Gaming Your Favourite Game Was Rubbish

"It’s occurred to me recently that, even though PC gamers claim to be a group that wants innovation over anything else, all we really want is more of what we’ve had before – and that we’re so favourably inclined to the few titles that have achieved that aim that we’re in danger of running those memories into the ground. "
I'd rather take more of the same than watered down sequels made more to maximize profits rather than made by game enthusiasts working really hard to make interesting games with solid gameplay.
Bioshock for instance supposedly had a more advanced AI once, but they took it away since it confused people during QA and if people have to, gasp, think through a bit in games then of course it might not sell as well, gotta dumb them down so that the lowest common denominator understands it. This is also why modern games are shock full of holding hands tips all the time.
Bioshock is a watered down SS2 as is Invisible War compared to DE1. Half-life I don't play for its story or very deep gameplay, it's rather the settings which are interesting and the gameplay is not all too bad even though both games and the EP's are way too linear. Doom3 was too dark and tries to unsuccessfully scare with a lot of quickly predictable "boos!". The story I couldn't care less about, same with STALKER which to me is a far superior game...

 

Older games might have looked rubish and dated by todays offerings, but I for one miss a game with a soul.
Modern games are just all about eye-candy bling, nothing more, older games had playability, depth and usually a decent story.

I have moved on from FPS games (mainly mutiplayer) because they have nothing left in them, newer version have DLC which I see defeats the object. Also as in the case of MW2, not providing the gamin community the ability to run the game how they want ruins a game.
I played HL DM (including CS and other mods) for over 5 years, that is a true testiment to how good older games are, newer ones just can't hack it.

 

Here's my short take
Olympics: System Shock 2, Deus Ex
Special Olympics: Bioshock, Invisible War
old wrinkly games still better athletes.

 

Joe - your main reason for liking Bioshock over System Shock 2 is that the game fleshes out the players character more. (Which is weak reasoning but thats your POV so ... fine)

But then to prefer Doom 3 over HL/2 seems ridiculous. D3 has you playing a soldier who ends up killing countless numbers of civilians whom you are actually supposed to protect. The game never gives you the chance to save lives and protect the innocent - no instead you hack em up with a chainsaw or blow their heads off with a shotgun. HL has you trying to save people and stop an alien invasion of Earth. Neither the nameless Soldier nor Gordon are 'deep' characters but I know which one I prefer to play. And for D3 to use the same secret closet trick to surprise you that it used in the first 2 games was just insulting.

The main thing PC gamers dislike about modern games is the way they're adapted for console 'first and foremost' and precious little effort is made to adapt them to the PC. Poor controls, low resolution textures and lousy FOV spoil games for the PC - Bioshock 2 for instance - and that in turn contributes to people reminiscing about the 'good old days'.

I liked Deus Ex way more than Invisible War and thats not nostalgia - its fact. I played it through 8 or 9 times in total though I havent touched it for years. I played Invisible War just once. Same goes for HL versus D3 and SS2 versus BS (though I did enjoy BS).

Hopefully Black Mesa will come out this year but will anyone *ever* do a remake of D3? I doubt it.

 

G'ah. Read the thread. It's not my personal point of view, it's simply a manner of looking at the individual games in a way that exposes some weaknesses that are often ignored. I personally find G-Man > Bertruger and make an annual mecca to Deus Ex (and also PlaneScape Torment and Thief) as a matter of course.

 

Somehow through all the hype and rave reviews of Half-Life 2, I just can't find myself enjoying it as much as the original.

All this while I thought that I "just don't get it"!

Thanks Joe, for confirming my previously suppressed suspicion that Half-Life 2, despite giving me a good gameplay experience, is not much of a story.

Or maybe I'm just nostalgic (biased?) on the original?

 

A very good article that helped draw a few more idiots out of the woodwork by way of their overly-vehement responses.

I especially love how many people read the title of the Doom 3 section alone and ignored the body text, skipping straight ahead to write angry comments.

 

I've kept hold of so many of my old games and on the odd Sunday afternoon will re-install one of them. It can blow fond memories out of the water occassionally as you do remember them as being better than they were.

I think with gaming now bigger than the movie industry we now get more dross releases, solely aimed at making a quick buck and it's harder to spot the people that really do care about making great games. They probably do exist in equal measure but have more "noise" to compete with.

I suppose it's harder to do new things now as most games have covered the bases. For example, HL was the first real game that gave me a real sense of falling large distances and precariously balancing on ledges and it took many years and Mirrors Edge to really give me that feeling again.

 

Good article. I'm as a guilty as sin for extolling SS2 and Deus Ex beyond all rational consideration; I can relate to this intimately. Keep up the good work.

 

I need to make a comment on the epicness of this article its very thought provoking shares a lot of interesting points.
And there been some very intellectual responses on these points I really enjoyed reading this.

However I feel personally that the whole Video gaming industry has become quite a mess.

Mostly because if you have to give points to a game please make them matter to the actual gaming experience.

I was thinking something like this example

Uncharted 2 Review score points

Cinematics - 10
Graphic - 10
Level design - 6
Interaction - 3
Sound - 10

That way its nearly impossible for any game to a get a full score because they totally have to sacrifice in order to deliver one of the points. So what I mean with messy is I think that games is being awarded for things that don't necessarily describe the games strong points of course that's another subject and not really related to the article as a whole beside its a critic of how the games are getting reviewed and how we look at games... I also feel its a way to actually get people to understand what makes a game great.

for me level design is one of the most important points its not long ago I had a rather hectic discussion about the Gameplay being used. As it's so big a term that it feels like its related to anything that makes a game a game but I can't really understand that term to fullness. because games are getting reviewed in great scores but has after my understanding of the term gameplay a quite poor gameplay.

But I can't say I have nostalgic feelings for Deus Ex I played that for the first time in 2005 after experiencing both farcry - doom 3 and halflife - half life 2. I found the setting refreshing the way you interacted with the world really amazingly deep and I just thought the game was like nothing I ever played and still do today. Then I tried Bioshock maybe I played it wrong but I played it as a shooter it pretty much felt like a shooter and I played it like shooter. not a whole lot of rpg elements Bioshock did had some very nice gameplay moments like the the way you could manipulate the splicers to in the water by first burning them and then electrocute them. It felt natural and felt like it gave a sense of depth to the world.

However personally I'm not the type to criticize a game because of the graphics, however it does saddens me knowing we got the technology to make amazing games that we get so much shovelware. Its not like the world isn't full of ideas which could be expanded or improved by the technology today.

I guess it takes way to much time and money to hire a good level designer or something...

 

Come on man nothing is better than Half life 2, not even sex with your girlfriend and trust me I've had sex with your girlfriend and HL2 is better.

Sure the Plot seems a little off but so did Star Wars 4 5 6 the greatest trilogy ever until you saw Episodes 1 2 3 then it all made sense. Well HL2 is the same way so by HL3 maybe some more things will be cleared up.

If you know what to expect the ending to be before you get off of level 2 then the plot really isn't that good. So with HL2 i have no idea and that makes it awesome 4 games and 12 years later.

 

Interesting article, even if the use of provocative statements and propositions did trap some into missing the point. On the whole, I agree with the spirit of the endictment, if not each and every example used.

Like most every gamer, I have my own unique collection of games, and adventures had therin which marked fond memories and unique emotions from my past. And as great and innovative as some of those games were, much as many modern games don't break significant new ground, I don't find myself comparing every recent title to every prior classic.

Just because I remember spending some of the best after school hours wearing out my return key on the BBC Micro trying to defeat foes in The Last Ninja; or getting lost in Witch Space trying to escape Thargoid destructor craft in Elite; or being confounded for years trying to evade SAMs and AAA to conquer that last base in Interdictor II to complete the mission...

...does not mean I can't feel a new sense of awe and excitement while smashing through enemy buildings with a humvee in Crysis; learning how to get around without being sucked into the war in X3: Terran Conflict; or flying my LearJet from Washington to LA solo for the first time in FSX.

If I really thought new games had nothing to offer, there is nothing stopping me from simply not buying them. There are more sources of reviews, both commercial and independent, subjective and objective, than ever before to form a realistic impression before purchase. Then there is YouTube playthroughs not to mention free demos...

If I wanted, I could also maintain a system just to run old games I love, get lost in them, and not worry about the state of gaming today - or feel ripped off buying them. I don't because then in 10 years time, I'd have no fond memories of amazing sunset battles and sniping through the fog of rain in Far Cry 2, or listening to Haggard's hilarious reasoning while leading my squad in Battlefield: Bad Company 2; or being shotdown over photorealistic France in Rise of Flight; being overwhelmed by the detail and complexity of DCS: Blackshark, or IL2-Sturmovik before it... Haven't even got far into Stalker, X3 or ARMA II yet.

Those are just my few examples of amazing games today, but I wouldn't swap them for my old memories or try to decide which are worth more. Nothing has changed but the technology, quality is everywhere around today as are the duffers; but like before, you have to just look before you leap rather than get drawn in by media hype the same way as you do going to the cinema or buying music.

 

Bioshock hyah

System Shock hyah

 

The article is ********.

SS2 definitely WAS better than BioShock. First of all, YES the protagonist was marginalized, and that did a great job of bringing the psychotic SHODAN to the forefront. Made you feel even more insignificant even as you did her bidding. And yeah, it's definitely true no ONE character in BioShock could carry the story- they didn't pop enough. SHODAN could, and did, carry the show with aplomb. Ryan didn't make me **** myself. SHODAN... Well.

Second, I bloody HATED BioShock's art style. Jesus, was it ugly. Distinctive, yes. Bland, no. But not my style, matter of taste I guess. SS2's art style, I didn't mind. But its graphics I loathed- even when it just came out, SS2 had weak visuals. Point is, it was still a great game, despite the lack of bells and whistles. I wonder if BioShock would have been so liked if IT came out with graphics behind its times.

Thirdly, I loved both Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. But I loved them for different things. That story synopsis for Doom 3? That's not a synopsis- THAT'S THE COMPLETE STORY. OF COURSE nothing similar can be done for HL2; it's also a shooter, but a different KIND of shooter. A comparison between a script- and story-driven FPS invested in its fictional universe on the one hand and a reincarnation of the classic twitchy FPS gameplay on the other is pointless, plain dumb! Both games were great at what they were meant to do.

Didn't read the rest of the article, I admit. But if the rest of the arguments were equally stupid, I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

 

I know this is massive necroing, and Joe Martin has probably departed long since to greater heights of 'professional' journalism on the back of revisionist tosh like this, but I felt someone should call him out anyway. I expect he had decided how he would present this article before even playing the games. Appear edgy and 'on point' by writing an article counter to the popular opinion, oh you rebel! Shame you didn't bother to do your research properly first.

This is a nice piece of revisionism. I especially like how it attempts to re-frame one of Invisible War's most egregiously terrible design decisions as though it was a work of genius. I of course refer to 'universal ammo'.

IW was at its roots a pretty basic shooter, unfortunately you didn't need to dig far to find those roots. It compounded this with being so linear you can see the walls hemming you in almost every second as you play. Deus Ex allowed you remarkable freedom in how you completed each mission, the fact that the residual effect on future missions was minimal was of very limited concern to me at the time. I didn't care about cutscenes telling me what a huge difference I had made, I wanted to actually feel like I was controlling my actions as I played the mission. Deus Ex delivered this experience, IW didn't even try.