Does anyone else find games to be shallow?

[digitalbum]

Nah.



Majority of FPS games made pre-Halo era were outstanding. There were probably a dozen popular iterations of various FPS games that were all in some way unique and with great mechanics.



RPG games were good too. Baldur's Gate, NWN, HoMM, Diablo and the offshoots they spawned are still comparitively as good as most modern RPG games made today.



RTS isn't even a contest. War3 and it's various mods and then Starcraft, C&C and the Age series. They're still the best RTS going around.



Fighting games haven't really changed in 15 years. All the games we see now are just sequels to previous successes. MvC, SF, Tekken, KoF, Soul Calibur series still go strong. Still, the era of games like Vampire Savior I think are gone.



Anyway I could go on, but I think it's clear to any but the most casual of gamers that a decade ago games were actually frequently of better quality and depth than today.

Maybe....you're an adult now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nexion]

Who plays video games to develop their mind? My consoles say "PS3" and "Wii.U", not "Leapfrog". Don't be pretentious, video games are entertainment, just like any other media. I don't play Mario Kart to learn.

Yeah, video games, TV, movies, literature, it's all entertainment, and personal enjoyment may be the primary reason most people engage themselves into them, but just because media is entertainment, doesn't mean it can't go beyond entertainment and provide insights into the characters, the world, or hell, even humanity itself. Media in general is a field where the best examples from any subset manage to balance entertainment value and some sort of significance. Justifying lack of decent content or meaning in games as a whole on the grounds that their primary purpose is like justifying the lack of content or meaning in kids' movies on the grounds that eh, they're just kids movie. Isolating some form of media by the purpose of the media (rather than the purpose as an underlying theme of instances of the media) or audience is no justification for lack of quality. There has to be a better reason for that than just that "games are entertaining".

Skyrim is junk food. It will not develop your brain in the least, it will make you stupider, have you waste tons of time on shit.

...but interestingly enough, I still don't think Skyrim is a terrible game. Admittedly, I agree with everything Cherry Cola says about it: combat is redundant, gameplay is somewhat boring, dungeons are almost always bland and predictable. I will disagree with you on one thing, and that is that the story and quests suck. In terms of main quest and guild quests, Oblivion and even Morrowind were much better, I find the Thieves Guild questline the only one of interest in Skyrim, but that's only a fair amount into it as the associations with Nocturnal become apparent (did I mention earlier in this thread that I am sucker for TES lore?), but that just makes the differences between it and Oblivion even more poignant, as the Thieves Guild questline in Oblivion is the single greatest thing in the entire TES series. Anyway, apart from the main big quests, the side quests in Skyrim are generally much better than in its predecessors.

In terms of everything except graphics (though having an enchantment skill is nice, dunno why they had that in Morrowind and did away with it in Oblivion), Oblivion is vastly superior in every way, but... I dunno, I still don't think Skyrim is terrible, or even bad. It's like where the purposes of Oblivion was to be a good game with great quests, memorable characters, and a beautiful world, the purpose of Skyrim is solely to waste time, and unlike you, I see that idea as having merit also (at least it is a better reason than "it's just entertainment"), and it happens to excel at that purpose and I find it enjoyable when viewed from that perspective.

For the record, using magic in Skyrim does provide a bit more variety in terms of combat over weapons, assuming you actually do more than just throw fireballs at everything. Let's be honest, though, weapon-based combat in Oblivion was even more band and boring, but magic kicked so much ass in that game that it was pointless to ever use weapons to begin with. The reason I almost always go with magic over swords in games that feature both is because magic provides much more flexibility. Do I want to turn Draugr with Restoration magic and then send a Dremora Lord after them, or do I want to blast them with Destruction? Do I want to make these bandits kill each other with Frenzy while I watch from the shadows, or do I want to cast Calm on them and walk right on by while they just me? It provides a bit more varied and nuanced gameplay, and makes strategy a tad more important. Though, obviously, it isn't nearly as good or as fun as Oblivion since you can't make custom spells.

(I have problems with how most games portray magic and weapons as being roughly equivalent in terms of strength and usefulness, since in real life even the weakest of magics would DESTROY the mightiest of warriors, but that is something for a completely other time and wall post)

 

[Base groove]

Ok so every time I read this thread title I can't help but see it: "Does anyone else find girls who swallow?"

 

[digitalbum]

I can think of only a few captivating, truly unique, inspired games. Ten and twenty years ago, games sucked. Remember FF6? One of my favorite games, yet it sucked. Don't delude youselves into thinking games were ever better as a general rule. They're all gamey and silly shells of a virtual world. This is nothing new. Maybe it's in new ways, but games have always sucked, and the gems you remember from your youth are the exceptions, not the rule.

Do you enjoy reading The Onion? I do. It's hilarious biting satire on world, and especially American culture.

Grand Theft Auto 5, was a helluva fun game, but it also had excellent writing and biting satire just like the Onion.

Did I learn anything? I dunno, but it sure brought me more awareness to some of the absurdity of Humanity, much like the Onion.

In short, it was just as much a piece of artistic satire as say, Voltaire, as it was a fun video game where you got to blow shit up.

And please, I hope you're not one to say that "the classics are the best and it's impossible for anything to beat them. the idea that brilliant writing could be in a video game is absurd."

My two cents.

 

[SpaceYeti]

The games you mention... How many other games came out the same year? What portion of games are even memorable? I remember a bunch of games I played and liked, some I didn't like, and there were plenty I never touched. RPGs in particular have always lacked any meaningful immersion, and everything the good FPSs had have been integrated into modern games anyhow.

 

[The Void]

goat simulator is the best XD

 

[Latte]

goat simulator is the best XD

//thread

 

[Brontosaurie]

Nah.

Majority of FPS games made pre-Halo era were outstanding. There were probably a dozen popular iterations of various FPS games that were all in some way unique and with great mechanics.

just curious, what do you think of the Halo series?

 

[kris]

I don't find games more shallow now, but I do find they are often not balanced the way I want them to be. When I say 'balanced' I mean the overall experience. For instance, I get why Rage got good reviews, but I just couldn't connect to the game. I played because I have a fondness for post apocalyptic settings, and the game really failed on that front. It was an FPS with an post-apocalyptic skin, and not a post-apocalyptic FPS. If the game had balanced story and environment with game play, it would have held me in, but it didn't (well... unless it got better later on).

Bioshock was the reverse scenario. I wanted to explore that world, but I felt the actual gameplay was just getting in my way. Last of Us was a little like that for me as well -- I didn't really care about killing human opponents most of the time and just wanted to get on with exploring--, but it was compelling enough for me to keep going. Story sucked, but character development was good.

Deus-Ex: Human Revolution was right in the middle of both those games. At the start it felt compelling, but about two thirds of the way though I had no idea why I was still playing. The story wasn't really compelling, tasks were getting repetitive, character customization didn't feel that meaningful and combat was feeling flat. It promised freedom as a player, but more and more as the game went on, I felt that was a mere illusion.

The Atelier series crumbled for me this last console generation. I liked Atelier Iris, but in subsequent titles, they changed the game's balance into something I couldn't enjoy at all. It went from being a leisurely exploration of a whimsical world full of eccentricity to a rather generic feeling time management game.

While there have been some highly enjoyable games in the last generation, I think the reality is that the industry has largely moved on from the things I actually cared about. For instance, I keep expecting the kind of story arc I got in Xenogears -- the feeling of something epic and expansive with the weight of history behind it --, but it just doesn't seem to be in vogue. When I play games looking specifically for that, I am left feeling disappointed, but in some cases I think I'm just overlooking other things games have to offer.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Bioshock with Rage-level FPS gameplay...

 

[redbaron]

just curious, what do you think of the Halo series?

I think it's pretty subpar overall.

Weapons are probably the highlight of the Halo series, a variety of weapons all with a varying range of uses. I actually can't fault the weapon design much.

The movement is terrible. Super floaty and unresponsive. Nothing to really master, and it shows in the gameplay. The only reason it's bearable is because it's a console FPS - everyone's aim is slow and inaccurate by default.

Regenerating health bars in an FPS is quite terrible. Probably the first series to do it and become popular/successful. Takes away tonnes of strategic flexibility, and rewards stupidity. Or rather it doesn't punish you for it as much as it should.

The vehicle implementation is okay, but hardly inspired. Rather than being a situational/highly strategic concept like in the early BF series, in Halo they're just easier to use, high reward and low risk for very little effort. To be honest I really think the Halo vehicles are absolutely horrid, though I can't be sure how much stems from personal bias.

There's lots of other strategic concepts that because of poor mechanics, are simply non-existent or not very relevant in Halo. I think the culmination of these mechanics reflects in the playerbase as well - casual gamers and teenagers.

 

[redbaron]

The games you mention... How many other games came out the same year?

Lots. And the thing with FPS games, bad ones were actually the exception. 10+ years ago we had: Quake, Doom, Duke Nukem, Painkiller, Half-life (and DM), CoD2, Day of Defeat, CS 1.X versions, the list goes on - all good games.

everything the good FPSs had have been integrated into modern games anyhow

More like removed from them in favour of easymode mechanics and difficulty.

I actually can't think of a single FPS game made in the last 10 years that's any good.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I've enjoyed a lot of Halo over the years and I think it works pretty good an an xbox live game, the slow movement limits you a lot, so you often get these funny situations were both parties know where the other is and they are really close and grenades are thrown and stupid shit happens. I dunno, the game has humor, and the first Halo had some cool atmosphere and epic scale environments with a basic but well executed story.

But all your critique is spot on imo, plus regenerating health bars and non-regenerating health bars combined is the worst way to do it.

 

[kris]

Bioshock with Rage-level FPS gameplay...

I'd give it a try if they kept John Goodman on as a voice actor.

 

[Hadoblado]

Halo 2 is one of my favourite games of all time.

Regenerating healthbars are different, but I don't think it's worse. Essentially it means threshold mistakes rather than a flat ratio of mistakes to success. I even prefer it, because I hate having to leave fights to look for stuff, but I understand that there is a trade off here.

Vehicles were done a lot better in halo 2, though admittedly they're still very powerful and have a very low skill ceiling.

Team games often revolve around the securing of vehicles, sniper rifles, rotty launcher, and swords. Sniper has the highest skill ceiling, and is probably the most important.

I dunno where I'm going with this, I just felt the completely one sided bashing a little unwarranted.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What it means is that you either play on the normal difficulty which is yawn inducing, or you play on one of the higher difficulties which you soon learn is also yawn inducing. The latter becomes is strewn with short pauses to let your health regenerate, because the game is balanced so that it works on normal difficulty for average players. Action is never allowed in an unbroken flow with your life at risk throughout. The pacing resembling a sneak em up: dispatch, pause, dispatch, advance with care, didpatch.. Etc. Only regenerating healthbars allow for this kinda crap.

Furthermore, health reg makes for monotonous gameplay by reducing a variable to a constant, you no longer need to switch tactics because you're low on health and you don't know where the next med pack will be. That depth, and that extra tensio both gone.

 

[NormannTheDoorman]

After playing goat simulator for a few hours, I think I am getting close to understanding existence and reality.

 

[redbaron]

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the multiplayer Halo series too. Used to play via System link and online with my cousins and had a great time. Though it wasn't really to do with the game itself. More that we enjoyed playing against and in teams together, and Halo being a console shooter makes it more accessible than lugging our PC's to other houses.

That's really what new games offer now. Accessibility and social appeal. DotA2 has become incredibly popular with casual gamers where original DotA wasn't. The game has stayed the same, and they added tonnes of accessibility. That's fine with me, because the game hasn't really suffered.

The problem comes when games become all about accessibility, to the exclusion of depth. Which is the road that developers have all converged on. A whole heap of games designed to rope players in with a carrot on a stick type reward systems, social features and the like - because it's easier to capitalize on than it is to make a great game. I think there's a place for these games for sure, the issue is that it's become the industry standard.

And yes, what CC said about health bars.

 

[^_\\]

Multiplayer games, with rare exceptions, are as shallow or deep as you want them to be. The exceptions are when a game is really hard to learn or just has no depth at all. In any other kind of game, you're playing people, the game just determines along what axis you're engaging with people.


Maybe your problem is that more and more games are concerned with "compulsion loops", causing the player to want to continue playing, addicting them, etc, rather than being worthwhile experiences. The "progression"systems that are now pretty much standard are basically there only to keep you playing and undermine your ability to manage your time.


Mario kart is a great game.



Halo health bars are a massive improvement over permanent damage especially in a game with respawns but also in general. Unless you can totally avoid taking damage, every time you fight someone you take permanent damage meaning you can lose a level long before the end, even worse there's no way to know till the very end if the resources you have are enough to complete the level. This is good only if the difficulty is exactly aligned with your skill, allowing you a chance to barely scrape through. If you're too good you'll finish the level with 50% hp. If you're not good enough you have no chance at all.

Only Halo 1 had a health bar that didn't regenerate. At the time it was a novelty anyway and sort of fit in with the story (well not really, all those bullet holes after your shield is pierced aren't gonna heal with a health pack but it wasn't out of line unrealistic). In Halo 2 and 3 at least your health regenerates too, basically making it one regenerating health bar.

If legendary is a yawnfest you are just too good at the game. Hard to avoid that. They want people to feel good for beating legendary so they're not going to add in an even higher difficulty for people who are supersoldiers IRL.

It doesn't sound like you were playing on the hardest difficulty though.

Regenerating health provides a different type of challenge than trying to conserve your resources throughout the level. For the same level of total difficulty, burst difficulty involves much more threat of death than needing to maintain a certain standard of efficiency. Of course you need to switch tactics with health regeneration. It's the only time it does make a difference. If you are low on health in a grind you down gauntlet all you can do is play more efficiently and hope it carries you through. In Halo you can hide to let your shields regenerate while trying to kill enemies without exposing yourself to them in line of sight, and need to think about whether you're more vulnerable to indirect fire where you are than you will be to direct fire if you try to go somewhere better, where that best place might be, whether an enemy is just coming straight for you as you think.

If you are looking for non stop action Halo singleplayer is not the game at all.


Halo 2 online was the shit!


Also maybe it's just that you're playing on a hdtv now. They all have some level of input lag that makes the game less engaging. Some are terrible for this and some are not so bad but none are as good as the CRTs that used to be standard. Also games in general just seem to have less concern for the feel of the game. Nvidia recently removed their option for 0 pre rendered frames driver option. I'd much rather have a game that responds consistently with little or no delay than one with a thousand layers of graphics that bring the experience of being blinded by the sun into my living room.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Ugh the first paragraph is so wrong I cannot read the rest for fear death by anger and disappointment. Such a statement cannot possibly be followed by anything good. You clearly have no understanding of games whatsoever.

 

[^_\\]

Ugh the first paragraph is so wrong I cannot read the rest for fear death by anger and disappointment. Such a statement cannot possibly be followed by anything good. You clearly have no understanding of games whatsoever.

What's wrong with it? It looks straightforwardly true from where I'm standing. I'm not saying that some axes of engagement aren't more worthwhile than others but some people like every kind of challenge. Some games are deep only as challenges of mechanical skill or precision but there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[redbaron]

Play CPMA or Q3 duels for a year. Tell me how deep Halo is afterwards.

Basically the reasons you laude HP regen, is that it makes the game less challenging and thoughtful and you enjoy that. You know at all times that you'll always have enough health and armor to finish a level, because you never don't have enough.

It dumbs the game down. It's more fun for people who don't enjoy the challenge or necessary thought to complete a game. Personally I enjoy these things, and the uncertainty of finite resources and the way that particular situations force me to change tactics or strategy is pretty much the pinnacle of enjoyment in single player games. It's like problem solving on the fly, with any number of potential problems occurring within the rules of the environment.

HP regen removes that aspect completely, makes it so you don't even have to think about it.

 

[^_\\]

Play CPMA or Q3 duels for a year. Tell me how deep Halo is afterwards.

My aim is horrible (read: average) I can't even compete on quake live. Doesn't change anything. the challenge lies in playing better than your opponent. Maybe that's less about thinking in Halo at a high level but then part of the challenge is maintaining focus in a bad environment. You can always play better.


Nice to see someone else editing their posts after posting them. I do this all the time.

All it means is you don't have to think long term or about managing resources. The challenge at any particular moment can be much greater. What mythical fps are you talking about that that involves long term planning of resources rather than simply playing efficiently enough to scrape through the end with at least 1hp. Yes it does remove the possibility of long term failure. You either fail this try or win, meaning you get stuck or pass through. So? Each section is twice as hard. There's different ways to have the same total level of difficulty.

 

[redbaron]

My aim is horrible (read: average) I can't even compete on quake live.

Which makes Halo more enjoyable. I can understand that, and I think it's good that games like Halo exist. It sounds dickish, but the reason people can enjoy Halo and not Quake is that they're not skilled enough to enjoy Quake in the first place, and that's perfectly fine.

I don't see it as much different to sports. Some people can't play sports to save their life, others are great. There's altered versions of many sports that are centered around player enjoyment, fun and social interaction. Touch rugby, mixed-gender sports and the like all exist for people at all kinds of physicality, mentality and dedication levels to sport. They have altered rules where certain limits are posed on player-scoring, tackling and certain strategies - so that everyone can participate without feeling pressured.

Yet can you really deny that these versions are watered down version of the sports? Would an NBA star be content to just play mixed-gender basketball with a group of friends? Maybe socially and for fun, yet he's always going to yearn for something more, and will get much greater enjoyment out of a sport that provides a challenge equivalent to his abilities.

Anyway the point here is that games nowadays seem to be made pretty much exclusively for the touch-rugby players.

What mythical fps are you talking about that that involves long term planning of resources rather than simply playing efficiently enough to scrape through the end with at least 1hp.

Painkiller, Quake and early iterations Duke Nukem off the top of my head.

You started the next level with the same HP, ammo and other resources you had at the end of the last one. Also if you didn't find the powerful weapons in the level they were available - and they weren't necessarily all that obvious either, then you never got them in the game for the later levels when you really needed them.

Pretty much from level 1 to the end boss is an entire case of resource management.

EDIT: stop editing like me :'(

 

[Latte]

Yeah, some games have mechanics that make other games in the genre seem like the special olympics, especially QWOP, which is the true and eternal master game of its genre.

All hail QWOP. Bow in the dust, and dare not gaze upon it, for if it gazes back, you will know doom and anguish in ways you didn't know possible.

 

[^_\\]

Which makes Halo more enjoyable. I can understand that, and I think it's good that games like Halo exist. It sounds dickish, but the reason people can enjoy Halo and not Quake is that they're not dedicated or skilled enough to enjoy Quake in the first place.

I'm okay with this. I don't see it as any different to sports. Some people can't play sports to save their life, others are great. There's altered versions of many sports that are centered around player enjoyment, fun and social interaction. Touch rugby, mixed-gender sports and the like all exist for people at all kinds of physicality, mentality and dedication levels to sport. They have altered rules where certain limits are posed on player-scoring, tackling and certain strategies - so that everyone can participate without feeling pressured.

Yet can you really deny that these versions are watered down version of the sports? Would an NBA star be content to just play mixed-gender basketball with a group of friends? Maybe socially and for fun, yet he's always going to yearn for something more, and will get much greater enjoyment out of a sport that provides a challenge equivalent to his abilities.

First off I partially concede the original point: I had this pegged as a totally non hardcore forum where people play skyrim and stuff and I was trying to make a point which does not hold at the highest level of competition in the way I meant, except for in the sense that everything has a limitless skill ceiling when the standard is faster than the other guy, which was not my point at all, but is true only thanks to my good luck.

And it is really sad that skill ceilings seem to be lowering.

But on this topic, my two cents are that the NBA star plays where the competition is at. Whether it's in hyperbasketball, normal basketball or shitty-joke-basketball he'll be there. And he might be sad he's playing a shitty game, but that's part of the challenge too. And people will be less entertained to watch him, but it's just as hard to be the best at something no matter what it is.

At one point Halo was where the money was at, which meant people were engaged in the limitlessly difficult act of trying to be the best in the world at reacting faster, reading intentions better, coordinating better than the next best people. (Competition was in teams of course 1vs1 Halo is not great.)

Is golf a deep sport? Is street fighter a deep game? I don't know. Is league of legends? no. but if you want the hardest challenge you go where the competition is (All else equal, league of legends players probably aren't worth dealing with for any amount of money, though I've never been a millionaire.)


I never played those games. if I want a challenge in resource management I just don't play FPS. I hate trying to execute and resource manage at the same time. What I enjoy about FPS's and fighting games is total in the moment immersion. For that kind of challenge I play roguelikes or strategy games or desktop dungeons.

 

[redbaron]

But if you want the deepest challenge you go where the competition is.

Yes, I remember when Halo had its competitive moment, but it didn't last long. Duel FPS had been a staple at international competitions for years before Halo, and still is today. The competition in it is far greater than Halo ever was, is or will be - because games like Quake allow for more depth in competition.

I remember when CS:S had it's one year at an internation event. The game sucked compared to 1.6, and the best players didn't even bother switching to it. It simply wasn't as competitive as 1.6, even though they played the same opponents. The game was dumbed down and certain subtle changes removed numerous tactical and strategic concepts entirely.

The funny part was that the teams that ended up winning the CS:S comp? A bunch of average-high skilled 1.6 teams and players, who steamrolled the CS:S, "elite". I'm sorry, but some games simply allow for and demand a higher level of skill to compete in than others do. It's that simple. Quake falls into that category relevant to Halo.

 

[Cherry Cola]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXgpGBbh5r8

 

[redbaron]

Anyway this video loosely sums up the difference in what I'm talking about when I say some games are by nature, less competitive/dumbed down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yes and also the whole idea of hp trade offs. It is not only surviving , but also, how many rocket jumps you can make before you die, which give you the positional advantage, etc. Great mechanics.

I can understand hp regen as an option in games like diablo or some other hack-slash rpg's, but this hp regen also is a form of managing the incoming dps and not allowing opponents to land too many hits on you.

Ideally with hp regen, you never reach 100% hp.

 

[The Void]

 

[principle]

I cant believe no1 posted about PvP games. Number 1 computer game is league of legends right now and IMO its the only "good game". in LoL you are put in a system 5v5 where u must outsmart the other team using what ur 5 players and teamwork. Other games like skyrim, assassins creed you are essentially pressing buttons in order to complete games and watch events unfold... how is that fun. its like pressing buttons to watch a movie but the story line is shittier than regular movies. PS4 and Xbox just dont cut it for me anymore no strategy involved whatsoever.

 

[kris]

I cant believe no1 posted about PvP games

They did.

Number 1 computer game is league of legends right now and IMO its the only "good game".

You may have a very narrow appreciation for what gaming has to offer, though I am happy to hear you've found something which works for you.

in LoL you are put in a system 5v5 where u must outsmart the other team using what ur 5 players and teamwork.

That's what I don't like about MOBAs, or multiplayer in general. I don't want to be on a team unless I know the other players and we can play according to our own style and preference. I only know a couple of people with whom I could occasionally play, so that team size doesn't work for me. Dealing with group dynamics doesn't interest me, and unless the community surrounding the game is good, I'm not that interested in making friends.

Do human opponents and teammates really offer that much variability in reality? Perhaps I am prejudiced, but it seems that people have a tendency towards certain understandings of game mechanics which leads to favouring certain strategies and repeating them ad nauseum until a new variable is introduced. Like any game, it's great while there's novelty, but when the novelty wears off, what remains? Refining your techniques over and over through repetition? I'm not criticizing, but it doesn't sound dramatically appealing when coupled with the team play aspect.

It's also why I am not a huge fan of chess, to be honest. Despite all the variations in possible strategy, it feels like your average player sticks to a set of fairly established strategies. I don't deny it can be intensely challenging, but it's not a sort of challenge which interests me. At least chess is 1v1 though.

For the record, I am not telling you why you should or should not like the game; I'm just explaining why I don't dive headfirst into MOBAs. My brother wanted me to try DoTA 2, and I'll probably give it a try, but I have mixed feelings on it.

Other games like skyrim, assassins creed you are essentially pressing buttons in order to complete games and watch events unfold... how is that fun.

It's a type of role play. Not saying it has to be your preference, but it's not a difficult concept to grasp. When I was a kid, we'd pick up sticks and run through the woods pretending we were knights in mythical realms, or soldiers, spies, Transformers (etc.). Similar concept with Skyrim only I can be lazier about it and it has a visceral graphical interface. There are a lot of things I feel are weak in Skyrim, but I don't mind spending some time there roleplaying a character.

its like pressing buttons to watch a movie but the story line is shittier than regular movies.

Do regular movies still have plots? I never played Assassin's Creed, so I cannot comment on it, but if we're talking about games in general, it really comes down to points of comparison.

PS4 and Xbox just dont cut it for me anymore no strategy involved whatsoever.

Those are consoles. They don't require strategy. You just plug them in and turn them on. It would be brutally annoying if PS4 or Xbox required strategy. Hypothetically, any game genre or difficulty can be run on current console hardware, so it's not an inherent limit. At the very least it seems League of Legends could be played on consoles as far as technology goes. Probably more a question of market dynamics than platform.

If you're suggesting that the games for these consoles are watered down, sure, to some extent that seems to be true. It doesn't have to be true and perhaps opening up to more indie developers will change things a little, but with the cost of making AAA console titles, it seems many want to push accessibility as a priority in game design. I heard that was the case with Guardians of Middle Earth in part due to trying to cater controls to gamepad users, and in part because they thought the overall console demographic needed a softer introduction to this game style. Not sure if it's true, but that's what I heard. Seems the game was not a critical success.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Wherever there's PVP there's metagaming, a good pvp-game sports a meta-game that is constantly evolving growing more complex all the time. Few single player games can offer something that comes close to it without revolving around mindless tech-skill.

 

[principle]

That's what I don't like about MOBAs, or multiplayer in general. I don't want to be on a team unless I know the other players and we can play according to our own style and preference. I only know a couple of people with whom I could occasionally play, so that team size doesn't work for me. Dealing with group dynamics doesn't interest me, and unless the community surrounding the game is good, I'm not that interested in making friends.

I know how you feel with teammates, especially on the internet it can get really annoying sometimes where 1 player can waste an hour of your time. Perhaps starcraft may sound better to you 1v1.

Do human opponents and teammates really offer that much variability in reality? Perhaps I am prejudiced, but it seems that people have a tendency towards certain understandings of game mechanics which leads to favouring certain strategies and repeating them ad nauseum until a new variable is introduced. Like any game, it's great while there's novelty, but when the novelty wears off, what remains? Refining your techniques over and over through repetition? I'm not criticizing, but it doesn't sound dramatically appealing when coupled with the team play aspect.

I think you have it backwards, im no computer sci major but any rpg or non multiplayer games work off algorithms, where its essentially a formula to when the enemy player backs off/attacks you. Something that you can analyze and understand in a second. Like when you play LoL 5v5 with bots or pvp, you can just tell the difference in play style. Bots you can read their mind, humans you cant and only predict their actions and use strategy in order to win. its the opposite of refining your own techniques because in LoL there are over 110 characters to choose from, the number of different team compositions, play styles, strategics moves vary infinitely.

It's also why I am not a huge fan of chess, to be honest. Despite all the variations in possible strategy, it feels like your average player sticks to a set of fairly established strategies. I don't deny it can be intensely challenging, but it's not a sort of challenge which interests me. At least chess is 1v1 though.

I understand what your saying. I am no chess player, the beginning of each game may look similar but as the game continues it becomes more situational, so its that much harder to outplay your opponent. Average players do stick to same strategys, and thats why they will always stay average. Looking at the game in a different perspective is what makes them better

For the record, I am not telling you why you should or should not like the game; I'm just explaining why I don't dive headfirst into MOBAs. My brother wanted me to try DoTA 2, and I'll probably give it a try, but I have mixed feelings on it.

Doesnt hurt to try, but thats also 5v5 like league nearly exact same concept. If you want 1v1 SC2

Those are consoles. They don't require strategy. You just plug them in and turn them on. It would be brutally annoying if PS4 or Xbox required strategy. Hypothetically, any game genre or difficulty can be run on current console hardware, so it's not an inherent limit. At the very least it seems League of Legends could be played on consoles as far as technology goes. Probably more a question of market dynamics than platform.

Sure console games can require strategy, every game requires strategy we dont just blindly become better at them.

I cant see league on console, the configuration just doesnt work on a controller...
PC FTW

If you're suggesting that the games for these consoles are watered down, sure, to some extent that seems to be true. It doesn't have to be true and perhaps opening up to more indie developers will change things a little, but with the cost of making AAA console titles, it seems many want to push accessibility as a priority in game design. I heard that was the case with Guardians of Middle Earth in part due to trying to cater controls to gamepad users, and in part because they thought the overall console demographic needed a softer introduction to this game style. Not sure if it's true, but that's what I heard. Seems the game was not a critical success.

I think the reason why game devs watered down these games to super crazy graphics yet no strategy/ special method to win, is because thats what the market is demanding... i mean come on 50 bucks for a cd these developers arent trying to create quirky games that require specific thinking anymore like in the past. They are mass producing the same thing ie. Call of duty series, assassins creed etc. Marketing strategy + hype + better graphics= More income

 

[redbaron]

Number 1 computer game is league of legends right now.

Terrible. Just terrible.

 

[principle]

Terrible. Just terrible.

How so?

Edit: 27 million daily active users. Brought in $627 millions dollars in revenue in 2013.

There must be something about this game that stands out

 

[Pyropyro]

How so?

Edit: 27 million daily active users. Brought in $627 millions dollars in revenue in 2013.

There must be something about this game that stands out

The game is good and has a relatively large amount of lore for a MOBA. However, I think the community's overall immaturity makes the game bad.

 

[principle]

The game is good and has a relatively large amount of lore for a MOBA. However, I think the community's overall immaturity makes the game bad.

Yep, it's goal oriented at first, then trolls always follow the big group. You find yourself with less trolls once you reach the higher rankings however

 

[redbaron]

No the actual game is bad. It's just a watered down DotA clone, given the same carrot on a stick type social features of CoD.

If CoD was translated into a MOBA, League would be the result.

Don't mind me though, I'm just being elitist ^_^

 

[h0bby1]

the thing is the way games are programmed radically changed since massive use of 3D accelerator

the problem with this kind of programming is that is totally separate the rendering from rest of the program, and the cpu must still do all the physics, on which all interaction is based, so it become extremly more difficult to add good level of interactions, and what make game interesting in the term depth of athmosphere in term of interaction

it's more focused all on massive use of rendering effect, and some basic physics, than about interaction, even skyrim, it has tons of bugs in the quest system, even the inventory system is often bugged, and their quest are never all that really deep, or non linear either, the way modern game are programmed make it generally very hard to have good level of interactions, and it's generally not the main focus, majority of the program is about 3D engine, scene format, octree/bsp tree to cut in the world in little piece into which the interaction take place, and physics engine, rather than about adding deep level of interaction

fallout new vegas was still really good on that regard, it's one of the only recent game that i really had a good wow moment =) the game really have high level of non linearity, and really give a good impression of coherence, and the world of new vegas is much richer than the one of fallout 3, i think they did a really good job with this one =)

but now it's more the rush to the highest resolution, to more effect, that take advantage of the most expansive graphic card, it's a bit buisness, to make a game competitive with the top of shelve, need huge team of people, all ultra specialized in a one technical area of graphics or pogramming, and it become very hard to manage the project for more complex kind of game world

even to compare skyrim with daggerfall, i don't know if some played daggerfall, but the world was really HUGE, like litterally thousand of cities, in different kindgoms, plenty of different guilds, and temples, and really huge interaction on all level, much more interactions, and spells that what skyrim has, by far

but also daggerfall could be pretty bugged, and it was not always very well controlled, it's the problem when you add non linearity in a game, after it become much harder to debug, trouble shot, and make it accessible to casual player who just want to shoot a few troll, and it was not always easy to play

since oblivion they made it much easier, and less bugged, because it's much more linear, and the whole game play is predicted in a script, so there is much less problem of debugging odd situation where stuff can make bugs, or lead to situation where the player can be stuck or some problem

but daggerfall it was still in the same kind of engine than doom, and editors for this kind of engine like duke nukem could become really neat and complex, and there was way to really create rich interactive world rather easily

since quake3, it become already much more difficult to do so, even if quake3 was still rather ok, but the level of interaction with the environment is pretty limited as well

now game become a big buisness of graphic card, drivers, sdk's, and a huge industry, and it's focused mostly on rendering capacity, because it used to be the limit before in game, but now it's the opposite, and it become much harder to actually make rich itneractive world because the graphic card can only render some list of polygons with effects, but to have the good physics as basis of interaction become very difficult for the cpu, and this is a thing that they is still not really well dealt with today, so they just make super realistic environment, with montrusous graphics and limited physics, and interaction

 

[h0bby1]

Yeah, video games, TV, movies, literature, it's all entertainment, and personal enjoyment may be the primary reason most people engage themselves into them, but just because media is entertainment, doesn't mean it can't go beyond entertainment and provide insights into the characters, the world, or hell, even humanity itself. Media in general is a field where the best examples from any subset manage to balance entertainment value and some sort of significance. Justifying lack of decent content or meaning in games as a whole on the grounds that their primary purpose is like justifying the lack of content or meaning in kids' movies on the grounds that eh, they're just kids movie. Isolating some form of media by the purpose of the media (rather than the purpose as an underlying theme of instances of the media) or audience is no justification for lack of quality. There has to be a better reason for that than just that "games are entertaining".


...but interestingly enough, I still don't think Skyrim is a terrible game. Admittedly, I agree with everything Cherry Cola says about it: combat is redundant, gameplay is somewhat boring, dungeons are almost always bland and predictable. I will disagree with you on one thing, and that is that the story and quests suck. In terms of main quest and guild quests, Oblivion and even Morrowind were much better, I find the Thieves Guild questline the only one of interest in Skyrim, but that's only a fair amount into it as the associations with Nocturnal become apparent (did I mention earlier in this thread that I am sucker for TES lore?), but that just makes the differences between it and Oblivion even more poignant, as the Thieves Guild questline in Oblivion is the single greatest thing in the entire TES series. Anyway, apart from the main big quests, the side quests in Skyrim are generally much better than in its predecessors.

In terms of everything except graphics (though having an enchantment skill is nice, dunno why they had that in Morrowind and did away with it in Oblivion), Oblivion is vastly superior in every way, but... I dunno, I still don't think Skyrim is terrible, or even bad. It's like where the purposes of Oblivion was to be a good game with great quests, memorable characters, and a beautiful world, the purpose of Skyrim is solely to waste time, and unlike you, I see that idea as having merit also (at least it is a better reason than "it's just entertainment"), and it happens to excel at that purpose and I find it enjoyable when viewed from that perspective.

For the record, using magic in Skyrim does provide a bit more variety in terms of combat over weapons, assuming you actually do more than just throw fireballs at everything. Let's be honest, though, weapon-based combat in Oblivion was even more band and boring, but magic kicked so much ass in that game that it was pointless to ever use weapons to begin with. The reason I almost always go with magic over swords in games that feature both is because magic provides much more flexibility. Do I want to turn Draugr with Restoration magic and then send a Dremora Lord after them, or do I want to blast them with Destruction? Do I want to make these bandits kill each other with Frenzy while I watch from the shadows, or do I want to cast Calm on them and walk right on by while they just me? It provides a bit more varied and nuanced gameplay, and makes strategy a tad more important. Though, obviously, it isn't nearly as good or as fun as Oblivion since you can't make custom spells.

(I have problems with how most games portray magic and weapons as being roughly equivalent in terms of strength and usefulness, since in real life even the weakest of magics would DESTROY the mightiest of warriors, but that is something for a completely other time and wall post)

in skyrim for this i found it rather balanced

i started at first with a magician, for these reason a little , but i also found out it's hard to really get through tough fight without any melee skill, if there is 3/4 tough enmies, or big boss, you get killed to fast

but the combat system is still nice, with the black smitthing, forging things, enchanting, and parade/one hand things, it can also give flexibility, with enchanting armor and weapons with different spells to deal with particular situations

the way also with sneaking/assassin is pretty cool, but same than with magic when you have to deal with really tough fight, without good melee skill it's often hard

with heavy armor skill it's much easier, and with magic barrier to deal with magic attack, it still make big fight much easier to handle

and with the power attacks, parade and blacksmitthing/enchanting, it's still give also flexibility, and make combats also fun

 

[digitalbum]

I started a thread about video game suggestions and mentioned I found some good ones. I've been playing them, and they ARE good, but I don't have the attention span. There's WAY more important things in my life right now that need tending to, so it's hard to sit down, relax and play some games.

So I've more or less stopped playing. Maybe someday, when I'm more on top of my shit, I'll feel less guilty about wasting time playing video games (I don't think there's anything wrong with "wasting time" but I think you gotta earn it first).

 

[Cherry Cola]

Hobby1, I reckon you haven't gotten that far in the game. Combat gets trivial quick.

Btw, I think non-linearity is the most overrated thing in gaming today. It's spoken of as if though it were some universal plus when it has plenty of major drawbacks.

When someone says "you make your own story" I feel like throwing up.

 

[h0bby1]

Hobby1, I reckon you haven't gotten that far in the game. Combat gets trivial quick.

Btw, I think non-linearity is the most overrated thing in gaming today. It's spoken of as if though it were some universal plus when it has plenty of major drawbacks.

When someone says "you make your own story" I feel like throwing up.

well non linearity it make in sort the gameplay adapt very well to your gaming style, so it give also lot of possibility for how to play the game, and what the game will be like

in game like fallout new vegas, you can play three different main quest, that will probably use more skills than others, and you can really play two different game with different character that will be completly different, as well in the quest line, scenario, game play, actions etc

it adds a lot to replayability, to have really customized game play each time for the kind of gameplay you prefer, either more aventure/dialog oriented, stealth, action, more on reflection/puzzle solving, trading, or other, and depending on how you play, the quest you do, and the faction you join, it will change totally the game play, instead of having predetermined pattern of action that will be suited for this kind of gameplay, it make the game much simpler and repetitive

in fallout new vegas, will all the different factions and quest lines, that can lead to different endings as well, it make the game much more interesting, and there is much more parameters taken in account in the environment, than when it's 100% linear games

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Btw, I think non-linearity is the most overrated thing in gaming today. It's spoken of as if though it were some universal plus when it has plenty of major drawbacks.

When someone says "you make your own story" I feel like throwing up.

Linearity is bad when the game is basically a movie rather than being an interactive experience. It has become more recent in the last several years due to the tendency to put the demonstration of graphical capabilities over innovative or entertaining gameplay.


The best example, in my opinion, of how non-linearity can improve gameplay can be found in Super Metroid. Because you had to explore the planet and map out the location of items and rooms, it added a certain experiential realism to it.

The non-linearity in games such as the Crysis or Battlefield: Bad Company series allowed you to approach tactical situations in your own style. Basically you get the freedom to play with weapons & abilities and experience the scenery.

Games like Far Cry 3, Grand Theft Auto, and Infamous give you an open world with side missions stacked on top of the story missions. While the side missions can give a game replayability, it hurts the game if the developers divert the bulk of content away from the story into the side missions (GTA games have been consistently good, while I didn't really feel the need to keep playing FC3).