Are games today really that bad?

[Hyper-space]

Anyone who actually thinks that games are somehow worse now than they were back then are deluding themselves.

Time tends to filter out all the crap, meaning that we've forgotten the days of unlicensed cartridges (games that literally did not work) and the sheer amount of clones that littered gaming back then.

Sure, you can cherry-pick all the day, claiming "proof" that the medium has somehow become less complex than before.

They're more linear and less complex

Nope and nope.

Back in the day, open-world games tended to be much rarer than now due to technical limitations. Also, here's an example of how gaming has become thousand times more complex:

Compare the console controllers, back then the most simple of games only used 8 buttons max. Now, the PS3 controller (for an example) has more buttons and functions than a car, this is what "simple" games are utilizing now.

I am guessing you don't remember much of what constituted 90% of games back then, or didn't play it.

EDIT:

Bushnell (creator of Atari) said that games today were a suckish mesh and that is terrible for the industry.

...


WHAT?

Ahahahahahahahaha...

...Is he serious?

 

[endtherapture]

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

This is so true.

I remember playing Quake 2 and it was labyrinthine. Multiple floors, twisting tunnels. The massive levels in the warehouse section of the game were insane and you could easily get lost.

You play a modern day FPS, and its just A-B. So boring.

 

[Kahunaburger]

You just lost all your credibility right there.

You might think that, but I actually agree with him. Even the most putrid crap of today, in other words movie-based games, are actually generally more fun than the very best the 80's or 90's had to offer. What, Super Mario Bros? It always was crap. I grew up playing that game, and I never really liked it. It was incredibly flawed and not very fun to play.

Of course, there were exceptions, but there are ALWAYS exceptions, no matter which era you look at.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather play Super Mario Bros. than Kane and Lynch 2. Fun, simple, and well designed > unpleasant, slightly less simple, and badly designed.

And it's not exactly like Super Mario Bros. was the epitome of early games - it wasn't even the epitome of early console games. I would happily say that Starcraft is as good or better than any modern RTS, Planescape: Torment or Shiren the Wanderer are as good or better than any modern RPG, and Mechwarrior 2 is as good or better than any modern single-player FPS.

 

[Kahunaburger]

They're more linear and less complex

Nope and nope.

Back in the day, open-world games tended to be much rarer than now due to technical limitations. Also, here's an example of how gaming has become thousand times more complex:

Compare the console controllers, back then the most simple of games only used 8 buttons max. Now, the PS3 controller (for an example) has more buttons and functions than a car, this is what "simple" games are utilizing now.

The controller isn't really the problem here. I mean, look at Shiren the Wanderer. That's basically a graphical roguelike for the NES. Like any roguelike, you have a hilarious number of possible actions (change facing, put stuff in jars in your inventory, name an unknown item and every item of its type to make it easier for you to identify its function in the future, and so on). They get all those functions to fit on an NES controller.

It seems to me more like there's a perception among game developers that if they make their game too inaccessible (too difficult, too complicated, too unforgiving, etc.) they will sell fewer copies. This is certainly a position we can sympathize with, because Activision employees have to eat too, but it does lead to shallower, easier games coming from the major developers.

 

[R Man]

I have a question. When did the last 'generation' of games end and the current one begin?

Where do we put games like Halo 1, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Morrowind and Warcraft 3?

I think there are some excellent games in this current age. Dragon Age, Mass Effects 1 and 2 (haven't got 3 yet), Skyrim, Starcraft 2, Dawn of War 2, and 1. I've heard good things about Shougun 2.

All I thinks happened is we have become over saturated with shooters, and there is a backlash against them. So criticism of them may well be valid, but there are still other good games out there.

 

[Sexy Devil]

Bushnell (creator of Atari) said that games today were a suckish mesh and that is terrible for the industry.

...


WHAT?

Ahahahahahahahaha...

...Is he serious?

Pretty sure a game is only good when it's so bad that all copies of it are buried in the desert. In that sense Atari is still the top dog to this day!

 

[Hyper-space]

Pretty sure a game is only good when it's so bad that all copies of it are buried in the desert. In that sense Atari is still the top dog to this day!

They're the only generation of consoles to have crashed the fucking market.

In that regard, they are the only top dog.

[The controller isn't really the problem here. I mean, look at Shiren the Wanderer. That's basically a graphical roguelike for the NES. Like any roguelike, you have a hilarious number of possible actions (change facing, put stuff in jars in your inventory, name an unknown item and every item of its type to make it easier for you to identify its function in the future, and so on). They get all those functions to fit on an NES controller.

It seems to me more like there's a perception among game developers that if they make their game too inaccessible (too difficult, too complicated, too unforgiving, etc.) they will sell fewer copies. This is certainly a position we can sympathize with, because Activision employees have to eat too, but it does lead to shallower, easier games coming from the major developers.

...And?

I could list off Paradox Interactive's library of super-complex titles and it wouldn't prove anything, except that these few title are complex.

Its a fact that your brain slowly filters out all the unnecessary memories (such as mediocre movies/video-games that you've watched/played), leaving only the good memories behind. So why can't we just get some fucking perspective and realize that nostalgia only skewers your view-point?

There is no difference in quality now or then, except when it comes to the technical-side of things. Post-launch patching has made it so that you will for certain be able to play any game, no matter how buggy, unlike back in the day.

 

[370999]

It's not better or worse, it's different. The wheel keeps on turning and good and bad games are produced as it always happens.

Of course I would rather be alive now and have the option of playing previous games from bygone generations as well as contemporary games.

 

[Kahunaburger]

[The controller isn't really the problem here. I mean, look at Shiren the Wanderer. That's basically a graphical roguelike for the NES. Like any roguelike, you have a hilarious number of possible actions (change facing, put stuff in jars in your inventory, name an unknown item and every item of its type to make it easier for you to identify its function in the future, and so on). They get all those functions to fit on an NES controller.

It seems to me more like there's a perception among game developers that if they make their game too inaccessible (too difficult, too complicated, too unforgiving, etc.) they will sell fewer copies. This is certainly a position we can sympathize with, because Activision employees have to eat too, but it does lead to shallower, easier games coming from the major developers.

...And?

I could list off Paradox Interactive's library of super-complex titles and it wouldn't prove anything, except that these few title are complex.

Paradox Interactive should be applauded for this and we should give them more of our money. They have learned something that many other devs haven't - that depth is okay.

Its a fact that your brain slowly filters out all the unnecessary memories (such as mediocre movies/video-games that you've watched/played), leaving only the good memories behind. So why can't we just get some fucking perspective and realize that nostalgia only skewers your view-point?

The old-school games that I played the most around the time that they were actually released are as follows, in descending order of playtime:

1. Pokemans
2. Zelda
3. SimAnt
4. MechWarrior 2
5. Age of Empires

So I ran into stuff like Deus Ex, Homeworld, Planescape: Torment, and Super Metroid years or decades after they were released. I suspect I'm not the only one who likes these games because they are really good games, not because a nostalgia filter.

There is no difference in quality now or then, except when it comes to the technical-side of things.

The issue is more, at least in my opinion, a lack of progression in game design. Many people who should know better have failed to learn lessons like: WRPG stories should have choices and consequences, FPS level design should not be about the player moving linearly towards the next whack-a-mole section, turn-based tactics are fun and people will pay money for games that involve them, good gameplay and aesthetics age better than good graphics, people are smart enough to handle complicated control layouts, people are smart enough to figure out how to use items on the environment without glowing highlights around the interactable portions of the environment, and so on.

 

[Hyper-space]

The old-school games that I played the most around the time that they were actually released are as follows, in descending order of playtime:

1. Pokemans
2. Zelda
3. SimAnt
4. MechWarrior 2
5. Age of Empires

So I ran into stuff like Deus Ex, Homeworld, Planescape: Torment, and Super Metroid years or decades after they were released. I suspect I'm not the only one who likes these games because they are really good games, not because a nostalgia filter.

So you've played a range of games released from 1987-98, I've played as many great games in the last five years as I had during most of my childhood. Still doesn't prove shit.

people are smart enough to handle complicated control layouts, people are smart enough to figure out how to use items on the environment without glowing highlights around the interactable portions of the environment, and so on.

People who have played video-games for decades and have an extensive knowledge of recurring control-schemes might find it easy to play more complex games. But you are comparing those kinds of people with others who do not have the same experience.

You see, we are lucky to have gone through the medium hand-in-hand with the evolution of the controllers, we went from playing games with 8 buttons to shit like the PS3 controller. Dumping someone who has no experience whatsoever with video-games straight into a modern one doesn't work, its the equivalent of trying to teach someone how to drive a car (and all the logistics that come with it, traffic rules, ect.) within 5-10 minutes.

Saying "Oh, I didn't have any problems with learning how to play this game" is fucking meaningless. Moving around in a 3D-space is not a given, its something you have to become accustomed to. Knowing what kind of stats are in most RPGS is not a given, its something you have to have extensive knowledge on.

Trying to teach someone how to play Modern Warfare 2 is different from say, Super Mario Brothers. In fact, its a thousand times more complex than Super Mario Brothers. So again, fucking perspective, its seems as if its impossible for gamers to put themselves in someone else's shoes.

 

[Syzygy23]

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.

That's one game. You can't point to one single game from the late 90s and say it's proof positive that games suck nowadays.

Besides, for all I hear about how wonderful PS:T's writing was, it certainly wasn't good enough to keep me interested.

Chrono Trigger, Arcanum, Deus Ex, System Shock, Shadowrun, Earthbound, Fallout, Fallout 2, Baldurs gate...

You want me to keep going? Because it's no trouble, really. I can disprove you all day if you like.

Face it, games have been kinda on the sucky side these days.

 

[Kahunaburger]

people are smart enough to handle complicated control layouts, people are smart enough to figure out how to use items on the environment without glowing highlights around the interactable portions of the environment, and so on.

People who have played video-games for decades and have an extensive knowledge of recurring control-schemes might find it easy to play more complex games. But you are comparing those kinds of people with others who do not have the same experience.

So, let's talk about button layouts. The second game I played was Mechwarrior 2. The controls for the game are as follows:

I was like 9 at the time. If I and my 6-year old sister could figure out how to play that, I'm pretty sure most people can.

In fact, the whole standard FPS control scheme strikes me as targeted towards people who play a lot of FPS games, not people who have never played a game before. There's nothing inherently less intuitive about "set throttle to move forward" vs. "press W to move forward," assuming the game is balanced around the control scheme in question.

Saying "Oh, I didn't have any problems with learning how to play this game" is fucking meaningless. Moving around in a 3D-space is not a given, its something you have to become accustomed to. Knowing what kind of stats are in most RPGS is not a given, its something you have to have extensive knowledge on.

My point is more that people aren't stupid and can figure this stuff out pretty quick.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Dark Souls was one of the greatest games I have played in the last 10 years. So no, I don't believe games are becoming bad.

I believe that they are becoming different as they are introduced to mainstream media.

Dark/Demons Souls is an exception and a rarity in todays games.

That doesn't discourage me from believing that modern gaming has just filled up the market with placeholder games that hold no real impact, and that the true pieces of art (opinionated, of course) are hidden under the rubbish games. I don't think gaming has become bad, I just think there are a lot more games so quality has been eroded by quantity.

Excluding, however, developers who take their time with their creations. See: Dark/Demon's Souls, Uncharted Series, ME1-3(Ending Controversy aside), Bioshock, etc.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'll assume it's already been linked to before, but I think this little video sums up what's wrong with gaming as a whole, nowadays. It's largely from the point of view of shooter players, but the same basic hand-holding is perceptible everywhere else.

<youtube=W1ZtBCpo0eU>

As games became mainstream, we were forced to find ways to convey information in increasingly clearer ways. It used to be shooters or even RTSes didn't need much more than patience or experimentation, but it feels like everyone wants to go from being a newcomer to "HARDCORE MLG SHIT, YO" in as little time as possible.

That involves the game spoon-feeding you its own strategies and tactics. It's not terribly bad in that it's laid out the ground work for a more social gaming scene (I don't think we'd have TF2 without the mainstream's integration, for instance) but at the same time, it's alienated those of us who play for the sake of being challenged or of feeling some sort of rush.

Having always been more of a casual gamer than anything else, I don't really mind the lack of seriously hard games in today's market, but I'd be hard-pressed not to understand how some people would.

Personally, though, I think most of the problem is in conveyance. We used to let the level design speak for itself, and now we tend to rely on tooltips or invasive tutorials.

 

[Kahunaburger]

<youtube=W1ZtBCpo0eU>

Haha that's hilarious. I also like this one:

the game spoon-feeding you its own strategies and tactics.

Yeah, drives me up the wall. The problem is that it's a lot easier to design a game that railroads players through scripted segments (or into specific builds) than it is to design a game that can accommodate a wide variety of builds, strategies, and tactics.

It's not terribly bad in that it's laid out the ground work for a more social gaming scene (I don't think we'd have TF2 without the mainstream's integration, for instance) but at the same time, it's alienated those of us who play for the sake of being challenged or of feeling some sort of rush.

I actually really like the way TF2 does things. You have classes like Medic, Heavy, and Engineer, with relatively easily-mastered mechanics, but can go all the way up to stuff like this. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFiclHxEPhw] There are classes for people who want fast, skill-intensive gameplay, people who want to focus on strategy, people who want to trick and ambush other people, and so on.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I actually really like the way TF2 does things. You have classes like Medic, Heavy, and Engineer, with relatively easily-mastered mechanics, but can go all the way up to stuff like this. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFiclHxEPhw] There are classes for people who want fast, skill-intensive gameplay, people who want to focus on strategy, people who want to trick and ambush other people, and so on.

Absolutely. I'm a halfway-decent Engineer myself, and I tend to suck at mostly every other class. I've got a gamer crush on the Spy class, but I can't play it effectively to save my life.

Engineer's easy and it's pretty relaxing, overall. All you need to do is get acquainted with where the other players need your gear or where they're *likely* to need it, and sit back while mothering your turret or your fellow Engies' own gear. Throw in the occasional shotgun frag or you setting up your turret offensively to mix things up, and you're good to go.

Not to mention that it's one class that really rewards experimentation. If you can use sneaky ways to reach unintended areas, you can literally make a killing. The easiest example would be the water in 2Fort's moat. I always stick a turret somewhere in there at some point in the match, and it takes *ages* for people to spot it.

Nobody thinks to check the water. ^^

 

[unstabLized]

In my opinion, most of the games today don't offer me the same "in-depth" feeling that they used to. In fact, I only like a few developer companies these days. People like Valve, Bethesda, and some others are the few companies that i trust when it comes to buying their product.

I'm still open to other games though, just that the games that are released by these developers tends to be a bit more.. better? than others. Also, the lack of challenge is killing me.

Also, announcing DLC after a week of launch isn't helping my liking. I miss "Pop n play". Now its "Buy,make accounts,update,etc." then play. Developers are getting greedy.. but who isn't greedy these days.

 

[Hyper-space]

Its a fact that your brain slowly filters out all the unnecessary memories (such as mediocre movies/video-games that you've watched/played), leaving only the good memories behind. So why can't we just get some fucking perspective and realize that nostalgia only skewers your view-point?

Because it's a bullshit argument, as I said before I CAN remember about as many bad games I played (e.g.: Lionheart , Daikatana, Urban Runner, Hopkins FBI etc., I remember that I thought Myst and Morrowind sucked for instance even though other people liked them, I still remember that one Tomb Raider game that sucked (Angel of Darkness), I remember that one Star Trek game they turned into a shooter and it was pretty bad (Generations), I remember that they turned King's Quest 8 into some sort of Hack&Slash/FPS game and that Ultima 9 wasn't running very well on top machines at the time and was buggy as fuck and so on.
It's a bullshit argument used by people who don't want to recognize that there's truth to it and it's easier to call on "nostalgia" instead of trying to have a discussion.

For that matter I also played Fallout 1 the same year I played Fallout 3 in, I thought Fallout 3 sucked like most Bethesda games and that Fallout 1 was one of the best games I ever played. Also played System Shock 2 for the first time some time ago (well like one year ago) and *gasp*, it looked pretty bad and had some issues but was still a lot better than most of the ultra-brown cover-based shooters nowadays.

So the fact that EVERYONE considers the period of video-games that they grew up with as the "best" is irrelevant, considering that *GASP* Fallout 3 wasn't your cup of tea.

Oh yeah, you played some older games that you've liked, congratu-fucking-lations. I guess we can all have a productive discussion where we cherry-pick games and then draw broad conclusions from them as if it is indicative of the entire medium.

 

[Pharsalus]

Level design in'twhat it once was, I have yet to see anything current gen that has wowed me like Jedi Knight, Half-Life, and MDK did back in the 90s. Hallways and crates are all I remember about most game's I've played lately.

 

[sabercrusader]

No, they aren't people are just looking back on old games with Nostalgia. Nostalgia is like a hallucogen, makes you see things better than what they truly are, stops you from realizing that, even though you LOVED that game in your childhood, it actually sucks kinda deal. It's a little heartbreaking to realize that, so a lot of people chose not to. And instead let Nostalgia guide their ignorance. Games nowadays are arguably better than before, except in the challenge area.