[Gothos]

Hi guys and gals.
You may know me as an avid gamer, tracing back to early PC days of Civilization and Wolfenstein 3d. The matter I'd like to bring forward today is this:
the way the gaming industry is changing, there will soon be simply NO games worth our time and money.

2011 has been very good for us, on first glance: we've had... what, exactly? I was just about to start listing games I loved this year, but I realized that I actually had way more fun going back to classics inbetween. I might not be able to comment on console gaming, but I'll go with PC games in 2011:

Dragon Age 2 - enjoyable for about a week; can't make myself go back to it now. Quite unlike Origins, I've no incentive to ever play that game again. It's Origins warped by flashy marketing, consolitis and lazy design. It looked like the people responsible for the Dragon Age franchise abandoned their earlier work and attempted to cash in on Mass Effect's success, and it's plainly visible.

Portal 2 - allright, I might get lynched for this, but looking back at it, it turned out to be pretty dissappointing. I've finished the solo game, I've finished the co-op (hai Illy!) and... I never even launched the game again. Gigantic, epic, sprawling levels that you blast through at the speed of light. Some nice new ideas with the new elements, but the fact remains: I still have more time played with Portal 1 than 2, and that's not likely to ever change. Ultimately it's more of the same. While it's a decent game - like DA2 up there - but next to it's predeccesor - again like DA2 above - it looks like flashiness overtook the soul.

Duke Nukem Forever - where do I start? OK, so the game finally came out, fine. But it's just a Halo clone with a reskin and catchy oneliners. With sometimes infuriating level design. But seriously - COMPLETELY LINEAR levels, two guns at a time, enemies coming in waves - what the hell, Duke? As a game, DN3D is STILL more enjoyable than this game, with all the advancement in technology and design it could dig into for improvements. It seems like one big scripted cutscene with cheesy QTEs.

Shogun 2 - Another potential lynch here, but like with Empire, it started out pretty nicely, then after a dozen or so hours I just couldn't be arsed to do it anymore. Perhaps I'm losing a lot by not playing multiplayer, perhaps I'm biased due to the setting, but the still retarted AI and plainly unfair game rules on the strategic map simply can't be overcome by awesome battle animations, shiny glittering landscapes and majestic castles. On the battlefield and in diplomacy it still feels just the same as Medieval 1, or Rome. CA has quite probably the worst AI division across the industry. I just can't get over it, that with a game of this scale and proportions, I'd still rather play the almost garage-quality Galactic Civilizations II just so I can face a thinking opponent that beats me because he has a plan for victory, not because he can spawn armies out of the blue, doesn't concern himself with happiness and upkeep costs, or because I'm the only faction that would have to face everyone else at once if I become too big.

The Witcher 2 - this might come off as a surprise, but despite this being a very good game, I'm severely disappointed. Why? Because after playing through once, I seriously can't be arsed to even launch the game again, ever again. It has to do, perhaps, with the marketing campaign and how they'd coloured the game's features, while in the end many of them seem bland or even invisible - some sort of reacting by the world to your actions? Where was that? And the combat - where's my being able to cycle Signs into combos seamlessly? What's so special and involving about the combat - that you have to roll around 90% of the time to survive, that it's rather difficult to get into, that it has more realistic delays in movement than most RPGs? Or maybe the realistic weather, day cycles, lack of loading screens? All that was completely transparent - it felt like just another game. And what about the multiple endings? I've just about figured out what can change between playthroughs and quite frankly, while there are numerous things that can go different, the game's resolution is railroadtracked back to a very similar outcome anyway. Aid Iorweth, aid Roche, save Saskia, save Filippa, save Sheala, save Triss, whatever. At least the sort of 'antagonist' - Letho - is a pretty good character and I liked him more than most of the remaining cast that's supposed to be on my side. It's like the different plots are just different shapes of cocks - they may look different but their destiny is still in the same place. And don't get me started on the new alchemy which renders a whole leveling tree useless in half the situations, or on Act 3 and it's infuriating shortness.

Mortal Kombat (9) - OK, so I only put that here as a disappointment because there's no PC port but I digress.


So, it would seem that, at least from games I played - I do get focused on genres, don't I? - flashy marketing, bling and visuals are taking over the backbone: core gameplay. The one game this year that I could call 'new' is Magicka. All the rest - what the hell is going on? Is this becoming the film industry? Just a moment ago, it seems, everything was great - in the past few years we've had the God of War series, Mass Effect 1&2, Dragon Age: Origins, Civilization V, Neverwinter Nights 2, Risen, even Oblivion with all it's faults! Dirt, Red Dead Redemption, New Vegas. Bioshock, Dead Space, Half-Life 2 (even though HL1 is vastly superior a game).
Looking forward, what can we expect? Mass Effect 3, Might and Magic: Heroes VI and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are the titles I'm looking forward to, and beyond that... it seems empty. I may hope that these games deliver. I do hope that Eidos Montreal will take care of Thief 4 next, so that's another one.
But let's looks at what E3 has shown us: more Kinect shit, more Call of Duty-type through-the-crosshair linear shooters. I think I've even stopped paying attention to most of the industry and I don't know what the hell went wrong and where, or when. Is it DLCs, exclusive pre-order ingame contect, rabid copy protection that hurts the buyers the most, maybe it's that - all you can see is a haze of $ all around the industry, and it doesn't seem anyone has any vision anymore - even the games I like or look forward to like ME3 and DE3 will only be very well made pieces of more of the same. Looking back to games like Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment, Half-Life and Unreal, Diablo and Starcraft, HoMM3, Gothic I and II, Thief I and II, Morrowind, DN3d, and many others - can you honestly say the mindsets behind these games, and those of today, were the same? When I play Torment, I can feel that the people who were making this game had a strong relationship with it, put their heart into creating something unique, something special. When I play Portal 2, Mass Effect 2, Darksiders - please note I immensely enjoyed these games - or any of those I mentioned earlier as disappointments - I can only feel a nameless mass of hundreds of people just doing their everyday office job so that their bosses / distributors can buy new yachts or something. It used to feel like craftsmanship, now it's a factory line.

[drinksinbars]

drama queen

[Morgoth]

Oh woe is me!

Really, the gaming industry has never produced more great titles than they do now. Sure some of the best games came out in the past, even before year 2000, but the vast majority of games back then were absolute shit.

[Sindriss]

The gaming world ended after a few classics such as FF6 and bg1+2.

Anyway, I think there are at least two dimensions to this.

1. Nostalgic reasons, in which you sort of glorify the older games. This might be due to being less critical when being a child and experiencing some of the first games you played.

2. The games being created and marketed today are for a different crowd than you and I (i.e. oldtimers). I love a challenging game and having a lot of hardcore content outside of the main storyline has always left me thrilled. An example could be ff 10 in which there were a shitload of insane bosses and items to pick up outside of the main storyline.

This next part will probably be somewhat biased

Today it seems that most of the younger generation would just like to play characters that they can identify with and have an easy time. They don't have time for challenging concepts and games, because that is a waste of time. In order to feel superior and smart, it is better to spend the time on an easy game and complete that, so that they can feel like a heavyweight champion.
This line is further advanced by the multitude of different games, which the cool kids wants to play. So the game developers put less effort into a game, which results in games that have less content and a more direct storyline. Some would expand this by calling the storyline of most newer games railroading.

Money rules the world and putting less resources into a game means that you can produce more games.

[Tapper]

Hmmm, I don't know, Gothos.

I can agree with you on quite a few of those games and on how some oldies are better than anything spewed out nowadays (Galactic Civ 2, the old school isometric RPGs, Vampire: BL, old school Tomb Raider, Tropico 1, etc), and am even prepared to kill my darling Shogun 2 by saying I agree on the AI (tho I will not say that it is anything like Empire... Shogun 2 will remain on my harddisk for at the least the next two years).

The main issue I have with newer games is that I can't really be arsed to play them for hours and hours on end anymore. I purchase them, and am disappointed or jaded because I have seen it all before.

Not in a large part because they all promise these 'unique' features (which are taken over by games reviewers without checking their back catalogue) that are bland copies of other things done before, plus a lot of extra polygones and rain/weather/wind/destruction effects. But rain is awesome for the first hour, after that, it just another visual factor that you easily discard. I'd rather have no rain and a clear blue pre-generated sky 24/7 and in return, better AI and more NPCs. But saleswise, graphics are more important than anything else nowadays - to the point where being not cutting edge is going to cost you review credits and display difficulties in shops.
And because the eye candy has to be good and swallows budget, the gameplay suffers.
And y'know what: I bet Deus Ex is going to fall in that category, too, and Skyrim as well.

The notable exceptions are Stardock and Paradox with their TBS and RTgS games, and Stardock lost a lot of fanfactor with Elemental still not being truly epic. At the same time, there are a lot of indie games that bloom, from the tower defense genre to World of Goo, music games like Audiosurf, dedicated puzzlers, TBS games.

But in all honesty: what kind of game can you name that you want that is truly unique? In everything, we define our wishes by refering to the past. I mean, I'd give a toe for a new Vampire: Bloodlines game. I'd donate a kidney if a new, GOOD Jagged Alliance was released. I might shave of an eyebrow if that was what it took to see R:TW updated to the new recruitment system and with updated graphics.

While I wouldn't maim myself for it, the new Stronghold has me mildly excited and I'm looking forward to Tropico 4. I can't wait for THQ to come with new Dawn of War games. The new Diablo? Not my favorite (nor the next 2 Starcraft games) but a lot of people are hopeful. But the truth of it is, these are all sequels. Even wishing for a new D&D based RPG is going to be wishing for a child of Baldur's Gate.

If that's how we think, how can these follow-ups not disappoint? We do judge the old games on when they were cutting edge, not as how they are now. Because secretly, if I start up the original Shogun now, I will feel a rush of happiness and then I'll deinstall it quickly because there is not enough unit variety, the landscapes suck, the AI wasn't that good either. Nor do interface, building chain and game map come across as versatile or awesome for developing a new, weird, exciting winning tactic either. And yet it is a classic, and I'd still award it 9 out of 10 because of what it meant to me and to the genre. But there is a lot of nostalgia.

Finally, how many unique new games/ game types can you think of, that you'd pay full price for?
In my case, it is only a spy RPG game that would make me pay €49.99 without hesitation.

The one thing that can recreate the market and certain near dead game types like TBS is indie houses. Take their ideas, insert game studio capital and studio programmers for optimization and graphics, allow the indie boys uncompromisable design freedom, and I bet you'd end with a lot of awesome, awesome games.

I mean, take Minecraft. It is new, it is creative, it is simple, it is awesome. Dwarf Fortress I couldn't get into because of the chaos on my screen, but that too has potential.

But.... even when I'm saying this, I know I buy not only a lot less indie games than regular games, I also spend only a fraction of my games expenses on them. I can by-pass world of goo and darwinia easily at 9 euros each, but am mightily tempted to buy Space Marine on the day of release, despite knowing it will be another generic and disappointing game.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 21 June 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

Oh woe is me!

Really, the gaming industry has never produced more great titles than they do now. Sure some of the best games came out in the past, even before year 2000, but the vast majority of games back then were absolute shit.

Yes, no, but.

There are a great many good titles that I really enjoy playing. At the same time, few of them are truly unique or breaking boundaries or (re)defining genres. I mean, I enjoy the shit out of Mass Effect 1 and 2, Dragon Age 1 and 2, Shogun 2, Football Manager... but they are not doing a lot of new stuff anymore.

[Silencer]

There's a couple of sides to this. Sure, it's become far more of a 'job' than a 'passion'. But on the other hand, looking back? Per-year, there has been a pretty consistent number of 'good games' and/or 'classics', the enduring games. So you have a build-up over the time of the gaming industry which, combined with higher rates of game release (due to it becoming more of a business) without a correspondingly higher rate of quality titles, plus as the consoles age you get less influx of titles trying to be the 'flagship game' for their 'generation'.

The fact that people now seem to expect certain graphical standards, and the ensuing dedication of most funds from publishers going towards graphical quality...that contributes, as well. Add on the fact that stories once considered original within the medium are now cliched or old, and you have less chance of a title being 'amazing' across all facets. This leads to the impression that story is less important when generic games sell well due to other features, furthering the funneling of funds into graphics.

There also hasn't been any 'revolution' in gameplay since...well, at least since the turn of the millennium. More games in other genres are adopting statistical/"RPG" elements, or progression trees at the least, true, but beyond that, what's happened? MMOs (or, rather, MMORPGs) are completely stagnant, imitating Everquest/WOW for all they're worth. Action games fall into a couple of categories, but nothing special. Same with RPGs. And it's all becoming a bit of a blurred line everywhere, because instead of innovating people are borrowing. This leads to more of an impression of mediocrity and lack of innovation.

Overall, it's a period of evolution, but it hasn't really lead to anything ground-breaking. Much like the film industry for the most part.

[Silencer]

What Tapper said, also, where our posts differ. XD

[Gothos]

Well, for starters, I have to say, I'll punch myself for forgetting Skyrim.

Clearing that, onwards:
Many of the titles I mentioned I do mean how good they still are now. I'd porbably be going back to them a lot more if I already hadn't spent hundreds of hours playing them.
And that's the thing - with games of the 'golden age of gaming' of late 1990s and early 2000s - I'd spend usually at leas 50-60 hours with a new game, some going into the higher hundreds (Morrowind, Thief I&II, HoMM3, BG2, Civ, MOOrion II, MOMagic) - I'd play through them numerous times, with different characters, with similar but new characters, different or same factions on a new or even the same map, and so on. With Starcraft 1, I played through all the campaigns about a dozen times, with Starcraft II I cba to play a second time. I find myself playing the newer games less and less as time goes on - with some notable exceptions I may have mentioned earlier like ME1&2, DA:O and Civ V. It seems like Modern Warfare's convention - give the player intense gameplay of great _cinematic_ quality of about 4 hours - is taking over, and quick. With more and more new titles my total time played doesn't go above 15-20 hours, some staying below 10 even though they weren't bad that one time I could bear playing them.
I could even bring WOW forward here - over the years, the game got progressively more accessible to the 'regular' player, lifting restrictions and adding more versatility to classes, integrating and simplifying game mechanics and vastly broadening synergy. Simplification looks like the name of the game now.

[Aptorian]

Gothos, on 21 June 2011 - 08:38 AM, said:

Duke Nukem Forever - where do I start? OK, so the game finally came out, fine. But it's just a Halo clone with a reskin and catchy oneliners. With sometimes infuriating level design. But seriously - COMPLETELY LINEAR levels, two guns at a time, enemies coming in waves - what the hell, Duke? As a game, DN3D is STILL more enjoyable than this game, with all the advancement in technology and design it could dig into for improvements. It seems like one big scripted cutscene with cheesy QTEs.

This one was never meant to be great, revolutionising or innovative. It was a business arrangement meant to be an investment and a quick cashgrab.

The story behind the release is that the game was dead. It had no more money to fund development. Gearbox buys the right to making Duke games for cheap, takes the horrible mess of a game that has been in development for over 10 years and in a matter of a year or so, they overhaul it, polish the worst flaws and throws the game on the market. Why? Because that's the only way the game could sell. Doesn't matter that the game was mediochre or flawed. That couldn't be helped with out starting from scratch. It needed to be released while the media was focused on it and people wanted it.

Now that it has been released and it has made a good chunk of cash, that money will be funnelled into making a good better Duke Nukem game. Think of it, as anachronistic and poor as the DN Forever is, how easy will it be to make a sequel that improves on this game in every way? Gearbox knows how to make games. I trust that now that this polished turd is delivered they will get to work on making a real Duke Nukem Game.

As for the state of gaming and the gaming world. Yes, an era is over, a new one is beginning. Gaming has become mainstream and it is growing exponentially in public exposure.

The days of small teams of developers being the front runners of the industry is over. Now the publishing houses dictate the market. It has become like Hollywood and in my opinion this is a good thing. Video games make more money than block buster summer movies now. That money means that the developer can fund extremely expensive and extremely ambitious projects. You can't make a game like LA Noire, Uncharted, Assassins Creed, etc. with out sinking in millions of man hours and hundreds of millions of dollars. These franchises as the become are the cash cows and they are what draws in the crowd. Video gaming has become a multi billion dollar business and that means that the state of gaming has changed. You get better quality but unfortunately that also means that with such a large investment the big publishers go for what they know is safe. FPS games. Sandboxes. MMOs, etc.

The thing is, just because you have these mammoth enterprises dominating the picture doesn't mean that old school games are dead and gone. They've just been pushed to the side. First of all, the big developers spend millions on experimental projects and ideas that we never see or hear about. They aren't afraid of trying something new, they just wont put a giant marketing push behind something that wont become a sure success. Second of all, that's where another element comes into play, indie gaming.

Indie gaming IS the old gaming world come back to life in a new form. With the advance of digital distribution any one can make a game and put it for sale on the interweb. If it is good enough places like Steam or X-box live will host or even promote it for you. There's hundreds of small developers making video games now and they easily rival the 70s-80s-90s crowd. Anything from simple smart phone games to ambitious RPGs, Shooters, Sims, etc. Think of Minecraft. Or Garry's Mod. Braid. Outland. Fat Princess, etc.

You, Gothos, to me comes off as the people complaining about the movie scene being full off all kind of stupid action films and ditzy comedy dramas, when in fact those are just the tip of the ice berg. There are hundreds of great films produced each year, and just like good and unique games, you just have to know what you're looking for.

[Gothos]

An additional note:
Perhaps to more clarify what I mean is this: how many games released between 2006 and now do you see yourself coming back to ten years from now? Just like with music and film, things you see as 'great' at first, don't stand the test of time.

[Gothos]

Pennyapt, on 21 June 2011 - 09:42 AM, said:

You, Gothos, to me comes off as the people complaining about the movie scene being full off all kind of stupid action films and ditzy comedy dramas, when in fact those are just the tip of the ice berg. There are hundreds of great films produced each year, and just like good and unique games, you just have to know what you're looking for.

Perhaps. But even the mainstream movies these days seem to be different. Let's take The Expendables - I absolutely loved the film. But I don't see myself ever wanting to watch it again. Not like I went back to watch Terminator 2 again. Or The Matrix. Can you say you'll be coming back to Avatar the way you go back to Aliens? Even District 9 - the film is a great piece of work, quite original too, but I've no incentive to watch it now, nor I see myself watching it in a few years' time.
There's more. Independance Day - it's a very, very dumb movie with a retarted premise, but still when I catch it on TV I watch it with a smile on my face, grinning each time Will Smith punches the alien saying "Welcome to Earth". Perhaps it's just that today's cult movies hadn't crystalized yet - but what I fear is that the sheer amount of bullshit flooding the market will drown potential pearls.

[Aptorian]

The different between coming back to a video game and something like a movie or a cd is that watching a movie or listening to 12 tracks only takes a couple of hours. A big game can take upwards of a hundred hours. There's a big difference there.

Generally I am not a replay kind of guy. If a game is story heavy or has a lot of dialogue or in case of RPGs dialogue choices, I just can't be arsed to replay them. I have a pretty good memory and it annoys me when I remember what is coming next in every scene or conversation. If I am going to come back to a video game it will be for the thrill of the ride and the entertainment. Mainly it will be the game play.

I could replay Uncharted 2 right now. But that's because of the gameplay. Things like racing games or fighting games could work as well, but I've become shit at those over the years. Something like Super Mario Galaxy 1+2, now that shit is entertaining.

Generally I really don't care about replayability. I want to be entertained and have fun and when I am done I am done. There's a hell of a lot games I want to play. I don't have the time or feel the need to go back and do it all over again. That's why we have sequels to games.

This post has been edited by Pennyapt: 21 June 2011 - 10:04 AM

[Macros]

I'm with gothos on this one.
Gaming has been dumbed down as its appeal has broadened. The "cooler" gaming has become the easier and duller it has become.
Personally I dont give a shit about flashy graphic,s I'd rather have engaging gameplay and a decent AI.
I'd post the doom map but it always raises an arguement and while yes doom was a twisted linear game, find blue key, find red key find yellow key, win. with blow the fuck out of mutants in between, it was, and still is, great because its not just follow the ywellow brick road, cutscene, more godawful story, follow the yellow brick road. Puzzles in action games are simpler now, and I know I'm not any smarter, too many braincells have been sacrificed to the beer goddess.
Even Red alert, now I'm not saying red alert 1 was incredibly genious, but the storyline, maps and gameplay were more fun and indeed more difficult than 3, 2 was still enjoyable, almost as good as 1 i'll say, i have C&C decade and played through the most of the games for the sake of it, RED ALERT original and 2 still stand forth clearly as the best.
Modern games have sacrificed quantity and quality of content on the alter of shinyness and it, for the most part, sucks balls.

also apt, I think you're optimistic on the DN front, if gearbox have any financial gumption they'll take their money and run instead of risking sinking it into a second mediocre game that will bomb.

[Aptorian]

Macros, on 21 June 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:

Modern games have sacrificed quantity and quality of content on the alter of shinyness and it, for the most part, sucks balls.

Yes, I too miss the days when I would die a 1000 times trying to reach the last level (out of 5) because I had no check points or save games.

Or the days when my character consisted of a hundred pixels and he could fire small red squares at the uniform baddies that were coming at me in a wave.

Or back when the world consisted of areas roughly the size of my screen that I would have to wait 10 seconds to load each time I entered a new area.

Or back when there was no such thing as voice actors and everything was either text or the same developer recording line after line of awful sound effects.

Please. Saying that modern games do not have quality and quantity is bullshit. Take LA Noire which I am playing now for example. This game is probably the best game I have ever played. Sure, there's lots of things both graphically, designwise and in terms of handling that I would like improved, but it is still, as a whole, the most ambitious, thrilling and entertaining product I have ever played. I could say the same thing about most of Rockstars titles. Will you honestly try to tell me that franchises like Assassins Creed, Uncharted, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Mortal Combat, Zelda, etc. - for all their flaws - do not time and time again deliver products that have a high degree of design, depth and art?

What you're really complaining about is something like Call of Duty. A game that is in no way meant to be looked upon as deep story telling and or character driven. It's just action. Very well polished. Fast paced. Shallow. It's the Transformers Movie of the gaming industry. And it sells because it appeals.

This post has been edited by Pennyapt: 21 June 2011 - 10:49 AM

[Gothos]

Elder Scrolls, Mortal Kombat and Zelda all go back a decade or more into the past, Apt. Mass Effect is something else entirely as a member of a nearly inexistant genre. I wouldn't know about Assassin's Creed (the little bit I played made it look like a totally gimmick-based game but I might re-evaluate that in the future) or Uncharted (not played at all).

However, you're talking like we mean 1980s games. We, at least I, mean games as new as 2005-2007. In no place have I cried for the return of 8bit games that you seem to be referring to. You're grossly exagerrating, and I do wonder why.

[Tapper]

Quote

What you're really complaining about is something like Call of Duty. A game that is in no way meant to be looked upon as deep story telling and or character driven. It's just action. Very well polished. Fast paced. Shallow. It's the Transformers Movie of the gaming industry. And it sells because it appeals.

But that is a genre, too, and it does what it aims for: quick adrenaline spike, cinematic adventure. I bought the Bad Company stuff when Steam had it for sale despite hating shooters and yes, it was short - but it was also good shooter fun and it delivered what it did more than, say, DNForever does.

Personally, I don't mind subtitles for text and no voice acting in RPGs - when playing long duration games I prefer playing my own music or having the tv on in the background so I can watch sports/ movies/ documentaries/ Mtv/ the news (one reason why I hate the free-roam aspect of some rpgs is that they are long duration but are also sound dependant for spotting enemies behind you).

Quote

I could say the same thing about most of Rockstars titles.

Now here you and I are at odds. Rockstar has one formula that they admittedly have mastered and that they can implement in multiple settings (GTA, GT Equinus, GT Spaceship, GT Flintstone, GT GF, GT: Noir) but that all boils down to the same kind of free-roaming, the same kind of cynical violence and the same kind of programming, just with increasing graphic candy and different skins.

Also, I see a grand divide over LA: Noir in our little micro-cosmos of the forum: you and Morghy love it, dibs and Obdi think it is fairly shallow.

@ Gothos: I disagree with your distinction that ME is a dying breed. RPGs are alive again, and if anything, ME was the first cinematic RPG and is the cause for some of your complaints about games becoming less epic and difficult and more dumbed down.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 21 June 2011 - 11:21 AM

[Gothos]

Tapper, on 21 June 2011 - 11:21 AM, said:

@ Gothos: I disagree with your distinction that ME is a dying breed. RPGs are alive again, and if anything, ME was the first cinematic RPG and is the cause for some of your complaints about games becoming less epic and difficult and more dumbed down.

That's entirely not what I meant. I said inexistant genre - I meant science fiction RPGs. Its original setting (original as in not licensed, though it does bring quite a bit of novelty, at least to me) and space opera vibes is what makes the game's heroic premise work - what didn't work with Hawke in Dragon Age 2. Mass Effect benefits from being a rather unique game all things considered, and also from great writing - story, characters, dialogue, the setting, even some science-y thingies that could make sense assuming the existence of EeZo. It does lack a bit in difficulty, though.

[Chance]

Now I'm one of those who barely play newer games...and there is one aspect at least of strategy games not mentioned above. Modding several more or less poor products such as Total War titles and Hoi3 and others are subjected to more and more advanced modding communities who often make great games out of mediocre ones. I spent barely any time on Medieval 2 but with Stainless Steel mod I spent a few hundred hours mainly because the difficulty and depth was greatly increased. Hopefully Shogun 2 will get similiar treatments even thought mod support is on few developers agenda.

Otherwise I'm pretty much with the people who are nostalgic about gaming 1994-2005 and ain't seeing any future game surpassing civ2 as my most played singleplayer game.

This post has been edited by Chance: 21 June 2011 - 11:37 AM

[Obdigore]

I ran into this same thing about a year ago, and then I realized it was me who changed, not the quality or greatness of currently released games.

You, and I, are looking for that 'First amazing RPG' experience again. Something you lose yourself in. Hard to do since you have played so many games, for so long, and have become somewhat Jaded to what 'good' games are. Take, for example, X-com. It was one of the first squad based tactical shooters I played (That and Syndicate), and they were awesome. Now, regardless of how good the X-com reboot ends up being, it will be a failure in the eyes of gamers that played the first.

I'll say it right now. People who have not touched an Elder Scrolls game are going to love Skyrim. You and I are going to lament the fact that it isn't better than Morrowind or Daggerfall or even (ha!) Oblivion, because we have played them before.

Or Starcraft 2. I think it is probably just as good as Starcraft 1. But the first was my first semi-serious strategy multiplayer game that wasn't a board game. Most likely nothing will be able to recapture that feeling for me. Does that mean that starcraft is the best strategy game ever made? No. It means it was the first 'great' one I played of that Genre.

There is simply no competition for those rose colored nostalga glasses.