Games Of Today Compared With Yesterday

[Rich]

What do you make of the way gamings been going over the past few years? I've found many games to not have the quality of game play of the earlier generation, maybe it's me getting older but I found the old 2D games much more playable than the current 3D counterparts.

 

That doesn't mean I feel there is no need for 3D but I feel it's a bit overused and can often cause the actual playability of the game to suffer.

 

The most obvious example that springs to mind would be Worms, now Worms was an amazing game right up until they went 3D with it.

 

And if I remember rightly Lemmings went the same way.

 

I personally prefer 2D style beat em ups and 2D platformers to their 3D counter parts.

 

I bought a PSP a few months back only to sell it again because I found it all abit much for a portable console, I've since now bought a DS because it's far more playable. I'd have actually gone for a GBA Micro if it wasn't for the many websites showing concern for future titles for the console.

[Rhumsaa]

graphics are not far more important than addictive gameplay

[sirdick]

Microsoft have pretty much done what happens with PCs and just upgraded the hardware to make everything look shiny and smoother. When you read what Nintendo are doing with their new machine you realise there is more to gaming than just graphics, and the Japanese know how to make addictive, fun games to play constantly. If anything I'm looking forward to the Revolution more than anything (except the new Zelda of course )

[Rich]

I always find they also try to over stretch the limits on some machines, the most noticeable example being the dawn of 3D racing games and trying to port them to the DSor even the GBA.

 

Now the GBA basically a portable SNES is not really going to handle 3D that well so why bother? Why not make a cleaner smoother 2D racer instead. I guarantee it would be far more playable and get a better review.

 

DS can sort of do it but not very well either and it doesn't give me the impression it's designed for anything more detailed that cartoon graphics (which is a good thing in my opinion especially for a handheld pick up and play scenario).

 

I played Tony Hawks on the DS which I got with it (for an extra fiver bargin!!) along with Mario Kart (free) and the pure fact they've made it cell shaded cartoon style is fantastic makes it much smoother and more playable. Cell shading is the way to go for 3D games on lower specced machines as it removes the need for high res textures.

 

I just think they need to keep an element of games simple and addictive rather than churning out overly complicated open span environment games which are good in a limited quantity but not to a degree where it removes the playability.

 

I have so many games on the XBOX I hardly touch because they're just too big really I guess I'm more of a pick up and play kind of person, not really a hardcore gamer.

 

It is horse for courses but I feel the trend is going to more complicated games and the simple more addictive ones and new innovations are slowly dwindling.

 

I just hope Nintendo keep to their roots so they'll be at least one console on the market to cover my needs.

[Rich]

We played Worms Armageddon (a 6 year old 2D game)

 

Worms has got to be one of my all time favs and one you can play again and again, classics like this are few and far between.

 

A lot of games nowadays are rarely the sort you want to play again especially after completing them, online features offer some extra life to the games but there's only so many American kids singing in your ear you can cope with before telling them to fuck off.

[Rhumsaa]

World of Warcraft has some length but that is the human element and evolution

 

SWOS still wins for me

[Slim]

I bought a PSP a few months back only to sell it again because I found it all abit much for a portable console, I've since now bought a DS because it's far more playable. I'd have actually gone for a GBA Micro if it wasn't for the many websites showing concern for future titles for the console.

 

See, you should have listened to your uncle Slim!

 

The DS is just gimicky and too cutesy in my opinion. Good if you're 11 but personally I don't feel its much good for adults.

 

 

I recon there's a place for a range of games. Just because they're instantly engaging doesn't mean they'll last a long time and be replayable. There's plenty of superb games out now that are both enjoyable and technically stunning. You can get style over content too, but I dont think that's the case for everything.

 

I'm loving world of warcraft, which manages to be both cutting edge and very enjoyable.

 

I'm also loving bowmaster, which is about as basic as you can get.

[Jools]

I think the difference is back then with the old games, before pc's were really the norm, you knew what to expect. For example you knew the limits of each console (NES, SNES, MegaDrive etc.) as you did with the Spectrum, Commodore, Atari, Amiga and so on. The game devs didnt have to work hard to push the latest hardware to its limits because, well, the hardware never really changed. They knew their limits, so you got more of a game regardless of graphics.

 

Todays games are graphics intensive. Not that theres anything wrong with making a game look realistic, but to be honest, I'm quite happy to play the likes of Doom, Quake, Tomb Raider 2, Resident Evil 1 & 2, FF 7 and such on my PS1, than shell out £30-£40 for newer versions of the same games going under different names on the PC. Because really, these PS games were the blueprints for most of todays top games, the only things that have changed are graphics have gotten better, and playability has gotten worse. I'd complete a game on the PS and play it again (most times) especially the games I listed above, as they were really enjoyable to just play, regardless of whether you actually completed them or not. Most of the PC games I never complete, or complete once and then they get a life on the shelf.

 

Thats why most of the best PC games these days are online games. The likes of WoW and CounterStrike for example. CounterStrike is just a 3D version of Worms that works, although I must admit I'd prefer the weapons from Worms in CS

 

I hope that with the PS3 and future consoles (and maybe future PC technology) game devs dont just bring out newer versions of current games, but seek to make a decent game thats nothing like any other game. Quite hard to do considering the range of games out these days, but we're overdue something playable like GTA, gripping like Resident Evil, virtually impossile like getting Lara Croft to make the jump, all with a storyline a big as the FF series.

[Slim]

Todays games are graphics intensive. Not that theres anything wrong with making a game look realistic, but to be honest, I'm quite happy to play the likes of Doom, Quake, Tomb Raider 2, Resident Evil 1 & 2, FF 7 and such on my PS1, than shell out £30-£40 for newer versions of the same games going under different names on the PC. Because really, these PS games were the blueprints for most of todays top games, the only things that have changed are graphics have gotten better, and playability has gotten worse.

 

Na, just can't agree with that at all.

 

Doom was fun in its day, but it's a fekking dull game now. Kill rooms full of mobs, find blue key, rinse repeat. Compare that to the sneaky stealthy action in Splinter Cell or the squad strategic fun in Rainbow Six and you can see just how far these games have come on both visually and gameplay wise.

 

Playability hasn't gotten worse. There's unplayable games now, there were unplayable games then. Graphics have gotten better though. They're two different issues.

[Rich]

See, you should have listened to your uncle Slim!

 

Yes yes you were right.............................for once

 

I just found that I spent more time on the older style games than I do on the current batch, again it might just be a sign of getting old or change in taste. I still enjoy the games on the XBOX as well but I'd love to see some new 2D games released. Some nice ideas are a combination of 3D backdrops in a 2D environment.

 

Games I've seen clips of featuring this would be the Spiderman series on the DS, don't know how the game shapes up as many of the Spiderman games we good but lacked content.

[Rhumsaa]

I dunno I think they are over developing games now

 

Perfect example for me is the Smackdown genre - which got better and better until the past 2 games which have become over complex

 

Madden is the same...

 

Graphically the new games are absolutely amazing but it's such a bore to play you go back 2/3 years to play the games

[ans]

CounterStrike is just a 3D version of Worms that works, although I must admit I'd prefer the weapons from Worms in CS

 

I would take up playing CS again in an instant if there was a mod for this. And if there isn't, I might just make one.

[Slim]

I just found that I spent more time on the older style games than I do on the current batch, again it might just be a sign of getting old or change in taste. I still enjoy the games on the XBOX as well but I'd love to see some new 2D games released. Some nice ideas are a combination of 3D backdrops in a 2D environment.

 

I think that the older style 'quick play' games fit a portable platform better. I dont think GTA is a great portable game for the psp, its a veg out on the sofa for hours game, not a quick blast on the bus thing.

 

I recon nintendo knows its market in portables far better than sony does, the ds is tough, its clamshell so you can't ruin the screen, the touchscreen is ace for kids and casual gamers and the games just plan fit the 'just a quickie ' gap that a portable needs to fill. The psp is a portable ps2, which is great if you can't get access to the telly usually but not really what most people want out of a portable.

 

As for wanting new 2d games, check out the indie scene on the pc. Stuff like Geometary wars, Breakquest, GISH, Mutant Storm, Water Bugs, Ultratron and the wonderful Darwinia. Here you're seeing nods to retro with flashy paint jobs or completely new ideas that games studios wont take a risk on.

 

 

Rhumsaa: Slagging off EA sports franchaises for being cynical rehashes with flasier graphics is like blaming a giraffe for being tall. It's what they do innit, it sucks I agree, but thats what makes em room fulls of cash.

[Rich]

I find EA tend to make a good first title then flog it to death. They need to learn to make a decent title, maybe one sequal then leave it well alone.

 

Some of their titles are utter shite from the word go but others are pretty decent.

 

Good example of this would be SSX.

 

SSX - Fantastic game, quite original

SSX Tricky - Much of the same but nicely expanded upon.

SSX3 - hmm starting to suck balls.

 

SSX4 - God knows apparently sucks balls even more.

 

Don't even get me started on their sorry attempts at porting to a portable platform, now a cartoon cell shaded SSX would be decent, but not an attempt to make the game the same as the home console.

[Rhumsaa]

Rhumsaa: Slagging off EA sports franchaises for being cynical rehashes with flasier graphics is like blaming a giraffe for being tall. It's what they do innit, it sucks I agree, but thats what makes em room fulls of cash.

 

 

 

I know what you're saying but ironically I preferred the better graphics updates to when they started messing with gameplay and shafting it