277 replies to this topic

[NotNewHere]

Here's a list of games that are still good (In my opinion)
LoL - because it is a nicely made game in general and hasn't been too over simplified
All of the mechwarrior games - Need i say more?
Saints row the Third - Its like GTA but more creative and with a much better storyline
Star Wolves - A really good space sim my older brother showed me
Starcraft - Already mentioned
I know not all of these are very new but they are all good games nonetheless. Also my LoL name is 'SlayTheDreamer' so say high if you see me so I know your another Mechwarrior fan

[Cranky Poed]

when a game goes gold...i call it pubic beta..
but online games are a differant story. they are constantly changing.

Indy games are where the quality is now. they have more time to make a better experience IMO.

the big Corps have to make money on games or they just wont make them. I do like my Battlefield's and whatnot. I think Diablo was exactly what i was expecting i was not dissapointed.

[Melcyna]

H Minus, on 18 August 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

They made games back then to make money. Sure there were people that enjoyed it enough to do it for free, but most companies back then are the same as companies now. All about the quarter profit.

The difference is that back then the gameplay MUST BE EXCELLENT because that was really the only thing they could sell properly since the graphics were not their strong suit. If it didn't play well, it simply dies...

Nowadays the focus instead is to dress it up as pretty as possible and dazzle the customer enough that he forgets the gameplay is pretty mediocre or crap since it's easier to market a nice visual.

Exception exist, but the big name company in general goes in that direction... hence why the MASSIVE budget they allocate to adds and marketing.

Nightwish, on 18 August 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Here's a list of games that are still good (In my opinion)
LoL - because it is a nicely made game in general and hasn't been too over simplified
All of the mechwarrior games - Need i say more?
Saints row the Third - Its like GTA but more creative and with a much better storyline
Star Wolves - A really good space sim my older brother showed me
Starcraft - Already mentioned
I know not all of these are very new but they are all good games nonetheless. Also my LoL name is 'SlayTheDreamer' so say high if you see me so I know your another Mechwarrior fan

Starwolves are not space sim exactly, it's more accurately a real time space tactical game... you don't fly the plane directly, you merely order them, and whether the game was good or not is well.. depends on who you ask, a lot of ppl were frustrated with it's unit AI response that tend to just fly around instead of lining up shots properly.

Mechwarrior? Sure, up till Mechwarrior 3 that is... Mechwarrior 4 and above goes all to hell...

and MechAssault? wait.. .scratch that, MechAssault did not exist... that abomination is just my figment of imagination.

Edited by Melcyna, 18 August 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[rafgod]

So basically, we're all just saying 'Get off my lawn!'

Everyone will always prefer the games of their youth. Back then the games were newer to us, more difficult, we had not really noticed the patterns that made the game easy to beat...
Case in point... I will always call Link's Awakening the best zelda game ever. Because it was first and hardest.

Warcraft 2
SimCity 2000
Warlords
Civ2

Those games all had their bugs, but we were all more patient.

That being said, Modern Warfare 3 was a big bag of crap. lol There's a reason ppl still play counterstrike.

Tie Fighter and Freespace 1 and 2 for best space sims.

Edited by rafgod, 18 August 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[Melcyna]

If you take Civ though as an example...

Civ2: had excellent wonders... (something that makes you wonder why the others after that didn't share it)
Civ3: had one of the more refined interface overal
Civ4: added more layers on top of Civ3.
Civ5: goes all to hell with the no stack mechanism.

Or Master of Orion
Moo1: the old classic, not exactly pretty but the de facto standard of space 4x
Moo2: an improvement of the old that sets the bar for turn based 4x space game
Moo3: goes all to hell with horrible convoluted interface, missing features that was staple from Moo2 (and necessary to smooth gameplay), and new additions that didn't help gameplay.

Bugs are one thing, but not all of the gameplay change they take over the time were actually good... case in point, we got just as many cases where the subsequent iteration became worse than it's predecessor as we do cases where it improves.

Edited by Melcyna, 18 August 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[nektu]

Melcyna, on 18 August 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

The difference is that back then the gameplay MUST BE EXCELLENT because that was really the only thing they could sell properly since the graphics were not their strong suit. If it didn't play well, it simply dies...

I would argue that thats not entirely true. Even back then better graphics had the same meaning. Doom was awesome because it was one of the first 3D-Shooters. It's athmosphere was a thing of beauty. Doom without those incredible graphics (ie as top-down-shooter) would never have become the milestone of computer-gaming it is.

Or quake. People bought extra 3D-Graphics accelerator cards to play ONE SINGLE GAME. And boy was I envious back then because I didnt have **** like that.

Same with man other games. X-Wing? Tie-Fighter? Those games were great - and the graphics most certainly had a part in that.

Still, I know where you are coming from - games today are certainly more streamlined (aka one plays like the next one), and since we have been gaming forever, we hardly discover anything new and notworthy in games any longer. Sad but eh, thats life

There are still excellent games out there - for me it's "The WItcher", "The Witcher 2" (both games from poland - they dont really follow the american blockbuster rules) "World of Tanks" because I can grind if im hooked and several more.

Melcyna, on 18 August 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Nowadays the focus instead is to dress it up as pretty as possible and dazzle the customer enough that he forgets the gameplay is pretty mediocre or crap since it's easier to market a nice visual.

Buy other games. Seriously, just be more careful, read reviews and try demos before you commit your money.

Edited by nektu, 18 August 2012 - 09:35 PM.

[Melcyna]

Quote

I would argue that thats not entirely true. Even back then better graphics had the same meaning. Doom was awesome because it was one of the first 3D-Shooters. It's athmosphere was a thing of beauty. Doom without those incredible graphics (ie as top-down-shooter) would never have become the milestone of computer-gaming it is.

I suppose that is also true...

At the same time though, back then when they want to try to put a narrative in, they had no choice but to put it in the most effective mean possible since they have neither the space or the processing power for anything grandiose (except through FMV, and oh boy did the big company go nutz with FMV at those times).

Similarly when it comes to gameplay, there's not much room in either space or processing power for anything that isn't useful to the gameplay itself. Which is why when games like System Shock came out it was nothing short of phenomenal for the amount of gameplay mechanic and interpretation that they managed to cram in with so little space..

It's rather depressing when games of that depth became a rarity. Witcher yeah that was pretty good for a modern RPG, still depressing that there hasn't been a SINGLE RPG with writing quality like Planescape: Torment but i can concede that games like Witcher even if it doesn't posses the same level of atmosphere and writing like some of the old classic, is still good enough considering there are so few alternatives.

But

EXCELLENT? and World of Tank?

Those 2 don't go with each other i am sorry to say, no games with P2Win aspect should ever be paired with the tag EXCELLENT.
An F2P like LoL? ok i can sort of accept that statement even if i don't like the game itself... but WoT? hell no...

Edited by Melcyna, 19 August 2012 - 01:10 AM.

[Indy GosHawk]

FEAR. the american disease of the modern age, has struck americans, capitalists and designers/writers all over the globe. everyone is afraid, no-one likes risks: be a sheep or fail. I-PHONE ANYONE?

Master of Orion 1+2 rocked
Syndicate rocked
Deus Ex (orig) rocked
Front Mission 1,2+3 rocked
Final Fantasy 1-8 rocked
Earthsiege1 + expansion rocked
Metal Gear Solid rocked

all of these games were awesome, and each one risked a lot.
fear? i s**t it.

[Melcyna]

To be fair though, if you are a publisher exec, you'd do the same... it's not fear, so much as it is BUSINESS.

if plan A is favored by 75% of the target audience, and plan B is favored by 25% of the same audience, then the logical business sense is to take plan A, even if it means repeating the same thing again for the umpteenth times.

the publishers are there to make money, not lose money, and when given the choice they will always take the more profitable one.

They wouldn't take plan B not so much because it's riskier (plan B may still succeed even if it only has 25% supporter in the target audience) but simply because plan A will turn more profit, and everything is about profit when you are a large publisher.

Which is why KICKSTARTER and similar projects are somewhat popular these days for independent developer studios, as they can bypass the publishers and go straight to public for monetary support, allowing that plan B above an actual chance of going through whereas with publishers it would have effectively no chance.

In the past, the smaller publisher and dev with equally smaller production cost can focus on just getting enough return from the project to cover development cost plus some profit to make it worth it.

But today, gaming are big business... simply making some profit or meeting development cost is NOT ENOUGH when you are a large publisher with investor demanding the best outcome possible. Investors in large publisher expect a return that is at least similar to what they would be if they invested the same millions in development cost on something else.

So whereas in the past it was possible for developers to make a game, sell it through a small publisher, meet a modest goal of sales and call it a success, today when you deal with the large publishers they wouldn't even consider the project unless the return is significant. Hence why developers are trying to find every way possible to get fund without going through publishers. The publishers of the past who are small and have small choices of projects to fund, are now giants that have plenty of options to choose from... giving developers little choice, unless they can bypass the publishers.

Edited by Melcyna, 19 August 2012 - 02:11 AM.

[Pershaw]

Anixantheas, on 13 August 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Loved a lot of the old games. Been raiding my old games bin in the storage room and trying to get any of them to work. Dosbox is my friend.

Still waiting on:
Master of Magic 2
Alpha Centauri 2
A GOOD sequel to Master of Orion
Older games like "Star Command" or "Alien Legacy"
Dangit, I want to see a good old fashion Sierra game like Leisure Suit Larry or Space Quest

I wouldn't mind seeing a remake of Alien Legacy or similar game.

[H Minus]

rafgod, on 18 August 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

So basically, we're all just saying 'Get off my lawn!'

My thoughts exactly. I detest my generation already acting like old greedy misers.

[Imagine Dragons]

Soo about that new CnC that was used to be called Generals 2s...

[Bansheedragon75]

Melcyna, on 19 August 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

Similarly when it comes to gameplay, there's not much room in either space or processing power for anything that isn't useful to the gameplay itself. Which is why when games like System Shock came out it was nothing short of phenomenal for the amount of gameplay mechanic and interpretation that they managed to cram in with so little space.

System shock 1 and 2, I played those games to death.
Those games were just so insanely good, and I wish there were more games like that.
Just one of countless examples on how the games have been dumbed down over the years.

Dont suppose anyone here knows where I can get my hands on them and information on how to get them to run on my current system?

[Colorfinger]

I know this isn't a popular stance, but maybe part of the problem is with us.

I think part of the problem is many of us are long time gamers and have seen so much that we are numb to much of what new games come out with. Back in the 80's and 90's it was all fresh and new for many of us as gaming really exploded in both console and PC. Now we call it rehashed but for those younger, it is their first round with the product and they love it. Some concepts just work and have to be updated and released so the next generation can enjoy them too. Lets face it, if they had completely reworked Diablo people would have complained it didn't match the hack and slash of its predecessors and failed the honor of the name.

As far as the bugs go... I think part of that is everything is more complicated now. I also think that part of it is games are so much more wide spread and communication on forums like this allows us much more info on every problem games have.

[Adridos]

Colorfinger, on 19 August 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

I know this isn't a popular stance, but maybe part of the problem is with us.

I'm only 15, playing games since 4 and yet share your stance. A living proof it isn't just a problem of older age.

[General Steel]

The reigns have been handed over to the next generation. They have an interest in gaming, but no passion for game design. It's not something you simply go to school for and BAM you can make rock solid kick *** games. There must be passion and creativity. Poor management likely plays a factor in some cases.

Personally, I finished game hopping after Diablo III. It's not that I feel like I was ripped off, I got my few weeks and over 100 hours of entertainment out of it, but I certainly didn't enjoy it as much as the original. I can say the same about Diablo II, really.

Games used to be distinct. They had a distinct feel in the play style and environment. Now, they largely seem similar. Almost as if they took the base of one game, slapped different textures and names on some things, threw in a few bugs for good measure and called it good. I'm not saying that's what they do, but I'm saying that's how their products feel. Take a look at the growing list of MMORPG's. Can anybody name a single one that is "significantly" different than the others? To me, they feel about the same, they play about the same and you do the same types of things. How many times are they going to repackage and resell the same ideas? Even if they code it all from scratch, a game and it's code is really just an idea in digital form.

I used MMORPG's as an example because it's so glaringly obvious how similar they are. I have nothing against anyone who likes a particular MMORPG for whatever reason, I'm sure they have minor differences that makes one more preferable to some than others. I've played quite a few of them myself. The amount of fun I had with them dwindles by the year of their release, in a linear fashion.

I have friends that still hop on every major MMO bandwagon upon release. I don't have heated debates about it with them anymore, I just tell'em I don't buy into that garbage anymore. If people want to see change they need to realize that as a consumer we vote with our dollar. If you know it's going to be pretty much the same thing, don't buy it. If you can't try it, don't buy it. Vote with your dollar. Reward those who offer the products you prefer by purchasing their products. If enough people think the same way, companies will then shift gears or fail.

Many people are happy with sub par quality though. Maybe they don't remember how things were, they don't care and just want to satisfy their immediate longing for entertainment or they're too young and this all they've known. Who knows. All I can do is do my part voting with my dollar so I can hopefully see what I want in the future.

[Lightdragon]

id quote that wall of text but its too long... eve online is the only mmorpg that has no copies

[Sporkee]

The problem with alot of campanies is that the publisher will push for a early release date and build alot of hype for the game. This prevents the developer from getting it to where they want it.

[a rabid chihuahua]

Dragonlord, on 13 August 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I loved those Xcom games, my all time favorite is the Original.
When I bought it the first time it was called UFO Enemy unknown.
There are 3 other UFO games that a ok if you like the series.

Newer Xcom trilogy:
Aftermath
Aftershock
Afterlight

You can find them on GOG.com (Good Old Games)
Here you can buy old classics DRM free at prices of no more than $10.

X-com was great ,because not only was the gameplkay solid,but it was fun if you just want to run a quik saved mission and blow stuff up anyway you wanted. try various manuevers to keep your troops aliveve etc. That's why I'm stoked about the new release of the game coming up. they're keeping the flavor of the original and bumping the graffics for the new age. Not trying to redo the entire thing .

[Teljaxx]

I am 25, and i have been playing computer games since I knew how to work a keyboard. I was probably 5 or 6 when I first played Doom, and have been playing ever since. I know, for me at least, that it is not just a matter of nostalgia or having been so young as to not see the flaws in these older games, because I still play them with DOSbox. I still have more fun playing Rise of the Triad, Shadow Warrior, Blood, Jazz Jackrabbit, Heretic, Ultrabots, and tons of other old games from the 90's than most "Blockbuster" games from today. Even with the fact that I have beaten all these old games several times, I still go back to them again and again, while modern games I usually just beat it in an afternoon and move on. That shows that there really is a difference in these games, something that is lacking from today's big games.

Contrary to popular opinion, I liked Duke Nukem forever as well. Despite the bugs and issues that came from its long development time, it was actually a good game. I think that the main reason it was so unpopular was because it still felt more like a game from when Duke Nukem 3D came out, instead of a modern shooter. It had a lot of the things that made games back then good, while also adding in certain modern aspects, and I thought it worked quite well. one thing I liked a lot was that they made getting around a big part of the game. there were parts that had you in a single room, and all you were doing was getting from one place to another, and it was fun and involved. It was not like most modern games where you basically just walk from arena to arena and fight the next wave of enemies, actually getting to the next fight was half the fun. Then I played the DLC, "The Doctor Who Cloned Me," and it was nowhere near as good because it had lost all the older aspects of the main game.

From what I have seen, the cause of the decline in good games comes from the new generation, and not just the players, but the creators as well. The creators of the games do not have the experience of making a game simply because you wanted to make a good game, and the players do not have the experience of playing these games. Nowadays the creators of the games purely focus on making money, making a game that sells is their primary goal. Only if making a great game will achieve this goal will it be great, otherwise they just go with what sells. And the reason generic sells so well is because players that they market to do not have the experience of playing actual good games, so they think that Gears of War and Halo is all there is, because that is all they have ever played.

A perfect example of this from the new generation of players is when Mega Man 9 came out on the Wii. it was made in the style of the original NES games, and most people were complaining about how incredibly hard it was. When I played it, i just thought "This isn't hard, it's just Mega Man." the reason the new players thought it was so hard was because they had never played a Mega Man game before it, and did not know what to expect. They only knew the cookie-cutter, hand holding modern games.

The way game development used to work was quite a bit different as well. These days there are giant companies like EA that have no major competition, and many small developers that are no threat to the big companies. This is why the big titles are all so similar, they are what is popular and what makes money from the general gamers. Then the small, usually independent developers have to be much more creative and original with their games to even try to compete. Back in the 80's and 90's, every company was on a more even level, and they all had to really work at making good games to compete. Any company that just said "lets just do what they do" and copied another game was bound to fail. This is why I have High hopes for what KICKSTARTER can do for the indie developers, because I hope that it will allow them to take a greater place in the gaming market, and truly make what the fans want, not just what the market will buy.