Number of interesting games this holiday season

Games
41

Err… How are we supposed to know that?[/quote]
For some games, I think you just know it.

The first time you played Half-Life, you knew it was something special. When you finished GTA III, you knew people would soon start copying it. Everquest took some time to catch on, but by the end of '99, I think everyone knew that it would only be a matter of time before the MMO floodgates opened wide.

Obviously, the benefit of hindsight helps, but I’m having a hard time just coming up with a list of potential contenders from 2004. Katamari Damacy? Maybe Riddick? (shrugs) Dunno. That’s why I wanted to bring it up for discussion. :)

42

Katamari Damacy will roll the world!

43

Yes, but only because they’re part of a popular series of games, and therefore will be compared to other games in the series. I don’t think there’s any games this year that are going to kickoff a new genre or inspire tons of copycats or anything. Maybe Half Life 2.

44

I dunno… this entire year hasn’t seen too many games that I’ve wanted to play. Dominions2 was the big exception, and I got tired of that one after a couple months. (Oh no! Only several months of hardcore gaming!) As for the upcoming titles, none of them catches my fancy except one: WoW. I’ve never played a MMORPG before, but I think this one is going to finally suck me in. This is not good… I work full time and go to school. I can’t afford to hide in my room playing games for three weeks straight like I did sometimes when I was an undergraduate student. Lord help me.

45

The point I was hoping to discuss is whether there really have been any games released in 2004 whose impact will still be felt years from now, just like Starcraft, Half-Life and the other games I mentioned. Were there any games released in 2004 that will inspire an entire subgenre of clones like Diablo did? Were there any games that will kick off huge, massive franchises like Baldur’s Gate, Gran Turismo, and Rainbow Six did?

I don’t know what that T.Rex DX guy is throwing a hissy fit for, but it’s a good question and well worth considering. There’s no denying that some really strong titles are coming out, but they’re not the same as the wild bursts of creative energy we saw in '98.

These are more like the latest in an increasingly refined series of commercially palatable titles, created by mature developers at the peak of their game. Halo 2, Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, Dawn of War, Ratchet & Clank III, GTA: San Andreas, Doom 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Metroid Prime 2. Joint Ops, Battlefield: Vietnam, UT2004, Sims 2, Mario Golf Advance, Rome: Total War, and so on. Nothing new, but a lot that’s simply better.

Even the really clever new stuff from the young developers – Painkiller, Eve of Destruction, Kohan II – laregely fits the profile of refined instances of established genres. I don’t doubt that in two, three, four years, they’ll be supplanted by the next wave of first person shooters, RTSs, RPGs, and MMOs.

1998 was special in a way that 2004 isn’t. Don’t get me wrong. I’m loving 2004 so far (I just wish it weren’t all hitting me at once). But it doesn’t have the sense of discovery and revelation that 1998 had.

 -Tom
46

Ignoring the sequel/franchise angle, though, how is 2004 different from 1998? Were the '98 games not also refinements of first-person shooters (Half-Life, Rainbow 6), real-time strategy (Starcraft) RPGs (Baldur’s Gate), racing (Grand Turismo), PC adventure games (Grim Fandango) and console adventure games (Zelda: OoT, Metal Gear Solid)? I guess Diablo was a new concept, but otherwise it seems like the same thing: Refining a genre/type of game and making it really, really good.

The jury is still out on most of the Q4 2004 releases, but they certainly look to be good to me.

47

I don’t know how to explain it other than what I’ve already said, but I’ll try.

You already mentioned Diablo, which needs no justification for its role as something wildy different. Baldur’s Gate was the beginning of a rennaissance for RPGs. Half-Life was undisputably a revolution in first person shooters as narratives and as a context for the creative community of modders. Rainbow Six changed the way you play first person shooters in terms of AI teammates and the lethality of weapons. Starcraft changed the way we think of balance – not just in RTSs, but in all games – as giving different sides different sets of tools. Freespace changed the scale of space combat games. Grim Fandango, umm, did something great, I’m sure, but I never played it past that part with the twisty balloon dog.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see that level of reinvigoration or reinvention in terms of what this year’s games are doing. And I’m not trying to start some long discursive thread on whether innovation is the be-all and end-all of great games. It’s clearly not.

And again, I’m not trying to be dismissive, either. As I said, 2004 looks great to me, too.

-Tom
48

Tom:

I’d appreciate you keep your snippy remarks to yourself re: my hissy fits. This was a legit fit. Now sluggo’s going all ‘boo hoo sequels I’m sick of sequels’ to take the last bit of moral high ground available to him. It’s impossible to argue with that and I have no intention of doing so.

So what sucks about sequels? Nothing, necessarily. Right? It’s nothing innate. Otherwise you wouldn’t be listing Kohan II on the good guy’s team. I’m mystified by some of your entries in the bad guy’s team, though.

Fine, lots of sequels. Sequel, sequel, sequel. In the magical world of 1998 we had totally original games like, uh, Baldur’s Gate. And Rainbow Six. And Gran Turismo. See, these are only ‘original’ games in a limited, technical sense. Some of the stuff in the upcoming sequels is just as interesting as the stuff these games offered. And that’s not to mention some of the genuinely cool stuff offered by the masses of games you ignored. Katamari being a good one.

What does suck is that there are a lot of high-profile games taking the limelight from smaller, maybe equally deserving games. And you point this out. But the same was true in 1998. The fact that it’s stuff like Metal Gear and Baldur’s Gate that get remembered, while, uh, something original from 1998 doesn’t, proves this. You’re just listing games that suit your pet beliefs and ignoring a lot of the games that aren’t. I honestly don’t know if this year will be better than 1998, but I’m sure as hell not convinced that 1998 was just that much better.

49

Oh yeah: I think Diablo most certainly does need a justification if you’re going to call it ‘wildly different’. What. The. Hell?

50

I agree with all of this, but I wanted to add some stuff:

It’s hard to remember just how bad the state of RPGs were back then. For example: Anvil of Dawn, RPG of the Year. Yikes.

Half-Life was undisputably a revolution in first person shooters as narratives and as a context for the creative community of modders.

Even the way Half-Life transitioned from level to level was revolutionary. I remember the reviews compared it to Sin, which had these horribly long loading times between levels.

Rainbow Six changed the way you play first person shooters in terms of AI teammates and the lethality of weapons.

This one actually did create a new subgenre. The tactical shooter.

Starcraft changed the way we think of balance – not just in RTSs, but in all games – as giving different sides different sets of tools. Freespace changed the scale of space combat games. Grim Fandango, umm, did something great, I’m sure, but I never played it past that part with the twisty balloon dog.

The problem was that some of the genres these games represented have since more or less fizzled out. So Grim Fandango could be known as the first good 3D adventure game if anyone still made adventure games. The first High Heat Baseball came out that year also and was the most realistic baseball game since Earl Weaver Baseball. The problem was that nobody cared, and kept on playing EA’s terrible Triple Play games.

51

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you. If you’re just going to trawl and pick fights, maybe you should go play in P&R while the grown ups talk about games.

True. But I would say that’s due to commercial factors more than creativity. The shape of the industry has changed a lot since 1998.

And I forgot about Gran Turismo. That pretty much invented the CarPG, didn’t it?

I’m not arguing that 1998 was necessarily better than 2004, BTW. It’s just that whereas 1998 felt like a wave of creativity and innovation, 2004 feels like it’s grounded in more experienced development. There’s nothing left of that garage development feeling.

I think it’s one of the hallmarks of the industry maturing and I view it as a good thing overall. My hunch, and I’d be curious if you guys agree, is that there are fewer bad games among 2004’s major releases.

-Tom
52

Xenogears was released in 1998.

It could easily be considered a major game owing to how much it sold and how popular it is still.

Therefore, you are correct. :P

Incidentally, that is also why I cannot in good conscience think too positively about 1998, not when among the other upstarts that abomination started to poison the industry!

Gotta disagree on the whole garage thing though, not when games like Otogi 2 and Payback are getting made and published.

-Kitsune

53

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you. If you’re just going to trawl and pick fights, maybe you should go play in P&R while the grown ups talk about games.[/quote]

Oh piss off. You’re trolling me! I’m being good! Maybe the problem is that I’m just too good.

On topic:

I’d say that it’s probably a bit too early to say if the major releases are of higher quality. Most of them haven’t come out yet.
I think there are a lot of very imaginative games coming out now. I don’t give a shit if they ‘advance the medium’ or spawn new genres. That’s not what creativity is for. That might even be the antithesis of creativity. When you can point to a turgid old car racin’ game or a dark elf sim or a Tom Clancy’s Raghead Exterminator and call it ‘innovative’, maybe innovation isn’t the thing we should be dribbling over. I can’t stand that shit.

54

I don’t know if it has been mentioned (and I’m too lazy to check) but Thief: The Dark Project was also 1998. That pretty much single-handedly launched the entire genre of sneakers (first and third person).

Also, 1998 was the year of Battlecruiser 3000 AD. I don’t think I need to remind anyone of the wide-ranging consequences there. :P

55

Thief has been mentioned but was by no means the first ‘sneaker’.

56

I can’t think of one before it. But in any event, it doesn’t have to have been the first one, to have “launched the entire genre of sneakers” which we clearly have today.

57

He didn’t say it was. Seriously, why don’t you go play in another thread if you’re just going to loiter around and be a jackass.

I didn’t mean there isn’t any garage game development, just that the big games of 2004 don’t have that garage feel like some of the big games of 1998.

Oh, and Otogi 2 is, like, totally sweet! But I’m assuming it’s from a big established developer. Is that not the case?

-Tom

58

In that case, it was neither. Metal Gear - for one, there may be more - was released in the 80’s, and MGS/Syphon Filter were in development at the same time as Thief. Plus Goldeneye placed an emphasis on stealth and that was released, what, a year earlier? Most modern sneak 'em ups are probably influenced more my MGS than Thief. They’re virtually all third person at any rate.

59

He didn’t say it was.[/quote]

This is true, fair enough.

Just ban me then. I’m not a saint or even a remotely likeable guy, but I’m getting very frustrated by this shit. You’re in full-on insult mode for minor indiscretions and carelessness. Fuck you.

60

Before sluggo takes over as President of Earth, he may want to note that Diablo was in fact released in 1996, not 1998. :)

Another game to add to the pantheon of '98 for me is the original Tribes. If it had been possible to burn out a cable modem by playing one game, Tribes would have fried mine to a crisp.