Do They Really Not Make Them Like They Used To?

[logos]

Also, Logos, are you going to deny that games are dumbed down and have stories that lame?

yes, I am going to deny that "some" games are dumbed down, "some" games have lame stories.
Newer games in all aspects are more complex than older games...Doom's mechanics are lolsimple compared to any recent shooter.  FF1-X have much simpler mechanics than 12/13, madden '95 is stupidly simple compared to madden '11

As for stories that's generally a personal thing, ex: imo mass effect 1-3 is one of the best stories ever told in a game, but it was like the entire internet wanted to crucify bioware for 3's ending, FF13 also seems to be hated, which I think is funny since 13 seems to be the only FF game that square actually attempted to do something new in, but w/e.

RPGs-a lot of really solid RPGs have been released recently, skyrim, kingdom of amalur, mass effect 3 were all released in the last...year? that's 3 really good games rpgs in 1 year and that doesnt include the many games I havent played.

[vicious796]

Also, Logos, are you going to deny that games are dumbed down and have stories that lame?

yes, I am going to deny that "some" games are dumbed down, "some" games have lame stories.
Newer games in all aspects are more complex than older games...Doom's mechanics are lolsimple compared to any recent shooter.  FF1-X have much simpler mechanics than 12/13, madden '95 is stupidly simple compared to madden '11

Once again, you're confusing complexity with difficulty. Just because something is overly complex does not make it truly challenging. It's the mechanics that are difficult - not the game. I know that seems like a "one-in-the-same" kinda deal but it isn't. If a part in the game is hard because you have to use the menu, three submenus, a series of buttons, etc. that isn't the game being challenging - that's the mechanics being overly complicated.

Once again, let's use Chrono Cross as an example since it's really what brought this to mind. You choose between 3 levels of attack that increase in hit chance as you combo. Each level builds up stamina so you can use your heavy hitting abilities. Those abilities have a color to them that fill up a 3-level field. If you get the field all red, for example, your red attacks have an extra bonus multiplier. Beyond that, everyone has an element color that can be exposed or buffed. You can also change people's element colors to fit your playstyle.

It's complex, in its own way, but the delivery of it is elegantly simple. It's an "easy to learn, tricky to master" type system that is very rewarding and helps prevent combat from getting stale. This was on the PS1 in 2000. Today, it seems like you either have 2 options or 20. One is very simple while the other is a bit extreme and you end up only using half a dozen of those 20 options. The others are just fluff or very specific and, honestly, they don't add much to the actual gameplay experience.

As for stories that's generally a personal thing, ex: imo mass effect 1-3 is one of the best stories ever told in a game, but it was like the entire internet wanted to crucify bioware for 3's ending, FF13 also seems to be hated, which I think is funny since 13 seems to be the only FF game that square actually attempted to do something new in, but w/e.

It is a preference thing but, I hate to break it to you, the overwhelming majority of the RPG community is on our side of this and have been for quite some time. I have to give you Mass Effect but, once again, that's a series. All-in-all, 1-3 could easily be considered one RPG because it's a continual story.

Final Fantasy, however, I will argue to the death. Not just FF, either, but just about everything SE has put out in the last 6 years. The script for 13 was horrible. No, it was God-awful. The characters were very, very, very 1 dimensional and the few evolutions that did occur were very stale. I swear to God, if I ever hear someone talk about being a "hero" and that this is what "heroes" do again I'll stab my eyes out with a fork. I understand they were trying something new - a fantasy/steampunk collaboration - but that doesn't excuse the bad dialogue.

RPGs-a lot of really solid RPGs have been released recently, skyrim, kingdom of amalur, mass effect 3 were all released in the last...year? that's 3 really good games rpgs in 1 year and that doesnt include the many games I havent played.

KoA was hit or miss and did a lot of missing. There's a reason that the studio is declaring bankruptcy now. It was an amazing accomplishment for a first-time studio but, at the end of the day, wasn't "fantastic". As I said before, ME3 can be considered a simple continuation of the ME series and, on its own, isn't something that stands alone. Skyrim, however, is fantastic and everything we've come to expect from Bethesda's Elder Scrolls series.

But that's it. Really, honestly, and truly, that's it. Take a look at 99-early 2000s for a comparison. We had Chrono Cross, FF8 - 10, the start of Xenosaga, and Zone of the Enders just to name a few.

I had forgotten about 4X games until I started playing Sins last night - that's a field that has seen improvement over the years. Civ 5 and Sins are great examples. It's always been a niche market with games few and far between but, honestly, it's not the type of game that COULD have annual releases that aren't just expansions.

[logos]

(click to show/hide)

Also, Logos, are you going to deny that games are dumbed down and have stories that lame?

yes, I am going to deny that "some" games are dumbed down, "some" games have lame stories.
Newer games in all aspects are more complex than older games...Doom's mechanics are lolsimple compared to any recent shooter.  FF1-X have much simpler mechanics than 12/13, madden '95 is stupidly simple compared to madden '11

Once again, you're confusing complexity with difficulty. Just because something is overly complex does not make it truly challenging. It's the mechanics that are difficult - not the game. I know that seems like a "one-in-the-same" kinda deal but it isn't. If a part in the game is hard because you have to use the menu, three submenus, a series of buttons, etc. that isn't the game being challenging - that's the mechanics being overly complicated.

Once again, let's use Chrono Cross as an example since it's really what brought this to mind. You choose between 3 levels of attack that increase in hit chance as you combo. Each level builds up stamina so you can use your heavy hitting abilities. Those abilities have a color to them that fill up a 3-level field. If you get the field all red, for example, your red attacks have an extra bonus multiplier. Beyond that, everyone has an element color that can be exposed or buffed. You can also change people's element colors to fit your playstyle.

It's complex, in its own way, but the delivery of it is elegantly simple. It's an "easy to learn, tricky to master" type system that is very rewarding and helps prevent combat from getting stale. This was on the PS1 in 2000. Today, it seems like you either have 2 options or 20. One is very simple while the other is a bit extreme and you end up only using half a dozen of those 20 options. The others are just fluff or very specific and, honestly, they don't add much to the actual gameplay experience.

As for stories that's generally a personal thing, ex: imo mass effect 1-3 is one of the best stories ever told in a game, but it was like the entire internet wanted to crucify bioware for 3's ending, FF13 also seems to be hated, which I think is funny since 13 seems to be the only FF game that square actually attempted to do something new in, but w/e.

It is a preference thing but, I hate to break it to you, the overwhelming majority of the RPG community is on our side of this and have been for quite some time. I have to give you Mass Effect but, once again, that's a series. All-in-all, 1-3 could easily be considered one RPG because it's a continual story.

Final Fantasy, however, I will argue to the death. Not just FF, either, but just about everything SE has put out in the last 6 years. The script for 13 was horrible. No, it was God-awful. The characters were very, very, very 1 dimensional and the few evolutions that did occur were very stale. I swear to God, if I ever hear someone talk about being a "hero" and that this is what "heroes" do again I'll stab my eyes out with a fork. I understand they were trying something new - a fantasy/steampunk collaboration - but that doesn't excuse the bad dialogue.

RPGs-a lot of really solid RPGs have been released recently, skyrim, kingdom of amalur, mass effect 3 were all released in the last...year? that's 3 really good games rpgs in 1 year and that doesnt include the many games I havent played.

KoA was hit or miss and did a lot of missing. There's a reason that the studio is declaring bankruptcy now. It was an amazing accomplishment for a first-time studio but, at the end of the day, wasn't "fantastic". As I said before, ME3 can be considered a simple continuation of the ME series and, on its own, isn't something that stands alone. Skyrim, however, is fantastic and everything we've come to expect from Bethesda's Elder Scrolls series.

But that's it. Really, honestly, and truly, that's it. Take a look at 99-early 2000s for a comparison. We had Chrono Cross, FF8 - 10, the start of Xenosaga, and Zone of the Enders just to name a few.

I had forgotten about 4X games until I started playing Sins last night - that's a field that has seen improvement over the years. Civ 5 and Sins are great examples. It's always been a niche market with games few and far between but, honestly, it's not the type of game that COULD have annual releases that aren't just expansions.

So, again, I understand that chrono cross is what brought on the subject, I have never played it, but for arguments sake lets say it is a shining example of all that is awesome, but it's still just 1 game and even with the other "great" games of the past there are just as many (probably) great new games.

As for the difficult=/=complex, true enough, but higher complexity grants more freedom with difficulty, nowadays we have AI like in skyrim, puzzle games like portal, ntm innovations like xbox kinect or the Wii that allow a whole different aspect of difficulty.  I also heard catherine is hella difficult, but never played it so i cant comment.

I still think that most gamers just "remember" stories in games as being better when they were younger, its much easier to amaze a 10 yr old than a 25yr old and ofc newer is always better, so after you play through your 50th rpg no matter how good the story is its probably full of shit you've already seen, even if in actuality is just as great if not better than the first great story you've encountered...but that's just how I feel, again judging stories is subjective and I don't really want to argue for or against.

[Nikkoru]

I don't think I'm suffering from nostalgia, for one thing I still have most of all these games in original or digitized format - so I can go back and compare directly. On the whole, games have improved immensely in the last 30 years. Platformers, racing, FPSs, puzzle games, whatever. RPGs, I think, are the exception.

Role playing has been done well since before video games, it requires more effort out of the participant to make it enjoyable and RPGamers are more than comfortable with this. When table-top gaming, immediate and mindless success is just masturbatory and everyone knows it. It's also not about the dice throwing, it's a cognitive activity primarily, not Yahtzee. In short, I want games which let me play a role, think through problems, and consider strategies. I don't want to watch a movie, with occasional button pressing to break the scenes up. Nor should clicking or mashing buttons for hours on end be the determining factor of everything. On the other hand, I don't need pointless complexity, everything you should have to know about your character and the game should be within memory, or written on two pieces of paper. Logical limitations to keep the story going. Increasing sophistication with gaming consoles and computers doesn't change the base requirements for what makes role playing games an enjoyable experience -- it should make the story telling easier and the player more involved.

My only issue with games outside of RPGs is simple redundancy -- while games have been improving in a linear fashion over time, they've grown far more expansively horizontally. While many SNES, Genesis, PSX, and other retro console games did suck quite a bit -- every time something like a Mario or Metroid did come out, there weren't a dozen or so similar games to dilute the experience. Nor did Nintendo release Mario 1.1/1.2/1.3 and so on, they spent time developing their original idea until they genuinely believed they improved it, not simply changed the aesthetics and asked for more money.

The problem with modern gaming is, in short, the feeling that you've played that game a hundred times before.

[krumm]

This topic comes up in all forms of entertainment, and it is total bull shit.  When there is more of something the direct amount of bad goes up.  The amount of bad might go up percent wise as well, but that is just because making something good is harder then making something bad.  But even if the bad is going up, that does not mean the direct amount of good is going down, you just have to weed through more.  This is just a small part of the problem.  Old memories and hype are the biggest problems with new [games/movies/TV shows] not seeming as good to some people. 

Old memories make it harder to see improvement and hype makes you think there is something in the new that was not even in the old.

Also when it comes to story telling there is next to nothing that has not been told before.  If you think something is original, it is just because you personally have not found it.

[megido-rev.M]

^ That also applies very well to books.

Anyway, when it boils down to the game elements, those almost never change. It's all up to the makers to come up with a mixture to develop something interesting enough overall, and distinguishing that from others (which goes without saying).

[zherok]

Also when it comes to story telling there is next to nothing that has not been told before.  If you think something is original, it is just because you personally have not found it.

I don't think for me the issue is with what stories they're telling so much as the method they're being delivered in.

And I'd argue that not all methods of yesteryear were inherently superior (plenty of games where the story was entirely contained within the opening moments or the manual.) But at the same time there's still been a huge shift towards the cinematic that simply wasn't possible (on this scale) until the media could contain it.

There's an article on Kotaku right now that talks about Nintendo wanting to return to how their older games work. In Zelda, you get your sword in like 10-20 seconds into the game. You're free to play the rest of the game from then on out (hell, pretty sure you can even pull off most of the game without it, if you know what you're doing.) In modern Zeldas, you're going upwards of an hour of cinematic and tutorial filled nonsense before they trust you enough to let you do your thing.

And it's not just tutorials, modern shooters might or might not have compelling stories, but they're frequently forcing you to become a bystander of their story telling. You're basically just moving your pawn around so they can send you into another pre-scripted event. Then you've got games like Metal Gear Solid with an average cutscene length of about five minutes in most of the games. RPGs from Square where even the gameplay has become more detached from the player, and a huge emphasis on cutscenes since the CD era.

Shifting away from the cinematic, you've got games like Kingdom of Amalur, which while fairly pretty, likes to spend an inordinate amount of time having random strangers tell you about how the world works, rather than just showing you.

Not every game does this, but I don't think it'd be unreasonable to suggest that there's a definite trend towards games delivering story telling through either largely non-interactive cutscenes and/or text dumps (also very common with modern games, providing significant amounts of backstory in alternate media content; specifically hack-y novels, though anime and comic books aren't too uncommon either.) In a media defined by participant input, story telling falling back on more traditional means to provide context is a copout, and again, while older games weren't perfect either, modern games are much more reliant on non-interactive media to get their plot across.

[nstgc]

This topic comes up in all forms of entertainment, and it is total bull shit.  When there is more of something the direct amount of bad goes up.  The amount of bad might go up percent wise as well, but that is just because making something good is harder then making something bad.  But even if the bad is going up, that does not mean the direct amount of good is going down, you just have to weed through more.  This is just a small part of the problem.  Old memories and hype are the biggest problems with new [games/movies/TV shows] not seeming as good to some people. 

Old memories make it harder to see improvement and hype makes you think there is something in the new that was not even in the old.

Also when it comes to story telling there is next to nothing that has not been told before.  If you think something is original, it is just because you personally have not found it.

There is a bit of difference. The modern video game (as opposed to say the Atari or Comedor 64 era) is relatively new and the type of person who played those is different from those who play modern games now. Additionally the market didn't reset like it did when Atari crashed. Game companies have been allowed to grow, devour all that is good (Oh where hast thou gone Westwood? And Bioware, what where are thine eyes?), all the while spoiling.

[edit] I just saw this (5 days after I posted the original message by the way) and thought it was relevent: http://imgur.com/a/7zLmV

[tomoya-kun]

^ That also applies very well to books.

No, they truly are not written as they used to be.  Modern writers are pretty mediocre compared to Hemingway (my favourite!)

Also when it comes to story telling there is next to nothing that has not been told before.  If you think something is original, it is just because you personally have not found it.

I don't think for me the issue is with what stories they're telling so much as the method they're being delivered in.

And I'd argue that not all methods of yesteryear were inherently superior (plenty of games where the story was entirely contained within the opening moments or the manual.) But at the same time there's still been a huge shift towards the cinematic that simply wasn't possible (on this scale) until the media could contain it.

There's an article on Kotaku right now that talks about Nintendo wanting to return to how their older games work. In Zelda, you get your sword in like 10-20 seconds into the game. You're free to play the rest of the game from then on out (hell, pretty sure you can even pull off most of the game without it, if you know what you're doing.) In modern Zeldas, you're going upwards of an hour of cinematic and tutorial filled nonsense before they trust you enough to let you do your thing.

And it's not just tutorials, modern shooters might or might not have compelling stories, but they're frequently forcing you to become a bystander of their story telling. You're basically just moving your pawn around so they can send you into another pre-scripted event. Then you've got games like Metal Gear Solid with an average cutscene length of about five minutes in most of the games. RPGs from Square where even the gameplay has become more detached from the player, and a huge emphasis on cutscenes since the CD era.

Shifting away from the cinematic, you've got games like Kingdom of Amalur, which while fairly pretty, likes to spend an inordinate amount of time having random strangers tell you about how the world works, rather than just showing you.

Not every game does this, but I don't think it'd be unreasonable to suggest that there's a definite trend towards games delivering story telling through either largely non-interactive cutscenes and/or text dumps (also very common with modern games, providing significant amounts of backstory in alternate media content; specifically hack-y novels, though anime and comic books aren't too uncommon either.) In a media defined by participant input, story telling falling back on more traditional means to provide context is a copout, and again, while older games weren't perfect either, modern games are much more reliant on non-interactive media to get their plot across.

I prefer this, actually.  I think it's just me.

[zherok]

I prefer this, actually.  I think it's just me.

For me the issue is games dedicating so much of their development towards graphics and non-interactive cinematics/cutscenes. It takes a lot more work for a modern game to tell the same story as an older game would, because the standard is higher. The consequence isn't necessary game length, but it definitely comes out of how much of the game you actually spend playing it, rather than watching it.

[kamuixtv99]

Gameplay is shorter these days. I finished Mass Effect 2 in 45 hours (no one died), the same length of gameplay with Resident Evil 5 and FFXIII. They can't beat Chrono Trigger's 72 hours, I'm not sure with FFVI I guess it's also longer. Front Mission 1st is also longer than FM4.

I still play 2D fighting games and I miss my 3DO system playing Sailormoon and Yuyu Hakusho, there are the best anime-based games for me although I also enjoy DBZ Tenkaichi on PS2, it's a must for DBZ fans.

[nstgc]

I'm actually a fan of tutorials, although I don't think they should be part of the game. I prefer when the tutorial is some extra part of the game, completely separate so you can jump right in. I've been playing Growlansers II lately and its a bit distracting to start the game as a tutorial. Its even worse when in game characters tell you to press "X" or what not.

[Garret02]

About games being dumbed down (and tutorials)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

[zherok]

Gameplay is shorter these days. I finished Mass Effect 2 in 45 hours (no one died), the same length of gameplay with Resident Evil 5 and FFXIII. They can't beat Chrono Trigger's 72 hours, I'm not sure with FFVI I guess it's also longer. Front Mission 1st is also longer than FM4.

You can find JRPGs at the 50-100 hour mark still. Though not every JRPG justifies that sort of length. It's easy to pad out that length in a JRPG just by making the game full of "tedious bullshit phases," often long grindy post-games (NIS games have them a lot.)

Off the top of my head, Persona 3 took me 75 hours for a full clear (and that was before "The Answer," a separate game mode added in FES.) That's PS2, but Persona 4 was pretty decent length too, and that was one of the last games of that gen. I'm sure some PS3 titles manage similar times.

Plus there's some Western games like Skyrim that are definitely up there. That said I don't think ME2 was particularly short. More linear than the first game, but a considerable part of the first game was playing lunar rover looking for ore nodes. Not exactly engaging gameplay all the way through.

I'd prefer a decent narrative to several dozen hours of padding, personally.

[nstgc]

^ That also applies very well to books.

No, they truly are not written as they used to be.  Modern writers are pretty mediocre compared to Hemingway (my favourite!)

I don't know. I get the occasional shitty read (I recently purchased one in fact), but I think for the most part its one of the few mediums thats doing well. I think its largely due to the individualistic nature of the art. The one I'm struggling to get through has two authors, so thats surely the problem. It is true that some authors get sloppy and greedy as they publish books. The one that comes to mind first is Patricia Briggs. I love her books with the exception of the Mercy Thompson series. She isn't the greatest writer, but they are pleasant reads. The new books are bland, and slow.

About games being dumbed down (and tutorials)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

While I think that self discovery is the best, and most rewarding way to go, tutorials do have their place. As has been mentioned before, modern games are more complex then the older ones. I do think the rewards of self discovery really can be used to show what is lacking these days.

Games these days seem to be about killing, blowing shit up, and being a general bad ass. These aren't personally rewarding like working through a tough situation would be. Also, gamers these days lack the patients to learn the game themselves.

[edit] I should note that I do not consider any of Patricia Brigg's books to be "classics" nor "master pieces". I just wanted to show how some "modern" writings sell out or loose their touch with time. I also should add that I do think that literature is one of those things that is filtered very effectively by time. No one remembers the shitty turn of the last century dime novels, the shitty romance novels, and the westerns. If I were to compare Dune (1965) or The Snow Queen (1980) to The Windup Girl (2009) I'd say that they are all fairly evenly matched.

[zherok]

While I think that self discovery is the best, and most rewarding way to go, tutorials do have their place. As has been mentioned before, modern games are more complex then the older ones. I do think the rewards of self discovery really can be used to show what is lacking these days.

Games these days seem to be about killing, blowing shit up, and being a general bad ass. These aren't personally rewarding like working through a tough situation would be. Also, gamers these days lack the patients to learn the game themselves.

There was a article on Kotaku today talking about how Japanese games tend to assume the lowest common denominator. I think the tutorial methodology is a result of that. And I think even Western games often fall prey to it. Outside of indie games very few modern titles are just pick up and go.

Many seem to assume you've never even played a video game and teach you one thing at a time (particularly irking for me is getting a brand new game that essentially doesn't have a manual, but is willing to waste 30 minutes of my time with a mandatory tutorial level.) I don't think modern games are so complicated you can't simply tell the player up front, yet tutorials are still nearly ubiquitous. When you're selling games that are only 8 hours long sometimes, maybe don't spend half an hour of that telling people how to move their character.

[nstgc]

To quote the article in the above post:

Just imagine if you had to order McDonald's like a Japanese game's option menu. It would be horrific if you had ever been to a McD's before. Can I take your order. Hamburger. Hamburger is a piece of meat, two buns, ketchup and mustard. Are you sure you want a hamburger? Yes. That is friction. Western games stop when the user says hamburger. They assume that user intent is initially correct. JPN games should too.

[zherok]

The metaphor reminded me of the older PSN purchasing system (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/03/02)

[Nikkoru]

So long as you can skip the tutorial, I'm happy.

Though if it can be done like Portal, I won't complain.

[Pagonis]

This is talked to death.

Nowadays all that time (== money) consuming texture, model, sound, etc work requires a shitload of money. And no one wants to invest into something new or different with a chance of losing that money. So new stuff emerges from indie developers or low budged projects (and most of the time they look good on paper, but have a very poor execution due to budget - so low sales and that's even more fuel to fire not to invest into something new and brave).

Also, making not a linear maps with all these shiny graphics is, again, time and money consuming. It's not anymore that you can make one 16x16 texture and use it for 5 different walls in passages from point A to B. Now it's one short tunnel with different models, textures and sounds. Looks really good but is also very, very boring and mindnumbing...

So yeah, better looking, more shallow.