Are games in general getting worse or is that nostalgia talking?

wadark

New member
Dec 22, 2007
397
0
0
I wouldn't say worse, I'd say formulaic. As gaming moves out of the low-budget, small-team design of its youth and into the Hollywood-esque big budget of today, we see people in business suits who have no interest in gaming beyond the income it gives them making decisions. And those decisions usually involve creating something that is as guaranteeably sellable as possible. Nostalgia certainly plays a part, I'm sure. But look to the indie market, you won't always get an awesomely voiced-over narrative experience, but you find some true innovation and some decent stories as well.

That said, I am sick of what Yahtzee called the bleak, arty, 2D platformers that involve the small child losing their innocence in a big world. It's getting old.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
I went back and played some of my old PlayStation games and do you know what?

My new 360 games were better in every buggering way.

The Old:

C-12 Human Resistance? Dodgy controls, clunky camera, awful hit detection.
Syphon Filter: Prohibitively hard final boss, terrible stealth aspects, rubbish weapon control and pretty dodgy voice acting and graphics even for its time.
Crash Bandicoot: Fun and cheerful aesthetic with yet more annoying camera angles, puzzles built around two gimmicks that get repeated ad-nauseum, and controls that every so often just plain don't work.
Tomb Raider: I am the biggest fanboy of this series you will ever find, and I still find TRIII stupid, badly designed and with awful graphics.

Okay, there's the third-person-em-ups of my youth, what about the FPSs?

Quake: Oh fuck off.
Duke Nukem 3D: You did actually play this game didn't you? What with its terrible hit detection, bollocks weapon selection, truly godawfully crappy graphics and nothing to hold it together but stupid pop culture references that were out of date when the game was made?
And not one of them has a story more interesting than 'aliens r bad kill they ass.'

So the FPSs don't do too well either, what about the jRPGs? The games which got me into gaming in the first place?

Final Fantasy VII, VIII and IX: Alright, not much to complain about here. The graphics are good for their time, the controls work, the stories are interesting and there isn't voice acting to be awful.

So let's compare.

The New:

Tomb Raider: Yeah I'm a fan of the new games. They actually made me like Lara again. Hopefully the new one will do it even better.
Stranglehold: A third person shooter done right. Controls which let you get around the battlefield without clumping from box to box, nice choice of guns that are easy to distinguish, and the controls work when I want them to.

Halo: Better than DN and Quake in every way. better story, better guns, fun, simple, colourful and a great game.
I don't play CoD etc

Mass Effect: The greatest effort of human science fiction ever made.

In short, take off the nostalgia goggles, and the next time you decide to play one of these old games actually pay attention to how often the controls are buggering you over, how little story there is, and how awful the graphics are. Then tell me one thing that is better in old games than new.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
On average games are getting better in technology and worse in design, shit that game designers figured out 20+ years ago is suddenly being lost from all big titles.

So instead of games being the sum of all innovation they shifted focus to pretty, lots of flash and very little substance.
 

Locko96

New member
Jan 18, 2010
407
0
0
Woodsey said:
Not really, but there does seem to be a recent sway to make every game apply to complete retards, which is harming certain experiences.

Crysis 2 has an F to look button for example. An actual button whose sole duty it is to face you towards buildings that are collapsing. REALLY?

The new Hitman meanwhile will allow you to see through walls. The old games used to have a fucking map that let you see people's positions - now we have a feature that could quite possibly dictate level design.
I will definitely agree with this. Developers talk about immersion but things like this just throw me right out and remind me "Hey! I'm playing a fucking video game". Also, Hitman and basically what is the sonar goggles from SC: Conviction? I enjoyed Conviction but I found the previous games more satisfying in Splinter Cell franchise. Sneaking up on a guy without what is essentially an all seeing eye is for more satisfying. Maybe the choice of adding that feature in Hitman is to allow more "freedom" or open up more opportunities for people who just want to blast through a level but then why the fuck are they playing Hitman?

OT: I don't agree with some decisions but I find that games are generally better today. A lot of improvements have definitely been made. One thing that I definitely think has improved is the UI. I played System Shock 2 recently and while I enjoyed the game, the menus were a fucking nightmare. Today's graphics are definitely better and that helps to create a more immersive experience (although, that doesn't really matter if the core gameplay is good). Games have definitely been streamlined and that has helped improve or kill some games. All in all though, enough games get made that fit my taste for me to be pleased.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
I don't know much about nostalgia, but I think that games in general are changing for the better.

Are there some great old games that have stood the test of time? Sure.
Are all modern games good? No. Fuck no.

But generally speaking, I'd rather be playing the games of today. I prefer Bioshock to System Shock 2. I prefer Mass Effect to Knights of the Old Republic. I prefer Half Life 2: Episode 2 to Half Life 1.

Graphics have improved (duh), narrative has improved, writing has improved, voice acting has improved.

So all you old men, get off my lawn!
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Zhukov said:
But generally speaking, I'd rather be playing the games of today. I prefer Bioshock to System Shock 2. I prefer Mass Effect to Knights of the Old Republic. I prefer Half Life 2: Episode 2 to Half Life 1.

Graphics have improved (duh), narrative has improved, writing has improved, voice acting has improved.

So all you old men, get off my lawn!
That's because you have only a very short gaming history to refer by.

Best writing? Still the same old shitty game from 1999.
Best graphics? Whore.

How about gameplay? Gaming will have improved when JA2 or MOO2 has been topped.
 

spielburg

New member
Jun 24, 2011
42
0
0
I dont think the games are getting worse, they are just more alike.
Its really hard to come up with something nobody has ever done. In the beginning, it was easy because everyone could make something up that was original. But now, most thins have already been done.

Just try to think of an idea for a game that isn't already published... See? harder then you thought eh?
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
scnj said:
GonzoGamer said:
My problem is that multiplayer game content is included as a replacement for the lessened amount of sp game content.
I agree, but that's probably because single player content is much more expensive than multiplayer content, and a percentage of AAA gamers are only interested in the multiplayer.
That I can understand: like with a COD game. But I was talking more about games that are primarily single player.
For ex: I wasn't expecting gta4 to have as much content as San Andreas but I thought it would have at least as much as gta3...without buying$20 dlc packs.
I can see the appeal of games that are primarily multiplayer (I have a couple myself) but if it's primarily a single player game with mutiplayer shoehorned into it because they wanted to reuse resources to bulk up the title, that's very transparent, insulting, and annoying.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
veloper said:
That's because you have only a very short gaming history to refer by.
Shorter than some, sure. But I've been playing games since I was 8, and fairly steadily since I was 12. I'm currently 23. So it's not as if I was introduced to gaming in the age of CoD.

Thing is, whenever I go and try out an old game that everyone trumpets as being better than all the new stuff, I am almost always dissappointed. Examples in my previous post.

Like I said, there are exceptions. For example, I love the story in Planescape Torment. I just wish I didn't have to wade through fucking awful combat and an arse-backward GUI to experience it.
 

Luthir Fontaine

New member
Oct 16, 2010
323
0
0
Nostalgia pretty much
Ok ask this which is better the older movies or newer ones, how bout music, or goverment?

Anything in the past is seen with rosetinted glasses
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
In this very month I've played Freespace 2, Wing Commander, Freelancer, X-COM: UFO Defense and Castlevania SOTN... and I loved them all much more than any game released this year with the exception of Portal 2.

I think the problem with modern games is they seem to focus largely on dicking around and draging out the gameplay instead of delivering a well paced story or even just having fun leveling and enjoying good combat.
 

TheDooD

New member
Dec 23, 2010
812
0
0
SirBryghtside said:
this isnt my name said:
Worse. Easily.

1) Casual market. Games are being dumbed down or "streamlined" to tap into the casul market.

2) CoD syndrome, everything needs multiplayer to be a fast paced shooter, becuase of CoDs sales.

3) Realism, everything must be grey and brown.

4) Reluctance to take risks, games these days dont really take risks, they cant afford to, it costs so much money to make a game they are afraid. Most of that is probablly spent on graphics. I just see shoter, after shooter, after shooter. I like shooters, but christ.

Aside from gmaes becoming worse, they also seem to become more similar in an attempt pull in the same numbers that CoD does.
Oh sure, because 'back in the day' there weren't endless streams of clones.
At lease back in the day there wasn't so much press upon the games. So you wouldn't notice the "clones" you might notice a game that plays similar. Looking back yes there's clones lots of'em but you really wouldn't know unless you looked back.

I'm fan of Retro Shoot'em ups, 2D action and some RPG's games. Graphically and mastery of coding games are at a insane level we would have never thought about 20 yet alone 5 years ago. Yet aesthetics wise imaginative vision seem to have slowed up from 20 years ago because it took risky I understand that so AAA really can't risky it. Yet with Indie and low tier games they really make the games pretty and you can see it. They put their all into presenting a beautiful product eventhough it most likely won't sell as much as a AAA title game.

We're smart enough and highly skilled so they're no real reason to ever have clones these days, besides by pure fact that every concept have been done already. Yet cost to make games is extremely high so I understand why some will cut corners and look over shoulders. So they'll product will sell decently. Games by an hardware and artist standard are extremely getting better. Business wise gaming is bumpy mainly because this year's E3 it was the smaller games that impressed me while the AAA and mainstream were the let down.
 

grumbel

New member
Oct 6, 2010
95
0
0
666Chaos said:
The past will always seems a hell of a lot better when you ignore all the bad parts.
I already ignored all the bad games back when I was in the past, thanks to reviews and such. The problem with nostalgia isn't the bad games, but that you often end up "time-compressing" the good stuff, i.e. its easy to accidentally compare the good games from say 1990-2000 with the good games of this year and then concluding that todays gaming is worse, while in reality we still had plenty of good games released in the last ten years.

That said, things do have actually changed and the mainstream gaming market gets less exciting, as more and more games build on past conventions instead of trying something new. So the experience of "I have never seen a game like this" happens a lot less often and most games feel like more of the same.

Games these days are also often polished and play tested to such a point that they remove any real player involvement. There is no more mystery or puzzles that keep you troubled for days, instead everything is so easy and straight forward that you don't even have to think about it, corridor level design and arrows in the HUD make it near impossible to get lost. Now I am not saying that I want bad maze level design back in my games, but those types of levels actually forced you to care, forced you to look around in the world instead of just running past it. I'd like to see game mechanics that encourage a similar amount of player involvement without getting so tedious. I'd also like to see more focus on the design of emergent gameplay, way to much stuff these days is done by scripting instead of running an actual simulation to generate the game events and thus most things feel forced and meaningless.

Essentially many past games felt more like the developers where creating a little virtual world for the player to play around in, while many modern games feel more like roller coaster rides. They look flashy and exciting, but you can't really do anything on your own that isn't part of the ride and if you have played a few of them, they get kind of boring.
 

grumbel

New member
Oct 6, 2010
95
0
0
AdumbroDeus said:
For every FF6 there was a final fantasy mystic quest, but since people play FF6 still and few people still play mystic quest, very few people remember the latter existed. This is why people believe that games were better in the past.
No, the reason why they think games where better in the past is because current days FFXIII was a complete mess and FF6 is still one of the best parts in the series. Also Chrono Trigger was released just a year later, so you had quite a few milestones in RPG genre around that time.

Essentially current day can't keep up with past expectations, you'd expect that in 15 years those old games would have been far surpassed by other technically more advanced games, but they haven't, those old games are still at the top of their genre. And while that doesn't mean all todays games are bad, it makes one kind of wonder what's wrong with todays way of developing games, when a ton of more money and development time leads to result that are not only not superior, but sometimes even vastly inferior to past experiences.

The thing is, the stuff in gaming that has improved over the years is mostly just facade, technical things like graphics, sounds and maybe the userinterface, but the underlying game mechanics haven't really changed half as much as the graphics would like you to believe and thus even old games can often keep up quite well when you can look past the technicalities.
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
Games are not necessarily getting worst , our standards are gettinh higher, what it takes to impress us has drastically increased, most games are average , but the lack of innovation or something new , leads us to conclude the game is bad, which it isn't , there is just nothing special. We want to be impressed, we want new games to surpass the old. When this doesn'T happen we are disapointed. Take Duke nukem for example ( am actually gonna post a thread about that right after this ) it is a alright game on its own merit , but our expectations + the fact our standards are alot higher than 10 years ago , well people disregarded as a terrible game.
 

SpaceArcader

New member
Mar 2, 2011
295
0
0
From what everyone said I do agree that gaming in many ways is better in terms of controls, gameplay and narrative. In ways, its actually great to see games that are getting this much attention. In terms of nostalgia, yes they were brilliant, no matter how clunky the controls were they felt special to you because there was a lack of multiplayer and online capabilities (with the exception of dreamcast) so they felt more special to you.

Today I think we can all remember brilliant moments (and at times GODLY) of gaming and remain in our hearts for years(take Bioshock, RDR, Elder scrolls). In ways it all depends on the gamer's lifestyle and beliefs. For me I think Shadow of the Colossus is classed as one of the many greatest games of all time whereas Joe Average Bloggs may think that the latest COD is better than previous titles like COD4 and I think as a person in society we have to respect these views no matter how loathing they may be.
 

Daxent

New member
May 10, 2011
9
0
0
Games aren't getting worse, they are getting better. We've had corrupt publishers even back then, fun fact. Remember Interplay? They shut down Black Isle Studios, not because they didn't have the money. They did, they just didn't give a flying 2 shits. If you don't remember Interplay, you SHOULD remember Akklaim.

Today's bad games are nothing like yesterday's, compare Vampire Rain (a game I hate with every bit of passion) to Action 52, see which is more fun.
 

Titanium Dragon

New member
Apr 23, 2008
25
0
0
Games are worse in some ways, and better in others. There are games being made today that simply couldn't be made previously, or would have been (or were) much weaker in the past.

The problem is a fewfold. First, there is a tendency to insert excessive narration into every game. Old games often lacked much in the way of narration, and that was a good thing. Sonic Colors doesn't really NEED a story beyond the levels. Why bother putting one in?

Secondly, there's a tendency towards making games easier to play. This is not a bad thing, but the badness enters when you lack anything to sink your teeth into. Oftentimes appropriate difficulty levels have to be unlocked, but because the game is so easy there's no point in sinking in the time to get the challenge you want. In many cases, AI is quite bad; while AI has always been terrible, a lot of enemies now have bad AI instead of actual patterns which were more fun to play against and weren't any less difficult to defeat, and in many cases allowed for more difficult situations because of multiple enemies in the same area adding up in more interesting ways.

The genre in which this has its greatest negative impact, however, is platforming. Making a more difficult platforming game requires you to make new level layouts, so difficulty levels are without meaning most of the time; you have whatever level there is, and that level is now lower than it once was. Moreover, a lot of these levels are less complicated and more samey than they once were, and in many cases, especially 3D platformers, much more linear. Super Mario 64 was cool precisely because the world you were in was open; in Super Mario Galaxy, they put you on rails and there were no really interesting shortcuts to take or decisions to make. You just felt like you were going the way you have to go... because you were.

Platformers are the genre which was hardest hit by the decrease in difficulty, and it had a devastating impact on them. How many good platforming games came out between Mario 64 and New Super Mario Bros? The answer is a depressingly small number. Only in relatively recent times have good platformers begun to appear again - and many of the good ones are 2D. Indeed, the platformer market is so bad that people saw Braid as a good game, a charge that never would have been leveled at it in the 90s.

Thirdly, lots of games have a lot of unnecessary side content or collectables. This is bad. Don't throw in random crap for no good reason; everything in a game should have a purpose in being there, or not be there at all. RPGs are particularly bad offenders at this, with sidequests galore, but all genres of game have been affected by this. The games are often unfocused as a result of adding in too much to do and not focusing enough on what you SHOULD be doing. This problem barely existed in the early 90s, but as people got more and more memory to play with, they began to add more and more extraneous content, not realizing that by doing so they were weakening their game, not strenghtening it by adding the new content.

Finally, a lot of games lack an actual reason for existing beyond profit motive. The issue here is that you have games which come out but don't really try to give you any sort of particular experience, but which simply exist. A lot of FPSs fall into this category, but there are plenty of other examples as well of "empty" games - games that you can play but feel hollow. Super Mario Galaxy, Killing Floor, Borderlands - these games have been lauded, but there is nothing substantive to them. And many games are much worse than these in terms of having actual substance to them.

The ways that games have gotten better, beyond graphics, is more consistent controls across games and indeed genres, the ability to stretch further, more exploration of fields that were previously very difficult to explore (FPSs and other games like it do benefit greatly from improved graphics, and it allows you to set games in environments which simply didn't exist before because they looked too crappy to immerse you in them), and a general increase in content.

But a game is both an investment in time and money, and if I don't have fun fast and keep having fun, I'm likely to drop the game.