Where has the gameplay gone?

Page 2/3
1 | | 3

By Thom

Hero (591)

Thom's picture

23-04-2003, 10:32

* Super Monkey Ball *

By konamiman

Paragon (1045)

konamiman's picture

24-04-2003, 21:57

I'm saying the same thing from a lot of time ago: 3D=shit. I laught a lot when I saw these Marios and Sonycs in 3D (they just killed the games), and when I saw Metal Gear Solid, I wanted to cry... hope Konami will never kill Gradius also!!

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

24-04-2003, 22:02

/me announces Gradius 3D Tongue

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

24-04-2003, 22:03

my point is.. how come that a large percentage of MSX1 and MSX2 (or other games from the eighties and early nineties) games are cool and most recent games just plain suck?

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (109)

anonymous's picture

24-04-2003, 23:15

Gameplay: nobody cares about it anymore. games are made with formulae, not with ideas that are really fun. Most games are exactly the same as other games recently released, the 'me too'-factor.
Music: all digital movie crap, no more fun melodies.
Graphics: the more realistic the better. In fact it's become the most important factor of games! It's simple though, real is not fun...

What games nowadays miss, is heart. Game development is an INDUSTRY now. It's cold and nobody cares...

Sure, individual programmers might care about creating something fun, but when your company is ruled by either money, stupid marketeers or just plain ignorance......

It's all about money anyway... The publishers, who buy the games from the developers, don't know what the people think is FUN! It's always been like that. One of the most successful games of all times, Pacman, was almost CANCELED because the publisher didn't think it would sell! (o.O) I rest my case Smile

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9774)

wolf_'s picture

24-04-2003, 23:15

well, becasue 3d sux probably ? Smile

When you mousedraw 2d tiles you add an amount 'detail' in it (character), since every pixel is really handmade.

In 3d you get a really 2d floor with some blurry texture on it.. that really lacks ANY character.

Also, 3d == realism, but realism != cool .

I really don't understand why all those adventures/RPG's whatever should be first-person shooters. The birdview technique, as used in our favorite games, is far better imo.

Also, see what happened to movies since Jurassic Parc and Titanic, you're not playing the game anymore when your movies doesn't have shitloads of CGI.

You can't just put an oldskool 2d platform game on the market, you don't want to loose your face to all those kids who apparently are to young to have enjoyed the 80's, and grew up with those lame TMF leaders.

Few exceptions on PC are mostly Blizzard and Lucasarts games, tho I must say that I preferred warcraft3 to be real 2d, like war2 and starcraft Smile

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9774)

wolf_'s picture

25-04-2003, 01:02

Maybe I've an idea here..

Mixing 5.1 surround is quite something different as opposed to stereo (2.0). Since you have more speakers, and more phase-stuff going on, it takes a real new dicipline to understand 5.1 mixing. You would think tho that's more easy since there are more possibilities, but don't fall in that stinky trick, 5.1 is really not comparible to 2.0

Now with software: game design in 3d takes alot more trouble from the designers point of view than 2d. Suddenly in the mid-90s 3d cards revolutionised the PC as a game computer, and maybe that all happened too fast. Maybe it was too fast for the 2d-oriented designers. You would think that 3d is more easy to do, but it's more different than 2d. The problem with 3d is that because it looks realistic at first sight you want to compare it with the real world around us.. when you take a close look it looks lame and unrealistic. With 2d games this is not a problem, since you accept it as '2d' you don't compare it with the world around you.

How often do you see a realistic modeled human? No matter how good for example Final Fantasy (the movie) is, it's not real. This is exactly the same point. If you claim to do it realistic, then you expect to see something realistic.. Jurassic Park worked because we don't know how they look like i.r.l. (skin), we only found bones. Toy Story worked, because toys are primitive objects. PC games with 'realistic' humans suck, because they pretend to be realistic, but are rally nothing more than some obvious polies with a lame texture.

I can make another example about the OPL4 waverom, compared to older cards (fmpac, scc etc.). It's far more easy to make a synthpop track using primitive sounds (sawtooths, blocks, FM tones etc.) than trying to make something realistic with sounds that are realy not realistic at all. You can get away with primitive waveforms on 1 channel, but you can't when you use the piano sound, you'll definitly want to spread them amongst different channels to get it realistic. So, the higher the technology standards, the more trouble you have using it.
And again, in case of the games, I think the technology runs faster than game designers using it.. Smile

By Guillian

Prophet (3233)

Guillian's picture

25-04-2003, 01:12

Sure, individual programmers might care about creating something fun, but when your company is ruled by either money, stupid marketeers or just plain ignorance......

Amen!

Nowadays most of the publishers (all?) want games with license. If you make a good/nice/funny game, but you haven't got a good license... you have no chance. But, if you make a CRAP of game with a good license, you will have a lot of open doors, and you probably will publish the game, and sell thowsand of copies.

By Maggoo

Paragon (1195)

Maggoo's picture

25-04-2003, 11:12

I don't completely agree with what is being said in this thread. In the good old MSX days a lot of crap was produced also. The aacko products were not all that great and, I can still remember the games (also some big licences : Batman, etc...) made in Spain and ported directly from the Spectrum. Many of those games were terrible and I think we were lucky that the MSX was popular in Japan were games developper had (and still have) a better and more professional approach of game development. Out of the thousands MSX games produced, maybe 10% (200/300) are really worth it (which isn't bad at all, don't get me wrong).

Since the MSX days, the game industry has become a big commercial thing, the market and number of games has increased, the ratio of crap games is probably the same. It just takes more time to spot the good games in the huge number of bad productions these days.

The move to 3D technology isn't always bad when used for the right purpose (not yet another doom like), and when it enhence the gameplay.

Good example: GTA Vice City. Gameplay is just as simple as any MSX game, yet 3D brings a complete new dimension and sense of freedom. Not to mention music is great too.

Bad Example: Sim City 4. 3D engine simply slow down the game, the rest is the same as SimCity 3 (2D).

More powerfull computers are also good for RTS (real time strategy) games like Command & Conquer / Redalert 2.

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

25-04-2003, 14:02

Maggoo - I agree that not every MSX1 game was great, but I totally disagree on the ratio between good and bad games

Think of how many hundreds of thousands of games were already created for the PC. And think of how many are REALLY good. I didn't even get up to 10.

Page 2/3
1 | | 3