Skip to content

Classic Games FTW

SirHablesSirHables Member Posts: 10
I can't believe how blinded I have been. Playing Baldurs Gate has made me realise that most of today's games are not true games. Since when was a bland shooter where you spend long hours killing people a fun and absorbing game? Nearly all of the games you see in stores today just don't provide the experiences that older games can. They are mostly a sad excuse for a game, that is flat and boring, and were made by multi-million gaming companies in order to get a bit of cash, because they just don't care about the gamer anymore, just the cash in their pocket. It is rare that you can find games now with the complexity of Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale or Planescape: Torment, with the huge world of The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall, or with the exploration of the first two Fallout games, the depth of Ultima or the atmosphere of Diablo. They are true masterpieces, before the gaming industry became incredibly competitive and greedy. Those games were born from imagination, and forged with sweat, tears and hard work, whereas most of today's are born from business meetings and cash-hungry businessmen. It may not be a "computer game" but look at the old Dungeons and Dragons groups that would be a social event and an enjoyable evening together. Today's substitute: cloned shooters that lack adventure/atmosphere, with not a thought spared for the experience it provides, instead all eyes are on the cash. Great graphics or advanced technology dont make a great game, its the experience and adventure that does. Classic and vintage games are the best games, in my opinion.

Comments

  • Kitteh_On_A_CloudKitteh_On_A_Cloud Member Posts: 1,629
    I understand where you are coming from, OP, and I agree. Mostly. I can't say, however, that ALL modern games are bad. That's generalizing, which is, in most cases, not a very good and open-minded way to view games. For example, I thought Dragon Age: Origins was a very good game with an interesting story and characters. I admit, the story wasn't very original as it contained a rather classic 'beat-the-villain-and-save-the-world' scenario, but wasn't that just the same with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale, to name a few classics? Also, to be honest, I think we can all agree that the graphics from both previously mentioned games are quite outdated. They're still nice, of course, but very outdated nonetheless. Another game which I very much liked was Skyrim. 'Overrated! Overblown! Unoriginal!' is what you might think. It's exactly because Skyrim featured such a huge world and loose story line that it encouraged me to roleplay my character in my mind, to create my own story. I DO agree on the competitiveness of gaming companies and how it destorys the 'unique' gaming experience we used to have. But it's a trend we couldn't do anything about. Everything that starts out small, will eventually gain popularity and clash with competition, causing it to have to adapt itself and evolve. Also, money is needed to make games. They don't appear out of thin air. I'd gladly support a gaming company which makes games I like by paying for more quality content (note the word 'quality'). So yeah, I'm a bit of two minds on the matter.
  • SirHablesSirHables Member Posts: 10
    @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud Sorry, I wasn't very clear with that. I agree that not all new games are bad - I've got a level 48 character in Skyrim (though I have never played Dragon Age) and spent hours on games like The Withcer 2 and Kingdoms of Amalur. I was talking about the shooter clones which seem to be plaguing the industry. I hope I didn't offend you in any way, and I'm sorry if I have. I posted this last night, and I was a little drunk!
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    SirHables, why would you talk about shooter clones on Baldur's Gate forum? And furthermore, why compare them to such a games like Baldur's Gate series or Fallout? It's like comparing a tv and a car. These are two different categories and the fact that you can enjoy using those two thing changes nothing.

    I think we are all aware that they are plauging the game industry. I never was really big fan of a that genre, but I recall playing some good fps in the past. Quake, AvP2 etc... I think that the only modern shooter I somehow enjoyed was AvP 2010, but that's it. Nowadays what do we have?
    Another copy and pastes CoD games.
    Aliens: Colonial Marines (I have predicted a failure. Yahoo!)
    Duke Nukem forever
    Etc..

    So yeah. I agree about companies making games just for cash while not caring about quality of their games. But that's partially customers' fault. Why would companies making games that nobody would buy? There would be no point in making medicore games. But, customers apparently require less and less from games industy, hence they [industries] are allowed to keep on making avarage games.

    Not to mention gaming industry has changed as well. For example, nowadays almost every-freaking-game that has levels, experience and inventory are considered rpgs, while role-playing games without role-playing is just paradox. Things like that also affect what kind of games are released.

    There is also factor of different tastes, Since people are like different things, different games ought to be made. But, majority is content with shooters, hence many copy-paste shooters are being released. Simple as that, thought it still my opinion on the case.

    Still, there are good games nowadays, and there are still some games I am looking up to play.
  • TeflonTeflon Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 515
    There was always copycats and clones.
    Similar gameplaying style is not problem however not trying to create the worlds is the bad thing methinks.
    For me game is great way to tell player a creator's idea and way of thinking. By playing games I interact think and see what developer intended to.
    Not every these days game bad and vice versa.
    No more reason to show things with constraints since resources are plentiful, like graphic and sound cpu power......
    It became looking good however became lacks imagination and lifelikeness, I mean I don't think playing game but felt doing some kinda work sometimes.
    Maybe Its because I like things which makes me to think.
    In conclusion, I mostly agree with you @SirHables.
    Most of Classic games were good indeed. It worth play again.
  • State_LemmingState_Lemming Member Posts: 375
    Paragraphs guys, please. :P

    Also why you are comparing shooters to RPGs is beyond me. It is also silly to only factor in blockbuster games in an age where it has never been easier to support smaller developers and even developers who made "classic" games.
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    Why qualify using the word classic?
    There are plenty of good games being made today.

    There were a heck of a lot of crappy, unfinished buggy, and unplayable bad classic games too.

    A more accurate statement would be good games ftw
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    edited April 2013
    Teflon said:

    Most of Classic games were good indeed. It worth play again.

    ajwz said:

    There were a heck of a lot of crappy, unfinished buggy, and unplayable bad classic games too.

    Aren't classic games good by definition? If an older game wasn't good, I wouldn't call it a classic, I'd just call it old.
    Post edited by TJ_Hooker on
  • rexregrexreg Member Posts: 292
    edited April 2013
    @State_Lemming
    ee cummings disagrees with your paragraph

    state
    ment
    !
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    I haven't played them but aren't the Bioshock games supposed to be shooters with very interesting story lines and added depth? I haven't played much of these either but aren't the Mass Effect games also fundamentally shooters with added depth to create a much more immersive experience?

    There were a lot of unoriginal games back in the 80's and 90's just like there are today. There are always will be. It is because we no longer remember the clunkers that the older era seems like it was such a higher standard of quality but finding the true classics has always been a matter of separating the wheat from the much more numerous chaff.
  • ITT: OP realizes he doesn't like First Person Shooters, decides they aren't games.
  • Kitteh_On_A_CloudKitteh_On_A_Cloud Member Posts: 1,629
    Well, don't shooters always have the same formula? There's only so much you can do with them. Main goal is to, well, shoot folks into bloody bits. That's why I like RPGs much more, as they involve your character more into the story and the game itself. Although I have to mention how Half-Life, which I consider to be a shooter, is one of the most original shooter games I know. I think developers just need better writers who can come up with interesting stories and concepts. Usually the gaming market doesn't allow that though. Developers thus play the safe card and all produce a game which appeals to the broadest audience to ensure they get back their investment they put into the production of their games. So I can understand creativity is a bit gone. What I don't understand, however, is how gaming companies dare publish a half-finished product. Just look at Dragon Age 2 or Alice:Madness Returns. Both games could have been SO much better if they had received some more polishing. I also have my doubts about the whole 'cut your game into little pieces and sell them as DLC' mentality. Because it encourages developers to produce sub-par games and focus more on the content that is sold seperately. I don't think every DLC for Mass Effect 3 was produced after the release of the main game, for example. So yeah, I guess I hate how the suits have taken over the gaming business and capitalized it as well. :/
  • Every genre has its own formula, that's how you can tell what belongs in what genre. RPGs tend to have more variation in the story arena than FPSs (though even then I could still rattle off a list of RPG cliches longer than my arm), but they often cleave very close to gameplay formulas which have been around for decades.

    Different genres cater to different styles of gaming; they all have their own formulas, and some will appeal to an individual gamer more than others. It doesn't mean that any of them aren't "true games," though.

    Sometimes I wonder what makes this "inevitable decline of gaming" narrative so enticing to gamers. Is it a Jeremiad intended to put the fear of god back into the industry, or are you eagerly awaiting the Gaming End of Days, where the true gamers will be vindicated and the false gamers cast into the fire?
  • DrugarDrugar Member Posts: 1,566
    I have no problem with DLC as a concept, but the way Bioware/EA has handled it so far makes me fairly skeptical; both Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 3 had arguably the most interesting NPC (Shale and Javik respectively) as day 1 DLC. To me, that signifies "we know this is awesome so we're cutting it out of the game and charging you extra.".
    Had the DLC come out three months after, they could've used the defense that it was still being worked on, but this is just greed and a total disrespect of the customer. I am aware of the 'don't like it don't buy it' phrase and support it completely, but this is about *what* they cut, not about the cutting itself. I expect to have to pay extra for a surround sound system when I buy a car, I do not expect the backseat to be taken out and sold seperately.

    That said, the way Obsidian handled DLC with Fallout: New Vegas was quite excellent; loose adventures that tagged onto the main storyline and expanded the background, providing new weapons and levelups/perks along the way.
    Lair of the Shadow Broker was very good for Mass Effect 2, as was Overlord (ignoring its interpretation of 'autism'). So it can be done right.

    IRT Topic
    Old games, new games, both have their merits. Old games were easy to make huge because of nearly unlimited capacity for text and easy graphics. They also often had unintuitive and backwards GUI's, non-euclydian statistic screens and assumed you would smack your head against a solid wall of difficulty for hours on end because you had nothing better to do (I'm looking at you, Battletoads!).
    New games are shorter and with increased graphics come a slew of games that favor presentation over substance (Like Hollywood at times) but practicly any game that comes out can be played without going over 100 pages of instructions. Some make it too simple, some keep it simple without thinking it's the same as easy.
    Regardless, these are good times, as we can both play the new and the old so we can keep everyone happy.

    Except the bitter cynics, but eh, whatever.
  • Kitteh_On_A_CloudKitteh_On_A_Cloud Member Posts: 1,629
    @Kaigen: Oh come on. Gaming has been on the decline for a while now. That is, ever since microtransactions and platforms like Steam were forced upon us players. I even HAD to install Steam in order to play Skyrim. It was either accepting Valve's DRM or seeing 50 euros go to waste. That is not what gaming was originally all about. Gaming was about bringing an interesting and creative experience to your audience. Now about every RPG needs to include sex scenes on the whole gender scale to make it appeal to the audience. I think that in the old days, developers had more freedom, more time and more enthusiasm in creating games than they have now. If a game doesn't include a black character, the audience screams. If a game doesn't include homosexual romances, the audience screams. If a game doesn't feature a female protagonist next to a male one, the audience screams. Gamers have become much more demanding and impatient over the years too. At least, it's a trend I've been noticing from the time I played the original Baldur's Gate until now. Back when I played it for the first time, racial issues concerning the NPCs were pretty much non-existent. Or maybe I just didn't pay attention to any discussions on that particular topic. Same goes for the other issues. Right now there's a lot of pressure on gaming companies to deliver a game which the audience will consider good. It's no longer in the hands of the developers themselves. It's all about the audience and stock holders nowadays. No wonder games are declining in quality. You know, @Kaigen, why we gamers find this issue so enticing? Because most people on these forums have been gaming for a long time and are now seeing the various shifts in the gaming industry. I'm sure you've noticed changes yourself. Such as having to install Origin to be able to play Mass Effect 3 or having to buy DLC to 'enhance' your gaming experience. These are changes we 'old-timers' are worried about. Well, some of us are. It's at least an interesting topic for debate.
  • See, I'd be worried, but I'm too busy having fun playing all of these great games that came out recently. I still keep space on my hard drive and take time to play the games I played as a kid, like Daggerfall, Fantasy General, Tyrian, and Strife, but I've also put more than a hundred hours into playing XCOM: Enemy Unknown because that game is damn fun. I'm not normally a fan of FPS games myself, but I had a great time with Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Bioshock, and I'm going to borrow my roommate's copy of Bioshock Infinite when he's done with it. And I'm already chomping at the bit to see what Transistor's going to look like when Supergiant Games is done with it.

    You see a decline in gaming; I see a renaissance in gaming driven by indie developing combined with a market larger than it's ever been thanks to AAA games with mass appeal (and yes, part of that larger market is realizing that gamers are more diverse than they have ever been). I've been gaming for more than twenty years and some of my best gaming experiences have come from games released in the last five.
  • Kitteh_On_A_CloudKitteh_On_A_Cloud Member Posts: 1,629
    @Kaigen: Glad to hear you're enjoying yourself. I wasn't implying that ALL modern games are bad. I was rather referring to the fact that games largely became monetised products in the span of what... 10, 20 years? I also doubt there is such a huge market for indie games like you are claiming, but maybe that's just cynicism on my part.
  • @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud The indie game phenomenon is hard to read, because what you really have are a bunch of games all catering to niche audiences which are individually small compared to the entire games market, but when taken as a aggregate are a significant presence. Also, we don't have the same means in place for tracking units sold on indie games that we do for AAA releases; I do know that FTL was the #1 selling game on Steam for a time in addition to receiving critical acclaim, but I haven't been able to find any hard numbers.

    As for the part about games "becoming" monetised products, they were always monetized products. As the ever-abrasive Jim Sterling (Warning: Language) points out, the games industry started as a way to make money. They've always been about making money. You have developers who wanted to make money by selling good games, but they still wanted a paycheck and enough success to justify their continued employment.
  • Kitteh_On_A_CloudKitteh_On_A_Cloud Member Posts: 1,629
    The game you speak of, the one which is published on Steam...It only shows that indie games are really having a hard time. It's quite sad that Steam is such a monolith, that games can only gain popularity through this medium nowadays, because Steam is so well-known and widely used. Personally I'd remove Steam as soon as I could. I don't find it that useful afterall.
  • Is it that games can only gain popularity through a big mainstream distributor like Steam, XBLA, or PSN, or is it that the benchmark for popularity has moved so much because the total market is so much larger? How many units sold made for a popular game twenty years ago? How many could you get just by releasing on GoG, or a Humble Bundle?
Sign In or Register to comment.