Where did the good games go?

[Vagrant0]

I'll try to explain this better, my "narrow slice" used to be almost the entire pie in the gaming world.(fps? fp-wha?)I came from the Nintendo days when graphics sucked so much that developers had to think outside the box and come up with something ingenious or risk immediate failure. If it didn't bring something to the table you were done for.

That market no longer exists among main players. With few exceptions, you will only see innovation happening among the indie sector, and usually because they cannot afford the cost of making all those are assets so are trying to put more of their budget on gameplay. Most of the AAA studios are just trying to stay alive these days, which means that they are not taking any risks. AAA companies have it a little harder based on the fact that they cannot decrease the graphic quality of their games very much to cut costs since it ends up with the game looking worse than previous games.

 

For example, Bethsoft could not release a new game with graphics similar to Oblivion or Morrowind these days, no matter how good the story, environment, or gameplay was. This was made abundantly clear from reactions to screenshots of the MMO, claiming how bad characters looked. If you still have a PS2... Go power it on and throw in something like FFX or any other game you had fond memories for and which had awesome graphics. You'll see just how poorly these things hold up over time, especially when dealing with a 3d world. Can you see yourself honestly forking over $60 to play a game that looks like that, coming from a company that you've seen better from? Most couldn't, and game sales shows this.

 

Regarding risk, this is one of the reasons why THQ went under so quickly. The developers wanted to push the envelop with a game that already had a history of pushing the envelop, meanwhile the publisher was already looking at low sales figures so was trying to keep things closer to "safe" marketing decisions. The result was months of time wasted on elements which never made it into the final game, a much smaller game, no printed manual, and day 1 DLC that just unlocked content already on the disk as an attempt to recoup the costs of trying to do something new and not getting approval. Only with indie games, or extremely rare cases are developers able to develop what they want, everyone else has to go through the grinder that is the marketing department controlled by the game's publisher.

 

 

Best solution to your dilemma... As others have suggested, look beyond those things that you already consider "safe" and "fun". Instead of only looking for certain things, consider instead what it is about those things that you enjoyed. If you liked Mario type games, look at the sorts of platformer type games that are being made these days, many of which look pretty smooth and really do have a wider variety of secondary mechanics. If you liked the classic FF style games (FF4,6) take a look at the handheld gaming scene... You can get a NDS for pretty cheap these days, and depending on location net yourself get a handful of pre-owned games that will give you tons of hours of play. 3DS and Vita also have quite alot to offer, but are a little more costly of an investment. Even MMOs can have some quality to them once you forget that WoW was ever a thing.

[Fistandilius]

I seriously can't relate. I can't find enough time to play all the games I want to play. Maybe because I'm not a pc snob. I still have ps2 games in the plastic I haven't gotten a chance to play yet, and I'm still collecting them right now before they become collectors items and impossible to find new (already happening with some titles like Dark Cloud). Also, throwing a 2 next to a game is fantastic in my opinion. I like Metal Gear Solid 3. If someone gave me a bunch of new graphics and new levels and called it GI Joe, I'd probably still buy it. It's just new areas to explore. I said the same thing recently about Skyrim. I didn't need mods to like it. I put over 1000 hours into it before installing my first mod and that was an experimental mod by me that just changed a sword. After I started getting bored with the game I still had hours and hours of exploring mod content.

[JimboUK]

There's an interesting article here on the lack of innovation in the gaming industry... http://dustycartridge.com/features/lack-of-innovation-is-no-fault-of-the-gamer/

 

I was hoping that the new generation of consoles would give companies a chance to do something different, sadly the launch line up is just more of the same only prettier.

 

@Vagrant THQs problems were entirely self inflicted, from the idiotic UDraw to buying companies and franchises and then not investing in them, in five years their market cap went from £2 Billion to $11 Million because they screwed up everything they touched.

[brokenergy]

They didn't leave, you just have extremely high standards. It is also subjective to assume that those are the only "good" games out there when I can point out that those games that you pointed out aren't "good" nor perfect. In short, opinions!

[Vagrant0]

@Vagrant THQs problems were entirely self inflicted, from the idiotic UDraw to buying companies and franchises and then not investing in them, in five years their market cap went from £2 Billion to $11 Million because they screwed up everything they touched.

I thought I explained that by referencing SR3.

 

Regarding the console launch lineup... I would actually disagree with you there. While Augmented Reality is nothing new, this new generation of consoles is the first that has brought it into the living room of many. While not a game exactly, it certainly displays some clear potential of what may be coming down the pipeline. Both consoles also have built in capability to record and stream game content something that also adds something to the gameplay experience that most never cared much about before. Beyond that, Ryse, Zoo Tycoon, and even Madden25 have aspects which depend on the Kinect, as will a good many Xbox exclusive titles; meanwhile Killzone utilizes the new touchpad on the PS4. Compared to previous generation launch titles, there is a fair bit more innovation than before.

[Vindekarr]

Plus there's some serious development with the Oculus Rift going on with the PC as well. There's a slew of games with support already, and a few that really do benefit from it. Assetto Corsa(a race-car simulator) has such dynamic feedback between the Rift and the steering wheel that it's about as realistic as current levels of technology allow. The game really does benefit from the Rift, as it gains better graphics and more intuitive view controls when you're wearing one. That's assuming you don't projectile-vomit all over your desk, though.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Vindekarr

[JimboUK]

 

@Vagrant THQs problems were entirely self inflicted, from the idiotic UDraw to buying companies and franchises and then not investing in them, in five years their market cap went from £2 Billion to $11 Million because they screwed up everything they touched.

I thought I explained that by referencing SR3.

 

Regarding the console launch lineup... I would actually disagree with you there. While Augmented Reality is nothing new, this new generation of consoles is the first that has brought it into the living room of many. While not a game exactly, it certainly displays some clear potential of what may be coming down the pipeline. Both consoles also have built in capability to record and stream game content something that also adds something to the gameplay experience that most never cared much about before. Beyond that, Ryse, Zoo Tycoon, and even Madden25 have aspects which depend on the Kinect, as will a good many Xbox exclusive titles; meanwhile Killzone utilizes the new touchpad on the PS4. Compared to previous generation launch titles, there is a fair bit more innovation than before.

 

 

SR3 was the exception, they saw that as their lifeline, my point was THQs problems were nothing to do with taking risks, they were the result of terrible business decisions.

 

On innovation have a look at the current launch titles for the new consoles, how may have a number after the title? nearly all of them. It's interesting that you bring up Killzone, a game that demonstrates first person shooters are far from innovating, in fact they're going backwards. Gone are the days of open levels, puzzles and hidden areas with bonuses that reward exploration, instead we're pushed down a tunnel, just like the early shooters of the 90's.

 

@Vindekarr The Oculus Rift does have a lot of potential, potential that will be wasted if the only direction you end up looking in is forward because you're in a tunnel moving towards the next overscripted event.

[Vindekarr]

It works in Assetto Corsa because Assetto Corsa is fundamentally, a simulator. Like all car racing sims it's focus is on realism, and it makes extensive use of force feedback. It's also universally first person; you spend most of your time behind the wheel, and when you're not, it's still a first-person view and they have an excuse to corral you into a small area-you have no reason to leave the garage during a race session. As result it's not a hard game to insert the Oculus into, and of the games I've sampled, probably benefits the most from the device. Using the Oculus allows you to turn your head in-game, and to do so hands-free, which is a small but immensely useful feature: a racing driver is utterly reliant on his or her situational awareness, and the Oculus enhances that far beyond what you'd normally have. It's also become an extremely desirable piece of kit on the Assetto Corsa forums; less than a week into the game having full support and it's already seen as a genuine(and much cheaper) alternative to the three-monitor and wheel layout most racers aspire to use.\

 

Other games? well I think it depends. The Oculus works in racing games because racing games are by their very nature, linear. You get in a car, and then race other people around a circuit who's layout stays largely the same from one lap to another. It's very easy to integrate the Oculus into a racing sim's controls, and I'm not at all surprised it's found a foothold there so quickly: it really has something to contribute, and does so at a much better price than existing competition. With Shooters and RPGs I see a more obvious problem: turning around. In Assetto Corsa you're strapped into a race seat at the shoulders, waist and groin: you aren't going anywhere. In a first-person game though, you need to be able to turn around, climb and react quickly. Unless the pace of said games changes, I can't imagine a hyper-formulaic, script-on-rails CoD or Battlefield working at all on the Rift, let alone older Twitch-shooter legends like Unreal Tourney or TF2.

 

Summing up though, the biggest problem I see is that the four genres that really, really suit the Oculus are all quite niche. Space sims, flight sims, car sims and Point N Clicks could all be made to benefit from Rift support, but they're not the main money-spinners for the powers that be. Assetto Corsa is about as successful as the four get, out-selling the latest CoD at various points, but even it's a minnow compared to a successful FPS-On-Rails.

[Vagrant0]

On innovation have a look at the current launch titles for the new consoles, how may have a number after the title? nearly all of them. It's interesting that you bring up Killzone, a game that demonstrates first person shooters are far from innovating, in fact they're going backwards.

 

Here's the thing. With launch titles you never see gameplay innovation... Even going back as far as the NES and Atari... Instead what you see with launch titles are innovation in graphical display, control methods, and whatever gimmick was the selling point of the console. Gameplay innovation doesn't start appearing until companies get used to the development environment to begin refining any new mechanics. If it wasn't for the fact that the Wii-U failed as a console, and that even Nintendo wants to bury it, you would have probably started to see some innovation among Wii-U titles by this time.

 

Looking beyond consoles to handhelds however, you can see a number of good things among the Vita and 3ds library taking shape and being released. If any of these make their way overseas however is another matter.

 

But yes, alot of it is just simply that companies are no longer wanting to take risks any more, especially when their profits are down and their latest sequel does worse than what the marketing guy said it would do.

[Beriallord]

I used to enjoy JRPGs a lot, but something happened to that genre of gaming last gen, when most of the games were placed on hand held systems, and also I don't like the art direction, and themes for a lot of the newer JRPGs. They've gotten more kiddy, colorful and whimsical. And I also hate gaming on a hand held. I prefer a larger screen with a traditional gaming pad. I also see zero innovation taking place in that genre outside of hollow gimmicks. Its gotten to the point where I'd rather they make something solid in a way they know how to do well instead of trying to innovate with cheap, hollow gimmicks.

 

If they call something like FF XIII "innovative", then honestly I wish they would just quit making games, period. They totally missed the mark in that game, and failed to include far too many things people enjoy the most about those games, like towns, story and exploration. No towns, the story was convoluted, I didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they said Lacie or a Cieth until near the end of the game, and the maps were incredibly linear with only a few exceptions. You also couldn't go back and revisit most areas in the game.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Beriallord