Are games today really that bad?

[lRookiel]

Games are becoming more cinematic because people want to see big budget movies, just paying 60$ for them and playing them for 5 hours.

I'll just leave this right here

That is a fucking amazing picture! hahaha!

P.S, Yorick rules :3

OT: Well companies nowadays stick less effort into their games if they know it will sell just as well anyway, it's all about the money!

 

[DJjaffacake]

which means if it ain't a Shooter, Sports game or "Action" RPG it probably won't sell.

It wont sell by todays standards, you mean.

Of course I meant by todays standards, what else? Titles like Terraria and Super Meat Boy even manage to sell a million and I think Bastion about 500.000, but just like movie studios want the "new Avatar" and are literally both crunching out new "Exciting 3D titles" and busy remaking every single old title to be shown in "Amazing 3D!" and get even more money, game publishers are looking for the next Call of Duty, or if they're not aiming for that at least the next Gears of War or Skyrim and it's all just pathetically sad to behold.

Which kind of leads into the OT again. Personally I dont think theres ever been a better time to be a gamer. The recent flood of generic military shooters does not hinder your enjoyment of old isometric RPGs, and whats more, a few studios are still bringing them out today. These titles are often better than what we had 8 years ago. Hardcore games are still out there, just as many, and they arent going anywhere, you just have to look a little harder because they are buried under titles like Homefront and MOH.

I mean, look at a few recent games. Assassin of Kings, Demon and Dark Souls, Bastion, Red Dead, Skyrim (admittedly that was "dumbed down" a little), the Baldurs Gate remakes, and a full host of indie titles I cant even remember the names of coming out soon that are more akin to the first Wizardry game than anything else.

Uhm, you're talking about "old isometric RPGs" (e.g. Ultima, Baldur's Gate, Planescape, Fallout, Arcanum etc., which are amongst the best titles ever released) and are comparing them to a bunch of Action-RPGs you are saying are "better than what there was 8 years ago" and you're actually being serious? Wow... and yeah I admitted in my post that there's a little upturn through Kickstarter and similar. The Baldur's Gate "Remakes" (they call them Enhanced actually) are neither new games, nor do we know if they will surpass the old showing just yet.
I mean, I loved Witcher 2 and I'm looking forward to Dark Souls but they don't have anything on those games and they ARE Action-RPGs...

I can't even take the other guy serious trying to compare the writing of Bioshock, Mass Effect and Half Life: Episode 2, basically a bunch of shooters where you shoot stuff and watch some Cutscenes to the likes of Planescape or Fallout 1 and I'm just hoping he never played them before

Wow. This was an intelligent discussion about whether new games are better than older ones, and along comes captain internet with 'herp derp you disagree with me so you must be stupid and wrong.'He prefers action rpgs, you prefer older rpgs. Neither of you is right or wrong.

OT I think games today are no better or worse, just diiferent, although my experience of older games is a bit limited in fairness. All of my favourite games have come out within the last 5 years (except Oblivion), but like i said, my experience of games is mainly recent ones.

 

[Zhukov]

I can't even take the other guy serious trying to compare the writing of Bioshock, Mass Effect and Half Life: Episode 2, basically a bunch of shooters where you shoot stuff and watch some Cutscenes to the likes of Planescape or Fallout 1 and I'm just hoping he never played them before

That would be me, and yes, apart from Arcanum, I have played those old games you're referring to.

Can't say I particularly like your implication that I cannot possibly have formed my opinion after having played them. 'Cause anyone who disagrees with you is clearly operating on incomplete information. Oh, the arrogance.

Also, "bunch of shooters where you shoot some stuff and watch some cutscenes"? Right. Unlike those "RPGs where you stab some stuff and read some dialogue". Deep.

...

Also, Planescape Torment has more cutscenes than Bioshock and HL2 Ep2 put together. Just thought I'd mention that.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Writing is getting better, gradually. (Very gradually.)

I'd disagree here, again on the quality of writing of the isometric RPGs. Stuff like Planescape Torment just absolutely rapes the face out of everything written in the last five years. Metaphorically, that is.

im sure you could have picked a better example then torment, yeah it has good writing, but its choice of delivery is dire, its basically just walls of text, albeit very graphic and usually fairly interesting text but still basically like reading a novel, at least now a days game try to do a little more then just drop a crap-ton of information on you at any one time

I think the main problem with Planescape: Torment's writing is that it's in these tiny text boxes that were never meant for the purpose that game uses them for - i.e., a problem with the delivery mechanism, not the writing itself. The actual writing is, IMO, easily the best I've seen in an RPG (and I know that isn't nostaliga talking, because I played it pretty recently).

However, I think that as time goes on we're seeing more games that actually have good writing, as opposed to good (for a game) writing. There always were examples of good writing in games - Tim Schafer's stuff and some iFiction come to mind - but it does legitimately seem to be getting more and more common.

 

[Skoldpadda]

They're more linear and less complex than they used to be. I know you can always cite an example from any side of the spectrum from any generation, but the way I approach this, is that when I go looking for games at the games store, I seldom find anything satisfactory anymore. Their content is just not worth the asking price anymore, and that's not even taking into account some of the ridiculous lengths some companies go DLC-wise.

This is doubly true for RPG's. Hell, they're almost extinct. What we call RPG's nowadays is but a shadow of what the genre used to be. Some of the more recent games might still be enjoyable, but they're a far cry from the old ones. I regularly browse the shelves for an unexpected nice RPG and always come up empty-handed. I've played them all. Every single one. Barely anything new comes out that's any good.

Popular RTS franchises, too, became less complex overtime. Look at what happened to the Command & Conquer series, and those games were already fairly simple to begin with, and then you still get rid of base-building?

I tried to like Batman: Arkham Asylum, I LOVED its atmosphere, but I simply couldn't cope with all the hand-holding. These games present me with violence, sexual undertones, and often mature themes, and then go and treat me like a dumb kid by telling me when to duck to avoid getting shot in the face and attaching a punch+flying kick+making enemy balls explode combo to the Y button.

The above posted pic is highly accurate. I remember playing Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight, and getting lost more than once.

It's all subjective and a matter of taste, and I don't mean to demean the fun you guys have with your new games, but for me personally, the state of things is really bad. I still play the old classics, and still enjoy them a lot, but when I try a new one, it more often than not will bore me. And I repeat, there are exceptions, and the market has always been mostly shit. It's just that exceptional quality has become even rarer, for those who don't give a crap about graphics.

Give me substance over style any day.

 

[Imbechile]

I was going to write my thoughts, but I don't have to. Basically this:

They're more linear and less complex than they used to be. I know you can always cite an example from any side of the spectrum from any generation, but the way I approach this, is that when I go looking for games at the games store, I seldom find anything satisfactory anymore. Their content is just not worth the asking price anymore, and that's not even taking into account some of the ridiculous lengths some companies go DLC-wise.

This is doubly true for RPG's. Hell, they're almost extinct. What we call RPG's nowadays is but a shadow of what the genre used to be. Some of the more recent games might still be enjoyable, but they're a far cry from the old ones. I regularly browse the shelves for an unexpected nice RPG and always come up empty-handed. I've played them all. Every single one. Barely anything new comes out that's any good.

Popular RTS franchises, too, became less complex overtime. Look at what happened to the Command & Conquer series, and those games were already fairly simple to begin with, and then you still get rid of base-building?

I tried to like Batman: Arkham Asylum, I LOVED its atmosphere, but I simply couldn't cope with all the hand-holding. These games present me with violence, sexual undertones, and often mature themes, and then go and treat me like a dumb kid by telling me when to duck to avoid getting shot in the face and attaching a punch+flying kick+making enemy balls explode combo to the Y button.

The above posted pic is highly accurate. I remember playing Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight, and getting lost more than once.

It's all subjective and a matter of taste, and I don't mean to demean the fun you guys have with your new games, but for me personally, the state of things is really bad. I still play the old classics, and still enjoy them a lot, but when I try a new one, it more often than not will bore me. And I repeat, there are exceptions, and the market has always been mostly shit. It's just that exceptional quality has become even rarer, for those who don't give a crap about graphics.

Give me substance over style any day.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Only in the mishandled support-wise area. As in, lack of dedicated servers and proper support for platforms. The games themselves are generally fine.

 

[veloper]

Bad? Only by 1 criterium that has been missing from this discussion sofar: challenge.

Games are getting easier on average. The action in games nowadays requires less precision, reflexes and muscle memory and the tactics and strategies for games that still feature them, have become shallower and dumber.

On the action side challenges like Dark Souls and Super Meatboy have become the exception now. Compare to Nintendo hard 2 decades ago.

For lack of depth I offer Civ5, Galciv2 and Simcity societies and compare to Civ4 BTS, Master of Orion 2 and Simcity 4.

I'm ambivalent about the action. I prefer the Meatboy approach to the clumsy and unfair Nintento hard of old, but I don't want my games to become Kirby epic yarn either and that's the direction we're all heading.

The decline of strategy is the worst one for me. Playing a turn-based strategy game without depth is just going through the motions.

 

[Legion]

The problem we are seeing now more than in the past is that developers are working harder on cashing in on big sellers as opposed to coming up with new things. Obviously before people would still do it, but now it's reaching a level that's almost ridiculous.

Call of Duty has a huge market, and as such, people are always trying to make a 'COD killer', and the same goes for WOW and other such things. Think a few years back how many released in just one year we had for Guitar Hero and Rock Band.

Then there are the developers who change the core aspect of a series mid-way through in order to try and grab a slice of the action from other developers. Think Bioware and their increasing leaning towards creating Hollwood blockbuster-style games.

That's not to say that originality isn't still there, but it very rarely reaches the critical acclaim of the copy-paste shooters or the never ending sequels.

 

[ramboondiea]

snippity snip snip

the problem with reading a novel is the fact that I am in fact not reading a book, I am playing a game, which is supposed to be an interactive medium, so having to suddenly stop playing a game go get my reading glasses and sitting through page after page of exposition is not the expectation. games now a days do in fact convey the story better, say what you like about cut-scenes but they sure show what the developer was trying to do.

and there are still plenty of games that offer more choice, but the reason its not seen as much is due to the sheer cost of producing games now adays. multiple quest outcomes get difficult to code with numerous variable flying around. and its not like those "older" games didn't suffer due to all those variable, most of those games have numerous fan patches to get them into playable states, at-least to days games are usually playable out of the box

 

[veloper]

FPS can't really have good writing, they get to alright with the likes of Jedi Knight or Half Life, but after the fact they're still about shooting people/things in the head and making things explode with little bits around that trying to tie it all together. I didn't say they're not fun and I probably played a lot of shooters from Duke Nukem, Doom, Quake, SIN, Soldier of Fortune, Kingpin, Serious Sam to most of the newest stuff like Bulletstorm, Bioshock, Dead Space, Gears of War and all that but comparing them to genres like RPG (the true RPGs, not the stuff out today or Hiking Sims like Oblivion and Skyrim) or Adventure games (Grim Fandango, Day of the Tentacle, Sam&Max etc.) in regards to story is insane.

It's like comparing Rambo, Universal Soldier, Predator and the likes to Shawshank Redemption, City of God and 12 Angry Men and say that they have "THAT BETTAH STORYE".

Well, I disagree. Good writing in FPS is tricky but there are games that pulled it off. Half Life is one example that springs to mind.

The biggest difference between the genres is how the story is told. It is easier to tell a story in RPGs and adventure games since there people expect this segments. In FPS on the other hand most developer still try to mimic RPGs or action movies. And they fail miserably. Narrative and story in FPS lives through the setpieces. And only few games can deliver on that regard.

If I'm honest: The difference in RPGs and FPS in regards of storytelling is nonexistant. You say that they are about shooting dudes? Well, this is the combat mechanic. If you just regard the combat mechanic even the best RPGs can't live up to the complexity of Serious Sam 3 (from the tactical standpoint, the ressource management, the actual player reaction speed, decisionmaking in combat and so on). And then the RPGs are just about whaking dudes and sitting through cutscenes / dialogues. Yup, it is easy to dismiss an entire part of a game.

And what about the story? Are you really suggesting that a writer can't come up with a good story for an FPS because it's an FPS? Because this is wrong. Not even just wrong, it's stupid. We have FPS with probably better stories than most classic RPGs (STALKER, Half Life, even Bioshock which was basically a copy of Atlas Shrugged) and if you take off your rosetinted nostalgia glasses you may realise that the cRPGs you remember are the few ones that were basically gems in a lake full of bland shit.

Heh. You obviously didn't read any of Atlas shrugged.
Maybe not impossible, but writers haven't come up with good stories for shooters sofar.
RPGs have a slightly better track record in this regard. Planescape was alright.
Better storytelling in games is a lost cause anyway. Gameplay is missing in this discussion.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Re: FPS and story, I don't think that FPS is a particularly good genre (at least in it's present form) for telling the same sort of plot-driven stories you see in RPGs. What FPS games are good at, IMO, is atmosphere. Take Bioshock: the actual story is nothing to write home about. The decaying Objectivist city, the ranting splicers, and the children who run away from you screaming things like "all your faces are melted!" absolutely is.

 

[Frozen Fox]

I do not know if it is they are all that bad as much as all that similar. Game get more boring with time like any activity and there is to little change in 2, 4 even 5 generations of a franchise to keep various customers happy

 

[GiantRaven]

No, they aren't. Go out to any game shop that sells old PS1 and PS2 games (and so forth) and marvel at the utter depthless crap that we were offered alongside the actually memorable games of those eras.

The recent flood of generic military shooters does not hinder your enjoyment of old isometric RPGs, and whats more, a few studios are still bringing them out today.

There are still isometric RPGs coming out? Could you point me in the direction of them, cause they've utterly passed me by.

 

[Canadish]

The magic died.

The culprit isn't one man, company or innovation. It's a culmination of several events.

Technology advanced, which increased team size and production cost.
This brought the need for more cash, which attracted Suits like Bobby Kotick.
It also brought gaming more mainstream attention.
The combination of these two caused creative stagnation in the name of safe profits.

At the same time, the mystery died.
The internet, wonderful as it is, makes those little secrets, Easter eggs and Chinese whispers impossible.
("Mew is under the Truck, really, my Dad works at Nintendo!" This generation will never know that feeling or have that fun.)
Bungie was the last company to really put those bizarre and strange little details in their game that just made it magical for the community.

At the same time as that, things have gotten less "fun" for developers now as well.
It's not some growing creative industry. It's a corporate production line.

Not only that, but as the economy suffers and costs continue to rise in spite of this, Publishers need to keep making more money to keep the shareholders happy.
They want to make gaming a "service" not a "product".
They want to make gaming Subscription based, essentially.
(This is where alot of concern over the ME3 ending is at. We're at a watershed moment. If they try sell the "real" ending as $7 DLC, then we have a bleak future on our hands. It WILL become the trend.)
I understand why developers want to use DLC and how it helps them, but it's being used to abuse consumer trust at this point.

Not only that, but with Draconian DRM, and things like EA's Origin asking for your Privacy alongside your money...it's alot to ask someone for, when they just want to enjoy their hobby.

However...

Now, that's not to say that we didn't have a bunch of lazy rip offs back then either.
It was just Platformers rather then shooters.
(Which I kind of prefer the idea of kids playing tbh, but that's another issue...)

On the other hand, the future has a glimmer of hope.
The AAA industry is next to worthless now in my own opinion.
I'm playing through all the old PC classics I missed as a kid, and I'll tell you: I don't miss the fancy graphics, the orchestral scores or the voice acting. The charm, creativity and passion make up for it in spades.
I don't have any nostalgia goggles as I never played these at release.

But the idea of smaller budget games and Indie titles have a future now.
As much I hate the death of brick and mortar stores, digital distribution has given us the benefit of allowing smaller teams to reach a large market.

I think we may well see more "niche" products in future the way things are going.
We're going to have/already have a generation of savvy, disenfranchised gamers who have money to spend and nothing they want to spend it on in the AAA market place which has long since abandoned them.

 

[Danny Nissenfeld]

There are tons of great games coming out daily, they're just not games you can find on the shelves of Gamestop, or any other shelves for that matter.

Actually look for games on the internet. Don't wait for EA or Sony to drop 1m in advertising for banners, tv spots and paid reviews on major sites. Go out there and find the games because people are making them and they're ending up on flash sites, indie sites and the dark corners of Steam.

The fact of the matter is you only hear about A, AA and AAA titles because that's who has advertising budgets. You've been passed over by a ton of games because you're just not looking. Not all of them are good but there are quite a few that are.

 

[Auron225]

Games are becoming more cinematic because people want to see big budget movies, just paying 60$ for them and playing them for 5 hours.

I'll just leave this right here

Haha!! That is awesome! =P Describes well how loads of RPGs have changed too!

OT: People do tend to wear rose-tinted nostalgia glasses too much nowadays. I think loads of games now are fantastic and people will look back on them one day the same way we look back on stuff now. A theroy is that its like being addicted to something (not to say this only applies for people who are actually addicted to gaming). People get a high off of it when they first try it and look for that high again but it wont ever be quite the same.

Im not sure how much weight that theory actually has, I just thought Id share.

 

[hazabaza1]

Hell no. People just A-Have nostalgia glasses and B- Like to complain.

 

[Zeckt]

Games are becoming more cinematic because people want to see big budget movies, just paying 60$ for them and playing them for 5 hours.

I'll just leave this right here

That is a fucking amazing picture! hahaha!

P.S, Yorick rules :3

OT: Well companies nowadays stick less effort into their games if they know it will sell just as well anyway, it's all about the money!

Maybe so, but its just a copy / paste Wolfenstein 3d level made with the same texture with the intention of getting lost. Or it could be a doom level, where 1/3rd of that map is 5 minutes to get the yellow keycard all on one floor because the games engine is not even capable of second floors.

Coming from a person who has probably spent hundreds of hours on doom over his life, I would rather play Halo Reach now.

 

[Arcane Snowman]

No, I don't think games are worse.
Every era of gaming has had it's own separate focus, and games which excelled under those foci.

For that reason, I think it's silly to compare new and old games, as they oftentimes do not accomplish, neither by design nor by result, the same things. And I therefore don't play them for the same reasons, quick examples:
Planescape: Torment is one of the best stories I have played through, in terms of writing. The delivery and gameplay however is overall pretty bad. Bioshock on the other hand has mediocre gameplay and story, but it's delivery is simply astonishing.

Different games focus on different things, and whilst I think it's true that it's hard to find an epic story like that of Planescape: Torment around, it's a pretty hard one to top. However, in recent years, we've had gems like Bastion and the Stanley Parable, which explore some things more unique to our medium, in the form of narrative delivery.

If you go into games, with only a single criterion, or perhaps even just a pair of criteria, of what constitutes a good game in mind, then I think you're missing out on a lot of things which that game in question might be doing right. Of course, there is nothing wrong if you only enjoy games which fills certain criteria, that's all up to you, but that doesn't necessarily make those that don't, bad.

I personally enjoy games over many different genres: Torment, Portal, Terraria, Persona, Bastion, Painkiller, Dear Esther, Starcraft, Diablo and the list goes on. They're altogether different experiences and I think games would be the poorer if we were to focus on only one kind.