4 ms·

As every other mainstream game for the last ten to fifteen years, give or take, it's just a forced course of action narratively illustrated by an interrupted se

by Funes- 6y ago

As every other mainstream game for the last ten to fifteen years, give or take, it's just a forced course of action narratively illustrated by an interrupted sequence of dull cinematic scenes; the player just follows along with very limited space--if any--for exploration, decision-making, flexibility or creativity. The open world experience is ridiculously limited, as well. Does it look good? Sure! (Although every game uses the same game engines now, making them almost identical visually). But that's not the only thing that I expect from the format. Let's be honest here: videogames aren't nearly as elaborate as many of them were just one or two decades ago, when many developers were having fun making them and putting in tons of effort without as many market constrictions and demands. Then you have, on the other hand, indie games, which tend to be just a glorified demo which uses technical limitations to its advantage, mainly aesthetically. If somebody showed me how videogames would look when I was a kid, in 2000, twenty years in the future, I would have been incredibly disappointed. Besides them looking more immersive and VR being far more advanced, I'd have expected that the player had become an active participant, the effective subject of the game, instead of a passive spectator that just consooms whatever's put in front of them without any critical thought.

lilgreenland 6y ago
Minecraft is the best selling game of all time. It sounds like that's what you want.
gridlockd 6y ago
I think your judgement is clouded by fond memories you acquired in your youth. A child can get utterly fascinated by the most mundane things. My subjectively positive experience of video games already declined, right around when yours peaked, even though by pretty much any standard, these newer games were better than the ones that came before them.
- Funes- 6y ago
  >right around when yours peaked What? That's a wrong assumption on your part. No, you are characterizing my experiences with video games as a kid arbitrarily to support your own argument, which is--I think--just a fallacy: "the world's always been the same, it's you what's changed and you are just referencing fond but ultimately biased memories". I expected more from video games when I was a little kid, that's the whole point of my comment, so I didn't glorify them, even as a kid, to the point of having my judgement significantly clouded. Same thing when people criticise heavy smartphone usage, for instance: "well, people watched more TV then; it's always been the same. You miss being young". You couldn't take your TV virtually everywhere, so the extent to which people distracted themselves and neglected their lives was less. >by pretty much any standard, these newer games were better than the ones that came before them. Watch this (or almost any other video from crowbcat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI. This is the tendency in video games: less resources, less elaboration; higher prices for the whole game (DLCs, Season Pass, etc.). As with anything, it's "reduce the costs, increase the benefits", as well as "make it more addictive", even at the expense of the product's quality.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I think this video largely supports the point. As someone who's played very little GTA, I don't understand what the video's trying to communicate - the only big difference I'm seeing is the higher resolution in GTA V clips.
    - Funes- 6y ago
      > I don't understand what the video's trying to communicate - the only big difference I'm seeing is the higher resolution in GTA V clips. I'm afraid it's as clear as day, but anyhow, you have it on the video's description: "Physics, gunfight, AI, melee combat, controls, interiors, multiplayer freedom". In GTA IV, almost everything looks more elaborate and polished, and it came out five years before the franchise's next instance. EDIT: Another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalWT8oNxhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalWT8oNxhk.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I'm similarly unable to understand how this video shows Gears 5 isn't "brutal, grounded and satisfying". It really seems like the same phenomenon I experienced with the latest first generation Pokemon remake. It has more resources, immersion, and engagement than the original releases in 1996 by any objective standard - but it feels less engaging, in some nonspecific way I've never been able to communicate to anyone didn't play the originals.
IceDane 6y ago
Exactly. Popular video games today are purposefully engineered products made to maximize addiction and play time with decisions being made based almost entirely on how to maximizing profit for shareholders. It's sad. Incidentally I've been finding much more enjoyment in indie games the past few years, because these tend to be made by people who aren't doing so to become rich(though I suppose they wouldn't mind that happening along the way).
- Funes- 6y ago
  >because these tend to be made by people who aren't doing so to become rich(though I suppose they wouldn't mind that happening along the way). I agree. One I enjoyed recently was Paratopic[0]. [0] https://arbitrarymetric.itch.io/paratopic https://arbitrarymetric.itch.io/paratopic.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  Same, but it's because Indie developers have to make trade-offs and those trade-offs result in more interesting games even if they're not as polished. One of the reasons I was excited for VR is because I was hoping it would turn into the wild west again like it was back in the NES/SNES days where people where experimenting. You'd play a game where some stuff worked and some stuff didn't, but you appreciated the entertainment regardless. Nowadays it's all so engineered and samey that I often find it more difficult to finish AAA games than indie games.
RandoHolmes 6y ago
hard agree. I liken AAA games to porn.They put a little bit of everything in there to try and appeal to as wide an audience as they can. Back in the day, exploring the game itself and its systems used to be part of the appeal. Nowadays developers are scared to death that a player might make a decision that locks them out of content.
tgb 6y ago
> very limited space--if any--for exploration, decision-making, flexibility or creativity If that's your criteria, then I really think the last 10-15 years of gaming has seen more of that than the earlier decades. Minecraft, Kerball Space Program, Factorio, Subnautica, Stardew Valley and many more have become mega-hits even if they didn't originate in the mainstream. Their influence on the mainstream games (Fortnite) is undeniable and has forced gaming in better directions, particular towards exploration and creativity. I was a kid in 2000 as well and if you had shown me Minecraft then, I would have been head-over-heels. Sure, there's still on-rails shooters if you want them and a lot of games are "open world" ala Far Cry 3's map-of-checkboxes-to-tick and not "open world" ala Minecraft. But gaming as a whole gives way more options (even just among best-sellers) for creativity, expression, and exploration than ever before. We're in a golden age for the medium right now and if I could experience that through the same eyes I had growing up, I'd be awed.
mercer 6y ago
> Let's be honest here: videogames aren't nearly as elaborate as many of them were just one or two decades ago, when many developers were having fun making them and putting in tons of effort without as many market constrictions and demands. Then you have, on the other hand, indie games, which tend to be just a glorified demo which uses technical limitations to its advantage, mainly aesthetically. I'll agree with other commenters pointing out the wealth of amazing games that fit neither category you describe. Hollow Knight, for example, feels like a small team just went bananas offering a ridiculous amount of high quality content for a low price. I could name a whole bunch more that others haven't already. They're far from 'glorified demos that use technical limitations to their advantage'. Hollow Knight has been considered perhaps the best 'Metroidvania' by critics and fans alike. Even a game like Celeste, which perhaps gets closer to being 'technically limited' and literally came from a demo game jam, is one of the best platformers I've played in my life. The way I see it, your argument has some degree of merit insofar that the 'mainstream' of gaming got a ton bigger, more global, and more lucrative. This also happened to film and music. But it's needlessly pessimistic to conclude that as a result there's less quality. I'm a very picky gamer and since I don't make some artificial distinction between triple-A games and 'indie games', I could spend a hefty chunk of money on a monthly basis buying only the games I consider truly amazing. This has not been the case historically, at least in my experience.
ramblerman 6y ago
> If somebody showed me how videogames would look when I was a kid, in 2000, twenty years in the future, I would have been incredibly disappointed. I highly doubt it. the witcher 2, GTA5, factorio, DOTA2, Rust. I would have dreamed to play anoy of those. You can even watch DOTA2 like its a football game with pro commentators and incredible money on the line. Your critique of some of these bigger titles and studios is not wrong, but you are generalizing it into a farce of the modern gaming world. Did you consider perhaps you changed, and don't have the same wonder and ability to immerse yourself in games as you did 20 years ago.

by Funes- 6y ago

lilgreenland 6y ago

Minecraft is the best selling game of all time. It sounds like that's what you want.

gridlockd 6y ago

I think your judgement is clouded by fond memories you acquired in your youth. A child can get utterly fascinated by the most mundane things. My subjectively positive experience of video games already declined, right around when yours peaked, even though by pretty much any standard, these newer games were better than the ones that came before them.

Funes- 6y ago
>right around when yours peaked What? That's a wrong assumption on your part. No, you are characterizing my experiences with video games as a kid arbitrarily to support your own argument, which is--I think--just a fallacy: "the world's always been the same, it's you what's changed and you are just referencing fond but ultimately biased memories". I expected more from video games when I was a little kid, that's the whole point of my comment, so I didn't glorify them, even as a kid, to the point of having my judgement significantly clouded. Same thing when people criticise heavy smartphone usage, for instance: "well, people watched more TV then; it's always been the same. You miss being young". You couldn't take your TV virtually everywhere, so the extent to which people distracted themselves and neglected their lives was less. >by pretty much any standard, these newer games were better than the ones that came before them. Watch this (or almost any other video from crowbcat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI. This is the tendency in video games: less resources, less elaboration; higher prices for the whole game (DLCs, Season Pass, etc.). As with anything, it's "reduce the costs, increase the benefits", as well as "make it more addictive", even at the expense of the product's quality.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I think this video largely supports the point. As someone who's played very little GTA, I don't understand what the video's trying to communicate - the only big difference I'm seeing is the higher resolution in GTA V clips.
  - Funes- 6y ago
    > I don't understand what the video's trying to communicate - the only big difference I'm seeing is the higher resolution in GTA V clips. I'm afraid it's as clear as day, but anyhow, you have it on the video's description: "Physics, gunfight, AI, melee combat, controls, interiors, multiplayer freedom". In GTA IV, almost everything looks more elaborate and polished, and it came out five years before the franchise's next instance. EDIT: Another example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalWT8oNxhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JalWT8oNxhk.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I'm similarly unable to understand how this video shows Gears 5 isn't "brutal, grounded and satisfying". It really seems like the same phenomenon I experienced with the latest first generation Pokemon remake. It has more resources, immersion, and engagement than the original releases in 1996 by any objective standard - but it feels less engaging, in some nonspecific way I've never been able to communicate to anyone didn't play the originals.

IceDane 6y ago

Exactly. Popular video games today are purposefully engineered products made to maximize addiction and play time with decisions being made based almost entirely on how to maximizing profit for shareholders. It's sad. Incidentally I've been finding much more enjoyment in indie games the past few years, because these tend to be made by people who aren't doing so to become rich(though I suppose they wouldn't mind that happening along the way).

Funes- 6y ago
>because these tend to be made by people who aren't doing so to become rich(though I suppose they wouldn't mind that happening along the way). I agree. One I enjoyed recently was Paratopic[0]. [0] https://arbitrarymetric.itch.io/paratopic https://arbitrarymetric.itch.io/paratopic.
RandoHolmes 6y ago
Same, but it's because Indie developers have to make trade-offs and those trade-offs result in more interesting games even if they're not as polished. One of the reasons I was excited for VR is because I was hoping it would turn into the wild west again like it was back in the NES/SNES days where people where experimenting. You'd play a game where some stuff worked and some stuff didn't, but you appreciated the entertainment regardless. Nowadays it's all so engineered and samey that I often find it more difficult to finish AAA games than indie games.

RandoHolmes 6y ago

hard agree. I liken AAA games to porn.They put a little bit of everything in there to try and appeal to as wide an audience as they can. Back in the day, exploring the game itself and its systems used to be part of the appeal. Nowadays developers are scared to death that a player might make a decision that locks them out of content.

tgb 6y ago

> very limited space--if any--for exploration, decision-making, flexibility or creativity If that's your criteria, then I really think the last 10-15 years of gaming has seen more of that than the earlier decades. Minecraft, Kerball Space Program, Factorio, Subnautica, Stardew Valley and many more have become mega-hits even if they didn't originate in the mainstream. Their influence on the mainstream games (Fortnite) is undeniable and has forced gaming in better directions, particular towards exploration and creativity. I was a kid in 2000 as well and if you had shown me Minecraft then, I would have been head-over-heels. Sure, there's still on-rails shooters if you want them and a lot of games are "open world" ala Far Cry 3's map-of-checkboxes-to-tick and not "open world" ala Minecraft. But gaming as a whole gives way more options (even just among best-sellers) for creativity, expression, and exploration than ever before. We're in a golden age for the medium right now and if I could experience that through the same eyes I had growing up, I'd be awed.

mercer 6y ago

> Let's be honest here: videogames aren't nearly as elaborate as many of them were just one or two decades ago, when many developers were having fun making them and putting in tons of effort without as many market constrictions and demands. Then you have, on the other hand, indie games, which tend to be just a glorified demo which uses technical limitations to its advantage, mainly aesthetically. I'll agree with other commenters pointing out the wealth of amazing games that fit neither category you describe. Hollow Knight, for example, feels like a small team just went bananas offering a ridiculous amount of high quality content for a low price. I could name a whole bunch more that others haven't already. They're far from 'glorified demos that use technical limitations to their advantage'. Hollow Knight has been considered perhaps the best 'Metroidvania' by critics and fans alike. Even a game like Celeste, which perhaps gets closer to being 'technically limited' and literally came from a demo game jam, is one of the best platformers I've played in my life. The way I see it, your argument has some degree of merit insofar that the 'mainstream' of gaming got a ton bigger, more global, and more lucrative. This also happened to film and music. But it's needlessly pessimistic to conclude that as a result there's less quality. I'm a very picky gamer and since I don't make some artificial distinction between triple-A games and 'indie games', I could spend a hefty chunk of money on a monthly basis buying only the games I consider truly amazing. This has not been the case historically, at least in my experience.

ramblerman 6y ago

> If somebody showed me how videogames would look when I was a kid, in 2000, twenty years in the future, I would have been incredibly disappointed. I highly doubt it. the witcher 2, GTA5, factorio, DOTA2, Rust. I would have dreamed to play anoy of those. You can even watch DOTA2 like its a football game with pro commentators and incredible money on the line. Your critique of some of these bigger titles and studios is not wrong, but you are generalizing it into a farce of the modern gaming world. Did you consider perhaps you changed, and don't have the same wonder and ability to immerse yourself in games as you did 20 years ago.