Is the decline in quality of video games over exaggerated?

Regardless of what genre you're talking about, or whether its a western or japanese game, usually we all eventually end up hearing this:

"Gaming just isn't what its used to be. Games back then had compelling stories and relatable characters unlike games now, which focus solely on graphics. Companies nowadays sell you incomplete games and give you the rest through DLC. Back then you got a complete game." Oh and my favorite: "I feel sorry for you kids nowadays, gaming meant something back then, now its just trash blah blah blah. Poor kiddies. Too bad you couldn't have been born in the eighties or early 90s."

I'm exaggerating just a tiny bit, but this is pretty much what I hear spouted in every game forum/discussion...ever. I'm wondering, do people who say this really consider gaming to be of a drastically lower quality now, or are they judging it while wearing their nostalgia glasses? Or perhaps you just grew up. As you get older, usually your standards get higher, and its easier to spot bad writing, cheesy one liners, broken gameplay, etc and be unsatisfied with it. Kids don't care about that kind of stuff. Everything is magical when you're a kid. Personally, I can no longer stomach some of the things I used to like as a kid. I don't think gaming has declined since I first picked up on the medium. I'm still finding great games that I'll still remember and replay years from now.

But thats just me. I've only been gaming roughly 15 years. Maybe the leap games made from 15 years ago isn't the same as the leap from games 20-30 years ago. Maybe 10 years from now, I'll be speaking about how good games used to be. Who knows.

So...is gaming getting better or worse? Are games TRULY getting worse or are people judging them all through those nostalgia glasses? Another interesting thing to think about is, does your answer depend on certain series, genre, or companies that immediatley come to mind?

No way, if you are talking about the actual quality of the games and storytelling and mechanics. Look at some of the earlier console's catalogs and almost all of it was complete garbage. There were tons of garbage platformers and side scrolling shooters that just copy pasted content. Overall quality has absolutely gotten better.

I think people are mostly complaining about the homogenizing of games, where big budgets are spent on making vanilla ice cream. Gaming is a big business now, with big companies that are trying to have the biggest audience possible. Of course, the publishers back then would have also liked to make millions of dollars, but gaming wasn't such a huge business then.

Still, amazing games are frequently made by the big publishers. Haven't played it yet, but Dishonored looks amazing. The Total War games are always good. Assassin's Creed is a pretty complex game and still gets huge audiences and budgets. Indie games are filling the void left by the more creative big publishers of the past.

Edit: Uh, I meant yes. It's exaggerated.

Games are better than ever. It's the changes in the way games are being delivered and the way they are being priced that annoys me.

The quality of games are as good as they've ever been, but the problems that exist today are more about the lack of imagination and originality in them.

There are two things that have been true throughout history in big hunks. You can find differences in ten years, but in 50 year hunks, 100 years hunks, youll find two things to be true. One, the world is always getting better. Two, people always think its getting worse.

Penn Jillette

I think every generation takes advantage of whatever hardware they have.

Early PC games were all about the random-number generator, and doing quick math to apply D&D ruleset, because calculation was the resource they felt they could take advantage of.

When Voodoo cards came out, it was all about poly count, textures and smoke effects.

In the 360/PS3 generation it was all about "cinematic" gaming where they're trying to make use of everybody having HDTV's.

It's not so much better or worse, just different eras.

Visually they're better, but overall I feel like video games have dipped in overall quality.

People are just blinded by nostalgia. Things always seem better in the past. In reality games are better now than they've ever been in general. In the future the kids growing up today will moan about how gaming was much better in this time and how much worse games are in the future.....only to them it would be the present....you get my point.

I actually think games are getting worse at a faster rate than seems to be the consensus. If Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy 13, Street Fighter IV, GTA IV, Resident Evil 5/6, Killzone, Call of Duty, Diablo III, Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Mass Effect, and Uncharted are what is considered good these days then I don't foresee myself being an active gamer too much longer. Games don't care about gameplay anymore. There doesn't seem to be any desire to challenge reflexes, critcal thinking skills, pattern recognition, or any other skills. It's just about presentation and streamlining now, taking the interactivity away at every opportunity. Games don't even necessarily have to be hard; I just want them to ask SOMETHING of the player. I feel like with most modern games I would get the same experience watching someone else play as I would playing it myself, and when it comes to that point I have to wonder why I'm playing at all.famicommander

Most of the games you listed get a fair amount of hate. Sure they were critically acclaimed by official review sites and magazines for the most part (possibly with the help of some money), but the gamers have been singing a whole 'nother tune. From what I've seen, the opinions are mixed, especially for games like FF 13, Mass Effect, Skyrim, and Call of Duty is probably the biggest one.

Maybe its because I play very few popular games, but I just don't see the huge, exaggerated decline. Yes, I think individual series have gotten rather stale and there is a sort of lack of imagination and innovation. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that games don't care about gameplay anymore and that they don't challenge my mind. Games like Catherine, Portal 2, Devil Survivor, and Persona 3 portable (only on maniac mode though) push my brain's critical thinking abilites, reflexes, and ability to form tactics to the limit. Hell, even in Uncharted 3, my reflexes are constantly tested (my opinion of that game is mixed though).

Your criticism is valid, and yes, some of those games you listed don't challenge and excite the player in my opinion. But I can't bring myself to look at only those popular, mainstream games and say that gaming as a whole has declined, when I'm having such a blast with the less popular and relativley niche games, especially since many mainstream games get dumbed down to appeal to the masses anywhooo.

gaming is doing fine. there are some trends i dislike such as the explosion of QTE's (which seem to be getting handled worse as well) and some developers focusing more on visual gratification than good interactivity, but there have always been bad games and trends. we are also seeing a ton of great ideas out of the blossoming small scale development scene. while i do harp about those types of games, there still solid AAA games getting made as well.

YES, it's over exaggerated. I think games today are better, or the same. A lot of gamers are just whingers. Nothing's ever good enough.

the quality of games is at it's peak IMO but its stagnant. most that money used to make games goes to MP so SP side of quality is going down the drain.

Quality is subjective. The decline exists if you're not a fan of what the masses are a fan of, which is the only thing the industry really cares about now that they've become a billion dollar establishment.

Depth and difficulty are what have declined, as those are two things that prevent a publisher from reaching as broad an audience as possible.

Regardless of what genre you're talking about, or whether its a western or japanese game, usually we all eventually end up hearing this:

"Gaming just isn't what its used to be. Games back then had compelling stories and relatable characters unlike games now, which focus solely on graphics. Companies nowadays sell you incomplete games and give you the rest through DLC. Back then you got a complete game." Oh and my favorite: "I feel sorry for you kids nowadays, gaming meant something back then, now its just trash blah blah blah. Poor kiddies. Too bad you couldn't have been born in the eighties or early 90s."

I'm exaggerating just a tiny bit, but this is pretty much what I hear spouted in every game forum/discussion...ever. I'm wondering, do people who say this really consider gaming to be of a drastically lower quality now, or are they judging it while wearing their nostalgia glasses? Or perhaps you just grew up. As you get older, usually your standards get higher, and its easier to spot bad writing, cheesy one liners, broken gameplay, etc and be unsatisfied with it. Kids don't care about that kind of stuff. Everything is magical when you're a kid. Personally, I can no longer stomach some of the things I used to like as a kid. I don't think gaming has declined since I first picked up on the medium. I'm still finding great games that I'll still remember and replay years from now.

But thats just me. I've only been gaming roughly 15 years. Maybe the leap games made from 15 years ago isn't the same as the leap from games 20-30 years ago. Maybe 10 years from now, I'll be speaking about how good games used to be. Who knows.

So...is gaming getting better or worse? Are games TRULY getting worse or are people judging them all through those nostalgia glasses? Another interesting thing to think about is, does your answer depend on certain series, genre, or companies that immediatley come to mind?

Lucky_Krystal

I think every generation takes advantage of whatever hardware they have.

Early PC games were all about the random-number generator, and doing quick math to apply D&D ruleset, because calculation was the resource they felt they could take advantage of.

When Voodoo cards came out, it was all about poly count, textures and smoke effects.

In the 360/PS3 generation it was all about "cinematic" gaming where they're trying to make use of everybody having HDTV's.

It's not so much better or worse, just different eras.

ZombieKiller7

Yes, developers are forgeting what games are about, gameplay (hence the reason they are called GAMES and not MOVIES), they think that the story makes the game and gameplay does not matter at all, this is painfully obvious because of the games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Mass Effect 2 getting higher scores than fun games like Saints Row 2, 3 and Just Cause 2.

Yes, developers are forgeting what games are about, gameplay (hence the reason they are called GAMES and not MOVIES), they think that the story makes the game and gameplay does not matter at all, this is painfully obvious because of the games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Mass Effect 2 getting higher scores than fun games like Saints Row 2, 3 and Just Cause 2.

RageQuitter69

Like I said earlier about review scores, think about how different the critics views are from the actual player's views at times. It's been suspected that companies will pay to have proffessional review sites/magazines give their games shining reviews, and I think there have been cases confirming it to be true (there's a thread about it floating around somewhere). For example, look at Call of Duty. Critically acclaimed across most of the video game sites but then look at the ARMY of gamers that will quickly tell you that they think COD is simplistic, boring, stupid, and is rehashed and milked to death. I swear some gamers see it as the cancer of the game industry. Same with fan reaction to GTA IV and Mass Effect 3.

As for developers forgetting what games are about...I guess that depends on the developer. When a series gets popular enough, it seems developers always end up dumbing down their games to appeal to the masses. I'm just gonna pick on Uncharted 3 again, even though I think its a decent game. But compare how difficult Uncharted 3 is to Jak and Daxter 2. The stakes are higher for AAA games, so developers attempt to appeal to everyone. Therefore, is it right to look at only mainstream games and say "oh gaming is going to hell"

To me thats like only listening to the radio all day and then complaining about how there is no good music, based on those 10 generic, crappy songs they play around the clock.

As for developers forgetting what games are about...Lucky_Krystal

[QUOTE="RageQuitter69"]

Yes, developers are forgeting what games are about, gameplay (hence the reason they are called GAMES and not MOVIES), they think that the story makes the game and gameplay does not matter at all, this is painfully obvious because of the games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Mass Effect 2 getting higher scores than fun games like Saints Row 2, 3 and Just Cause 2.

Lucky_Krystal

Like I said earlier about review scores, think about how different the critics views are from the actual player's views at times. It's been suspected that companies will pay to have proffessional review sites/magazines give their games shining reviews, and I think there have been cases confirming it to be true (there's a thread about it floating around somewhere). For example, look at Call of Duty. Critically acclaimed across most of the video game sites but then look at the ARMY of gamers that will quickly tell you that they think COD is simplistic, boring, stupid, and is rehashed and milked to death. I swear some gamers see it as the cancer of the game industry. Same with fan reaction to GTA IV and Mass Effect 3.

As for developers forgetting what games are about...I guess that depends on the developer. When a series gets popular enough, it seems developers always end up dumbing down their games to appeal to the masses. I'm just gonna pick on Uncharted 3 again, even though I think its a decent game. But compare how difficult Uncharted 3 is to Jak and Daxter 2. The stakes are higher for AAA games, so developers attempt to appeal to everyone. Therefore, is it right to look at only mainstream games and say "oh gaming is going to hell"

To me thats like only listening to the radio all day and then complaining about how there is no good music, based on those 10 generic, crappy songs they play around the clock.

You can find people on the internet that hate anything. CoD has zero appeal for me (multiplayer cements dominance, singleplayer suffers from braindead AI), but a lot of gamers swear by it and a lot of other developers clearly admire its multiplayer, so its not as if reviewers' positive reviews for the games are out of line.

The reality is that judging by sales numbers no game is loved by even a majority of a system's fanbase, let alone a majority of gamers. Some gamers think that hating on a popular game makes them special snowflakes, elevates them above the common masses. I enjoy a lot of niche games, but I don't enjoy them because of their nicheness, or look down on others who enjoy games which are more popular. Hell, I've love it if Carnage Heart were a million seller (it saw a couple sequels in Japan, none of whom crossed the Pacific because it failed abysmally here).

There is a huge flood of accessible games that leave niche games in the shadow in terms of investments. Many, often older or more experienced gamers have different tastes that oppose the accessible 'genre' in many ways. These gamers are better of with niché games but sadly these niché games tend to suffer from a limited budget, this tends to result in a broken piece of garbage at release. At other times publishers ruin these niché games by forcing the developers to dumbing down the game or an early release. The trouble in gaming in not neccesarily the decline of quality, it's the troublesome relation between media, reviews and publishers with different tastes in games. Combine that with a huge amount of older and more experienced gamers in these forums and you are bound to hear alot of complaining. So is the decline in quality over exaggerated, YES.

The quality's improved but creativity and ideas have hit a solid brick wall and only low-budget games break that barrier. So yeah I think if you want a genuine new experience that doesn't cut back on the budget - it's a hell of a lot harder to find than it used to be. If it wasn't for publisher requirements and limitations gaming would be a much better experience.

production values may have soared but i can't help but feel its at the expense of gameplay quality.

as a gamer who's been gaming since the eighties maybe my tastes may have just become a little more discriminating over time or maybe its because these days i'm more interested in the sp than mp, but there's very few games that have come out in the last year or so that i would consider great

I think to most gamers born in the 90's games are probably better than ever because it's all they've ever known.

Us born in the 80's or earlier are witnessing games becoming shallower (no consequences for choice and an increasing lack of any choices at all), easier (because hard games hurt sales), and graphics trumping gameplay most of the time.

I was born in 1980 and have witnessed alot of innovation in my time. It's hard not to be disgusted by what I see as a big step backwards this gen.

What decline in quality?meetroid8

The decling is only equal to the growing cynicism and eltistism that is growing in the community. There's better games out now than I ever played as a kid, games we couldn't even dreamed about. Nostaglia is great, but I loved this gen and hope the next is even better.

I am finding that the big name games are being innovative and do many new and great things within the details of their games.

The down side is that lastly there are a huge number of indie games that are lack luster and does not come up with any true innovative ideals while getting praised for being innovative. It is may biggest complant their gen.

Games keep getting better. Sure, there are some older classics that will stand the test of time, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, many older games were either bad or just unplayable now. Again, nothing wrong with that, as we still have bad games coming out. Sure, we have a lot of very similar FPS games now, but last gen we had a lot of JRPGs that were pretty much the same (at least to me they were).

For the most part, games now are still really good and keep getting better. Yes, there is DLC, but at the same time is it really that much different than expansion packs? Map packs usually get a lot of hate, but if you're into an online game then you will play those maps a lot (granted, COD kind of confuses me since they release a final map pack just a month before the next game, so idk how much time people really have to play it). Speaking of COD, as much fun as it is to hate on it (as I often do), the games usually aren't broken so if people want it why not make it? The clones of it (i.e. upcoming MoH [they say they're not a COD clone, but after watching more gameplay footage the only difference seems to be the graphics]) do get very annoying, but there are still enough standout games (for me this year Dragon's Dogma and Sleeping Dogs have been pretty awesome).

I am finding that the big name games are being innovative and do many new and great things within the details of their games.

The down side is that lastly there are a huge number of indie games that are lack luster and does not come up with any true innovative ideals while getting praised for being innovative. It is may biggest complant their gen.

wiouds

Interesting. You know, usually when people speak of this, they say the opposite (indie game are innovative, big name titles are lackluster). Care to give any examples of innovative, big name games, and unoriginal indie games?

If you think games now just focus on graphics you clearly haven't played many current-gen games. Games such as Bioshock, Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV, Uncharted etc etc. all have focus on characters and storytelling, with outstanding visuals to further immerse the player. Games are getting better, end of.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I am finding that the big name games are being innovative and do many new and great things within the details of their games.

The down side is that lastly there are a huge number of indie games that are lack luster and does not come up with any true innovative ideals while getting praised for being innovative. It is may biggest complant their gen.

Lucky_Krystal

Interesting. You know, usually when people speak of this, they say the opposite (indie game are innovative, big name titles are lackluster). Care to give any examples of innovative, big name games, and unoriginal indie games?

Innovation is mostly the tiny things that are easly over looked.

For example level design. Just look at the level design in FPS from this gen and the one before it. My problem with rage is that it do not take any any of the innovation to the the level design. At the same time, I enjoy CoD single player because they are always coming up with new level and way to deal with them.

As for the indie games, Plant vs Zombie is is a nice rehashing of some older games. Braid just some different game play ideal place together with a little song and dance.

I think games are about the same. You have your quality games and your garbage games. You have your copycat titles and your games that innovate. I think it's always been this way and will always be.

I enjoy CoD single player because they are always coming up with new level and way to deal with them.

wiouds

not sure if serious

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I enjoy CoD single player because they are always coming up with new level and way to deal with them.

Macutchi

not sure if serious

I am. What are you not sure?

[QUOTE="Macutchi"]

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

I enjoy CoD single player because they are always coming up with new level and way to deal with them.

wiouds

not sure if serious

I am. What are you not sure?

because i'd say the opposite is true. would you care to give examples of innovation in the sp?

I wouldn't say its a matter of video games getting better or worse, I would say it's more about the number of people who are now "avid gamers". I can remember a time where being an adult and proclaiming loudly that you spent your evening gaming would label you a social pariah, now it seems to be a justified hobby. Which is cool don't get me wrong. But this sudden surge of people into what was originally a finely tuned demographic has caused a rift in what could be considered "quality" when it comes to gaming. Different strokes and all that.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Macutchi"]

not sure if serious

Macutchi

I am. What are you not sure?

because i'd say the opposite is true. would you care to give examples of innovation in the sp?

As I said it is the tiny details where the true innovations are. It is hard to point out how peice of cover and an enemies' entrance work well together. If you are looking for the flashy big thing then you will find mostly gimmicks.

No.. If things don't change, all games will be action games consisting of around three levels.. Paying extra just to finish the damn game off through DLC!

Nostalgia has something to do with it and also getting old.