Are newer game releases dumbed down? Is it now all about graphics and no gameplay

[svartbacken]

I totaly agree Abbott . For those of you who haven´t played Abbotts scenarios, just do it! They are the best!

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Dinger:

I don't want to hear anyone's personal opinions.

Yes, there's a lot of nostalgia and a lot of subjective judgments swimming around this thread, but that doesn't reduce it all to the level of "just personal opinion". I'd rather read reasoned arguments about what constitutes a "dumbed down" game, and how the "graphics arms race" expresses itself in terms of video game design. These can and often are interpretations based on evidence, not mere curmudgeonly whining about a lost golden age.

Every word of this thread is personal opinion unless you are talking about the technical aspects of how the programs function. I know several people who are convinced that Mario Brothers is the greatest game ever created, and not all of them children.

Any time you present your preference, reasoned or not, it is opinion.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott:

That is why I used to subscribe to Computer Gaming World and Computer Game’s Digest (?) (I can’t remember the correct name).

Could the second magazine be "Strategy Games" or "Strategy Gamer", something like that?

Both were excellent magazines in their halcyon days, and helped a lot in deciding what to buy, and what to avoid. </font>

[Abbott]

Originally posted by svartbacken:

I totaly agree Abbott . For those of you who haven´t played Abbotts scenarios, just do it! They are the best!

Thank you.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I second OFP - it's very open ended with a very fucntional editor and scripting functions.

With absolutely no chance of creating a truly random battle. And those contact grenades....ugh. Overall, OFP was one of the best games to date, though.

I agree totally with Abbott. If I could get my DOS based games like the original M1 Tank Platoon to work on my Windows system, I'd still play them. M1 Tank Platoon II had great graphics, but the life was sucked out of it. Red Baron in 16 colour VGA was great; the sequel was stultifying. F19 Stealth Fighter and Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe were a lot of fun too despite the antique (to us now) graphics. Secret Weapons over Normandy was a disaster apparently.

Those older games had heart and soul.

Even Close Combat was disappointing simply because the maps were so picture-perfect you had to reuse the same ones. Given a choice between a fully working map editor capable of randomizing terrain in addition to a fully user-friendly map creation tool, like CM has, and photo-realistic maps like CC - give me CM every time.

I loved Medal of Honor and the follow ons, but the rat in a maze stuff gets old. I can't be bothered to go back and replay MOH because there is a scenario in the middle of the first release where you have to crawl through a town full of unseen snipers, save, move, save, move - YAWN. Even with the use of a cheat guide its dull, dull, dull once you've been there before.

I remember when TSR (?) released a "dungeon construction kit" to go with their gold box series of DandD adventures 10 years ago. Those were fun despite the graphics - and the construction kit let anyone make their own games. I wish we had more of that flexibility now - OFP and CM are good examples of giving us that flexibility. Would love to see more of it.

[Abbott]

F19 Stealth Fighter

I thought it was F-17 but my memory is shot! Fuuny of you to mention that Mike, that is the only flight-sim I have ever enjoyed. I still have the floppies and the keyboard cutout/layout around here someplace!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Red Baron in 16 colour VGA was great

16 colours would have been the EGA version, right?

It would seem to me that most are forgetting the truckloads of ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS **** sold to gamers 10-20 years ago. Based on my gut feel, for every classic there were maybe 3-5 decent games and about 70 games that ranged from rather lousy to total ****. While nowadays for every classic we get 20-30 decent games, 30-40 rather lousy ones, and the pure crap dept. is quite minimal because it isn't profitable to publish them like it was in the day.

[Tarquelne]

It would seem to me that most are forgetting the truckloads of ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS **** sold to gamers 10-20 years ago.

However, I didn't ever seem to end up with AHS games if I took even a little care when shopping. Now I take much more care, buy fewer games and still end up with FAR more games I don't care for. Not much AHS, but plenty of games that, IMO, no one should have bothered making.

Part of that is, I'm sure, becoming jaded/more demanding. But I don't think that's all of it.

I think a lot of the reason is the graphics. They're relatively expensive to produce, generally raising barriers to entry and making the "suits" more important. Thus giving less control to people more likely to be passionate about the game.

Part of it is the increasingly "mainstream" cant of gaming. There's more money involved, the market is more competitive, and so things that are easily translated into higher sales - like graphics - are selected for. After all, it's hard to lie with screen shots, but any game can claim "great AI" or "Deep game play" on the box and in ads.

I don't see as many "labors of love." Games just packed with good content, stuff completely unnecessary (Like, say, the flower-delivery option in JA2), but fun nonetheless. I think that's a money problem. If "suits" are funding your game they want you to get it out the door, not tinker with content that could just be put in a sequel or expansion. Or maybe the programmers just feel like eating: Even without the graphics games are still more expensive to produce. (IIRC) And perhaps in the Good Old Days, the whole endevor being new, you were more likely to get people passionate about the games they made. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone out on a limb making a game.

And then there's the type of games: I keep trying RTS games and I keep being disappointed. There have been a few I liked, but for the most part I wish the genre would just go away. But RTS is still very "In." (Things seem to be getting better, though.) As a hard-core pen&paper RPGplayer the MMORPG's leave me cold. That's two genre's that were pretty minor years ago that are now very important and getting a lot of resources. Even with FPS - a genre that I think has gotten better - "true" all-the-way-through-the-game co-op is less common.

Overall I think it's true to say that newer game releases tend to be "dumbed down." But I think it's probably more accurate to say that the market for games has broadend, and that more mainstream "dumbed down" games are getting a higher proportion of the releases. Because that's where the money is. There are still some Great Games being made: But the market discourages them.

And sometimes I wonder if we didn't just get lucky with Microprose: F-19 (yeah, I'm pretty sure it was "19." The sequel was F-117, though.), MoO, X-Com, Civ, etc, etc, etc. All Microprose. They weren't behind all the great games, but they may have helped shape a market that encouraged them.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

The sequel was F-117, though.

Yes, that was it! Next I will hear you or someone else say they played Twilight 2000! Purchasing that game taught me that an industry actually existed that could release their products barely functional and unfinished. Who would have ever thunk a business could sell products like that?

[Peter Cairns]

Abbott,

Ever hear of British Leyland....

Peter.

[Vedric]

I remember when TSR (?) released a "dungeon construction kit" to go with their gold box series of DandD adventures 10 years ago. Those were fun despite the graphics - and the construction kit let anyone make their own games. I wish we had more of that flexibility now - OFP and CM are good examples of giving us that flexibility. Would love to see more of it.

If you still enjoy RPG's Bioware's Neverwinter Nights has exactly this flexibility. I'm sure there are hundreds of user created modules available for it. I've never played any of them so I can't judge their quality but I know the creation editor was very powerful. The exact tools bioware used to create their official campaign if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: I feel obligated to say NWN had some problems. You only controlled a single character and you could use one AI controlled henchmen. The system was sloppy and the "henchmen AI" was less than intelligent. This is clearly dumbed down from the Baldur's Gate series. Combat is much more hack and slash compared to the more tactical combat of Baldurs Gate also.

Vedric

[ November 16, 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Vedric ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Abbott,

Ever hear of British Leyland....

Peter.

I drove a '63 Midget while I was in High School.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I drove a '63 Midget while I was in High School.

And I drove one in college. Small world, etc.

Michael

[juan_gigante]

Dorosh, I totally feel your pain on that level in Medal Of Honor. That part sucks. I like that in Call Of Duty, there is a lot less of the save-killed by hidden sniper-load that lots of Medal Of Honor had. Realistic? Maybe. Fun? No.

Also, now that you are back on the forum, should I still be bolding your name? I started because in your absence, you became some sort of mythic creature, like Bigfoot or something. Now you're just you again. The reason that I bolded is gone. Should I still be bolding?

[markl]

I would have to agree that for me games are going downhill overall. One area worth mentioning is replayability. As an example the original Ghost Recon series had a lot of missions and game modes addd by the developer and the community, some still being made.

Most new FPS's have hadly any extra content compared that that title.

One area that I fear that ill lead to the rduction of PC games overall is the constand need to upgrade your PC. As a parent I often talk to other parents at the school and most are switching to consoles for their kids a you get longer before an upgrade is necessary. Games seem to be made for consoles first then often ported to the PC. This probably restricts the content and how the game is made affecting replayability etc.

I upgraded my PC for flight simulator FS2004. (Plenty of replayability there) but for the kids, they will only get consoles now till they can afford their own PC's.

I think a saw a post by Steve saying a PC purchased last year will probably run the CMX2 series games at mid graghics level. So my P4 3.2 NVidia 6800 GT rig is outdated in less than one year. This is now a habbit I can no longer afford, as my PC cost a lot.

UnfotunatelyI think the slide to console based games will continue, and one of the causes is the industries relentless chase for better graphics.

Anyway that is just my two cents worth. I will just have to spend some time with the family instead of gameing. Bugger Ah.

Cheers MarkL

[Sixxkiller]

If you guys are into flight simulations you may wanna check out Targetware. Its in an open beta type format but you can create your own planes and stuff. Pretty neat. Just add .net on the end of targetware to find it.

-Ray

[luderbamsen]

Geez! And I thought I was the only one left who felt this way. Brethren: I'm home! (Microprose games, now THOSE were the days!)

Yes we are all jaded gamers (i.e. sad old farts who complain that everything was better in the good old days). And yes, there were many horrible games in the old days as well.

Surely, new games aren't as innovative as they were, but then again, many of these innovations have already been made.

However, none of this changes the fact that something has definately changed in the world of game development.

Case in point: Try playing the old Wolfenstein (for the younger readers, this was the very first 3D first person shooter) and the latest Quake IV. Sure, Q4 is much prettier, you can now aim up and down and do other things. But that doesn't change the fact that Q4 doesn't even trust you to find your own way through the map. Many times, there's even a soldier pointing in the direction you're supposed to run (even though there isn't really any choice anyway). Heaven forbid you got lost! I'm sure the community members could come up with loads of other examples from other genres.

Why is this? Computer games has become big business. Very big. The cottage industry of developers and publishers that did it for fun as much as for anything else is largely gone (excluding BFC and a few others) and replaced by big corporations. Thus, computer games are going the same way as other mass media, notably movies:

A big Hollywood star can sell a movie, "it's very good, really" can't. Likewise, fancy graphics is a good selling argument while innovative gameplay rarely is.

And like it or not, we ARE a dying breed (or at least getting quite rare). I have lots of friends who play computer games all the time, but they're not really interested in investing any intellectual effort into it. Their idea of a mentally taxing game is something like Battlefield 2 or Warcraft III.

And it's probably going to get worse: I recently saw an interview with a lead level designer of developer IO Interactive (makers of the Hitman series): He argued that there was plenty of ideas and creative spirit in the developer community, but that it was being stifled by publishers, who have their eyes firmly fixed on customer segments, market shares and potential sales and profits, and very little else. As with TV and movies, the product that panders to the lowest common denominator usually has the greatest mass appeal and therefore the biggest potential profit.

And it's probably going to get worse. Rumor has it that the big media corporations are now moving into the games publishing business, simply because that's where the big money are. I strongly doubt they'll put their investments into "quirky little games" like those made by BFC and others like them.

So what can we do about it? Not much I'm afraid, exept to put your money where your mouth is. I stumbled into CMBB and liked it (obviously). Naturally, I got CMAK the second it hit the stores. I also got CMBO wich took forever to track down and cost far too much for it's age, but I bought it anyway. Also, if you find a good game, spread the word among friends and family and on appropriate forums. Chances are the developers/publishers haven't spent much money on marketing and few people actually know the game exists.

Who knows, if BFC can show some impressive sales figures, perhaps other developers and publishers will take notice. Especially those who like BFC make games for fun rather than profit.

[Peter Cairns]

After raving about the CM series from almost day one, my mate finally bought CMBO for his PC, for £2.99 in Morrisons supermarket, which given how good a game it still is, must be the bargin of the century (given that we're only five years in).

Peter.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Vedric:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I remember when TSR (?) released a "dungeon construction kit" to go with their gold box series of DandD adventures 10 years ago. Those were fun despite the graphics - and the construction kit let anyone make their own games. I wish we had more of that flexibility now - OFP and CM are good examples of giving us that flexibility. Would love to see more of it.

If you still enjoy RPG's Bioware's Neverwinter Nights has exactly this flexibility. I'm sure there are hundreds of user created modules available for it. I've never played any of them so I can't judge their quality but I know the creation editor was very powerful. The exact tools bioware used to create their official campaign if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: I feel obligated to say NWN had some problems. You only controlled a single character and you could use one AI controlled henchmen. The system was sloppy and the "henchmen AI" was less than intelligent. This is clearly dumbed down from the Baldur's Gate series. Combat is much more hack and slash compared to the more tactical combat of Baldurs Gate also.

Vedric </font>

[Vedric]

I'll load up NWN in the next while and give it a try. I suspect that the 3D world will still be a case of pick and choose the terrain features they've included in the game, no? Just a re-arrangement of them all?

Good question MD. I honestly have no idea. The game is well aged and the module community has been hard at work. Who knows what you may find. Good Luck!

Vedric

[juan_gigante]

I suppose that Dorosh will have to remain bolded. I'm not sure why, but it seems proper.

I think that a good way to judge the staying power of a game is the community and the things added by the community. Think about many of those great games - CM, Half-Life, Rainbow Six, Warcraft, Falcon 4.0 (these are but a few) - they have great communities that are adding content years after the game has come out. Whether it is a causal relationship or not can be questioned, but I think that you can judge a game by its community.

[ng cavscout]

The game companies put out what sells. The gaming public seems to want style over substance, luckily for us, there is good content coming out still, CM, OFP2 (I hope), IL-2, etc. You just need to look harder. I just am very discriminatory in my buying habits.

Like the BFC guys say, you can't put 2-3 years into a game like CMBB, that has a limited appeal to the "masses" because it doesn't have the latest killer graphics, and expect to stay a going concern. It is a business after all, they have families to support. A game like CMBB, you buy it once, and that is all the money the company gets from it, because it is a polished product, that I expect to be playing for years to come. But then I still play X-com1 and OFP1.

I can't understand why we get upset at the BFC crew for making sound business decisions. Even if the CMx2 games will have much narrower foci than CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK, they will still, I expect, have 5-10 times the bang for my gaming buck than the mass of ****e cluttering the shelves in the computer game sections of stores.

If you want to support the company and spread the word, buy the games for birthday and xmas presents, that is what I do.

[ November 17, 2005, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: NG cavscout ]

[juan_gigante]

I notice that lots of people are OFP fans here. That game never really did it for me in the same way that, say, Ghost Recon did. While I really, really, liked the idea and concept of OFP, I thought that in practice it really wasn't taht fun. The interface was a bitch to use, and the one save point made some of those long levels a real chore. Plus, I never put in enough time to really get good at using any vehicle more complicated than a truck or jeep. I do think that OFP was a great example of a groggy game that did well - 1 million plus copies sold, a number that surprises me greatly.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I suppose that Dorosh will have to remain bolded. I'm not sure why, but it seems proper.

Because he is one of our Grogs. Like it or not, like him or not, the only respectful thing aimed at tradition is to bold Grog Dorosh's name when posting.

[Sixxkiller]

OFP and SWAT 3/4 are without a doubt the best shooters ever to come out on a PC. Rogue Spear/UO was the best multi-player shooter ever.

OFP was not only a hell of a lot of fun to create modifications for, but having to actually go vast distances to get to the battle in some places was a great way to add realism. Still love that game for the cutscenes you could create. Plus the maps were so damn big!

SWAT 3 was the pinacle for single player tactical sims. Too bad Sierra is a %$$&*((( company and chased Rod Fung away.

RS had the best community and the all-time best gaming ladder (the rumble ladder).

Ah memories!

-Ray