| John2290 said: I had no idea this would be so divisive, I thought everyone was having a blast this generation more so than generations past. It saddens me a little to see I am among the few who see it this way. |
I never commented on the topic, perhaps I should.
I think one thing we can agree on is the level of value that can be pulled from games today. While most single player campaigns last 6-8 hours, games that have serious cut to them can give near endless hours of replayability. Games from the Souls series, The Witcher 3, Breath of the Wild, Fallout/Elder Scrolls and GTA to name a few have ridiculous levels of depth. Many of the classics from what others believe to be the golden era offer some reaplayability but most of it is artificial - where games were designed for tedium and looping to give the illusion of length and depth.
Giving any era a "golden" is a bit hard for me though. Every era has a equal amount of good and bad - sure games now are more often of excellent quality and offer a true "experince" that older games cannot match. However there is far less variety - the industry jumps from fad to fad based on what 1 or 2 incredibly successful games accomplish, leaving many genres dead on a heap.
I'd say we're in a great place. The good and bad are equal on their own but this era has a trump card in the way of indie developers. They circumvent a lot of the narrow minded/tunnel vision of the big budget companies, leaving a surplus in this era's favor. If not for them, this era wouldn't be any better than others.
"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"
