Are games getting worst or are our standards getting higher ?

BRex21

New member
Sep 24, 2010
582
0
0
The technology is getting better, and certainly my standards are getting higher, but there seems to be more shovelware now that just has no business existing.
While i would rather be playing Ultima Underworld than Call of Duty, i would take a Half Life 2 or Mass Effect (or their more recent iterations) over Ultima any day.
 

2xDouble

New member
Mar 15, 2010
2,310
0
0
Time to post some Extra Credits:

Easy Games [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games]
Videogame Music [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2019-Videogame-Music]
No Redeeming Value [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1946-No-Redeeming-Value], and Amnesia and Story Structure [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2681-Amnesia-and-Story-Structure]
Bad Writing [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1887-Video-Games-Bad-Writing]

That should get you started.

TL;DR: It's both. Over time, developers/publishers take concepts that sold well and run them into the dirt, but players develop more discerning palates.
 

Halceon

New member
Jan 31, 2009
820
0
0
Radeonx said:
Halceon said:
*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.
Once the option for a 3D game world was available, companies were using a 3D world as a large selling point. Graphics have always been a big selling point for games, because saying "Look, our graphics are better than theirs" is a way to gain more sales.
It is just more noticeable now because of the gigantic leaps we have taken graphically in the last few years.
Good point, though I'd argue that the last few years are the ones with the least leaping.
 

standokan

New member
May 28, 2009
2,108
0
0
A little of A and a little of B, mainly that games are getting worse but we gamers on the other hand are pretty spoiled, then again, minecraft.
 

Ciaran Lunt

New member
Mar 25, 2010
51
0
0
games graphics are now the priority in the golden age ps2/1 era graphics looked shit however good it is so they had time to tell a story and had a small enough budget to gamble
 
Feb 9, 2011
1,735
0
0
Seems like games are getting better and our expectations for those games are becoming higher and higher as well. There were horrible games to go with the good ones on every generation, though with the current generation of games, we have more outlets to voice our opinion on what is good and what is bad.
 

timeadept

New member
Nov 23, 2009
413
0
0
Oh yeah, theres definitely a lot of crap out there, you really need to know what you're looking for. You just made me realize though how difficult it would be to get into gaming on your own though, you would really need someone who knows what they're talking about to recommended you past the mountain of crap games on thous shelves to find the good ones. But that mountain has always been there.

At the same time our standards are getting higher, but in some places quality is being lowered. Look hostly, Nintendo makes great games, but i can only play mario so many times before i get bored of the "fat Italian jumps on goombas heads" primes for a game. My favorite mario game was Super Mario Sunshine, i haven't cared for any since although i hear that they have still been getting better. Same goes for Poke'mon, my favorite was Silver (& Gold) and i really have cared for them less and less as time goes on, they are getting better, but they're taking steps that are even small for a baby. Only experimenting with things that are non-essential (or have a minor impact on)the core gameplay as if they're convinced that they found the absolute perfect formula the very first time.

Indie games are the only thing that seem to entertain me any more, at least there theres experimentation, new concepts, and occasionally new genera. Everyone else just seems to be playing it safe, and like i said, i can only play the same game so many times before i won't touch it again (unless it's really good, cause i must be on my 5th or 6th play-through of fire emblem right now).

Oh yeah back to raising standards they seem to be at a bit of a plateau. I've been going back and playing some games i've heard stories about, Thief III and the Hitman series (both old, both excellent). Then again... these are both part of a largely dead genera of stealth games, more recent examples of this, like your splinter cell, just don't hold the same weight. Stealth is only fun if it's essential to your success, but it's usually treated as an alternate way of playing the game. Like you can kill everyone, OR you can sneak through unnoticed. I always end up finding the "best" way to play the game, so if a mix of stealth and killing is more efficient than pure stealth or pure killing the i'll (want to) pick that, and it'll be really easy and i'll feel let down. Because after all, once you silently kill all the guards you have free reign of the level and the challenge is gone.
 

Mouse One

New member
Jan 22, 2011
328
0
0
As a few of the above posters commented, the perception of games getting better is due to the fact that we forget about all the shite (no doubt because we want to!) And nostalgia colors it all-- if we're thinking about a game that we grew up with, we forget that we aren't that 15 year old kid anymore. Call ourselves more mature or more jaded, depending on how charitable we feel about our tastes ;)

Seriously, even ignoring graphics, is Doom better than Bioshock? Is Ultima IV better than Dragon Age?

You can't go home again.
 

BENZOOKA

This is the most wittiest title
Oct 26, 2009
3,920
0
0
Games get better all the time, but there's a large noisy group that likes to whine and *****, as they're looking for the holy grail. The other part of whiners comes from the nostalgic (yearning for the idealized past) and all the rest, who are afraid of change.
 

Flac00

New member
May 19, 2010
782
0
0
Halceon said:
*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.
 

ThatDudeWithTheCap

New member
Feb 13, 2011
34
0
0
It's a bit of both. Our expectations have both risen (If you're an actual gamer), or plummeted (If you're a drunken retarded frat-boy). Actual gamers will say that games like CoD: Black Ops and Crysis 2 are VERY poorly done and 'streamlined' for the new 'demographic', which is saying 'dumbed down' for the 'retard gamers'. But people who play CoD and Halo will gladly buy more than one copy of each, which I've seen more than once.
The whole CoD thing seems to be fans of the series wanting no change in case they start drooling, which is why the modern FPS is seen as bad.
 

Kakashi on crack

New member
Aug 5, 2009
983
0
0
Ubermetalhed said:
Halceon said:
*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.
I agree completely. It's all style no substance.

I have to disagree to an extent. Having had minor experience in the game design world since elementry school, I can easily say that part of the flair revolves around graphics. If you took, for instance mass effect, and turned it into a 2D dropdown game using blocks and dots instead of actual enemies and structures and such, you wouldn't get nearly the same hype for it. Even if it had the same plot.

What I think we're referring to here isn't graphics but Pixels and Frames. A game can be great and have lower pixel/frame rates. (example: Minecraft, Ocarina of Time, Morrowind) But developers are focusing on increasing these for a more realistic/next-gen aspect rather than actually improving "graphics." We're getting to the point where the good designers can make a realistic looking character though, so hopefully this won't be an issue in about five years time.


Personally? I think its a bit of both. With so many people in the game design industry now days, they have to put out the best product at the lowest amount of work needed. (example: COD Black Ops) So innovation isn't as big of an issue to a lot of companies and designers, while its a huge issue for other designers.

At the same time, having new sales and easier to get games, more people have been exposed to a good game and their tastes have adjust to said games. Thus, it's not entirely that people's standards are higher as it is that there are more people with higher standards than there were before.
 

Halceon

New member
Jan 31, 2009
820
0
0
Flac00 said:
Halceon said:
*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.
 

Enigmers

New member
Dec 14, 2008
1,745
0
0
I think, though, the rise of smaller developers is really healthy for the industry as a whole, especially because they can't afford the best of graphics and have to actually make their games good (see: Torchlight, Amnesia, etc.) and there are good AAA titles in recent memory (Dragon Age and Red Dead Redemption come to mind.)
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Shooters, action games, racing games and similar genres are mostly fine. Fun shooters are even coming back in vogue.

The RTS genre has actually much improved gameplay wise since the early RTS games like Dune2 and age of empires. There are some lows like supcom2, but SC2 turned out fine.

Now the bad stuff:
Strategy games and simulations are both becoming rarer and starting to dumb down. Examples: CivRev, Civ5, Simcity Societies, Spore, Galciv2.
Compare to superior, older games like Civ4BTS, Simcity 4, Alpha centuari, Master of Orion2.
Still there's some potential on the indie side there like the Space Empires series and X3, so not all bad.

RPGs. The trend towards action RPG at the expensive of tactical RPGs is one thing, but not so terrible when the action is still good (it rarely is). The real issue is the focus on either big empty sandboxes or alot of subpar dialogue at the expense of actual gameplay.
 

Mouse One

New member
Jan 22, 2011
328
0
0
Halceon said:
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.
Caplock aside, he's right, though. There was nothing preventing old school FPS games like Doom from having narrative like Half Life 2, Bioshock, heck even Crysis. In fact, at the same time those "Big guy shoots monster" games were being made, there were some excellent puzzle games with narrative such as Myst. But the paradigm shift of including narrative or anything else other than combat mechanics in an FPS hadn't arrived yet.

There's a growing minority of games that have significant depth, much more so than the games of the 90s. The fact that many of them are indie games (Amnesia/Penumbra, Braid, The Path, etc) speaks to the fact that it's not just the engines available today, but the realization that there can be more to videogames than just "bang, you're dead!"
 

TheXRatedDodo

New member
Jan 7, 2009
445
0
0
I've been thinking about this lately. I don't think the quality of the games is getting worse, if anything the quality of our games is getting absolute stratospheric, but what IS lessening is the depth of our experiences.

Nowadays, the barrier of entry must be that much lower. Games must be simple to pick up and play for a mass audience, but many developers seem to have forgotten about the age old adage "easy to learn, difficult to master."
But there are still games out there that stick to this, and I think the next five to ten years will see this improving once again now that graphics are reaching such a high mark.
We're bordering on the edge of photorealism now, Crysis 2 is one of the most mindboggling games to look at I have ever seen. Despite the fact that technically, it may not be as high up on the ladder as the first Crysis, it does more with its art design and thus, to me, looks all the better for it.
There isn't much higher we can go with graphical design short of 3d and smell-o-vision, both of which have proved to be pretty much total gimmicks in the past with no signs of this improving all that much, so I can see depth of gameplay becoming of much more importance once again.


Edit: Just for the record, I find Doom to be far more fun on a fundamental level than Black Ops, just my 2 cents ;)
I think the idea that with bad graphics, the gameplay must be far more finely tuned to hold your attention holds a lot of truth. I feel as though there could've been a great game in Black Ops somewhere, but it was hidden with a lot of fluff and visual polish, whereas Call of Duty 4 had very little fluff and a very finely tuned set of gameplay mechanics that had no more and no less than was needed despite not looking quite so flashy.