Things That Bother You About Gaming

[Spark Of Spirit]

But I mean, offering the same gameplay but with more space, smarter enemies, and more of them doesn't really make anything better.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one point. Smarter AI makes a BIG difference in gameplay and its something which I fully appreciate if a developer pulls it off well. It makes a simplistic game into a deep and challenging one that actually requires active player thought and strategy. That is to say, it essentially changes the entire style of gameplay (and for the better, IMO). If Halo or F.E.A.R. didn't have intelligent AI, they would basically just be inferior versions of Call of Duty (as in running out, aiming, shooting enemies, and then popping behind some cover for a few seconds and then rinsing and repeating the same tactic throughout the entire game). However because those games have intelligent AI (with Halo its only on the harder difficulties, though), they are played in a completely different kind of way, and actually force you to think about the situation at hand and make good decisions about which weapons to use and how to utilize your environment to your advantage. That's just one example, but the general idea is that smarter enemies is definitely a big deal in terms of changing gameplay, and as someone who loves a GOOD challenge (rather than cheap design and BS difficulty), its one of the things that I hope most next-gen games support. I agree with you on your other points, though.

You got me there, but I more meant in the genre. Smarter enemies in a Mario or Sonic game wouldn't make a difference. In an RPG, that would be infuriating than challenging. But in an action game, it is absolutely necessary for challenge. For example, the COD games have terrible AI, so much so that Eurocom had to basically make it for their GoldenEye game otherwise stealth would be impossible like it is there.

But I'm not convinced Activision will improve it next gen. They haven't improved it in like 7 games for crying out loud.

[gunswordfist]

Ah sweet, a new Xbox. I can't wait for them to be the best console for a 2nd generation in a row.

Oh yeah, that's right, you like the pretend that the Wii doesn't exist.

Yep, I stopped liking motion sensoring years ago.

You're going to have a grand old time this gen. 

Oh, I am. Assassin's Creed 2 is so much fun.

But I mean, offering the same gameplay but with more space, smarter enemies, and more of them doesn't really make anything better.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one point. Smarter AI makes a BIG difference in gameplay and its something which I fully appreciate if a developer pulls it off well. It makes a simplistic game into a deep and challenging one that actually requires active player thought and strategy. That is to say, it essentially changes the entire style of gameplay (and for the better, IMO). If Halo or F.E.A.R. didn't have intelligent AI, they would basically just be inferior versions of Call of Duty (as in running out, aiming, shooting enemies, and then popping behind some cover for a few seconds and then rinsing and repeating the same tactic throughout the entire game). However because those games have intelligent AI (with Halo its only on the harder difficulties, though), they are played in a completely different kind of way, and actually force you to think about the situation at hand and make good decisions about which weapons to use and how to utilize your environment to your advantage. That's just one example, but the general idea is that smarter enemies is definitely a big deal in terms of changing gameplay, and as someone who loves a GOOD challenge (rather than cheap design and BS difficulty), its one of the things that I hope most next-gen games support. I agree with you on your other points, though.

AI does make a difference and so does consoles having more power but people like to pretend that PS3 and 360 are only good for better graphics which cracks me up everytime.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

You got me there, but I more meant in the genre. Smarter enemies in a Mario or Sonic game wouldn't make a difference.

Oh, OK. I didn't realize you were talking specifically about platforming adventure games. In that case I agree with you.

[Foggle]

I'm not talking about dumbing things down for consoles. That's an argument used by elitists who shit their pants when a game doesn't have 60 bindable functions. The Witcher 2 comes out for the Xbox 360 in April. DXHR's lead platform was the PS3. The best Crytek game was a console exclusive. EDIT: Never mind, Crytek didn't make Far Cry Instincts. Their best game is actually Crysis 1.

In fact, let's talk about console games being revolutionary without great tech. Deadly Premonition. Quite possibly the best game from 2010. Why is this? It pushed boundaries. The world actually feels alive -- more so than any Bethesda title -- despite the graphics being bad. The driving wasn't the best, but it had these little details that just made it amazing. Like, you could use the turn signals and windshield wipers. That's fucking awesome. The story and characterization were brilliant, even if I never saw the end of it (which I plan to do soon). DP singlehandedly proved that a $20 budget game could stand up to the big boys and do more innovating than any of them.

Obviously, you don't need better tech to make new and exciting experiences. But it can help. Would The Witcher 2 still be amazing with the graphics of Mario 64? Absolutely. Does the finished game have the best graphics (at a technical level) that I've ever seen? It does, in fact. They could make new and revolutionary games on the fucking Build engine for all I care. But most publishers mandate that everything looks all pretty nowadays. New tech would make great looking games with awesome new features a lot more viable for devs, as far as I can tell.

[gunswordfist]

What the hell?! I didn't quote you.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Hope you like Kinect, gsf. 

I'm not talking about dumbing things down for consoles. That's an argument used by elitists who shit their pants when a game doesn't have 60 bindable functions. The Witcher 2 comes out for the Xbox 360 in April. DXHR's lead platform was the PS3. The best Crytek game was a console exclusive.

Oh, well. Consider that dropped. I really didn't want to get into that anyway.

In fact, let's talk about console games being revolutionary without great tech. Deadly Premonition. Quite possibly the best game from 2010. Why is this? It pushed boundaries. The world actually feels alive -- more so than any Bethesda title -- despite the graphics being bad. The driving wasn't the best, but it had these little details that just made it amazing. Like, you could use the turn signals and windshield wipers. That's fucking awesome. The story and characterization were brilliant, even if I never saw the end of it (which I plan to do soon). DP singlehandedly proved that a $20 budget game could stand up to the big boys and do more innovating than any of them.

Yeah, that's pretty much why I love that game. People dog on it for its flaws (which are there, no one denies it), but it felt like a step forward for the survival horror genre despite relying purely on gameplay and options over funnleing the player.

Obviously, you don't need better tech to make new and exciting experiences. But it can help. Would The Witcher 2 still be amazing with the graphics of Mario 64? Absolutely. Does the finished game have the best graphics (at a technical level) that I've ever seen? It does, in fact. They could make new and revolutionary games on the fucking Build engine for all I care. But most publishers mandate that everything looks all pretty nowadays. New tech would make great looking games with awesome new features a lot more viable for devs, as far as I can tell.

If it were up to me, I'd make all developers create NES games so they would have to learn their roots and why fundamentals like fun are so important to a game instead of explosions and "Deep" storylines. But I do agree, I like great graphics. The issue with great graphics as I've seen it over the years is its usage as a crutch and "eye candy" to take away from the fact that you're playing the same game you've played 9 times in a row. Not to say they won't all do it, but last gen proved that developers as a whole are more willing to do this than create new experiences.

Unfortunately, when game budgets are as high as they are and need to sell multiple millions to break even using teams of hundreds of people just to make one heavily scripted 6 hour game I fully understand why they aren't jumping ahead like last gen. Last gen moved too fast to the point that they're stringing it out further along in order to desperately try to get into the black. It was a mistake. It put hundreds of companies out of business, we lost genres in the process, and Nintendo is the only company who actually profited while everyone else dove into the red.

We're going to have to put up with a gen that has to rely on being groundbreaking and revolutionary in gameplay before graphics this go around, unfortunately. If we have another gen like the last one, there might not be anyone left by the end of it. If you have anyone to blame for this, it's the people who thought $599 US dollars and rushing out a high tech console with a fatal killer bug in it were good ideas in order to win an arms race only a minority of gamers were interested in.

[Foggle]

Believe me, I don't like those PC elitists, either. A lot of the games that went in or are going in the direction that I want them to go are PC-focused, but that's only because development costs for it are cheaper and because it's a more friendly platform for self-publishing games.

Having modern devs create games for the NES/SNES or on older engines like Id Tech 2 would be a brilliant way for them to learn about what's really fun and innovative.

My dream for video games is probably never going to be realized, though. Better tech will make for better revolutionary experiences in theory, but since the general public and major publishers only care about great graphics these days, the hardware will never be used to its full extent (and by that, I mean tons of gameplay options, expansive worlds, full split-screen support, a steady high frame rate, multiple control options, etc. with only serviceable graphics).

[gunswordfist]

No Spark, but at least Microsoft knows that motion sensoring should be a peripheral and the basis of a console

[Spark Of Spirit]

You're going to loathe the next Microsoft console, man.

But as for Foggle, I agree. I would love things like 60fps to be standard (or at least locked 30 with no screen tearing), but they just don't seem to care too much about it.

At least no one here is going on about how the new iwhatever will kill consoles like game journalists are currently doing. I will never understand those people.

[talonmalon333]

Wii > 360

I thought even someone as dumb as gunswordfist knew this.

[gunswordfist]

Wii > 360

I thought even someone as dumb as gunswordfist knew this.

All opinion but you couldn't possibly comprehend that.

[Rosalinas Spare Wand]

At least no one here is going on about how the new iwhatever will kill consoles like game journalists are currently doing. I will never understand those people.

I get the feeling the point they're trying to make is that Apple's App Store is something akin to Steam for PC, Netflix for movies or Hulu for TV. They have a big selection of games that are value priced and easily accessible to the average consumer. But they're totally missing the point of those services.

[Spark Of Spirit]

At least no one here is going on about how the new iwhatever will kill consoles like game journalists are currently doing. I will never understand those people.

I get the feeling the point they're trying to make is that Apple's App Store is something akin to Steam for PC, Netflix for movies or Hulu for TV. They have a big selection of games that are value priced and easily accessible to the average consumer. But they're totally missing the point of those services.

I get that, but Mark Rein (of Epic fame) recently said that if the next gen consoles from Microsoft and Sony aren't beefed up enough they will lose to the iPad.

Which not only misses the point of why the iPad is successful, but why last gen was not.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Also to conclude our whole back and forth, I'd just like to say that these videos show me exactly how much potential the tablet can have for new types of game experiences that weren't possible before.

If developers actually try, that is.

[Daxdiv]

On the topic of Jim Sterling, does anyone here even watch his web show for the Escapist? I only watched a few episodes to see what Vyse was talking about one day since they both share same opinions on certain things (Like their stance on Project $10 and the used games market.) I watched a few episodes and thought they were decent. Maybe it's because I watched a few with a point I agreed with before going in and was questioning what people seem to hate about him. I don't watch the show as much as I do since I rarely visit the Escapist.