@Zabant said:
@JazGalaxy said:
@DeeGee said:
@JazGalaxy said:
As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion. So it's not trendy? Okay. Who cares? I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics. A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.
What are you talking about? Games don't play like they used to for a reason. There's a difference between trendy and trendy because this was all the technology was capable of. If Streets of Rage 4 came out today, it'd be garbage because those types of games just don't work in this day and age.
Bollocks. Games are trendy. They don't "evolve" like many gamers try to pretend. The modern style of highly scripted thrill-ride FPS games are in no way "better" than older styled games. Sure graphics get better as hardware gets better, but very few gameplay decisions are based around hardware. Maybe you have to have played games long enough to get it, but trends come in and out of fashion in games just like they do in clothes. I mean, crap, you know how "co-op gaming" is all the rage right now? It was in the NES and SNES era as well. Then the PSX era abandoned it because it just wasn't trendy. It didn't somehow get less FUN until Halo suddenly "invented it". It just wasn't what pop culture gamers cared about. Rechargeable health, aiming down the sites, cover... these are all trends that will go in and out of fashion for the next ten years just like level based gameplay, objective based gameplay, large scale vs. small scale multiplayer and realism vs. absurdest gameplay has.
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Be quiet, if you think a gameplay mechanics go through "trends" and not evolutions and improvements you are a tool. GUYS, THE REASON YOU CANT LOOK UP AND DOWN IN DOOM IS BECAUSE IT WAS TRENDY. NOT BECAUSE NOBODY HAD THOUGHT OF VERTICAL GAMEPLAY OR TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS HOLDING IT BACK.
JazGalaxy has some points, while games are still very much in a state where technical improvements can affect gameplay, most changes since we left the 2D era in favor of polygons only affect the looks rather than the gameplay, the "games have evolved since then" stuff is often exaggerated. Yes, the Doom and Wolfenstein 3D engines couldn't handle the player looking up/down both due to how the engine worked, and because sprites look horribly deformed if you do that (as proven when mouse look was added to the Doom engine by BOOM, ZDOOM etc.), but the Quake, Build and System Shock engines did. The reason FPSes for a few years abandoned "iron sights" was not likely due to technical constraints, but more that they could show off cool or realistic weapon models better if you saw them on the right hand corner of the screen instead of in the center at all times. While BUILD (Duke Nukem, Blood etc.) and Quake engine games often utilized vertical level design heavily, most modern games really don't, and it's probably not because it's gotten harder to create vertical environments since then, but because the current trends in FPS level design is the heavily focused and scripted path, where you don't have to care about opening doors or deriving from the straight path ahead of you. There is evolution in game mechanics, but it takes place over much longer time spans than many people seem to think, physics for example have been attempted in FPS games since Doom, started to be interesting around Jurassic Park: Trespasser and Red Faction, but arguably couldn't convey stuff like weight/mass (or friction, Trespasser's most notable flaw) until Half-Life 2, and since then most FPS/TPS's, whether an integral part of the gameplay or not, have had an physics engine with the most recent (released) evolutionary step probably being the physics based destruction in Red Faction Guerrilla/Armageddon and Battlefield: Bad Company 2, which not only affects gameplay but also level design.
Regenerating health, limiting the player to 2 or 3 carried weapons or the narrow corridor level design of games like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor do seem more like trends than evolution (and there weren't any technological limitations making them impossible in the past), though it should always be kept in mind that these kinds of things are notoriously hard to see while they happen, and are more easily recognized in hind-sight.
Quite right. I think you put it better than I could. 
Log in to comment