Game Developers Going for Style Over Substance?

Psyched

New Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've been gaming most of my life, from the days of the Amiga. Yes, the gaming industry has changed a lot in that time, with today's technology that's only to be expected. But unfortunately, the work mentality of developers also seems to have changed, and not for the best.

Back in the early days, games were simple but, as the word "game" implies, FUN. Companies took the time to ensure that their products entertained. Obviously, making such basic games is a simple task these days, and releasing one would gross very little. Or would it?

See, back in the day, I would pick up a videogame and be at it for hours on end. I remember having a load of fun playing Silkworm on the Amiga with my friends. That game was a true classic, I know if I still had it I would hop on from time to time and enjoy the goodness. But then there was also the immense Better Dead Than Alien, a game which had me obsessed for ages, a top racing game called Lotus, a wonderful side-scrolling shooter demo, and yet more. All games which, despite lack of decent graphics, complicated gameplay and a developed storyline, managed to keep players hooked for hours upon hours. Complication can be good; but it was (and indeed, is) not the attraction of such games. Great fun, not hampered by anybody trying to be too clever, a result of effort.

Moving forward a few years, we come to the Apogee/3D Realms era of gaming domination. Producing at least a score of top-end games in a few years in the early '90s, their effort paid off and brought gaming goodness to thousands of computer-users worldwide. Around the same time were the near-impeccable Star Wars games, Rebel Assault, Tie Fighter, Dark Forces, etc. All dangerously addictive games, all ones I still play on occasions. And then, in the mid-'90s, came two massive genre-defining First-Person Shooters; Duke Nukem 3D from 3D Realms, and Bungie's Marathon. The gameplay barely differs from today's PC games, and the graphics wouldn't win any awards. However - they possessed the one key factor. Gameplay, or in accordance with the title of this article, substance.

Many of the games of today go for awesome graphics and loads of neat little gameplay/plot features, instead of getting the core gameplay sorted out. I'm not saying these additional qualities are anything bad, just that I'd much rather have something worth buying and getting into than something worth renting to see how cool some of the niceties are. Even so; DN 3D managed both. Gamers could enjoy a polished experience, with such things as jetpacks.

Furthermore, it comes to mind that modern games are extremely linear. I remember spending hours on games, searching for keycards, finding the right path, getting the right combination of switches. Nowadays, it's shoot, shoot, follow the path, get to the end of the level, win. A bit of intellectual challenge wouldn't be a bad thing. That said, dumbing things down seems to be the way to attract more people, and therefore more money.

Let's whizz along the timeline again, to the latter half of the '90s. Console gaming was becoming big. The PlayStation and Nintendo 64 had been released, with them came a new wave of quality games; Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Crash Bandicoot (you may laugh, but it was a top game), Final Fantasy VII. FF VII was my first ever RPG. At first I didn't like it, but it soon grew on me. By the end of '97/start of '98 it occupied practically all of my spare gaming time. The pre-rendered backgrounds were spectacular - but the characters looked terrible and out of place. But that did not matter, it was a wonderful, atmospheric experience from start to eventual finish.

It was in 1998 that from nowhere, a generally unknown genre was thrust into the gaming world. Konami's definitive stealth thriller, Metal Gear Solid, took everybody by surprise. Games had been good, but this was original and that much better. You could write it off by saying that it was so excellent only due to originality, but that would be a downright lie. Every part of it worked in harmony like a machine crafted & oiled to perfection. Again, effort over ridiculous style paid off and produced what I consider to be joint best game ever. In 2002, the sequel was released. It was stylish, the graphics amazed; but it lacked in substance. It had been rushed, and that was easy to tell. Sadly, it was one of the best games around at the time, showing the path down which the industry was going.

The same can be said for Final Fantasy IX and even moreso for FFX. VII and VIII were superb. But playing through FFIX, as undeniably great as it was, it felt rushed and I was ever so slightly disappointed. Still, nothing stopped it being the best on the market at the time. FFX was a different story. It tried so hard for style that substance was more or less forced out the back door. More or less, because it still wiped the floor with most other games of the time.

And the situation has continued to worsen, to the point that I've bought only one game this year; MGS 3, back in January, and only a few the year before. However, there are two games coming out very soon which I may well get my hands on, Black & White 2 and Age of Empires III, both sequels based on proven franchises. However, to some degree this article was started by a review I saw of BW2 - words to the effect of "style over substance", and a standard score. So in four years, all the developers Lionhead could do was try too hard to polish something which they'd destroyed in the process.

I find it difficult to comprehend that I'll still play games which wouldn't even receive a 0 in graphical reviews, but I won't touch 99% of modern games. Of course, some are bound to try and form the counter-argument "they were only fun back then". But I have to disagree, and I know many agree with me.

It's partially down to media pressure, no doubt. Reviewers want to see nice-looking games, and will be all too quick to try and bury any who do not perform sufficiently. There is also a tremendous burden placed on developers to meet deadlines, which was never the case in the early days. Who knows, maybe 3D Realms will be the true saviours of the industry and Duke Nukem Forever will be worth the 10-odd years of development. I know I can always expect top-draw games from Bungie and Konami, but the precarious balance between style and substance seems to be shifting even for the best of the best.

<Source>
 

Admonisher

New Member
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wall of text crits you for 10,000 damage, you die.

I do have to say I agree to an extent, but you have to find the gems in the muck. And this was always true- there are plenty of games from the era that you mention which rely on thier lisence to sell. IE: E.T. ( from intellivision ), Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street ( both on the NES ).

I would say there's more trash than there used to be- but the good games are there if you take the time to look. =)
 

Archkronos

New Member
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I must agree. A lot of people are going for the 'HURRRRR MY GRAPHICS ARE HD' approach. And I don't like it. So far, gaming on both a HD Plasma and a non-HD LCD, I haven't seen much of a difference. HD doesn't matter, gameplay does.

\Maybe I contradict myself, actually. Graphics are good, but I don't feel they can easily be improved. I think its hit the main top. I don't really want a game to be totally photorealistic. I want a slight V.R. feel.
 

SkyStormKuja

New Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I agree too. Games has started to go from "Let's make a game that can be enjoyed" to "Let's make a game that makes lot of money" or "Let's make a game that is shiny" (and makes lot of money). This becomes more of a problem with certain game serieses, as people buy the sequel, regardless of quality, or as you say, substance.

You mentioned Age of Empires and Black and White. Well, another game that is soon be seeing the light is Starcraft 2.

I got the same feeling after Warcraft 2 from Blizzard. Warcraft 3 was cool and everything, and had the features that made it stand out. But in the end, it seemed to let me down. I stopped playing halfway through the campaign, because the Blizzard feel wasn't there.

Stacraft2 is quite a lot based on the original, and thus makes an interesting appeal to only upgrading to 3D. This really does prove a point, as so far, the game looks and feels like the original...with new features and better graphics.

I do have to say I agree to an extent, but you have to find the gems in the muck.
Absolutely. Things like the Elder Scroll series, never went awry, and even, to make a stupid example, the Dune games still kept a bit of their charm.

Final Fantasy...well...I think they too are losing it. As my friend once exclaimed about FFXII, there isn't an evil bad guy, and no evil plot. It's a boring war story. And there's no...depth. (And PS, the Sphere Grid and that FFXII Rule board thingy system was wasted.)

So, agreed. Game developers are starting to go for "Style"/"Money" over Substance/Depth/Enjoyment.
 

vErgoth

New Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was gonna read the whole thing, but it's 5:30am and my eyes are achy. I'll just add my bit to this thread.

Not all games are about the looks. Infact, most I've played lately have had both key aspects. Gameplay AND graphics. To name one: Mass Effect. Great storyline, plot development and fantastic graphics. It's also had the best replayability of any game that I can remember.

Half-Life 2 (+ EP1 & EP2) have also had great success by focusing on both gameplay and graphics. While Half-Life 2 has a somewhat linear and basic play to it, it still makes for an enthrawling experience.

I've lost my train of thought, but if I can think before I go to bed, I'll be sure to add it.
 

imaran

New Member
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I agree on most companies, but I still believe that some companies are doing it right. Take Square-Enix for example. They work for YEARS on all of their games. Yes, sometimes they make blunders(*cough* FF: Crystal Chronicles *cough* FFX-2) but they keep at it and don't just make games really quick and get them out (take Halo, the story has sucked in 3 straight games...you'd think they'd take more time and build a better story line with the money they've made from the great gameplay, at least it has that I must say but I love having a story which sadly, Halo 1,2,3 might as well not have).

I enjoy pretty graphics and good gameply as much as the next guy, but thats what most of the games now days are. Heavenly Sword, is a ton of fun but the story is short and really has minimal twists to it.

I still believe though that some games/companies get it right still. EA does a great job with most of their sports games but even more surprisingly Lord of the Rings: The Third Age was great. Graphics were good but the story was great. It put a whole new twist on an old story. I loved it. Dynasty Warriors 3 was awesome (the MANY MANY sequel games or whatever mostly added little or changed little but 3 was great). Assassin's Creed mixes a build up story in with great gameplay. God of War just amazed me when it came out. Guitar Hero is hours and hours of fun for anyone of any age. EA and Need for Speed has continually released mostly good products(save a few that weren't up to par). Gran Turismo has been a great series of realism based driving games.

There are great games within the mass of junk. It just takes more searching, as more people can create a game and more people try to make more and more games hoping that they can stumble over a hit. Some companies still do it right and make games that are fun, it just takes a lot of trying to find them.
 
Top