5 ms·

Games have become more popular and potentially more addictive, not necessarily better (for my definition of better, games nowadays are generally worse than in t

Games have become more popular and potentially more addictive, not necessarily better (for my definition of better, games nowadays are generally worse than in the 90s and early 200s).

silassales 9y ago
Whats your definition of better
- Tomis02 9y ago
  Better is when games are treated like art, not consumables that you churn out every year to milk the brand/franchise. I knew I'd be accused of nostalgia because people have the tendency to talk out of their ass without knowing the subject. While I do hold a degree of nostalgia, I am capable of seeing when a game ages very badly, and I also enjoy some modern games quite a lot. My opinion that games today are worse is based on a long history of playing games and seeing if the newcomers are a revolution, evolution or recycled material. Most of the stuff that comes today is either recycled crap or, worse, a terrible idea that someone thought would be good. For example, Divinity original sin is a good RPG to couch coop with friends and family, but the complete mash of ideas (zombies, necromancers, trolls, ogres, and much more, a children's recipe basically) makes it very frustrating; good execution gameplay wise, but atmosphere and immersion are kind of bad. Would write more but I'm on mobile.
- 83457 9y ago
  The good ol days are always better.
  - zorked 9y ago
    And the new generation is always lazy.
    - test1235 9y ago
      and the older generation have always had it easy
- monsieurbanana 9y ago
  Nostalgia
- cholantesh 9y ago
  The original Thief was released in 1998, and I haven't felt more immersed by a game since. The next year gave us Superman, though, and I have yet to play a game as horrible in the ensuing years, so there's that. I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with GP's premise.
  - Tomis02 9y ago
    Well, 1998 didn't only bring Thief, it also gave Baldur's gate, Grim Fandango, Half Life and so on, masterpieces. AAA games were going where no one had gone before, and were not afraid to innovate. Fast-forward 19 years and not even graphics are evolving anymore, nevermind gameplay. Sure, the worst games of the 90s are worse than the worst games of today, but the best games of the 90s wrote history, whereas today's best games are mostly consumables meant to pass the time until the next Steam purchase.
- fellellor 9y ago
  A lot of Games these days, especially in mobile and online, are focused towards giving players quick rewards and keeping them addicted rather than providing a meaningful experience. On the other hand you have some excellent experiences available like Papers Please, Hotline Miami, KSP etc. So it isn't like games in the old days were better, rather you have more shittier stuff available today that is much better marketed.
  - silassales 9y ago
    I can agree 1000% with this
  - Tomis02 9y ago
    Games like Papers please are outliers, not representative for today's gaming market. Back in the day you'd have AAA teams constantly trying to innovate (classic examples Bullfrog Lionhead Looking glass Westwood Black isle and so on and so on). Nowadays AAA teams simply rehash old concepts, focus being put on milking existing franchises and marketing, artistic freedom sacrificed in the name of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Games today are generally worse because of that.
bluedino 9y ago
Golden ages just switch eras/platforms
- Tomis02 9y ago
  Not really. For example 90s gave us the RTS and FPS genres as we know them today, among others, and basically were the building blocks for making gaming mainstream. They were a renaissance of sorts, and many elements you see in games today can be traced back to that period. What did the last decade do, apart from going after a wild goose chase with the mobile fad, and adding microtransactions which didn't really improve the gaming experience?

Games have become more popular and potentially more addictive, not necessarily better (for my definition of better, games nowadays are generally worse than in the 90s and early 200s).

silassales 9y ago

Whats your definition of better

Tomis02 9y ago
Better is when games are treated like art, not consumables that you churn out every year to milk the brand/franchise. I knew I'd be accused of nostalgia because people have the tendency to talk out of their ass without knowing the subject. While I do hold a degree of nostalgia, I am capable of seeing when a game ages very badly, and I also enjoy some modern games quite a lot. My opinion that games today are worse is based on a long history of playing games and seeing if the newcomers are a revolution, evolution or recycled material. Most of the stuff that comes today is either recycled crap or, worse, a terrible idea that someone thought would be good. For example, Divinity original sin is a good RPG to couch coop with friends and family, but the complete mash of ideas (zombies, necromancers, trolls, ogres, and much more, a children's recipe basically) makes it very frustrating; good execution gameplay wise, but atmosphere and immersion are kind of bad. Would write more but I'm on mobile.
83457 9y ago
The good ol days are always better.
- zorked 9y ago
  And the new generation is always lazy.
  - test1235 9y ago
    and the older generation have always had it easy
monsieurbanana 9y ago
Nostalgia
cholantesh 9y ago
The original Thief was released in 1998, and I haven't felt more immersed by a game since. The next year gave us Superman, though, and I have yet to play a game as horrible in the ensuing years, so there's that. I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with GP's premise.
- Tomis02 9y ago
  Well, 1998 didn't only bring Thief, it also gave Baldur's gate, Grim Fandango, Half Life and so on, masterpieces. AAA games were going where no one had gone before, and were not afraid to innovate. Fast-forward 19 years and not even graphics are evolving anymore, nevermind gameplay. Sure, the worst games of the 90s are worse than the worst games of today, but the best games of the 90s wrote history, whereas today's best games are mostly consumables meant to pass the time until the next Steam purchase.
fellellor 9y ago
A lot of Games these days, especially in mobile and online, are focused towards giving players quick rewards and keeping them addicted rather than providing a meaningful experience. On the other hand you have some excellent experiences available like Papers Please, Hotline Miami, KSP etc. So it isn't like games in the old days were better, rather you have more shittier stuff available today that is much better marketed.
- silassales 9y ago
  I can agree 1000% with this
- Tomis02 9y ago
  Games like Papers please are outliers, not representative for today's gaming market. Back in the day you'd have AAA teams constantly trying to innovate (classic examples Bullfrog Lionhead Looking glass Westwood Black isle and so on and so on). Nowadays AAA teams simply rehash old concepts, focus being put on milking existing franchises and marketing, artistic freedom sacrificed in the name of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Games today are generally worse because of that.

bluedino 9y ago

Golden ages just switch eras/platforms

Tomis02 9y ago
Not really. For example 90s gave us the RTS and FPS genres as we know them today, among others, and basically were the building blocks for making gaming mainstream. They were a renaissance of sorts, and many elements you see in games today can be traced back to that period. What did the last decade do, apart from going after a wild goose chase with the mobile fad, and adding microtransactions which didn't really improve the gaming experience?