Why I feel recent games aren't as good

This gen seems to be more focused on making sequels that resemble big Hollywood movies, and just copy-and-paste what made the previous title great, but make things more watered-down as far as the single-player goes.

That's for the PS3 and Xbox 360.

Nintendo, on the other hand, is doing all the "innovative" stuff. Well, they like to say that word, but they are really only giving us watered-down sequels with "new" controls. The only expection I can think of is Super Mario Galaxy.

So, the conclusion I've to to with this gen so far is: games are being watered down in order to either "innovate" or to make things more "Hollywood Blockbuster-esque."

People say that graphics arn't important and that gameplay is what really matters, but the truth is that this is a lie, and to most people it does matter.

just recently I had a few friends over, and I suggested we play ssbm. They said that we should play brawl. When I asked why they said because it looks better. I died on the inside

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

just recently I had a few friends over, and I suggested we play ssbm. They said that we should play brawl. When I asked why they said because it looks better. I died on the inside

Did they mean "looks better" as in visually, or "it looks like it's a better game"?

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

Did they mean "looks better" as in visually, or "it looks like it's a better game"?

I asked the same thing, same answer, I think they mean, "it looks like it is a better game".

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

People say that graphics arn't important and that gameplay is what really matters, but the truth is that this is a lie, and to most people it does matter.

That's just because those people are idiots. In actuality, graphics do not a good game make.

Super Mario 64, for example. The 3-D models were HORRIBLE. But the game? Fantastic.

Originally Posted by King KK

That's just because those people are idiots. In actuality, graphics do not a good game make.

Super Mario 64, for example. The 3-D models were HORRIBLE. But the game? Fantastic.

Well, if you want to get right down to it, really bad visuals can make a game nigh-on-unplayable (Doom SNES? Yeegh). But since that's not really a problem nowadays in that sense, no, the graphical capabilities are pretty much superfluous.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

Well, if you want to get right down to it, really bad visuals can make a game nigh-on-unplayable (Doom SNES? Yeegh). But since that's not really a problem nowadays in that sense, no, the graphical capabilities are pretty much superfluous.

Well...graphics have to be pretty bad for that to happen. I mean, people still play Pong. Come on. In very rare cases are graphics so bad that a game is unplayable.

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

People say that graphics arn't important and that gameplay is what really matters, but the truth is that this is a lie, and to most people it does matter.

just recently I had a few friends over, and I suggested we play ssbm. They said that we should play brawl. When I asked why they said because it looks better. I died on the inside

As you have pointed out they said it looks like a better game. Well it is. It has amazingly huge amount of new content and everything melee had (except the same character tiers). Honestly, sure some of the new content didn't work as well as it was supposed to (to platforming in the Adventure Mode) but can you really compain about a game that's more fun and has more contetn compared to a near identical game.

Originally Posted by Forte

Well...graphics have to be pretty bad for that to happen. I mean, people still play Pong. Come on. In very rare cases are graphics so bad that a game is unplayable.

But Pong's presentation doesn't hamper anything, is what I mean.
I've seen a few games (for example, on PS1, N64, or other early 3-d consoles) that are so messy-looking it's hard to tell what you're doing.

I'm not necessarily talking about graphics being simple.

Originally Posted by Tonchiki

But Pong's presentation doesn't hamper anything, is what I mean.
I've seen a few games (for example, on PS1, N64, or other early 3-d consoles) that are so messy-looking it's hard to tell what you're doing.

I'm not necessarily talking about graphics being simple.

Could you give me an example? I only kinda understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by Forte

Could you give me an example? I only kinda understand what you mean.

I'm trying to think of a better example, but have you ever played Doom on SNES? It's impossible to even tell what most things are until you're right in front of them, and even then it's hard to tell. Half of the time I couldn't tell what was attacking me until I wandered in an outwardly-expanding circle.

Oh boy, this board is a lost cause.
I should've said this in my previous post, but kids, you better take a good look at this thread. Ten years from now you'll hopefully think twice before retrofitting tomorrow's games to the exact same, tired old argument and proclaim the current generation as the golden age of gaming.

graphics do matter a lot for most gamers, but not in the way that most people say "wow!" , most people i know simply notice when something looks worse than usual(wii).
games don't entertain me as much as they used to. the market badly needs something new.
even the overhyped so-called revolutionary games are nothing special. though i find it strange that the last gen games are very entertaining even today. gameplay takes a bit of a back seat nowadays, even in wii games, since the casuals are stupid. graphics can be a big part of a game, like metroid prime, where they create the atmosphere in the game.

as someone said, games have become like movies, even though a few gems come out every now and then, it's a feeling of "been there done that" after every game and movie.
there's more love put into the older games and movies.
i only saw the godfather a few years ago, and it's the best movie i've ever seen. same with OOT and mm(i only got mm this year!). i don't get what it is, but there's just a bit of magic stuff in the older products. now its simply big corporations raking in the cash.
but this gen isn't over yet, still hope.

a very messy post, see if you can make some sense of it

I never understood why Metal Gear Solid 4 received so much appreciation in the first place -- Snake Eater was a lot better, as well as the original MGS.

On a more related note, I have to say I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Simple appreciation for quality gaming.

MGS is actually a pretty good example of a series that has gotten better with every subsequent installment. The Metal Gear Solid 1's interpretation of stealth gameplay is equivalent to simply running past all the enemies in a Zelda game. We've gotten pretty far since then.

I think this problem could go away once the graphical gains go away next generation, and instead of devoting millions of dollars to make the game graphically push the system, developers will focus rather on style instead.

More powerful consoles /= more expensive games. In fact, it's easier to make a better looking game on a more powerful system. It's when developers choose to continue to add more and more detail that is frankly less and less appreciated that the costs rack up, and games can look just as good if not better by trying NOT to tackle the uncanny valley. See The Wind Waker.

Next generation machines aren't just graphical powerhouses, there processing powerhouses. Look at Littlebigplanet, Gears of War 2, MGS4, all of these games have massive scale thanks to there respective machine's parralel processing.

More powerful consoles /= more expensive games

Explain.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

Next generation machines aren't just graphical powerhouses, there processing powerhouses. Look at Littlebigplanet, Gears of War 2, MGS4, all of these games have massive scale thanks to there respective machine's parralel processing.

Explain.

I wouldn't say Gears of War 2 had massive scale. It was your average length FPS really.

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Wonderful. Next gen isn't going to look much different from this gen (really, it doesn't have to), and they should be focusing more on how games actually play and look in terms of art direction. They could also clean up the masses of framerate issues and other ugly glitches that are abundant in this gen games.

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

I wouldn't say Gears of War 2 had massive scale. It was your average length FPS really.

EPIC FAIL.
I didn't mean length, I meant, like, that huge lake monster.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

EPIC FAIL.
I didn't mean length, I meant, like, that huge lake monster.

I've got it and have completed it twice. I know it's a third person shooter, but it's the length of your average FPS. Sig fail.

Also, big sea monster =/= massive scale. Massive scale would be something like Elder Scrolls.