quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Rune, go play Super Monkey Ball (1, not 2) on the cube with some friends. Then come back and whine about how simple games don't work anymore.. ehem. ;P

---

I shan't waste mine time upon the Cube of Gamekind! Lest my mind be putrified by its wretchedness! o.@

And mostly because I don't know a dang person with one. So I'm a little underqualified to comment on its games (though I have to admit, they look rather impressive visually.)

[edited by - RuneLancer on October 8, 2003 1:43:00 PM]

I, personally, think complex games are fun. Tedius does NOT mean complex, it just means poor gameplay. Unfortunately, I can't think of even a semi-recent game with complex gameplay. Most fall into the 'click faster!'(so called crpgs like dungeon siege or nwn, most fps like halo and quake 3, warcraft 3, etc) category, with a few being 'click faster! Go the right way, too.'. I can't really think of any pc games more complicated than that.

Most of the tedium in games comes not from too much complexity but from poor implementation of ideas. For example, in just about all MMORPGs you have to kill things like rabbits or rats over and over for a while before you can get good enough to adventure. A better implementation might be to just start the character out at that level, or make some dungeon crawls where even the weakling 1st level guys can survive.

[edited by - extrarius on October 8, 2003 2:16:01 PM]

The real problem is people are short-sighted, and don''t understand that gaming is evolving, not degrading. Thus our standards have become higher.

Video games are trying to break out from being known as "games" into interractive art, and be considered a true and dignified form of art. It deserves to have a scholarly following allowing with literature, painting and music. True game designers know this. With technological barriers being broken, roads are now able to be directed more towards the artistic focus rather than having to worry about constructive focus.

Let''s take the game Final Fantasy X, which you much maligned. To this date it is the only game which uses artistic style, musical interpretation, vocal acting, and FULL cinematic photography to create an amazing piece of art with a multilayerd plot and symbolic elements portrayed through visual and auditorial ways that only a person with an understanding of these things can appreciate.

But likewise there is definitely something to be said for "fun" games. Go out and play Monkey Ball. Monkey target is the most addictive minigame I''ve ever played in my entire life. Also basing my opponents with a spring loaded boxing glove can be equally rewarding :-D. As one of my great professors once said: "Never underestimate the power of fun, or its appropriateness in art." -Dr. Mensel

But basically to sum up, technological breakthroughs in game development, mainly the advent of 3D gaming, gives us new perspectives as gamers, in gaming. But it is up to the developer whether these technologies (or old ones, like 2d and iso, which should NEVER be thought extinct, rather sadly as unused tools) are used in a manner that can be deemed "interactive art."

To those who say our standards are getting higher, I have one compound word to throw at you.

RuneScape.

It''s drivel, utter drivel, yet people play it religiously. The same with EverQuest. EverQuest and its ilk did nothing MUDs haven''t done for years.

In essence, people come for the graphics, and perhaps one in five see the rest.

quote:

---

Original post by liquiddark
90 billion people who own a PS2.

---

Sorry to be such a pedantic prick, but, I doubt fifteen times the worlds population owns a PS2... That''s 15 PS2s to each person, and I''m sure I don''t even own one. :\

henrym
My Site

I wouldn''t call it so much an advancement as degradation.

Assuming you were around in, at least, the SNES era (extra bonus points if you were around for the NES, and even more for Coleco Vision or C-64. ^-^), there has to be at least one game you loved and played religiously. Heck, a game you''d play all weekend long after finishing your homework and first thing after getting back from school.

Flash to about ten years in the future. Let''s suppose that one special game just came out. No different than back then, just 2D, 256 colors (or less!) and no voice acting. I''ll pick a random tried-and-true game, Mario Kart. Suppose it came out on one of the next-gen consoles. Some people will look beyond the shabby, low-quality media the game conveys (in relation to the average game nowadays, of course) and enjoy it. But can you honestly see a future for it? No, it''s just not something that''s part of our era anymore.

It''ll never be again, in fact. Unless an EMP shockwave reduces us to living in caves and hunting with twigs. But realistically, there''s no going back, only forward.

And it''ll end eventually. When we''ll have perfectly realistic games that match reality 100%, coming up with better media will be pretty much impossible. Should''ve listened to my parents when I was young. They always told me to put down that controller and go play sports and stuff. Who''d have thought life would one day become a console? :D

So yeah, that''s a sizeable "improvement": it looks better. But we''ve excommunated a very wide range of games. It wouldn''t surprise me if controllers vanished entirely one day. And then there''ll be no going back: controllers will be considered junky, hard to handle and unrealistic. Foolish assumptions with no grounds in reality? Ahh, but isn''t that what people think when they see games on the older consoles now? Yet we were content "back then"...

I''d love to know how walking deeper and deeper in the woods and not being able to turn around, then eventually bumping into the rocky side of a mountain can be considered good. Sure would make a nice camping spot, you''d be protected from the wind and all. But there goes your freedom...

Rune, you completely missed my point.

New technology adds new perspective to games. But I don''t think old technologies should be thrown to the wayside. They are all tools in which an artist can use to make their work. Think of things like 2d, 3d, voice acting, midi, etc. all as paintbrushes to an artist. It is up to the artist on how they are used.

You are being rediculously closed minded, and a little self-righteous because you''ve been there from the beginning. Want a list of my credentials? Here''s a list of the console systems I''ved owned:

Atari - Original Games like River Raid, Keystone Cops, etc.
Sega Master System 8bit - Space Harrier, Afterburner, Choplifter
NES - Mario''s, Punch-Out...and many many others
Sega Genesis - Sonic, Populous, Shining Force
SNES - Mario Kart, Mario World, every U.S. Square offering
Playstation - FF7,8,9
PS2 - FFX, GTA3, Devil May Cry, Kingdom Hearts
GCN - Tricky, Monkey Ball, Smash Melee Resident Evil

The problem is not with the gamers, mature gamers know the difference between quality and flashy. The problem is that the artists who are making our games are letting us down. Which is why criticism is a GOOD thing. Just like it is for theater, film, literature, painting and all other major forms of art.

Slightly off topic: For the GameCube-less, there is a PC clone of Super Monkey Ball called "Neverball". It''s hardly faithful, but will show you the basic idea.

RIVER RAID!!!!

quote:

---

Original post by Etherstar
New technology adds new perspective to games. But I don't think old technologies should be thrown to the wayside. They are all tools in which an artist can use to make their work. Think of things like 2d, 3d, voice acting, midi, etc. all as paintbrushes to an artist. It is up to the artist on how they are used.

You are being rediculously closed minded, and a little self-righteous because you've been there from the beginning.

---

Watch it, you're placing words in my mouth. I've been using older games to support my overall idea but never stated something to the ends of "I've played old, old games. If you haven't, then I'm better than you."

I agree fully with what you said in the first quoted paragraph: new technologies are beneficial advancements. MY point, however, is that they're being overused and become the norm (ex, 3D games, cell-shading...), making the average gamer more used to them and less used to older technologies. Which somewhat makes them go to waste because, well, consider this. Supposing you had a choice between QBasic and C++ for your game, which would you choose? If you picked C++, you're most likely in the norm. If you picked QBasic, you're either very stupid or very brave; either way, my hat off to you.

For the record, I'd pick option B: C++. But I'll be damned if I'd ever even THINK of getting rid of QBasic. Even now I often drop in my good old QBasic interpreter and code a quick and dirty 2D particle engine or a fractal/plasma program. Mostly eye-candy... What I find sad is that I risk getting shunned by other programmers and would most likely be told I could get better results with C++ when I want to discuss my work. Yeah, I would. But that's not the bloody point, I just wanna code in QBasic and poison my mind a little, dang it!!

So yeah. My whole point is just that: new technologies are beneficial, that I'm sure we can both agree fully on. But abusing them to the point where they become the norm is when things start getting pretty depressing. I remember once telling myself if I say an other cell-shaded game I'd go mad. The effect is stunning. But seeing it in every other game just takes away the magic...

Actually, I think my point would be better sumarised by "moderation is the key".



[edited by - RuneLancer on October 9, 2003 2:45:36 AM]