Discussion Forums > Gaming
Do They Really Not Make Them Like They Used To?
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:
--- Quote from: krumm on June 14, 2012, 11:26:37 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: krumm on June 14, 2012, 11:26:37 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on June 15, 2012, 12:19:30 AM ---^ That also applies very well to books.
--- End quote ---
No, they truly are not written as they used to be. Modern writers are pretty mediocre compared to Hemingway (my favourite!)
--- Quote from: zherok on June 15, 2012, 03:33:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: krumm on June 14, 2012, 11:26:37 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
I prefer this, actually. I think it's just me.
zherok:
--- Quote from: tomoya-kun on June 24, 2012, 07:58:21 AM ---I prefer this, actually. I think it's just me.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version