Why?!Is it so hard to make good games?!

[Silverstein]

I cried last night. I played X-Men: The Official Game. It made me cry.

The lack of FMVs, a less than fluid transition into other characters, few moves, monotonous enemies, laughable bosses, and just bad gameplay.

I could forgive the music, it was okay. It was video game music. I'm not expecting to hear a full orchestra or some kind of final fantasy type stuff, but it was alright. I can forgive the graphics, lots of stuff actually looked cool (by lots of stuff I mean Nightcrawler and his levels). But the bad game making punched me in the face.

So I'm wondering...is it hard to make a good game? You're not supposed to pick up a game with 3 playable characters and only enjoy one character. Like it honestly feels like they rushed the game and only completed like 88% of Nightcrawler's game and like 60% of Iceman and Wolverine.

Ultimate Spider-Man
Superman 64
Most Batman games except for Batman Begins which was actually good/fun
Teen Titans (most people I know, didn't even know they made a game for that)
Aquaman
X-men games since the genesis (except Legends series..which also had flaws)
Spawn games..

Is it so damned hard to make a good super hero game?

All you do is take a character. Look at their powers, ALL of their powers. And design the character so that it's pretty easy to do anything they could do. Then you make a world that reacts to your character, levels that can hold and would fit the character. Then you bring in the enemies, and the story, plot, and design. Done. It's not so difficult afterall. Yet developers can't do this.

We are often given limited moves, weakened versions of characters, or bad gameplay mechanics. When not given those, the world doesn't react to the character. In SM2, they got spidey down PERFECTLY. Swinging was fun, fighting was fun, crawling, jumping, running, spider sense, spider reflexes, all were perfect. Spider-man was done perfectly.

But the world you played in did not respond to you. The city was always creepily empty. Not much detail, the people all looked the same, criminals did the same few crimes in the same ways and the civilians were like zombies. The city was not alive.

It was at first, amazing when I bought the game. But then when I beat it, and there was nothing more, I kept playing. After beating the game, it was still fun because you had infinite crime to stop, and time to swing through the city. But after a while, all you're doing is swinging through the city. A city where you're the only thing that's alive. Nothing else is happening, nothing is really new. And you can't really do anything with the landscape.


Is it so hard so wrong that I want to feel like a character for once?

The only saving grace in X-men, the only thing that saves my hope for future games, is that in this X-men game...Nightcrawler was almost done perfectly. You can't teleport anywhere you want, but teleporting was fun. His healing method and a lot of his moves where also fun. So if they wanted to, a very decent Nightcrawler game could be made in the future. But that's only the first step in like a 10,000 mile journey.

 

[XwolverineX]

Now, who was the smart fella who predicted X-men to fail.

 

[ampersand]

I cried last night. I played X-Men: The Official Game. It made me cry.

The lack of FMVs, a less than fluid transition into other characters, few moves, monotonous enemies, laughable bosses, and just bad gameplay.

I could forgive the music, it was okay. It was video game music. I'm not expecting to hear a full orchestra or some kind of final fantasy type stuff, but it was alright. I can forgive the graphics, lots of stuff actually looked cool (by lots of stuff I mean Nightcrawler and his levels). But the bad game making punched me in the face.

So I'm wondering...is it hard to make a good game? You're not supposed to pick up a game with 3 playable characters and only enjoy one character. Like it honestly feels like they rushed the game and only completed like 88% of Nightcrawler's game and like 60% of Iceman and Wolverine.

Ultimate Spider-Man
Superman 64
Most Batman games except for Batman Begins which was actually good/fun
Teen Titans (most people I know, didn't even know they made a game for that)
Aquaman
X-men games since the genesis (except Legends series..which also had flaws)
Spawn games..

Is it so damned hard to make a good super hero game?

All you do is take a character. Look at their powers, ALL of their powers. And design the character so that it's pretty easy to do anything they could do. Then you make a world that reacts to your character, levels that can hold and would fit the character. Then you bring in the enemies, and the story, plot, and design. Done. It's not so difficult afterall. Yet developers can't do this.

We are often given limited moves, weakened versions of characters, or bad gameplay mechanics. When not given those, the world doesn't react to the character. In SM2, they got spidey down PERFECTLY. Swinging was fun, fighting was fun, crawling, jumping, running, spider sense, spider reflexes, all were perfect. Spider-man was done perfectly.

But the world you played in did not respond to you. The city was always creepily empty. Not much detail, the people all looked the same, criminals did the same few crimes in the same ways and the civilians were like zombies. The city was not alive.

It was at first, amazing when I bought the game. But then when I beat it, and there was nothing more, I kept playing. After beating the game, it was still fun because you had infinite crime to stop, and time to swing through the city. But after a while, all you're doing is swinging through the city. A city where you're the only thing that's alive. Nothing else is happening, nothing is really new. And you can't really do anything with the landscape.


Is it so hard so wrong that I want to feel like a character for once?

The only saving grace in X-men, the only thing that saves my hope for future games, is that in this X-men game...Nightcrawler was almost done perfectly. You can't teleport anywhere you want, but teleporting was fun. His healing method and a lot of his moves where also fun. So if they wanted to, a very decent Nightcrawler game could be made in the future. But that's only the first step in like a 10,000 mile journey.

Guess what? It IS hard to make a good video game. It's very easy to play monday morning quarterback and say that this should have been better and that needed to be fixed. But these studios are on a budget and time restraint to get games out. They don't care about the quality of the gameplay if the game is going to sell (which is usually the case with movie tie-ins). The reason you get crappy games is a combination of all these factors.

 

[Elijya]

well... It's usually because A: a fair share of the game's budget is spent on simply obtaining the liscense to the property, which leaves less money for developement, and B. The property sells the game no matter what quality it is, so there's less concern for making it a good game.

 

[Matt]

Do they explain why Nightcrawler isn't in X3 in it?

 

[Iceman]

The official X-Men game doesn't look too hot. I'm probably going to give it a miss now.

well... It's usually because A: a fair share of the game's budget is spent on simply obtaining the liscense to the property, which leaves less money for developement, and B. The property sells the game no matter what quality it is, so there's less concern for making it a good game.

That's the problem with the vast majority of film license games.

 

[spiderpride]

well... It's usually because A: a fair share of the game's budget is spent on simply obtaining the liscense to the property, which leaves less money for developement, and B. The property sells the game no matter what quality it is, so there's less concern for making it a good game.

yes i read somewere that in the game you see the reason why nightcrawler isnt in the movie

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

they also know no matter what quality of game they release people are going to buy them at a pretty high profit margin

 

[XwolverineX]

well... It's usually because A: a fair share of the game's budget is spent on simply obtaining the liscense to the property, which leaves less money for developement, and B. The property sells the game no matter what quality it is, so there's less concern for making it a good game.

Haha it's cute because E' said " Since they're ****ty ass developpers who don't give a flying **** about making a good freakin' game " nicely.

 

[Silverstein]

Guess what? It IS hard to make a good video game. It's very easy to play monday morning quarterback and say that this should have been better and that needed to be fixed. But these studios are on a budget and time restraint to get games out. They don't care about the quality of the gameplay if the game is going to sell (which is usually the case with movie tie-ins). The reason you get crappy games is a combination of all these factors.

You basically just said, it's hard because they don't give a **** about games. No. That's not a good answer nor a valid one. They CAN make good games, it has been done and is possible. I can sit here and tell them how to do it because I care about what gamers are spending their money on, they don't deserve the garbage companies are spitting out. If they don't care, then they need to go bankrupt and stop making games.

We do not have to settle for garbage just because that's how the box has been set up around us. when you put forth a bold effort and step outside of the box, you'll be able to make the games that people want.

Spider-Man 2 was a GREAT game. WAY better than X3 by far. Thought, design, and skill was put into the game. Except that it was completed at 90%...If they just gave us a little bit more. it would have been perfect.

 

[ampersand]

You basically just said, it's hard because they don't give a **** about games. No. That's not a good answer nor a valid one. They CAN make good games, it has been done and is possible. I can sit here and tell them how to do it because I care about what gamers are spending their money on, they don't deserve the garbage companies are spitting out. If they don't care, then they need to go bankrupt and stop making games.

We do not have to settle for garbage just because that's how the box has been set up around us. when you put forth a bold effort and step outside of the box, you'll be able to make the games that people want.

Spider-Man 2 was a GREAT game. WAY better than X3 by far. Thought, design, and skill was put into the game. Except that it was completed at 90%...If they just gave us a little bit more. it would have been perfect.

You're right. Problem is, developers aren't going to spend money to make a game that they KNOW will sell any better then it has to be.

 

[SouLeSS]

You wanna know why people say most games suck now a days? Brace yourself.

You expect to goddamn much from them.

Some of the best games are classics like Contra, Mario, Sonic, simple 2d fighteres. There wasn't a goddamn thing complex about those games. Why are they so good then? Because you don't expect them to completely blow you away.

You want every little detail to be perfect. That won't ever happen. People say that if you were to take some of the oldest games out, like Final Fantasy, and throw it onto a PS3, it would make for one of the best games of all time.

This isn't true. Know why? Because people will still ***** that there isn't enough, or it's lacking in the enemy department, when the fact of the matter is it would be a strait port (with the exception of graphics) from the original. And the original was "perfect" and many peoples eyes.

Games now a days have so much power, and it's used quite a bit. The only thing that holds them back from being amazing games is simply the fact that we as consumers expect way to much from them.

 

[LobokDaikon]

You wanna know why people say most games suck now a days?

Although it looks like it early on, he's not talking about all games, just superhero ones.

 

[ampersand]

You wanna know why people say most games suck now a days? Brace yourself.

You expect to goddamn much from them.

Some of the best games are classics like Contra, Mario, Sonic, simple 2d fighteres. There wasn't a goddamn thing complex about those games. Why are they so good then? Because you don't expect them to completely blow you away.

You want every little detail to be perfect. That won't ever happen. People say that if you were to take some of the oldest games out, like Final Fantasy, and throw it onto a PS3, it would make for one of the best games of all time.

This isn't true. Know why? Because people will still ***** that there isn't enough, or it's lacking in the enemy department, when the fact of the matter is it would be a strait port (with the exception of graphics) from the original. And the original was "perfect" and many peoples eyes.

Games now a days have so much power, and it's used quite a bit. The only thing that holds them back from being amazing games is simply the fact that we as consumers expect way to much from them.

I completely disagree. Your logic on the "simple 2D" games is mixed up because at the time of their creation, those games were the cream of the crop. They were the best available.

Games suck nowadays because companys realized that the video game market is large and that they can make good money off of crappy games. People buy games like X-Men because they already know and love the franchise. Developers know this and therefor don't bother fine tuning the game because it doesn't have to be good in order to sell.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You wanna know why people say most games suck now a days? Brace yourself.

You expect to goddamn much from them.

Some of the best games are classics like Contra, Mario, Sonic, simple 2d fighteres. There wasn't a goddamn thing complex about those games. Why are they so good then? Because you don't expect them to completely blow you away.

You want every little detail to be perfect. That won't ever happen. People say that if you were to take some of the oldest games out, like Final Fantasy, and throw it onto a PS3, it would make for one of the best games of all time.

This isn't true. Know why? Because people will still ***** that there isn't enough, or it's lacking in the enemy department, when the fact of the matter is it would be a strait port (with the exception of graphics) from the original. And the original was "perfect" and many peoples eyes.

Games now a days have so much power, and it's used quite a bit. The only thing that holds them back from being amazing games is simply the fact that we as consumers expect way to much from them.

Wow, you are wrong wrong wrong.
The reason is the same reason so much music sucks these days and so many movies suck ass.

Regardless of what fatass Ebert thinks, video games are art. Does it make sense in an immediately obvious way to have an Italian plumber dress up like a raccoon, fly around collecting gold coins and bump turtles on their shells while trying to save a princess? Would 8 out of 10 people've come up with that as a "viable" video game franchise?

No, only ONE guy would've created that crazy world and then assembled a team that "got it".
It's art. If someone else had done it, someone less creative, it probably would've been a...uh...plumber doing, plumbing, and fighting...Clog-Monsters, trying to fix as many sinks as possible, etc.

If you take 100 high school artists, seriously, 80 of 'em'll suck ass, 20 of 'em will show a lot of promise, and 10 of those might be really GOOD.


So, when any industry gets to a point where it's proven that it can make mega-millions of dollars in profit, a huge percentage of what's produced is produced solely to recreate that insane profit.

This is what happened after "summer blockbusters" began (after "Jaws" came out) and this is why the entire music industry changed forever (and started going exponentially downhill) after Peter Frampton had the biggest live album ever.

In the begining, there are a few mavericks, taking risks, without a "blueprint for success", and that's where the real magical stuff comes from (like Star Wars, Elvis, etc.).
But once it starts to be about finance, that's when you bring in the focus groups, test-marketing, and pandering to make things safe (i.e. - "The kids really loved Grand Theft Auto, it was a smash hit! Let's make...a game just like Grand Theft Auto!"...and that's where you get your "25 to Life"'s and s*** like that.)

So a glut of product appears, and just like with everything else, you have 100 games now, 80 of 'em'll suck, 20 will be pretty okay, and 10 of those will be mind-blowing genius.


I know because I'm old. I was there when Pong was the most amazing thing anybody had ever seen.
For every Super Mario Bro.s, there were 30 E.T.'s for Atari 2600. For every Resident Evil, there were 20 Planet of the Apes and Overblood's for PS1.

People do get stupid about graphics and stuff, but the fact is, even with the graphics ****es and hyper-critical people...they ALL still have favorite games, games that they judge everything else against, games that they love.
The reason is that those games ARE better games than the rest. It's not just that people expect too much.


When I first played FF7 I had never had an experience like that before. When I finished it I just sat there watching the credits stunned. I felt like I'd gone to another world.
So later, since I'd learned of these things called "RPG"'s, I looked for more. Some sucked balls, some were pretty cool, but it had nothing to do with the graphics, or "what you could do". When I finally found some that were GOOD, like FF7 had been, they didn't have any more or any less going on than FF7 had.
They were GOOD because....they were GOOD.

Plus, my favorite games right now are Mappy Mouse (an arcade game from 83), Resident Evil 4, and Heroes 4.
Mappy has crap graphics, every "level" is roughly the same thing going on, but the IDEA, the concept for the game, and the fact that you aren't hindered by technical glitches, that how well you do is actually up to your own skill, makes it effortlessly f.u.n.

But it's a game from 83. There's no way it can "do" what Resident Evil 4 does.

And with RE4, it's pretty much the same thing as the other games. The thing that makes it more fun is that you can actually turn around quicker, and look around. It's not that it's the state-of-the-art, kick ass most amazing technical achievement ever, it's just little things that they got rid of, not things that they added.

And then, Heroes...It has s*** graphics, isn't 3D, but it's "FUN".


It's hard to create events that will take the player on a "trip", tell a gripping story, and yet give him the freedom to do things that he thinks would be fun, to allow him to avoid being frustrated by the fact that there's something he'd love to do but that he can't (within the context of that particular game).


So the answer is, the reason so many games suck is NOT that "people expect too much". It's that creating video games is an incredibly complex art, and just like the way there's only one Michael Jordan, or Steven Spielberg, or U2, there are only going to be a few "exceptional" video game creators.


That's what makes them "exceptional".

 

[Elijya]

preach it brother!

 

[Elijya]

In the begining, there are a few mavericks, taking risks, without a "blueprint for success", and that's where the real magical stuff comes from (like Star Wars, Elvis, etc.).
But once it starts to be about finance, that's when you bring in the focus groups, test-marketing, and pandering to make things safe (i.e. - "The kids really loved Grand Theft Auto, it was a smash hit! Let's make...a game just like Grand Theft Auto!"...and that's where you get your "25 to Life"'s and s*** like that.)

The idea has become the institution....

 

[Indiglo]

Wilhelm's post made me want to riot.

 

[SouLeSS]

Wow, you are wrong wrong wrong.
The reason is the same reason so much music sucks these days and so many movies suck ass.

Regardless of what fatass Ebert thinks, video games are art. Does it make sense in an immediately obvious way to have an Italian plumber dress up like a raccoon, fly around collecting gold coins and bump turtles on their shells while trying to save a princess? Would 8 out of 10 people've come up with that as a "viable" video game franchise?

No, only ONE guy would've created that crazy world and then assembled a team that "got it".
It's art. If someone else had done it, someone less creative, it probably would've been a...uh...plumber doing, plumbing, and fighting...Clog-Monsters, trying to fix as many sinks as possible, etc.

If you take 100 high school artists, seriously, 80 of 'em'll suck ass, 20 of 'em will show a lot of promise, and 10 of those might be really GOOD.


So, when any industry gets to a point where it's proven that it can make mega-millions of dollars in profit, a huge percentage of what's produced is produced solely to recreate that insane profit.

This is what happened after "summer blockbusters" began (after "Jaws" came out) and this is why the entire music industry changed forever (and started going exponentially downhill) after Peter Frampton had the biggest live album ever.

In the begining, there are a few mavericks, taking risks, without a "blueprint for success", and that's where the real magical stuff comes from (like Star Wars, Elvis, etc.).
But once it starts to be about finance, that's when you bring in the focus groups, test-marketing, and pandering to make things safe (i.e. - "The kids really loved Grand Theft Auto, it was a smash hit! Let's make...a game just like Grand Theft Auto!"...and that's where you get your "25 to Life"'s and s*** like that.)

So a glut of product appears, and just like with everything else, you have 100 games now, 80 of 'em'll suck, 20 will be pretty okay, and 10 of those will be mind-blowing genius.


I know because I'm old. I was there when Pong was the most amazing thing anybody had ever seen.
For every Super Mario Bro.s, there were 30 E.T.'s for Atari 2600. For every Resident Evil, there were 20 Planet of the Apes and Overblood's for PS1.

People do get stupid about graphics and stuff, but the fact is, even with the graphics ****es and hyper-critical people...they ALL still have favorite games, games that they judge everything else against, games that they love.
The reason is that those games ARE better games than the rest. It's not just that people expect too much.


When I first played FF7 I had never had an experience like that before. When I finished it I just sat there watching the credits stunned. I felt like I'd gone to another world.
So later, since I'd learned of these things called "RPG"'s, I looked for more. Some sucked balls, some were pretty cool, but it had nothing to do with the graphics, or "what you could do". When I finally found some that were GOOD, like FF7 had been, they didn't have any more or any less going on than FF7 had.
They were GOOD because....they were GOOD.

Plus, my favorite games right now are Mappy Mouse (an arcade game from 83), Resident Evil 4, and Heroes 4.
Mappy has crap graphics, every "level" is roughly the same thing going on, but the IDEA, the concept for the game, and the fact that you aren't hindered by technical glitches, that how well you do is actually up to your own skill, makes it effortlessly f.u.n.

But it's a game from 83. There's no way it can "do" what Resident Evil 4 does.

And with RE4, it's pretty much the same thing as the other games. The thing that makes it more fun is that you can actually turn around quicker, and look around. It's not that it's the state-of-the-art, kick ass most amazing technical achievement ever, it's just little things that they got rid of, not things that they added.

And then, Heroes...It has s*** graphics, isn't 3D, but it's "FUN".


It's hard to create events that will take the player on a "trip", tell a gripping story, and yet give him the freedom to do things that he thinks would be fun, to allow him to avoid being frustrated by the fact that there's something he'd love to do but that he can't (within the context of that particular game).


So the answer is, the reason so many games suck is NOT that "people expect too much". It's that creating video games is an incredibly complex art, and just like the way there's only one Michael Jordan, or Steven Spielberg, or U2, there are only going to be a few "exceptional" video game creators.


That's what makes them "exceptional".

And the basic idea why music/movies/games sucks today, is because people expect to much out of them.

You said it yourself. Theres only one MJ, SS or U2. However, there are hundreds of people that try to do the same thing, and fail horribly. Why? Because we put them up against the greats like MJ, SS or U2 (regardless that I hate U2 with a passion). What's that mean? That we expect to much out of them.

 

[Elijya]

"too" spelled with two "o"s

sorry, I know it's not terribly important, but it was bugging me

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

And the basic idea why music/movies/games sucks today, is because people expect to much out of them.

You said it yourself. Theres only one MJ, SS or U2. However, there are hundreds of people that try to do the same thing, and fail horribly. Why? Because we put them up against the greats like MJ, SS or U2 (regardless that I hate U2 with a passion). What's that mean? That we expect to much out of them.

Wow, you're not getting me at all.
I'm saying that "exceptional" things are THE EXCEPTION.

It's the opposite of what you're saying.

It's not that people are unfairly expecting new offerings to recreate amazing experiences from the past. It's that "exceptional" things are "exceptional", meaning that it will be a rare occurrence, finding something super-GOOD.

So if more and more people are producing, you'll obviously see more and more crap.

There are only 10 games in the late 70's
Only one good one.


Well, once the gold-rush starts, you just multiply.

Now there are 100 games, and only 10 GOOD ones.

Now, multiply that by a 1,000.



So I'm proposing 2 things.

1) a factor in it is the insanely inflated possibility of profit. This demolishes the original quirky motivations for making games in the first place. Also "the freedom of ineptitude" ties in here.

and 2) Games are art. Good art is rare.

It's..., like you're saying that the only reason Gigli sucked ass was not that it SUCKED ASS, but instead, it was because I had the "misfortune" of seeing Goodfellas beforehand.

 

[Sandman138]

"too" spelled with two "o"s

sorry, I know it's not terribly important, but it was bugging me

Don't apologize for combating the internet's erosion of the english language.

 

[SouLeSS]

Don't apologize for combating the internet's erosion of the english language.

You know, it's funny. Most likely the only thing I ever spell wrong in that form, is the two forms of 'to'. Then you know, you get the idiots that use no puncuation at all, and spell everything shorthand. "ur, u, 2". Yet you guys have the balls to comment on how I type?

Not to mention you pretty much just disregarded my whole post.

Also, chief, it would be internets', not internet's.

 

[Mr.Webs]

Are you positive about that? Is the actual name, 'internets'? As in, "I'm going on the internets?"

I'm pretty sure it's internet's.

Oh, and Wilhelm....

 

[Sandman138]

You know, it's funny. Most likely the only thing I ever spell wrong in that form, is the two forms of 'to'. Then you know, you get the idiots that use no puncuation at all, and spell everything shorthand. "ur, u, 2". Yet you guys have the balls to comment on how I type?

Not to mention you pretty much just disregarded my whole post.

Also, chief, it would be internets', not internet's.

It was not attacking you, it was attacking a phenomonon. I fall prey to it as well. The internet is a singular proper noun, thus "internet's" is the correct way to use the apostrophe-s, "internets'" would mean that there were multiple internets.