Discussion Forums > Gaming
Do They Really Not Make Them Like They Used To?
megido-rev.M:
--- Quote from: Pagonis on June 30, 2012, 02:14:49 AM ---So yeah, better looking, more shallow.
--- End quote ---
Capitalism indeed.
nstgc:
--- Quote from: Pagonis on June 30, 2012, 02:14:49 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
That's pretty close to what they did in Dragon Age II. Of course it was a mind numbing short tunnel as well.
(for those who haven't played DA2: Everything thing looks the same. There is little variety.)
occasional:
Though most games are crap, there are a few good ones that have great graphics, gameplay, and plot. Older games generally not only looked like crap, but they didn't have much of a plot either.
zherok:
--- Quote from: nstgc on July 03, 2012, 04:05:40 PM ---That's pretty close to what they did in Dragon Age II. Of course it was a mind numbing short tunnel as well.
(for those who haven't played DA2: Everything thing looks the same. There is little variety.)
--- End quote ---
They wanted to stylize the artwork in order to avoid the sort of generic fantasy look the first game had. But they went with almost but not quite cel-shaded look, so it mostly just meant fairly flat textures with little detail.
What really killed it though was having the entire game set in the same city over a period of like six years. Not terrible in itself, but the fact that the city doesn't change almost at all over that time frame (and then making the majority of the game backtracking over the same cityscape, hell, even the tunnels, caves, and forests you occasionally visit outside the city) in combination with that art style and it came off as incredibly lazy.
I have to say though I'm not sure that they didn't put the work in so much as their choices ended up undermining the work they did do.
--- Quote from: occasional on July 03, 2012, 04:11:22 PM ---Though most games are crap, there are a few good ones that have great graphics, gameplay, and plot. Older games generally not only looked like crap, but they didn't have much of a plot either.
--- End quote ---
How old are we talking about? There are plenty of games made within the last two decades with more depth than the average modern day AAA title. And to be honest, I'll take a less cinematic narrative if it means more gameplay and less watching how incredible their cutscene department is.
And I'm not sure the average modern title can really claim to even have gameplay anywhere near it's top priorities. They're far more likely to be sequels now, and are probably small iterative steps over the previous titles.
occasional:
--- Quote from: zherok on July 04, 2012, 05:32:08 AM ---How old are we talking about? There are plenty of games made within the last two decades with more depth than the average modern day AAA title. And to be honest, I'll take a less cinematic narrative if it means more gameplay and less watching how incredible their cutscene department is.
And I'm not sure the average modern title can really claim to even have gameplay anywhere near it's top priorities. They're far more likely to be sequels now, and are probably small iterative steps over the previous titles.
--- End quote ---
I wasn't talking about the average game, just saying that that there are a few very good ones. I don't think there's ever been a time where there have been games with a good balance of plot, gameplay, and graphics.
I like games that are interactive movies. I basically play games for their plot.
Though I do agree that most games are bad, why that might not have been the case before (if we consider the state of technology of the time). But hey, everything is getting worse; literature, music, everything, so it doesn't really surprise me anymore. The world is going down.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version