Poll: Are games as "fun" as they used to be?
- Thread starter LilSkitt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think games are certainly better than they used to be, but sometimes I'm not sure if they're, on average, as fun as they used to be. It seems like, where I used to play a game for the gameplay (Goldeneye for instance) I now play it to get through it. I played every level on Goldeneye so many times it's not even funny, and the reason was because it was just so much fun. Nowadays I get through a game, put it up on the shelf, and rarely ever touch it again unless there's some unlockables or something I want to get, so I guess what I'm saying is that I don't play modern games for the gameplay, I play them to accomplish a goal. In Bioshock, I play to get through the plot, see all the interesting places. In Fallout 3 I play to explore, and collect a bunch of crap to drag back to my house. But there's never been a moment where I was like "man, it'd be really fun to go out and kill some supermutants," it's more like "man, it'd be great if I could level up, I guess I'd better kill some supermutants." It means that the gameplay is incidental, but it's not really why I'm there. And the thing is, that makes a game frustrating if you fail to achieve the goal, whereas if the goal itself was to play the game, then even if you die a lot it doesn't matter, because you're still having fun.
The only modern game that I can think of where I still have fun no matter how many times I die is Alone in the Dark (and the controls are so bad I do die a lot), but the gameplay is fun enough with Alone in the Dark that I can keep coming back to it again and again. And Alone in the Dark is an interesting case because it brings me to something else that games never do anymore that I think would make them a lot more fun, and that is level select. Part of what made Goldeneye so much fun is that I didn't have to slog through the missions that I didn't like again just to replay the ones that I did like. Why don't games do this anymore? Oh, I know there's a story that we get, and I really appreciate a game that can give me a good story, but after i'd played through the story once, why can't I go back and select a certain level that I want to replay? When I'm playing Condemned, for instance, why do I have to get through every mission before the creepy mall mission so that I can play the creepy mall mission again?
The only modern game that I can think of where I still have fun no matter how many times I die is Alone in the Dark (and the controls are so bad I do die a lot), but the gameplay is fun enough with Alone in the Dark that I can keep coming back to it again and again. And Alone in the Dark is an interesting case because it brings me to something else that games never do anymore that I think would make them a lot more fun, and that is level select. Part of what made Goldeneye so much fun is that I didn't have to slog through the missions that I didn't like again just to replay the ones that I did like. Why don't games do this anymore? Oh, I know there's a story that we get, and I really appreciate a game that can give me a good story, but after i'd played through the story once, why can't I go back and select a certain level that I want to replay? When I'm playing Condemned, for instance, why do I have to get through every mission before the creepy mall mission so that I can play the creepy mall mission again?
Well its hard to say if games are getting better or worse since I only really have a snippet of the time line that I've played.
I am however, noticing more and more bad game design, though this could just be to me playing a lot of games and learning what I do and don't like.
Best way I could say it: the potential for games has come a long way, but my standards have gone a long way up too, now it just seems rare that game designers can pull a game off just right.
And I don't really know why this is but I keep noticing that console games always seem to have less depth than PC games. The one that bothered me the most recently was Farcry 2 and its whole lack of factions or any choice in the story. After they gabbed on and on about immersion and getting you into the feel of the game, they just totally forgot that for somebody to be able to really get into the role of their character they need to have some choice, and as far as bad choices go ''I'm going to do missions for both factions so as not put all my eggs in one basket'' is about as bad as physically possible as a choice. Farcry 2 just would have been so good if it was developed more like stalker.
I am however, noticing more and more bad game design, though this could just be to me playing a lot of games and learning what I do and don't like.
Best way I could say it: the potential for games has come a long way, but my standards have gone a long way up too, now it just seems rare that game designers can pull a game off just right.
And I don't really know why this is but I keep noticing that console games always seem to have less depth than PC games. The one that bothered me the most recently was Farcry 2 and its whole lack of factions or any choice in the story. After they gabbed on and on about immersion and getting you into the feel of the game, they just totally forgot that for somebody to be able to really get into the role of their character they need to have some choice, and as far as bad choices go ''I'm going to do missions for both factions so as not put all my eggs in one basket'' is about as bad as physically possible as a choice. Farcry 2 just would have been so good if it was developed more like stalker.
I miss when games used to have incredible depth like OoT.
The graphics weren't the main concern, and the graphics of games like that increased the charm of the game heaps anyway.
Bring back old school.
The graphics weren't the main concern, and the graphics of games like that increased the charm of the game heaps anyway.
Bring back old school.
Kpt._Rob said:
Sorry for double post but:
This, totally right, the last game that I really enjoyed playing for the gameplay was crysis, every single aspect of the first half of the game has so many different ways of completing it, like jumping out of a truck letting it fly into the enemy base then shooting the petrol on the back and making it blow sky high to cause a distraction while you jump about on the rooftops demolishing the landscape - brilliant!
I'm in the same boat as the OP. I just feel like gaming is losing something fun. I was about ready to chalk it up to my age, but then I went back and played some older games. I just clicked with them. Even Doom 1 and 2 were a blast to play. I can't even call it nostalgia because, back in the day, I didn't even really play Doom. I only ever played the shareware episode, and that was it. Other games like Thief have also been keeping me busy because no one has bothered to make a better stealth game in the last decade. There is something wrong with new games, and unless something starts to change, I might have to stop buying new games. Old ones are just better.
PS, Trick polls make me mad. The question was changed from the topic title and the poll question. I voted wrong. Gaming hasn't lost it's spark, games have.
PS, Trick polls make me mad. The question was changed from the topic title and the poll question. I voted wrong. Gaming hasn't lost it's spark, games have.
Could the internet have thrown the classic gaming feel out the window?
I know everytime I sit down to play a singleplayer game it seems the internet wants to mock me because most of my friends seem to instantly swap over to halo 3, cod 4, or whatever. It's always some game with fun multiplayer, and by the time I cave in and go to play that game they seem to disappear in the time it takes for me to check my friends list to see they're still there, get to the dashboard take 1st disc out, check they're still there, 2nd disc in, game loads and they've gone.
I think Gaming isn't as fun because everyone is too focused on multiplayer which as much as some people hate to admit, is essentially the same thing over and over again, as in single player there is "culture" and depth to it. I am by no means saying multiplayer is a bad thing but it seems to have taken the "spark" out of true gaming.
I know everytime I sit down to play a singleplayer game it seems the internet wants to mock me because most of my friends seem to instantly swap over to halo 3, cod 4, or whatever. It's always some game with fun multiplayer, and by the time I cave in and go to play that game they seem to disappear in the time it takes for me to check my friends list to see they're still there, get to the dashboard take 1st disc out, check they're still there, 2nd disc in, game loads and they've gone.
I think Gaming isn't as fun because everyone is too focused on multiplayer which as much as some people hate to admit, is essentially the same thing over and over again, as in single player there is "culture" and depth to it. I am by no means saying multiplayer is a bad thing but it seems to have taken the "spark" out of true gaming.
I reckon they're getting worse as developers run out of ideas. Take most RPG clones, they usually aren't popular as they aren't unique. Some make it through (Counter Strike, Team Fortress, and somehow Halo...) but most quickly die out. But then when a good concept comes out (first thing that comes to mind is Portal) then you get a booming business.
Also, sequels to games that need to die could be the cause/issue as well (mario, sonic etc..)
Also, sequels to games that need to die could be the cause/issue as well (mario, sonic etc..)
See, I would disagree here, multiplayer is one of the few aspects of modern gaming that I still find undeinably fun, although not in all cases. Still, I almost always have fun playing multiplayer on Halo 3 or Left 4 Dead, part of that is because it's genuinely about the gameplay, and part of it is that interacting with people is a lot more fun than being by ones self. Like I said in my earlier post, when I become frustrated with a game it's because I'm not accomplishing the goal, but with multiplayer the goal is to play the game, so it's still fun even when I'm getting owned.Phenakist said:
I have a very similar situation to the OP, overall you explained my problem very well. My bet is that most of it is connected to brain development and the kind of entertainment you need to keep your attention.
I used to think that my most cherished game memories were almost completely affected by the nostalgia factor, which is probably true, but I made an interesting discovery.
I love old adventure games and played titles like all the Monkey Islands, Grim Fandango and Simon the Sorcerer all the time. Recently I played Maniac Mansion 2, which for some odd reason I had never tried as a kid, and it was really fucking awesome, better than all the modern adventure games by far. My rating of the game couldn't have been affected by nostalgia, I still think it beats most modern games.
The only game that really captivated me recently was Flower. It was short, inventive and incredibly revitilizing. It pretty much is a genre of its own, so try that one Mr.OP.
So yea, I don't think that games have become worse, but they have lost some sting(especially for gamers that have been around for over a decade I assume). More games like Flower please.
I used to think that my most cherished game memories were almost completely affected by the nostalgia factor, which is probably true, but I made an interesting discovery.
I love old adventure games and played titles like all the Monkey Islands, Grim Fandango and Simon the Sorcerer all the time. Recently I played Maniac Mansion 2, which for some odd reason I had never tried as a kid, and it was really fucking awesome, better than all the modern adventure games by far. My rating of the game couldn't have been affected by nostalgia, I still think it beats most modern games.
The only game that really captivated me recently was Flower. It was short, inventive and incredibly revitilizing. It pretty much is a genre of its own, so try that one Mr.OP.
So yea, I don't think that games have become worse, but they have lost some sting(especially for gamers that have been around for over a decade I assume). More games like Flower please.
Yea, you certainly have a point there. When GoldenEye came along the gameplay was so much fun that doing anything inside the game was a blast. I played the Satellite level so often and the time I spent on multiplayer is almost frightening. Most games now seem more like a chore because the goal is in the foreground and not the joy of playing it, unless some new concept appear it seems like this trend is staying for me.Kpt._Rob said:
The last game I *really* enjoyed was Resident Evil 4. I liked BioShock, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and stuff... But they do, as someone earlier said, feel almost like chores in parts. It's not like "I'll go out and do this because it'll be fun", it's always "I'll go out and do this so I can level up".
Games and the individual series cultures that surround them take themselves very seriously these days. I suppose it's a consequence of the development of an art, but the closer a game is to being a well-polished spectacle, the less "fun" it is. Now, fun is used in a strange sort of way here -- Gears of War to God of War to Oblivion and on, these games are still fun, but in an intense sort of way. Did you ever see a kid playing Commander Keen way back when? He wasn't serious playing that game, he was having "fun", pure mindless wind-it-up-and-watch-me-go happy entertainment.
Not all non-serious games are nessecarily more fun; Pokemon never took itself seriously, and I never personally cared for it (though I think some folk who take it more seriously than Nintendo does scare me a little). And not all games that are super-serious are nessecarily less so; modern-day RPG plots and backstories being what they are, you could turn Oblivion or Fable into a series of novels, and they might be about as good.
It isn't a very good rule of thumb to judge the evolution of gaming on in terms of fun, but games with endless replay value and those deemed modern classics usually don't leave me at the end of the day thinking much on this.
Not all non-serious games are nessecarily more fun; Pokemon never took itself seriously, and I never personally cared for it (though I think some folk who take it more seriously than Nintendo does scare me a little). And not all games that are super-serious are nessecarily less so; modern-day RPG plots and backstories being what they are, you could turn Oblivion or Fable into a series of novels, and they might be about as good.
It isn't a very good rule of thumb to judge the evolution of gaming on in terms of fun, but games with endless replay value and those deemed modern classics usually don't leave me at the end of the day thinking much on this.
A) You're older. Kids are easier both to delight and to make miserable. Things even out as you get grow up. When you're heading towards 30 or beyond, a game can't just hit your emotional buttons to leave a good impression; it has to give your mind something more to chew on as well, and that's much harder.
B) Sturgeon's Law: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law] 90% of everything is crap. You forget the crap, though. (Unless it's really crap. Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing, ye shall never be forgotten.)
C) There's another quote, but I can't remember where from, that says something like this: "There are only ever five good shows on television. There were five good shows in 1950 and there are five good shows today. But today we've got all these extra channels to sort through to find them." I tend to think more good games are being made now than ever before, but the sheer volume of games being released can make them hard to see for all the licensed crap and mediocre knock-offs.
Super Mario Galaxy isn't missing anything that was in Mario 64. Everything that made Mario 64 great is in Super Mario Galaxy, and more. What's changed is you. You're older, you've played more games and you're spoiled for choice. Back in the N64 era, we'd all play Mario 64 for months on end partly because it was great but also because there was so little else to choose from. These days, plenty of people have multiple consoles AND a handheld AND a PC, a platform that has amassed a huge library of games, AND they have a few games on their mobile phone. If you get minimally bored with Super Mario Galaxy, there are dozens of other games to choose from.
As for the slagging EA, maybe you had a point five years ago. Back then, EA made nothing but mainstream sequels. But in recent years they've invested a lot of money into making games that are both innovative and good quality. EA has been investing in new titles and making a genuine effort to produce games that get review scores of 8 and 9 or even 10. They even base their developer's salary bonuses on it. And you know what? It's cost them money. Their profits have been way down on previous years. But they're still sticking to their guns, saying that new ideas and quality will be a better long-term investment than repetitive safe cash cows. I can't believe they're not getting more credit for this. Spore is a prime example of EA's new strategy: it's ambitious, innovative and critically praised [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore?q=spore]. I can't remember ever seeing an overall negative review of Spore (not including the DRM/piracy debate which had nothing to do with the game itself) so I don't know where you're getting your "like we all know" arrogance from. If you didn't like it, fine, but you don't speak for everyone.
B) Sturgeon's Law: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law] 90% of everything is crap. You forget the crap, though. (Unless it's really crap. Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing, ye shall never be forgotten.)
C) There's another quote, but I can't remember where from, that says something like this: "There are only ever five good shows on television. There were five good shows in 1950 and there are five good shows today. But today we've got all these extra channels to sort through to find them." I tend to think more good games are being made now than ever before, but the sheer volume of games being released can make them hard to see for all the licensed crap and mediocre knock-offs.
When you start a reply with "uhhhhh, no", you sound like an asshole. And when you put words like "actually" in unnecessary quotes it's even worse. And when you say things like "don't you dare tell me that (something the person never suggested)" it's truly aggravating. Respect people's opinions and don't put words in their mouths.Hardcore_gamer said:
Super Mario Galaxy isn't missing anything that was in Mario 64. Everything that made Mario 64 great is in Super Mario Galaxy, and more. What's changed is you. You're older, you've played more games and you're spoiled for choice. Back in the N64 era, we'd all play Mario 64 for months on end partly because it was great but also because there was so little else to choose from. These days, plenty of people have multiple consoles AND a handheld AND a PC, a platform that has amassed a huge library of games, AND they have a few games on their mobile phone. If you get minimally bored with Super Mario Galaxy, there are dozens of other games to choose from.
As for the slagging EA, maybe you had a point five years ago. Back then, EA made nothing but mainstream sequels. But in recent years they've invested a lot of money into making games that are both innovative and good quality. EA has been investing in new titles and making a genuine effort to produce games that get review scores of 8 and 9 or even 10. They even base their developer's salary bonuses on it. And you know what? It's cost them money. Their profits have been way down on previous years. But they're still sticking to their guns, saying that new ideas and quality will be a better long-term investment than repetitive safe cash cows. I can't believe they're not getting more credit for this. Spore is a prime example of EA's new strategy: it's ambitious, innovative and critically praised [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/spore?q=spore]. I can't remember ever seeing an overall negative review of Spore (not including the DRM/piracy debate which had nothing to do with the game itself) so I don't know where you're getting your "like we all know" arrogance from. If you didn't like it, fine, but you don't speak for everyone.
Games are still as fun as they used to be but you wouldn't know that by looking at most people who play them (particularly online).
Back in the 'good ol' days' we simply played games for the sake of playing a game (ie: to have fun) while in the modern day you find huge groups of people who forgo this simple idea and view gaming as either: a sport (MLG players), a glorious way of life (hardcore gamers), a fashion statement or art form (indie gamers) or a full time job (achievement horders and MMO players).
My theory is that these days we get so wrapped up in ourselves as gamers and judging what is a good game or not that we've seemingly forgoten the purpose of these things in the first place.
Back in the 'good ol' days' we simply played games for the sake of playing a game (ie: to have fun) while in the modern day you find huge groups of people who forgo this simple idea and view gaming as either: a sport (MLG players), a glorious way of life (hardcore gamers), a fashion statement or art form (indie gamers) or a full time job (achievement horders and MMO players).
My theory is that these days we get so wrapped up in ourselves as gamers and judging what is a good game or not that we've seemingly forgoten the purpose of these things in the first place.
games are better these days but we have grown oldr and in unison we all became hard to impress.
we can all agree that the 1st generation CD systems and most of their games sucked.
we can all agree that the 1st generation CD systems and most of their games sucked.
