You know what I hate about todays games?

Todays games are ruined by the "instant gratification" needs of our generation, and the fact that gaming companies cater to that.

Take the original Tom Clancy games for example.

Rainbow 6-- used to be a tactical game where you almost as much time planning the next mission as actually going through it, and some levels wouldnt let you kill anyone either. You could have 8 people on your team and you'd draw up the plan. Now, it's 4 people and it's run and gun.


Ghost Recon-- A level could take 30min -1 hour to complete if doing it right in the original GR. You'd have to double check a plot of trees because you couldn't tell if it was a bush swaying or someone moving. Now, you guessed it, it's run and gun, but in 3rd person!

Splinter Cell-- In the original, if you were spotted, you were screwed. On some levels, you weren't even allowed to kill anyone, and you had to sneak around, maybe knock a few people out. Now in their newest game, again, run and gun, and who cares if you're spotted?


Old first person shooter games used to be if you were shot, you'd go in to yellow or red, and stay that way till you die, you know, as a tangible punishment for screwing up. Now there's regenerative health because god forbid someone stays hurt for more than 10 seconds.


And, to top it all off, I saw a complain in a preview for the new MoH where the author actually said "I hope they fix the lack of a kill cam before they release the game, it'd be a real shame if they left it out". Yes, real shame that they make it easier for someone that sucks to find people that kill them.



I blame mainly Ubisoft for screwing up the tactical nature of the Clancy series... but also other companies for following suit doing the same exact thing. Really, the only difference between many of the games is who the characters are... almost all other aspects are the same.

Its believe it is because of the growth of online play.  No one wants to try and sneak around a map with 10 other human players.

The change is better for multiplayer, but for single player, you are correct, it really does suck.

I was unfortunate enough (or dumb enough) to buy the new splinter cell without playing the demo. I don't even feel like it's a part of the series, it's a completely different game, and not for the better.

Conviction was a huge waste of money.

The gameplay has been so watered down that you feel as if you have no control over Fisher.

To take someone down, all you have to do is run up to them and mash B, or hold it to hold the guy hostage. There could've been a fighting mechanic to make the sneaking up so much better. When the crosshair turns red over a guy, you know he's going to be killed. You can't even pick up fallen enemies anymore.

I really hope the original Rainbow Six is made, or something similar returns. I'm tired of linear shooters, but I don't much care for the sandbox formula either. Crysis did a great job of using open maps to make fighting interesting, but it lacks the team dynamic. Still, I loved using the relatively realistic AI to really mess with the enemies.

I still only play one game - tfc -  and  probably 3 hours average a week, lame but at least I can manage a positive score.

I do believe the original R6 games, Tom Clancy had quite a bit of say in what went into the final game. Now not so much.

And the regenerative health has completely done away with the medic class. Which personally I feel is the #1 reason why todays FPS do not rely on teamwork.


Edited by Monk - 26 June 2010 at 1:31am

Sure niches are still viable.

The Total War Series--- for the most part, an unchanged series over the past decade since the first one came out, yet still going strong, and Sega backs CA up fully instead of forcing them to change the formula.


Silent Hunter series--- Another niche game about WW2 sub action. Probably the only game Ubisoft HASN'T drastically changed, probably because they haven't figured out how to do cover mechanics with a submarine yet.


Yes, OFP (and Armed Assault, which is actually made by the original creators of OFP) is a good game... and they are also niche games.

I do believe the original R6 games, Tom Clancy had quite a bit of say in what went into the final game. Now not so much.

Clancy used to have a lot of say, until Ubisoft bought his name-sake a few years ago, and since then, Clancy has had NOTHING to do with any input in to any games with his name.




Ever since Ubisoft bought Red Storm in 2000, Clancy games have degraded. Rogue Spear was the last pre-Ubi game to be released, and it was kick ass.

Edited by Linus - 26 June 2010 at 2:54am

That's the thing I love about the Total War series. CA has made consistently good (and better with each iteration) games, and comes out with a new, ground breaking, one every 2 years.


Plus, even big budget games can still be niches. The Mass Effect series is most definitely a niche, and they spend big bucks on their production cycle, and reap it up in no time and I can't think of anyone that has anything really bad to say about the games.



Gaming companies just need to quit worrying about appealing to the masses and start worrying about making good games that people actually want to buy... sadly that won't happen as we get a new CoD every year and people feel the need to buy it to stay with their friends. Sure, I still buy it too, but I like having good games too, and I know I'll catch flak for this, but compared to classics, CoD is NOT a 'great' game. Fun, sure, but it will never be great.

BF2's medic class is ridiculous. They should swap with the engineers crazy silenced weapon class (really? An RPG and stealth guns?)

I only play Hardcore on MW2 and BC2, I refuse to deal with kill cams and LMG spammers.

On a side note. Ha anyone else noticed a nerd on the 50 cal in hardcore? Unless you get a headshot, it takes a couple of shots mow. Which is fine, they spam that gun in games anyway.

Kayback wrote: Who here DOES watch them?

I do if I get shot by an intervention/barrett. I like to appreciate a good quick scope shot when it happens to me.