3 ms·

I feel like you're cherry-picking. Games have gotten way bigger content-wise and way more intense in many design aspects. Many retro games had massive teams and

I feel like you're cherry-picking. Games have gotten way bigger content-wise and way more intense in many design aspects. Many retro games had massive teams and utilized earlier frameworks and content to release faster. There are many old school techniques which are amazing and quite a few talented developers, but I wouldn't make a sweeping statement that "they" had more talent than "we" as a whole.

gspencley 4y ago
It's funny, though. Maybe it's just my age and not a comment on the quality of games, but I don't even play newer video games anymore. Every once in a while I'll start a game of Civilization IV (from 2005) if I have a lazy weekend and need a change of pace. I played a lot on the PS3 and then my PS4 was a dust collector. Complete buyers remorse there (and don't get me started on the fact that I needed an Internet connection on first boot to set it up. WTF?!!?!!!) And I'll still sit and play Tetris for hours and hours and hours on my retro NES. The newer versions, not so much. I've had this sense over the decades that as video games have grown in scope and graphics they've gotten less fun to the point where I tell people when they ask me "I don't play video games." It's probably been about ten years since I've paid for one. Now get off my lawn.
reaperducer 4y ago
Many retro games had massive teams and utilized earlier frameworks and content to release faster I think you and the previous commenter have different ideas of what constitutes "retro." The people I knew who worked on retro games usually were in "teams" of one or two, even if they worked for a massive company like Atari. If there were three people working on a video game, it was a huge deal. And "frameworks" weren't even a thing. Each game started from the ground up, with the exception of code clips that you printed out and saved in a binder.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  You'd still need to name specific examples. All the way from the NES to the current gen, you can name examples of both big teams and small teams / individuals having some form of success. The coding got easier per content unit and the skill floor is lower, yes. But the ceiling is still high, the demands are far higher and you'd need to be far more skilled in various disciplines to deliver the equivalent of a few decades ago. Those hours you gained no longer coding? You better have spent them figuring out how to do VFX, some decent pixel/line art, or make some stellar sound tracks. If not, maybe be able to do marketing or know how to make your game function in multiplayer online. >And "frameworks" weren't even a thing. Using virtually the same frame across a wide variety of processes is the very definition of a framework, even if it isn't a software framework in the modern sense. Many big games on the NES and SNES were built off of one another, you can tell by the similarities between developers and their work. Square being the most notorious.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Maybe. Game that came to mind is Chrono Trigger, released in '95. Took two years to make. Can't think of any modern game - made in that short a time - that is bigger content wise (unless we're just summing up all the pixels).

gspencley 4y ago

It's funny, though. Maybe it's just my age and not a comment on the quality of games, but I don't even play newer video games anymore. Every once in a while I'll start a game of Civilization IV (from 2005) if I have a lazy weekend and need a change of pace. I played a lot on the PS3 and then my PS4 was a dust collector. Complete buyers remorse there (and don't get me started on the fact that I needed an Internet connection on first boot to set it up. WTF?!!?!!!) And I'll still sit and play Tetris for hours and hours and hours on my retro NES. The newer versions, not so much. I've had this sense over the decades that as video games have grown in scope and graphics they've gotten less fun to the point where I tell people when they ask me "I don't play video games." It's probably been about ten years since I've paid for one. Now get off my lawn.

reaperducer 4y ago

Many retro games had massive teams and utilized earlier frameworks and content to release faster I think you and the previous commenter have different ideas of what constitutes "retro." The people I knew who worked on retro games usually were in "teams" of one or two, even if they worked for a massive company like Atari. If there were three people working on a video game, it was a huge deal. And "frameworks" weren't even a thing. Each game started from the ground up, with the exception of code clips that you printed out and saved in a binder.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
You'd still need to name specific examples. All the way from the NES to the current gen, you can name examples of both big teams and small teams / individuals having some form of success. The coding got easier per content unit and the skill floor is lower, yes. But the ceiling is still high, the demands are far higher and you'd need to be far more skilled in various disciplines to deliver the equivalent of a few decades ago. Those hours you gained no longer coding? You better have spent them figuring out how to do VFX, some decent pixel/line art, or make some stellar sound tracks. If not, maybe be able to do marketing or know how to make your game function in multiplayer online. >And "frameworks" weren't even a thing. Using virtually the same frame across a wide variety of processes is the very definition of a framework, even if it isn't a software framework in the modern sense. Many big games on the NES and SNES were built off of one another, you can tell by the similarities between developers and their work. Square being the most notorious.

LAC-Tech 4y ago

Maybe. Game that came to mind is Chrono Trigger, released in '95. Took two years to make. Can't think of any modern game - made in that short a time - that is bigger content wise (unless we're just summing up all the pixels).