Decline in innovative games

[LimpingFish]

I never understood why it has become popular for gamers to hate Peter Molyneux...

Because he talks too much. He talks his games up to a point where it stops being about the games and starts being about how Pete mind-shits gaming rainbows. He then proceeds to release half-finished titles that drown in their own failed hype, and nobody ends up satisfied.

It's the gaming equivalent of promising a blowjob from Scarlett Johannson, only to deliver a greasy tit-wank from Ann Widdecombe. It's kind of what you'd hoped for, but you won't want to tell you friends about it.

[JimmyShelter]

It's the gaming equivalent of promising a blowjob from Scarlett Johannson, only to deliver a greasy tit-wank from Ann Widdecombe. It's kind of what you'd hoped for, but you won't want to tell you friends about it.

I just googled Ann Widdecombe and I feel dirty.


Ontopic:
The last Sim/RTS game I played was Tropico II which I liked because it's theme was fun: pirates!

Liked the atmosphere and graphics, but the game play was pretty repetitive.

I grew up on games like Civilization, Dune, SimCity and ofcourse Monkey Island, etc. But since everything must be 3D I really stopped playing much games. I did play CounterStrike for a while, in which I liked the team play (which is non-existent in most servers I must admit).

Still it's true: Civ, Dune and SimCity were trendsetters, new original games. I haven't heard about games creating whole new genres in quite some time.

It could come because the games I want to play aren't there anymore, but ofcourse, the fact that I don't keep track of what comes out and don't have as much free time as I had since I work fulltime, could be another factor.

[InCreator]

Innovation aside, how come nobody made worthy UFO: Enemy Unknown remake/sequel yet?
It's been like what? 16 years?! I've tracked and played every damn remake/sequel attempt, from Project Xenocide to UFO: Aftermath and it's all worse than even Windows ME.

I'd gas hundreds of guitar hero/MMORPG/final fantasy sequel/other shameware making developer crews to just get one that's worthy and can do something good.

I personally don't even care about innovation. Let's have some gameplay, shall we?
Duke Nukem 3D was nothing so-innovative, nor was Blood or Red Alert 2 or Worms...

But they were good. In some strange, special way (which != my nostalgia).
I've played hundreds of modern games and don't remember even names, let alone what was game about or what was the story.
But I remember all cheat codes for Doom or fatality inputs for Mortal Kombat 3 or... hundreds of things I will never, ever need. Even though I haven't played those games for 10 years?

How come? What makes new games so unmemorable, empty, non-influencing?

[Paper Carnival]

This is not the main reason, but I believe one of the factors that ruin games today is the attempt to reach realism. Holy crap, my rifle can get old and so I have to change it! Oh noes, my character is hungry, I must go eat a hamburger unless I want to die! How is this making the game any more fun? Realism can be intriguing, but not when it comes between me and my fun and certainly NOT when it tries to be passed on as innovation. If I wanted realism I'd go rob a real bank, or go to war. And I actually miss things like avoiding big boulders infinitely swinging on a rope, even though I'd always think they were annoying.

[passer-by]

I am not sure if games are getting worse or game industry gets lazy.
I don't mind realism, but I want a scenario-like game (I liked the longest journey) or a game that is not only shoot-shoot-shoot but "shoot in a context" (I liked mohaa).

I think the new games are just half-finished. Somebody spends for graphics and the like but no one is paid enough to actually sit down and create them.

[m0ds]

Because he talks too much. He talks his games up to a point where it stops being about the games and starts being about how Pete mind-shits gaming rainbows. He then proceeds to release half-finished titles that drown in their own failed hype, and nobody ends up satisfied.

It's the gaming equivalent of promising a blowjob from Scarlett Johannson, only to deliver a greasy tit-wank from Ann Widdecombe. It's kind of what you'd hoped for, but you won't want to tell you friends about it.

Hahaha!! Yeah! Good anology Bring back Bullfrog any day. That way we avoid Bullshit.

[Snarky]

How come? What makes new games so unmemorable, empty, non-influencing?

You grew up.

Everything that was around when you were a kid is always great. Everything since then has always been crap. Doesn't matter how old you are--the only difference that makes is what year you put as the cutoff. (Mine is 1996 or thereabouts.)

[GarageGothic]

Everything that was around when you were a kid is always great. Everything since then has always been crap.

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:

[Cirius]

Teddy Ruxpin was indeed epic. Even after 18 years, and his speech reduced to a kind of mindless warble as he valiantly attempts to recount tales drawn from chewn cassette tapes, covered in dust after years in the attic, and only one of his eyes still mobile, I salute him.

The blame for the decline in innovative games has to be pointed purely at the publishers. They release what they know will 'sell'. The only way publishers know things will sell is by looking at previous sales figures. Innovative products have no previous titles, so no figures, so no go. Medal of Honor 74  has many years of sales figures to build on, so is guaranteed support.

The answer? We need someone to infiltrate the publishing industry and fake some sales figures. We then need to release innovative games as fake sequels, put a number on the end of them, and remind the publishers how well the originals sold.

But who could infiltrate the publishing industry? We need someone with a silver tongue, and a promising smile...We need Teddy Ruxpin.