Quantcast
Hardcore Gaming is a plague that needs to be purged. Yes, I've gone crazy.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Hardcore Gaming is a plague that needs to be purged. Yes, I've gone crazy.

Personally speaking I think I grew out of my love of Japanese games on the console front. They aren't even putting in an effort. If you look at the handheld industry, you will see a lot of those games you want to play, but you aren't.

Of course nintendo will always be king of gaming to me, so I am always satisfied.



 

Around the Network
Chairman-Mao said:

I'll take Fallout 3, Uncharted 2 and Call of Duty 4 (including online) over any 3 games you can name from any of the previous generations. 


Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario Brothers, Ocarina of TIme (And I´m a Sony Fanboy)

Or Civ II, Simcity 4 and Age of Empires II, just to bring PC into it.  (and dead franchises...)

So I think the guy has a point.  Of course, there has been some good games this gen. like Demon Souls and Valkyria Chronicles, but gameplay has taken a step down to graphics and that´s not good. Take a look at GTA, or even CoD. I´m sorry for MW lovers but CoD2 singleplayer kick any other CoD ass any day and online can s*ck my $%¨&¨.

I think the problem in the industry is that everybody is shooting for the same hole, instead of investing on the niches. There´s differents tastes on the market that needs to be fulfilled. If the companies focused on their fanbase instead of trying to ever expand, then they could avoid the incoming disaster. Problem, the aproach the OP describes requires an always expanding budget for the next sequel, in order to atract even more people.

They also casualize the gameplay to make it more accessible, wich alienates the former fanbase. Now, this model try to make everybody buy the same games, more or less, and forgets that we gamers are not all rich. The overall agregate atach rate now is 8, if i´m not mistaken, so if you give the same "big budget" treatment to all games, most of the hundreds of games released per year will fail to make a profit. EA shows that 8 games cannot suport all others.

The best of worlds would be to the companies to focus on gameplay and make games around them. To mantain and satisfy the fanbase. If your game sells around 4 mil each release, don´t try to out grow it. If necessary charge more, but deliver, and we gamers will gonna buy it. Damn it, I would pay 70 $ or even 80 for a good and true Civ, or a good and true SImcity, if it is necessary. There are many gamers who don´t have their fix because the market is aiming to the masses, jeopardizing everyone.



VASCO DA GAMA CAMPEÃO DA COPA DO BRASIL!!!

CONGRATULATIONS VASCÃO

VICE É O CARALH*

 

PLAYSTATION®3 is the future......NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Dinomax said:
Qays said:

This generation has produced the overall best crop of games ever. Period.

So great you can't even name one game.  Awe inspiring these games are.

 

You know it, I know it, the developers know it, not even half of the people that buy todays games will finish them or go back to play them.  Verses I can still go outside and find Daytona USA in an arcade or cinema or Bar.

In fact, fuck this generation I'm gonna play some more Daytona. 


Demon's Souls. Mass Effect. Dragon Age. Super Mario Galaxy. Red Dead. BioShock. Flower. Super Meat Boy. More besides.

Are any of those the best game of all time? No. Are any of those as good as, say, Vagrant Story or the original Super Mario Bros? Probably not.

But no other generation has had such an abundance of top-quality games across so many genres. Certainly not the last generation. I suppose you could make an argument for PS1/N64, but certainly nothing before that. This generation has something for almost everyone (excepting JRPG fans, I guess).



SmokedHostage said:
radiantshadow92 said:
SmokedHostage said:
Jay520 said:

Ain't nothin wong wit teh gamin industry


When there are record breaking revenue streams and miniscule amounts of profits, when the big publishers with most revenue are putting their efforts on their established IP's and not on new projects, when the small publishers are pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel, there's something wrong.


Its always been this way. Just enjoy some games man. 


It's hard to enjoy games when they don't want me to play them anymore.  Most of just graphics or cutscenes showcases that happen to have gameplay.  I feel as though when I go to retailers, all I see is games that want to play me. :[


Stick to Nintendo games then.  Nintendo hardly uses cutscenes in most their games.  They are still all about gameplay.



LOL this thread is funny!

I just want to say that this generation has the worst gamers. I'll just leave like that!

Trying to compare the games is like comparing Ruth, Aaron, and Bonds. It's all about personal opinion. I'm not going to set here and tell someone that. Super Mario Bros is a better game then Super Mario 64, or Super Mario Galaxy. The only reason certain things are seen in a different light. Depends on other circumstances other then just being a good game.

For example Babe Ruth set the all time homerun record, and first Baseball Icon. Hank Aaron first player to break his record, and black baseball icon. Barry Bonds all time homerun record holder. Hall of famer before the whole steroid issue came along. Whose better? Facts are Babe Ruth was a fat ass racist who wouldn't make a team now, If Barry Bonds played back then he would be a god, but since he is black. He would never had a chance to play. Let's use this in gaming terms.

Super Marios Bros the game that launched the rebirth of the gaming industry. Created the platformer genre in video games, and produced the one icon of gaming Super Mario.

Super Mario 64 the game that started the 3d era for console gaming. Set standards, and trends for the industry. That still are being followed today!

Super Mario Galaxy a game that brings years of improvement in gaming through design, and technology together. Which is the better game? The N64, and NES could never in a million years produce a game the level of Galaxy. Still to this day a game like Super Mario Bros can sell almost 20 million copies. So ya comparing games is a complete waist of time. It's all about opinion or what perspective you are looking from.



 

Just because someone is saying something different. Doesn't mean their point of view is right!

Member Of The Wii Squad: Warriors of Light!

One of the 4 Yonkou of Youtube aka Wii Warlords. Other Members include ThaBlackBaron, Shokio, and Cardy.

Around the Network

Except you're not talking about what's the better game. You're talking about what's the most influential and important game. The Bible may be the most influential work of literature, but it's certainly not the best. Super Mario Bros may be the most influential game of all time, but I would argue that Super Mario Galaxy is just more fun to play.



I agree. Gaming is far inferior today than it was in the 80s/90s. The reason being is the industry is trying more and more to make games "epic" in terms of cutscenes, graphics, etc. They are pulling out all the stops trying to make their games more like action movies. The problem with that is, it usually comes at the cost of the actual GAMEPLAY, and the freedom of choice within games. Try playing a modern game and see how far you can wander off from the main mission/quest. Chances are you'll be stopped by invisible walls. That's because modern games require so much power, and thus there is no room left to make an open world. (There are of course exceptions to this, like Fallout 3 and Oblivion, which is why these are some of the few HD games I like).

Overall, you get these very limited games that sacrifice freedom, and the randomizing elements that make games special, for the sake of extra polygons, cutscenes, etc. Games today just feel like they hold your hand, and are more like interactive movies, as you are merely there to "play out" what the developer has already laid out in front of you. You know longer feel like YOU'RE the hero. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind story in my games. I just prefer that I am the one who creates my own story. Some backstory is ok, but I don't like it imposed too much upon me. People just want to feel in maximum control of their game, and more and more, games seem to be taking control out of the hands of the player, and towards the developer. Now I LOVE rich and engrossing epic movies, but I don't like them mixed with my games. I either like to sit back and be taken away in an epic film, OR play an action packed game in which I am in complete control. I don't like a combination of the two. And I think many people are in the same boat.

This is why the industry is losing consumers, and why you see SO many people talking about the "good old days." Of gaming. I went on a simple youtube video that simply had music from DKC, and scrolling through the comments section, there were DOZENS of people complaining about modern gaming, and how they wished games were still "like this." Clearly, something drastic has changed to deter this large base of oldschool gamers.



No, overall you don't get that. The industry isn't losing customers. Gaming is, for the most part, in a very healthy place right now. The only people complaining are nostalgists.

There are a lot of shitty mass-market games, but there are also a lot of phenomenal games. If you just like sandbox games I don't see what you have to complain about this generation, considering the sheer number of phenomenal sandbox games this generation.



Qays said:

Except you're not talking about what's the better game. You're talking about what's the most influential and important game. The Bible may be the most influential work of literature, but it's certainly not the best. Super Mario Bros may be the most influential game of all time, but I would argue that Super Mario Galaxy is just more fun to play.


It's still a matter of opinion. Where there is never going to be a right answer. So what's the point of this thread? People arguing about what generation has the better games. You never going to win so why even debate it. Now to debate what era has better gamers or as the overall better gaming culture. Thats easy it's old school! For everyone that loves Michael Jackson or Jordan there are just as many. That love Justin Beiber, and Kobe! It's all about opinion! Now it we are going to talk about the fans of that music. The amount of tours, and things like that. The you would have a better subject to debate about.



 

Just because someone is saying something different. Doesn't mean their point of view is right!

Member Of The Wii Squad: Warriors of Light!

One of the 4 Yonkou of Youtube aka Wii Warlords. Other Members include ThaBlackBaron, Shokio, and Cardy.

amp316 said:
Doobie_wop said:
amp316 said:
Doobie_wop said:
amp316 said:

I get your point and agree with it.  A huge pile of games are labeled hardcore are anything but.  They include more of the three Bs (blood, breasts, and beasts) and less gameplay.  500 cutscenes artificially lengthen a miniscule product.  Then they add an online portion to the game where you play the same 5 levels over and over and call that additional content. 

No thanks.  I'll stick to my all gameplay games like Donkey Kong Country Returns. 

That's not true at all. Your talking from the perspective of an exclusively Wii gamer, which you may or may not be, but it's a trend I've noticed when fans of Nintendo rant against the industry annd make silly ignorant statements like the one you just made. Halo: Reach, Bayonetta, Vanquish, Little Big Planet, Gears of War, Assassins Creed, Demon's Souls, Dead Space, Super Meat Boy, Mass Effect and Red Dead Redemption  are all fairly popular games that take the approach of content, replayability and gameplay over things like custscenes, boobs and blood. Custscenes are rarely used these days and when they are used, it's only to keep up the pacing and progress the story.

Your views of online, gore and  cutscenes in games today are similar to a crazy persons view of how excessive repition, motion controls and easy gameplay are exclusive to the Wii.

I am a Wii gamer, but that has nothing to do with my points.  I never once took a stab at any of the games that you listed so I don't know why you're being so defensive.  You have to admit though that there are a lot of games that take the approach that I brought up.  Heck, a Nintendo game did to some level.  It was called Metroid: Other M.  There seemed to be more cutscenes than gameplay and Samus was made out to be eye candy more than ever.  Guess what?  I didn't like that game.  My view wasn't attacking any console, but a style of game.

My views of online, gore , and cutscenes are valid.  Several games rely on online to make up for the fact that their game is really small (I'm looking at you CoD), certain games play up the gore and run commercials about your mom not liking them, and don't even get me started on how many games market themselves as cinematic experiences.  I might be crazy, but I'm crazy like a fox.

Oh, I guess I did attack Dead Space now, didn't I?  :p 

Bro, shhh!! The Skyrim trailer just released and I'm watching it for the 17th time. I concede to whatever you said and hope that something something.

It's getting easier and easier to win an argument around here.

I never even finished Metroid Prime 3. It got too boring because there just wasn't that story driven factor. The same with Zelda, and any Mario game. I might just rent Metroid Other M used and try it out. If you dislike it for its cutscene fashion, then it might just be a good game. 

Your right about online games, but i don't see that as a bad thing. Online games add incentive to play the game over and over again because of leaderboards and friends over a headset. And while the Cod games are short, they are still fun and get the job done for anyone that wants to play them.