Why Games Suck:

[SoccerDude28]

You have nerdy to a certain degree to do anything technical, but Schafer looks like he is more of a humanities guy, which I think is what I think works best for games that can appeal to everyone.

But I can argue that Tim Schafer's game doesn't appeal to everyone like you are claiming, judging by its sales. You could blame it on marketting or whatever, but you are yet to prove that it has the wild appeal you are claiming it does. It just could be that the gaming market does not have a strong demand for such original games, even if they had very strong marketting behind them. Maybe that's the reason why nerdy software engineers make First person shooters. Because people want them?

[netmonkey]

Okay, Perhaps my theory is incorrect, then. Maybe being nerdy has nothing to do with being a great gamemaker. Gabe Newell and Will Wright are definitely excellent examples of this. So I propose a new theory, ignoring other important variables like industry and retailer influence, and other bureaucracy mumbo-jumbo:

It doesn't matter how much mathematics or science or any other discipline you know, but perhaps what makes a gamemaker (like a filmmaker for games) good is that (s)he understand that what makes a game is not the fact that you know all these software engineering methods, game programming algorithms, or 3d mathematics, or physics to make one, but it is the understanding that the game itself is a work of "art", in a way. The fusion of literature, music, editing, gameplay is what creates the game, and programming is second to that vision. The games does not need to resemble anything else like a movie or a more conventional game, but instead it needs to stand on its own and bring its own ideas to the table.

Therefore, no matter how much someon loves games and has been trained to program and is pretty good at 3d mathematics and such, it does not guarantee that he will become a good gamemaker, unless he really "gets" the point mentioned above.

A lot of people get lost in the fact that they have this engineering team that has all this vast knowledge of game programming, and a team of artists. So they decide to make the game in the likes of *insert cool game here* instead of coming up with their own little monster. And this is why a lot of games suck.

(Discuss again?)

[Spaff]

= your own opinion. I love tomb raider (at least the first original one).

Yeah thats what I said, however, I am the Gaming Fascist, so my opinion is the right one and Tomb Raider sucks.

Also, if you remember correctly, i tested it for 9 FUCKING MONTHS*

I have earned the right to hate it.

P.S My shift key works, I am just too lazy to use it often as i have to use it all day at work and get bored of it ¬¬

* on the N-Gage...... oh the pain!!!!

[steak-flavored gum]

new theory

Not to consistently be in disagreement, but isn't this how most things work? All the writing education in the world doesn't ensure that you will be able to write an awesome novel or collection of nonfiction essays. Great skill in calculus does not directly translate to cool architectural designs. If I do an intensive crash course in parenting at my local library, will my child turn out okay? That the quality of the tools does not provide the primary indicator of the quality of the product is not exactly a new, controversial idea.

[AndyB]

netmonkey, I've been thinking the same thing since I heard that Keita Takahashi was an 'artist' first, and that Miyamoto was employed to do graphics at Nintendo* I was going to suggest that this was an important factor in the games they made. But I couldn't get any further than that in this argument.

apparently he also wanted to be a toymaker, which IMO shows up in the way that you can kick shells about, and play with things in Mario.

What I think makes many games suck is that no matter how good they are, they are a solitary experience, with little to talk about. No matter how good they are, to me it feels like being a dog enjoying knawing on a bone. -fun, but with very little in the way of "human interest" to it. It is a solo- masturbatory kind of thing.

yay!

(Which isn't to say that I want to see games become ponderous narratives, but to see games with more in the way of human drama and interesting situations and characters. ---BUT I want to see games go in ALL directions)

[Nachimir]

That was, obviously, unfair stereotyping of game developers in the first post. IMO though...

Game culture pretty much = run jump shoot drive.

Interdisciplinary input = much more varied and interesting games. I think Keita's roots as a sculptor show not only in Katamari but also his latest idea.

[AndyB]

emulate their favorite action movies when they were 10 years old, therefore we get poor results in games that are enjoyable.

Yes, imagine if all films were 'action movies' with Sly Stallone, or Arnie, or Duke Nukem.

What I'd like to see is games that emulate soap operas, love stories, psychological thrillers. The ultimate evolution of the 'adventure / RPG/ SIM' genre. Where you could worry about the neighbours from hell that move in next door, whether the daughter of the family starts dating an undesirable man. If your character will get a good job, or remain unemployed. If the lovers will stay together or their families will split them apart (Romeo & Juliet). Whether the next door neighbours grandfather will be found alive and well when he escapes from the nursing home. Meeting characters like Mrs (?) Havisham etc.

(But there will always be a space for action, and high-adventure)

[Trithemius]

Okay, Perhaps my theory is incorrect, then. Maybe being nerdy has nothing to do with being a great gamemaker. Gabe Newell and Will Wright are definitely excellent examples of this. So I propose a new theory, ignoring other important variables like industry and retailer influence, and other bureaucracy mumbo-jumbo:

It doesn't matter how much mathematics or science or any other discipline you know, but perhaps what makes a gamemaker (like a filmmaker for games) good is that (s)he understand that what makes a game is not the fact that you know all these software engineering methods, game programming algorithms, or 3d mathematics, or physics to make one, but it is the understanding that the game itself is a work of "art", in a way. The fusion of literature, music, editing, gameplay is what creates the game, and programming is second to that vision. The games does not need to resemble anything else like a movie or a more conventional game, but instead it needs to stand on its own and bring its own ideas to the table.

Therefore, no matter how much someon loves games and has been trained to program and is pretty good at 3d mathematics and such, it does not guarantee that he will become a good gamemaker, unless he really "gets" the point mentioned above.

A lot of people get lost in the fact that they have this engineering team that has all this vast knowledge of game programming, and a team of artists. So they decide to make the game in the likes of *insert cool game here* instead of coming up with their own little monster. And this is why a lot of games suck.

(Discuss again?)

What about games that don't really have an overriding narrative? I am thinking of simulation games, and specifically stuff like Civilisation and the Total War series. Are these "games that suck" because they, essentially, lack this element entirely?

[jokemaster]

New theory:

It used to be people that liked games, made games. Now that it's been discovered that it's so freakin' profitable, all these non-gamers got into the business just for the money. And these non-gamers came up with game ideas and could finance them, so they grew, and eventually game companies started hiring these people that know business, not games, to decide which games should be released.

[Lechimp]

New theory:

It used to be people that liked games, made games. Now that it's been discovered that it's so freakin' profitable, all these non-gamers got into the business just for the money. And these non-gamers came up with game ideas and could finance them, so they grew, and eventually game companies started hiring these people that know business, not games, to decide which games should be released.

Just to build upon that theory...

Game developers are crappy business men, they sold copies of games by making good games. When the video game market was discovered by business men, they did all kinds of charts and research and stuff and try to sell games based on what game sold best last, and stole elements from that game and put it in theirs.

[Salka]

Yes, imagine if all films were 'action movies' with Sly Stallone, or Arnie, or Duke Nukem.

What I'd like to see is games that emulate soap operas, love stories, psychological thrillers. The ultimate evolution of the 'adventure / RPG/ SIM' genre. Where you could worry about the neighbours from hell that move in next door, whether the daughter of the family starts dating an undesirable man. If your character will get a good job, or remain unemployed. If the lovers will stay together or their families will split them apart (Romeo & Juliet). Whether the next door neighbours grandfather will be found alive and well when he escapes from the nursing home. Meeting characters like Mrs (?) Havisham etc.

SOAP OPERAS?? no. Also what do you mean, that games should emulate soap operas/love stories/psychological thrillers? How is that the ultimate evolution of anything?

I don't like the sound of your idea. It would bore me. It really sounds like you don't like games at all, and would just rather watch Neighbours or Friends or something.

Are you female?

[Trithemius]

Are you female?

Even if you are a dude, Yufster will still call at you like you are a lady.

SOAP OPERAS?? no. Also what do you mean, that games should emulate soap operas/love stories/psychological thrillers? How is that the ultimate evolution of anything?

I don't like the sound of your idea. It would bore me. It really sounds like you don't like games at all, and would just rather watch Neighbours or Friends or something.

I'm inclined to agree however. I enjoy the idea of more involved social relationships in game, but I don't see that they need to be prosaic in order to be "realistic". I'm dubious about realism myself, I much prefer verisimilitude (and not just because it is pretentious) because it allows for elements that are outside my experience to be approached in a way that persuades me that they are feasible.

I don't want to worry about neighbours from hell in my games, I already have a chains-moking, SUV-driving, dipstick next-door. If I was going to play any matchmaking game where I had to ensure good husbands for my daughters I'd want it to be Machiavellian Hapsburg Matchmaker rather than xTreme Paranoid Sub-urban Dad. Or fucking Princess Maker for that matter.

[Steve]

Where you could worry about the neighbours from hell that move in next door

BEATEN

[Tanukitsune]

BEATEN

It's even got a sequel...

I have my own theory, if a game sucks it's because:

-It's a quick buck game or...

-It's "nearly no bucks" game (from a small company that will probably never be heard of again)...

But I definetely don't think all games suck, sometimes I think some people only see in "black & white" and if the games doesn't rock, it sucks...

[AndyB]

SOAP OPERAS?? no. Also what do you mean, that games should emulate soap operas/love stories/psychological thrillers? How is that the ultimate evolution of anything?

I don't like the sound of your idea. It would bore me. It really sounds like you don't like games at all

What I mean is that it would be an extension of the adventure game / RPG to have games where there are dynamic social plots which allow for interesting interactions with other characters.

What do I mean by psychological thrillers? Well, a game based around the idea of having a scary-ass masked psycho trying to ---- with your character's head. and you would have to simultaneously work out how to escape (puzzle solving) and who was doing it (thinking back to your conversations with NPCs).

Want an interesting example, okay take Beyond Good & Evil, and imagine that instead of having preset situations the game played out slightly differently each time. One day there would be a Domz attack on the centre of Hyrule (oops! Hyliss) and everyone would have to go into their basements. There could be dynamic kidnappings with different relatives of NPCs being taken each time, so you would see them sobbing on the street corner, or drowning their sorrows in the Akuda bar (Barakuda = Barracuda) . And from these different plot points you could get slightly different missions. It would also increase your level of emotional investment in the game if you could -get to know- the characters better.

This kind of (fake) human interest wouldn't need to make a game boring and prosaic, it could still be set in an exciting (Xtreme? )situation if necessary it would just make it feel more worthwhile and give you something to talk about if someone asked you what you were doing, as opposed to .. I'm just trying to make this last jump in the level / work out the bosses weakness / run over some dealers / shoot this bee firing freak / combine the honey with the moss to make a moustache.

[General Fuzzy McBitty]

That's what Sierra adventure fans thought before The Secret of Monkey Island came out. Or what any Tomb Raider fan thought before any action-adventure came out after Tomb Raider.

I liked Sierra adventures after SoMI... I still like Sierra adventures. I have the entire Quest for Glory series (though the 4th one is hard to play because they never properly patched it).

[General Fuzzy McBitty]

I think why games suck was captured in a recent quote of the moment... the one about games being about things and stories being about people.

This does sort of show the mathamatical side of game making, which may be an arguement towards the software engineer arguement... so long as you remove nerdy from the mix.

[AndyB]

I think why games suck was captured in a recent quote of the moment... the one about games being about things and stories being about people.

Yes, the experiences that New Games Journalism harks at is all about people. It isn't about the sterility of a bubble-wrapped game where victory is assured, but about coming into contact with other people's creativity, values and behaviour, as filtered through our little boxes of electronics:

http://www.alwaysblack.com/blackbox/possessingbarbie.html

Now Bow...... and Posessing Barbie are both about Multi(player) games/ chatrooms, but does a game have to be multiplayer to get the same effect of recognition of other people. Ie. Can single-player games also have the same kind of effect where rough-hewn animations make the player see the designer behind the game and come into contact with them?

From NTSC-UK

"

"Well, it was strange." says David, his voice starting to rise again. "I didn't believe it to begin with. I was just tooling around in 'Pilotwings' on the N64 and I found a cave."

I had a faint recollection of this place and the strange rumours that had whispered amongst the Nintendo faithful back in 1996.

The Japanese have a saying, 'God is in the details'. In Pilotwings it would seem that had been taken quite literally.

According to legend, graphic designers had become fed up with simply creating the same textures. To alleviate the boredom, someone had drawn the image of Christ on one of the walls in the cave.

A nice update of a classic SNES title had become a biblical experience.

"That's very interesting" I say, feeling as if everyone has now fled the store, leaving just the two of us to chew the fat. I look around for a means of escape. Meanwhile the madness continues.

"Anyway, one night, I was just sitting in my room. I had the game on pause and I was in the cave. When I looked at the screen and squinted, I could see a face. After a while, it was all I could see."

His voice drops to a whisper once more.

"That vision - that image was put there for a reason. It's God's way of telling us not to play games - to stop wasting our time."

And yes, it is all A bit pretentious, but there is definitely room for games which are more centred around people and relationships rather than shooting things, collecting gems / fruit, bullet time and battles.

[SoccerDude28]

I think why games suck was captured in a recent quote of the moment... the one about games being about things and stories being about people.

This does sort of show the mathamatical side of game making, which may be an arguement towards the software engineer arguement... so long as you remove nerdy from the mix.

A game like Tetris is about things falling down, and a game like Katamari is about a big thing rolling up big things, and even bigger things. Can we deny their greatness?

When Pajitnov came up with Tetris, it was a kind of a mathematical puzzle he was working on in his free time, when he wasn't working on his computer job.

I'm just trying to say that a game really does not have to capture your emotions, to tell a story, or to involve humans to be great. You can strip out all these elements, and still have a great game. Unless you are a narratologist who believes that games should only tell stories.

This is my theory of why games suck:

1- Publishers: In a lot of instances, we do not get what the developer intended but what the publisher thinks the market needs. When you get businessmen involved in the creative process, the end result is usually not fun.

2- Publishers: They are flooding the market with the same crap. The way they choose which game they need to fund next is by looking at charts, seeing what sells, and creating a game very similar to that "but with a twist".

3- The gaming demographic: It needs to change. I don't know how but it needs to change. The reason why number 1 & 2 are so prominent is because people keep buying their crap time after time. Until we have smarter consumers, I don't expect things to change significantly.

[netmonkey]

Luckily, we have VG Cats to show the team that will trash bad games. It always has perfect timing!

[Savage Cabbage]

SOAP OPERAS?? no. Also what do you mean, that games should emulate soap operas/love stories/psychological thrillers? How is that the ultimate evolution of anything?

I don't like the sound of your idea. It would bore me. It really sounds like you don't like games at all, and would just rather watch Neighbours or Friends or something.

Are you female?

I gotta agree with Yufster too still. Have you not played Shenmue? It's as dull and exciting as life can be. Many argue that Ryu is a drip and he couldn't even get it on with the girl who seemed like she lacked an emotion, but I think he represents tons of guys. I used to be just like him as a teen.

I really don't get anyone who says games suck. You suck. How very dare you.

[General Fuzzy McBitty]

Luckily, we have VG Cats to show the team that will trash bad games. It always has perfect timing!

Actually by ending it with them creating a monster, doesn't he show that the heros of the industry are actually contributing to the layer of shit they put out?

[b0b]

There was no room for storytelling until the early 90s when the super nintendo and computers that could play Monkey Island were around.

<takes deep breath>

I am fucking never posting on this forum again*. Two pages of bickering and you lot all let shit like that slide?

Interactive Fiction? Or "text adventure" if you will?

You know, the genre that gave BIRTH to your precious adventure games?

I'm sure there were none of those before 1990. Yeah. Or any other games that had a story. Christ almighty.

Or maybe I misread everything and I've just made myself look like an ass? Anyone?

Also Tomb Raider (while I can hear Spaff howling with pain as I say this) was really bloody good. True, the Ngage/iPaq versions were horrible, but the PSX original was challenging, immersive and generally great; I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Soap Operas? 24 is effectively a soap opera, so is Red Dwarf, or Star Trek. I don't think anyone's saying they want Neighbours: The Game - but perhaps more intricate plotting, more detailed interactions between characters, more mature subject material (no, not necessarily tits, blood and metal music) stuff like that? Generally something more involved than thumb-on-the-fire-button-drool-on-the-carpet action, which (before I get lynched) is FINE, it's just that some people would (occasionally) like a bit more from their games.

Also: games are ace.

*statement not actually true.

[netmonkey]

Interactive Fiction? Or "text adventure" if you will?

Nope, I don't recall them at all.

[General Fuzzy McBitty]

Nope, I don't recall them at all.

Zork?