Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
86 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - Year videogames started going downhill...
What was the year for you that videogames started getting shittier? Also what were the penultimate games that made you say 'shit games are getting worse'.
For me it was about 1999ish on with the advent of 3D accels many devs couldn't keep up they were trying to do too much on too shitty a budget and not enough experience.
I had just finished playing Descent 3 and it sucked hard. The levels were too big and poorly designed. The weapon feeling sucked, the ships looked gay and it didn't re-capture the magic of multiplayer descent 1+2. D3 didn't do so well and the sequel (d4) got canned and turned into red faction. Then interplay went belly up (holy shit!)
I had skipped the PS2 and Xbox generation mostly (outside of god of war) and got a cube on my naive hope that the next zelda/starfox would be fuckin awesome and then Starfox adventures happened and I wanted to punch someone. They totally fucked up starfox so bad. Then I finally got to wind waker and I was wtf banging my head about how dumb the developers had become. Leaving me with a bitter after taste and me wondering wtf happened to game developers.
I was kind of in disbelief how things had been constantly getting better and then with the advent of 3D games developers started fucking up consistently on a regular basis in their major videogame franchises.
When the former 'god of videogames' nintendo starts to put out shit like adventures and wind waker... something big was happening to the entire industry.
Last edited by nakedcammy on Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:36 pm
Fallout4
Ubertard
Joined: Nov 14, 2011
Posts: 125
I think the fact that you bought a nintendo gamecube pretty much obliterates all your credibility on what constitutes a "good game."
Games have gotten better but they cost too much. For example, Counter-Strike was a great game because you bought it and then the whole community created new maps, weapon/armor models, new sounds, textures, even entirely new games using the code (Natural Selection mod is the greatest half-life mod of all time and Natural Selection 2 looks pretty good but is still in development).
Then Call of Duty developers got this great idea to do the same thing that these people were doing for free, and charge $10 here and there as much as possible, and then re-skin and re-texture the same maps and sell them twice. That is when videogames started sucking. When Call of Duty started doing that and when Bioware started spending more money on marketing than on development such that Dragon Age II was the same dungeons and houses recycled and the story was written as some cheap imitation of a good story. Like a 5 minute version of a good story.
Bethesda made Oblivion and Fallout and Skyrim is nice but they are starting to just diarrhea a bunch of fetch quests into the game coding and it is getting redundant. They also need something new.
I am waiting to see if Mass Effect 3 is awful before playing through Mass Effect 1 and 2 again to get transferred save games, because it could suck. Also because they are charging $60 plus $10 more on the FIRST DAY for dlc.
Then Capcom charges for cheat codes.
Etc. etc.
TO summarize:
It happened when marketing executives got this great idea to use DLC to nickel and dime all of us for shit that modders have done for FREE in games like Counter-strike/half-life and Morrowind and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and so many other games.
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:32 pm
Fallout4
Ubertard
Joined: Nov 14, 2011
Posts: 125
Videogames started going downhill when they started putting pictures and video in them instead of just text that told you the actions you were doing like "You just shot that guy over there" or "you just saved the princess."
That was when QUALITY and STORY mattered.
Also a gallon of milk used to cost a nickel back then and them whippersnappers weren't always on my dagnabbit lawn.
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:40 pm
nakedcammy
Flame Me
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 8
Someone whos nickname is fallout4 has no credibility, fallout 3 was a fucking first person shooter for god sakes. Fallout 3 was atrocious. Only newbs eat up that shit, same with skyrim - god damn trash skyrim is. It's all part of the 'cinematic game' trend. Skyrims combat just sucked hard, how people are giving such a shit game rave reviews goes to prove how fucked up modern gamers are.
Getting a gamecube means I have no hardcore gaming cred? GTFO, you are a newb if you believe that shit. Mario, starfox and zelda despite their humble origins are games every true hardcore gamer grew up with. Go play starfox 1 if you think it isn't a hardcore game by todays standards. Most console gamers today would barf on starfox 1's or zelda 1 or 2's difficulty.
The gameplay in most games has stagnated and all they are working on now is the 'cinematics' and story. Mass effect is a case in point. Transferring your saves for what amounts to watching a movie with barely any interactivity and canned fight scenes, you want to 'watch' mass effect rather then play it.
So was the recently released Kingdoms of amalur: reckoning. Everyone is going for bling but the actual gameplay is stagnating. Name one modern shooter that has out-done UT2004 in terms of gameplay.
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:13 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
FO3
NEWVEGAS
SKYRIM
Are all good games, with Skyrim being the best in many ways, but one can't overlook how good a shooter NEWVEGAS is, that's right, it's a very good shooter thx to plenty of good guns and mods etc.....and, it has excellent difficulty levels to justify the guns/mods.
Skyrim can only get better btw, in fact, Skyrim will probably end up being one of the most heavily modded games of all time, and hopefully other fuckwads will integrate steam into mod delivery.
Also, I looked at some oblivion walkthru's and the fucken thing was terrible, Skyrim vanilla has impressive GFX, whereas Oblivion is a dated turd by every criteria.
We also have a situation where not only are good racing games more common, but incredible equipment is being developed to play them....in fact this yr, there's going to be 3-5 good racing games, and 2 amazing quality wheel and pedal sets that cost less than a $1000, whereas before, you were near 3-4k for something as good.
So depending on who you are and what you like, things are better, but certainly some things are worse/annoying, for example, DLC is optional, and as long as it's not required to really finish off the story, then it's not as bad as it seems, but 1st day DLC is a moronic move for sure.
We also have steam sales, and if you're patient and on the ball, you can acquire a ton of games for peanuts.....
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:18 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Fallout4 wrote:
I think the fact that you bought a nintendo gamecube pretty much obliterates all your credibility on what constitutes a "good game."
Why's this? I only played Paper Mario 2 on the cube and this was a great game. I tried Zelda Wind Waker (and Ocarina of Time, that came with the package), Super Mario Sunshine and Metroid Prime too but got bored with those really quickly.
Don't get me wrong, I liked nintendo...when I was 10.
Paper Mario. Ok, I will give the benefit of the doubt that it was good. It looks like it could have been good.
But Nintendo has degenerated into effeminate Japanese hentai-anime tentacle gayness. And Gamecube was the start of that Santorum (google it if you are too filled with Santorum to get it).
Also the original poster lost all credibility a second time when he said Fallout 3 was terrible.
So thats two strikes against you. Let me guess, original poster is going to go play Hello Kitty Island Adventure now?
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:44 pm
Fallout4
Ubertard
Joined: Nov 14, 2011
Posts: 125
Basically you're saying that only games without graphics are awesome.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:26 pm
nakedcammy
Flame Me
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 8
Fallout4 wrote:
Basically you're saying that only games without graphics are awesome.
No. I'm saying the combat systems (the actual gameplay) of modern games are stuck in time and too dumbed down, they are sucky to put it bluntly. They lack depth older games had like Q3 and UT2004. Take UT2004 - many game modes besides deathmatch and ctf, you're able to carry significant arsenal. Most modern shooters have nothing approaching what has been done in UT2004 or even quake 3 /w mods.
Modern games have excellent cinematically rendered levels confusing our minds that they are 'good games', we need to seperate game mechanics from heavily scripted levels using special fx, those levels of Call of duty 4 while awesome have next to no replayability because the emotional enjoyment is passive fire-and-forget hollywood fx. Call of duty is well made but in terms of gameplay mechanics is hopelessly average compared to shooters that came long before it.
Modern gamers confuse cinematic aspects of a level pumping their excitement and emotions with quality mechanics. Look at the difference between a game that doesn't use cinematic and special fx to stimulate players emotions like civilization - it is addictive because the game is intrinsically fun and doesn't rely on hollywood to engage the player.
I'm not saying cinematic elements in games are inherently bad, I'm saying they've come to dominate everything else in negative ways. So we get games with simplified combat that has no real depth or challenge. A few games this generation have harkened back to old school design like Demon souls. But even action games have come to have lots of dead time , needless cinematics and filler (too much empty space with you doing nothing interesting). A case in point is Darksiders. A game which is above average but never reaches it's stride because there isn't enough going on in the game to keep your interest.
It's not a game that really hooks you intrinsically because of the gameplay and pulls you in and that is really missing from most modern games outside the multiplayer of a few big AAA games which are just coasting on past formulas of success and repackaging it for an inexperienced younger demographic who doesn't have a big gaming history.
I don't dismiss modern games have excellent production values (graphics/ sound) but lets admit that call of duty and mass effects levels are more like giant cut-scenes you participate in briefly then actual gameplay. It's entertaining while it lasts but it isn't good long lasting fun.
Game developers have discovered the cinematic keys to immersion by using camera angles and focusing on the most immersive camera angle - first person, and turning all traditional RPG's into more action oriented games. All of which are not bad. But the actual things you do in the game are at such a basic and sucky level because it's catering to the lowest common denominator.
There are huge amounts of dead-time in both Skyrim and Reckoning, the 'open world' actually kills the pacing of the game because there isn't enough action in both these games. For two recently released games there is way too much padding and not enough depth. The actual combat in skyrim is basic - it's functional and it's just enough to keep your interest until the next scripted cinematic experience but that's exactly what's wrong with it. The high's aren't high as they used to be and the lows are lower then ever. Kingdoms of Amalur is a case in point because it shares much of the same flaws with skyrim.
Last edited by nakedcammy on Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:47 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
Cammy.
I don't like COD/BF3, but many do, and many like the MP.....so yes, they've ruined the SP, but MP is probably better than ever{for some games}, and those games are selling 10m+.
I agree that Skyrim could use a bit more titillation from time to time, but I only thought that on my 2nd playthru, and we still haven't seen the best mods.
Skyrim was a big step up over both FO3 and NV, but u don't them either.
Btw, one good racing sim can last for yrs.
I've lost interest in pure run and guns, so I haven't bought Crysis2, and now that it's attached to Origin, will never buy it, well the most I'd pay is 99c.
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:51 pm
nakedcammy
Flame Me
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 8
Pogma9 wrote:
Cammy.
I don't like COD/BF3, but many do, and many like the MP.....so yes, they've ruined the SP, but MP is probably better than ever{for some games}, and those games are selling 10m+.
I agree that Skyrim could use a bit more titillation from time to time, but I only thought that on my 2nd playthru, and we still haven't seen the best mods.
Skyrim was a big step up over both FO3 and NV, but u don't them either.
Btw, one good racing sim can last for yrs.
I've lost interest in pure run and guns, so I haven't bought Crysis2, and now that it's attached to Origin, will never buy it, well the most I'd pay is 99c.
Skyrim is the first bethesda game that is actually average. I don't hate skyrim but I do think it is mediocre no question about it. Skyrim is probably bethesda's first game that has potential. Maybe skyrim 2 will be better but it seems many developers don't get that open worlds fuck up the pacing of a game. Skyrim suffers from having way too much dead time boring yourself to death with travelling still, even with it's 'fast travel'. Then there is the hopelessly boring enemies and all too dumbed down combat.
Open worlds tend to always fuck up the pacing of a game unless you are GTA or Saints row and there is a cubic fuck-tonne of things to do in it. Skyrim suffers from not having enough interesting things to do and the combat is too simplified for the retarded gaming masses.
Run 'n gun games are good when they are designed well. Serious sam 1 and The secound encounter are games that harken back to good action game design. Most modern action games are so poorly put together compared to say Serious sam 1 even.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:17 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
nakedcammy wrote:
Skyrim is the first bethesda game that is actually average.
Interesting as Skyrim....
Has some of the best GFX overall{PC}
Has the best environments I've ever seen.
Has excellent character models.
Has quite good animations overall.
Has a number of playstyles, ie, magic vs traditional combat.
Has a good level of difficulty if you play by yourself.
Has more quests than FO3 and NV combined.
Has the most authentic gameworld I can think of.
Average it isn't.....that's not to say it couldn't be improved, but I rate it very highly, but I still like FO3 and Vegas for my own reasons.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:30 am
nakedcammy
Flame Me
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 8
Pogma9 wrote:
nakedcammy wrote:
Skyrim is the first bethesda game that is actually average.
Interesting as Skyrim....
Has some of the best GFX overall{PC}
Has the best environments I've ever seen.
Has excellent character models.
Has quite good animations overall.
Has a number of playstyles, ie, magic vs traditional combat.
Has a good level of difficulty if you play by yourself.
Has more quests than FO3 and NV combined.
Has the most authentic gameworld I can think of.
Average it isn't.....that's not to say it couldn't be improved, but I rate it very highly, but I still like FO3 and Vegas for my own reasons.
Thats because you are one of the retarded masses. This site is called 'videogamessuck'. That means it's really for people that know most modern video games suck hardcore. While many modern games have high production values they have low replayability and the magic is gone, hence why this site exists.
The thing where skyrim excels is copying call of duties 'cinematic spam' level design. Notice the first level in skyrim is pure cut-scene all the way through, then you're pushed through a linear level spamming more hollywood fx and stuff happening all around you 'wizz bang'. That isn't gameplay, that's substituting gameplay for scripted in game cinematics the only difference is they dont' take away control of your character. Fallout 3 and skyrim are hugely poorly paced, I got bored quickly. FA3 was just a really slow fps. Not to mention FA3 was a first person fucking shooter - traditional fallout was nothing like FA3. The obsession with open worlds ala GTA has been killing the pacing of games.
The reason why companies have turned classic games that were not first person shooters into first person shooters are because they are formula that work on people like you.
Almost everything you listed about skyrim has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the game, "The graphics are good". The 'combat playstyles' are anything but. Combat is not challenging in skyrim at all, there is no strategy or depth. The combat is so slow compared to other action games you might as well fall asleep. The tediousness of world travel is horrendous, the fact that they put fast travel in skyrim is proof that the game is poorly paced.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:01 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
nakedcammy wrote:
Thats because you are one of the retarded masses.
Fucktard.....all you do is complain, and stupidly try and compare a largely non linear game{Skyrim} with COD SP.....so STFU already, we've all gathered there's nothing about gaming you like unless it comes with the excruciating difficulty of Dark Souls....well fuck off back there tard, fuck off to your console.
You sound like a ADD type that requires constant stimulation, just as long as it isn't a cut scene, thing is stupid, you need to build your characters in FO3/NV and Skyrim, and I'd love to see tackle NV on hardest diff in hardcore mode.
You're also one of the weirdo's{console type cunts}, who can tolerate match stick production values, just as long as it has whatever the fuck you're after in gameplay, trouble is moron, travelling and discovery are aspects of open world games, and the better the production values, the more convincing the experience, but quick, get out your 640p turds on the Xbox.
Do you play racing sims, do you play tactical shooters?.....no, just some sword and sandal fantasy as long as it's excruciatingly difficult, well fuck you.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:55 am
Fallout4
Ubertard
Joined: Nov 14, 2011
Posts: 125
nakedcammy wrote:
Skyrim is the first bethesda game that is actually average. I don't hate skyrim but I do think it is mediocre no question about it. Skyrim is probably bethesda's first game that has potential. Maybe skyrim 2 will be better but it seems many developers don't get that open worlds fuck up the pacing of a game. Skyrim suffers from having way too much dead time boring yourself to death with travelling still, even with it's 'fast travel'. Then there is the hopelessly boring enemies and all too dumbed down combat.
Open worlds tend to always fuck up the pacing of a game unless you are GTA or Saints row and there is a cubic fuck-tonne of things to do in it. Skyrim suffers from not having enough interesting things to do and the combat is too simplified for the retarded gaming masses.
Run 'n gun games are good when they are designed well. Serious sam 1 and The secound encounter are games that harken back to good action game design. Most modern action games are so poorly put together compared to say Serious sam 1 even.
I can no longer tell if you are serious or just stupid. Calling the next Elder Scrolls game "Skyrim 2" was the obvious attempt at trolling.
You don't like Mororwind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, or Skyrim. If you think those games are below average and Skyrim is "Average" then theres nothing left to say but youuuuuu'rrrreeeee stupid.
Good troll though maybe like 4/10 but you need to blame Obama and the liberals and minorities more for all the problems you whine about.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:04 am
Fallout4
Ubertard
Joined: Nov 14, 2011
Posts: 125
GO back to your atari and Nintendo 1 and get rid of your computer instead of being an "Old games are sooo much better than new ones" hipster. I hate hipsters. Don't you have to go buy some really old, dirty, unwashed 1970s style pants with holes in them, and then wear ironically hip glasses that are 3 inches thick even though you have perfect 20/20 vision? Yea go do that instead. I heard there was a sale on jeans meant for 12 year old girls that you hipsters like to wear so much, maybe you should check it out.
I will say that one old game that I was actually able to play through in the last 2 years is Final Fantasy VII. They need to remake that game and Morrowind.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series is another example of an awesome game with good tactical singleplayer gameplay. The game is pretty difficult even on Novice level, and the AI is not the usual "run straight at you" crap. But since that game was released in the last 10 years it must suck right? Graphics are too good so it sucks? AM I doing it right?
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:16 pm
Ape_Shall_Never_Kill_Ape
Ubertard
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 130
April 3, 2006... A date which will live in infamy.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:27 pm
Fallout4
Ubertard
Joined: Nov 14, 2011
Posts: 125
Ape_Shall_Never_Kill_Ape wrote:
April 3, 2006... A date which will live in infamy.
Why, exactly? Please do explain.
I would argue that until Dragon Age II, games were still ARGUABLY good
(meaning that there was no definitive answer one way or the other). Dragon Age II showed us what game companies and marketing executives really think of people, however.
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:54 pm
Ape_Shall_Never_Kill_Ape
Ubertard
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 130
Fallout4 wrote:
Ape_Shall_Never_Kill_Ape wrote:
April 3, 2006... A date which will live in infamy.
Why, exactly? Please do explain.
I would argue that until Dragon Age II, games were still ARGUABLY good
(meaning that there was no definitive answer one way or the other). Dragon Age II showed us what game companies and marketing executives really think of people, however.
I mean to say that gaming is in a sad state when a developer thinks people are stupid and gullible enough to pay for something (horse armor) that could be easily implemented by the modding community free of charge. Then again, how would the console Oblivion players get access to such content without having to pay for it?
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:29 pm
Fallout4
Ubertard
Joined: Nov 14, 2011
Posts: 125
Ape_Shall_Never_Kill_Ape wrote:
Fallout4 wrote:
Ape_Shall_Never_Kill_Ape wrote:
April 3, 2006... A date which will live in infamy.
Why, exactly? Please do explain.
I would argue that until Dragon Age II, games were still ARGUABLY good
(meaning that there was no definitive answer one way or the other). Dragon Age II showed us what game companies and marketing executives really think of people, however.
I mean to say that gaming is in a sad state when a developer thinks people are stupid and gullible enough to pay for something (horse armor) that could be easily implemented by the modding community free of charge. Then again, how would the console Oblivion players get access to such content without having to pay for it?
So Oblivion had horse armor DLC? thats dumb.
But compared to BioWare's "DLC" Bethesda's DLC has been pretty reasonable at least. The Shivering Isles was a good DLC, whereas now BioWare wants us to be $60 plus $10 for DLC on DAY ONE just to have full content. Actually I had read that Mass Effect 2 had content that an Xbox patch deleted in order to resell as DLC.
So yea DLC is ruining games.
THe fault lies with marketers and business majors. Anything they touch becomes filthy and ruined.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 3Goto page 1, 2, 3Next
