Are games today really that bad?
- Thread starter dtgenshiken7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you only play top-selling AAA games, then yeah, they are.
If you play ANYTHING else, no, they aren't. They're better than ever.
If you play ANYTHING else, no, they aren't. They're better than ever.
Games that we are aware of today are worse than games we are aware of today from the past. But that's always been true, and of every media.
You see, humans are really good at forgetting the lousy stuff that used to exist: listen to the top 10 music today, and from the 50's. You'll hear similar things: a lot of suck, occasional really good songs. But, 60 years later, we've forgotten the suck, and what's left is the really good stuff. We don't remember all of Shakespeare's sucky contemporaries, nor those of da Vinci, Rogers and Hammerstein, Mozart, and Mario.
How many games from the 80's were thrown away, forgotten, and good riddance (well, except for ET: We need a way to measure suck)? I don't care. They suck, and I don't have to deal with them. By now, part of the 90's is forgotten too.
But today's suck I do have to deal with. And because I have to deal with it, and now, it must suck that much more.
Or so it seems.
You see, humans are really good at forgetting the lousy stuff that used to exist: listen to the top 10 music today, and from the 50's. You'll hear similar things: a lot of suck, occasional really good songs. But, 60 years later, we've forgotten the suck, and what's left is the really good stuff. We don't remember all of Shakespeare's sucky contemporaries, nor those of da Vinci, Rogers and Hammerstein, Mozart, and Mario.
How many games from the 80's were thrown away, forgotten, and good riddance (well, except for ET: We need a way to measure suck)? I don't care. They suck, and I don't have to deal with them. By now, part of the 90's is forgotten too.
But today's suck I do have to deal with. And because I have to deal with it, and now, it must suck that much more.
Or so it seems.
Except in Planescape: Torment has more means of interaction with people and surroundings in a way beyond shooting them in the face or manipulating contrived physics puzzles.Zhukov said:
The only thing Bioshock and Half-life accomplished in terms of storytelling is allowing the player to move around unimpeded when story is being conveyed. Sure Bioshock had interesting concepts, but your primary interaction("gameplay") is still shooting people. The only other interaction that amounts to anything is the moral choice of absorbing/letting go the little sisters, which culminates in probably the most retarded storytelling moments of the game.
I think gaming needs to get over its obsession of violence as a means of interaction/conflict in order to tell meaningful stories on a consistent basis.
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.