Do you feel that games made today are inferior in some ways to older games?

I think certain developers get burnt out of making the same type of game constantly, has been even stated in various interviews (Katsuhiro Harada san wanted to stop Tekken at Tag 2, that's why T7 is mediocre, Bandai Namco had them contracted for one more game and Tekken team wanted to move-on years before with Pokkén, Rise of Incarnates, and the now Soul Calibur VI).

And when developers loose key members (many cases for this).

However overall quality games still exist. You just have to be more careful because companies like EA and Activision 'especially' will tell you something is the best game ever in adverts, when in reality they even know they're selling you complete garbage.

So long story short "no".

Well it's hard to make a generic statement like this. Sure you could make arguments about franchises getting better or worse. Sure there are current trends like LootBoxes that might make some games worse, but for each SW BF 2 we have a ton of indie games doing it right.

Long story short- No

Nope. After spending a little time with Shenmue 1 I was reminded just how far we have come.

Absolutely positively not.

Now I am speaking specifically of an 'area' of gaming in which the modern era it blows the socks off anything created in the past.

Yes in some cases some developers evolve others stay complacent pumping out the same tired shit every year we need more risk in this era.

Yes.

Making console games is so expensive today that devs cannot take risks. So they make mainstream stuff, which is always inferior to the edgy and fresh old games.

Also, today's devs need to think about politics. In the old days, you could have blatant racism and sexism in your games and nobody complained. But now you need to be super careful what your heroes do or say in the game, which also makes modern games more boring.

Hell no. Take off those nostalgia goggles and realize that there were great games and creativity in every gen. To say otherwise is factually incorrect. btw @tryit is that your alt lol

it is inaccurate.

post 2013 is awesome. somewhere around 2004ish-2012 was terrible.

what games were you playing in that era to say it was terrible?

Stalker, GTA series, Sims 3, Fallout 3

is what I can think of

No I don’t think so myself. While there were certainly some great games made in the past that I still love to go back and play again I think that overall gaming has gotten better in general.

It's funny, I personally would say 2002-2012 was the best time for gaming. Graphics were good enough to be genuinely pretty, most developers had a handle on how to make 3D games that control well, you have the early days of online consoles before all the money sucks got inserted in everything. This period has most of my all time favorite games: Soul Calibur 2, Half Life 2, F-Zero GX, Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time Trilogy, Bayonetta, Viewtiful Joe, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Baten Kaitos, Virtua Fighter 5, SSX 3, Tony Hawk 4, Jesus I could go on...

Welcome!

No. I think if anything games have gotten much better. Quality of life, art direction, etc...

HOWEVER

Big publishers have a tendency to muck things up, to put it extremely nicely (and to avoid going on a rant).

Thankfully we have the mid-range game space where people still make awesome games without having to rely on these big publishers and gaming has never been better!

I don't share the exact list of games as you but agree, gaming is good and looking back many older games hold up nicely.

Not all I suppose, namely the ones that focused on being the graphical power of its generation or focused on a gimmick/over quality gameplay aged like a rotten egg.

It depends on what we define as "inferior". Modern games are definitely more polished as far as game design but they are often published in an unfinished state. They also tend to err on the side of "bigger" rather than "better", which means they suffer from noticeable diminishing returns, when all they do is bake the same cake from last year but cut bigger slices.

Yes, more commercialized anyway

No, absolutely not.

There are obviously some exceptions, but for the most part games are far better, have more depth, and at the same time are becoming more accessible.

If I went back in time with even a mediocre (but decent) game from today and gave it to 10-year old me, he'd say two things: 1. "how did you get so fat?" and 2. "HOLY SHIT THIS IS AMAZING! How am I going to tolerate games for the next two decades knowing this is how games are in the future! DAMN YOU FUTURE ME! YOu've RUINED GAming FOR ME!!!"

What has changed, however, are the business tactics of game publishers. That...might not be so good. I enjoyed the days of buying a game and having that be the end of it a lot more than today's "hook 'em and bleed 'em dry" philosophy of "services", endless DLC, and so forth.

Well, they both have their ups and downs. The games nowadays have way better graphics and the levels are more complex and detailed than anything.. something that old games couldn't compete with.

But the games of the past I feel because of their simplicity, made them more addicting. Some times the simple things in life are the most enjoyable.

yeah it was a great time to be a gamer. so many great games i won't even begin to attempt to list them. 2007 in particular was insane

I was in a 'gaming wasteland' during that era, it was really hard for me to find something intresting.

now I cant even keep up with the likes of Space Engineers and the list goes on and on and on and on

not a single one (minecraft? really? seriously?) of those games had any building and at best only the most basic of crafting.

so yeah...not so much good era for this guy

well... that's a shame; horses for courses i guess.

back then i was playing all the total war games, civilization games, sins of a solar empire, x3 reunion, age of empires etc to get my fix of those kind of games (ballpark at least). and i was loving it tbh. plus so many other genres were well represented, i have a lot of great memories of those days when i was ~90% pc gamer, 10% console, if that, whereas now it's the opposite.

at least you're enjoying gaming now

yeah just to make my point again.

there was literally only one game then that had any building in it at all and that was Minecraft.

If you were intrested in crafting or building you as a gamer where shit out of luck.

we had a server on Neverwinter Nights 1 that did have those things but that had to be custom built.

I almost stopped gaming.

yes...better now for people like myself...much better

Wasn't Little Big Planet before Minecraft. In fact Minecraft came out the same year as Little Big Planets sequel_

LBP 2008, MC 2011

Games are better now then they have ever been.

@feleciagomez:

Well, they both have their ups and downs. The games nowadays have way better graphics and the levels are more complex and detailed than anything.. something that old games couldn't compete with.

I agree graphically games have progressed in leaps and bounds. The detail that goes into the scenery and characters is pretty astounding and realistic. The soundtrack i believe have also improved on some of the older games. Although Wipeout had a pretty decent soundtrack if i remember correctly.

But the games of the past I feel because of their simplicity, made them more addicting. Some times the simple things in life are the most enjoyable.

I have to say though games now are even more addictive because of their improvements. I can spend hours mucking about on Assassin's Creed Origin's or even longer playing Bloodbourne challenging myself. I suppose this depends on the individual.

Thanks for your thoughts.. ;)

I guess the answer is "it depends", not just on the game but who you are.

For example, I was watching Gamespots "does it still holdup" with two younger guys, about 20-25 i'm guessing, and they complained about Halflifes level design being too complex and the difficulty of the AI, ultimately recommending not to play it, which I honestly found baffling.

On the other hand their are genuinely bad/petty design in older titles, especially ones designed for the arcade purposefully trying to screw you over. Thankfully alot of translations to consoles were altered, and in this day and age you can use a save-slot to bypass headaches of yesterdays.

Once you bypass the bullshit difficulty, alot of these games can be finished in 20 minutes. Which can be good or bad depending on your attitude.

Early third person combat from the PS1 era was generally bad, as were early stealth mechanics barring the likes of Thief.

-

Modern games like Assassins Creed are straight up garbage imo. There is no skill involves. No creativity. Once you bypass the production values we are left with an automated game that doesn't punish player, nor give any engaging or rewarding gameplay. It's hollow to the core, yet by sheer marketing spam, held up on a pedestal.

Rainbow 6 and Ghost Recon use to be slow, methodical shooters. With an emphasis on planning and positioning over twitch filled Hollywood extravaganzas. Now Rainbow 6 is essentially counterstrike, prior to being Gears Of War and Ghost Recon is an unrecognizable, indistinguishable Ubisoft open world game.

It's went from a planning phase, to needing to be level 5 to throw a flash-bang. It's completely bastardized, and compared to it's original incarnation. pretty much insulting to anyone who enjoyed the originals.

Other obvious crap, QTE's. forced walking, movie games. A bunch of bullshit largely not present in 90 and early 2000 games where with production values there is an exception to emulation a movie rather than focus on a game being a game. Stuff like the Last Of US, Uncharted and David Cage titles i'd happily throw in a dumpster.

So ye. Post.

@RSM-HQ said:

@tryit said:

there was literally only one game then that had any building in it at all and that was Minecraft.

Wasn't Little Big Planet before Minecraft. In fact Minecraft came out the same year as Little Big Planets sequel_

LBP 2008, MC 2011

yeah what my complaining! that is obviously a good set of choices for building and crafting compared to today

actually not remotely so

EDIT: the real irony is that this game looks more like a low budget indie high school project then the indies I play.

You're very conceited, even when someone finds a game fitting exactly what you tell us, you apparently like in games. . .

Non-the-less LBP is a level creator about building and being creative with some very in-depth layers. Not just for creating games, but music and sculptures as well.

obviously a good set of choices for building and crafting compared to today

Little Big Planet may not be a game made "today" however your exact wording was games made around the time of Minecraft was it not? And you claimed it was the only one of its kind.

To dismiss a game and claim it doesn't offer a "good set of choices" yet let's one build FPS games, Racers, Music, Sprite-based Platformers, or anything else you're creative enough to think and build_

well, that's ignorance itself.

Inferior how?

How are you specifying quality?

There is more money than before but expectations are higher and games fall short of their own hype.

Also there is more pressure for a return so risks and new ideas are avoided.

I think that's the real problem.

@RSM-HQ said:

@tryit said:

The real irony is that this game looks more like a low budget indie high school project then the indies I play.

You're very conceited, even when someone finds a game fitting exactly what you tell us, you apparently like in games. . .

Non-the-less LBP is a level creator about building and being creative with some very in-depth layers. Not just for creating games, but music and sculptures as well.

obviously a good set of choices for building and crafting compared to today

Little Big Planet may not be a game made "today" however your exact wording was games made around the time of Minecraft was it not? And you claimed it was the only one of its kind.

To dismiss a game and claim it doesn't offer a "good set of choices" yet let's one build FPS games, Racers, Music, Sprite-based Platformers, or anything else you're creative enough to think and build_

well, that's ignorance itself.

dude,...two games??????????????????/

ok yeah you got me raw MC was not the ONLY game in that time there was ...what? two? three? where where games like The Forest? Ark? Rust? 7 Days to Die? From The Depths? (please actually look at those games to get a cluse what I am refering to)

sorry but the buil;ding games of this era are not only far more 'grown up' then that shit you are showing me, but also in great quantity by leaps and bounds.

I am sorry but for a person who likes games like Space Engineers your evidence you are showing is not helping me believe that the era in question was fantastic for building games

now if you can remove your head from your ass and take a look at THe forest to get a clue about what I am talking about that would be great

you know what really pisses me off, people who complain about all the 'low budget high school project looking indie games' on Steam and then show a game like 'Little Big Planet' to counter that there are building games out there like Space Engineers.

Which game looks more like a 'high school indie project' Space engineers or Little Big Planet'?

fucking insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean for christ sake at least look at it

The Forest

Osiris New Dawn

Interstellar Rift

I can get about 20 more examples if you like...20 more examples

I kind of agree.

games back then were way simpler than nowadays. most of today's games are competitive in someway even in campaign modes. which is good in someways and bad in someways too.

Dont know how it is in america but here in Europe, shooter-games made in the early 2000s could end up with a PEGI 12 age-rating, such as 007 Everything or Nothing.

I miss the times where devs could make shooters suitable for children, like the Bond-game mentioned above. They had a certain charm. But today, especially in america, everything is offensive and unethical

I feel that games have generally gotten better with technology, but specifically I see issues with emphasis that are apart from any sort of technological or economic constraint. To take just one example, open world games continue to see space as content and as a result have formed a genre built entirely around busy work. If you take the individual elements and compare them to their single player counterparts in other types of games, they just don't hold up. In general, open world games are actually far more linear when it comes to mission structure and story, with far inferior enemy scripting. The combat elements tend to be less deep, etc.

In the open world genre, there is clearly an orientation around spectacle rather than meaningful, moment to moment interactions...like, if we just put enough stuff in the game, people will miss the fact that none of it is really that good compared to other games with similar features - but we'll have more features, so it's ok. It's a kind of shotgun blast/buffet approach to game development. I've heard Ubisoft comment on how easy it is to build large world spaces with today's technology, and maybe that's the problem - it hasn't gotten any easier to make a good quest or a compelling level layout and now you have games that are struggling to harness the space that technology is foisting on them.

There's nothing wrong with the genre concept at all, it's just devs who see the size of their game world as the be-all-end-all benchmark for their project - it's often the first thing they will tell you about when the game is announced. I just can't get excited about the genre because of it. This is where games like the newer TR titles serve as good examples with devs saying, "let's open up our game world, but not so big that everything loses its focus." Let's put game flow above game space.

You lost me when you said that " 7 days to die" & "Ark" are great games.

At least back in the pre online days when you went out and bought the game, you were getting the complete product. Similarly, I could be wrong but it seemed like there was better quality control in those days also, as there was no day-1 patch safety net. If the game was buggy, then there were no second chances.

Graphics? Nope. Modern games look great. No contest. Now if we talk about useless fluff? Maybe.

Yup. Dev want shortcuts now. They want easy cash, less game longtivity, force players to grind, force anti gaming practices such as season passes, dlc, microtransactions, drm etc. Oh b4 sum idiot shouts games cost money and 60$is too less think if the old pcs used to. Cost 6000$+ why arent d current pc costing even more? Oh yes we have all the technologies to easen dev games. Back then space was limited, technology was outdated, lack of game enginea, graphic cards, cpus, internet, servers etc. What ur excuse now for them to cost more than 60$?

@tryit: Giving more that are available in 2018 doesn't defeat the purpose of my post, you said Minecraft was the "only" building and create game of a certain time-frame, because you played a limited scope of games like Sims and GTA. . .

And when I presented another game (fitting your description) outside your narrow bubble, you simply dismissed it as a "low budget game with no choice for building".

You was shown to be very wrong_

yeah just to make my point again.

there was literally only one game then that had any building in it at all and that was Minecraft.

A list of what's available now isn't relevant. That's changing the rant topic you started and presented in the first place! If you can't keep on point how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

you know what really pisses me off, people who complain about all the 'low budget high school project looking indie games' on Steam and then show a game like 'Little Big Planet' to counter that there are building games out there like Space Engineers.

See this here, it's exactly my point. You can't even hold a conversation you-yourself start. So now it's less about games with creation tools. Now obtusely moved to lighting, poly count, high res textures, and all that graphical glamor

When was that in debate ever, and is comparing technology a decade apart making you feel any more superior?

Yeah dood rant away about gibberish. I don't give a flying **** about Space Engineers, you're a terrible PR salesman, and didn't care for it in your first GS rant over eight months ago_

8 months, 4 days ago- The internet friggin exploded! that video game out while I was friggin playing Space Engineeers building a space ship! are you friggin kidding me? have you see the features in Space Engineers? holy balz!

How much does Keen Software House pay you for promotion anyway?

What exactly was the purpose of your post?

that the era in gaming pre-2013 was fantastic for building fans becuase of Little Big Planet? or because I was wrong that the number was 2 and not 1?

you are fucking insane.

The era now for people who enjoy building games is EXCEPTIONALLY BETTER

period end of story.

posting some indie high school project like Little Big Planet isnt going to change that. and its clear to me you dont give a damn to even look into my examples.

Here are some more examples

Planet Nomads

Planet Coaster

Jurassic World Evolution

Rust

reply to me again and I will just post yet more building game examples. lets tango.

lets make it a game, you post all the building games from that era and I will do the same just from 2013 forward.

I am up to 9 so far and just getting started. I have at least 3 times that, having even posted Ark yet

Troll me all you want (with comments about me working for Keen) , it will only lead to me posting more examples, so be sure to understand what you are asking for by doing so. I am ready for this bullshit

I think that there are some good games being made today, but there are many games considered very good, for marketing reasons, but they seem to have been made for stupid people with no skill requirements.