Are Gamers Losing what's most Important?

[GrimCW 658]

@@Fubz,

But we'll notice each of these are again limited to nintendo or older titles that couldn't follow a story.

Nintendo is often given a free pass, as its games are also meant for kids and tend to just have some random "fun" factor to them. So their stories are limited, but they do exist and give a purpose to the game.

They don't hold any political view, or aren't very extensive, but they do exist.

 

Even Mario Galaxy had this gem.

 

Shortly after Mario is invited to the centennial Star Festival by Princess Peach to celebrate the comet that passes overhead, Bowser invades the Mushroom Kingdom with a surprise attack in a fleet of airships. Summoning a giant flying saucer, Peach's entire castle is removed from its foundations and is lifted into outer space. After an unsuccessful rescue attempt, Mario is catapulted onto a small planet by one of Bowser's minions. On the planet, he meets an enchantress named Rosalina and her companions, the Lumas. Rosalina is a watcher of the stars, who uses the Comet Observatory to travel across the universe. However, Bowser has stolen all of the Power Stars that act as the Observatory's power source, rendering it immobile. Bestowed with the power to travel through space through one of the Lumas, Mario sets off on a journey across the universe to reclaim the Power Stars and restore power to Rosalina's observatory.

 

Without this, Mario galaxy would've had no purpose, no meaning. And probably have been well ignored by most for anything except that it exists.

Also, how often is Galaxy brought up in random conversation about games anymore? Its really not.

Meanwhile people will still talk about the story in Half life, The last of us, Final Fantasy (pick any one.. most will even talk about the lackluster FF1), and even Halo's story.

Galaxy... gets a passing "oh yeah that was a good game".

Very few games of this level have stood out post 1999. And galaxy is honestly a testament to that, and what CAN be done, but only by throwing in nostalgia factors. 

if that wasn't mario, but some new comer, most never would've even glanced at it.

 

 

But for any real title to get out there, they need a story. And mass majority, even in this GFX centric modern gaming culture, still notice the story, or lack thereof.

Edited January 6, 2014 by GrimCW

[Fubz 300]

Half-Life, Bioshock, the entire The Elder Scrolls series, The Stanley Parable, Trine, Tomb Raider, Ys, every other RPG ever, Portal and about a thousand other games say hi.

Again they're not critical, the game without a story but a different way to move along gameplay can still work to create great games. Of course these developers used story very well, as I said it's a wonderful extra. Taking Portal as an example, as it's the one I'm most familiar with, you could easily remove the story and add a countdown timer and score and it would still be a good game purely based on gameplay.

[Geek0zoid 1,468]

Sonic games used to fail a lot for a while compromising story for gameplay.

That, or there's too much story that it comes off as disorganized (*Cough* 06 *Cough*)

 

 

 

Nintendo is often given a free pass, as its games are also meant for kids and tend to just have some random "fun" factor to them.

Please say "Everyone" instead of "Kids." It's more fitting to me  

[GrimCW 658]

Again they're not critical, the game without a story but a different way to move along gameplay can still work to create great games. Of course these developers used story very well, as I said it's a wonderful extra. Taking Portal as an example, as it's the one I'm most familiar with, you could easily remove the story and add a countdown timer and score and it would still be a good game purely based on gameplay.

 

But would it have been as popular? Would people still to this today be debating Chells parents, the connection between GlaDoS and Cave Johnson, or what happened at the Aperture facility?

Nope.. they'd have dumped them, forgotten, and moved on.

Sequels would have no purpose or value.

The longevity wouldn't be there to sustain it.

The games that last are the ones we remember best.

While in the olden days of consoles this was easy to throwback too (mario), modern games need a little more substance to stand out as opposed to just be same-old same-old.

Edited January 6, 2014 by GrimCW

[Fubz 300]

Well, I think the controls were really good, easily adaptable and everything. The screen is actually too small to use the DS controls, take the GBA controls instead. It's not like the Resident Evil games, where the controls are awful and are actually the only difficulty lol.

 

And for me, the gameplay was epic - It's the only pokemon game where I felt like collecting all the pokemons, and there is plenty of sidequests to do, and the game is actually pretty hard. Kecleon for exemple; recruiting him is very hard, the only pokemon game I found which offers a good intertaining challenge. But I guess the atmosphere have a huge impact here too; I prefered this game over Explorer of Sky, even if this one offer even more.

 

Sadly, Gates to Infinity was an astronomical disappoitment. It not only lost its charm, but also everything. From the graphics to the storyline.

I only played the one you mentioned earlier.

 

You can't disagree that the missions were extremely repetitive (which makes up the whole game). It's just: receive mission, someone is distressed in a dungeon, find pokemon at bottom/top of maze, exit, repeat. The only difference is the random map.

 

AI was poor as well. Computer controlled allies would waste his special moves quickly at the easy parts of dungeons and gaining a bigger party just made things more annoying as they'd get clumped up and do nothing or attack your butt.

 

And finally as you already mentioned DS controls were useless.

[Geek0zoid 1,468]

 

 

While in the olden days of consoles this was easy to throwback too (mario), modern games need a little more substance to stand out as opposed to just be same-old same-old.

Activision would like to have a word with you then :/ Story is a good thing to have in video games, I agree, but I still think gameplay is what matters most. I'm not saying story doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter MOST.

[Shinespark 16]

In my experience, it depends where you are from and how you look at games. For instance, if you have played the Metal Gear Solid series you'll have noticed how mind-numbingly long the cutscenes were. Konami sees these games more as an interactive movie than a video game. So, the presentation is the thing that they strive for. 

 

I think cultures have different ideas of what video games should be like.

[GrimCW 658]

@,

I won't say it matters most either.

But it does matter far more than GFX, and a game won't go anywhere without it.

Thats why I said that Gameplay + Story need to go together.

 

One can be weak, but if the other doesn't balance it out, than its not going to be anything.

Though a game with lacking story won't last as long as one with a good one backing its gameplay.

 

Half Life's story was pretty weak on its own, but the way the gameplay threw you into the boots of Gordan Freeman and told the story with you as part of it (I.E. no cutscenes, just characters talking to you, the player) made the game so fun.

Remove what story it had and it just ends up being a run of the mill shooter with zombies and human enemies thrown in.. doesn't sound very fun at all... 

 

In contrast an RPG with so-so gameplay will make it very far just by having and excellent story (pretty much any JRPG falls into this).

Remove the story here and its rubbish, detract from its already lacking gameplay any further and its a dating sim...

Edited January 6, 2014 by GrimCW

[Felix 1,363]

I always buy a game for Gameplay. I'm still you're everyday Mario, Sonic, Ratchet, Zelda, Metroid, you name it, fan. I would never buy COD or those kinds of things first off because I hate gore or extreme violence but secondly because every game that involves shooting like that feels like the same thing over and over again. That's all you do, too. You just shoot people. There's no gravity boots, zero gravity, unique and interesting enemies, teams of 101 heroes that can turn into anything, epic timeline, cool bosses or whatever. At least in my opinion. I always buy a game based on gameplay. Granted, beautiful graphics are definitely great to have and advance on the experience, but gameplay is the top priority.

[Fubz 300]

@@Fubz,

But we'll notice each of these are again limited to nintendo or older titles that couldn't follow a story.

Nintendo is often given a free pass, as its games are also meant for kids and tend to just have some random "fun" factor to them. So their stories are limited, but they do exist and give a purpose to the game.

They don't hold any political view, or aren't very extensive, but they do exist.

 

Even Mario Galaxy had this gem.

 

 

Without this, Mario galaxy would've had no purpose, no meaning. And probably have been well ignored by most for anything except that it exists.

Also, how often is Galaxy brought up in random conversation about games anymore? Its really not.

Meanwhile people will still talk about the story in Half life, The last of us, Final Fantasy (pick any one.. most will even talk about the lackluster FF1), and even Halo's story.

Galaxy... gets a passing "oh yeah that was a good game".

Very few games of this level have stood out post 1999. And galaxy is honestly a testament to that, and what CAN be done, but only by throwing in nostalgia factors.

if that wasn't mario, but some new comer, most never would've even glanced at it.

 

 

But for any real title to get out there, they need a story. And mass majority, even in this GFX centric modern gaming culture, still notice the story, or lack thereof.

Lol nobody cared about the story in Super Mario Galaxy.

 

I don't think you're out for games for gameplay. Most time I spend on gaming are fast paced arcade games or puzzle games. Most arcade games don't bother with a story and focus solely on gameplay. We talk about strategies and tips on the game rather than the extra story. Take StarCraft and Street Fighter for example. Everyone talks about it too much but not about the amazing story in StarCraft, nope, about the game itself.

 

Excuse my quick topic switching between each sentence.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Fubz

[GrimCW 658]

 

 

Most time I spend on gaming are fast paced arcade games or puzzle games.

Than that actually explains it.

Fast paced arcade games don't need it as they're truly basic throwbacks, and can't support it, and puzzle games just flat out don't need it anymore than building a puzzle.

 

But these are hardly examples of well known genre's in any regard. 

 

As for SF.. many do talk of its story, the characters, their history and purpose. If they hadn't it wouldn't have movies, comics, and such based off it as well.

As well as for Starcraft. A fat chunk of the fans of Starcraft are absolute gluttons for the story, and it has had a number of books written for the series despite the lack of games. Ditto for its counterpart in Warcraft.

 

Other than that what your speaking of is playing them for the multiplayer (something I mentioned before doesn't need a story in any form to succeed) and are in fact only part of the games.

Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, and Battlefield 2 actually show this better as stand alone.

They were all MP games, they had no stories other than they were set in certain times when something was happening. And each was successful to their own extent.

But being Multiplayer based they needed none except that your shooting at a friend.

 

A good single player game.. whole different field, and its one that requires a backdrop to play against.

[Kaska 30]

Me: I don't care ***** about what a game feels like.

I got bf4 for how the game works. (DAMN U DESTROYS DEM CAMPERS COVER)

I actually play Crysis 1 for all the good old feel (Damn the amazing ai)

 

Personally The look doesn't matter too much. I get a game for the feel, and maybe the animation (Like skyrim)

[Mutemutt 773]

I know everyone likes to say they don't care about graphics and stuff, but I ain't one of them. You know what's important to me in games? Pretty much everything they're comprised of: gameplay, audio, visuals, story, etc. Honestly, you could give me just enough player input to be called a "game" and still entertain me with every other aspect of what makes a video game a video game.

 

And I think the whole "people are just buying games solely for graphics" thing is a bit overplayed. I get the feeling that not that many people get a game simply to admire the scenery, though I guess if that was the main idea behind the game it could happen. I just don't think people normally play games they don't enjoy on some level, and that's what's most important: having fun.

[Nerdy Luigi 2,065]

BF4 DOES HAVE GREAT GAMEPLAY, but yes, many seem to lose sight of important core elements.

 

It's exactly why I wonder why gamers buy Call of Duty, of course since I played MW3.

 

All gamers care about nowadays is:

The online leaderboard. (No really)

The graphics.

Not even originality.

 

Simply, I like the gaming community, and want to reward them even (and myself too) a little, but only the true gamers. The ones that actually care about core mechanics. (But more appealing to DND players, particularly ones that like the Science Fiction genre.)

 

I much so agree. Call of Duty should be DYING if not DEAD already.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Twilight Sniper

[Firehearted 120]

I play games for one reason: they are fun. And I will play anything. Almost. I have Skyrim, Oblivion, Halo: Reach, Halo 4, and Halo annaversary, COD 2, COD 3, COD MW2, COD MW3, COD Black Ops 2, COD ghosts, BF Bad company, BF 3, BF 4, Ruse (A RTS), Age of Empires 3 with all expanstion packs, Command and Conquer first decade edition (First games over first ten years), Medal of Honor tenth anneversary edition (First ten years of games), MOH Airborne, Tropico 3 and 4, Driver: San Fransico, Forza Motersports 4, Borderlands 1 and 2, Goldeneye 007, Civilaization 5 with all expansion packs, Halo wars, and some more lesser know ones. Note: I did not metion all the classics I own. I sound like such a couch potato now...

 

When I'm playing COD I always turn off game chat for a good reason. Because people are just vile online now. I can't stand it! They are cursing or offending someone with every other word! Don't even get me started on when they see my emblem in Black Ops. I have had a whole five people hear me out on MLP and my rant on how it's gay to like it on the internet. They imidatley asume your gay (I am not homosexual and I do not mean to offend anyone who is) and scream at you for the duration of the match! 

Getting off topic here.

 

Gamers don't seem to really play for fun anymore. All they seem to do is to prestige to they they can and put people down. Games were invented to play for fun and that's final. The gaming community is a toxic waste pit with only a few safe havens of people who you can talk to no matter who you are or what your part of. The rest may as well drop of the face of the internet.

 

On the new releases. EA! Go die! BF4 is more glitchy than GTA on release date. I have had it crash three times alone yestreday and i played for two hours! Two! Run your games through testing! Dice sure as hell ask for more time to twick it but you just had to get it out the door!

 

COD ghosts: Meh. They've done better. Meh.

 

Elder Scrolls Online: I know it's not out yet but still! 30 bucks! A month! This is there first online game and Bethesda is really good about listening to it's fan base who is screaming. LOWER THE PRICE! If not I'm sticking to Skyrim.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Airbornepony

[Shanks 10,817]

Some of them are, but not all of them. Case in point is the Wii, it had a significant disadvantage in terms of power against the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360 and yet was still the best selling console of the last generation. It appealed to casual gamers with its motion control technology and family friendly lineup, had decent backward compatibility with Gamecube games and was fairly cheap. And I am saying this as someone whose favorite last generation console is the Playstation 3, but I like the Playstation 3 not just because its graphics or bonus features I like it because it had the most games of the major consoles that interested me. And that is what it is all about to me is the games, as much I like the Wii it did have its faults. Its third party lineup was weak and many of the third party games it did have were not as good as the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 versions. And there were some games especially the early ones where the motion controls felt awkward and just seemed to be there just to be there. It did do an excellent job with its first party titles though, and though I still prefer a good old fashioned controller there were some games where the motion control feature actually worked well case in point is Zelda Skyward Sword.