icemann on 18/12/2015 at 12:56
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
Have you forgotten the terrible FMV games?
I for one loved those games. 7th Guest, Command and Conquer / Red Alert (they have alot of FMV sequences), Wing Commander 3 & 4.
I know your more speaking on the games that were almost entirely FMV (eg Phantasmagoria, Sherlock Holmes, Night Trap etc). But I dunno, I quite liked them. Was gaming put in a more choose your own adventure type direction, but I liked it. That said I know I'm in the minority here.
The trick was to use them correctly (as the first lot of games I mentioned did), I would say that not using them in a B-Grade movie style worked better, though with some games that was half the charm (aka the Tex Murphy games).
I used to play "Return to Zork" HEAPS, during the 90s. And that was B-Grade FMV heaven. Still loved it.
I miss FMV games.
Tony_Tarantula on 18/12/2015 at 14:19
Not gonna disagree with you about a few of those FMV titles you mentioned. Works best when used sparingly.
That said I'd argue that the "golden age" was a bit later: mid 90's up until the release of the original Xbox. It was at some point around that time where the corporatization of the industry took hold and games were now evaluated based on the finance department's assessment of Internal Rate of Return rather than what they thought they could achieve with the title. That also seems to be when we saw what I call "Hollywood envy" begin and games began attempting to directly out-spectacle movies as the focus shifted away from the thing that distinguished so many of those games to begin with: highly effective world building.
Hell the only AAA games released recently that even come close to that old school world building(that I can think of by glancing at my STEAM library) are the borderlands series and Dragon age Origins. There's a few others in that list which have great world, but since they inhereted their gameworlds from other media (e.g. Witcher) they don't count. Contrast this to the period you're talking about where you had games like Wing Commander, Freespace, all the LGS games, the pre-FFX final fantasies, Half Life, Myst, Deus Ex, NOLF, Star/Warcraft....you name it, there are a ton of games that managed to create convincing, immersive, and internally consist gameworlds from scratch. Not just empty corridors you moved through but settings which were well constructed and believable enough to support entire franchises and spinoff media, as many of those settings did.
TannisRoot on 18/12/2015 at 16:40
@Tony: I agree they world building and game writing in general is a perfunctory affair these days. It makes sense that they were better in the past because graphic fidelity was so low: there was little else but the writing and world building to breath vivid life into those worlds.
Also as cited: smaller passionate teams, probably didn't have leader boards for which hourly employee could write the most quests.
*Reinstalls Ultima VII*
Nameless Voice on 18/12/2015 at 16:57
I think there's some truth to what you say, but it's not completely accurate.
There are still games being made with vast and detailed background worlds. Dark Souls and Dishonoured are once again prime examples. Even storyless games like League of Legends have vast and detailed background on their world.
I guess you wouldn't count things like Divinity, since it's technically an existing worlds from the earlier works in their franchise, even if they basically reinvented it a much less genetic fantasy setting in later instalments.
icemann on 18/12/2015 at 18:00
Dark Souls / Demon Souls I would say is best described as difficulty levels in the style of old NES games. Absolutely brutal, but when/if you die, it's because you fucked up. Not because of cheating enemies or bad controls.
TannisRoot on 18/12/2015 at 18:59
Dark Souls' difficulty is not that bad. If it was I wouldn't have had the patience to beat them. This is coming from someone who tends to avoid expert difficulty in Thief.
The worst that can happen is the loss of a few minutes and the loss of some unused XP in a game where XP doesn't matter that much. It's probably 20% stats, 60% skill, and 20% memorizing enemy attack patterns and locations.
On the other hand, I found Super Castlevania IV, Mega Man Zero, Earthworm Jim, and Battletoads much harder and would never have the patience to beat any of them compared to the Souls games.
Nameless Voice on 18/12/2015 at 19:47
People always say Dark Souls is hard but completely fair. Frankly, that's nonsense; there are tons of things in the game that are unfair, such as the angled surfaces in the Crystal Cave, some of which are perfectly safe to walk on while others are instant death. Alternatively, the fact that you can be invaded by multiple red phantoms at once.
But I don't get what that has to do with my saying that it has a very well-developed setting and backstory?
Yakoob on 18/12/2015 at 21:08
Tony brings up a good point in that the medium is so new that virtually every decade has revolutionary games that transform and advance the whole scene. From early MUDs or Hovertank 3D / Wolfenstein, through Ultima Onlines and Half Lifes, and even Halo or Telltale. They all did something no one has done before, something that changing gaming forever. Given the newness and upcoming cool stuff like VR/AR, I don't think we're out of the forward momentum yet.
Yes you can argue that some pushed gaming in the "wrong" direction but I think that's akin to cowardice, being "afraid" of stumbling upon new ideas. If they're bad ideas, they will get turned down, if they're good, they will stick. Granted, a lot of bad ideas do still stick because of economic factors, but did you really believe gaming can stay a pure artistic intellectual medium forever? Come on. I hate mobile copypasta clickfests just as much as you, but they will happen no matter how acclaimed gaming gets, ignoring them really is the only strategy. It's not like they don't let you enjoy the niche good games.
heywood on 18/12/2015 at 23:11
I don't think anyone is afraid of stumbling upon new ideas. If anything, I'm complaining about the opposite. One thing I enjoyed about the period Tony mentions was that there was something new coming all the time: new games, new stories, big jumps in tech, ambitious goals for gameplay, etc. Take first person shooters for example. We went from Doom and System Shock in 1994 to Quake in 1996 to Half-Life and SiN in 1998, to Deus Ex and NOLF in 2000. For RPGs, we from Ultima Underworld to Fallout 1/2 to SS2 in 1999 to Arx Fatalis and Morrowind in 2002 to VtMB in 2004. We were seeing big jumps every 2 years or so.
Nowadays, the AAA games industry mostly sticks to established franchises and gameplay that's tried and tested and playtested, the tech has plateaued, and the storytelling isn't getting any better either. Sure, Dishonored was a great example of a genuinely new game with some depth and new gameplay ideas, although it wasn't a big leap over what I've played before. I enjoyed it and rank it up there with some of my favorites. But I don't see very many games like it coming out anymore. Just look at the AAA titles that have gotten a lot of attention here recently: Skyrim, Fallout 4, Witcher 3, GTA 5, Thief 4, etc. The youngest of those franchises is 8 years old. The others date back to... you guessed it... the 1990s.
Nameless Voice on 18/12/2015 at 23:39
I've certainly noticed that most of the games I seem to like from recent years are sequels to earlier games.
