Quantcast
View Post
VAMatt said:
bigtakilla said:

How many examples of games simply not working properly (Assassin's Creed Unity, Mass Effect Andromeda, Arkham Knight, Battlefield 4, ect) or release without any substantial content until later release (No Man's Sky, Sea Of Thieves, Evolve, Anthem, Fallout 76, ect). Not to mention the cost of entry is pretty substantial in modern times being games now cost ~$90 if you want all the content, if not more. Multiple special editions are becoming a new norm, so you can't even go buy a special edition and feel like you got everything, because most the time you don't (such as BOTW collectors edition has different things than Master's Edition). How many games can you on day 1 sit down and play all the content and it actually work. Very, very few.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there is a pretty big case for games not being as good as they used to be.

When games are broken now, they can be fixed.  Maybe you weren't gaming in the 80s and 90s  But, I was.  Back then, sometimes you'd get literally stuck in a game, with not choice but to restart.  That also meant huge lost progress, because of the relatively save options.  Sometimes, you'd get stuck in a glitch in the final level, and have to start the whole thing over.  Thankfully, those days are long gone.  Games now either work, or they're fixed.  

As for cost of entry, there's no comparison.  When adjusting for inflation, games are cheaper than they've ever been.  They're also much, much bigger, on average. 

So, sure, there have been some changes that one could argue are bad.  But, they're have been a whole bunch that are objectively good.  I simply don't see any case to be made for games being worse now than they were - let's say 25 years ago - except totally subjective personal opinions.

People seem to just want to ignore the complexity of the games and how many possibilities for glitches is there on games today compared to Pong. And even at that time you had so many freeze screens.

I had to reboot my console almost everyday because a game froze or as we said "tilt". Nowadays the patches happen off screen and I will run on a need to reset the console maybe once a week but more likely less than once a month due to glitches and bugs.

People just don't understand that what they like up to their 25 years is more or less what they will like forever, so they will keep thinking nothing is as good as it was in the past (because they can't see without the tinted googles of nostalgy to see how bad it really was) and not enjoy today.

How many games were actually 30-60min long but were so badly engineered to be "hard and punishing" to make you think the games where giant that we took 6 months to finish? There is good reasons for that to not fly anymore today, with internet we can discover how to pass or how long the game really is, we can jump to another game fast if the one we are playing isn't satisfying among many other reasons for this type of game design to not be widespread anymore.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994