I figured I'd write this out to get some opinions of other developers out there, but I was also wondering if anyone else noticed this.
Recently, I've been seeing a ton of awesome games out there that seem to fail miserably in certain aspects, and it really ruins the experience for me. Not to say other people don't enjoy it, at this point I feel like I'm the only one feeling this way.
Take for instance Castlevania: Harmony of Despair. This just came out recently and it seems cool. It takes some of the characters and enemies from the past Castlevanias and puts them into an arcade style multiplayer game. However, like a lot of games these days, there is NO local multiplayer, it's all online. And for those of you who own an Xbox like myself, we have to pay for our online multiplayer. For some people $50 a year doesn't sound too terrible, but for people like myself, it's a bit hard to come by, especially just to play online with a bunch of whiny kids I don't even know (not to say all people playing online are whiny, but even still it's not that enjoyable of an experience for myself). The most obnoxious thing about this, is there are certain instances in the game that you cannot get to without having a second player, so that is kind of a kick in the face to those of us not willing/able to purchase an online membership.
Achievements are another thing that seems to be on the rise, although they have actually always been there, just not in this form. I remember games that used to reward you for doing certain things in game with cheats or new costumes and other stuff, some games did this. But now most games only have the console achievement system and reward you with nothing but a few worthless points to show off to more people you don't even know or care about. And to top it all off, there are tons of games that also have achievements that require you to do something online. Not that I really give a crap about that, but it's like, way to throw in a feature that only half your audience can grab.
Borderlands is another awesome game out there that gets more interesting with multiple players, which they did add as a local feature... almost. You are able to get 2 player split screen (as opposed to 4, which the game allows up to 4 players) and you can get a system link. But heres the catch, you CANNOT do both. You would think you could put two split screens on two consoles and get 4 players, but you cannot. You have to get 4 players on 4 different consoles in order to get 4 local players. Major fail.
I could go on and on about different games with different lack of multiplayer concepts, but I'm going to step out of the way and let some of you guys vent your frustrations. But I will say one last thing.
Most of the time when this subject is brought up, pertaining to any feature that is left out of a game, some one always has to chime in with a "well this feature is too difficult to implement". I don't want to hear this nonsense. These are multi-million dollar companies we're talking about, if a feature has been done in the past, they are more than able hire someone who knows how to do it. Difficulty is NOT an issue for a large company. The only reason why a feature would not be implemented is if it was overlooked. The 1,000 people they had working on one project managed to miss something important, go figure. Companies like these will not pay extra money on a game unless there is something that can be fixed quickly that is hindering sales otherwise, if the game is selling copies anyways, they do not care.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
I agree with all those points in many ways and levels. My biggest gripe with games these days is the lack of off-line multiplayer in games too, especially the lack of 4-player splitscreen. For all its sins, Call of Duty atleast still champions both 4-player off-line as well as on-line multiplayer and i think that's worth a round of applause. Halo does too, if i'm not mistaken.
Some of my best ever gaming experiences include 4-player splitscreen on games like Quake 3 (PS2 and Dreamcast), Goldeneye (N64), V-Rally 2 (PS1) and Timesplitters (PS2). Other 4-player games that i loved playing off-line include the FIFA's, PES's and Micro Machines of this world. You don't get that kind of experience anymore and i think it's a real shame that newer gamers won't have experienced that now that on-line has taken over multiplayer gaming. Ironically, the closest you get to replicating that kinda feeling of playing against people in the same room is with new technology like Kinect and the Wii. And i get the feeling that younger and older people who have just got into gaming through stuff like this think this is all new!
Oh, and i also remember the days when beating games mean't you got the extra characters or some super cheats, rather than a snotty achievement that means nothing to me.
Maybe we're just wearing our rose tinted specs for too long!
Kinect is neat, although you need ALOT and I mean ALOT of room. That and it's not exactly handicapped accessible for people like me.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
However, speaking in terms of online capability and the limit/omission of features: I think many designers are creating games that utilize the online marketplaces due to pressure from the producers. Maybe they've worked out deals with the XBox Live studios; maybe MS themselves is pressuring developers to create games for the online marketplace; maybe it's easier/quicker to develop games for online multiplayer once the platform has been established. Slapping on achievements seems much easier to me than creating actual in-game content that enhances gameplay.
And in terms of paying for the service...Well, let's just say lots of parents are footing the bill for their children; in the case of most older gamers, having a Live account has become a priority in their lives for whatever reason. The target market will find the cash for it somehow.
Meanwhile... My top offline multiplayer games:
Goldeneye on the N64
Star Wars Battlefront on the XBox (two player split-screen with two consoles connected = awesome 2v2 matches!)
I do not think it is rose tinted specs at all . My favourite gaming era was N64/PS1 (mostly) and GC/PS2.
Goldeneye is really really fun split screen, and TimeSplitters 2 is probably still my favourite FPS (I could lay out a serious whooping as the monkey!). PC wise, i loved the fact that Serious Sam SE used to support split screen - I used to play that very often with my best pal. I still dont like CoD (probably me being an old fart!) and I have played it at LAN parties - just does little for me.
I also dislike being forced to use new motion controllers.
Originally Posted by Swiss Hagar I do not think it is rose tinted specs at all . My favourite gaming era was N64/PS1 (mostly) and GC/PS2.
Goldeneye is really really fun split screen, and TimeSplitters 2 is probably still my favourite FPS (I could lay out a serious whooping as the monkey!). PC wise, i loved the fact that Serious Sam SE used to support split screen - I used to play that very often with my best pal. I still dont like CoD (probably me being an old fart!) and I have played it at LAN parties - just does little for me.
I also dislike being forced to use new motion controllers.
Timesplitters 2 by far the best game / most fun i've ever played / had
Oh yeah, i forgot all about split-screen on the PC! There aren't many games that i know of that had that, but i always thought it was cool. Sega Rally 2 was one game i remember was cool to have a split-screen feature on the PC.
And Star Wars Battlefront was cool splitscreen too... hell, it's one of the coolest games all round, IMO!
Actually, the price of Xbox Live went up in November. It's $60 a year now. It sucks, I know.
I don't mind achievements that require you to play online, as I have quite a few friends who I would be able to play with and get the achievements with. What I do mind are achievements that require non-social ranked play, which means having to go into a game by yourself. You know what this causes? Achievement farming. Crafty people will also find a way around the system and just cheat the achievements anyways. It completely ruins the spirit of the game. I hate that.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Most of the time when this subject is brought up, pertaining to any feature that is left out of a game, some one always has to chime in with a "well this feature is too difficult to implement". I don't want to hear this nonsense. These are multi-million dollar companies we're talking about, if a feature has been done in the past, they are more than able hire someone who knows how to do it. Difficulty is NOT an issue for a large company. The only reason why a feature would not be implemented is if it was overlooked. The 1,000 people they had working on one project managed to miss something important, go figure. Companies like these will not pay extra money on a game unless there is something that can be fixed quickly that is hindering sales otherwise, if the game is selling copies anyways, they do not care.
Most studios employ no more than 200 people, and most of those people are going to be artists and animators.
Pedantry aside, features are difficult to implement sometimes. It's usually all about money. Publishers, and sometimes developers, will know who their target audience is, and base their features around the needs of that audience. Everything else (like split-screen) is secondary, and getting secondary features in requires a time table; Time is money, remember. And then sometimes features are cut because of technical issues. You know, actual issues like bugs, not knowing how to do it, or the engine not being able to support that feature without a major overhaul; In the case of the last one, the feature will usually make it into the sequel.
Multiplayer action gaming on the PC is dead. The market is dominated by crappy, realistic war games where you move at a snail's pace and die in one hit.
Single player gaming is even worse. Hardly anything violent with an awesome protagonist that spits out hilarious one-liners on a regular basis. GTA IV was the last game I liked.
Not really bothered by a lack of split-screen multiplayer since I never had any friends anyway.
Discarded pizza boxes are an indispensable source of cheese.
Multiplayer PC gaming has more players than ps3 and 360 combined AFAIK, though I do agree that games these days tend to suck ass =/. GET A FREAKING WII. Seriously. The Wii and DS are the only consoles to have a large selection of truly great/fun games. Not saying that there aren't great ps3/360/pc games, but the Wii strays from the circle-jerk that is the games industry.
I really stopped giving you any credibility when you said "GTA IV was the last game I liked." though.
Originally Posted by Hayo You don't have to be a lame douchebag for that but it sure helps!
Always
He can criticize stereotypical war games, but I can't criticize a garbage sandbox gangster wanna-be thug game where you spend more time riding bicycles and flying RC helicopters than you do on the central focus of the game?
I wouldn't call it rose-tinted glasses. I still play a lot of old games more these days. I'm not at all fond of the stuff they're teaching in game design classes now. It's producing worse games, IMO. Games with "gameplay", but no soul. If you enjoy it fine, but I don't.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Originally Posted by marky_2 PC gaming really sucks these days.
Multiplayer action gaming on the PC is dead. The market is dominated by crappy, realistic war games where you move at a snail's pace and die in one hit.
Single player gaming is even worse. Hardly anything violent with an awesome protagonist that spits out hilarious one-liners on a regular basis. GTA IV was the last game I liked.
Not really bothered by a lack of split-screen multiplayer since I never had any friends anyway.
Disagree.
Multiplayer gaming on the PC is far from 'dead'
Borderlands as mentioned, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead and Quake Live is pretty active as far as I'm aware. Blops is far from realistic as well... try going 'old skool' and playing vanilla Call of Duty where headshots actually killed in one hit... So that leaves what, Bad Company 2? Hardly dominating the market.
Singleplayer is however a different matter, it's not where the money is at so it's bound to receive less attention.
And anyways. Us PC gamers have minecraft. Job done
Originally Posted by Hayo You don't have to be a lame douchebag for that but it sure helps!
Always
He can criticize stereotypical war games, but I can't criticize a garbage sandbox gangster wanna-be thug game where you spend more time riding bicycles and flying RC helicopters than you do on the central focus of the game?
Thumbspam
I think your confusing GTA 4 with San Andreas. I can not remember RC helicopters being in GTA4 at all - or have I had a senior moment!
I think GTA4 is kind of dull compared to the older ones. Niko and his cousin Roman (that dull and likable I almost forgot the dudes name) are about as dull as an Eastenders Christmas episode. Still the GTA series is FAR from garbage.
My GTA favourite list would be GTA1, VC, SA, 4, 3, 2. GTA1 MP on serial cables was a great laugh
Originally Posted by aphant Actually, the price of Xbox Live went up in November. It's $60 a year now. It sucks, I know.
I don't mind achievements that require you to play online, as I have quite a few friends who I would be able to play with and get the achievements with. What I do mind are achievements that require non-social ranked play, which means having to go into a game by yourself. You know what this causes? Achievement farming. Crafty people will also find a way around the system and just cheat the achievements anyways. It completely ruins the spirit of the game. I hate that.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Most of the time when this subject is brought up, pertaining to any feature that is left out of a game, some one always has to chime in with a "well this feature is too difficult to implement". I don't want to hear this nonsense. These are multi-million dollar companies we're talking about, if a feature has been done in the past, they are more than able hire someone who knows how to do it. Difficulty is NOT an issue for a large company. The only reason why a feature would not be implemented is if it was overlooked. The 1,000 people they had working on one project managed to miss something important, go figure. Companies like these will not pay extra money on a game unless there is something that can be fixed quickly that is hindering sales otherwise, if the game is selling copies anyways, they do not care.
Most studios employ no more than 200 people, and most of those people are going to be artists and animators.
Pedantry aside, features are difficult to implement sometimes. It's usually all about money. Publishers, and sometimes developers, will know who their target audience is, and base their features around the needs of that audience. Everything else (like split-screen) is secondary, and getting secondary features in requires a time table; Time is money, remember. And then sometimes features are cut because of technical issues. You know, actual issues like bugs, not knowing how to do it, or the engine not being able to support that feature without a major overhaul; In the case of the last one, the feature will usually make it into the sequel.
Great points. But I think you can agree with me on the point that it IS all about money, not necessarily about creating something thats "good". Not to say that the two don't come together once and a while, but most games can be a lot better than they are. Even some of these so called "greats" always leave something to be desired, and instead of a larger company thinking "how can we make this better?" it's usually "how can we make this make more money?".
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with people trying to make money to support themselves. None of this actually is an issue for me at all. I merely would like to point out that there are millions of great concepts with huge amounts of potential just ready for some great people to make history with.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
With few exceptions, I think modern games don't use the graphical advances of today to tell really absorbing and well thought of stories. I remember being really into the story and atmosphere of games like Beneath a steel sky, sanitarium or System shock 2 despite the limited graphics. Nowadays it seems no one cares about unique settings and story driven games, wasting incredibly realistic graphics into generic war stories.
It's just like mainstream music, it might appeal to the masses and sell millions, but whether or not they are memorable is questionable.
Sadly the current indie scene doesn't have the means to fill that gap yet, with a crapload of generic old-school and flash junk being thrown out the door every day.
Not long ago being indie was all about putting all your heart and money into a single masterpiece,even if took you years and years to finish, now in two weeks a single developer can make a thousand bucks with little effort.
I suspect what's happening with both the mainstream and indie gaming scene has a lot to do with the current global crisis, there is very little room for financial risks and going against the flow is considered suicide by most developers.
I suspect what's happening with both the mainstream and indie gaming scene has a lot to do with the current global crisis, there is very little room for financial risks and going against the flow is considered suicide by most developers.
I wouldn't say that for most of the indie scene as they can operate on little to no budget. Large corporations can't.
There is however the fact that freelancing (coding, graphics and music gigs) was a bit easier before the "crisis". Up until 2008 I used to get extra pocket money as a freelance pixel artist. Not a single serious offer since. I can imagine artists had to convert to making stupid flash games to pay the rent.
I suspect what's happening with both the mainstream and indie gaming scene has a lot to do with the current global crisis, there is very little room for financial risks and going against the flow is considered suicide by most developers.
I wouldn't say that for most of the indie scene as they can operate on little to no budget. Large corporations can't.
That's true, when it comes to part-time game developers. For the full time devs, one failure and you are most likely forced to get another job to avoid starving and keep working on games part time if you're lucky. With indie devs it's not so much about the budget they invest in, it's rather selling well enough to pay food and rent. Quite a few full time indie developers live on the limit, trying to keep the dream alive for as long as they can.
I think what Hayo pointed out is an extension of that, if non flash developers can barely survive they will hardly be able to afford freelancers, being forced to do everything by themselves or find someone willing to help them out for free.
A lot of people moved to the flash market because it's a relatively easy way to get a stable income as they are quick and therefore less risky to make. They also require less marketing know how from the developers's part so with a bit of luck even a newcomer to the industry can be successful, regardless of the effort put into the game.
Oh heres a great example of terrible games that just keep going down hill.
The Elder Scrolls
Heres a game that started off great with Arena and Daggerfall. Then when Morrowind came out everyone was like "woo, 3D", and they took out a bunch of awesome features and people were like "oh, it's just because of the 3D". Then Oblivion came along, which was even more dumbed down than Morrowind but oh wait, it looked better and they cast Patrick Stewart. Now Skyrim, which is coming out at the end of this year, I predict it's going to suck even worse.
When Oblivion came out, people were all over those gfx. Now, most people say it looks ugly. It just goes to show you, if you strive for the best looking game, it will more than likely be put in its place in a year or two. If you strive for great game play, it will probably last quite a bit longer.
Bathesda is the definition of a sell out company. Instead of improving on their product where it needed it, they continued to release the same game over again, take out some of the best features and paraded it around as something new. They had a diamond in the rough with daggerfall, but instead of cleaning it up, they decided it would be a better to stick it up each others butts and pretend it was a piece of chocolate.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Mainstream might be the magic word here, because it sells.
The story will likely be left out and the gameplay will be just that. Effort is put in to graphics and marketing since that will trick people into buying game. Hmm not sure what point I was trying to make or what I wanted to add to this conversation.
Anyway, not all is bad. If you like multiplayer and first person shooters or the music games. Guess I don't like em that much. I just want super mario universe or donkey kong earth Pixel graphics are preferred but I do like those nice simple stylish 3D graphics too.
Pixel jobs might have been replaced (doesn't have to be entirely) by vector jobs
Oh and I don't think that the future is flash because that is html 5, or did I mean hope instead of think?
As much as we hate to admit it, yes, it does all boil down to income. Capcom got on Andrew Dickman's case when he made the fan flash video of "Mega Man Neo". Square Enix cracked down on the 3D Chrono Trigger project. Both had amazing stories and an immense amount of promise, only to be shot out of the sky by the big wigs who (instead of seeing them as potential moneymakers if employed) saw them as financial threats.
Of course that isn't to say that it's ALL they look at. It's more of a hierarchy. Money comes first, then development and productivity, then ingenuity. How much can we make, how fast can we make it, how well can we make it. There are the few straggling games that do make it all the way to the ingenuity part, but tend to be overshadowed by the NEW CALL OF DUTY GAME THAT HAS TWO NEW GUNS YOU CAN SHOOT OMG I WANT THAT INSTEAD
It makes me sad. Back in the days of NES, I was happy enough knowing I rescued Peach. Got to choose my own level, I did. In that era (yes, era), goals were simpler and considerably more satisfying. Now you have to jump through more hoops than a dolphin just to get...what, a couple XBox points? I don't even have an XBox because it's still too damn expensive. And the developers actually expect the consumers to shell out more money for games that are less satisfying to play.
Multiplayer is different now than before, albeit two things haven't changed. What's different is that there's more you can do now (I.E. shoot a different gun at your friend). What's still the same is the multiplayer limit (since the NES/SNES days, it's always been four, thanks to the multitap), and the price. It still costs a lot to make decent multiplayer, regardless of what any non-developer says.
What gamers might end up having to accept at some point is that all the good ideas have been used and abused. Final Fantasy's RPG engine, Need For Speed's acceleration engine, Mega Man's look and gameplay feel, Sonic's pinball body, every war game's premise, Guitar Hero's notecharts, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater's 'insert trick here', the list goes on.
Thank the heavens for people like us who just want a different, challenging game.
Bringing up Capcom, that reminds me of how bad resident evil has become, and how bad dead rising is. Well, Dead rising isn't that bad, since in the second one they added some new features and actually improved on a lot of gripes(but even still doesn't make up for the missing features that could've used more focus from the last one [i.e. infinity mode]).
Resident evil is a whole different enchilada. It started off as a decent little game, while having clunky obnoxious controls, it fit with the atmosphere of the game (similar to silent hill, which almost follows the same path as the resident evil series). Now it's an almost a first person shooter, with the same clunky controls. And to top it off, like every other idiot that says "the zombie concept has been over done", they said "the zombie concept has been over done". I don't think the zombie concept has been over done, because it's NEVER BEEN DONE RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Most zombie games out there now are just some generic action or fps or platformer with guess what... zombies in it, which in that case has been done to death. Honestly, the closest thing I've seen to doing it right is the 'Survival of the dead' game on this site, and a small zombie outbreak simulator flash game that I came across a while back (even though it technically isn't a game), and even those need a decent push in the right direction. Then there is the CODWAW zombie nazi's, which could've been good, but unfortunately is impossible to enjoy. they have the barricades, great, they are useful for like 2 rounds. I realize it was more of an afterthought, but if they wanted to, that could be a whole game on it's own, although they would probably jam it packed full of a dull uninteresting and obnoxious storyline.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Dead Rising is garbage >_>. It shouldn't even be considered a game.
Have you played all the way through RE4 and RE5? I've beaten both various times and they are two out of few games that are actually good these days. I'm all for keeping old mechanics (ie: RE 1,2,3,Code Veronica, etc.), but theres nothing wrong with being innovative. RE4 and 5 took it and did it right. If anything you could say that RE5 was a bit of a step down from RE4 due to the mission system. Re4 was almost open-world so there was a good bit of exploration, while RE5 is pretty straightforward. Both are excellent titles, and the co-op on RE5 is top notch.
Dead Rising is garbage >_>. It shouldn't even be considered a game.
Have you played all the way through RE4 and RE5? I've beaten both various times and they are two out of few games that are actually good these days. I'm all for keeping old mechanics (ie: RE 1,2,3,Code Veronica, etc.), but theres nothing wrong with being innovative. RE4 and 5 took it and did it right. If anything you could say that RE5 was a bit of a step down from RE4 due to the mission system. Re4 was almost open-world so there was a good bit of exploration, while RE5 is pretty straightforward. Both are excellent titles, and the co-op on RE5 is top notch.
You have a point, although it is a matter of perspective. Dead rising was actually okay, but the fact that they restrict everything to time takes the games down several notches. People have enough bombardments from time in their daily lives, why are we subjecting our games to it? Time is so restrictive on the game, you can hardly enjoy any of the interesting features in it. Resident evil 5 just seems to be getting closer and closer to being a fps. Granted you also have a point about co-op being good, but all in all I felt like I was playing Ghost Recon rather than Resident Evil. I haven't managed to make it through Resident Evil 5 yet, although I did pick up a copy not too long ago. I did manage to make it through RE4. One thing I do enjoy about both is the weapons/shop system, not that it is perfect, but that it gives me ideas.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Yeah everything is truly subjective. My opinion is strongly against Dead Rising though. It emphasizes variety when it comes to killing enemies, but that wears off super quick imo.
I don't think Ghost Recon is a good comparison to RE4/5 though as Recon is mainly a FPS and is also a "realistic" tactical game. I can see what you are saying though. RE4 is like a TPS, but, as far as I am aware, there is not another TPS that feels even remotely like it. Its a mixed bag.
Advertisement
Post Reply
. My favourite gaming era was N64/PS1 (mostly) and GC/PS2.
Edited by GamesterXIII
jenswa.neocities.org
