Quality of Games: For Example

[Swansen]

Yeah, i've been saying it for awhile, the quality of games has declines considerably. For example i just popped in Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance (PS2) and WOW, the first five minutes of the game, and its better than anything i've played in a while. That and the graphics on this game are a lot better than a lot of junk today. Just goes to show

 

[Addis]

I'd swing the other way, most games I've played recently have been very good.

 

[Swansen]

Maybe i should have been more specific, but the majority of games, like 8 in ten games back then you could pick up and they would be enjoyable, but its not so much the same anymore.

 

[RHochstenbach]

but the majority of games, like 8 in ten games back then you could pick up and they would be enjoyable, but its not so much the same anymore.

I know what you mean, and I surely agree with it. But the thing that I really hate these days is that a large amount of new games use the Games for Windows Live platform. Even if you only want to play offline, you are required to create and use a Live account. And I really want to use as less products and services of MS as possible.

 

[gazaway]

The PC gaming community has just been flooded recently with rush/shotty games. Alot of companies are dying, some new ones emerging, and the established ones already have their Flagship games series in set. There were most definately quite a few of good games that came out this year, but the number of those pale to the number of junk games. I just HATE to see when junk games do well, too..

 

[Pimp]

Your telling me that Crysis and CoD4 don't look that good????????


Oh and btw RHochstenbach i like your speedtest what is it your on 20MB broadband?????

the most i got on speedtest.net was 4436Kb/s down and up 620KB/s no were near as yours, but nice.

Oh and btw what does RHochstenbach mean?

 

[RHochstenbach]

[ot]

Oh and btw RHochstenbach i like your speedtest what is it your on 20MB broadband?????

Yeah it's a 20 mbps cable connection[/ot]

Oh and btw what does RHochstenbach mean?

I mean that games are getting filled with that Live platform. When you want to play such a game, you need to create a Live account (that platform to be able to play online with 360 users).

But to add something, I liked games from the period 1999 - 2004. It's hard to say why, but most games released after that period are horrible. There are some exceptions: GTA San Andreas, Crysis and Colin Mcrae DiRT.

The problem with some games is just, they look good but then they screw it up by creating levels that are either impossible to play or confusing because they lack instructions. For example, with some shooters you are more busy with finding where you need to go, than the actual shooting. One of these companies who is very good at screwing things up, is Electronic Arts. That's why I don't play most of their games anymore. Either they care more about getting games released in time, than creating good quality games. Or they need to do a course of "How to create games".

Then there are these games that contain a very small amount of levels. When you buy MOH: Airborne you pay €50 for the game and there are only 6 levels. Then why would you pay such a large amount of money for it? Well sure you can do multiplayer, but with only 6 maps it gets a little boring.

And there are these games that look good on trailers and screenshots and are actually just rubbish. When the PS3 was released, there where very good trailers about Motorstorm. After I bought it, it was really dissapointing. After a few levels I stopped playing because it was boring. And to make it worse, there where trailers for the PC game Fall of Liberty. Looked really good. So I got that game a few weeks back. The graphics look like the game came from a museum, with graphics that where used like 10 years ago, but it still requires a high-end PC to be able to run it. Other games with the same problem, are Conflict: Denied Ops and Hour of Victory. The only games that I have seen in 2007 and 2008 with good graphics, are Crysis, Assassins Creed and Colin Mcrae DiRT.

 

[Swansen]

[ot]
Yeah it's a 20 mbps cable connection[/ot]


I mean that games are getting filled with that Live platform. When you want to play such a game, you need to create a Live account (that platform to be able to play online with 360 users).

But to add something, I liked games from the period 1999 - 2004. It's hard to say why, but most games released after that period are horrible. There are some exceptions: GTA San Andreas, Crysis and Colin Mcrae DiRT.

The problem with some games is just, they look good but then they screw it up by creating levels that are either impossible to play or confusing because they lack instructions. For example, with some shooters you are more busy with finding where you need to go, than the actual shooting. One of these companies who is very good at screwing things up, is Electronic Arts. That's why I don't play most of their games anymore. Either they care more about getting games released in time, than creating good quality games. Or they need to do a course of "How to create games".

Then there are these games that contain a very small amount of levels. When you buy MOH: Airborne you pay €50 for the game and there are only 6 levels. Then why would you pay such a large amount of money for it? Well sure you can do multiplayer, but with only 6 maps it gets a little boring.

And there are these games that look good on trailers and screenshots and are actually just rubbish. When the PS3 was released, there where very good trailers about Motorstorm. After I bought it, it was really dissapointing. After a few levels I stopped playing because it was boring. And to make it worse, there where trailers for the PC game Fall of Liberty. Looked really good. So I got that game a few weeks back. The graphics look like the game came from a museum, with graphics that where used like 10 years ago, but it still requires a high-end PC to be able to run it. Other games with the same problem, are Conflict: Denied Ops and Hour of Victory. The only games that I have seen in 2007 and 2008 with good graphics, are Crysis, Assassins Creed and Colin Mcrae DiRT.

pretty much completely agree, i don't think there is anything i would have said different. Even then, Crysis was good, but the it was such a resource hog, and from what i understand, for no real reason, it was because of the programming. So in that sense, it could have been better, (not saying it was bad, but, we pay good money, for a hopefully good return)

 

[RHochstenbach]

we pay good money, for a hopefully good return

That's true. Most game companies show very nice trailers and screenshots of upcoming games. This should persuade games to get that kind of game when it's released and don't let them wait because stores are getting out of stock then. And after you got that game and start playing it, you realise it's basically pretty much crap. These include Motorstorm and Assassin's creed. They're having nice trailers about all innovative features and good graphics. They do have good graphics, but the gameplay is like it's made by a 4 year old kid. It's either so difficult that it's next to impossible to play (assassin's creed) or it's very boring (motorstorm and stranglehold).