Poll: The decline of high quality games.

[Veylon]

I don't think the quality is in decline. Many older games had bugs and flaws associated with them, such as Final Fantasy's worthless LOCK spell and the Peninsula of Power. X-COM: Terror From the Deep had an issue where, if you researched technologies in the wrong order, the game became unwinnable. Today's games are vastly more complicated and it takes much more work to keep these problems down.

The amount of content is through the roof. Dozens, if not hundreds of artists, writers, modelers, voice actors, etc. are involved in the creation of content. The number of man-hours to create a room or scene in Mass Effect is almost incomparable to that of Dragon Warrior or Secret of Mana.

The problem with modern games is blandness. So many games are so similar that the competence and content are entirely lost due to the fact that they blend right in with all the others. The games people remember and cherish are the ones with personality and color.

And, no, I don't think people are being overcharged for games. You see the price sticker on the game and you decide whether it's worth it. The game companies have no power to make people buy their product; the pricing is entirely a result of the willingness of gamers to pony up.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I'm still having lots of fun with modern games.

However, when games first started obviously there were much less areas explored in gaming, as time goes on more people start to develop games that are similar but there will always be those hiddem gems that will enertain you.

In terms of long series such as CoD as the series goes on developers start getting less ideas so the game feel similar but they're still fun and it really comes down to personal preference.

Yes games are about making money but the way developers do it is different, whether they make money that will suit people who like casual shooters, hack-n-slash, strategy, puzzle or even games that parody real life human faults and political systems and lampoon how mankind is so good at screwing itself over.

 

[Coldie]

The game quality varies wildly, but the price tends to stay the same, $50 for any and all "big" games. So when you buy a good game for $50 and enjoy it, you will naturally expect similar quality for games with the same price tag. Alas, it doesn't always quite work out that way. There's a lot of games out there that someone would regret spending the full $50 on. Whether or not the percentage of such games is increasing is probably up to personal opinion.

For further pricing dissonance, let's refer to Steam:
Dragon Age 2: let's not go there, but $59.99 is a bit over the top.
Fable 3: a fairly mediocre game that neither excels nor sucks at anything, at least according to popular opinion, $49.99
Portal 2: you should know this already, and it costs the same $49.99.
The Witcher 2: loved by both the players and the critics, $19.99 for a digital premium edition (though it's the only digital edition, it would seem).

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I don't buy games often, and I'm pretty careful with what I do buy. The latest (new) ones I can think of - Alice: Madness Returns, Amnesia: The Dark Descent and Napoleon: Total War, have all been great. I think it comes down to being careful with your choices.

The only new game in the last year or so I wasn't really satisfied with was Splinter Cell: Conviction. It mysteriously deleted my saves twice and haven't bothered since.

 

[Liudeius]

It depends on what type of game. Often FPS's are just copy and pasted with 6-8 hours of non-multiplayer gameplay, while RPG's/sandbox games easily have 20 hours of play, up to a few hundred for the really massive ones.

 

[lovest harding]

If those are your only criteria and we're speaking in generalities then:

'good length' - No. Examples based on my gaming habits: I put countless of hours in Oblivion as I did with Morrowind and countless hours in Fallout 3 as I did with Fallout 2. Planescape: Torment lasted as long as Mass Effect for me.

'no major bugs and few minor bugs present' - Yes and no. It's true there is a general rise in bugs (although this might also be explained by simply having more players for the games, the more people fucking around in the game the higher the chance of a bug being found), but it's easily patchable these days (especially the difference on consoles). And to be fair the most buggy of games have pretty much always been made by the same companies (Obsidian and Bethesda for instance, have pretty much had a long series of bug riddled game for various reasons). Thanks to the complete entanglement with the internet that we have now and the larger audiences these game bugs find it's not really fair to justify games as more buggy when in reality there's just more knowledge about bugs and more players equaling more chances to find these bugs.

'fun to play' - Absolutely not. I dare someone to play a game in the genre of their choice and tell me that the quality has gone down. Sure games in certain genres have declined in numbers but there are still great games in every genre (platformers, point and click adventures, etc.). It's just silly to discount every game because we want to generalize that main stream gaming IS gaming (and therefore gaming sucks because somehow, which I'd still like to be quantified by someone who actually has a reason to dislike it, mainstream gaming sucks). I'd hate to not be able to play Aquaria or Faery: Legends of Avalon or Machinarium or the countless other small games that prove to be incredibly well made because I refused to acknowledge their existence.

 

[Stammer]

There's no such thing as a decline of high-quality games.

Seriously, this is what I hate about nerd culture.

Quality of games is all relative. Imagine if every single game was as good as Portal (or Starcraft or Minecraft or whatever you're into) -- suddenly those games you considered "high quality" aren't "high quality" but rather "average".

There are always going to be outliers on either end of the spectrum, as it's just how any kind of entertainment or artistic medium works.

In fact, I think the only reason why we think of games as being better back in the old days is because we weren't so critical about every bloody thing. Go back and play Perfect Dark 64 today-- it brings back fond memories, but it's super hard to control and there's a lot about it that just wouldn't cut it by today's standards.

Nerds confuse nostalgia for quality. And I think more than anything else our problem of looking to the past is hurting our ability to see the present and strive toward the future.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

If you think games are getting worse, stop playing them and stop talking about them please.

Games are only getting better. The problem is Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything is crap, to which I would add that the higher profile something is, the more of the crap you are aware of.

Whenever gamers talk about games getting worse they seem to conveniently forget the Angel of Darknesses, the Phantasmogoria 2s, the Bugs Bunny Adventures in Times, the Buzz Lightyear to the Rescues.

There have always been awful games put forward by good developers who charged at the same price as every other game. Nowadays the same problem as films applies to gaming. The failures are getting trumpeted just as loudly as the successes. For every Mass Effect there's a Duke Nukem getting just as much hype. For every God of War III there's a Dante's Inferno getting even more hype.

Games like Ultima: The Stygian Abyss were just as well marketed as any game at the same time, and cost the same amount. It came from a respected developer, and was awful and not worth it. That's a game from your supposed golden age. My point should thusly be proven.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

People like to complain. The years passed will always be looked upon as being better; ten years from now they'll talk about how good gaming was back is now.

Don't like them? Stop playing them. The rest of us will enjoy the awesome fun gaming has to offer now and in the future.

 

[TheEldestScroll]

It is hard for me to say. I really don't think any of the games that have come out recently are lower than my expectations for what games should be. I just enjoy gaming, and would love nothing more than to play the shit out of every game that has come out even in the last three years. Thing is, sixty bucks is a lot of money, so with all of the choices, an 8 out of 10 review doesn't cut it for me. I can't go out and try games. I guess the sad truth is that gaming is an expensive hobby.

So I voted yes. Not because I don't think games are not coming out in better quality, but because 60 dollars is too much. Even 50 is pushing it.

In terms of your "industry has no creativity/innovation/soul" argument, great. You now have the internet medal of coolness. Well I guess thats still nothing special considering the other millions of people who think its cool to hate new games.

 

[Smooth Operator]

For most games yes, because most games are bad.
You need to understand there are usually 1000+ games released every year, and a very small percentage (1 or 2% in my book) is worth their release day price, but once you look in bargain bin sales the deals get fairly decent.

So if you feel a game isn't good enough on launch give it a couple of months, you can save yourself alot of money and happiness that way.

 

[Jay_The_Beast]

If you think games are getting worse, stop playing them and stop talking about them please.
....
Games like Ultima: The Stygian Abyss were just as well marketed as any game at the same time, and cost the same amount. It came from a respected developer, and was awful and not worth it. That's a game from your supposed golden age. My point should thusly be proven.

I'm quoting these two parts for a reason each:
First of all.. I said overall, its getting worse. I'm a gamer, if you don't want to hear someones small rant with a question for the public, get off the forums.

Secondly, exactly my point as well. The worse games tend to get more advertising because they want cash, while the less marketed games tend to be better overall. Why? Because they made the game because they made something they would want to play, not something for money. It's like a writer or musicians.. The best ones tend to make it because they love to do it, NOT for cash.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

We are (At least in Australia.) being overcharged for games but the games are still good quality. Especially considering they can make an awesome game like Minecraft and sell it for 20 bucks when a game like CoD costs $100 new.

 

[ultrachicken]

Guess what, dude?

Games have always, since even the early days of arcades, been about making money. Not about art, unfortunately, but the business side of games must come first in order for them to be even the least bit successful.

Also, in the past there have always been a ton of so-so games and only a few that shine brighter than everything else, and even fewer that shine bright enough so as to make time irrelevant. No, games are not getting worse, if anything they're getting better. Cite all the recent shit you want to, I'll just go play some of the recently released FEAR 3 with my buddies, thank you very much. Then I might get around to Crysis 2's single player, or kill some Darkspawn in Dragon Age Origins, or maybe do some crazy color changing antics in Outland. Hell, I might shoot some zombies in Left 4 Dead or go play through the cel-shaded Prince of Persia, or explore the vast land of Fallout New Vegas.

Do you see where I'm going with this? There's a ton of variety in modern games. If you don't believe modern gaming has anything to offer you, then quit gaming and leave the rest of us to enjoy it.

Pretty much this.

I'm confused as to why there are now so many people claiming that new games suck. The vast majority of games have always sucked. The same is true for movies, books, and pretty much all art. Why? Because it's hard to make a high-quality product, but that doesn't stop people who aren't really qualified from trying.

 

[Jay_The_Beast]

We are (At least in Australia.) being overcharged for games but the games are still good quality. Especially considering they can make an awesome game like Minecraft and sell it for 20 bucks when a game like CoD costs $100 new.

That's more of what i was getting at rather then games suck now.. Everyone goes straight to me bitching without anything else.. Minecraft's cost compared to any cod (when new) with dlc, is ridiculous

So thank you Turtle.

 

[Zeema]

i hate having to pay $120 for a game. Ive seen more less mainstream games as being more awesome then some mainstream now days

 

[veloper]

Not so much overcharged for the quality itself, but the easy gameplay not being worth full price. Polish does little good if you're already bored with the game.