[QUOTE="skrat_01"]I find games are being 'streamlined' for general audiences, resulting in games that lack complexity and challenge.
Its almost like recessive game design.
Ala Oblivion and Rainbox Six Vegas.
So yes in quite a few instances gaming is becoming more generic, in a sense that its dumbed down, and lacking unique ness.
A major reason I still PC game is because of the huge amount of titles that loads of depth and complexities, and dont sacrifice any of it.
I enjoy a challenge rather than being spoon fed and hand held - somthing which alot of developers tend to do nowadays.
svetzenlether
I think this is more relevent to the argument here than the whole "rehash" thing. Let's face it, most things have already been done, so the key lies in the execution. Sins of a Solar Empire executes what it does perfectly, and doesn't compromise. A game like R6 Vegas however, ends up throwing out the things that made older R6 games like Raven Shield so good for the sake of a wider audience.
Of course.The problem is with many console titles, that also do go multiplat, is when one sucessful developer has a game design, everyone copies it to cash in.
Devs look at a benchmark game on consoles, and simply take design ideas from it - then adjusting it to their own - a safe game design plan that is supposed to sell more titles, than be anything ground breaking at all.
They dont seem to want to introduce anything alien to the console audience... as when they do it doesent seem to sell well. Its terrible as its a killer for innovation.
Its a contrast on the PC front, because its a massivley wide demographic of gamers compared to console platforms, and its completely open, without the need of massive funding. Devs are free to experiement, and have less restrictive tech behind them, resulting in games that push the boundaries of genres.
FPS wide - I grew up playing Tribes, Quake/Doom, Half Life, Rainbow Six, Hidden and Dangerous, Operation Flashpoint, Deus Ex, Counter Strike, Battlefield and these games alone were far more progressive than any shooter that was released solely for console platforms in mind for generations. And yes that includes Halo, TimeSplitters ect.
It just annoys me to play games like R6 Vegas, which are considered by critics to be 'harcore tactical shooters' when the game itself is a spoon fed action game, that lacks any sense of tactics, and is designed for casual gamers who want a 'blockbuster action' experience.
Which pretty much kills everything that made the original series one of the best Tactical Shooters in the first place.
Problem is many developers and publishers beleive that this is how development for console platforms should be done, whats worse is that sales seem to dictate so. Games that go out of the norm never seem to sell well on these platforms, compared to those that do. Its mainly because of the main demographic or so it seems. Personally I think it undermines the audience that games have to be "dumbed down", but when sales seem to agree it just looks pretty dire.
Even a game like Bioshock which was supposed to be something 'groundbreaking' on the FPS front had a relativley simplistic core run and gun gameplay design - on rails shooting like the plethora of games out there.Nothing like Shock 2.
Which really annoys me - what differentiates shooters on consoles? Not much. They are all linear focused action, difference is primarily astetics and minor gameplay tweeks. "in our game you can order two goons around, in our game you have crazy powers, in ours you order guys around in world war 2, in ours you have to hide behind walls ect. ect."
Even the design of all of them feels very similar, as though people cherry pick from different games and apply it to their own.
Its all very uninspiring.
Which is why I have been sticking to STALKER Clear Sky and Team Fortress 2 lately
Log in to comment