[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;39832674]See, the thing is that a good chunk of old games actually used to be bigger and to some degree even more complex (some even obnoxiously complex). The problem isn't the hardware limitations, it's the game design and overall need for "realism" that makes dev polish a concentrate rendering power on a few things rather than opting for size or variety.
Just look at some Hitman Blood Money crowds. Or how many objects can be interacted with in HL2. Or how many secret areas and different rooms there are in all sorts of old games.
As long as "realism" is the focus point, rendering power will continue to be used to make a few things look as good as possible instead of going into breadth - because if you don't, people will complain about your game looking too cheap to charge full price for it. ESPECIALLY certain parts of the PC community that can never have too huge rock textures.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, I'm starting to dislike the cinematic approach that games are taking. Not only there's a lack of substance in them, but it looks extremely dated in the future. I once liked Heavenly Sword for it's cinematics, but it looks "meh" now since many other games have adopted it.
I think that no-one seems to know the definition of long term appeal anymore, microtransactions and day 1 dlc are all there to drive up the potential profit that the game'll make in it's first month. It really has become a huge industry, on an industrial ocnveyor belt sale. If it's a AAA game that they know everyone's going to buy they'll probably have a year of DLC planned for it because the market's there, but with this increase in development costs and therefore an increased focus on profit margins there's less risk taking and slowly more and more games become this boring, homogenized sludge. This makes the guy's argument about 'why don't developers make something with, say, ps2 level graphics and sell it for cheaper' hit home, games like minecraft have proven that having an interesting, fairly original premise can give your game outstanding longevity and because it's fairly cheap to develop (minecraft being a rather extreme example because it looks like literal shit, albeit quite endearing shit) you take less risks and therefore it's more encouraging for less massive studios.
[editline]8th March 2013[/editline]
Additionally, I think these complaints about the PS4 are more a microcosm of the gaming industry in general; big publishers being slowly undermined by their own hubris in treating customers like idiots and only serving them mediocre CoD ripoffs, companies desperately trying to figure out what their fanbase of a million bleating lambs with ADD wants next (facebook integration? easy demo recording? WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME???) and electronics companies that launched their products as a way to simply play games on their TV and nothing else now realizing that people play games on their PC, smartphone or tablet which also serve a huge amount of other functions that their boxes that you plug into your telly could never hope to compete with.
[editline]8th March 2013[/editline]
Also as someone who plays games occasionally I'm utterly bored with the prospect of deeper social integration. I use facebook/twitter enough already, when I play games I do so for the same reason I read books or watch films; for escapism. When I launch a game and someone messages me on steam I get on the verge of muttering 'oh for fuck's sake' - I get torn between the social obligation to respond (because I just launched a game, they KNEW I saw the notification) and the urge to keep on playing, because that's what I launched the game to do and it just fucking grates. In the words of this pretty great video: 'We don't want to get between you and the game. Here's some stuff that gets between you and the game.'
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rJDn0jRnUQ[/media]
[editline]8th March 2013[/editline]
Finally, I'm pretty sure half of the research going on at major games companies right now is how to make people pay for the same shit again. It applies to everything, from boring homogenize gloop like CoD to literally buying the same shit again by not making PS3 purchases work with the PS4. Most of the limits in modern gaming aren't technological, they're just created by corporations in order to sell more crap.
After the peak of graphics advancement and games is only followed by a downfall.
[QUOTE=Funky Pickle;39817398]Console exclusives always draw me in, and I doubt those will stop being developed any time soon.[/QUOTE]
I used to care about console exclusives. Then I started looking around in the pc world and found better communities, more of them, and games in genres that I'd never even touched before, and it was and continues to be awesome. Anymore it comes down to, oh dear I missed out on a game because it's exclusive, or I won't play that because it's a horrendously terrible port. Whelp I guess I'll pick one of the other 20 on my list that I have been looking to get around to.
The thing I learned 10 years ago is that the internet isn't just big, it's fucking huge.
At this point, exclusives are just a way to guarantee that I probably won't be interested in sequels even if they aren't exclusive because I will be missing out on the plot, and I hate that.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39838223]text[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'll agree. I think part of that short-sightedness becomes apparent with the current trend of rebooting that reeks to me of "okay, our sequels and original IPs weren't received so well, let's wipe clear this mess! We can count on hardcore fans again and boost sales by making the game more accessible!". "More accessible" doesn't just seem to cover non-gamers and casuals anymore, but also gamers not interested in a genre genre, because with current budgets you need to have a chance that EVERYONE buys it.
I could rant on about the newly released Thi4f details (and feel sorry for the devs spending so much time in pre-production and fairly recently turning everything on its head anyway - seems like they really don't know how to pull this off), but it's essentially becoming very close to Dishonored with a setting that replaces a lot of supernatural and shizo-tech weirdness with "The Baron cruelly rules over The City suffering under The Plague", and a new Focus ability giving people the option not to play Thief:
- with Cloak you don't need to worry about shadow or light sources
- with SlowMo and "brutal takedowns" let you beat up more than 4 guards (so presumably you can handle at least 3 just fine normally)
- a wallhack guide highlights optimal paths and all loot so you don't need to look for it.
I think this is a trend for stealth games because a) action sells to a lot of people that don't understand what's fun about stealth and b) you'd need to reeducate players that upon being discovered you shouldn't go rambo, you should run away and use distractions.
Splinter Cell is another title that headed into that direction. All the good it did for that franchise.
The thing is that all these strategies just don't seem to work and a lot of huge game companies and publishers seem to be really suffering at the moment because of it. Games are so insanely expensive they become a master of none by trying to please everybody to make their investment back.
This is why Indies are becoming "a thing" I feel. They can concentrate on certain tastes and audiences and are more flexible due to team size. They can simply try to make the game they want to play, and it's become easier than ever to do so, both soft-/hardware-wise and money-wise with Kickstarter.
Heck, Kickstarter in itself is quite a strong indicator that quite a few people don't want to put up with this modern major publisher design philosophy bullshit.
/rant
I'm a PC fggt all the way. It's always going to be consistent.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
