Modern Gaming Sucks!!! Or Does It?

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
8,693
3,561
118
Fallout 76, Anthem, Avengers, Battlefield 2042, every time a big game releases in either an unfinished state or buggy as fuck the same phrase always crops up.

"Modern Gaming Sucks".

And in looking at high profile releases that haven't come out of the box in great shape, it's easy to see why people would say that. However for me, I feel like that statement is a rather ignorant statement to make, because generally speaking the Youtubers and people who make those statements on forums are fairly young comparitively with some suggestions. Yet people who really knew gaming like the late TotalBiscuit, Jesse Cox, and several others, never would make that statement. People on the older end like me (I'm pushing fucking 40 oh fuck) who've seen gaming since the Atari 2600 days.....well we know better.

Back on the NES especially games were often broken buggy and everything Fallout 76 was at launch on a much smaller scale simply because of limitations of tech. The problems that plague the industry now, plagued the industry then (less rape though), games released that were simply shovelware and the NES was the king of that. Because NES games were small and easy to make they could be shit out like candy without any real effort. Just watch some Angry Video Game Nerd videos and you'll see several examples of shit that just didn't work. Hell even games that are regarded as classics like Final Fantasy 1 didn't fucking work, stats didn't work, spells didn't work, a lot of that game was broken.

Modern gaming has one advantage over the NES days and that is The Internet. With the internet games can now be fixed post launch, either because something is discovered that was missed during development, or simply to add new content to the game in the form of DLC. So now when something like No Man's Sky comes out and everyone hates it, the developers can buckle down and fix it, rebuilding the game to make it better.

Of course the obvious argument to that is that the games shouldn't come out fucked up to begin with, and that point does have merits. In the case of No Man's Sky it wasn't a broken game, it just wasn't the game people thought it would be, and credit to Hello Games for going back to the drawing board and putting in all the cool shit the players expected. In the case of Fallout 76, well yes nothing should release that fucked up. But the release of a buggy game isn't new, it's just exaggerated by modern tech.

What i mean by that is that games feel more buggy now, because with modern graphics those bugs are more noticeable. Better AI systems mean that it is a lot easier for the player to notice when something in that AI breaks. Graphics are so realistic now that when pop-in textures are a problem it's extremely obvious. No longer are the bugs able to hide themselves by the imaginary requirements and suspension of disbelief that makes things less obvious to the player.

Games are bigger and clearly better than they ever were. So I really have a problem when people say "Modern Gaming Sucks" because it doesn't. For every Anthem, there is a Jedi Fallen Order. For every Fallout 76 there is a Doom Eternal. For every Final Fantasy 14 there is a Realm Reborn.

There are pockets of games that seem to always have issues, but these games are usually very obviously bad well before release and they usually come from EA and Bethesda, who are basically the modern LJN (again look at old NES games).

I know it is frustrating to get a new game and have it be broken. But if the last four Battlefields have been shit, maybe your dumbass should stop buying them, just saying. There are pockets of gaming that are shit, bad business practices, broken titles, and that does suck. But it's not a blanket of the entire industry and certainly not a "modern gaming" problem. It would be more fair to say that "Gaming sucks" because none of the things that happen now are really new, they just have more attention on them because gaming as a whole has grown.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
13,324
2,322
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Its the same thing with all media, "everything old is good, everything new is bad." But, its because we remember the best of the past or the bad things we remember, we don't remember their flaws as much as their good points or the enjoyment. We aren't comparing the average aaa game of today to the average of yesteryear, we are comparing it to the best of yesteryear.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
2,420
884
118
It wasn't even that long ago, metroid prime 2 had a game breaking bug part way trough the game that I triggered and ruined my save, still haven't finished it because of that.

I do think one of the weakness of modern game is that big studio don't make medium game anymore, today square enix can barely be bothered to release one game a year when they used to release 2-4 in the SNES/PS1 days. Making medium game not only let them release riskier game, it was also a good way for them to recruit/train/test new employees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
18,352
7,364
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Modern gaming does suck in most of the AAA space. Especially when they're upping the antee and price and charging 70 plus dollars for a shell price of the game. Not to mention the nfts, feeding off of people's addictions with loot boxes and microtransactions, encouraging kids to bully each other because they only have the default skin and can't afford the overly expensive ones that look like crap.

The AA market & indie aren't marketing perfect either, but at least they put an effort and have passion. There's a reason why I talk about games like Streets of Rage 4 and DMC5 so much with positivity. They feel like actual video games. Not glorified walkathon movies. A whole bunch of multiplayer only games where you don't even get much content or there's only a quarter of the game if it's a single player. Or it's filled with so much grinding that you have to pay in order to have fun. Not worth the effort.

The same companies that wine and complain saying video games are expensive to make, yet they almost always underpay their staff, you're expecting to stay for long, grueling, hours. And as soon as the big wigs get a bonus. they cut those at the bottom loose and hire the next batch to being the next victims. Rinse and repeat.

Aside from a few AAA publishers & developers I still care about, I'm all about the smaller games and any games with actual freaking replay value. Not surprise mechanics. Not user engagement. And most certainly, not some stupid jpeg of a monkey šŸ’!

Deal with it.
 
Last edited:

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
10,019
5,402
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
It wasn't even that long ago, metroid prime 2 had a game breaking bug part way trough the game that I triggered and ruined my save, still haven't finished it because of that.

I do think one of the weakness of modern game is that big studio don't make medium game anymore, today square enix can barely be bothered to release one game a year when they used to release 2-4 in the SNES/PS1 days. Making medium game not only let them release riskier game, it was also a good way for them to recruit/train/test new employees.
Yathzee has been harping on this for a while in some of his podcasts. Studios used to have tentpole series to support the smaller series that might not make a ton but at least they could branch out and do more things. Now everything has to be a tentpole, because every game needs to make ALL THE MONEY! Except that also requires more money and resources to make those tentpole series, whereas those smaller games could be smaller teams with less resources. Fuck, go look at the kind of games Ubisoft put out 10 years ago. So many different games and types of games. Stuff like From Dust and Valient Hearts. Now it's like a couple of big series that all basically share the same DNA and pretty much nothing else.

Or as he put it more succinctly, "Tentpoles, not Crucifixes"

Modern gaming does suck in most of the AAA space. Especially when they're upping the antee and price and charging 70 plus dollars for a shell price of the game. Not to mention the nfts, beating off of people's addictions with beatboxes and microtransactions, encouraging kids to bully each other because they only have the default skin and can't afford the overly expensive ones that look like crap.
I have a feeling you meant to say lootboxes, not beatboxes but honestly it's funnier this way.
 
Last edited:

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
8,693
3,561
118
Especially when they're upping the antee and price and charging 70 plus dollars for a shell price of the game.
You keep bringing this up, but this complain doesn't track. Video games in the 1990's often were 79.99 as base price. The only real different now is that more prices are uniform. So more things cost 70 dollars evenly rather than a select few games for random reasons. SNES games would range from 40-80 dollars for seemingly no reasoning at all.

But the 70 price tag is not new and when you factor in the inflation difference between $70 in 1994 and $70 today. Modern games are technically cheaper than the big games of yesteryear.


Not to mention the nfts, feeding off of people's addictions with loot boxes and microtransactions, encouraging kids to bully each other because they only have the default skin and can't afford the overly expensive ones that look like crap.
This is a valid point, but it should be mentioned that it is hardly the entire AAA-space. And the most heavily lootbox/mirotransaction games are free to play on the onset for the most part. There are your Call of Booties and sports games that are the worst of it. But there are also a lot of games that come out featuring none of that garbage and they are some of the best games on the market.

For example, Souls games, Sony 1st party games, pretty much every JRPG with few exceptions. EVERYTHING Nintendo.

So really it's very limited games that actually have this problem, it's viewed as a problem because the games that have these extra monetizations are some of the highest profile games out there which paints a bad look across everything else.

It's all a perspective problem really.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
18,352
7,364
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
You keep bringing this up, but this complain doesn't track. Video games in the 1990's often were 79.99 as base price. The only real different now is that more prices are uniform. So more things cost 70 dollars evenly rather than a select few games for random reasons. SNES games would range from 40-80 dollars for seemingly no reasoning at all.

But the 70 price tag is not new and when you factor in the inflation difference between $70 in 1994 and $70 today. Modern games are technically cheaper than the big games of yesteryear.
  1. That's because cartridges were expensive as all hell.
  2. You usually got a full game with some replay value. Not all games were like this back in the day, but there were plenty.
  3. You keep ignoring what I've been pointing out from before.
  4. The fact they're cheaper proves my point, yet these guys keep saying they're too expensive. These assholes are lying and they know it. Pandemic or not, CDs are way cheaper than cartridges. They expect people to be dumb enough to fall for their lies.
  5. If you have a problem with any of that, tell it to somebody that gives an actual shit. We've been through this enough already. I already knew you're going to quote me. I have nothing left to say on this. My word is final. Don't like it,go cry to them about it.

This is a valid point, but it should be mentioned that it is hardly the entire AAA-space. And the most heavily lootbox/mirotransaction games are free to play on the onset for the most part. There are your Call of Booties and sports games that are the worst of it. But there are also a lot of games that come out featuring none of that garbage and they are some of the best games on the market.
No, but it is a lot of it. I really don't care for your other points. I've already made mine clear. If you don't listen, that's on you.
 
Last edited:

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,231
241
68
Its the same thing with all media, "everything old is good, everything new is bad." But, its because we remember the best of the past or the bad things we remember, we don't remember their flaws as much as their good points or the enjoyment. We aren't comparing the average aaa game of today to the average of yesteryear, we are comparing it to the best of yesteryear.
Actually, not really...
Games are bigger and clearly better than they ever were. So I really have a problem when people say "Modern Gaming Sucks" because it doesn't. For every Anthem, there is a Jedi Fallen Order. For every Fallout 76 there is a Doom Eternal. For every Final Fantasy 14 there is a Realm Reborn.
As big budget games boost their sales through outbudgeting their marketing, eclipsing better but less marketable games; It's a good idea to point out when the former suck, but not too much (it's also good to spend enough time talking on how the latter are better). Well done!

Although "modern sport games sucks" is less generalized, because FIFA, Madden, NFL and such EA Sports games have technically the monopoly of sports games based on real-life players (thanks to exclusivity deals) and there are no non-sucking alternatives.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
18,352
7,364
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Although "modern sport games sucks" is less generalized, because FIFA, Madden, NFL and such EA Sports games have technically the monopoly of sports games based on real-life players (thanks to exclusivity deals) and there are no non-sucking alternatives.
There are other options....


or...

 

thestor

Senior Member
Dec 19, 2007
71
66
23
Yathzee has been harping on this for a while in some of his podcasts. Studios used to have tentpole series to support the smaller series that might not make a ton but at least they could branch out and do more things. Now everything has to be a tentpole, because every game needs to make ALL THE MONEY! Except that also requires more money and resources to make those tentpole series, whereas those smaller games could be smaller teams with less resources. Fuck, go look at the kind of games Ubisoft put out 10 years ago. So many different games and types of games. Stuff like From Dust and Valient Hearts. Now it's like a couple of big series that all basically share the same DNA and pretty much nothing else.

Or as he put it more succinctly, "Tentpoles, not Crucifixes"
Have indies picked up the slack a bit? My understanding is that game engines like Unity and such make it easier for very small teams and sometimes even lone wolfs to make games. Sure, you got a ton of asset flips, but here an there, pearls shine among the manure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Samtemdo8

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,377
520
118
Country
Private
I miss the golden age of SNES/Genesis/GB, N64/Saturn/PS1, Xbox/GC/PS2/DC/GBA/DS

And PC gaming and Arcade gaming that released within these 3 generations.

Heck I even miss the Wii because in some cases it was just Gamecube 2.0
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
5,061
3,211
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
You don't speak for all older gamers. I'll be 42 next month, youngster, and I feel, unequivocally, modern gaming indeed "sucks."

Your hyperbolic thread title with three exclamation points assumes people think there's nothing redemptive to be had in modern gaming. There are good games out there. And the issue many have isn't simply with technical issues and bugs. You're comparing a 40-year-old console to consoles that came out just over a year ago, and that's apples to oranges. Of course bugs aren't anything new to modern gaming; no one suggested that.

The problem I and many have with modern gaming is that it lacks soul. It's more a business now than ever, and it's that where we take issue. I would say gaming peaked during the Xbox 360/PS3 era. Your $60 purchase got you a complete game (yes, with bugs, but it was a finished-if-imperfect product.) More risks were taken as studios weren't focused solely on the next iterative installation of an established franchise; some failed, some succeeded, but at least a trip to your local game store wasn't 90% sifting through CoD clones, the next flash-in-the-pan F2P and/or "Popular Franchise That Sells #548." While games offered DLC, they didn't constantly bombard you for MOAR MONEY with lootboxes, pay-to-win mechanics and daily challenges that feed off of the FOMO strategy commanding unreasonable dedication from its players built into the fundamental enjoyment of the game.

People are fleeing to the indie market to get what gaming offered up until just a few years ago. Nothing against the indie market, but it used to be for niche and curious titles, and not a haven away from AAA companies cashing in on established franchises by making "what sells" over "what might work and add to the overall experience of gaming." Where are the passion projects? Where are the developers that are willing to buck the modern convention and do something new and interesting? And why must anything remotely enjoyable be cast in a pall of scrutiny when it's discovered development teams had to work 90-hour weeks on a game that was delayed 6 months twice?

Yes, I'm certain you can cite a dozen examples of "but you're wrong!", and I'm not interested. As a long-time gamer, I noticed years ago the tonal change of the industry, and I don't like it. GTA V has been released and re-released now in 3 console generations; clearly a developer I once respected is following the cash, and the industry supports that behavior. Where GTA VI? My beloved Halo had done nothing by right by me until Halo 5 asked for in-game spending. Halo, a franchise that needs little more than to exists to sell, yet they want more.

Modern gaming sucks because its heavy reliance on exploitative business has gotten way out of hand; signs are it's only going to get worse before it gets better; it's the new norm.

Modern gaming sucks.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
8,693
3,561
118
The problem I and many have with modern gaming is that it lacks soul.
As opposed to all the soul the countless movie tie-in games that got shit out for every possible flim to release up until the end of the Ps3/360 era. Yeah old gaming certainly had soul alright, a soul for hell maybe.

The problem I and many have with modern gaming is that it lacks soul. It's more a business now than ever, and it's that where we take issue. I would say gaming peaked during the Xbox 360/PS3 era. Your $60 purchase got you a complete game (yes, with bugs, but it was a finished-if-imperfect product.) More risks were taken as studios weren't focused solely on the next iterative installation of an established franchise; some failed, some succeeded, but at least a trip to your local game store wasn't 90% sifting through CoD clones, the next flash-in-the-pan F2P and/or "Popular Franchise That Sells #548." While games offered DLC, they didn't constantly bombard you for MOAR MONEY with lootboxes, pay-to-win mechanics and daily challenges that feed off of the FOMO strategy commanding unreasonable dedication from its players built into the fundamental enjoyment of the game.
This only applies to live service guff. Which should not be your only metric of modern gaming, because there are plenty of games at release without that shit despite how rampant people claim it to be.

People are fleeing to the indie market to get what gaming offered up until just a few years ago. Nothing against the indie market, but it used to be for niche and curious titles, and not a haven away from AAA companies cashing in on established franchises by making "what sells" over "what might work and add to the overall experience of gaming." Where are the passion projects? Where are the developers that are willing to buck the modern convention and do something new and interesting? And why must anything remotely enjoyable be cast in a pall of scrutiny when it's discovered development teams had to work 90-hour weeks on a game that was delayed 6 months twice?
Who are these people fleeing to the indie market? How do you know these developers don't have passion for what they're doing? They MUST have passion to still fight to produce games in some of these working environments don't you think? Neal Druckman was passionate about his vision for The Last of Us 2, it was a stupid vision but at least he had passion for it. Cory Balrog has a lot of passion for what he did with God of War.

You can't assume there is no passion in a project. Just because something doesn't click for you doesn't mean there isn't soul to it.

I think a lot of the problem it that in our "old age", it's much harder for games to click with us the way they did 15 years ago. People change, our lives get busier, hobbies and interests even change. Old people used to say that rock and roll was just noise, shit changes but that doesn't mean it's any better or worse than how shit used to be.

Modern gaming sucks because its heavy reliance on exploitative business has gotten way out of hand; signs are it's only going to get worse before it gets better; it's the new norm.

Modern gaming sucks.
Maybe we should rephrase it as "Mainstream gaming sucks" then?
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
7,719
4,852
118
I think if I was a kid now vs in the 90ā€™s Iā€™d be spoiled rotten by the whizbang graphics, haptics and whatnot, with online connectivity making it easier than ever to get new content. It takes hindsight to see the bigger picture though and Iā€™m glad I have that history of knowing how things used to be, both good and bad. Makes it easier to keep everything in perspective.

The price of games could be better ideally, but itā€™s really driven by volume, both in scale of productions on the developersā€™ side along with the efficiency of their current tools, as well the consumer base on the other. We could say the increased cost of making games and marketing them is offset at least somewhat by the fact the industry has grown so much.


We could mostly blame mobile for monetization trends over the last decade or so, before it caught on in the console space and even PC to some extent. There will always be companies out there trying to capitalize on the latest bs trends but itā€™s a relief to see there are still a few high profile holdouts along with of course smaller studios that shun those practices. All us gamers can do is continue supporting these folks and using a collective voice to call out others on their bs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
5,061
3,211
118
Plano, TX
Country
United States
Gender
Male
As opposed to all the soul the countless movie tie-in games that got shit out for every possible flim to release up until the end of the Ps3/360 era. Yeah old gaming certainly had soul alright, a soul for hell maybe.
That's being very selective. I never said the trends today are "new." Hell the Kong videogame adaptation was a fucking launch title for the 360. BUT, there were a lot more new IPs from that era. Like I admitted, some succeeded, some failed, but more was tried. The shitty behaviors of the industry have taken over, if that's more clear.

This only applies to live service guff. Which should not be your only metric of modern gaming, because there are plenty of games at release without that shit despite how rampant people claim it to be.
It's not my only metric. You can include the fact that the "new norm" is that I have to sift through more cash-grabby shit than I ever had to during the 360/PS3 era. Again, I'm not talking about specific games, so you can stop citing all the "nu-uhs!" I'm talking about gaming in general. The fact that the discussion of over-monetization has been a discussion at all over the past several years is proof of my argument. Why did you post this thread at all if only to defend the exceptions to the rule? Just make a thread about the great games you like, and don't bait people into disagreeing with you?

Who are these people fleeing to the indie market? How do you know these developers don't have passion for what they're doing? They MUST have passion to still fight to produce games in some of these working environments don't you think? Neal Druckman was passionate about his vision for The Last of Us 2, it was a stupid vision but at least he had passion for it. Cory Balrog has a lot of passion for what he did with God of War.

You can't assume there is no passion in a project. Just because something doesn't click for you doesn't mean there isn't soul to it.
Several of your peers on this very forum have offered indie titles as an escape from the money-hungry AAA market.

I'm not assuming "no" passion; this isn't a "black or white" absolute. Surely the executives are passionate about making their money. But as for wider spread "passion?" I dunno; I know people needs jobs? I know there's been an uptick in development teams succumbing to stress over their jobs? I don't think holding down a job is necessarily a "passion." I've worked at my job for 13 years, and have never been passionate about it, but it pays the bills and is better than unemployment.

Again, this isn't a binary scenario; if you continue to assume since I don't feel exactly as you do, I'm objectively wrong, you're not discussing in good faith. You're not going to paint me into a corner where you name 5 people who love their jobs in the games industry, therefore my argument has no merit. By "passion projects," I'm talking about games that buck convention and don't settle for perpetual, financial success and branch out into something new for the love of their craft, people with a story to tell or an idea to try that are willing to risk failure to succeed. I think of Playdead, probably my favorite developer. INSIDE was a passion project; it was a cerebral endeavor that didn't care to makes sense, but rather to exist outside of their minds of those behind it, and it is a beautiful game if it's not for everyone, and Playdead has but two titles to their credit in 12 years, each a resounding success.

And before you list the "thousands" of "new" ideas introduced in the past, say, 9-10 years, know that I know such games exist; they're just overshadowed due to the fact that they are overwhelmingly the exceptions.

I think a lot of the problem it that in our "old age", it's much harder for games to click with us the way they did 15 years ago. People change, our lives get busier, hobbies and interests even change. Old people used to say that rock and roll was just noise, shit changes but that doesn't mean it's any better or worse than how shit used to be.
Maybe. But as the industry has settled into relying on games I've ostensibly (per your assumption) grown out of, then yeah, modern gaming sucks. But I'd offer that as the general mechanics have changed little over the years (we still press "A" to jump, right?), I still enjoy a good FPS; hell, I love a good Halo, including the multiplayer, but when I'm suddenly, after 14 years, asked to buy REQ cards or face grinding an inordinate amount to compete or enjoy myself, then I'd argue it's the industry that's changed, not me.

Maybe we should rephrase it as "Mainstream gaming sucks" then?
Whatever tickles your pickle, my friend.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
8,693
3,561
118
Again, this isn't a binary scenario; if you continue to assume since I don't feel exactly as you do, I'm objectively wrong, you're not discussing in good faith.
I am not assuming you're wrong. I'm explaining why I don't agree with you. That is how coversation works, I set out a general point, you rebuke that point, I then disbute your counter point, and back and forth we go. Discussion needs to happen on some level of good faith, and we have to both assume that neither of us is disagreeing with each other out of hate but merely to share point of views.

The idea of "I don't give a shit if you don't agree, fuck you" is not really condusive to having a conversation is it? I never claimed you were wrong objectively or otherwise, I disagree with you sure, but that doesn't automatically make either of us wrong or right. Just that we state on opposite sides of a line and should be able to converse back and forth about it and perhaps we can find common ground......for example....

I love a good Halo, including the multiplayer, but when I'm suddenly, after 14 years, asked to buy REQ cards or face grinding an inordinate amount to compete or enjoy myself, then I'd argue it's the industry that's changed, not me.
This is an exceptional point. And I am hard pressed to even consider FPS options that do not have some form of extra monetization within them. Hell even Ubisoft shooter-of-the-week games have extra garbage to buy. Although in Halo Infinite's defense, the MP portion of the game is free so it isn't extra purchases on top of the 60 dollar box price which gives it some leeway (if not much because the grind is clearly manipulative). Halo 5 certainly didn't have any excuses.

Business practices everywhere have been bad. And I wont argue that. However I would also argue that business practices were never great in the industry as a whole. Even in the infancy of publishers there was a push to pump out as much trash into the market as possible. Hell Atari games didn't even let developers have their names in the games. Credits didn't become a thing shit....mid 90's? Something like that. The industry in a way has always tried to rob the artist right?

And that's the point I really wanted to make. I never really intended to say that today's gaming is better than yesteryear's gaming. But rather, to point out that the shit that we complain about today has always been there to various degrees and "Modern gaming" isn't all that different. Just more well documented I guess.

Personally I think that gaming itself is better than it has ever been. It's hard to argue that Final Fantasy 13 is worst than the original game on the NES for example, objectively it is a better game in every aspect.

Additionally I think we, as grown people, also are more aware of things that happen within our hobbies. Game magazines didn't report that kind of thing back then so the information is mostly learned in retrospect. But today there are tons of websites that will let you know of every dirty deal going on at Naughty Dog studios or whatever, and we are more aware of the controversies and shady shit going down because it's simply way more documented now.

In a way gaming has always sucked in that regard.

And before you list the "thousands" of "new" ideas introduced in the past, say, 9-10 years, know that I know such games exist; they're just overshadowed due to the fact that they are overwhelmingly the exceptions.
But you admit that these issues are exceptions, thus being the equivalent to the "vocal minority" of games? They cast a big shadow but I don't think that means they have to taint all the good shit that still comes out every year. It doesn't have to mean that modern gaming sucks. It just has cancer.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
10,019
5,402
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Have indies picked up the slack a bit? My understanding is that game engines like Unity and such make it easier for very small teams and sometimes even lone wolfs to make games. Sure, you got a ton of asset flips, but here an there, pearls shine among the manure.
I think so. Hell, most of what I play now are older games and indies. Ironically a lot of indies and older games feel similar sometimes. And Unity has lead to the creation of some really good games, when the devs actually care what they're doing and put the effort in. Just sometimes you get games like "Getting over it with Bennet foddy"



I mean, Hell, Hollow Knight was made in Unity. With a 3 person dev team. And I'm sure most people can find at least one game on that list they really liked, if not mutiple.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
18,352
7,364
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Personally I think that gaming itself is better than it has ever been. It's hard to argue that Final Fantasy 13 is worst than the original game on the NES for example, objectively it is a better game in every aspect.
Not much of a milestone. There are plenty of games and RPG games better than NES/Famicom FF1. I would still play FFI on PS/GBA over FFXIII. I would play FFXIII over FFII, but that like saying I would rather be kicked in the balls by someone with comfort fit sneakers instead of steel toed boot. Your argument does not work. It's like saying DMC2 is better than the SNES version of Final Fight and the Master System version of Streets of Rage 2. Yes, it's all technically true, but none of them are fun to play nor are good console ports of an arcade game and Genesis game respectively.

Who are these people fleeing to the indie market? How do you know these developers don't have passion for what they're doing? They MUST have passion to still fight to produce games in some of these working environments don't you think? Neal Druckman was passionate about his vision for The Last of Us 2, it was a stupid vision but at least he had passion for it. Cory Balrog has a lot of passion for what he did with God of War.

You can't assume there is no passion in a project. Just because something doesn't click for you doesn't mean there isn't soul to it.

I think a lot of the problem it that in our "old age", it's much harder for games to click with us the way they did 15 years ago. People change, our lives get busier, hobbies and interests even change. Old people used to say that rock and roll was just noise, shit changes but that doesn't mean it's any better or worse than how shit used to be.

You really don't know, do you? Don't answer that.
Maybe we should rephrase it as "Mainstream gaming sucks" then?
That is the smartest thing you have said in this thread.

 

Gyrobot

Ask Revachol/Renegades of Woke
May 13, 2020
452
98
33
Funny how we are talking about this since ironically enough, millennials who had it big during 2008 where the great recession also had some of the best games yet none of the passionate fans were able to set up studios making 2008 throwbacks and 2018 was the opposite of what they expected as the industry actively alienated them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl