48 replies to this topic

[Nick]

Hi all,

Does anyone know if they ever made a successor to Terminal Velocity - Fury³ - Hellbender? :w00t:

It even looks like joystick controlled games in general are becoming pretty scarce. Do you think this is because of a lack of gamer interest or are they simply no longer made by the game companies? A modernized remake of these games could be an instant hit I think...

Cheers,

Nick

[TheNut]

I don't recall anything recent. Probably the last of its genres I played was Incoming and Descent III.

The only joystick games I see nowadays (aside from the obvious flight sims) are space games. X3: Reunion being the most recent. Since the era of gamepads, I don't think joysticks are all that popular anymore. I dunno if I'd play a remake of any of these games either. While good back then, in today's standard it would be a little boring.

[onyxthedog]

I don't know, I do know (I maybe just weird), I love to go to our local Bowling Alley and Cicis Pizza just because the fact that they have arcade games. But actual joystick games are hard to find. You can always find the old Plug'n'Play retro games, and every now and then a little Sega Genesis style Mortal Kombat game. But over all it is hard.

[Nick]

TheNut said:

I dunno if I'd play a remake of any of these games either. While good back then, in today's standard it would be a little boring.

Why? Lots of games from that era would be 'a little boring' if it was a straight remake. But by adding modern graphics and gameplay elements I see little reason why it wouldn't be popular. You could consider these games first-person shooters with an added dimension...

[TheNut]

Those type of games are very linear, level-oriented. Back then it was cool because arcade games were the fad. Today we have full blown exploration with dynamic gameplay and storytelling, giving the gamer many choices. Players are usually no longer bound to a single entity, rather they are free-moving beings capable of entering and leaving various types of vehicles and environments at their own pleasure. The feeling of actually being there and a part of the game's universe rather than just playing it.

The theme behind these games would need such an overhaul to meet those standards that the new product wouldn't even be a remake anymore. Rather a total conversion. Besides, why enter a subterranean pit when we have games with epic scale space and ground battles. Descent Freespace was good at that, as well as Nexus: The Jupiter Incident (amazing game btw). Kind of hard to cram an epic battle in a 100 ft hole ;)

[Nick]

TheNut said:

Besides, why enter a subterranean pit when we have games with epic scale space and ground battles.

Err, have you even played these games? The majority of the action is on the planet's surface. It's not Descent.

[Mattias Gustavsson]

TheNut said:

I dunno if I'd play a remake of any of these games either. While good back then, in today's standard it would be a little boring.

Whoa, I totally disagree.. Games of the past was usually much better than games of today. While graphics technology have steadily advanced, I think gameplay have actually regressed...

[TheNut]

I played Terminal Velocity like a decade or so ago ;) I do remember the coolest part of the game was going underground, that's the part I remember well.

Mattias, take a look at Mass Effect. A new edition to the PC industry, and a most excellent title. Assassins Creed looked cool (haven't played it much) and I'm still playing X3. The games of today are flashier, but there are some that incorporate many cool ideas and stories. That's a win-win situation. The console industry also has dozens of games of equal caliber, far better than PC. PC is a lot slower in that regard.

While I dig classics (still play Tyrian, Raptor, and Space Quest for kicks), I can't see a revision making a whole lot of money. I just don't think gamers of today will dig it. If they overhaul the game to make it more like Wing Commander, then maybe it has a chance, but now we're talking about a new game.

[starstutter]

TheNut said:

Mattias, take a look at Mass Effect. A new edition to the PC industry, and a most excellent title. Assassins Creed looked cool (haven't played it much) and I'm still playing X3. The games of today are flashier, but there are some that incorporate many cool ideas and stories.

you forgot one graphics element that really does deeply effect gameplay, 3D. 3D actually allows for interactive worlds from a persons eyes, something not possible with 2D and that is not nearly as fun.

Also, I think we should note that graphics do not effect gameplay. They do however effect story and immersion. There's a reason the games of the past had loose storylines (with the exception of hardcore D&D types), it was because the bockiness made it almost impossible to directly relate it to real life. I mean, yes there were games with serious (and emotionally deep) stories but it takes a special kind of person to actually look at a sloppy wad of pixels as a real person and start to care about them.

Hell, take a look at the Half Life series. The first game was almost comical in a way. While this still holds somewhat true for the new versions, they also have very deep and emotionally engrossing plots and characters (especially episode 2).

[Nick]

TheNut said:

I played Terminal Velocity like a decade or so ago ;) I do remember the coolest part of the game was going underground, that's the part I remember well.

Heh, I liked the planet's surface best. :happy: Anyway, this game genre could obviously include many different environments that are interesting to a large audience:

- Landscapes
- Canyons
- Caves
- Cities
- Industrial
- Underground
- Floating cities
- Seas and islands
- etc.

Most of these are already present in TV, but due to technical limitations they're not as immersive as today's games.

Quote

I can't see a revision making a whole lot of money. I just don't think gamers of today will dig it. If they overhaul the game to make it more like Wing Commander, then maybe it has a chance, but now we're talking about a new game.

I'm not talking about a straight remake, rather a totally new game inspired by these classics.

[onyxthedog]

Inspiration is always a good thing. My personal favorite game ever was either the original Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat for the Sega Genesis, but neither really had a story line. When I was younger (I am only thirteen so I couldn't be much younger, heh.) Probably 5-6 I liked that it was almost like a hack'n'slash, so I didn't really have to think like in a lot of games. Now I just like older games for some reason I don't quite understand. (Maybe it is because I like to just sit and relax a little every now and then.) I think the most in depth story I have ever played is probably a stupid DS game called Phoenix Wright. It was horrible, so I like a really good story but hate super tight stories that have almost no Game Play.

Over all it is hard to balance story and game play, which is why I also like indy games they usually do a pretty good job of integrating impressive game play to a nice story.

[fireside]

Quote

Those type of games are very linear, level-oriented. Back then it was cool because arcade games were the fad. Today we have full blown exploration with dynamic gameplay and storytelling, giving the gamer many choices. Players are usually no longer bound to a single entity, rather they are free-moving beings capable of entering and leaving various types of vehicles and environments at their own pleasure. The feeling of actually being there and a part of the game's universe rather than just playing it.

Those huge games don't work for everyone. Me for instance. I don't really know what people see in them or why they want a game like that. I prefer having a goal with challenges. Many games, including sports games and puzzle games, don't do anything like that and still are popular. Not only that, but an indy trying to do a game like that has doomed himself to failure. I just bought a game called Red Baron Arcade which is a remake and it's great fun.

[Dim_Yimma_H]

onyxthedog said:

I love to go to our local Bowling Alley and Cicis Pizza just because the fact that they have arcade games.

Yeah, arcade games may be in their own genre even if stated to be "beat'em up" or something similar.

I like to think that the atmosphere in an arcade game hall is partly created by the high score stamps that allow competition with players of other times (a bit like Internet message forums), the machine-like interfaces and how it works like a public meeting point.

Online games in comparison, is like comparing a chat channel to a message forum. And online games are often played from living rooms.

So arcade games are very special.

Mattias Gustavsson said:

Games of the past was usually much better than games of today. While graphics technology have steadily advanced, I think gameplay have actually regressed...

In my eyes, games of today are getting complicated with all their control features.

Many new games improve features introduced in previous games, and adds their own ones. It's fun if spending time on following manuals and tutorials, but often gets too much.

The simplicity of games of the past, is something I like.

[starstutter]

Mattias Gustavsson said:

While graphics technology have steadily advanced, I think gameplay have actually regressed...

I agree and disagree at the same time. Imo, the gameplay today of each stand-alone game is vastly superior (mainly because most allow for creative possibilities and problem solving) to the ones of the past. However, at the same time I think innovation for gameplay has severley declined.

Take Bioshock for instance. It's a game with a completley awesome story and some mindblowing ideas, but I was *severley* disappointed when I learned that the gameplay was copy and pasted from every other shooter in the last 8 years. Sure plasmids are fun, but they don't serve any real purpose but what a gun does.

The big daddies were more of a side quest and I was under the impression that the game mainly focused on them. Instead we ended up hardly killing anything but annoying splicers ragging on about bad tenderloin.

[Mattias Gustavsson]

starstutter said:

the gameplay today of each stand-alone game is vastly superior (mainly because most allow for creative possibilities and problem solving) to the ones of the past.

No.


But story in games have definitely evolved, or rather, taken over to a certain extent. Personally, I don't like that; I don't think games should be telling a story at all. Backstory, cool, interesting places, sure, characters you can relate to, yes please, but spare me the story part. Frustrated author syndrome anyone?

[starstutter]

Mattias Gustavsson said:

No.

what a convincing argument lol.

Care to expand?

EDIT: oh, and notice I said "In my opinon" before I made the statement about gameplay, making it clear that that's just what I belived.

[Mattias Gustavsson]

we're all just stating opinions here: there's no absolute truths in these matters :D

To me, in my opinion, the way I see it, it's blindingly obvious that gameplay have been pushed far away in recent years, as game developers have been indulging in story telling, advanced technology and detailed 3d models instead of making games.

And people buying the stuff share the blame too...

[fireside]

Quote

But story in games have definitely evolved, or rather, taken over to a certain extent. Personally, I don't like that; I don't think games should be telling a story at all. Backstory, cool, interesting places, sure, characters you can relate to, yes please, but spare me the story part. Frustrated author syndrome anyone?

The reason games feel like they've stopped evolving is because there is only so many types of game play you can do on a computer and we've done most of them. Now it's all this guitar hero stuff, but how much of that can we take? We can only make so many settings. So, the only thing left that can really change is a story. Story also makes us emotionally involved in the characters. If you've played the god games, you know you don't give a fig about the characters. They could just as well be goldfish or amoebas. Bioshock took the old game play and combined it with a story and it felt like something completely different because we were playing for a reason and our curiosity was at work trying to figure out what was going on. That's really the area of games that has to be explored or they will continue to feel like yesterdays news.

[starstutter]

Mattias Gustavsson said:

we're all just stating opinions here: there's no absolute truths in these matters :D

lol, ok, good point

Quote

To me, in my opinion, the way I see it, it's blindingly obvious that gameplay have been pushed far away in recent years, as game developers have been indulging in story telling, advanced technology and detailed 3d models instead of making games.

I frankly don't understand why you hate stories in games so much. The focus on technology over gameplay I can totally understand but we're getting to the point where graphics are going to be almost equal to real life and that will be less of an issue.

Stories on the other hand are something I think need to be explored more. As fireside said, the gameplay possiblities are very limited with current technology and the very best thing we can do is try to seamlessly blend the elements of the game world (including story) together and suck the player into the experience as best you can. I personally have stopped watching movies in the past few years because the stories in games have become far more sophisticated and immersive. Maybe it's hollywood declining or maybe my standards have just risen but frankly I think most movies today have udderly retarded stories.

Can you explain why stories in games are so bad? And really, you keep damning all the elements like stories, graphics, complex gameplay, free-roaming environments ect. In your opinion, what are good elements of games?

Quote

And people buying the stuff share the blame too...

I'm not sure the word "blame" really applies to that subject. The vast majority are buying them so obviously that means that they like the direction games are going in. And frankly from visiting so many developer forums, gamer forums and just conversations with people, everyone is getting really sick of minless repetative violence and future generation games I think are going to take a swift turn back to story-based problem solving rather than shooting.

[onyxthedog]

You mean my years of lightning quick trigger finger training aren't going to pay off after all?

Seriously, what , other than graphics, makes Halo and Bioshock different? STORY! I am not going to lie, some of the story lines can be deeply compelling, such as when you find out that Captain Keys dies in the original Halo. You get attached, I mean the guy gives you your first gun, and then boom they take him away from you for ever. ( I exaggerated how much I actually care). Don't tell me that their is a lack of story, but rather a lack of genre is what this sounds to be. Maybe not even genre FPS maybe the way to go, but a lack of originality from within that genre in the matter of game play. Game play wise there is not a whole lot difference between Halo III and Gears of War. They have the same feel, with no major improvements in terms of game play. I could go on and on but I won't, I mean we could probably have an entire forum on Game Industry rants and it would get more daily posts than actual programming.

P.S. I have been meaning to tell you Mattias that the view from your window is breath-taking.