Support NeoGAF

[ScOULaris]

Wtf are you talking about? People will replay Reach way more times than they ever have or will ICO. You should have chosen a better example to troll.

Replay value for Halo: Reach is obviously higher than a single-player game like Ico, but do you think we will look back as fondly on Halo: Reach 10 years from now as we do Ico?

Once a new Halo comes out, Halo: Reach will be made obsolete. Just another entry in an iterative FPS series, albeit a polished and interesting one. I chose to compare it to Ico because Ico is a one-of-a-kind experience that developers to this day cite as an inspiration and all-time classic.

Both are good games, but one makes the kind of impression that lasts, while the other is fun for the moment but is part of the most overcrowded genre on the market.

 

[flabberghastly]

Wtf are you talking about? People will replay Reach way more times than they ever have or will ICO. You should have chosen a better example to troll.

Reach will be replayed like crazy by people who buy it right now, probably on multiple difficulties or just because they want to plow through the campaign for the millionth time. But at some arbitrarily chosen time in the future, preferably a good number of years from now when the fans of The Latest and Greatest FPS have moved on to greener pastures time and time again, people will probably look back and remember ICO precisely because it was a game that differed so exceptionally from all of the others polluting the gamescape, whereas most will have tended to have forgotten about Reach or at least not claim it's some game that stood head and shoulders above its competitors. Reach fits too neatly into the dozens and dozens of other contemporary shooters, not to mention the history of shooters as a whole. Future generations may seek it out because it's another piece of the Halo saga, but I highly doubt it'll be considered even a standout in the genre, never mind a standout among all games; it certainly is no latter-day Doom, Half-Life, or even Halo: Combat Evolved.

 

[szaromir]

Replay value for Halo: Reach is obviously higher than a single-player game like Ico, but do you think we will look back as fondly on Halo: Reach 10 years from now as we do Ico?

Once a new Halo comes out, Halo: Reach will be made obsolete. Just another entry in an iterative FPS series, albeit a polished and interesting one. I chose to compare it to Ico because Ico is a one-of-a-kind experience that developers to this day cite as an inspiration and all-time classic.

Both are good games, but one makes the kind of impression that lasts, while the other is fun for the moment but is part of the most overcrowded genre on the market.

Yout another example was an iterative game from an overcrowded genre (SMW). Did it make SMB1,2 or 3 obsolete? No. The same way Reach did not make previous Halos obsolete and the next one won't make Reach obsolete.

Reach will be replayed like crazy by people who buy it right now, probably on multiple difficulties or just because they want to plow through the campaign for the millionth time. But at some arbitrarily chosen time in the future, preferably a good number of years from now when the fans of The Latest and Greatest FPS have moved on to greener pastures time and time again, people will probably look back and remember ICO precisely because it was a game that differed so exceptionally from all of the others polluting the gamescape, whereas most will have tended to have forgotten about Reach or at least not claim it's some game that stood head and shoulders above its competitors. Reach fits too neatly into the dozens and dozens of other contemporary shooters, not to mention the history of shooters as a whole. Future generations may seek it out because it's another piece of the Halo saga, but I highly doubt it'll be considered even a standout in the genre, never mind a standout among all games; it certainly is no latter-day Doom, Half-Life, or even Halo: Combat Evolved.

But it is astandout game in the genre and among all games. ICO never got a sequel because "no one" wanted to play it. If it was a multimillion seller you can be sure Sony would suck it dry like they are doing with God of War or Ratchet & Clank and it would be nowhere near the cult status it has now.

 

[_Alkaline_]

This is already the best console gen ever. Gaming has never been better than it is today. I'm very happy this gen will continue on for at least 2 more years.

People are too blinded by nostalgia.

I swear this whole "blinded by nostalgia lulz" mentality is the worst fucking shit on GAF. Even worse than Killzone 2 gifs.

 

[LosDaddie]

As for the rest of the games you've listed:

You took my statement/examples too literally. Those games were merely examples of current-gen games I would put up against any game from previous gens. You could supplant my examples with games you've enjoyed this gen.

And if you like sports games, then your pick of best console gen will probably change every time the next new graphics-powerhouse comes out..

Well yeah, that was my point. Games/gaming has improved as the technology has matured. That, however, doesn't take anything away from NBA 2k11/NCAA11/NHL11 being great games today, or sports gaming being the best it has ever been.


And you and couple others in this thread keep harping on "classics." Well that doesn't mean much to me since I rarely replay games. For example, the Virtual Console was one reason why I wanted a Wii because I thought I'd replay some classics from my childhood. 3yrs after the Wii's launch and I've put in a total of maybe 5hrs into those classics. Just too busy with current games. I imagine the same will be true 5-10yrs from now with the "great" games of today.

Again, GAF is the only place where I know people play retro/classic games on a regualr basis. Everyone I know IRL plays current games.

 

[TheExecutive]

Umm yes, this is one of the best if not the best generation. It is truly all about games and at no other point in the history of gaming has so many quality games come out. Look at 2011 if you don't believe me (yeah, they could be complete crap but I doubt it ) What really throws it over the top are the downloadable titles. It also doesnt hurt this generation when looking at the lifecycle of the consoles.

 

[ScOULaris]

I swear this whole "blinded by nostalgia lulz" mentality is the worst fucking shit on GAF. Even worse than Killzone 2 gifs.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. People treat nostalgia like a mental disorder that completely alters our way of thinking. Nostalgia exists, and it definitely colors our memories of things and events that have past, but I don't think that argument applies all that much to games.

A lot of us were making the same criticisms of this console generation one or two years into it, which weren't that far removed from the PS2-era that we so thoroughly enjoyed a few years prior. That wasn't a large enough gap for much nostalgia to set in. Our comparisons are legitimate, and should be treated as such even if you don't feel the same.

A simple, "I prefer the style of popular games today over those of previous generations" would be a more useful response than, "You're just a Japanophile nostalgia whore. Games back then sucked compared to now, but you're too blinded to see it."

 

[Rolf NB]

I swear this whole "blinded by nostalgia lulz" mentality is the worst fucking shit on GAF. Even worse than Killzone 2 gifs.

And it's true. You'd be a better person if you learned to come to grips with your own nostalgia. It's not easy. I have to make constant efforts to fight it too. At least being aware of it is already a great help.

One instance I still remember well is the early days of Resistance 2, where the OT was full of whining and bitching about how downgraded the campaign was. So I went back and replayed RFOM and gave myself a great basis for direct comparison. Both became fresh on the mind at the same time. I've now forgotten most of the details, but the conclusion I had then I can still remember.

Who do you think will offer the better contribution to gaming discussion:
Person A: "I still love gaem 2 the best, I actually just replayed the whole quintology last month"
Person B: "I love gaem 2 so much, I last played it when I was 9 years old and the cat licked my face it was so much fun lol"

 

[ScOULaris]

A lot of us do replay classic games and love them just as much as when we first played them, if not more because it reminds us what is missing in a lot of today's popular games.

Also, some of us play classics now that we missed when we were younger, and they still have a great impact. Not as great as if we had played them when they first came out, but the impact is still felt because great games are great games.

I feel that there are less "great" games this generation than any other. We're four years into it, so I think I am allowed to make that claim based on my taste in games.

Again, I recognize that I am the minority here, but I feel that I am an important minority because I really do care about the medium... possibly more than the gamers out there whose sole contribution to the industry is buying the new Madden and CoD every year.

 

[Misterinenja]

@ ScOULaris

Releasing a new Call of Duty every year didn't make Call of Duty 4 obsolete. There are tons of kids out there who think and will think it as a classic.

 

[szaromir]

I swear this whole "blinded by nostalgia lulz" mentality is the worst fucking shit on GAF. Even worse than Killzone 2 gifs.

"Blinded by nostalgia" isn't a valid argument, but throwing the same 5 games from SNES over and over as an argument of superiority of that platform (or any other) and downplaying current games ("no one will remember them next years lulz") is just as silly.

 

[ScOULaris]

I just get the feeling that the "kids" who play mainly first-person shooters on consoles don't have the level of enthusiasm about the industry and the medium to stick with it on any meaningful level in the long-run. Obviously, kids who are growing up now will continue to play games into adulthood because it's a normal part of their lives, but do you really think the majority of the demographic I am describing will ever have a serious discussion about "the classics" or how game development changes have affected the industry over the years?

Somehow, I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I can see them maybe saying, "Remember the first Modern Warfare? That was awesome, because it was the first. But man, I can't wait to pick up Modern Warfare 9. It's gonna be the best game ever."

So yes, these kids will look back fondly on the games of their youth, but I don't think there is enough variety available to the mainstream gamer this generation to provide them with much material for recollection and discourse on their favorite "classics." When all you play is military shooters, how much can you say about Dudebro Shooter #4 as compared to Dudebro Shooter #7?

 

[flabberghastly]

Yout another example was an iterative game from an overcrowded genre (SMW). Did it make SMB1,2 or 3 obsolete? No. The same way Reach did not make previous Halos obsolete and the next one won't make Reach obsolete.

But it is astandout game in the genre and among all games. ICO never got a sequel because "no one" wanted to play it. If it was a multimillion seller you can be sure Sony would suck it dry like they are doing with God of War or Ratchet & Clank and it would be nowhere near the cult status it has now.

The first argument supposes that the Halo series is the equal of the Mario series. I certainly don't think that's the case for this console generation. If anything, CoD has the mass popularity of the Mario series and will - for better or worse (worse, in my opinion) - be the defining series of this generation of consoles. This isn't to say that Halo will be forgotten, that it is a worse series (it's certainly not), or even that its individual entries will not be remembered more fondly than CoD's.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether Reach is a standout game in its genre and amongst other games - that's a debate that must be left for the future to decide. Moreover, I certainly wouldn't argue that had ICO been a massive hit we wouldn't be on severely rushed and pandering sequel #4 for ICO by now. I think this argument depends on what kinds of context we're talking about here: whether we're merely talking about how people look back on what they played at the time, in which case Reach would obviously surpass ICO, or we're talking about how game critics will look back on these periods in time (supposing, of course, that games will eventually be critiqued along the same lines as novels, films, etc.), in which case I think ICO will be held up as a singular example, in contrast to Reach, which will largely be remembered as another iteration in a franchise, in the same way as people looking further back tend to hold up Another World as a brilliant example of gaming, whereas Doom 2 tends to be more forgotten.

 

[szaromir]

I just get the feeling that the "kids" who play mainly first-person shooters on consoles don't have the level of enthusiasm about the industry and the medium to stick with it on any meaningful level in the long-run. Obviously, kids who are growing up now will continue to play games into adulthood because it's a normal part of their lives, but do you really think the majority of the demographic I am describing will ever have a serious discussion about "the classics" or how game development changes have affected the industry over the years?

Somehow, I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I can see them maybe saying, "Remember the first Modern Warfare? That was awesome, because it was the first. But man, I can't wait to pick up Modern Warfare 9. It's gonna be the best game ever."

So yes, these kids will look back fondly on the games of their youth, but I don't think there is enough variety available to the mainstream gamer this generation to provide them with much material for recollection and discourse on their favorite "classics." When all you play is military shooters, how much can you say about Dudebro Shooter #4 as opposed to Dudebro Shooter #7?

Bullshit arguments are bullshit. For the same reason you trash on first person shooters, we should destroy Super Marios (numerous iterations in a very crowded genre), Final Fantasies (numerous iterations in a very crowded genre). After all, ho can you tell "save the princess #13" from "save the princess #17" and "save the woeld #9" from "save the world #12" apart?

 

[ScOULaris]

I would argue that the iterations of the Mario and Final Fantasy series over the years have shown far more variation from one entry to the next than most FPS series or sports series.

I see your point, but can you at least admit that?

And with variation comes diversity, which leads to new experiences and more to enjoy, discuss, and look back upon.

 

[szaromir]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether Reach is a standout game in its genre and amongst other games - that's a debate that must be left for the future to decide. Moreover, I certainly wouldn't argue that had ICO been a massive hit we wouldn't be on severely rushed and pandering sequel #4 for ICO by now. I think this argument depends on what kinds of context we're talking about here: whether we're merely talking about how people look back on what they played at the time, in which case Reach would obviously surpass ICO, or we're talking about how game critics will look back on these periods in time (supposing, of course, that games will eventually be critiqued along the same lines as novels, films, etc.), in which case I think ICO will be held up as a singular example, in contrast to Reach, which will largely be remembered as another iteration in a franchise, in the same way as people looking further back tend to hold up Another World as a brilliant example of gaming, whereas Doom 2 tends to be more forgotten.

This Halo vs Call of Duty is irrelevant, Mario was always more popular than Sonic, but people still remember Sonic Genesis games.

Your examples are quite funny to me as I replayed both Doom games and Another World this summer and Doom 2 is still a perfectly playable, fine game whereas Another World has a terrible trial and error gameplay and only being 30 minutes long saves it. Needless to say I completely disagree with the point you are trying to make. A game might be be remembered more fondly by some people, but it won't make it a standout in the long run if it doesn't hold up as a game.

I would argue that the iterations of the Mario and Final Fantasy series over the years have shown far more variation from one entry to the next than most FPS series or sports series.

Halo has shown more variation than most JRPG or platform series.

 

[Misterinenja]

I just get the feeling that the "kids" who play mainly mascot platformers on consoles don't have the level of enthusiasm about the industry and the medium to stick with it on any meaningful level in the long-run. Obviously, kids who are growing up now will continue to play games into adulthood because it's a normal part of their lives, but do you really think the majority of the demographic I am describing will ever have a serious discussion about "the classics" or how game development changes have affected the industry over the years?

Somehow, I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I can see them maybe saying, "Remember the first Sonic the Hedgehog? That was awesome, because it was the first. But man, I can't wait to pick up Sonic Adventure. It's gonna be the best game ever."

Fixed.

Edit: Also it's stupid to think that there are no new game-enthusiasts born every day. Most of the people who grew up playing in 80's/90's are not enthusiasts.

 

[LosDaddie]

It's silly to compare a game like SMW to Halo Reach/CoD in the first place. The major draw of Reach/CoD is the online MP and in 5-10yrs the online community will be gone....just like the other 99% of MP game communities will be gone too.

SP-only games have the advantage of being insular experiences. They don't require an active community to get the full experience.

Obviously, kids who are growing up now will continue to play games into adulthood because it's a normal part of their lives, but do you really think the majority of the demographic I am describing will ever have a serious discussion about "the classics" or how game development changes have affected the industry over the years?

And why does it matter if these kids have this discussion or not? Does it mean they're not real gamers if they don't?

 

[ScOULaris]

I do just want to clarify that I am not getting up on a soapbox here and declaring all current-gen games to be inferior. I loved Uncharted 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA4, and (Super) Street Fighter IV. Most of those are sequels or iterations of a popular genre, but I thoroughly enjoyed them nonetheless.

What I am saying, however, is that there are fewer games that really stand out to me this generation than any other before it. I just flat out buy and play fewer games now because there are fewer that I look forward to.

Of course, this is discounting the DS because I consider that to be a last-gen system due to its release date. The DS library is fantastic, which is further proof that the high-pressure environment of HD console game development might be a detriment to the quality and variety of games that we ultimately get to play.

A lot of popular games these days leave me feeling completely numb. And I blame constant, low-variation iteration both inside and outside of established series.

But that's how any mainstream market becomes. It happened to movies as well. If you want to pitch a game or a movie in today's environment, you need to tell the producer that you want to make a game that is "X popular movie/game meets Y popular movie/game" and give them a well-researched forecast of sales based on the two established movies/games from which you've based your concept.

One thing that I don't think anyone can deny about the "classic" console generations of the 80's and 90's is that there were fewer templates, which resulted in more experimentation. Every new medium has this period. The 80's could be called the golden era, where certain genres and modes of thought came into being. The 90's could be viewed as the silver era, where the genres created in the golden era blossomed and expanded into other new ideas while yielding completely new ones in the process. Post-2000 began the mainstreaming of the industry, in which iteration and following the leader proved to be the safest bets, which has brought us to the gaming climate in which we live today.

I can respect the good games that come out now, but I get this feeling of stagnation... almost as if we've hit a creative roadblock as a medium.

Adam Sessler had a soapbox episode that mirrored my sentiments. You can view it at the link below:

g4tv.com/videos/50002/sesslers-soapbox-more-creativity-less-penis

 

[flabberghastly]

This Halo vs Call of Duty is irrelevant, Mario was always more popular than Sonic, but people still remember Sonic Genesis games.

Interesting example, but how many people who haven't played any of the Sonic games in the last 15 years could tell you the differences between Sonic 1, 2, and 3? And how many times do you think someone who hasn't played any of the games will clamor to play specifically Sonic 2, having never played any of the old Sonic Genesis games? It's analogous to how I think future generations will approach Reach - as a part of the entire Halo saga, not as a title that absolutely stands alone worthy of recognition.

Your examples are quite funny to me as I replayed both Doom games and Another World this summer and Doom 2 is still a perfectly playable, fine game whereas Another World has a terrible trial and error gameplay and only being 30 minutes long saves it. Needless to say I completely disagree with the point you are trying to make. A game might be be remembered more fondly by some people, but it won't make it a standout in the long run if it doesn't hold up as a game.

So the criterion by which we should judge past games is how closely they match the mechanics of current games? That would discard so many of the absolute classics of gaming. Moreover, similar moves in other media would discard so many of the absolute classics of those autonomous media. Should we, for example, discard classic novels and plays because they don't read like J.K. Rowling or David Mamet?

My point was no where near this line of argument. It was, rather, that Another World stands out as a singular event in gaming, whereas Doom 2 seems relegated to being merely the second iteration in a great FPS series.

 

[szaromir]

Interesting example, but how many people who haven't played any of the Sonic games in the last 15 years could tell you the differences between Sonic 1, 2, and 3? And how many times do you think someone who hasn't played any of the games will clamor to play specifically Sonic 2, having never played any of the old Sonic Genesis games? It's analogous to how I think future generations will approach Reach - as a part of the entire Halo saga, not as a title that absolutely stands alone worthy of recognition.

And how exactly is that different from Super Mario? Iterative games all suffer for that issue. I've never heard something like "you should play Super Mario World but not Yoshi's Island if you are looking for this (...)" (or vice versa).

So the criterion by which we should judge past games is how closely they match the mechanics of current games? (...) It was, rather, that Another World stands out as a singular event in gaming, whereas Doom 2 seems relegated to being merely the second iteration in a great FPS series.

No, and you know why. Shakespear's plays hold up very well, Another World does not hold up well at all - itmakes a great initial impression but is just a terrible game after that. People had to pay $50 for that 30 minutes experience, Limbo is a much longer and better game (the closest comparable example Icould find) and people nowadays complain about its low value offering at $15. It shows how much better it is nowadays...
Anyway, many games from that period do hold up, but overall it was a worse period than nowadays.

I do just want to clarify that I am not getting up on a soapbox here and declaring all current-gen games to be inferior. I loved Uncharted 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA4, and (Super) Street Fighter IV. Most of those are sequels or iterations of a popular genre, but I thoroughly enjoyed them nonetheless.

What I am saying, however, is that there are fewer games that really stand out to me this generation than any other before it. I just flat out buy and play fewer games now because there are fewer that I look forward to.

Of course, this is discounting the DS because I consider that to be a last-gen system due to its release date. The DS library is fantastic, which is further proof that the high-pressure environment of HD console game development might be a detriment to the quality and variety of games that we ultimately get to play.

I found DS library to be disappointing - many "innovative" games rely on one gimmick that gets old after 5 minutes; solid, more fleshed out games are hindered by the system's awkward setup.
Anyway, you can find just as much innovation in the new games as you could in past as long as you don't expect these new games to be AAA, because no one would invest $50M in a risky, unproven idea. That'd be irresponsible. However, today's low budget games can have budgets exceeding AAA games of early 90s, so I don't see how that's an issue at all.

 

[revolverjgw]

Like someone said a couple posts above me, I like choice and diversity, and I feel like this generation lacks those elements more than any before it. And that's not nostalgia talking. Pick up any literate gaming magazine published in the last year (GamePro or EGM, preferably), and you will see feature articles expressing this exact same sentiment, written by professionals who have watched the industry change from an even more intimate perspective than mere consumers like us.

No different than any old Game Players where the writers constantly bitched about the deluge of ME TOO mascot platformers, "Doom Clones" (or my favorite, "corridor shooters") and Street Fighter ripoffs. This is what these people do, what they have always done. This how the industry has always been.

I find that there's as much variety as ever and it's all more accessible and affordable. PSN/Live has been brilliant. I remember when a little puzzle of pinball cartridge would run you pretty much the same price as a meaty RPG. Hilarious.

 

[LosDaddie]

hmm...this discussion has reminded me that I actually will be doing some retro/classic gaming of my own soon. I bought Earthworm Jim HD last week (on sale for $5 on XBL) and I'm buying Xmen Arcade on launch day. But those are pure nostalgia purchases for me. I doubt either game will last me more than a week before I'm back to playing current games.

 

[ScOULaris]

Anyway, you can find just as much innovation in the new games as you could in past as long as you don't expect these new games to be AAA, because no one would invest $50M in a risky, unproven idea.

So, what? If I want innovation, the game has to be a turd?

That's what's disappointing. There used to be far more AAA games that were also innovative and daring. Like you said, it's investing the money that's the issue. Big budgets and high graphical expectations have led to screwed up priorities in game development and less variety in the games we play. It's not that anyone chose for that to happen, it's just the path this industry has naturally taken, but it's definitely partly the fault of the consumers rewarding iterative game design above all else.

But I will reiterate that money is the overarching issue here, namely the cost (both monetary and duration) of HD console game development. It's prohibitive to creative expression in many ways, and I've heard developers express that same sentiment in interviews this generation. Of course, there are trade-offs to making games this generation like better online integration, more character expression made possible through higher graphical fidelity... etc. But what's the point if all of those benefits are being used to create shooters and sports games for the most part?

It's not the replayability or the lasting effects of games that I am talking about. Some games that were "classics" don't hold up nearly as well today. But it seems like the "great" games of today are less impactful than the great games of previous generations. Perhaps I'm just getting old and progressively more numb to the world, but I'm rarely taken aback anymore buy a game. Uncharted 2 and certain aspects of RDR were the only games this generation to come close, but most of the time a game makes its impact by being technically impressive and little else.

 

[flabberghastly]

And how exactly is that different from Super Mario? Iterative games all suffer for that issue. I've never heard something like "you should play Super Mario World but not Yoshi's Island if you are looking for this (...)" (or vice versa).

I don't think that's necessarily the case with all series. People still specifically single out certain Mario, Final Fantasy, and Castlevania games, to give just a few examples of series. People still look for SMB3, regardless of their interest in 2, just as they still look for FFVII and SotN, regardless of their interest in the entire rest of these series. There are probably also numerous people who've played Half-Life 2 that have never played Half-Life - and not just because it's the newer one, but because it's widely heralded as one of the greatest games of all time. This may eventually be the case with Reach, just as it may eventually be the case with Black Ops, but I suspect it will not.

No, and you know why. Shakespear's plays hold up very well, Another World does not hold up well at all - itmakes a great initial impression but is just a terrible game after that. People had to pay $50 for that 30 minutes experience, Limbo is a much longer and better game (the closest comparable example Icould find) and people nowadays complain about its low value offering at $15. It shows how much better it is nowadays...
Anyway, many games from that period do hold up, but overall it was a worse period than nowadays.

That's simply not true. Most people still consider Shakespeare - or, for that matter, even more modern authors like Joyce - absolutely impenetrable, in the same way they would if they were to go back and play Another World or Ultima IV. I think - and you obviously disagree - that Another World still holds up as an incredible game, so long as we don't expect it to play like NSMBWii or Metriod: Other M.

I won't argue with you on the price points, because for me that's irrelevant. I certainly wouldn't deny that we get more playtime for the money these days, but that has no bearing on the lasting quality of that playtime. And, as someone already pointed out, in the cases where that added playtime comes through online multiplayer, that probably won't count for much a couple decades from now when there's no online support for it.

 

[StuBurns]

Joyce doesn't count if it's regarding Finnegans Wake, The Dubliners is no less accessible than any modern writing.

And Shakespeare was a playwrite not a novelist, no one really reads scripts from any other author, it's hardly a fair comparison.

 

[szaromir]

So, what? If I want innovation, the game has to be a turd?

That's what's disappointing. There used to be far more AAA games that were also innovative and daring. Like you said, it's investing the money that's the issue. Big budgets and high graphical expectations have led to screwed up priorities in game development and less variety in the games we play. It's not that anyone chose for that to happen, it's just the path this industry has naturally taken, but it's definitely partly the fault of the consumers rewarding iterative game design above all else.

But I will reiterate that money is the overarching issue here, namely the cost (both monetary and duration) of HD console game development. It's prohibitive to creative expression in many ways, and I've heard developers express that same sentiment in interviews this generation. Of course, there are trade-offs to making games this generation like better online integration, more character expression made possible through higher graphical fidelity... etc. But what's the point if all of those benefits are being used to create shooters and sports games for the most part?

It's not the replayability or the lasting effects of games that I am talking about. Some games that were "classics" don't hold up nearly as well today. But it seems like the "great" games of today are less impactful than the great games of previous generations. Perhaps I'm just getting old and progressively more numb to the world, but I'm rarely taken aback anymore buy a game. Uncharted 2 and certain aspects of RDR were the only games this generation to come close, but most of the time a game makes its impact by being technically impressive and little else.

AAA effort of yesteryear would be an A effort today. You have a lot of innovation in 'A' games area, I don't see how the situation changed for the worse at all. I'd argue that your examples (Uncharted 2 and RDR) are more technologically driven then the games you seem to be hating (many shooters and sports games), which are gameplay driven. Certainly twin stick controls of Skate or NHL have been a greater innovation than anything in Uncharted 2 or RDR.

But I guess that doesn't count because "they're just sports games and shooters" and shootr or sports games players aren't as invested in gaming as you are.

 

[flabberghastly]

Joyce doesn't count if it's regarding Finnegans Wake, The Dubliners is no less accessible than any modern writing.

And Shakespeare was a playwrite not a novelist, no one really reads scripts from any other author, it's hardly a fair comparison.

I had Ulysses specifically in mind, but I've also encountered plenty of complaints about A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

To claim that no one reads scripts from other playwrights is absurd. That's the most accessible way for approaching most classic playwrights, whether it's Sophocles, Goethe, Ibsen, or Beckett.

 

[djtiesto]

Again, GAF is the only place where I know people play retro/classic games on a regualr basis. Everyone I know IRL plays current games.

Guess you don't really know a lot of people then...

 

[Shanadeus]

Maybe the DS.

But we all now the 3DS will be superior.

 

[szaromir]

I don't think that's necessarily the case with all series. People still specifically single out certain Mario, Final Fantasy, and Castlevania games, to give just a few examples of series. People still look for SMB3, regardless of their interest in 2, just as they still look for FFVII and SotN, regardless of their interest in the entire rest of these series. There are probably also numerous people who've played Half-Life 2 that have never played Half-Life - and not just because it's the newer one, but because it's widely heralded as one of the greatest games of all time. This may eventually be the case with Reach, just as it may eventually be the case with Black Ops, but I suspect it will not.

HL2 is different from HL1, just like Halo 3 is different from Halo 1. HL2 Ep2 is similar to HL2 though (albeit vastly improved in many regards).

People who go back to FF7 even played it at that time or just want to play any old school FF and they are told FF7 was the best (even though it was not), not because they are looking for a game with specific battle implementation. Same goes to Castlevania, everyone everywhere screams how SOTN is the best, that's the primary reason people chack it out, although here I guess it's a matter of action oriented vs metroidvania.

I'd say your example don't hold up to scrutiny, which makes agreeing with your point much harder.

That's simply not true. Most people still consider Shakespeare - or, for that matter, even more modern authors like Joyce - absolutely impenetrable, in the same way they would if they were to go back and play Another World or Ultima IV. I think - and you obviously disagree - that Another World still holds up as an incredible game, so long as we don't expect it to play like NSMBWii or Metriod: Other M.

I won't argue with you on the price points, because for me that's irrelevant. I certainly wouldn't deny that we get more playtime for the money these days, but that has no bearing on the lasting quality of that playtime. And, as someone already pointed out, in the cases where that added playtime comes through online multiplayer, that probably won't count for much a couple decades from now when there's no online support for it.

I read Ulisses and it was penetrable... Another World doesn't hold up, Super Mario World (which was released at the same time) still does, which shows you

 

[LosDaddie]

There used to be far more AAA games that were also innovative and daring.

Can you back up this claim?

Guess you don't really know a lot of people then...

I know enough.

 

[M°°nblade]

When I look at the software library, my current gaming experience is back as good as it was during the '90's.
The SNES and PSX were my favorite consoles, but my x360 and PS3 can stand next to them.

 

[djtiesto]

This Halo vs Call of Duty is irrelevant, Mario was always more popular than Sonic, but people still remember Sonic Genesis games.

Your examples are quite funny to me as I replayed both Doom games and Another World this summer and Doom 2 is still a perfectly playable, fine game whereas Another World has a terrible trial and error gameplay and only being 30 minutes long saves it. Needless to say I completely disagree with the point you are trying to make. A game might be be remembered more fondly by some people, but it won't make it a standout in the long run if it doesn't hold up as a game.

Halo has shown more variation than most JRPG or platform series.

LOL, I take it you don't play much in the way of RPGs or platformers. That was really innovative and mindblowing when Halo 3 added a few new guns into the mix, though, right?

I know enough.

And I know a lot of people who play old games. Quite a few people who don't play games anymore, but then they will come over, see my collection of retro consoles, ask to play something like Mario or Sonic, and then reminisce on how much more fun oldskool games are as compared with Generic Dudebro FPS #17: Vietnam. Anecdotal evidence FTL I guess. There must be somebody buying all those virtual console games and retro compilations put out on the market.

 

[szaromir]

LOL, I take it you don't play much in the way of RPGs or platformers. That was really innovative and mindblowing when Halo 3 added a few new guns into the mix, though, right?

No, replays are. A huge addition in non-sports games (PC games had had it as well, but not across their campaign (that I know of), among some other neat ideas.

I do play platformers, don't play JRPGs anymore (as only 2 out of 20 that I played would classify as good).

 

[djtiesto]

No, replays are. A huge addition in non-sports games (PC games had had it as well, but not across their campaign (that I know of), among some other neat ideas.

I do play platformers, don't play JRPGs anymore (as only 2 out of 20 that I played would classify as good).

Replays are more of a superfluous addition that doesn't really affect the overall gameplay very much. Unlike something like say, the Junction system in FF8 being a major part of its gameplay (and radically different from other FF systems), as stat-building is a core concept of the RPG genre. Or unlike the move from the short, linear, made for speedrunning in Mario 1, to the more nuanced, larger, made for exploration, levels in Mario 3 or (even moreso) World.

 

[M°°nblade]

There must be somebody buying all those virtual console games and retro compilations put out on the market.

In 2020 there will be as much or even more people buying Bioshock, Mass effect, Demon's souls, Mirror's edge, Assassin's creed , ... or remakes of them.

 

[StuBurns]

I had Ulysses specifically in mind, but I've also encountered plenty of complaints about A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

To claim that no one reads scripts from other playwrights is absurd. That's the most accessible way for approaching most classic playwrights, whether it's Sophocles, Goethe, Ibsen, or Beckett.

You think most people have touched that material? I don't know about the states, but everyone in the UK has to read Shakespeare at high school. If we're talking about the broad population (which I thought we were), I don't think Shakespeare is a fair comparison because most people do not read plays outside of his.

This is pretty off topic though. I think Ico will be treated as a classic of early 3D game design, I don't think Reach will be remembered outside of being the last Halo Bungie made. I think it's the best console FPS ever, but a hundred years from now, I doubt it'll be at all notable.

 

[ScOULaris]

I'm glad that this heated discussion has been able to progress with little in the way of outright flaming or insults. Obviously, some of us feel different than other about the state of the current generation, but a healthy discussion such as this is always a good thing.

I really do hope industry insiders and people of influence read threads like this and take something from them.

It's just a shame that I've had to type all of these responses while at work, constantly being pulled away to do job functions. As a result, I go back and read my posts and they seem to slapdash and rambling. I guess that isn't a terrible thing, though. It offers the reader a direct, honest peek into my thought process, even if I might accidentally stumble upon some contradictions or weak points when reviewing what I've written.

And the comparison between complaints about mascot platformers in the 90's and FPS's today is apt. I will say, however, that the complaints back then were as valid as my complaints about FPS's are today. There were too many platformers in the 16-bit era, and people got sick of them. I hope that we will eventually see a similar shift in the focus on first-person shooters in the market.

PS - It's not that I dislike shooters. I liked Half-Life 1 and 2 and all of their mods, Counter-Strike, Goldeneye, BioShock (somewhat), the first Modern Warfare, Red Orchestra, some of the older Unreal Tournament games... etc. The difference between me and a lot of current-gen shooter fans, I guess, is that I've just grown tired of them. It definitely seems like games today borrow even more heavily from one another than ever before, in terms of gameplay, controls, and even visual style. Once in a while, an FPS comes along that does things differently, and if it's a good game as well I will most likely enjoy it. But when every FPS plays like CoD4 (and mostly looks like it as well), I simply cannot muster even the smallest bit of interest. This disinterest applies to any game in any genre that apes most of its concepts and gameplay elements completely from another game. It feels uninspired. You can just tell that the game was made with money in mind, which is something that keeps games from being regarded as an artform. They are so expensive and time-intensive to develop (even indie games nowadays), that it is rare for a game to represent one person's unique vision and for that vision to be THE REASON for the game's development. Even luminaries like Hideo Kojima and Fumito Ueda have gone on record stating that games cannot be art, because they are created with the mindset of the end result being a product. Too much work goes into making a quality game for one to be made with no intention of making a profit.

 

[LosDaddie]

And I know a lot of people who play old games. Quite a few people who don't play games anymore, but then they will come over, see my collection of retro consoles, ask to play something like Mario or Sonic, and then reminisce on how much more fun oldskool games are as compared with Generic Dudebro FPS #17: Vietnam. Anecdotal evidence FTL I guess. There must be somebody buying all those virtual console games and retro compilations put out on the market.

:lol And I never said my evidence was anything more than anecdotal. But it's a good thing you brought up VC games and retro compilations, since we can look at their sales data. How much have these retro packages sold? Is there any VC sales data?

I've never denied people are playing retro games. I just don't think it's mainstream. More like a niche market.

 

[flabberghastly]

HL2 is different from HL1, just like Halo 3 is different from Halo 1. HL2 Ep2 is similar to HL2 though (albeit vastly improved in many regards).

People who go back to FF7 even played it at that time or just want to play any old school FF and they are told FF7 was the best (even though it was not), not because they are looking for a game with specific battle implementation. Same goes to Castlevania, everyone everywhere screams how SOTN is the best, that's the primary reason people chack it out, although here I guess it's a matter of action oriented vs metroidvania.

I'd say your example don't hold up to scrutiny, which makes agreeing with your point much harder.

The fact that "everyone everywhere" is screaming that is precisely what I'm talking about. Those games have been turned into classics such that people who had nothing to do with games - or at least those series - at that time now feel compelled to play them to see what they missed out on. It is this classicization process that I think is ultimately at the root of whether a console generation or a particular console is considered the best ever. Perhaps someday it will be written in stone that Reach is the equal in classical status of FFVII and SotN, but I doubt it will ever get to that point. And while we might dismiss this as the work of nostalgia, this certainly isn't always the case. Someone who's never played a Final Fantasy before XIII, for example, could certainly go back to play the iterations from the PS1 days and come to the conclusion that the PS1 iterations were better. Their judgement wouldn't be clouded by nostalgia at all; and, while it certainly could be biased by the classicization process, I think it would be a very weak argument to claim it is only that which could produce that conclusion in their minds.

I read Ulisses and it was penetrable... Another World doesn't hold up, Super Mario World (which was released at the same time) still does, which shows you

We're not talking specifics here, but instead a mean. While a specific person could potential read Ulysses and play Ultima IV without any issues, this certainly isn't typical of the average results. Certain game mechanics will become entrenched over time, such that modern gaming will reinforce the ability to play classic games, whereas other approaches will become obsolete, and either not playing games using those approaches for a long time or never having played them at all will require learning the mechanics either again or for the first time. Furthermore, this isn't always a retroactive process, but is also evident in the adoption of new forms of mechanics. Take, for example, the use of double joysticks for FPSs. This mechanic wasn't immediately accepted by the masses, and there remain to this day people who complain about their use - that it is difficult, innacurate, poorly substitutes for a mouse and keyboard, etc. - but for a kid raised on CoD, these arguments would probably seem absurd.

You think most people have touched that material? I don't know about the states, but everyone in the UK has to read Shakespeare at high school. If we're talking about the broad population (which I thought we were), I don't think Shakespeare is a fair comparison because most people do not read plays outside of his.

The point there wasn't the universality or lack thereof of attempts to penetrate the classics, whether it's someone everyone knows or someone completely obscure, but that one cannot simply dismiss these classics because a typical modern reader could or couldn't read them.

This is pretty off topic though. I think Ico will be treated as a classic of early 3D game design, I don't think Reach will be remembered outside of being the last Halo Bungie made. I think it's the best console FPS ever, but a hundred years from now, I doubt it'll be at all notable.

That's basically what I've been arguing, too.

 

[szaromir]

Replays are more of a superfluous addition that doesn't really affect the overall gameplay very much. Unlike something like say, the Junction system in FF8 being a major part of its gameplay (and radically different from other FF systems), as stat-building is a core concept of the RPG genre. Or unlike the move from the short, linear, made for speedrunning in Mario 1, to the more nuanced, larger, made for exploration, levels in Mario 3 or (even moreso) World.

I never played FF8 (or 9, 7 made enough of a bad taste in my mouth not try them, I brifly played X but quickly lost interest), so I won't argue on that point.
Halo 3 had pretty big changes in level design as well, from long and stretched levels to short ones with many unique arenas.

This is pretty off topic though. I think Ico will be treated as a classic of early 3D game design, I don't think Reach will be remembered outside of being the last Halo Bungie made. I think it's the best console FPS ever, but a hundred years from now, I doubt it'll be at all notable.

A hundred years from now people will remember Mario or Halo as singular entities, not as individual games... ICO will get totally lost I'm afraid.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

It's not about being a Japanophile or anything like that, but wanting diversity to return to this industry that we all love. Diversity creates a healthier industry I think. It's almost like if you were a huge, long term fan of rock music or country music and since the majority of consumer's preferences have shifted over to rap music, your favorite genres of music started evaporating and becoming niche. Your rock and country are still available here and there, but in limited quantities compared to the overabundance of rap music. If you hate rap music, you might be screwed if you like to buy alot of CD's on a monthly basis. I am sure that there are alot of great ideas out there from western and Japanese developers who are afraid to take risks because of the preferences of gamers and the direction of the industry. Not everyone wants to make portable, Live Arcade and low budget games either. That can definitely be detrimental to the future of our industry.

 

[StuBurns]

That's basically what I've been arguing, too.

I've agreed with you, I just thought the literary comparison was illogical.

 

[LosDaddie]

Perhaps someday it will be written in stone that Reach is the equal in classical status of FFVII and SotN, but I doubt it will ever get to that point.

That all depends on who you ask. A classic to me may not be a classic to you.

I am sure that there are alot of great ideas out there from western and Japanese developers who are afraid to take risks because of the preferences of gamers and the direction of the industry. Not everyone wants to make portable, Live Arcade and low budget games either. That can definitely be detrimental to the future of our industry.

There have been risks taken this gen. Some have succeeded, others have failed. If you guys want more diversity, then you have to buy more games. Like you said, gamers have preferences. You can't forces gamers to buy games they're not interested in.

 

[szaromir]

PS - It's not that I dislike shooters. I liked Half-Life 1 and 2 and all of their mods, Counter-Strike, Goldeneye, BioShock (somewhat), the first Modern Warfare, Red Orchestra, some of the older Unreal Tournament games... etc. The difference between me and a lot of current-gen shooter fans, I guess, is that I've just grown tired of them. It definitely seems like games today borrow even more heavily from one another than ever before, in terms of gameplay, controls, and even visual style. Once in a while, an FPS comes along that does things differently, and if it's a good game as well I will most likely enjoy it. But when every FPS plays like CoD4 (and mostly looks like it as well), I simply cannot muster even the smallest bit of interest. This disinterest applies to any game in any genre that apes most of its concepts and gameplay elements completely from another game. It feels uninspired. You can just tell that the game was made with money in mind, which is something that keeps games from being regarded as an artform. They are so expensive and time-intensive to develop (even indie games nowadays), that it is rare for a game to represent one person's unique vision and for that vision to be THE REASON for the game's development. Even luminaries like Hideo Kojima and Fumito Ueda have gone on record stating that games cannot be art, because they are created with the mindset of the end result being a product. Too much work goes into making a quality game for one to be made with no intention of making a profit.

I don't play many shooters (and have never played), most of them don't interest me so I never got burnt out on them. This generation I played COD2, COD4, STALKER, all Halo games, ArmA2, The Orange Box and Bioshock 1 demo. I immediately lose interest in cover shooters and won't buy any of them at all. But they are such an insignificant part of total number of released, that I can safely ignore them and find plenty of games that do fit my tastes.
There are still genres that I feel are poorely covered (true SRPGs like Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm), but I could just as well blame platformers or JRPGs from stealing resources from developing these games (like you seem to do with shooters).

And Kojima is a mass market developer like Infinity Ward. I'd classify guys like Looking Glass as true luminaries.

The fact that "everyone everywhere" is screaming that is precisely what I'm talking about. Those games have been turned into classics such that people who had nothing to do with games - or at least those series - at that time now feel compelled to play them to see what they missed out on. It is this classicization process that I think is ultimately at the root of whether a console generation or a particular console is considered the best ever. Perhaps someday it will be written in stone that Reach is the equal in classical status of FFVII and SotN, but I doubt it will ever get to that point. And while we might dismiss this as the work of nostalgia, this certainly isn't always the case. Someone who's never played a Final Fantasy before XIII, for example, could certainly go back to play the iterations from the PS1 days and come to the conclusion that the PS1 iterations were better. Their judgement wouldn't be clouded by nostalgia at all; and, while it certainly could be biased by the classicization process, I think it would be a very weak argument to claim it is only that which could produce that conclusion in their minds

Read Halo threads - the split between 1,3 and Reach as the favorite Halo game is pretty even. Which means that older Halos are not made obsolete and while many people like to troll/hate this series and this genre, it is gaming classic that people will return to 10 years from now.

 

[daxter01]

That all depends on who you ask. A classic to me may not be a classic to you.
.

wait what?
so if i think the dark night is a classic it makes the dark night a classic

 

[ScOULaris]

So when the kids of today grow up and look back upon their own personal "classics," the vast majority of them will likely be first-person shooters.

How does that not sound like less variety than the classics we look back upon from our youth?

 

[crops55]

No. There will always be room for improvement. Saying something is the best ever is tempting, but ultimately foolish. My "best evers" have changed numerous times over the course of my life. It's all subjective anyhow.

 

[szaromir]

So when the kids of today grow up and look back upon their own personal "classics," the vast majority of them will likely be first-person shooters.

Platform games, RPGs, music games, puzzle games, arcade style games, action games, adventure games, strategies etc. are all out there and are popular. I think COD's popularity clouds your mind in this case.