It's not that there are more bad games now. That's hardly the case at all. The difference is, there's more money floating around the industry (which is good), so the companies can push their games more (which is also good). Unfortunately, when a crap game comes along packed with hype it cannot live up to, that's bad. The videogame industry is flourishing, despite all of the protesters against this or that or some other bullshit thing regarding the industry as a whole.
There are a LOT of bad games from the previous generations. Even more than now, in my opinion. The difference is, those games never had the advertisement and the hype that a lot of current games have.
Games like Fable? Completely blew. Now, this isn't a topic for arguing about games. That's the only reason I'm NOT moving this to the gaming sections, to be honest. Allow me to explain why Fable wasn't good, and don't change the direction of the thread to "well you're stupid for thinking Fable sucked." That's not what this is about.
Spoiler:
It had all of this hype about "for every action, a consequence." Sure, that sounded great. I was excited, and I don't even own an XBox. I almost bought one just to play Fable. So, I went to a friend's house, and I played. I sat down, created a character, and beat the ENTIRE GAME in four hours.
Okay, so you can have a lot of customization. Was it worth fifty bucks for TWO FREAKING LAME ENDINGS? A game that promotes "consequences" for "every action" should have at least two dozen endings, if not more. That game was a waste of money, and I feel sorry for anyone who bought it. The replay value is incredibly low, because once you get both endings, what else is there to play for? Toying around with more character customization options? Sorry, that's not worth the high price tag.
|
And that's just one example.
I personally don't feel that FF:CC was a bad game as valentine89 seems to, but I'll agree that it also didn't live up to its hype. Playing solo was difficult at times. I enjoyed the challenge. But the storyline was somewhat shallow. It was a fun game, but could have been so much more.
In that regard, and looking at the title of this thread, I look forward to FF:CC on the Nintendo DS and Revolution. There's so much more Square-Enix can do with it, and I think they're going to re-release it with a whole slew of options that won't leave us disappointed. Hopefully.
And finally, the questions our original poster asks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Griffith
Is the gaming industry losing it's touch? Do you think they are focusing a bit too much of hack&slash and graphics?
|
No, the industry isn't losing its touch. We, as gamers, need to look farther than the hype surrounding a game. We're all suckers for it at some point or another. Just because it looks pretty doesn't mean a damn thing. I do think companies are focusing a bit too much on graphics, but I wouldn't say the same about "hack and slash" games. That's like picking on a genre. H&S is its own legitimate genre of Adventure and RPG games, you know.
But on a final note regarding graphics, here's my personal opinion. Graphics should not mean ANYTHING when it comes to judging whether a game is good. Sure, an aesthetically appealing game is more likely to please me -- who wouldn't be pleased with something pretty? That doesn't count for anything as far as I'm concerned, unless it's a sports game with bad collision physics. What matters is the
gameplay. If the gameplay is too complex, too easy, or too pointless, people will be disappointed. (To v89, yes, FF:CC's gameplay was a bit too easy.)
Second to gameplay is
storyline. After that, for me, it's
music, and then followed by
character depth. Yes, I place music above the backstory of each character. Why? Because without compelling music, games are BORING. It's very important -- to me, anyway. Every other aspect of a game, including graphics, fall way under those four.