The fall in video game quality - a comment

I decided to look at Gamespot's Editor's Choice Award list for games that Gamespot has given more than 9.0 to. I found some interesting information that proves to me that Video games are getting worse and we should be worried at the declining sales and interest moving to retro gaming or retro machines like the Wii in retaliation for these lower quality AAA titles:

What I found was that although already past the half-way mark in 2007 only 10 games have got the Editor's Choice Award. projecting out to the end of the year you would be looking at around 20 or so for the year.

In 2006 21 Games received the Award, on par with 2007.

In 2005 40 games recieved the Gamespot accolade. Twice as many as 2006 and 2007.

In 2004 37 games got the Editor's Award

In 2003 40 games revieved the 9.0+ score

In 2002 41 games were of the greatest quality.

As you can see, something has gone wrong in the last couple of years. The number of Gamespot Editor Awards has halved! This shows how something has been threatening to break and now seems to have broken.

We know that PC game sales are struggling. We know that for the second time Microsoft has announced the 360 has NOT reached sales targets, we know that PS3 sales are struggling. These are the three machines that rely on graphics first and foremost. Sometimes to the exclusion of gameplay. The Wii and DS however are exploding in sales with success practically assured. These machines rely on gameplay first and foremost and do not/cannot prodcue the level of graphics in the first group.

When you add to the first group the fact that retro gaming is taking a strong hold, with ebay last year opening a retro game section - proof of large interest, and both Microsoft and Sony being under constant pressure to make retro product available on their machines in larger numbers, it would seem gamers are revolting against these AAA titles that have shallow interaction, cloned gameplay and hackneyed stories with more and more interest in older product that may not have the quality of graphics, but have much better gameplay.

Something is going on in video gaming. 360 and PS3 Console game sales are flattening and PC game sales are collapsing. This halving of 90% plus Editor Award games in the last two years surely is confirmation of the lowering quality in modern video games, and that due to this gamers are looking to retro and casual gaming more and more - not the mainstream AAA titles like they did in the past. If this continues we are going to have a very different PC/Video game market in a year or so. Maybe the end of Pc gaming as we know it, and video gaming that has become rather mundane and somewhat boring compared to the exciting past.

We know that PC game sales are struggling. We know that for the second time Microsoft has announced the 360 has NOT reached sales targets, we know that PS3 sales are struggling. These are the three machines that rely on graphics first and foremost. Sometimes to the exclusion of gameplay. The Wii and DS however are exploding in sales with success practically assured. These machines rely on gameplay first and foremost and do not/cannot prodcue the level of graphics in the first group.

When you add to the first group the fact that retro gaming is taking a strong hold, with ebay last year opening a retro game section - proof of large interest, and both Microsoft and Sony being under constant pressure to make retro product available on their machines in larger numbers, it would seem gamers are revolting against these AAA titles that have shallow interaction, cloned gameplay and hackneyed stories with more and more interest in older product that may not have the quality of graphics, but have much better gameplay.

Humorguy_basic

I own all three next-gen consolesand a DS and to assert that the DS and the Wii place an emphasis on game play over visuals while the PS3 and the XB360 are propelled primarily by graphical presentation is the worst type of system wars bile and slander. Whether that was your intention or not is incidental because that statement alone practically invalidates anything else you have to say on this particular topic. It was an incredibly ignorant statement either by accident or by design and you lose considerable points for having written it.

As to the issue at hand, the XB360 is literally buried in quality software and has been for some time and while the PS3 hascertainly suffered a severe drought, games like VF5, Resistance, Motorstormand The Darkness match if not exceed anything on the Wii in terms of both quality and quantity.

And while we are dwelling on the much-touted superior game play of the Wii, I'd love you to list all these games that illustrate this aforementioned game play superiority. As I wrote earlier, I own a Wii and like it quite a bit but as of right now the games available for the console are slim to none and what has been released thus far has been comprised largely of ports of pre-existing games. (That fact seemed to escape you when you were complaining of clones)

Lastly, your baseless, conjecture-ridden claim that the rising interest in retro gaming is a rejection of next gen AAA softwaredoesn't make much sense, even as baseless theories go. Considering that this is the first time console companies have invested significant resources into making these games available, I can't say I'm surprised the experiment is working. MS has been making retro arcade games available through XBL for the better part of two years and the Virtual Console is a natural extension of that idea. Why you equate the success of these services with the rejection of new software is beyond me. Worse, you have the audacity to claim these older games are superior when in reality that is a subjective opinion that can be torn into tatters by anyone who has been at this hobby long enough.

I'm sorry but this was a tedious read filled with recycled hyperbolic nonsense and crass, erroneous generalizations that only serve to perpetuate misinformation.

The reason less games are receiving scores 9.0 or higher is because Gamespot has high standards.MKHavoc

I'm not arguing about what I perceive to be the truth of your point in general. However, GameSpot's "high standards" were responsible for Majora's Mask getting an 8.3, while the reviewer of Wind Waker brushed its flaws under the rug (comparatively, MM didn't really have any) and gave it a 9.3, a full point higher. Granted, MM was released a decade ago.

This type of thing always happens in transitional periods from one gen to the next. Developers are abandoning old consoles and still learning new ones. As a result, the first wave of games are usually sloppy ports or rush jobs to meet the launch window. Go back and look how many "9.0+" quality games the PS2, GC, and Xbox had within a year, I'm certain you'll find a similar pattern.

The second half of this year is shaping up to be a fantastic time for gamers. You've got blockbuster sequels such as GTA, Halo, UT, and Smash Brothers. Then you've got a slew of promising new franchises like Assasin's Creed, Crysis, Mass Effect, and Too Human.

This type of thing always happens in transitional periods from one gen to the next. Developers are abandoning old consoles and still learning new ones. As a result, the first wave of games are usually sloppy ports or rush jobs to meet the launch window. Go back and look how many "9.0+" quality games the PS2, GC, and Xbox had within a year, I'm certain you'll find a similar pattern.

The second half of this year is shaping up to be a fantastic time for gamers. You've got blockbuster sequels such as GTA, Halo, UT, and Smash Brothers. Then you've got a slew of promising new franchises like Assasin's Creed, Crysis, Mass Effect, and Too Human.

H3LLRaiseR

Agreed. The TC included the most recent transition, but not the one from before for comparison.

Yup, as Sumtinels said I think a lot of problem with the quality of video games declining is the fact that gaming is more popular than ever. So now we have a lot of mindless consumers who buy whatever they feel like buying at that time without doing any research. So of course the publishers will keep pumping out sub-par to just plain bad games because they know it will sell. As I have said before many times, only way to combat this is to vote with your wallet. If poor games didnt sell well, publishers wouldnt keep throwing them out. So in the end you might see less games, but the games that were availible would be of better quality overall I think.
Clan_Crushbone

is it wrong to think that because sub-par games still sell well why not make them better to sell even more than the sub-par games would?

I'm not surprised the Dreamcast had 3 times as many AAA's and 2 times as many AA's the 360 had at this point in time, and the PS2 had more AAA's and AA's then the 360 did *counting from the NA launch at least*

Why is this so?

Development costs. They went up 50% from this generation transition alone.

Devs use to make games because they wanted too, but due to these millions it takes to make a game they make a game because the market wants them to.

I'm not surprised the Dreamcast had 3 times as many AAA's and 2 times as many AA's the 360 had at this point in time, and the PS2 had more AAA's and AA's then the 360 did *counting from the NA launch at least*

Why is this so?

Development costs. They went up 50% from this generation transition alone.

Devs use to make games because they wanted too, but due to these millions it takes to make a game they make a game because the market wants them to.

Dencore

Yup, as Sumtinels said I think a lot of problem with the quality of video games declining is the fact that gaming is more popular than ever. So now we have a lot of mindless consumers who buy whatever they feel like buying at that time without doing any research. So of course the publishers will keep pumping out sub-par to just plain bad games because they know it will sell. As I have said before many times, only way to combat this is to vote with your wallet. If poor games didnt sell well, publishers wouldnt keep throwing them out. So in the end you might see less games, but the games that were availible would be of better quality overall I think.
Clan_Crushbone

Exactly which "sub par" games are dominating the sales charts? The only flat out terrible games that I ever see enjoying some success in retail are the licensed games, and that is something that has ALWAYS been true about this industry. In the NES days there were games based on everything from GILLIGAN'S ISLAND to WHERE'S WALDO. And purely due to the presence of the internet, I'm going to say that the average gamer is far more informed than he was back in 8bit and 16bit days.

I mostly agree, but developers like Gears Of War Cliffy B are still making the games they want to, id say its about half and half actually by my guesstimate. There is still love of developing and people following their dream games but the market is shifting and forcing some devs hands.GodModeEnabled

While I disagree Gears of War *just couldn't get into it*, I agree that their are always dedicated devs out there. Level-5 , Valve, and Blizzard will always make the games we love. It's just that some devs are turning towards the green because that's the only way they can stay in business, especially after seeing what happened to Clover and Trokia.

I'm not surprised the Dreamcast had 3 times as many AAA's and 2 times as many AA's the 360 had at this point in time, and the PS2 had more AAA's and AA's then the 360 did *counting from the NA launch at least*

Why is this so?

Development costs. They went up 50% from this generation transition alone.

Devs use to make games because they wanted too, but due to these millions it takes to make a game they make a game because the market wants them to.

Dencore

The claim that the Dreamcast was a better system than the X360 at this point in time indicates that either you are looking at the past through an opaque lens of nostalgia or you didn't own one of the two systems.

As for the notion developers last gen made games for love, as opposed to for commercial profit, I have been an avid console gamer for 29 years and either my brother or I owned many consoles (I would say every console bar the Intellivision and the Odyssey, but I am sure that there are a few obscure ones out there we missed) and I never ran across this utopia you describe. Of course, developers who ignored commercial considerations might come up with a bold original game (The Sims, Katamari Damancy), or they might come up with self indulgent garbage which treats gamers/gameplay as an afterthought (Killer 7, Xenosaga).

I don't know, I don't really see a decline in gaming at all personally. I'm probably having more fun then ever these days with games then ever before and I've been a gamer ever since the Atari 2600 days so I've pretty much seen it all. The proliferation of online gaming and the fact that HDD's have practically become a standard has added a tremendous amount to console gaming. Just because games get lower reviews doesn't necessarily mean similar kinds of games from previous generations are better. This year is looking to join other excellent years in becoming one of the best years for gaming.Archangel3371

QFT

I don't think games are getting worse. I think they're better now than they've ever been. I rarely agree with what gamespot says about a game or the score it receives. 9.0 for Perfect Dark Zero is a good example of how wrong they get it. THPS3 on PS2 got scored10.0! They're just being more harsh with their reviews.

I'm 27. My first console was the NES way back in the80's and I've always had a games console since then. The games that came out with consoles like the NES, SNES, Master System, Genesis/Megadrive were awesomeback thenbut only a few stand the test of time.

When I play a game from my past I get bored of it after about 10 minutes. TMNT 1989 is a good example. I played that game for hours in the arcade when I was a kid but it's nowhere near as good as I remember and I wish I'd never downloaded it from Xbox Live Arcade.

I can only think of a hand-full of games that I'd like to play from games now considered "retro". People shouldn't let nostalgia cloud their judgement. Anyone played Goldeneye recently? Absolutely horrible to play but it was awesome at the time. Some people still say it's the best FPS ever! I don't agree.

This is my opinion and it might be different to yours.

I'm not surprised the Dreamcast had 3 times as many AAA's and 2 times as many AA's the 360 had at this point in time, and the PS2 had more AAA's and AA's then the 360 did *counting from the NA launch at least*

Why is this so?

Development costs. They went up 50% from this generation transition alone.

Devs use to make games because they wanted too, but due to these millions it takes to make a game they make a game because the market wants them to.Dencore

That's not true at all, if that were the case all firts-person shooters would have online environments in the form a big, empty, box. Think about it...

Grammaton-Cleric

I didn't say the Wii or the DSS had better gameplay, what I said was that they could not match the graphic orientated next-gen and therefore had to offer gameplay instead. And the fact that the machines that cannot compete on the graphic front and therefore play to the gameplay strength are winning and the graphic orientated machines are not doing as well AND with the increasing growth in retro gaming together this shows a larger interest in gameplay and a seemingly losing interest in graphic orientated gaming that on the whole produces either shallow gaiming on the consoles and or causing higher costing hardware which consumers cannot afford (I am thinking the cost of a PS3 and the constant need to upgrade PC's to play the latest graphic orientated games.)

Gaming peaked somewhere in the mid nineties. With the influx of uninformed gamers, innovative titles are few and far between. Hopefully, gaming will go out of fashion, the market will shrink, and the hardcore that remain will demand games that are fresh and unique.dchan01

I think the above statement has a lot of truth to it. Well said.

Can I just say, that when I started this thread I had no idea I was going to create a very intelligent debate, with no flaming and very intelligent discussion.

Oh that all threads could be as intelligent and mature as this one has been so far. Well done guys! :)

[QUOTE="Dencore"]

I'm not surprised the Dreamcast had 3 times as many AAA's and 2 times as many AA's the 360 had at this point in time, and the PS2 had more AAA's and AA's then the 360 did *counting from the NA launch at least*

Why is this so?

Development costs. They went up 50% from this generation transition alone.

Devs use to make games because they wanted too, but due to these millions it takes to make a game they make a game because the market wants them to.

CarnageHeart

The claim that the Dreamcast was a better system than the X360 at this point in time indicates that either you are looking at the past through an opaque lens of nostalgia or you didn't own one of the two systems.

It's called Gamerankings and comparing the systems. The Dreamcast was out for a year and a half and same for 360 and it hadmore AAA's and more AA's even counting all the 360's downloadble titles.

Switch between Dreamcast and 360 feel free too. :)

I also find it intresting that if you count the PS2's reviews for 2001 alone it has more AAA's then the 360 and almost as many AA's. It pretty much makes me think even more about what the whole "360 is the greatest console ever or the next Dreamcast *another over-rated console*" We've had much better systems even at this given time.

Anyway back on topic.

There's no nostlagia here just comparing reviews, and by fact the Dreamcast had twice as many AAA's then the 360 and more AA's with or without the downloadable titles.

As for utopia, I never said gaming was the godsend of the universe I was just stating that most developers were more free to create games they wanted because it was easier to drawn in profit, which is fact.

So before dismissing someone as totally wrong, I recromend that you take a look at the facts for yourself instead of basing your comments on thoughts about your past expeirences. ;)

I don't know, I don't really see a decline in gaming at all personally. I'm probably having more fun then ever these days with games then ever before and I've been a gamer ever since the Atari 2600 days so I've pretty much seen it all. The proliferation of online gaming and the fact that HDD's have practically become a standard has added a tremendous amount to console gaming. Just because games get lower reviews doesn't necessarily mean similar kinds of games from previous generations are better. This year is looking to join other excellent years in becoming one of the best years for gaming.Archangel3371

See that's the thing I'm also a PC gamer and HDD's and online gaming have been things I've had for a VERY long time. Not to mention that the consoles online are much less advanced and the HDD are smaller with not as much downloadable support. But if that's what you enjoy go for it, I can't stop you from your opinions we all have them. This topic is more so as how you think gaming should be. If you think it should be more so as of a community with strong tech. and realistic worlds then gaming should be awesome, if you think it should be something that should involve much into depth of core gameplay and level design and focus solely on those things and nothing else, then you'd be vastly disappointed. So this issue isn't really fact, just more so of perspective. :)

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="Dencore"]

I'm not surprised the Dreamcast had 3 times as many AAA's and 2 times as many AA's the 360 had at this point in time, and the PS2 had more AAA's and AA's then the 360 did *counting from the NA launch at least*

Why is this so?

Development costs. They went up 50% from this generation transition alone.

Devs use to make games because they wanted too, but due to these millions it takes to make a game they make a game because the market wants them to.

Dencore

The claim that the Dreamcast was a better system than the X360 at this point in time indicates that either you are looking at the past through an opaque lens of nostalgia or you didn't own one of the two systems.

1) It's called Gamerankings and comparing the systems. The Dreamcast was out for a year and a half and same for 360 and it hadmore AAA's and more AA's even counting all the 360's downloadble titles.

Switch between Dreamcast and 360 feel free too. :)

I also find it intresting that if you count the PS2's reviews for 2001 alone it has more AAA's then the 360 and almost as many AA's. It pretty much makes me think even more about what the whole "360 is the greatest console ever or the next Dreamcast *another over-rated console*" We've had much better systems even at this given time.

Anyway back on topic.

There's no nostlagia here just comparing reviews, and by fact the Dreamcast had twice as many AAA's then the 360 and more AA's with or without the downloadable titles.

As for utopia, I never said gaming was the godsend of the universe I was just stating that most developers were more free to create games they wanted because it was easier to drawn in profit, which is fact.

So before dismissing someone as totally wrong, I recromend that you take a look at the facts for yourself instead of basing your comments on thoughts about your past expeirences. ;)

I don't know, I don't really see a decline in gaming at all personally. I'm probably having more fun then ever these days with games then ever before and I've been a gamer ever since the Atari 2600 days so I've pretty much seen it all. The proliferation of online gaming and the fact that HDD's have practically become a standard has added a tremendous amount to console gaming. Just because games get lower reviews doesn't necessarily mean similar kinds of games from previous generations are better. This year is looking to join other excellent years in becoming one of the best years for gaming.Archangel3371

2) See that's the thing I'm also a PC gamer and HDD's and online gaming have been things I've had for a VERY long time. Not to mention that the consoles online are much less advanced and the HDD are smaller with not as much downloadable support. But if that's what you enjoy go for it, I can't stop you from your opinions we all have them. This topic is more so as how you think gaming should be. If you think it should be more so as of a community with strong tech. and realistic worlds then gaming should be awesome, if you think it should be something that should involve much into depth of core gameplay and level design and focus solely on those things and nothing else, then you'd be vastly disappointed. So this issue isn't really fact, just more so of perspective. :)

1) You claim to be a gamer but you hide behind the opinions of others when discussing game quality. According to Gamerankings MGS2 is far and away the finest game in the series. Most fans (and probably most reviewers, most of whom jumped on the anit-MGS2 bandwagon once fans pointed out how poor its game design and story were) would disagree. Along the same lines, the fact reviewers fell all over themselves praising garbage like Ready 2 Rumble (nice graphics, too bad about the gameplay) and Skies of Arcadia (terrible writing, a lackluster battle system and the random encounter rate was set way too high) doesn't make the games in question good.

2) Your response to Archangel is nothing more than you making a series of assumptions about the reasons he enjoys games and a series of false statements about game design/quality in general.

if you think it should be something that should involve much into depth of core gameplay and level design and focus solely on those things and nothing else, then you'd be vastly disappointed. Dencore

The vast majority of advancement that I've seen in gaming over the past 5-10 years has been in visuals and "cinematic story telling". I don't care about stories in gaming whatsoever and I only care about visuals in so far as they affect gameplay. Other "advancements" such as realistic physics, interactive environments, and more enemies onscreen at any given time have done little (imo) to enhance the fun factor of games. In many cases, those things have merely served to slow the framerates down to the point that we are still playing with the same choppy gameplay that bothered me years ago.

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]I don't know, I don't really see a decline in gaming at all personally. I'm probably having more fun then ever these days with games then ever before and I've been a gamer ever since the Atari 2600 days so I've pretty much seen it all. The proliferation of online gaming and the fact that HDD's have practically become a standard has added a tremendous amount to console gaming. Just because games get lower reviews doesn't necessarily mean similar kinds of games from previous generations are better. This year is looking to join other excellent years in becoming one of the best years for gaming.Dencore

See that's the thing I'm also a PC gamer and HDD's and online gaming have been things I've had for a VERY long time. Not to mention that the consoles online are much less advanced and the HDD are smaller with not as much downloadable support. But if that's what you enjoy go for it, I can't stop you from your opinions we all have them. This topic is more so as how you think gaming should be. If you think it should be more so as of a community with strong tech. and realistic worlds then gaming should be awesome, if you think it should be something that should involve much into depth of core gameplay and level design and focus solely on those things and nothing else, then you'd be vastly disappointed. So this issue isn't really fact, just more so of perspective. :)

Wait a second. On one hand you say this is a thread on how you think gaming should be but then you dismiss my post because you say it's my opinion and perspective instead of being non-factual. You lost me there.

Anyway I've also been a PC gamer and still am although I haven't kept my own personal PC up to date so I'm well aware of of it's online capabilities and such but I wasn't comparing it to the consoles I simply said that online and HDDs have added a tremendous amount to console gaming on it's own which seems like a reasonably factual statement. I mean thanks to them consoles have all sorts of great new features like updateable Operating Systems, patches for games to fix glitches and exploits, downloadable content to extend gameplay, custom soundtracks, etc. Sure the HDDs are smaller on the consoles, although with the PS3 that is a moot point since you can swap in your own HDD, but there are differences between the two due to things that need to be installed on a PC.

You can't really compare directly games from different generations on systems that have different expectations of them when the bar for that particular genre of game is at a different point in time and automatically come to the conclusion that if the game in the earlier generation scored higher then the game in the current generation then the game with the higher score is a better quality game.

You're assuming that I think this year is going to be an excellent year simply due to more powerful hardware and an online community when that's not entirely true although I guess more powerful hardware is true because all the companies current stuff like the 360, PS3, Wii, PSP, and DS is more powerful then their previous hardware equivalents. The fact is there is alot of variety I like this year from more realistic like Crysis, Hellgate: London, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock, GTA 4, Assassin's Creed, etc. to more artistic like Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Super Smash Bros., Mario Galaxy, Castlevania for the PSP, etc. I could have named many more games on both sides but I want to keep the post length somewhat reasonable.

Anyway I don't see how anything I said isn't factual. Sure it all depends on what games a particular individual likes and not everyone is going to like all the games coming out this year but I'm pretty confident that the number of people who are looking forward to any one or any combination of this year's games will be enough of a majority to make 2007 a good enough year to join the other years where gaming has been considered great.

I guess my initial post was a little on the vague side. :P

EDIT: Oh yeah I also wanted to mention that online and HDDs for console have also allowed the benefit of downloading demos, videos, and made things like the VC, PSN, and XBLA possible and really how awesome is that. I would say very awesome.

I decided to look at Gamespot's Editor's Choice Award list for games that Gamespot has given more than 9.0 to. I found some interesting information that proves to me that Video games are getting worse and we should be worried at the declining sales and interest moving to retro gaming or retro machines like the Wii in retaliation for these lower quality AAA titles:

What I found was that although already past the half-way mark in 2007 only 10 games have got the Editor's Choice Award. projecting out to the end of the year you would be looking at around 20 or so for the year.

In 2006 21 Games received the Award, on par with 2007.

In 2005 40 games recieved the Gamespot accolade. Twice as many as 2006 and 2007.

In 2004 37 games got the Editor's Award

In 2003 40 games revieved the 9.0+ score

In 2002 41 games were of the greatest quality.

Humorguy_basic

I don't see how a decline in high rating games over this short periodis any indication of the condition of the games industry. For starters most goodgames take at least 2-3 years to create. And look at your figures for 2002-2005. The average number of high-rated games is 39.5. It only means that there was a slight decrease in the number of quality games released over the last two years. And what about future games. How do you know what they will turn out to be like??

I understand that you noticed the slump. But it's a little premature to be proclaiming doomsday for the quality of games. Especially seeing as there are many promising games coming out in the next few months. Maybe in the next few years if the trend continues, THEN it will indicate that developers aren't pulling their weight.

I mostly agree, but developers like Gears Of War Cliffy B are still making the games they want to, id say its about half and half actually by my guesstimate. There is still love of developing and people following their dream games but the market is shifting and forcing some devs hands.GodModeEnabled

Wait a second. On one hand you say this is a thread on how you think gaming should be but then you dismiss my post because you say it's my opinion and perspective instead of being non-factual. You lost me there.

Anyway I've also been a PC gamer and still am although I haven't kept my own personal PC up to date so I'm well aware of of it's online capabilities and such but I wasn't comparing it to the consoles I simply said that online and HDDs have added a tremendous amount to console gaming on it's own which seems like a reasonably factual statement. I mean thanks to them consoles have all sorts of great new features like updateable Operating Systems, patches for games to fix glitches and exploits, downloadable content to extend gameplay, custom soundtracks, etc. Sure the HDDs are smaller on the consoles, although with the PS3 that is a moot point since you can swap in your own HDD, but there are differences between the two due to things that need to be installed on a PC.

You can't really compare directly games from different generations on systems that have different expectations of them when the bar for that particular genre of game is at a different point in time and automatically come to the conclusion that if the game in the earlier generation scored higher then the game in the current generation then the game with the higher score is a better quality game.

You're assuming that I think this year is going to be an excellent year simply due to more powerful hardware and an online community when that's not entirely true although I guess more powerful hardware is true because all the companies current stuff like the 360, PS3, Wii, PSP, and DS is more powerful then their previous hardware equivalents. The fact is there is alot of variety I like this year from more realistic like Crysis, Hellgate: London, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock, GTA 4, Assassin's Creed, etc. to more artistic like Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Super Smash Bros., Mario Galaxy, Castlevania for the PSP, etc. I could have named many more games on both sides but I want to keep the post length somewhat reasonable.

Anyway I don't see how anything I said isn't factual. Sure it all depends on what games a particular individual likes and not everyone is going to like all the games coming out this year but I'm pretty confident that the number of people who are looking forward to any one or any combination of this year's games will be enough of a majority to make 2007 a good enough year to join the other years where gaming has been considered great.

I guess my initial post was a little on the vague side. :P

EDIT: Oh yeah I also wanted to mention that online and HDDs for console have also allowed the benefit of downloading demos, videos, and made things like the VC, PSN, and XBLA possible and really how awesome is that. I would say very awesome.

Archangel3371

Oops sorry for the misunderstanding. :oops: But as for expectations, we've always had high expectations. I mean devs couldn't create a game such as Gears of War back in the day so they were limited to their tech. And gamers were always impressed by tech and graphics. I mean you talk about how expectations have raised but if that were true then how did the DC get such good scores after the recent likes of Metal Gear Solid, Ocarina of Time, Half-Life, Tekken 3, and many other classics. Expectations from gaming is always on the rise unlike the limits of tech. So I don't really think the expectations are a factor. And I never said this year is going to suck, it's going to be great added on to many other games you listed, I'm just talking about gaming of today in general. I just find that there are many less true tired classics such as StarCraft, OoT, MGS, Super Metroid and Third Strike, I notice that people kept talking about those games for years and still big even today. However, I can't really say that about today's market since I hear far fewer games being talked about. I mean I think gamings great and looks it can get really good with the Wii/DS support :) But I'm just trying to state that it isn't as great as it use to be on previous days from what I can see. I mean it isn't nostalgia since I'm playing many of these games for the first time, just before someone throws that out.

Of course it's all opinionated though, nothing's concrete fact. :)

1) You claim to be a gamer but you hide behind the opinions of others when discussing game quality. According to Gamerankings MGS2 is far and away the finest game in the series. Most fans (and probably most reviewers, most of whom jumped on the anit-MGS2 bandwagon once fans pointed out how poor its game design and story were) would disagree. Along the same lines, the fact reviewers fell all over themselves praising garbage like Ready 2 Rumble (nice graphics, too bad about the gameplay) and Skies of Arcadia (terrible writing, a lackluster battle system and the random encounter rate was set way too high) doesn't make the games in question good.

2) Your response to Archangel is nothing more than you making a series of assumptions about the reasons he enjoys games and a series of false statements about game design/quality in general.

CarnageHeart

1) I was pointing out that according to the ratings and use-ratings too actually that most of the industry thought gaming as of higher then I NEVER said anything of fact, just that it is FACT that the DC and PS2 had higher rated games prooving that there IS room to debate instead of stating I have what wat that "opaque lens of nostaliga"? I'm sorry but WTF does that even mean? I mean afterall there are a fair share amount of posters that share my views and one that even quoted and agree with me, so I think a fall in quality is plasuable to say the least by certain standpoint.

2)And you dismissed my response when I at least supplied some clear evidence what makes you any better? And I apologized to Archangel and he even admited that his post was a bit lack of explanation as he was mostly talking about features and tech. of consoles in his post, so he could see where I could've gotten confused and acknowledged that I made a simple mistake.

P.S. I'd REALLY think about deleting that Skies of Arcadia post since many consider it the greatest JRPG of all-time. Your are apparently in the very few in the minority with that opinion.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]I mostly agree, but developers like Gears Of War Cliffy B are still making the games they want to, id say its about half and half actually by my guesstimate. There is still love of developing and people following their dream games but the market is shifting and forcing some devs hands.Funkyhamster

The problem is look at the games people buy for them. They call it Xbox Live ARCADE for a reason. Most users prefer not to buy a game that's more then an hours worth. So if you want to make a JRPG, Action-Adventure, or Single Player FPS, your out of luck. Will this change in the future? Who knows, but I'm going to be optomistic and say yes.

I don't think games are getting worse. I think they're better now than they've ever been. I rarely agree with what gamespot says about a game or the score it receives. 9.0 for Perfect Dark Zero is a good example of how wrong they get it. THPS3 on PS2 got scored10.0! They're just being more harsh with their reviews.

I'm 27. My first console was the NES way back in the80's and I've always had a games console since then. The games that came out with consoles like the NES, SNES, Master System, Genesis/Megadrive were awesomeback thenbut only a few stand the test of time.

When I play a game from my past I get bored of it after about 10 minutes. TMNT 1989 is a good example. I played that game for hours in the arcade when I was a kid but it's nowhere near as good as I remember and I wish I'd never downloaded it from Xbox Live Arcade.

I can only think of a hand-full of games that I'd like to play from games now considered "retro". People shouldn't let nostalgia cloud their judgement. Anyone played Goldeneye recently? Absolutely horrible to play but it was awesome at the time. Some people still say it's the best FPS ever! I don't agree.

This is my opinion and it might be different to yours.

x-2tha-z

I agree with you entirely. Nice post. I was playing Ocarina the other day and ( I'll probably get flamed for this) Twilight Princess pretty much kills it in every way besides originality for it's time. Games are so fine tuned today that they make games of old just seem very novice.

[QUOTE="MKHavoc"]The reason less games are receiving scores 9.0 or higher is because Gamespot has high standards.Angry_Beaver

I'm not arguing about what I perceive to be the truth of your point in general. However, GameSpot's "high standards" were responsible for Majora's Mask getting an 8.3, while the reviewer of Wind Waker brushed its flaws under the rug (comparatively, MM didn't really have any) and gave it a 9.3, a full point higher. Granted, MM was released a decade ago.

If there is one game that deserves to be called a work of art, it is Majora's Mask. That being said, Iactually completely agreewiththescoreitgot,becauseMMisoneofthemostflawedgamesintheserieswhilesimaltaniouslybeing the most inovative and beautiful. The lengths the design team went to to add depth to this game honestly astonish me every time I go back to it, but at the same time the 3 day system combined with the save system result in horendously repedative and time consuming gameplay that could easily have been avoided with a few tweaks. The game really deserves all the praise it can get for what it did with the time system, NPC interaction and sidequests, but it equally deserves all thewrathand fury that have been thrown at it for making the player repeat the entire three day cycle and everything it entails for missing the most minor detail or not solving dungeon puzzles at lighning speed.

That'sjustmythoughtonthegame,itutterlysurpasses OoT(my favorite game, period) in many ways, but screws all of its merits over by being a frustrating, time consuming **** (it might take 20 minutes each time just to set up events in order to see a single conversation).

1) You claim to be a gamer but you hide behind the opinions of others when discussing game quality. According to Gamerankings MGS2 is far and away the finest game in the series. Most fans (and probably most reviewers, most of whom jumped on the anit-MGS2 bandwagon once fans pointed out how poor its game design and story were) would disagree. Along the same lines, the fact reviewers fell all over themselves praising garbage like Ready 2 Rumble (nice graphics, too bad about the gameplay) and Skies of Arcadia (terrible writing, a lackluster battle system and the random encounter rate was set way too high) doesn't make the games in question good.

2) Your response to Archangel is nothing more than you making a series of assumptions about the reasons he enjoys games and a series of false statements about game design/quality in general.

CarnageHeart

Solidwriting and story, great translation, memorable characters, incredibly creative setting, fantastic level design, excellent gameplay, and actually challenging. Best JRPG ever made in my opinion bar none.

[QUOTE="Angry_Beaver"]

[QUOTE="MKHavoc"]The reason less games are receiving scores 9.0 or higher is because Gamespot has high standards.Ectomy

I'm not arguing about what I perceive to be the truth of your point in general. However, GameSpot's "high standards" were responsible for Majora's Mask getting an 8.3, while the reviewer of Wind Waker brushed its flaws under the rug (comparatively, MM didn't really have any) and gave it a 9.3, a full point higher. Granted, MM was released a decade ago.

If there is one game that deserves to be called a work of art, it is Majora's Mask. That being said, Iactually completely agreewiththescoreitgot,becauseMMisoneofthemostflawedgamesintheserieswhilesimaltaniouslybeing the most inovative and beautiful. The lengths the design team went to to add depth to this game honestly astonish me every time I go back to it, but at the same time the 3 day system combined with the save system result in horendously repedative and time consuming gameplay that could easily have been avoided with a few tweaks. The game really deserves all the praise it can get for what it did with the time system, NPC interaction and sidequests, but it equally deserves all thewrathand fury that have been thrown at it for making the player repeat the entire three day cycle and everything it entails for missing the most minor detail or not solving dungeon puzzles at lighning speed.

That'sjustmythoughtonthegame,itutterlysurpasses OoT(my favorite game, period) in many ways, but screws all of its merits over by being a frustrating, time consuming **** (it might take 20 minutes each time just to set up events in order to see a single conversation).

In comparing the two (MM and WW), the only thingI can criticize MM on was the save system. The time traveling was actually necessary, whereas the lack of difficulty, the lack of dungeons, the lack of sidequests, the several-minutes-long-at-a-time sailing, and the Triforce/map fetch quest in WW were not necessary at all. It was easier than all past Zeldas, had fewer dungeons than anything up until that point but MM (which made up for the small number of dungeons in myriad other ways, so it wasn't bad; and I forget if MC was out by then, but its dungeon count is just as bad as WW's), had very few sidequests--and the ones it did have were tedious and extremely time-consuming (and resulted in stupid and puny rewards), had too much ocean (seriously, couldn't they have made the game world smaller?), and had a couple dungeons cut out and replaced with that stupid Triforce hunt so Nintendo could get it released in a more timely manner. Majora's Mask was perfect compared to this. I think WW is the most flawed Zelda game ever made by Nintendo or Capcom.

Anyway, that was off the topic of this thread. My point was to rebut the absolutist statementthat GameSpot has higher standards now than it did before. It most certainly does, but not all of its scores show this, which was my point in bringing up and comparing those two Zeldas.

I don't think game quality has fallen at all.

(And, BTW, I find it very hard to read your statementswhen all the words are bunched together like that.)

Ever since the foums were updated to be more compatable with Opera my words have bunched together randomly, whenever I use Opera...

Anyway, WW certainly had it's faults, the sailing was horrible and could have been far better exicuted in many ways, but I can't saythegame'sfaultsarethatmuchworstthenMM's(the words are bunching again aren't they...)because MM is just as unneceseraly time consuming in many ways.

TheAnju/Kafeiquestshouldillustratemypointwellenough,it'sthedeepestquestinthegame(though the Romine Ranch quest is my favorite, I love everything they did with that)but by the end of it I could hardly find myself enjoying it because the process became so tedious. It took me at least seven attempts at the Sakon's hideout part to work out how to get in, and given that you are well aware of how short a window you are given to succeed at this part and how long it takes to set up the quest to that point you can imagine how frustrating I found the whole process (thisisinspiteof the fact that the 'clue' that allows you to figure out how to enter the hideout is discoverable throuout the whole of the final day, for all I knew the minute you were given was all I had to figure things out).

Ifthegamehadallowedyoutoreloadyourowlstatuesavesatanytime you wanted(an 'abridged' version of the song of time would have suited this purpose well) a whole lot of the tediumandfrustration associated with the time system would be releaved without sacrificing any of the game's integrity.Allowingyoutopausetimeentierlyatcertainpoints(in dungeons for instance) would also take the edge of what really is quite an unconpromising game and allow it to gain the appreciation it deserves.

Ever since the foums were updated to be more compatable with Opera my words have bunched together randomly, whenever I use Opera...Ectomy

:cry:

Anyway, WW certainly had it's faults, the sailing was horrible and could have been far better exicuted in many ways, but I can't saythegame'sfaultsarethatmuchworstthenMM's(the words are bunching again aren't they...)because MM is just as unneceseraly time consuming in many ways.

The difference, IMO, is that WW had you doing all that excruciatingly painful stuff as part of the main quest, whereas most of the frustration in MM, IMO, would be centered around sidequests. And about the saving... in place of the owl statue saves I wish we'd have been able to just save right where we were at at any given time or place and come back to the game at that time and place. But I guess they couldn't do that for some reason.:?

Anyway, I suppose this will be my last post on 4-9 year-old games. It is COMPLETELY off topic. :P