Inspector *******, on Jun 20 2008, 10:14 AM, said:
Why are games so mediocre lately?
By "mediocre" you seem to be referring to games that just don't appeal to you, which doesn't mean they're really mediocre. Games like Halo 3, BioShock, Orange Box, Mass Effect, R6 Vegas etc. aren't mediocre by any stretch of the imagination.
Most likely you're just getting bored of games.
Every company is way too busy thinking about new boring gimmicks (choices in Mass Effect) that they forget about the gameplay.
Baldur's Gate implemented dialogue choices and other features that Mass Effect has way back in 1998, and it obviously wasn't even the first game to feature dialogue choices. Many of the features in Mass Effect are a result of ten years of refinement (BG, BG II, KotOR, NWN, Jade Empire). Dialogue choices are as much of a gimmick as shooting guns.
Lyndon, on Jun 20 2008, 05:04 PM, said:
When games were starting off, joining a game company required you were extremely intelligent otherwise you would be useless in the company, it was basically a bunch of extremely smart people collaborating. Now the game industry has tools to make life easier, so they hire average intelligence people, who obviously will make average games and do average work. It's not that they want to, its just that they aren't smart enough to see the bigger picture.
Mediocre and crappy games have always existed. I gather that you never watch Angry Video Game Nerd. The video game industry wasn't populated by some geniuses in the early eighties, they were mere mortals just like today, with some people standing out more than others. I would venture to guess that crappy games were actually more prevalent in those days. Making games is very expensive now, and it's not necessarily easy to get people to buy a shoddy game since the market is flooded by different titles and word gets around fast.
On Metacritic, there are only 38 games rated lower than 50 for the 360. 164 games out of 400 are rated 75 or more.
Cake21, on Jun 20 2008, 05:47 PM, said:
yea, but COD4 works because of the autoaim.
A mouse is superior to a gamepad but that doesn't mean that gamepads don't work.
You have something like hitman, where the controls are a little more advanced and some ppl will just hate the game because they think the controls "suck" if they try to play it on a console.
In my experience the 360 gamepad is far superior to a mouse and keyboard except
for aiming. It's just a lot more comfortable and intuitive to use. R6V, for instance, has very complicated controls which work flawlessly once you get the hang of them.
EDIT . . . almost all of the games you listed below your post are FPS's. And only work on a console because of autoaim. Otherwise, no one would touch them on a console, cuz the controls would be "too hard"
I don't have any significant problems hitting things without autoaim. Maybe you need to practise more.
Lyndon, on Jun 20 2008, 08:52 PM, said:
Currently we have a lot of artists and programmers working in game development, but they simply aren't the right archetype for it.
You don't have to be God's gift to humanity in order to contribute to a game, especially if you're just doing modelling or level designing.