The Dark Age of Gaming

[MuraRengan]

What? A reasonable opinion about gaming and one's own likes and dislikes?

This has no place in this thread!

You're right, because this thead isn't about likes and dislikes. When it comes to judging a game one should be able judge the game on its merits and faults, not on likes and dislikes.

The reality is that games have varying degrees of value, and I'm willing to bet a lot that everyone here has at least one game that they feel is better than all other games, not a game that they like more then all the others, but one that is better than others.

Very few people have even responded to the issue that is current gaming's capricious standards. And all the ones that have insist that games cannot be compared. As always, I feel that this is stupid, because often times it is very clear when one game is better than another, it would be stupid to say that there is no level of value when it comes to them.

The problem is not that games can't be compared, but that most people lack the understanding by which they can compare. One may not be able to put in words why MW2 is a better game than Tetris (well, at least, I can) but we all know it's true. My purpose here was to propose that people come up with a standard for judging games, and I even proposed my own: depth. And yet has anyone given me reason to think that that is an unreasonable standard. But as always, the internet proves to have people who cannot think well. So many arguments in this thread have been assumptive, diminutive, or out-of-context, because so many of you failed to comprehend the arguments in detail. You read a couple words then you jump to a conclusion, pretty much everyone except El Nino has been guilty of this.

And as the course of topics go, it appears most of the frequenters have become disinterested. Jam, you utterly disappointed me. I expected you to be one fervent in your logic, but it seems you gave up after I didn't submit to your first arguments. Whatever, if people still want to argue, then I'll argue, because this means a lot to me. I'll be here until the topic dies.

 

[Jam Stunna]

What argument is to be had here? Any time someone disagrees with you, you demean them by disparaging their intellect, their taste or their lack of understanding of vague, undefined standards of quality. You have yet to offer any actual "facts" (not that any exist in the first place) to support your opinions about gaming, or your statements about the abysmal state of the game industry.

Beyond that, this is all opinion! We can argue at each other until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day we're never going to change anyone's minds because we're not discussing objective standards of videogame aesthics. We're just having a pseudo-intellectual conversation where we've convinced ourselves that we're smart because we're using big words to basically say, "I liek this game moar than that game for [insert subjective reasoning here]!"

So no, I'm not taking this thread seriously anymore. I shouldn't have in the first place, and that's my mistake, because anytime someone assumes themselves to be the arbiter of good taste on any subject, bad things are in store.

tl;dr- Final Fantasy VI is the best game ever because of Kefka.

 

[MuraRengan]

What argument is to be had here? Any time someone disagrees with you, you demean them by disparaging their intellect, their taste or their lack of understanding of vague, undefined standards of quality. You have yet to offer any actual "facts" (not that any exist in the first place) to support your opinions about gaming, or your statements about the abysmal state of the game industry.

Beyond that, this is all opinion! We can argue at each other until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day we're never going to change anyone's minds because we're not discussing objective standards of videogame aesthics. We're just having a pseudo-intellectual conversation where we've convinced ourselves that we're smart because we're using big words to basically say, "I liek this game moar than that game for [insert subjective reasoning here]!"

So no, I'm not taking this thread seriously anymore. I shouldn't have in the first place, and that's my mistake, because anytime someone assumes themselves to be the arbiter of good taste on any subject, bad things are in store.

tl;dr- Final Fantasy VI is the best game ever because of Kefka.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I haven't been arguing about one game being better than another (although, some people have dragged me into such arguments), I have been arguing for a standard of gaming, as standard which I included some games I suspect do not fit the criteria, and thus would be lacking of that standard. But you, of course, hve not been paying attention or have not been comprehending the point I have been trying to make. The point is THERE HAS TO BE A STANDARD FOR GAMING, I don't care what it is, as long as it is something reasonable by which all games, past, present, and future can, will, and should be held accountable to.

The argument is not about individual games, but you failed to see that because I threw certain games into question, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I thought it was bad, but I never said anything like that. You, just like most other people in this thread, have not been reading and comprehending exactly what it is I've been saying.

Here's a hint: If you want to argue against me, argue why the standard for gaming that I presented, which is the basis for all the arguments I have made against any game in this topic, is not valid. Then you will have won all those arguments. But, when I compare games, it's to a standard, not to whether or nto I like the game. I do not judge games on opinion, I judge them on their merits in relation to the standard which, to the best of my ability, I have discerned is best for a game. If you have been LISTENING, you would have seen where I posted that TIME AND TIME AGAIN. But no you, you chose to jump to conclusions and misunderstand my arguments, and yet you accuse me of insulting your intelligence, when you know damn well that you didn't even attempt to use whatever intelligence you have whenever you read a post.

If you want to have an argument with me, then the least you can do is read them objectively and NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS without comprehending the ideas and concepts.

But, of course, I am essentially barking at the moon, because you decided a long time ago to not even take me and this topic seriously. From the moment you came with those ludicrous, misconstrued "rebuttals" I knew you weren't reading, I knew that you had a presupposed idea of what this topic was about, and prewritten arguments against those presupposed ideas. You're so far in your prejudice that you won't even take a step back and evaluate whether or not you truly do understand the arguments I've been making in this thread. And that is, I guess, the bug that bites most people when they come in this thread.

 

[Savon]

Restate The standard games should be held to in your opinion

 

[Jam Stunna]

What argument is to be had here? Any time someone disagrees with you, you demean them by disparaging their intellect, their taste or their lack of understanding of vague, undefined standards of quality.

But you, of course, hve not been paying attention or have not been comprehending the point I have been trying to make...

You, just like most other people in this thread, have not been reading and comprehending exactly what it is I've been saying...

If you have been LISTENING, you would have seen where I posted that TIME AND TIME AGAIN. But no you, you chose to jump to conclusions and misunderstand my arguments, and yet you accuse me of insulting your intelligence, when you know damn well that you didn't even attempt to use whatever intelligence you have whenever you read a post...

If you want to have an argument with me, then the least you can do is read them objectively and NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS without comprehending the ideas and concepts...

But, of course, I am essentially barking at the moon, because you decided a long time ago to not even take me and this topic seriously. From the moment you came with those ludicrous, misconstrued "rebuttals" I knew you weren't reading, I knew that you had a presupposed idea of what this topic was about, and prewritten arguments against those presupposed ideas. You're so far in your prejudice that you won't even take a step back and evaluate whether or not you truly do understand the arguments I've been making in this thread. And that is, I guess, the bug that bites most people when they come in this thread.

The prosecution rests its case.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Do you survive through multiple headshots in the face? I must be missing out on some secret.

Oh, and I should have known near immediate health regeneration took up all knowledge of real life. Someone needs to get out more.

You die immediately from a headshot when your shields drop.

You need to get out more.

 

[finalark]

Yep, I'd assume that is what happens when you read things out of context, prejudge, and can't comprehend ideas.

So reading your two paragraphs, not bothering with the rest because I feel like I had grasped your point and then disagreeing with you totally makes me an idiot who can't comprehend others ideas, right?

 

[Falconv1.0]

So reading your two paragraphs, not bothering with the rest because I feel like I had grasped your point and then disagreeing with you totally makes me an idiot who can't comprehend others ideas, right?

Yes, now you're getting it.

 

[Deleted member]

OP is over the top, dramatic, and pretentious.

The relative quality of videogaming is likely improving as odd as that sounds, but different areas of quality like competitive depth, storyline, etc may differ based on company, genre, producers and more.

The rise of casual gaming sparked by Nintendo back in the early 80s and later so in the 90's with the N64, made gaming a serious industry. With substantial market shares, companies are competing with each other harder than ever a this point.

Compare hundreds of easy to produce, dime a dozen cartridge games for Gameboys, NES, and N64. Now games require a full studio of tens to even a couple hundred people to manufacture on years of time spent.




I have only one issue with gaming being mainstream and the "relative lack of quality" or w/e OP is talking about.

In order to sell more product, the gaming companies sacrifice properties of the game such as storyline, environment, balance, competitive depth, music, etc in order to pander to the lowest common denominator of gamers and end up *******izing the franchise.

 

[MuraRengan]

Restate The standard games should be held to in your opinion

Depth in elements of a game

Be sure not to confuse this with he method I presented earlier that I feel is the most accurate method of comparing games.

The prosecution rests its case.

Nowhere in that entire post did I demean anyone's intelligence. I pointed out the fact that people were misconstruing my arguments because of careless prejudice. Those are not insults, nor are they attempts by me to demean anyone's intelligence, it's just the truth of the matter. It's not my fault if it hurts your feelings.

And another truth of the matter is that if you'd trtied to understand my post, you'd be able to discern a statement from an insult, which, again, you haven't. (Again, not an insult, just the truth)

 

[finalark]

Newsflash: video games generally improve over time while most so-called "classics" age like milk in the sun.

Just throwing that out there.

Nowhere in that entire post did I demean anyone's intelligence.

Right here, buddy:

Yep, I'd assume that is what happens when you read things out of context, prejudge, and can't comprehend ideas.

I pointed out the fact that people were misconstruing my arguments because of careless prejudice.

Or alternatively people are disagreeing with you and you don't like it.

 

[finalark]

Sorry, double post.

 

[MuraRengan]

So reading your two paragraphs, not bothering with the rest because I feel like I had grasped your point and then disagreeing with you totally makes me an idiot who can't comprehend others ideas, right?

Well, I made no implications towards you being an idiot, and since you clearly still didn't grasp my point, then yeah, I guess you're right.

 

[finalark]

Well, I made no implications towards you being an idiot, and since you clearly still didn't grasp my point, then yeah, I guess you're right.

The point I got: most modern games suck because they provide instant gratification and don't require you devote yourself to them to finish them.

Did I miss something?

 

[El Nino]

Newsflash: video games generally improve over time while most so-called "classics" age like milk in the sun.

Debatable. It's a definite possibility that games will improve, but it isn't a guarantee. The more we stray from the basics, the more we risk losing our understanding of why people play games in the first place. If you lose the basics, there isn't technology in the world to salvage your industry.

The underlying theory of games is simpler than it is complex. The parts that are complex--the superficial layers, the graphics capacity--work to mask that simplicity in order to draw you in. They're like the Vegas buffet next to the slot machines.

But I think we've already had that debate, so nevermind.

Edit: I also have to say that I think there's a reason why there's been a lot of rehashing of old titles.

 

[Deleted member]

The point I got: most modern games suck because they provide instant gratification and don't require you devote yourself to them to finish them.

If this is OP's point, then he is very wrong.

Game developers have been increasing this from over the past.

What do you think achievements are for on your XBox360 and Playstation 3?

Why do you think Call of Duty implemented a score system based on getting points from matches and buying rewards? Why not give all weapons/features to players from the get go?

Why does Halo: Reach now have armor rewards and levels required to buy the armor features?

Why are MMOs able to give players so many hoops to jump through, then add more hoops while the players grudgingly complain about excessive grind?

Game devs are throwing in time sinks into games for the long term gain of the consumer's attention. Consumers generally wouldn't play the game a long time if they desired instant gratification.

Long term rewards have become a psychological staple in the gaming industry recently. People love working hard for something even if it is a non tangible game item or useless gamerscore points.

 

[MuraRengan]

The point I got: most modern games suck because they provide instant gratification and don't require you devote yourself to them to finish them.

Did I miss something?

Yeah, you missed quite a bit. In fact, the entire "devoting yourself" thing is completely contrived.

My points are essentially these:

1. Modern gaming has capricious standards which are beginning to suit instant gratification over depth.

2. Depth should be the standard for video gaming.

3. Instant gratification should never supersede depth.

4. The capriciousness of gaming trends should not be trusted for determining the quality of games, because these trends often have more to do with sales than with the game itself.

Right here, buddy:

Lol, if you want to get technical about it, the quote you're referencing does not reference the quote you're making reference to. And, just for the record, it's not an insult if I was telling the truth (which, from your interpretation of the OP, I'm still quite sure that I am,) I'll make an apology to you if you can show your understanding of the concepts in a well constructed rebuttal argument.

Or alternatively people are disagreeing with you and you don't like it.

This is up for speculation. However, I doubt your relevance in this quote because I'm sure that you haven't read through the various arguments which have gone on in this topic to a degree that would enable you to make a definitive claim that people are not misconstruing my arguments. That will be seen in whether or not you needlessly restate in your aforementioned rebuttal old contentions that other posters in pages past have made.

I'll see your reply tomorrow.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Your usage of the word 'depth' after claiming Guitar Hero is deep ****ing disgusts me, you know that?

 

[El Nino]

Well, I made no implications towards you being an idiot, and since you clearly still didn't grasp my point, then yeah, I guess you're right.

Let's leave the personal insults out of this. That goes out to everyone here.

 

[Teran]

Yeah, you missed quite a bit. In fact, the entire "devoting yourself" thing is completely contrived.

My points are essentially these:

1. Modern gaming has capricious standards which are beginning to suit instant gratification over depth.

Monster Hunter and Mass Effect among others beg to differ. (inb4Mass Effect isn't deep, even though the depth of story isn't the point.) Besides, instant gratification as you call it (it's what I called my ex), is a very good thing. Maybe as a younger boy I had the time to be patient with game buildup, but now I have a lot of things to do and I don't have the time nor the patience to allow stuff to develop. I want instant gratification so I can at least be amused and given a reason to come back. Should it get better and better, then good for the game.

2. Depth should be the standard for video gaming.

No it shouldn't, the standard for videogames should be evaluating your target audience and giving them what they want, like any good business.

3. Instant gratification should never supersede depth.

Again, depends on the target audience.

4. The capriciousness of gaming trends should not be trusted for determining the quality of games, because these trends often have more to do with sales than with the game itself.

Yeah well these gaming trends are what birthed Mario, Zelda, MGS, and pretty much every successful franchise as we know it. Gaming is shaped by the trends, get over it.

This is up for speculation. However, I doubt your relevance in this quote because I'm sure that you haven't read through the various arguments which have gone on in this topic to a degree that would enable you to make a definitive claim that people are not misconstruing my arguments.

He doesn't have to. Honestly you should be thankful for Jam's level of nonchalance and civility towards this thread.

But I'm guessing that he pretty much figured in an instant (like pretty much everyone else), that you're a weeaboo that's just salty about a gorenographic blood and boob bonanza is more highly received than DesuDesu's Loli Madness.

Before you say that was really mean, the point is that Jam was talking opinions, and even your arguments about depth being lost are completely irrelevant, because depth has several different forms. As much as I love a good story, I don't want a ****ing digital novella for every game I play, and tbh, while this generation has been underwhelming, I pin that down to same old with not that much better graphics. The Wii was the only thing different and we all know how that turned out. >.>

Also what's killing gaming is online multiplayer TRUE STORY OMG

I ****ing hate multiplayer.

 

[Falconv1.0]

You know, fun fact, neither SotC, Ico, or SH2 have any real depth when you think about it. How can something be deep if once a puzzle is done, it's just done, replaying it adds nothing to your experience, in fact, it's arguably less fun. And for the record, I ****ing love SH2's puzzles.

Depth is essentially having multiple viable options that interact in different ways that add real variety to the game, **** like risk and reward ratios, and are more in the line of 'balanced' gameplay, where the game can be played multiple times just based on gameplay.

It's easier to make a game deep with **** like God of War or Halo than it is for a game like SotC or Ico. Ico was a smart game, but it's a game that's clearly focused around how you feel when you first play it, a game driven less by thoughts based on the 'basics' determined by the rules of the game, and more on how to figure out each unique puzzle.

tl;dr-You make me frown.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Your usage of the word 'depth' after claiming Guitar Hero is deep ****ing disgusts me, you know that?

I'm going with this.

Guitar Hero has some of the most ridiculously shallow gameplay in the history of popular gaming. It's technically challenging; nothing more. It has great flow, and is technically challenging to the extent where it's got a lot of replay value for those who wanna be good at it (read: most people who have more than one), but none of the actual will to play comes from the depth of the game. It's all coming from something else-flow, the will to play classic songs, technical mastery, etc. It has no depth. And you know what? It's still a great game. Tetris is another example of such a game. No depth.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

You obviously don't understand my argument in the OP. My argument is that depth determines what a good game is, not opinions. Depth is more definable than a raw opinion, therefore it's a better standard for defining what a good game is.

Regardless of my opinion of the game, I recognize the depth of the sandbox element which is why, though I didn't enjoy it, I recognize it as a good gameplay element.

Perhaps you should go back and read my arguments again, and this time try to comprehend them. If you haven't done so already, you're just going to keep making inaccurate refrences to my arguments, and your responses will be inaccurate because your understanding of my argument is inaccurate.

It's all subjective. What someone finds trash can be treasure to someone else. I'm very much like you; bar-Metroid I have a disdain for fps, I don't care for GTA, etc, but that doesn't make them bad games. CoDBO is a great game to those who like it. To each their own, ya?

The only kind of games I can't stand and I feel should be abolished are:

A) Movie games

On a new side of things, Kirby is original, but epic yarn lacked depth, but I hear it's pretty good. Seems Epic Mickey is the same, too. (I picked Sonic/DCKR as platformers to play over them 2 :3)

 

[Savon]

Everybody else pretty much said what I wanted to say. Depth is not an inherently good thing. GH is extremely simple, but I spent years playing the games. Puzzle games are simpleby nature, but is a well respected gaming genre. Not everybody plays a videogame for depth. Some people want a game that DOES have instant gratification. It doesn't mean all games should be that, but it does not mean that they should all be super deep either. It comes down to what everybody has been saying. It depends all on the target audience. Some people like SSBB because it is more accessible than melee, while some hate it because it is not as deep competively. It is all about target audience TC. Brawl is a good example of this.

 

[Deleted member]

except tripping, that is just bad game design that only works when all players are drunk.

 

[PD4FR]

You die immediately from a headshot when your shields drop.

You need to get out more.

You think I should get out more because I don't know specific details about Halo? Maybe you should get out more, if you really think that.

Edit - I haven't been around trolls enough. You probably wren't being serious, lol.

 

[425]

I think I'm actually going to come to TC's defense here (not entirely, but somewhat).

I do think that this is the dark age of gaming, and IG does have a part in that.

I'm not going to say that all FPS are IG, or IG games are FPS's

I do agree that depth is a good standard for gaming, BUT depth is not easily defined. There can be many different "deep" games, that people might not agree whether they're deep. For example, some say that story creates depth. Example, of course, being Legend of Zelda. Others say gameplay creates depth, like, obviously Guitar Hero.

Depth is a matter of opinion. I will now give examples using games that haven't been mentioned.

Example of controversial depth stemming from gameplay:

Sonic Riders. It was basically a new play style of racing game (not as revolutionary as SSB in fighting games, but I can't think of a better example).

You could argue that it's deep because of the gameplay, plus the story (traditional, "stop Eggman" thing) to slightly back it up.

You also could argue that it's shallow because the story is weak, and the gameplay isn't good enough to make up for it.

Example of controversial depth stemming from story:

Well, I was going to think of one here, but...

Really, most movie games fit this description. Basically stereotypical gameplay, just relying on the story from the hit movie, and not worrying about boring, cliched gameplay. But in some cases, you could make an argument that the story is great and more than makes up for gameplay.

Now, as for the most controversial game in this thread: Guitar Hero.

This is probably the most opinion based, "love it or hate it" game out there. There is no story, so the whole power of the game's appeal is gameplay.

Keep in mind that the following is an OPINION, unlike the rest of the post. OPINION. Please don't hurt me if you disagree.

My personal opinion on Guitar Hero is that it's a deep game. I believe that the combination of the notes, chords, and songs make up for the lack of variation otherwise.

There are deeper games, but I believe Guitar Hero to be deep.

 

[finalark]

1. Modern gaming has capricious standards which are beginning to suit instant gratification over depth.

I really don't mind "instant gratification" as you call it. It's not because I'm shallow and narrow minded but because I just don't have the time to sit down and play a game for twenty or so hours until I feel like I'm being rewarded. These days I have very little time for games on the week days and only find that I can play on the week ends. And when I don't have that much time I'd rather play the games that quickly make me feel like I'm rewarded for playing them rather than ones where I have to pour months into in order to make any progress.

2. Depth should be the standard for video gaming.

Depends on your target audience.

3. Instant gratification should never supersede depth.

Again, target audience.

4. The capriciousness of gaming trends should not be trusted for determining the quality of games, because these trends often have more to do with sales than with the game itself.

Not like this didn't apply ten or fifteen years ago.

EDIT: So I just realized that this sentence is basically saying, "mainstream games suck, go underground."

This is up for speculation. However, I doubt your relevance in this quote because I'm sure that you haven't read through the various arguments which have gone on in this topic to a degree that would enable you to make a definitive claim that people are not misconstruing my arguments. That will be seen in whether or not you needlessly restate in your aforementioned rebuttal old contentions that other posters in pages past have made.

You know how to be wordy, I'm impressed.

But let's be honest, this thread wouldn't still be going if people didn't disagree with you.

And I laugh at how you cite Symphonia as being a deep game. That game wasn't deep, just long.

 

[Falconv1.0]

You think I should get out more because I don't know specific details about Halo? Maybe you should get out more, if you really think that.

Edit - I haven't been around trolls enough. You probably wren't being serious, lol.

You seriously couldn't tell I was being sarcastic. Really. I'm not even sure how...what?

On a different note, Finalark, why are you still trying?

 

[finalark]

On a different note, Finalark, why are you still trying?

All of my friends are busy tonight and this is pretty amusing between dungeon and battle ground ques.

 

[Savon]

It still does not change the fact that depth is not a requirement for a quality game. Depth can play a part in making a good game, however a game can still be a good game by being simple. The TC believes that in order for a game to be quality it HAS to have depth, which is just absurd.

 

[Jam Stunna]

That game wasn't deep, just long.

That's what she said!

 

[PD4FR]

You seriously couldn't tell I was being sarcastic. Really. I'm not even sure how...what?

On a different note, Finalark, why are you still trying?

I'm really not looking out for it because I know people irl who would say something like that except seriously.

 

[Teran]

That's what she said!

Oh wow.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

This whole argument could be applied for anything about something.

 

[Jim Morrison]

The only deep game is SSBM.

Play SSBM forever.

 

[Jonkku]

Melee sucks.

Play Brawl.

 

[Teran]

Don't start THE COMBO guys...

Seriously, you know how much I love infracting you.

 

[jiovanni007]

These arguments are a moot point. Trying to explain to people that ToS has more depth is like all the times I've explained why Lupe >>>>> Lil Wayne. People who are set in their own ideas aren't really going to change. Then you have people who just get joy out of trying to prove others wrong despite their own personal beliefs.

 

[Landry]

This is up for speculation. However, I doubt your relevance in this quote because I'm sure that you haven't read through the various arguments which have gone on in this topic to a degree that would enable you to make a definitive claim that people are not misconstruing my arguments. That will be seen in whether or not you needlessly restate in your aforementioned rebuttal old contentions that other posters in pages past have made.

While I tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying I just wanted to point out that this is really a terribly worded paragraph. Either you don't have a 100% grasp on the way to contextualize a lot of the words you attempted to use or you just weren't paying very much attention. I doubt many people noticed it because "big words = smart person", but you aught to take a little more time when showing off your vocabulary next time.