Poll: Have the last 6-7 years really been that good for video games?

Recommended Videos

StupidNincompoop

New member
Oct 27, 2012
90
0
0
Sorry about the long post, i just had a lot to say on the subject. If you don't like reading then i've made the important bits bold.


Lately i've come to the realisation that i'm actually dissapointed in the quality of video games in the last 6-7 years (2005/2006 ish).
I was just wondering if anybody else felt the same.

As a few examples, i mean the way that certain genres appear to be taking a step backwards overall while others don't really seem to be going anywhere good either.


An example is the racing genre.

The destruction derby series was one of my favourite series' of all time, and i spent many hours playing through it.
This series was from the late 90's to early 2000's. It was one of possibly the first games to have destruction for vehicles.

But now it seems like many racing games that have been released as of late appear to be just bland and unimaginative, and even in many cases have less features than games released years ago.

Hardly any racing games these days seem to even have damageable vehicles (the Dirt series being the only one that comes to mind right away), and the vehicles seem to be unreasonably tough, and if you crash and get anything more than a slight scratch, you're penalised and have to wait to be reset before you can continue driving.

In other games, there's either very basic damage where you have a health bar and your entire car explodes if your health bar is too low, or no damage at all.
And i'm not saying that racing games NEED to have damagable vehicles, but it sure adds a lot to the gameplay, and the games that haven't had damage as a feature haven't exactly had that many redeeming qualities (or been very innovative, not that there's a lot you can really do with racing) otherwise.




Another genre that seems to have taken another step backwards is the simulation genre, for reasons that i'm sure most of you will already know of.


Before a few years ago, simulation games actually seemed to have a much wider audience and actually made some ideas into interesting and fun to play simulation games, such as theme hospital, sims 2, rollercoaster tycoon, simcity..

Now we have tow truck simulator, fork lift simulator, garbage truck simulator, street cleaning simulator, woodcutter simulator.. the list goes on, all of which you perform very boring and mundane tasks.
And sims 3 wasn't exactly as good as sims 2 either, having more cartoony-ish graphics and yet trying to be more realistic, and trying to cut down on load times without trying to improve any on performance issues that people had in sims 2.
What happened?


A final example is the horror genre.
While it hasn't suffered as much (IMO) as the other genres, it's still lost most of the reputation for being scary that it had with the likes of resident evil and silent hill. The survival horror subgenre has all but vanished now with resident evil turning into an action genre with the start of RE4/5.

The horror games that have been released have been very tame such as the latest few silent hill games, and amnesia tries to build up suspense but the annoying special effects when you lose your sanity spoil the game for me
, along with the whole game being in basically the same environment and the lack of actual encounters (and the water monster not even having a visible model, and the one monster model not really looking too scary either).

The slender game was kind of scary the very first time i saw it but after that very quickly became boring for me, i was actually kind of interested in possibly seeing a game involving the slenderman mythos but this one seemed poorly made and lost most of the reason that slenderman was so terrifying.

As a side note, it also seems as though a lot of games or series that were great around 2006, have now taken bad decisions and have now greatly lost popularity or just been completely changed (IMO for the worst).
Gunz: the duel lost popularity completely and the community that was with it around 2005 is now basically completely gone.
War rock, a game that wasn't the best game around at the time but still a pretty good game, had some bad management and greatly lost popularity in the last few years.

IJJI, a company who used to host several decent games including Gunz, did some bad management, closed Gunster back around 2007 before it really got a good chance to do good (but was a very well made game), they also lost popularity on all of their games including gunbound as well.

Runescape made a design decision back in 2007 that split the entire community, and after that made pointless updates to the graphics that didn't really look good (IMO a bad decision considering it was a web game made in java, not really that much improvement you can do with the graphics), and then seemingly became money hungry a few years ago when they realised that they were losing profits because of losing a large amount of players, and they ruined the novelty of the game by making other decisions such as removing quite a bit of the old content that made the game unique (such as random events), and making the game a lot more centred on economy rather than playing the game like it was supposed to.

I've already mentioned resident evil and silent hill, but both of them lost most of the horror- RE especially - when the respective companies decided to take the series in the more action-oriented route.

Habbo hotel, (updated with some terrible updates and the game just became boring)
coke music (shut down around 2007), the command and conquer series (became too cartoony and the last one that i really liked was generals), grand theft auto (i didn't think that GTA IV was terrible, but people around here think it was.. i thought it was average at best though).. the list goes on.


And finally, another reason is that although the graphics of the games have "improved" (though many of them now extremely overuse special effects such as lens flare), other aspects such as animation, the music and level design seem to be getting worse. Games that had some really great rock or metal tracks such as tony hawk's pro skater or destruction derby would probably have some unfitting dance or rap tracks instead, if they were made today. And levels were designed with exploration in mind, not so much now (linear paths etc). And finally animation seems to be worse, with stiffer less fluid animations, or animations that just seem odd.

I'm not saying that there haven't been any good games whatsoever since about 2005/6, i'm just saying that the industry hasn't really been as successful or put out as many quality products as i had imagined it would back in 2005 and 6 (again, obviously in my opinion).


So anyway, what do you think? that's just my opinion, most people are probably thinking the exact opposite.
 

The Comfy Chair

New member
Nov 5, 2012
63
0
0
Depends really. On PC it's improved dramatically. Games like Guild wars 2 and Witcher 2 are fantastic AAA games, the indie gaming scene is booming, and crowdfunding has really changed how we can get the games we want made created. It's a perfect time to be playing PC games and the future is so bright it's blinding. Hell, PC gaming may even be completely divorced from microsoft in the next few years depending on what happens with steam/linux, that's an exciting prospect having an operating system pushing PC gaming as opposed to sneakily pull it back whenever possible.

Console has nosedived horribly. Bloated marketing budgets, scared investors, low returns from retail, a horrible shift to 'dudebro shooter or nothing' in terms of sales and therefore investor confidence. All of that and more has crippled consoles, sending many talented developers into bankruptcy. It's in a bad way and i don't have the confidence console gaming can survive another generation like this. Put it this way, those AAA games on PC above did very well, made healthy profits and the staff are now working hard on new projects and/or expansions. On console, they'd have been fired if the game didn't sell 10m copies because the marketing team decided to spend far too much and the investors didn't see enough 0's on the profit sheet. It's not right that devs can expect to be made redundant post launch on a console game. It's not a 'sign of the times', it's a sign of the diseased console industry that is quickly becoming terminal.

Mobile is starting to find its feet and i think we'll see some real gems in the coming years. It's still in it's infancy though and at the moment it's still struggling to be more than a collection of quick 'casual' games and HD versions of PS2 games.

Overall, i think on average it's been about the same. Back in 2005 console games excited me. Current gen consoles started going down the crapper, then PC gaming started exciting me. So for me personally i just seeked the greener fields :)
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
Who cares . People buy what interested them , and left the terrible games st the wayside . Like it has been since the dawn of gaming ). All that this thread is going to achieve is have a bunch of people list their favorite games from this time periode.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Wait wait wait... racing games don't model damage anymore? Talk about losing a feature, I remember that being a prominent part of Nascar '98 on the PS1. It did do the whole "press X to reset" thing, but only if you turned the damage modeling down. If you had it on full, your car could get really screwed up, maybe even screwed up enough to be unable to finish the race (can't remember for sure on that last part.) Whether it could be completely destroyed or not, though, the damage had effects on the handling of the car, doing things like slowing it down or making it list to one side. In 1998, on the PS1. For that matter, I remember this formula one racing game for the game.com[footnote]If you're too young to remember that, it was a handheld with a monochrome screen, basic PDA functions, and the gimmick of a built in text only dial up internet browser. You had to plug it into a wall to use it, but it worked. If you're too young to know what a PDA is, it's the little handheld devices business people used to keep track of contacts, their calendar, and later on, e-mail in the days before smartphones. In fact, Blackberry started out as a manufacturer of PDAs that could receive E-mail, with the whole phone thing being added on later[/footnote], of all things, that had damage modeling. Obviously it wasn't as visually impressive as what the Nascar games had, but I remember if your car got damaged enough, the wheel popped off.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
A lot of these examples were genres I dont care about. So you lost me there. Well...except horror. Dead Space actually got me into that. And it was made this gen so...

Also, I think games have vastly improved in quality over what I had with the Gamecube and Ps2. And it had some of the most memorable. So I'd say I take the opposite stance.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Almost all my favourite games were released in the last 6-7 years, so I'm really not complaining. I consider the games available to me now to be of significantly better quality than the games I played as a kid or teenager. If I were to go back in time and present 12-year-old me with a modern game, even a not particularly great one, it would blow his poor little mind.

You may well be right about racing games. I don't play them much, and when I do I prefer the non-realistic arcade-ish ones.

I agree that the horror genre has been rather neglected of late. A lot of present day horror games are just action games where the enemies pop up and say "Boo!" every now and again (yes, Dead Space, I'm looking at you). However, I consider Amnesia to be the best and most effective horror title I've ever played.
 

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
There have been a massive amount of fantastic games released in the last 6/7 years.
Shit's amazing, yo.
 

distortedreality

New member
May 2, 2011
1,132
0
0
In agreeance with The Comfy Chair on this one.

Wether or not it's a hardware limitation issue with consoles or not, PC gaming seems to be pushing more boundaries than consoles ATM. It actually seems that indie devs are doing better work on consoles than AAA devs are, and that should be really worrying for console gamers IMO.

Either way, I'm pretty comfortable with where gaming is ATM. A bit more progress would be nice, but I think some devs are moving in the right direction at least.
 

Smertnik

New member
Apr 5, 2010
1,172
0
0
Considering how young the medium still is video games can hardly do anything but improve, as I see it.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Some better. Some worse.
If you weren't heavily invested in console gaming in the last 7 years, you probably weren't as satisfied.

PC...well, most of mainstream PC Gaming revolves around Valve, Blizzard, and LoL, at least from what I recall seeing. (barring the Facebook games, which weren't really games as they were grind-a-thons)

EDIT: Yes, I know about crowdsourcing and indie gaming. This is focusing on mainstream gaming in the last 7 years.

The production qualities haven't gotten strictly better so much that they've "shifted".
Graphics tech has improved immensely, but graphics alone does not create effective styling and aesthetics. (Unless you're a true technophile who just wants to look at shiny graphics regardless of context, anyway.)

We have more convenient mechanisms for pacing (regenerating health, checkpoints), but we also had to contend with gimmick mechanisms (Quick-Time-Events, most motion controls), and the abuses all the above bring. Design space grew and then shrunk, turning convenience for the player into convenience for the developer.

Of course, I'd be committing a sin if I didn't mention the grossly added emphasis on multiplayer. Online components are far more common now than 7 years ago. Some might call this "progress", some hate it.
Though speaking of online components...

...DRM and DLC.
Evolved/devolved, debated and hated. Two components in gaming that force gamers to stop and question (or realize) what it is they are actually paying for.

Once considered a mild nuisance, DRM has grown into a modern gaming boogieman with an exclusively negative impact on the player's experience. Between that and its relationship to the Piracy problem, the whole subject is a goddamn mess.

DLC...well, it's a mixed bag, and economics is involved. I'll just leave it at that.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
its hard for me to judge because curret gen games are the games I've played and loved..I didnt really "game" before them

I think games storys and graphics reached a point this gen that I could really get into them and actually attatched
Atmos Duality said:
Some better. Some worse.
If you weren't heavily invested in console gaming in the last 7 years, you probably weren't as satisfied.

PC...well, most of mainstream PC Gaming revolves around Valve, Blizzard, and LoL, at least from what I recall seeing. (barring the Facebook games, which weren't really games as they were grind-a-thons)
there IS the multi-platform factor....games are better on PC as long as they arent awful ports


[quote/]Of course, I'd be committing a sin if I didn't mention the grossly added emphasis on multiplayer. Online components are far more common now than 7 years ago. Some might call this "progress", some hate it.
[/quote]
progress?....I say with confidence that only an idiot would seriously belive that
 

sonofliber

New member
Mar 8, 2010
245
0
0
confy hitted the nail in the head

pc after around 2008 (when valve and the indy scene show how "dead" the pc market was) is blooming and seening the return of dead genders (like turn based (even if its is watered down im looking at you xcom))

consoles? they are taking a dive, most of them try to copy the succesfull ones (and fail), they need absurd amounts of cash because of marketing and graphics, and for that they need to sell huge amounts just to break even (and they usually fail)
 

Full

New member
Sep 3, 2012
572
0
0
In ways yes, in ways no. The point you brought up about the bloated budgets and the obscene scope games are supposed to sell in to please investors is just absolute garbage (seriously, EA, 5 million DS3 copies?).

It seems they're mostly not really worse, just different. You can't deny the fact that people are getting cheaper and cheaper and the people who fund them are terrible, with the only good thing they do is funding them in the first place. I think the next generation will see the old generation as worse, etc, and while some objectionably will be, most won't be.
 

Eddie the head

New member
Feb 22, 2012
2,327
0
0
Lets let history be the judge of that. I can't take an impartial look considering it's so recent and neither can you.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Vault101 said:
there IS the multi-platform factor....games are better on PC as long as they arent awful ports
There is also the "native platform factor" to consider. How the game is arranged can depend on its native market just as much as its genre (why we see extremely few RTS titles on consoles for example).

Good porting can eliminate most of the awkwardness, but oftentimes not all of it.
(*looks over at Castle Crashers for PC*)

Your point is valid all the same, and I do applaud effort in good porting.
It's the difference between Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Oblivion (which was buggy to the point of broken when I played it on PC); or alternatively, Black Ops for PC (which I remember hearing was extremely wonky compared to its native 360 version).

progress?....I say with confidence that only an idiot would seriously belive that
Well, there are many in the business that see multiplayer as an essential means of corralling their customers. Makes it easier for marketing and control.

In my opinion, it heavily depends on the purpose of the gameplay, rather than the purpose of the company. League of Legends simply wouldn't work as a single player experience, and conversely, something like Bioshock wouldn't be as effective with another person.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Atmos Duality said:
Well, there are many in the business that see multiplayer as an essential means of corralling their customers. Makes it easier for marketing and control.
true but thats not "progress" thats devs/publishers looking for a way to scrap in cash and riding trends to the detriment of the game

[quote/]In my opinion, it heavily depends on the purpose of the gameplay, rather than the purpose of the company. League of Legends simply wouldn't work as a single player experience, and conversely, something like Bioshock wouldn't be as effective with another person.[/quote]
what I ment was it was this Idea that "MUTIPLAYER IS TEH FUTURE" which is BS pushed by them because of the benefits (as you mentioned)

the fact is single player and multiplayer are different beasts and NOT "better" or interchangeable with each other....someone says that a multiplayer game is [b/]objectivly[/b] better than my experience with Mass Effect or Infamous is clearly a fucking idiot who doesnt know what they are talking about, or that me playing borderlands 2 on my own is "doing it wrong"

even somthing liek journey which has this really cool "arty" aproach to multiplayer is still not my thing because I dont like the burden of being responsible for somone elses fun (meaning I cant f*** up)

my point is multiplayer is not better just because youve got some twat playing with you...
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Vault101 said:
true but thats not "progress" thats devs/publishers looking for a way to scrap in cash and riding trends to the detriment of the game
Some games legitimately require another person to add depth to mechanics.
Not all, not even that many, but some.

Though in the current state of gaming, I'd argue that very few video games even attempt this approach, and fewer still actually achieve it. Depth is difficult enough to introduce into a game as it is, and effort takes time and money in the absence of brilliance.

what I ment was it was this Idea that "MUTIPLAYER IS TEH FUTURE" which is BS pushed by them because of the benefits (as you mentioned)

the fact is single player and multiplayer are different beasts and NOT "better" or interchangeable with each other....someone says that a multiplayer game is [b/]objectivly[/b] better than my experience with Mass Effect or Infamous is clearly a fucking idiot who doesnt know what they are talking about, or that me playing borderlands 2 on my own is "doing it wrong"

even somthing liek journey which has this really cool "arty" aproach to multiplayer is still not my thing because I dont like the burden of being responsible for somone elses fun (meaning I cant f*** up)

my point is multiplayer is not better just because youve got some twat playing with you...
Oh, I agree with you there.
I'm getting rather tired of people telling me how multiplayer is "natural", or that it always somehow "enhances the experience" without explaining how or why.

I left "progress" in airquotes for that reason. I hoped I was being subtle, but I guess it was just vague.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Atmos Duality said:
Some games legitimately require another person to add depth to mechanics.
Not all, not even that many, but some.

Though in the current state of gaming, I'd argue that very few video games even attempt this approach, and fewer still actually achieve it. Depth is difficult enough to introduce into a game as it is, and effort takes time and money in the absence of brilliance.
yeah I agree..I didnt mean to go on an anti-multiplayer rant, its just I was saying they have this stupid Idea that its better by virtue of the fact its multiplayer...well thats what they say but in realtiy you can seriosuly imagine somone at EA telling Bioware "we need multiplayer in this thing..ALL games have multiplayer, the kids love multiplayer..online is the future cuz you know ONLINE...hop to it!" you know it wasnt there because the game needed it

[quote/]I'm getting rather tired of people telling me how multiplayer is "natural", or that it always somehow "enhances the experience" without explaining how or why.
.[/quote]
which is BS...I thourly enjoyed Borderlands 2 on my won even though its designed to be played with others
 

Jamieson 90

New member
Mar 29, 2010
1,052
0
0
From my personal perspective (Looking at the FPS genre only) I believe games have drastically decreased in quality. Gone are the days of SP campaigns of decent length only to be made worse by the constant console to PC ports that are so shamelessly spewed out year after year. There's also less choice because the industry isn't willing to take risks, which just leaves us with over priced modern military shooters that all want to be COD, and if you don't like COD well then you're screwed.

So yeah the last decent FPS I played, and I mean really decent was Enemy Territory Quake Wars which most people probably haven't heard of. As for other genre's well that's a different story.