auburok

@redbliss said:

I am sorry, but you must not have been playing a lot of games back then. There were more than enough awful games to keep anyone playing just those for a lifetime. Just ask the AVGN, he has made a career off of them. IMO, I think the reverse is true. I think that today shitty games are less common (out of all the full retail games). On the Wii there are a ton of shovelware games, but that is pretty much it. I think the reason is that nowadays the cost of entry into the business of making video games is so high that you need to have a quality product in order to compete, or there is no way you are going to make your money back. Every now and then a cheap game will come along that appeals to the casual crowd, but that doesnt happen very often.  Back in the day, though, there were about ten awful platformers for every Mario or Zelda. The old consoles definitely had their fair share of terrible titles.

If I may use your post as a starting point for my own, after reading the TC's first post, I too shared the same sentiments as you.  After rereading his post, I think I get what he is saying.  Yes, undoubtedly, there were more crappy games churned out back then, and the costs of entry were much lower.  Therefore, in an environment of a market saturated with crappy games that was fostered by low costs of entry, for a game to really stand out and shine, it was imperative for a game to be of high quality - as measured by how polished it was (with respect to the standards back in the day) and most importantly how much it broke new ground, as well as various other intangible factors.  Yes, the barriers of entry are higher today and so it is still imperative to make a high quality game, but quality today is measured differently especially when viewing the development of video games from a business perspective.  Back then, there wasn't much of a business mentality driving the development of video games.  The really great games back in the day were driven purely by a desire to create something fresh, not maximize profit as it is viewed today.  So, what do I mean 'high quality' today is measured differently?  Well, as someone pointed out, it's mass appeal and depending on lowest common denominator to make sales.  The high costs of entry in making video games today absolutely necessitates being on the safe side when analyzing cost-benefit calculations, thus creating an environment where taking the risk to break new ground can turn out to be even more costly than the costs accrued during development.

I'm not going to read this text wall due to the fact it screams hipster.

Got news for you Overlord and to a lesser extent Pikmin fucking sucked. 

@auburok: Welcome to Giant Bomb. You'll find that seventy-five percent of the old community has dissipated, and you'll see we've been inundated with retards who proclaim anything they disagree with, or logical and well explained arguments as trolling, pretentious and the usual TL;DR.  I agree with absolutely everything you said. What you have stated is a simple observation that I feel more serious videogamers need to be talking about. Progress has absolutely stagnated, and the reason why old games usually worked, is because they had such a small timeframe to work within, so it's far more impressive when those guys can churn out something awesome, where as these days, the large developers are tripping and stumbling their way through the next yearly installment just to come out with an experience that is unchanged and derivative as hell, but in time for the masses to eat it up and proclaim that it's the greatest thing ever.  Videogaming is a hobby, and I care more about anything, this particular subject. You have a well reasoned and intelligent argument, and your defenses are well held as you have experience in this industry. Please, stay awhile. We need more users like you with an open mind.

@auburok: 
Reviews affect AAA titles the most. Word of mouth can still be a factor not just reviews, take a look at examples like DA2 or Witcher1.
You yourself mention DA2, look how that turned out, it got nice sales due to pre orders, but after 1st week the drop off was incredible due to poor word of mouth. Witcher 1 is the reverse of that.

Oh man that was a repulsive post, I think I hate you more than people who only play CoD all the time. Get that nostalgia dildo out your ass buddy it`s making you look bad. Games were just as shitty back in the day, ask that angry Nintendo nerd on Gametrailers.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Veektarius said:

@auburok: And you bring up Bioshock, which also was an original undertaking.

I guess you've never heard of System Shock or System Shock 2.

System Shock 2 did everything BioShock did before BioShock was a thing, and even better and more compelling, too.

I'll agree that more games should be rewarded for creativity. Its sad to see games like God Hand or Enslaved bomb, but see goddamn Call of Duty and Halo merchandise everywhere.  However, its the same shit everywhere else. Mass appeal and common denominators rule all entertainment media. Movies, Comics, Music, and Literature are no different. You're going to have your Avatars, your Family Guys, your Twilights. But that doesn't really matter, because there is a market for people sick of the same old shit. Indie games get made, Cannes exists, and we have a million independent publishers for books and comics. If your big budget movie doesn't make its money back, guess what, you're probably not going to direct another one at that scale. If your book doesn't sell enough to meet a quota, you're not likely to get published with the same company.  But like I said, progress and something new will happen, if you make a good game, someone is going to notice.

@kingzetta

So you don't like some games, therefore all games suck? You're just a jackass, and even a fun jackass like me.

I always see this wall of text as desperate attempts to call attention. You are ignoring so many hard variables (means they are not submiting to opinion) such as market size, production cost and cycle, marketing and distribution models and evolution, That pretty much invalidates all of your cliche assumption about "gamers" that I don't even feel like discussing..

Anyway if you, and other fellow duders want to hear some people that know a shit about this industry go listen to the latest Ken Levine's Irration Interview podcast - Last edition : If you’ve played Civilization II, Alpha Centauri, Rise of Nations, or Frontierville, you know the work of Brian Reynolds. Having spent 30 years (and counting) making games, Brian’s game design experience spans the most hardcore to the most casual. He co-founded Firaxis Games and Big Huge Games, and he’s now Chief Game Designer at social game giant Zynga.

So yeah there you go some people that is being actually working in the industry for long ago, Talking about what you trying to write about... but you know.. like done right.

Btw I think you are the twatt that told me I only play WoW.. first if that were true what's wrong about it? Being not the case, While you were playing Battletoads in your Nes I was actually playing good adult themed games on the PC back on the late 80s and 90s.. haven't stop since then.

Less assumptions more brains.

You say the 'average male today' is a COD-humping and graphics obsessed fool at first,  but then in the next paragraph you say that the 'call of duty kid isnt the average gamer'? I'm not getting at you but I just thought it was a little confusing. I agree that there are many COD fanatics or people obsessed with their gaming rig, but I still feel that is only one section of gaming society. Itll dry up eventually. There are still plenty of fresh releases and unique ideas coming out, and as a 90's kid myself id say there were plenty of good games but also plenty of mediocre ones.  I will agree that the review process has changed somewhat, with more games being compared to this and that and more emphasis put on the score. I cant remember if it was MoH or BiA reviewed by gamespot and the guy mentioned COD 5 or 6 times in comparison.

I see your point and where you're coming from. I don't see the CoD craze lasting for more than a year from now. Oversaturation is never good. Perhaps games being seen as an art form has made us beyond cynical, and made certain people pigeonhole themselves into a single genre. I don't think being a nerd becoming a cool thing, nor game elitism has helped any. In some ways, such as tech, we are further than where we came from. However, it seems with the maturity of games, some gamers have regressed.

@auburok:   You see famine, I see feast.  You're lambasting the same public that provided the opportunity for the current breadth of this industry.  To put it simply, if it were not for these casual-ass dudebro players, you probably wouldn't have ever worked at 2K as the market wouldn't have exploded so well in the last decade had the common vernacular not included "Video games".  These people paved the way for social acceptance for our chosen media consumption.  We are no longer the equivalent of lepers in the dark ages.  A controller in your hand no longer means that same hand will be the one you date.  I think you have way too much vitriol for the same people that help fund those cool-ass original games like Bioshock and Red Dead Redemption with their purchase of yearly shit.   Not every movie goer watches haughty foreign films and not every video game player plays complex RPGS from Eastern Europe.  Take a second, take a shit and perhaps climb off that high horse.  Besides, I think you're overlooking the coolest development in these recent video game times.  The indie scene has EXPLODED with good and interesting games.  Small groups of developers can make it without the help of big-time publishers and signing away the rights.  Games like OctoDad or Magika would have never seen the light of day if proposed at a larger company.  You want innovation and creativity?  Look no further than your internet browser and the indie scene!  *edited for poor grammar

@auburok: In fact you're wrong, people did not "know" any game sucked without reviews until one of their friends (or they themselves) bought it and saw the result.  As a consequence, a poorly made game of the like often reviewed on AVGN for the NES or to a lesser degree the SNES could still generate a profit by repeatedly luring in unsuspecting customers.  The fact that reviews are now so relevant to a game's production establishes that quality now is widely studied before a purchase is made.  You blame this trend for the emergence of annualized AAA sequelitis, but I simply don't believe it's the case that stellar review go out disproportionately to sequels, any more than sufficient manpower and funding goes out to them.     You bring up LA Noire as a game that you apparently didn't like that a corrupt review industry overrated.  I'd agree that 5 stars was too many, but not that it's a bad game.  More to the point, LA Noire was anything but a sequel.  It didn't even imitate the features of a similar, popular game.  And you bring up Bioshock, which also was an original undertaking.  The game review industry and by extension, Metacritic, are equally as supportive of original titles as sequels.  Do original titles with buggy gameplay, poor art assets or voice acting, or poor translation get lower marks?  Yes, as they should.  A game is not objectively better because someone without a lot of money made it.  If a bunch of rednecks build a car in their back yard out of old beer cans and duct tape, does the fact they put a lot more per-unit effort into it than the workers at a Ford plant in Michigan compensate for the fact it's a piece of shit?

@Slaker117

@Veektarius said:

@auburok: In fact you're wrong, people did not "know" any game sucked without reviews until one of their friends (or they themselves) bought it and saw the result.  As a consequence, a poorly made game of the like often reviewed on AVGN for the NES or to a lesser degree the SNES could still generate a profit by repeatedly luring in unsuspecting customers.  The fact that reviews are now so relevant to a game's production establishes that quality now is widely studied before a purchase is made.  You blame this trend for the emergence of annualized AAA sequelitis, but I simply don't believe it's the case that stellar review go out disproportionately to sequels, any more than sufficient manpower and funding goes out to them.     You bring up LA Noire as a game that you apparently didn't like that a corrupt review industry overrated.  I'd agree that 5 stars was too many, but not that it's a bad game.  More to the point, LA Noire was anything but a sequel.  It didn't even imitate the features of a similar, popular game.  And you bring up Bioshock, which also was an original undertaking.  The game review industry and by extension, Metacritic, are equally as supportive of original titles as sequels.  Do original titles with buggy gameplay, poor art assets or voice acting, or poor translation get lower marks?  Yes, as they should.  A game is not objectively better because someone without a lot of money made it.  If a bunch of rednecks build a car in their back yard out of old beer cans and duct tape, does the fact they put a lot more per-unit effort into it than the workers at a Ford plant in Michigan compensate for the fact it's a piece of shit?

I agree with everything said in this post. But if some rednecks made a car out of beer cans and duct tape and it actually worked, I would be damned impressed. I wouldn't want one, but still. That would be awesome. 

@Veektarius

@Slaker117: It's a good analogy to a game like hydrophobia.  Yeah, cool that they did that.  Don't want it on my hard drive, though.

@Coombs: 
 
Have you played it? It consists of Firion saying, "Eh, maybe I'll att-NO, I CHANGED M-I guess it would be O-NO, I WANT TO CA-no, I guess I'll att-FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I NEED TO USE TH-but an attack would be so m-hooray! Level up!" As for @auburok:, damn it. Tons of nuanced and more valid points. I'm not sure I can handle them outside my own personal experiences reviewing games. I don't know how many reviewers review games (except for one, and I fucking hate him for that).  

old people are so annoying

Wait, there weren't shit games before modern consoles? Then what about Bubsy, Punky Skunk, Brain Lord, 7th Saga, Phantasmagoria, Final Fantasy II, Demon Sword, Chester Cheetah, Arrow Flash, Super Thunder Blade, and a bevy of other shit games? But maybe you're thinking that games back then sucked less. To that, I respond with this subjective point: my least favorite game ever came out on the Genesis. In 1993. All of this is just one point that manages to anger me whenever I see somebody spew it.

"If it's not Call of Duty, I don't care," 
About eight years ago, trends changed. I grew up in the 80's and 90's where video games were something only a few kids enjoyed. Sure, there would be a few shitty games every once in a while; a game mechanic or two that wasn't thought out, or a boring level designer. Shitty games, though, were not only less common, but the scope of what made a shitty game was a lot smaller, too. Trends change, though. The demographic widened, and a lot of generalized aspects flooded gaming like ads during the Super Bowl.
 
The average male today is a size queen for graphics. If your anti-aliasing isn't 4x, and your maps aren't bumpin', they want nothing to do with you. He's been fed FPS games a few times a year, usually in the form of the odd "Call of Duty killer" and Call of Duty. He's got a gay crush on Captain Price, a hate for campers (and a love for bitching about how they can't kill someone they attack from the same angle over and over again), and a raging hard on for yearly installments. Call of Duty is the easy prey, as it basically is the Madden of first person shooters. Pick a plot, reskin all the guns, and have everyone ignore it to play online. Maybe it feels cozy, or maybe it's a security issue to feel that familiar with a new game, but it's dumbing down developers. Much like how World of WarCraft's success has made MMORPGs stagnant, Call of Duty's indoctrinated fans push other developers to attempt to garner the same results. 
 
But here's the problem: the Call of Duty kid isn't the average gamer. Gamers, back when it was a pariah-like term, played a lot of games. Sure, they'd have a preferred style, but they'd delve in to other, foreign genres from time to time and possibly nurture a love affair with a particular franchise, or sub-genre. The sort of person that would stick to the same games year after year was the sports fan. Fantasy football or baseball, yearly, sprinkled with promises of improved graphics, updated rosters, and additional tweaks. He had no interested in Final Fantasy, and Sonic "came with the thing," and, "was okay, but I bought this for Madden". They shunned the accompanying title of owning and playing a console, and were private about the few times they'd turn the SNES or Genesis on.
 
This sort of gamer is the kind of guy that marries the first thing that'll fuck him, and clings to it, not knowing any better, or of anything else. The best option for that person when he likes a game that's similar to other games, is to wait until the next game in that series comes out. He's the kind of guy that if he enjoyed Pikmin games, he'd still be waiting rather than getting occasional gameplay snacks like Overlord. This no-nonsense hording of security issues is what stifles new decent games to play, because while waiting for Pikmin, you still vote with your money. Games like Pikmin and Overlord aren't common, and with no demand to fill, that genre is practically devoid of new games or new features. Sometimes we get a miracle, like the changes from Assassin's Creed to it's sequel, or a much deviated, spiritual sequel or successor like Rock Band. Gamers, even kids hung up on a single series of games, aren't all the same. There's no consensus on how games should be, or what makes a great game. Professional game reviewers are too hung up on stars, letter grades, or fractions for scores rather than recommending a game based on what sort of game you are looking for. How hard is it to do this:
 
"If you're a fan of survival horror and sandbox games, Dead Rising 2 is worth your time."
 
Or:
 
"Fans of puzzle games and RPG elements should give the Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes trial a run through."
 
When reviews are too hung up on other games to acknowledge the are playing a separate game, the results are always bad. Ignore the developer, the publisher, and the accolades from E3. Play it, and recommend it to someone who'd want to play it, rather than damn it for not looking as nice as Gears of War 3's beta, or worse, obviously looking better on a monster PC with ram to burn. Some of us just like to game, and some of us want new, interesting experiences.
 
Yeah, we all got money issues, and we all like to play those hugely advertised triple-A titles. Keep in mind, though: feed the little guy. Buy a game ("new", from retail, or download from steam) from them if you think they show promise. Give them your feedback. Let them know what to improve, and if they have a good idea on their hands. That is, of course, you don't mind a gaming market flooded with Music Hero games, Call of Duties, WoW clones, or games blatantly copying indie studio games without any idea how to expand the concepts presented.