+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: The Speakeasy (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: Did the internet partially kill gaming? (/showthread.php?tid=42780)
Pages:
1
2
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - KhainiWest - 2011-06-07
I know what you're all thinking, "No you idiot, it made it better!". But to me it feels like a double edge sword. Competition is always nice, that's why we had tournements, or rather still have, and the internet makes it easier to make sure you and everyone else knows you're the best. But I feel like said competition as killed any aspect of gaming.
It isn't simply because you lose more often, it's the fact that this constant barrier of distance makes it much more appealing to just be an pimento and do the pineapple ever whenever. I feel like our culture in general can't handle this..new way of gaming. Think about any online game you play, anyone at all. You've met a lot of assholes on those games haven't you? Players who talk down to you, make you constantly feel inferior and the slightest trip is ridicule up the ass.
Now for games like maplestory/wow, yeah this be a kick in the ass, assuming maplestory isn't already dead. It's just frustrating to me sometimes becaues the internet essentially has poisoned a lot of young players morality, even their consideration, simply to say "I'm better than that guy".
I remember when games were more about the fun aspect, but when your asdding the rest of the world, that fun aspect soon becomes "What strat is more consistant with me winning". Most games are abusing that competitive aspect and it's just killing casual gaming for me, and it's not so much the games, but the attitudes created from playing at a global level, the elitists who are too good to cheat, and too good to talk to the inexperienced, and the hackers who will walk on anyone to get what they want.
So you think internet gaming should have stayed on PC's, or the transission to consoles was for the better? Lately I feel like it wasn't the greatest idea's, one of those "great on paper".
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Foxino - 2011-06-07
To me the idea of internet gaming greatly enhanced gaming, I always loved competition.
That's the plus side, the downside is those who can't play fair. Being anonymous breaks down a lot of barriers specially for the uneducated, feel that they can get away with ruining it for everyone else by cheating.
Imo, it hasn't killed gaming, Its added a darker element, Yes i perfered gaming to be fair but there's a curtain rush from beating someone who felt they had to resort to hacking to win.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Mute - 2011-06-07
It's what puts me off from online gaming. If a group of people that don't know each other play/do something together, obviously there's going to be squabbles. If there's a clear-cut objective for them all to accomplish the likelihood of someone screwing things up lessen, but are still there.
I'm more annoyed at all of these multiplayer games in general, where online interactivity trumps aspects of the single player experience, or single-player is mainly for unlocking stuff for multiplayer.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - FenixR - 2011-06-07
Good Old expansion packs were actually good, adding useless things (But in great amount) and in most cases increasing the main story and what not.
But if you are all talking about competitive play... well... Not EVERYONE like this kind of playing to be honest, it leads to problems in some cases and since the internet is a cesspit of anonimity where you can say any pomegranate you want without much punishment done about that...
Also i don't like the fact that some Companies/games/W/E want to choke people with online gaming to maximize profit (I know the point of making a game is getting money, but for pineapple sakes dont be so obnoxius with it, im already paying for a expensive as pineapple game that will only get worse with every other expensive as pineapple game ill manage to buy)
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Corn - 2011-06-07
Maybe for some games. It definitely helped FPS, though, cause even if you're playing with douches, it's much better than playing with bots.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Baklava - 2011-06-07
You mean gaming wasn't like that before the internet?
How many people competed over stuff like Doom or Goldeneye...or even Pokemon just to say "I'm better than that guy." Competitive douchiness and lack of player morals existed long before the internet...it just brought the douchiness out of everyone.
People had to be in physical contact with each other, and we all know that results in VIOLENCE!
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Fiel - 2011-06-07
I think the internet greatly expanded gaming. It allows for infinite replayability of my favorite games.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - ShinkuDragon - 2011-06-07
Corn Wrote:Maybe for some games. It definitely helped FPS, though, cause even if you're playing with douches, it's much better than playing with bots.
good thing of playing with douches: you can shoot them, their tears are delicious.
i swear, i don't like the X-Box much, but shooting assholes in halo is awesome
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - KhainiWest - 2011-06-07
Baklava Wrote:You mean gaming wasn't like that before the internet?
How many people competed over stuff like Doom or Goldeneye...or even Pokemon just to say "I'm better than that guy." Competitive douchiness and lack of player morals existed long before the internet...it just brought the douchiness out of everyone.
People had to be in physical contact with each other, and we all know that results in VIOLENCE!
I guess that's what I missed because there was control. If someone cheats, tries to cheat you, tries to steal from you, not much you can do but be mercy at game administrators. At least when my friend was being a douche I could kick him out.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Kunagisa - 2011-06-07
This implies you can't have internet gaming without competition. That'd be like saying there's no use for multiplayer at all unless you play competitively. Sometimes you just want to kick back with people that you know and...play, y'know? The purpose of games are to have fun. I understand what you mean, some developers completely shaft the single player aspect of a game to have a broadly defined multiplayer online experience. But what it call comes down to is if the game is FUN. You don't have to play competitively online, though I do wish more games took away lose/win ratios from the non-ranked matches. Sure it's not ranked, but it still encourages people to play for WINS rather than for fun.
The internet has given games that most people would put down after the story mode and never touch again a chance to shine. Imagine how poorly received the Halo franchise would be if it was just standalone story? What made it at first was the huge lan parties people could have with the first game, and Halo has always been a series that's better known for its multiplayer than its story. Do you really think games like Halo would be that popular if it wasn't for the endless replay time and fun factor that the online play adds to it?
You could argue that if it wasn't for multiplayer, the developers would focus more of their attention on building a more compelling story. But to be honest, no matter how good the story is, you'll most likely play 1 or 2 playthroughs of it before you've had enough.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - KhainiWest - 2011-06-07
I don't believe stripping of the multiplayer/internet concept would be a solution, but as you suggested, taking out the ranks/tension of it would. It's the fact the entire game is now this:
Play storymode, learn basics
Go online, play until your XXX ranking
Flaunt
I feel a lack of substance in today's games because of the fact they rely the entire replay value on multiplayer gameplay. I mean look at the budokai games, those were fun and had tons of replay value, the original mario's, hell even megaman.
I see what you're saying, and completely agree but frankly I'm just looking for acknowledgement that todays way of gaming has really hit rock bottom.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Erebus - 2011-06-07
As long as a game keeps the multiplayer as a secondary ranked implementation it's generally good.
Honestly I RARELY play multiplayer or buy games that cater mostly to multiplayer.
I also get irritated that multiplayer and completitism is considered "replay value". Whatever happen to multiple story routes?
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Mute - 2011-06-07
Erebus Wrote:As long as a game keeps the multiplayer as a secondary ranked implementation it's generally good.
Honestly I RARELY play multiplayer or buy games that cater mostly to multiplayer.
I also get irritated that multiplayer and completitism is considered "replay value". Whatever happen to multiple story routes?
Bolded... is that even a real word?
Multiple story paths requires more time spent coding, scripting, testing, and voice acting, which all means more time and money.
Games that cater to multiplayer aren't bad in their own rights, it's how they cater to multiplayer and what sort of experience they hope players achieve. Arcade shooters like CoD, GoW, Halo, etc. etc. come to mind for the more negatively viewed games of this type.
I don't think there can ever be a truly fantastic game that has both single and multiplayer (co-op and online) that are great as stand-alones.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Erebus - 2011-06-07
Mute Wrote:Bolded... is that even a real word?
Multiple story paths requires more time spent coding, scripting, testing, and voice acting, which all means more time and money.
Games that cater to multiplayer aren't bad in their own rights, it's how they cater to multiplayer and what sort of experience they hope players achieve. Arcade shooters like CoD, GoW, Halo, etc. etc. come to mind for the more negatively viewed games of this type.
I don't think there can ever be a truly fantastic game that has both single and multiplayer (co-op and online) that are great as stand-alones.
You know what I mean. It's the people who have to collect everything regardless of how useful it is.
Also I'm well aware how game development works. But I'm not asking for the impossible or in all honesty even that difficult. I've seen companies produce 25+ hour games, you could easially cut that in half between two routes.
TBH I don't think that's true (regarding great single/multi game). It's a matter of balance and design, but I think people are looking in the wrong direction for it (shooters aren't bad but TBH I think an RPG is going to make that type of game real, not a shooter).
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Mute - 2011-06-07
Erebus Wrote:You know what I mean. It's the people who have to collect everything regardless of how useful it is.
People like Sarah? =P
I get what you mean, but I think I would say people that only play games to up their gamerscore / get more trophies are the leading bane/cancer to gaming. I myself have so far only collected every achievement available for mass effect 2 after beating it a few times on different playthroughs, and even playing never bothered with trying to get every one in order.
Though I suspect this is what you really meant.
Also I'm well aware how game development works. But I'm not asking for the impossible or in all honesty even that difficult. I've seen companies produce 25+ hour games, you could easially cut that in half between two routes.
Have you ever tried making a game? It might not seem that difficult, but it just might be. You need to script out more scenes and dialogue, so you have to pay the writers and programmers more. You need to have those lines all acted, so there's more money spent on voice acting.
But, I will agree that padding a game's length with tedial sh'it is a bother. Most times I imagine companies do that to boast on the back cover having over X hours of gameplay.
TBH I don't think that's true (regarding great single/multi game). It's a matter of balance and design, but I think people are looking in the wrong direction for it (shooters aren't bad but TBH I think an RPG is going to make that type of game real, not a shooter).
>Obligatory Halo series rant<
One series I've seen rumored to delve into the multiplayer scene is the mass effect universe. Honestly I don't think that would play out well, and the single player is IMO good as is. I stand by what I said, in that there'd be a near impossibility for a game to have both a good multiplayer and satisfying single player experience.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Erebus - 2011-06-07
I'm in college to be a game/software developer so I've made some games. I should have expanded what I meant. I mean taking the work needed to make the 25 hour game and just making a game with multiple routes. Virtually same amount of work just a different design path.
As to the "perfect game". I disagree, but we're arguing over an idea that doesn't exist, so we'll leave it at that.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - KhainiWest - 2011-06-08
Erebus Wrote:I'm in college to be a game/software developer so I've made some games. I should have expanded what I meant. I mean taking the work needed to make the 25 hour game and just making a game with multiple routes. Virtually same amount of work just a different design path.
As to the "perfect game". I disagree, but we're arguing over an idea that doesn't exist, so we'll leave it at that.
You know what I don't get about game development, it's all the same games essentially. The top 10, half of em are shooters, the other half are some form of RPG (dragonquest). These games are all mirrors of other ones who once the "oddman out". Infamous looks like it has promise, but it's just, a lot of games aren't just missing story, it's like playing the same game over and over again lol. Even though most of nintendo games are gimmicky they are at least original, but we all know originality only goes so far.
I guess all the internet did was create a new demographic for game developers to attempt to recreate over and over, do what you do in first player, level up to enhance so you suck less.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Erebus - 2011-06-08
KhainiWest Wrote:Even though most of nintendo games are gimmicky they are at least original
Could you expand on that statement...
Because Mario 64 "remakes" and Zelda Ocarina of time "remakes" have basically been Nintendo's safety pillow for a while.
And even some of the original ones have the same basic formula, that being: collect x amount of something to save the current location.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - Eriko - 2011-06-08
But.. I am the better guy.
The internet has ruined LAN parties where you actually interacted with people offline with a common interest. I haven't had a LAN party since like at least 6 years ago. :/ It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's nice to get out and have fun at someone else's house (or play host to other people). It's why I attend local SSBM events sometimes; it's just a better experience overall compared to playing things competitively online. Many people are much more well mannered in person compared to online obviously.
I don't really know what communities you're talking about, but communities like SC2 are generally friendly if you can find the right place. A lot of higher ranked people and some professionals will critique and give advise if you ask on Team Liquid's website or something. In game it's a little different because many players are actually playing and usually don't want to be disturbed.
Did the internet partially kill gaming? - KhainiWest - 2011-06-08
Erebus Wrote:Could you expand on that statement...
Because Mario 64 "remakes" and Zelda Ocarina of time "remakes" have basically been Nintendo's safety pillow for a while.
And even some of the original ones have the same basic formula, that being: collect x amount of something to save the current location.
Mario galaxy was a great spin off on an old concept, it's refreshing in that sense. Things like pikman and scribblenaughts are examples of something that is, outside of the "BIG EXPLOSIONS" box every other company is trying to fall into.