Support NeoGAF

[namekuseijin]

games are completely casual these days. I think what most really want in games nowadays is to just get along with other kids for some fun - it's a social activity, a chat room with avatars and bullets.

Case in point, I just finished The Last Campfire. Yes, it's gorgeous, yes, it's well designed and even very engaging in exploration. But it's got no confrontation of any kind, only puzzles - and most of them very trivial, although a few were deliciously remarkable. But, if you've been into gaming for a long time, you can see all the references: Zelda, Rime, Journey, even Monument Valley. I was thoroughly engaged, despite not being as hard as old games, but here's the thing: I just got a platinum trophy for it, without much sweat - in fact, I was around 37 of 42 lost things found, so I can't see why I got the trophy...

if you're an old timer like me, don't waste your time with current games. Grab a VR headset right away to see what gaming could have been. Just forget the idiot indie minigames that fill out most the space, go play VR mods of classic games like HL or Quake, some retro-inspired VR games like Battlezone, Compound and Ancient Dungeon VR or ports of old, still reasonably fine games like Skyrim and Borderlands 2... because the future is bleaker by the day...

 

[namekuseijin]

Gaming has always had a decent amount of high quality incredible games.....and a bunch of trash piled on. The difference is that the quality games used to be made by large AAA companies and now those same companies pump out the trash while small indie studios/developers make the quality games.

in my view, most indies go after looks of old games and none of the substance. Most really downright suck

 

[namekuseijin]

You can buy SM3D all-stars for 60 bucks on September 21st op.

you realize most of us cranky boomers in this thread have already played those countless times in the past?

and I bet they got watered down with infinite lives, instant rewind or any other such crap for turdnite and minecrap weaklings

 

[Lionel Richie]

Saw this great video yesterday. Some of the points he makes hit pretty hard.

 

[tsumake]

I think that all these retro styled indie games show the strengths of those older game mechanics.

I’d argue that to a certain degree, What is valued as a great gameplay experience has more to do with production values over mechanics. Of course there are exceptions (DOOM for example) but there is a higher expectation for the non-interactive elements of a game (cutscenes, videos, voice acting, etc.). Personally I saw the flag planted with Metal Gear Solid and Half Life, while they have great mechanics and systems they brought higher production values to the fore in videogames.

Are games more like movies? I’d say yes. Are they less fun than older games? I’d say no. The medium has changed, but I wouldn’t say it has gotten better or worse.

I personally enjoy and appreciate older games but do player newer titles. I just wait for a deep sale to purchase - I haven’t done a day one purchase since Black Ops 2.

 

[namekuseijin]

I wish we could go back to the PS3/360/Wii/DS era.

that was the era where this crapshow began, kid

the Wii (really GC remastered) and the success of its crappy minigames is the root of all evil in modern gaming. Sony and Microsoft tried to follow

 

[poodaddy]

To be honest I kind of agree OP, but that's why I'm super not bothered by the propensity of most publishers to just keep rehashing older products and keep releasing remasters and remakes forever. Usually those remakes and remasters are of games that I care more about than modern games, so they always get my money. I feel like even our nostalgia, (and I'm not discussing whether it's valid or not, as it may just rainbow colored glasses we have on, but I digress), is kind of served in today's games market by an extremely broad embrace of classic titles by almost every platform.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: I get you OP, but ultimately, things are still fine.

 

[Shifty1897]

Games weren't better back then, as you get older your mind romanticizes your old memories to make them seem better. It's called nostalgia.

As you get older, you lose that sense of wonder and imagination you had growing up. You start to become a jaded gamer, because nothing gives you play gives you that feeling anymore.

Momento mori. Come to terms with the inevitability of death and enjoy gaming (and life!) with what years you have left.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

I can understand and agree, the thing is is that this is simply divisive, the industry hasn't gotten "worse", it's only changed, and developers have had to adapt because everything else has been done before, just like in any other form of media such as books and movies.

The aspect I agree with is that I think games had more character back then to me. The experiences were more memorable because they didn't focus as hard on giving you a product, and there was no meaningless DLC to sell or social media to worry about, games were made more simple and were made in simpler times without the technological age that we're currently in.

Take me back to when we had like 10 Star Wars games per year, or when we all played classic N64 games for the first time.

 

[ZywyPL]

Stop playing heavily marketed AAA trash.

Problem solved.

Except the heavily marketed AAA games used to be the very best the industry had to offer, which basically just proves OP's point.

 

[Bogroll]

In the earlier years Spectrum to C64 etc they seemed better but no way are they better. I think subconsciously we used to use our imagination more like reading a book so they would pull you in more. These days its all done with the in comparison amazing graphics.

 

[cireza]

that was the era where this crapshow began, kid

the Wii (really GC remastered) and the success of its crappy minigames is the root of all evil in modern gaming. Sony and Microsoft tried to follow

Actually it is Sony that is the root of all these shit games made to cater to a wide audience. It has always been their strategy from the first days of the PS1.

 

[II_JumPeR_I]

Agree

 

[memphistora]

i beg to differ.

16 and 32 bit generations - only rpgs and action games are fun for me. Alot are just clones of each other.
ps1 - music games and rpgs. man 3d but jaggies.
ps2 - action games and more rpgs. Same old 3d jaggies.
ps3 - disappointing generation. nothing much spectular apart from ps2. Ps plus is really good giveaways
ps4 - my fave gen. graphically and less load times. I went full digital. RPGS and action look very good on 1080p. Games generally are more immersive for me.. There are more sales now. but ps plus went downhill.

 

[KuraiShidosha]

Agreed completely OP and I've been saying it for at least the last 5 years now. Something changed hardcore during the 00s and into the 10s. Aside from a VERY small selection of studios, pretty much everything that's being put out today just feels soulless and shallow compared to older classics. I think someone else was right about how teams are getting so big that none of that individuality coming from a single developer can shine through anymore. It's this weird hodgepodge of art assets thrown together under a general umbrella concept of what the game is supposed to be and it never quite shines through the same way those old classics made by a tiny team of talented and passionately driven developers could craft.

 

[JSoup]

Lots of people point to the rose colored glasses when it comes to statements like this, but I like how Yahtzee put it:
"Is it still nostalgia if you play old games because old stuff does stuff you want that new stuff doesn't do?"

 

[Ryllix_]

in my view, most indies go after looks of old games and none of the substance. Most really downright suck

Most of ALL games suck. That has always been the case. The SNES had 721 games released in the US, for example. Of that 721 there are probably 50 that are really great to play today.

 

[Saruhashi]

Honestly. They used to be better. I'm talking back in the 90's and early to mid 2000's. Back when gaming was still a niche market (early 2000's wasn't so niche). Yes I know, there were a lot of "bad" games back then, just like there are now, but I am talking about the "good" games... compared to the "good" games of today.

Games weren't mainstream then. As such... they were made by people who had a passion for what they were making. The driving factors were to make a fun experience... and they were made by talented people who wanted to get their artistry to the masses. Back then there weren't terms like "AAA" experiences and *shudders* games as a service. Most devs weren't driven by making money. They just wanted to make a fun game that people liked. There's no more perfect embodiment of this than James Halliday in Ready Player One. The Halliday character was inspired by late 80's, early 90's devs who just wanted to create fun games. There was a lot of experimenting going on back then. Lot's of new and fresh things, so most devs didn't really know what would make money anyways. Their thought process was just "We made this game... we hope you enjoy it"

Modern gaming is driven by money. The shareholders and executives make the decisions now. Not the creators. Not the people putting their hard work into the games. It's all so clear to see with a few games nowadays.
They weren't purposely designing mechanics to be addictive and predatory to make you "feel like you need to buy this cosmetic or boost." Most all "AAA" games today have some form of predatory mechanics.

And listen... I'm not saying ALL MODERN GAMES ARE WORSE.... just making an observation that it used to be a simpler time. Games used to be just about having fun.

I left out a bunch of stuff for brevity... but hopefully it will lead to interesting discussion points. What do you think GAF? How do the "good" games of today compare with the "good" games of yesteryear? Can you feel that something is missing?

I kind of agree.
For me it's harder to find new games that can give me something that I want.
I'm not into online multiplayer so that takes a large chuck of modern output off the table right away.

For single player experiences I want something that is good and focused and replayable.
Even something that I enjoyed like Ghost of Tsushima has, in my opinion, far too much filler content.
It's like every game needs to be overflowing with content and they don't care if that content is actually a bit boring.

Back in the PS2 days I would easily play games like MGS3 a good few times. Even going back to them years later.
There's no way I would go back to games like Assassin's Creed etc for a replay cos there's just too much shit to wade through.

Indies are where it is at these days. Plenty of solid experiences that you can complete over a couple of days and that are good enough you'll come back to them again down the line.

Special mentions in the current gen for Sekiro and God of War though. I wish we would get more of those and less "here is an open world with 100 million things to do".

 

[CrysisFreak]

Look how they massacred my boy.

 

[Saruhashi]

Old arcade-era games were designed to consume as many quarters as possible without boring/aggravating the customer too much, and while still being fun and relevant as new titles came out. Modern gaming industry expects you to play this year's new hotness and discard it for next year's new hotness. The arcade market was not without its flaws but the business model resulted in tighter, more self-contained pieces of entertainment. Nowadays everything is very bloated in comparison.

"tighter, more self-contained pieces of entertainment"

This is exactly what modern developers should focus in on.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

"tighter, more self-contained pieces of entertainment"

This is exactly what modern developers should focus in on.

C'mon you don't want Stoic Adventure 3 (plus season pass) plus ComiCON 2021 graphic novel announcement plus Netflix Original series plus Funko Pop series plus smartphone game that includes unique rewards for the main game plus in-game UbiVision bonuses for using their branded storefront/launcher plus Kickstarter for the spin-off 8-bit sidescroller?!?

 

[jufonuk]

old 3D is hot and miss still even golden eye Is shit now. Yeah I said it.

old 2D can hold up rather well.

but micro transactions need to go

 

[Airola]

Lots of people point to the rose colored glasses when it comes to statements like this, but I like how Yahtzee put it:
"Is it still nostalgia if you play old games because old stuff does stuff you want that new stuff doesn't do?"

Exactly.
Not only that but a lot of time the new stuff does what old stuff didn't do and you don't want what the new stuff does.

 

[Kadayi]

 

[namekuseijin]

Most of ALL games suck. That has always been the case. The SNES had 721 games released in the US, for example. Of that 721 there are probably 50 that are really great to play today.

you mean today, after we've dabbled with far better controls and graphics and more gameplay elements? Yea

but back when that was all we got and it was brand new, I played and had great fun with literally dozens. Specially as back then there was rental of game cartridges...

 

[namekuseijin]

nah, that rose-tinted glass is being used by current audiences to gloss over shortcomings in games today and, for instance, to equate the empty levels of Celeste, with auto-glueing to walls to boot, to genuine die-hard classics as Megaman

Now, there's the opposite as well: no classic game ever tried to be as masochistic as Super Meat Boy.

Purpose of games back then was to be fun AND challenging, while most today are either devoid of challenges or, very few, all about challenge... That's just facts, no nostalgia-tinted impressions...

 

[Kadayi]

nah, that rose-tinted glass is being used by current audiences to gloss over shortcomings in games today and, for instance, to equate the empty levels of Celeste, with auto-glueing to walls to boot, to genuine die-hard classics as Megaman

Now, there's the opposite as well: no classic game ever tried to be as masochistic as Super Meat Boy.

Purpose of games back then was to be fun AND challenging, while most today are either devoid of challenges or, very few, all about challenge... That's just facts, no nostalgia-tinted impressions...

 

[namekuseijin]

Assassin's Creed etc for a replay cos there's just too much shit to wade through.

now I'll play devil's advocate here: if they didn't add side quests every corner, it would be called empty and boring

side quests are exactly that: side activities you may undertake or not. You're not required to play every single one of them. If they come in your path and if you feel in the mood for it, fine. If not, just go ahead in the most linear fashion of most classic games...

that's how I play modern OW games. I'm no trash collector picking each fallen leaf in the ground... let it lie there, gamers are too anxious nowadays

 

[sobaka770]

Most games are technically and from gameplay perspective are much better today. Retro-gaming is niche and there's nothing that cannot be done better today.

However over time because of AAA market, consoles, development costs and move to 3D we did lose a few things. We had major losses in turn-based strategies and real-time strategies, CRPGs face a revival but no AAA studio can justify developing such deep games, no wonder Bioware was getting more and more mainstream. Quest games for those who like them moved mostly to mobile or indie devs. Most games have become infested with boring RPG mechanics and microtransaction-repetitive skinner boxes.

 

[Roman Empire]

The guy talks about 2006 and doesn't remember that Shadow of The Colossus came that year.

Time to up your game OP.

Edit: I'm too dumb, it came out 2005, but still my point stands. We had incredible games since then, like Final Fantasy XII, Gears of War, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Okami, Hal-life 2 episode one, Viva Piñata, Just Cause. All those just in 2006.

 

[namekuseijin]

Btw, kids also fail at logical reasoning and discussion - which is part of the problem that don't see any difference between Animal Crossing and Zelda.

given they're ill-equipped for actual discussion, they resort to gifs. This is the time when I resort to ignore.

 

[namekuseijin]

there's nothing that cannot be done better today.

yes, but here's the deal: it's just not done

not for lack of tech, but because audiences just changed. After much soy milk.

 

[Saruhashi]

now I'll play devil's advocate here: if they didn't add side quests every corner, it would be called empty and boring

side quests are exactly that: side activities you may undertake or not. You're not required to play every single one of them. If they come in your path and if you feel in the mood for it, fine. If not, just go ahead in the most linear fashion of most classic games...

that's how I play modern OW games. I'm no trash collector picking each fallen leaf in the ground... let it lie there, gamers are too anxious nowadays

I'd prefer they just ignore the "empty and boring" criticism.
The purpose of the open world should really be for immersion and world building.
Not to have 100s of copy pasted quests etc.

I think they could make things better by spending resources on a memorable main quest and have some side activities scattered around the maps.

Of course the sales numbers for games like GTAV and RDR2 show that I am obviously in a minority with these views so I suppose it doesn't matter.

 

[anab0lic36]

Most of what would comprise of my top 100, would be from the 90's and early 2000's so I'd largely agree. And most of what has breached my top 100 in recent years have been indie games.

Everything that goes mainstream turns to shit, because you end up having to cater towards the simpletons of society, of which there are many. And thus the dumbing down of games began, so not to exclude anyone and have mass appeal to maximize profits. When games started becoming more about 'immersion', than gameplay - aka interactive movies. When it all became too hand holdy and didn't really challenge you anymore, when gfx was prioritised over fps (again sacrificing gameplay) when creativity was hampered by executives in suits that didn't want to risk trying something new, this was the beginning of the decline and it has only gotten worse. What compounded all of this was the overpraise of these shitty games by reviewers, that in turn encouraged more and more of these inferior games to continue to be produced. Games used to be made by nerds for nerds, that's no longer the case.

There is still good games being made, you just have to wade through a whole bunch of shit to find them nowadays and you certainly cant trust review scores from major outlets who either have low standards or are shills. I can count the releases on 1 hand yearly that I feel are worth my time, but thats ok, I have less time for video games nowadays anyways. Now, Tabletop gaming on the other hand.... that truly is in a golden era.

 

[diffusionx]

Most games are technically and from gameplay perspective are much better today. Retro-gaming is niche and there's nothing that cannot be done better today.

However over time because of AAA market, consoles, development costs and move to 3D we did lose a few things. We had major losses in turn-based strategies and real-time strategies, CRPGs face a revival but no AAA studio can justify developing such deep games, no wonder Bioware was getting more and more mainstream. Quest games for those who like them moved mostly to mobile or indie devs. Most games have become infested with boring RPG mechanics and microtransaction-repetitive skinner boxes.

There is a difference between "can" and "is" and that is what we see today.

I don't think games are better from a gameplay perspective, I think they are worse. Obviously there are some exceptions, however what's interesting is that those exceptions often become weirdly popular. The reason why Dark Souls caught on (and, while the game isn't GTA Online, I would't call it a niche) is because it offered a small slice of "old school" type gaming, where the emphasis was on engaging mechanics that the game gradually forced you to learn them. Doom 2016 was popular too because it played well, and it obviously borrowed liberally from old FPS game design and sparked the boomer shooter genre.

When there was no virtual dress up or anything like that, we played games because THEY WERE GOOD - that was the only possible reason to play them. It is why the good arcade games are, well, so good, because they had to make a sale one quarter at a time.

 

[Evil Calvin]

I agree. You look at the list of games released 1996-2002 or so and it's amazing the number of A+ games there were. There was a bigger presence of AA games. Nowdays so much money is riding on a AAA game that suits are involved every step of the way. 90% of the games are sequels, reboots, remasters or part of a franchise, because they are afraid of taking a chance on something new. Look at that list from 1996-2002 and there are few sequels and most are new IP's. There a few new IP's now. BUT there is a much bigger indie presence as opposed to then. Mainly because there weren't digital games then, at least on consoles. So, now it's indie or AAA. There are a few AA game taking chances like Greedfall, A Plague Tale, Wreckfest, Maneater, Man of Medan...etc.. but there needs to be more.

 

[sCHOCOLATE]

Honestly. They used to be better. I'm talking back in the 90's and early to mid 2000's. Back when gaming was still a niche market (early 2000's wasn't so niche). Yes I know, there were a lot of "bad" games back then, just like there are now, but I am talking about the "good" games... compared to the "good" games of today.

Games weren't mainstream then. As such... they were made by people who had a passion for what they were making. The driving factors were to make a fun experience... and they were made by talented people who wanted to get their artistry to the masses. Back then there weren't terms like "AAA" experiences and *shudders* games as a service. Most devs weren't driven by making money. They just wanted to make a fun game that people liked. There's no more perfect embodiment of this than James Halliday in Ready Player One. The Halliday character was inspired by late 80's, early 90's devs who just wanted to create fun games. There was a lot of experimenting going on back then. Lot's of new and fresh things, so most devs didn't really know what would make money anyways. Their thought process was just "We made this game... we hope you enjoy it"

Modern gaming is driven by money. The shareholders and executives make the decisions now. Not the creators. Not the people putting their hard work into the games. It's all so clear to see with a few games nowadays.
They weren't purposely designing mechanics to be addictive and predatory to make you "feel like you need to buy this cosmetic or boost." Most all "AAA" games today have some form of predatory mechanics.

And listen... I'm not saying ALL MODERN GAMES ARE WORSE.... just making an observation that it used to be a simpler time. Games used to be just about having fun.

I left out a bunch of stuff for brevity... but hopefully it will lead to interesting discussion points. What do you think GAF? How do the "good" games of today compare with the "good" games of yesteryear? Can you feel that something is missing?

They certainly loaded faster!...

 

[nochance]

For people mentioning nostalgia - for me at least it is not that.

The main thing is that top tier games used to be challenging. This is what attracted a lot of people to gaming in the first place, ability to compete with other people in a non violent, non physical way. The ultimate test of wits and skill.
That's why games like TMNT were so popular, it was a great game, with awesome graphics, with a very popular brand tie in, while at the same time being extremely challenging. In my area there were only 2 kids who were able to complete the game.

Tekken is the perfect example of a game that completely lost it's mojo: we went from a fast arcade fighter, that had graphics that were second to none on the platform of choice, and still had no easy mode for casuals, which allowed good players to stand out and feel special.
Tekken 7 is a garbage game - it's slower, with terrible graphics and special moves. Since Tekken 6 Namco is doing everything they can to kill the franchise.

Racing games are another example, Gran Turismo had it's soul marrying simulation and arcade to create a unique, challenging experience. Right now they aim for "simulation" with assists, that makes it feel like every other game of the same kind - bland.

As far as arcade racers are concerned, the genre is dead. Pretty much all of the arcade genres are dead - have you played Ace Combat 7? It's hot, boring garbage.

RPGs have also been simplified to the point of making you feel like an absolute idiot, and the only challenge stemming from the time needed to check every corner of the map.

The only refuge is indie games - but they usually have terrible graphics. In the recent years, the only games that actually felt like good games to me were Bloodborne and Monster Hunter World.

 

[nochance]

For people mentioning nostalgia - for me at least it is not that.

The main thing is that top tier games used to be challenging. This is what attracted a lot of people to gaming in the first place, ability to compete with other people in a non violent, non physical way. The ultimate test of wits and skill.
That's why games like TMNT were so popular, it was a great game, with awesome graphics, with a very popular brand tie in, while at the same time being extremely challenging. In my area there were only 2 kids who were able to complete the game.

Tekken is the perfect example of a game that completely lost it's mojo: we went from a fast arcade fighter, that had graphics that were second to none on the platform of choice, and still had no easy mode for casuals, which allowed good players to stand out and feel special.
Tekken 7 is a garbage game - it's slower, with terrible graphics and special moves. Since Tekken 6 Namco is doing everything they can to kill the franchise.

Racing games are another example, Gran Turismo had it's soul marrying simulation and arcade to create a unique, challenging experience. Right now they aim for "simulation" with assists, that makes it feel like every other game of the same kind - bland.

As far as arcade racers are concerned, the genre is dead. Pretty much all of the arcade genres are dead - have you played Ace Combat 7? It's hot, boring garbage.

RPGs have also been simplified to the point of making you feel like an absolute idiot, and the only challenge stems from the time needed to check every corner of the map.

The only refuge is indie games - but they usually have terrible graphics. In the recent years, the only games that actually felt like good games to me were Bloodborne and Monster Hunter World.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Sometimes.
I love the old consoles because more JRPGS. And less waiting time between amazing titles.

Megadrive/Snes Was amazing but I prefer the

PS1/Saturn/N64 generation

Dreamcast / PS2/Xbox and Gamecube Was all amazing too/ Not sure which I prefer, maybe PS1/Saturn/N64

But this gen has made some amazing games

I prefer this gen way more then the 360/PS3/Wii generation

 

[Carna]

old 3D is hot and miss still even golden eye Is shit now. Yeah I said it.

old 2D can hold up rather well.

but micro transactions need to go

Don't know about you, bruh.

those old low-poly graphics had Soul, with a great aesthetic to match (Nights Into Dreams)

 

[SweetShark]

Meanwhile we have great games like "ULTRAKILL" and "Paradise Killer" which came yesterday and today and I want to suck their dicks.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yet the gaming medium/industry was. And this isnt even subjective.

That's up for debate. I'm 50-50 on that.

 

[Chupanibre]

Meanwhile we have great games like "ULTRAKILL" and "Paradise Killer" which came yesterday and today and I want to suck their dicks.

 

[lame gag1990]

Mass Effect Andromeda is the best Mass Effect game...

How's the view? A bit rosey for you there?

 

[Kadayi]

Mass Effect Andromeda is the best Mass Effect game...

How's the view? A bit rosey for you there?

LOL. Is that actually supposed to be a retort? I mean did anyone care about ME after ME3?

The reality is this thread should be retitled to 'everything was better when I was a Kid/Student and had more time on my hands to put up with the ridiculous BS in games back then'

 

[lame gag1990]

LOL. Is that actually supposed to be a retort? I mean did anyone care about ME after ME3?

The reality is this thread should be retitled to 'everything was better when I was a Kid/Student and had more time on my hands to put up with the ridiculous BS in games back then'

People using the "rose tinted glasses" argument is horseshit. Like if anyone mentions an old game being better than something new, somehow they're talking shit. Did anyone like ME after 3 is my point. You like the older titles better than the new one. It's not always rose tinted glasses.

 

[Games of Today]

Honestly. They used to be better. I'm talking back in the 90's and early to mid 2000's. Back when gaming was still a niche market (early 2000's wasn't so niche). Yes I know, there were a lot of "bad" games back then, just like there are now, but I am talking about the "good" games... compared to the "good" games of today.

Games weren't mainstream then. As such... they were made by people who had a passion for what they were making. The driving factors were to make a fun experience... and they were made by talented people who wanted to get their artistry to the masses. Back then there weren't terms like "AAA" experiences and *shudders* games as a service. Most devs weren't driven by making money. They just wanted to make a fun game that people liked. There's no more perfect embodiment of this than James Halliday in Ready Player One. The Halliday character was inspired by late 80's, early 90's devs who just wanted to create fun games. There was a lot of experimenting going on back then. Lot's of new and fresh things, so most devs didn't really know what would make money anyways. Their thought process was just "We made this game... we hope you enjoy it"

Modern gaming is driven by money. The shareholders and executives make the decisions now. Not the creators. Not the people putting their hard work into the games. It's all so clear to see with a few games nowadays.
They weren't purposely designing mechanics to be addictive and predatory to make you "feel like you need to buy this cosmetic or boost." Most all "AAA" games today have some form of predatory mechanics.

And listen... I'm not saying ALL MODERN GAMES ARE WORSE.... just making an observation that it used to be a simpler time. Games used to be just about having fun.

I left out a bunch of stuff for brevity... but hopefully it will lead to interesting discussion points. What do you think GAF? How do the "good" games of today compare with the "good" games of yesteryear? Can you feel that something is missing?

2010 - 2012 was the peak of video games. Since about 2007 or so game A.I. has also been on a strong decline for some reason. Far Cry 2 had the best A.I. that I've seen in a game personally.

But at least most of the Playstation exclusives are still great games to play.

 

[iJudged]

Honestly. They used to be better. I'm talking back in the 90's and early to mid 2000's. Back when gaming was still a niche market (early 2000's wasn't so niche). Yes I know, there were a lot of "bad" games back then, just like there are now, but I am talking about the "good" games... compared to the "good" games of today.

Games weren't mainstream then. As such... they were made by people who had a passion for what they were making. The driving factors were to make a fun experience... and they were made by talented people who wanted to get their artistry to the masses. Back then there weren't terms like "AAA" experiences and *shudders* games as a service. Most devs weren't driven by making money. They just wanted to make a fun game that people liked. There's no more perfect embodiment of this than James Halliday in Ready Player One. The Halliday character was inspired by late 80's, early 90's devs who just wanted to create fun games. There was a lot of experimenting going on back then. Lot's of new and fresh things, so most devs didn't really know what would make money anyways. Their thought process was just "We made this game... we hope you enjoy it"

Modern gaming is driven by money. The shareholders and executives make the decisions now. Not the creators. Not the people putting their hard work into the games. It's all so clear to see with a few games nowadays.
They weren't purposely designing mechanics to be addictive and predatory to make you "feel like you need to buy this cosmetic or boost." Most all "AAA" games today have some form of predatory mechanics.

And listen... I'm not saying ALL MODERN GAMES ARE WORSE.... just making an observation that it used to be a simpler time. Games used to be just about having fun.

I left out a bunch of stuff for brevity... but hopefully it will lead to interesting discussion points. What do you think GAF? How do the "good" games of today compare with the "good" games of yesteryear? Can you feel that something is missing?

personally, i don't agree with your opinion, you just might be spoiled by games throughout the years and are having a difficult time enjoying them any more.

 

[Kadayi]

People using the "rose tinted glasses" argument is horseshit. Like if anyone mentions an old game being better than something new, somehow they're talking shit. Did anyone like ME after 3 is my point. You like the older titles better than the new one. It's not always rose tinted glasses.

It's a shit point. A series off the boil and a lacklustre attempt to revive it by a Studio fallen from grace. How does that in away way shape or form act as a viable counterpoint against vastly improved UI, AI, etc etc etc in most other games.