Everyone's got a view on the matter. Let's hear it.

Lots of people hate Tower Defense games. Some people hate MOBAs. Lots of people hate MMOs.

I, personally, CANNOT STAND "endless running" games. The original original, Canabalt, is okay. For about 3 minutes. Then I get bored. What baffles me is that a genre that only really exists as more than one title because of the limitations of early smartphones as gaming devices has somehow become a legitimate archetype. People WANT these games. Developers aren't making them these days because they're the closest thing to can get to a REAL platformer on crappy touchscreens. Nah, they're making them because, for some unfathomable reason, people WANT them. I don't get it. Why the SMEG would I play Temple Run or Subway Surfers when I can play a REAL game? Moreover, why would I PAY for this crap? Even if it is an exemplary well-designed, well-tuned example with clean controls and interesting/attractive/fun art, it's still an endless running game. It's still only BARELY interactive, still almost entirely unengaging, and still doesn't hold my interest for more than about 45 seconds.

Of course, this is how I feel (and have always felt) about most "mobile" games. But the endless running genre has spread outside of mobile devices. The crap is appearing on PCs and consoles with the power (and control capabilities) to run real games that you really play and don't just watch and tap at.

Normally I'm entirely in favor of diversity in the medium. But it seems to me that the effort put into making a standout endless running game could have been devoted to something WORTH PLAYING instead. And developers who can't do anything more interesting should find another industry to waste their efforts on.

MMO's for sure. Especially when they're getting gimmicky and trying to invade a title that would typically be a drastically different genre. (Elder Scrolls....)

And as far as mobile gaming, I can play a tower defense game for about 10 minutes before I get bored to tears. I don't know how the hell people can play temple run for hours. I need something with a story in my life. Bottom line though, non-gamers relate well to these types of games, and tend to buy them as "time passers." As long as people buy them, they'll be around. All carbon copies of each other, all copies of games that have been around since the 70's.

Loot based games.

• Diablos, Borderlands, Torchlight etc.

"Man this game is fun!"
Me: "What's the best part?"
"Getting new gear so you can more easily kill the new higher level creatures"
Me: "Then what?"
"You when you kill the higher level enemies, you get even better gear!"

So you play a game to get digital gear that will allow you to get better gear so then you can get better gear? Some games do tie in great visuals and sometimes great story lines but the bulk of the game play is based in loot; terrible.

"Time Based Flash Browser Titles"
Also games like FarmVille. But what bothers me specifically is that you can't play for an hour and come back in a few day, no you play for like 20mins then you need to be back in 90mins for another 10min session. Then you need to be back in 4 hours for another 20min session. It's a game that demands responsibility and time management in the real world. Oh and if you want some sort of time convenience it will cost you real world dollars. They make the game easy and quick at first but then they make anything you really want to requires serious time management or charge you for convinence; it's a terrible system.

I essentially agree on the loot-based topic, though with a caveat: when a good GAME is built around a loot-crazy design it can be enjoyable. But at the end of the day it's still not the loot I'm playing for, it's the game. Which breaks the loot-for-loot cycle you describe.

MMOs fall right in that category. So do a lot of bad Diablo clones.

With games like Borderlands 2, Diablo/DII/LOD, Torchlight, and even Minecraft and Terraria, the loot doesn't just serve the endless cycle. It also enables you to progress in other ways. Or, at least, while you're on your loot-hunts you're also experiencing a fun story, or good combat/gameplay mechanics and/or enjoying a good view.

It says a lot about how many people out there agree with you that out of the fifty-seven bajillion Diablo clones out there, only a handful have ever been very fun (and that includes one of Diablo's own sequels!).

And yeah, time-based games are horrid. Honestly, it's really just a variation on the above, and works much like an MMO. The problem is that these games don't reward playing, they reward NOT playing. Which is a broken way to run things. Why would you want to encourage your players to STOP PLAYING?! I can think of a million ways to encourage people to share/trade/come back later to view progress that don't involve telling the player "you've made all the progress you can for today, please go away and come back tomorrow." According to anyone with the tiniest bit of game-design understanding, the approach is ludicrous. But social games are "special." They don't follow normal rules. And I don't like them.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:I essentially agree on the loot-based topic, though with a caveat: when a good GAME is built around a loot-crazy design it can be enjoyable. But at the end of the day it's still not the loot I'm playing for, it's the game. Which breaks the loot-for-loot cycle you describe.

See below

MinisterofDOOM wrote:MMOs fall right in that category.

Not necessarily. If your game type is Explorer (anyone still have a link for the "What's Your Gamer Type" survey?) sometimes loot allows you to explore an area you wouldn't normally be able to survive in or even access. I agree that, for the most part, the MMO model caters to the kill monster -> get better weapon -> kill bigger monster -> get even bigger weapon crowd, but usually the player can change the way the game is played to their style (highlighted above). I played EverQuest for years just to explore the world, and before that I did the same thing with MUDs. But oftentimes I needed certain pieces of gear to aid exploration, so for me it was a survival issue and not a way to climb the designers' ladder of success.

EverQuest, MUDs - yeah, I know...I'm a codger.

You're right. But most MMO's are designed with some sort of "unending climb" illusion of progress at their core--it's what keeps most of the masses coming back.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:You're right. But most MMO's are designed with some sort of "unending climb" illusion of progress at their core--it's what keeps most of the masses coming back.

Absolutely...and sometimes paying for better gear à la the auction house* on D3 where you can use real world dollars to buy virtual items. It's up to smart gamers to play the way they want instead of letting designers dictate how they play.

*Or, as we've discussed before unintentionally (or maybe intentionally) paying for better gear through LE/CE versions of games. You and I disagree about pre-order bonuses (I've usually don't have a problem with them), but we do agree that they should never alter how a game is played. An exclusive car of limited capabilities in Forza or an appearance pack is one thing, but an actual item that makes the game easier is completely different.

Of course the flip side to that is allowing microtransactions to purchase better gear to allow older gamers that have a real world job compete with kids that do nothing but play BF3, CoD, etc. One of my major problems with Halo 4 is the move towards unlocks, potentially allowing a gamer with lower skill but higher playing time an advantage over a gamer of higher skill with lower playing time. I much prefer the older, same gear model where a completely new player could rule the field if he were truly good - it was the player, not the character that mattered.

BusyBadger wrote:If your game type is Explorer (anyone still have a link for the "What's Your Gamer Type" survey?)

Damn, now I want to find that, too. I had forgotten about it.

Is it this one?

That's the one! Pasted it into NICO search and found the old thread: interesting-gaming-study-t454237.html

F*CKING SKINNER!

I found out what I hate the most about games like Klash of Klans and Farmville.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episod ... kinner-box

I just want the Wii to die.

Holy crap I love Extra Credits...

REALLY nailed what I was trying to express in my "Time Based Flash Browser Titles" post.

I fell into this channel by pure chance and it opened my mind to a lot of different game design elements and really great perspective on gaming from people in the industry.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQtFo_E_ ... vPCOr_Uydg[/youtube]

alms24sebring wrote:I just want the Wii to die.

...why would you want such an awesome emulator to die?

alms24sebring wrote:I just want the Wii to die.

The Wii certainly has its shovelware and motion-controlled barely-game Dark Side.

But it also has a fantastic light side. Which is made up partly of the classics Ace mentioned, and partly by the likes of THESE (GCN games are mixed in, since I play them both on the same rectangle):

I feel that we like very similar styles of games.

FPS. They've been tired and unoriginal for the past 12 years. The genre took a serious downturn when they decided to try to make everything "realistic". The last original FPS that was remotely interesting, I beta tested in 99, Quake 3, which featured one of the best weapons ever, the Rail Gun (much better than Q2's version of such). Everything now is just an exhausted attempt to capture the interest generated by an over decade old mod of Half Life.

flohtingPoint wrote:FPS. They've been tired and unoriginal for the past 12 years. The genre took a serious downturn when they decided to try to make everything "realistic". The last original FPS that was remotely interesting, I beta tested in 99, Quake 3, which featured one of the best weapons ever, the Rail Gun (much better than Q2's version of such). Everything now is just an exhausted attempt to capture the interest generated by an over decade old mod of Half Life.

Metro 2033, Bioshock, Dishonored...to name a few recent titles. All fantastic, exciting, and original games. Your statement was too general I think. To me, your tired and unoriginal games are the twitch-based shooters you so highly praise. Quake 3 was essentially an arcade game. FPS's have evolved well beyond what was expected of them in 1999. Granted, the never-ending treadmill of cods has done nothing to progress the genre.
I'm going to second the infinite-run games. They seem to be the "in" thing nowadays and I just can't understand why.

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:

flohtingPoint wrote:FPS. They've been tired and unoriginal for the past 12 years. The genre took a serious downturn when they decided to try to make everything "realistic". The last original FPS that was remotely interesting, I beta tested in 99, Quake 3, which featured one of the best weapons ever, the Rail Gun (much better than Q2's version of such). Everything now is just an exhausted attempt to capture the interest generated by an over decade old mod of Half Life.

Metro 2033, Bioshock, Dishonored...to name a few recent titles. All fantastic, exciting, and original games. Your statement was too general I think. To me, your tired and unoriginal games are the twitch-based shooters you so highly praise. Quake 3 was essentially an arcade game. FPS's have evolved well beyond what was expected of them in 1999. Granted, the never-ending treadmill of cods has done nothing to progress the genre.

You're content with single player ripoffs of Theif/Heritic/Hexen's story/puzzle enhanced fps gamestyle, and that's fine, a lot of people are. The thing that made FPS's great was national/global competition, single player FPS where you're facing off against computer controlled mobs just doesn't make sense. RPG's/Interactive Movie/TBS/4X these make for good single player games.

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:Metro 2033, Bioshock, Dishonored...to name a few recent titles. All fantastic, exciting, and original games.

True of the former and the latter. Bioshock, unfortunately, was not the masterpiece it thinks it was. It was severely flawed. Enough of it was interesting to make it worth playing, but I would not put it on my list of games to defend the modern FPS. In fact, most of its flaws were due to trying to be approachable in the same way as COD and other modern misfires. Next to its predecessor (comparison is inevitable, I don't care if it's supposed to be the same or not) it feels flat, numb, and generic.

Metro 2033, however, is BRILLIANT. A game where THE WORLD matters as much as anything else. Yes, it's gritty and dark, but not in the pretentious way CoD games are. And its grittiness plays a very minor role, while the darkness shines as a TOOL, rather than some self-impressed attempt at being dramatic. Attack a room full of enemies, even carefully, without using the darkness and distraction to your advantage will result in failure.
Unfortunately the game is still very demanding to even modern rigs (the engine isn't exactly well-optimized). But it's absolutely worth playing.

Doshonored was very good, but EXTREMELY short. It does share a little of Bioshock's overconfidence, though. It's good...but it's not quite as ingenius as it wants you to think it is.

My list of modern FPS standouts:

Metro 2033
Crysis (only the first one, the second was a big letdown...YET ANOTHER game that sacrificed uniqueness for approachability to its severe detriment)
Prey (Great use of level design, some interesting weapons, and shallow-but-unique Native American backlore)
Painkiller (Didn't try to do anything new, and was content to be a shiny Quake clone. Did a GREAT job of it and had some very fun weapons)
Borderlands. It has a great sense of humor and no delusions about what it is: a shiny shooting gallery with a loot system and finely-honed coop.
Bulletstorm. A bizarre collision of old and new FPS concepts with a tongue-in-cheek story (it's crude and crass and stupid, and fully aware of this, and it understands exactly how to poke fun at similar games by laughing at itself).
And of course Half Life 2, which is very old-fashioned in a lot of ways, but in the same way a world-class string orchestra is old fashioned: it's perfectly-tuned, shining with polish, and exceptionally experienced.

As far as multiplayer shooters go, Planetside 2 and TF2 are both doing a great job of tickling my oldschool-gamer funnybone.

I would put Spec Ops: The Line on that list.

Not for how it handles first person shooting but how it tells a story.

My first playthrough of Dishonored as a jackass who killed everyone took 14 hours. A respectable length. On my second time through I haven't killed anybody yet and it takes a LOT longer.

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:On my second time through I haven't killed anybody yet and it takes a LOT longer.

That's how my initial playthrough was...and it was much more satisfying.

Would BioShock be classified as an FPS or an RPG?

bigbadberry3 wrote:Would BioShock be classified as an FPS or an RPG?

It is absolutely NOT an RPG. The vary very very basic RPG elements that are present are heavily guided and mostly linear. Increasing your health and equipping one Plasmid over another doesn't mean you're playing an RPG.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:

bigbadberry3 wrote:Would BioShock be classified as an FPS or an RPG?

It is absolutely NOT an RPG. The vary very very basic RPG elements that are present are heavily guided and mostly linear. Increasing your health and equipping one Plasmid over another doesn't mean you're playing an RPG.

Choices to kill little sisters no?

bigbadberry3 wrote:
Choices to kill little sisters no?

If that's all it takes to be an RPG then just about every game of the last decade is one.

MinisterofDOOM wrote: If that's all it takes to be an RPG then just about every game of the last decade is one.

Some even before that...

Duck Hunt - you have to choose which duck to shoot first, or you could be RP'ing Buddha and shooting Skeet undressing living creatures entirely.

Contra - which gun mod do you choose

Punchout - are you going to be a speedy, finesse boxer, or a heavy hitting juggernaut

Or maybe even Pong...do you want the left or right side of the screen

Remember, this Bioshock rpg nonsense is the coming from the same source as the Will Halo 4 make up for 2&3 thread and even after I said no and advised against the purchase... he bought it anyway and wasn't happy with the purchase.

BusyBadger wrote:

MinisterofDOOM wrote: If that's all it takes to be an RPG then just about every game of the last decade is one.

Some even before that...

Duck Hunt - you have to choose which duck to shoot first, or you could be RP'ing Buddha and shooting Skeet undressing living creatures entirely.

Contra - which gun mod do you choose

Punchout - are you going to be a speedy, finesse boxer, or a heavy hitting juggernaut

Or maybe even Pong...do you want the left or right side of the screen

Remember, this Bioshock rpg nonsense is the coming from the same source as the Will Halo 4 make up for 2&3 thread and even after I said no and advised against the purchase... he bought it anyway and wasn't happy with the purchase.

Just because you said no doesn't make it almighty and absolute. I got to try things myself

bigbadberry3 wrote:Just because you said no doesn't make it almighty and absolute. I got to try things myself

Don't be upset at me because I was right, be upset at yourself because you didn't listen.