I used to enjoy playing the majority of video games. Once upon a time, I could sit down and play a game like Call of Duty and experience the emotion we call "fun." Yet, over the last five years, I find myself becoming inexplicably bored with just about everything I spend $50 or more dollars on. By bored, I mean after twenty minutes of gameplay, I no longer have any inclination to continue. Usually, I'll hear about a game that's receiving rave 9.0 or betters reviews, buy the game, and then yawn after five minutes.
I remember I couldn't get past the first mission of Gears of War 3.
These days, I'm thinking my boredom isn't as inexplicable as I previous thought. I think what's happened is that my brain demands to be stimulated in a way that only indie games really seem to be allowing for. I must've spent a hundred+ hours in Mount and Blade: Warband.
I believe games can be challenging on two different levels; reflexive and mental, and sometimes a combination of the both.
After being called a "noob" for the thousandth time, I've determined that I'll never be a very good reflexive gamer. I'll never pull off the headshots or land the super, finishing-ultra combo level V in some fighting game. But what's more is that I don't really want to. I've found that games that don't give me a feeling of empowerment or growth are games I can't play past a few minutes. I think that's why I'm so drawn to Strategy, 4X, or even complex RPG games. The last AAA title I enjoyed was Skyrim.
I love games that leave a large degree of the fun in my own hands, as well as allow me to grow in the way I please. That's why Fallen Enchantress appeals to me, as well as Skyrim. I like feeling that there are many paths and options to take, many things to customize and tweak, which is also why Mincecraft, neither strategy nor RPG, is another game I have enjoyed greatly.
I have had an overactive imagination since I was a child, and so leading back to my opening statement, I believe that once I was awakened to the indy world, I haven't been able to enjoy mainstream titles like I used to. For some reason, killing someone in a video game just doesn't mean as much to me anymore if my character/army/base/civilization doesn't grow from it in some way.
There are those who take great pleasure in shooting thousands of soldiers down in Call of Duty. yet it's meaningless to me without an EXP bar.
Anyone else like this?
Make the switch to board games. You're begging for it.
www.boardgamegeek.com
Real games vs. real gamers.
Yes, they exist on computers as well, but there's just something about staring across the table at another gamer while you're playing, as opposed to staring at a screen.
The older I get, the more narrow my personal genre of games I enjoy becomes. I use to love all types of games, from platforms, racing, fighting, JRPG, etc...but now it's pretty much two categories, grand strategy and WRPG. That's pretty much it for me now. Or it was...until I started getting into indie point and click adventures and other indie titles, so if anything, I had already lost a lot of gaming desire, and indies brought some of it back.
I would, but I would need friends for this. And my fiance looks at me in disgust when I ask her to do something nerdy with me.
No. The poor quality of mainstream titles dulled my interest in mainstream titles.
No,
....and 'fun' isn't an emotion.... . ...
This. And Skyrim is a large-budget, mainstream game.
I stopped playing when FPS when 8 year olds started kicking my ass. Time to retire, lol.
Easy solution....single player....
Only online game I ever played was a driving/racing sim......was on a brilliant lap when some 'child' decided to go WD and took me out.
I really do NOT do 'online'.
The other funny thing is when my 4 year girl started owning me on Mario Kart. Talk about egological damage!
[quote
[/quote]
Okay, smart guy.
The definition of the word emotion is, "A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others."
Fun is derived from one's circumstances, mood, and/or their relationship with the others. Fun is something that is experienced. It is a more complex state of happiness, which is also an emotion.
Fun, when used as a noun, means, "Enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure: "anyone who turns up can join in the fun"."
If anything, it's a complex, combination of emotions. Do your research next time before being snide. You represent Stardock, yes? Thinly-veiled rudeness is a poor thing indeed.
Rule of thumb, if Spok can't experience it, it's an emotion. Ergo, fun is an emotion.
YES, I am definitely not able to experience the same satisfaction with mainstream titles anymore. I blame this on the fact that mainstream titles are becoming increasingly homogeneous. Old titles that were groundbreaking on release get re-made with minor tweaks, meanwhile everything is just "more of the same". And it's not just modern FPS shooters and MMOs completely failing, it's everywhere. FE, SINS are not exceptions.
Unfortunately it seems like the "remake everything" has bled over to the indie studios this year, when every second new kickstarter project is a remake of some old game. That is not to say I can't enjoy a good remake, but I certainly won't enjoy 10 good remakes in a row.
Indie games are the ones breaking new ground, if anyone.
Edit: In retrospect, it seems the title of this post puts the "blame" on indie/4x/complex games but it is really the other way around. Those if anything is keeping me playing.
I stopped playing games.... Oh wait... crap! I just remembered, I've never played games unless Solitaire, Hearts or Mahjong count?
I feel fun.
Settlers of Catan board game
Strategical with social interaction required.
It's just like Heavenfall said. Just think about the kind of games we were playing in 1990, and how much everything changed by the time we got to 2000, many of the games of that time period were great innovations, nothing like them had been seen before, I think that's why I look back on that time and have so many good gaming memories.. Meanwhile, on the pther hand, we've been playing the same types of game for around 15 years now, and it really is the same old thing. Indie developers have really been bringing something new to the table with digital distribution becoming so ubiquitous
I think the biggest detractor is that we have lost innovations in design in favor of innovations in graphics and ease of use. Game are art. Art is a reflection of our society. Our society is weak, unimaginative, and shot of intelligence. It's no wonder games are doing the same thing.
You bring up a good point. Many of the mainstream games now have gameplay that is pretty much "dumbed down" to the point of absurd. Sure the graphics may be cutting edge, and the art, scenery, and pretty explosions may look awesome, but what good is all of that if the gameplay is a rinse, and repeat of previous games before it? For example World of Warcraft is simple walkity walkity walk.. Stabity stabity stab. An endless boring grind. Every MMO with the exception of Eve Online is a carbon copy of the WoW mechanic.
FPS's are pretty much the same deal. Endless Running, Point, and Shooting. Doom innovated FPS's (Doom 3 best FPS IMO). The problem is that every FPS since doom is all the same thing in a different package with prettier graphics.
People seem to think that a complex game like the X universe, or total war series will not be fun. It is like game developers are afraid to make a game that requires you to THINK, or to do more than aimlessly point, stab, and shoot. Which is probably why we switched to RTS, 4X, and RPG's. These games require that you have a brain, and use it before you play them. That is what made them fun.
Game developers are also afraid to take risk's. So they stick with old school game mechanics, and formulas that sold in the past. Most of the new "innovations" came from indie game companys from thier first games. (examples: Id, Relic, Bioware, CCP, Creative assembly, and Ironclad)
The only mindless mayhem game i like is Grand Theft Auto 4, because that is the whole point of the game. It is mindless mayhem. Which also can be fun, and a good change of pace.
I agree with you 100%. Also, I do hope you have taken notice of how whenever an Indie developer makes it big and proves their idea is worth it, shortly after, companies charge into battle like cavalry, wielding "accessibility" and "streamlining" as their weapons of war, in lieu of sword and bow.
Mount and Blade: Warband <- Great, amazing game
Mount and Blade: Fire something (whatever it was called) <-- Crap
Hell, just look at Dawn of War1 vs. Dawn of War 2, or the bastardization of the Command and Conquer series, going from a build your army game to a simplistic joke of a console port.
Crysis 1 <-- Innovative FPS
Crysis 2 <--EA Games (enough said)
Dawn of War 1 it can be said is a rip of Warcraft/Starcraft (Which is a rip of CnC). Right down to its UI. Which is strikingly similar to Starcrafts UI. Despite that, being a Warhammer fan i loved the DoW1 series. I also liked the DoW2 series. Mainly for their SP campaigns. Though you are correct. The CnC influence is quite obvious. It is also obvious in Company of Heroes as well.
Of course if an indie company makes an innovative first game. For example how Id software did with the Doom/Quake series, or Relic with Homeworld 1. Everyone is gonna jump on the bandwagon, and try to copycat it, re-package it, Maybe add one, or two "new features" to make it "look unique". Soldier of Fortune 2 is an example of the quake 3 engine repackaged with a few new features added to the same damn game mechanics. Don't get me started on Elite Force, or the "Homeworld clones" like O-R-B. Beside the point. For every one "Original Game", there are about 100 copycats waiting in line to cash in on the success of that Original Game. Worse. A big name publisher like EA will try to buy them out to control the IP themselves. Like how EA bought out Bioware.
Nine of Ten times sequels fail miserably. Examples Homeworld 2, Supreme Commander 2, KOTOR 2, Sword of the Stars 2, Any sequel made by EA. Sequels are made mainly to cash in on the success of the original game by name recognition alone. People buy them, because they think. "Hey, Sword of the Stars 1, or Homeworld 1 was a good game, Then SoTS 2, or HW2 should be an even better game!".. WRONG!! If a game is successful then the expectations are VERY high for any potential sequel. Which most of the time those expectations are never met. In some cases the features that made the original game fun in the first place are REMOVED in the sequel. There are some pleasant exceptions to this rule. Mass Effect 2 which is both a sequel, and it is affiliated with EA, is much better than the original. Mass Effect 3 would have equaled ME2 if it wasn't for the botched ending. There are a few others, but the majority of sequels usually fall short.
Supreme Commander -> Supreme Commander 2 = A good example of your points methinks
Warcraft/Starcraft definitely has the same interface as Company of Heroes or Dawn of War, but the actual games are very different.
Dawn of War introduced many new features - squads. Weapon upgrades. Capturing strategic points instead of harvesting resources with peasants. Critical/Strategic point holding as a victory condition. It's almost like they took a great interface, and just slapped a new game design on top of it, instead of slapping a new interface over the same gameplay.
The truth is Parogar, most main stream games suck. What has happened is mediocrity has been allowed to grow and fester in the game industry because publishers took control from developers and making games went from make a good game first, make money second, to make money first, and screw second.
Publishers like EA, now before you people start firing off about EA, because I am not turning it into that kind of thread. But EA is a perfect example of what is happening to gaming as a whole, Publishers are buying out good, if not great developer houses, and then completely running their titles and IPs straight into the ground in the pursuit of squeezing every last possible dollar out of them in as short a time as possible.
And since the number of publishers keeps going down, and the remaining ones are bloodied sharks, what you have is an industry wide affliction of mediocrity and generic blandness in the system.
right now it is independent games and developers and EVEN publishers that are keeping the industry from faltering completely, however these people by their very definition are small and shouldn't be expected to save the whole kit and caboodle on their own.
It's understandable that you can't enjoy these games, because your taste is actually of a person who wants a good game, maybe even a great game, and the industry is offering you nothing more then regurgitated, reformatted, add a number to the previous title slop.
At this stage in the game asking for a "Good" game seems to be a stretch for these publishers, because they refuse to allow their talent to flourish, and give them the time and money required to do it. That is assuming their talent isn't ready to just jump ship and take their chances at this point.
-AE
What I don't understand is why the developers are selling out in this environment. They probably stand to gain a lot more money should they make a great product and bring it to the market themselves.
it's everything from greed, to solvency. Keep in mind the people who RUN these developers are mostly business majors or ex-bankers, seriously, check it out. These developers are NOT run by artisans or anyone who understands the ins and outs of game making and how to make a GOOD game and how to make a BAD game. And sometimes, these people just run the company into the ground despite the good games they produce, they just don't manage the money properly.
In EITHER case, the end result is the same, they decide that "for the best interest of the company" they sell out a large publisher for what seems like a ton of money and the promise of all this newly acquired free time and money. Because since the publisher will be running the day to day things, everyone else will have MORE time to dedicate to game making, OR SO THE PROMISE GOES.
It's a lie that the developers buy into thinking they are saving themselves, when in reality they have delivered themselves into the mouth of the whale like Jonah.
It's sad but true. And then in the end what ends up happening, is that the dev teams are pressured to push out more and more on less and less, both time and money, and when inevitably they falter and the games starting going to seed. The publisher decides it's time to reasses the positions in the company and start selling off assets and members of the dev team, while at the same time insisting the dev team come up with "the next big thing."
Eventually, the host company is full of nothing but members of people from the "publisher" and the dev company itself if nothing but a husk of what it was, nothing more then an extension of the larger publisher.
EDIT: looking back on what I wrote, I just described the reproductive cycle of a virus. Well, that's what these publishers have become, a virus, a cancer on the face of the game industry.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
