Video Gaming Industry
TGunz81
Join Date: 2010-02-07 Member: 70462Members
Join Date: 2010-02-07 Member: 70462Members
in Discussions
Through my 29 years here on this weird planet, I've seen the growth and creation of many great games. Here's just to name a few...
Mike Tysons Punchout
Resident Evil
Mortal Kombat
Medal of Honor
Half-Life
But when did companies stop caring about they product they put out? When did the Video Game Industry give up on innovation and throw in the towl on actual work, expected from their games? When did greed take over?
I'd like to hear from all people. Every good or bad experience you've had. Perhaps, you don't feel there's anything at all wrong with what's become.
Maybe you're like me... and tired of silly excuses to why I'm paying 60 dollars for a game worth 20.
I realized it bigtime, when back in 2006, Game Informer rated "Mario and Zelda" as being the best games of the year. You're thinking, so what... right?
Take this in. In 2006, Gears of War and other chart topping games were released. In the last week of the year... Zelda was launched. And Mario only a month before... How did they get best games of the year?
This doesn't just include these games.
Madden bought the rights to the NFL back in 2003 or 2004, thanks to ESPN 2003 Football. It was a GREAT game, better than Madden. And 40 dollars cheaper. So they cornerstoned the market. Thus halting any real progress in Madden Games. No competition, No progress... Meanwhile other great games could no longer make realistic football games. Like NFL Blitz, which was launcher later that year... and had to change their lineup, thanks to EA. Greed like this has been taking over. What can we do to stop it? Bring back the gamer integrity, instead of just being another sale to these people.
~TGunz
Mike Tysons Punchout
Resident Evil
Mortal Kombat
Medal of Honor
Half-Life
But when did companies stop caring about they product they put out? When did the Video Game Industry give up on innovation and throw in the towl on actual work, expected from their games? When did greed take over?
I'd like to hear from all people. Every good or bad experience you've had. Perhaps, you don't feel there's anything at all wrong with what's become.
Maybe you're like me... and tired of silly excuses to why I'm paying 60 dollars for a game worth 20.
I realized it bigtime, when back in 2006, Game Informer rated "Mario and Zelda" as being the best games of the year. You're thinking, so what... right?
Take this in. In 2006, Gears of War and other chart topping games were released. In the last week of the year... Zelda was launched. And Mario only a month before... How did they get best games of the year?
This doesn't just include these games.
Madden bought the rights to the NFL back in 2003 or 2004, thanks to ESPN 2003 Football. It was a GREAT game, better than Madden. And 40 dollars cheaper. So they cornerstoned the market. Thus halting any real progress in Madden Games. No competition, No progress... Meanwhile other great games could no longer make realistic football games. Like NFL Blitz, which was launcher later that year... and had to change their lineup, thanks to EA. Greed like this has been taking over. What can we do to stop it? Bring back the gamer integrity, instead of just being another sale to these people.
~TGunz
Comments
It's the same nostalgic bias that leads people to declare vinyl discs sound better... They don't. They sound scratchy. And even soulless franchises like Madden have more effort put into them than the very, very few games that ever even resembled something good trying to top shovelware that flooded the market and continues to do so to this day could ever hope for.
Pong was revolutionary... too young even for me. (Just by a few years.) It's creator must have had more intentions with its creation. (which I could go into a debate about it... but after reading much of its history, it's too complex to explain whose the original creator without citing dates and legal cockamamie.
I dunno why I used that word. Maybe it's because I haven't heard it in a while.
But seriously... since when did making a dollar, become more important than the art they create? In reality... this is the art for the future. As paintings have been past along through hundreds of years, from a time and place depicted in the art... to the art I see on my magic screen. (48in HDTV) But unlike many great artists... these people creating sometimes do not have the personal pride it takes to create something revolutionary. To go beyond. Especially with the advancement in video games. Its amazing what 30 years has brought and to think I've got another good 50 years left here. (I hope)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why we see the new Mario, Zelda, Madden XXXX, etc. Game budgets have never been higher and I can understand why publishers are reluctant to explore new territory.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right. But, shouldn't it be a supply and demand thing? While I love Mario... I don't love how diluted he's become. Taking role in many roles an Italian Plumber just shouldn't take. How do you play Soccer in Red Overalls? If you've ever worn a pair of overalls, you'll know it's not easy.
And while some stories are too great to let die, they only appeal to the newest system or youngest audience it can. But that's beyond what I mentioned. I stated that these 2 games were rated the top, of a year they [Mario and Link] hardly took part in. And now we've got Sonic and Mario in the same game...? Wow, Sega and Nintendo did the nasty (and I do mean nasty) and created this "<a href="http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0808/sexy-sloth-goonies-demotivational-poster-1218284213.jpg" target="_blank">Sloth</a>" abomination of which consist 2 rivals for over 15 years... to somehow get together? Who forgot to send the memo out for that one?
Personally, I have a lot of respect for modders. And while that sounds like I'm sucking up to the sexy mens who work here... I really mean that, anyone who does modding should be greatly appreciated. Especially if you take the time to create models, sprites or anything else from total scratch. I have a lot of respect for that community, however the "Industry" frightens me when it comes to video games. Sure they look pretty, but for 60 dollars... it becomes one hell of an internal battle.
I can only hope good things... and that rich "Industrial People" somehow find some integrity or Self-Worth for what they produce.
~TGunz
Besides the two are not mutually exclusive, you can make money by making good games, the point is that sturgeon's law comes into effect with the size of the industry and 90% of anything in it is crap. I don't think everyone really knows how to make good games and most companies that do are very formulaic about it, every bethesda softworks game for example is exactly the same, and they're all good, even elder scrolls 2277. The basic forumla works so remake it until it stops working, same with half life, doom, quake, battlefield, knights of the old republic, the sims, every wii game ever (waggle the stick at the screen because it's fun) and most RTS games.
What? First videogames were pioneered by essentially monopolies for the sole reason of profit: Mario and Sonic were never meant to be anything else than generic cash cows. Nintendo alone had some of the most egregious and demeaning censorship and taxation laws imaginable for any game published on it's system in pretty much all of history of any product.
It's only recently that indie, freeware or mod developers even have had the capacity to do and release whatever they want just for the sake of making a good game, nevermind big-but-conscious developers like Valve or Blizzard.
I have no lived long enough to give a thorough view of how video games have evolved but I think I have lived long enough to give reasonable comments. It is hard to say whether the video game industry has improved or declined, in terms of the quality of games. On one hand, it can be said that the quality of games have been improving. Every year, the graphics is being pushed. Games are optimised and run very fluidly. Animation has gotten better. Gameplay mechanisms have been polished. Stable multiplayer setups have been achieved. In all these aspects, games have been on an upward trend.
Yet, on the other hand, if you look at the innovation at games, there might be some tapering off in that section. What you see are companies cranking out games with numbers at the end of them. Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2, Resident Evil 5, Grand Turismo 5, Assassin's Creed 2. The greatest perpetrators are perhaps Mario(who has dozens of sequels/spinoffs), Final Fantasy and Sports series(EA Sports). If one game comes out with a great feature, suddenly, every subsequent game adopts that feature and calls it by a different game. Innovation is dying, with many games picking up tried and true formulas.
So what is it? Good or bad?
It really depends on the gamers and the economy. Games are being optimised, graphically improved, etc, and I cannot argue that it is a bad thing. Anything that gets better cannot be complained about. I like things more shiny, more detailed, and much smoother. But the problem comes in when that is all that is being improved. In order for games to continue being fun, it must keep evolving, keeping fresh and coming up with new ideas.
Sure, having a rock steady gameplay and polished mechanics can make a game everlasting. Look at classic mario. It has lasted the test of time. Quake is still being played competitively. But when we are considering new games, one cannot just take the tried and proven gameplay, polish it and release it as a new game. The market would be crowded by games of the same time, just of different colour, and that would make games boring. What would be special, would no longer be special.
Gamers are to blame for this trend. Gamers do not generally flock to new IP touting new gameplay mechanics, that deviate too much from the norm. There are exceptions to this but in most cases, if a great game does not follow the tried and true formulas, gamers would not take a risk on them. This is basically telling the developers that gamers do not want something new and interesting. Gamers don't give new games a chance and dismiss them all too easily. I think that is the main problem.
The economy also ties into this. In a bad economy, gamers would have less expendable income so they are less likely to take risks in buying games. Developers know this and they too, would not want to take risks. So they release sequels. Everybody knows a final fantasy brand will sell well, as well as a mario brand. It's all about money. So that's what the the developers do and we cannot really blame them.
I'm writing this as I'm in a lecture so my thoughts aren't very coherent. I'm trying to listen to the lecturer and type this at the same time.
What I'm trying to say is that in my opinion, the game industry is declining. I can do without the shiny graphics but I cannot do without innovative gameplay. As long as gamers refuse to take risks, and as long as the economy remains ######, I don't see any great leap in innovation.
One might quote Natal as innovation but I say, "really?". It's just them riding on the coattails of Nintendo's motion controls. How is that innovation? It's just taking what works, and making it more polished.
Will add more if I can think of something.
But alongside of moneymaking products there are some rare pearls. Take music for example. 90% of produced music is crap. The same 90% is inevitably made by people who makes music for money. Same for video games and everything else.
People makes things for either Money, or Passion. That usually defines if the things they make Sucks or OwnS ! :)
<!--quoteo(post=1751606:date=Feb 7 2010, 06:59 AM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 7 2010, 06:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Mike Tysons Punchout
Resident Evil
Mortal Kombat
Medal of Honor
Half-Life<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol?
<!--quoteo(post=1751611:date=Feb 7 2010, 07:22 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Feb 7 2010, 07:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751611"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only thing that's changed about the video game industry is the number of polygons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
more lol??
<!--quoteo(post=1751663:date=Feb 7 2010, 11:18 AM:name=TGunz81)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TGunz81 @ Feb 7 2010, 11:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...Probably the same way our American Government went from such a beautiful simple system, to this mockery we run today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG LOL ?!?!
That's pretty outrageous. You don't think they're making what they think will be a good game (which means it will sell, bar poor luck) because they <i>want to make a good game</i>?
Today the video game industry isn't the same... There's a much larger emphasis to make money in video games, because of what? To get bigger and make more games. To raise profits and grow...
But there's an obvious line between those that accept the art of making games a passion... and a business designed to make money off of "consumers".
You make it sound as if everyone in the gaming industry is greedy...
Mario and Sonic weren't made by huge teams. It was kept too simple to be that. Probably 4 or 5 people, tops. Sound, Gameplay, Storyboards, Coding, and Marketing. Before Apple Inc. made it big, it only started off with Steve Jobs and Steve Wazniak. Steve Wazniak, sought out the passion of creating the first Apple. (10 points to who can name it.) He didn't think he'd end up famous or rich. He didn't think the world would buy into the first PC's, just cause he was the stuff... he took huge risk, after huge risk, only progressing with his own noble intentions in mind and Ipod is the result of all of that.
George Lucas was the same thing, at his time. Made his movie with his passion and heart. Putting his own money into his project. Dedication and using every possible resource he could spare, not to take over the world with Star Wars. But to create his idea, with passion.
It's corporations that monopolize on the creations of others. Don't ever give credit to EA, other than they know how to control their money and push for creators ideas. Corporations put deadlines, expect results and fire those people who cannot give results. Those who are up and coming in the business world of video games, aren't landing key roles like in the 80's and 90's, because games are far too complex for 1 or 2 men to create something individually monumental. Instead their forced to work under projects and deadlines that don't allow them to get much more creative than is necessary to design something better than the competition.
Video games should be a passion, as I said before. Like Art... You should paint because you want to create something new. Not because you are just making a quick buck.
But that's just my take on it. It's probably why I have to "save" for video games, instead of being insanely rich.
~TGunz
For a specific instance of greed taking over I'd say look no further than Valve's handling of the "left 4 dead" franchise. I admire Valve for putting out quality products and giving back to the community via new (and free) downloadable content for existing titles but in this case they lost alot of respect from myself and many others when they decided to release the "sequel" (more like the next clone) without supporting the first installment to the degree they promised.
Now, I'm a reasonable person and I very much want companies like Valve to make a decent profit as frankly in general I enjoy the games they create (I'm still very much looking forward to the next Half-life episode) _however_ there is a line that I feel has been crossed somewhere between creating something that people enjoy while making a fair profit versus churning out vampiric and soulless clones for the sake of maximum cash generation.
So I admire companies now that actually reward customer loyalty - (look at the new title in the STALKER series; you can get a good discount if you purchased previous titles - nice !) - while continuing to innovate. Look at "Killing Floor" and how reasonably priced the game itself is and also the optional extras that you can buy for pennies that enhance the experience but at the same time not having to pay _another cent_ for core game-play ugrades. Good job I say there !
I will be supporting companies that are willing to be fair and reasonable to the consumer primarily. I will not support what I feel are money-grabs; no matter who puts forth the title in the question.
In conclusion then I'd say there are companies yet that continue to show the spirit of true game creation via innovation and fair pricing. In general more money put into games is a good thing as it allows creative people to make a good living while doing something they love and by upping the resources a company can invest into a game one hopefully ends up with a superior product with ever-improving game engines; never-the-less this is a double-edged sword and occasionaly as a consumer one can be cut if not careful.
However their initial business model definitely inspired others , especially from the modding communities. In a way it's not such a good thing that mods start costing money :P but at least we are guaranteed high quality results and innovation. If Valve stays in cash-in mode for too long , people might soon rally to emerging independent brands.
It's the same nostalgic bias that leads people to declare vinyl discs sound better... They don't. They sound scratchy. And even soulless franchises like Madden have more effort put into them than the very, very few games that ever even resembled something good trying to top shovelware that flooded the market and continues to do so to this day could ever hope for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a little ignorant. There certainly have been changes. I've been going through this many times in my head: I just like the old games quite a bit more in general. There's this certain simplification of mechanics and necessity of rollercoaster rides in present games. In general they rarely let players explore the game and mechanics as freely nowadays, mostly to make the games more approachable I guess. It often ends up interfering with the way I play these games though.
Compare Baldur's Gate series to the later products of Bioware for example. In Baldur's Gate you can go anywhere you want, control 6 characters all the time and in general you're free to do things the way you like. Meanwhile NWN 1 has you and your AI buddy, which reduces the amount of possible approaches to the fight to a fraction of what it used to be. The game also scales quite a bit to ensure you don't end up in areas with too difficult fights. Even the plot is desgined to give you piecemeals of somewhat easy challenges.
Mass Effect did some great stuff to give player more freedom, but you'll often still feel that you don't get challenged properly. You can go anywhere and almost midlessly blast your way through the opposition. Your AI allies are still terrible, although you can babysit them a bit more this time. Basically there's still a lot of huge amount of fill-in fights that have nothing interesting in them. ME 2 sounds great though, I hope they finally nailed the gameplay there.
It often also feels that there's a need of creating these rollercoaster effects and obvious catches. In my favourite games like Thief and Deus Ex you can often take your time, sneak around, find multiple approaches and in general plan ahead and explore the game and find details that really make the game world feel alive. Most new games aren't as subtle. There may be small details, but most of the time there's also a huge "FOLLOW ME, DETAILS HERE" feature pointing out most of them.
I haven't had that many chances of playing the new games with my present laptop, so I might have just missed the titles I like. Feel free to point out anything I've missed.
Well, that's not quite fair. At least according to the interviews, the reason they released L4D2 is simply because they wanted to release L4D2, literally seemed like a fun idea at the time.
What isn't nice is that they pretty much dropped support for the first one, neglected fairly game-breaking bugs, broken modding support, and released what is, maybe fun, but still nothing short of expansion pack for 50$ at no discount for previous owners, lack of interoperability as promised split (or rather killed) the playerbase... Sigh. Not quite there, but not a nice step either indeed.
<!--quoteo(post=1753064:date=Feb 14 2010, 11:56 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 14 2010, 11:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753064"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a little ignorant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different from your opinion =/= Ignorant
Like I said, I've been there too.
<!--quoteo(post=1753064:date=Feb 14 2010, 11:56 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 14 2010, 11:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753064"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't had that many chances of playing the new games with my present laptop, so I might have just missed the titles I like. Feel free to point out anything I've missed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You pick a couple of gems from an ocean of rubbish and compare them to one of dozens of gems from a small lake of rubbish.
I have my old favourites as anyone who was ever a kid once (HoMM III F.T.W.), but I'm not going to let it get in the way of objectively evaluating the market. Old games were mostly crap, new games mostly are crap, but the overall value of production has increased tenfold at the very least, both across mainstream and indie markets (well, the latter hardly even existed in Nintendo era).
This is, of course, a huge generalisation either way. There's no objective way to evaluate this stuff.
You disagreed with OP by blaming nostalgia, completely ignoring that the games actually are different. For the better or worse is debatable. Disagreeing is fine, but I'd like to see some argumentation.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You pick a couple of gems from an ocean of rubbish and compare them to one of dozens of gems from a small lake of rubbish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bring in some names. 1998 alone had Half-Life, Starcraft and Thief. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Thief sequel, Jagged Alliance 2 and Deus Ex are nearby there too within a few years. Now, during the last 5 years we've had maybe Half Life 2 with episodes and somewhat decent Mass Effect and maybe Bioshock of that style. And even then at least Mass Effect was 'just nice', not awesome with all that dull fighting.
Oh, and Max Payne in 2002 was nice too, it had this very well thought and implemented hard boiled movie style with it. It really felt like a complete tribute in a good way.
What.
<!--quoteo(post=1753071:date=Feb 14 2010, 12:51 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 14 2010, 12:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bring in some names.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excluding those you mentioned... Portal, Left 4 Dead, Modern Warfare 1-2, Defense Grid, Harvest, Dragon Age, Trine, Garry's Mod, Audiosurf, GRID, Team Fortress 2, King's Bounty, Unreal Tournament 2004, Plants VS Zombies, Osmos, Defcon, Braid, Total War, Maw, Peggle (yes), Halo 3 (yep), World of Warcraft (oh yeah), Titan Quest, Witcher, World of Goo, Penumbra, DIRT 2, Bioshock 2, Company of Heroes, Global Agenda, Chaos Theory, Crysis, Arkham Asylum, Psychonauts, Longest Journey, Madballs, Dawn of War 2, Fallout 3, Crayon Physics, Harvest, Trackmania, Burnout, Scribblenauts, Bayonetta, Prototype, GTA 3-4, HAWX, Little Big Planet, Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia, No More Heroes... And possible future aditions from Starcraft 2, Diablo III, Episode 3, Colonial Marines and hopefully Natural Selection 2 and Overgrowth.
Off the top of my head. I miss out on quite a few titles due to not having a console and generally being satisfied with one game for months. And of course, like I said, all of this is going to be purely subjective.
The actual point I was making is that you're cherry-picking. Just because the past had a few games among pile of rubbish doesn't mean there aren't today... A few in a pile of rubbish. Plus better quality craftsmanship and surrounding rubbish. Im my humble opinion.
That. You call his argument bullish on your first post. You say it's just nostalgia. Then I tell you it's a bit ignorant to say it's only nostalgia and then I proceed to point out how the games have changed during the last 10 years or so. If you can't figure it out from that, I've got no idea how to explain it.
----
Oh well, I guess you've got a point with the flood of decent games. Still, I find a lot of those games 'just decent'. They don't manage to create such magic moments as games like Deus Ex or Thief. For example Deus Ex sends you to an old empty mansion clues with a plot character. The whole search in the mansion feels like a thing of beaty because you're interested enough in the characters and plot and there's a sensation that you're about to find answers very soon. It makes you want to search every bit of the mansion to get something extra out of the plot and characters.
I played that for the first time maybe 6 months ago and it felt like the most refreshing gaming experience since I completed Episode Two even though Deus Ex is made in 2000, I think. It also seriously buggers me how Deus Ex' storyline is far more complex and most of all dynamic compared to almost any present game I've played. The map areas are also huuuuge compared to the present games. The games haven't progressed anywhere on such features in 10 years.
This perceived change from better to worse is what I attributed to nostalgia in the very first post. If you're trying to say it's not, obviously we simply disagree. Like I said, that's all subjective: both the OP and me calling bull###### on it.
<!--quoteo(post=1753092:date=Feb 14 2010, 04:02 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 14 2010, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1753092"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Oh well, I guess you've got a point with the flood of decent games. Still, I find a lot of those games 'just decent'. They don't manage to create such magic moments as games like Deus Ex or Thief.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's all very subjective. Quite a few on that list I think are some of the best games of all time, and have had a huge impact on me personally.
What I'm trying to point out is that nostalgia can severely affect one's judgement on the matter, and I do think that's nothing short of very unfortunate if it prevents you from enjoying the good games that come out today.
As a side note... Unfortunately, I've never played Deus Ex even though the general acknowledgement and soundtrack by Jasper Kyd place it very high on my very long to-do list. Like I said, there's a lot of things I miss out on. I'm just glad I somehow caught Neverhood despite it being seemingly forgotten even long before release, among a dozen other gems.
This is what really bothers me. I try to keep an open mind with new games. I try to enjoy them. And I still seem to get more fun out of older games.
Some new games are fun. HL2 is still one of my favourite singleplayer experiences, especially Episode 2 was amazing. Heroes of Newerth is great, although it's hardly playable with the laggy connection I've got right now. Mass Effect is good enough, although I never really got hooked into it for longer periods of time. I loved Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, but Warrior Within was a pain to play. Still, apart from a few scenes in HL2 none of those have really made me feel as much magical moments as Starcraft and Quake multiplayer or Thief and Deus Ex singleplayer do.
I think it partitially has something to do with how I want the game to be fun, flexible and challenging gameplay mechanics. Many older games were closer to an old board game by their rules, while now games are trying to imitate movies more and still fall short on my standards.
In that case I guess we agree after all.
Of course, there is also such thing as personal preference. It's not like you're obligated to like every blockbuster there is... I certainly don't. Hell, I think most of them are horrid. Overall I seem to be in a weird position in this debate, where I have some of my BEST EVER games on both sides of year 2,000.
Speaking of newer titles... You might want to check out the current indie market (assuming you haven't already) if you want some old-skool fiesta, I for one am glad I'm aware of it's existence (hello NS2). Lemme see... <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/15400/" target="_blank">Harvest</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/18500/" target="_blank">Defense Grid</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/29180/" target="_blank">Osmos</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/3590/" target="_blank">Plants VS Zombies</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/35700/" target="_blank">Trine</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/41500/" target="_blank">Torchlight</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/12900/" target="_blank">Audiosurf</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/" target="_blank">Defcon</a>, <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/21300/" target="_blank">Gravitron</a> and <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/app/22000/" target="_blank">World of Goo</a> are some of the more interesting gameplay-oriented games I can think of. Apply personal preference as necessary.
AND NO ZELDA TP IS GAMECUBE!
That's very unfortunate. Maybe if the return time isn't up yet, you could give it back?..
Anyways after 5 years of lifetime (which is soon over anyways, new console will come this year probably) there are only a few gems.
Also the return time is over by about 4 years :/