Are modern games fun?
Are modern games fun?
Editorial - posted by DarkUnderlord on Thu 3 July 2008, 12:25:20
Tags: BioShockHooked Gamers has an interesting editorial up about whether or not modern games, with their glitzy graphics and monster cpu requirements, are as fun as games back in the the good old-fashioned times. They ask the question: Are we still having fun with our games?
There is so much to keep track of in a modern game that the player is severely taxed trying to maintain control. Do we really want to work this hard to play our games? When does a game cross the line and change from 'a fun challenge' to 'hard work'? For me the latter group is instantly recognizable by looking at my own behavior. I usually game in sessions that last between two and five hours. A fun and entertaining game will keep me glued behind the screen for the entire session. A great game will pull me back in after I have had a break, keeping me playing for days on end. These games are, almost without fail, games from the (distant) past. Newer games tend to keep me engaged for two to three hours during the first session but the sessions shorten considerably after that. Even a superb game such as Bioshock can't hold my interest for more than two hours at a time. It is not that I am not enjoying the game, it is just that it is taxing my brain, senses and reflexes too much for it to be a relaxing game. Oddly enough, this is in stark contrast to my desire to be challenged by the game that I am playing.As someone experiencing the exact same thing with BioShock right now, I think it has more to do with the fact the game out-right sucks, than being "too challenged". Really, that pipe hacking mini-game thing is supposed to be challening? Well it's not. It's annoying. Taking photo's of everything before I kill it is supposed to be fun? No, it's annoying. Finding two or three audio casettes in every single fucking room for an entire level? It's annoying. Taking on more and more super Big Daddies every time? It's annoying. Doom only ever had one Spider Mastermind and one CyberDemon. They got it right.
The truth is, modern games focus too much on the glitz and glammer and they forget the single most important thing a game is supposed to have: Good, solid game-play. Back when graphics were in two colours and you had to squint to tell the difference between things, it wasn't that your imagation was in overload making the game fun. It's that the game-play was solid. Why? Because if you're a developer and all you can do for the bad guy is show a blue blip, you damn well make sure your game is fun to play. You don't hire another 50 artists just so you can bump-map its nipples.
Spotted @ BluesNews
There is so much to keep track of in a modern game that the player is severely taxed trying to maintain control. Do we really want to work this hard to play our games? When does a game cross the line and change from 'a fun challenge' to 'hard work'? For me the latter group is instantly recognizable by looking at my own behavior. I usually game in sessions that last between two and five hours. A fun and entertaining game will keep me glued behind the screen for the entire session. A great game will pull me back in after I have had a break, keeping me playing for days on end. These games are, almost without fail, games from the (distant) past. Newer games tend to keep me engaged for two to three hours during the first session but the sessions shorten considerably after that. Even a superb game such as Bioshock can't hold my interest for more than two hours at a time. It is not that I am not enjoying the game, it is just that it is taxing my brain, senses and reflexes too much for it to be a relaxing game. Oddly enough, this is in stark contrast to my desire to be challenged by the game that I am playing.
The truth is, modern games focus too much on the glitz and glammer and they forget the single most important thing a game is supposed to have: Good, solid game-play. Back when graphics were in two colours and you had to squint to tell the difference between things, it wasn't that your imagation was in overload making the game fun. It's that the game-play was solid. Why? Because if you're a developer and all you can do for the bad guy is show a blue blip, you damn well make sure your game is fun to play. You don't hire another 50 artists just so you can bump-map its nipples.
Spotted @ BluesNews
