4 ms·
The chart of games vs highly rated games, as evidence of more stuff, but not more good stuff, is thought provoking. It also seems possible that, at least to so
by thenoblesunfish 1y ago
The chart of games vs highly rated games, as evidence of more stuff, but not more good stuff, is thought provoking.
It also seems possible that, at least to some extent, the overall quality of games has gone up with the volume, so people have become more critical. I don't play enough games to know. What's the gamer consensus?
- callingbull 1y agoNot a gamer, but it seems "highly rated" is a matter of attention and status, and the number would increase with the population not with the overall number of games.
- vjk800 1y agoThere are games that are still good 30 years after the publication and there are games that were good then but seem unimpressive now. The latter category often includes games that did something new and innovative for the time it was published, but has since then become a standard mechanic in games. Case in point is the recently re-released Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. When it was released 20-something years ago, it received great reviews. I also loved the game. The re-release was basically the same game with modernized graphics - with the same bugs and all - and received much worse reviews. I watched a few Youtube videos playing it and thought "geez, how did I not see how crappy this game was 20 years ago". The reason for this is that the same concept - an open world role-playing game with a massive world - has been redone in many other games and each new iteration of the concept has improved on it. As a result, the bar is now a lot higher for open world RPG games; if I play such a game nowadays, I expect to see good story design, good writing, good voice acting, etc. in addition to just being able to roam around in vast virtual forests.