Anyone else here feel "fed up"?
 

You know, in some ways, i'm really happy about certain aspects of the gaming industry now, but in others, i'm growing steadily dissatisfied.

I'm getting tired of how so-called mature games are constantly hailed as being the greatest games ever. After sitting down and playing said games I was more than astonished at how poorly they were made. GTA3 is pointless, redundant, and itself a technologically underachiever. The Getaway shouldn't even ben considered a game...it's obvious that most of their budget went to creating movie-like cutscenes. It's also astonishingly obvious that most of those mature games are peddled to males age 14-18, not adults.

Just to pour salt into the wound, I also have to hear about my beloved Nintendo and how "kiddy" it's become, or always has been, or used to be but now is changing for the better. I even feel some disappointment with the announcement of the new Zelda game...I sense that Nintendo is bowing to critics about Cell-da and how "kiddy" it was and reverting to a more mature art style (the gameplay will probably be about the same really as any other Zelda game...which goes to show how easily audiences are manipulated). Yet I derive much more pleasure from Nintendo's systems than either my PS2 or Xbox. There's a creativity there that's unmatched and screams personality, compared to the overflowing generic feeling I get from most all PS2/Xbox games.

Then again, with the boom of the videogame industry, there are some changes that i've come to really appreciate. For one, despite mass marketing blitzes around medicore games, there are some really good games that have come out in recent years that would NEVER have seen the light of day in the US 10 years ago. Gradius V, Katamari Damacy, Wario-ware, etc, are all innovative and downright fun games that are aimed right at niche audiences who were all but once invisible. To be honest, it hurts somewhat that these games don't get the press and recognition they deserve, but my enjoyment of these games is not stymied at all.

Of course, Penny Arcade always knows how I feel:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php...01-06-04&res=l

Though I agree with what your saying in general, I disagree with your assesment of the new Zelda game versus Celda. I don't think the look of the game is Nintendo trying to appease those accusing Wind Waker of looking kiddy but rather them going back to the Ocarina of Time style because it'll befit what they have in mind. Though people claim OOT was more adult there was plenty of charm that in my mind makes it fit perfectly with WW. They just looked different though they were both at heart two very fun adventures that didn't have the M-rated set in mind (though there was that one blood spurt that felt a little out of place). Basically, I think had the N64 been capable of, OOT would look exactly as this new game does.

Yeah, I've been fed up with gaming the past 2 gens, and I play the least of anytime during my life as a result.

I just don't like 3D games as well, I'm sick of all the "mature game" and lack of innovation.

I hated the celda look from day 1 so I'm happy with the move back to something more in line with OOT (probably one of the first truely great 3d games).

For similiar reasons I've never played kingdom hearts. Having disney characters just doesn't fit my idea of a square rpg. I wish they'd keep to their own games.

Sorry, can't say I agree with you. I like any Zelda, cell or "mature". I liked GTA III and all the other GTA games.

You're missing out not playing Kingdom Hearts!

Like it or not,GTA 3 was revolutionary when it came out.There is no reason to bash it now,it was an awesome game and it's sequels continue to improve on it.

No matter how many times people say that, and how many times I try playing the game to convince myself those comments are right, I will never see what is so great and revolutionary about that game.

What wasn't revolutionary? Ie. are you saying it was a rehash of something else?

Judging from all the copycat games that have spawned since GTA3 hit the scene,i would say the game did something right.I mean nowadays it seems like everyone and their brother-in-law wants to come out with their own "GTA clone" game.

The whole go anywhere, do anything feature springs to mind. Plus the missions and side missions, and the radio station.

I also loved the "go anywhere, do anything" aspect of GTA.

I could do the missions in just about any order (some required others to be finished before others...but you get my idea).

But GTA shows that the game did do something right to have everyone and thier mom wanting to make a game like it.

I suppose one could argue that having a bunch of clones doesnt make your game "good"...but if that rule is true then "Space Invaders", "Pong", "Pac-Man", and even "Super Mario Brothers" also have to be "terrible" because they led to numerous clones of themselves.

I guess to me, it felt that it was just a little more than the original GTAs. Drive cars, do missions, blow shit up. So, while it may have been on a grander scale, I did not feel there was much more innovation there than its previous versions. The originals never interested me beyond an afternoon or two of play, so I was able to get into 3 much either.

As for the original poster's thoughts, I could go both ways. There are some great games coming out, both original and continuing series. But, seeing such an influx of copycat games does get tiresome. Sometimes that is good if there is a particular style you enjoy, otherwise you just get a bunch of shelf space that doesn't intrigue you. So, while I would love tp see more new ideas and directions, I certainly haven't been bored of late.

Honestly, the past year I have only bought 2 Xbox games, 0 ps2 games, 6-7 Gamecube games, and tons of GBA and DS. I did however pre-order 6 PSP games and a system.

So was Mario 64 not very innovative because it was the same thing was Super Mario just in a 3D environment?

For me, Mario 64 was innovative because it felt like a new way to play. There was more exploration than previous Mario games, which were fairly straightforward. Mario 64 was very open-ended and really gave the Mario series something it didn't have previously. I think it really helped define what 3D platformers would be in years to come and started a trend with them.

On the other hand, to contrast another Nintendo game, Zelda was not as innovative as the game stuck to a very similar style: explore a world, explore dungeons, solve puzzles, etc. Like GTA3, Zelda took its predecessors and did things on a grander scale. The difference was Zelda has always drawn me in deeply, where GTA did not, so Zelda on a grander scale was enough and made it a great game.

So, assuming the game appeals to you, either Zelda or GTA could be an awesome game, that wasn't my point before. However, I am not so sure the term "revolutionary" or "innovative" should be thrown around for something that just beefed up its previous incarnations.

This is just all my opinion though, so feel free to disagree wherever appropriate.

Zelda was probably one of the first games where I didn't feel like problems with the camera or controls got in the way of the experience. Mario 64 was great but there were a few issues there. So I give zelda props for that.

Yeah I kind of suspect so, but disney characters in my square rpg? urrghh.. Luckily there's always tons of other games to play :).

I have to agree on the whole dislike of GTA, I tried to like GTA3 when it came out, but the gameplay is just sloppy. I think if GTA hadn't have had the violence and swearing, we wouldn't be discussing it now. I must say however, it did have things no other games had at the time, the free roaming, open ended gameplay was cool. I just think people got too caught up in the hype.

:rolleyes:
I just had to alter the above to show you the inconsistency of your view:

For me, GTA3 was innovative because it felt like a new way to play. There was more exploration than previous GTA games, which were fairly straightforward. GTA3 was very open-ended and really gave the GTA series something it didn't have previously. I think it really helped define what action games would be in years to come and started a trend with them.


I truly do not see how an unbiased person can say Mario 64 was innovative but GTA3 wasn't. Whether you like it or not, GTA3 was innovative and started a revolution in its genre. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who thoroughly enjoyed GTA3, but hated Vice City, and hasn't even bothered with San Andreas (i.e. I agree with much of what you are saying about GTA now being tired and over-hyped). I have really enjoyed Mercenaries on the Xbox though, and I recognize that it clearly owes a lot to GTA3.

I just wish they'd get rid of the movie clip scenes in alot of these games. I like playing the game, period. I don't need an opening clip telling me the cool background story. It's just a game.

I've never felt the need to buy a game based on graphics, hype or level of maturity in the game. If a game gets favorable reviews and sounds like something I'd like then I'll play it. Otherwise I'll skip. For example I passed on The Punisher because I didn't care for the demo I played. Sure the game had tons of violence and you got to murder people, but that gets old after a while. I'll take substance over style.

Kids now a days seem to get caught up in hype. People were dissappointed in Halo 2 and Fable because of all the previous news they had heard about both games in the years leading up to their releases. I've enjoyed both games for what they were because I managed to avoid the hype on both games and played them for what they were not for what I hoped they would be.

I can sympathize with the OP thoughts, but just like people who complained about the pop explosion 5-7 years ago (Nsync, Britney Spears. XTina...etc) taking over music, I will say the good stuff still lies underneath. You just have to work a bit harder to find it as you know.

A lot of the games that get hyped to death (Halo 2, GTA San An, Metal Gears...god I got sick of hearing about these) are actually good games. You may not like them (I know I sure as hell don't get the GTA style of gameplay...I tried honest, just not for me) but that doesn't take away from them being good games. But because of those games the industry can afford to give us Katamaris, PoPs, Beyond Good and Evils...dude the shit is so diverse now that it isn't even funny. That's what matters, not the "perception" of some of these mature games being hailed as "teh awesome111!!!!!1111one1!!!" by some 14 year olds on message boards or the press. They're always going to gravitate towards those games they think are cool and "mature" (and to be fair I did it as well with Mortal Kombat..."Oh My God! I can cut your head of dude!!!! Need. More. Quarters.) and think that Paper Mario is a kiddy game and thus uncool. Frell them. Just because certain games don't get the focus and attention (be it critical or commercial) really means squat ('cept we might not get sequels).

Play the games you like homie. Don't worry about the trends.

I agree with the OP and then some: I believe game design has gone down the drain the last two gens and barring some miracle I won't be buying any of the next gen consoles for the first time ever. The increased focus on narrative and shift to 3D has killed all of my favorite genres - action/arcade, platform, puzzle, shooter - and replaced them with pale imitations of themselves.

I'm now exclusive to the DS/GBA and loving it.

I'm not going to say i'm unbiased because all people are, but the transition from Super Mario (2D incarnation) - Super Mario 64 was not the same as the transition from GTA2 to GTA3. SM64 was less goal-oriented in terms of traversing space than completing missions. There were also new aspects to the gameplay, such as different suits and whatnot. I'm not saying it's the greatest game in the world, nor am I saying that it's value is justified by it's progeny, but it felt like such a different game from previous Mario games.

To me, there was also nothing really "new" about what the gameplay consisted of in GTA3. And to me the whole "go everywhere do anything" got really old after awhile because everywhere looked about exactly the same and anything was usually the same thing over and over again. It got tiring very easily. The gameplay itself was also seriously flawed, something I cannot believe most reviewers refuse to admit (much like the repetitiveness of Halo 1/2) or completely gloss over, such as the bad targeting system which makes combat a chore and how there's no real "variety", everything is just "blow it up and shoot everything in sight". Sure you can do it a number of other ways, but there's no incentive to. Cops will show up in droves but you can always kill/outrun them and they don't pose a real threat. In fact it's kind of fun to face them. But there was nothing really "new" about the game that couldn't be done before, and perhaps a little better, than in it's 2D incarnation. To me, most of the hype surrounding the game is the level of violence and how sadistic the game lets the player be. It's funny how in Nintendo games they punish sadistic behavior (the chickens, anyone?) but in other games they reward it.