Is anybody else here just not interested in modern gaming?

[Bombiz]

Nah. In fact, a couple of games released over the last couple of years make strong cases to be lodged among the very best titles of ALL TIME, so I think a good argument can be made that "modern gaming" is better than ever.

If I'm getting tired of anything, it's jeremiads against the sins of "modern gaming", often issued by people half my age who grew up idealizing titles that ARE "modern gaming". When people are getting misty for the "good old days" of KOTOR or Halo 2 or their ilk, I just have to laugh my ass off.

funnily enough you're one of the first people I thought of when I read the title of this post.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

funnily enough you're one of the first people I thought of when I read the title of this post.

Because I'm old and cranky?

 

[Bombiz]

funnily enough you're one of the first people I thought of when I read the title of this post.

Because I'm old and cranky?

a little but ya. but also i've seen you comment saying how the new modern CRPGS/Dungeon Crawlers(Legend of grim rock) aren't as good as the older ones.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A little but ya. but also i've seen you comment saying how the new modern CRPGS/Dungeon Crawlers(Legend of grim rock) aren't as good as the older ones.

They're not! But that wasn't me moaning and carping and saying things were better "back then", it's me moaning and carping about modern developers trying to recapture the aesthetic and mechanics of twenty year old games instead of bootstrapping them into the new century and capturing the design ethos that made them special. Games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate were special not because they were isometric and fussy, but because they were revolutionary for their time. Simply aping the look of them isn't just regressive, it demonstrates creative bankruptcy and developer cowardice. It's one thing for a tiny one man team to make a retro game, like Xenonauts, to fill a niche where NOTHING existed. It's another for an entrenched and long tenured developer, like Obsidian, to make a musty Baldur's Gate clone as an entry in a crowded genre.

 

[Battenberg]

Guess it depends what you mean by modern gaming. I keep up to date with gaming news and watch the latest game trailers and even play games from the last year or two on a semi-regular basis. That said I'm increasingly falling further behind in terms of what I spend money buying/ time playing due to the way large segments of the gaming industry are conducting themselves (particularly AAA gaming). Buying games at launch is basically not something I do now, even for games I really want, because I know I can pick it up 6 months to a year down the line in a better state, cheaper, and probably with more content in a 'complete' or 'goty' edition.

 

[Strazdas]

No. I always liked games that push the limit of what is possible and improve. New games do a lot of that. Its probably why i was never into indie scene, they seem to want to go back a few decades more than anything.

Which "new" games have "pushed the limits" in any significant way in the past few years other than graphically? I'm calling bullshit on you.

Assassin's creed and Ashes of Singularity has pushed the limit of drawcalls (ashes of singularity utilizes Dx12, Assasins creed utilizes DX11, making AC perform worse) which allows large amount of independent units (think battles between thousands of units).

Rainbow Six? Siege and The Division has better destructible physics than even in games that tend to specialize in destruction.

Beam.NGdrive has continued to push realistic car physics and destruction once again to unseen heights

Crackdown videos we saw looks like actually real time procedurally generated destruction that we never saw before.

Though you are, of course, correct that many games push the limits in terms of graphics. That however is not a negative to me. I like when games push graphical limits.

 

[Strazdas]

Never played any of those games, and I've never even heard of most of them., so that goes to show how well they're doing. Assassin's creed I've always hated since I played the second game in the franchise (never played any others), but I won't discredit a game simply because I don't enjoy it.

Rainbow 6 Seige is a realllllllly bad example. I don't know how old you are, but if you played Rainbow 6 Rogue Spear back in the late '90s, whatever destructible physics they've added has come at the loss of everything else that made the franchise great. No single player tactical campaign in a Rainbow 6 game? Are you kidding me? You might call that innovation, I just call it sad.

So if a game is multiplayer focused it means nothing else can be good in that game? I think its my turn to call bullshit.

I never played any of Rainbow 6 games actually, not my style of game, but credit is due to them for the physics implementation.

 

[Bombiz]

So if a game is multiplayer focused it means nothing else can be good in that game? I think its my turn to call bullshit.

I never played any of Rainbow 6 games actually, not my style of game, but credit is due to them for the physics implementation.

When did I ever say that?

you just did.
here let me quote you incase you missed it.

I prefer singleplayer to anything, fuck multiplayer.

that means you think multiplayer focused games are shit.

if you're still having trouble heres another

No single player tactical campaign in a Rainbow 6 game? Are you kidding me? You might call that innovation, I just call it sad.

 

[Flammablezeus]

Huh? What did you say?

Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over the sound of Darkest Dungeon, XCOM2 and Shadow of... ohhh, Mirror's Edge 2 comes out in a few months!

I wouldn't get too excited about Mirror's Edge 2. The first one is an amazing game, don't get me wrong, but I don't think EA is going to revert to its pre-2008 self for one game.

 

[Zhukov]

Huh? What did you say?

Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over the sound of Darkest Dungeon, XCOM2 and Shadow of... ohhh, Mirror's Edge 2 comes out in a few months!

I wouldn't get too excited about Mirror's Edge 2. The first one is an amazing game, don't get me wrong, but I don't think EA is going to revert to its pre-2008 self for one game.

Oh? Anything specific that worries you?

I've hungrily watched everything they've put out so far and haven't seen anything of concern.

The story elements will probably be crap since I don't think DICE could write their way out of primary school worksheet let alone come up with a decent script. But that wouldn't be any different to the original game and it's not what I'm there for.

As for EA, I'm sure they'll try to stick in pre-order bonuses and DLC and microtransactions and whatever else they can come up with. But none of that stuff has ever really bothered me. I mean, I'd prefer it not happen but I'm yet to see it actually detract from a good game.

Besides, the mere fact that they're letting DICE make a sequel (prequel/reboot/whatever) to a not-all-that-successful game without turning it into a shooter gives me hope.