ilovefuzz.com

Andrew wrote:The Gamecube era was the best for games

You're aware that you're just saying that because you probably played that a lot when you were younger, right ?

If people who keep saying "games were better before" were sold games that actually behave like older games (I'm not even talking about graphics here) they would be complaining all over the place about tons of little and big things that nostalgia makes them forget.

Video games as a medium is constantly evolving, and player's expectations evolve with them.

oscillateur wrote:

Andrew wrote:The Gamecube era was the best for games

You're aware that you're just saying that because you probably played that a lot when you were younger, right ?

If people who keep saying "games were better before" were sold games that actually behave like older games (I'm not even talking about graphics here) they would be complaining all over the place about tons of little and big things that nostalgia makes them forget.

Video games as a medium is constantly evolving, and player's expectations evolve with them.

I'm not being serious, no need to take the bullshit i'm spouting that literally. It's all in jest.

But in complete honesty, I was playing a FF7 on my ps4 last night and before that a few hours of RE3 on my vita yesterday while traveling and had a blast so.

Sorry, it's just that I hear/read that often enough and it tends to annoy me a bit .

Video games are like movies in that the technology of the time has a "feel" that defines an era. Would old Grindhouse movies be the same without that old imperfect glitch film that was used? Of course not. Would old NES Super Mario Bros be better in HD 256 bit graphics? Of course not. 8 bits captures "something" ... the analogy can be extended to music too, some of the old albums that sound like they were recorded in a garage are great for this imperfection ... and GameCube was AWESOME!

^ 10/10.

I dunno to chime in on the subject and being stuck in a different era myself...(note: I know I am generalizing a bit overall...but just trying to make a point as to why certain eras stick out).

I think game design is always layers upon a basic concept. Some of the older, more beloved games are simplier in intent than modern ones that add layers, sometimes welcome and sometimes unneed complexity.

Shooters for example...

Space War!/Asteroids to
Space Invaders (change for more variety/not more complexity) to
Centipede (more complexity) to
Defender to
That Konomi game like defender (unneeded complexity) to
the era of R-Type, gradius, Image Fight, Truxtun, etc (new layers and added strategy) to
Dopachi, Battle Garegga, etc (added strategy and layers) (pretty much the end...everything was variations on what was set out from there).

The basic thread of shooters is that they all have the same basic rules...dodge, shoot, get hit=die, score big. The later added layers are for replayability/strategy/competition (harder to max out a score...find a perfect run, added option systems like chaining, etc) while retaining the same basic game design that can appeal to a large range of players and skills with a simple to play model with extreme depth (I can 1cc dodonpachi...but am no where near a world record holder). There were miss-steps and bad eras a long the way...but there are golden moments that will always be favorable for fans of shooters.

So to me, the basic design of a game that is simple to pick up while still having a ton of depth as skill improves is what makes a game favorably memorable....

The problem with the JRPG game design is that it requires less skill and more patience and knowledge...which no longer makes it require any skill or reflexes (sure there are exceptions...mostly talking about turn based combat based on Ultima/final fantasy...). Xenosaga was a great example of this...I loved the story but the game was mediocre at best. Everything was really predictable and didn't really require skill. There was no room for improvement or replay as a player. But I wouldn't say that era was better than the modern RPG era (combining elements of the First Person Shooter...it adds more of a game element with reaction, skill, and depth). That's not to say JRPGs are bad...just they were not complex games, though very easy to play which made them appeal to a wide audience...esp. when they had good stories. But in expanding to the modern era of first person shooter rpgs, general playability has been comprimised....

The problem with the more modern games is that they loose a little bit of easy playability due to a learning curve based on control schemes and game system knowledge, which can, by some, be intrepeted as unneeded complexity on a simple game concept (such as shoot things...don't get hit)...I can't pick up Halo like I could R-type or Batrider and just understand it as a person with no experience. R-type had shoot, release (or bomb) and move with systems of don't get hit and shoot things. I remember picking up Halo for the first time and not knowing what the hell I was looking at...then trying Metroid Prime...similar game (meaning both FPS's) and a totally different control scheme with different game systems...so some of that is working against modern genres (for example, my dad loves video games...always has...got him a PS2 and he never wanted to play a game again...just couldn't get passed the idea that a basic platformer now required 6 buttons when they used to need one...plus camera control).

Strategy RPGs (ogre battle, disgaia, etc) have kind of gone through this. Beginning as a more complex RPG, it really, in my opinion, brought the strategy, skill, and planning together in the RPG genre...but sometimes they go overboard and they get too complex and take way to long to play...which is fine for some players but not all (they also sometimes have balance issues...FF Tactics).

Puzzle games have retained that simplicity for the most part. Most people can pick up and understand the basic systems of Tetris. Anytime that they have added to that model, it has been less successful because the tetris system already had extreme depth, unlimited replay, and unlimited room for skill to grow as a player. Any time they tried to make tetris have more variety (or make a different puzzle game with more rules/systems it has made the game harder to pick up, superficially more complex, and also have more

I think sometimes people enjoyed the trial and error playing in a controled, simple environment and watching themselves grow as players whereas now sometimes the systems and in game collecting can be a fun, but less lasting experience for some players...and there were frustrating games back then...but classic games don't get made all the time (or every year). When a great game with a simple, deep, exceptional design is made...it is generally looked upon favorably for many years.

I do think some genres have suffered a ton in the modern era and have been made worse with modern gamer's requests, need for complexity, and tastes (platformers, shooters, puzzle games) but some genres have thrived FPS, RPG, etc (Doom and Wolfenstien vs Counter Strike and Fallout 3 is probably a great example).

Just an opinion...nothing that should be considered gospel...just been playing video games for 30 years (my first system was a Sears Pong).

Eivind August wrote:^ 10/10.

thnx

lordgalvar wrote:I dunno to chime in on the subject and being stuck in a different era myself...(note: I know I am generalizing a bit overall...but just trying to make a point as to why certain eras stick out).

I think game design is always layers upon a basic concept. Some of the older, more beloved games are simplier in intent than modern ones that add layers, sometimes welcome and sometimes unneed complexity.

Shooters for example...

Space War!/Asteroids to
Space Invaders (change for more variety/not more complexity) to
Centipede (more complexity) to
Defender to
That Konomi game like defender (unneeded complexity) to
the era of R-Type, gradius, Image Fight, Truxtun, etc (new layers and added strategy) to
Dopachi, Battle Garegga, etc (added strategy and layers) (pretty much the end...everything was variations on what was set out from there).

The basic thread of shooters is that they all have the same basic rules...dodge, shoot, get hit=die, score big. The later added layers are for replayability/strategy/competition (harder to max out a score...find a perfect run, added option systems like chaining, etc) while retaining the same basic game design that can appeal to a large range of players and skills with a simple to play model with extreme depth (I can 1cc dodonpachi...but am no where near a world record holder). There were miss-steps and bad eras a long the way...but there are golden moments that will always be favorable for fans of shooters.

So to me, the basic design of a game that is simple to pick up while still having a ton of depth as skill improves is what makes a game favorably memorable....

The problem with the JRPG game design is that it requires less skill and more patience and knowledge...which no longer makes it require any skill or reflexes (sure there are exceptions...mostly talking about turn based combat based on Ultima/final fantasy...). Xenosaga was a great example of this...I loved the story but the game was mediocre at best. Everything was really predictable and didn't really require skill. There was no room for improvement or replay as a player. But I wouldn't say that era was better than the modern RPG era (combining elements of the First Person Shooter...it adds more of a game element with reaction, skill, and depth). That's not to say JRPGs are bad...just they were not complex games, though very easy to play which made them appeal to a wide audience...esp. when they had good stories. But in expanding to the modern era of first person shooter rpgs, general playability has been comprimised....

The problem with the more modern games is that they loose a little bit of easy playability due to a learning curve based on control schemes and game system knowledge, which can, by some, be intrepeted as unneeded complexity on a simple game concept (such as shoot things...don't get hit)...I can't pick up Halo like I could R-type or Batrider and just understand it as a person with no experience. R-type had shoot, release (or bomb) and move with systems of don't get hit and shoot things. I remember picking up Halo for the first time and not knowing what the hell I was looking at...then trying Metroid Prime...similar game (meaning both FPS's) and a totally different control scheme with different game systems...so some of that is working against modern genres (for example, my dad loves video games...always has...got him a PS2 and he never wanted to play a game again...just couldn't get passed the idea that a basic platformer now required 6 buttons when they used to need one...plus camera control).

Strategy RPGs (ogre battle, disgaia, etc) have kind of gone through this. Beginning as a more complex RPG, it really, in my opinion, brought the strategy, skill, and planning together in the RPG genre...but sometimes they go overboard and they get too complex and take way to long to play...which is fine for some players but not all (they also sometimes have balance issues...FF Tactics).

Puzzle games have retained that simplicity for the most part. Most people can pick up and understand the basic systems of Tetris. Anytime that they have added to that model, it has been less successful because the tetris system already had extreme depth, unlimited replay, and unlimited room for skill to grow as a player. Any time they tried to make tetris have more variety (or make a different puzzle game with more rules/systems it has made the game harder to pick up, superficially more complex, and also have more

I think sometimes people enjoyed the trial and error playing in a controled, simple environment and watching themselves grow as players whereas now sometimes the systems and in game collecting can be a fun, but less lasting experience for some players...and there were frustrating games back then...but classic games don't get made all the time (or every year). When a great game with a simple, deep, exceptional design is made...it is generally looked upon favorably for many years.

I do think some genres have suffered a ton in the modern era and have been made worse with modern gamer's requests, need for complexity, and tastes (platformers, shooters, puzzle games) but some genres have thrived FPS, RPG, etc (Doom and Wolfenstien vs Counter Strike and Fallout 3 is probably a great example).

Just an opinion...nothing that should be considered gospel...just been playing video games for 30 years (my first system was a Sears Pong).

Interesting post ... I'm playing Devil's Third right now which was panned by the critics for frame rate, graphic, and other technical issues, but the game plays great and merges 1st person shooting with 3rd person melee. There is a diminishing return to superior graphics and great graphics on the GameCube is far closer to great graphics on the Wii U than on the NES, meaning that great graphics on the GameCube vs NES seems like a century difference whereas the gap between the GameCube and Wii U seems like a decade, but the NES came out in 1985, GameCube in 2001 and Wii U in 2012. Actually, a fairer comparison would be to replace the Wii U with Nintendo NX. Some of the points you mentioned above are spot on. Game elements beyond pure aesthetic need to be considered due to the diminishing returns phenomena. I think virtual reality is the next real move ... VR will change the internet itself ...

Started playing Fallout 4 today. 12 hours later....fuuuuck! This game will destroy my social life. The little of it I had to begin with that is.

UglyCasanova wrote:Started playing Fallout 4 today. 12 hours later....fuuuuck! This game will destroy my social life. The little of it I had to begin with that is.

That's 4 hours less than it took for lordgalvar to write his last post

JereFuzz wrote:Interesting post ... I'm playing Devil's Third right now which was panned by the critics for frame rate, graphic, and other technical issues, but the game plays great and merges 1st person shooting with 3rd person melee. There is a diminishing return to superior graphics and great graphics on the GameCube is far closer to great graphics on the Wii U than on the NES, meaning that great graphics on the GameCube vs NES seems like a century difference whereas the gap between the GameCube and Wii U seems like a decade, but the NES came out in 1985, GameCube in 2001 and Wii U in 2012. Actually, a fairer comparison would be to replace the Wii U with Nintendo NX. Some of the points you mentioned above are spot on. Game elements beyond pure aesthetic need to be considered due to the diminishing returns phenomena. I think virtual reality is the next real move ... VR will change the internet itself ...

Hahah, you like Devil's Third ? I've got lots of friends who ended up working on this one (thankfully for them "only" for the last couple of years maximum, it was a long and complicated project), they'd be happy to hear that.

And about the comparison to movies : you don't interact with movies. Big difference. As I said, evolving medium.

Also, even though I was a bit skeptical at first I do agree now about VR being a next big step. We showed my wife and some other friends a few VR games/tech demos recently at a christmas party at a friend's place who's got an Oculus DK2 devkit and even though the tech is still in its infancy there was a huge difference for everybody between experiencing the thing vs just talking about it before. There are lots of interesting things to work with when doing VR dev, there should be a few really nice games/applications once the commercial versions of Oculus/Vive/Playstation VR launch next year. And this is definitely something I'm planning to make games for, too...

JereFuzz wrote:

UglyCasanova wrote:Started playing Fallout 4 today. 12 hours later....fuuuuck! This game will destroy my social life. The little of it I had to begin with that is.

That's 4 hours less than it took for lordgalvar to write his last post

It's only because I was typing on a phone...

oscillateur wrote:

JereFuzz wrote:Interesting post ... I'm playing Devil's Third right now which was panned by the critics for frame rate, graphic, and other technical issues, but the game plays great and merges 1st person shooting with 3rd person melee. There is a diminishing return to superior graphics and great graphics on the GameCube is far closer to great graphics on the Wii U than on the NES, meaning that great graphics on the GameCube vs NES seems like a century difference whereas the gap between the GameCube and Wii U seems like a decade, but the NES came out in 1985, GameCube in 2001 and Wii U in 2012. Actually, a fairer comparison would be to replace the Wii U with Nintendo NX. Some of the points you mentioned above are spot on. Game elements beyond pure aesthetic need to be considered due to the diminishing returns phenomena. I think virtual reality is the next real move ... VR will change the internet itself ...

Hahah, you like Devil's Third ? I've got lots of friends who ended up working on this one (thankfully for them "only" for the last couple of years maximum, it was a long and complicated project), they'd be happy to hear that.

And about the comparison to movies : you don't interact with movies. Big difference. As I said, evolving medium.

Also, even though I was a bit skeptical at first I do agree now about VR being a next big step. We showed my wife and some other friends a few VR games/tech demos recently at a christmas party at a friend's place who's got an Oculus DK2 devkit and even though the tech is still in its infancy there was a huge difference for everybody between experiencing the thing vs just talking about it before. There are lots of interesting things to work with when doing VR dev, there should be a few really nice games/applications once the commercial versions of Oculus/Vive/Playstation VR launch next year. And this is definitely something I'm planning to make games for, too...

A lot of people like it ... user reviews, not critic reviews, have been pretty good

lordgalvar wrote:

JereFuzz wrote:

UglyCasanova wrote:Started playing Fallout 4 today. 12 hours later....fuuuuck! This game will destroy my social life. The little of it I had to begin with that is.

That's 4 hours less than it took for lordgalvar to write his last post

It's only because I was typing on a phone...

wow, impressive, I don't think I've ever posted anything that long from a phone

Really only took me a few minutes though...