Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I've been watching reviews of games that I've played, just out of boredom and cause I liked the personality of the players involved. And it kept going back to "these games might be good, but they're not X". Every time. And I have to rant about it now.

Shooter-RPGs are simultaneously criticized for not being System Shock 2 and also for being too much like System Shock 2. Traditional RPGs are criticized for not being enough like Baldur's Gate, or Ultima, or whatever one from the DOS era that the author likes the most. RTS games are simultaneously criticized for not being Starcraft, and being too much like Starcraft. MMOs are simultaneously criticized for not being enough like World of Warcraft, and being too much like it.

And so on and so forth.

Surprise surprise, the dev teams listen. Sometimes they feel the same way, themselves. And so they try to give people what they want-- that nostalgic feeling. But because of this, eventually everything starts to look the same to the gamer. Well, kiddo, be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. And even worse, these things become industry standards that you MUST put in to get your game idea approved. Because gamers are constantly pining for the "good 'ol days", it's gotten to the point that producers have heard you, and have written a checklist (either literally, or in their head) based off of the players' most common complaints and desires. Gotta check the boxes off, or the dev team won't even get approved to start developing in the first place. So even when developers aren't just blindly grasping at straws to try to capture that elusive feeling of nostalgia, you get shoehorned in elements from old games just so that they can check off the right boxes in some producer's checklist.

And it's your fault. Your nostalgia is the reason why video games suck.

But video games dont suck. Recent games (and Im going back as far as 10 years for recent) have seen some really excellent releases, genres, titles and series.
So no, developers trying to capture nostalgia hasnt ruined recent releases, nor has it stunted the industry, nor has forced a lack of creativity - I'd list a bucket load of examples but you'd probably pick apart each one.

In short: theres nothing wrong with trying to capture a bit of nostalgia and with developers realising a lot of modern gamers have not eevn heard of system shock, deus ex 1 or other such classics, its debatable them trying to capture a retro feel even happens at all.....

That doesn't even mirror what I've seen on this very forum. People here complain about how games are trying to rip off old games and therefor suck, while in the next breath complaining about how games aren't enough like old games (and therefor suck).

How about being overly vocal of an opinion and an overwhelming need for labeling?
Same can be said for music, books, movies...

I personally appreciate different, something plucked out of the air and not following an established public formula.
I find you can appreciate something for being brilliantly executed (technically proficient) OR an original idea dragged out of a creative person's mind (harder to do in my view).
It is a very rare thing to do both.

Sure, blame consumers seeking those comfy old shoes, I am sure they are being lazy with their leisure time.

I am in my late 40's, pretty much been a gamer the whole time and seen much out there.
It is an easy thing to take a brilliant "original" idea from the past and modernize it: those pesky developers are rather risk adverse.
You can still see the innovation you seek with Steam green light (<edit> I had voted regularly, not so, in a year or so) and kickstarters had been interesting.

I think the difference you seek is those that "pine for the good ol' days" really are looking for that awesome feeling of being faced with something new, not predictable, which may be confused with wanting the same game. I am not content to play many of my old games again or read many books I have already: it is done now, I enjoyed it and am ready to move on.

I think I would "blame" the people who mistake those comparisons as a winning proven strategy, I say throw it out the window.

Well, I cant say I agree and I've been browsing the VG forum for 7 years or so.
Yes of course there are certain examples, especially if a developer deliberately releases a followup to a recognised classic (DX3 is a good example) but overall, I've seen less moaning about ripping of old games/arent like old games than moaning about poorly released titles which are either buggy, underdeveloped, need serious patching or are just plain gak.

Its likely got less to do with people complaining about replicated old classics and more to do with lazy and rushed developmental cycles.

And I'll reiterate the point that develppers liklely couldnt give a damn about what "older" gamers think of classics, they are there to either make a game they genuniely believe in or appease a big money publisher.
I'd wager on this forum and most definitely on "younger" forums a lot of gamers have not even played SS1/2, DX1, AvP1, Baldurs gate, Morrowind etc etc.
Hence why would developers cater to such a small audience such as ourselves (I conider myself an old gamer btw).

Uh okay? Cant say I see what you are rambeling about. Video games today are great! Or so I think but you are of course entiteled to your opinion Melissia

 Trondheim wrote:
Uh okay? Cant say I see what you are rambeling about. Video games today are great! Or so I think but you are of course entiteled to your opinion Melissia

I keep hearing from friends and acquaintances, as well as a lot of the more famous reviewers, things like "I've played this game before when I played system shock 2, except that was better, and kids these days don't know how good it was back then."

That's the kind of thing that made me need to rant.

Uh...what? People on these forums complain about games ripping off older games? That certainly doesn't meet my experience.

People rooting for older games has a lot of actual reasons bar nostalgia. SS2 for example was an intelligent hybrid of RPG and shooter and no other game managed to capture said mixture again. Bioshock was a shooter right from the start and claimed to have "RPG elements" that were limited to "spells" you picked up. RTS..well, is pretty much dead nowadays. RPGs...well, most RPGs nowadays are other genres with RPG elements and thanks to Kickstarter, there still are actual RPGS getting produced.

Video games are still awesome and it's one of the most profitable markets out there. It managed to get out of its niche and head straight for the casual / broad market and has become a medium that is more progressive, experimental and adventerous than any other mass media nowadays. Video Games have transcended the mere hobby and truly became a medium of expression; art, if you want it.

So...yeah, lay off your broad brush and settle down.

Nostalgia is a strong factor, naturally, and a lot of people would be surprised how badly some games...a lot of games aged, but all of those people hating video games? Hell naw.

SS2 for example was an intelligent hybrid of RPG and shooter and no other game managed to capture said mixture again.

I don't even have to do research to prove this wrong. Not only did Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines do mix RPG and Shooter elements, IMO it did it vastly better than SS2 ever could. And other games could be listed as a counter to this that were released even later than VTMB.

Melissa is more a gaming discerning connoisseur.
Us McDonald's consumers are harshing her mellow.

A blanket statement of games sucking is not terribly accurate.
It is easier than ever to market/flog your latest code so the volume of garbage vs. brilliant is becoming that much smaller.
I do not want to be blamed for stinkers like Godus, I will not be blamed for money grabbing, ill conceived, sycophant approved drivel.

People have a right to opinions but not a right to go unchallenged on their merit.

 Talizvar wrote:
Melissa is more a gaming discerning connoisseur.
Us McDonald's consumers are harshing her mellow.

No, shut up.

 Talizvar wrote:
A blanket statement of games sucking is not terribly accurate.

Good thing I'm not making one. In fact, if you look at my own posting history, you'd note I mostly play newer games and I quite enjoy them. In the OP of this thread, I'm criticizing people who constantly pine over old games and act like new games are always trying to rip off old games, or if they don't, they should be.

Ah, so the statement was against lazy reviews of games!
I can get behind that.
I thought gamergate got them to be less full of themselves?
There are few reviewers I put much stock in for that very reason.
I feel comparisons can and should be made if they point to specific features of the game that match, not a general statement. It does run the risk of alienating a younger audience so I think it is foolish to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Melissa is more a gaming discerning connoisseur.
Us McDonald's consumers are harshing her mellow.

No, shut up.

Touchy!
I could swear forums are intended for us not to "shut-up".

 Talizvar wrote:
A blanket statement of games sucking is not terribly accurate.

Good thing I'm not making one. In fact, if you look at my own posting history, you'd note I mostly play newer games and I quite enjoy them. In the OP of this thread, I'm criticizing people who constantly pine over old games and act like new games are always trying to rip off old games, or if they don't, they should be.

 Talizvar wrote:
I thought gamergate got them to be less full of themselves?

Gamergate would have to get less full of itself before it could effectively get others to be less full of themselves. Since that's never going to happen, GG will continue to effectively do nothing but cause arguments.

 Talizvar wrote:
I feel comparisons can and should be made if they point to specific features of the game that match, not a general statement. It does run the risk of alienating a younger audience so I think it is foolish to do so.

I get the idea of using older games as short-hand comparisons...

... unfortunately, a lot of times when I hear these comparisons, it's always "... except it's not as good", and the people in question from honestly don't seem to be able to seem to enjoy newer games because they keep making that comparison, and they feel newer games fall short every time. For example, the last of the series of reviews I watched that made me want to rant said "[bioshock infinite] is a good game, but I just can't enjoy it because it reminds me of system shock 2" and then devolved in to a half hour rant on how good system shock 2 was and how kids these days don't know how good it was back then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Why am I apologizing again over rudeness?

Eh, the only part of your post that was rude, to me, was the part where you basically said I'm a snob.

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Why am I apologizing again over rudeness?

Eh, the only part of your post that was rude, to me, was the part where you basically said I'm a snob.

Hmmm....
Fair, blunt statement.
I think it stemmed more from the "our fault" bit you had to say, I was using it more as a pointy stick to get you to elaborate which got you to shut down instead.
I think we established the need for labeling was unhelpful...

I am still curious where this is going, is it a rant to get it out of your system or are you going somewhere with this?
I will give it an honest response, inquiring minds want to know.

I'm not really going anywhere with this, aside from bitterly complaining about other peoples' nostalgia getting in the way of them enjoying a good game.

Why be bitter?
Why do these people matter?
Demonstrate a review of a game how you feel it should be done: you write well.

Just some thoughts of mine.

 Melissia wrote:

SS2 for example was an intelligent hybrid of RPG and shooter and no other game managed to capture said mixture again.

I don't even have to do research to prove this wrong. Not only did Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines do mix RPG and Shooter elements, IMO it did it vastly better than SS2 ever could. And other games could be listed as a counter to this that were released even later than VTMB.

True, forgot about VTMB as a prime example for plot twists (the sisters!) and character diversity (loved the Nosferatu). It still saddens me to remember the game's terrible history of a trash developer who had no idea what he was doing and required tons of community work to make the game playable and enjoyable. Still, to this date, it's unparalleled when it comes to playing the same game differently, even Deus Ex did not manage to pull off said amount of diversity. This being said, I can easily say that a 12 years old game rather counts as Nostalgia to me and certainly not for "modern" games and since you were talking modern games - I wonder if a 12 years old game really qualifies for that.

So...if you wanna discuss modern games, then come up with actually elaborated examples. Naming another old game and then saying "there's more" without naming them is lazy and contributes nothing to the discussion at hand.

Well, we got 'here' quickly - RULE #1 GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING.

PAST THIS POINT, WARNINGS AND SUSPENSIONS AWAIT...

Video Games don't suck. Long standing franchises sticking to old formulas are still consumed and enjoyed by their audiences. There's more experimental, strange and games-as-art stuff coming out of the indie scene than ever. Games feel more healthy and diverse than they ever have before. Sure we have a few big visible failures every year but that's kind to be expected given the size of the industry and volume of releases now.

Yes, the video game market has never been better. Video games are a very affordable hobby that satisfies everyone, literally everyone. The market is so diverse, it's unbelievable, there's something for you, whatever you may be looking for; it's amazing! Even if you want your games like they used to be made 20 years ago, there's new stuff coming out for you via Kickstarter. It's the Golden Age of video gaming right now, right before us.

No, the devs listening to my nostalgia is the reason video games are finally good again.

 Chongara wrote:
Long standing franchises sticking to old formulas are still consumed and enjoyed by their audiences.

Some more than others. The various CoD cash cows are the most obvious example as to why releasing essentially the same game each year isn't a great idea. Most reboots are quite pedestrian (Master of Orion or the new Fallouts for instance) while some are very good (XCOM). There is a lot more to gaming than nostalgia driven reboots however; the games that I am most looking forward to this year (Stellaris, That Which Sleeps, The Mandate) are brand new

There is nothing inherently wrong with reboots provided that they are at least passably interesting and that there is a wide and deep range of choice. Both of these are true.

Arguably gaming is healthier than it has ever been.

Make video games great again!

- Kickstarter, 2016

Seriously though, Kickstarter has a great influence on the industry. Both sides win; players can vote with their wallet (literally) and game developers can use Kickstarter to see if there's merit in trying to make a game without having to put lots of work and cash into market research beforehand. Everyone wins!

I kind of think we can blame the devs nostalgia too. You always see independent devs wanting to reiterate on the past too. Like every mmo dev out there seems to be trying to recreate their first mmo. You can't get a 4x game dev admit that there have been others games besides MOO.

Oh the other hand, games have always been rather copy caty. having a big nostalgia boom just means there is more people are allowed to copy. Like if your making a shooter, you don't just have to copy COD, you can copy doom now.

nomotog wrote:
You can't get a 4x game dev admit that there have been others games besides MOO.

Are you aware of Stellaris?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

nomotog wrote:
You can't get a 4x game dev admit that there have been others games besides MOO.

Are you aware of Stellaris?

Actually.

I was vaguely aware of it and then after I posted my comment i though I should look into that game and see how it is. It was at about the 8 dev diary I thought OK I like this idea. I haven't looked at enough to tell if it is radically different then moo though.

nomotog wrote:
I haven't looked at enough to tell if it is radically different then moo though.

For a start it isn't turn based.

I don't know if the whole thing will gel together but the vision and the individual building blocks are interesting

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I haven't looked at enough to tell if it is radically different then moo though.

For a start it isn't turn based.

I don't know if the whole thing will gel together but the vision and the individual building blocks are interesting

That isn't a huge change all bu itself. Star drive wasn't turn based when it came out.

The neat thing with Stellaris seems to be the populations and empires. I am not sure I understand it, but looks like the different fractions will be made of more then one population and different regions can split off or join up. Then you have the ability to uplift primitive populations that sound really cool. The tech system sounds the most different I love the idea of science ships. (Really surprised that this isn't a thing in other x4 games.)

nomotog wrote:

The neat thing with Stellaris seems to be the populations and empires. I am not sure I understand it, but looks like the different fractions will be made of more then one population and different regions can split off or join up.

Yeah, as I understand it you start as a single species but as you expand to more extreme planets its advantageous to start genetically and/or cybernetically altering your colonists to the extent that they essentially become a subspecies and no longer completely fit in your society (in practice they may well act like Eu IV colonies in that you can only control so many before they start getting cranky and demanding at least some autonomy). You can also develop advanced AIs and use them to colonise really nasty worlds but in doing so they can go rogue and create a galactic robotic uprising.

I think the political aspect of the game will be more interesting. Normally in 4X game by the time you get to the mid/late game you tend to have a giant military steamroller than kills everything. In Stellaris you can't do that and it basically turns in to CK2 in space (complete with the need for a cassius belli before you can declare war).

There are some elements of standard 4x games, nothing is ever made completely from scratch, but there are so many new elements or elements taken from completely different games that there really is nothing like it (except perhaps Distant Worlds).

 Talizvar wrote:
Demonstrate a review of a game how you feel it should be done: you write well.

I'd be interested in reading Melissia Game Reviews

 Sigvatr wrote:
It still saddens me to remember the game's terrible history of a trash developer who had no idea what he was doing

To be fair to Troika, that was one of the first Source engine games ever. That type of facial animation was revolutionary at the time.