What happened to games?

[arion]

I wonder what happened to actually finishing the story in one game. I have had it with cliffhangers for an ending. Sequels used to be made when the first game was popular enough to warrant a sequel. Now they are planned and suck so much more for it.

[Ack]

Personally, I think it's just because the Resistance series really wasn't that great in general. It was basically "Walk into X room, unload on enemy, watch him not react until he's dead" ad nauseum. Why did that game get hyped so much?

[futuramaguy42]

I like the older games better,but Gears of War & COD is fun every once in a while.I don't really care too much about graphics,but GoW is beautiful on my HDTV.I also miss the old days when the games were cheaper and more simple to play.

Games were not that much cheaper. I have Space Megaforce for SNES in box that still has the NEW sticker on it and it was 40 dollars. (Great game btw.) I bought this game at a yard sale so I don't know if all SNES games were this price.

Also look at this http://curmudgeongamer.com/imgdisplay.p ... solute.png
It's a chart that shows console prices over the years.

Back to main topic, people are getting into retro stuff again, look at stuff like Megaman 9 or New Super Mario Brothers. That being said, it isn't very likely that these retro like games will ever be there own game, like a retail one rather then a downloadable or portable one. There is no reason for businesses to make games like this for stores, they aren't the main audience for games, and the games don't take up enough space on a disk to make it worth it. It would be really cool if consoles could have a low cost cartridge system so people could make these retro games for a price that the masses would like and we would get to have good old cartridges back.

[sakicfan84]

Do you think that we got too much of a good thing? That most games out there reached a level where they are in top quality? Are great graphics an expected luxury now? There was a time when people will talk about the game's graphics, and would buy it for its graphics. I see that less and less today.

The other thing is , that I noticed people are starting to look back at older games and enjoying them more than current generation. Sales from VC and XBL is enough proof I guess. Are we seeing some kind of revolution in gaming? Will games go back to 2d? Are people looking for something other than 3D graphics?
Care to join the discussion?

I think the crowd that probably congregates on a forum like this is not a fair assessment of the average gaming market. There are still plenty of people who pick games up based on how good the graphics are or how cool the cover looks.

I've played some great games this generation that I think will go down as some of my all-time great gaming experiences. Bioshock was a simply amazing game that wouldn't have been nearly impressive without the great visuals that really helped build an amazing atmosphere. Portal didn't have cutting edge 3D graphics, but it probably ranks as one of the best games I've played in a long time (and has the most entertaining ending EVER). NHL 09 is the best sports game I've ever played. The way the online play is seamlessly integrated into the game is amazing; I never thought any hockey games would be able to compete with the old Genesis games, but I've had more fun playing this than any previous sports game.

I think people just expect too much from games now a days. There are some amazing games that will still have followers a dozen years from now and there a bunch of completely forgettable games. That isn't really any different from any of the other past generations. Sure there are some genres that are struggling to innovate and improve that much from older games, but some genres are doing just fine and using the modern technology to provide gamers with experiences that they never would be able to have on an old console.

I like the older games better,but Gears of War & COD is fun every once in a while.I don't really care too much about graphics,but GoW is beautiful on my HDTV.I also miss the old days when the games were cheaper and more simple to play.

I paid $70 or $80 new for Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 3 and Phantasy Star 4. Games were actually a little more expensive depending on what you were into playing back then.

[MrPopo]

The biggest thing about older games is that developers had less to work with. Mega Man was never a feast for the eyes, so the developers had to make awesome gameplay. I seem to recall an interview with someone from the Mega Man 9 team who mentioned that he really liked making a retro game, since he had to focus so much on making sure it played well.

[RemyC]

The problem is that people settle for mediocrity these days, and the gaming industry is making tons of money, so its far more cost effective to produce the half ass games, because they know people will eat it up, and they'll be making all the money back. Then pop out a sequel, "OH, it recieved a sequel. It must be good!" A lot of people have trouble understanding that games can be bad.
Back in the 8-bit, 16-bit era, the majority of games were arcade based. To survive as an arcade game, you need to be the cream of the crop. If you succeed in the arcades, you get the glory of receiving a home port. Their was a fine filtration system. Still bad games got through, and a lot of games were lost in the shadows of others.

Nothing really happened to games. Its the people that buy them who changed. The industry is just giving the masses what they want.

[DCsegaDH]

The problem is that people settle for mediocrity these days, and the gaming industry is making tons of money, so its far more cost effective to produce the half ass games, because they know people will eat it up, and they'll be making all the money back. Then pop out a sequel, "OH, it recieved a sequel. It must be good!" A lot of people have trouble understanding that games can be bad.
Back in the 8-bit, 16-bit era, the majority of games were arcade based. To survive as an arcade game, you need to be the cream of the crop. If you succeed in the arcades, you get the glory of receiving a home port. Their was a fine filtration system. Still bad games got through, and a lot of games were lost in the shadows of others.

Nothing really happened to games. Its the people that buy them who changed. The industry is just giving the masses what they want.

I missed those days when you get to try out the new games in the arcades,they almost always had the better versions of my favorite games.

[anosou]

I agree totally, but also think , with the internet and early reviews of the games help us from being stuck with a turd.

This is true. I've wouldn't have found some of the more obscure titles otherwise.

Things I try to avoid are some of the major gaming sites and meta reviews. I'm at the point where if something looks fun to play, I go for it.

I've been doing just this for a long time! I'm taking some time to find screenshots and videos instead, not previews or reviews. If the game looks like fun I'm sure as hell gonna try to find it and play it!

A big issue is still, like you said, the quite sick ammount of good playable games out there. Because of racketboy's PS2 Hidden Gem article I've bought pretty much 5-20 games a month. Many of them PS2-games. I barely have time to play them anymore but then again I might be more of a collector nowadays than I was before. There's still that sense of joy when you pick up a game you actually haven't heard anything about and realize it's awesome! Bloody Roar is a great example of this in my gaming backlog at least

I don't agree with that people "can't realize games can be bad". I think it's rather the opposite. If you check the big review sites (and many people DO follow these religously) they're bashing pretty much everything except the big mainstream titles. They don't realize smaller games can be "good" but it's good on other terms than graphics-wise or "ammount of machine guns". I think we have too many good games nowadays. Gaming is no longer the niche interest it used to be, developers (with the same background as us!) get better and better and there are more options to create games. The only issue is deciding what you actually want to spend your time and money on and finding out what REALLY gets you going. I was for example WAY more entertained by Koei Canada's Fatal Inertia than Street Fighter IV and then I'm a pretty damn huge fighting game fan.

Short version: Many more games are good nowadays. It's just hard to try them all so you trust the reviewers. They're all biased. Shovelware's still everywhere though, because of DS.

[RemyC]

[quote="anosou"
I don't agree with that people "can't realize games can be bad". I think it's rather the opposite. If you check the big review sites (and many people DO follow these religously) they're bashing pretty much everything except the big mainstream titles.[/quote]

I dont think you realize that you are agreeing with me. When I said, "people don't realize games can be bad", I was referring to the way that people worship just about every single First person shooter that comes out. Then call the one with the highest resolution, and most photo-realistic graphics, the best game.
If you visit any big review site, you should expect them to be praising every mainstream title...where do you think the money comes from?
These are the same sites that knock fighting games, because "They're not doing anything different".
Then knock Run N gunners for being too short, and not giving them enough continues.

Ive refrained from picking up a current-gen console, because in total, less than a dozen titles interest me...not sure where all these games are...

[anosou]

I don't agree with that people "can't realize games can be bad". I think it's rather the opposite. If you check the big review sites (and many people DO follow these religously) they're bashing pretty much everything except the big mainstream titles.

I dont think you realize that you are agreeing with me. When I said, "people don't realize games can be bad", I was referring to the way that people worship just about every single First person shooter that comes out. Then call the one with the highest resolution, and most photo-realistic graphics, the best game.
If you visit any big review site, you should expect them to be praising every mainstream title...where do you think the money comes from?
These are the same sites that knock fighting games, because "They're not doing anything different".
Then knock Run N gunners for being too short, and not giving them enough continues.

Ive refrained from picking up a current-gen console, because in total, less than a dozen titles interest me...not sure where all these games are...

Then I just missinterpreted your phrasing. In any case I think you might (just might) be kind of stuck in the past too. Now this is a serious thing to say at racketboy, the home of many retro-freaks, but I'll take the chance. I see all these gamers that like me enjoy older consoles, 2d gaming and arcades. Yet they are as narrow-minded as the FPS freaks or the "anything from Japan"-guy.

As I said, I think the issue today is that people (all people) doesn't give a lot of games a fighting chance because they're not "HD FPS" or in racketboyer's case because they're not "2d run'n'gun"/"Japanese RPG"/"2d fighter"/"shmup"/"A DREAMCAST". I enjoyed niche, non-popular and "old-school" games like Senko no Ronde, Omega Five, Project Sylpheed, Armored Core 4, R-Type Dimensions and Virtua Fighter 5 about as much as I enjoyed blockbusters like Fable II, Fallout 3, Bioshock, and Assassin's Creed. At the same time I also picked some random games (Fartal Inertia!) at the store to try out and some of them I also enjoyed but would've NEVER found on racketboy OR at IGN. By the way, excuse me for only using Xbox 360 examples but that's the most versatile of the current-gen consoles in my opinion so I thought it was fitting.

Basically my opinion: People don't realize games can be good because they're mostly stuck in their own, slightly biased, view on what's a good game. Expand your horizons! Even towards high-resolution HD FPS