Are games today really that bad?
- Thread starter dtgenshiken7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A few weeks ago I was playing Sonic and Knuckles...still loved it. Played it for a few hours each day for about a week or so. That's more than I do with most modern games even though Sonic and Knuckles only has a few hours worth of content.
It ain't just nostalgia. I loved how in the olden days I could just pick up and play...and actually play, not be shown another cinematic. The games were sold first and foremost on their gameplay, not story or crappy sex scenes. Seriously, if you took out the story in some modern games (Mass Effect is probably a good example) would they still make sales? I know a lot of older games that would.
It ain't just nostalgia. I loved how in the olden days I could just pick up and play...and actually play, not be shown another cinematic. The games were sold first and foremost on their gameplay, not story or crappy sex scenes. Seriously, if you took out the story in some modern games (Mass Effect is probably a good example) would they still make sales? I know a lot of older games that would.
Some things have gotten better, some have gotten worse.
Level design has become far more linear and cinematic in most games, which I count as a downside.
Graphics have been improving. Slowly.
Gameplay has been focusing on faster paced more balanced play, which has its merits. I'd just prefer more fun play than balanced.
Writing has nothing that can really be pinned down as better or worse.
Oh, and this:
Level design has become far more linear and cinematic in most games, which I count as a downside.
Graphics have been improving. Slowly.
Gameplay has been focusing on faster paced more balanced play, which has its merits. I'd just prefer more fun play than balanced.
Writing has nothing that can really be pinned down as better or worse.
Oh, and this:
God damn Civ IV: BTS was epic. I was expecting more expansion on those ideas in Civ V, not a complete simplification of them all. It still has some merits but... I only bothered playing one round of that, then back to BTS.veloper said:
Although arguably shallower than Doom. Certainly shallower than Tribes 2 or Mechwarrior 2.TheKasp said:
True story.DeadYorick said: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
Without citing tons of examples I will say that in general games today seem to have less depth, are shorter, and seem to feature less heart. A lot of them feel assembly line and were just churned out for some money and nothing more. I think the biggest thing that gets me in games now though is lack of depth and honest difficulty.
There were always a lot of bad games even back in the day though, I think the big difference is that bad games then didn't become absurdly popular like so many terrible games today are. Standards have just gone way down. It happens though, I can still enjoy a lot of games today, even though a lot of times they are generally inferior in every way to similar games that came out a decade or more ago.
I guess I should add that the main problem is that games nowadays are mainstream, a big business, and very expensive to make since every company feels they have to produce a AAA title. This means that you need a big publisher to back you most of the time and publishers aren't going to let you try something creative and different. This results in a lot of safe games. The problem is, people buy those games by the truckload, so, here we are!
I think I am pretty good at not hating on a game just because it is new, I don't really let nostalgia get in the way of me enjoying a game. I know some people just jump out and hate on games JUST because they are new. I try not to do this. I still think there is a trend leading downwards in games though.
There were always a lot of bad games even back in the day though, I think the big difference is that bad games then didn't become absurdly popular like so many terrible games today are. Standards have just gone way down. It happens though, I can still enjoy a lot of games today, even though a lot of times they are generally inferior in every way to similar games that came out a decade or more ago.
I guess I should add that the main problem is that games nowadays are mainstream, a big business, and very expensive to make since every company feels they have to produce a AAA title. This means that you need a big publisher to back you most of the time and publishers aren't going to let you try something creative and different. This results in a lot of safe games. The problem is, people buy those games by the truckload, so, here we are!
I think I am pretty good at not hating on a game just because it is new, I don't really let nostalgia get in the way of me enjoying a game. I know some people just jump out and hate on games JUST because they are new. I try not to do this. I still think there is a trend leading downwards in games though.
The major differences are that games are becoming too linear, better graphics (and more mainstream, action movie loving audiences) are making games more cinematic, and games are "holding the players hand" more.
Most of that really isn't bad. Sometimes I don't mind shooting things in the face and not having to do a lot of exploring, but when every other developer does it, it gets pretty bad.
Most of that really isn't bad. Sometimes I don't mind shooting things in the face and not having to do a lot of exploring, but when every other developer does it, it gets pretty bad.
Yea, the problem with inflation however is that it's a myth. Most things actually don't go up with inflation, like entertainment or the average salary for that matter.Indecipherable said:Well to be fair, games were much more expensive then than now.GonzoGamer said:That's the thing. Most of the games made today are crap but that isn't really any different from any other generation going back to the intellivision.GiantRaven said:
However, one thing that's gotten worse is the money grubbing. Hasn't been this bad since the arcade days.
Doing a bit of quick research (I played NES games but was too young to buy them myself so I don't know the pricings off hand), games were around $45 to $60. SNES got up $80, and N64 up to $100.
Looking at the N64, you can basically double that in modern terms (5% inflation for 15 years) so that's a game at $200.
For NES, you can over triple the cost. 25 years is a long, long time.
There's a lot more that goes into it than just this very brief glance - development costs were much lower, but the market was a great deal smaller, and cartridge costs much higher - but $ for $ we get games far cheaper than ever before.
I have no doubt that games have become more expensive to make, it just troubles me that the ones that really play the schemes referenced in the image above aren't the small struggling dev studios but the big publishers who were already making huge profits before they started chopping up releases.
I call it "lack of resource management".TheKasp said:
Games don't take "more time" to make. Games take time to make, period.
Manpower and money employed into making a game does not equate proportionally to quality. I think everyone is familiar with the "too many cooks stirring the soup" analogy.
I quotes you because you are one of the escapists that are the most levelheaded when it comes to these discussions . Now although what you said is true , do the things you say actually make games "better"?Zhukov said:
The ultimate goal for games ( and correct me if you disagree) is to be fun . Therefore , in my opinion , for a game in 2012 , to be better than one in let's say 1999, it would necessarily have to be more fun . See a game could have all the things you have mentionned and still not be fun , thus missing the point of the game . Inversely , a game could have none of those things and be insanely fun , making it ultimately better ( think minecraft).
I think that the wrong question is being asked here is are games more fun than they were back in the day . When asked like that , it becomes less black and white , and more massively grey . It also heavily depends onthe individual .
As for my opinion on the matter , i think games today are less fun and ultimately worst because , and again this is just my opinion, there is much more to focus on than gameplay , graphics need to be spot on , as well as voice acting, basically everything needs to be perfect. Back then the main focus was gameplay , if the gameplay was bad , then everything just went to hell . In the games that had great gameplay and great story ( think legend of zelda) they were hailed as marvels and are now classics .
I'd like you to quote the post where I said "easy cash grabs" or that we used to swim in good games.TheKasp said:
Until then, I'll just assume you are arguing with someone that isn't me.
Fact: the time it takes to develop a game does not = quality. See Duke Nukem Forever.
Fact: Bigger development teams don't mean more complex games. See Infinity Ward.
Fact: Writing in videogames hasn't improved
*starts laughing forever*Zhukov said:
Wait, you were serious? Because in reality, level design is constantly getting worse. More linear, more simplified and more streamlined. Good level design is getting more and more rare each year.
These days, games try to hold your hand to an unreal degree. Take Megaman. Back then, nobody would have added "press X to jump" or "press A to shoot". Nobody would have added a message of "beware, this enemy could kill you!". Nobody would have caused a message to pop up, telling you in detail what an enemy is and what his grandmother ate for breakfast today.
You learned this through GAMEPLAY. Nowadays? Nah. HandholdingHandholdingHandholdingHandholdingHandholdingHandholdingHandholdingHandholdingHandholding.
It's downright sad. There are still exceptions, but their numbers are decreasing and are almost entirely limited to indygames and DS games.
Complexer - haha nope
bigger - haha nope, other way round
better graphics - thats all that improved.
Are we talking game complexity or software complexity, here? Because in terms of game complexity, well...TheKasp said:
I said that making an engine from scratch today doesn't involve most of the "real work" it used to.TheKasp said:
Personally, I think that coding is hard and I would prefer not to do it any more in my life.
But coding isn't half the challenge if you already know how to circumvent most of the obstacles.
Complexity of a program =/= complexity of the game.TheKasp said:
Having a complex program does not translate into good quality gaming.
Having a simplistic game in a complex program is a waste. Rather make a good simplistic game on a simple program.
Like I said, the complexity of the program doesn't mean more quality.TheKasp said:
If the program was simpler, perhaps there would be no need for big teams.
It would help if everyone acknowledge that there were more games than Super Mario back in 1980-2000.TheKasp said:
It's not better. Things haven't changed that much. Doesn't take a qualified expert to understand that good viodegame writing is not widespread.TheKasp said:
Super Mario Bros is a platformer. The proper comparison for that would be something like Spelunky, Super Meat Boy, or Canabalt.Elcarsh said:
I wouldn't describe Call of Duty controls as the "least complex" - they're pretty much middle of the road for shooters designed for the console (i.e., most modern shooters).Elcarsh said:
But the central point isn't actually the control layout (showing the list of "verbs" the game gives you is just a simple way of expressing the difference.) The central point is that modern games aren't any more complex or deep than older games - compare, for instance, Tribes 2 and Tribes: Ascend, Starcraft and Starcraft 2, or Nethack and Diablo 3. This is not to say that modern games are necessarily shallower (take ArmA) - it's that the concept of older games being simplistic is really only true for older games designed for certain consoles, and even then, not always true [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JMk3UitCEzc/TnKVAFDHmvI/AAAAAAAACEA/TCBjxfJZ1R4/s400/Shiren.gif].
(But TheKasp was talking about software complexity, anyway, which is pretty clearly correct.)
Really? Someone needs to inform Activision, because I don't think their design philosophy reflects this.Elcarsh said:
every generation has its strengths and weaknesses (seeing strengths disappear and new weaknesses emerge is the bloody cause of nostalgia), but not all generations are equal. i think we are in something equivalent to the silver age of comics, where things are mostly mass-marketed dribble. we will look back on games of this era as "charmingly stupid".
there is a uniqueness of the last era that will never be captured again, and you cant just say "nostalgia for the puny old dinosaur games" and write it off. the prototype stage of gaming as an artistic medium is a wonderfully unique and fulfilling time to be playing them, to see conventions established and bold moves made because there was so much unexplored territory. now that weve found a financially viable rut to wallow in, publishers have been doing the same thing they always do when that quirky little kid's toy suddenly becomes popular: MILK IT TO THE BRINK OF DEATH.
at some point soon when we are sick and tired of the same old brown FPS bullshit over-saturating the market and sales start plummeting, publishers will start getting desperate, allowing some fresh blood to take a risk and revitalize the medium (stan lee, spielberg, and miguel de cervantes did very similar things).
there is a lifecycle to art, and we just happen to be approaching our second reincarnation.
there is a uniqueness of the last era that will never be captured again, and you cant just say "nostalgia for the puny old dinosaur games" and write it off. the prototype stage of gaming as an artistic medium is a wonderfully unique and fulfilling time to be playing them, to see conventions established and bold moves made because there was so much unexplored territory. now that weve found a financially viable rut to wallow in, publishers have been doing the same thing they always do when that quirky little kid's toy suddenly becomes popular: MILK IT TO THE BRINK OF DEATH.
at some point soon when we are sick and tired of the same old brown FPS bullshit over-saturating the market and sales start plummeting, publishers will start getting desperate, allowing some fresh blood to take a risk and revitalize the medium (stan lee, spielberg, and miguel de cervantes did very similar things).
there is a lifecycle to art, and we just happen to be approaching our second reincarnation.
GearsRaven said:Since you advocated the photo let me explain why I think its an unfair, apples to pairs comparison.DeadYorick said: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
-BTW, it appears I'm about to go on a rant so don't think i'm arguing with you directly or anything...
I imagine the 93 map comes from a game like Doom 2. Everybody remembers and loves Doom 2.
Lets say the one on the right is Gears of War. Everybody remebers Gears and everybody either loves it or at least recognises it as a milestone in modern FPS design.
Gears has an established story full of twists, depth and consequence...
FPS
Wat
As well the rest of your arguement mostly amounts to mass amount of praise for Gears of War and yet failing to justify why map design has become a series of linear corridors since 1993. Gears was also hardly innovative. It's setting and stylised choices were all done numerous times before and the over the shoulder cam was done by Resident Evil 4. The only thing it added really was the "cover system" which reminded me a lot of a stealth game's cover system (like in Thief deadly shadows).