Games were better because we had less

Here is an concept, is it possible that the abundance of games in the newer generation is making gaming less enjoyable? Is it possible that the reason we find old games to be "better" than newer games is due to the fact that there were significantly less games available? And is it also possible that because of the lack of selection in the past and the infrequent releasing of games, we spent more time on one game causing us to be more attach to the games in comparison to the attachement we have to games now? Finally, do you think gamers' expectations are ruining their overall experiencing in gaming?

Is it possible that the abundance of games in the newer generation is making gaming less enjoyable? Nope.

Is it possible that the reason we find old games to be "better" than newer games is due to the fact that there were significantly less games available? Nope. Thats nosalgia and its distorting your perception. Most of those olders games sucked, but they were the best there was back then. Few games still have anything left that has aged well unto this day - and even so - beyond those one or two aspects, the rest of the game doesnt hold up well.

Do we spent more time on one game? Nope. Most games are getting shorter as more and more media are fighting for consumer attention. But most games in the past had lengthy play due to frustrating difficulty or tons of filler content. Few had genuinely lengthy gameplay.

Do I think gamers' expectations are ruining their overall experiencing in gaming? Nope. Been pretty much this way always. People whine about games since the BBS days.

Would Total War: Shogun 2 be better if there were less units, less unit types, smaller maps, and worse graphics? No. No, it would not. Plenty of games benefit from the "more is better " mentality. Most games benefit from the simple "more is not better, better is better" mindset that Blizzard typically adopts.

Is it possible that the abundance of games in the newer generation is making gaming less enjoyable? Nope.

Is it possible that the reason we find old games to be "better" than newer games is due to the fact that there were significantly less games available? Nope. Thats nosalgia and its distorting your perception. Most of those olders games sucked, but they were the best there was back then. Few games still have anything left that has aged well unto this day - and even so - beyond those one or two aspects, the rest of the game doesnt hold up well.

Do we spent more time on one game? Nope. Most games are getting shorter as more and more media are fighting for consumer attention. But most games in the past had lengthy play due to frustrating difficulty or tons of filler content. Few had genuinely lengthy gameplay.

Do I think gamers' expectations are ruining their overall experiencing in gaming? Nope. Been pretty much this way always. People whine about games since the BBS days.

Would Total War: Shogun 2 be better if there were less units, less unit types, smaller maps, and worse graphics? No. No, it would not. Plenty of games benefit from the "more is better " mentality. Most games benefit from the simple "more is not better, better is better" mindset that Blizzard typically adopts.

XaosII

I believe you misunderstood key aspects of my post. I am not arguing or implying that older games were better and newer games are bad. In a nutshell I am saying older games were more "enjoyable" and appreciated due to the lack of selection/options and not necessarily because they were better.

No I really disagree. I remember when RE4 came out, I enjoyed it more than games before it, and there were a boat load of games at the time.

Is it possible that the abundance of games in the newer generation is making gaming less enjoyable? Nope.

Is it possible that the reason we find old games to be "better" than newer games is due to the fact that there were significantly less games available? Nope. Thats nosalgia and its distorting your perception. Most of those olders games sucked, but they were the best there was back then. Few games still have anything left that has aged well unto this day - and even so - beyond those one or two aspects, the rest of the game doesnt hold up well.

Do we spent more time on one game? Nope. Most games are getting shorter as more and more media are fighting for consumer attention. But most games in the past had lengthy play due to frustrating difficulty or tons of filler content. Few had genuinely lengthy gameplay.

Do I think gamers' expectations are ruining their overall experiencing in gaming? Nope. Been pretty much this way always. People whine about games since the BBS days.

Would Total War: Shogun 2 be better if there were less units, less unit types, smaller maps, and worse graphics? No. No, it would not. Plenty of games benefit from the "more is better " mentality. Most games benefit from the simple "more is not better, better is better" mindset that Blizzard typically adopts.

XaosII

i disagree, i recently played xenogears a game from 1999 i think, a 13 years old, more than many people in this site apparently. And besides the obvious bad graphics it has which are quite terrible, everything in the game itself bests anything newer games have to offer. As rpg its a heavy story focused game, but it feels complete, with the characters really well done, great dialogue and better story. I don't know how modern day games can't come with some of the dialogues or scenes in this game, they are just lacking.

Uh, no.

I don't know if they were better back in the day, but I certainly got much more value out of them. I re-played games all the time way back when I wasn't able to buy many new games, let alone rent them. Wasn't so adverse to doing so back then. Definitely made me appreciate them greatly.

Nowadays I'm lucky if I ever get to do that because I'm moving from game to game at almost all times. Kinda makes me wish I weren't subscribed to GameFly and so darn obsessed with staying current with the release schedule so I could finally have the time to spend re-playing games all I want. Finally revisit Okami again, maybe the Spyro games on the PlayStation. It'd be nice to play those again. Been a while.

One....I have to agree that the quantity of games has nothing to do with the quality of games.

For example, I've first experience certain old school games long after they first released, and they still became among my top favorite games....despite the contemporary selection available to me.

Also, in all honestly, I feel as if I actually had more access to a greater selection of games and their full experience in past generations then I do with the current one.

No. I would say we actually have less games & less variety than ever before.

Back in the sidescrolling days games could be made in a matter of months, in the days of 3d gaming games could be made in a year. Now all games take at least 2 yrs to make. We had a great abundance of games back then.

I also feel there were more variety. In todays world the only games i see releasing seem to be shooter or action games. What the hell happened to 3d platformers? Everything it becoming more maintsream, less risk, less variety, more dumbing down all games.

We had better games & more variety back then then we do now. Not to say that games arent great now because they are. Gamers today dont play the amount of games they used to. Gamers expectations are definitely ruining their overall experience.

A lot of folks just wont even play a game if it didnt get a 9.5/10. People will only play the biggest, triple A titles of the year these days. Everything else is just ignored.

No. I would say we actually have less games & less variety than ever before.

Back in the sidescrolling days games could be made in a matter of months, in the days of 3d gaming games could be made in a year. Now all games take at least 2 yrs to make. We had a great abundance of games back then.

I also feel there were more variety. In todays world the only games i see releasing seem to be shooter or action games. What the hell happened to 3d platformers? Everything it becoming more maintsream, less risk, less variety, more dumbing down all games.

We had better games & more variety back then then we do now. Not to say that games arent great now because they are. Gamers today dont play the amount of games they used to. Gamers expectations are definitely ruining their overall experience.

A lot of folks just wont even play a game if it didnt get a 9.5/10. People will only play the biggest, triple A titles of the year these days. Everything else is just ignored.

brucecambell

Completely agree.

First, the turn-around for a great sequels that actually had significant improvements seemed to be done is much less time, with quite a few actually lived up to their acclaimed predeccessors.

The excellent Monkey Island 2 arrived less then a year after the acclaimed Secret of Monkey Island, and is regarded as one of the best sequels. Fallout 2 came out just a year after Fallout, yet it was a great and worthy sequel. Baldur's Gate II, probable one of the most huge and epic RPG sagas that's considered one of the best of all time, came out just two years after Baldur's Gate. The excellent Resident Evil 2 arrived just a couple of years after the hit Resident Evil. Majora's Mask came out a mere two years after Ocarina of Time, widely regarded as the greatest game of it's time, and still managed to live up to it....etc.

These days, we wade through years of hype, PR and marketing, which many times end up in disappointment....or we get the annual sequel that has little improvement or creative risk over it's predecessor so that it seems like a franchise is being milked.

Back in the day, there also definitely seemed to be more creative variety...but as was said, these days, most games seem to be going the shooter route.

Even within popular genre's, like shooters, there seemed to be more creative risk and payoff.

These days, everything seems to be either Modern War or a roided-out or faceless Futuristic or Space Marine shooter. This pretty much sums up your typical lazy protagonist these days in that genre:
http://www.gamesradar.com/the-top-7-lazy-character-cliches/?page=3
http://www.gamesradar.com/the-top-7-lazy-character-cliches/?page=4

In today's mainstream environment, even within the popular shooter genre, I doubt you'll ever see a creative FPS like No One Lives Forever....or a humorous FPS / TPS / Strategy hybrid like Giants: Citizen Kabuto...or a gothic horror shooter like Clive Barker's Undying.

In today's environment, at least in the bigger mainstream space, you couldn't make a survival horror game like Silent Hill or Silent Hill 2....they'd be considered too slow and complex.

You couldn't have an RPG like the excellent Planescape Torment...."Bah!...too much reading", "this is too weird" would be the response.

You couldn't have a game like Day of the Tentacle today coming out of a big name company....I mean, it's a game that features a time traveling porta-potty....too against the grain for today's audience who adhere to conformity and cliche.

Games like Grim Fandango couldn't be made my big name publishers today...things like that exist now only in the indie scene. It's no wonder the indie scene has been a beacon of creativity over the past several years in comparison to the mainstream sector.

id say last gen was probably better cause games had a challenge and had length and it seems were getting hd collections to mgs and dmc mind you both got challenge and great length and thats more then what most games can say this day and age sure there are a bunch of variety but jesus 60$ for what? 3-5 hours at most? freaking waist

In today's mainstream environment, even within the popular shooter genre, I doubt you'll ever see a creative FPS like No One Lives Forever....or a humorous FPS / TPS / Strategy hybrid like Giants: Citizen Kabuto...or a gothic horror shooter like Clive Barker's Undying.

In today's environment, at least in the bigger mainstream space, you couldn't make a survival horror game like Silent Hill or Silent Hill 2....they'd be considered too slow and complex.

You couldn't have an RPG like the excellent Planescape Torment...."Bah!...too much reading", "this is too weird" would be the response.

You couldn't have a game like Day of the Tentacle today coming out of a big name company....I mean, it's a game that features a time traveling porta-potty....too against the grain for today's audience who adhere to conformity and cliche.

Games like Grim Fandango couldn't be made my big name publishers today...things like that exist now only in the indie scene. It's no wonder the indie scene has been a beacon of creativity over the past several years in comparison to the mainstream sector.

gamerdude375

Yes. I think this is exactly whats wrong with the industry right now. Maybe not even the industry itself but gamers of this generation who are so stubborn & close minded.

This is why the industry is heading off in to a terrible direction. It really all comes down to gamers. These unique games you mentioned would not be made in todays world, & if they did they would be made much with a faster paced, dumbed down, mainstream, action appeal.

Everything is conforming to the stubborn, close minded, trigger happy, fast paced, action, dumb, mainstream, ADHD gamers. I understand games have to sell but if only gamers were more open to different experiences we would all be in a better place.

Here is an concept, is it possible that the abundance of games in the newer generation is making gaming less enjoyable? Is it possible that the reason we find old games to be "better" than newer games is due to the fact that there were significantly less games available? And is it also possible that because of the lack of selection in the past and the infrequent releasing of games, we spent more time on one game causing us to be more attach to the games in comparison to the attachement we have to games now? Finally, do you think gamers' expectations are ruining their overall experiencing in gaming?

Pedro

What are you even talking about? For every good game that was on the NES, there was a plethora of incredibly bad ones. Just because you never knew they existed doesn't mean they didn't.

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Here is an concept, is it possible that the abundance of games in the newer generation is making gaming less enjoyable? Is it possible that the reason we find old games to be "better" than newer games is due to the fact that there were significantly less games available? And is it also possible that because of the lack of selection in the past and the infrequent releasing of games, we spent more time on one game causing us to be more attach to the games in comparison to the attachement we have to games now? Finally, do you think gamers' expectations are ruining their overall experiencing in gaming?

MadVybz

What are you even talking about? For every good game that was on the NES, there was a plethora of incredibly bad ones. Just because you never knew they existed doesn't mean they didn't.

:| The real question is what are you responding to?

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

Here is an concept, is it possible that the abundance of games in the newer generation is making gaming less enjoyable? Is it possible that the reason we find old games to be "better" than newer games is due to the fact that there were significantly less games available? And is it also possible that because of the lack of selection in the past and the infrequent releasing of games, we spent more time on one game causing us to be more attach to the games in comparison to the attachement we have to games now? Finally, do you think gamers' expectations are ruining their overall experiencing in gaming?

Pedro

What are you even talking about? For every good game that was on the NES, there was a plethora of incredibly bad ones. Just because you never knew they existed doesn't mean they didn't.

:| The real question is what are you responding to?

You're implying that there are far more games avaiable now than there were in previous generations, which is just plain false. I used the NES as an example (taking into account of all the unlicenced releases as well). The PS2 also had well over 1500 titles.

You're implying that there are far more games avaiable now than there were in previous generations, which is just plain false. I used the NES as an example (taking into account of all the unlicenced releases as well). The PS2 also had well over 1500 titles.MadVybz

One could argue that there are more games given the rise of digital distribution. That and retail could have very well resulted in more titles is this generation than we've seen previously.

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]You're implying that there are far more games avaiable now than there were in previous generations, which is just plain false. I used the NES as an example (taking into account of all the unlicenced releases as well). The PS2 also had well over 1500 titles.c_rake

One could argue that there are more games given the rise of digital distribution. That and retail could have very well resulted in more titles is this generation than we've seen previously.

It is perfectly possible, but it's hard to tell. There's also the issue with which games to actually count; a lot of the games available on the XBLA for example are just like any other flash game (Texas Hold 'Em, Chess, etc) and updates and re-releases from previous generations.

But if you mean in just sheer numbers without any type of filter then yes, digital distribution will probably allow the over-taking of the PS2's library soon.

I'm not one of those "older instantly equals better" kind of guys so I'm not like "Oh this game just released? Sucks." I love many older games and I think a good chunk of them hold up well though.

Seems like there are less games now because entire genre's consist of little more than damned near identical games. There was more variety to be found in two or three previous gen' shooters than in a dozen of them today. Creativity has been replaced by wholesale copying of Game X because it sold 10 gazillion copies.

@OP Not entirely, but you may be on to something. One thing I have noticed that I don't make much of an effort for most of the games I own. When I was a kid, I had very limited funds, so I had to save for like 3 months to buy a full-priced game. As a result, I bought a lot of budget games and ended up being stuck with them, so I had to make the most of it. Eventually, I came to appreciate quite some games I would've dismissed nowadays. Now, it's just so easy to shove a game aside without giving it a proper chance. I still have unplayed games from the Steam winter sale from well over a year ago.