More power means lazier people

[Bobtheduck]

People often talk about how computers can have more power than consoles. Well, I've noticed a trend with "MORE POWER" that I only can guess is going to get worse. It seems to me that the more power a machine has the more the game creators rely on the machine and the power to get their game out and less on creativity. For instance, I haven't really found anything that looks slicker than splinter cell, and yet even with these amazing new Cards, the upcoming games (Half Life 2) have human characters that are so stale and non-human, despite having an incredible amount of processing and rendering power. I mean, all of the stuff surrounding them looks great, but the characters themselves are greatly lacking. And that's just the problem. MGS2 and Splinter Cell were amazing not because of "top of the line graphics power" but because of how much work the creators put into the characters and locales...

People work better under a lot of restrictions. I only hope that the next level of Next-Gen consoles doesn't destroy the creativity that they got in this level...

Off-topic, what is up with all these game developers having horrible actors in their games... I heard one say he did it on purpose because good acting is too distracting from the game... I mean, the bad acting is much more distracting to me, and it certainly doesn't help me "immerse" myself or project myself onto the characters.. When I start making my Games, I'm going to try for some big name seiyuu and a good voice director. My favorite game, MSG2, has pretty good acting but actually the acting in MSG1 was better... Raiden, Vamp, and Fortune were really bad... Not to mention how stupid the Raiden character was...

[Shinja]

well ive always siad the best games ever came out on the old 486. they put alot more time into the game play rather than grafics.

my alltime fav and best flight sim ever is "aces over europe" that only ran right on the 486

[Rashiir]

I think it has to do with the fact that on the
PC, a large part of the development time is spent trying to work out all the little bugs that occur because there are so many different computer configurations. In the console, all of the hardware (for one system) is pretty much the same, so they don't have nearly as much trouble. I don't think it's that the PC developers are lazy as much as they're just too busy.

[shooraijin]

Actually, I think many modern programmers on any platform *are* lazy. There's no point in optimizing code when your next CPU upgrade is in a few months, so why speed up your code cleverly when you'll be able to throw more CPU at it soon?

At least this problem is less pronounced on consoles, where you're stuck with one configuration, and I've never seen an architecture upgrade for a console where the CPU or the main RAM could be replaced (at least not without aftermarket hacking). In those arenas, the later games where programmers became much more skilled at wringing performance out of the hardware are truly impressive.

But on desktop computers (the Mac is not immune to cruft creep), people just get sloppy. I point out the spread of bytecode languages as an example, like .NET (Mono), Java, etc. ... where the VM itself is a computational efficiency liability in the name of portability. We now have Java applets that with today's hardware pump out the same performance as native applications years ago. Whee. *snort*

About the only code hackers I still respect are the dudes at id, especially Carmack. That guy is a *genius* when it comes to high-performance graphics programming, and if you read the source code for Wolfenstein 3D (the original) and Doom and Quake, you see some very effective programming minds at work designing highly tuned code for a specific system point. Doom is probably the pinnacle of their graphics efficiency, with a very impressive display and graphics engine in software. Even their current efforts, although I haven't seen the code, reflect a desire to get performance in as small a CPU burden as possible. I wish more game makers thought in those terms.

[Technomancer]

I hear ya. It seems there are too many developers more concerned with whiz-bang effects than any real sense of innovation or storyline. I don't really want to see another 3-d shooter that's pretty much the same as every other one, or an adventure game that has nice backdrops but a lousy story and contrived puzzles. For a lot of the games I'm interested in (RPGs and adventure games) I don't care if the graphics are much better, so long as there's a decent story.

[uc pseudonym]

I certainly agree with what you say, in many ways. However, I disagree that more power will always create lazier gaming. By that logic, the first games (aka Space Battle) would have been better than all of the others. I certainly don't think that Space Invaders has better depth of gameplay and storyline than, say... FFX.

[Shinja]

well i dont think the gamers are lazyer cause there are some awsome fp shooters out there, and some great stratagy players, i think the overall problem lies with te creaters of the games. i mean how many times have we seen companys put out a new game, and it only end up being new maps and skins for the quake engine. quake is fun but all games cant be quake or else quake becomes very annoying. game companys would be better if they spent time trying to make a great game rather than try and make a lot of money by makeing a quick cheap product.

i think in todays society where the modern company is trying to maximize productivity and make the highest profet posible the gamers inevitably lose out.

the best games ive played in the last few years have almost all been mods for current games, this shows that there is a lot of talent out there, trying to make quality games that have both good grafics and exceptional gameplay, maybe the next generation of game producers will be more product driven

[Staci]

My opinion: being that from an avid, long-term gamer and previous video game sales associate is that the new technology/graphics is good... All the glitz takes away from the depth of the game.

FPS's won't have expansive storylines, and neither will RTS's, but even heightened graphics have strangled some RPG content in the past five years. The only RPG company to truly keep this from happening would be Square (now Square-Enix) and even they have declined in the hardness of their games. Is it just me or were FF2/3 and much harder to beat than FF7/8? Not all RPGs have been like this; exceptions: .hack, Xenosaga, and FFX. All three are full of huge stories and hard-to-beat baddies.

Are game developers tired of making expansive plots? Are they running out of ideas? Are they jaded to the cruelty of the gaming industry to begin with? Should the gaming community loudly voice what they desire?

Another area I wish to touch on: old gamers and new gamers. I loath the little twirps who must use GameShark (or other) codes to beat their games and then think they have a right to brag. Infinate life, infinate health, infinate gold, AIM bots, map-see-all cheats, etc. - these are all things which ruined aspects of gaming. Personally, I'm too "stuck up" to use codes. If I'm having trouble with a game I grit my teeth and soldier on until I beat it (or beat the controller). Times are changing, and not always for the better.

[Link Antilles]

Another area I wish to touch on: old gamers and new gamers. I loath the little twirps who must use GameShark (or other) codes to beat their games and then think they have a right to brag. Infinate life, infinate health, infinate gold, AIM bots, map-see-all cheats, etc. - these are all things which ruined aspects of gaming. Personally, I'm too "stuck up" to use codes. If I'm having trouble with a game I grit my teeth and soldier on until I beat it (or beat the controller). Times are changing, and not always for the better.

AMEN!


Now, I have to admit. I do use cheats, but only AFTER I beat or complete the game!

[Bobtheduck]

My opinion: being that from an avid, long-term gamer and previous video game sales associate is that the new technology/graphics is good... All the glitz takes away from the depth of the game.

FPS's won't have expansive storylines, and neither will RTS's, but even heightened graphics have strangled some RPG content in the past five years. The only RPG company to truly keep this from happening would be Square (now Square-Enix) and even they have declined in the hardness of their games. Is it just me or were FF2/3 and much harder to beat than FF7/8? Not all RPGs have been like this]must[/I] use GameShark (or other) codes to beat their games and then think they have a right to brag. Infinate life, infinate health, infinate gold, AIM bots, map-see-all cheats, etc. - these are all things which ruined aspects of gaming. Personally, I'm too "stuck up" to use codes. If I'm having trouble with a game I grit my teeth and soldier on until I beat it (or beat the controller). Times are changing, and not always for the better.

The difficulty is not = to the quality of the game... Otherwise "Serious Sam" or whatever it's called would be the best game out there...

I heard that Xenosaga contained very little actual gameplay. Not that it bugs me... My favorite game of all time is a game that is loaded with cut scenes. It also has about the most complex story of any game I've ever played, and the greatest thing is, you only know that if you've played it all the way through... At the beginning, Sons of Liberty seems like yet another "stop the terrorist" games that have been prevalent since atari days... By the time you're done, your head is spinning from all the twists and turns... I mean, "The Game" with Michael Douglas ain't got nothing on Metal Gear Solid 2. Also, I think it's one of the oldest game series to have a continuous storyline (FF doesn't, Mario doesn't, Zelda doesn't, and despite ressurrecting every 4 years or so, Pitfall doesn't... I suppose Pac Man could, but I mean, there's not much to eating dots and ghosts...) From Metal gear to Solid snake to Metal Gear Solid to the current stage, it has one continuous storyline... And that's also pretty bold to introduce young players to a story they don't know in the middle of it, and almost no americans whether young or old know the story either (because MG1 for NES was dumbed down, and "Snake's Revenge" wasn't a real metal gear game) I think that the metal gear series is one place that the game creators haven't been lazy (though some would say the lack of gameplay time in SOL is lazy... I say it's just a new type of RPG! And have you played through it on EUROPEAN EXTREME??? That is freakin hard... You have to be really good at all of the controls and tricks as well as extremely observant to pass that)

[LorentzForce]

two things from me;

1) let's all blame id software.

2) Deus Ex is the answer in gaming, because it is one of the good games that doesn't have a specific genre. action? fps? rpg? puzzle? adventure? you name it, it is. well, it's not a sim game... but yeah, you got my point.

[shooraijin]

> let's all blame id software.

Why? (Unless you mean to blame them for all the 3-D shooters, in which case they would probably state guilty as charged.)

[madphilb]

Actually, I'd like to blame Looking Glass Studios for ruining the FPS for me. (BTW, if I recall correctly, many of the Deus Ex people came from the defunct Looking Glass).

Dues Ex and the Theif series are very non-linier compared to most games (esp. FPS). Games like Red Faction and NOLF feel almost like rail-shooters compared to them. (not that I feel either of them are bad games, but I do have some issues with both games in different areas).

I have felt for a while that there are two things that have done an injustice to gaming (esp. if you're a Single Player type person like myself)....

1) 3D - I think that making games in 3D has done as much to hurt gaming as to help it. In addition to the huge increase in overhead for the game itself, there are a whole new set of problems that come up. With 3D you need to have modelers to create everything, people paint skins (which is different from making "tiles" and such for the older games). Then again, when done right it can be a great thing. Compare any of the older Zelda games to the one for the 64... I still think that the Zelda 64 game is one of the best ever.

2) Multi-player/Online Play - This kills me, and it was a thorn in my side while I was off-line for the longest time (and it's one of the reasons I love the Theif series, SP only). It seems gaming companies are relying more and more on the "deathmatch" elements of their game to carry it. I rented Ghost Recon (the expansion version) for my XBox the other week, only 8 missions. I had it beat (on Normal I think) in 2 days.

I just hope that Live doesn't do for the XBox what Deathmatch did for the PC.

PHIL

[Technomancer]

The trouble is everyone's doing 3D, whether it's useful or not. I mean look at the last Monkey Island game. Not only was it a pain to move around, the graphics weren't even as good as the old 2D animations.

It's the same sort of annoying fad as real-time combat in RPGs. Grrr.

[MasterDias]

It's the same sort of annoying fad as real-time combat in RPGs. Grrr.

Real time combat in RPGs? That isn't a fad.
Action RPGs are a sub-genre.

[uc pseudonym]

Well, it is experiencing a new wave of it, just in recent times. I think this is in part due to Kingdom Hearts. Often the work that starts a fad is worthwhile (why else would the fad begin?), but often gets grouped with the rest. But yes, they have been around for quite a while. The oldest I can think of is Secret of Mana, assuming you don't count certain pseudo-rpgs.

[Technomancer]

Fad may have been the wrong choice of words, its probably here to stay. What I dislike about them is that they're almost all that's sold anymore: no more turn based games. If I wanted to play an arcade game, I would. I don't know about console games, but the trend really seemed to take off with Diablo (which only barely rates as an RPG).

[Rashiir]

The difficulty is not = to the quality of the game...

Hear hear!

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic is sort of a cross between Turn-based and action. If you want, you can pause and set up a queue of the actions you want to have your character do. Otherwise, it just attacks in an auto-turn-based mode, which keeps it from slowing the gameplay down. I thought it was a pretty good system.