Do you still enjoy games

[Strafe Mcgee]

Yes If you are one of those people that think everything sucks now and can't possibly be as good as the glorius heyday of videogames that was the 16 bit era then you are a nerdy dork I hate to break it to you, but it's true. And yes if this forum had more people like me in it rather than the nerd/dork pack mentality that rip on Halo 3 because it isn't Half Life or some such dumb logic then it would be a better place. I'm sorry if I hurt your tender feelings with my choice of words, and try to get some sun the light in your mom's basement isn't good for your complexion.

You know what? I agree with you. People should be more appreciative of today's games instead of constantly referring back to how good they used to be. I think that todays games are great, and that some users of this forum can be slightly snobby. But I respect the other users, so I POLITELY disagree with them. You could just as easily have said:

"I disagree, I think that most games today are actually pretty good. The snes era wasn't what it was hyped up to be and you get a lot of quality games on today's consoles."

I responded to your post because it showed ignorance and a lack of respect to other users, something which isn't tolerated on these forums. Basically; don't be a dick, or you'll get banned.

 

[Credge]

I don't really enjoy games much anymore. The ratio of games owned pre-2000 to games owned post-2000 is probably a staggering 1/4 ratio. That is to say, for every 4 games I owned pre-2000 I own 1 post 2000. The biggest problem is lack of innovation. There hasn't been anything truly fresh in a good number of years. Everything has been a tired clone with a different package. No. Thank. You.

The most recent game I purchased was Brawl. Before that? The Orange Box/CoD4 (purchased the same day). Before that? Rock Band. Before that? Uncharted. Before that? Hellgate. Before that? Heroes of Might and Magic 5. Before that? Vanguard. Before that? Might and Magic. Before that? Titan Quest. Before that? City of Heroes. Before that? FEAR. Before that? WoW. Before that? AOE3. Before that? Civ 4. Before that? EQ2. Before that? Well, it gets a little fuzzy as that's stretching about 2-3 years. That's also a rough chronological order of the games I have bought over the last 2-3 years.

How many of those games have I actually enjoyed? A few. The Orange Box and CoD4 for the multiplayer (although CoD4 shouldn't have been $50). Heroes of Might and Magic and Civ 4 for my turn based fun. TQ for my D2 fix. AOE3 for my RTS awesomeness. Etc. Etc.

In reality, though, I just didn't have AS MUCH FUN as I used to have with games from the past. For example, no game has been able to beat the fun to time spent ratio that FFT has had. That is to say that it took near 4000 hours of gameplay for me to become bored with the game. Sadly, that's no estimation. I've got 3 PSX memory cards filled with nothing but FFT saves doing all the various challenges, etc. I've deleted and redone those 3 cards several times.

That game, though, is an odd one for me though. Other games that have come notably close (1,000 some hours maybe?) have been:

EQ
DAoC (rare exception to the pre/post 2000 rule)
Chrono Trigger
Gunstar Heroes
Quack Shot
Mario 64
Earthbound
Street Fighter 2
Tekken
Soul Edge (same as Soul Calibur)
Mario Kart (both versions)
Team Fortress (not to be confused with TF2/TFC... although TFC is added in to this list)
Quake
Quake 2
Quake 3
Doom
Doom 2
Starcraft
C&C 1+2
Red Alert 1+2
AOE 1+2
Some others

The only game that I've absolutely loved post 2000, besides Rock Band and Brawl, that I've played for about 1,000 hours is Civilization 4. Also, AOE3 is an exception to the rule.

Generally, though, games that were made post 2000 simply didn't have the replayability of games pre 2000. This IS a direct fault of game designers as more and more was focused on graphics and less and less on innovative and new gameplay. The latest innovation in gameplay was in the introduction of the third dimension in 94-95 when the PSX was released. Since then, it's been pretty bland and boring in the gaming world. We finally, though, have some new stuff going on with the Wii.

The problem is, though, that the majority of people who play games now are new to it and haven't been playing them since the NES or sooner (Intellivision for me, although I was born in 1987). The majority of gamers now picked the console up around the time the X-Box came out... so all this stuff is new to them.

 

[defcon 1]

If I didn't enjoy video games, I wouldn't be here. My favorite threads were the positive ones, such as "Industry Appreciation Day", "Where Do We Go From Here?", "Best [insert term here] EVAR!" and a few game reviews.

I really don't like it when people are pessimistic and don't see all the fun in games unless it's funny. In Yahtzee's Smash Bros review, I agree with him on so much, however I find so much fun in that games that's besides the points he makes. Believe me, I would have been more than happy to ask him about "what measures up to a good game" but I thought all the hate was simply for fun, therefore he wouldn think asking such a question would just be another retarded email.

Sure it may be a long time since I'll play a games as fun as the ones on N64 and I will have to say the industry is declining. Declining to me is just dropping a bit of altitude, not dive bomb into the cold hard gravel of failure. I enjoy games for what they are and think the good severely outweighs the bad (plus i know how to research good games). I am a bit furious with the casual direction Nintendo took with the Wii (I don't imagine they'll stop anytime soon with the bundles of cash they make). I don't play video games nearly as much as I use to but every now and then a game will keep me entertained.

 

[CodeChrono]

Of course I enjoy video games. They are a method for me to relax and have fun. While many do indeed go a little over the top in their critiques of games, it is merely to point out flaws to gamers. For instance, I had almost every intention of buying Red Steel when the Wii was released. However, upon reading online reviews and Game Informer, I realized there were aspects that I might not like. Therefore, I rented it first. I realized that I didn't like the game, and was spared quite a large sum of money. I think that's what's with the massive amound of critique.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

Now, this is just a thought but--would people be a little less jaded with video games if they played them less? I actually allocate time to play, but I also allocate time to write, and time to watch TV, and time to read, and time to knit. Everything becomes less fun if you have too much of it. I love cheesecake and it comes in just about every flavor you could want, but if I ate it every damn day, it would all start to taste the same and I wouldn't like it nearly so much.

While I certainly agree with this sentiment, some people are just critical and opinionated by nature. I have a friend who, while he doesn't solely video game every night, all night, complains and critiques games very heavily. To the point that which the OP might be lamenting about, actually.

Thing is, he does that with everything. It's just his nature. And I'm betting that there are other people like him. Best thing to do with people like this if their opinions start grating on you is change the subject, or just walk away.

Yeah, there are people who just think that somehow being relentlessly critical is a sign of intelligence. I'm not really talking about them so much as people who say, "I used to love games and now they just all seem the same." I go on jags where I don't play at all then I come back and I play quite happily for hours on a game I've replayed to death. The breather makes a big difference for me.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

That game, though, is an odd one for me though. Other games that have come notably close (1,000 some hours maybe?) have been:

Quack Shot

Quack Shot. The Donald Duck game? A Thousand Hours? Sure...

Apart from that I can see why you'd spend so much time on the other games, since most of them are awesome. How you can spend a thousand hours on something like Chrono Trigger bewilders me though.

 

[unusedaccountdeleteme]

I think i'm growing tired of World War 2 games, as Zero Punctuation / Yahtzee says.. they've been making games for longer than the damn war lasted all together. All of the missions in every game get tedious now.. very very repetitive; that's how I see it, your perspective on things may be different.

 

[corronchilejano]

I don't know. They've made 3D futuristic games of shooting aliens for quite a while (more than our ACTUAL time with alien wars, now in a whoopin' 0 years... and NOT counting), and I don't see anyone bored of that.

 

[Jizz Philanthropist]

I've pretty much stopped playing games altogether, and the ones that I do play are almost all oldies or indie titles. The only series that I still follow closely is Half-Life. I think I know why, too:

Back in the day, a video game was made by two guy's sitting across from each other in a garage. These may not have been the glory days of quality, but they most certainly were the glory days of innovation and creativity. As technology progressed, game development became the concern of a massive number of small companies; the quality here was probably the highest, since there was a greater diversity of opinions, tastes, and concerns during the development process, but the creativity was there, too.

Now, there has been a massive movement towards consolidation and corporatism. There are only a few major game publishers, and they are all concerned primarily with profit (which isn't a fault - they're corporations, they're legally required to ensure the greatest possible returns for their investors). Unfortunately, this makes them extremely conservative. The entertainment industry is one of the world's most volatile, and video games are even more dangerous than most; each major game published is a major risk - often, games don't even make enough money to cover the cost of their development. This means the publishers are going to be careful, and it's in this "being careful" that the problem lies.

To a company like EA or Vivendi, the quality of a game does not matter at all compared to how much money it is going to take in. If you own Monolith, and Monolith pitches you a game that is going to take tens of millions of dollars to produce and which breaks all the rules of videogames, making something completely unique, are you going to fund that game, or are you going to fund a sequel to F.E.A.R., knowing that all the fans of the first ones are going to snap it right up?

Basically, the industry has changed so that it is better for publishers to force out a clone of a successful game than something new and unique or even fun. For this reason, the quality of games overall has been on a steep decline. The last major game I bought was the Orange Box; before that, it was S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and before that, I think it might have been Quake 4. I wasn't even happy with all of those purchases; the Orange Box was great, but Quake 4 was fun but not worth the money, and I found S.T.A.L.K.E.R. boring and frustrating (though kudos to them for trying something relatively fresh). I'm sure I would enjoy the hell out of Bioshock if I tried it, but I just don't think games are worth the investment anymore. Nobody wants to do anything new; I don't think that the same game with different weapons or levels or whatever is worth the $60 or $70 CAD that they cost.

 

[corronchilejano]

Depends. I think rather than quality going down, it's the EXPECTATIONS that go up.

 

[Jack Spencer Jr]

No, I don't enjoy games these days. They're too much like a second job only you pay them for the privilege. This may be why I only play older games, like say from 1985 or so.

 

[Omnidum]

From my perspective, it seems like they focus more on the graphics than the gameplay and story nowadays.

 

[dl_wraith]

I generally lurk on this forum but I love a good discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of modern games and comparisons to the days of yore. You've sucked me in

Let me answer the question at hand first - I still love playing games. There are enough quality games on various platforms hitting the shelves to feed me with fun for solo and social play. In fact, I'll go one better and say there's never been as many great games to choose from!

Now, before you start on any tirade about modern games and how things were better in any given previous era let me say straight up that I am a lover of 'retro' games. I'm from the 8 and 16-bit eras and I still uphold many of the games from that period as pinnacles in gameplay and sheer fun. My old consoles see as much play as my XBox 360 and all is good with the world.

Older games were not inherently better however.

Retro gamers have a tendancy to sometimes rubbish modern games, stating that the experience just isn't as good nowadays or that everything is now image first and gameplay second. While some of this sentiment could be said to be true I believe the real difference between the new and the old is depth - modern consoles supply the ability to add a lot more depth to a game.

Just because you can use the power of modern hardware to supply depth doesn't mean that software developers do so. And sometimes attempts to supply 'depth' ends in a horribly misguided grinder or gets in the way of the enjoyment of the game itself. I'm sure many of you know what I mean.

Take the post by Jack Spencer Jr, above. I read that and it says to me that this gamer is looking for an immediate engagement with a game rather than an in-depth back story, character intro, trial level, cut scene and control tutorial.

Damn - I've got to go. I'd love to chat more, maybe later. My final, if unfinished, thought:
Hype feeds expectation which outstrips truth. In the old days of gaming hype wasn't used to build expectation and gamers were more in awe of new developments. These days computers are generally accepted to be amazing and it's harder and harder for devs to produce something awe inspiring despite having the best tools at their disposal to do just that. It's the modern irony of games - we've never had it so good but we keep wistfully telling ourselves that we had it better when things were simpler. Perhaps there's a lesson for the next-gen devs out there in that?

 

[Credge]

Quack Shot. The Donald Duck game? A Thousand Hours? Sure...

Apart from that I can see why you'd spend so much time on the other games, since most of them are awesome. How you can spend a thousand hours on something like Chrono Trigger bewilders me though.

1,000 hours really isn't that long, especially when you're about 6 years old and play it 4 hours a day for about 8 months. It's really not that outrageous.

Chrono Trigger has tons of replay ability. It also has one of my favorite video game stories. These two combined get it very close to 1,000 hours, if not a bit more.

I don't know. They've made 3D futuristic games of shooting aliens for quite a while (more than our ACTUAL time with alien wars, now in a whoopin' 0 years... and NOT counting), and I don't see anyone bored of that.

I am, especially since nearly every game on the planet is a 3D futuristic shooter. Why there aren't more medieval FPS games is something I'll never really understand. Most obviously the market is there, as RTS and RPG's are almost predominantly based in fantasy worlds.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

My view on the subject is simple. Everyone believes that almost all the games released way back in the NES and SNES era were awesome, and almost everything released now sucks. However, there were quite a few bad games released back then. And not just E.T. But as gamers demand more and more complexity with their games, and game developers try to add in all that fans demand, the game will eventually break down as something screws up. When this happens, fans get pissed and say that they will never make any good games ever again.

 

[weirdaljedifan2]

Actually, some games I just play 'cause it's the really good game and it's in the damn console. Presently this game is Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Yes it is one of the greatest games of all time to SSB fans like myself, but when you play a game that is best played by multiple people alone and there is no one on WiFi at times, it gets pretty boring but routine. Then I bought The Simpsons Game for the Wii and I felt something about a game I haven't felt since I played Transformers for the Wii because it reminded me of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The Simpsons Game was fun to play through, but what I really loved about it was that they were making fun of the video game industry in the classic Simpsons style.

"I hope I get to meet Zelda. ZELDA!", said Bart in the Video Game Engine level.

"Maybe you'd do better in a turn-based RPG.", said the White Chocolate Rabbit in the Land of Chocolate level.

 

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Take the post by Jack Spencer Jr, above. I read that and it says to me that this gamer is looking for an immediate engagement with a game rather than an in-depth back story, character intro, trial level, cut scene and control tutorial.

Actually, I can sit through turd juggling hours back story, character intro, trial levels, cut scenes, and control tutorial as well as the next lemon. What bothers me is sitting through hours to finally be able to play the game only to find the game itself to not be much fun. Check out a review [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.54484] I did a few months ago.

What seems to be the problem from where I sit way up here in the nosebleed section is that developers don't seem to focus on what's fun in games like they should. I think it was David Warhol, a programmer for the Mattel Intellivision early 80's console who had said that these days, game developers just hook up more and more effects to the game engine whereas back then, there wasn't much that could be hooked up to the engine. So developer spent time playing the game and going "Hmmm... is that fun? How could it be more fun?" I don't see a whole lot of that these days.

Not that things were so much better back in the day. It's kind of like this:

The plays of ancient Greece are all great! Know why? Because only a handful of those plays have survived. Literally thousands of plays had been written during the golden age of Greece, but only the really good ones have survived and all of the really shitty ones have been lost in the mists of time, as they should be.

So, if you have a retro gamer giving you crap about how much better games used to be way back when, there are only two words you need to say to shut him up: "Domino Man." [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srLMxtxexb8&feature=related]

There have always been crap games. Over time, they get forgotten and only the good ones are remembered in a case of rose-color glasses and all of that. If I had any real complaints about games today it's that there are only a handful of game genres and nearly every game made in the last ten years fits neatly into one of those boxes. You don't get the wild experimentation that was seen twenty-five years ago. They wouldn't even try making Domino Man today, which you might think is a good thing, but it means that experimentation has fallen by the wayside in game design. Fresh and original game ideas are not developed in favor of retreading the same old thing so that even particularly good games have that bland been there, done that malaise.

Although this trend doesn't surprise me. Considering the amount of capital and time involved in producing games, it makes sense that games would cease being an art form and become a product in many circles. Not so much seeing what can be done as attempting to polish up what has already been done until they have a serious case of tennis elbow in their wanking arm.

Not that experimentation is completely dead. Katamari Damacy comes to mind as a fresh and delightfully fucked-up game concept. I suck at the game so hard, I could suck the membrane of an egg yolk right through the shell. But at least it wasn't another first person shooter or goddamned RPG with a storyline that sounds like it was written by Tara "xxxbloodyrists666xxx" Gilesbie [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2LmXUL5EuU]. But there's not enough of this sort of thing for my tastes. Not enough people willing to try out new ideas. You wouldn't see someone trying to make a game about dominoes [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQVdPPKU9Go] these days, now would you?

 

[Credge]

There's a problem with that, though. As an example, NES games were made for 10 years. From 85-95. In that time, there were, about 800 or so released in the U.S. Compare this to the 250 games made so far for the 360 (in about two and a half years) and you've got a much larger number of games made, especially since 2007 had some 175 of those games made.

This, coupled with the fact that we've been playing these games for, about, 10 years before they even came out makes games that would be good simply boring. For example, the Halo series. Compare the differences from Halo 1 to Halo 3 and then compare the differences between Mario 1 and Mario 3 and you'll start to understand where retro gamers are coming from.

The majority of AAA games also lack a ton of the charm, difficulty, and overall joy that the majority of retro games have. Sure, there are rare examples of this, but the number is few and far between. To be honest, the only two game companies that I can really enjoy (besides Valve and Blizzard... PC/=/Console) are Capcom and Nintendo. Nintendo games have supreme charm and Capcom games are a perfect mix of everything I loved about NES and SNES games.

Another point I would like to make is that I would much rather go out and find and play an old game I've never played before, such as any of the Metroids, than go out and buy a brand spanking new AAA title that I've never played before. There are two real reasons for this.

1. AAA titles usually suck terribly.

2. I know, at the very least, I will like Metroid.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

This may sound rediculous but latley i've found myself avoiding coming to the good old escapist when i want to talk video games. As far as i know Yahtzee is the only one being paid to make snarky comments about games yet it seems to me as of late almost everyone around here is talking about what they don't like about the new games, i understand not everything being made now-a-days is fantastic heck alot of it is pretty bland. but it seems to me even when a game is good or just generally fun it is being trashed here on the forum. hell the only thing i've seen people talking up in a while is half life which is fine if you like it but please don't tell me this is a video game forum based off the love of just one game. i may be overreacting i may just have really wierd tastes in stuff but seriously i just thought i might point out all the pessimism i'm seeing going around.

As the corporate nazis focus more and more on casual zombie gaming I am left more cold and jaded than ever, I love a solid game thats polished for gamers...I do not see many if any of these anymore I see rushed casual focused projects thats are just dumbed down so much its like watching Cat women or Batman 3..or DOOM......I hate fiction that been raped to be food for zombies.