This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So what games have absolutely IMPACTED the gaming Industry?

#111bpcarterPosted 12/10/2012 1:46:46 PM
Goldeneye 64 - Made FPS/multiplayer on consoles viable

Halo - Standard two stick control scheme for modern shooters on consoles

Bioshock/System Shock 2 - Storytelling in video games
---
Would you kindly do a barrel roll?
War. War never changes.
#112OrangeSchweesePosted 12/10/2012 1:51:16 PM
MlREFOX posted...
OrangeSchweese posted...
MlREFOX posted...
So we should ignore past games that introduced popular mechanics just so we can artificially say that the newer generation games did it? That's just stupid. My only point is that just because many gamers' first experience with cover - mainly due to there being far more gamers now than in the past - was in Gears does not make Gears a genre-impacting game. If that is the case, we may as well say that Oblivion created the first-person RPGs and CoD4 made military FPS popular.


The difference between the newer games I've mentioned and their predecessors is that the originals didn't reach most people, therefore the industry wasn't forced to change to meet the new standards demanded by gamers.


So a more prolific game automatically makes a more influential game? What happens 10 years from now if we have twice the number of "gamers" that we have today? Does that invalidate any influences we have today in favor of the more prolific games of the future?

You absolutely cannot use the number of people playing a game to determine is historical influence, or no games made prior to 10 years ago have any influence on gaming at all based simply on the greatly-expanded base of "gamers." You're essentially equating sales with influence.


Yes, a game that impressed everyone and raised the bar for singleplayer experiences is more impactful than a forgotten gem of a PC game. That is what I'm saying.
#113SixStringHeroPosted 12/10/2012 1:51:33 PM
Winback and Killswitch were the first two games to use a cover system.

Gears of War without question streamlined the implementation of TPS cover systems and I seriously doubt developers look to Winback and Killswitch as inspiration when developing games using this mechanic.
---
I don't care about the altitude, I just want another drink.
#114SixStringHeroPosted 12/10/2012 1:52:53 PM
As far as stealth, I would give that to Rainbow Six (the original PC). It was doing realtime 3D stealth mechanics before Metal Gear Solid did.
---
I don't care about the altitude, I just want another drink.
#115jubjub360Posted 12/10/2012 1:53:52 PM
SixStringHero posted...
As far as stealth, I would give that to Rainbow Six (the original PC). It was doing realtime 3D stealth mechanics before Metal Gear Solid did.


Honestly, I'd give Rainbow Six the SWAT tactics impact rather than stealth.
---
F*** yo' MLA! It's all about that APA!
http://i.imgur.com/JF8gG.jpg
#116MlREFOXPosted 12/10/2012 1:55:34 PM
OrangeSchweese posted...
MlREFOX posted...
OrangeSchweese posted...
MlREFOX posted...
So we should ignore past games that introduced popular mechanics just so we can artificially say that the newer generation games did it? That's just stupid. My only point is that just because many gamers' first experience with cover - mainly due to there being far more gamers now than in the past - was in Gears does not make Gears a genre-impacting game. If that is the case, we may as well say that Oblivion created the first-person RPGs and CoD4 made military FPS popular.


The difference between the newer games I've mentioned and their predecessors is that the originals didn't reach most people, therefore the industry wasn't forced to change to meet the new standards demanded by gamers.


So a more prolific game automatically makes a more influential game? What happens 10 years from now if we have twice the number of "gamers" that we have today? Does that invalidate any influences we have today in favor of the more prolific games of the future?

You absolutely cannot use the number of people playing a game to determine is historical influence, or no games made prior to 10 years ago have any influence on gaming at all based simply on the greatly-expanded base of "gamers." You're essentially equating sales with influence.


Yes, a game that impressed everyone and raised the bar for singleplayer experiences is more impactful than a forgotten gem of a PC game. That is what I'm saying.


So 15 years from now, if Sony, for example, releases some perfect 10/10 universally praised third person shooter with a cover system that sells twice what Gears sold, you're going your opinion and call that hypothetical future game an influential game for popularizing a third person cover system?
#117theshovellerPosted 12/10/2012 1:57:14 PM
MlREFOX posted...
OrangeSchweese posted...
MlREFOX posted...
So we should ignore past games that introduced popular mechanics just so we can artificially say that the newer generation games did it? That's just stupid. My only point is that just because many gamers' first experience with cover - mainly due to there being far more gamers now than in the past - was in Gears does not make Gears a genre-impacting game. If that is the case, we may as well say that Oblivion created the first-person RPGs and CoD4 made military FPS popular.


The difference between the newer games I've mentioned and their predecessors is that the originals didn't reach most people, therefore the industry wasn't forced to change to meet the new standards demanded by gamers.


So a more prolific game automatically makes a more influential game? What happens 10 years from now if we have twice the number of "gamers" that we have today? Does that invalidate any influences we have today in favor of the more prolific games of the future?

You absolutely cannot use the number of people playing a game to determine is historical influence, or no games made prior to 10 years ago have any influence on gaming at all based simply on the greatly-expanded base of "gamers." You're essentially equating sales with influence.


How far back are we going? One could theoretically say the Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device was the biggest-impacting game for the industry, as it introduced the concept of anything mechanical like a computer being used for entertainment purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_video_game

Or any of the others on that list. It depends on how far back we're going, and how big an impact we can somehow "derive" from it.
#118SixStringHeroPosted 12/10/2012 1:57:19 PM
Superfly Jo Jo posted...
I hate when people say Halo popularized the console FPS when GoldenEye 007 was released 4 years prior, and was also considered legendary before Halo even came out


Halo introduced a winning formula that had never been done before back in 2001.
It was the first game to incorporate together;
recharging health/shields, instant melee attacks, instant grenade throws, seamless interactions with vehicles, expansive environments for a FPS, two weapon inventory limit, hierarchy based and dynamic enemy AI.

Not a single game on PC or console implemented all of these things prior to Halo. Halo's formula in some form or other is found in virtually every shooter since it's inception. There's a reason Nathan Drake has recharging health, can only carry two weapons etc...
---
I don't care about the altitude, I just want another drink.
#119jubjub360Posted 12/10/2012 1:58:13 PM
So 15 years from now, if Sony, for example, releases some perfect 10/10 universally praised third person shooter with a cover system that sells twice what Gears sold, you're going your opinion and call that hypothetical future game an influential game for popularizing a third person cover system?


I think I know where you are getting confused at. If a game is released that uses a mechanic better than past games and then IMPACTS future games for doing the same thing, that is what has IMPACTED the gaming industry.

Killswitch may have had the cover system but it was Gears of War that took it and improved upon it and made it better.
---
F*** yo' MLA! It's all about that APA!
http://i.imgur.com/JF8gG.jpg
#120OrangeSchweesePosted 12/10/2012 2:09:39 PM(edited)
MlREFOX posted...
So 15 years from now, if Sony, for example, releases some perfect 10/10 universally praised third person shooter with a cover system that sells twice what Gears sold, you're going your opinion and call that hypothetical future game an influential game for popularizing a third person cover system?


Yes, I'm going to say that a game that is revolutionary 15 godda** years from now would have more of an IMPACT than what we have now.

Actually, no. This is getting ridiculous now...

System Shock 2 did not forever change gaming. Do you see what I'm getting at? The original CoD was very impressive for its time, but it didn't revolutionize gaming the way CoD 4 did.