Poll: This Gaming Generations Degradation
- Thread starter Dendred
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I know what you mean, Splinter Cell has gone from being a slow, methodical, and planning stealth game; to a complete auto lock action game with slight stealth elements. And COD has went from a grippingly epic experience with skillful and balanced multiplayer in COD2; to a recycled four hour experience with unbalanced multiplayer based on luck in MW and MW2.
Well, that's certainly why they're making "safe" conservative games, I'd say. Though it's hard to blame them for that, they aren't helping the artistic state of the industry.rs2000 said:
Also, Internet Kraken is bit of a troll. We argued about this very point in another thread weeks ago. His arguments are more debate-like rather than actual arguments of logically valid points-of-fact. Don't get riled up about it, OP.
There are very good rules to see if a game is good, one of which I call the third law of game design:
"Any game will look like shit when a decade passes."
Ever since two of the major console makers made graphical behemoths games sacrificed a lot of their creativity and gameplay in favour of "eye candy", if you call all that brown to try simulating realism beautiful. Let's try 2019 and see our opinions of a game like MGS4.
"Any game will look like shit when a decade passes."
Ever since two of the major console makers made graphical behemoths games sacrificed a lot of their creativity and gameplay in favour of "eye candy", if you call all that brown to try simulating realism beautiful. Let's try 2019 and see our opinions of a game like MGS4.
Um, are you saying that the load times in God of War 2 are to long compared to old games? Or are you saying that new games have long load times compared to God of War 2?Dendred said:
Either way, this is hardly a reason to call any game deplorable. Yeah load times are longer for a lot of new games but that's because there is far more content for them to load. And not every modern game has painfully long load times. Left 4 Dead 2 has a very quick load time.
But I still don't see how you can call a game deplorable just because it has a long load time.
Nazulu said:
So you're telling me that all of those crappy platformers that tried to cash in on the success of Super Mario Bros. had legitimate effort put into them? And this isn't the first time Nintendo added a bunch of gimmicky gadgets to their console. What about all of the NES accessories?
Amen to the person who can actually remember anything from the past besides a warm, fuzzy feeling. Anyone who's watched anything from by the Angry Video Game Nerd (look him up) will know that there was just as much crap in the past and it was also completely unplayable.Internet Kraken said:
To quote the OP:
Firstly, not all sequels are better than the originals. Just because they aren't better doesn't mean everythings worse. Actually, let's compare these 'terrible' games of today to the terrible games of the past.Dendred said:
Compare Soul Calibur 4 to Superman 64. Go on.
Compare Tekken 6 to ET on the Atari.
Actually that's not fair. Here's a fair comparison:
50 Cent: Blood on the Sand to Silver Surfer on the NES.
They're both bad, but at least 50 Cent:BotS is playable.
Yeah, I can see a real drop in quality in recent years. There has always been crap and there always be crap. Selectively filtering out the bad bits from the past does not make it better.
Plus this last line is ridiculous. I assume you're referring to the widespread use of HD screens, but these are not essential and the "looks of games" are still fine without them, not "shit".Dendred said:
What is with everyone thinking there's a 'good/bad' switch somewhere? My point is it's gotten worse. Yes, they did it before, but it wasn't constant. The PS2 library was full of good titles (even at the three-year since release mark, which is how long the PS3 has been out) with experimental gameplay and interesting (if not weird/poorly executed) storylines.squid5580 said:
When an industry is smaller, and its product doesn't cost millions to produce (not counting marketing, here), then the company will tend to take more 'risks' (as in, put out titles that aren't guaranteed hits). When the investment for one title, however, is as ridiculous as it is now, they'll want to play it safer than they did before.
I am disappointed more with games today, but as I age I wonder whether or not this letdown that games induce in me is tied to the way the world has progressively continued to let me down. When I was young, games were magical and fun, and now, they are decreasingly fun. The world used to be a wondrous and big place, and now it's so petty and small to me. argh.
You may think it has gotten worse but it really hasn't. Well except maybe since there is more companies and more titles it seems worse but if you were to take the averages I am sure they would be close from generation to generation. Just because a game doesn't reinvent the wheel doesn't make it bad. Besides the crash of the 80s the industry has been thriving following this formula so if it ain't broke don't fix it.Nova5 said:
Or if it's breaking, perhaps we should pull it out of a nose-dive.squid5580 said:
It's not a matter of reinventing the wheel - it's a matter of introducing a new concept, and that doesn't have to necessarily be something they pulled out of their asses. Back in the day, after the 80s crash, people found new and interesting ways to apply Mode7, despite it being a well tried-and-true technology. Same thing with Havok physics. Some games using it have sucked ass, others have been pretty freaking amazing. It's a matter of having the competence to not make a game shit.
These days, they're pushing things out the door so quickly, and re-using the same devices over and over, it really feels like I'm paying for $50 semi-conversion mods on the Unreal3 engine rather than a new title.
And yes, there were a large number of shit titles in the 90's - however, there are far too many would-be game development companies being bought up by big-name publishers (or being put through big name publishers, like Bethesda's latest mistake: Rogue Warrior), who then push something out before its done (see Mercenaries 2, or Alone in the Dark). Of course, this can be attributed to the increasing amount of effort needed to tune the more advanced games, but that doesn't mean the industry giants shouldn't have to adapt in the process to allow for a project to be the best it can rather than just another mediocre title.
Edit: Mind you, I'm not even including shit like the yearly EA sports titles, or the mediocre third-party crap by some random team no one has ever heard of. The mainstream titles are becoming the bigger disappointment, and there's a freakin' reason for it.
In order to extend a bit on Nova5's previous, and very wonderfully presented, point, I'm beyond tired of people claiming anyone who doesn't like current big-budget games is biased because of nostalgia. Allow me to give a case-and-point example of a minor issue that pisses me off:
In System Shock 2, of which I am admittedly a fanboy, the game doesn't pause when you access the inventory screen. This being so, said screen must be not only intuitive, but very user-friendly in terms of access in or out, usability of the most often used functions or commands once in the inventory, and some level of aesthetically comprehensive display in order to keep the experience of going to the inventory screen (which happens probably over 1,000 times in a single play-through) from being laborious or annoying in even a minor way. I feel the game succeeded pretty well in this regard.
Now let's look at the inventories of modern big-budget games. One glaring example would be Resident Evil 5. Not only was its predecessor more similar to the above example I just gave (in fact, they're pretty similar, although RE4's is somewhat dumbed down), but RE5's inventory was shoddy and unintuitive enough Yahtzee ranted about it significantly.
Why does all this matter? SS2 came out in 1999. RE5 was released in 2009. A FULL DECADE LATER, AND WE'RE NOT LEARNING A DAMN THING FROM A PREVIOUS GAME WHICH HAPPENED TO BE HAILED AS ONE OF THE BEST OF ALL TIME. Yes, that's the progress I'd expect to see from greedy bastards only interested in money--a half-assed job that looks pretty and doesn't make any effort to improve. Bravo!
In System Shock 2, of which I am admittedly a fanboy, the game doesn't pause when you access the inventory screen. This being so, said screen must be not only intuitive, but very user-friendly in terms of access in or out, usability of the most often used functions or commands once in the inventory, and some level of aesthetically comprehensive display in order to keep the experience of going to the inventory screen (which happens probably over 1,000 times in a single play-through) from being laborious or annoying in even a minor way. I feel the game succeeded pretty well in this regard.
Now let's look at the inventories of modern big-budget games. One glaring example would be Resident Evil 5. Not only was its predecessor more similar to the above example I just gave (in fact, they're pretty similar, although RE4's is somewhat dumbed down), but RE5's inventory was shoddy and unintuitive enough Yahtzee ranted about it significantly.
Why does all this matter? SS2 came out in 1999. RE5 was released in 2009. A FULL DECADE LATER, AND WE'RE NOT LEARNING A DAMN THING FROM A PREVIOUS GAME WHICH HAPPENED TO BE HAILED AS ONE OF THE BEST OF ALL TIME. Yes, that's the progress I'd expect to see from greedy bastards only interested in money--a half-assed job that looks pretty and doesn't make any effort to improve. Bravo!
I think the only reason games seem shitty is that they are getting hyped up more then they did before, so when it isn't as good as the commercials say, it makes it seem so much worse then previous ones that were not over-hyped.
LOGICALLY VALID POINT!SulfuricDonut said:
Also on nostalgia, you all have to realize the old time gamers are primarily pissed off at you youngin's not because you don't know anything about the games we grew up with, but you don't even care. Artistically and socially, the games from a decade and more are just as if not more significant in impact and influence than the ones you have now. Some of us really don't want you newbies calling yourselves "gamers" until you know and appreciate some of the history of the hobby. Otherwise, gaming might as well become another cool thing frat boys do between games of beer pong, having parties, drinking, etc.
I find myself disagreeing with the OP. I have thoroughly enjoyed many games I have played this year, possibly more-so than any other year. Batman, Uncharted2, Assassin's Creed2, Infamous, Borderlands and Bayonetta have all been good.
I think what the OP is suffering is sequel-itis. I own all 4 Soulcalibur games, and the PS1 Soul Edge. I think the new Soulcalibur 4 is great, yet I have spent no where near as much time on it as SC 1 and 2. It isn't because I don't think it is a fine addition to the series, it is more 'I'd rather play something new right now'. It is the same as the Guitar Hero series. I have been playing since GH1 and just simply 'couldn't be arsed' buying GH:6. Is GH:6 an improvement in the series? All reports say yes, but I am suffering from sequel-itis.
I think what the OP is suffering is sequel-itis. I own all 4 Soulcalibur games, and the PS1 Soul Edge. I think the new Soulcalibur 4 is great, yet I have spent no where near as much time on it as SC 1 and 2. It isn't because I don't think it is a fine addition to the series, it is more 'I'd rather play something new right now'. It is the same as the Guitar Hero series. I have been playing since GH1 and just simply 'couldn't be arsed' buying GH:6. Is GH:6 an improvement in the series? All reports say yes, but I am suffering from sequel-itis.
My opinion is that games are not getting worse, people just have short term memories and fail to realize that the are making the same complaints people have been for decades. "games are getting worse" has been said many a time and I have yet to see it. I actually see gaming as improving. We're on the cusp of having gaming become semi-mainstream right now what could be more exciting?
Actually, that was true a few years ago-possibly with the release of new consoles that would rather have some mediocre games to help promote the system than no games.Dendred said:
But this year and next year look VERY promising! Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origins, Left 4 Dead 2, Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, Bioshock 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Thief 4, Fallout 3, Borderlands, and probably more we haven't seen much buzz on yet. I think there are a lot of good gems showing up unlike the 2 years before this one. Heck, even Yahtzee found about 3 games he liked this year! I think there is hope on the horizon.