Games are now flashy, not fun.

heh. Yes. Games are a lot of flash now adays. But there are games that are fun that are also flashy. Deus Ex, Ico, FFX, Kloana 2, Giants, Homeworld, Max Payne, Diablo 2, Baulder''s Gate: Dark Alliance, Kinetica, Smash Brothers, Luigi''s haunted Mantion, Halo, Half-Life (especially with that High Definition pack, oh baby), Jet Grid Radio, Armada, Tony Hawk (1,2, and 3).

And there are text games that suck just as much as Daikatana did. Okay... maybe not QUITE as much as daikatana, maybe not even in the same ball park, but sill, it''s more about the person designing than about whether there is flash or not. Don''t reject graphics because you think that''s the cause of less fun. It isn''t. It''s just what you see improving while everything else lags.

Anyway, I''m more a fan of old graphical games w/ typing or icons. QG4, Starcon 2, Jones in the Fast Lane, Inca, Lost in Time, Final Fantsay, Crono Trigger, QG1, QG2, Secret of Mana, Strider, Sonic 1, etc.

Now we´re talking!

Good ''ol mode 13h, 320x200, games like Jones(as previously mentioned), Worms, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Civilization, Quake and so on...

Or perhaps it´s just that in that time, all games(most of them at least) had some kind of improvement...Something noone had seen before...

Gotta go!

Yup... that old command, in QB:

SCREEN 13...
256 Colors, 10 by 19 text! That''s it, I''md/ling that Atari Emulator RIGHT NOW!

It''s definetly true that a lot of games have chosen flashy graphics over gameplay. It seems that most people beleive that if a game looks good, it can make up for it not playing good. I''ve always pitied people like those Of course, there are always the games that play bad and look bad. *shivers* eewwww.....

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

I guess a game developer has to decide from the outset what they want - A game with superior technology and/or art, or a game with fantastic gameplay. In my experience I haven''t seen many that combine the best of both.

I''ve been trying for a while to get back to basics and create fun games, in particular getting more hands on with level design as that is a HUGE part of making fun games.

Actually I think there should be no discrepancy between having superior technology and fantastic gameplay. It''s been proven many times over that the latter will beat out the former in every case. So there''s really no decision to be made is there? Great graphics draw a player to the game, and fantastic gameplay keeps them from bringing it back to the store. You need to balance both, but focus on the gameplay, because ensnaring the player is a lot harder than simply attracting him.

Do not have fun of the way people coded a few years ago. PONG or other wise. sarcasism???? create a game and learn to respect the creator''s intent. MR. anonymous. They did not have 3rd party API''s back then.

Yes, games have grew more flashy over the years. The game industry wanted to use every little amount of new technology to add to the game to make it do what they wanted it to.

Now, games in 3D have became the standard.. and more flashy things always come about, but that''s how they make their $$$$.

Keep your focus on what you want to do.

That''s mostly to do with the publishing system,everyone wants to have a AAA title with all the latests bells and whistles.So everyone will go wow at conventions.

It''s quite good in a way,because it inspires innovation but at the same time it often SMTTWDTS

I think it is possible to have good gameplay and solid graphics. Take "Vampire: The Masquerade-Redemption" by Nihilistic. There are some things I don't like about what they did with it, but most of them come from the fact that I play the PnP Vampire game (still bewildered by the AMD processor thing, though). Now, the graphics in that game by no means pushed the envelope, but they worked and did so consistently. As far as I'm concerned, if I have to make a choice between rebooting so I can see the friggin game and a little less pressure on my graphics accelerator, I'll take the latter.

As for the multiplayer thing, I know there is still a pretty large following for the game. A few people can get together and have fun, and the tools to make adventures are bundled into the game itself. I suspect that being the first game to do this may have kind of softened the impact but the idea is what I think of with respect to multiplayer RPG's. I would like to see more of this kind of thing. I like the idea of objective based multiplayer scenarios, and taking the idea one step further like was done in this case only makes sense...to my mind anyway.

The thing missing from MMORPG's is so basic that I'm surprised they are as popular as they are. They have no story. Sure, they have a "world history" or whatever, but nothing to really tie the characters into the world.



ShadeStorm, the Day_Glo Fish


*I've been up for almost 20 hours and I'm too tired to rewrite this. Half of it more appropriately belongs in the "Where have the RPG's gone" thread, so take it for what it's worth.

ShadeStorm

Edited by - ShadeStorm on December 28, 2001 8:07:40 AM

One of the reasons that games were better back when we were younger was because that there were a lot fewer games being made. Remember when you would go to places like Egghead software and there would only be one row that held games? Now its about 6 rows. A lot of companies just want as many games out as possible and don't truly care about quality any more. Not to mention the fact that the industry isn't run by gamers any more. Now its accountants and companies like sony. Teams were smaller back then so you could make sure that everyone was on the same page. I could go on and on as to why games back then had better game play.

But then again theres about the same number of good games being made each year as when we were younger. (just take a look at Max Payne, Alien vs Predator 2, etc.) And there is even promise for better games coming some time soon (Shadowbane, etc.) The problem is that there are more and more bad games being made as well.

Edited by - thefez on December 28, 2001 10:24:35 AM

Don''t forget Thief. It had good graphics and gameplay. I loved trying to sneak past guards. Especially since you could control the level of difficulty to make it so that you were not allowed to kill anyone, or knock them out.

Anyway, there were just as many bad games as good back in the good ol days as well. Just look at Archon, it was great, Archon II was OK, Archon III, now there was a game that sucked the hind tit on a bull. Thank god FreeFall didn''t actually make that one.

---
Make it work.
Make it fast.

I think another big factor is innovation. When those older games were made, they were pretty much completely new. There weren''t a whole lot of other games around in the beginning, so all games were usually unique and different. Now, however, companies like to make games based on what has been successful in the past, rather than develop new ideas for gameplay and such (because new ideas is more risk, since you don''t know how people are going to respond to it).

It''s funny you should word it like that...

It seems that being careful in the face of risks is the perrenial problem of our time. Business ventures and their ilk are all about minimizing risk...

How I wish that we could just throw ourselves at an idea that had no background, to make it grow and become what no-one expected of it.

I think that the human race has reached a state of limited chicken-s&!t nature (pardon my french). But what can we do, such is the American Dream...

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

quote:

---

Original post by micksolo
I guess a game developer has to decide from the outset what they want - A game with superior technology and/or art, or a game with fantastic gameplay. In my experience I haven''t seen many that combine the best of both.................

---

how bout RTCW or Diablo 2(IMO its graphics are good enough and also the story and the way its told is superb).

quote:

---

Original post by Symphonic
It seems that being careful in the face of risks is the perrenial problem of our time. Business ventures and their ilk are all about minimizing risk...

How I wish that we could just throw ourselves at an idea that had no background, to make it grow and become what no-one expected of it.

---

Not really true. Look at all the untried and untested dot com stuff which was risky and in many cases failed. And look at the successes, namely ebay.



___________________________________

quote:

---

The thing missing from MMORPG''s is so basic that I''m surprised they are as popular as they are. They have no story.

---

Ah yes, the problem with this argument is that you can say the same thing about regular CRPGs, they lack community .

You''ll notice one thing about MMORPGs that you don''t see in other games and that''s the fact that more famales play them than regular RPGs. In fact, I''d say that less than 5% of CRPG players are female, while the MMORPG market is closer to 30%. Also, while they commonly tap the same market, there are a lot of people that never considered playing Baldur''s Gate for a minute that are so addicted to EQ that it''s rediculous and the reverse is true.

MMORPGs and CRPGs only cross genre in the most basic way, which is usually setting. The gameplay style and hooks are completely different. You don''t get addicted to EQ because you want to see what happens next in the story, you get addicted because you want the phat lewt and to talk to your in-game friends. CRPGs are never about phat lewt or friends, they''re all about the story and what happens next. Sure they have phat lewt, but it isn''t that big a deal (except Diablo and that''s nearly an MMORPG).

Simply because they have RPG in their genre name doesn''t mean that they''re that close in type.

Thief was definitely a good combination of flash and great gameplay. A lot of older games were quite flashy for their time, but they at least offered something more than "hey, I''m another FPS TM!"

The problem is more a lack of moving into new territory than with the flash.

They''re coming for you!

I think the problem comes from the time when game development became a "business". Realistically, once every company started looking out for what was copying the "next hot thing" rather than innovating was when everything started to suck (and if I see another "Tycoon" game, I''m gonna vomit). I think that "back in the day", games were generally programmed by gamers -- not marketing.

-Chris

quote:

---

Original post by GoofProg
Do not have fun of the way people coded a few years ago. PONG or other wise. sarcasism???? create a game and learn to respect the creator's intent. MR. anonymous. They did not have 3rd party API's back then.

---

i wasn't making fun!
i recently went through the trouble of finding and restoring to operation one of those old PONG consoles (the ones with two paddles, and a few [physical] switches for game speed and vs).

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
has anyone ever thought that the reason games seemed to be better back in the day was because we were younger? i think the reason we think games were better back then is because we were a lot more easily amused. we were young, at least i think the majority of us were. personally, i feel that todays games would be just as fun if i were young again. but sadly, it takes a lot more to amuse as you get older.

---

i guess i'm just lucky, i'm still easily amused

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

Edited by - krez on January 2, 2002 11:34:17 AM