What happened? A gamer's lament.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Consoles: They destroy the game development. they anchor for many years the development and growth of the industry to instead be segmented towards whenever the new consoles are released. This means that instead of developers trying new things that may be outside of the scope of whatever crappy consoles are out today, they flush their creative endeavors until the next release that may or may not accommodate their desires...

Couldn't have said it any better.

PC games should look like a cgi movie by this point but graphics are locked in stasis until the next console comes out and then will be locked again with next and so on. Also, the old "a pc is too expensive" is bogus. Do you have any idea of what the parts inside a PS3 or Xbox360 are worth today? Less than the price of an Xbox.

I have heard the next gen will be using something like a ATI 4890. That card is already getting old in the pc world and by the time they release the next console the pc GPU's will be 2 or 3 generations ahead of it. So yaaaaa for consoles, they lock us into the past and prevent us from going forward at pace with technology.

Originally posted by TraptInTheSystem
I'm not too thrilled with the the latest releases. My favorite is Battlefield 3, but even then it is still quite a disappointment to me. There really isnt alot of content to keep me playing the game aside from playing with my friends. Then there's games like CoD. Flat out the game is a turd, it's a joke. Two games that i'd like to check out are Journey and the Shadow of the Colossus remake.

I have been a playing Battlefield ever since 1942 came out. In all fairness, while BF3 has many faults due to being toned down for console whingers, the new Back To Karkand pack is really quite something. Thank god they at least half listened to us PC players....further patches will tell methinks.

reply to post by Kryties


I really like the back to karkand DLC, the maps are great, but i think the weapons arent that great. On the battlefield 3 battlelog website there are forums and Dice seems to be taking the feedback seriously. I beleive that is why Wake island is in the DLC unless it was already decided. Now if they would just allow us to unlock the weapons that you have to play Co-op for without actually playing it.

reply to post by TraptInTheSystem


Wake Island was always going to be in the DLC.

In terms of the weapons, they are the same as we used in BF2. I'm having a ball working with them. Many of the whingers never played BF2 and havent got a clue what they are talking about.

There are a few things that need to be sorted out, like the menus and some balancing and bug fixes but people tend to forget that every new game takes time to sort out and patch. They were working on BF2 patches YEARS after the game came out.

It does need mod tools though, I'm pissed they didn't provide any. Blame console noobs for that too.

I follow the Battlelog forums daily btw. Much of the feedback they are using though is actually from the getsatisfaction.com polling site. DICE said they are taking all that feedback seriously.

Originally posted by TraptInTheSystem
I'm not too thrilled with the the latest releases. My favorite is Battlefield 3, but even then it is still quite a disappointment to me. There really isnt alot of content to keep me playing the game aside from playing with my friends. Then there's games like CoD. Flat out the game is a turd, it's a joke. Two games that i'd like to check out are Journey and the Shadow of the Colossus remake.

At the risk of sounding like a total fanboy. Do remember to put in, during your recommendations, Skyrim.

It is a rare thing when a game of the year, in my opinion, deserved it and more. Its such an amazing game..its damn near perfect (and when you have the proper mods in, it does hit perfection)

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by TraptInTheSystem
I'm not too thrilled with the the latest releases. My favorite is Battlefield 3, but even then it is still quite a disappointment to me. There really isnt alot of content to keep me playing the game aside from playing with my friends. Then there's games like CoD. Flat out the game is a turd, it's a joke. Two games that i'd like to check out are Journey and the Shadow of the Colossus remake.

I have been a playing Battlefield ever since 1942 came out. In all fairness, while BF3 has many faults due to being toned down for console whingers, the new Back To Karkand pack is really quite something. Thank god they at least half listened to us PC players....further patches will tell methinks.

Haven't tried that yet...loved me some classic 1942. From what the reports were, it was less than a wonderful remake, but might check it out anyhow..hmm

Originally posted by OmegaOwl
Oh, this thread is about console gamers.
Sorry, I will just see my way out.

But yeah, console gaming is dead

PC gaming is also affected due to multi-platform releases diminishing the final product: Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Deus Ex:Human Revolution etc. Not only thus, but due to on-line piracy, games like The Witcher 2 (also moving over to Xbox 360) has been pirated 4.5 million times. Also, if console gaming was dead, then Crysis 2 wouldn't have outsold the PC version which only made up 14% of the sales. Sales figures

reply to post by XelNaga

sounds like you got old and thus have started whining about video games not being story driven, interactive art like the mainstream of society does (i.e. parents and old people)

Art demands responsibility and there isn't one game I can think of that can even claim to be responsible for their thematic message because believe it or not; there already are messages in video games whether by accident or unconsciously. Take the MW series and it's own peculiar brand of Michael Bay jingoism as an example of the lack of responsibility in terms of telling a story.

mass effect has been considered a form of art by MANY critics and artists. also, mass effect 3 will be the furthest thing from fail. if you dont enjoy video games anymore, why make a thread about it? why dont you just quietly put the controller down and move on with your life without making asinine statements.

I may as well tut before I stop playing games completely and while I'm sure ME3 will be a decent game; it's not art. It's got great art direction and a riveting story but it by no means; transcends the genre to become something more. I'm looking forward to Amy if I'm honest.

Battlefield 3 for the win. all ive seen in your little OP was how much you dislike call of duty. play something else for once, you might enjoy games again.

It's not just COD. Most games and new releases underwhelming in general. With the possible exceptions of Skyrim and Dark Souls which are incredibly fun, even BF3 has some problems due to the Famas being completely unbalanced. Just my opinion though.

reply to post by ManjushriPrajna

Keep your eye on the indy developers and their games. That's where the magic is happening now, not with the big gaming companies that are only interested in sucking the money out of their customers.

I have been buying indie games on XBLive and I have been pleasantly surprised at how diverse the marketplace is as Apple Jack is clearly one of the better/best games that I've had the pleasure of playing this year. I look forward to the new content that they will eventually come up with.

reply to post by 8ILlBILl8

How are games not art? Its like painting a movie or painting a reality. I think its the ultimate form of art because with these graphics and animations you can create any thing your mind can think of.

It depends on what your definition of 'art' is. My definition would be that the thematic messages be 'the most singular important purpose of any medium. That's not to say a game can't also be fun, marketable et al, but if it can't even match an advert in terms of emotional resonance; then it's not art. I can only think of one game that truly transcended it's limited reach and became something more; however Deadly Premonition deserves it's own thread, and I suggest the readers of this post check it out and stick with it. It's certainly a game that genuinely attempted to do something amazing and succeeded somewhat.

Also, yeah. Some great responses so far. Keep it up guys.

for me the internet has done more damage to games than anything, it hasn't damaged the indusrty but my enjoyment of some games.
why don't they just make a full game where you don't have to download more of it a few months after release.
but games today are purely for making money, i doubt many games companies care about the quality of their games, just the popularity.
Call of Duty MW the most popular game set but lacking in quality, short campain and very basic gameplay.
Halo, amazing sci-fi shooter with some great visuals and a fairly legnthy campain but doesn't sell like MW.
maybe people are getting stupid and don't care what poop the get shoved into.

reply to post by listerofsmeg


The only developer I still have faith in is Blizzard. They are diehard quality fanatics and have scrapped projects that I am sure cost them a pretty penny becuase the game fell short of their expectations. They didn't drop Starcraft Ghost on us and say "oh well". The game wasn't panning out so they just dropped it. Most developers would just drop the garbage on us anyways without a care hoping to get some profit back.

oh OP how i feel your lament!

gaming has become nothing more than hand-holding and mind numbing experiences. tutorials on and on and on. features like "fast travel" make games so boring i can't even finish them.

one of the reasons i found dark souls to be my favorite game this year was that it just throws you into the world to have at it. no tutorials, no hand holding, and no handicaps. this is what gaming should be. make your own way through the game, just as many of us did with the original zelda and others like simons quest.

the sense of accomplishment is almost nowhere to be found. take fable 3 for instance. you have a gold line telling you where to go at all times. gives me no sense of exploration, just another linear title.

the gaming industry loves what activision has done. the nazi gaming dictator that is boby kotick has turned gaming into another corporate money machine, which is why we have cookie cutter crap and the handful of decent titles every year. activision and everybodies beloved microsoft are the reason we have to shell out 60$ and spend another 30$ to get the most of the game.

look at hip hop and what happened to it when it went mainstream. cookie cutter and no talent behind the brands being sold

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
for me the internet has done more damage to games than anything, it hasn't damaged the indusrty but my enjoyment of some games.

Bull#, the Internet has opened the doors for so many small programmers all around the world to get their games out to a bigger public.
I bet without the Internet creative or just plain out fun games like Rock of Ages (Chile), Trine 1 & 2 (Finland) or even Minecraft (Sweden) because most of the big publishers don't give a # about such countries and small companies. So their only chance to get those games out to the public was the Internet and i'm glad about it.

I think the main problem with all you people is, that you don't invest 10 minutes to look at the independent gaming world. Instead you all focus on the big companies like Electronic Arts, Ubisoft and of course my most depised company, Bethesda who puke out the same game over and over again, in some cases even as yearly updates (like Call of Duty)
Indy Games are usually extremely creative. Trine 1 & 2 for example are very creative puzzle-based Jump n' Runs, the second game has a stunningly awesome graphic design and you will never see something like that from any big comapny. I think the last creative game released by a big Company was Mirror's Edge from EA back in 2008 and because it didn't make 100 million dollars, EA won't allow a Sequel, instead they rather crap out the next Fifa Manager or Madden Sequel.

It's a shame that so many creative, interesting and fun games that were released in the last 10 years were such a commercial failure, that the developing company either went out of business (like Troika and their great games like Vampire: The Masquarade - Bloodlines and Arcanum) or were disallowed to create a sequel (i still wait for Psychonauts 2, Baldur's Gate 3 and Fallout 3 - but they will never happen)

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
why don't they just make a full game where you don't have to download more of it a few months after release.
but games today are purely for making money, i doubt many games companies care about the quality of their games, just the popularity.

And that's again only true for the 5-6 big publishing Companies. Some of the smaller companies may release DLCs but they come at a good price (the games themself are usually a lot cheaper too)

As for the questions if games are art: YES they are. The European Union even said so 1-2 years ago.
If movies are considered art and every movie, even Rambo or that Tarantino crap is considered a work of art, so should Video Games. There are some great examples of games that have great storylines and characters. A good example is Max Payne 1 & 2. Other examples are Shenmue (Dreamcast), the Half-Life games, the Silent Hill series or even the old Lucas Arts adventures like Monkey Island or Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, that would've made a better fourth movie than the abysmal Kingdom of the Crystal Skull failure.

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
Bull#, the Internet has opened the doors for so many small programmers all around the world to get their games out to a bigger public.

Not at all what i was talking about, my concern is that games now are made to fit the internet not the gamer.
it all about money!

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
I think the main problem with all you people is, that you don't invest 10 minutes to look at the independent gaming world. Instead you all focus on the big companies like Electronic Arts, Ubisoft and of course my most depised company, Bethesda who puke out the same game over and over again, in some cases even as yearly updates (like Call of Duty)

i comepletely agree with you on call of duty (a game made to fit the internet not the gamer), but bethesda made skyrim, i must disagree, a rare thing is a modern game with quality.

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
Indy Games are usually extremely creative. Trine 1 & 2 for example are very creative puzzle-based Jump n' Runs, the second game has a stunningly awesome graphic design and you will never see something like that from any big comapny. I think the last creative game released by a big Company was Mirror's Edge from EA back in 2008 and because it didn't make 100 million dollars, EA won't allow a Sequel, instead they rather crap out the next Fifa Manager or Madden Sequel.

you call bethesda's games puke and then something as basic, poorly written, dull looking and repetative as mirrors edge you describe as creative. hmm i must try and figure out what the hell is going on in the dictionary printing office because some definitions have got messed up.

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
It's a shame that so many creative, interesting and fun games that were released in the last 10 years were such a commercial failure, that the developing company either went out of business (like Troika and their great games like Vampire: The Masquarade - Bloodlines and Arcanum) or were disallowed to create a sequel (i still wait for Psychonauts 2, Baldur's Gate 3 and Fallout 3 - but they will never happen).

played baldurs 2 gate, another short simple game that lies in piss compared to skyrim and fallout 3 does exists although its a different game from fallout 1 and 2 but evolution is a good thing.
i thought you knew some good games but opinion is opinion and i guess i respect yours.
a few good games that sequels ruined, blood omen: legacy of kain, flashback, abes oddesy. sequels are rarely a good thing.

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
And that's again only true for the 5-6 big publishing Companies. Some of the smaller companies may release DLCs but they come at a good price (the games themself are usually a lot cheaper too)

like i said quality fails were popularity wins, money IS everything to companies and you can make more money if you take away some good quality and give you payment and download options IN GAME. the 5-6 big games companies weren't always like that, they got big then they kicked us in the nuts and mugged us. now pretty much every small company has followed this trend.

What enticed me most about video games is the ability to interact with abstract worlds invented from someone's imagination. The games I grew up with were awesome for this (Atari 2600, NES, etc).

I play games to escape FROM reality; the last thing I want is for them to emulate reality. I don't want to pretend I'm in the military shooting people in real cities. I don't want to drive cars that exist in real life and behave as realistically as possible. That's BORING to me.

But really, that's just what's in-your-face when you peer into the gaming community. The truth is that there are more of every type of game out there. I'm still able to find the kind of abstract games that I like, and on a variety of systems. For example, I can play Warioware Micro Games (tons of mini-games) on the Nintendo DS, 3D Dot Heroes (retro-styled adventure game) on the PS3 and Splosion Man (2D platformer) on the Xbox 360.

So it's really just a matter of needing to dig deeper to find what you want.

As a side note though, have you ever visited a video game store and seen all the military FPS lumped together on display? It's really funny, they all have practically the same cover. I call them "Romance novels for guys".

reply to post by OmegaOwl

But yeah, console gaming is dead

Just the opposite. PC gaming has been, and still is, going the way of the Dodo, with the sole exception of multiplayer online games.

For starters, less and less people are willing to constantly upgrade or tweak their PCs to play a game...when you can just stick it in a console and know it will work right out of the gate.

Then, there's the money. A developer can make a LOT more money licensing it to the platforms.

Plus, there's a whole generation that grew up with consoles and PCs and have less time now (with families, etc.) and so want the ease of using a console vs. PC.

I used to be the guy whose PC cover was always off, changing out video cards and memory all the time, etc. but not in a LONG time.

reply to post by Gazrok


I would be inclined to agree with that if console makers released more updated versions on a more regular basis. The fact that games have to be downgraded and made to fit 5 year old hardware is more than enough to ensure that PC enthusiasts, and PC gaming, will be around for many years to come.

I have had a good time with games in the past year. It was around 2008-2010 that I felt was particularly weak, but then again I'm coming from PC. I do still use the 360 too, but the Wii is a thing of the past. I think that console gaming will be around for a while, as will PC gaming. I personally know more people who use either a 360 or a PS3, or like half of them have both. A quarter of friends use PC, but more are getting on board. I personally can't stand having to upgrade often and I've had good luck with that. I got bought a PC in 2009 for $500 and since this year have just had to upgrade the video card. I can play any game max DX10, just not DX11 super ultra modes.

I find there's always something to play. I still play Black Ops with my little bro on 360, and our old room mate still connects on that. I feel gaming is reaching this era of real cinematic and visual titles. I can't say that I'm complaining, I like seeing technology advance and some of these newer games are on what I can only assume much better engines since some visually intense newer games run better than much older titles.

2011 has been decent overall for me. I started out with Dead Space 2 and some Mass Effect 1 and 2, Mafia 2, Darksiders, etc, and had been working a lot at the time so it worked, it all felt real slow then came some new Assassin's Creed and Crysis 2. I ended up getting Bad Company 2 as well and just went into casual gaming mode for a few months playing just COD and Battlefield. I was never good at FPS but got good in that time.
After all of that I can remember playing through Witcher 2, Terraria, From Dust, Dead Island and Gears 3.

Then came the good stuff...

Arkham City, Battlefield 3, MW3 (single player), Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Skyward Sword, Assassin's Creed Revelations, Trine 2 and now SWTOR, which I'd have to say has been a pleasant new MMORPG experience.

reply to post by MacDonagh


It is a case of "Golden Age Syndrome", where people mistakenly remember the past as being better than what it was. Sure some games where awesome(halo 2 online play), but as a whole they are pretty much the same with a few bright spots here and there.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


I have to disagree with you on Blizzard being focused on quality. I have been playing Blizzard products since Warcraft (the RTS). Initially the company did seem focused on the quality of product. As they expanded over the years with Starcraft and Diablo, and World of Warcraft that quality remained. Once WoW became more mainstream their quality department has taken a holiday. The Expansions in WoW got worse as they went on and now with Diablo 3 they are forcing people to play on their servers. They, like any company, are more focused on their own personal financial gains.

reply to post by Doom and Gloom


WOW is the one Blizzard game I have never played so I'll take your word about any quality problems. All I can say is that Starcraft, Warcraft, and Diablo series were top notch and almost without flaw.