Poll: Are games as "fun" as they used to be?

[ScopeV2]

Yes they are, people who disagree grew out of them. Go collect stamps

 

[beddo]

I've been gaming since... well since I can remember and I have an incredible passion for games. Grew up playing the good ol' NES up to about N64. Those years had to have been my highlight in my gaming career.

Recently I have had a hard time finding a game that really keeps my attention. If I ever do find a game that really grabs me in, its either really short or gets old incredibly fast. This has been extremely disappointing to me because I used to love every aspect of gaming and every type of game. Puzzles, Shooter, Platforming; it didn't matter what type, they were just fun.

Maybe it is because I'm older and need more complex things to entertain my mind. But I'm wondering if anyone else is feeling this. I think gaming may have lost its creative spark in the last couple years. Now don't get me wrong, there are still games that I love and my 360 is keeping me busy, but I can only game for about 1-3 hours without getting suddenly bored.

Anywho...

Discuss:
Past gaming and Recent gaming.
Creativity of gaming.
Are affecting ability to like a game?
Anything else related.

That's just because you have gotten older. I think games are more fun than ever. However, we have become more impatient.

You didn't put an option in saying games have become more fun.

 

[zahr]

Mask of the Betrayer was released just two years ago.

So I'd say yes, high quality games are definitely still being released.

Most games from before 1998 or so tend to suck anyways.

 

[scarbunny]

I think games are about the same but as I grow older I am not as easily entertained.

Games havnt really changed beyond new graphics and a few more buttons. Or at least I dont think they have in my near 20 years experiance.

 

[Kstreitenfeld]

A new genre? That's not going to happen.

A few new genre's are starting to show there faces that used to be made by users as "custom maps" or "mods". Have you not noticed a increase in "Tower Defense" games and "Aeon of Strife" (the original DotA) games that are being developed?

Spore is a prime example of EA's new strategy: it's ambitious, innovative and critically praised. 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

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/218-Spore

 

[Markness]

But still playing Doom? Not that it wasn't a great game, but I wouldn't say it was better than Half Life for example.

Half life has 3-D visuals and the tech too deliver a story. When Doom came out games did not even have 3D models yet so it's not a very fair comparison.

I thought we were measuring fun value. Nostalgia can't add to entertainment if you haven't. played it before. I know when I played doom, a couple of years ago, it was unbearably boring compared to other games that have just come out.

If I was you or the OP, I start playing all those old games or perhaps just take up another hobby. I personally think games are getting better and better. eg Left for Dead - An AI and a music director that changes the pacing of the game and the music to make the game more enjoyable. Shows even now, there is more innovation to be had and more improving to be done.

As for the issue of playing the game for goals instead of game play, I think it depends on what game you are playing. Many MMO's and RPG's have rather boring game play in my opinion but the entertainment of watching your character progress is the fun part. FPS and RTS are still very much about the game play, so If that is your complaint perhaps you should try that genre.

EDit: Oh yes, and I am in agreement about that person who said games only 'lost' their replayability value because we have more games to entertain us now. You could buy a few games, play them all once or twice, then stop. But the reason you probably stopped was because another few games caught your attention. Or at least that's what happens in my experience.

 

[Lexodus]

No. I'm not really as motivated by games as I used to be. They're all really the same, bar the obvious exclusion of Guitar Hero, which is the perfect game for me.

 

[Signa]

They feel too corporate if that means anything....

I know exactly what you mean.

(Anyone else got the feeling we are headed for another video game crash with some many uninteresting games flooding the market??? Would make a good Escapist article)

I've been wondering the same myself. I don't think it's going to happen because there are too many non-gamers out there playing games now. Non-gamers don't care about the little indescribable things that we are all just noticed are missing. I think though that we are going to see less and less "good" games from now on. Games are just being made to be more consumable and less enjoyable.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

I think games offer more than fun these days, they're coming into their own as a form of story telling and can on occasion be very thought provoking.

 

[PureChaos]

if they weren't as fun to play anymore i wouldn't be playing them.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes they are still just as fun.

The only reason an old game seems more fun is because of nostalgia. That's not to say old gamer aren't fun, it's just stupid to think that they are instantly better than all modern games.

Pretty much this. Old games always seem better and more fun in retrospect. Games are pretty much the same as they have always been. Perhaps you have just gotten bored with them. You should consider taking up a new hobby.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

Fallout 3 proved to me that gaming is still fun but I do miss the good legend of zelda's.

 

[GonzoGamer]

To me, games are less fun because they are so much bigger than they used to be.

Think about the old days. If you liked Tetris (which I absolutely love) then you were good to go. Tetris was Tetris, nothing more, nothing less. If you didn't like Frogger, well, don't play Frogger. Frogger wasn't going to appear in Tetris. But a new game like GTA, well, there are so many elements within that one game. Assassins Creed, if you thought it was repetitive, well, it was. You could argue that older games didn't have replay value, they were repetitive. These days, collecting a bunch of flags or cogs or items seems pointless, like it's crammed into the game, yet if that were the entire game, released twenty years back, would we be so critical? And games ask us to be so more actively involved, and invest so much more time and effort into achieving the reward, it's rarely a simple matter of sitting down and playing, and more sitting down and settling in for a fair bit of hard work.

It's sort of like McDonalds to a fancy restaurant. McDonalds you walk in, get a combo 1, and away you go. No fuss, no muss, you know exactly what you're getting. These days, games are a lot of times less "game" and borderline "work"

I don't agree completely but you're definitely onto something.
We had less expectations out of our games back in the day. So much so that sometimes games that consisted entirely of QTEs were the greatest thing around: Dragons Lair (which didn't even have the buttons flashing on the screen) anyone.

I do think you're being a bit harsh with the collectables. While yes sometimes they seem crammed in there to get more play hours out of the title they used to give the player great rewards that were very useful in the game. The last game I just didn't get tired of (GTA San Andreas) had a ton of collectables but every time you finished one variety of them, you'd be rewarded with an arsenal. Fast forward to GTA4 where if you get all the "collectables" (flying rats) all you get is the achievement trophy and a crappy attack chopper that spawns nowhere near a safehouse. I blame online multiplayer and achievement trophies. Developers depend too much on multiplayer to extend the play time and depend on achivement trophies too much as rewards. I prefer rewards you can use... in the game.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Yes they are still just as fun.

The only reason an old game seems more fun is because of nostalgia. That's not to say old gamer aren't fun, it's just stupid to think that they are instantly better than all modern games.

Uhhhhhhh, no. Allot of old games like Super Mario 64 are "actually" allot better then modern games. I got the Nitendo 64 for my birthday when i was (before that i had a NES) ten. And super mario 64 was so much fun that i kept playing it until i got a PS2 many years later, and even then i would return to it from time to time. My little brother bough Super Mario Galaxy for the Wii last year and i was exited too see how that game would turn out, i played it for like half an hour before i was bored with it. The game felt like a poor clone of Super Mario 64, the game was not bad, it was completely missing the stuff that made Super Mario 64 one of the greatest video game of all time.

Don't get me wrong, i still enjoy gaming, but i can't but help thinking that game developers these days are lacking any real creativity, and don' you dare telling me that games like the new Red Faction game are "creative" because you can blow everything up, it may be visually stunning and cool too look at, but that doesn't make it creative. Game developers these days seem too think that pleasing the 12 and 16 year old's over and over with visually stunning games is allot more important then actually trying too create something creative since they may not make as much money that way. Of course there are games like Spore, but like we all know.......that game sucked! (waves fist at EA)

Yes I know super Mario 64 is a good game. I would know, it's one of my favorites.

But to say games aren't as fun as they used to be is just foolish. Think back to the N64 era. Super Mario 64 was a great game. However, was every game on the N64 as good as Super Mario 64?

No, not even close. It's the same today. Not every new game can be as good as Team Fortress 2. Truly great games are rare, just as they were back then. The difference is that due to nostalgia we only remember the good games, which causes us to think that entire generation had the same quality as those games. We forget the flaws that the old generations had.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Yes they are still just as fun.

The only reason an old game seems more fun is because of nostalgia. That's not to say old gamer aren't fun, it's just stupid to think that they are instantly better than all modern games.

Oh by no means are they instantly better than modern games. I suppose it is a lot of nostalgia in play here...

I mean, I think games like Banjo Kazooie back in the day were fantastic, but I almost like the new BK better. Its almost completely unrelated to the old ones, but still manages to deliver a well thought out and creative game. Halo 2 is probably the best shooter I have every played, better than doom obviously even with the insane amounts of time I spent with doom.
From a technical stance, modern games are in every war better than old games. I think the problem is, there aren't any new concepts being introduced (and the ones that are being introduced seem pretty good) I'm thinkin we need a whole new genre of gaming to revolutionize the market.

A new genre? That's not going to happen.

Somebody just needs to make it happen.

You can't just make a new genre.

Do you realize how much money that would cost for a mainstream game? They would waste a lot of money merely experimenting with he concepts, none of which are guaranteed to work. Then they have to develop the actual game, which is still a challenge because you're working with a completley new genre. In addition to this, you have to ensure the game has quality graphics, is free from bugs, and comes out on schedule.

That's a huge risk for a mainstream developer. It's better for them to just stick with what already works.

 

[Internet Kraken]

A new genre? That's not going to happen.

A few new genre's are starting to show there faces that used to be made by users as "custom maps" or "mods". Have you not noticed a increase in "Tower Defense" games and "Aeon of Strife" (the original DotA) games that are being developed?

Spore is a prime example of EA's new strategy: it's ambitious, innovative and critically praised. 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

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/218-Spore

I know, but these are mostly indie games. I'm talking about main stream games, the ones we keep demanding quality and innovation from. The ones that are most likely the target of this thread.

 

[ideitbawx]

Well if a game has lost my attention I usually mute the game, keep the subtitles off, and make up my own story and dialoge. Its just a think I do

are you saying it's a thing you do? or are you saying you think you do that when you play your games?

 

[Weaver]

Games now a days have various problems I think need to be addressed:
1) Games have too much unnecessary gore. Gore doesn't bother me, but it makes the game seem a lot more serious.

2) Flat boring colours. By making everything grey and brown it creates a depressing landscape and visual appeal. That with all this gore flying around and you have what becomes a very serious and unhappy game. Played for too long I get tired of seeing such desolate landscapes. Playing Super Mario 3 has the bright colour pallet of spending a sunny summers day at an amusement park. Gears of War has the colour pallet of doing your taxes on a winters night then settling down to read the newspaper.

3) Linearity. This is really common in FPS games but I don't think it's necessary. Of course, you need SOME degree of linearity, I don't think everything needs to be a sandbox game, but giving the player some accordance of freedom is generally a good thing.

4) Serious Business. We all know gaming is serious business and no humor should be injected into any testosterone fueled space marine's life. But honestly, old games were funny. Someone already mentioned the classic lucas arts adventure games, they were great! They look like crap and I can still go back to them and marvel at a lot of the corny, clever, witty and absurd jokes they came up with. I think this is one of the reasons Portal was so successful. It was short, but it was a dose of humor us older games hadn't gotten in a LONG time and reminded us of the old days. While the new gamers got to experience it for the first time (that is, a game where humor is a very large part of the plot) and also enjoyed it. Games don't HAVE to be super serious and depressing all the time, likewise they don't HAVE to be ONLY complete comedies, but lighten up a little bit. Even fear 2 had really funny easter eggs everywhere, and my favorite like "You're like free pizza at an anime convention. She can smell you, and she wants to consume you."

 

[Laughing Man]

Depends. For my argument I will use Flight Sim as an example.

I got FS 9 three years ago over time I added to it and ended up with a vast library of add ons which not only made the game more realistic but also made it look amazing and better yet running it on my 8800GTX with everything on and maintaining a high FPS was no issue.

Two days ago I got hold of a copy of MS FS X. Oh my god how shite is this game. I am running it on a 260GTX so my computer is sizeably more powerful than my old FS 9 rig. Yet I have to actually turn settings down to get ANY kind of decent FPS not only that once I turn them down the game looks crapper than my old copy of FS9 with the addons. So I now have a smaller library of aircraft, a less realistic game a game that runs like crap, a game that doesn't look as good and a game that is unplayable because the second you get near an airport the game slows down to a slide show crawl.

In no way does it improve on any aspect of the game that it replaces and I am actually wondering if I was drunk when I decided to purchase this game.