[Lorric]

I've still never spent any appreciable amount of time with a PS3, so I can't say I'm all that concerned about whatever the hell Sony is trying now.

Me too.

PS4...

I feel nothing.

I own 98 PS2 games. Enjoyed the overwhelming majority.

I own 12 PS3 games. One doesn't count as it's a collection of old games, and two were freebies for the hacker scandal, and one came with the machine. And I've got little joy out of many of those which remain. Gaming has gone to the casuals, and it sucks for me. Who would have thought real gamers being seen as losers and nerds without lives would be better than the alternative, this mainstream crap being pumped out to cater for them.

The system doesn't matter anymore. Real games are dying out. The machine isn't a game. What you can do with the machine is irrelevant if you're just putting garbage into it.

[Lorric]

Yeah, I think the whole "hardcore/casual" thing has almost always been bull****, and even more so over the past few years.  My whole thing with the PS3 is that there's never been any exclusive title that's made me perk up and say, "Man I need to play that."  I mean I know several of the PS3 exclusives are good stuff, but they don't fit into that system-buying category for me.  (The Last Guardian's about the only thing that might, but who knows what the hell will happen with that.)  The same was largely true for both the original XBox and the 360.  Nintendo's the only one of the three that has that sort of hold on me, because hell, you give me Mario and Zelda and Metroid, and I'm set.  I know many people give them grief for largely sticking to those same tried-and-true franchises, but sales value aside, I think there's an inherent benefit in having a few properties that are near-universally known and beloved, and that have spanned over so many years.  Sony doesn't really have anything that compares...I mean, when was the last Crash Bandicoot game people cared about?  Sega did with Sonic, but we all know how that turned out, and Halo has become that for MS, but I can't think of anything truly iconic to associate with the PlayStation brand anymore.

But that's exactly because of the mainstreaming of gaming. Nothing stands out anymore. In the PS2 days, around one such huge, "wow factor" title would come out a year. Creativity and individuality has been destroyed. More than once a year I would feel that excitement looking at a game, now I never feel it at all. The only games which do that for me are old games that I have bought in this generation.

Game developers are there to make money, not incredible games. If they can make more money sticking to a cookie cutter dumbed down formula that requires less effort, then they will. But there's no soul anymore, no creativity. Just mainstream, mass market, all flash and no substance "games".

A whole generation, and for me it's like they've barely got past launch.

[The E]

So instead of going to the reasonable conclusion of saying that your tastes have shifted so that mainstream console games are no longer interesting to you, you are saying that the games market has gotten worse?

Bravo, Lorric, bravo.

(The Creativity and Individuality you miss from mainstream titles was never there to begin with, btw. AAA titles have always played it safe, this was no different during the PS2 days. The innovative breakout titles of the past are the indie games of today.)

[NGTM-1R]

But that's exactly because of the mainstreaming of gaming. Nothing stands out anymore. In the PS2 days, around one such huge, "wow factor" title would come out a year. Creativity and individuality has been destroyed. More than once a year I would feel that excitement looking at a game, now I never feel it at all. The only games which do that for me are old games that I have bought in this generation.

Game developers are there to make money, not incredible games. If they can make more money sticking to a cookie cutter dumbed down formula that requires less effort, then they will. But there's no soul anymore, no creativity. Just mainstream, mass market, all flash and no substance "games".

There's a fascinating disconnect between these two paragraphs. One says "nothing stands out anymore", and implies that everything is the same now. But then things changed in amusing way. "Once a year" and "More than once a year". You are saying, directly, that the pace of good games being released got faster. You even admit you thought so.

Then you segue into an argument that gaming's quality decayed.

[Lorric]

So instead of going to the reasonable conclusion of saying that your tastes have shifted so that mainstream console games are no longer interesting to you, you are saying that the games market has gotten worse?

Bravo, Lorric, bravo.

(The Creativity and Individuality you miss from mainstream titles was never there to begin with, btw. AAA titles have always played it safe, this was no different during the PS2 days. The innovative breakout titles of the past are the indie games of today.)

My taste hasn't changed at all. The business has.

I wonder what AAA titles you are thinking of. It would be interesting to see if I actually possess any of them out of my 98 PS2 games.

But that's exactly because of the mainstreaming of gaming. Nothing stands out anymore. In the PS2 days, around one such huge, "wow factor" title would come out a year. Creativity and individuality has been destroyed. More than once a year I would feel that excitement looking at a game, now I never feel it at all. The only games which do that for me are old games that I have bought in this generation.

Game developers are there to make money, not incredible games. If they can make more money sticking to a cookie cutter dumbed down formula that requires less effort, then they will. But there's no soul anymore, no creativity. Just mainstream, mass market, all flash and no substance "games".

There's a fascinating disconnect between these two paragraphs. One says "nothing stands out anymore", and implies that everything is the same now. But then things changed in amusing way. "Once a year" and "More than once a year". You are saying, directly, that the pace of good games being released got faster. You even admit you thought so.

Then you segue into an argument that gaming's quality decayed.

Once a year a title that people would buy the system for. More than once a year a title that was worth getting excited about. In the PS2 days.

[The E]

So you're talking about games that are system sellers. Let's see. Over the course of the PS3's life, we've had several such games (Uncharted series, Gran Turismo, God of War, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, even Journey would probably qualify). That short list there covers 9 games, spread out over a 7-year lifespan. I'd say that there are just as many system sellers now as there were before, whether or not they would have been enough to sell the system to you is irrelevant. These are high-quality games with polished stories and gameplay that certainly helped shift a bunch of systems.

Now, you say that your tastes haven't changed. I find that somewhat hard to believe; I know that I am looking for different things in games now than I was 3, 4, or 7 years ago (Not to mention 13 years ago, when the PS2 came out!). Nevertheless, if I assume your assertion to be true, then I would have to ask what games you are looking for, because I am pretty certain that there were no genres left behind in this generation.

Also, as far as I can work out, the average quality of games has risen in the past few years, due to the rise of the Indie scene as a viable market, the increased necessity to deliver experiences that stand out above the sea of facebook and mobile games, the increased awareness that writing is an important part of crafting games, and the increased awareness among players about the hows and whys of game design.

Granted, small and large "innovative" titles occupy a smaller relative share of the market ever since the Call of Battlefield: Duty in Modern Honor Warfare Halos wave, but I would assume that the absolute numbers are still as high or higher than they have been before (this is a completely unfounded supposition, so beware!).

[Lorric]

So you're talking about games that are system sellers. Let's see. Over the course of the PS3's life, we've had several such games (Uncharted series, Gran Turismo, God of War, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, even Journey would probably qualify). That short list there covers 9 games, spread out over a 7-year lifespan. I'd say that there are just as many system sellers now as there were before, whether or not they would have been enough to sell the system to you is irrelevant. These are high-quality games with polished stories and gameplay that certainly helped shift a bunch of systems.

Now, you say that your tastes haven't changed. I find that somewhat hard to believe; I know that I am looking for different things in games now than I was 3, 4, or 7 years ago (Not to mention 13 years ago, when the PS2 came out!). Nevertheless, if I assume your assertion to be true, then I would have to ask what games you are looking for, because I am pretty certain that there were no genres left behind in this generation.

Also, as far as I can work out, the average quality of games has risen in the past few years, due to the rise of the Indie scene as a viable market, the increased necessity to deliver experiences that stand out above the sea of facebook and mobile games, the increased awareness that writing is an important part of crafting games, and the increased awareness among players about the hows and whys of game design.

Granted, small and large "innovative" titles occupy a smaller relative share of the market ever since the Call of Battlefield: Duty in Modern Honor Warfare Halos wave, but I would assume that the absolute numbers are still as high or higher than they have been before (this is a completely unfounded supposition, so beware!).

I was actually talking about PS2 system sellers.

PS3, I haven't played any of those. Funnily enough, I possess Killzone 2. Bought it a few days ago cheaply with 3 other games. Haven't played it yet.

Uncharted, know little about. Gran Turismo, I looked into the game, and have been tempted to buy occasionally, but haven't, it just has flaws I don't like. I have Gran Turismos 1 and 2 for PS1, but no more. Rubber band AI is a big deal breaker for me, but I have other issues with this one.

God of War, I'm just not keen on one man army type games. I also played a demo and it didn't click for me.

LittleBigPlanet unfortunately is in a genre I don't like. It is an impressive game besides that.

I've never heard of Journey.

It is true, because I keep going back to games from all generations. I don't have time to answer this properly, as I have to be somewhere pretty soon, but I can try and answer it later. I'll look through my games, both PS2 and PS1.

I must admit that as far as the indie scene goes, I know very little about it.

I have very few first person shooters, so this has been one of the biggest problems for me. The one shooter that would have excited me, Timesplitters 4, got cancelled.

[Lorric]

Now, you say that your tastes haven't changed. I find that somewhat hard to believe; I know that I am looking for different things in games now than I was 3, 4, or 7 years ago (Not to mention 13 years ago, when the PS2 came out!). Nevertheless, if I assume your assertion to be true, then I would have to ask what games you are looking for, because I am pretty certain that there were no genres left behind in this generation.

Alright, time for this part.

I mentioned about not liking one man show games, and I surprised myself at just how much I have avoided this in my game library. So let me expand on the reasoning behind this. If it’s just you out there, the game will be the same every time you play it. You march into that room with that same group of enemies in. If you have to repeat, nothing changes.

Online gaming does not interest me. At least with strangers. So the march towards online multiplayer and the de-emphasising of single player campaigns has hurt me.

Now, if you have an actual battle with not just you there, the game will change each time you play it. This is what I enjoy. Gameplay closely followed by replay ability are my highest priorities.

Other examples of this would be a racing game. While it’s only you, the other racers will make things different every race. Although there are some on-rails racing games out there, and surprisingly, I don’t have a problem playing these, but prefer it not to be the case. A particular favourite is Demolition derby type racing. This kind of game really seems to have died out though since the PS1, with the exception of a great game for PS2 called Driven to Destruction. Motorstorm would have been nice, but for rubber band AI. Rubber band mechanisms alone won’t break a game for me, but you have to still be able to “snap” the band. If you can’t do that, I’m not interested. Crash Team Racing (an all time favourite) is a perfect example of this. Unlike Mario Kart, which sucks because of rubber banding and the blue shell, CTR has rubber banding, but if you learn the tracks perfectly and race out of your skin you can break free of the pack even on hard, so the game has a strong skill element to it, even though you can still win by luck if you’re not good enough. Mario Kart is basically luck, skill is pretty negligible. Well, unless you’re taking on a staff ghost, but you don’t buy the game for that.

I also have Crash Bash, love that game. Requires skill, but plenty of random elements if you like, to keep things interesting and the replay value high.

Football and other sports would also qualify. Football is one of only two areas I’ve got true enjoyment from the PS3 thanks to FIFA, and that was the reason I bought the console, for FIFA World Cup 2010. I’m not interested enough in club football to buy a regular FIFA, although I bought FIFA 13, because it has an international management aspect. The other is WipEout.

My favourite game series is Dynasty Warriors and it’s spin offs. Now of course these are still going. But they’ve been dumbed down for the masses on PS3. Although I just picked up Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce and that is looking like a real gem. The AI is just braindead. They’ve gone with a formula that on the higher difficulties, you take massive damage if you get hit, but the AI is braindead. But the AI can’t touch me to do that damage. They’ve also dumbed down a lot of things with the game, and ruined the game balance. It used to be that the AI got more aggressive and did strong damage, but not ridiculous damage. Dynasty Warriors 4 combined with Dynasty Warriors 4 Xtreme Legends (for the new Expert difficulty and improved AI) was the best, it’s been downhill from there. This was DW at it’s finest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3vG9HC_8DA

We got Warriors Orochi and Warriors Orochi 2 after that which were awesome games, but the core games started going downhill ever since.

A fine game, in the same mould, is, amusingly, The Warriors. It’s based off the film of the same name however.

I love that type of game where you’re thrown onto a big battlefield, and it’s up to you to swing it. A criminally unknown game called Battle Engine Aquila on PS2 is a great example of this. Freespace 2 and other space combat games also qualify. It’s up to you to get the job done, but try telling your wingmen to depart and see what happens to you. You need them, they need you. Another aspect of why I like these games is the fact you can’t rest, you can’t fall asleep. Because you need to fight for your allies. If it was just you vs. the World, that pressure wouldn’t be there, and you could pick apart the enemies at your leisure.

I like RTS games, but consoles don’t really cater for them. Especially the PS3. PS2 had a handful. PS1 tended to carry some PC ports.

I haven’t played an RPG for many years. Final Fantasy died for me at XII. I know for a lot of people it died at X, but I really like X. I even managed to get some enjoyment out of X-2, though there were times the game made me cringe and I was glad no one could see me playing it. But I think X manages to stand alongside previous titles. X-2 is merely a good game. No more Grandias or Suikodens or Kingdom Hearts or Summoners. I have however got my eye on Ni No Kuni. Ni No Kuni is the most beautiful game I’ve ever seen.

I have very few FPSs. The only ones I have really enjoyed are Perfect Dark (N64 game creeping in there), Timesplitters 2 and Timesplitters Future Perfect. It’s the huge diversity and customisability of the multiplayer sections of these games that made these games for me, although PD and TFP have great single player campaigns too. TS2’s is just decent. They also have a lot of single player challenges set in the multiplayer section of the game. I don’t need another human to get loads of enjoyment out of the multiplayer. I’d have been all over these if they’d made more. And that is it for the FPSs. Oh, I also enjoyed Turok Rage Wars a lot, another N64 title. And that basically is a single player multiplayer game.

Today’s FPSs don’t even have proper single player campaigns. They just serve as a boot camp to prepare you for online multiplayer.

I’ll give a quick shout out to another largely unknown PS2 game that is one of my favourites, Ring of Red.

I can’t understand why they didn’t make a PS3 Star Wars Battlefront. Surely that ticks all the boxes of today’s games, right? It seems an ideal title for today’s market.

I’d like to see someone try and make a fantasy sport game. I absolutely love Speedball 2100 on PS1.

I like my games to have customisability and editors in them if possible.

I think that about does it. I think the greatest game I’ve ever played is Warcraft III. Greatest console game ever is Perfect Dark.

If anyone wants to try making suggestions about games now that you‘ve seen my tastes, feel free to. Also, any suggestions on how to research the World of indie gaming would be welcome too, I know very little about it.

[deathfun]

Then there's me who enjoys pretty much every game I've ever played
Except Conflict: Denied Ops. That **** was terrible

[Lorric]

Then there's me who enjoys pretty much every game I've ever played
Except Conflict: Denied Ops. That **** was terrible

Surely it can't be that simple with you though? What about universally acknowledged crap games? Or do you just choose well? I generally put a lot of research into my game purchases, and before the PS3 era usually chose well.

[deathfun]

It is that simple. If a game looks fun, I'll play it. That hasn't failed me in my hundred game purchases

[Lorric]

It is that simple. If a game looks fun, I'll play it. That hasn't failed me in my hundred game purchases

In a way, it's the same with me. It just takes me a while to determine if a game looks fun. Once in a while I'll know just by looking at something, but that hasn't happened in the PS3 era, that immediate excited feeling.

[deathfun]

Why don't you just say you don't like games from this generation and have a piece of paper with dozens of standards that must be checked off.

What games deliver wow factor to you anyhow? You never did say what makes you go "wow"

[Lorric]

Why don't you just say you don't like games from this generation and have a piece of paper with dozens of standards that must be checked off.

What games deliver wow factor to you anyhow? You never did say what makes you go "wow"

Wow factor games for me? I got the biggest wow on console ever when I first saw Dynasty Warriors, Dynasty Warriors 2 was part of a demo disc that came with my PS2 and I just had to have it. Subsequent games wowed me as well. Burnout wowed me when I first saw that, Final Fantasies 8-10 wowed me. Rome Total War was the biggest wow I've ever had, and made me get my own PC, I was obsessed with owning that game. Freespace 2 actually wowed me, as did some other PS1 space combat games. Battle Engine Aquila wowed me. I think Ridge Racer Type 4 wowed me. Warcraft III certainly did. I know the old Road Rash games did. Why the hell don't they revive those?! Grandia II wowed me. I'm pretty sure Crash Team Racing and Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat did. Speedball 2 back in the old days was one of the biggest wows ever. Perfect Dark and Timesplitters 2 certainly wowed me. Soviet Strike may have. I know the old Jungle Strike did which was my first taste of that series, another series I wish would have continued. Those are the quick wows anyway, others have become my favourites without wowing me, while not all of those are among my top games. Oh, and Mario Kart despite what I said about it wowed me on seeing it. My first look at F-Zero did this also. I'll probably have missed something, but that's a good enough list I think.

EDIT: Oh, probably my most recent and surprising wow, Langrisser II of all things. A friend gave it to me like 2 years ago, the fan translated English version.

Edit 2: Paradroid and Star Paws on C-64, along with the game that started it all, Operation Wolf.

[Spoon]

I mentioned about not liking one man show games, and I surprised myself at just how much I have avoided this in my game library. So let me expand on the reasoning behind this. If it’s just you out there, the game will be the same every time you play it. You march into that room with that same group of enemies in. If you have to repeat, nothing changes.

My favourite game series is Dynasty Warriors and it’s spin offs

[Lorric]

That's a nice picture, who is that? One of yours?

You do most of the work in Dynasty Warriors. Not all of it. You're the main man, but part of a team. As with most games where you have allies. Warriors Orochi, Warriors Orochi 2 and the Empires spin offs your allies play a much larger role.

EDIT: Oh and Destiny Mode in Dynasty Warriors 5 Xtreme Legends, where you start out as just a soldier and have to do a lot of work with your unit to begin with.

[deathfun]

I should've rephrased my question

What ASPECTS of games make you go wow? Not a list of games, but a description of what makes you go wow

[Lorric]

I should've rephrased my question

What ASPECTS of games make you go wow? Not a list of games, but a description of what makes you go wow

I don't know how to answer that.

Why are you asking? If you want to know what "makes me tick" when it comes to games, isn't what I said about my taste in games enough for you? That information is more reliable anyway than an initial wow impression. Many of my favourite games didn't wow me. Looking at the list of "wow" games, I see a common trend is a sense of grand scale and immersion into the game World.

[Luis Dias]

This conversation is getting a little out of hand.

[deathfun]

I should've rephrased my question

What ASPECTS of games make you go wow? Not a list of games, but a description of what makes you go wow

I don't know how to answer that.

Why are you asking? If you want to know what "makes me tick" when it comes to games, isn't what I said about my taste in games enough for you? That information is more reliable anyway than an initial wow impression. Many of my favourite games didn't wow me. Looking at the list of "wow" games, I see a common trend is a sense of grand scale and immersion into the game World.

I'm asking because I want to see if you can physically put into words what is "wow" rather than "Here's a game I find 'wow' with no indications as to why!"
I don't know what about these games made you go wow, and yet you say I should be able to figure it out by your tastes. I'm not inside your head. I see these games differently than you