jamon51 wrote:I play mostly modern games but tend to gravitate toward those with a little more depth to them.
One thing I have often lamented is this. I love Gunship 2000, especially the multiple helicopter control. I also love Battlefield Vietnam's helicopters. I'd love to combine BFV's choppers and graphics engine into a GS2000-style single player campaign, with dynamic objectives, multiple chopper control, etc.
So I guess my point is that there are things from each era that I like, and would really like to combine a few of them.
I think jamon51 hits home with his post, because this is exactly my stance as well.
If I have to choose between Privateer 1 and Privateer Remake with better sound and graphics but retains the depths of the gameplay, then I'll choose the latter. However, if the choice is between Privateer 1 and Crysis, I'll definitely choose Privateer all the way to Sunday. Period.
I'm not asking too much from modern game publishers (or maybe my expectations have been severely lowered after experiencing Doom 3); I'm not expecting The Gameplay Quantum Leap (TM). If they merely create a carbon-copy of gameplay concepts from the past, packaged with better graphic, I'll be happy with that. Heck, even if they blatantly create exact clone of Sword of the Samurai with better graphics, without any "gameplay enchancements" whatsoever, I'll still be happy with that.
BUT NOOOOOOOO.
Color me pessimistic, but I don't even think such remakes will be considered "profitable" by modern game publishers. As Chris Taylor has put it:
Chris Taylor wrote: consumer landscapes are far different now,
And while we're at it, here are some of my "more structured" complaints about modern games:
Too much appealing to the mainstream
Privateer 2 has better graphic, but the gameplay is much less dynamic than the original Privateer. Deus Ex: Invisible Wars has better graphic, but is more dumbed down than the first Deus Ex. Why many newer games are getting like console games? Can't they put better graphics while retaining the depth and complexity of the old times? Ah yes, the typical excuse: to appeal broader audience. Does it never happen to them that deep gameplay like that of Sword of the Samurai can be easy enough to be enjoyed by the "mainsteram audience"?
Too much appealing to the grognards
This is a very rare case that only happens to a single genre: flight simulations. No offense, hardcore flightsimmers, but many gamers out there are not interested to memorize horde of buttons and struggling with the overly realistic flight models. I'm a flightsimmer myself, but honestly, I enjoy Secret Weapons of Luftwaffe better than LOMAC. The former may have a non-existent flight models, but it allows us to enjoy strategic planning, lets us to prioritize and decide our own targets, and makes our flights actually matter to the course of war, while the latter doesn't even have dynamic campaign! Probably that's also why I always think that mid to later 90s is the best period for flight sim, because it has titles like Total Air War and Mig Alley which give us dynamic gameplay and strategic involvement without "punishing" us too much with realism.
And while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that relatively simple game like Origin's Strike Commander can present a deep and engaging gameplay without being too complex. The game allows us to manage certain aspects of mercenary squadron (should I kill him with expensive AMRAAM, or should I take the risk of killing him with cannon to save the bucks?), as well as presenting a nice story. And I think Strike Commander is sufficiently easy to appeal to "mainstream audience", so perhaps this is a lesson should be taken not only by flightsim publishers, but by those of other genres as well. But noooo! F-16 Agressor, which was said to be "Strike Commander-alike", totally remove the mercenary management part.
Now we have kickass 3D technology, but...
...but we're still limited to first-person shooters. Look, I know shooters are cool, and even bad shooters still provide quite a nce diversion, but does every action game out there have to be first-person shooters? Aren't there any other point of views than first-person? If they can't be creative about gameplay, can't they at least be creative about perspective?
I don't know about others, but to me, what stops me from playing computer RPGs in mid-1996 is the endless use of first-person view. Fortunately Fallout came in and gave back the niceties of watching your characters from above; to see what armor they wear or what weapons they have, and especially to see them duking it out with the enemies. But does a game need to have RPG or strategy elements to eschew first-person view? Origin's Crusader series is probably a great example that an action game does not need to be first-person to be great. And if somehow they issue a remake of Sword of the Samurai, please of please don't make the action first-person.
"Deep = complex and difficult" fallacy?
Have game publishers today fallen into the thoughts that games need to be watered down to appeal to the "mainstream audience"? I think games like Strike Commander and Sword of the Samurai are simple and easy enough for "mainstream audience" while still being deep and dynamic, so why most action games today need to be watered down and stripped off their "deep elements"? And despite its more complex gameplay, I still think that the interface and gameplay mechanics of Fragile Allegiance are easy enough for "beginner gamers", so why every RTS today should recycle the concept of C&C over and over again?
CRPGs: good examples of "best of both worlds"
If there are old games I play purely out of nostalgia, they are RPGs. When it goes to RPGs, I don't really need DOSBOX, because modern RPGs like KOTOR, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights present good graphics while still retaining the good gameplay of the past.
There were times when RPGs were almost reduced to watered down hack and slash. Fortunately, while Doom and Quake had ruined the action genre, Diablo just failed to ruin RPGs (fucking hah!). I'm not sure, but I think it was because Fallout came out and showed us that great SVGA graphics and easy interface doesn't mean you have to butcher gameplay.
Too bad other genres like action and flightsims failed to survive like RPG. The question is: why?