Are games today really that bad?

[ElPatron]

And this is why today a game takes a shitload more of manpower and time to make. Because "they are easy, effortless cashgrabs". Ehyup...

I call it "lack of resource management".

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.

 

[krazykidd]

Nah, games have only gotten better.

Graphics are better (duh).
Writing is getting better, gradually. (Very gradually.)
Level and gameplay design is better.
Interface design is miles better.

People look around and see that 90% of games are mediocre or crap and that there are Call of Duty imitations everywhere. But that's how it's always been. Twenty years ago 90% of games were mediocre or crap. The only difference was that we were knee-deep in 2D platformers instead of FPSs.

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"?

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 .

 

[ElPatron]

bla bla bla quoting some words and give them other meaning

I'd like you to quote the post where I said "easy cash grabs" or that we used to swim in good games.

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

 

[zefiris]

Level and gameplay design is better.

*starts laughing forever*

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.

because those games are complexer and bigger than any of the old games could even dream of to be

Complexer - haha nope
bigger - haha nope, other way round
better graphics - thats all that improved.

 

[Kahunaburger]

My point still stands: Developing a mainstream game today takes more effort and manpower because those games are complexer and bigger than any of the old games could even dream of to be (and be it just on the mechanical basis).

Are we talking game complexity or software complexity, here? Because in terms of game complexity, well...

 

[ElPatron]

How about you look back at the post you quoted me from.

I said that making an engine from scratch today doesn't involve most of the "real work" it used to.

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.

And maybe you should read what I wrote. Yes, the development of games is more complex. A game today is a way more complex programm even compared to games from 2000, not even speaking from prior games.

Complexity of a program =/= complexity of the game.

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.

Thus it takes more time to make it, playtest it and such. To shorten the development cycle bigger teams work on those games.

Like I said, the complexity of the program doesn't mean more quality.

If the program was simpler, perhaps there would be no need for big teams.

Fact: The narrative is vastly improved.

It would help if everyone acknowledge that there were more games than Super Mario back in 1980-2000.

Fact: Good writing is subjecitve, especially if you have zero qualifications to actually tell if it's good or not. And writing has improved, it is better than then.

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.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Are we talking game complexity or software complexity, here? Because in terms of game complexity, well...

Is this really an argument you wanna get into?

Fine: Super Mario Bros. = A - Jump. B - Run. Digital pad - Move.

Super Mario Bros is a platformer. The proper comparison for that would be something like Spelunky, Super Meat Boy, or Canabalt.

Wanna keep insisting that games are less complex nowadays? Or will you stop trying to compare the most complex controls of yesterday with the least complex controls of today.

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).

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.)

Besides, why on earth are you comparing a PC game to the 360 controller? It's not even the same system.

Really? Someone needs to inform Activision, because I don't think their design philosophy reflects this.

 

[Frotality]

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.

 

[DeadYorick]

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

Since you advocated the photo let me explain why I think its an unfair, apples to pairs comparison.

-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...

Gears

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).

 

[Zhukov]

Level and gameplay design is better.

*starts laughing forever*

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.

Uh... right.

Telling players which button does what is not "hand holding".

Nor is having a level layout that actually makes sense, unlike the jumbled messes found in the shooters of yore.