Gaming: Have gamers truly forgotten?

[CandyStar]

I myself treasured games in the past, where the major focus was on gameplay, mechanics, and story. Graphics were taking the back seat, and it did very well in this way. But now we have people who say graphics equal immersion, but that's not entirely true. While yes, graphics are good things, they can sometimes be distractive. Its why we have so many horrible quality games in this generation. Gamers forget that if not for the first games, we would never have what we do have today. There are a few I can mention that did well with good graphics:

 

- BF4 and CoD AW

 

I have not played, but have seen the gameplay. This was enough for me to get a general idea of their playability, and appreciate them for what they are. Looking back, CoD WAW was a great game, despite not having the best graphics. But they made up for that with great gameplay, mechanics, and story(but then again, nobody really cared for that story). I remember Medal of Honor: Frontline, the best game experience of my life! The use of a comedic german bar with a funny hidden song and scene was gold. But now they seem to take the graphics way too seriously and it makes the game collapse.

 

- Metal Gear Rising Revengeance & Deus Ex: Human Revolution

 

These two games offered great re-playability, and great story to boot. DEHR gave us the ability to choose between using stealth or assault, which in my opinion was a life saver. I don't like having just one path to take, I like to be able to play through one and then play the other next time I played again. The hacking in this game was the closest at a hacking experience.  

 

MGRR gave you almost the same thing, but just a bigger battlefield. High frequency blades, and a vast variety of combos to pull off at any given time. The QTE and cutscenes were beautiful to look at. But the winner to me is DEHR because of the ability to play through the whole game in the way you wished. 

 

These are my fine examples of the good games we have now.

 

Now for the Games back then:

 

- Final Fantasy

 

I've played almost all of them, all but FFVIII, which is harder to get because of its rarity. I have a copy of FFVII original 3-disc version.

 

FFVII was a great game despite not having the graphics this generation has. It engaged you and kept you playing until the end, and left us with a bunch of questions. But for its time, it was fun as hell finding the hidden materia, and fighting many different enemies. You didn't have spells you could cast right off the bat, you needed the proper material and strategy to defeat your opponents. Feel free to correct me, but if i'm right, this game had about 60 hrs of gameplay in it. But the only problem with it was the final battle with sephiroth, it was too easy if you used the strongest sword in the game: Ultima Weapon. Which leads to a pretty empty feeling conclusion.

 

FFVIII from what I've seen, was a small upgrade from chibi models to life size models. I just wish I could play it now, but finding it has been a pain in the butt. But if you ask me, "would you play it if you had it was the same model as FFVII?" Yes, I would play it.

 

________________

 

Now as I look on websites and forums, all I see is people who care not for the past, and only look what the future has to offer, not once thinking back to what it meant to be a gamer(imo). I've found a few who actually appreciate the games we used to play, and agree while some games today are sometimes sub par, its always the mechanics, gameplay, and story that matter the most, that is what immerses you, not the quality of the graphics.

 

So what are your thoughts on this subject and what do you believe?

 

 

[Ciraxis]

I agree about the story part. For myself that's the reason why I stay hell away from FPS. Sure the scenario writers try harder and harder with each generation to make an addictive and fascinating story but usually fail. The only exception I can think of is Halo series and I believe it was because it was multi-game saga.

 

Generally many modern games trait the story neglectfully. Do game quality suffer because of it? Depends.

On one hand we have something like God of War. Was the story complicated and though-provoking? Of course not! But the games powered through with amazing graphics, gameplay, epicness and re-playability. Also Kratos is guy with quite attitude and while some would say he is one dimensional he certainly isn't boring.

 

On other we have say, Xenosaga. Again a multi game j-RPG saga with storyline twisted like bowl of spaghetti taking inspirations from Kabbalah, Gnosticism and other sources. And while the three games were by no means a failures they weren't exactly a sales records breakers either.

 

Much depends on how the story is served I guess. Generally I would say we have a three schools of doing it. The first one, the cut-scenes familiar to all is probably best represented by Metal Gear games and j-RPG's. On other we have games like Elder Scrolls and Dark Souls where while we have a main story to follow they don't guide you by the hand, oh no! We have to actively hunt to find all other detail and side-stories, strolling into places we would not notice otherwise. The third one, would be one when we given a choice - with famous representatives being BioWare games. One could say that the main story remains the same but I would argue. Mass Effect, which - should be noted - was MASSIVE project shows that the big story is in reality a string of many, many smaller ones.

 

Is one of those three ways better then other? I would say no. In the end all games mentioned above are without the doubt excellent games.

But story isn't exactly necessary to have a blast from playing the game, isn't it? We have fighting games, racers sport simulators, slashers, platformers and others works that aren't in Noble Prize rage for their writing.

[CoffeeLand]

Ciraxis has a pretty good point, most people remember a game for its entertainment quality and not its story telling. Consider the games Team Fortress 2 and Kane and Lynch: Dead Men, both games were released in 2007 and though Kane and Lynch was a story-based game with a decent plot most gamers flocked to Team Fortress 2 despite having no plot what-so-ever (at the time), even to this day TF2 is still a widely famous PC game. And that's just an example of present day, what about games like Tetris, Pac-Man, and Pong? They are by far some of the most famous video games in history despite lacking any kind of story structure what-so-ever. But enough about story and graphics.

 

Most players probably look to the future instead of the past because the future means new kinds of games, new types of gameplay, and even new ways to play video games. I mean the new possibilities that the Oculus Rift can give to gaming alone aught to be proof enough that the future of gaming is pretty interesting.

[CandyStar]

Ciraxis has a pretty good point, most people remember a game for its entertainment quality and not its story telling. Consider the games Team Fortress 2 and Kane and Lynch: Dead Men, both games were released in 2007 and though Kane and Lynch was a story-based game with a decent plot most gamers flocked to Team Fortress 2 despite having no plot what-so-ever (at the time), even to this day TF2 is still a widely famous PC game. And that's just an example of present day, what about games like Tetris, Pac-Man, and Pong? They are by far some of the most famous video games in history despite lacking any kind of story structure what-so-ever. But enough about story and graphics.

 

Most players probably look to the future instead of the past because the future means new kinds of games, new types of gameplay, and even new ways to play video games. I mean the new possibilities that the Oculus Rift can give to gaming alone aught to be proof enough that the future of gaming is pretty interesting.

Problem with new gameplay is, that's a rarity to come by.

[QuickLime]

"Remember  what it means to be a gamer"

....Play games?

[CoffeeLand]

Problem with new gameplay is, that's a rarity to come by.

Okay I'll give you that, but there are still dozens of other things that could be named instead of new gameplay. The point still remains that the future is a lot more promising than the past.

[Smartbrony]

As a fan of the old N64, I can agree that a lot of newer games are losing that "old touch". But, I don't think it's necessarily the game's fault, nor the developers.

 

Let's face it, people nowadays have extremely short attention spans. If something doesn't look cool and flashy, it's forgotten about in the next five minutes. And I'll admit that I like it when games have nice textures and cool features, but what will always hold my interest the most is the game play. I play a lot of games, (324 in my Steam library alone!) trying to find that perfect game that's entertaining, looks good, and works well. Some of my favorites are Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion, Subnautica, and Call of Duty: Black Ops II.

 

At least in some cases, good graphics can make okay game play unnoticeable. Let me use Subnautica as a bit of an example.

 

Now, it's still in development, so keep that in mind. When you think hard about it, there's not a lot to do, and you kind of have to make your own goals, but it's such a beautiful game. I can spend hours in it doing such minor, repetitive tasks and not get bored, whereas in the same case in another game it can quickly become a chore.

 

I just realized that the same points I'm making can be applied to movies too. They can have good content and be good, but not always. On the other hand, just because a movie looks absolutely amazing doesn't make it a good movie, but if it has a decent story or something it's redeemable.

 

Then there's that third category of both movies and games where it's clear that nobody did their research and were just mashing things together. (*cough* Avatar: the Last Airbender movie *cough*)

 

Anyway, that's my two bits on the matter.

[Blueblood]

As one who, these days, primarily games in the physical realm, I've gotten a new perspective on this question.

 

What a designer needs to aim at, first and foremost, is the emotion and tone that they seek to provide in their game.  Is it going to be an adrenaline-rush, a slow build of tension throughout, or a sweet relaxant?  What do you want the player's brain-state to be when playing?

 

All other elements, mechanics, graphics, and story alike, contribute and detract from this element.  But the truth is, nostalgia just does not translate to people who did not play the games at the time when they came out.  Back when it was first released, Final Fantasy VII's graphics contributed to the experience it was conveying.  Today, to anyone coming into the game cold (like me, as I did not own a Play Station at the time), they rather distract from it.

 

As for what it means to be a gamer... it means you play games.  This is not my religion.  I am not obligated to uphold some holy, traditional canon against the backsliders and heretics.

[Windwright]

As an incidental, FF VIII is available on Steam for cheap-ish.

 

Personally, I've always favoured the story and narrative driven games, partly because I can't develop the twitch-reflexes that come with both platformers and FPS/3PS games, or the focus for bullet hell and shmups.

[CandyStar]

I never meant to sound offensive in any way, I'm just not good at expressing my opinions. Never comes out the way I want it to.

[Smartbrony]

I don't think anyone here thought you sounded offensive. Video games are something we're all passionate about, so we all have a lot to say on a subject like this. 

[DerpRavener]

I have a few thoughts here.

 

1) I think it's a fallacy to say anything like, 'we used to have games with stories, now all we get are pretty graphics'.  This notion of the 'good old days' is something I'm fairly sure is a sort of confirmation bias.  For one, most of the older games we play these days are the ones that survive the test of time.  All the shovelware of that era is completely forgotten, that's what of the defining traits of shovelware.  Because of this, modern garbage is the only kind one will generally be able to bring to mind, or one is exploring older games after the industry has moved on to later generations, the good games are possibly the only ones you can even find.  Except maybe the amazingly bad.  The other thing, along a similar line, is that one tried a number of games on a system many years ago, which games are you more likely to remember?  The ones that were amazingly good (or atrociously bad).  So, when you think back, you remeber the FFVIIs and the Super Mario 64's, and what you miss are the games like Superman 64, often regarded as the single worst game of all time.

Alternately, look up just about anything on the Sega CD (which came out before the N64), and at most what you'll get are some so-bad-its-good games.

 

2) There might be something to the idea that what makes the most popular games has shifted somewhat.  However, a) I don't necessary think this is a bad thing, b) the new games still require skill and thought to create and make popular, they are just of a different nature, and most importantly c) this is a function of gaming becoming more mainstream, and thus the total audience shifting.  Those groups of people which like the sorts of games which focus on gameplay and story over graphics are still around, if anything I think the overall proportion to society has grown.  What's changed is that now there is a large group of people who play casually.  Some games appeal to this, and I say there's nothing wrong with that.  When I go to the movies, I much prefer to see a mindless blockbuster than the pinnacle of acting skill.  I hope the latter does well, for its own sake, but it's not what I enjoy seeing.

I think it's important to remember that just because the demographics shift, doesn't mean we are losing or will lose what we had.  I would argue that Crypt of the Necrodancer, Binding of Isaac, the Souls series and the Talos Principle are proof of that.  There are probably others too, though I can't recall them off the top of my head.

(I would also like add Risk of Rain and AI War: Fleet Command to the list, but I'm not sure how popular the former is and I'm not sure how old the latter is, so I'm not sure how well they support the point.)

 

3) This one's a more minor point, and I think other people have mentioned it, but I remember back in the day that graphics quality, at least of the cutscenes, was actually one of the selling points of FFVII.  Sure, a lot of people say the game holds up regardless, and I won't argue that.  I haven't played it myself, so I couldn't really comment either way.  But using it as an example of 'games that were willing to set aside graphics for quality story and gameplay' isn't exactly accurate as far as I know.  The reason it looks as though it does now, is just because technology has moved on so much since then.

 

The original Deus Ex is one of my favorite games of all time.  I still go back and play it every so often, even.  But try playing it and thinking it couldn't be improved by smoothing out the blocky models and still animations, and overhauling the one-dimensional gunplay.

(Also, it's only $8 on Steam, and absolutely worth the purchase for anyone interest in older games.  Though you'll need to swing by the forums to grab the workaround for a speed issue on modern computers.)

[Gfan93]

Kinda miss the old days a bit. you just popped the game cart into the center of the console, pressed the power button, and bam!

 

Nowadays its microtransaction after microtransaction, patch after patch, rushed product after rushed product, its become like making fast food on an assembly line.

[CandyStar]

Kinda miss the old days a bit. you just popped the game cart into the center of the console, pressed the power button, and bam!

 

Nowadays its microtransaction after microtransaction, patch after patch, rushed product after rushed product, its become like making fast food on an assembly line.

Exactly, I just feel companies these days don't really care what you think. Sure they ask for feedback, but in the end, its never really considered. From what I had witnessed for example, is bungie's attempts at ripping people off seeing the pre-orders, DLCs, when half the time its not even worth the money when you do get it.

 

Lately they cut off a lot of players on Destiny from becoming level 40 by forcing a dlc on you(meaning you must pay to level). These are just games, not a revenue.

[Smartbrony]

Wait wait wait, you're going to call out Bungie on making more for a game that people said was too short and not even mention EA?

 

Let's face facts here people, EA are the real scumbag money grubbers of the game industry. I did a bit of research once, and just for all of the DLC for The Sims 3 it would cost about $180. That's not including the game itself, and that's only considering The Sims 3 alone!

 

I for one enjoy playing Destiny. I pre-ordered the game almost a year in advance, got the season pass along with it, and can honestly say I think I'm a bit of a Bungie fanboy. Now, when it comes to the leveling system, that only comes into account in a few areas of the game. For example, a couple of the PVP playlist events and missions. Of course, if you don't have the level 40 missions then you don't need to make it to level 40 in the first place.

 

In the end, there will always be things game companies do that we don't agree with. I recently got Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare to have something new to play because I knew it had the old survival mode that I liked. I didn't agree with the fact that they added in zombies just to appease the fanbase, nor was I too happy when I found out I couldn't customize my knife like I could in previous games, but I understood why the company did what they did.

[CandyStar]

Wait wait wait, you're going to call out Bungie on making more for a game that people said was too short and not even mention EA?

 

 

I for one enjoy playing Destiny. I pre-ordered the game almost a year in advance, got the season pass along with it, and can honestly say I think I'm a bit of a Bungie fanboy. Now, when it comes to the leveling system, that only comes into account in a few areas of the game. For example, a couple of the PVP playlist events and missions. Of course, if you don't have the level 40 missions then you don't need to make it to level 40 in the first place.

 

I like to keep my characters maxed, so a move like that is not exactly smart. But yes, EA has given us nothing that they promised, such as the reactions they said would be in the new Madden. Destiny wouldn't have been so short if they kept their promise to us, but now we all know that it was never to be.

[CandyStar]

Though the graphics are great now, they are not the major thing that immerses us. What does it the most is the gameplay, mechanics, and story; these are the major factors that determine a good game. The Graphic is just a cosmetic makeup for the game itself, its a minor factor in it. That what I believe imo.

[Burn]

I don't get why people say "the nes games were great!" And the they see a single pixel on the XBOX and are like "OMFG 0/10000000 TERBL GRAFIX!!!!!!1111(oneone(eleven))

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

[CandyStar]

I don't get why people say "the nes games were great!" And the they see a single pixel on the XBOX and are like "OMFG 0/10000000 TERBL GRAFIX!!!!!!1111(oneone(eleven))

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

Its ironic that fans of the sony brand tend to mock their own system(ps2), and say it sucks. PS2 had pretty decent graphics. As I once said: Graphics won't matter if the story, mechanics, and gameplay don't work well together.

[ZephyrBurst]

Kinda miss the old days a bit. you just popped the game cart into the center of the console, pressed the power button, and bam!

 

Nowadays its microtransaction after microtransaction, patch after patch, rushed product after rushed product, its become like making fast food on an assembly line.

I know right? Doesn't it suck that developers can now fix their bugs, post-launch? I mean, that's awful that we're able to get bugs fixed. Just awful. I just hate it when a game I love suddenly gets a new enjoyable feature that adds a lot to the game. If only we could go back to the days of unpatchable game platforms where we're forced to live with all the bugs that weren't caught.

 

I won't say that awful microtransactions are a thing of the past, but it's not as bad these days as it was the last few years. Some publishers do milk their audience and that's no good. A lot of the microtransactions on the big games are typically useless cosmetic things for people who want that extra flair or those that want that extra loot crate, etc. Things that aren't necessary to fully enjoy the game, but bring in a bit of extra income to the developer. The thing is, games are expensive to make, specifically the AAA games that we all love. When a new expansion comes out and the devs charge for it, I can't help but shake my head when I see comments about how the devs are money grubbers and trying to nickel and dime their players. If the consumer wants high quality content, which the public tends to demand of AAA games, then the consumer has to pay for that in some way.

[CandyStar]

I know right? Doesn't it suck that developers can now fix their bugs, post-launch? I mean, that's awful that we're able to get bugs fixed. Just awful. I just hate it when a game I love suddenly gets a new enjoyable feature that adds a lot to the game. If only we could go back to the days of unpatchable game platforms where we're forced to live with all the bugs that weren't caught.

 

I won't say that awful microtransactions are a thing of the past, but it's not as bad these days as it was the last few years. Some publishers do milk their audience and that's no good. A lot of the microtransactions on the big games are typically useless cosmetic things for people who want that extra flair or those that want that extra loot crate, etc. Things that aren't necessary to fully enjoy the game, but bring in a bit of extra income to the developer. The thing is, games are expensive to make, specifically the AAA games that we all love. When a new expansion comes out and the devs charge for it, I can't help but shake my head when I see comments about how the devs are money grubbers and trying to nickel and dime their players. If the consumer wants high quality content, which the public tends to demand of AAA games, then the consumer has to pay for that in some way.

Most of the time is ends up being or not being worth it, nothing original at all. But when they charge more than the dlc is actually worth, it becomes an issue. Hardline for pc was a hard flop, more on the devs end on that one. But I always check on youtube first to make sure if it's actually worth it. First year players are at a disadvantage, but the second year players have the advantage.

[Blueblood]

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

As said before, the proportion of dreck to quality in the video game market has generally remained constant, not only over time, but consistently with other creative products.  As a general rule, only about 10-20% of it ever was worth the asking price or time commitment.  But the only way a consumer knows whether or not he or she made a good purchase was to experience the product.

 

What has changed today in that respect?  Three things.  

One, those of us who play games are now buying our own, and are much more discriminating than we were as kids.  Let's face it, 15 years ago I wouldn't have been quite so able to tell the difference between a badly designed game, and simply one I was bad at.

 

Two, the rate of consumption has increased dramatically.  Adjusting for inflation, the price of the average console game, brand new, has gone down slightly.  Factoring in price reductions, digital distribution platforms, etc. the average consumer has more purchasing opportunity, and therefore sees more of what's available.

 

Three, secondhand experience is now a major part of the market.  Like you said, you look up games on YouTube now to see if they're worth the purchase.  This is a double edged sword, because while it is easier for the buyer to beware, their experience is often filtered by the opinions of others, often leading to a kind of "groupthink" that remains uncorrected by firsthand experience.

 

 

With that general picture in mind, lets go back to specific issues:

 

Patches - The biggest complaint here is that games are shipped with bugs and such left in them.  As a point of fact, that was true back in the day; the first Final Fantasy had about 1/4 of its statistics bugged so as to be mechanically unworkable in gameplay.  Now, when things are discovered, they are fixed.  Are they more rushed to production?  Maybe; companies need to keep up with the rate of consumption.  Early adopters bear a heavy burden, but that's the same with most tech.

 

Microtransactions/DLC - There is a right way, and a wrong way to handle these.  There are ways that give the consumer more of what they want for a price they're willing to pay, and a way of being frankly exploitative.  Again, caveat emptor; the best thing to do is to speak with your wallet.

 

Graphics vs. Everything else - Let's not kid ourselves.  Sure, you can have good games with sub-par or lower-quality graphics.  But there have been progress in all areas of game design; certain mechanics or level design models are as dated as pixelated graphics.  And looks are as much an important element in games as any other; would Final Fantasy 6 be as good a game as it is if it had used the same sprites and sprite types as FF5?

 

 

TL;DR - Gamers look primarily towards the future today.  They also looked primarily to the future 15, 20, 25 years ago, all the way back to the Atari days.  And why shouldn't we?  Sure, we learn lessons from the past, but honestly, there hasn't been a better time to be a gamer than now, and if we have any kind of duty to ourselves, it is to ensure that it continues to improve.  So, we look forward, like anybody who actually wants to do something.

[RarityDash]

Personally, I don't think it matters. At all. Who cares if more people like generic, interchangeable shooters and only care about graphics. it doesn't effect me as a consumer, not with the volume and variety of games which are released each year. It's a diverse gaming environment and each of us is able to make our own choices about what we buy and play.

 

I grew up on classic RPGs like FFVI, and they formed my taste in gaming. Maybe people don't care as much about or for those sorts of games as they once did, but as long as there are niche companies like Atlus still bringing me new games which do appeal to me, I don't really see why I should care about popular thought or trends.

[CandyStar]

I know there's diversity, and that's all good. But when people look at graphic as the only thing that immerses you, that's when people question your sanity. If you look at it, the PS2's graphic was actually closest to the ps3, not much of a difference. People still play ps2 games now, even I still do. Releasing a new console too early seems to be the newest thing now, but in hindsight, it would do better for the companies to look thoroughly at their systems. This way they won't have to keep releasing a new console just because the previous failed, its just rushed development.

[QuickLime]

I know there's diversity, and that's all good. But when people look at graphic as the only thing that immerses you, that's when people question your sanity. If you look at it, the PS2's graphic was actually closest to the ps3, not much of a difference. People still play ps2 games now, even I still do. Releasing a new console too early seems to be the newest thing now, but in hindsight, it would do better for the companies to look thoroughly at their systems. This way they won't have to keep releasing a new console just because the previous failed, its just rushed development.

 

 

Nobody questions peoples sanity over how much they like the graphics or not