nowadays games
-
Someone tell me why i dont enjoy games today as i did when I was a child or a teenager i still can remember how i played the first RE back in 98 or how i played indiana jones and the fate of atlantis back in 95 or Metal Gear Solid for PS1 or Agent 007 in N64. nowadays games seems stupid to me i just finished playing the last call of duty, death island and battlefield 3 and i sense somthing is missing What is it?!!!!
I'm still an avid gamer, just entering my forties. Been playing games since my brother brought home a brand new Atari VCS (before the name was changed to the Atari 2600) in 1977. Since then, I've played on the Commodore 64, C=128, C=Amiga and a 386. Then I picked up a PlayStation in 1998. Over the years, I've picked up several systems, including my current PlayStation 3. I agree there are far to many FPS games. I enjoyed Doom and Duke Nukem 3D. I've since burnt out on them. Unless it has an intriguing setting or storyline, I don't play FPS anymore - Bioshock II was my last FPS, heh. I prefer the RPG genre, but some of those are lacking as well. Final Fantasy XIII was okay - story was interesting, game system was not. Dragon Age II felt more like an action game than an RPG (but I still mostly enjoyed the game). I think it's somewhat telling that I spent money recently at GOG.com for some of the older RPGs. I may get the Ultima series in the near future... :) Flynn
_If we can't corrupt the youth of today,
the adults of tomorrow will be no fun...
_ -
wizardzz wrote:
Also, because there is so much money involved, and so many people working on it, they are created by committee which I am starting to feel more and more leads to mediocrity. Movies and TV's shows written via committee suck compared to one where someone has a clear artistic / creative lead / vested interest.
Errr...there is so much money involved because the games are vastly more complex. Try playing 'hunt the wumpus' (the text one) or 'pong' and then compare that to something like Halo.
-
I think that's what's missing these days. Most games have very similar story lines these days. Also, a particular rant I've had for a long time: WHY OH WHY are games that run on things like IPads and IPods (despite running on far more powerful games than classic games run on) absolute shit?! Why would I want to play some crappy game where all you do is simple mundane tasks (E.G. Angry birds, a game I've seen where you throw fruit around and then cut it up, various driving games) Classic games were made to be FAR better than this in less program space and on systems with limited memory and processing power. Thing's like Zork could keep you entertained for hours, all the games that run on IPads are crappy and maybe keep you interested for a few minutes. In fact, they are all like the Flash games you can find to play on the internet. :mad:
See if you can crack this: b749f6c269a746243debc6488046e33f
So far, no one seems to have cracked this!The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
I've done a little iPhone programming on the side for a small indie developer. The outfit is dominated by young hipsters who think if you make the graphics "beautiful" the thing will sell. The functionality isn't important as long as it's beautiful. Even the fact that their sales are inversely proportional to the quality of the graphics in their various apps doesn't seem to convince them. I wrote more complicated games on a TRS-80 back 1980 then what they want me to program for them on an iPhone. But hey, the graphics are pretty. Trust me, I'm not giving up my day job...
-
Long live PONG!! :-D
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
When I was a teenager, we had pin-ball machines. A dime got one game, a quarter got three. I'd spend a dime, play several hours, sell 10 games for a quarter. Couldn't afford the gas at a quarter per gallon, so bicycled to the bowling ally that had the machines. Asteroids came out when I was in college. That was fun.
-
Someone tell me why i dont enjoy games today as i did when I was a child or a teenager i still can remember how i played the first RE back in 98 or how i played indiana jones and the fate of atlantis back in 95 or Metal Gear Solid for PS1 or Agent 007 in N64. nowadays games seems stupid to me i just finished playing the last call of duty, death island and battlefield 3 and i sense somthing is missing What is it?!!!!
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
as i did when I was a child or a teenager
Ask someone who was 5 y/o during the Cold War era how their childhood was. Or ask the woman who, as a little girl, was toted around in a VW bus from ages 3-7 by her peace-loving mother what it was like to have only a single doll to entertain herself with for that whole time. Point is stuff was great when you were a kid becuase you were a kid.
-
When I was a teenager, we had pin-ball machines. A dime got one game, a quarter got three. I'd spend a dime, play several hours, sell 10 games for a quarter. Couldn't afford the gas at a quarter per gallon, so bicycled to the bowling ally that had the machines. Asteroids came out when I was in college. That was fun.
Ahhhh, the good ol' days, riding bikes to video arcades - hey at least we were active and sort of social! :-D
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
-
Someone tell me why i dont enjoy games today as i did when I was a child or a teenager i still can remember how i played the first RE back in 98 or how i played indiana jones and the fate of atlantis back in 95 or Metal Gear Solid for PS1 or Agent 007 in N64. nowadays games seems stupid to me i just finished playing the last call of duty, death island and battlefield 3 and i sense somthing is missing What is it?!!!!
-
Someone tell me why i dont enjoy games today as i did when I was a child or a teenager i still can remember how i played the first RE back in 98 or how i played indiana jones and the fate of atlantis back in 95 or Metal Gear Solid for PS1 or Agent 007 in N64. nowadays games seems stupid to me i just finished playing the last call of duty, death island and battlefield 3 and i sense somthing is missing What is it?!!!!
The good news in all of this tech pushing is that we only have to wait till 2019. One of the big guys at Nvidia said they will reach photo realism in 2019. If you can’t make anything that looks more real it will force developers to revert back to content to set them apart from other games. Guess we need to wait this out :D
-
Someone tell me why i dont enjoy games today as i did when I was a child or a teenager i still can remember how i played the first RE back in 98 or how i played indiana jones and the fate of atlantis back in 95 or Metal Gear Solid for PS1 or Agent 007 in N64. nowadays games seems stupid to me i just finished playing the last call of duty, death island and battlefield 3 and i sense somthing is missing What is it?!!!!
Back in the dark times, 1980, I played a CLI-based Star Trek game on a multi-user PDP11. You would string commands together to move to a location/fire on an enemy/run away.
-
Aescleal wrote:
Does it sound like I'm ranting? And I work in the effing industry. When I were a lad 'twere all fields 'round 'ere...
Then you also know how users are. They don't care very much about your brilliant programming as long as it does not make their computer explode. Unlike all other features your game may or may not have the graphics can be shown on the box, in ads or in the internet. Nobody really reads endless sermons from marketing. It's images that get the customer's attention, nothing else. And let's talk about fans. They always want exactly what they are used to, yet in unexpected new ways. They will shriek and snarl if you change too much. They will also shriek and snarl if you change too little. You might get away with changing nothing and selling it to them a second time as 'expansion'. Otherwise it's better to work on those things they can't possibly mind (the graphics) and be very careful with everything else. Understandable with those production costs at stake. You mentioned scripts and how they are an inadequate substitute for real AI. True, but how often have you seen such an AI in a game? How many programmers do you have that could pull that trick off without seriously endangering the project? It's still a field with more questions than answers. I have tried my luck and even got some results. You could give it inputs and than ask it what it wants to do. It started with no knowledge at all and over time it learned how to interpret the inputs and make valid decisions, including picking the right moment to give up when facing defeat. I change the rules and it adapted. It would also have adapted when players found out how to defeat it. Sounds like a vast improvement over scripts, right? The downside was that it was unpredictable how it would adapt. One of its earliest strategies was to run away at the first sign of trouble. Artificial cowards. A good choice because their primary goal was survival, but also not really good for creating an exciting game. If it 'learned' that we are using them as cannon fodder it might very well be that they go back to that behavior at any time. Or they might actually find a disadvantage of the players to exploit and become almost invincible.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
CDP1802 wrote:
You mentioned scripts and how they are an inadequate substitute for real AI.
Games being scripted doesn't mean only AI. It means instead of giving you freedom to explore (and get lost), act (and blow away the designer's path), they provide a normalized 'cinematographic' experience, with dialogue and cut-scenes. Sometimes it can be done well (GTA, Mass Effect IMHO), but most of the time it's boring and limiting.
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood 'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
