Stagnation or lack of imagination and a skewed mentality in the gaming industry

[Mihkel]

@soldant
I agree that ME1 was too cluttered considering the inventory system but ME2 had way too less of it. Also the loyalty missions/romances you barley had to do anything to get them (Kelly Chambers just came to you and said that x, y or z wanted to talk to you) BF3 has lost a lot by losing the commander and 6 man squads in my opinion (teamwork and size mostly.)

On the topic of lack of innovation and stagnation, I believe it to be more or less the lack of imagination. Innovation is not required for a good game, just some imagination on the script and gameplay, doesn't mean it has to be innovating. In fact I did not talk about innovation in my original post. Imagination does not limit to that. You can give games some really small illusions of freedom (Escape from Butcher Bay), small hubs (Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlinesm, Deus Ex: Human Revolution), interesting plot mechanics which might or might not work out (Darkness 2), completely new aspect (World in Conflict, Portal series), a classical polished multiplayer that has not been seen in ages (Tribes: Ascend, Quake Live), a polished coop experience (FEAR 3, PAYDAY: The Heist.)

DA1 was okay considering the tactical aspect. It was much more difficult game comparing to DA2 tkaing into account enemy placements, their equipment and spells/actions they could do.

Fable series' problem after the first installment is directly tied to steamlining considering making combat/player health/content even more basic and simple.

Streamlining as a word, I do not know why it has come to here. Maybe I have worded my original post wrongly but I do not want it to become a topic in this thread. Obviously for you it's not as bad as it has been made out to be and for me obviously it's not as beneficial as it has been made out to be. So lets just say that you win and I lose in that argument.

The reason I picked Dead Island is because it tried to do something different (interesting melee combat where you can remove your opponents limbs to make them less effective, open world zombie apocalypse in first person and full 4-player coop), of course Techland went too greedy by going multiplat but that's what you get (weird animations and an unfinished game). But still it has some soul behind it unlike most games today and that's the reason I remember it so well (good times with buddies and Oblivion style animations.)

The thing with Duke Nukem Forever is that infact it was too constricted considering 3D. It was a massively linear affair with overdone jokes, shit gameplay choices and shouldn't have been released at all in my opinion. The fact that Gearbox decided to release it like that is just shameful.

DX:HR main mistake, even more dire than the missing content is the 3 button ending it has because ultimately your choices throughout the game do not count at all.

You do not need to look before the year 2000 to find some brilliant games and the years they have had a good streak. I don't know why people keep going to 1992-1999 to get good games where there have been brilliant installments after these years and in very short timespans.

@Kadayi
I played DA2 on hard/normal. I switched to normal on 2 boss fights only (the rock guy and some sidequest villain who spawned some ridiculous help), mostly because it took so long to kill them.

I picked Alpha Protocol because it has timed responses, they more or less convey what you're saying and because it forms a minigame (intel and all that jazz.)

The list you have is mostly pretty shit compared to 2004 PC games list.

[Kadayi]

The list you have is mostly pretty shit compared to 2004 PC games list.

If that's the best you can bring to the table as a counter argument ('shit'..the hallmark of a skilled critic), don't bother necroing dead threads in future.

[Mihkel]

If that's the best you can bring to the table as a counter argument ('shit'..the hallmark of a skilled critic), don't bother necroing dead threads in future.

I do agree that 'shit' is a wrong word. However the games list is much smaller considering imaginative or quality releases or releases overall.

[Hypernetic]

I think that in a lot of areas there isn't much room for improvement without some kind of leap in technology. Games like CS, TF2, SC2, Battlefield, etc have pretty much perfected their formulas. Sure there is room for minor improvements like updated graphics and tweaked gameplay mechanics, but the basic formulas have reached a plateau I think.

This isn't true for all genres or subsets of genres, but it seems to be the case.

edit: didn't realize this was a necro'd thread...

[soldant]

@soldant
I agree that ME1 was too cluttered considering the inventory system but ME2 had way too less of it.

Yeah, I agreed on that point. I think ME3 strikes the right balance; no duplicates of anything, but plenty of choice with upgrades.

..., of course Techland went too greedy by going multiplat but that's what you get...

I can't equate "multiplatform" with what happened to Dead Island. They screwed up on their own, not because it went multi-platform.

The thing with Duke Nukem Forever is that infact it was too constricted considering 3D. It was a massively linear affair with overdone jokes, shit gameplay choices and shouldn't have been released at all in my opinion. The fact that Gearbox decided to release it like that is just shameful.

Did you play DN3D? I sure did. Played the hell out of it. And DNF pretty much reminded me of exactly what DN3D was like - linear, pop-culture jokes, juvenile humour... yep, matches what I played. DN3D, Doom, all these games were linear too. The fact that they made you engage in backtracking to find a key or flip a switch does not suddenly make them a level-design success story; you're still following one intended path (Start here, get key here, flip switch here, get to exit here). Half Life was as linear as a line too. Linearity on its own is not necessarily a criticism, in fact it wouldn't even be mentioned if the game itself is fun to play. In fact in telling a specific, tight story there is an inherent element of linearity.

[JackShandy]

Accusing games of stagnation is ridiculous. Gaming's the most constantly changing medium there is. Movies, books, music; you get expertise in those, you can use that knowledge forever. In games, your expertise will become totally obsolete in no time flat.

You can come in to work on 90% of jobs with some small hope that the stuff you're being paid to work on now will be the stuff you'll be getting paid to work on in five years. You don't get that kind of stability in the games industry. If you still have a job in five years you'll be working on problems you've never seen before in your life, because technology constantly changes and consumers won't buy the same game over and over again. Activision's tried to change that and make it more of a stable business, but everyone hates them for it and it only works for a limited time before they have to take a risk and change the formula again.

I mean, jesus, people are still doing things with games that no-one has done before. When was the last book that did something that no other book had done before it?

[Nalano]

I mean, jesus, people are still doing things with games that no-one has done before. When was the last book that did something that no other book had done before it?

Shiiiit, I'm happy when people do things that people have done before, but really well. Mass Effect's a hodge-podge of sci fi tropes, yet wears that shit like a favorite sweater. By all rights we're in a golden age, but we can't get past the bad shit to enjoy the good shit.

If that's the best you can bring to the table as a counter argument ('shit'..the hallmark of a skilled critic), don't bother necroing dead threads in future.

I have to concur with Kadayi here, in the point that the only reason that 2004 releases were so awesome was the fact that the genre is so fuckin' new that anything would seem awesome using the technology of the time to beat the technology prior.

Whenever the genre plateaus due to the technology, THEN we can start talking about industry-defining moments of game design. In the meanwhile, it's whomever comes in first, hardest, which is why we have such a hard time comparing anything to anything else: Everything's a product of its position in an quickly-evolving system.

[Mihkel]

@soldant
Yes I have played Duke Nukem 3D and level design in that was way more open than it was in Duke Nukem Forever. And there really was not that much of backtracking (compared to DOOM for instance). There were however more areas/secrets for the exploring, just look at the first level, much more content in there than an average level of DNF. Maybe I have worded myself wrong but I'm not saying that linearity in itself is bad. What I'm trying to say is that there is a noticeable difference in level design compared DN3D and DNF. And where DN3D made these tongue in cheek macho jokes and all that stuff DNF takes it too far trying to be edgy, at least I can see some degree of difference in there. Maybe actually there is not but it just seems to me that way when I look at the jokes. For me it's not just lol poop jokes herp derp but I can see some difference between the two games considering that aspect.

@other people
Firstly this very "young" industry has already had a crash of it's own in relation of churning out needless stuff.

Secondly if you want to talk about the constant technological change in the industry which has had a not so big of an impact on gaming considering gameplay. Most of this change is from the graphics side (and that is even pretty slow considering the old hardware current gen consoles are using) and in motion controllers (which most still do not use, atleast on PC). Kinect hosts a bunch of party games and MS tries to get developers to support some bigger titles on it (Mass Effect 3 for instance). Move and Wiimote both have a single advantage for being more precise (for the FPS genre) than a regular controller but have a too small of a list of games for them (that support that advantage.)

Thirdly saying that this is an unstable industry is weird for me (same non-changing hardware for consoles for instance). Time and time again it has been proven that when a developer makes a game that has soul, imagination or some sort of an integrity behind it people will buy it and the company will survive and thrive eventually. Sure it will not thrive massively but the devs thanks to that have STEADY jobs, a solid fanbase/customers and creative control over what they make.

Fourthly I do not know what means necroing a thread. From what I understand it is that I was about 2 weeks late with my post. I am sorry if I've offended anybody with late posting or something like that, it was not my intention.

[Sketch]

I agree that DNF felt nothing like 3D. It felt old and forced, trying to parody and laugh at other games mechanic, while being an inferior copy of them itself. It didn't embrace that it's roots lie in the 90's, and updated itself with modern tech, we know how successful that can be - look at Serious Sam 3. Duke deserves better.

[Nalano]

@other people
Firstly this very "young" industry has already had a crash of it's own in relation of churning out needless stuff.

It's actually had more than one crash, but I fail to see how that in any way contradicts the point that it's a new industry.

Secondly if you want to talk about the constant technological change in the industry which has had a not so big of an impact on gaming considering gameplay.

Okay, now you're just talking out of your ass.

Sure it will not thrive massively but the devs thanks to that have STEADY jobs, a solid fanbase/customers and creative control over what they make.

Oh man. You're really talking out of your ass. Just... yeah, c'mon. For your own sake: Move along.