Originally posted by CPC464
I must admit I think that most games now just lack originality, some of the earlier release games had good quality and content, most games now just seem to be aimed at "GOOD GRAPHICS" and that's all and then they seem to require 2 or 3 patches.
I definitely agree - the genres of FPSes and RTSes and RPGs have been so well established now that they're really not going anywhere significant these days. The only real difference now is how gory the deaths are, how many polys the car is made out of, or how realistic the weapon-modelling is - a real pity. It's almost like the novelty of 3D graphics hasn't quite worn off yet, and everyone just gets caught up in the 3Dness and loses sight of the playability of the game.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that games like Project IGI and Halo, while not doing much new for FPSes in terms of storylines, are at least bringing us new environments - there's nothing as satisfying as driving around an entire island in Halo in a jeep and then going into a base, coming out again, driving some more along the coastline, etc. etc.
While essentially it's still the same game as any other, it's nice to be outdoors at least.
I can forgive the patches problem a little more though - the complexity of modern games has increased sooo much since older games that it's probably a necessary evil, although I do definitely agree that the game SHOULD have been well tested before it got released.
Patches that fix multiplayer problems and gameplay bugs are just sheer laziness - patches that fix unforeseen problems like server cheats/hacks etc. are more understandable, as no-one could have really seen them coming even with a lot of testing.
If there's one thing my Computer Science degree has taught me, its that testing and debugging is PARAMOUNT!
Modern programmers are so damn sloppy. Myself included
//fixed the quote. If you need to quote someone when replying, just click on the Quote button uder their message. - TG