Whats the biggest difference between games now and games 10-15 years ago?

Besides the graphics and online play obviously, what is the biggest difference not only in terms of what is put in games but what kind of games are popular in the marketplace.

We all know that after Halo made console FPS games easy to control, the FPS and TPS genres have become by far the most popular in gaming these days. We alsosee that welldesigned andlengthysingle player experiences are losing out to online multiplayer. The M rated market also increased a lot

One thing ive noticed games arent as creative as they were in the 90s and Platforming games like Crash bandy coot were really popular.

Games were made for enjoyment and effort was put into them.

Games were made for enjoyment and effort was put into them.

SteverXIII

One game would be very different to another. You very rarely got 'Derivitive' games because designers put loads of effort into making it different and unique, Instead if making a sequel with the same gameplay, they made expansion packs, look at the Quake games (1 2 3) AvP, Command and Conquer. Hence whygaming is going down the tubes now. People are essentialy buying the same thing over and over again without knowing it. Im my opinion anyway.

We all know that after Halo made console FPS games easy to control, the FPS and TPS genres have become by far the most popular in gaming these days. We alsosee that welldesigned andlengthysingle player experiences are losing out to online multiplayer. The M rated market also increased a lot

Pikminmaniac

This is exactly what i think, there are very few games left that arefocused on single player campaigns.

non-existence of soul in current games.

80% of the games10 to 15 years ago actually took some skill to beat.

Where did all the creativity go? :(

Games were just 'games' back then. Outside of RPGs, plots tended to be thin on the ground, or at best there to give a loose setting for smashing the other guy's big robot.

RTSs until Starcraft had pretty weak characters, mainly just using them to brief you about why you should destroy the other guy's base, the original GTA was no more than a score chasing game to get to the next level and FPSs tended towards "all action, only you can save us from X, no plot".

Modern games are borderline cinematic experiences, and while many RTSs still follow the "weak character" model in a lot of cases, they have tried in some cases to get some in (e.g. SupCom 2...badly).

[QUOTE="SteverXIII"]

Games were made for enjoyment and effort was put into them.

Memberino

Always will be, but I agree Memberino. There's only a handful of games that I am interested in today where, back then, a lot more quality games happened 10-15 years ago. It was a great time to be a part of the days when the first gaming systems were coming out. The possibilities were endless. Today? It's a whole different story.

It's like music. Only the biggest artists and bands will gain the most exposure today while the rest of their colleagues stay underground and don't receive much exposure. It's the same thing with videogames today. Unless if it's something like Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Halo, GTA, Mario, or any of the other big franchises you can think of, only a few games will get a lot of attention and the rest are left to rot.

Games were much much harder back then; you could start playing a game and know you may not be able to beat it on normal difficulty. Now beating games is just a formality.

Seriously though, online is the biggest transforming factor: games were single player-centered 15 years ago and (local) multiplayer was an added bonus, while now campaigns have become accesories and some people skip them entirely.

One game would be very different to another. You very rarely got 'Derivitive' games because designers put loads of effort into making it different and unique, Instead if making a sequel with the same gameplay, they made expansion packs, look at the Quake games (1 2 3) AvP, Command and Conquer. Hence whygaming is going down the tubes now. People are essentialy buying the same thing over and over again without knowing it. Im my opinion anyway.

D1zzyCriminal

:lol: Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Fifteen years you couldn't turn around without tripping over half a dozen platformers starring sassy members of the animal kingdom. I've been gaming for 33 years and there have always been only a small handful of radically different games. The vast majority have been at best linear improvements and at worst garbage which brings nothing new to the industry. 'Me too' has been the primary motive of most developers since at least the days of the 2600.

Games were much much harder back then; you could start playing a game and know you may not be able to beat it on normal difficulty. Now beating games is just a formality.

Seriously though, online is the biggest transforming factor: games were single player-centered 15 years ago and (local) multiplayer was an added bonus, while now campaigns have become accesories and some people skip them entirely.

Black_Knight_00

this pretty much, most of the games these days are just too easy even on hard

Fifteen years you couldn't turn around without tripping over half a dozen platformers starring sassy members of the animal kingdom. I've been gaming for 33 years and there have always been only a small handful of radically different games. The vast majority have been at best linear improvements and at worst garbage which brings nothing new to the industry. 'Me too' has been the primary motive of most developers since at least the days of the 2600.

CarnageHeart

Fifteen years ago is a tough number.... Most games were still DOS as Windows had not quite taken over the PC worldand the Voodoo 3d video card was still a year off.

Between then and now, the biggest thing that haschanged is the scope of a gamingproject.In 1995, you could probably find some pretty good games that were made with very small teams. I completed Supreme Commander 2 a few weeks ago and I kid you not, the credits rolled by for what must have been 5 minutes - hundreds and hundreds of people listed. The budget for a game todayexceeds what some gaming companies were making in a year in the 90s.

I've seem a lot of comments here about a lack of personality or soul... The process of making a game on the scope and scale that they are made now has more than a little to do with that.

EM

Games were much more about fun and stuff 10-15 years ago. Now we got games that are trying to be serious and 'cool' with good graphics. Mr_Cumberdale

Fifteen years ago is a tough number.... Most games were still DOS as Windows had not quite taken over the PC worldand the Voodoo 3d video card was still a year off.

Between then and now, the biggest thing that haschanged is the scope of a gamingproject.In 1995, you could probably find some pretty good games that were made with very small teams. I completed Supreme Commander 2 a few weeks ago and I kid you not, the credits rolled by for what must have been 5 minutes - hundreds and hundreds of people listed. The budget for a game todayexceeds what some gaming companies were making in a year in the 90s.

I've seem a lot of comments here about a lack of personality or soul... The process of making a game on the scope and scale that they are made now has more than a little to do with that.

EM

Evilmeanie

Actually, this generation marks the return of small teams to consoles due to PSN and XBL (nods towards Limbo, Flower, Pixeljunk Shooter and Castle Crashers).

Of course, there are games made by massive teams out there, but if you are sincerely interested in games made by small teams I don't see how you missed their return.

non-existence of soul in current games.

retro82

Yea except Demon's Soul's, that game is packed. :) I think one of the biggest things is the speed of gameplay. Like the difference between Fallout 1&2 and 3.

Or any current Fps to a game like Quake.

80% of the games10 to 15 years ago actually took some skill to beat.

Phazon64

Actually, this generation marks the return of small teams to consoles due to PSN and XBL (nods towards Limbo, Flower, Pixeljunk Shooter and Castle Crashers).

Of course, there are games made by massive teams out there, but if you are sincerely interested in games made by small teams I don't see how you missed their return.

CarnageHeart

Owning no consoles might have an impact there. Though I will say that even without a console, I have heard good thingsabout Flower and Pixeljunk Shooter.

EM

The biggest difference? 10-15 years ago, most games didn't suck as much as they do now...

Developes see dollars instead of creativity these days..If you have a hit on your hands..Lets give dragon age an bioshock an mass effect an example..They will turn out 1,2,3,4,5 games with the same name..Its all about the almighty dollar..Companies who do this dont die..Look at smaller developers ie flagship, monte cristo, some others..When they tried new ips or tried to turn popular games into mmorpgs there companies died..Its like whats going on with cod now..This guy sees dollars, he wants to turn cod into 15 bucks a month because he is greedy..Its all about money..If you have a hit they will soak the game for all its worth..Can i blame them no not really..How ever the same game does get old after awhile..Thats why now these days ill prefer buying an looking at new ips new companies like 38 studio..Game ideas that are fresh..

Sure ill still buy your borderlands 2, mafia 2, dragon age 2 an so on..Ill still look for the newer ip..

Actually, this generation marks the return of small teams to consoles due to PSN and XBL (nods towards Limbo, Flower, Pixeljunk Shooter and Castle Crashers).

Of course, there are games made by massive teams out there, but if you are sincerely interested in games made by small teams I don't see how you missed their return.

CarnageHeart

A lot of rose tinted glasses in this thread.

Accessibility. Old games were unforgiving, and only the most dedicated gamers were even able to view all of its content. But nowadays you will often have to play a game on the highest difficulty setting for a true challenge. This was especially bad in the NES/SNES eras, but even in the N64/PSX years (which would be 10-15 years ago) you hada couple of games that were very punishing.

Mind that I do not experience this as a bad thing necessarily. I love a difficult game once in a while, but after having completed a monster of a game like STALKER: Clear Sky, it's good to sit back and play a straightforward shooter like Call of Duty and not have to worry about whether or not you're able to progress to the next level.

Another difference is the difference in genres. Back in the days, platformers were everywhere, but not there are only a handful of good platformers, while we have an insane amount of shooters. I love FPSs, but I hope this hype will end soon because all of the big budget titles are starting to become more and more similar. When even FEAR 3 is starting to copy MW2, you know something's wrong.

Games try to act too much like movies now.

Fifteen years ago is a tough number.... Most games were still DOS as Windows had not quite taken over the PC worldand the Voodoo 3d video card was still a year off.

Evilmeanie

Not only that, but DOS was limited to 640K, whereas the expansion into 32-bit operating systems made gameplay better - more RAM access, smarter NPC AIs.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Actually, this generation marks the return of small teams to consoles due to PSN and XBL (nods towards Limbo, Flower, Pixeljunk Shooter and Castle Crashers).

Of course, there are games made by massive teams out there, but if you are sincerely interested in games made by small teams I don't see how you missed their return.

ChiliDragon

STORY. length.

STORY. length.

johny300

15 years ago there were lots of sci-fi flying simulator games: Wing Commander, X-Wing, Tie Fighter, Rebel Assault, Fury, Descent, Starfox...

I wonder why this genre is'nt popular anymore, which is a shame...

[QUOTE="johny300"]

STORY. length.

CarnageHeart

I don't think so. Due to the larger focus on multiplayer, it's common for shooters to have 5 hour campaigns, which is a lot shorter than nearly every FPS from the old days for as far as I can remember. A lot of platformers and adventure games also end before the 7-8 hour mark, whereas classic 3D platformers such as Super Mario 64. Banjo-Kazooie, and Donkey Kong 64lasted for at least 20 hours, and potentially a lot more.

non-existence of soul in current games.

retro82

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="johny300"]

STORY. length.

DraugenCP

I don't think so. Due to the larger focus on multiplayer, it's common for shooters to have 5 hour campaigns, which is a lot shorter than nearly every FPS from the old days for as far as I can remember. A lot of platformers and adventure games also end before the 7-8 hour mark, whereas classic 3D platformers such as Super Mario 64. Banjo-Kazooie, and Donkey Kong 64lasted for at least 20 hours, and potentially a lot more.

10-15 years ago, adventure games weren't dead. :cry:

RPGs were not really good yet. It would take the creation of the Infinity engine to really push this genre to the forefront.

First-person shooters were controlled solely using the keyboard. We shot with the spacebar. HA!

Some really nice games came out, such as:

1.) Dungeon Keeper. Correct me if i'm wrong but its the first game that let you play the villain from the onset. Closest thing to it would probably be Evil Genious and Ghost Master.

2.) Dune, which introduced us to real-time strategy using a mouse!

3.) X-Wing. I wish there were more games like this today, where your entire keyboard had a function. 101-keys and you forgot which one powered your forward shields. :D

4.) Wing Commander 4. At the time it had the biggest budget for a videogame (12 million dollars IIRC) and was the first to try to be almost movie-like. I never played it though, my PC was crap at the time.

5.) Duke Nukem!!!

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="johny300"]

STORY. length.

DraugenCP

I don't think so. Due to the larger focus on multiplayer, it's common for shooters to have 5 hour campaigns, which is a lot shorter than nearly every FPS from the old days for as far as I can remember. A lot of platformers and adventure games also end before the 7-8 hour mark, whereas classic 3D platformers such as Super Mario 64. Banjo-Kazooie, and Donkey Kong 64lasted for at least 20 hours, and potentially a lot more.

Then : Splitscreen ruled the earth

Now : Nearly extinct

Then : 8 Bit 2D graphics

Now : High definition pushing towards photorealistic style graphics in 3D.

Then : The Princess is in Another Castle

Now : Chances are you might be the princess trying to rescue the hero instead.

Then : Sandbox Games didn't exist

Now : Beatemups (River City Ransom, Double Dragon, Final Fight) and Shootem ups aka Bullet Hell games hardly exist outside of PSN or Live Marketplace downloads.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]They've been around for a pretty long time actually. Nearly every digital distributor of PC games has an "indie" section, and PC gaming magazines tend to have sections dedicated to them. They never vanished, they just moved to the platform it was easiest for them to exist on... the one without licensing fees and an open-source culture already in place.CarnageHeart

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] Yes, its true that games are quite a bit longer than they used to be.SteverXIII

I don't think so. Due to the larger focus on multiplayer, it's common for shooters to have 5 hour campaigns, which is a lot shorter than nearly every FPS from the old days for as far as I can remember. A lot of platformers and adventure games also end before the 7-8 hour mark, whereas classic 3D platformers such as Super Mario 64. Banjo-Kazooie, and Donkey Kong 64lasted for at least 20 hours, and potentially a lot more.

Yeah, and I can point at Donkey Kong 64, but it's all besides the point. Naming one individual title doesn't change a general tendency. Especially seeing as RPGs have traditionally been long games.

Quake, Wolfenstein and Doom all had completions times under 5 hours.CarnageHeart

But those shooters are mostlyolder than the era which I refered to. Also, I did not necessarily say games have less content, but especially in shooters the campaign part often feels like it's tacked on to serve as a minor distraction from the multiplayer part. Just compare Call of Duty 2's campaign with that of MW2. I think CoD2 is about twice as long, with MW2 clocking at like 4-5 hours.The focus also seems to have shifted towards more aspectacular, intense campaign, so they just take all of the spectacle and cram it into barely 5 hours of gameplay so that the pace doesn't slow down. I personally find this sad.

Maybe I'm just buying the wrong games, but I've played so many games this gen that I beat in 6-7 hours. Adventure games, platformers, action games - they all seem to be incredibly short.In the N64 days, I considered 20 hours to be a normal game length. Now I've shifted my expectations towards 10 tops for most games. And quite frankly I liked the 'collectathon' type of platformer as you put it. These days, a lot of of platformers abandon the open world kind of concept and go for a far more linear approach. Even Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 joined in on this trend.

Off the top of my head I'm going to say the general difficulty of games and the ability to save.