Are New Games really doing better than the Old Ones in the areas that really matter?

So the question is simple. As a gamer we know the areas that principally matter for us in order to establish certain rating we can give to the title under review.

1. Plot

2. Music

3. Art and Design

4. Special Effects

5. Voice acting

6. Controls

But are the new games really doing better than the old ones in these areas?

The current AAA releases pale in ocmparison to last gen and the gens before that. The most prominent games this gen. I'm sure would agree are probably: MGS V, FO 4, TW 3, Watchdogs and a couple others. How many of them will go down in history as truly great games? Maybe Witcher 3 but that's about it.

2017 seems promising and if everything goes to plan we should get GOW, Mass Effect, Prey and many others in a packed AAA cycle so there's still hope.

@zintura:

1. About as good as last gen.

2. As good as last gen.

3. Also as good as last gen.

4. Alot better due to better specs and architecture.

5. Acting was never a problem last gen.

6. About the same only better performance.

Well it hasn't been much of an improvement aside from graphics. But I'm sure anyone else can agree that videogames have come a long way since it was born. The transition from ps2 to ps3 was enormous in graphics, controls and overall performance. Look at GTA IV and V compared to GTA III, Rise of the Tomb Raider to Tomb Raider 13. Even Metal Gear Solid 5 to Metal Gear Solid 4, or Batman Arkham Knight to Arkham City. The improvements are pretty damn big already.

@killered3: You do know art and design has to do much with the minds behind and not really the techs. So i didnt intend to talk about graphics actually though i mentioned special effects and its obvious how much they have improved... And i disagree... voice acting HAVE actually been an issue if you have the ears to spot it. Have you played Magnacarta: tears of blood and resident evil 6? Voice acting is ridiculous in the former mention, but resident evil 6 although it appears to be doing fine in that area but if you pay a close attention i found voice acting in the latter mention a bit childish at times and then it became so apparent to me.

@zintura:

Never played Magnacarta but I did play Resident Evil 6. I thought the voice acting was just fine in Resident Evil 6. What was really wrong with it was the shitty dialogue writing which really isn't the voice actors' fault. Capcom never really had brilliant writers for the RE series anyway so it's not really new. Either that or blame bad localization. Resident Evil 6 actually had pretty popular voice actors who are well-used in the anime dub world.

I guess it's a stretch to say voice acting isn't a problem everywhere but it's rarely a problem in my experience. And I play a lot of crap! Besides, you said this gen, not last gen and Resident Evil 6 is last gen-born.

Some game elements have gotten better.

The real problem with most AAA games is the companies are pushing to make the game for the mythical mass market.

Look at Mass Effect 2 and the removal of the RPG elements. Also Skyrim and Fallout 4 removing depth from their game play.

Yes and No

While some new games expand on some areas they go back on others.

Particular FPS games seems stale, Overwatch, Call of Duty, Battlefield , Moba´s is all a symbol of the stagnation that has hit some areas.

I would say FPS have been the one to push forward and that RPG are the one that have done worse than stagnated.

I think we can objectively say simulator games are better at simulating.

@uninspiredcup: Oh yes, they mostly depend on techs so thats absolutely right.

Personally I think that overall games are generally better in all areas.

it may be subjective but i don't think these are necessarily the "areas... principally" used to rate a game. plot is the only one from your list that i'd use as a standalone factor when rating a game, but plot is relative to the game type. doom for instance is a good game that doesn't rely on its plot. conversely until dawn is a good game that relies heavily on its plot.

with plot, music or voice acting you just expect a particular level of authenticity. there's good and bad examples of them this gen just like in previous gens. i personally tend to only really notice them when they're either really good or really bad.

art and design is subjective.

special effects is too vague a term but is likely to just be relative to the power of the hardware. an abundance or lack of special effects certainly doesn't denote a good or bad game.

controls are just one of several factors that constitute the overall gameplay quality and feel of the game.

i'd personally be more inclined to use things like mechanics, atmosphere / immersion, gameplay, graphics / performance, innovation and just simply "is it fun and a good experience?", in addition to plot, as qualities to use to rate a game

Interesting you analysed the rating factors instead of getting along with the question. i had no intention on discussing these and I have no idea how you conceive the rating factors you mentioned as "Not" vague but lets disect.

Innovation is extremely vague of a factor because its interlinked with every component of the game, either you can say mechanics are good or they are innovative can mean the same thing or you can rate the whole game on the basis of it being innovative that way you wont be pin pointing anything thats specifically worth noticing within the game based on which you can rate the game more appropriately. I dont see how you are trying to differentiate between mechanics, controls and gameplay and atmosphere and particularly immersion which is extremely subjective to its core. what immerses you? music? art and design? plot? its an extremely vague to be a rating factor.

Graphics is an extremely general of a term, its obvious that with every upgrade in the hardware graphics are meant to be more and more detailed, now if you consider special effects, consider the last guardian and cyber punk now you can easly differentiate the two but based on special effects but if you talk about your graphics they are generally well in both.

I dont see why atmosphere/immersion does not have to do anything with plot as well as art and design. You combined the factors and gave them one name vague in its meaning where as i bifurcated it into saperately noticable factors.

Now what i understood is that you generally rate a game based on overall feeling that you get. I do endorse it as one of the most reliable method because more or less it qualifies as an authentic customer's feedback but its an "un-presentable" method.

Average enjoyment hasn't seemed to obviously increase, so I don't think games are better than before. Games these days try to do too much, and developers are nervous about people thinking their games are too simple.

It depends. Many new games were inspired by older games.

i'm not really bothered whether you had any intention on discussing those things. you made a generalisation on behalf of all gamers "we know the areas that principally matter for us in order to establish certain rating" that i disagreed with, as it was said under the assumption that we all think the same as you, and that was one of the points i was making, that i personallythink you need to go more high level with your criteria in order to produce a more worthwhile and useful comparison of games.

i didn't answer the question because i don't think it'd produce anything worthwhile. why don't you demonstrate with a comparison of two games from this and last gen using the criteria you mentioned and show how you can use them to accurately conclude which is better?

and yeah i do personally think that "special effects" is a more vague term than innovation. you say "consider the last guardian and cyber punk now you can easly differentiate the two but based on special effects" but i have no idea what you mean at all by that tbh. it's vague. if i said portal was innovative because of the mechanic that enabled you to place portals across scenery and move through them to reach previously inaccessible areas you'd know exactly what i meant. innovation is much easier to be specific about than "special effects"

@Macutchi: Oh yeah i spotted that. the word "but" shouldnt be there. it was a typo.

Nobody required you to understand the word "we" with such precision in its literal meaning, others are still commenting and yeah they are "stating" factors that matter to them but what sounded weird was you saying the factors i mentioned are "vague" while you mention the factors that are even more vague. Games are not rated based on gut feeling, neither on factors that do not have a specific meaning.

If mechanics matter to you thats fine you described it the way you see it. But calling the most common basis for rating "Vague"...

i wasn't picking you up on a typo i was picking you up on the fact that i have no idea what you were referring to when you said you can easily differentiate between the last guardian and cyber punk based on "special effects." i don't even know what cyber punk is tbh... the upcoming cyberpunk 2077? could you explain what you meant when you said this?

and fine, you think my criteria are vague and i think some of yours are. i can't be bothered having a back and forth about it. it's just a difference of opinion. i wanted you to demonstrate using your criteria how you compare two games over two gens and decide which is better but you ignored that part of my post which, until you do, kind of proves my point that they're not all very useful when comparing games.

what are you referring to here? are you saying that "special effects" are the most "common basis" for rating a game?

Personally I think games aren't doing better but it's not people don't want too... I think it's because many people and especially big companies aren't inclined to do soo.

They did back in the early days of Half-life but today they are just contributing to the stagnation

FPS is in fact the worst gaming has to offer.

Art is about the same. Hyperrealistic graphics doesn't equal better art.

Imagine if GTA V were made using GTA II graphics having the same exact storyline except in text. It could still be an AAA game.

FPS have been pushing level design and other aspect forward since Half-life. They are still push forward and that is more of a fact than calling them the worse gaming has to offer.

Now, RPG have been doing worse that stagnated.

@Macutchi: Ah i mistook cyber punk for the infamous: Second Son. I saw the gameplay long ago, and i thought it was the best reference i could give for the "Special effects". What i meant here was one can say both the titles Last guardian and the infamous are innovative but it would be vague to define them as such because they do not specify the context in which they are innovative. No Man's Sky was innovative but was a huge disappointment for many, so highly innovative game does not mean higher ratings.

You know It sounds pretty childish to ask me to use my criteria to demonstrate how one can compare the games of two Gens. Its not at all that hard, specially since i am using the criteria that are in fact commonly recognized by many. I think you lack insight on user reviews.

Difference of opinion? I cant imagine plot, music, art and design, controls are "not all that useful" factors for differentiating old and new gens v.games.

No! i am not saying special effects are most common basis.

Anyways just to clarify the list i drew down for the "principle factors" was not meant to be exhaustive. You are welcome to add your own criteria and briefly describe your point if you have one to make.