I agree with that 3D graphics action games has less versetilty then 2D action games.
I think with a little effort you can make the same versetilty, it''s just that most 3D action games are FPS which really quite the same. They are a lot of fun, but most of them are really quite the same. They just improve them from time to time.
Part of the difference is beacause it''s a harder to evaluate the distance of objects in 3D games, so it restricts you from doing certain types of games.

I also would like to mention that I don''t see today games with non-stop action. When you die you just lose 1 life and get back straight from where you stopped.
In many games today, you have to accumlate gear and health and stuff if you want to have any chance to kill your enemies.

can you believe Gamespot said that Commandos II was hard :shocked: . It was a wee hard, but nothing serious. I finished the game in like 1-2 weeks

quote:

---

Original post by Eli Gottlieb
Yes, games used to be better. BLAME 3D!!! (...)
The real problem is the 3D thing and that everyone tries to take advantage of 3D graphics and some genres (the best ones in my opinion) only work well in 2D, or at least 2D movement.

---

That''s the point! The advantage of 2d is that you can make all bitmaps look just as you intended - crazy, cute, physically impossible or whatever. You can animate them as you like, you can keep the framerate high because they are only a simple sprites! I think it is stupid to force all games into 3d. In theory 3d should give you more freedom, but usually 3d games are more restricting than 2d and are harder to operate. I think we should wait with 3d for true 3d monitors Example: I really hate 3d platform games. Heroes are usually rough models (well maybe not Lara ) and it''s hard to see anything or jump anywhere or just move around. 3d makes games look more real, but there are a lot of people out there that don''t seek reality in games. Fall back to 2d, make nice sprites in hi-res hi-color, think about some crazy story and your game will be great.

quote:

---

Original post by Tacit
Yes, the problem with the games industry is not a lack of creativity, or talent, or quality, but rather a flawed business model that does not reward or nurture creativity, or talent, or quality.

See?

---

Unless you''re already famous, like Shigeru Miyamoto.

-=Lohrno

BTW, Did you notice that no one has said anything anyone else has said as being one of the better games of these newfangled times? Could it be that we have so much to choose from, and us all being so different, that there is a niche everywhere, and we all just dont agree?

-=Lohrno

I''m sure that''s part of it. Game ''quality'' or ''difficulty'' is so subjective, and depends a lot on genres and whatnot. But, I think we can all agree on at least one thing -- many games come out before they should. Half-baked, buggy, problematic, not well thought out, cheaply made. And yet we, the consumer, the game buying public, end up with this product on our shelves, We are the ones that suffer for the industry''s weaknesses. Not the publishers. Not the developers. The gamers.

I think more good games are made today than in the happy times (whenever they may have been), even if their percentage is lower.

quote:

---

Original post by diseaser2002
can you believe Gamespot said that Commandos II was hard :shocked: . It was a wee hard, but nothing serious. I finished the game in like 1-2 weeks

---

Yeah no kidding. The missions were long but I thought it was lot easier than the first one. Maybe cause I was a vet and only had to learn a few extra techniques.
But I mean giving the player TWO characters that can distract in the last level..that was a joke.

as I sit here reading this a few points come to mind about the quality of games of the industry as a timeline against the past....

A. How do we define a quality game...
B. does quality automatically = huge profits...
-->note: the sims, the best seller (at time of writting)
surely thats saying something...


personally I believe that any game at all that you remember or like to re-play more than a year or two after you finish/ buy it is a quality title. Final Fantasy 7 is one such title, Diablo2 also... Mario Bro''s (the orignal versions)... The legend of Zelda...

Quality is a personal view thing, it is different things for different people and therefore simply cannot be defined for an every person case...

I disagree. I think that there are obviously some games that no one will like. While quality might be somewhat subjective, I think a few main things can be attributed to "quality."

-Good graphics/sound (for most people)
-Fun Value (for all people except those who are way too serious)
-Challenge (Most people don''t like beating the game in 2 seconds)
-Replayability (Is it fun if you go back and play it again?)

I remember someone as a joke suggested that a game called "staring contest" be made. I think most of us would agree, that that is not exactly a fun game.

I won''t try to force my opinion about games today on everyone, but I think that we can do better if we figure out what does need to be done better! =D Many interesting opinions are here! =D

-=Lohrno