game an RPG. The game is an RPG if the player can affect and change the world with choices, not if he can pick up a better sword, or swing it slightly better. You have to play a role, but that role has to have meaning within the game world. All of those things are completely independent of the mechanics. Yes, game makers often try to bundle those things together, but in reality simply adding a sword, or hit points to a game doesn't make it a roleplaying game. It makes it whatever it is with a sword and hit points.
Every time I see some hack writer talking about "RPG elements" I feel like asking them if they think their Cobalt has Ferrari elements because it has doors and wheels.
so, rpg elements are creeping into other genres, and ousting mods, dedicated servers etc ?
that is happening, DESPITE rpg games themselves are being made from the start to include extensive modding, and multiplayer ? like how dragon age has modding, and like how unbelievably moddable mount & blade is ? ( to the extent of some mods being entirely different games) upcoming multiplayer server (counter/starcraft style) for mount and blade ?
Read radical news here
Well, some people spend ten years in a living hell of a marriage filled with bickering, friction, conflict, betrayal and sometimes physical conflict.
Now, even in these cases, there is sometimes still what could be called "love" there; but the end product is not something others would consider very beautiful.
May the Maths Be with you!
Dammit! MW2 will always belong to Mechwarrior 2 for me!
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Makes you wish for a -1 "mary sue"
I hate sigs.
I'm not even sure I buy the premise. Sure, Battlefield: Bad Company eschewed the PC version altogether and Modern Warfare 2 lacked official mod tools, but I'm not really sure this is a trend. DICE has pointedly announced that the PC version, mod tools, and dedicated server are back for Bad Company 2. You've also got Medal of Honor, Alien vs. Predator, Crysis 2, etc.
Most likely his point of SS is because of its "sequel" Bioshock was dumbed down
Mass Effect is so dumbed down its not even funny, compare it to any Infinity Engine game
No arguments about Eve, I tried it the learning curve was a vertical wall. But is the game itself really that cerebral, or the fact that the game was designed to allow politics
"games currently suck".
I don't agree with MW2 not having dedicated servers, in fact I think it stinks, but that statement is just flat wrong.
There are games made for every taste in every style imaginable from huge rpgs backed by $20million dollar budgets down to simple indie games made by some guy with some spare time and a great idea. We not only get these games on PCs, we get them on consoles, we get them on our mobile devices, we have new ways to control things, we can integrate in facebook, the list goes on. Meanwhile you cannot name me one genre that someone isn't making a game in right now. Okay so the $20million dollar games are no longer point and click adventure games like Myst, well big deal, if that's what you want you can find it. Platformers, arcade shooters, rpgs, first person shooters, strategy all being made at all levels of development and you can probably multiplayer most of them too.
So mr. jaded Internet forum guy, It's my opinion that if you can't be happy with the way gaming is right now, then you will never be happy with it in the future and never would have been happy with it in the past. Maybe the problem is you.
Sigs are awesome huh?
Bioshock is System Shock done better. I say that and I loved System Shock.
Sigs are awesome huh?
Thing is, even a 'niche' game like EVE, I can see the temptation of 'all that money'. Catering to the less 'hardcore' players. The ones that want raid loot, and epic mounts, and respecs and ... whatnot.
Catering to those players brings in a lot of revenue, and maybe only a slight dilution of the 'founding principles' of the game. But that can gradually drift onwards, as the game developers start to realise that the more mainstream they make their game, the more people they attract - you lose the 'niche', and you lose the 'niche' players, but they were a minority towards the end, so the company goes on.
Same problem really. I'm only glad that CCP is a privately owned company, with a 'vision' of what they want the game and the company to be like. I do catch myself twitching when I see things that I see as signs of 'dilution' though.
*shrug* If you think there is enough of a remaining market for such games, that a large enough niche group is not being served, then start a business and serve them. Or better yet, patronize the companies that are doing so! There are plenty of small companies still putting out very cerebral games and their business model allows them to survive the small percentage of people who will buy their titles.
Now, this does mean you tend to sacrifice graphics, which part of the problem is many self proclaimed 'cerebral' players are not willing to do.
Heres the thing many people fail to realize, and yet it is the most simple concept to grasp. That the games are intended to be fun, and they are, Fallout 3 is among the best, MW2 kicks ass, i play that every day, but im not picky in FPS games, i can kill anyone with any gun, im a gamer, a true gamer. If earning your ranks and the priv to use certain firearms in a game is a hindrance to you then i suggest simply go back to packman and leave real gamers play our games. These so called "RPG" elements let us play the game in a different style every time, I think the clone wars in multiplayer games is long over. Let the dev's figure out what way to take it, i am confident in the routes they will take, they know what they are doing or else they wouldn't still be in the business. The consumer is not always right (in this case, the basement troll is not always night, and never is for that fact)
I propose The EVE Maxim: As a discussion about the shortcoming about videogames increases in length, the probability that someone will propose that EVE does not fall to those shortcomings and is modded insightful for it approaches 1.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
The difference is that the soccer players are getting better by improving their own skills, not getting arbitrary bonuses for every certain number of games they win. The player does get better in a multiplayer game without progression, just naturally. RPG elements unnaturally exaggerrate the difference in the ability to win between new players and veterans.
It's our own fault. We thought we could steal and steal and steal and it wouldn't matter. Now we know that it did matter.
My apologies if you didn't steal as much as I did. (an amusing aside, I am good at the job I currently have because of what I learned about computers whilst stealing)
I totally agree. The rant boils down to the old, "X is popular now, so now it sucks. I liked X before it was cool, so that makes me better than everyone else."
He even threw in "REAL don't even like because it sucks." His opinion differs, so we're supposed to think he's smarter than everyone else right? Right?
Someone's going to have to explain to me how the statement 'no games like those two have been made since' makes any sense.
Most multiple character RPGs, like the D&D ones such as Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age, etc, can be operated in 'turn mode' in combat, where you can have the game automatically pause, and direct the exact movement and combat of each person.
For that matter, X-Com was nowhere near the first one. Turn-based tactical games were some of the first computer combat game, and they're still being made...I point to 'Gunrox'.
And I have no idea why you think TIE fighter is some innovative game genre-wise. It's a very very good game, but it is, at heart, a dogfighting (in space) game. There were some before, and there were plenty after. None really as good, but saying 'They don't make dogfighting games like the best one ever made' is just inane...if anything, TIE Fighter has been over-copied.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I =loved= System Shock, but had to bail on SS2 cuz apparently between SS1 and SS2, I became a big wuss who can't handle scary games. I wanted to be able to play Bioshock, but the demo creeped me out enough and I had to bail on that one too. But the mechanics, the environment, the suspensy-shooter peppered with backstory idea... it's all straight out of Looking Glass Games' bag of tricks.
It also moved over three million copies (I know cuz I read it on wikipedia and that's always accurate) and was a critical darling. Game of the Year awards, metacritic around 95%, perfect scores out the wazoo... it was a good game by all accounts. Sequel, etc.
There are good games being made, and just because the gaming hobby, once sole domain of the geeks, has been invaded by teenage boys and normal people (note the distinction between the three groups) doesn't mean that the whole industry is worthless. They're not all as impossible to play as Su-27 (holy god, at least give me the OPTION for the gauges to be in English!) and that may offend your sensibilities, but that doesn't mean that all games since 2000 or on consoles are totally without merit.
tl;dr - Bioshock is the spiritual successor to System Shock, and it did a ton of biz. Elitist Snob is Elitist, and is missing good games.
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
That's just an argument to randomize stuff somewhat, not against character development. I though Oblivion's model was cool, where you develop traits you use, but that was crippled by an idiotic system of leveling.
And almost every game has some sort of 'You have progressed, now you can do more'. As you go along, you get more abilities. In SimCity, it's by getting more money, in Civ 4 it's with research. It's a basic attribute of computer games.
The sole exception I can think of would be adventure games, where you're often just dumped into new environments with the same skills as before. Every other game genre I can think of, you get more 'powerful' as you go along.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It's a little more cerebral than your average RPG but alot of it is the politics, and learning where danger zones are, etc.
letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
He calls Bioshock an example of RPG elements creeping into other genres? WTF?
At its core that game should be an RPG. I think it's an example of shooter elements creeping into my RPGs. Same damned thing happened to Mass Effect. Hopefully I'll be able to look past it in Bioshock 2 and ME2.
There is good news. CCP is seeing steady growth.
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
But it's hard to not be tempted by the lime green line.
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
Sadly, the industry has changed. It's evident in the fact that we are talking about game studios selling out to "the man" just like musicians selling out to record labels and producing pop pablum.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
It's really pretty simple: people who play games are demanding more for their $60 - more playtime, more engrossing experiences, more replayability, more choices and more customization. Think of all the games on the market now... a hippity-hop 2D platformer can be a pretty hard sell for 50 or 60 bucks when there are games right next to it that promise expansive environments, customization, tons of playtime, etc. The easiest way to make a game more complex and cover all those traits in one fell swoop is to toss in a leveling system and some kind of skill tree or progression. It makes a game more multifaceted and provides a "meta-game" that sits underneath the pew-pew-pew on the screen. Technology has also made it easier to create no-loading open-world environments as opposed to static levels, which play very nicely with RPG elements because passing by areas you can't reach and enemies too strong for you to kill is interesting and makes you want to come back later.
And why are these games trending toward being first-person shooters? Well, if you want a three-dimensional, open world experience with a free-roaming character, there are really only two places you can put the camera: inside the player-character's head, or outside of it. I guess developers have simply found that third person cameras don't add a lot to the experience (who wants to look at their character's ass for 40 hours - then again, this may explain the rise of female player-characters), they are hard to program, and they don't feel as controllable or as precise as first-person viewpoints.
So if it all comes down to the price point, which I alluded to in my opening sentence, then where are the cheaper, less complex games? They're on XBox Live, PSN and the VC store, where they get little attention from casual gamers because they're not advertised and they're too hard to find, no attention from "hardcore" gamers because they're "casual games" that are too simplistic and not worth the money, and ignored by the media because they're not blockbusters and no one wants to read the reviews. Welcome to the games industry.
I, too, hate it when game developers break through predefined molds and come up with some innovative and new.
From were I sit, it may not be shallow, but it is extremely obvious.
MMO's, specifically WoW, have changed the games market forever. You will now see a short variety of scopes in gaming:
1) Subscription content, e.g. pay-per-month
2) Throw-away content, e.g. iPhone, WiiWare, etc titles
3) Episodic content, e.g. Starcraft 2, and probably every FPS released from this time period onward
FPS games that you can mod and run private servers with are contrary to '3' above. They want you to be tired of the title when the newest incarnation of it hits the shelves.
Before we moan too loudly about the design, would we rather they use methods '1' or '2' for these titles? Because that's about all that any successful games company is going to consider in the current market.
I personally feel confident in laying the blame on the MMO because they demonstrated that gamers will, indeed, pay regularly to continue their play experience. I assume it was believed that this would have been rejected by the market, but now that it is clear that this is not the case, expect to see more of it.
Whoops, put phrases in brackets there and formatting took them out entirely. Oh well, it's still not the most mangled post I've seen here today...
in order to make it good, maybe you should move on to a good games?
Yes, I understand many mods are to good games, the the submitter seems to be talking about a bad game.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"The author is bemoaning the fact that games currently suck. "
Ah, the 'it's was better in those days' fallacy.
Here is some shocling news:
Games have ALWAYS sucked. Or rather, many of them. We just remember the gems.
There are a lot more good games now then there ever were. That's because there are more games.
If you have gotten to a point where all games seem to suck, then get a new hobby. seriously, your just wasting your life doing something you don't enjoy for no real reason other then habit.
"Yes, I'm being an elitist snob."
No, you are being stupid. There is a difference.
" I doubt even 20% of the current market would have the cerebrum to get through the first 2 levels,"
It's not that hard. I mean, if it was difficult for you that just confirms my opinion in my reply to your comment on being an elitist.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Today, a game like System Shock would fail because I doubt even 20% of the current market would have the cerebrum to get through the first 2 levels, let alone have a chance of finishing it.
Man, that's some powerful skepticism!
While TF2 does have item upgrades, and "drops," there are mods out there, and even server commands to disable them. To that effect, there is an extremely active mod community, and it all depends on the servers' administrators.
To add to that, TF2 is a class based game. Any FPS with as much diversity as TF2 deserves upgrades and the like.
Something witty.
Ever play Mabinogi (or ANY game that uses Hackshield or GameGuard?)
There is a modding community, but it's all pretty much evil:
- Hackshield bypass which allows the mods and cheating
- Mods to the data folder to allow cheating (by way of having maps marked, duping items)
- Mods to the data folder to allow cosmetic cheating (having "you" have equipment that requires effort, money or time to earn/purchase)
- Mods to the dll files to allow cheating (to see hidden stats like combat power, to hack the archery range or accuracy)
- Mods to the dll files to fix bugs in the game client (font rendering subsystem)
- Mods to break the game through packet editing
Here's a point to prove the complaint of "allowing mods prevents earning profit from the game"
One of the cheats that virtually everyone had was the "summon" mod, which costs 50 cents to buy from the game store, but the mod made it so any item in your inventory (stackable items like meat, salt, strawberries) could be used to trigger it, thus depriving Nexon of money at 50 cents a pop. Some players would use this mod excessively to teleport their friends around or to field bosses. This "mod" was finally fixed in the last patch update.
But the root of the mods is the off-the-shelf software being used to "prevent" modding/cheating. Once someone bypasses hackshield all the mods come back into full force. Since otherwise it requires skill to edit the game binaries or data pack files. Hackshield doesn't do squat about edits to the binaries.
All games have a set of rules and mechanics, and that alone requires some thinking.
The material may not be particularly engaging, but all the games you mention involve pattern recognition and response. Studies have shown Tetris is mentally stimulating, but the same recognition/response in tetris could be applied to Pac Man (to a lesser extent) or, say, a Rubik's Cube. Memorization of the patterns and what response to use is essential to being good at the game.
In shooters and RTS's, players memorize maps and strategies - a player with good knowledge of maps and a good strategy will almost always defeat a player with poor knowledge of one or the other or both.
RPGs themselves have strategies and stories and often minigames, but incidentally I've found many of these are repetitive and not terribly creative. I've said before that the next time I see Tower of Hanoi in an RPG, I throw the game away - I'm sticking to that. My biggest gripe about RPGs is they tend to either be heavily on rails (Bioware, I'm wagging my finger at you - having to run around a pile of rubble I can see over is silly, and having to complete the map to get there is even sillier - the preset, nearly constant ambushes are my second biggest grudge) or have non-engaging characters and plot (Bethesda, I'm wagging my finger at you). The last RPG I thoroughly enjoyed the plot, characters and environment for was Gothic - plodding through the terrible combat was the hardest part. Its too bad they really didn't develop it from there - Gothic 2, 3, and the spiritual successor Risen all seem rather blah to me and I didn't finish any of them (heck, I didn't even finish the Demo of Risen, and didn't make it far in G3 before the constant 10 on 1 wolf pack battles got me frustrated with it).
Ah give up, it's just the Internet version of "things were better back in my day! Get off my lawn!" A combination of crippling nostalgia, surliness, and not having played any actual modern video games.
You see this a lot on Slashdot for some reason; I like to call it "the games forum for people who haven't played games in a decade".)
You'll notice that people who still frequently play videos never lay those vague "games are less smart"-type of gripes, because they're aware of how false they are. It would be a really hard case to make that, for example, Bioshock is "less smart" than System Shock 2. (Well, to make rationally.)
Comment of the year
I think a game should have a sound identity (RPS, FPS, RTS, Sim, whatever) and stick to that. When you start injecting elements from other genres, you just water down the overall game.
This probably isn't a popular view, but I think Warcraft III was terrible because it tried to add an RPG element to an obvious RTS engine. The same goes for games that try to add a MMORP feel to games that aren't really MMORP games...just being online and playing with other humans doesn't qualify a game as an MMORP, yet many online games today try to think of themselves as such.
"Elitist snob" is not a term I associate with "hard-core gamer". Nice post, otherwise.
Except it's not at all scary. And the story's not as good. And the gameplay is weak for a modern game.
Aside from that, though, you're right.
I didn't say there was anything better made since, you loon. I actually called it 'the best dogfighting game ever made', although I probably should amend that with the word 'space'.
People do not actually read on this site.
I was responding to the concept 'there's been nothing like [it] made since.', in the context of 'determining which games gets made'. I.e., not a discussion of quality, but a discussion of type of games made.
Which is just flatly stupid. There's been nothing as good as it made since, but there were plenty of things like it.
The person I was responding to, and I have no idea if that's you, was acting like the entire damn genre of it, and X-COM, just disappeared after those games. When, in reality, probably more games were made in an attempt to replicate those games than were actually needed. (Especially X-COM, which managed to hit a graphical sweet spot that was almost instantly overtaken by FPSs, yet people continued to try to replicate it.)
Hell, X-Wing, and the followup TIE Fighter, were essentially just a clone of the Wing Commander series, which ran though the entire decade. TIE Fighter just managed to be better than any of them.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Bioshock barely has any RPG elements compared to the game for which it was supposed to be the "spiritual successor"--System Shock 2.
Let's face it, RPG elements are creeping into everything. They've already crept into slashdot (Karma points, achievements). I can't wait for the day when I can check a calculator to see how many times I have to make chicken stir fry before I can level up my cooking skill.
How about present a few options instead of offering complaints to complaints people? I know there are some current, fun, "mind-buster" style games out there. I would recommend Braid or Machinarium as interesting, side-scrolling, indie puzzle games. Racing has it's niche in competence also with series like Gran Turismo. FPS is a twitch sport but that doesn't mean the need to think isn't there. Check out games like ARMA2, Americas Army 3, or Resistance and Liberation for more teamwork, realism, strategy. I hope my list is enjoyed, these are just a few of the current games that one could get into which do require a bit of thought not to die, crash, get stuck, and/or lose. Any suggestions for the RPG, RTS, flight sim, or other category that I missed?
I don't see the RPG elements creeping into other games so much as I see other game elements creeping into RPGs. There haven't been good RPGs in a long time, all we have now really are Action/RPGs which is really a separate genre.
The big problem with current games is that the're overproduced. They're like Hollywood Blockbusters. Huge amounts of money get shoved into them for the "special effects", everyone plays it safe to make sure-fire hits, marketing goes into overdrive to get large opening week sales, and then the audience moves onto something else next week and they fade away. If a success shows up occasionally, expect a glut of sequels or lookalikes.
I think the game makers (ie, the execs) don't really know what is a good game. They'll look at System Shock and reel on horror about how awful the graphics are; or they see Fallout and can't look past the bugs; or the see Planescape: Torment and proclaim that it has too much text to read for the target demographics. At least in the movies, the producers and directors know what good movies are even if they're not making them; they won't point to a Hitchcock movie and say "not enough blood" or "too bad it wasn't in color".
I can see an argument that a well done system of unlocks or other RPG elements in these kind of situations can actually help a new player familiarize themselves with some the core concepts before branching out into whatever specializations they may want to make down the road. This allows you to have a more complex game without bombarding a new player with too much information or too many options they don't understand when they first start.
Sticking with the MW2 example in the summary. A new player will need to learn some basics before they can really make use of that stinger launcher, silencer, or claymore anyway. Depending on how new they are, they'll need to learn anything from how to move around and identify targets (new to the FPS genre) to getting some idea of the map layouts, and a general idea of what does what among the available equipment/perks/killstreak rewards (new to the specific game). Giving them a few decent premade classes to pick from while learning these basics rather than dropping them in with the full range of custom class options is not necessarily a bad thing. It can make the game more accessible by allowing the learning curve progress at a more gradual rate, without sacrificing complexity in the higher-end game.
Certainly, specifics details such as pacing of unlocks and placing objectively "better" pieces of equipment further up the tree can hurt such a system. Also, players who are already familiar with the game will most likely have a certain degree of annoyance about not having access to everything up front (but once again, good pacing can make this a minor issue). It's up to the individual developer to strike a balance between presenting new players a simpler version of the game, and allowing more skilled players to reach their desired specialization in a reasonable time frame. So-called RPG elements and equipment unlocks are a reasonable way to accomplish this.
tldr: A well paced unlock/RPG system allows new players to learn the basics before moving on to more specific and specialized roles.
A "niche game" whose hundreds of thousands of users pony up every single month to play.
I can think of a lot of game companies that would love to have a "niche game" as successful as Eve Online.
Anyway, my point was not that Eve Online is the game of the century. I was just responding to the GPP's assertion that the games out today don't require as much "cerebrum" as System Shock.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The real reason for removing (not adding) dedicated servers is so they could push MW2 out as fast as possible. Cut out as much as you can, make it short and sell hard, that's the EA\Activision way. There's more marketing hype then actual game in Modern Warfare 2. Personally I didn't think Modern Warfare 1 was that good, certainly not as good as the fanboys or marketing are making it out. Maybe I'm just a crotchety old PC gamer but there is nothing in Modern Warfare that I haven't played before in better games.
But Modern Warfare enjoyed success on the consoles (possibly due to games like BF 1942 or earlier COD's never being released on conosles). So Activision immediately started on a sequel, personally I think if a game cannot stand on it's own for no less then three years it does not deserve a sequel, this is why getting a sequel out for Modern Warfare had to be done so quickly, if people started seeing Modern Warfare in reality, as passe then they would lose mind-share and never sell a big sequel. Modern Warfare did terribly on PC's and rightly so, we expect better. In fact we already have better games like Battlefield 2.
Anyone who doesn't think that Activision is working on Modern Warfare 3 is kidding themselves, it was in production before Modern Warfare 2 hit shelves. I earmark mid 2011 for it's release bugs or no and it will be just as short as and uninventive as the previous Modern Warfare games, because that's the Activision way. They'd get a new Modern Warfare out each year before Christmas if it were possible.
Fortunately the consolisation of decent games is ending. Nintendo proved that the real money is with casual games not the "hardcore" crowd. Microsoft took note (what do you think Natal is all about) so the next Xbox will be built along the same lines as the Wii (MS are nothing if not good at copying) and probably make a profit from the word go. Decent FPS games will gravitate back to the PC as consoles will no longer be able to compete in terms of power (not that they've been able to, you still cant do FSAA on consoles). This means the death of pointless sequels and the Activision way which is a good thing(TM).
BTW, it's not all doom and gloom, there still are decent developers out there, like Valve and Stardock.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
All games have a set of rules and mechanics, and that alone requires some thinking. The material may not be particularly engaging, but all the games you mention involve pattern recognition and response.
Crossing the road requires thinking, pattern recognition and response. That doesn't make it an intellectual exercise.
I'm not saying that games don't involve thinking or that there aren't intelligent games. But the notion that playing video games is a purely geeky activity and not for "jocks" is just wrong. When I grew up, the nerds and geeks would spend more time programming than playing games. Meanwhile, the "jocks" were huge consumers of video games. Historically, video games have not been marketed towards nerds.
What I'm objecting to is the revisionist history in that post, not the idea that computer games don't appeal to nerds. Many posters on slashdot have a nasty habit of rewriting history in a nerd-centric and inaccurate way.
... and then they built the supercollider.
okay, i'll look back at what games were awesome the past years.
......
I have played, in the past 5 years: unreal tournament 2004, unreal tournament 3, overlord, doom 3, SPORE, warhammer 40k - dawn of war 2, gears of war, team fortress 2, blacksite: area 51, frontlines: fuel of war, fallout 3, prototype, oblivion, COD4, EVE online and a bunch of MMORPG's.
i put this list together with my xfire profile. What games were good in the last 6 or so years that i played? I went out and bought most of the good games. Some were simply crap (spore), others were weak and unfinished (fallout 3). In the end, only very few games are actually worth a damn.
Compared to about 8-9 years ago, every game i bought was fun. Quake 3, mechwarrior, emperor: battle for dune,
I honestly can't find a game older then 6-7 years that isn't still fun, and wasn't good for the time it as released. I never sold any games yet either, so it's not like i'm subjectively filtering stuff out.
I think nostalgia is unimportant here. The big companies now want to cater to the mass. The mass has a poor taste, because there's so many people (duh). So it's impossible to make a game everyone likes, yet so many companies try. Even good developers like blizzard have mostly stopped developing good games. Sure, starcraft 2 and diablo 3 are in development, but how long have they been and how long will they will?
In the meantime, they recently started talking about a new expansion, and oh look, it's almost here already. Which of the games has priority then? The cash cow.
There just ARE less good games out there then there used to be. That's because gaming is mainstream, and "easier to develop for" (with profit). So, companies that shouldn't make games, and they fail. Look at flagship studios for an example, they developed hellgate: london.
But is the game itself really that cerebral, or the fact that the game was designed to allow politics
Is chess all that cerebral, then? What makes EVE cerebral isn't that it allows politics. It's that it promotes politics as a game element.
Dwarf Fortress is another game with a brick wall level learning curve. have ya tried it?
I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
I wouldn't mod you down, but I disagree with you completely. You are looking at the past with rose colored glasses. The games today are just as good, if not better, than the ones in the past. When a field is new, everything is innovative. The best of the innovation becomes a genre. This is how it is in just about everything. Get used to it.
There are so many good games out right now, I can't even come close to keep up. Had difficulty been set lower? Yes and no. Now we have the option to make it easier if we want to play through the game or we can make it really hard if we crave that. I don't want to go back to the times where I had to start Cobra Triangle over from the start because I keep getting owned by that log.
Quite frankly, there are plenty of non-"dumbed down" games out there. You are just one of those people with the broken mindset that if you criticize stuff, it makes you cool. There is a lot of great games out there if you would just pull your head out of your dosbox.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com