| User | Post |
Xeolord
Posts: 2266/3418 |
I don't know why you guys are argueing, I think Priere and Zerodius said it best.
There has always been bad games, and there always will be.
The reason why games just aren't that replayable these days is because they're much more complicated than they used to be. Back in the day it was Y to run, and B to jump. All you had to do was turn on the game, and you're insantly playing it.
But games now, usually have a learning curve to them, or they have cutscenes to add to the storyline, or whatever.
I'm not saying any of this is bad, it's just why I think the majority of us gamers, tend to say "Games these days aren't that fun to go back to". Because they're not simple like they used to be.
That, or people like myself, will always be classic fans over the new stuff. |
Dei*
Posts: 22/412 |
Originally posted by Yoronosuku
Dei*, your layout messed up the bottom of this page. Please try to fix that, it is breaking the thread.
Sorry about that, layout confusion. XD
Originally posted by Kasumi-Astra
But that doesn't suggest at all that they're attempting to make a sequel. If that's what they wanted, then they'd have said "this is the future of Warcraft Games, this is Warcraft 4". What they are saying is that they wanted to take the gameworld and change the gameplay and make a new experience. Blizzard would seriously be putting their reputation on the line if they even remotely suggested that WoW was the sequel to Warcraft 3. How can they pass it off as the same type of game when it obviously isnt?
I don't intend to start a flamewar, and I probably used some bad examples. Hmm, you do have a point on that, I guess what i'm talking about, instead of WoW, is more like Warcraft 3 compared to Warcraft 2. I can understand new features and such, but it USUALLY ends up being a strange copy of the previous game/s, or some wannabe. I've already stated this about a million times though. O_o |
Ailure
Posts: 10117/11162 |
Is it just me, or is there a new thread every month about how games have gotten worser?
And oh, they hadn't. Gotten worser with time, I can name severeal games who only get's better with it's sequels.
Graphics over gameplay starts to cling off, I hear less and less about how nice graphics a game have. People don't really care about Graphics anymore... if they did then PS2 wouldn't sell at all. |
Kasumi-Astra
Posts: 1590/1867 |
Originally posted by Dei*
, "We hope to make warcraft 3 into a world where one person can level up yada yada blah blah blah blah etc etc etc etc."
They tend to pass it off as the sequel and same type of game as the one that came before it in the series, you're missing my point people.
But that doesn't suggest at all that they're attempting to make a sequel. If that's what they wanted, then they'd have said "this is the future of Warcraft Games, this is Warcraft 4". What they are saying is that they wanted to take the gameworld and change the gameplay and make a new experience. Blizzard would seriously be putting their reputation on the line if they even remotely suggested that WoW was the sequel to Warcraft 3. How can they pass it off as the same type of game when it obviously isnt? |
NetSplit
Posts: 54/117 |
Originally posted by HyperHacker
I just disagree with the whole thing. Sure, some classics could kick a lot of new games' asses, but there are tons of great new games. Mario Kart Double Dash has to be the best Mario Kart yet. And as good as Zelda and Super Mario Bros were, OoT and Mario 64 blow them the hell away.
I do agree with you about this, much because of games like Metroid Prime managing to stack up well against classics considered by some to be the best of all time, but I gotta say that your example sucks; I hate Mario Kart Double Dash.  There's something not right about that game; it lost whatever it was that made Mario Kart 64 so fun for me. Hopefully Mario Kart DS will be better; I expect the online capabilities to make it a blast.  |
Yoronosuku
Posts: 224/502 |
Dei*, your layout messed up the bottom of this page. Please try to fix that, it is breaking the thread. |
Dei*
Posts: 17/412 |
I'm not saying that there aren't any titles out there that still do it the way they used to, like Mario Kart, etc, but i'm saying that there are a number of titles out there that have submerged under people's radar, partly due to hype of the big games and possibly because people dismiss it for something else.
You're all assuming that I say all titles have been affected by this. 
I'm not saying that at all, but if this keeps happening, more and more people will stray away from what actually made a game. |
HyperLamer
Posts: 5105/8210 |
I just disagree with the whole thing. Sure, some classics could kick a lot of new games' asses, but there are tons of great new games. Mario Kart Double Dash has to be the best Mario Kart yet. And as good as Zelda and Super Mario Bros were, OoT and Mario 64 blow them the hell away. |
GeckoYamori
Posts: 25/153 |
Microsoft hatred only has a strong presence within nerd and semi-nerd subcultures. Otherwise they wouldn't have been enjoying their financial success.
Before #3 GTA was first and foremost a PC franchise, and it had relative sucess on that platform. Sony just got the leftovers with some pretty terrible ports. After part 2 Rockstar signed a contract with Sony and the franchise was heavily marketed on a platform which was a lot more accessible to the gaming market. |
DarkSlaya
Posts: 3736/4249 |
GeckoYamori: Xbox didn't sell because of the thing called "Microsoft hatred". I myself didn't buy it because of that and now regret it.
And "major successful titles" like you said, I believe they should because of graphics. (I knew none who had stuff like GTA2, but when the big graphics come out, sure every buys it). |
Dei*
Posts: 14/412 |
"The reason World of Warcraft does not feel the same way as Warcraft 2 is because they are completely different games. You interacted with the games in different ways, and the goals are completely different. "
This is true, but look at what the company said upon creation of this game, "We hope to make warcraft 3 into a world where one person can level up yada yada blah blah blah blah etc etc etc etc."
They tend to pass it off as the sequel and same type of game as the one that came before it in the series, you're missing my point people. |
GeckoYamori
Posts: 23/153 |
Originally posted by DarkSlaya
Originally posted by GeckoYamori
Would you like to play a monochrome Ocarina of Time with stick characters?
Monochrome: Yes. Stick Characters: No.
Graphics are important to some extent, they do not make the game. Now-a-days, most gamers won't play a game unless the graphics are godly (those graphics that look like real life). I've heard more than once: "The graphics aren't that great, I'm gonna buy *insert game with almost nothing to remember except good graphic*"
This what I think is annoying.
Like what? Major successful titles like San Andreas, or any sports series from EA like Madden are anything but graphic powerhouses. Yet they sell a lot more than games like Doom 3. Xbox had hardware greatly superior to PS2 yet it was outsold several times over. There are many things that contradict your statement. The biggest selling point is and will always be brand recognition. That is why we are showered with the same titles over and over and over. Hell, they're too scared to even give their consoles creative names so they just put a number after it. |
Kasumi-Astra
Posts: 1589/1867 |
The reason World of Warcraft does not feel the same way as Warcraft 2 is because they are completely different games. You interacted with the games in different ways, and the goals are completely different.
A game that is set in the Warcraft universe therefore shouldn't need to be an RTS. Of course the game isn't "Warcraft" by nature, what did you expect? You simply can't expect an MMORPG to feel identical an RTS and still make a game people will want to play. The vast majority of fans of the Warcraft games who have also played WoW have praised it's faithful interpretation of the Warcraft universe, and that's all the game could and should ever have achieved. |
DarkSlaya
Posts: 3736/4249 |
Originally posted by GeckoYamori
Would you like to play a monochrome Ocarina of Time with stick characters?
Monochrome: Yes. Stick Characters: No.
Graphics are important to some extent, they do not make the game. Now-a-days, most gamers won't play a game unless the graphics are godly (those graphics that look like real life). I've heard more than once: "The graphics aren't that great, I'm gonna buy *insert game with almost nothing to remember except good graphic*"
This what I think is annoying. |
GeckoYamori
Posts: 22/153 |
First of all, you are comparing a real time strategy game to an online role playing game. The developers wanted to achieve completely different things. That's like shitting on Mario Kart for not being the same as Super Mario Bros.
Second, the statement that today graphics are more important than gameplay is bullshit. It's been like this since the dawn of the industry. For Christ's sake, just look at the Legend of Zelda commercial, and on top of that every Capcom NES box cover would have "State-of-the-art high resolution graphics" printed on it. Games could be viewed as gorgeus 15 years ago because they didn't have anything else to compare with, but they can still be pretty today in an artistic sense. Graphics are not just fancy lighting and polygon amount, it also covers things like atmosphere and character design. It's the entire visual experience. Graphics ARE a very important factor to a great, memorable game. Would you like to play a monochrome Ocarina of Time with stick characters?
There will always be lots of shit games and some gems that will ultimately make the cut. There are plenty of cool things to look forward to, such as game physics that have added an entire new level of gameplay and user interaction. Half-Life 2 merely scratched the surface on what's possible.
And for the record, Street Fighter Alpha 3 is one of the very best in the entire SF franchise :o |
Dei*
Posts: 12/412 |
Which is exactly my point. O_o |
DarkSlaya
Posts: 3734/4249 |
It's more like "Now-a-days gamers suck"
Because those who make the games usually create their games so the gamers buy them. If the gamers are all like "OMFG GRAPHICS PWN YOU", then the game will lean toward graphics and not other stuff. |
Prier
Posts: 6196/8392 |
Originally posted by Zerodius
...There is no such thing as a "degradation of gaming"...
That should be a 'no shit'.
It basically boils down to one easy thing to remember: The game sucks or it doesn't. ET sucked back in the day just like Superman 64 did on the N64. It really doesn't matter what time it comes out. If it sucks, it sucks. |
Zerodius
Posts: 1610/2036 |
OK...
Here is what I have to say:
There is no such thing as a "degradation of gaming".
I have some words to strenghten my position: SSBM, Metroid Prime, Legend of Zelda, Paper Mario, Megaman Zero, Kirby Canvas Curse.
Do I need to continue on?
Oh yes... one last detail.
Notice how you only take note of bad exemples? Everything not in black and white after all (I will apply this to myself right now! Halo and Kingdom Hearts are good counter-balances to the titles mentionned above... and I must say that while some series evolved, others rather... well... let's just say Megaman X isn't what is used to be...)... |
Clockworkz
Posts: 1568/2002 |
Nope; 3. It says To Be Concluded, and the Chief says "I'm going to finish this war." [/lame-ass ending] |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
