Quality of games

[The Green Fox]

Curious.

[Vy'drach]

I feel it's in a decline. Gameplay isn't being as fun now as it was then, rarely does a game come around and be truly fun.

[Guest DRL]

The truth is, there are no... 'Classics' anymore.

There are some good games around... But it is

not the same thing... :|

[Sabre]

The truth is, there are no... 'Classics' anymore.

There are some good games around... But it is

not the same thing...

We wont know that till they are old. Money on MW being a classic.

Overall, the quality is rising. Unless we count the wii, which is a sharp sharp decline.

Going back MW2 again. That game was the first to make me think "Wow. That was serious."

[Vy'drach]

We wont know that till they are old. Money on MW being a classic.

Overall, the quality is rising. Unless we count the wii, which is a sharp sharp decline.

Going back MW2 again. That game was the first to make me think "Wow. That was serious."

To me, MW2 is nothing but a conglomeration of other FPS games, done wrong. But sadly, it likely will be a classic since too few people know what good games really are, they just think, "This game has awesome graphics and is a well known game, it must be good!"

[ThePointingMan]

In the words of a friend of mine, "Call of Duty takes no skill" with a series of cusses thrown in there...

Seeing as how the only game I have been recently happy with is Team Fortress 2... I'd say declining. I haven't had fun playing any of the games that have come out recently, and they lack recognisable characters. I'd say without recognisable characters, a game will have a difficult time becoming a classic.

Now because I am a gamer and games have replaced my need for Oxygen, I play the old games, also, none of this nostalga crap, cause the only old game I remember playing is mario, vecterman, and donkey kong country, I'm talking new old games, I buy games off the VC, Ebay, ect.  Contra 3 is my current game of play. Simply amasing!

The quality of graphics is rising though...

[Vy'drach]

In the words of a friend of mine, "Call of Duty takes no skill" with a series of cusses thrown in there...

Seeing as how the only game I have been recently happy with is Team Fortress 2... I'd say declining. I haven't had fun playing any of the games that have come out recently, and they lack recognisable characters. I'd say without recognisable characters, a game will have a difficult time becoming a classic.

Now because I am a gamer and games have replaced my need for Oxygen, I play the old games, also, none of this nostalga crap, cause the only old game I remember playing is mario, vecterman, and donkey kong country, I'm talking new old games, I buy games off the VC, Ebay, ect.  Contra 3 is my current game of play. Simply amasing!

The quality of graphics is rising though...

And since when did graphics make the game? Oh, I forgot, November 10th, 2009 (Modern Warfare 2's release date). And I'm in the same boat, as I play old-school games I didn't play when I was young, and I love them.

[Sabre]

Well, this seems to be an obvious case of semantics and nostalgia. Allow me to break both over my knee.

'Classics' doesn't mean 'best' or 'timeless'. Goldeneye is far from the best FPS, even for it's day. It is remembered as a classic because everyone played it.

Quality could mean anything. Games are usually less glitchy (except for multiplayer) are longer, more imerisive with better stories, more ideas, better balenced and don't have as many bad design choices. The standard is higher too. So overall quality is up on all fronts.

So, when you say "CoD is just swearing" you clearly haven't been paying attention. Not liking it, fair enough, but the story is way WAY more then just some 4 letter words. Graphics wise, MW2 was critised for not being up to par, so -1 to you.

Compare Half Life 1 to Episode 2. Compare Mortal Kombat 1 to Amerageddon. The latter is better in every single way, but it flopped because it doesn't meet todays standards.

[Vy'drach]

Well, this seems to be an obvious case of semantics and nostalgia. Allow me to break both over my knee.

'Classics' doesn't mean 'best' or 'timeless'. Goldeneye is far from the best FPS, even for it's day. It is remembered as a classic because everyone played it.

Quality could mean anything. Games are usually less glitchy (except for multiplayer) are longer, more imerisive with better stories, more ideas, better balenced and don't have as many bad design choices. The standard is higher too. So overall quality is up on all fronts.

So, when you say "CoD is just swearing" you clearly haven't been paying attention. Not liking it, fair enough, but the story is way WAY more then just some 4 letter words. Graphics wise, MW2 was critised for not being up to par, so -1 to you.

Compare Half Life 1 to Episode 2. Compare Mortal Kombat 1 to Amerageddon. The latter is better in every single way, but it flopped because it doesn't meet todays standards.

The reason it is sub-par is because it already suffers from horrendous framerate lag, if they were any better the game would be completely unplayable. It went too far on the graphics though, causing the bad framerate lag. Bad Company 2 has rather simple graphics, but that's because they don't want to cause undue lag. BC2 suffers from lag now and then, but it's mostly only when you connect to a foreign server and/or the enemy has a shitty connection.

And Mortal Kombat has gone into a great decline, Armageddon was bad, the older ones were much better. They hit their peak, in my opinion, in the Mortal Kombat Trilogy for PS1, the ones after that had too many... pointless things, such as different fighting stances/weapons, and the ability to sidestep in the fights, I preferred them to be on the same line, going only forwards and backwards.

Goldeneye isn't the best FPS, true. We had a discussion about this, remember? There is no "best" FPS, it's a matter of gamestyle and preference. And Goldeneye isn't a classic because a lot of people played it, it's a classic because it was good. There were no major faults with it, you could play it repeatedly, it was genuinely fun, and there was a wide array of weapons. Granted by today's standards the AI and graphics are rather poor, but know what? I could give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about graphics, it could be stick figures for all I care, the gameplay is fun, all that matters. And the AI is entertaining enough, especially on such a dated system.

[Sabre]

The reason it is sub-par is because it already suffers from horrendous framerate lag, if they were any better the game would be completely unplayable. It went too far on the graphics though, causing the bad framerate lag. Bad Company 2 has rather simple graphics, but that's because they don't want to cause undue lag. BC2 suffers from lag now and then, but it's mostly only when you connect to a foreign server and/or the enemy has a shitty connection.

And Mortal Kombat has gone into a great decline, Armageddon was bad, the older ones were much better. They hit their peak, in my opinion, in the Mortal Kombat Trilogy for PS1, the ones after that had too many... pointless things, such as different fighting stances/weapons, and the ability to sidestep in the fights, I preferred them to be on the same line, going only forwards and backwards.

Goldeneye isn't the best FPS, true. We had a discussion about this, remember? There is no "best" FPS, it's a matter of gamestyle and preference. And Goldeneye isn't a classic because a lot of people played it, it's a classic because it was good. There were no major faults with it, you could play it repeatedly, it was genuinely fun, and there was a wide array of weapons. Granted by today's standards the AI and graphics are rather poor, but know what? I could give a flying -F-Bomb- at a rolling donut about graphics, it could be stick figures for all I care, the gameplay is fun, all that matters. And the AI is entertaining enough, especially on such a dated system.

Was I not clear before or did you deliberatly ignore everything I just said?

[Kursed]

I'm kinda in the neutral catagory here i think some are declinign while others are remaining.... decent. and a few are good.

[Vy'drach]

Was I not clear before or did you deliberatly ignore everything I just said?

If you mean the...

Quality could mean anything. Games are usually less glitchy (except for multiplayer) are longer, more imerisive with better stories, more ideas, better balenced and don't have as many bad design choices. The standard is higher too. So overall quality is up on all fronts.

then I was ignoring that since MW2 failed in all those categories, it is highly glitchy, the story was a sub-par B-rated action movie attempt, it had "more" ideas but few good ones, it was highly unbalanced, and it was riddled with bad design choices from the start, poor weapon depictions, shitty levels, unneeded "fluff" for the MP maps causing framerate lag, unrealistic abilities *cough*commando pro*cough*.

To me, the standard is dropping, as games such as MW2 are claimed to be, "The greatest multiplayer game of all time," when to me and several of my friends, it failed in every aspect of FPS and multiplayer gaming.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Too much pandering to little kids, bad quality cinematic scenes with worse quality acting. 

Also,

THERE ARE NO NEW STAR FOX GAMES!

[ThePointingMan]

So, when you say "CoD is just swearing" you clearly haven't been paying attention. Not liking it, fair enough, but the story is way WAY more then just some 4 letter words. Graphics wise, MW2 was critised for not being up to par, so -1 to you.

When I said

In the words of a friend of mine, "Call of Duty takes no skill" with a series of cusses thrown in there...

I didn't mean that it has a bunch of cussing, I was just saying that while saying call of duty takes no skill, my friend was cussing.

Quality could mean anything. Games are usually less glitchy (except for multiplayer) are longer, more imerisive with better stories, more ideas, better balenced and don't have as many bad design choices. The standard is higher too. So overall quality is up on all fronts.

Secondly, yes, it depends on what you mean by quality, a lot of the things you said there, yeah they are true, but when I'm talking quality, I'm talking Gameplay, and funditude. Funditude and gameplay goodness is not something I have been receiving lately... To lazy to go into details.  Also musics better in some old games, where as music in new games are usually poo. I mean quality could go up if you where someone else, cause I guess not everyone has fun from the same stuff's, and not everyone likes the same kind a music in their games, but i see it as going down.

And I second this.

If you mean the... then I was ignoring that since MW2 failed in all those categories, it is highly glitchy, the story was a sub-par B-rated action movie attempt, it had "more" ideas but few good ones, it was highly unbalanced, and it was riddled with bad design choices from the start, poor weapon depictions, shitty levels, unneeded "fluff" for the MP maps causing framerate lag, unrealistic abilities *cough*commando pro*cough*.

To me, the standard is dropping, as games such as MW2 are claimed to be, "The greatest multiplayer game of all time," when to me and several of my friends, it failed in every aspect of FPS and multiplayer gaming.

Too much pandering to little kids, bad quality cinematic scenes with worse quality acting.  NO NEW STAR FOX GAMES!

    Phew, thought you was say you didn't want any new star fox games

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Also:

-Console Manufacturers selling systems without basic essentials like memory cards, or a second controller, so you have to shell out another $60 "before you can see so much as a hair on Luigi's mustache"

-The once realistic SIMS "busting out" into settings so fake and ridiculous it's only a matter of time before we see "The SIMS Team Up with Sonic the Hedgehog to take on the Giant Fire Breathing Turtles"

-Sega's long, pathetic parade of short lived console systems, from the Sega CD to the 32X to the Saturn to the Dreamcast, establishing a legacy of failure rivaling that of the Chicago Cubs.

-The "Total Time Played" stats on your memory card, which serve to prove to your parents how many hours you've spent playing video games instead of doing your homework.

-Games that make too many of their features "unlockable".  Just to enjoy everything, you're forced to jump through more hoops than a dolphin at sea world.

-Downloading "patches" for the latest and greatest massive-multiplayer extravaganza.  You mean our $50 AND the monthly fee didn't actually include a finished product?! 

-Mind-numbingly dull "cinematic sequences"-as if we needed to interrupt the game every 10 minutes with bad acting and cliched dialogue to explain the deep motives and back story of why Ratchet and Clank are running and jumping.  (Thank GOD this DOESN'T apply to Star Fox Games)

-Video game magazines that spend months hyping a game as the second coming, lavishing it with praise and eagerly counting down to its release date, only to dismiss it when it comes out as third-rate, over-hyped crap.

-All tasks involving searching a search for a key to open doors and/or secret passages, treasure chests, or anything else crucial to your success.  I.E. A guy running around tirelessly with 10 machine guns can't just shoot a freakin' door open, or a kid with a sword can't just hack open a locked chest?!

-Vietnam games that make you wonder if any national tragedy is off-limits for crass exploitation. 

-Donkey Konga, which combines the '60s-era art of bongo drumming with none of the mind bending hallucinogens that made it tolerable in the first place.

-Finding out your school photo looks just as dorky and pathetic digitally pasted onto a cool skaters body in Tony Hawk's Underground as it does hanging in your parents' den.

-Rockstar's "exclusive" deal to keep Grand Theft Auto on Playstation 2, only to turn around and put a better version on Xbox a few months later.  *sarcasm* "For some inexplicable reason, we were expecting upstanding ethical behavior from a company whose game glorifies a hooker-killing, drug-dealing thug".

-Having to "level up" your characters in role-playing games to the point where it requires more work than your actual job.

-Highly-anticipated releases like Half-Life 2 and Doom 3, which boast innovative, thrilling new ways for you to, uh...kill stuff.

-Mario's ridiculous Italian accent, which comes in behind Grand Theft Auto, Vice City's infamous "Kill all the Haitians" message as the worst ethnic offense in gaming.  "It's-a me, Mario.  I'm a-here to set Italians back 100 years!  Mama Mia!"

-Sports games games that realistically simulate the athletic experience with shots of players scratching themselves.

-Games with development cycles that are so long and with their release dates forever delayed-even the friggin' Sopranos produced new episodes faster.

-Having to blow $10 on a book of tip codes because the game you want them for is the ONLY one that hasn't been typed up for free on the internet.

-Trying to make a boring game like golf  more "extreme" by adding violence, scantily clad chicks, and dubbing it Outlaw Golf, meaning we'll soon have Outlaw Shuffleboard, X-Treme Badminton and Ultra-Psycho Desperado Horseshoes.

-Too many games out there are sequels, prequels, or poor imitations of hit games.  These days an actual, new original gaming experience is rarer than a funny David Spade movie.

-Companies that make a big deal of hiring slumming, D-list Hollywood schmucks to record a few sound clips/sound bites for their game, as if David Arquette's involvement has ever made anything better.

-Now that multi-player games are best played with online opponents, video game recluses can finally stop bothering to make friends to play with, thus freeing them of their last tether to normal human society.

-Games that boast 50 hours of game play when 48 of them consist of retracing your tracks through the same area you've already been through nine freakin' times.

-Trying to decide which sucks more: movies based on video games or video games based on movies.

-Games that, despite being based on "cool" characters, just plain suck.  You know, like, Spy vs. Spy.

[Steve]

Right now, I play games just for the sake of playing them, I really don't care if my system is "dying" or not, as long as I'm having fun and get one or two games once in a while. I mean, the general opinion will never be right for everyone  , in other words, there could be a person out there enjoying Wii music every day (even if that's hard to believe), so for that person, the quality of such games is high (not falling into the realm of casual vs hardcore gamer or your own standards ).

On the technological aspect, the quality of most games should be  obviously increasing  , unless we are dealing with shoveware. However, as  technology rises, we tend to get more picky gamers.

So I guess that puts me on the neutral category.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

    Phew, thought you was say you didn't want any new star fox games

No, no, I'm sorry, What I meant was "THERE ARE NO NEW STAR FOX GAMES"

[Sabre]

it is highly glitchy

Such as?

the story was a sub-par B-rated action movie attempt

That was hard hitting, memorable and controversial. So much worse and more simple then "Pumble saves pricess" sarcasm

it was highly unbalanced,

Whereas in goldeneye you could always win simply by picking oddjob.

unneeded "fluff" for the MP maps causing framerate lag,

Not on any version I've seen.

unrealistic abilities *cough*commando pro*cough*.

If you want realism, why no play Arma 2, or Flashpoint, or Rainbow 6? MW2 is not a sim.

To me, the standard is dropping, as games such as MW2 are claimed to be, "The greatest multiplayer game of all time," when to me and several of my friends, it failed in every aspect of FPS and multiplayer gaming.

What does FPS gaming mean to you then?

[Guest DRL]

Right now, I play games just for the sake of playing them, I really don't care if my system is "dying" or not, as long as I'm having fun and get one or two games once in a while. I mean, the general opinion will never be right for everyone  , in other words, there could be a person out there enjoying Wii music every day (even if that's hard to believe), so for that person, the quality of such games is high (not falling into the realm of casual vs hardcore gamer or your own standards ).

On the technological aspect, the quality of most games should be  obviously increasing  , unless we are dealing with shoveware. However, as  technology rises, we tend to get more picky gamers.

So I guess that puts me on the neutral category.

I agree with you Steve.

I play any game for the fun, I do

not care if it does not fits other's standars -

If I am having fun, why care about reviews who

say the game is bad?

[Mr. Fox13]

I think the quality is going up (though at a slow rate).

The games I'm playing now are 100% better then the ones I was playing 4 or even 2 years ago.

[ThePointingMan]

@ (Julius's list) A lot of those things mentioned above are in both new and old games, and to tell you the truth, I like a lot of those things you just mentioned Julius :)

[Guest Julius Quasar]

@ (Julius's list) A lot of those things mentioned above are in both new and old games, and to tell you the truth, I like a lot of those things you just mentioned Julius

Sorry dude, I didn't mean to offend you.

[ThePointingMan]

Don't worry, offense has not been taken, just stating a fact.

[Vy'drach]

Such as?

For one? Getting into places where you can't be seen (as in the inside of a rock), but can see/shoot out of.

That was hard hitting, memorable and controversial. So much worse and more simple then "Pumble saves pricess" sarcasm

Comparing a simple Nintendo platformer and a "cinematic" FPS is like comparing Grand Theft Auto with Star Wars pod racer.

Whereas in goldeneye you could always win simply by picking oddjob.

FAMAS, M16, Model 1887(s), Commando, Commando Pro, Cold Blooded, to name a few. Goldeneye had Oddjob, whoopty doo, Basil, one overpowered character. MW2 has a large amount of unbalanced things in it, that if you aren't using, you're going to lose, usually.

Not on any version I've seen.

So your maps don't have the random leaves fluttering in the wind or the unnecessary detail on things that don't matter in any way, causing more strain on the game/host, causing lag?

If you want realism, why no play Arma 2, or Flashpoint, or Rainbow 6? MW2 is not a sim.

It doesn't need to be a sim, but simply put, the things MW2 tries to pass off is an insult to my intelligence. A three-inch silencer bringing a .50 down to the sound of a paintball gun? A simple bullet resistant plexiglass ballistic shield stopping a .50 BMG. Infinity Ward stated that Modern Warfare 2 was going to be "more realistic," then they completely dumb it up. Why can't I Superman fly in MW2? Makes as much sense as some of the other things in there (being immune to thermal sights/electronic detectors for one). It doesn't need complete realism (things kept down for balance is fine), but don't go into the realm of pure fantasy. If I want to play a fantasy game, I'll get one, if I'm supposed to be playing a "realistic combat FPS," I -F-Bomb-ing expect one.

What does FPS gaming mean to you then?

FPS gaming doesn't mean a thing, but what I want in it to find it enjoyable is either: A) Complete realism, or B) Plausible, but balanced. MW2 did neither of these. A 9mm can be more powerful than a .45, a 5.56x45mm can be more powerful than a 7.62x39mm, a 7.62x51mm can be more powerful than a .300 Magnum. Also, leg shots are just at lethal as chest shots, hell, hand shots are just as lethal.

[Geo Stelar]

It's somewhat neutral. Some go up, some go down. Some improve, some degrade. Some are getting better and better, some are getting worse over time.