BBC in dodgy videogame end of year review shocker

[Treble]

He says that although are all excellent games - They aren't very innovative IN HIS OPINION and that he wants something different - With some examples of upcoming DS titles. What's wrong with that?

Because, as I mention, he merges fact and opinion.

Halo 2 is an excellent game, but the single-player campaign mode does not really offer anything new beyond better textures.
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is essentially the same but more so. And as for Doom 3, it looks great and is an example of games getting even more cinematic, but in terms of play it is the same old.....New thinking has been filtering into gaming, but it is often haphazard or on the periphery of the culture.

Stated as fact, whereas this is merely opinion....and a poorly argued position of opinion, at that.

[Concept]

Maybe it's down to the word limit, but I have to say the article was over simplified in my opinion. It created avenues of thought which weren't explored, and as a result meandered and lost focus.

There were some gross generalisations too. Taking Half-Life 2 as an example... It's careful cocktail of styles within the fps genre, facial animation character portrayal, physics and thematic concerns were highly innovative features.

There's no doubting it's an opinion being expressed, but to run it as the BBC's overall look of the year, when elsewhere the corporation has been stating views to the contrary strikes me as a little odd.

It just comes over as a simple article which fails to cover it's weak points with any real concerted substance. Evidence and specific examples are needed to highlight the points being made if they're to be taken with any weight.

[Sketcz]

What absolute hyprocrisy has come from this forum?

Funny, I get criticised for lambasting that utterly bollocks Time article:

http://ntsc-uk.domino.org/showthread.php?t=31814

But the BBC is fair game for everyone to criticise?

Well excuse me, and there I was thinking whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I guess it all really depends on who starts the these topics, 'ey?



tbh, I personally quite liked this BBC article.

The reason he praised the mentioned DS games is because they are not out in the UK yet, hence while 2004 may have been void of innovation, 2005 hopefully wont be.

For me, it hit all the right buttons, and matched what I was thinking just the other day, even if the actual writing is not that hot.

bah! I guess Im just the minority here, so if you'll excuse Im going back to my retro stuff.

[Concept]

The article specified here though isn't to do with theorising as to where videogame's future may lie. Content-wise they're entirely different.

It's the negativity I find surprising when 2004 has probably been the best year so far this decade for gaming (arguably). Oh, and since I didn't actually reply to your thread I think I'll excuse myself from whatever hypocritical overtones you seem to be flinging at everyone.

[Geoff D]

I can't believe the writer dared to submit a piece with the thumbs-up from ntsc-uk first. Cheeky git.

I agree that it's mostly vague, not particularly well written & doesn't really make much of an argument. In fact, so much so, he could go on to have a flourishing career writing for the majority of games magazines & websites.

[Treble]

I can't believe the writer dared to submit a piece with the thumbs-up from ntsc-uk first. Cheeky git.

Damn right!

Tbf, no matter what area you're writing in, you should at least relaise your demographic is going to slate you if your writing's ****e and your point is pointless. Especially thanks to the power of teh interweb.

[IainMcC]

It's the negativity I find surprising when 2004 has probably been the best year so far this decade for gaming (arguably).

I think he's trying to be controversial - anyone who can say "It's got pretty graphics but no innovation" (or words to that effect) about HL2 needs shooting. Errr, Gravity Gun? Makes you wonder if he actually played the game.

2004 has had the best crop of games appearing in a single year I can remember - especially on the PC. HL2, Rome: Total War, Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, Sims 2, Vampire: Bloodlines, UT2004, the list goes on, and that's not even touching stuff that came out on the consoles...

And I don't see why there's the implication that because something's a sequel, it can't be innovative - or good. There's no use releasing a game with new IP if it's going to be ****; I'd rather play a sequel, to be honest, especially if it's something as beautifully made as HL2 or Halo 2.

[mid]

How about if I wrote a post lamenting the state of the PAL games market this year, where the big titles have all been sequels (admittedly because I'm hypothetically failing to remember the rather wonderful AI, graphics and freedom of movement in FarCry, to pick an example), and rather than revolution we've mainly seen polishing of previous ideas (adding some extra players to console deathmatches, the general onward march of polycounts, some natty lighting effects etc).

To back up how stale I might feel about the PAL year, I'd counterpoint it with new, fun stuff that is getting acclaim from many who have actually played it, but hasn't even been deemed 'mainstream' enough to find a European publisher. Finally, I'd look to the 'future' (as its still the future for your average UK buyer) and suggest that the most innovative stuff to see the light recently doesn't get a UK release until next spring.

I know this is an import site, so I'd expect the reply "hurry up and buy NTSC machines, then, you lazy git". But that isn't the point.

[Concept]

I think he's trying to be controversial - anyone who can say "It's got pretty graphics but no innovation" (or words to that effect) about HL2 needs shooting. Errr, Gravity Gun? Makes you wonder if he actually played the game.

2004 has had the best crop of games appearing in a single year I can remember - especially on the PC. HL2, Rome: Total War, Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, Sims 2, Vampire: Bloodlines, UT2004, the list goes on, and that's not even touching stuff that came out on the consoles...

And I don't see why there's the implication that because something's a sequel, it can't be innovative - or good. There's no use releasing a game with new IP if it's going to be ****; I'd rather play a sequel, to be honest, especially if it's something as beautifully made as HL2 or Halo 2.

Absolutely. It bothers me that people automatically relegate sequels into a category devoid of true innovation due to their pre-conceptions. Personally, I find the ratio of the big titles this year living up to the hype has actually been fairly high.

What bothers me in the article is that there are statements made and then no points used to back the conclusions up, so they appear light weight at best. Fundamentally simple at worst.

How about if I wrote a post lamenting the state of the PAL games market this year, where the big titles have all been sequels (admittedly because I'm hypothetically failing to remember the rather wonderful AI, graphics and freedom of movement in FarCry, to pick an example), and rather than revolution we've mainly seen polishing of previous ideas (adding some extra players to console deathmatches, the general onward march of polycounts, some natty lighting effects etc).

To back up how stale I might feel about the year, I'd counterpoint it with new, fun stuff that is getting acclaim from many who have actually played it, but hasn't even been deemed 'mainstream' enough to find a European publisher. Finally, I'd look to the 'future' (as its still the future for your average UK buyer) and suggest that the most innovative stuff to see the light recently doesn't get a UK release until next spring.

That'd be the way to ideally write such an article and have it be taken seriously. What you've described sums up the general structure of the piece, but it lacks detail in properly fleshing out the various viewpoints. Perhaps it would have been better rather than having several titles being referenced throughout, if the references were shortened, and the extra space was made to justify the points made.

There wasn't the justification and the evidence there to give weight to the outcome that this has been a disappointing year. In my view.

As I said before, no doubt there are space issues, but several points were laboured repeatedly when they could have been utilised to illuminate why they were expressed in the first place.

[RLench]

I wish I could get paid to criticise something without any kind of constructive suggestion Games this year have been very innovative...maybe if they looked outside the mass-market for once they'd actually see that ft: Anyway, as I always say, innovation is way over-rated. Give me a great game like Halo than something that tries to innovate but is a crap game underneath. Innovation is only good if it leads to a better game experience...otherwise it's a waste of time

And, another thing...explain how halo 2 isn't innovative? I guess revolutionising online play doesn't count?

[mid]

And, another thing...explain how halo 2 isn't innovative? I guess revolutionising online play doesn't count?

Sorry, I must have missed the point where Halo 2 Online did anything that PC games haven't done for years. Or Halo 1 via XBConnect, for that matter.

[Rushy]

Sorry, I must have missed the point where Halo 2 Online did anything that PC games haven't done for years. Or Halo 1 via XBConnect, for that matter.

Yes most PC games have some form or matchmaking service like in Halo 2's....

Its not just a simple online LAN session you know.

[Ady]

And I don't see why there's the implication that because something's a sequel, it can't be innovative - or good. There's no use releasing a game with new IP if it's going to be ****; I'd rather play a sequel, to be honest, especially if it's something as beautifully made as HL2 or Halo 2.

I appreciate that, but sometimes... just sometimes it would be nice if every game wasn't followed by a glut of iterative graphical updates or if developers had the freedom (or perhaps the imagination) to think "Well X game did really well, but let's do something else this time".

[IainMcC]

I appreciate that, but sometimes... just sometimes it would be nice if every game wasn't followed by a glut of iterative graphical updates or if developers had the freedom (or perhaps the imagination) to think "Well X game did really well, but let's do something else this time".

I know what you mean, but making videogames is an expensive business - franchising is an inevitable (and necessary) part of the industry now. A friend of mine is a level designer for Warhammer Online - it's been in development for 4 years now, and still has another 2 years to go until it's in a state to go live. Can you imagine the overheads and cost of keeping a couple of dozen developers and designers employed for 6 years? Never mind the cost of the equipment they're doing the development on - or the cost of the office space.

It's not like 20 years ago when you could have bedroom coders like Codemasters or Costa Panayi boshing out titles for the Spectrum and C64 achieving the same production values as professional software houses. Even Chris Sawyer's starting to realise he can't do everything himself anymore.

You do still get people willing to take risks with new IP, Peter Molyneaux, or Demis Hassibis, for example - but even they need to establish a successful franchise or two in order to be able to generate enough revenue to give them the creative freedom to try new projects. I'm certainly not a fan of the EA model of franchise updates, but people like Ion Storm, Bungie and Valve know how to get it right - it's a bit like reading Terry Pratchett or Iain M. Banks - you still want to play in the world they've given you beforehand, but you need to be shown something new, not just get given shinier graphics. This is what EA fail to grasp (or don't care about, more likely) - but occasionally even they get it right - see The Sims 2, for example.