Originally Posted by Psyren
Compared to what? The stalwarts UT99-UT2004, Doom II, Quake...
Is that like a joke? Have you seen Quake I-IV specifically Quake III Arena? If you call CoD repetitive... Quake should be your hell. What about Quake anyway? It's a boring game. I played all 4 games. The levels are horribly designed, not only can the mazes take you hours to explore AFTER you killed everything, which by the way is extremely mundane and not engaging at all, but the gameplay itselfwas very stale. There was little difference between Quake and Doom. It's like dating twins. Sure there are noticeable big differences here and there, but they look and feel the same in the end, don't they? Okay, bad analogy but you get the idea.
I played many games during that time myself, that was my youth. Specifically, Brood War, Warrior Kings, some other random shooting games. I think I did play CS around this time but Im not too sure. Anyway, all of those games were unpolished and released with huge issues that were fixed in later patches. Others were not fixed at all. So when you say, back in my day... yeah well back in those days tons of games sucked. We remember the good ones because everyone remembers the good ones. It's universally true though, that gameplay IS better now than it was back then. Why? Because many gameplay elements simply weren't explored at that time or they weren't possible to simulate due to hardware restrictions.
You know, games that don't move in a straight line, and don't yell at you when you leave "the combat zone". Hell I'd even go so far as to say Delta Force 1, but that's pushing it a tad
. At least you had total freedom of movement :/
That's a personal preference, it has little to do with the actual game quality it self. Besides you probably play DayZ in which case you do have something to play. And that is at the very least, at most you have a ton of games that offer freedom of movement.
A lot more good games? I beg to differ. There's a lot more media exposure to games these days compared to back in the day, but seriously, the amount of good PS2 games really outnumber a lot of the "good" console games of today. Still there's a lot of games from the 90's-2006 that are better than what we have now.
Well you may be right, I didn't play that much PS2. I only had like maybe... 5 games.
Yes there were a lot of crappy games too, but you're always going to have those.
And with games being "as good as they are these days", the glaring flaws we see today are just as bad if not worse. Worst of all the manpower and funding involved in today's game development faaar exceeds the old days... And yet we see things like Day-1-no-clip-bound-to-key Dead Island levels of fail in this day and age of "good games"
True, the flaws in gameplay we see today are just plain embarassing coonsidering the manpower and funding thrown at game development these days. However, there are still plenty of awesome titles. Specifically, I am looking forward to the next Rome Total War.
Now here is something interesting, I actually play Rome: Total War a lot more than other TW titles. Why? The Mods. That specifically is something that I do hate about new titles. They come locked, and with little modding capability. Yes, I want it back for obvious reasons. So when we say back then, the only thing I truly miss is the open nature of those first pioneers. They let the player base fix what is broken. Nowadays everything comes locked and with little chance to fix anything.
And I don't think things are going to be designed for steambox per se. Just looks like its going to be a fancy labeled HTPC with some dev backing really. But w/e. We don't know what Valve are going to do, so all we can do is shout at each other call each other fanboys :/
And what about my logic? In the ideal world, one target platform for gaming would be utopia, but things like corporate greed make this a less-than-ideal solution.
Well I'm not calling you a fanboy, and by your logic I mean your earlier statement that the steambox is going to impact gameplay development. How can that be true when Xbox 360 and PS3 have been out there for ten years, and that very aspect has stagnated? Sure there are plenty of good games, god knows I own over 50 PS3 games but, nothing revolutionary has come out for quite a while. Everything is the same regurgitated crap that we all love and whine about. The only thing that makes it worth playing is the engaging story or immersive experience that we pay 60$ for at launch. Is that wrong? Yes it is, which is why I play my PC far more often than my console. What would I need a steambox for? There is zero need for it. It does nothing.
Valve does this for the money, they want people to invest themselves in Steam permanently away from Microsoft. Like I said, a legit tactic but, it does NOTHING for PC gamers. NOTHING. This is strictly to put his business ahead of others. Which is why I hope the steambox crashes and burns. The only thing Gabe is good for is driving the next Half Life out.
It's too bad Valve is turning the way of the very thing we all call "evil" on this forum. Heck, it's game development might be tripleA but it's promoting what we hate about gaming in general. Isn't that wrong?