Poll: The decline of high quality games.

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

I wouldn't say that quality is "declining" theres just a larger amount of games being made, obviously this equates to more average and poor games than great ones. Great games are still being made they are just swamped and choked by the amount of shit being dished out; i.e Brink.

Also despite production costs games are far too expensive, if you can find a brand new game for $90 you've got a bargain considering EB's standard price these days is $109.95. Basically unless I'm desperate to have it on release I buy all my games from eBay, ozgameshop or playasia.

 

[spartan231490]

Nope. The fact of the matter is that we decide how valuable something is to us. The very fact that we buy it shows that it's worth it.

Also, on a more serious note, I haven't noticed any more bad games than years previous. Most games suck, that's the way it's always been, it's the gamer's job to actually think about it b4 he buys a game so he doesn't end up with crap. Of course, we all buy a bad game or two, but on the whole I'm more or less happy with games and their prices.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

Ok, so good or bad is totally subjective. So, Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust is obviously the best game made so far, so OBVIOUSLY games are getting better.

Or you know we could draw a baseline based on critical acclaim... yea sounds like a good idea.

As a recent EC episode pointed out the current reviews industry is awefully short on critics.

If you will, the today's reviewers are the kind who'd give an 8 out of 10 to Expendables or Fast or the Furious V.

Both of those movies were box office hits, so apparently people liked them. Does that make them good movies? In my opinion no, but in the opinion of all the people who payed to see them, apparently yes.

The game industry is still young and it'll still be a while before critical acclaim means anything, as it does in the movies. There's no reliable way to measure game quality so instead of arguing about tastes I'll just agree to disagree. If you want to name Lesuire Suit Larry as your best game ever be my guest.

That's not true, primarily because the basic gameplay mechanic of an rts lends itself to more depth, so while some FPS will beat some RTSes, RTS it's usually a failing of the RTS to be that simplistic. Yes, I've played System Shock, but most RTSs I would define as good surpass it in complexity and depth of it's gameplay. Of course it drew a great deal of it's depth from the story and plot, the overall presentation, which an RTS can do equally well, but with it lending itself to more complex mechanics, again in terms of depth and complexity an RTS should win out.

Just so that we're talking about the same thing: depth isn't just the complexity of game mechanics but also the narrative. Shallow gameplay mechanics with a deep narrative gives you Heavy Rain, the reverse would give you, say, Darwinia. Games with depth, in my book, are those that have deep gameplay, deep narrative and a solid idea and design fusing all it's elements into a cohesive piece.

Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure there's far less people playing Jagged Alliance now then will be playing the games you mentioned 12 years down the line.

I'm pretty sure you're off on that one. No, you're just wrong, period.

Even today new mods for JA2 are being developed and there's quite an active community. If it's any indication, a bunch of fans added online multiplayer to what was otherwise a single-player game. That alone says a lot.

This is in no small part due to the genre being effectively dead. If there aren't any new works being published from a particular genre then gamers start tinkering with existing products and adapting them. The last/best games of a dead genre will ALWAYS have gamers playing it. FreeAleg, OpenTTD, Oni: Aniversary edition, JA 2 1.13.

All it takes is a new, shinyer Arkhan Asylum - ish game to hit the shelves and one console generation shift for that game to become obsolete. Also linear, heavily scripted or storyline-reliant games have little replay value. I didn't choose those games by coincidence.

You realize that presentation is part of the package, right? Aesthetics is a major part of the art, that's a major part of the reason why morrowind is one of the greatest games ever made, it had nearly unmatched aesthetics.

A good narrative and fun gameplay is timeless. Graphics always age and no matter how good a game looks today, eventually it will look like a relic. If graphics serve an utilitarian purpose then they will be just as good in twenty years as they are now. Take a look at the original Transport Tycoon Deluxe. The game is ancient (1995) but thanks to it's purely utilitarian graphics it has aged remarkably well. Eye-candy on the other hand does not. This is an important distinction you missed.

Regardless, I can't say much about planetscape tournment because I regrettably missed that one and I have yet to find and purchase a copy. However, when compared to other games from that era, I find that Mass Effect SEEMS simplistic at face value. However from all angles it is a remarkably sophisticated game.

Also

This made me lol so hard. Even if you have the lowest opinion of every game that I listed, there is absolutely no way you could say EU3 lacked in depth in any way shape or form. Obviously, you have no idea what the game is so you assumed that it was "like the others on the list".

True that. EU3 goes along with SC2. An obvious error on my part.

I do get the feeling that EU3 and SC2 are the exceptions that prove the rule. Both are PC titles very reminiscent of the 1990-2000 decade. What's more interesting, both are sequels to games from the 1990-2000 period, not new IPs, which supports my original argument.

Then quite frankly, your priorities are misplaced, and while Deus Ex has complex gameplay for an FPS, I can guarantee you (as somebody who has played it endless times), what gives it more depth and complexity then even most RTSs is not the gameplay, it's the vibrant living breathing world. Things like it's plot that accounts for almost every possible decision the player can make. Touches like that.

Please look up my definition of "depth" above and let's get that sorted out, lest we start arguing about semantics.

Except there are a number of ways you can get around that, the fact that additional complexity will make the game less accessible generally.


Easy to learn but hard to master is a simple example, just make the game so the basic mechanics are very simple, but applicable to so many different ways in many different situations that a single easy to learn mechanic grants depth. Portal is probably the Ur example of this, in that the mechanic is incredibly simple in theory, but because of all the things you can do with it, you can create the most incredibly complex puzzles based on it.

Easy to learn but hard to master is a simple and bad example. Take a game of pressing a single button as soon as you see a light flash. It doesn't get simpler but you can always press the button faster.

Just because there's potential for improvement (in this case reducing response time) doesn't give any more depth or quality.

Ironically Portal is a pretty bad example of "Easy to learn hard to master". It has a lot to do with it being a puzzle game where the only way to measure skill is level completion time, which is directly tied to the puzzle in question. I'll let you figure out the rest on your own.

Frankly, I can name a number of games that would be much more accessible if a good tutorial was involved.

True, there's absolutely no reason for any company not to include a decent tutorial, regardless of how hardcore they think their playerbase is. Shout-outs go to CD-Projekt RED, who've outdone themselves at creating the worst tutorial ever. Even if I'd try I couldn't make it worse, because not including a tutorial at all would probably result in a player-made ones which, since they couldn't be worse, would only be better.

See Dwarf Fortress and it's wiki for a great example of this - the community created a invaluable wiki and tutorials way beyond what the author himself could ever hope to do.

But overall your argument is not so much that games are worse, but that the particular type of games that you like to play are less prevalent. Why you try to qualify that as games with depth, you are limiting it to only gameplay AND drawing from the entire history of video games which in the end makes it a non-representative sample when compared to simply games from this console generation due to the differences in raw number of games. Furthermore, you're attempting to limit it to just triple A games, which again doesn't actually say much about the state of gaming as a whole. I guess if you wanna argue triple A games have gameplay mechanics with less intelligence and depth then they used to be.

My argument isn't that games are getting worse because it's subjective. I won't argue taste. If you find Leisure Suit Larry X to be the best game ever (regardless if you really do) then there isn't really argument to be had. Me personally, I think games are getting worse. Far far worse in fact.

the particular type of games that you like to play are less prevalent

And that is just a fancy way of saying "you think games are getting worse".

I enjoy games of almost all genres. Too bad I didn't include Freespace 2 in my previous post.

And why AAA? Because all the games I mentioned were, in fact, AAA games. Planescape Torment, Freespace 2, Transport Tycoon, Oni, X-Com Enemy Unknown, System Shock 2, Deus Ex 1, Jagged Alliance 2... all of those, all the games I mentioned were AAA titles. That's why.

I'll address this first because because it's at the core of a lot of issues that I have with your arguments.

I know you only mentioned triple A games, but the reason that I'm taking issue with it is because it DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR thesis. Your thesis is that games are getting dumber, you did not restrict it to triple A games, which means that if you have any non triple A games you wanna bring to the table, please do so. What I am objecting to is you constantly changing your thesis to suit an easier argument (which is usually followed by presenting the proof of the amended thesis as proof of the original after man iterations, not necessarily consciously but still common). You say games are getting dumber, I say they aren't, prove it.

I gave you a reasonable framework which you chose to ignore, if you have a better proposal, please feel free to put it forward (I will admit that it ignores the issue that one generation might simply have been "smarter", but no real progression towards dumber games is present, that particular generation was merely exceptional).


As for the rest of your post, if you are prepared to discuss this within a context that actually addresses your thesis then I will respond to them in that context. However, without context, they're completely meaningless and no matter which way they're resolved they won't actually address the issue at hand.


Of course if you wish to consciously amend your thesis, you can. Bear in mind that I may actually agree with your amended thesis or simply be unwilling to argue it since it doesn't address points which I am interested in (triple A industry vs triple A industry for example, because of how important I think that non triple A games are to the gaming landscape now, so I don't consider the implications that that discussion would provide for the state of gaming interesting). And it probably goes without saying that if your new thesis is "morrowind/deus ex best game evar" I'll give it a hearty thumbs up.

 

[The_Graff]

justlike moves, books, music etc. companies work out that "lowest common denominator" sells at least as well if not better than "magnificent piece of work". and is quicker, chper and easier to make. under such circumstances simple logic dictates a degredation of quality.

 

[The_Graff]

apologis for typos ^

 

[Blackpapa]

Ok, so good or bad is totally subjective. So, Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust is obviously the best game made so far, so OBVIOUSLY games are getting better.

Or you know we could draw a baseline based on critical acclaim... yea sounds like a good idea.

As a recent EC episode pointed out the current reviews industry is awefully short on critics.

If you will, the today's reviewers are the kind who'd give an 8 out of 10 to Expendables or Fast or the Furious V.

Both of those movies were box office hits, so apparently people liked them. Does that make them good movies? In my opinion no, but in the opinion of all the people who payed to see them, apparently yes.

The game industry is still young and it'll still be a while before critical acclaim means anything, as it does in the movies. There's no reliable way to measure game quality so instead of arguing about tastes I'll just agree to disagree. If you want to name Lesuire Suit Larry as your best game ever be my guest.

That's not true, primarily because the basic gameplay mechanic of an rts lends itself to more depth, so while some FPS will beat some RTSes, RTS it's usually a failing of the RTS to be that simplistic. Yes, I've played System Shock, but most RTSs I would define as good surpass it in complexity and depth of it's gameplay. Of course it drew a great deal of it's depth from the story and plot, the overall presentation, which an RTS can do equally well, but with it lending itself to more complex mechanics, again in terms of depth and complexity an RTS should win out.

Just so that we're talking about the same thing: depth isn't just the complexity of game mechanics but also the narrative. Shallow gameplay mechanics with a deep narrative gives you Heavy Rain, the reverse would give you, say, Darwinia. Games with depth, in my book, are those that have deep gameplay, deep narrative and a solid idea and design fusing all it's elements into a cohesive piece.

Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure there's far less people playing Jagged Alliance now then will be playing the games you mentioned 12 years down the line.

I'm pretty sure you're off on that one. No, you're just wrong, period.

Even today new mods for JA2 are being developed and there's quite an active community. If it's any indication, a bunch of fans added online multiplayer to what was otherwise a single-player game. That alone says a lot.

This is in no small part due to the genre being effectively dead. If there aren't any new works being published from a particular genre then gamers start tinkering with existing products and adapting them. The last/best games of a dead genre will ALWAYS have gamers playing it. FreeAleg, OpenTTD, Oni: Aniversary edition, JA 2 1.13.

All it takes is a new, shinyer Arkhan Asylum - ish game to hit the shelves and one console generation shift for that game to become obsolete. Also linear, heavily scripted or storyline-reliant games have little replay value. I didn't choose those games by coincidence.

You realize that presentation is part of the package, right? Aesthetics is a major part of the art, that's a major part of the reason why morrowind is one of the greatest games ever made, it had nearly unmatched aesthetics.

A good narrative and fun gameplay is timeless. Graphics always age and no matter how good a game looks today, eventually it will look like a relic. If graphics serve an utilitarian purpose then they will be just as good in twenty years as they are now. Take a look at the original Transport Tycoon Deluxe. The game is ancient (1995) but thanks to it's purely utilitarian graphics it has aged remarkably well. Eye-candy on the other hand does not. This is an important distinction you missed.

Regardless, I can't say much about planetscape tournment because I regrettably missed that one and I have yet to find and purchase a copy. However, when compared to other games from that era, I find that Mass Effect SEEMS simplistic at face value. However from all angles it is a remarkably sophisticated game.

Also

This made me lol so hard. Even if you have the lowest opinion of every game that I listed, there is absolutely no way you could say EU3 lacked in depth in any way shape or form. Obviously, you have no idea what the game is so you assumed that it was "like the others on the list".

True that. EU3 goes along with SC2. An obvious error on my part.

I do get the feeling that EU3 and SC2 are the exceptions that prove the rule. Both are PC titles very reminiscent of the 1990-2000 decade. What's more interesting, both are sequels to games from the 1990-2000 period, not new IPs, which supports my original argument.

Then quite frankly, your priorities are misplaced, and while Deus Ex has complex gameplay for an FPS, I can guarantee you (as somebody who has played it endless times), what gives it more depth and complexity then even most RTSs is not the gameplay, it's the vibrant living breathing world. Things like it's plot that accounts for almost every possible decision the player can make. Touches like that.

Please look up my definition of "depth" above and let's get that sorted out, lest we start arguing about semantics.

Except there are a number of ways you can get around that, the fact that additional complexity will make the game less accessible generally.


Easy to learn but hard to master is a simple example, just make the game so the basic mechanics are very simple, but applicable to so many different ways in many different situations that a single easy to learn mechanic grants depth. Portal is probably the Ur example of this, in that the mechanic is incredibly simple in theory, but because of all the things you can do with it, you can create the most incredibly complex puzzles based on it.

Easy to learn but hard to master is a simple and bad example. Take a game of pressing a single button as soon as you see a light flash. It doesn't get simpler but you can always press the button faster.

Just because there's potential for improvement (in this case reducing response time) doesn't give any more depth or quality.

Ironically Portal is a pretty bad example of "Easy to learn hard to master". It has a lot to do with it being a puzzle game where the only way to measure skill is level completion time, which is directly tied to the puzzle in question. I'll let you figure out the rest on your own.

Frankly, I can name a number of games that would be much more accessible if a good tutorial was involved.

True, there's absolutely no reason for any company not to include a decent tutorial, regardless of how hardcore they think their playerbase is. Shout-outs go to CD-Projekt RED, who've outdone themselves at creating the worst tutorial ever. Even if I'd try I couldn't make it worse, because not including a tutorial at all would probably result in a player-made ones which, since they couldn't be worse, would only be better.

See Dwarf Fortress and it's wiki for a great example of this - the community created a invaluable wiki and tutorials way beyond what the author himself could ever hope to do.

But overall your argument is not so much that games are worse, but that the particular type of games that you like to play are less prevalent. Why you try to qualify that as games with depth, you are limiting it to only gameplay AND drawing from the entire history of video games which in the end makes it a non-representative sample when compared to simply games from this console generation due to the differences in raw number of games. Furthermore, you're attempting to limit it to just triple A games, which again doesn't actually say much about the state of gaming as a whole. I guess if you wanna argue triple A games have gameplay mechanics with less intelligence and depth then they used to be.

My argument isn't that games are getting worse because it's subjective. I won't argue taste. If you find Leisure Suit Larry X to be the best game ever (regardless if you really do) then there isn't really argument to be had. Me personally, I think games are getting worse. Far far worse in fact.

the particular type of games that you like to play are less prevalent

And that is just a fancy way of saying "you think games are getting worse".

I enjoy games of almost all genres. Too bad I didn't include Freespace 2 in my previous post.

And why AAA? Because all the games I mentioned were, in fact, AAA games. Planescape Torment, Freespace 2, Transport Tycoon, Oni, X-Com Enemy Unknown, System Shock 2, Deus Ex 1, Jagged Alliance 2... all of those, all the games I mentioned were AAA titles. That's why.

I'll address this first because because it's at the core of a lot of issues that I have with your arguments.

I know you only mentioned triple A games, but the reason that I'm taking issue with it is because it DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR thesis. Your thesis is that games are getting dumber, you did not restrict it to triple A games, which means that if you have any non triple A games you wanna bring to the table, please do so. What I am objecting to is you constantly changing your thesis to suit an easier argument (which is usually followed by presenting the proof of the amended thesis as proof of the original after man iterations, not necessarily consciously but still common). You say games are getting dumber, I say they aren't, prove it.

I gave you a reasonable framework which you chose to ignore, if you have a better proposal, please feel free to put it forward (I will admit that it ignores the issue that one generation might simply have been "smarter", but no real progression towards dumber games is present, that particular generation was merely exceptional).


As for the rest of your post, if you are prepared to discuss this within a context that actually addresses your thesis then I will respond to them in that context. However, without context, they're completely meaningless and no matter which way they're resolved they won't actually address the issue at hand.


Of course if you wish to consciously amend your thesis, you can. Bear in mind that I may actually agree with your amended thesis or simply be unwilling to argue it since it doesn't address points which I am interested in (triple A industry vs triple A industry for example, because of how important I think that non triple A games are to the gaming landscape now, so I don't consider the implications that that discussion would provide for the state of gaming interesting). And it probably goes without saying that if your new thesis is "morrowind/deus ex best game evar" I'll give it a hearty thumbs up.

^ This happens when you quote everything.

Am I right saying you're essentially agreeing that the AAA titles of today are dumber than the AAA titles a decade ago?

So no, my thesis still stands. What you're failing to see is that the divide between indie and AAA wasn't there in the 1990s and actually started appearing roughly 1995 or so. In the olde days any motivated developer could start his own game company and release what would amount to an AAA game. - For reference watch this, very interesting material: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YreEwtV7D0

If you're trying to defend yourself by saying that there are intelligent indie games out there then you're absolutely right. Indie games dominate the mobile/phone games market but don't even touch platforms like the PS3. And since most major titles are multiplatform releases anyway, the state of gaming overall is as platform-independent as ever. AAA games and multiplatform releases are what define modern gaming today and drive the industry.

So perhaps I'll rephrase my argument so that it's perfectly clear what I was trying to convey from the very beginning:

Today the trend in the games industry overall is to invest into dumber games than 10 years ago. This trend is progressing and mainstream, big-budget games are getting simpler and dumber.

I presented all the proof you need in my previous posts. I could go on and name more examples like Deus Ex 2 vs Deus Ex 1 or Supcom 2 to Supcom 1, but I think you see the point.

Yes, there still are small indie productions and the rare gem, usually a PC exclusive, but those, as I said, are exceptions that confirm the rule.

And as a gamer I would really love to pay 150$ for a Dwarf Fortress with 2005-ish graphics. Because indie devs, great as they are, can only do so much.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

too much stuff

^ This happens when you quote everything.

Am I right saying you're essentially agreeing that the AAA titles of today are dumber than the AAA titles a decade ago?

So no, my thesis still stands. What you're failing to see is that the divide between indie and AAA wasn't there in the 1990s and actually started appearing roughly 1995 or so. In the olde days any motivated developer could start his own game company and release what would amount to an AAA game. - For reference watch this, very interesting material: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YreEwtV7D0

If you're trying to defend yourself by saying that there are intelligent indie games out there then you're absolutely right. Indie games dominate the mobile/phone games market but don't even touch platforms like the PS3. And since most major titles are multiplatform releases anyway, the state of gaming overall is as platform-independent as ever. AAA games and multiplatform releases are what define modern gaming today and drive the industry.

So perhaps I'll rephrase my argument so that it's perfectly clear what I was trying to convey from the very beginning:

Today the trend in the games industry overall is to invest into dumber games than 10 years ago. This trend is progressing and mainstream, big-budget games are getting simpler and dumber.

I presented all the proof you need in my previous posts. I could go on and name more examples like Deus Ex 2 vs Deus Ex 1 or Supcom 2 to Supcom 1, but I think you see the point.

Yes, there still are small indie productions and the rare gem, usually a PC exclusive, but those, as I said, are exceptions that confirm the rule.

And as a gamer I would really love to pay 150$ for a Dwarf Fortress with 2005-ish graphics. Because indie devs, great as they are, can only do so much.

You're incorrect, it's just not something I'm willing to put the effort in to quantify because it's quite simply not an interesting question, it doesn't really say anything about the state of gaming in general.

Indie games, while relevant aren't the only major concern here, probably more relevant is secondary developers, developers that aren't big budget, but have reasonable pockets and sell their games reliably. Ignoring these studios (paradox being probably the easiest example) results in probably a more flawed view on the state of gaming in general.

And while indy games individually have a large effect, indie games as a whole do have a very substantial effect due to overall distribution (and not just on PC and cell phones, there's also x-box live marketplace, and Playstation store). Ignoring their pretty large interest because each individual game only has a small influence, that ignores the big picture.

So if you wanna limit it to merely triple A games, and ignore the substantial influence of smaller studios and indy studios as a whole so you can feel safe in your nostalga goggles, feel free. I don't know whether comparing triple A to triple A results in being on par, slightly better now, or slightly worse now, and quite frankly I don't care. Because gaming is so much more then that, and when you ignore the nearly ubiquitous influence of game's like minecraft, then you know something is wrong. Your thesis is like asking what the world would be like if cars were never invented. A thought experiment with little relevance to the real world.


Still, there is one larger point that absolutely should be made. You say that gems that can compare to games like Deus Ex are the exception and not the rule. Of course, BECAUSE GAMES LIKE DEUS EX ALWAYS ARE THE EXCEPTION AND NOT THE RULE. Deus Ex is an irreplaceable cultural treasure that came out against a backdrop of mediocre games, suggesting that it is almost commonplace by saying that it's only a rare gem today that compares to it just shows how warped nostalgia goggles have made your prospective of that time. Yes, only a rare gem today compares to it, because only a rare gem EVER has a chance of comparing to it. Period.

 

[lord.jeff]

No, we've had a lot of mediocre games in the past it's just you don't bother remembering them, same as you'll probably forget about over half the games you play now a compare every game 10+ years from now to the handful of master pieces that came out now.

 

[jpoon]

For what you get out of a lot of recent games, yes we are being overcharged.