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

Azzanation said:
No i dont think so. Games are still fun today however the heavy reliance on visuals, innovation has dropped off. Nintendo are probably the only main Devs that actually try to break the 4th wall. Thats mainly because they dont focus on hardware specs.

Too worthless to live, too scared to die. 

Around the Network

You have gotten older and more jaded, it happens to everyone in less they become first time gamer in the present with no history, I suppose that happens too. Games have gotten better if you look hard enough, AAA games have indeed lost there way but some still hold to a better standard than any games of the past and so does what little AA thst is left and much of the indies.

Exclusives are where things just keep excelling though, time and time again they keep one upping themselves and whe they slip it is usually just to mediocre and very rarely poor or bad. If it wasn't for exclusives, console exclusives particularly, I'd be a two or three game a year gamer with the odd indie and no passion In me. This is why I always push back on PC gamers trying to say console resets and exclusives are bad for the industry, no sir, your over saturated sea of mediocrity is bad for the industry.

Last edited by John2290 - on 04 April 2019


China Numba wan!!

Nah, games were way better in the good old days, in 2013.

No. Not even close.

Gaming started for me started in 2001 and it was an incredible time. It was Halo that started it. It died when Destiny came out.

Things were going downhill before then, around 2011 it started I think. By 2015 my interest dwindled to the point of only buying a handful of games a year.

Most AAA development has become stale. Especially their drive for GaaS (or Live Services as they want them to be called now), which results in shipping very barebone games and bringing a roadmap on what to expect sometime in the future. But thing is, if I buy a game now, I want to have fun with it now and not 6 months down the road when they add something interesting. And if it's not live services they tend to massacre the fun out of their games with excessive monetisation schemes.

I saw the writing on the wall almost 10 years from now. My latest AAA game from a third party publisher I bought was Dragon Age: Origins (in a steelcase with some additional DLC, no less), but I could see from there where the development was going, and that future wasn't something I wanted to be part of.

Thankfully, Nintendo, Sony and to a lesser degree Microsoft know that they need to develop compelling games for their platforms to attract buyers, so monetisation isn't high on their priority lists. They need outstanding experiences to sell their consoles, and from there make money with software sales and licensing.

Indies are a bit of a mixed bag. Some are quick cashgrabs, others have way too much ego and see their games as perfect when they are far from it, but as a whole are more innovative and open than anything a big publisher would give you. They also seem to get more powerful in the graphics department in general, slowly catching up to the big publishers and their biggest advantage in their quest to woo customers apart from brand name recognition: very shiny graphics.

I don't think the video game market will crash again, but I think the big publishers will start getting less and less money because they made too good of a job in alienating their Fanbase and absolute disabilty to take any kind of criticism, especially after something bombed and got called out for it, or worse, anything about adverse working conditions, is making their customer base smaller each year, and the monetisation can only compensate so much. CoD and Fifa are both slowly shrinking again despite their latest games being well received, simply because less and less people are willing to put up to their bullshit anymore. At the same time, the indie scene is constantly growing, pushing big publishers into obsolescence.


No, they aren't. Back in the day, publishers tried to make good games so they could sell well, but nowadays the sales themselves are not so important anymore, they focus on the microtransactions and other ways to make a penny after the sales. As a result, the quality of their games has suffered a lot in the past years, and indies can only do so much yet to balance it out.

Around the Network

I've never played a racing game continuously for as long as I've been playing GT Sport, so it's better than it ever was for me. I've also recently gone back to Elite Dangerous which is still incredible. I never managed to get back into any of the older games. PSVR has blown my mind and if it weren't for GT Sport being so addictive I would now be playing Borderlands in VR instead. I don't have the time to play all that I want to play. Games are better than they used to be.

Last year had Astrobot, Moss, God of War, Spiderman, RDR2. Sure some have their flaws, so did the old games. Oot and Half-life had their problems as well, no game is perfect. (Well Astrobot comes close)

The older you get the less time you have (or more on your mind) to fully immerse yourself in games. That's the difference.

I'll probably ramble a bit here, but I think I can break my thoughts out into a few different points.

1. Nostalgia absolutely plays a huge part in a degree. I am nostalgic for the good games of my youth, but not the bad ones. So the whole argument of "old games are elevated by nostalgia" only goes so far. The game had to be good enough to be played long enough to form a comforting and joyful period in your past. And because of that, I will always want to play a new indie game that taps into the styles from my youth, but I won't blindly love it if it's a bad game.

2. Newer games aren't necessarily of a higher or lower quality (barring technological limitations), but they're setting out to do different things, and reaching out to different audiences than games from the yesterday. Fact is, the fans of older 8 and 16 bit games are generally not the same fans who are fans of more modern styles of games, with some level of crossover, of course. So it's natural for people who used to game back in the day to not like newer directions, and natural for today's younger gamers not to like the old stuff.

3. Personally, I feel the mainstream (as in big publisher) gaming industry of today is continuing to move away from my tastes for the most part. But I'm glad to live in a time where even the "forgotten about" genres and styles are getting tons of games today on account of there just being way more games made.

Just like back then there are good games and bad games, they have just changed a lot

Nothing to see here, move along

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.

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

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"

No, games essentially aren't as good as they used to be.

Now everything has a season pass. Being DLC is now the standard unlockable characters and costumes are now usually hidden behind preorders or season passes. Once getting together with friends and playing a game used to be a special event, now how many times have you went incognito trying to avoid playing with your friends online because you don't really feel like playing a fps or battle arena game, and there is no such thing as couch coop. Games are rarely even campaign multiplayer and in fact fps games are now getting rid of campaign modes all together. Generations are no longer these barrier breaking achievements in gaming and now it is literally down to frame rate and resolution.

With the rare exception, true gaming died with the Wii U and Iwata. RIP