Quantcast
View Post
S.Peelman said:

Maybe technically they are better. There’s a higher production value, they look, play and sound better. They’re bigger and more elaborate. On average they have more of a story and there’s way more options.

But, that all means jack if they’re not as fun. And on average they aren’t. There’s a reason my Top 50 list from the end of the year event here on VGC is mostly ‘90s/early ‘00s games with a handful of modern games thrown in; they aren’t as fun as games used to be. They aren’t as imaginitive. Most games feel like I already played them before and innovation has gotten stale for the most part. And since ‘fun’ is the most important thing, I can’t say gaming is better now, it’s the opposite.

EDIT: And then I want to play a game right as we speak. 20 minute install time and update. Remember when you could just pop in something, flick a switch and you were in the game? Just like that? Now a console needs to boot up all kinds of pointless cr*p, take forever to navigate all kinds of pointless menus, install god knows what and update literally everything. Suddenly I don’t feel like playing anything anymore.

Sorry to tell you that in books no new stories have been told in like 1000 years as most are based on same elements. And when you read a lot you'll recognize it. Same with games, you don't create new genres everyday, but when gaming technology was changing radically each gen new genres occurred more easily first because there were less and second because the roadblocks changed big each gen. 



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