Quantcast
Are games as good as they used to be?

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

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

Around the Network
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

DonFerrari said:
S.Peelman said:

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. 

Well, it depends how generically or not you define a narreme. With enough simplification of forms, everything would look like a square, right?

And that's mostly our mind dividing things up and searching for commonalities, of course. Taxomony it's part of its basic functions.



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:
DonFerrari said:

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. 

Well, it depends how generically or not you define a narreme. With enough simplification of forms, everything would look like a square, right?

And that's mostly our mind dividing things up and searching for commonalities, of course. Taxomony it's part of its basic functions.

I would say you are right.

It is all about how much luggage you accumulated to see things repeating and also your mindset to look at what is different and let the story/game surprise you or looking for what you have seem before to complain it doesn't surprise you.

Even without trying most stories I see, be movies, bookies, series or games I discover the end much before the end. Even the investigation series like Monk I had the culprit know in like 5-10min into the episode. I keep bothering my wife saying what is going to happen next and almost always guessing right. Still I enjoy the process of how that is being done.



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

I think its largely due to things being more special when you're a kid.  There are still a lot of great games and in some cases, they are better than the equivalent game from yesteryear and in some cases they are not as good. 



Around the Network
DonFerrari 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.

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.

There were a LOT (and I mean tens of thousands) of games after Pong was released to the time online updates, season passes, loot box's became a thing and those games for the most part worked great. Get off the pong thing. There were vast improvements in gaming till about the PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube, and Xbox era. I would say the Wii and Wii U could also be seen as improvements to the past without falling into to many (if any) of the issues in today's gaming.

Now games literally destroy your console (see PS4 and Anthem), yeah, that's not okay. Not to mention the Red Ring Of Death, or the day 1 patched that destroyed consoles if for whatever reason your internet connection was interrupted, or the power cycled. Not to mention how many times has information of gamers been stolen from the online stores of these consoles? 

Also, it's not that "some people can't get over the past" as much as some things were better in the past. Again I am giving reasons that have nothing to do with personal preference AT ALL.This argument is a crutch, throw this out too it's not helping you, though I could easily get into personal preference and experience and lord that would be a wall of text I don't think anyone wants to take the time to read all of.

There were tons of games in the past that were not hard or punishing too. You get the game you want to suit your gaming needs. There are games that are ridiculously hard or complicated today for the sake of being ridiculously hard or complicated. Badly designed games, or punishing games are still being made today. You don't think a ton of games that have loot boxes are purposefully designed to be needlessly grindy? Or games with Season Passes don't have content needlessly ripped out of them?

Last edited by bigtakilla - on 08 April 2019

bigtakilla said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

There were a LOT (and I mean tens of thousands) of games after Pong was released to the time online updates, season passes, loot box's became a thing and those games for the most part worked great. Get off the pong thing. There were vast improvements in gaming till about the PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube, and Xbox era. I would say the Wii and Wii U could also be seen as improvements to the past without falling into to many (if any) of the issues in today's gaming.

Now games literally destroy your console (see PS4 and Anthem), yeah, that's not okay. Not to mention the Red Ring Of Death, or the day 1 patched that destroyed consoles if for whatever reason your internet connection was interrupted, or the power cycled. Not to mention how many times has information of gamers been stolen from the online stores of these consoles? 

Also, it's not that "some people can't get over the past" as much as some things were better in the past. Again I am giving reasons that have nothing to do with personal preference AT ALL.This argument is a crutch, throw this out too it's not helping you, though I could easily get into personal preference and experience and lord that would be a wall of text I don't think anyone wants to take the time to read all of.

There were tons of games in the past that were not hard or punishing too. You get the game you want to suit your gaming needs. There are games that are ridiculously hard or complicated today for the sake of being ridiculously hard or complicated. Badly designed games, or punishing games are still being made today. You don't think a ton of games that have loot boxes are purposefully designed to be needlessly grindy? Or games with Season Passes don't have content needlessly ripped out of them?

Your mixing so much things that it becomes strange, but let's go.

I haven't said a word about bad practices like lootboxes and the like. I was talking about complexity in games increasing and with it bugs. It doesn't take much to see that the more complex a system is more prone to defects it is. And them you put improvements basically attached to Nintendo.

There are bad games now and there were bad games in the past. Many games were broken and wouldn't be playable, they just wouldn't affect the console because the console didn't had any system that could be impacted by the SW. Red Ring of Death have nothing to do with games being better or worse but with MS rushing their engineering to reach the market first, so I have no idea why you put it here. And consoles being beyond user repair due to a bad update is something very rare to be even worth mentioning.

Security on the networks also have nothing to do with games being better or worse.

Your reply seems more like why you don't like gaming today than games being worse loaded with a lot of strawman. For you Don Mattrick gave the solution stick to NES.



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

DonFerrari said:

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. 

Uhm, okay... Well, I’m also not reading any books.



DonFerrari said:
bigtakilla said:

There were a LOT (and I mean tens of thousands) of games after Pong was released to the time online updates, season passes, loot box's became a thing and those games for the most part worked great. Get off the pong thing. There were vast improvements in gaming till about the PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube, and Xbox era. I would say the Wii and Wii U could also be seen as improvements to the past without falling into to many (if any) of the issues in today's gaming.

Now games literally destroy your console (see PS4 and Anthem), yeah, that's not okay. Not to mention the Red Ring Of Death, or the day 1 patched that destroyed consoles if for whatever reason your internet connection was interrupted, or the power cycled. Not to mention how many times has information of gamers been stolen from the online stores of these consoles? 

Also, it's not that "some people can't get over the past" as much as some things were better in the past. Again I am giving reasons that have nothing to do with personal preference AT ALL.This argument is a crutch, throw this out too it's not helping you, though I could easily get into personal preference and experience and lord that would be a wall of text I don't think anyone wants to take the time to read all of.

There were tons of games in the past that were not hard or punishing too. You get the game you want to suit your gaming needs. There are games that are ridiculously hard or complicated today for the sake of being ridiculously hard or complicated. Badly designed games, or punishing games are still being made today. You don't think a ton of games that have loot boxes are purposefully designed to be needlessly grindy? Or games with Season Passes don't have content needlessly ripped out of them?

Your mixing so much things that it becomes strange, but let's go.

I haven't said a word about bad practices like lootboxes and the like. I was talking about complexity in games increasing and with it bugs. It doesn't take much to see that the more complex a system is more prone to defects it is. And them you put improvements basically attached to Nintendo.

There are bad games now and there were bad games in the past. Many games were broken and wouldn't be playable, they just wouldn't affect the console because the console didn't had any system that could be impacted by the SW. Red Ring of Death have nothing to do with games being better or worse but with MS rushing their engineering to reach the market first, so I have no idea why you put it here. And consoles being beyond user repair due to a bad update is something very rare to be even worth mentioning.

Security on the networks also have nothing to do with games being better or worse.

Your reply seems more like why you don't like gaming today than games being worse loaded with a lot of strawman. For you Don Mattrick gave the solution stick to NES.

You don't have to talk about loot boxes, etc, they are bad practices present in games today though. You can just agree.

Second this is not talking about games (except for Anthem breaking PS4 consoles), but the consoles of old didn't brick. So no not about games, but gaming in general.

Network Security may not have to do with games in general, but buying games online has cost people a lot of headache and possibly money. 

You still have not made a single solid case for gaming to be better today than it was in the past. I can give you numerous examples of gaming today being worse, and games mostly involving shoving incomplete messes out the door, and predatory practices that really can't be denied in a lot of AAA games. 

I don't hate gaming today, but it is a lot less enjoyable than it was in the past. And I do have a lot of older systems, and play on them regularly, except for my 360 which recently had a RROD, lol.



bigtakilla said:
DonFerrari said:

Your mixing so much things that it becomes strange, but let's go.

I haven't said a word about bad practices like lootboxes and the like. I was talking about complexity in games increasing and with it bugs. It doesn't take much to see that the more complex a system is more prone to defects it is. And them you put improvements basically attached to Nintendo.

There are bad games now and there were bad games in the past. Many games were broken and wouldn't be playable, they just wouldn't affect the console because the console didn't had any system that could be impacted by the SW. Red Ring of Death have nothing to do with games being better or worse but with MS rushing their engineering to reach the market first, so I have no idea why you put it here. And consoles being beyond user repair due to a bad update is something very rare to be even worth mentioning.

Security on the networks also have nothing to do with games being better or worse.

Your reply seems more like why you don't like gaming today than games being worse loaded with a lot of strawman. For you Don Mattrick gave the solution stick to NES.

You don't have to talk about loot boxes, etc, they are bad practices present in games today though. You can just agree.

Second this is not talking about games (except for Anthem breaking PS4 consoles), but the consoles of old didn't brick. So no not about games, but gaming in general.

Network Security may not have to do with games in general, but buying games online has cost people a lot of headache and possibly money. 

You still have not made a single solid case for gaming to be better today than it was in the past. I can give you numerous examples of gaming today being worse, and games mostly involving shoving incomplete messes out the door, and predatory practices that really can't be denied in a lot of AAA games. 

I don't hate gaming today, but it is a lot less enjoyable than it was in the past. And I do have a lot of older systems, and play on them regularly, except for my 360 which recently had a RROD, lol.

If no one is defending it then why bring then? And they have nothing to do with how good or bad games are.

The thread is about games being good or bad, and you can certainly find old consoles that failed. With time fails just change in nature, basically in almost all fields. Cars failed differently 50 years ago.

I haven't gave you no examples because you are derailing thread and making strawman. The discussion is about games today being as good as they used to be. You are discussing why gaming for you isn't as good as it used, different topic.



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