In Game Mechanics and Advancement?

[rmoxon]

heh very true. Don't start me on multiplayer fps - the current crop are leagues behind what we had 10-15 years back in terms of learning curve and gameplay. Although, if lowering the skill ceiling in terms of accessibility is the goal, which it looks like it is, you could argue that mechanics are moving forward. They're certainly changing.

The Uncharted series is another bug bear of mine - I never felt challenged, or ever in any peril, or that I was discovering or exploring anything. The game wraps you up in safety and gently leads you from screen to screen - with little chance of dying or getting lost and no penalty if you did. But again, anyone can jump in and play and there's little to no barrier to entry. So I guess in this sense mechanics have moved forward.

Exactly. It goes without saying that the games industry is a lot more popular than it use to be, whole families play games now, where as in the past it was considered just to be geeky kids locked away in their parents basement.

As the industry has progressed you can certainly argue that games have, in general, become easier to play. In some ways this is great for everyone, as technology develops and developers create gaming experiences that previously were not possible we have more control over in game characters, which can make a game more enjoyable than if it had been made 15 years ago.

However with the casual games market on the rise the is also a focus on hand holding, for instance the new Need for Speed game on the Wii has a mode where a parent can use to touch screen to help their child play the game better. This is great for those families that are playing together, but it also basically puts a cheat mode into the game that anyone can use, therefore making the game an incredibly easy one.

I do disagree with some of the verdicts on certain games in this thread (for example I actually believe uncharted 3 is unfairly hard and I don't believe the series is particularly easy in general, not when compared to similar games). But again, opinions on a game is not what the thread is about, it's about wether games have progressed or not, and despite many people seemingly not liking the way they have progressed, no one can deny the fact that they have.

[dvdx2]

Charlie, again... We are talking about progression, not if you like the mechanics, you keep talking about something different to what the thread is about.

And dvdx2, Getting touchy and offended when no one is insulting you is anti social... So I'd argue that I'm not the anti social one, but anyway...

Call of Duty is not that hard to discuss when it comes to progression since the series inception. The biggest leap was from the first game to the second, the change between the use of health bar and med packs to a regenerating health system etc. But beyond that the series has consistently strived to bring as much variety to the plate as it can while remaining basically a series of first person based shooting set pieces.

With COD4, possibly the most innovative game in the series to date in regards to progression of its game mechanics, it saw the birth several features that at the time were very unique, a perk based multiplayer system was unveiled and levels where you weren't just shooting people were included. This has been built upon in further games, with levels where you control support drones and latter games even feature levels where you switch between several types of gameplay during a level. Black Ops 2 took this one step further still, and features levels that are a shooter/rts type hybrid. Here the developers should be commended, because despite their not so successful implementation the levels at least show a level of ambition that the series often gets somewhat wrongly accused of not having.

Overall the series hasn't been the most impressive in terms of progression of its gameplay mechanics. But there have been quite a few moves forward since the first game in the series all the same.

Lol - don't worry matey,its takes a lot more than your forum posts to get me touchy and offended.

Aside from the multiplayer and of course, graphics, COD hasnt really advanced much since the ps1. The mechanics are pretty much identical and the transition from health packs to the recharging health is hardly an advancement, both are equally idiotic if you were being pumped full of bullets. What about the GT series? Again, almost identical mechanics from the days of the ps1, besides graphical advancement and perhaps better game physics. Infact, i thought 5 had poorer advancement than 3.

[H-Man]

Doesn't progressed suggest they're improving, though? Mechanics are changing to make games easier and more accessible, but in the sense of giving us better games I wouldn't say they're progressing. I'd like to lump Assassin's Creed in with Uncharted now - any video game that can make jumping from roof top to roof top over certain death boring is doing something very wrong in my eyes. Do we have more control over characters or have developers just put the inflatable bumpers up and sign posted the way? Either way it's catering for the lowest denominator - McDonald's meets video games. And this might be great for many people and is certainly good for profits, but it's not for me and I suspect for a lot of people who grew up with gaming and like some meat to it.

[rmoxon]

Doesn't progressed suggest they're improving, though? Mechanics are changing to make games easier and more accessible, but in the sense of giving us better games I wouldn't say they're progressing. I'd like to lump Assassin's Creed in with Uncharted now - any video game that can make jumping from roof top to roof top over certain death boring is doing something very wrong in my eyes. Do we have more control over characters or have developers just put the inflatable bumpers up and sign posted the way? Either way it's catering for the lowest denominator - McDonald's meets video games. And this might be great for many people and is certainly good for profits, but it's not for me and I suspect for a lot of people who grew up with gaming and like some meat to it.

Progression simply means to move forward, which in the terms of any entertainment medium could simply be classed as moving with the times.

And Im not a fan of Assasins creed at all, and I haven't played any of the newer games, but I will say the first two games were nothing if not ambitious and I certainly would say that they had aspirations of moving games forward in a positive way, even if I personally think they failed at it.

[speedlolita]

Something meaty comes along (MGR:R) and it gets slammed for being too hard and cheap, when in fact, people are just lazy ****ers and they don't want to have to learn anything to get good and reap the rewarding experiences that are locked away inside there. Even when it comes to the praise of Bayonetta, I'm quite certain around 90% of players haven't been playing to any where near the extent of what the mechanics have to offer. That can't be blamed, mind. I think I've got about 100 hours on my clock and I feel like a beginner, still. I'm not even at a level where I think it's fair to give the game a review because I've hardly seen much.

Same can be said about fighting games really. People dismiss them as button mashy. Honestly, that's a huge irk of mine. Oh and people that say Bayonetta is "just about sex". Like really, that game has some of the best combat in video games so far. Let alone this generation.

[Sam The Man]

In your post above you're trying to argue with me, but then by the end of what you have written you are virtually agreeing with me by saying things have progressed but you just don't like the way they have.

I was just trying to say 2 things, one that game mechanics have only progressed in some areas where as in others they have not. And two that the areas they have i don't feel are for the better.

[dvdx2]

Same can be said about fighting games really. People dismiss them as button mashy. Honestly, that's a huge irk of mine. Oh and people that say Bayonetta is "just about sex". Like really, that game has some of the best combat in video games so far. Let alone this generation.

But many are speedy; take fighting games like the DOA series, combat is so quick that its almost impossible to predict moves or counter - bouts end in random mashing and frustration. The genre has tried to become so accessible, that its possible for a child to win by banging random buttons; you could never do that with street fighter or most 2 d games

Never understood the fuss about Bayonetta either, pretty much a nice looking devil may cry rip off, but hey each to there own.

[speedlolita]

Did you play Bayonetta?

Fighting games can be button mashers if you want them to be. DoA is more of a game of rock paper scissors though.

[Charlie]

Charlie, again... We are talking about progression, not if you like the mechanics, you keep talking about something different to what the thread is about.

Again, I am talking about the progression of mechanics but suspect the parameters you and I use to gauge progression are different. Lets say a game's mechanics are more realistic or allow for greater control and precision than it's predecessors mechanics, if the game is less satisfying or fun or entertaining to play because of those changes, to me that's not progression. I suspect that's why we can't see eye to eye and feel we might simply have to agree to disagree.

[nakamura]

I miss proper platforming in games. Shadow of the Colossus was perhaps the last one of its type to do it properly. Since then it's all automated.

DoA 4 is certainly too fast for it to be fair. DoA 2 and 3 are both superb though and is something you can get very good at.

[speedlolita]

DoA4 feels no faster than the others to me.