Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Games Getting Annoying


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 zyrolasting

zyrolasting

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 08 June 2008 - 05:51 PM

Have you looked at the modern games of today and wonder why the fixation on graphics and dramatized scenes hasn't really called for a huge protest yet? I gotta tell you, some of the games I've enjoyed in the past have taken a huge toll today. Mainly in the form of functionality.

Unreal Tournament. Yes! I have been a loyal fan of this baby since 99, and nothing is more satisfying than blowing a guy's intestines to a solid surface somewhere at least 10 feet away. Screaming bliss.
But the most fun I got out of it is mainly what I could do! Mods were extremely easy to come by and options were very flexible.
In Unreal Tournament 3, the options have been cut down 75%, (namely "Auto Adjust Bot Skill") and they added a plot. Excuse me, a plot?! They never needed that! Even worse, it ends in a cliffhanger. I finished for the sake of trying something new and seeing where things are going. Ugh. Also, the A.I. is embarrassing.

Alright, for those of you who HAVE UT3, start a practice match in the stage themed as an oriental mall in a CTF match. While you dash for the flag and you meet bots on the way, they fire at you until they pass you, and they run along as if they never saw you. I seriously followed the guy to my base breathing down his neck. He did not pay notice. I haven't really know UT to have good A.I., but that was... bad.
Also the bump details on the wall snag the bots (and me) to prevent movement. The bounding boxes conflicted.

I don't think I need to mention that game sequels are starting to become a lot like movie sequels in pattern. At least, that pattern is far more noticeable from retro game eras. You can polish and doll up a statue as much as you like and give it a gun, but it's still a statue.
Take a turd, put it on a pedestal, spray paint it blue and hang a balloon on it, it's still a turd!

What series games have advanced, and disappointed you? Or do you think they are actually getting better?
Please explain each answer if you can.

Edited by zyrolasting, 08 June 2008 - 05:58 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 ill_Nino

ill_Nino

  • Members
  • 90 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:11:31 AM

Posted 08 June 2008 - 07:29 PM

I don't really have much experience in terms of ancient games, to modern games, but I do base it on games that I have played, and notice a vast improvement.

My very first game has to have been Age of Empires, now here is a classical game. Enjoyed playing it all day, everyday, of course I wasn't that great at it. Since then, I stopped playing games, till I got my hands on Diablo & Diablo II. Also, a very interesting game, and I continued to play for a while. (Yes I realise that they are different time frames, this is just the order I played them in)

Then nothing, just played PS2 games, and noticed a huge increase in the "polished" game. But the whole concept of a "game" was lost. Now, they are focusing a hell of a lot more of graphics than gameplay. Many games even start to fail at the graphics concept because they try to overdo it, but fail somehow. An example would be something like the FIFA games.

But up until a month or two ago, I have a game that owns. Not so much Single Player, but the Multiplayer on this game is beyond what I expect, hard. I think that Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare has taken the world by storm for a reason. The Multiplayer is insane! Now, never much being a fan of Counter Strike, I guess it's just because there was such a huge thing for it (I hate following what everyone does XD) I never really tried it. But I ended up doing so, and still not a fan.

Anyway, I believe what you say about some games trying to be polished up. But there are those that do stand out, in my opinion Call Of Duty 4 has done the job of being the perfect game, sure enough some will disagree, but you already have your favorites. This is mine.

Sorry for going a tad bit off topic, but I agree and disagree with your point.

Edited by ill_Nino, 08 June 2008 - 07:30 PM.


#3 zyrolasting

zyrolasting
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 09 June 2008 - 02:10 PM

Oh, believe me, I'm not saying all modern games are getting bad! I totally agree with you that some maintain their spirit and ability to function. I'm glad COD4 worked out for you, I have yet to try that.

Anyway, the graphics fixation was a complaint many gamers had for... God knows how long now. Anybody reading this post have probably seen 30 others like it, but it is a good point. Let me bring up another. Have you noticed that some graphics get so good that you actually lose some game skill from strain trying to comprehend it on a display? My support is that there is SO much more in the environment you have to resigter. Let me use UT3 as an example again. Look at the Deck stage. If you haven't played UT3, let me just say that the stage is composed entirely of metal and specular lighting runs rampant. Very shiny. Now, with as fast paced as this game is, you are whipping your character's view around and you are getting a headache from the detail level of the graphics. That can be a dangerous flaw, considering I got my butt kicked by even Novice bots. Novice. I went to a high difficulty, which is what I'm used to in UT. I got dominated, so I expected that the difficulty curve increased and I essentially suck now. That's fine, but losing to Novice became embarrassing and there had to be factors affecting it. Eye strain and headache. I lowered the detail, and sure enough, I improved.

Graphics are great, but the whole point of graphics to me is their ability to get the idea across. Quality is nice, but not if it comes with a heavy toll, such as requiring a new computer or so. I'm happy with UT99 and 2004. Not as great in graphics, but I do so much more. People love options, yes?

But yeah, I'm not blowing smoke on ALL games. I loved newer ones like Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and so forth. Going a bit off topic for a sec, have you ever said in public to a friend of yours who was an LOZ fan to "go play Twilight Princess"? I'm not kidding when I say some guy laughed and threw fruit at me. Sorry, but I would say that games today are becoming more annoying in general, but I never said they were losing potential. Make it awesome enough and give it an embarrassing name and maybe your game has the power to get people injured by tossed hand fruits. =P

You get my point.

But ill_nino, do me a favor. If someone ever is playing a game near you and is raving about how awesome the graphics are, try saying loudly "Wow! Look at these graphics!" while not looking at any screen whatsoever. You would make a great message! Just point at some bookshelf and say "We should play this game!" I do it a lot, even if I get laughed at or suffer a watermelon injury. This request goes to everyone else if you want to do it. If anything it can make a good joke. Sometimes it helps to make that statement that graphics AREN'T everything.

But we aren't here to be comedians. Any other examples someone can offer for debate or to just mention?

Edited by zyrolasting, 09 June 2008 - 02:17 PM.


#4 protozero

protozero

  • Members
  • 447 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec, Canada,
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 10 June 2008 - 05:49 PM

I agree with you on pretty much everything. Graphics aren't exactly everything, they do help sell the game though.

A lot of game recently that have had amazing graphics haven't been bad. CoD4 is incredible, I've gotten damn good on my 360 with it. Oblivion was great. Crysis was actually pretty good to. And one game that I find always hits the sweetspot. Half-Life 2. Even now it doesn't take much of a computer to run it well and for just some reason the textures and look of the game esily compete with other games.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

#5 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:07:31 PM

Posted 10 June 2008 - 05:52 PM

Graphics often take the place of great game play. Consider Empire Earth and its new versions---pretty enough, but they nerfed the play until there is hardly any challenge left.
Cheers,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#6 zyrolasting

zyrolasting
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 10 June 2008 - 06:30 PM

jqweed-Graphics often take the place of great game play. Consider Empire Earth and its new versions---pretty enough, but they nerfed the play until there is hardly any challenge left.


In addition to what I wrote below, look the last part of that quote. It's important to notice. The "lack of challenge" is a VERY good point. Games are getting really easy, have you noticed? Play some early titles in a series and then play the later ones. Notice the difference?

And protozero, Half Life FTW. Just, FTW.

I'm glad to see there is agreement floating around, but I think we need to take this topic and open up new discussions. Keep the flow going!
Have you ever looked at the action games of today and realized not only are beautified aspects becoming a clever disguise for some, but there are countless borrowed parts of the game that just starts to make all games look alike?! Here's a prime example. Since I'm a sci-fi freak, I'll place more sci-fi examples... :thumbsup: I'll explain if you haven't played these titles.

I want you to look at...

Metroid Prime 3 Corruption for the Wii,
Coded Arms 2 for the PSP,
and Shadow the Hedgehog for the Gamecube (Not REALLY a sci-fi, but approaching)

All three of them are sequels to some aspect, whether it be another game title or a character branching off to have you know him better. Shadow the Hedgehog pretty much follows the latter completely.
In case you haven't heard of these games, I'll get right to the point by saying they all suddenly introduce an unneeded cast of the military.

Coded Arms 2 has Clark, some generic general (heh.) who is effectively monitoring your every move.
Metroid Prime 3 has Admiral Dane, who is the same damn thing only he doesn't talk to you nearly as much and his name is Dane. (Redundancy ftw?)
Shadow has some military guy I don't know much about, but I don't think he's that different.
I can't find pictures unfortunately, but they look exactly like what you expect a hardened war hero to look like.
These type of characters seem to be becoming an annoying staple. Where did this sudden neurotic fixation on the military come from?! I mean, it's only a problem to me in these games.
I think Halo and COD have a good excuse for that. That excuse being: The military is the WHOLE POINT! I'm meaning games more specific to someone passed off as awesome.
I think Halo was still ok for that, since the military was introduced as the series was. That's a big one for me. Try sticking with the cast you've had, and add more guys when it's REALLY necessary, like a new enemy if the last was killed. It's annoying because they feed on the respect we have for the character we want to see. Not just the military, but unneeded characters. Unneeded characters are awful if their additions are abused. Sonic the hedgehog probably has more characters than the Simpsons now. I quit that series. It became way too dumb and childish after the Adventure Dreamcast releases if you ask me. It's sad really, since he was my former favorite. Back on track...

I'm not a Sonic fan anymore, but Samus Aran was my kind of woman. Silent, Athletic and can destroy a planet from the inside out if you just give her about 6 hours of her time. She is awesome! But when the cast begins to grow, what does Samus begin to look like? A regular. Just "The person you are playing as". What happened to the powerhouse I grew to love? They started using her as sex appeal to, but to me it's really not that appealing. As hot as they made her, all the changes began to haze the story I loved. Go in. Be badass enough to destroy a planet and stop the plans of an evil empire. Taste victory, or die trying. Game over.
Yaaay!

Coded Arms. The first one on the PSP was awesome. You are a hacker who took a humanoid form inside a computer system... blah blah you know the rest.
It's just that they don't seem awesome anymore. I know both plots mentioned military action even before they were introduced for the cast, but my point is it was fine that way! Samus worked for this army even in Super Metroid, and we didn't have to hear one of these men talk for YEARS until MP3:C. It just wasn't necessary!

But to support my original point for a pattern of vanishing spirit getting worse over time, Coded arms needed ONE sequel to disappoint me. One.

The changes are drastic, and sometimes not creative at ALL! Even the guy you play as in Coded arms 2 kind of looks like a robot Sam Fisher! (Splinter Cell)
Posted Image
That's my entire point, guys. Drastic changes. I'm no retro freak, but I'm also not looking at a bright future of games when it comes to continuing series.
I'm glad for you guys, again, that COD and other modern games worked out. But if they ever made another sequel and it was awful, what then? What if Hitler had a twin who was genetically cloned and started a project with an island far away and some how, some way, this clone Hitler gets a mecha-nuclear-blow-up-everything-ever-that-doesn't-agree-with-you tank which gives the game an excuse for a cameo appearance of Solid Snake? (I know that's WAY far off, but who knows?) I guess just another game has to come along, but would it really be the same? I'm not down about it, I love change for the most part! Just thinking about it. It's a good topic.
I have a lot more to say, but all my points were pretty much summed up in my article in Memoirs of a Virtual Caveman.

Enough of my input, what about yours?

Edited by zyrolasting, 10 June 2008 - 06:50 PM.


#7 protozero

protozero

  • Members
  • 447 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec, Canada,
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 13 June 2008 - 11:59 AM

Don't even mention that Shadow the Hedgehog game. Trying to implement guns in that game was a terriblee idea.

It looks as if there trying to get back to their roots with the next Sonic installment Sonic Unleashed . The thing that appealed to everyone when it was on the Sega Genesis ( I owned every sonic game for the Genesis and beat them all through and through. )
was that it was a colourful and probably graphicly good game for it time. You could run around at crazy speeds jumping over obstacles, sliding on water or guie rails, and running through tons of loop-ty-loops collecting coins.

They seemed to got some damn colourful graphics with high Anti-Aliasing and the whole trailer is mostly a side-scroller rather then a extremly hard to navigate 3D game where hte object is to run around fast. Look at the trailer yourself HERE

Oh and I thought I'd just throw it in. Games that actually have a good theme and if polished alot more could do so much more.

Kane and Lynch for example. ( yes I know it was a bad game ) The online had a very unique aspect to it that lack ANY depth though. Team up with some people, rob a bank full of NPC's and at any time you can turn on team mate and try and run with all the money. If you killed them they would spawn as a cop and could help you or kill you for a small reward. It added a whole new concept of deception and acting into the game.

Though it only sported 4 maps online, 4 different guns that all fired pretty much the same, no actual reawrds for stealing money that adding onto your score. If you could've bought like new hats and customize stuff with those millions and millions it would've been a decent game.

Edited by protozero, 13 June 2008 - 12:05 PM.

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

#8 zyrolasting

zyrolasting
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 15 June 2008 - 05:16 PM

Don't even mention that Shadow the Hedgehog game. Trying to implement guns in that game was a terriblee idea.


Well, why not mention it? It was the perfect example for "Games getting annoying"!

It looks as if there trying to get back to their roots with the next Sonic installment Sonic Unleashed .


I admit I'm glad the character roster is being dumbed down for the game, but there are still some desires to bring in new features that are unessesary. Remember the "Wolf Sonic"? Gah.
This is a game I MIGHT check out, but after seeing titles before I really have lost most of my interest for the guy. All I can do is keep my fingers crossed.

Kane and Lynch sounds like "Cops and Robbers" in the playground at an action level. Never heard of it, but just hearing about it now didn't seem too appealing.

New example. Metal Gear Acid. I actually like this game, and I'm to guess I'm one of the very few people who do. I know why it can be disliked, and it's obvious! What happened to moving around? What happened to actual stealth? I too was disappointed by that, but I enjoyed how stealth incorporated into strategy via cards. Granted, I wanted normal Metal Gear play. If you ask me, when games make a new theme of gameplay, don't you think it's better to make a whole new title rather than take a theme and paste a famous name like "Solid Snake" in it? ...Of course, it works to do it in advertising. I got it without much thought. Of course, I'm reminded again to be more careful about selection.

Have you noticed that games that intentionally use very very low poly models have amazing play value? Take a look at Me and My Katamari. Freaking weirrrd, but that's what makes it great. The most flamboyant king ever forcing you to show disregard for all things by rolling every thing that ever existed into a... big... ball. Humiliate people in the evolutionary chain by rolling up entire building, mountains and even the people themselves in order to pay tribute to some random animal by turning the ball into an island themed around one aspect like noise. To top it off the king says something like "Easy as Ham." ...Owned? This game just made me think that the developers would really really fun to know in person. In that same sense of lowering graphic detail we got Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker which was just as awesome as any.

Let me keep the topic going with a new question. Compatibility. Can you keep up much longer?

Edited by zyrolasting, 15 June 2008 - 05:20 PM.


#9 ill_Nino

ill_Nino

  • Members
  • 90 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:11:31 AM

Posted 15 June 2008 - 11:37 PM

If your talking about price wise, or system wise?

I think if it were price wise, yes, because I don't ever buy games when they are first released, unless it was a sick game and have heard many good things about eg. GTA4.

But in terms of system, I think they are starting to eat into peoples' pockets. I for one, would not be too keen on forking out $1,000 for a PS3, so when the $600 console came out, I was still a bit iffy, and only wanted to buy it because the PS2 was playing up... only to find out, the cheaper one did not have Back-Play Compatibility.

Through PC, I don't think I will have a problem for quite a while with requirements, as at the start of the year, I bought a decent computer that will last me at least the next 2-3 years easily.

#10 zyrolasting

zyrolasting
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 16 June 2008 - 09:29 PM

If your talking about price wise, or system wise?

I think if it were price wise, yes, because I don't ever buy games when they are first released, unless it was a sick game and have heard many good things about eg. GTA4.

But in terms of system, I think they are starting to eat into peoples' pockets. I for one, would not be too keen on forking out $1,000 for a PS3, so when the $600 console came out, I was still a bit iffy, and only wanted to buy it because the PS2 was playing up... only to find out, the cheaper one did not have Back-Play Compatibility.

Through PC, I don't think I will have a problem for quite a while with requirements, as at the start of the year, I bought a decent computer that will last me at least the next 2-3 years easily.


I haven't really heard of that thing being a grand, but I agree any amount they proposed was too much. As for the beautiful graphics that thing can make, you have to wonder why it isn't really being taken advantage of. You know, there is actually an IBM military supercomputer named "Roadrunner" with technologies based on the PS3. Great. So... What's the point of having it? By that I mean, if you get it, all I see really happening is the ability to say "I have the basis of a military supercomputer!" Haven't we heard that story before?

I think the Back-Play issue was fixed. The issue was also noted in one nation. (Can't remember if it was here or Japan... Most likely here)

Let me bring up another point. The 360 had a bad problem with heat on it's first release, along with some disc read issues. In that respect, Windows Vista had a VERY bad stumbling start. Someone who attempted to use Vista at my job could not communicate with any XP computer there. Period. New question, don't the corporations seem a little... eager?

As for keeping up through PC? I don't know, man. Two points make some serious issues.

1- My computer is beautiful too, but there are already games that are out of it's reach.

I have an Alienware Area-51 7500,
Core Duo 2.66 GHz (Intel)
3GB of DDR2 RAM (Read incorrectly in my WinXP due to OS limits, but seems fine)
Nvidia 8600 GTS 256MB... Really all that needs to be mentioned.

Of course, there is a computer 12 times as powerful as the last being made every 2 months, but
I would at least expect Rainbow Six Vegas to run. Turns out, no. I don't meet the processor requirement.
Wha?! God! The next step up is a Quad, but why the hell would I fork out the money when I thought I already had a lovely processor?!

I mean, technology moves about as fast as my processor, which is kind of sad. I only got this computer last September, (when it was all the rage) but now people would probably say "You use THAT?!"
My response would be: Yeah man. I do. I see you use a computer that looks like it should be in a tense bomb defusing scene right on the freaking TOWER,
Posted Image
and you spent (I guess) 11 grand on it and probably don't use it for anything worthwhile in the long run like developing. Which I do.
SO, if you see me with a flash drive and an evil smile on my face, make sure you can get to your precious computer before I have some fun.

...But anyway, I still think it works for me. I know people who still have Gateways and MHz processors, but I don't see those as old. Think about it. Our range of interests in the recent generations really picked around the in the 80s. No biggie, but it's still frightening that when you fork out 2 grand for a computer that is amazing... It sucks butt you see a game out of reach just 3 months later.
Right now there is some guy sitting around and he goes "*Snoooort* hehehe! Floppy disk!"

2-The retro phase is phasing out. This is very bad right here. My previously mentioned Nvidia card will not run below DirectX7. Whoa. No. The whole point of better technology is for it to do more, not forcefully limit the user to
leave things behind. At all! Change is fine, and the future is fine. But we really aren't proving much of our abilities if we move technology like this.


- = Things not used by our technology.
| = What our technology can do.

1980
||-------...etc
1990
|||||||--...etc
2000+
---|||||-

Doesn't that seem aggravating? I wanted to play my copy of Metal Gear Solid on the PC. It was an original, and I had to bust my ass to get it. (Along with Dark Planet: Battle for Natrolis) What can I say? I'm loyal to my old favorites! They wouldn't run. Simple as that. Naturally I call up alienware support to complain and I get the whole "We're so sorry" speech. Thanks guys. Your gaming computers really do so, SO much! Oh, except for what IT SHOULD CLEARLY RUN. compatibility mode doesn't even help. I mean it when I say that my Graphics card is "Too good"! Can't tell you how much that confuses me. Of course the phone conversation got me nowhere, and I'm thinking I should have realized that before I called. Bleh. I should shut up and play BioShock, huh?

Ugh. compatibility can be bad to me. We keep moving along and forking out cash for these things, but I'm deciding to just stop buying this stuff. I'm still a hardcore gamer and I will buy games as long as I live, but not so sure about the systems and the upgrades that would have been nice when the first model came out. PSP Slim and DS Lite. Great. Thanks. Put real meaning to "Does my game system make me look fat?"

So yeah, back to the above question. Companies seem eager. Any experiences to share?

Edited by zyrolasting, 16 June 2008 - 09:45 PM.


#11 protozero

protozero

  • Members
  • 447 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec, Canada,
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:10 AM

I get exactly what you mean. Were moving way to damn fast in the hardware market. Companies like AMD, Intel, and nVidia are so into rushing out things that aren't even fully supported by previous generations of software.

I love my 360 and all and don't care about playing my older Xbox v1 games on it. I believe the PS3 had some backwards compatibility problems at first. And little Nintendo's DS even today will support those big gray game from the 90's.

I've kinda' given up on PC gaming. Now the only good games on it are ports that come 6 months later from the 360. I don't have much in terms of a good computer with a X1950 Pro and a Athlon +3500 but it runs all my games in good settings. I only really play Counter-Strike and Age of Empires 3 sometimes on my PC, I play everything else on my 360.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

#12 ill_Nino

ill_Nino

  • Members
  • 90 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:11:31 AM

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:02 PM

I get exactly what you mean. Were moving way to damn fast in the hardware market. Companies like AMD, Intel, and nVidia are so into rushing out things that aren't even fully supported by previous generations of software.

I love my 360 and all and don't care about playing my older Xbox v1 games on it. I believe the PS3 had some backwards compatibility problems at first. And little Nintendo's DS even today will support those big gray game from the 90's.


I don't know, but I'm Australian, and the systems here don't have Backwards capability. As for the DS, not even the GB COLOUR was supported there, only GB Advanced games.

You know but, in terms of "technology" advancing. I think it's actually more due to the fact that programmers aren't really "writing" software, and "manufacturing" hardware.

Think about it... nowadays, software makes software, and hardware makes hardware. It wasn't like this 20-30 years ago, where everything was done by hand literally. If you want to know more of what I mean, go here.

#13 zyrolasting

zyrolasting
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 17 June 2008 - 11:51 PM

I get exactly what you mean. Were moving way to damn fast in the hardware market. Companies like AMD, Intel, and nVidia are so into rushing out things that aren't even fully supported by previous generations of software. I love my 360 and all and don't care about playing my older Xbox v1 games on it. I believe the PS3 had some backwards compatibility problems at first. And little Nintendo's DS even today will support those big gray game from the 90's. I've kinda' given up on PC gaming. Now the only good games on it are ports that come 6 months later from the 360. I don't have much in terms of a good computer with a X1950 Pro and a Athlon +3500 but it runs all my games in good settings. I only really play Counter-Strike and Age of Empires 3 sometimes on my PC, I play everything else on my 360.


If things work, things work. There are still issues of being left in the virtual dust, not nessessarily because of the games, but because of what ill Nino pointed out, which I will address in a second.

Not even my original DS could handle Game Boy (Color). I can't tell you how pissed I was when I couldn't fit the sucker in there. It may just be my DS, but I wasn't the only one. I'm not sure about the Lite, but I traded my DS in, which brings my next topic. Value. Gamestop offers you $20 for a system you paid $100 for. Under what circumstance would you accept such a horrid trade? I only trade my Games in at a GameTrader, which is unfortunately a VERY scarce chain. I don't have access now, so I go Amazon/Craigslist. It wouldn't surprise me if Gamestop bought that out too, anyway.

I don't know, but I'm Australian, and the systems here don't have Backwards capability. As for the DS, not even the GB COLOUR was supported there, only GB Advanced games.
You know but, in terms of "technology" advancing. I think it's actually more due to the fact that programmers aren't really "writing" software, and "manufacturing" hardware.
Think about it... nowadays, software makes software, and hardware makes hardware. It wasn't like this 20-30 years ago, where everything was done by hand literally. If you want to know more of what I mean, go here.


Point made simply and well. I don't think that article was the best reference ever, but I understand where you are coming from. But your point reminds me of the perfect example. Disney animators. Can you IMAGINE making such smooth animation by hand? Such high quality with only your ability to visualize, a pencil/canvas and a single-shot camera? That is determination and damn impressive work. Now what do we have? Software that can take just 2 points in time and the software interlopes all data. The keyframes! Pixar pretty much IS disney now, and you can tell the powerful 3D modeler Maya is responsible.

But one thing I have to ask. (Mainly since I am a proud owner of Maya myself... =P) Is this completely bad? This made things easier, but there is one thing to really understand. Technology has made our lives so easy that we as humans are effectively useless. Values have plummeted in pretty much everything. However, I think if the same fixated effort were to be put into current works as were the early masterpieces, we would have media built only to send SHOCKWAVES of brilliance and wonder. Computers can do virtually everything now. We can't really do everything, but we can simulate everything. I guess a valid assumption is that humans have gotten... Lazy?

Uh, Yeah?! Hey, look around. Easy to see, right? Now I have three questions... (Don't need to answer em all, just for the topic life!!)

1. How does the value of games seem to you today? Both in personal taste and mass-decided price?


2. Do you think if someone were to buckle down and take FULL, UNRESTRICTED advantage of today's possibilities from just ONE PC and amaze everyone, do you think people will be motivated to turn things around? Or is the creative genius going to be his own genius?


Oh, and for the sake of EXTRA fun! One more question that will be good to discuss.

3. MMORPGS. WoW, Guild Wars, EVE... Perfect games, or fatally addicting?
I played WoW, but (this actually surprised people since they didn't know how to do it) I quit. I dropped my level 50-something guy and quit. Why? I became pitiful! I gained weight. My development speed slowed and I became pissy to people when I was fighting fictional thingies. I didn't like it, since the game affected me physically. Quickly! I quit WoW, and that's what people said to me. (You know, as if it was really, really difficult) "Wow! You QUIT?! Convince my son to do that!"
It seems to me that if a game is so addicting and fun that parents in S. Korea (I think, check news headlines) kill their kids from neglect due to their addiction, and some guy starves himself (Gawd, people!) something is terribly wrong. I know about discipline, but I also know about problems. As in, intervention causing problems.
Your thoughts...?

Edited by zyrolasting, 17 June 2008 - 11:57 PM.


#14 protozero

protozero

  • Members
  • 447 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec, Canada,
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 18 June 2008 - 11:18 AM

I think MMORPG's are just terrible. I played an MMO named Graal. It was the same sort of concept with leveling and very addicting.

I won't go near any MMORPG games anymore. They consume far to much time and if I was busy on the game doing something "important" I would put off everything, dinner, friends. I only play games that END. Good games have an ending in some sort, not a level that keeps getting shot up and newer armor and stuff.

Fifa Soccer, Counter-Strike, CoD4, AoE3 ( takes an hour, but it ends ) These games end and if I have something to do it will only take 2 minutes before it's over and doesn't take up a whoel life.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

#15 zyrolasting

zyrolasting
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:31 PM

Posted 18 June 2008 - 12:04 PM

You think you would eventually become unstoppable, but then there is the update moving the finish line away.

This ties into altered "values" now, doesn't it? Why do we feel it's so important? Because we can't effectively pause? We don't want to piss off our party? because it feels like a chat room where people can witness your actions rather than words? Whatever the case, it's odd. I've asked so many people before I played "What do you see in WoW?" and their response was always "Don't know. It's just fun!" When I finally got the game, it was awesome. I didn't think my physical reaction was, like I said already. But when people asked me the same above question, I found myself for a lack of an answer too. WHat DID I see in it? I think it's most because I made good friends on there, and enjoy the company. It's not ENTIRELY fictional, since a couple of them actually became so close that I met them personally after 2-3 years of playing online. ...But I know there can be other factors that draw you in, so I'll just go with black magic. Not too intent on figuring that one out. I just quit the game and went on with my life. I'm glad I'm still in contact with my buddies, that's my primary concern there.

But more about values! Have you seen the tournaments?!? Gawd! $180,000 payout for one WoW tourney! I have a vague memory of a mil (might be wrong) Why?! If you win that, you probably already spent around that much in the game monthly fee knowing online competition anyway! So it's kinda like a rebate you can lose in battle. It seems to me that if you can make $180 grand in a virtual tournament that probably requires isolation from society to train, the decisions on where that money goes will probably suck.

The values seem to have impacted the millions of WoW players. They can NOT get enough of it. Nothing is more fun to some of these guys. I mean, even I found myself not playing my all time favorites otherwise! Like I said, this can be enough to have some deprive themselves of food. To ignore their children to an early death. Not only did the players like myself show a weakness in discipline, but I think something is very, very sick. It'd be funny if Blizzard had their asses sued off because of accusations of them using subliminal messages. "Stayyyy with meeeee..." I won't get nutty there, though. I just quit, and the chapter of my life with that game is over.

So MMORPGS have a dangerous addiction, gameplay and fun value, but poor moral and financial value. Hm.

I still have my 2 other questions from my last post, or if anyone else has thoughts on this or any other already discussed topic, please chip in!
I have many questions in my arsenal, but I think you figured that out by now...

Edited by zyrolasting, 18 June 2008 - 12:12 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users