Games don't get worse - they only get cheaper

[keithburgun]

If one was to do a documentary or a paper on consumerism and how deeply it affects our culture, I would suggest for people to do research on gamers and gaming in general. People keep paying 50 dollars for the same or worse product than what is already out for 20 or less. When I used to work at gamestop, I experienced a lot of this. Some examples:

A customer comes in asking for a good RPG. Is new to RPGs and therefore has not played any of the classics. This was around 2002ish i think, and FFX was the newest FF. I told him if he has a PSX/PS2 that he should play Final Fantasy 7, given that it's widely considered one of the best of the series. He basically looked at the 14.99 pricetag of 7, and then the 49.99 pricetag of 10, and chose 10, DESPITE my words saying 7 was FAR better.

I had this kind of experience ALL THE TIME, I see it in my friends, and I see it in myself. I think that we are so assaulted by this consumer-culture that each of us has to really work to fight it and function rationally. New games ARE NOT "better than" (or worse than) old games. They ARE more expensive. If you are buying new games when there are old games you still haven't beaten (that's pretty much everyone) then accept that to some degree you are brainwashed. (strong word, I know, but it's true)

-Keith

 

[John Funk]

Or, perhaps, he didn't have a PSX memory card? I think you're waaaaaay overgeneralizing.

(For what it's worth, I liked X much better than VII. And Chrono Trigger better than both.)

 

[Nova_Sagara]

I currently work in a gamestore myself. I have to agree with what you say. I think every (or at least most) consumer has the following thought pattern "it costs more money, therefore it must be better".

I used to be one of those people, but given the time and experience over the years I've changed. I'm actually excited to play older games over the new ones, based on the simple fact that back in the days there wasn't the graphic violence, nor was there speach (aside from a few battle cries here and there). When developpers had to create a good and immersive story to get players involved in the game events and characters.

Nonetheless, eye candy is also a way of doing this. But I believe developpers have focussed to much on making the characters "look" realistic rather then making them "feel" realistic.

I'm not saying we should all go back to the 8-bit age. but I still wonder whatever happened to that magic spark some games would give me when I was playing them.

 

[MacCarth]

You could use that logic for a few genres of games (mostly RPG's, because they follow a similar format), but what about other games? If I want a good platformer game, and you give me the choice of Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario Galaxy (and I had played neither) I would take galaxy. Even though they're both platformers and other platformers are available, I'm going to take the newer one because it's shiny, graphically pleasing to the eye, and -presumably- more fun. But in order to actually make the comparison, you're going to have to find games that are so similar to each other that it would actually be beneficial for the consumer to buy something cheaper.

Yeah, I'd buy Halo 1 over Halo 3 because I think it's more fun, but I'm not going to say "buy Perfect Dark Zero" just because it's an FPS. They're different games, two different experiences.

I'll buy new games when I still haven't beaten old games (mainly because I'm a sucker for a good story). I think the reason people keep coming back to buy the new FF is because of any new innovations that could possibly make the game fun.

 

[keithburgun]

Ok, MacCarth, but anyone would agree SMB3 and Galaxy are both AMAZING games, neither is bad at all, and if Galaxy is 50 and SMB3 is like 5 via VC or some other means, and they choose Galaxy - that's the scenario I'm talking about.

Put it this way: We're assaulted by advertisements all day long from almost every possible angle. I sense some resistance to admit that this has any effect on you, other than Nova at least acknowledging that he's seen OTHER people do it.

 

[keithburgun]

And btw, Cant, a PSX memory card was like what, 5-10 bucks? Still only half the price of FFX.

 

[John Funk]

Yeah, but at least at the Gamestop I worked at, they were often off-brand, used, or just not in stock.

 

[Nikonov]

Try finding FFVII for that price now.

 

[Kermi]

I actually bought my PS2 in 2002, and it came bundled with FFX and Gran Turismo 3. FFX was pretty good. One of my more 'old school' video gaming friends assured me that if I thought that was good, I could go ahead and prepare to have my cock rocked off by Final Fantasies 7 and 8.
They sucked. They were dull and poorly presented. I wasn't interested. I didn't have the power of nostalgia transporting me back to a time when these characters mattered to me. Is that a fault in me as a human being? Maybe. Did you ever get completely smashed and spend nine hours taking turns at drunken Samba di Amigo and Chu Chu Rocket on the Dreamcast with fifteen of your friends?

Point is, not everyone is going to like what you like, and we should all learn to deal with that.

 

[raankh]

I'm a complete bargain-bin kid, just like in my youth. I tend to pick up old consoles and old games where ever I find them. From a PC perspective it's great to because even the low-end of a current PC will play most of them at maximum settings and the like.

I picked up Broken Sword 1-3 for about $5 some time ago. At that price, those games are pretty awesome. I got Diablo 2 and the expansion, retail, for $5 too.

Actually, thinking of it that way I'd say games get better!

 

[Divinegon]

I don't believe they do that because it is more expensive, I believe that because it is more new.

Taking your example, if you had instead FF7 and FF8 and said FF7 was considered to be better, then he might have bought 7. But there, you had two other games separating each one and different generation consoles.

Sure the better graphics and all helped, but if most of the world lives in a generation where cellphone do almost anything but have been losing some stability as they go on, you'd still feel adamant to buy an older cellphone with no graphic colors, no real tones or even polyphonic and basically just to call and text someone. I still think the older cellphones were more durable and overall more usable, but you tend to feel shunned out by your social surroundings every time you take that old thing out of your pocket to answer a call. Same with games.

 

[keithburgun]

So are you all really in denial that people are brainwashed about stupid idiotic crap like "polygon count" and the whole arms race? I mean, the industry pays MILLIONS of dollars so that we all feel like that NEXT thing is gonna be a bit BETTER than the last thing, are you saying that has no effect on people's decision-making?

 

[Kermi]

Oh, that's rich.
People prefer newer things as opposed to what you'll fondly refer to as 'classic', and suddenly you're the lone bastion of intelligence in an ocean of brainwashed morons who upgrade every time a magazine tells them to.

You just lost all your credibility.

 

[Divinegon]

So the maker of this thread is accusing everyone of not having his opinion even though some people agreed or partially agreed and others just talked about argument itself.

Have you even asked said person at the time why he bought the most expensive one instead? Because it looked pretty? Because he didn't know he could play PSX games on the PS2 (Yeah I know it's hard to happen, but it could)? Any other reason?

Plus, you're ranting to a community that is probably already aware of this issue and knows how to deal with it in his own way.

 

[Ghandi 2]

Or maybe he hates old graphics?

It's shallow, yes, but much more intelligent and justified that the "It's newer and more expensive so it must be better" thought process that you're assuming people have. I know quite a few people (some of them very avid gamers) who simply cannot stand old clunky graphics because they're too ugly.

 

[Saltiness]

Or maybe he hates old graphics?

It's shallow, yes, but much more intelligent and justified that the "It's newer and more expensive so it must be better" thought process that you're assuming people have. I know quite a few people (some of them very avid gamers) who simply cannot stand old clunky graphics because they're too ugly.

I have several friends of the same opinion. The only old game I can get them to play is UFO/X-COM.

I get new games. Why? Because I've played all the old ones to death. Hell, if you told me to go play some crappy PSX RPG, I would've laughed in your face. The better question you could've asked him was what style of game did he prefer? While some rave on about how awesome JRPG games are I really don't see it. They feel like linear stories with an often "spin" to how their combat system differs from the other JRPG games. If he had a PC, you could've also recommended Fallout or PS:T. But I'm going to hazard a guess. Your own opinion is that you prefer the JRPG (Final Fantasy for example) over the western ones, which obviously, is the opposite of mine. It is your opinion that for a nice RPG experience he should have a PSX and final fantasy, which is just as valid as the consumers opinion that he'd prefer more functional graphics over your own recommendation. As such, you really need to pull your head of your arse and learn to acknowledge that just because an opinion isn't your own, it's no less valid.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

Some people automatically equate higher prices with higher quality, and others have an aversion to old things. It is definitely built into consumer culture with the emphasis always being on the next great thing. People who fall for this thinking are dopes, and sadly there is little one can do to help dopes.

 

[KurtNiisan]

Try finding FFVII for that price now.

- Hah, funny you should mention that, because I picked up a brand-new copy of Final Fantasy VII [Platinum] for NZ$69.99 yesterday. More than you'd spend on a Platinum PS2 game but because it was FFVII they could obviously sell it at that price no problem ^^

 

[Pyrrian]

Wait, so the point is that he decided to go with a better looking, better-sounding, better-translated version of a linear stat-fest over a cheaper linear stat-fest?

I mean, if you're going to play a game that tries to shove story, long animations, cutscenes, and numbers into your face at every turn, it seems like choosing one that looks, sounds, and reads better is the smarter choice, even if it's more expensive.

You're also completely missing the point that when people say FFVII was a "better" game than FFX, they mean with respect to what else was out when it came out. At least, if they're sensible. FFX is ultimately the better game, if you took them straight up at the current time, but FFVII came about in a time where standards were lower, and JRPGs held less of the spotlight, making it a newer, more unique experience for a lot of people. That is why people say it is better. If both had come out yesterday instead of their original release dates, FFX would widely be considered to be the better game.