Are games getting worst or are our standards getting higher ?

[BreakfastMan]

Methinks it might be as simple as looking at the past with nostalgia glasses on. Trust me, there were piles upon piles of terrible games way back in the day. We just remember the good and forget about the rest. This makes it seem like there were more great games back in the day since we only remember the good. Just look at all the games AVGN has reviewed if you do not believe me.

It could also be standards getting higher (for example, you liked a lot of crappy movies when you were a kid, but as you aged your standards as to what makes a "good" movie have gotten stricter). I seriously doubt that games nowadays are any worse now than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[ultratog1028]

I think games are getting worse because our standards are getting higher.

Our Standards are so high, best graphics, exciting and adventurous, just like game XYZ,etc.) that developers feel like they need to follow these to a letter. Name the last truely innovative game. And by innovative I don't mean "shows off innovation of console it is on". Sorry Wii.

Out of what has released in the past 5 years, (At least on consoles) Gears of War (Cover based shooting, done to death now), Little Big Planet, Portal, Bioshock (Though only innovative to the console crowd. Still all around good game) , Mass Effect, Oblivion and... that's it? (Okay. I know I missed a few. But you get the point.) Not much. And out of what has been done how many games recently are just blatent rip offs of better games or obvious cash ins or sequels? A LOT. Why? They sell.

I've perhaps bought 4 games in the past year and a half. Considering I used to buy 12 games+ a year, that's a pretty big drop. Why? I simply just don't see many good games. By setting our standards too high we kill originality. How many Games recently have you been able to cross the name off the box and write Call of Duty on it? Of course you have to add "in space" on some of them. Did Bioshock or Assassin's Creed NEED multiplayer? Hell no. Assassin's creed needed co-op though WHICH THEY SEEMED SO HAPPY TO CUT at the last minute.

Game companies, I want to see something not done before. I don't care about graphics. Take an Idea and run with it.

 

[Flac00]

*worse

Yes, games are getting worse. In context, the drive towards ever-improving graphics has shifted focus away from quality game design, as long as it looks awesome. If what you have on-screen are a bunch of coloured squares, you'll make damn sure that the gameplay is captivating, else the game simply won't be played.

Wait, so you mean games have gotten worse since games like Doom, Wolfenstien, Halo 1, Half Life 1, Marathon, etc? Even though they all are much much much worse in LITERALLY EVERY DEPARTMENT! Graphics (kind of a gimme there) are much better now. Story: HL1 has the best of them all and it consists of "ALIENS, KILL THEM ALL! (and a couple military soldiers too), which of coarse pales in comparison to HL2 and its episodes. Voice acting: If they even have voice acting, it sucks. Gameplay: It is obviously worse. If you go into it saying "Doom has better gameplay than Blops", you are being delusional. I'm not even a big fan of Blops, yet I can accept the fact that the game is gameplay wise far beyond anything in that time period and before. Games have gotten much better, just we expect them to be (as it should be). You have been blinded by nostalgia and have forgotten all the really bad games that came out in that time which sucked.

Turn down the rage, boy. You're just harming yourself.
Now then, If I were to operate within your set constraints of FPS games, which are highly dependent on the computing power of your system, then I'd have no choice but to hail the coming of the High Supreme Game. However, those constraints are hardly fair. I'm not saying "Doom is better than Black Ops". Personally I'm bored by them both. What I'm saying is "X-Com enemy unknown is better than all its sequels and only some of its spiritual successors can be compared to it".
I guess my main point is that games have become better toys, but worse games.

I wasn't trying to sound angry, looking back on my post i did seem a bit like a dick, so here is a "revised" version. I can only come from the point of FPS's since i am not as "knowledged" on the other genres of games. Your points are probably true that past entries in the RTS, TBS, Driving, ect. genres have gone down in quality recently. At least with the FPS genre, the opposite is true, but only because past entries in the genre have been shallow at best (doom for example). Sorry if i came off wrong.

 

[schuka5]

All I see are big budget game companies, trying to produce more to their fans, but not for their own enjoyment, but for their own money whoring.
In my opinion the quality of games are decreasing, I mean granted I do play Call of Duty, so I may sound some what of a hypocrite, but do they really need to produce a game each year? All they do is simply add new stuff to the games, and change the theme of it all.
I would also like to point out not all game companies are being money whores, and they still produce quality games, such as Konami, the castlevania games are still good, sure they aren't as mind blowingly hard as they where on the NES, but still great fun. Heck Nintendo is still producing pretty good games, New Super Mario Bro's WII was fun, but I beat that over night with a friend

 

[Dexiro]

Gameplay: It is obviously worse. If you go into it saying "Doom has better gameplay than Blops", you are being delusional. I'm not even a big fan of Blops, yet I can accept the fact that the game is gameplay wise far beyond anything in that time period and before.

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Gameplay has gotten more complex but not better/worse.

I find Doom incredibly fun because it's so simple. Infact it's one of my favourite FPS games and the first time I played it was sometime last year. While on the other hand you could pick up a more complex game like TF2 and say it's just as good, or say Black Ops is worse.

 

[Dexiro]

I'd say games are pretty much the same, It's just marketing has changed.

In 1990: Bad game gets made, sinks into obscurity.
In 2011: Bad game gets made, gets it's ass hyped off, and then a load of people worship it until the hype wears off.

Also another point is that games are getting more complex and less original, but neither of those mean they're getting worse. What's important is innovation and execution, not originality, and any level of complexity can make a fun game.

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

This picture feels very relevant:

It only feels that way OP. It only feels that way.

 

[claymoreguy18]

Yeah what he said.

 

[PlasmaFrog]

It's all standards, our very opinion on it is subjective to begin with.

 

[claymoreguy18]

I think that we are just a spoiled generation with entitlement issues.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18571_5-reasons-its-still-not-cool-to-admit-youre-gamer.html

 

[Gill Kaiser]

Games are getting more expensive to produce, so developers are taking fewer risks, or making less content.

Just look at the advent of full voice acting in RPGs - in the old days with text-based dialogue developers could write far, far more content, for less money, in a shorter timeframe.

 

[Trogdor1138]

There has always been a gigantic amount of shit games, I would actually say that gaming nowadays is a lot more stable since even most of the bad games have at least passable controls etc. (as compared to terrible NES games which had insanely bad controls and other problems). Not to mention that we have the internet and other sources to see if a game sounds like it's worth getting. Back then you just had the back of the box and maybe Nintendo Power or something which is why there were so many shit games that purely existed for you to spend your cash on before realizing you'd been had.

The people that think "older games were so much better" are nostalgia blinded fools.

I'm not entirely sure though, but I think gamers now whine a lot more and have worse entitlement issues (like the developers apparently owing them something). This is mainly due to the internet which is seen as a consequence free zone (they forget about the cyber police and backtracing).

So yeah, overall the standards have become much higher, this is both a good and bad thing. I sure as hell think games could be better, but there wasn't a certain era that was the best overall, it's simply "good game, bad game".

User reviews and different discussions help a lot with buying games too, since every gaming magazine rates games on a scale of 9-10 now in fear of losing their free t-shirts and shit.

 

[The Gnome King]

As time goes on I find that games are getting worst. Sure there are good games out there, but it seems like they are the dimonds in the rough. If you go to your local game store, there are walls are terrible games. Be it because of terrible game mechanics, terrible graphics, terrible story, terrible game play , terrible music , or a mix of the above or even all of the above. Is it because developpers are trying to make the most amount of money with the least amount of work ( as in not polishing a game because it will sell anyways, thus being lazy and making a bad game ) , or is it because our standards for video games have become so high , that unless there game is flawless we will consider it to be a bad game ?

Sounds like a post that should be over at RPG Codex...

Seriously, as somebody who has played games since the late 1980's; no, games are NOT getting worse. Dragon Age 2 is a technical and entertainment marvel compared, to, say, SSI's "Pools of Radiance" 'Gold Box' game back in the day.

Our standards are getting higher. We'll see what that leads to. (Keep in mind even as standards get higher, more and more people game and consider themselves "gamers" - which means the target audience is ever-expanding. If this leaves a few people out in the cold... well, perhaps one day we'll have "luxury games" like we now have "luxury cars" - most people drive, say, a Honda but there are those Hummers out there for people who want that... um, experience.)

 

[mik1]

It's because like many on this thread before me have said we remember the good ones. The shit ones nobody remember because they were nothing more than shit.

The man on this website discusses most of the shitty ones. Check it out if you want a good laugh.

http://cinemassacre.com/category/avgn/

 

[AbstractStream]

I know for a fact that my standards/expectations are getting higher. It's only until just recently that I realized this. It used to be that every game I played was good or even amazing. Now a days, I'm left disappointed a lot :/

 

[KingofMadCows]

It's neither. Game companies are simply trying to broaden the appeal of their games so fewer games are made to appeal to specific tastes. It used to be that you could find a game that suits 80% or 90% of your own personal tastes. Now games maybe only suit 50% or 60% of your tastes. Broader appeal means dilution of specialized aspects that can be tailored to specific audiences. It's like the difference between making a meal for just one person and making a meal for 20 people.