- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
This is just a thread for discussing the current state of PC Gaming genres. No real point per-se. I had an hour to kill, so I decided to type the following:
My analysis below (bad news before good):
FPSs:
Intelligent gamers are a minority. Thus unintelligent games (Halo, CS, etc) that involve nothing more than running and shooting are fun enough to engage most people without requiring mental stimulation. Add the fact that intelligent gamers also enjoy these games (who doesn't enjoy a huge Halo/CS/TF2 LAN?) for the social aspects, and you appeal to virtually the entire gaming audience as opposed to the minority, thus raking in more $$$.
To Valve's credit, they attempted to add some elements of traditional adventure games to the HL2 series (engaging NPCs, creative maps/placement, and a few puzzles), but given that these elements take up about 40 minutes tops out of the multitude of hours you'll spend playing the thing, and that the puzzles are pathetically easy, the point is appreciated but moot.
Adventure games:
Traditional adventure games have practically died (mostly due to the above), although the Myst series hung in there for a while, and Splinter Cell, despite being a console port (and not a traditional adventure game per-se) is still excellent. To add to the above, traditional adventure games also typically necessitate massive playing time and patience, something which most people lack. (It took me months to get through Riven without walkthroughs) Not to mention complex intellectual puzzles/situations. Back in the 90s, I remember taking pages of notes for some games, as there was so much information I'd forget it (and miss subsequent connections) after awhile.
The problem here is that creativity is required in droves, as plot development is typically more of an issue than item/weapons placement. Unfortunately, this creativity requires $$ that most companies aren't willing to shell out, and requires and audience (ie: intelligent gamers) that will appreciate it. I recently read one of the reader reviews on IGN for one of the Splinter Cells and the the reviewers main complaint was that the game was too hard, and when he got frustrated he couldn't just go wild and shoot everything. That's a direct paraphrasing. (He reference GTA as better because he COULD go around killing everything when he felt like it) I believe this represents the majority of gamers out there, and thus traditional Adventure games are dead.
I didn't mention Deus Ex and SS2 in the above, as they are in a class by themselves. Most people classify them as FPS/RPG, and while that description is true, it is, IMO incomplete. They included aspects of both genres, but the main attraction (IMO) was the atmosphere and plot. I once played SS2 in a dark room at night (my monitor being the only light source) and I literally jumped in my chair when I heard a cyborg right behind me, add to the fact that my gun condition was in the red and that I was low on ammo. In short, I was honestly scared shitless. THAT is quality. These games had a perfect balance of everything they needed, and then some. That is why they were as successful as they were.
Bioshock is the most recent attempt to revive the genre. Unfortunately, it sucks when compared to the above 2 mentioned games. It sucks horribly. Period. Granted, it's the best thing in this genre to come along in a while. That's not saying much.
For those of you interested in "traditional" adventure games, I recommend the following:
Planet's Edge: Arguably the best fully open space-based RPG/adventure ever. Similar to Starflight for those of you who remember it. It takes forever to finish, but it's fun and awesome. It's ancient, but will run perfectly under VDMsound on Windows XP (haven't tried it with Vista). Read the review on the underdogs page. It has some important info for gameplay.
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=830
http://sourceforge.net/projects/vdmsound/
Star Control 2: A fully open-source remake (based on the original code) of the classic 90s game. Fully compatible with XP and (I believe) Vista. Also arguably the best space-based RPG/Adventure game ever.
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
The Myst Series. Riven is the most time-consuming and frustrating (lots of "push this button to make random shit happen on the other side of the island crap") but it makes sense eventually (for a puzzle). There are 5 Myst games total. The other 4 are easier (although still extremely challenging), make more sense, and don't include random buttons on random pipes that do random-ass things.
RPGs
RPGs have, IMO, not increased in quality as much as scale. With the advent of MMORPGs, gaming is now a social experience as well as a form of entertainment. However, the former has apparently taken the lead in this category, for obvious reasons. I enjoyed D2 for the most part, but I had to take it in short bursts, as I generally just got bored of the "hack-and-slash" mission style. Occasionally I'd level up and get a new skill, at which point I'd be engaged for about 10 minutes until I had perfected it's usage and got bored of watching the same visual effect several hundred times. In short, traditional RPGs were generally nothing but a practice in repetition IMHO. This effect has also transferred to MMOs. Even the FPS retards would get bored.
Thus the social aspect keeps people going (and paying a monthly subscription, something I also don't understand). Insecure people can level up and become "superior" to their "peers" with little effort. People can meet online and have something in common, and little pubescent kids can fulfill their fantasy of being the "hero of the realm" until being OWND by someone with more intelligence and crying about it to no end, thus insuring that the population of "insecure people" will continue through the generations.
Not that a social aspect to a game is bad per-se, it's just the scale that's the problem. The fact that "games" like "Second Life" exist is kinda sad. They're not games, they're life simulations; and since a good number of people's lives aren't where they want them to be, they can suddenly be wherever they want to be in life "virtually". Naturally they prefer this life to their own and spend more and more time in it, thus leading to terms like "World of Warcrack".
It is for those sad reasons (IMO) that MMOs around to stay, and traditional RPGs pale in comparison when it comes to profits. Like traditional adventure games, I predict that Traditional RPGs will soon be dead.
RTSs:
This is one of the genres that has seen significant improvement over the last few years. Old venerable like Starcraft raised the bar, which was raised even further by games like Rise of Nations, Age of Empires, and the Total War Series. Recently, CNC3 and Supreme Commander have emerged; the former being creative enough to flesh out the current boundaries, and the latter trying something new and increasing scale with new gameplay mechanics.
The caste of RTS gamers also tend to be a more intelligent crowd, as "Strategy" is the game and a good strategy requires intelligence, initially. The only problem with RTSs IMO is that they're not adaptive enough. AI can typically offer a fun challenge, but once it's behaviors are analyzed and known, it becomes quite easy to preempt and beat. (Although stacked forces in a single-player campaign can compensate for this). There's much more fluidity in multi-player for obvious reasons, but after a while, the game becomes less creative and more like a football play-book: A set number of strategies with a little prerequisite improvisation and luck (ie: The zergling rush, turtling, Venom rush, etc).
Personally, I think the best RTS would be similar in concept to the original URU (Myst's successor) idea, with a constantly evolving universe. Add a new unit every couple of months to shake things up and what-not, or add new terrain or battlefield effects. This is generally done through expansion packs, but these generally don't add much aside from a new Single-player campaign (Brood Wars added a whopping 2 new units). Then again, the cost to have developers constantly working on stuff like this is probably high, and it would detract from the development of new/better games, but you'd think a large company like EA would have the capacity to do both.
Simulations
This category has seen some of the best progress of any genre, basically because Computing power has increased, and allowed for more complexity/realism. In most simulators, complexity/realism IS gameplay, thus it's pretty easy to know what to improve. Simcity has expanded to insane levels, and "The Sims" albeit rather dry now, was a huge hit in it's day for good reason. Flight simulators have especially come a long ways. MS Flight Sim has come a long ways in terms of Graphics and Complexity, as have Combat flight simulators.
The only downside to this realism/complexity is the learning curve/cliff/Mt. Everest and cost required to run/play the things. While not necessarily as true in the "Sim" series and spinoffs, when it comes to flight sims, you need high-level (read: expensive) hardware to simply run the Sim at decent levels, not to mention the joysticks/rudder pedals/yokes required for the full experience. And unless you're a trained pilot, it's unlikely that you'll have an easy time of it (especially in the modern combat flight sims). While almost all have tutorials, of the Flight Sims that I've played, only Microsoft has included extensive "virtual lessons" that literally teach you how to fly in the simulator. However, these lessons are long, tedious, and the voice-over (who is supposedly a professional flight instructor) is annoying and scripted.
Once again, it takes a special type of gamer to play these, and fortunately they require a significant amount of intelligence (aside from a few dumbed down simulators) so the communities are typically high quality.
I'd write a conclusion, but dinner's ready now so...
My analysis below (bad news before good):
FPSs:
Intelligent gamers are a minority. Thus unintelligent games (Halo, CS, etc) that involve nothing more than running and shooting are fun enough to engage most people without requiring mental stimulation. Add the fact that intelligent gamers also enjoy these games (who doesn't enjoy a huge Halo/CS/TF2 LAN?) for the social aspects, and you appeal to virtually the entire gaming audience as opposed to the minority, thus raking in more $$$.
To Valve's credit, they attempted to add some elements of traditional adventure games to the HL2 series (engaging NPCs, creative maps/placement, and a few puzzles), but given that these elements take up about 40 minutes tops out of the multitude of hours you'll spend playing the thing, and that the puzzles are pathetically easy, the point is appreciated but moot.
Adventure games:
Traditional adventure games have practically died (mostly due to the above), although the Myst series hung in there for a while, and Splinter Cell, despite being a console port (and not a traditional adventure game per-se) is still excellent. To add to the above, traditional adventure games also typically necessitate massive playing time and patience, something which most people lack. (It took me months to get through Riven without walkthroughs) Not to mention complex intellectual puzzles/situations. Back in the 90s, I remember taking pages of notes for some games, as there was so much information I'd forget it (and miss subsequent connections) after awhile.
The problem here is that creativity is required in droves, as plot development is typically more of an issue than item/weapons placement. Unfortunately, this creativity requires $$ that most companies aren't willing to shell out, and requires and audience (ie: intelligent gamers) that will appreciate it. I recently read one of the reader reviews on IGN for one of the Splinter Cells and the the reviewers main complaint was that the game was too hard, and when he got frustrated he couldn't just go wild and shoot everything. That's a direct paraphrasing. (He reference GTA as better because he COULD go around killing everything when he felt like it) I believe this represents the majority of gamers out there, and thus traditional Adventure games are dead.
I didn't mention Deus Ex and SS2 in the above, as they are in a class by themselves. Most people classify them as FPS/RPG, and while that description is true, it is, IMO incomplete. They included aspects of both genres, but the main attraction (IMO) was the atmosphere and plot. I once played SS2 in a dark room at night (my monitor being the only light source) and I literally jumped in my chair when I heard a cyborg right behind me, add to the fact that my gun condition was in the red and that I was low on ammo. In short, I was honestly scared shitless. THAT is quality. These games had a perfect balance of everything they needed, and then some. That is why they were as successful as they were.
Bioshock is the most recent attempt to revive the genre. Unfortunately, it sucks when compared to the above 2 mentioned games. It sucks horribly. Period. Granted, it's the best thing in this genre to come along in a while. That's not saying much.
For those of you interested in "traditional" adventure games, I recommend the following:
Planet's Edge: Arguably the best fully open space-based RPG/adventure ever. Similar to Starflight for those of you who remember it. It takes forever to finish, but it's fun and awesome. It's ancient, but will run perfectly under VDMsound on Windows XP (haven't tried it with Vista). Read the review on the underdogs page. It has some important info for gameplay.
http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=830
http://sourceforge.net/projects/vdmsound/
Star Control 2: A fully open-source remake (based on the original code) of the classic 90s game. Fully compatible with XP and (I believe) Vista. Also arguably the best space-based RPG/Adventure game ever.
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
The Myst Series. Riven is the most time-consuming and frustrating (lots of "push this button to make random shit happen on the other side of the island crap") but it makes sense eventually (for a puzzle). There are 5 Myst games total. The other 4 are easier (although still extremely challenging), make more sense, and don't include random buttons on random pipes that do random-ass things.
RPGs
RPGs have, IMO, not increased in quality as much as scale. With the advent of MMORPGs, gaming is now a social experience as well as a form of entertainment. However, the former has apparently taken the lead in this category, for obvious reasons. I enjoyed D2 for the most part, but I had to take it in short bursts, as I generally just got bored of the "hack-and-slash" mission style. Occasionally I'd level up and get a new skill, at which point I'd be engaged for about 10 minutes until I had perfected it's usage and got bored of watching the same visual effect several hundred times. In short, traditional RPGs were generally nothing but a practice in repetition IMHO. This effect has also transferred to MMOs. Even the FPS retards would get bored.
Thus the social aspect keeps people going (and paying a monthly subscription, something I also don't understand). Insecure people can level up and become "superior" to their "peers" with little effort. People can meet online and have something in common, and little pubescent kids can fulfill their fantasy of being the "hero of the realm" until being OWND by someone with more intelligence and crying about it to no end, thus insuring that the population of "insecure people" will continue through the generations.
Not that a social aspect to a game is bad per-se, it's just the scale that's the problem. The fact that "games" like "Second Life" exist is kinda sad. They're not games, they're life simulations; and since a good number of people's lives aren't where they want them to be, they can suddenly be wherever they want to be in life "virtually". Naturally they prefer this life to their own and spend more and more time in it, thus leading to terms like "World of Warcrack".
It is for those sad reasons (IMO) that MMOs around to stay, and traditional RPGs pale in comparison when it comes to profits. Like traditional adventure games, I predict that Traditional RPGs will soon be dead.
RTSs:
This is one of the genres that has seen significant improvement over the last few years. Old venerable like Starcraft raised the bar, which was raised even further by games like Rise of Nations, Age of Empires, and the Total War Series. Recently, CNC3 and Supreme Commander have emerged; the former being creative enough to flesh out the current boundaries, and the latter trying something new and increasing scale with new gameplay mechanics.
The caste of RTS gamers also tend to be a more intelligent crowd, as "Strategy" is the game and a good strategy requires intelligence, initially. The only problem with RTSs IMO is that they're not adaptive enough. AI can typically offer a fun challenge, but once it's behaviors are analyzed and known, it becomes quite easy to preempt and beat. (Although stacked forces in a single-player campaign can compensate for this). There's much more fluidity in multi-player for obvious reasons, but after a while, the game becomes less creative and more like a football play-book: A set number of strategies with a little prerequisite improvisation and luck (ie: The zergling rush, turtling, Venom rush, etc).
Personally, I think the best RTS would be similar in concept to the original URU (Myst's successor) idea, with a constantly evolving universe. Add a new unit every couple of months to shake things up and what-not, or add new terrain or battlefield effects. This is generally done through expansion packs, but these generally don't add much aside from a new Single-player campaign (Brood Wars added a whopping 2 new units). Then again, the cost to have developers constantly working on stuff like this is probably high, and it would detract from the development of new/better games, but you'd think a large company like EA would have the capacity to do both.
Simulations
This category has seen some of the best progress of any genre, basically because Computing power has increased, and allowed for more complexity/realism. In most simulators, complexity/realism IS gameplay, thus it's pretty easy to know what to improve. Simcity has expanded to insane levels, and "The Sims" albeit rather dry now, was a huge hit in it's day for good reason. Flight simulators have especially come a long ways. MS Flight Sim has come a long ways in terms of Graphics and Complexity, as have Combat flight simulators.
The only downside to this realism/complexity is the learning curve/cliff/Mt. Everest and cost required to run/play the things. While not necessarily as true in the "Sim" series and spinoffs, when it comes to flight sims, you need high-level (read: expensive) hardware to simply run the Sim at decent levels, not to mention the joysticks/rudder pedals/yokes required for the full experience. And unless you're a trained pilot, it's unlikely that you'll have an easy time of it (especially in the modern combat flight sims). While almost all have tutorials, of the Flight Sims that I've played, only Microsoft has included extensive "virtual lessons" that literally teach you how to fly in the simulator. However, these lessons are long, tedious, and the voice-over (who is supposedly a professional flight instructor) is annoying and scripted.
Once again, it takes a special type of gamer to play these, and fortunately they require a significant amount of intelligence (aside from a few dumbed down simulators) so the communities are typically high quality.
I'd write a conclusion, but dinner's ready now so...
Facebook
Twitter