Support NeoGAF

[Quasar]

Front and centre? How? Where's the front and center flight simulator? Where's the point 'n click? Where are the front and centre genre hybrids like Dungeon Keeper or Battlezone? And on and on. The genres are simply not being funded and marketed by larger publishers any longer and they are mostly only familiar to the invited gamers.

Telltale for one.

Flight Sims I'll certainly agree with though. Not that I'm sure flight sims were ever really big. I think there was always a moderate sized amount of interest that has been either flat or shrinking for 20 years.

As for genre hybridisation, if anything we're seeing more of that. With RPG and RTS stuff added into shooters, or shooters hybridised with RPGs. Bigger publishers are playing it safer with the hybrids though.

 

[cartman414]

Lot of concessions being made to make games more adaptable to consoles these days, sadly. Both in terms of tech and gameplay.

I wonder how hard Skyrim would be pushing PCs had the series remained PC exclusive, or at least, came out in the new cycle. Elder Scrolls had a reputation for having high requirements (not to mention bugs).

 

[Stumpokapow]

• Space-simulations

All of the above used to be prominent genres with plenty of media recognition and accolades. Now these genres are relegated to esoteric DD channels or Kickstarters with little to no exposure.

number of copies star citizen has sold, before release: 110,000
number of copies elite's original release sold: 150,000

are we sure this is "esoteric"

If you go back and look at games from Deus Ex to Age of Empires to Populous, there's this heavy degree of simulation going on. It's all about making a game that takes place in some form of reality.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution doesn't have the kind of simulation aspects that Deus Ex does.

With the exception of per-limb injuries versus health regeneration, what does Deus Ex have going on mechanically that DE:HR doesn't?

 

[neoemonk]

Skyrim, Civ V + Gods and Kings, XCom

I think these are games that fit the mold of days gone by personally.

Also interested in the new Sim City.

And if all else fails there's always GoG I guess. If the new games aren't cutting the mustard, they have a ton of old stuff. Gotta be something new for you.

 

[speedpop]

You should play more adventure and strategy games.

 

[Zarx]

Skyrim, Civ V + Gods and Kings, XCom

I think these are games that fit the mold of days gone by personally.

Also interested in the new Sim City.

And if all else fails there's always GoG I guess. If the new games aren't cutting the mustard, they have a ton of old stuff. Gotta be something new for you.

The always connected nature of the new SimCity with it's more limited city size to match is basically the antithesis of what the OP stands for... And he specifically called out Skyrim.

 

[RedSwirl]

Then, you look at more modern games, and they're so much more gamey. They're about that pavlovian motivation. They're about being multiplayer "sports." Deus Ex: Human Revolution doesn't have the kind of simulation aspects that Deus Ex does.

I think games like Human Revolution being more "gamey" compared to their predecessors also has to do with the focus around a controller. The stealth in Human Revolution in particular in many places feels oddly like a direct evolution of Metal Gear Solid 2. This is just a weird theory of mine but bear with me.

The PC -- the keyboard and mouse interface, is inherently better suited to games that feel like simulations -- software where you just play around with systems. PC games in the classic sense are very close to computer software, just made for the purpose of fun.

Contrast this with console games that are classically made to be more like obstacle courses or roller coaster rides. It's more suited to the controller interface, the modern interpretation of which traces its lineage to the earliest Nintendo and arcade games. Super Mario Bros. was fun when you first experience an NES because Nintendo mastered the feeling of fulfillment you get from pressing a button and getting a reaction on your TV. The whole game is an obstacle course built on top of that feeling, and I think that's the core of console gaming as opposed to the "simulation for fun" core of PC gaming. The closest thing to a "simulation game" you typically get on consoles might be a Japanese strategy RPG (which the Japanese typically call "simulation RPGs") like Final Fantasy Tactics or Fire Emblem. Maybe the SNES version of SimCity.

When PC developers made the transition to consoles, I think they somehow felt a need to adjust their game designs to fit the core of what makes a console game fun as opposed to what makes a PC game fun. They made Human Revolution and BioShock feel more "gamey" than Deus Ex and System Shock because it felt right when playing them with a controller. The same can be said when comparing the original Call of Duty to say, Modern Warfare 2, which Infinity Ward admits even borrowed some ideas from Street Fighter.

What I think happened is when all those PC developers moved to consoles, they instinctively made their games more what console games are supposed to be, instead of just reproducing the PC mentality on consoles. Or at least they merged the PC mentality with the core of console gaming philosophy.

I could just be crazy though.

Yes, this. Mind if I just stick it in the OP?

Go ahead.

By the way, whatever happened to your search for an "ambitious" console-originated game?

 

[Lime]

number of copies star citizen has sold, before release: 110,000
number of copies elite's original release sold: 150,000

are we sure this is "esoteric"

Esoteric in terms of exposure and general awareness of the genres for uninvited people and general consumers. In the 90's you could walk into a general store and see these genres being represented on the shelves or by the print magazines covering these titles in development. Moreover, the genres were given comparatively lots of exposure and marketing back in the day.

My point is, you have to actively seek these genres out (if they are even getting made, which some aren't), so the genres are simply not as visible and prominent for the uninvited people and general public.

 

[TedNindo]

It doesn't help that almost all AAA PC developers that were pushing the platform have moved to consoles or are gone.

A LOT of current western console developers and big names in the industry started out on PC.

So what you are left with is a handful of large developers devoted to PC, console ports, free2play games, mmo's and indy games.


Also popular PC games used to get ported from PC to consoles and now it is the other way around and the PC version suffer from this.

There aren't many out there who look at the PC as their LEAD platform.


I've always owned a game capable PC myself along with some consoles. And it's obvious how it has changed over the years.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Esoteric in terms of exposure and general awareness of the genres. In the 90's you could walk into a general store and see these genres being represented on the shelves or by the print magazines covering these titles in development. Moreover, the genres were given comparatively lots of exposure and marketing back in the day.

My point is, you have to actively seek these genres out (if they are even getting made, which some aren't) , so the genres aren't as visible and prominent to uninvited people to them.

Take something like Amnesia. You're agreeing it's not visible? After all, it's only in Steam, it had no advertising budget, magazines aren't a factor, it's made by four people who made nothing that was particularly popular at all, the retail release is irrelevant and the cover is hideous... it's made by 4 people, and yet it has sold 1.5 million copies. That's more than Broken Sword did back in the day. That's more than any LucasArts adventure game ever did.

The way you're setting it up, there has to be a severe incongruence between "exposure and awareness" and sales. Back then, everyone had "exposure" and "Awareness", but no one bought anything. Now people buy tons of stuff they've apparently never heard of?

• Real-time and turn-based strategy
• Space-simulations

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri: 175,000 copies in first 6 months
Sins of a Solar Empire: 500,000 copies in first 8 months

X-Com (UFO: Enemy Unknown) worldwide lifetime sales: 600,000
X-Com: Enemy Unknown (2012) retail sales figures in the first three months, excluding the PC, just in the US: 175,000 + "a commercial success", "strong digital sales"

 

[QaaQer]

Great OP.

 

[Seanspeed]

The last PC I had that could run modern games was back in early 2000's. So yea, I'm way disconnected and primarily a console gamer now.

 

[I H8 Memes]

Must be reflective of the people on your friends list. My friends have good taste in games.

And people being into multiplayer games is nothing new at all. In the late 90's games like quake, UT, and CS were wildly popular. Dota 2 is the CS of the modern gamer. Dota 2 is not a game that casual gamers can play.

 

[QaaQer]

And will be a console game. It's almost guaranteed to have multiplayer and if I was a gambling man I'd put money down on it being a hybrid game since real stealth games "don't sell" to the console crowd. A hybrid Thief game is a Thief game that should not exist.

yup. I'm looking for Hitman: Absolution levels of disappointment.

 

[Lime]

Take something like Amnesia. You're agreeing it's not visible? After all, it's only in Steam, it had no advertising budget, magazines aren't a factor, it's made by four people who made nothing that was particularly popular at all, the retail release is irrelevant and the cover is hideous... it's made by 4 people, and yet it has sold 1.5 million copies. That's more than Broken Sword did back in the day. That's more than any LucasArts adventure game ever did.

The way you're setting it up, there has to be a severe incongruence between "exposure and awareness" and sales. Back then, everyone had "exposure" and "Awareness", but no one bought anything. Now people buy tons of stuff they've apparently never heard of?

A lot more people play games. A lot more people interested in video games use Steam. The Internet alleviates word of mouth. Amnesia is still an esoteric game in the sense that mainly people who participate in the culture, follow the general gaming news, visit fora, etc., are its consumers. Add the fact that it is an incredibly well-made game and word of mouth starts spreading. But you won't be seeing the general audience having any awareness of Amnesia, unless they know someone who follows the gaming culture.

I agree that digital distribution has helped immensely in providing a channel for these genres to be revived by smaller teams with smaller budgets. I agree that Kickstarter has provided (and hopefully showed to publishers) methods of greenlighting some types of these genres with smaller budgets.

But the genres simply do not receive much recognition by the average consumer these days, compared to the earlier days when you had the likes of Bullfrog, Funcom, Blue Byte Software, Lucasarts, Westwood, (old) Activision, Looking Glass, (old) id Software, etc. being prominently presented on retail shelves to all consumers of gaming. Back then a grandmother could walk into a store and buy Dungeon Keeper for her grandchild, while today she would have to search after it on the Internet, go on esoteric websites like GOG or Steam, sign up for an account, purchase/gift the game to her grandchild, etc. In that sense, these genres are simply esoteric, i.e. "being understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest".

I think we are approaching the topic differently: Me in terms of genre availability and exposure to non-invited consumers, whereas you are approaching it in terms of the genres' sales numbers / amount of backers.

 

[Stumpokapow]

A lot more people play games. A lot more people interested in video games use Steam. The Internet alleviates word of mouth. Amnesia is still an esoteric game in the sense that mainly people who participate in the culture, follow the general gaming news, visit fora, etc., are its consumers. Add the fact that it is an incredibly well-made game and word of mouth starts spreading. But you won't be seeing the general audience having any awareness of Amnesia, unless they know someone who follows the gaming culture.

You're arguing that:

Past: 10 people play games, 8 play these sorts of games
Present: 1000 people play games, 500 play these sorts of games
represents a "decrease" in awareness.

The "general audience" never played the games you were discussing. Your citation to the contrary so far is "they were in stores" and "they were in magazines". Sales figures do not suggest a general awareness at all. There were of course smash successes; Myst, for example, was a legitimate cultural phenomenon in a way that no adventure game has been since.

But in general the period you are discussing, the good old days, back when there was awareness, did not exist.

But the genres simply do not receive much recognition by the average consumer these days, compared to the earlier days when you had the likes of Bullfrog, Funcom, Blue Byte Software, Lucasarts, Westwood, (old) Activision, Looking Glass, id Software, etc. being prominently presented on retail shelves to all consumers of gaming. Back then a grandmother could walk into a store and buy Dungeon Keeper for her granchild, while today she would have to search after it on the Internet, go on esoteric websites like GOG or Steam, sign up for an account, purchase/gift the game to her grandchild, etc. In that sense, these genres are simply esoteric, i.e. "being understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest".

Steam is not esoteric.

More grandmothers are on Steam than ever walked into Funcoland to buy this stuff. This is borne out by actual numbers, not just by "common sense".

I think we are approaching the topic differently: Me in terms of genre availability and exposure to non-invited consumers, whereas you are approaching it in terms of the genres' sales numbers / amount of backers.

Okay, then by your own criteria, prove that the marquee games in any of the genres you mentioned ever had "availability and exposure to non-invited consumers" without simply repeating your premise that "Steam is esoteric" and "games used to be in stores! Everyone knows about stores".

To give an example not fro a genre you mentioned, but certainly an unconventional, left-field sort of game... Minecraft. Minecraft is probably second only to Angry Birds in terms of worldwide cultural awareness, and it has never been sold at retail, until recently was PC exclusive, and is only available on an "esoteric" store you need to "sign up for an account" at.

 

[DocSeuss]

OP, you're anything but unique. It is impossible to discuss PC gaming without the roadblock of having to talk about how much better games like System Shock 2 are over anything else. Now, while the games aren't exactly the same, we JUST had Dishonored, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution before that. The progression in complexity between those two games, especially compared to the somewhat flat Bioshock, is a sign that one of the genres you love is coming back. Oh, but they came out on consoles, so they don't count. Right.

Then you say you really like RTS games. Starcraft has a huge single player component. So do the Dawn of War games, multiple expansions worth, even. Oh, but those are too popular or something? So they don't count. Right.

What about Paradox grand strategy games? Sins of a Solar Empire? Endless Space? You want a PC exclusive game with sim elements, what about Mechwarrior Online (oops, multiplayer, doesn't count)? I dunno, try fucking Euro Truck Simulator. Okay then, so why haven't you played through the official Arma 2 campaigns? You don't see shit like that on consoles. And certainly nothing like the player-created scenarios. Half-Life 2 has countless mods, including one very similar to Thief. As you yourself noted, it's now possible to mod Skyrim into something resembling a proper PC RPG.

Oh, and while I'm no friend of the glut of twee indie platformers, I'm equally annoyed by the presumption that anything with pixel art is some kind of console game worship. PC gaming wasn't born when you started playing it. Its history with pixel art out of both necessity and for aesthetic purposes easily dwarfs the amount of 2D games on consoles. Yeah, FTL has pixels. It's also a roguelike, with a massive amount of approaches to each situation, and no apparent attempt at doing anything the way consoles do.

Certain things are different, of course, but I think you're spending more time finding excuses for why you don't play more new games than you are simply enjoying new games.

I'm rewriting the OP. Significantly. I'm going to try to explain myself better, especially now that my head's a bit clearer. Still making weird-ass typos, though, and it's only been an hour or two, so things are... different.

But I do want to reply to you:

1. Half-Life 2 has a thief-like mod? WHERE? GIMME! The only one I know about is The Dark Mod, which is a Doom 3 TC.

2. Dawn of War 2 =/= RTS. You don't build buildings or gather resources. It's more like a multi-unit Diablo than an RTS. It's different than the norm--and it's interesting, but it's not compelling. Company of Heroes is similar in that regard.

3. I think Starcraft 2's campaign is extremely poorly written and not all that fun to play. Obviously, this is more of a personal thing. I'm just... I lean more towards the SupComs (well, not SupCom 2) and the Ages of Empires and the Empire Earths.

4. It's... not exactly about pixel art equating to games being console-like. After all, X-COM was pixel arty, if I remember correctly. It's more that, by and large, indie games seem to stem from a fascination with 80s console games and rarely possess the elements seen in the kind of games whose existence I lament.

 

[Stumpokapow]

2. Dawn of War 2 =/= RTS. You don't build buildings or gather resources. It's more like a multi-unit Diablo than an RTS. It's different than the norm--and it's interesting, but it's not compelling. Company of Heroes is similar in that regard.

It seems like the more you express your case, the more your case seems to be "I used to like games more than I do now" and the less your case is actually based on any formal shift in terms of what's available and being made. I think the reason why no one seems to be groking what you're actually looking for is because you don't have a clear idea what you're looking for, just that current games aren't giving it to you.

In an effort to come up with a coherent taste for you based on what you've expressed so far, your taste seems limited to:
- Single player games in either of the following two genres:
- RTS including resource management, other types of RTS or other types of strategy games are not acceptable (although you don't like the #1 entry in the genre over the last few years; Starcraft 2)
- First-person games with heavy atmosphere and stealth elements (although you don't like one of the major entries in the genre over the last few years; Amnesia)
- Flight simulators
- High production values only, everything else is not ambitious enough

 

[Mxrz]

These threads feel like they're almost always the same song and dance.

General doom and gloom of the genre or gaming in general. People point out we have more variety than ever before. Then the originator dismisses everything due to not matching a perceived standard, or having some frowned upon element, like multiplayer, that somehow invalidates everything else. You want to rage at the homogeneity of modern gaming, but then willfully ignore stuff because it isn't AAA or worse, allows people to play with others. Meh.


No. I don't feel disconnected. Digital releases, Kickstarter, steam, xbla, psn, ios, android, etc. changed things. The big publishers aren't going to drop millions of dollars on the old niche genres any more, but for once I don't need them to.

 

[Qblivion]

I kind of agree. I miss when PC games were PC games and console games were console games. Now that the lines have started to blur I get a feeling of sameness from a lot of games.

 

[epmode]

These threads feel like they're almost always the same song and dance.

General doom and gloom of the genre or gaming in general. People point out we have more variety than ever before. Then the originator dismisses everything due to not matching a perceived standard, or having some frowned upon element, like multiplayer, that somehow invalidates everything else. You want to rage at the homogeneity of modern gaming, but then willfully ignore stuff because it isn't AAA or worse, allows people to play with others. Meh.


No. I don't feel disconnected. Digital releases, Kickstarter, steam, xbla, psn, ios, android, etc. changed things. The big publishers aren't going to drop millions of dollars on the old niche genres any more, but for once I don't need them to.

Yeah, I used to be the one pining for the golden age of PC games (late 90s, early 2000s) but the current environment is the best we've seen since then. Kickstarter has helped a lot and I really hope the big crowd-funded games turn out well.

 

[sp3000]

With the exception of per-limb injuries versus health regeneration, what does Deus Ex have going on mechanically that DE:HR doesn't?

Lockpicking, Multitools, and skill points are also all missing.

Not to mention the overall quality of writing is far lower. Entire game focused on stuff about augmentations, and ignored the political, historical, and philosophical themes that made DX great.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I kind of agree. I miss when PC games were PC games and console games were console games. Now that the lines have started to blur I get a feeling of sameness from a lot of games.

As the costs of development continue to increase, those lines will continue to blur for big titles, as will the diversity among genres.

F2P and indie games will be the only refuge for the hard core.

 

[Lime]

You're arguing that:

Past: 10 people play games, 8 play these sorts of games
Present: 1000 people play games, 500 play these sorts of games
represents a "decrease" in awareness.

No, you are misunderstanding/-representing my position. Read my earlier post again. I am not approaching this in terms of numbers or amount of consumers. I am referring to the retail-wide display and prominence of the listed genres, through non-invited communication channels like retail, marketing, and coverage. I am differentiating between non-invited consumers and invited consumers in order to show that these genres are not as exposed to the former as they were back in the day.

Spoiler

I'd also state that the most "popular" publishers no longer fund these games as heavily as they did earlier (if at all), which contributes to the relegation of the aforementioned genres, but that is another claim altogether.

The "general audience" never played the games you were discussing. Your citation to the contrary so far is "they were in stores" and "they were in magazines". Sales figures do not suggest a general awareness at all. There were of course smash successes; Myst, for example, was a legitimate cultural phenomenon in a way that no adventure game has been since.

Again, you are approaching it in terms of sales numbers. That is not what I am stating. I am referring to the general availability and positioning of these genres by the games industry and marketing. Grim Fandango was a flagship title by Lucasarts - nowadays it would be a Kickstarter game.

But in general the period you are discussing, the good old days, back when there was awareness, did not exist.

Now I am going to use some numbers in order to demonstrate my point. They may not be true, but they should (hopefully) be able to convey my position: Percentage-wise, I would probably state that 80 percent of the consumers knew what Wing Commander was back then, while a lesser percentage (let's say 40 percent) of today's consumers would know or be exposed what Star Citizen is. Wing Commander was on shelves for all consumers to see. Star Citizen is hidden away on their own website and relies on dissemination by (so far) esoteric media and culture. You see what I am getting at?

Steam is not esoteric.

More grandmothers are on Steam than ever walked into Funcoland to buy this stuff. This is borne out by actual numbers, not just by "common sense".

When the non-gaming consumer are buying a gift to their gaming relative, does she or he go to Gamestop or on Steam to make an account and buy a specific game hidden away in the search bar, friend the relative, and gift it to him or her? Which do you think is more likely? Sure, this will change more and more as digital distribution grows and grows, but you cannot deny the severe importance of retail in terms of outreach to non-invited consumers in today's market.

 

[HK-47]

Lockpicking, Multitools, and skill points are also all missing.

Not to mention the overall quality of writing is far lower. Entire game focused on stuff about augmentations, and ignored the political, historical, and philosophical themes that made DX great.

Deus Ex was a bunch of conspiracy and cyberpunk wank. I dont think its substantially better in the writing department, and the series has always been average in that regard.

 

[sp3000]

Deus Ex was a bunch of conspiracy and cyberpunk wank. I dont think its substantially better in the writing department, and the series has always been average in that regard.

You can reduce any game to generalities. KOTOR is sci fi schlock by the same definition

Find me a single piece of dialogue that compares to the conversation with Morpheus.

Even Invisible War, with all its flaws, had better writing than HR.

 

[ambientmystic]

2. Dawn of War 2 =/= RTS. You don't build buildings or gather resources. It's more like a multi-unit Diablo than an RTS. It's different than the norm--and it's interesting, but it's not compelling. Company of Heroes is similar in that regard.

Fantastic OP, Doc. You mirror a lot of the sentiments I have personally to a great extent.

Also, this point of yours is very pertinent. Dawn of War 2 is basically a DoW without base building. Which is the very antithesis of a RTS. Controlling a few squads to shoot up some enemies across a tiny map does not a RTS make.

I still don't understand why they had to take out/simplify the resource management aspect and base building that the original DoW and its expansions had. I miss constructing those killbots with their quirky shredding animations lol.

 

[HK-47]

You can reduce any game to generalities. KOTOR is sci fi schlock by the same definition

Find me a single piece of dialogue that compares to the conversation with Morpheus.

Even Invisible War, with all its flaws, had better writing than HR.

Star Wars is pulp sci fi so...duh?

 

[Derrick01]

With the exception of per-limb injuries versus health regeneration, what does Deus Ex have going on mechanically that DE:HR doesn't?

Much better level design and many more cleverly hidden secrets and alternate paths. Everything in HR can be solved by a vent in the room or a hackable door.

HR took out skills and lockpicking. Took out a lot of choice in how you build your character since you can get almost every ability in the game.

 

[HK-47]

Fantastic OP, Doc. You mirror a lot of the sentiments I have personally to a great extent.

Also, this point of yours is very pertinent. Dawn of War 2 is basically a DoW without base building. Which is the very antithesis of a RTS. Controlling a few squads to shoot up some enemies across a tiny map does not a RTS make. I still don't understand why they had to take out/simplify the resource management aspect and base building that the original DoW and its expansions had.

Because they werent trying to make the same type of game? Sorry but base building isnt required for it to be an RTS as amazing games like DoW 2 and World in Conflict can attest.

 

[kpjolee]

I think the biggest grief that comes from PC gamer is that that we no longer see PC titles pushing the boundaries of graphical fidelity as most of AAA games being designed around console.

 

[Jay Shadow]

The Witcher 2 feels like it was designed with consoles in mind (that is not a mouse-friendly UI).

Although I'd agree level design was made with consoles in mind, the UI is even less friendly to controllers. It's just a bad UI.

 

[MattKeil]

I believe what you're looking for is due out in March.

 

[gabbo]

I feel connected with the taste of modern gamers mores-so than PC gamers in general.
I mean, it's not 1998-2004 anymore, and PC gaming is not the same, but there are still games I want to play on my PC that aren't console ports, 2d platformers, or multiplayer-only, I just have to look for them.

I too am much more interested in single player campaigns and stories (even the worst of the worst writing), and basically dislike multiplayer focused titles (do own a few of them), a trend among most of my friends. That probably puts us on some kind of tangent of a tangent in the gaming world, but I don't care. I just keep on gaming.

 

[DocSeuss]

I rewrote the entire OP. I think only three sentences remain relatively unchanged. Hopefully this clearly explains my thoughts a lot better. I believe I was finally able to touch on what I'm wanting more of. It's not even specific to any genre of game.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Lockpicking, Multitools, and skill points are also all missing.

The context of the response is that Deus Ex is "more of a simulation" than Deus Ex HR.

Skill points in Deus Ex 1: Each level you get points which you can use to enhance skills. Skills are passive abilities. They have the categories: accuracy/damage for weapons (per type), Armor/environment proficiency, Swimming, Lockpicking, Electronics (Hacking), Healing.

Augments in Deus Ex 1: Vocal contact, IFF, Light, Melee power, lift heavy objects, run fast, jump high, reduce fall damage, run silent, cloak, robot cloak, bullet shield, emp shield, health regen, fire/environmental armor, swim length, radiation armor, augment energy usage decrease, anti-missile defence, spy drone, see-through walls, accuracy

Lockpicking in Deus Ex 1: Consumable inventory which combines with lockpicking skill to determine lockpicking locks. Simulation element: wait for bar to deplete.

Multitools in Deus Ex 1: Consumable inventory which combines with electronics skill to determine hacking devices. Simulation element: wait for time to pass.

---

Skill points in Deus Ex 3: Rolled into Augments, but we'll separate out augments that replace skills for the purposes of analyzing here. Strikethrough means DE1 skill is removed, bold means retained. Accuracy/damage for weapons (per type), Armor/environment proficiency, Swimming* no swimming in DE3, Lockpicking, Electronics (Hacking), Healing.

Augmentations in DE3: Strikethrough means DE1 skill is removed, bold means retained. Vocal contact, IFF, Light, Melee power, lift heavy objects, run fast, jump high, reduce fall damage, run silent, cloak, robot cloak, bullet shield, emp shield, health regen* built in, fire/environmental armor, swim length* no swimming, radiation armor, augment energy usage decrease (round-about way), anti-missile defence, spy drone, see-through walls, accuracy. There are also many new augments punch-through walls, typhoon, take-downs, distinction between walk silent and run silent, deeper hacking, radar range differences, CASIE, radar noise detection, etc.

Lockpicking in Deus Ex 3: Locks are electronic, no consumable inventory*, but you do have a "lockpicking skill" based on hacking augments. Simulation element: Actual hacking simulation, admittedly shallow.

Multitools in Deus Ex 3: Devices are electronic, no consumable inventory*, but you do have a hacking skill based on augments. Simulation element: Actual hacking simulation, admittedly shallow.

* There are items in the form of the minigame items, but we'll set those aside.

In terms of simulation, Deus Ex HR has more simulation for hacking and more simulation for dialog, but loses consumable lockpicks and multitools. Skills and Augs are combined into a new set of augs which is at least as deep and broad as Skills and Augs in DE1.

Much better level design and many more cleverly hidden secrets and alternate paths. Everything in HR can be solved by a vent in the room or a hackable door.

I also like the DE1 level design better, but the post you're quoting isn't me saying "Name a way in which DE3 isn't as good as DE1", it's "name a way in which DE3 has less simulation that DE1 mechanically".

HR took out skills and lockpicking.

See above reply; skills and lockpicking are replicated in DE3, they're just implemented in a different way. Instead of having Augs and Skill Points, you just have Augs which are given in the same way that Augs and Skill points were before. The actual ground covered is fairly similar although not identical. Lockpicks aren't consumable, but lockpicking still exists, and this time instead of a countdown timer, it's a minigame.

Took out a lot of choice in how you build your character since you can get almost every ability in the game.

I agree that there's more build variety in DE1 and your endgame character in DE3 is more jack-of-all-trades, but the major "builds" of DE1 still exist--you can still melee, gunplay, dialog, or stealth your way through. It's just you're able to do any of them at any point instead of structuring your character around it. But again, not the question you're responding to.

 

[bbdude]

I tried playing a round of Jailbreak on a gmod server yesterday.

In short, yes. Yes I do.

 

[TheExodu5]

I've realized that this isn't a "PC gaming isn't as good as it was" thread. This is a "I only like a small subset of genres and dismiss everything else as mass marketification" thread.

You refuse to give certain games a second look because they do not have a big enough budget or do not conform to your genre mold (which, by the way, is at odds with you declaring current PC games as "homogenous").

 

[NIGHT-]

Gaming in general feels different. Consoles don't feel like they used to either..

 

[TheExodu5]

So you've changed the OP. This thread is no longer about PC games of yore, but rather a fundamental shift to multiplayer/social gaming. That is a different issue altogether. I would argue that while multiplayer/social gaming is at the forefront of the current industry, high quality singleplayer experiences are still released regularly in a variety of genres. The gaming population has simply greatly expanded since the mid 90's.

 

[charsace]

I don't. PC is a different beast though now that most of the big budget games are console games.

 

[SapientWolf]

Budgets were smaller back then, so PC gaming back then lines up more with current PC indie than current AAA. System Shock 2 was made with a budget of $1.7 million. About $2.3 million after inflation adjustment. Current AAA is around $25-$50 million.

 

[Lime]

Sorry, only saw your additional edit just now, Stumpokapow:

Okay, then by your own criteria, prove that the marquee games in any of the genres you mentioned ever had "availability and exposure to non-invited consumers" without simply repeating your premise that "Steam is esoteric" and "games used to be in stores! Everyone knows about stores".

How can I provide any description of the amount of exposure of these marquee games without referring to the only means for which one could acquire the physical copy of a title back then?

To give an example not fro a genre you mentioned, but certainly an unconventional, left-field sort of game... Minecraft. Minecraft is probably second only to Angry Birds in terms of worldwide cultural awareness, and it has never been sold at retail, until recently was PC exclusive, and is only available on an "esoteric" store you need to "sign up for an account" at.

Look, I am not denying that it is possible for a non-conventional game to become financially successful or a cultural phenomenon akin to what Myst also was. I am also not denying that the aforementioned genres cannot become successful, just like Minecraft was.

I am stating that the games industry, retail, and marketing no longer position these genres as being premier and heavily exposed "marquee games" to the uninvited consumer. Sometimes non-industry games like Minecraft manage to escape esoteric gaming circles and exponentially appeal to both invited and non-invited consumers, but unfortunately they do not get picked up by the industry, marketing and retail, as to be positioned and exposed as a marquee genre (well, at least for now). In the same vein, the aforementioned genres are no longer backed by the larger industry, conventional marketing, and retail chains.

Additionally, Minecraft was much more of a (massive) sleeper hit with iterative, exceptional game design and player tools that didn't rely on conventional marketing or industry and retail backing to achieve its success. Moreover, I'd probably also go as far as to state that Minecraft is more of an aberration than proof of a common trend for non-conventional game design and marketing, but that isn't relevant to this discussion.

And if you do not agree with my statements about Minecraft's affinities with what we are discussing, I will resort to the equivalent of your "There were of course smash successes; Myst, for example, was a legitimate cultural phenomenon in a way that no adventure game has been since.", but with Minecraft instead of Myst

 

[kswiston]

Can we really argue that digital only releases are esoteric when Minecraft (PC version only) has outsold pretty much every PC game to be released in the 90s except for maybe Starcraft, Half-life, Doom and a small handful of others?

Additionally, Minecraft was much more of a (massive) sleeper hit with iterative, yet exceptional game design and player tools that didn't rely on conventional marketing or industry and media backing to achieve its success. Moreover, I'd probably also go as far as to state that Minecraft is more of an aberration than proof of a common trend for non-conventional game design and marketing, but that isn't relevant to this discussion.

While not as big as Minecraft, Games like Terraria and Magicka have outsold a lot of the 90s classics popping up in this thread. The list of indie/small pub PC games that have broken 500k-1M sales despite a limited to non-existent retail presence is getting pretty long.

 

[FGMPR]

I'm still confused as to why something like 'Star Citizen', which is, by far looking to be the most ambitious space sim ever created, has had its status relegated simply because it's funding is sourced in a non-conventional manner and will be sold on a DD platform.

It's like you're asking for the good old days to be back and now that crowd-funding and the rise of Steam has allowed that to happen, its still not good enough because... those games aren't in retail boxes and aren't on the cover of gaming magazines?

The set of criteria you are judging today's games by is all over the place, at least that's how it looks to me.

 

[Stumpokapow]

How can I provide any description of the amount of exposure of these marquee games without referring to the only means for which one could acquire the physical copy of a title back then?

Let me try this way.

Here is your theory:
Master of Orion 2 is a "marquee" title from a genre you mentioned. It was sold in stores. It was advertised to "non-invited" customers, who bought it at Fry's. Your theory is that Master of Orion 2 was known about and played by a wide variety of "non-invited" customers, who largely used retail, game magazines, and advertising to discover new games. Although actual sales figures suggest there are basically no such people, because none of those games ever sold well to begin with, we will grant that they are a large group. This group includes grandmothers, who apparently bought many copies of Master of Orion 2 for their grandchildren, and not by walking into the store with a piece of paper that says "Tim wants Masters of Onion Stew", but rather because they have become informed customers thanks to gaming magazines and in-store displays.

Today, those people are playing nothing (or perhaps Call of Duty, today's "marquee" title) because retail has been replaced with "esoteric" stores like Steam, magazines have been replaced with (presumably "esoteric") blogs and gaming sites, and advertising has declined in favour of other measures of exposure. Those people are no longer about to play games in this genre as a result of this.

Despite this, sales of games in the genre are better than ever. Sins of a Solar Empire and GalCiv 2, for example (I am well aware neither is an exact match for MoO2, but we will say close enough) vastly outsell those old marquee games. The people who used to play these games many years ago are not playing them. Those people are playing nothing. Instead a whole bunch of people materialized out of thin-air, fully formed and rational, and they desire to play games like MoO2. We cannot determine how they form this desire. Their desire is eternal, it isn't formed. They don't find out about GalCiv 2, they simply instinctually know about the game. They might be robots, it's possible. These people did not exist 20 years ago, and although there are far more of them then the "non-invited" customers of old, it is a problematic shift for the health of the genre, because only non-invited customers can build a strong genre.

 

[Lime]

Can we really argue that digital only releases are esoteric when Minecraft (PC version only) has outsold pretty much every PC game to be released in the 90s except for maybe Starcraft, Half-life, Doom and a small handful of others?



While not as big as Minecraft, Games like Terraria and Magicka have outsold a lot of the 90s classics popping up in this thread. The list of indie/small pub PC games that have broken 500k-1M sales despite a limited to non-existent retail presence is getting pretty long.

Again, sales do not enter the equation in what I am trying to explain. Positioning and availability of the titles by the industry, marketing, and retail is what I am talking about. And I am not trying to reduce or condemn or denigrate these successful titles. I fucking love Minecraft (and to some extent Terraria, but that's another topic).

To get back on topic and repeat what I originally stated: The aforementioned genres are no longer premier "marquee" genres made available and marketed by the larger industry, retail, and media to non-invited consumers through non-esoteric availability and exposition. The aforementioned genres used to be so, but they no longer retain that position. That is my assessment and it has nothing to do with the amount of sales or success of titles from either 90's or contemporary game offerings.

I'm still confused as to why something like 'Star Citizen', which is, by far looking to be the most ambitious space sim ever created, has had its status relegated simply because it's funding is sourced in a non-conventional manner and will be sold on a DD platform.

It's like you're asking for the good old days to be back and now that crowd-funding and the rise of Steam has allowed that to happen, its still not good enough because... those games aren't in retail boxes and aren't on the cover of gaming magazines?

The set of criteria you are judging today's games by is all over the place, at least that's how it looks to me.

I think people (at least FGMPR) are misunderstanding what I am trying to explain. I am not making a value assessment of the legitimacy of Kickstarter projects like Star Citizen. In no way am I saying that such projects are "not good enough". I am not saying that its status are any less of worth than the genre-equivalent games from the 90's. Read my above summary.

 

[Stumpokapow]

To get back on topic and repeat what I originally stated: The aforementioned genres are no longer premier "marquee" genres made available and marketed by the industry, retail, and media to non-invited consumers.

i will ask you five questions in order to determine why the quoted statement matters, whether or not it is true:
what is the advantage of being "marquee"

what is the disadvantage of not being "marquee"

what is the purpose of marketing, if not to sell units

why does it matter if a customer is invited or not

how do new invited customers get created (as opposed to non-invited customers, who become customers when they see something in a store or a magazine)

 

[I H8 Memes]

It's funny OP mentions System Shock 2, which is also my favorite game. But was also a co-op game.

 

[FGMPR]

Again, sales do not enter the equation in what I am trying to explain. Positioning and availability of the titles by the industry, marketing, and retail is what I am talking about. And I am not trying to reduce or condemn or denigrate these successful titles. I fucking love Minecraft (and to some extent Terraria, but that's another topic).

To get back on topic and repeat what I originally stated: The aforementioned genres are no longer premier "marquee" genres made available and marketed by the industry, retail, and media to non-invited consumers.



I think people (at least FGMPR) are misunderstanding what I am trying to explain. I am not making a value assessment of the legitimacy of Kickstarter projects like Star Citizen. In no way am I saying that such projects are "not good enough". I am not saying that its status are any less of worth than the genre-equivalent games from the 90's. Read my above summary.

Even if that's the case, why is it a problem if they are still available through other means?

...I seem to be missing your point, so I guess I'll ask this question instead; Would Star Citizen qualify as something on equal level to the games of the 98-2000's era if it's single player campaign was full of FMV of decent quality (and high budget) like 'Wing Commander IV'? Is it that element of "AAA" budget combined with old-school PC gameplay that you are missing?

edit: Stumpokapow seems to be asking the questions that will answer my own, so don't feel the need to answer this.