WingedKagouti on 15/4/2015 at 16:07
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
"Better"? Difficult to say.
Not really. There has always been good games made in every "age" of gaming including today. Some of them stand the test of time, others were good for their time but don't have the same playability as their more modern counterparts.
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
The same applies to the Elder Scrolls. Sure you're free to wander however you want, but all quests still play out the same way, with only a single way to resolve them, and all the plot points turn out the exact same.
Morrowind and Oblivion had a vary small selection of quests (and in the case of MW, some faction quests) where you actually had some way to influence things. Most notably the Fighter/Thieves Guild conflict in Morrowind where one path would more or less obliterate the Thieves Guild and another would bring peace between the two guilds. Skyrim tried to do more, with various factions fighting each other, but the only time you could affect much was deciding whether to join or destroy the Dark Brotherhood. Most of the Skyrim quests where you had to pick a side felt mostly cosmetic.
Then again those are the exceptions, so your point isn't entirely invalidated. Especially when considering the main quests of each game.
Fallen+Keeper on 15/4/2015 at 16:59
New games are simply made with different priorities. Publishers invest shitloads of money mainly into marketing campaigns which can eat up even 50% of the budget. What remains of it is dedicated to a product that has live up to the marketing campaign itself: graphics, "cinematic" effects, systems designed to provide quick satisfaction even after 5-10 minutes of gameplay - everything that has been promised by the sales dept. Gaming systems that can be manipulated by the player are replaced by a "directed" gameplay that can guarantee that quick satisfaction turning what we call a "deep" game into a designer's experience. Basically the game design starts in a boardroom, so to speak, which then hires a devteam and sets up the scope for the project.
That being said, there are still good new games. Indie development is a saving grace because now they are the only ones exploring new gameplay types. Also, when all the stars are in alignment, something good (for us, "old gamers") can come out from a boardroom as well. Human Revolution being a good example. A group of smart people understood what a Deux Ex crowd wants from a Deus Ex game and we've got a game that fundamentally is an "old school" design with a layer of optional "new design" features necessary for newer generations. It still won't get the same profits like "pure mainstream" games and considering the amount of effort necessary to produce a good Deus Ex game, it's still to be seen what kind of priorities DXMD will have.
Elite Dangerous is another good example of a new good game. It still has more potential than substance, but that will improve in a couple of years.
I'm sure I don't have to mention Dishonored... I also liked Wolfenstein The New Order very much: a bold game without a multiplayer. Bethesda might have made some mistakes but currently they are closer to "games for thinking gamers" mentality than any other publisher.
Paradox Interactive, for example. I don't like ALL of their games but I have tonnes of respect for them and own and enjoy games like Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis. These games are increasingly "streamlined" but also offer more depth than their predecessors.
In the end, there are loads of bad old games and also a lot of new good games. It also depends what kind of genre you like.
Tony_Tarantula on 16/4/2015 at 01:40
Tried to back-trace that image with no results. What game?
ZylonBane on 16/4/2015 at 02:43
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Tried to back-trace that image with no results. What game?
Alpha Protocol. Google reverse image search is your friend.
Well, that is... not
your friend. Because you. But it is in general friendly. Just not to you.
icemann on 16/4/2015 at 05:33
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Overrated, with a select few exceptions like the Witcher series. Most of the "choices" have no impact other than to give you slightly different dialogue, access to different equipment, or so on.
Try playing Any of the Mass Effect games as 'good' or 'evil'. All the major events still happen the same way, There's no changes to the major characters on your team, and no impact on future games other than a few dialogue changes.
The same applies to the Elder Scrolls. Sure you're free to wander however you want, but all quests still play out the same way, with only a single way to resolve them, and all the plot points turn out the exact same.
I think your misunderstanding my point. I wasn't referring specifically to conversation choices. I never mentioned anything about that. I was talking about gameplay wise.
Take Fallout 3 and New Vegas for example. Say you want to stealth your way through an enemy base, you can. Say you want to go all melee, you can. Say you want to snipe all the enemies from a safe distance. You can. And there are points where choices have lasting effects. Choose to wipe the Brotherhood of steel base from the face of the earth (quest by Mr House), then afterward that base is gone, you can't access it after that. That's a big gameplay impact. Have you even played any of these games before you thought about commenting on them?
In Fallout 3, choose to take out Megaton with a nuke or not. Your choice has a lasting affect.
Yes the conversations all go a similar route (with exceptions here and there), but that's not at all what I was talking about.
And your dead wrong in the last bit you said about Mass Effect. Choices made in games 1-2 have affects on the 3rd game. Say you chose to save the Rachni in game 1 for example, then it has repercussions later.
If you choose to save Ashley or Kaiden, that has a lasting affect. Choose to have a relationship with 1 person, then other people hook up (seen in the Citadel DLC).
Choose to have certain combinations of party members in a particular mission then their banter differs. That's an effect based on your choices.
Game. Set. Match.
Jason Moyer on 16/4/2015 at 05:34
Huh, I never noticed that feature in chrome's context menu. That's pretty awesome.
Edit: God damn it get out of the way icemann.
icemann on 16/4/2015 at 06:14
Shh
Judith on 16/4/2015 at 08:11
Quote:
Choose to wipe the Brotherhood of steel base from the face of the earth (quest by Mr House), then afterward that base is gone, you can't access it after that. That's a big gameplay impact. Have you even played any of these games before you thought about commenting on them?
That was great, in F:NV it was even better with Lonesome Road DLC, where
losing the argument with Courier would launch the nukes targeted at important places in the main game (e.g. the Caesar's camp), turning them into heavily radiated piles of rubble. But then again, it's Obsidian, their games may be buggy or even broken, but they have awesome ideas and are not afraid to try them. I love Alpha Protocol and I'm getting Pillars sometime later this year.
TannisRoot on 16/4/2015 at 20:46
As someone whose gaming hey-day was the early 2000s and is now a grown adult, I think gaming has improved. I'm just less interested in it now that it isn't part of my social life.
Talking about what was coming out, who was playing what, co-op and competitive gaming all increased my enjoyment. When I remember the good old days its the human interactions and context that stands out: the online friendships, or the epic forum drama that occured, or that time someone uncovered a big secret or Easter egg. The games themselves were only half of the fun.
I'm not saying it's all perfect and I certainly have my complaints, but fully acknowledge where most of my enjoyment came from and that my tastes have refined.
