Games now are better than ever

[MarkRyan]

Today's best games (GTA, Splinter Cell, etc.) succeed because their gameplay is both strong and immersive. They do not sacrifice one for the other.

I wouldn't argue that it's necessary to sacrifice one for the other (look at ICO, Metal Gear Solid, Zone of the Enders, Halo, and others). But I would argue that GTA and Pandora Tomorrow have absolute crap game design, in spite of any immersiveness derived from technological feats.

[sleeve]

I wouldn't argue that it's necessary to sacrifice one for the other (look at ICO, Metal Gear Solid, Zone of the Enders, Halo, and others). But I would argue that GTA and Pandora Tomorrow have absolute crap game design, in spite of any immersiveness derived from technological feats.

You've never really played PT multiplayer, have you?

(read my edit above for the rest of my response)

[MarkRyan]

Tetris and SMW are also immersive, but in different ways: the former for its all-consuming addictiveness, the latter for its colorful world and cunning gameplay language.

Of course. Again, these qualities are not there because of advanced technology. They exit because of design.

What you fail to recognize is that technology opens up new avenues of gameplay. The addictive qualities and complexities of GTA and SC: PT multiplayer owe themselves to the freedom of 3D.

My point isn't that old games are better than new. My point is that a game's quality is not determined by the technology behind it, but rather by the design behind it. Which is why classic games can still be worth just as much as they were when they first came out to a hardcore gamer.

You've never really played PT multiplayer, have you?

I did, and I didn't like it. But aside from the bugs that exist in the multiplayer, I don't really have any hardcore complaints about it since I didn't play it enough to pick apart. When I criticize Pandora Tomorrow, it's for its awful single player campaign.

[PKBMax]

This is a rediculous notion. The gaming industry is a tech industry. For that fact alone your statement is made to look like some much hope, dashed against the rocks of reality.

As the tech in the industry is improved, so too the products produced by that tech are improved. Developers have access to so much more than they had five years ago, and if used correctly (key word, kiddies), the products produced squash their previous projects every time.

Making games is an art; the technology is merely the tool with which to make it. A painter uses brushes, paints, and a canvas, just as a game developer uses programming languages, sound and graphic assets, and a computer.

Simply having the world's truest colored paints and smoothest brushes does not guarantee a great painting.

Having the most powerful computers and beautiful graphic and sound assets does not guarantee a great game.

In both art forms there is sort of a magic synergy that is characteristic of the truly great works; when all of the elements blend together and the work becomes more than just a sum of it parts.

Just as the Mona Lisa will forever be a truly great painting, Robotron: 2084 will forever be a truly great game.

Today the Mona Lisa could be repainted, with new techniques and software on the most powerful computers, but the results would pale in comparison.

Robotron: 2084 was remade, with new techniques and software on the most powerful computers, and the results paled in comparison.

Your ability to reason is being clouded by nostalgia.

The ability to reason on this topic requires an inherent appreciation of the art form. It seems you and others in this thread have none; the same people that look at the Mona Lisa for ten seconds and declare it worthless.

[AaronChance]

The paint medium hasn't really changed all that much in the intervening centuries, however (even software like Painter seeks to mimic the real thing as closely as possible), while videogames have undergone radical changes in far less time. Your comparison doesn't really hold, even if I agreed to videogames=art, which I don't. And I've seen the Mona Lisa in person. It's a great painting, but really overrated.

I like where MarkRyan is going with the concept of design. I think well made games that are actually fun remain fun no matter how old they get. The original Sonic's core design was rushing to the end of a straight line essentially. All the bells and whistles of modern game making can't really improve on that since the design concept has already been perfected there. I think that's why the 3D Sonics have essentially sucked because they're trying to alter a core gameplay element that has already reached its apex.

On topic, I think every console generation has a ton of crap games and a considerable number that are worth playing. I think there are more worth playing now than before just because the game output seems to be larger than before. I can't keep up with the games that interest me now, while I didn't have this problem last console generation.

[James]

Part of the reason I disagree on the Sonic view is that I don't race, unless it's specifically a racing game. The clock may be ticking and Sonic may be able to run at Ludicrous Speed, but there's nooks to explore and crannies with things in them. A big part of the reason I liked Sonic 1 better than Sonic 2 is that Sonic 1 felt designed to explore more than Sonic 2's environments. I can still enjoy Sonic 1 a little for nostalgia's sake, although I do recognize that it's dated. Sonic CD remains a lot of fun, though.

I don't like a lot of reality in my games. The more "real" they try to make a game the less fun it is, generally. Not just because the real world imposes limits far more limiting than 2D ever did, but because the art palette used on most "real world" games never imitates anything I see in real life. All those greys, grey-greens, and millions of shades of mud. Not to mention that Gunstar Heroes is as military as I ever want my games to be. I'll defend GTA3 (not Vice City, though) but not Splinter Cell, no matter how popular it gets. I'll never like the Halo games either, for that matter.

3D is a different way of representing a game than 2D. It's not a better way nor is it worse, assuming an equal level of skill is used when comparing the two. Ico, Rez, or Gitaroo Man just wouldn't be the same without 3D, just as Castlevania wasn't the same without 2D.

I think we need to define some terms here. What's "immersion" mean? I'm asking because-

Tetris has nothing to immerse you other than driving music and fast-paced gameplay.

100% true, but it's insanely immersive. When you play it you dive into it's way of thinking and don't come out until you put it down. Immersion, as I'm thinking of it when reading it in this conversation, applies to how deeply the game pulls you into it while you play. Technology's obviously got nothing to do with it, and a "shit game" can't be immersive by definition. Immersion is defined by the gameplay, although being easy on the eyes/ears definitely makes it easier to be immersed.

James

[Six]

Your comparison doesn't really hold, even if I agreed to videogames=art, which I don't.

If video games aren't art then what is? Film? Music? Sculpture? What makes these mediums art yet disqualifies video games?

Of course not all things are art. Or are they? You might say the art itself must have some kind of significance, be it social, religious, or otherwise, but what is the level of significance that qualifies the object in question for the lofty status of art?

That's why there is a difference between great art, the masterpieces and evreything else. Some things are more artful than others, but all things are art in some respect, to some person, somewhere. Right?

[Son of Bryce]

The paint medium hasn't really changed all that much in the intervening centuries, however (even software like Painter seeks to mimic the real thing as closely as possible), while videogames have undergone radical changes in far less time. Your comparison doesn't really hold, even if I agreed to videogames=art, which I don't. And I've seen the Mona Lisa in person. It's a great painting, but really overrated.

Saying that painting hasn't really changed because paintings "still use paint" is almost like saying games haven't really changed because they're still just a bunch of programmed 1's and 0's. Painting HAS changed, and I think that change may even be significant to the world of video games. The Renaissance period was a result of technology. Not only were new technologies invented to create better paints and tools but science was finally applied to art. Anatomy and perspective. I don't know... maybe the Mona Lisa doesn't seem so sophisticated to you because it was painted 500 years ago?

Painting has gone through many different periods as the result of technology. Stylistic arts like impressionism and cubism became popular when the photograph brought less value to photorealistic paintings.

How do I relate this to gaming? Well, with greater technology and a changing world, different styles emerge. Even though styles like impressionism emerged, people still paint photorealistic paintings. There's room for everything. Gaming's all about 3d now because it's new and exciting, but eventually people will get tired of it and want something else that's new and exciting (e.g. 2d once again). We're sort of allready to the point where anything that's 2D is automatically the best thing ever just because of the fact that its 2D (Viewtiful Joe).

I don't think games are necessarily better or worse as a whole, just different. Depending on your experiences you'll like it or hate it. Try selling someone brought up on PSX that NES games are sooo much better. Hell, try to sell me the idea ANY pre-NES console is even worth playing.

[James]

Oi! Vectrex!

James

[AaronChance]

It's every movie ever made art? Heck is every painting? Squeezing out a few tubes of various colors on a canvas doesn't make me the next Rapheal. Some games feel they were made with just as much consideration. Even those that have a lot of thought and effort to them don't strike me as art. Is Madden 2k4 art? Some games approach art, and whether they become it is really up to the individual, but videogame=art? I can't agree with that.