@TimmyDKJR: I think it was a decent game. It definitely felt like the work of a 'B team' though, like a fan made game. They were to scared to force the player to make hard decisions & it didn't feel like there was payoff or consequences for a lot of things.
They said it was going to be a stand alone game with no definite plans for a sequel or trilogy but that was clearly a lie. Perhaps some of those decisions will have payoff in the next game. Hopefully they'll have learnt a few lessons from this one.
NFS: Rivals was a good game but it was let down by a number of design choices. Locked to 30fps, it was easily modded to run at 60 so that wasn't too much of an issue. However the always online "Alldrive" system caused frequent problems. One player would be the 'host' of the game & if they disconnected, your game would be paused while it migrated to a new host. This would interrupt your single player races, often causing you to crash or lose control enough to get overtaken when the game resumed. Bafflingly, the game would even be interrupted when you were in the garage modifying your car.
The NFS reboot was also a good game & ran well on PC, the delayed release from consoles obviously paid off. The campy live action cutscenes were kinda funny & provided you knew what you were in for, didn't detract from the game in my opinion. They didn't go anywhere though - the story didn't do anything interesting or provide any complications despite hinting that something could happen. The game was still always online so you had to rely on EA's servers if you wanted to boot the game up but at least the Alldrive system was vastly improved. There was no 'host' player so your single player experience wouldn't be interrupted. The presence of other players driving around as well as a few 'fake' players - other illegal racers who would drive around wildly, disobeying road laws just like you - actually added an element of immersion to the world. The only downside was that occasionally you wouldn't be able to race in certain events because another player was racing that track. If you felt like engaging in the occasional PvP race, it was fairly seamless with no huge delays so it was a nice addition to the single player experience if you wanted the occasional multiplayer race.
Clearly I'm not a hardcore competitive racer but I do enjoy jamming a good single player racing game every now & then. Hopefully the next NFS will continue to improve on the formula. I'm glad they're removing the always online requirement since it's more likely to hamper players than to add value. Games like Watch Dogs 2 show that you can have the single player game with multiplayer elements even if you connect & disconnect to the server while the game is running. Maybe they'll even do something interesting with the story this time... one can dream, right?
@and1salttape: I think "immersion" gets thrown around a lot but it's not really the word for what people mean.
In a movie theatre, breaking immersion means you remember you're sitting in a dark room full of people chewing popcorn. In a game, breaking immersion means you remember you're sitting in a chair or on a couch trying to hit the right button or trying to makes sense of a confusing UI. Immersion means you're in the world, playing your character, thinking about where the next shot might be coming from or what beast needs to be slain next.
Like I've said in another comment, I think games need to be compelling. That means even when they are difficult, even when they have slower boring moments, even when you need to grind to get to the next exciting part, you feel compelled to keep playing.
@defiler: There are more people in the world than you. People like different things.
It's not zero sum. If somebody makes a game allowing other people to share in their experience with a dying child, it doesn't mean you won't still get your COD or Battlefield this year.
Games don't need to be exactly like film, I don't think anyone's arguing that. However they can go a lot further than "aim & shoot". If anything's killing video games, it's greedy publishers. However this year we've had some amazing games come out - Horizon: Zero Dawn, Zelda, Nier Automata... I don't think video games are dying at all.
Some people have fewer words with which to express themselves so they claim that all games do need to be fun or that there are different kinds of fun. I think "compelling" is a better word for what we desire from video games.
A good game needs to keep the player engaged & make them want to keep playing, to get to the next thing, to find out what happens next. Even games like the Civilization series have have slumps, slow periods, but as a player I am compelled to keep playing to get to the next exciting or challenging moment. In those slower turns I can even feel bored with what is currently happening but the prospect of future complications is is what compels me to keep playing. I have hundreds or hours racked up in Crusader Kings II, many of those spent with my character imprisoned or rendered incapable after suffering a horrible illness - hardly the fast-paced action of a first person shooter or character action game that most people would define as fun.
Horror games, like their movie counterparts, trigger adrenaline rushes. They evoke the fight or flight impulse & can easily get the kind of response that people might consider "fun". I think this genre is less of an example that games don't need to be fun. Think more of JRPGs & the grind it takes to level up before fighting those huge bosses. The grind isn't fun but the prospect of battling & defeating those ominous enemies is compelling enough to keep the player going.
Clearly what's fun or compelling is different for different people. Some people couldn't stand to sit around waiting for their character to die so they can play their son in CKII or spend hours fighting the same enemies over & over again to farm resources in an MMO. Personally I don't find multiplayer shooters like COD fun. As long there are a variety of games being made for all different kinds of people, what we find fun doesn't really matter. There will be games for all of us.
@jancis25: Wouldn't you rather have 2 options? 1. I care more about shiny graphics, give me the best ones. 2. I can more about smooth, consistent performance, give me the best framerate you can.
I was kidding with that first paragraph, which is why I ended with "Ah forget it, just buy a PC." I'm well aware that many console gamers just want to turn it on & everything to work. It wouldn't hurt you if the options were there though. It wouldn't hurt you to have a temperature readout so you know you need to blow the dust out of your system before it blows up & stops working. Just because you don't want the information, it doesn't mean nobody should be able to have it.
@alaskancrab: The CPU overhead would be so negligible, it wouldn't actually impact performance. There wouldn't be much point in giving devs a way to monitor the framerate if it wouldn't actually be the framerate.
Every console should have a readout like that... and ability to tweak options to get better framerates... every console should be a PC. Ah forget it, just buy a PC.
Real talk - I have a Logitech keyboard with an LCD screen. It links in with Aida64 so I can see framerate along with CPU & GPU temps, frequencies etc. It's great. I would not game without it, it would be like driving with no dashboard.
bbq_R0ADK1LL's comments