Do videogames suck now or am I just getting older?

[Merkwurdigliebe]

So I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I'd like to get some input on the matter. I have played a good bit of videogames for a while now and I've had some games which are near and dear to my heart. But lately, videogames don't really seem to be bringing much to the table. I have my theories as to why and I'd like for you guys to weigh in. First I'll start with some of my favorite gaming experiences.

Super Metroid:
This might be my favorite game ever for a console. It had so many great elements in just the perfect proportions that made it great in my opinion.

Deus Ex:
It combined a great storyline with sci-fi (always a favorite of mine) and complete freedom of storyline. Again the story was important here.

Fallout 2:
I had to be convinced to play this game. I saw my friends playing it for a long time so I had to get in to the act. I really enjoyed the open-ended story.

There are obviously more examples, but when I look back on all of these games, it seems that they all had something new to them. They all seemed to focus on atmosphere and story. There is also a good bit on character development too. That's one thing that I'm particularly interested in. Now I will admit that this post might make a bit more sense if I had written it a few years ago as I'm not exactly up to date on the latest games. But I feel that a lot of the really super-hyped games of late aren't qutie as good as they have always been. I have a few ideas as to why but I'll get to these later.

Half-Life 2:
What can I say about this game? Essentially this is the same thing as Doom. It's a shooter on rails in which you get to make no choices at all about the story. It's a pretty good story and the atmosphere is good, but you don't get much choice in the matter.

Portal:
Again, this was a pretty cool game, but nothing hit those reward circuits in my brain like they did for the older games. Pretty neat puzzles etc. I liked the funny AI voice as well.

GTA:
These games are really all the same. I usually give up on them because they get boring towards the end.

Fallout 3:
I haven't played this yet, but something tells me that it's not going to be the same either.

3D Metroid games:
I dunno, it doesn't work for me...

Call of Duty games:
Cool graphics and whatnot but again, shooter on rails.

Some explanations?
One of the big problems I've had with games of late in general is that they seem to be the equivalent of hollywood movies of this day and age. The focus seems to be entirely on graphics alone. There are entirely too many shooter-on-rails type games out there which really leaves me less than satiated.

One of the things that I've noticed about my favorite games is that in some sense, 2D games require a bit more imagination out of the player than do 3D shoot-em-ups. Fallout is certainly an example of this, as are the Metroid games. Another aspect is that in the late 90's early 2000's games always seemed to be doing new things. Doom was groundbreaking, and was cool for that alone. I remember Tomb Raider and how cool that was too. I only liked the first one though.


Great games have defining moments.

Unreal had the moment when you first exit that crashed spaceship where you see the (at the time) beautiful landscape before you.

Deus Ex had the part where you go in to the MJ 12 headquarters with the giant hand covering the Globe statue. What an amazing moment. I will never forget that part.

Great games seem to try to let you know that your actions have wider consequences, they try to keep a persistent world to some degree. In Deus Ex you revisit areas and see how things have changed through people's dialogue and also through visual changes. Character growth is kind of hard to measure unless you come back to see where you were before.

So what is wrong with games today? I feel that they are suffering from a similar problem that Hollywood is. The scale for most games these days is so immense that they must be made as bland as possible in order to appeal to as many people as possible. Games used to be a lot easier to produce, I think.

I've noticed that there is a bit of a resurgence in "casual games" which seems pretty cool. But I have yet to see someone make the step of investing a good deal of story and effort into a 2D game.

The last 2D game that I played that was cool was Metroid: Zero Mission, which came out for GBA in the early 2000's I think. It seems that a 2D presentation is only considered when there are platform limitations.

What would I like to see? I'd like to see games that are as engrossing as the games of my past were. I am sure that a good deal of my gaming desire is due to the fact that I'm older (now 26) but I also feel that it can't be all my fault. I just don't feel like people are making games for people who value story and character development anymore. I will note that I have not played Fallout 3 yet (waiting for Xmas) but I feel that might be a step in the right direction.

There are some holdouts. Sid Meiers Civilization is always a good series. The same can be said for the Sim City series.

At any rate, what say you folk? I hope this isn't too rambling, but I can't quite pinpoint what I feel the problem is other than just a general feeling. Do you guys feel the same?

[Palooka]

Nostalgia is messing with you. Games are better now than they've ever been.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Nostalgia is messing with you. Games are better now than they've ever been.

Which ones?

[Palooka]

Call of Duty 4 had a more engaging story and better presentation of it than anything in the 90s. Not to mention top-notch multiplayer for lifespan and lots of piecemeal achievements to go for, if you want a quick reward. Calling it a shooter-on-rails is a tad ridiculous.

I mean, yeah, not everything stacks up to goddamn Deus Ex or Fallout 2, but that's what happens when you list some of the best games of that decade.

[Hero From Sector 7G]

I feel the same way as the OP. I think it is because games didn't evolve in the direction I had expected. It feels like pressure has been on graphics, rather than innovative gameplay. As resources for modeling become more demanding, the scope of the game has to narrow.

I think gaming needs to have some sort of serious open source modeling projects in order to reach the "next step". Graphics are becoming too costly and dominating a larger percentage of the budget and crippling innovation.

I'm also exclusively PC gaming, so my options are limited.

[Hero From Sector 7G]

For example, the first time I played Command and Conquer (the VERY first one) I thought to myself "man, this is cool, but losing a battle shouldn't mean I lost the war. " In addition, the branching pathways were superficial, they were simply different missions that lead to the same place.

In my mind, the logical next step in the Command and Conquer series was a more dynamic battlefield. Let the player choose objectives and the best way to secure them. Improve the A.I. (seriously, we've had a decade and pathfinding still is crappy). Let me customize units down to each squad member. Create a persistent army and let me get attached to each unit.

Ten years later and Red Alert 3 is still the exact same experience as C&C1.

For me, it isn't nostalgia that is ruining games, it is fatigue.

[Zsofia]

I've noticed that there is a bit of a resurgence in "casual games" which seems pretty cool. But I have yet to see someone make the step of investing a good deal of story and effort into a 2D game.


Braid, my friend. You want to play Braid.

[panmarblic]

I agree with OP on super metroid. 3D metroid doesn't do it for me, and neither do 3D castlevania games. Some of my favorite games now are on the DS, a platform where companies still make quality 2D games.

1 explanation that's been floating around is the inherent difference between 2D and 3D games. 2D is about jumping, moving, space control... etc, and 3D is about something more intangible, like player experience and immersion.

Multiplayer is an issue from graphic presentation. Online multiplayer is definitely fun, but it's still a poor substitution to having friends come over for a group game session. (How fun would rockband be if you jammed with OnlineBoy115?)

[Hero From Sector 7G]

I forgot about my DS... so you can scratch that "PC only" biz earlier. I enjoy the hell out of that little thing. Funny how most of the innovation is coming on a platform that is bound by serious hardware restrictions.

[Palooka]

What's innovative on the DS?

[Revenant Threshold]

I think it's unfair to hold up Deus Ex as an good example of what games used to be. It's right up there at the top of games of all time, let alone of a while ago; it's not really reasonable to expect an average game of today to match it.

That said I really have very little taste when it comes to things. So I tend to like a lot of crappy stuff.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I tend to be the frothing, online, multiplayer fanatic around here, but I suggest that. The single player is only the beginning. Try playing some of your favorite titles online.

[Hero From Sector 7G]

On the DS... I thought "The World Ends With You" was an innovative modern twist on the typical JRPG. Lock's Quest was a cool genre blending of tower defense and zelda style combat. The Phoenix Wright series is unlike anything else found on other gaming platforms. Etrian Oddesy refined the dungeon crawl by using the stylus.

[CutterJohn]

Damn kids and their rock and roll! In my day, we listened to good music, not this crap!


Todays market is focused on styles of gaming that you simply don't care for very much, much the same as a fan of 1940s big bands is probably rather disappointed with todays musical offerings.

This doesn't mean they are crap, it just means your tastes do not happen to coincide with popular game styles atm.

Though I do agree that 2d was given up too easily..

[Just Some Guy]

I'll agree that there's a lot of bad game design decisions that have become ingrained in the industry due to a desire games that "look better" and depth of play has long been lost to the mass market, but you're showing your selection bias quite a bit.

[Palooka]

Audiosurf has deeper gameplay than Super Mario Brothers 3. Old games were ridiculously shallow.

[Martini Enfield]

I think you're getting old and/or being nostalgic.

I like where games are going, and as other people have said you can't really compare Deus Ex (one of the best games ever made) to the majority of computer games.

There are some excellent games out now, though- Fallout 3 and Civilisation IV spring readily to mind.

There were some good 2D games (The Crusader series being one) but for the most part I enjoy the games out now more than the games of 10 years ago, and I can't wait to see where gaming develops in the future.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

I'll add that MMORPGS can be good.

I liked the Star Wars MMORPG a lot before they nerfed it to hell and let people be Jedis. What a waste that was. But seriously that game and some REAL potential. I don't like fantasy settings though, so that precludes me from many MMORPGs outright. I played Neocron for a while and did like it. I'd say that Neocron was a success in my opinion. I've tried to get in to other MMORPGs from time to time with varying interest. I have a feeling that there will be a pretty awesome cyberpunk MMORPG in the next five years or so. Maybe they could make it a bigger hit than WOW. I never liked the fantasy genre in general, so that keeps me from playing a lot of RPGs in general.

You guys mention the DS being a cool platform because of its limitations. I really feel that this is somehow getting down to the core of the issue. The limitations force you to be creative. In today's games you can portray damn near anything you can dream up.

I blame, my taste, my hesitancy to try new games, and the actual games themselves. I wouldn't necessarily say it's nostalgia as much as it is a change in my life priorities. But in the end I think that the lack of exciting games is somewhat of a problem. Back in my day, games were doing new and cool things all the time. Half-Life 2 was probably my biggest disappointment.
What I guess I feel is lacking is new gameplay enhancements. Developers are pioneering in areas which I feel miss the point.

Anyway though, I am super excited about Fallout 3. I hope it lives up to my expectations. I guess another problem I have is that I've been burned on getting excited about too many games that really turned out to be mediocre. That's why I never tried BioShock.

But let's examine what made Deus Ex so awesome. I think the fact that you felt that your choices meant something was a big deal. You had choice and it mattered. The story line was also quite interesting too. I think it could have made it as a 2D game too. They had atmosphere and put it to good use. The graphics were actually sub-par for the time and seemed to be more of an after-thought. But they conveyed the message.

What's really interesting is to go to websites like Metacritic and MobyGames and check out the top ratings of all time. Half-Life 2 is consistently ranked up there near the top. Half-Life 2! This game is essentially no different than Doom. I guess I just like a little intellectual stimulation with my games. I don't feel that I refuse to accept new games, as much as I don't like the way games are made now.

I guess the point though is that every game needs to answer the question, "why?" Why play this game? How is it fun?

What made Super Metroid so fun? I can't exactly put my finger on that one, but I do like the fact that it is open-ended. The core of the game seems to focus on that and character development. You remember that ledge that was too high to reach, so you remember to come back once you get the hi-jump boots, etc. It's a way of imposing a bit of linearity in a non-linear world. Very clever, IMO.

All I know is that I don't feel like people are making games for me in a world where Half-Life 2 gets top billing. It's a cool game, but certainly not one that you think about when you're at work / school. It doesn't seem to consume your thoughts.

Anyway, good to see that I'm not entirely alone, and I appreciate the suggestions. The reason why I'm interested in discussing this is that I'm sort of wondering if I'd like to be a game developer, and I like to dissect what it is that made those games so great, and why I feel that modern games are lacking these things. I'd appreciate any input on what makes great games great.

[RickJay]

If you idea of old time classic video games are "Fallout 2" and "Deus Ex," you're a video gaming neophyte.

[PopeJewish]

The basic deal is that, while industry trends have gone more towards graphics and less towards innovation, there IS still innovation out there, and there ARE still some great games, there just happens to be hordes and hordes of utter crap out there, too.

I liken it to movies. There are still good movies that get released every now and again, but it's such a large industry that the vast majority of the stuff that gets released is simple, bland, unoriginal, and basically just shoveled out the door in an attempt to make money.

To compare the average game of today with some of the best games of the past couple decades is a bit unfair. There are definitely still gems out there, though, most recently I've been enamored by Fallout 3 (not as good as F2, but damn fine in its own way) BioShock (if you liked System Shock 2 this is a spiritual successor) COD4, Mirror's Edge (incredibly innovative, though frustrating as hell at parts) and I'm REALLY looking forward to the new Prince of Persia which is released tomorrow (I loved Assassin's Creed, say what you will about it, but I thought it was great)

Also I feel it's important to make a distinction between an "on-rails" shooter, which is one in which your movement is handled automatically, and a linear shooter, which is one in which you can move freely but the levels don't allow for much option in where you go.

[Indistinguishable]

Deus Ex is my favorite computer game of all time, and quite possibly the last one I was truly excited to play. That having been said,

But let's examine what made Deus Ex so awesome. I think the fact that you felt that your choices meant something was a big deal. You had choice and it mattered.
To a limited extent, perhaps. Let's not forget that the game followed the same basic storyline no matter what you did, to the point that the only factor in which of the three endings you received was which decision you made at the conclusion of the very last level.

Within a level, gameplay-wise, there was a ton of freedom; you could accomplish your missions and sidequest goals in many different ways. But on a larger scale? Eh, things were pretty linear.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I'll add that MMORPGS can be good.

I liked the Star Wars MMORPG a lot before they nerfed it to hell and let people be Jedis. What a waste that was. But seriously that game and some REAL potential. I don't like fantasy settings though, so that precludes me from many MMORPGs outright. I played Neocron for a while and did like it. I'd say that Neocron was a success in my opinion. I've tried to get in to other MMORPGs from time to time with varying interest. I have a feeling that there will be a pretty awesome cyberpunk MMORPG in the next five years or so. Maybe they could make it a bigger hit than WOW. I never liked the fantasy genre in general, so that keeps me from playing a lot of RPGs in general.

You guys mention the DS being a cool platform because of its limitations. I really feel that this is somehow getting down to the core of the issue. The limitations force you to be creative. In today's games you can portray damn near anything you can dream up.

I blame, my taste, my hesitancy to try new games, and the actual games themselves. I wouldn't necessarily say it's nostalgia as much as it is a change in my life priorities. But in the end I think that the lack of exciting games is somewhat of a problem. Back in my day, games were doing new and cool things all the time. Half-Life 2 was probably my biggest disappointment.
What I guess I feel is lacking is new gameplay enhancements. Developers are pioneering in areas which I feel miss the point.

Anyway though, I am super excited about Fallout 3. I hope it lives up to my expectations. I guess another problem I have is that I've been burned on getting excited about too many games that really turned out to be mediocre. That's why I never tried BioShock.

But let's examine what made Deus Ex so awesome. I think the fact that you felt that your choices meant something was a big deal. You had choice and it mattered. The story line was also quite interesting too. I think it could have made it as a 2D game too. They had atmosphere and put it to good use. The graphics were actually sub-par for the time and seemed to be more of an after-thought. But they conveyed the message.

What's really interesting is to go to websites like Metacritic and MobyGames and check out the top ratings of all time. Half-Life 2 is consistently ranked up there near the top. Half-Life 2! This game is essentially no different than Doom. I guess I just like a little intellectual stimulation with my games. I don't feel that I refuse to accept new games, as much as I don't like the way games are made now.

I guess the point though is that every game needs to answer the question, "why?" Why play this game? How is it fun?

What made Super Metroid so fun? I can't exactly put my finger on that one, but I do like the fact that it is open-ended. The core of the game seems to focus on that and character development. You remember that ledge that was too high to reach, so you remember to come back once you get the hi-jump boots, etc. It's a way of imposing a bit of linearity in a non-linear world. Very clever, IMO.

All I know is that I don't feel like people are making games for me in a world where Half-Life 2 gets top billing. It's a cool game, but certainly not one that you think about when you're at work / school. It doesn't seem to consume your thoughts.

Anyway, good to see that I'm not entirely alone, and I appreciate the suggestions. The reason why I'm interested in discussing this is that I'm sort of wondering if I'd like to be a game developer, and I like to dissect what it is that made those games so great, and why I feel that modern games are lacking these things. I'd appreciate any input on what makes great games great.

You're the outlier?

[Martini Enfield]

Bioshock had an excellent and immersive story and was probably my favourite game of last year.

While it's true that a lot of shooter games are "On Rails", have you tried Far Cry and Far Cry 2? They're open-ended shooters (Far Cry 2 perhaps less so than Far Cry[/i).

The focus on games at the moment is the [i]story- it's like being in a movie, where you can interact with the other actors. There's a "Script" you have to work with, and there are "sets", but otherwise, you can decide how you want things to play out. Half Life 2 was a good example of that. Bioshock is another.

I'm honestly not sure what sort of games you want to play, to be honest. I hate 2D Platform Games and am glad that we're pretty well done with them, FWIW.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Dude, there's a guy on another messageboard I go to that totally has a boner for anything Far Cry.

[Martini Enfield]

Dude, there's a guy on another messageboard I go to that totally has a boner for anything Far Cry.

I really like Far Cry 2- it's like someone took one of my favourite novels (Frederick Forsyth's The Dogs of War), combined it with the film Blood Diamond, and said "Oh, before you go, here's a flamethrower. Have fun!"

There's a lot of unrealised potential in that game, IMHO. But until Fallout 3 was released I spent far too much time destabilising a third-world African country and not nearly enough time doing productive things like housework or finding a more meaningful job... ;)

[Gukumatz]

Games fill niches these days. Want open ended? Far Cry 2 was geared towards that demographic. Want to be able to define your own goals and carry a war instead of a sequence of battles? Here's a copy of Medieval 2: Total War and I hope you meant that, because it's the only way you play it. Want an immersive experience that's out of the ordinary? Your plane just crashed in the 1930s and, oh, mind the tin cans. And welcome to Bioshock.

Do you want some seriously innovative and well presented new gamplay mechanics in a 2D environment? Here's Braid. It likes to fuck with the fourth dimension in four layers of spatial thinking. Want realistic one-bullet firefights? I've got a pre-order of Operation Flashpoint 2 with your name on it. Want funny? Here's another copy of Portal. Want fairytale? I've got your Fable 2 right here.

Do you want a fresh feature implemented in a way you've never seen before? I hope you haven't lost your voice, because in Tom Clancy's End War you're going to need it; your entire army is controlled by your voice. Want deep? Dwarf Fortress is free. Want pure, indie gameplay? Mount & Blade just hit stores. Want over the top? Psychonauts contains a secret agent masquerading as a housewife by wearing an apron, a wig and talking disjointedly about pies.

None of the games above are made before 2000. Hell, 90% of them are less than three years old.

I grew up with gaming from the C64 on. When I was what, 10, I was asked by my personal Military Advisor to get ready for a briefing on the Brotherhood of NOD's military activities in the original Command & Conquer. By the time I turned 11, I'd stared down the Zergs time and time again. I've got all the stars in Super Mario 64, I can quote Fallout 1 & 2 from cover to cover, I could play through Deus Ex blindfolded.

But games have never been better. The only thing that has been seriously fucked over the last decade is sequels. Unplanned or conditional sequels are a bad idea, period. But this has been true for decades, if not centuries, accross all medias. Dune? Every book beyond the first pretty much blew chunks. Narnia? A conditional ditto. Most classical composers? Had two great pieces in them. Led Zeplin? Rocks way less hard. World War 2? Way worse than the first one. And so on.

This decade has had it's plenty of minor and major revolutions and epiphanies of gaming. Sequels and follow-ups? Not so much. But I'll put the experience of, say, Psychonauts against, say, Super Mario 64 any day. Fallout 1? Still unmatched in its genre, but we haven't made games in that style since 2001. Deus Ex? I'd put it side by side against Bioshock, any day. Command & Conquer? Matched and surpassed by every single game in the Total War series. And so on.

[E-Sabbath]

Psst. Fallout 1 was a sequel. And C&C was a copy of another game that was also a sequel.


Burnout 3 was a major improvement over Burnout 1 and 2. Burnout Paradise is just gorgeous.
GTA3 was a sequel. As are the new Sam and Maxes.

[Hoopy Frood]

Psst. Fallout 1 was a sequel.

No it wasn't.

It was a spiritual successor to Wasteland, but had a completely different timeline. And it, along with FO2 and FO3, took place in an alternate universe. Wasteland took place in the universe as we know it, but was set in the future of that universe. A future that didn't come to pass. (The game was released in 1987. I believe WWIII hit 1998, but I don't remember. It's been a while since I last played.)

The Fallouts took place in a universe that branched from ours in the 1950's. Culturally, they never left the 1950's. Technologically, they were far advanced of us.

[Just Some Guy]

No it wasn't.

It was a spiritual successor to Wasteland, but had a completely different timeline. And it, along with FO2 and FO3, took place in an alternate universe. Wasteland took place in the universe as we know it, but was set in the future of that universe. A future that didn't come to pass. (The game was released in 1987. I believe WWIII hit 1998, but I don't remember. It's been a while since I last played.)

The Fallouts took place in a universe that branched from ours in the 1950's. Culturally, they never left the 1950's. Technologically, they were far advanced of us.

As opposed to all the other games where the sequels follow the in game continuity exactly. Nice to know that virtually every Zelda game since Link's Adventure aren't sequels to The Legend of Zelda.

Fallout would have been titled Wasteland 2 if Interplay had been able to get the rights to the name back from EA (ignoring the existence of Fountain of Dreams, of course, as everyone should). That was the first name I heard referenced for it back when they were making it using GURPS. It's from the same company, using the same themes, was developed as a sequel, and they had to change the title mid-development because of licensing issues. It's a sequel in every sense except the one that would have gotten Interplay sued.

[Odesio]

Psst. Fallout 1 was a sequel. And C&C was a copy of another game that was also a sequel.


Fallout was the "spiritual" sequel to Wasteland much as Bioshock is the spiritual sequel to System Shock 2 but neither one of them are actual sequels.

[Odesio]

I don't think video games suck these days and, as others have mentioned, I think they're obviously better than they've ever been. However I do think that even though games are better in many ways a lot of them tend to lack the "gee whiz" factor.

I cut my video game teeth on the Atari 2600 but didn't really discover the gee whiz factor until Doom. So what's the gee whiz factor? When a game comes along that seems to offer something a little different or is simply designed so well that it causes me to think "gee whiz, what a great game" then it has the gee whiz factor. Doom II had the gee whiz factor and then Duke Nukem 3D. There were other FPS released afterward but for me none of them really had a gee whiz factor even though they were technically superior to Doom and Duke Nukem. The next FPS that had the gee whiz factor for me was Half-Life.

A lot of times modern games aren't giving me the gee whiz factor. Sometimes it does. Grand Theft Auto 3 is certainly an example of the gee whiz factor at work.

[Hi, Neighbor!]

Sure, games like Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country, Harvest Moon, etc. were simple and great (yea, I could definitely sit down with them right now and play for hours), but in no way, shape or form are video games on the downswing now. The biggest plus I see these days with next-gen systems is the ability to play virtually every game online.

[Morgenstern]

I loved the King's Quest games from a few years ago. They ran well on low powered computers with mediocre video cards and were mentally challenging (of sorts).
Then there was Myst and Aura but after that, they leave me feeling passed up by the game designers.

[E-Sabbath]

As opposed to all the other games where the sequels follow the in game continuity exactly. Nice to know that virtually every Zelda game since Link's Adventure aren't sequels to The Legend of Zelda.

Fallout would have been titled Wasteland 2 if Interplay had been able to get the rights to the name back from EA (ignoring the existence of Fountain of Dreams, of course, as everyone should). That was the first name I heard referenced for it back when they were making it using GURPS.

Friend working for SJG has played that version, too. Only version of Fallout he's ever played.
I consider a game a sequel if it follows a reasonable variant of theme and setting and was generally conceptualized as such. Eg, Final Fantasy II is not a literal sequel to Final Fantasy I, but it is a spiritual sequel.
Basically, if it started off as 'Let's make another...', I count it.

[drgnrdr07]

I work in the video games industry and you would be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't be) at how many developers haven't even played the games that have been mentioned.

For example, the team I was working on wanted some internal feedback on the game we were making, so we had a company-wide "fun day" that allowed the other teams to play through our game. Part of the "fun day" was that they had to fill out a questionnaire detailing their experiences with the game. One of the questionnaire's sections deals with their thoughts on other games in the genre and I was completely blown away with how many people had not played games like Fallout or Baldur's Gate (we are an RPG house).

I wouldn't say that video games are declining, but they are definitely changing - partly because of increased focus on graphics and partly because the audience (including the developers themselves) has shifted so much toward the FPS market. This is, of course, IMHO.

[smiling bandit]

Actualy, I have to agree with the Op, partly. Some games are getting better, but so many of them get so caught up in what they're doing they neglect either the Big Picture (the basic gameplay), or they fail to polish off the little things that make the difference.

But let's also look at I. It's not a huge game, really, though it is fun and impressive. But why don't they do things like that anymore? Even Deus Ex 2 backed down, and we really haven't had anything like it since. But not only was it a sleeper hit, it became a legend. We should have three similar series by now, and the gameplay innovations spread throughout the industry. Likewise Morrowind. Instead, we just plain don't.

Instead, a lot of companies are backing off and pouring cash into graphics. This is expensive, not really worth it, and largely does little except to wow the idiot game reviewers. But it's safe, and you can probably make your money back, even if it's not a really good overall investment. You don't have to change or expand the basic game.

That said, modern games are mostly OK. They're just not realy hitting the peak of greatness that they arguably should. We see more and more bugs that should have been tested out. We actually see less versatile gameplay, because they tend to throw in elements they don't thoroughly consider (half-assed sneaking elements, anyone?) The games are still decent, but they could be so much better.

Some genres could probably be expanded, like RPG's, but MMORPG's are sucking up all the time and money.

[Mosier]

Games "on rails" are more a thing of the past than of the present. The Grand Theft Auto series, which you might dislike for the content or style or whatever, is more open ended than almost any of the games before it.

Fallout was not perfected with the 3rd installment, but nobody can reasonably say it "sucks", even compared to earlier fallout games. It's an amazing game every bit as fun as Super Metroid (which was not particularly innovative, but was indeed super-duper fun) but lasts a hundred times as long.

Nothing even close to World of Warcraft existed in the gaming age you described in your first post. Love it or hate it, nobody can reasonably say it's a bad game. The Halo series is miles ahead of anything Unreal did, with at least two "holy shit!" moments in each title having the same impact that moment in unreal did on you.

Mass Effect is another great recent game. The Civilization series has gotten better with time. The Wii has made some freaking COOL innovations with the Wii-mote controller, and with brand new game concepts that might suck now, but they suck in the way that wolfenstein sucked, because it's brand new and we're not sure how to design games like these yet.

It's just nostalgia talking if you think games suck today. Plenty of games do indeed suck, but if you can compare games like Super Mario Galaxy unfavorably to games like Super Mario Brothers 3, you're just letting your age speak for you. Game concepts and design are just as solid now as they ever have been, and in lots of cases the art of game design is being improved.

[Hi, Neighbor!]

Yes, it's true there are a lot of crappy games out there. But then again, there always were. Are we talking about the quality of the so-called "good" games has gone down?

I'm a gamer that plays perhaps 3-4 games a year. Mostly, they are games that are pretty epic in size, or have immense replay value. I'm playing Fallout 3 right now, and upon its completion (which could take another two months), I plan on purchasing Bioshock. Of course, I have a few games that I can play when a group of friends come over for mindless fun that I wouldn't play normally (Sega Superstars Tennis in this case), but I feel that the "good" games of today that have high expectations are on par with the classics.

Oh, and I have a PS3, and I do really feel quite bad for my Wii-owner friends. Are there any "epic" games scheduled to come out for that platform? Or will most games be designed for good, clean American fun?

[Mosier]

That said, modern games are mostly OK. They're just not realy hitting the peak of greatness that they arguably should. We see more and more bugs that should have been tested out.

That's not a very solid argument. Games are bigger, but have comparatively the same number of bugs in them. The biggest titles of the time period you're talking about had silly bugs. Final Fantasy 3 had more bugs in it than any of the Grand Theft Auto games starting with Vice City.

[Mosier]

Oh, and I have a PS3, and I do really feel quite bad for my Wii-owner friends. Are there any "epic" games scheduled to come out for that platform? Or will most games be designed for good, clean American fun?

The platform doesn't seem to attract epic games, but some seriously big titles have come out for it. Super Mario Galaxy is probably the biggest one that isn't found on any other consoles.

[Hoopy Frood]

As opposed to all the other games where the sequels follow the in game continuity exactly. Nice to know that virtually every Zelda game since Link's Adventure aren't sequels to The Legend of Zelda.

Fallout would have been titled Wasteland 2 if Interplay had been able to get the rights to the name back from EA (ignoring the existence of Fountain of Dreams, of course, as everyone should). That was the first name I heard referenced for it back when they were making it using GURPS. It's from the same company, using the same themes, was developed as a sequel, and they had to change the title mid-development because of licensing issues. It's a sequel in every sense except the one that would have gotten Interplay sued.

I'm aware of the problems IPlay had securing the rights.

That said, the gameplay in the Fallouts is absolutely nothing like the gameplay in Wasteland. They are entirely different games in everything but setting.

At least the Zeldas had roughly the same gaming paradigm. And though I've only played a few, from what I understand the games take place at different points in time of the same universe and/or use the same archetypical hero. The same cannot be said of Wasteland/Fallout.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

I suppose I think that one of the problem would have to be the media in general's response to new games. I went to MetaCritic and MobyGames and Half-Life 2 is listed up there as the best game ever. I think this is probably the root of my problem. So here's what inspired this post. Occasionally I get the gaming urge. I don't feel like replaying anything I had before and I want something new. So I go and look online to see what's hot lately. And I am invariably not interested in most of the games around. The reason I played Half-Life 2 was because I was living in a hostel in Europe at one point, and the internet cafe was a good way to waste time during the day. So I played HL 2. It was okay, but nothing I'd particularly care much about. Same thing with Portal. I thought it was cool, but I really am not interested in linear gameplay.

Yes Deus Ex was linear in a fashion, but at least there were options that you could choose. I you had your augs to choose from and different ways to complete a level. It was a crying shame that DX2 was worse. They could have really made that genre into something special for sure.

Now as for MMORPGs, that's a different story. I have liked them a lot from time to time. I really liked the Star Wars MMORPG but then they really fucked it up, so I gave up on it. I didn't quit as a result, but I didn't return to the game as a result of their game play "enhancements"

But no, I wouldn't say that Mario 3 is better than SMG. In fact, I never really liked the Mario games all that much. Mine would either be Super Mario World, or Mario 64. The N64 really had some solid launch titles, btw.

But I guess the main problem for me is that a lot of gamers, these days, are really wowed by the stories in games. I am too if I am able to influence it to some degree, but what I don't like is something like Half-Life where you simply kill x, y and z for it to progress. Yeah the super gravity gun was cool at the end, but that's about it.

But yeah, you guys have helped me get some new games on my radar. Mass Effect seems like it's worth a look, and I did want to try Mirror's Edge before writing this thread. That 2D game you were talking about looked cool too.

But I think a large part of the problem is also that games didn't go where I wanted them to. My dream was to play Sim City and have it be even more detailed yet they have gone in the opposite direction. I'd like there to be more storyline involvement rather than less. I think Fallout 3 is going to be right up my alley, and I'm certainly not one of those die-hard F3 fans that refuses to accept anything but a carbon copy of F2. Although, I am a bit bummed that Van Buren didn't get finished. It would have been cool to have another Fallout game.

[Mosier]

I suppose I think that one of the problem would have to be the media in general's response to new games. I went to MetaCritic and MobyGames and Half-Life 2 is listed up there as the best game ever. I think this is probably the root of my problem. So here's what inspired this post. Occasionally I get the gaming urge. I don't feel like replaying anything I had before and I want something new. So I go and look online to see what's hot lately. And I am invariably not interested in most of the games around. The reason I played Half-Life 2 was because I was living in a hostel in Europe at one point, and the internet cafe was a good way to waste time during the day. So I played HL 2. It was okay, but nothing I'd particularly care much about. Same thing with Portal. I thought it was cool, but I really am not interested in linear gameplay.

Yes Deus Ex was linear in a fashion, but at least there were options that you could choose. I you had your augs to choose from and different ways to complete a level. It was a crying shame that DX2 was worse. They could have really made that genre into something special for sure.

Now as for MMORPGs, that's a different story. I have liked them a lot from time to time. I really liked the Star Wars MMORPG but then they really fucked it up, so I gave up on it. I didn't quit as a result, but I didn't return to the game as a result of their game play "enhancements"

But no, I wouldn't say that Mario 3 is better than SMG. In fact, I never really liked the Mario games all that much. Mine would either be Super Mario World, or Mario 64. The N64 really had some solid launch titles, btw.

But I guess the main problem for me is that a lot of gamers, these days, are really wowed by the stories in games. I am too if I am able to influence it to some degree, but what I don't like is something like Half-Life where you simply kill x, y and z for it to progress. Yeah the super gravity gun was cool at the end, but that's about it.

But yeah, you guys have helped me get some new games on my radar. Mass Effect seems like it's worth a look, and I did want to try Mirror's Edge before writing this thread. That 2D game you were talking about looked cool too.

But I think a large part of the problem is also that games didn't go where I wanted them to. My dream was to play Sim City and have it be even more detailed yet they have gone in the opposite direction. I'd like there to be more storyline involvement rather than less. I think Fallout 3 is going to be right up my alley, and I'm certainly not one of those die-hard F3 fans that refuses to accept anything but a carbon copy of F2. Although, I am a bit bummed that Van Buren didn't get finished. It would have been cool to have another Fallout game.

From what you're saying, it definitely sounds like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 are right up your alley. In both games you have some influence over the storyline, but much more so in Fallout 3 than in Mass Effect. Mass Effect is shorter, but engrossing and fun to replay.

Part of the problem I have with games now is that I find myself more "rushed" in life than when I was a kid. A few hours in front of a TV when I was a kid was a long, long time. A few hours in front of a TV now seems a lot shorter, and I find myself less willing to spend that time just trying a game to see if it's good. I went through a mountain of crappy Super Nintendo cartridges for the few gems like Legend of the Mystical Ninja or Super Metroid or Super Mario RPG. I just don't have the time to sift through a mountain of crappy stuff anymore.

[smiling bandit]

That's not a very solid argument. Games are bigger, but have comparatively the same number of bugs in them. The biggest titles of the time period you're talking about had silly bugs. Final Fantasy 3 had more bugs in it than any of the Grand Theft Auto games starting with Vice City.

I think you misunderstand what I mnean. In the days of yore, when the game staff was 6 dudes in a basement after dropping out of college, OK, you gots yer bugs. These days, when they are willing to hire 200 dudes with advanced degrees to program their super mega-graphics of doom, they coudl at least iron out the bugs. But they frickin don't. And while bugs from the past were accidental foul-ups, today's bugs are the result of much more systematic errors.

[DKW]

Merk - I haven't played any of the games you mentioned except a couple of Grand Theft Autos (3 and Vice City), but I can attest to video games changing a lot in just a few years. In particular, they're a helluva lot more complicated. Compare the SNES Royal Rumble to any of the WWE titles for PS2, After Burner to Ace Combat, Ready 2 Rumble Boxing to Facebreaker, etc.

I also know all too well that once your reflexes start flagging, it makes a lot of tasks MUCH more complicated. I've recently started going back to games like Contra, and I find myself strugging horribly with sections or even entire levels that used to be only somewhat difficult.

The simple truth is that the little kids who grew up on frogs hopping across freeways and spies navigating weird elevator systems have grown up and need something deeper and more challenging. It's possible for a game to be engrossing, or imaginative, or breathtakingly beautiful, but still far too easy for the new regulars (Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil is the perfect example).

You might want to look into computer games. From you OP, that sounds like more your thing.

[bouv]

These days, when they are willing to hire 200 dudes with advanced degrees to program their super mega-graphics of doom, they coudl at least iron out the bugs. But they frickin don't. And while bugs from the past were accidental foul-ups, today's bugs are the result of much more systematic errors.

Getting rid of bugs is much, much harder than you seem to think it is, especialyl with PC games.

Oh, you mean to tell me that if you have an ATI XXYZ card, AND an Asus Motherboard while running ABC brand antivirus software, the game makes a bleeping noise during a cutscene? My God, it's clearly this line of code right here, we'll take care of that right away!

The fact is is that there are so many lines of code that they write, and they cannot plan for every configuration of every system the game runs on. Yes, certain bugs and errors are inexcusable and you have to wonder if anyone did ANY playtesting at all with them (something like the most recent Pool of Radiences uninstall bug that deleted your entire harddrive springs to mind,) but a lot of the smaller ones are hard to pin down and honestly, unless they cause the entire game to crash, or mess up saved data, it's not considered that important to fix.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I've felt the same way for some time, with the exceptions of Super Mario Galaxy, and before that Resident Evil 4. Both reinvigorated my love for games. I also play a lot of my DS.

[smiling bandit]

Getting rid of bugs is much, much harder than you seem to think it is, especialyl with PC games.

No, I've done bug testing. It's a right royal pain, it is. That doesn't make the current lack of bug testing or the "ship it, we'll just patch it later" attitude any less obnoxious, idiotic, or unacceptable.

[Snowboarder Bo]

No, I've done bug testing. It's a right royal pain, it is. That doesn't make the current lack of bug testing or the "ship it, we'll just patch it later" attitude any less obnoxious, idiotic, or unacceptable.

hear, hear! I have done debugging also and it is a pita. But, it's part of what has to be done.

[E-Sabbath]

I would also like to reccomend Braid. It most certainly does not have linear gameplay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_(game)
Imagine a 2D platformer where you control time. There's one rule on each level... and it changes.

[neutron star]

Oh, you mean to tell me that if you have an ATI XXYZ card, AND an Asus Motherboard while running ABC brand antivirus software, the game makes a bleeping noise during a cutscene? My God, it's clearly this line of code right here, we'll take care of that right away!
There's a pretty big difference between something minor and obscure like this, and the fact that, for example, in Saints Row 2 (no obscure hardware on an Xbox), if you drive from one side of town to the other in a fast car, you're pretty much guaranteed slam into invisible walls (invisible cars?) in the middle of the road and come to a dead stop at least two or three times.

Oh, and then there's the bug that's happened to me at least ten times where a loud-ass machine gun sound starts up out of nowhere and continues until I finish the level! I have to mute the TV every time it happens.

The severity of bugs that are deemed acceptable to ship, even in just console games these days, is disgusting.

[erislover]

I will have to try this Braid. The last 2D game I liked also happens to be my favorite 2D game ever, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Flawlessly executed, IMO.

I kind of agree with the OP. I'm damn tired of most games and I feel like the move to 3D has done absolutely nothing for gaming in general. Specific games are awesome, yes, I don't deny it, and I think it is crazy to think there isn't going to be another gaming heyday, but right now most of the stuff is really crap. TF2 is amazing and dragged me into online play which I thought I would never enjoy. (Deathmatching irritates me to no end.) A wonderfully executed but way-too-short rails game was Beyond Good and Evil that showed just how seamlessly a dedicated team can mix up niche gaming to bring together a wonderful experience. The first Silent Hill brought genuine terror to me in a way I thought was possible only in nightmares, while the sequels have continually failed to accomplish anything close.

I agree with the other poster who mentioned the time issue. I'm not averse to spending a lot of time on a game, but there's this window where it has to hook me and I don't come back to it if it fails. I wasted good money on the Morrowind expansions which I never sat down to play. Well, ok, I did sit down to play, the point is that I wasn't about to get invested in the game again. Unlike the OP, I was amazed at how they captured the feel of the 2D Zelda and Metroid in the move to 3D, though the second Metroid for GC didn't hold me for more than a few hours. My disappointments with the first Fable are almost surely going to prevent me from even bothering with the sequel which, given previews, looks to have improved nothing but the look of the game. Civilization's incremental improvements aren't worth the money.

I mean, improving the graphics is cool for a few days and then the game has to live or die on its own. By the time Morrowind's graphics became the background, the world had gained a depth. By the time TF2's graphics ceased to wow me, tactical complications kept me insanely intrigued. Zelda's continuous innovation in playing has kept me pleased, though I don't own a Wii and didn't grab Twilight Princess.

A game has to have something besides graphics and progressive generations are wasting way too many resources on friggin' graphics. At the end of the day the graphics cannot make a bad game better. I remember playing Turok and at one point realizing that I was relying so much on my HUD that I practically was playing a really crappy 2D game instead of an interesting 3D one. The underlying mechanic simply isn't there.

Last perfect single-player game was Portal, IMO. It took one lovely concept, made a short game with a cute story behind it, and left it at that. It didn't beat it into the ground. It didn't try to make a 2 hour game into a 10 hour one. It was just what it was, and that's perfect.

[Mosier]

I think you misunderstand what I mnean. In the days of yore, when the game staff was 6 dudes in a basement after dropping out of college, OK, you gots yer bugs. These days, when they are willing to hire 200 dudes with advanced degrees to program their super mega-graphics of doom, they coudl at least iron out the bugs. But they frickin don't. And while bugs from the past were accidental foul-ups, today's bugs are the result of much more systematic errors.

There's 50 times more staff developing today's games, and 100,000,000 times more code involved. If bugs were ever unacceptable, it was THEN, not now.

[Roulette]

I don't think video games today suck. I do think we're harder to impress.

When I got my NES system, every game was new and interesting. When Wolfenstien 3-d came out, it was revolutionary. Something completely different.

Fast forward through the last 5-10 years. We've taken those genres and expanded them dramatically. Your 'first person shooter on rails' sounds very bland and boring. But when you truly examine those games like Call of Duty 4, FEAR, and Dead Space they're simply amazing. They may be on rails, but they're telling a story. Like a movie where you get to walk through the main character's footsteps instead of just watch them.

There are more open ended games out there too. Far Cry 2, Fallout 3 and GTA come to mind. There are underlying stories, but you're under no obligation to follow a script, or even to follow it at all. Or games like Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 3 or Left 4 Dead where the plot is a joke used as a shell to encase a multi-player game.

And that is the just the fps genre. C&C may seem a superficially like it's decedents, but there is a wide variety of RTS games out there. Games have since added true air units. Artillery and morale have also been added to number of games. The genre has moved into 3 dimensional combat in space. Supreme Commander moved into a scope and scale that was unprecedented. The Total War games brought combat down to much smaller and personal scales.

If you look at those games without peering from the point of view of it's ancestors, I think you could be amazed by the modern generation of games. But it's hard to do that. Games have grown slowly, and many of us have grown up with them. That make it hard to appreciate exactly how far they have come.

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of crappy games out there. But to say that all games suck is a little myopic, IMO. There are a wide range of games, and generally, there is something out there for most people. But what is really important is that you enjoy what you're doing. If you're not, nothing I say can change your mind. But I do hope you find another game that strikes you like Deus Ex did.

[erislover]

I don't think video games today suck. I do think we're harder to impress.

I'm not saying there aren't a lot of crappy games out there. But to say that all games suck is a little myopic, IMO. There are a wide range of games, and generally, there is something out there for most people. But what is really important is that you enjoy what you're doing.I have been thinking about this and I try to imagine what it would be like to come up under modern gaming. I'd imagine people would feel like everything is amazing. I feel like gaming hasn't made significant progress. The required increases in budgets for most modern games is hurting the industry, not improving it, IMO.

I mean, let's be clear, I'm still a gamer. Games don't suck. But the progress has been questionable, overall, IMO.

[Bosstone]

I don't think video games today suck. I do think we're harder to impress.Probably a good assessment. A lot of folks are wondering where the open-endedness is, where the human-like AI is. Realistic destructible environments, that kind of thing. We're hitting the limits of what we can do computationally, though, and unless there's a serious breakthrough in hardware or programming we're not going to see any major vertical innovation (Commander Keen -> Wolfenstein 3D -> Doom -> Quake, for example) for a while. Any innovation is going to need to be lateral (Braid is not much more complex than Super Mario World computationally, but gameplay-wise, hoo boy...), and that IMO is harder to achieve on a regular basis.

[yojimbo]

I've been playing games since the ZX Spectrum. I cut my teeth on the likes of Jet Set Willy, Knight Lore etc.

I was also big into arcades and close enough lived in one for a few years. Played everything e.g. Star Wars, Dig-Dug, Wonderboy, Joust, Space-Ace and on and on.

Today I have a PC and a 360 having moved away from Sony when my last beloved PS2 broke.

I think there are games today that are way better than anything before. Some are just good old fashion puzzlers like Braid but others like COD4 or Halo3 are modern FPS. The multiplayer elements of these games are what make it for me. No longer do I have to go to a LAN party or set up a network game in work to get my fix of online carnage. Games like Halo etc. are way better than their forerunners like Doom or Quake on nearly every level.

I installed a emulator on my PC last year and installed all the old Spectrum games I used to love. Not one held me for more than a few minutes. I spent a lot of time just looking at the screen trying to reconcile the shitness I was looking at to the great game of my memories.

When you are a kid things are special in a way that you just don't have the capacity for once you get older. I've got great love of the Star Wars movies but now have to admit that they are pretty roughly made to my eyes nowadays.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Some games suck because we're getting older. I had to get a controller with a slo-mo setting just to play MK3 on my SNES.

[ParentalAdvisory]

What I hate about new games, especially first person type games, is the difficulty of accuracy of my character or vehicle. GTAIV is classic of this problem. I suppose it could be operator error, but the drivability of the cars in that game does not reflect the movements I actually want to make. I slow down in corners with sufficient braking and the car still wants to veer into a building or object. The aiming of weapons is just as difficult. It just about spraying bullets and hope you hit something. Although the graphics are top notch and smooth, the play itself is not fluid and is sloppy.

Where as Left 4 Dead, the shooting experience is dead on what I intended to do with it, and is fun to play. However, the problem with that game, and most games is the multiplayer options of play. Granted L4D is zombie's vs. the four, but why can't 16 players just get the option of playing in a map and just shoot each other?

Halo PC is IMO legendary for the types of games available to play in multiplayer. Albeit outdated, that game was responsive to my controls. The play was very fluid. The slayer, team slayer type of games is what is lacking in new games today. Todays games are all about finding or arming a bomb while you hold a button while you avoid getting shot. That shit is retarded. That's why I hate new games, the multiplayer options are lacking bigtime. And don't get me started on forced multiplayer matching (no option to join a server).

[BlinkingDuck]

I am reasonably convinced, as I exclaimed 8 years ago...that online games are the future. There will be a place for single player games but the major potential is online

The problem is, however, that the vast majority of online games are the same. You have WOW and it's clones...which are level grinders. You have ones like COD where online is just a twitch fest.

There are a few games out there with potential. The 2 that stand out for me are Eve and World War 2 Online. Each still has it's issues (again my opinion) but it feels like it is onto something.

WW2online is completely different from anything out there. No level grind, no hit points, realistic physics and equipment. THIS, I hope, is a twinkling of the future. Not all games will be like WW2Online but the IDEA behind it is refreshingly different. I wish them well.

I wish more companies would take a chance on innovative games like these and that people would give them a chance.

But, like someone says, I may be a big band 1940's music lover dissatisfied at the way things are going and that the future will be nothing other than twitch fests and WOW clones.

[PopeJewish]

There are a few games out there with potential. The 2 that stand out for me are Eve and World War 2 Online. Each still has it's issues (again my opinion) but it feels like it is onto something.


is WWII Online still up and running? THat game was total crap when it first came out, but with a few years to iron out all the bugs and balance the gameplay better it could be really good. I agree that the idea was really cool.

[Carmady]

Video games have a different purpose now.

It used to be people played video games for fun.

Now people turn to video games for socializing, relationships, creating alternate identities, and cinematics. Fun would be a distraction.

Games like Half Life 2 or Oblivion are hardly even games at all. There is nothing remotely "fun" about either. More accurately, they are failed simulations.

Failed, because these games are notoriously horrendous at getting across simple feelings like "running" or "jumping." There is no sense of real motion. The only thing they simulate is what it would be like to lose most of your senses. Even old 2d games were much better at getting such sensations across. When you run and jump in Mario it feels natural; the added "sense" of being able to see yourself from the side replaces the senses you are missing in a game.

Of course, there are still some very good games coming out. There are just a lot that don't even try to be fun, because that isn't their purpose.

KOTOR and Psychonauts are great, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are masterpieces, Jet Set Radio and Shenmue II are awesome if you go back a little farther.

I do think there is more that could be done in 2d though. I would love to play a new Battletoads or Wonder Boy.

[PopeJewish]

Video games have a different purpose now.

...

Now people turn to video games for socializing, relationships, creating alternate identities, and cinematics. Fun would be a distraction.

Games like Half Life 2 or Oblivion are hardly even games at all. There is nothing remotely "fun" about either. More accurately, they are failed simulations.

I disagree with this completely. Half Life 2 was a great game, and I thought it was very fun. Oblivion not so much, but Fallout 3 (which was made by teh same people, on the same engine) is fantastic and a load of fun. These games aren't attempting to perfectly capture motion, they're attempting to tell a story, they're attempting to be interactive movies. You want something attempting to capture real motion you can play Mirror's Edge, Assassin's Creed, or especially the new Prince of Persia which just came out (which is amazingly fun, btw)

and seriously, Shenmue II? I thought Shenmue II closer resembled an aborted fetus of the original than a proper sequel. The original was great, the second not so much.

Still I notice none of those games you mentioned do much in the way of capturing movement, particularly a game like KOTOR (which I loved, but movement was slow and clumsy) Well maybe JSR did a bit of that, btu that'd be the only one (and don't get me wrong, I loved all the games you mentioned, especially Psychonauts and Shadow of the Collossus)

[PopeJewish]

stupid time limit...

anyway, I aggree that we need more 2d games, or maybe 2.5d like Super Smash bros single player stuff, or The New Super Mario Bros, basically 3d but from a 2d perspective. I heard the new Sonic Unleashed game has levels like this, and they're the only good part of the game (as opposed to the werehog levels which are generic beat-em-up or the hub-world where you wander around aimlessly talking to people. Seriously Team Sonic, make a SONIC game, not a game that features sonic-like play on occassion and crappy play the rest of the game. It's not THAT hard! I don't care if the game is only a couple hours, if it's fun and I can replay for achievements/higher points whatever I'll be happy!) though I gotta say, I crap my pants every time I think about Battle Toads, that game was HARD!

ETA: holy shit is this computer pissing me off

[smiling bandit]

I am reasonably convinced, as I exclaimed 8 years ago...that online games are the future. There will be a place for single player games but the major potential is online.

And there you are wrong. There is a solid niche for online games. And most games can have online-based content or features. But relatively few games will ever be totally online-based.

The reason is that online games require interaction in some format, and that interaction has historically not been of a very high quality, and cannot be too tightly controlled. Secondly, that interaction prevents top-quality anything. Whether it's PK's ganking you because they don't care abvout death penalties and just want to ruin your day, or lines of people around the block to kill a monster, or the fact that you cannot tell a very good story or ever be a "hero", online games are as much limited as they are open. Yes, it's cool to go into a dungeon. But you can never claim you did something all that amazing, because 500 other people did, too. The closest you can get is to claim some other, much sillier, accomplishment, like being the first to hit level 80 or to have your guild kill a certain boss. And while some games may even reward you for it, it rather dimishes the accomplishment when everyone else gets to do it, too.

And let's face it: given the chance to chat, even dedicated roleplayers on supposedly RPG servers will start in on their favorite mexican dishes or complain about the latest patch or discuss whether the additional DPS on a certain weapons plus active effects A, B, and C is worth trading off against the higher DPS with only active effects B but also passive effect D. Singleplayer's killer app is what online games cannot be: about the player, and oriented to the player.

[shy guy]

Things are just so specialized now, and there are so many extremely complex games, that it's easy to get overwhelmed, disenchanted, or both.

I went through a period of being disillusioned with gaming right after the Dreamcast died. I loved the DC and its innovative games so much that, while I played the shit out of a few Gamecube games, I largely sat last generation out.

As I've gotten back into gaming over the last couple years, I've found the diversity and complexity out there to be pretty cool, if a lot to deal with.

I don't much get into things like World of Warcraft (though I have tried it) or Call of Duty 4 (though I'd like to try it), but I've found way more than enough to keep me occupied this gen. My Wii gets plenty of play, and the DS has what may be the single greatest library in the history of video game consoles.

What I really find is that I'm less excited about the big, epic games than I used to be. But there are so many games being produced in the little niches I do find interesting that I don't really notice.

At the moment I'm having a blast working my way through Mega Man 9.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

And there you are wrong. There is a solid niche for online games. And most games can have online-based content or features. But relatively few games will ever be totally online-based.

The reason is that online games require interaction in some format, and that interaction has historically not been of a very high quality, and cannot be too tightly controlled. Secondly, that interaction prevents top-quality anything. Whether it's PK's ganking you because they don't care abvout death penalties and just want to ruin your day, or lines of people around the block to kill a monster, or the fact that you cannot tell a very good story or ever be a "hero", online games are as much limited as they are open. Yes, it's cool to go into a dungeon. But you can never claim you did something all that amazing, because 500 other people did, too. The closest you can get is to claim some other, much sillier, accomplishment, like being the first to hit level 80 or to have your guild kill a certain boss. And while some games may even reward you for it, it rather dimishes the accomplishment when everyone else gets to do it, too.

And let's face it: given the chance to chat, even dedicated roleplayers on supposedly RPG servers will start in on their favorite mexican dishes or complain about the latest patch or discuss whether the additional DPS on a certain weapons plus active effects A, B, and C is worth trading off against the higher DPS with only active effects B but also passive effect D. Singleplayer's killer app is what online games cannot be: about the player, and oriented to the player.

Online is becoming less of a niche, I feel. I don't know if single-player and mutliplayer will somehow switch with regards to how much play they get, but it could.

[Indistinguishable]

The New Super Mario Bros, basically 3d but from a 2d perspective.
Not owning a DS, I haven't really played it, but I thought it was fundamentally a 2d game, just with 3d graphics (i.e., exactly the same as Super Smash Bros.)? Watching video of it, it seemed like a shame; the visual aesthetics were kinda lackluster, even crossing over into ugly, when it could have easily looked great (and captured more of that classic Mario game charm) with some hand-drawn sprites.

[smiling bandit]

Online is becoming less of a niche, I feel. I don't know if single-player and mutliplayer will somehow switch with regards to how much play they get, but it could.

The very fact that you said this means you don't understand where I am coming from.

Think evolution. MMORPG's are a High-Risk/High-Work//High-Reward strategy, and an MMORPG that flops may be a huge drain. It may still limp along, because as long as it covers variable costs it can contribute something to its development cost. But every game and every type of game fill niches.

What we see in MMORPG's is that they fill a social gaming niche, with varying levels of gaming and socialization. But too many companies are jumping on the bandwagon. They will (and some are) burning out their own base by trying to fish it too heavily. Lemming-like, they try to duplicate the success of WoW or Everquest.

In fact, what we've seen is that multiplayer games don't subtract from single-player games. Some people think it's a matter of competition, and of course they wind up talking nonsense. And managers are just like them, so they kneecap good, profitable games for bandwagon online crap.

Yes, it pisses me off. How did you know.

[msmith537]

I'd like to see some better strategy games out there. For the longest time I thought RTS meant "Rush, Turtle, Superweapon" since those are pretty much how every strategy game seems to play out.

I liked the complex resource gathering of Age of Empires II. Problem is that the trend seems to be less resource gathering and more "just build a bunch of crap and blow the shit out of each other". That isn't strategy, it's a demolition derby.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

The very fact that you said this means you don't understand where I am coming from.

Think evolution. MMORPG's are a High-Risk/High-Work//High-Reward strategy, and an MMORPG that flops may be a huge drain. It may still limp along, because as long as it covers variable costs it can contribute something to its development cost. But every game and every type of game fill niches.

What we see in MMORPG's is that they fill a social gaming niche, with varying levels of gaming and socialization. But too many companies are jumping on the bandwagon. They will (and some are) burning out their own base by trying to fish it too heavily. Lemming-like, they try to duplicate the success of WoW or Everquest.

In fact, what we've seen is that multiplayer games don't subtract from single-player games. Some people think it's a matter of competition, and of course they wind up talking nonsense. And managers are just like them, so they kneecap good, profitable games for bandwagon online crap.

Yes, it pisses me off. How did you know.

Well, yes. Then I've got no clue, especially when you try to explain it.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I'd like to see some better strategy games out there. For the longest time I thought RTS meant "Rush, Turtle, Superweapon" since those are pretty much how every strategy game seems to play out.

I liked the complex resource gathering of Age of Empires II. Problem is that the trend seems to be less resource gathering and more "just build a bunch of crap and blow the shit out of each other". That isn't strategy, it's a demolition derby.

Age of Empires 3 is a very well-rounded game. Halo Wars, the last game from Ensemble, is trying to simplify the economy functions and playing it out like that. That could be fun.

[Animastryfe]

The thing I'm seeing is that you're simply playing the wrong games. The games you like are less action-y and more focused on atmosphere, story, and the things that makes a game seem to me like a novel (in a good way). That said, I think there is a trend towards more flashy games, but I think a lot of that has to do with how much bigger the gaming industry is now, and the younger demographics that play games.

[hobscrk777]

OP, I AGREE WITH YOU 101%!!

I touched on your topic slightly in a recent thread of mine (What Games Have You Been Playing Recently? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=496210)). I just find myself losing interest in today's games far too quickly. So many of them are just..boring..uninspired. I wish there were more games today like there were then. I'd replay some of my favorites from my youth, but I've already replayed them so many times that I already know the plot and its twists and the major dialog points.

[Miltonyz]

From my perspective LOUNE wasn't talking about mmorpg's when he said the future was online he was talking about ALL games. I agree with him one hundred percent. I have always been a gamer but my interest in games soared with the creation of xbox live. Now there are very few games I'll even give a shot if they don't have a multiplayer component. I've always hated cutscenes, in between clips and attempts to move the story. I wanna play a game not watch a movie. The best part of online play is the skill level dwarfs whatever the computer can throw at you. The strategy is constantly evolving. When I first started playing COD4 on certain maps there were some killer sniper spots that good snipers ran too after the start. After a couple of weeks everyone knew of these spots and good snipers took advantage of this and ran to a secondary spot after the start and picked off the guys that were running to the old spot. I don't play online to chat or make friends or anything of that nature, I play online because that's where the best competition is.

[smiling bandit]

Well, yes. Then I've got no clue, especially when you try to explain it.

Ok, here's the simple end of the stick: I think there is a place for online-aspects of more or less any game (and it is already the case). I don't think that online gaming is somehow going to "win", because its very strength is its own weakness as well. It can never be about you, the player, and you can never actually accomplish anything meaningful, because it has to be open to everyone.

The other downside is that online games do not lend themselves to certain kinds of gaming, and frequently kneecap the best kinds of games. Online strategy games have been tried time and time again, and they tend to share one weakness: it becomes work, because you HAVE to get on and play or get destroyed while offline. There are fixes, but of course those tend to mess with the game in other areas. Some things you can do online. Some, frankly, you can't, and the more connected (i.e., the more social) the game the less plain old fun it starts to become.

[Lamia]

The thing I'm seeing is that you're simply playing the wrong games. The games you like are less action-y and more focused on atmosphere, story, and the things that makes a game seem to me like a novel (in a good way). That said, I think there is a trend towards more flashy games, but I think a lot of that has to do with how much bigger the gaming industry is now, and the younger demographics that play games.The "novel"-like games you describe just don't seem to exist anymore. Maybe there are still a few, but I really stopped paying attention years ago when it became clear that my favorite type of game had become at best a niche market. I do like some kinds of sim games too -- I had a serious The Sims addiction a few years back, and have spent many hours on SimCity, Civilizations, Age of Empires, etc. -- but what I really loved were the old Sierra adventure games like King's Quest, Quest for Glory (technically an adventure/RPG hybrid), and Gabriel Knight. I still break these out sometimes and play them. From the 1980s to the mid '90s there were plenty of games of this type, and for a while it seemed like they were getting better and better every year. But things peaked around 1994. It's my understanding that the success of Doom all but killed the genre.

I don't care to play anything of the first-person shooter variety. Never have, never will. Action-based games don't really do anything for me, and I'm mostly uninterested in stat-building. There are exceptions on that last one, but only if there are interesting puzzles/quests and it's pretty easy to build the stats you need to progress. The online game Kingdom of Loathing has been my preferred time waster for the past year, mostly because I like the humor. :)

I had expected to enjoy Myst, but that left me cold and remains the only computer game I've ever owned but never bothered to finish. If there'd been any characters to interact with I'd have found it a lot more interesting. I avoided all the Myst sequels and knockoffs.

What makes a game fun for me are a strong story that takes a fairly long time to unravel, likable characters, some good puzzles, and a bit of humor. The last game of this type that I played was 2000's The Longest Journey, most of which I liked very much but was not without flaws...like some very lengthy exposition sequences, and an ambiguous ending that left many plot threads unresolved. (I didn't bother with the sequel, which apparently resolved very little and is said to be almost unplayable on PC.) But it was an engrossing and enjoyable game, and pretty much the only new non-sim game I've cared for in years.

The Gabriel Knight series was probably the best of the best IMHO. The mystery plots were novel quality, and the characters have a lot more personality than you normally see in a game. It's one of the few adventure games where the protagonist character has a strong personality complete with flaws. Grace Nakamura is also my favorite game character ever, and may be the most intellectual major female character in any PC game. Other particular favorite games of mine were King's Quest VI and Quest for Glory IV, although QfG4 was marred by some serious bugs. I also remember The Legend of Kyrandia II fondly, although it was fairly lightweight.

If I could find some new games along those lines then I'd buy them, but the game industry apparently doesn't want my business.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Ok, here's the simple end of the stick: I think there is a place for online-aspects of more or less any game (and it is already the case). I don't think that online gaming is somehow going to "win", because its very strength is its own weakness as well. It can never be about you, the player, and you can never actually accomplish anything meaningful, because it has to be open to everyone.I've heard this sentiment before, but I'm honestly not at all certain how it applies to most online games. For an MMO, sure, having a story where "Main Character 45,908" can feel their contribution matters is impossible. But if you're not just looking at story, then I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. When I'm fending off dozens of zombies and helping my teammate up as the other two in the party scream for us to get to the safehouse before the tank rips us apart... sorry, but I have done something meaningful. There are plenty of co-op campaigns where everyone is meaningfully moving toward the same story goal, with each character contributing in the story, to say nothing of the interactions between the players.

If you mean Fallout/Elder-Scrolls-type world events or malleable endings from player choices, then... well, yeah, it's pretty hard to do that with more than one player. However, there are a great deal of awesome games released every year (most of them RPGs, strangely) that offer almost nothing in the way of branching or affecting the story. The number of games that get player choice "right" is vanishingly few, and all others have about the same results as any co-op campaign.

The other downside is that online games do not lend themselves to certain kinds of gaming, and frequently kneecap the best kinds of games. Online strategy games have been tried time and time again, and they tend to share one weakness: it becomes work, because you HAVE to get on and play or get destroyed while offline. There are fixes, but of course those tend to mess with the game in other areas. Some things you can do online. Some, frankly, you can't, and the more connected (i.e., the more social) the game the less plain old fun it starts to become.Again, it sounds like you're thinking of something very specific here that doesn't really apply to most games. Sure, there is the fact that, the longer a competitive online game goes on from launch, the more people with no lives will populate it and just roll over everyone who hasn't spent every waking moment practicing. But there are plenty of ways around that - most of which are just to play with friends, or find servers where people of the same skill level play. Obviously, this is harder on console systems.

I will agree that, as you mentioned earlier in the thread, the producers of game studios are more and more turning to "online" as the solution to How to Make All the Money. But, when it comes to console gaming, there really is no other way.

I can best illustrate this with a few examples:

The Darkness - a solid single-player title with a rather tacked-on multiplayer aspect. Very few still play it; the secondhand market is flooded.

Shadowrun - a short mutliplayer-only title with some budget difficulties, such that it shipped with nine maps, no singleplayer content, and cost $60. The studio failed shortly after; the secondhand market quickly flooded.

Bioshock - an absolutely brilliant singleplayer experience that changes the way atmosphere and story happen in games. Zero multiplayer. Game receives universal praise, but within a few weeks, it's easy to find used, significantly cutting into the profits of the developers.

Call of Duty 4 - great singleplayer campaign with plenty of unique experiences. Addictive multiplayer, with new maps released a few months in. Even a year later, it was difficult to guarantee an available used copy until the sequel was coming out.

Mirror's Edge - wholly unique singleplayer game, offering mechanics and art no other game has conceived of before. No direct multiplayer and slow DLC. Secondhand market already filling.


Fallout 3 - singleplayer-only game packed with multiple endings and hundreds of hours of explorable landscapes and challenging quests. Many ways to play the game; always more to see. Very, very slow stream of used copies.

This is all sortof roundabout, but my point is this: creating a resalable game with no multiplayer content is, with few exceptions, akin to throwing money away. Gamers, especially console gamers, want an experience that will last them a good, long while. So when they're looking at selling their games, whether it's to a dedicated reseller or on eBay or whatnot, the titles that go first and go for less (http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=mirror%27s+edge) will be the ones that don't have those dozens of hours of gameplay in them. And, sadly, the only singleplayer games that qualify are JRPGs, like the Final Fantasies, or WRPGs like Elder Scrolls. Everything else is fair game for a very quick turnound of used sales cutting into publishers' revenue.


So, sure - maybe there's a "plain old fun" that online-based games are missing these days, but gamers as a whole are demanding more for their money, and that very often means online-centric games are the way to go, especially if they're not half-cocked MMOs with poor storylines.

[PopeJewish]

Lamia: Do you have a Wii?

If you do, get Zack & Wiki, it's a similar sort of game to the point-and-click adventures. I've not played it myself, unfortunately, but all reports say it's quite good and quite entertaining.

I feel ya on the death of those sorts of games, though. Some of my fondest childhood memories of games were from Kings Quest or, one of my absolute favorites, Loom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loom_(video_game))

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Ok, here's the simple end of the stick: I think there is a place for online-aspects of more or less any game (and it is already the case). I don't think that online gaming is somehow going to "win", because its very strength is its own weakness as well. It can never be about you, the player, and you can never actually accomplish anything meaningful, because it has to be open to everyone.

The other downside is that online games do not lend themselves to certain kinds of gaming, and frequently kneecap the best kinds of games. Online strategy games have been tried time and time again, and they tend to share one weakness: it becomes work, because you HAVE to get on and play or get destroyed while offline. There are fixes, but of course those tend to mess with the game in other areas. Some things you can do online. Some, frankly, you can't, and the more connected (i.e., the more social) the game the less plain old fun it starts to become.
I'm still not getting it, but Miltonyz was right. I wasn't referring to MMORPGs really. Halo 3 on Xbox Live is the best game out there right now.


Psst. what's your Gamertag?

[Windwalker]

On the subject of Nintendo DS, there seem to be two rough groups of games for it: classic-style games and DS-style games.

The old-schooler gets new versions of 2D Mario, 2D Castlevania, 2D Sonic, etc. Some of these are better (the Castlevania games in particular are hot shit), and some are worse (New Super Mario Bros. is disappointing in its lack of challenge). Despite some misses, there is a lot of quality here, as they get to refine formulas that in some cases are over 20 years old.

The new-school DS games really are ushering in a new mini-era of games, mostly relying on the touch screen. Trauma Center: Under the Knife is a really fun (and frustrating) Operation variant that hasn't really be done like this before. Soul Bubbles gives you cool tactile controls over a lost bubble (you can push it, cut it up, join it back together, etc.) and it plays in a pretty unique way. The World Ends With You is a JRPG with one of the coolest battle systems I've ever seen in an RPG, being one of the first ones to make me look forward to grinding and trying out new pins in different combinations. A lot of game makers are have seen the potential of the DS's unique controls and we're starting to see some cool finished products now.

On the portable front, at least, games are as good as they've ever been.

[Airk]

Chipping in my few cents here on a couple of issues.

First, "offline" vs "online" gaming. The thing is that there's no such thing. The only truly "online" games are MMOs and their ilk. If you can play it without being online, it's not a true online game. Halo is -not- an online game. It's a game with an online component, and that's an essential distinction that needs to be made. Many games will eventually probably have an online component, which is something I'm all for, because I've always felt the world needed more multiplayer games (particularly multiplayer co-operative games, actually). While nothing will ever compare to being in the same room as your buddies and playing something and being able to yell back and forth, online is a pretty okay substitute, and has the advantage of being able to play with random people whenever you want. (and the disadvantage of playing with random people too.).

On the -other- hand, -lots- of games simply don't lend themselves to this at all. Puzzle games don't play multiplayer. CRPGs turn into the ghastly muck that is MMOs. Oldschool shooters and platformers don't gain anything anything either. This is why we are seeing this horrible glut of bad RTS/FPS games right now that lead the OP to make this thread. There are large portions of the gaming population that are not remotely interested in the sorts of games that -work- online, and the "everything must have online play" mentality in the gaming industry is driving a lot of these folks away... because it leads to the creation of more FPS's and RTS's and MMOs. Sure, you can add "online" features like downloadable content, or leaderboards or something to some of the underserved game types, but it's not online -play- and it never will be. The games are simply not designed to be played by more than one person.

There is a large chunk of the population that is -not- served by online games, and a lot of indie developers are fast figuring that out. And so am I, as I find myself digging up all sorts of absolute -gems- in the PC gaming space which I will -never- connect online for more than a patch download.

Online gaming is, as has been said by others, inherently limited. There are certain types of games that simply do not work there. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say that more games do not work effectively in an online context than do.

Single player games, on the other hand, will never meet the needs of the people like some of the other posters here, who appreciate online gaming for its ever evolving challenge. I don't expect game AI to compare favorably to humans in my lifetime. And as mentioned, online play is great at giving you at least some of the sensation of playing a game with your friends. So I dub it completely impossible that either online or offline gaming will ever "win". The concept is as absurd as monopoly beating out soccer.

Nextly, for Lamia (and others who may be interested, of course), just a few bits of suggestion. If you like the "novel" style of gameplay (Which is to say, you have no concern about 'linear storyline' (Hah) or fastpaced game mechanics), I think I have a few suggestions. Firstly, a broad suggestion - you seem like you might like CRPGs or JPRGs (Computer RPGs and Japanese RPGs, respectively, to differentiate between the likes of a Fallout from, say, a Final Fantasy). They're about the story, largely, and while there may be some puzzle solving elements, they are generally not the focus of attention. Combat may involve some 'action' depending on the game, but again, it's unlikely to be the focus. And some 'statbuilding' is involved, but in a well designed game, it should be seamless - an element of gameplay in the sense of "Oooh! I got a new ability!" as opposed to "Damnit, I need to grind out five more levels before I can advance!" Largely, the focus is on the characters and the unfolding of the story. In the JRPG space, I suggest the Tales of... series, available in modern incarnations on PS2 (Tales of the Abyss), Wii (Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World) and Xbox360 (Tales of Vesperia). For CRPGs, I can recommend, other than the aforementioned Fallout and Oblivion (Actually, both of those are me recommending on Hearsay), and on a smaller scale, Eschalon Book 1 (Available on PlayGreenhouse.com (http://www.playgreenhouse.com/game/BASLX-000001-01/)) and in a bit of a retro throwback, Ultima V: Lazarus (http://www.u5lazarus.com), which is a remake of the legendary Ultima V using the Dungeon Siege engine. (Must own a copy of Dungeon Siege, but they can be had for about $2 on Ebay). Which segues nicely into my other suggestion. Which is, well, keep your eyes open for retro games and remakes. Such as the aforementioned Lazarus, it's relative, the Ultima 6 project, and the recently released VGA remake for Quest for Glory 2: Trial by Fire (http://www.agdinteractive.com/).

Additionally, there are a few 'adventure' games out there for the various consoles. The most legendary (if you'll pardon the pun) is the Zelda series, for various Nintendo consoles, though I personally cannot recommend Okami (http://www.okami-game.com/) (PS2, Wii) strongly enough. Though some semblance of reflexes is required, the game is very forgiving... and, frankly, proof that A) People still can make amazing, innovative games. B) Games -are- art. C) Online games will never be the end-all, be-all. :)

Hopefully that helps. :)

[Lamia]

Thanks you PopeJewish and Airk for your suggestions, although they'll probably be of more use to other posters -- I didn't make this clear in my post, but I'm strictly a PC gamer. I do already have the Quest for Glory II remake, which was the most fun I've had with a "new" game in a long time!

[PopeJewish]

Thanks you PopeJewish and Airk for your suggestions, although they'll probably be of more use to other posters -- I didn't make this clear in my post, but I'm strictly a PC gamer. I do already have the Quest for Glory II remake, which was the most fun I've had with a "new" game in a long time!

Download yourself a SNES emulator ;) and play Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (adventure game) and Chrono Trigger (JRPG), awesome games.

[Carnick]

You're not looking in the right places. Stop reading IGN and Gamespot. Start keeping an eye on the indy scene. Independent games are thriving. Steam has a pretty good selection. Have you played World of Goo? I haven't yet played Braid (waiting for a PC version) but I hear good things.

Want old school adventure games? They're still making them. Check out www.justadventure.com for reviews on latest releases. They're not as good as the golden age Sierra games, but there are still some gems out there. The Longest Journey and Syberia were good. Frogwares makes good Sherlock Holmes games. Your local Gamestop should have a bottom shelf where they stuff all the independent adventure games. You can find some good stuff in there, you just have to look. IGN and Gamespot will give them bad reviews because they're not made by EA, but that doesn't mean shit.

[Carnick]

If you're itching for a 2D action/adventure like Super Metroid, download www.cavestory.org. It's a Japanese platform exploration game made with the old school 8-bit aesthetic in mind. It's free, too.

[Miller]

Thanks you PopeJewish and Airk for your suggestions, although they'll probably be of more use to other posters -- I didn't make this clear in my post, but I'm strictly a PC gamer. I do already have the Quest for Glory II remake, which was the most fun I've had with a "new" game in a long time!

Have you checked out the Sam & Max and Strongbad games being put out by Telltale games? Telltale was formed by former LucasArts alums (including ex-doper SolGrundy) with the stated intention of ressurrecting the Adventure game genre. They've done a pretty good job by all accounts. And yes, they're PC games.