Quantcast
Are games as good as they used to be?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are games as good as they used to be?

danasider said:

 ....the feeling of accomplishment that older games gave seems to be lost on the newer games.

I think that is mostly due to the fact that games are much easier now than they were a generation ago.



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
DonFerrari said:
Yes games are getting better and that is why I keep buying new games and anxious for new generations.

But yes part of growing is accumulating experiences, so you won't get as surprised as before.

This sums it up perfectly.  

Only on a technical aspect and if that is what you feel makes a game "better". And even then what I wrote above this is relevant. 



bigtakilla said:
Nogamez said:
Obviously games are getting better. Storylines, sounds, graphics, presentation, splitscreen and online play, cinematics. Much more variery in plays styles, 2d, top down, side scroller, 3d, open world, VR. How can anybody actually argue that they are getting worse? Sure if you have been gaming since (like me) the 80s or earlier thay might be a bit stale by now. But the experiences games provide now are much more than they were back then. Must be great to be like 8 years old and play a game like Horizon, or GT sport with almost photo relastic graphics and sound rather than hitting a square ball back and forth with two lines on a black screen.

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.



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.

Yeah, but glitches weren't notorious in mostly every AAA game, they were fairly rare. And yeah, now games are fixed, YEARS after the fact in some cases. There really is no comparison.

As for cost, even when adjusting for inflation at best they cost roughly the same with season passes and dlc, I mean if you want the full game. Not to mention that only really becomes the case if you look at the beginnings of gaming, a PS2 game with all content cost substantially less than a PS4 game with all it's content for a majority of AAA games. Not to mention you are looking at inflation as a universal constant that effects all goods at a precise increase, and sure that makes gaming look good, but it's not exactly that precise of a measurement.

Bigger or longer games also don't necessarily mean better, that's a subjective personal opinion.

And there are a whole bunch of things you can argue is bad about modern gaming, and these are some of the reasons that aren't my opinion. *edit* But also, a lot of personal opinion does also go hand and hand when asking if games are as good as they used to be.

Last edited by bigtakilla - on 06 April 2019

Some are. And I think the ones that are quickly rise to the top of the fandom. Not always the charts. Like Persona 5. It echoes the best of the PS2 generation. Zelda BoTW feels impactful in gameplay like Mario 64 or Zelda OoT did at first. Granted BoTW isn't as successful with story and epic twists, but it felt new, fresh, and eye opening. Octopath is also amazing. Hollow Knight Undertale, etc. Sure many companies wimp out for microtransactions, easy play, and repetitive sequels, but the good is still there, albeit more dispersed, for now.



Around the Network
zygote said:

Some are. And I think the ones that are quickly rise to the top of the fandom. Not always the charts. Like Persona 5. It echoes the best of the PS2 generation. Zelda BoTW feels impactful in gameplay like Mario 64 or Zelda OoT did at first. Granted BoTW isn't as successful with story and epic twists, but it felt new, fresh, and eye opening. Octopath is also amazing. Hollow Knight Undertale, etc. Sure many companies wimp out for microtransactions, easy play, and repetitive sequels, but the good is still there, albeit more dispersed, for now.

BOTW is fresh I can give you that, but Mario 64 and OoT were groundbreaking and BOTW certainly isn't that. 



With all due respect. Fuck no.



Insert Coin. Press START. You Died. Continue?

SuperRetroTurbo said:
With all due respect. Fuck no.

^

You win the internet sir.



bigtakilla said:
VAMatt said:

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.

Yeah, but glitches weren't notorious in mostly every AAA game, they were fairly rare. And yeah, now games are fixed, YEARS after the fact in some cases. There really is no comparison.

As for cost, even when adjusting for inflation at best they cost roughly the same with season passes and dlc, I mean if you want the full game. Not to mention that only really becomes the case if you look at the beginnings of gaming, a PS2 game with all content cost substantially less than a PS4 game with all it's content for a majority of AAA games. Not to mention you are looking at inflation as a universal constant that effects all goods at a precise increase, and sure that makes gaming look good, but it's not exactly that precise of a measurement.

Bigger or longer games also don't necessarily mean better, that's a subjective personal opinion.

And there are a whole bunch of things you can argue is bad about modern gaming, and these are some of the reasons that aren't my opinion. *edit* But also, a lot of personal opinion does also go hand and hand when asking if games are as good as they used to be.

I would think Tomb Raider was AAA back then. I paid 89 guilders for it in 1996, which was about $52 at the time which converts to about $84 today. I could not finish the game as it crashed in the last level at the same place every time. There was no patch, no you tube to watch the end, that was just it. And while I prefer the tank controls of the old games, I doubt any new gamer would like to play modern tomb raider that way.

There were plenty PC games that wouldn't even run with no hope of a patch, or would simply crash after half an hour. Everquest was great, yet the server went down daily, link death was the most frequent way to die and lose a lot of progress. It cost $15 a month to play with paid DLC (boxed) added once or twice a year which you pretty much had to buy to keep up. It was great, I played it for 5 years, yet shudder to think how much money I spend on it.

Gaming is cheaper, easier, more streamlined than ever before. No more writing down level codes, making your own maps (although that was fun) or needing a big manual to figure out what to do, no more fussing with code wheels or enter word 15 on page 25, or praying the tape still loads or worry about the discs going bad / getting scratched. No more messing around with himem.sys autexec.bat to get games to run or the disasters windows 95 brought along.

As for the game content, longer doesn't necessarily mean better, yet if you like a certain game, there's a lot more to like nowadays. So many details to take in.

No man's sky was a complete game at release. I played it for months, it was great. Just one of those games hype ran away with, nothing compared to ET lol. Now the game is getting VR after getting tons of extra content already. Same with DriveClub. Apart from server issues the first couple weeks, it was a complete game. Then it got so much better still. Compare that with NFS 2, that had 9 cars and 7 tracks!



Are they the best they've ever been? No, that was the PS2 era.

Though is it getting better? Yes, the eighth generation has much better games than 7th generation.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.