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

Recommended Videos

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Depends where you look.

Some games have been amazing and thoroughly enjoyable.

IMO the majority have been... shit, to be frank. Overall I think quality has dropped slightly, but that, IMO, is largely due to it being harder to find a wider variety of games these days. Point me to a Banjo-Kazooie style modern game, and I'll love you forever. Whilst it probably exists, its not the easiest thing to find.
To be fair things were probably similar in the past, but I have a much wider variety of game genres from pre 8 years ago than from post then in my library.
 

Ieyke

New member
Jul 24, 2008
1,402
0
0
The last 6-7 years, not so much. It's more the last 3-4 years that this generation of games FINALLY managed to pile up enough good games to rival the SNES/Genesis and PSX/N64 eras.

For as much as we all like the PS2 era, it really didn't have THAT many super awesome games.

The current gen of games have, IMO, now surpassed the PS2 era games and are finally in the big leagues, with the SNES and PSX/N64.


I've actually been compiling a list of games I need to get to fill out my collection with what I regard as essentials, and they're actually a fairly even split between the current gen and the SNES/PSX gens(you'd actually be really surprised how many of them are Wii games... All first party, obviously). That's hella impressive to me.

it looks to me like the industry has finally risen from the ashes of the console arms race where graphics were everything and shovel ware was produced by the truckload, and now they're actually knocking out some pretty damn high quality games.
Combine that with developers now being very very familiar and comfortable with the current gen machines, and that means we're finally in that groove where everyone knows what they're doing.
Then pile the emergence of pretty damn amazing indie game developers on top of that....
It's a perfect storm of gaming awesomeness.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Depends how you look at it I suppose. The graphics, voice acting and all that, that advanced. On the other hand, the variety is about the same, and any kind of gimmicky risk taking is a niche/indie scene, because the big fish seem to prefer to stick with safe bets.

And you can't really expect a high return on a low risk bet, now can you.
 

lunavixen

New member
Jan 2, 2012
841
0
0
I think it's balanced itself out, you're right for the most part though, while games graphics have been steadily improving they are losing a certain something, that something that makes a good game great and a great game legendary, it's missing from a lot of games now, a lot of my favourite games are on previous generation consoles. Most of the improvements have been made in the PC realm, i suppose with services like Steam for the indie devs to sink their teeth into, PC will always have an edge in the improvements over consoles
 

Supertegwyn

New member
Oct 7, 2010
1,057
0
0
I would say video games have significantly increased in quality since 2006.

I can't really say why however.
 

Pulse

New member
Nov 16, 2012
132
0
0
Yes, they've been good.

But some genres feel like they are hitting the ceiling of what we can do with them in the past few years. At first it was easy - just improve the graphics. But then some aspects of gamplay could become tiresome and predictable.

RTS games probably hit this one first. Dawn of war shook it up a bit, Company of heroes was excellent, but most have stagnated IMO and no real improvements have occurred.

Racing games too. Once you've made beautiful simulators, arcade style, and combat racing where do you go?

And I think we've just plateaued with shooters as well.

Visuals can only be improved by so much from now on, and game play in each nice is effectively where it needs to be.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
StupidNincompoop said:
veloper said:
Help me out here, what was so special about 2005/2006 for games?
It was pretty much the end of the life span for the PS2, and the beginning of the xbox 360 and ps3.

Back then, internet gaming was rare, pretty much the only well known games back then were runescape, WoW, club penguin, maplestory, adventurequest (kinda) habbo hotel and gunz (though not as much)

10 year olds with terrible mics didn't really exist.

People on online games were much friendlier towards each other compared to today.

There was more variety in games.

Games had more variety in that you had more than one way you could deal with a situation, such as you could go into a room, guns blazing or be stealthy. They also had different routes you could take sometimes, or hidden secrets (i.e dungeon keeper 2)

The games were generally more challenging as well, the game didn't hold your hand as much.

Games also didn't have so many special effects that they got in the way of enjoying the game, like they sometimes do today.

Oh, and the consoles were built like nokias- having one break on you was practically unheard of. Whereas today i've heard of people who have gone through like 4 xbox 360's.
Ah! Dungeon Keeper! So this isn't really about the years 2005 and 2006 and everything in that period, but the golden years before that.

I can totally get behind that, but I reckon we could narrow it down further, well before 2005.

What are the classics that still set the bar for every game in their respective genres and what year were they released?

4X strategy : Master of Orion 2 - 1996
TB squad tactics: Jagged Alliance 2 - 1999
oldskool RTS: Starcraft - 1998
modern RTS: Total Annihiliation (1999) or Subcom - 2007
3D space RTS: Homeworld - 1999
FP stealth: Thief (1998) or Thief 2 - 2000
RPG story: Planescape Torment - 1999
Builder: Dungeon Keeper (1997) OR DK2 - 1999

Let's throw in a couple somewhat more debatable classics that still come up very often.

adventure: Grim Fandango - 1998
epic RPG: Baldur's Gate 2 - 2000
action RPG: Diablo 2 - 2000
FP shooter: Doom - 1993

It appears there's a big concentration of timeless classics that people still play, around the year 1999.
So I'd say 2001 would be a better year than 2005 to mark the beginning of the decline.
 

StupidNincompoop

New member
Oct 27, 2012
90
0
0
After i saw Veloper's post, i decided to make a list of probably every game that have come out since 2007 that i've actually liked at all:

2007
-Crysis
-Guitar hero 3
-Half life 2: episode 2 (funnily enough, this was actually one of the best games i've ever played)
-Mysims
-Penumbra:Overture
-Portal



2008
-Grand theft auto IV
-Spore (though it definitely could have been better)
-Rock band 1+2
-Fallout 3
-Guitar hero World tour
-Left 4 dead (though it wasn't as good as i expected)
-Littlebigplanet (though i didn't care for it enough to finish it)
-Penumbra: Black Plague


2009
-Guitar hero metallica
-Killing floor (though i didn't really enjoy it that much)
-Sims 3
-Scribblenauts (though i got bored of it after not too long)


2010
-Limbo
-Dead rising 2 (although i only just enjoyed this enough to be able to finish it, it wasn't that good)
-Bit.Trip.Beat



2011

-Magicka
-Sims medieval (shame that i wasn't done with the game, and my save file appears to have -randomly vanished out of existence suddenly)
-Terraria
-Dead island (only liked it enough to finish it once and then never play it again though, not as good as expected)
-Tiny bang story (Though it was an indie game, and the game had some issues for colour blind people)
-Bit.Trip.Runner
-Battlefield 3 (though i got bored of it very quickly because of all the problems it has even getting the game to work)



2012

-Walking dead game (first 2 episodes of it ONLY though, the next two afterwards were bad to say the least)
-Half-minute hero





Compared to 1999-2006, which brought out these:


1999
-Silent hill
-Mario party
-Rollercoaster tycoon
-Resident evil 3
-Grand theft auto 2
-Tony hawk's pro skater
-Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage!
-Driver 1
-Dungeon keeper 2
-Rollcage
-Pokémon Red and Blue
-Castlevania 64
-Micro Machines 64 Turbo
-Re-volt
-Theme park world
-Worms armageddon

2000
-Resident evil: code veronica
-The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
-Tony hawk's pro skater 2
-Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2
-Spyro: Year of the Dragon
-Driver 2
-Habbo Hotel
-Crash Bash
-Micro Maniacs
-Gran tourismo 2

2001
-Runescape
-Serious Sam
-Silent hill 2
-Grand Theft Auto III
-Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex
-Halo 1
-Resident evil remake
-Time crisis 2
-Pokémon Gold and Silver

2002
-Battlefield 1942
-Sly cooper (i think it was a good game anyway, i don't actually remember much about it)
-Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
-Resident evil 0
-State of Emergency
-Mycoke/ Coke music
-Rollercoaster tycoon 2
-Adventure quest (however it had too much grinding and got boring after a while)


2003
-Midnight club 2
-Toontown Online (yes, i know this is an odd one, it was still a good game though shut up :p)
-Silent Hill 3
-The Simpsons: Hit & Run
-Command and conquer generals
-Time crisis 3
-True Crime: Streets of LA
-Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire
-Maplestory
-Gunz
-Resident evil outbreak: File #1
-"Runescape 2" (This is when runescape became a "3d" game, and the 3d version was seperated from the old 2d classic version)
-Mall tycoon 2

2004
-Far Cry
-Silent Hill 4: The Room
-The Sims 2
-Burnout 3
-Half life 2
-JFK reloaded (unfortunately based on a controversial subject, but it was still a well made game nevertheless)
World of warcraft
-Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
-Zoo tycoon 2
-War Rock
-Resident evil outbreak: File #2
-Rollercoaster tycoon 3
-Flatout 1

2005
-Battlefield 2
-Emergency 3
-Falling sand (free browser-based game)

2006
-New Super Mario Bros
-Hitman: Blood Money
-Half-Life 2: Episode One
-Flatout 2
-Gunster
-Company of heroes
-Animal Crossing: Wild World
-Saints row 1
-Battlefield 2142

So i think that actually, games really started to go downhill (IMO) around the end of 2004, with a few exceptions of decent games afterwards.
 

Pulse

New member
Nov 16, 2012
132
0
0
Or maybe they cost more now, so you have a smaller selection.
The games were also generally shorter back then so you get through more of them and play a wider variety of games.
Add that to the fact that you usually have less time to play video games as you get older. Means your list will be past heavy, you're even including game-boy games.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
SecretNegative said:
veloper said:
Ah! Dungeon Keeper! So this isn't really about the years 2005 and 2006 and everything in that period, but the golden years before that.

I can totally get behind that, but I reckon we could narrow it down further, well before 2005.

What are the classics that still set the bar for every game in their respective genres and what year were they released?

4X strategy : Master of Orion 2 - 1996
TB squad tactics: Jagged Alliance 2 - 1999
oldskool RTS: Starcraft - 1998
modern RTS: Total Annihiliation (1999) or Subcom - 2007
3D space RTS: Homeworld - 1999
FP stealth: Thief (1998) or Thief 2 - 2000
RPG story: Planescape Torment - 1999
Builder: Dungeon Keeper (1997) OR DK2 - 1999

Let's throw in a couple somewhat more debatable classics that still come up very often.

adventure: Grim Fandango - 1998
epic RPG: Baldur's Gate 2 - 2000
action RPG: Diablo 2 - 2000
FP shooter: Doom - 1993

It appears there's a big concentration of timeless classics that people still play, around the year 1999.
So I'd say 2001 would be a better year than 2005 to mark the beginning of the decline.
Innovation =/= Quality.

Yes, I said that. I much rather play a game that prefected the genre, rather than one that set the grounds for the genre. I prefer pretty much any FPS (except the absolute worst ones, obviously) over Doom. Why? Because those games are well made and fun to play. Doom isn't.

Let's take another example. Starcraft pretty much dug the grounds for any modern RTS (or maybe some other game did that, but let's take Starcraft since it was so popular) yet I find Warcraft 3 infinitly superior. Why? Because it was more well made. It got a better story, smoother controls and had way more intresting battles since your units didn't all die in a second.

Gaming has also become more popular and more expensive. When a game is expensive (let's say it takes about 10 million dollars) you can't really turn it into some kind of niche which only about a thousand will play, at most. That's why most AAA games today are mainly shooters or RPG:s, because those are well-known genres. Games back then didn't have as much a risk in making a game, since it wasn't even nearly as expensive.

In fact, if you'd go back to GoG or steam and just buy a fun game, which you be more inclined to pick up a new one?
Most of the old games on this list I prefer over later entries, where the newer games I only play for the sake of variety.
Master of Orion and Jagged Alliance 2 are pretty much the indisputed kings of their respective genres.
These games are the *quality* (and not the innovation), except for graphics.

Criticism on Starcraft I get, but we just cannot argue with it's massive popularity and how long it's been the top dog. And when all is said and done Starcraft is still a very playable and fun game, even when we've got RTS games with much better interfaces like TA and Supcom.

Doom is still surprisingly fun if you can look past the graphics, but I intentionally put it at the bottom of the list, because we still got a few great run&gun alternatives left, like Serious Sam and Painkiller.

To summarize, I did not put these games up here for innovation sake, or I should have listed Dune2 instead of Starcraft and no, Dune2 doesn't hold up quality wise anymore.
The games I listed ARE top quality, if you can look past the older graphics and with one exception they are all over 12 years old.

The biggest oversight on my list is that it's very PC orientated, because that's where I come from. Whole genres are missing.
The best of platformers, shmups, fighting games, racers, space flight simulators and cover shooters may reveal a different set.
I would would be interested in learning if there's any sort of consensus about the best game from the other game scenes.
 

Snatcher

New member
Oct 28, 2012
60
0
0
There have been some good Metal Gear games the last 7 years so I would say yes.

*fanmode off*

Deus ex HR, Skyrim, Protal, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock. Yeah it has been a good generation so far. But the best games are yet to come like Hitman: Asolution for example.
 

Charli

New member
Nov 23, 2008
3,445
0
0
...Gaming has been evolving in lots of new ways, I can see if you're rooted to an idea of what video games are to you, then you can only see the bar being raised a smidgin. But in reality that bar has grown about several interesting tumours that have exploded into an amorphous mass over the last few years, gaming is almost too big for one person to be interested in ALL of it now. And by all of it I mean... any genre, any console.

Motion controls, Hand-Held, PC, 3-D(Slowly but surely getting there), touch screen controls, a more open market on creation of games and the wall between them and the public has been knocked down and built much lower.

I'd say gaming is progressing nicely, in comparison to most entertainment industries right now? We're beating the movie industry and the music industry to a pulp. The Sky is currently the limit. It's only when a threshold has been reached that stagnation takes hold and we can really begin to worry about how it feels. A new console generation is about to make it's debut. PC is picking up it's slack after quite some time of being the 'for old people and programmers toy'.

You have to look further than your own interests.

I know for me, I love MMO's, and I've had disappointment after disappointment and usually just ended up walking back to my safe, comfy home in Azeroth, because someone has yet to blow up the MMO world like WoW did all those years ago now. (8th Anniversary is in a few hours I believe)
But just because my horizons look the same doesn't mean gaming hasn't budged in the last few years. It has. Lots.
 

StupidNincompoop

New member
Oct 27, 2012
90
0
0
Snatcher said:
But the best games are yet to come like Hitman: Asolution for example.
I was actually going to pre-order hitman absolution yesterday, but then right before i was about to get it, i decided to look up gameplay on youtube in case the game was leaked early and there was footage of it on youtube. And there was, so i watched it.

Honestly, it doesn't look too good now. Not terrible, but nowhere near as good as blood money.

There's 20 chapters, but it's actually more like 13 or 14, because there's 4 chapters that are literally about 30 seconds long (one of which it seems like you can't do anything but walk around in), one that's just a level where you have to test your shooting skills at a shooting range (no really, that's the only thing you do in that chapter) and two that are basically just entirely tutorial missions. The other chapters for the most part only seen to be about on average 10 minutes long.
The amount of actual chapters that you really have freedom in, that actually have replayability, is pretty much exactly the same as blood money, so there's not actually any extra levels compared to blood money.

It was also very heavy on the cutscenes, like the cutscenes on some levels were longer than the actual gameplay for the levels.

The AI also seems to be actually worse than blood money. I know that blood money's AI wasn't exactly perfect because you could get away with stupid things like making loud noises and then people not even noticing, but it seems to be even worse in absolution. I saw 2 occasions just in one video where the player shot a police officer with 4 other people in the same room, and nobody even noticed the body even though it was out in the open, and another occasion where the player started an all-out gunfight (with no silencers) with like 5 or 6 guards, but then 4 people who were in the SAME ROOM didn't even notice anything had gone on, and let 47 just stroll on by.



Also i know i've mentioned lens flare quite a bit in this thread, but it seemed to be so overused in absolution that i just couldn't tell what was going on half of the time, and the player seemed to have difficulty too in some parts with it.

Pulse said:
Or maybe they cost more now, so you have a smaller selection.
The games were also generally shorter back then so you get through more of them and play a wider variety of games.
Add that to the fact that you usually have less time to play video games as you get older. Means your list will be past heavy, you're even including game-boy games.
The price of a game usually hasn't put me off buying it, if i think i'll like it at all then i usually get it. I've played probably over 100 games that have been released in the last few years, on every platform apart from the PSP.

As for the games being shorter back then.. i don't really remember ever being done with a game back then after just a day or two. For example i can remember playing nothing but spyro 2 for like weeks, and i still didn't ever complete it.
Actually, games seem to be getting shorter these days, but with some exceptions.
For example, a few days ago i started playing dungeon keeper 2 for the first time.
I've had xfire running for probably the entire time i've been playing it, and so far i've been playing it for about 24 hours. I'm not even half way through my first playthrough yet.

I've also played zoo tycoon 2 for about 35 hours and rollercoaster tycoon 2 for 24 hours, and only got through some of the campaign missions on both games.

In comparison, i'm going to look at some games i've played that have come out in the last few years on steam, which i've completed:

Duke nukem forever took me about 20 hours to complete, and i probably could have completed it in about 15 hours if the level design was a little better and the bosses wouldn't have killed me so often.
Payday: the heist i completed in 15 hours.
Portal i completed in about 18 hours.
The walking dead, the last episode hasn't come out yet but so far i have 26 hours, so i'll have probably have completed that in 30 or 32 hours.
Battlefield: bad company 2, completed the singleplayer campaign in 20 hours (+ broke my mouse while playing it..)
Half life 2: 33 hours for it, but i completed it fully twice now and i played halfway through it a third time.
As for episodes 1 and 2, i got 35 hours for episode 1 which i completed fully 3 times, and 37 hours for episode 2 which i completed fully twice and half completed a third time.

I could go on, but i'm sure you get what i'm talking about.




As for not having enough time now..
Not really, i still have plenty of free time, probably not so much in a few years' time, but at the moment i still have full days where i'm not doing anything.