277 replies to this topic

[Kanaric]

People stopped making game for "geeks" and started making them for mass market retards for profit and marketed towards the lowest common denominator. Like the movie Transformers, for example. That is what happened to games.

What else explains how entire genres have died. Space Sim, turn based strategy, RPG, etc. Sure we get one or two of those games occasionally but it used to be multiple releases per year in multiple subgenres.

Its kind of sad how rare RPGs are these days too, its like if you don't want to play bad derivative JRPGs you have no choice but to play action games that are not really RPGs like Diablo or MMOs. Its annoying that our only choice would really be Elder Scrolls or Mass Effect recently and a random amount of minor indy games that try to emulate old games but do not at all because they don't have a budget or even still are action RPGs trying to ride on the coattails of larger releases.

Its good that finally a X-Com game is coming that is a turn based tactical game, otherwise that genre would be completely dead. It is anyways since its only 1 game i suppose. Since turn based games are so rare subgenres don't exist anymore....

All this is why I got back into playing tabletop games like Warhammer 40k and DND again.

Another thing annoying about todays games is that you can't even enjoy a good action game anymore:


Even most RPGs are filled with simplistic linear "levels" and cutscenes not allowing you to immerse yourself in the game. That up there could easily represent Mass Effect. Luckily Elder Scrolls hasn't become bad like this. Whats sad is that Bioware used to be great at level design. However since KOTOR they have lost all skill at it.

Edited by Kanaric, 14 August 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[Assault One]

I hate the "Eh, let's release it now. We can patch it later anyways," mentality. We used to get pretty polished games when they released. Now we get many bug and issue riddled games and sometimes the devs take their sweet time fixing them.

I also hate the general dumbing down of games.

[Elessar]

Kanaric, on 14 August 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

People stopped making game for "geeks" and started making them for mass market retards for profit and marketed towards the lowest common denominator. Like the movie Transformers, for example. That is what happened to games.
...

That perfectly sums it up. This is, why Civ V is less complex than Civ iV, and why MS tried to appease the masses with MS Flight instead of continuing its good quality Flight Simulator series.
In the 80s/90s most of the existing privately owned computers were in possession of geeks/nerds, with other words, the mean IQ of computer users was rather high. Computer games at this time was rather smal business that catered to the special tastes of this subgroup of society.
Changed from the end of the 90s onwards till now, when computers became en vogue and everyone wanted to have a compouter and "be on the internets". The mean IQ of computer users rapidly declined, computer games became big business and decisions, instead of being made by developers, were made rather by people in business suits, who cared more for bilances than for what the nerds among the gamers wanted (and therefore rather aimed for the non-nerdy and (on average) less intelligent mass market, as more profit could be made from them).
It also meaned that innovation declined, as the people in business suits would rather finance games that worked on principles, that had proven in the past to generate money, instead of allowing experiments with new game concepts.

I am glad however, that even today you can, outside of big corporations, find true gems with regards to computer game complexity. I only need to mention Dwarf Fortress and Aurora 4X

Edited by Elessar, 15 August 2012 - 01:34 AM.

[Dymitry]

Dragonlord, on 13 August 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

It was the same with Might & Magic Heroes VI (in the Heroes of might & magic), the game was riddled with bugs, many of them gamebreaking and the game felt like an early beta as well.

Bloody h*ll. Played all of them upside down apart from the fourth. This one, between bugs, constant mandatory updates that have twice made old savegames unplayable, useless in game purchases, the "cloud" sync that means that you cannot play your saves if offline, and that absolutely disgraceful DRM.

While the core game is actually quite good, there is enough bad stuff there that made me stop playing soon. There you have it ubisoft, I will not buy any fu***ng wallpaper for 2£ from you, thanks a lot, I was seriously expecting pit lords to take some kit kat out of his pockets and start singing a jingle during fights. I am opening up a game, not an online shop for god's sake.
And until you change that rip off, trying to cash in every single time attitude you will not get a single pound out of my pockets, even if you make and sell ******* Jagged Alliance 3, MW5 and Project Gotham 6 combined for 2$.
And I do not give a **** about achievements, on HOMM game. If I did, I would turn around and play my ******* 360.
I cannot stress enough how ******* stupid executives must be, when they have spent more time implementing bullshit useless "features" rather than fixing CRITICAL bugs.

Until we, as gamers, will stand for this abusive behaviour from companies, especially the major houses will keep on treating us like stupid sheep.
We spend a crapload of money in a gaming pc, get console conversions for most blockbuster, and have to make do with the restriction inherited. I am seriously going to support
1 ) pc only games on pc where they otherwise have to sacrifice features.
2 ) published from honest companies
3 ) with non invasive drm
4 ) no micro-transaction, when I am paying 40£ for a game
5 ) made with the pain-in-the-***, spotty, nerdy, antisocial and impossible to please pc gamer in mind.

**** them and **** them more.

[Bansheedragon75]

Dymitry, on 15 August 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

Bloody h*ll. Played all of them upside down apart from the fourth. This one, between bugs, constant mandatory updates that have twice made old savegames unplayable, useless in game purchases, the "cloud" sync that means that you cannot play your saves if offline, and that absolutely disgraceful DRM.

While the core game is actually quite good, there is enough bad stuff there that made me stop playing soon. There you have it ubisoft, I will not buy any fu***ng wallpaper for 2£ from you, thanks a lot, I was seriously expecting pit lords to take some kit kat out of his pockets and start singing a jingle during fights. I am opening up a game, not an online shop for god's sake.
And until you change that rip off, trying to cash in every single time attitude you will not get a single pound out of my pockets, even if you make and sell ******* Jagged Alliance 3, MW5 and Project Gotham 6 combined for 2$.
And I do not give a **** about achievements, on HOMM game. If I did, I would turn around and play my ******* 360.
I cannot stress enough how ******* stupid executives must be, when they have spent more time implementing bullshit useless "features" rather than fixing CRITICAL bugs.

Until we, as gamers, will stand for this abusive behaviour from companies, especially the major houses will keep on treating us like stupid sheep.
We spend a crapload of money in a gaming pc, get console conversions for most blockbuster, and have to make do with the restriction inherited. I am seriously going to support
1 ) pc only games on pc where they otherwise have to sacrifice features.
2 ) published from honest companies
3 ) with non invasive drm
4 ) no micro-transaction, when I am paying 40£ for a game
5 ) made with the pain-in-the-***, spotty, nerdy, antisocial and impossible to please pc gamer in mind.

**** them and **** them more.

You pretty much summed up everything I was thinking of when I started this thread.
I have yet to find a single game that can give the same complete experiences that I got from games 10-15 years ago.

I really miss those genres you speak of.
Not seen a single decent space sim in years.
Same goes for RPG, RTS and TBS(Turn based Strategy)

If a single developer and publisher would get together and create games where you have a polished release of a working game, none of that stupid DLC stuff later on and in genres other than FPS and RPG lookalike games, then I will buy anything they release just to show my support.

Not only that, but that stupid DLC stuff has replaced to good old fashioned expansion packs.
So instead of getting the full game you pay to get access to things that are already in the game, making it look like they are adding stuff when they in reality just make you pay extra for what you already have.

Edited by Dragonlord, 15 August 2012 - 05:54 AM.

[ENDMYSUFFERING]

Just got Planetside 1 yesterday. Epic game. When I was playing I was thinking of this topic and saying "Why do people even play most modern games?" Sure, PS is old and not too amazing in any of it's gameplay mechanics, but it's FUN. And that's something you don't get out of 95% of popular games these days.

[Dymitry]

Flametrace, on 15 August 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

Just got Planetside 1 yesterday. Epic game. When I was playing I was thinking of this topic and saying "Why do people even play most modern games?" Sure, PS is old and not too amazing in any of it's gameplay mechanics, but it's FUN. And that's something you don't get out of 95% of popular games these days.

Gotta check it out, thanks for the tip!

[Adridos]

To add to the discussion, one of the worse parts about the advance of today's videogame industry is the huge cost of development.
Publishing isn't new, but now,, when they shell out 10 millions for a game, they will take any course of action to make sure it will be successful, even if it means going the only attractive way. With that in mind, mindblowing ideas are a no-go, since publishers would never accept to fund a title that has a chance of being a failure. Luckily,m this is partly offset by the indie support, kickstarters and F2P games.

For instance this game is set in a not-so attractive genre (RTS) and has a good, but risky idea.



No publisher agreed... and the only way they can make it is through a kickstarter.

Even MW:O had the same problem. Only because it was from an old genre, noone wanted to fund it. This makes all games the same, stagnating and boring. Nobody experiements and the result is the mess we have in AAA games today.

[Dymitry]

Hopefully with the proliferation of distribution platforms and revenue model within the constant expansion of the industry, inde devs will be able to cut a good workable niche. I personally feel that as I grow older, as a gamer, I am more exigent in terms of concepts, contents and gameplay, rather than gimmicky stuff like uber-graphics. I played a truckload of fps since the first half life, and while graphics have improved how much, 100 fold? Storytelling, balance, sounds and AI are still comparable to today's blockbusters. While this proves that a good game, like a good movie can age well, it also speaks volumes for what is the focal point in current development.

[Lightdragon]

Dragonlord, on 13 August 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

This is not about MWO, but computer games in general.

I am an avid gamer, and I buy allot of games in the course of a year.
However over the last several years and the last years specifically I have noticed a decline in the quality of games.

A game I pre-ordered, Legends of Pegasus (4x Space RTS), was released 3 days ago, when the game was released in was riddled with bugs, I'm talking gamebreaking bugs, such as the game crashing randomly, players unable to save/load games, and unable to move ships ingame.
These are just a few examples, and the game feels more like an early beta than a release ready product.

It was the same with Might & Magic Heroes VI (in the Heroes of might & magic), the game was riddled with bugs, many of them gamebreaking and the game felt like an early beta as well.

Then there is Diablo 3 which had allot of hype, but turned out to me a major disappointment.
I know some people swear its a greats game, but I dont agree and it seems many others dont either.
It feels more like a hack'n slash game that are relying on the success of its predecessors, just like many other games seems to do today.

It seems that all games today are just meant to be another money grab for whatever publisher decides to release it, with no regard for repeatability, fun or even quality
Some games even feels like just a copy of another game, as if the developers have no imagination at all.

I still remember back in the days when I bought a game it was actually working as intended, and the gameplay was fun and entertaining.
So what happened to that quality and quality control?
Where are the games that you can install and know they are working as they should and which can hold your attention for hours and days, sometimes even weeks?

These are things that genuinely puzzles me, and I'm hoping someone here can actually provide some useful answers.

games used to be better because back before the internet age game companies had to get it right the first time or be forced to spend alot of extra cash mailing out update/patch discs to users that ask for them these days they see it as... oh screw it release it with the bugs we can always release patches later

[Dervim]

Lightdragon, on 16 August 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

games used to be better because back before the internet age game companies had to get it right the first time or be forced to spend alot of extra cash mailing out update/patch discs to users that ask for them these days they see it as... oh screw it release it with the bugs we can always release patches later

And the sad part is-most of the companies don't even bother releasing patches and bug fixes! Those who do, they add even more bugs and issues instead of fixing stuff

[Orillious Tyr]

Okay, I need to say something. Games today are not all worse than 10 years ago. Yes, there are a lot of bad ones. Yes, there are a lot of sequels to amazing games that fall flat of their faces, but there were just as many back then. We simply know about more of them now because of things like the internet. I still find myself foaming at the mouth with rage whenever I play Skyrim, because for the life of me I cannot understand how everyone loves it the most out of any elder scrolls title. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Skyrim is a bad game, I think it's a really good game. The problem is that it's not a good SEQUEL. It rides too much on the hype of Oblivion and Morrowind, and gets shoved out the door while it's still only half baked.

That is one example of how games are not holding up now. BUT, there is some hope. There are many old series' and genres that were popular in the early 2000's and late 90's that are making comebacks, Mechwarrior being one of them. And there are also new games coming out with legitimately fresh ideas that inject some new blood to the gaming community, like the Assassan's Creed series. If I had to think of a game series that defined the 2007-2012 time period it would have to be either Assassin's Creed, or Mass Effect, which is another example of new, good games.

Basicly what I'm trying to say is that even though some of our best experiences with games may have been in the good ol' days, you have to remember that when those really old games came out, there were probably just as many bad ones too.

Wow....I feel weird talking about new/old games like i'm supposed to be some kind of gamer veteran. I guess I have a weird perspective on gaming..I'm 17 so I can be considered a "new gamer" but I was raised playing a lot of the old games like Mechwarrior 3/4 and Freelancer do to my father being an old gamer. So I kind of feel like I can see a bit of both worlds in a sense. Does that make any sense?

Edited by Daniel Silverthorn, 18 August 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[Kael Murr]

games of old contained many thousands of lines of code... games today take many millions. done by many people with differing tendencies towards code organization. this makes a spiderweb mess that even a simple mistake or work around becomes a large job that can make a ripple effect on other aspects of the game. its understandable that there are a few errors here and there, but to release something broken reflects poorly on the company.

another thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot more time restraints given to game creators now. this rush sometimes forces them to allow a minor bug that most people would never find just so they can get a game out on time... but with the interwebs, they can come out with quick patches to fix these. older games never got updates.

one last thing... try going back to those older games sometime. you will see a lot of things you overlooked before. wether u were too young when the game first came out, or the quality of game expected is now higher. they are never as satisfying as they once were. we expect a lot more out of games now. example: starcraft 1 was a great game that i enjoyed. starcraft 2 is good, but not as revolutionary to me. when i went back to 1 i noticed things they changed like mining (all mines in 2 are located a short distance from your spawn location and you can rally units to gather automatically)

[nektu]

Ok, to be honest I think that the biggest factor in this is that you are all old farts that are overcome with nostalgica. And that we were dumb kids discovering something new and shiny back then

Triggerhippy, on 13 August 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

Completely agree, do you remember original Doom coming out? with the first episode as a free demo ( a whole episode free! Not just a level or two) incedentally that free demo episode of original doom was far more atmospheric and gripping than the recent DeusEx attempt

Hahaha. The original Doom was so incredibly awesome because it was one of the very first of its type. I played it dozens of times as a child.

Coming back to it now, it has aged horribly. Not only because of the graphics, but mainly because of its very limited gameplay (that I have seen in many, many other forms over the years), This holds true for many old games. Just fire them up and see how it goes - probably you will no longer have the childish enthusiasm for simplistic gameplay, or (in other cases) the patience to deal with the often horrific and needlessly time-consuming or over-complicated and punishing gameplay. As a child with nothing better to do, we could really dig into that **** - today, I very much doubt it.

Triggerhippy, on 13 August 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

- again the original Deux Ex was epic, since then they have just cashed in on the name.
I could go on like this all day, it's as if after the mid/late 90's games have gradually sacrificed originallity and creativity for graphics and effects (not to mention the odd cameo voice performance by an actor from some sci-fi show or other) that always adds to the sales figures.

One thing is true: many modern games are made up like blockbuster movies. If you don't like it, you should probably keep your money and look for good indie games or the rare good blockbuster game.

DeathAxle, on 13 August 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Not only quality but where has the innovation gone?

Where are the next magic carpet, populous, black and white, theme hospital, dungeon keeper, evil genius etc etc etc coming from?

It seems that all we are getting is a constant respawn of FPS shooters, that years sports games and Japanese cutesy kiddie games.

The financial risk in making modern games is far higher than in the past (because they need the great production values to stay competitive). And as such, they only make tried and true concepts that actually have a chance of making money.

And no worries: you will see many more iterations magic carpet, populous, black and white, theme hospital, dungeon keeper, evil genius and so on

LordKnightFandragon, on 13 August 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

What happened? The player base got dumbererer(See World of Tanks, BFBC2, BF3, CoD:MW#)....the overall skill of players went through the floor, companies are only out to make a quick buck and the players are to dumb to know the difference.

Yea, those darn kids with their bad games!! GET OF MY LAWN!! Why do you buy those games again? Are you to dumb to know the difference?

LordKnightFandragon, on 13 August 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

So a company will release a **** game that has great graphics, lots of boom, and requires absolutely NO skill to play, but it will be chalk full of bugs and really no content to it..but since it has great graphics and its insanely easy, the 15yr old kiddies who play the games dont care. I def noticed the games have gotten pretty LAME..Battlefield Bad company 2 was an example of this. I played 2142 for prolly 20K battles, and that game required aiming, tactics, teamwork and what not. Come BFBC2, you can just RUSH out in front of a TANK, take a direct round to the face, strafe it wit han RPG and just keep on running. If you use a MG, just spam rounds and stuff dies...its like the epitome of BS and little kid easy.
I hope MWO really takes time to make a GOOD game, not just one to make them a quick buck....make it sorta hard, great game play, work on the bugs, add quality content and listen to the dang playerbase.....of coruse, what I said above about the player bases in general being dumbereererrererr....yeah...oops...

Oh nonono, never listen to the playerbase too much - because the playerbase is dumb as **** (as you explained just one paragraph up). And I agree with you - listening to the playerbase does not equal a good game (as can be seen in many, many mods that start out great and then begin their descend once the vocal (and inevitablely whiny) minority posting on the forums starts to influence the creators.)

Edited by nektu, 18 August 2012 - 06:36 AM.

[H Minus]

"Nostalgia is a liar.." - Benny Hill

I'm considered an old gamer, and I too thought that newer games are of a lesser quality than older games. So I tried playing many older games I used to like and found out, hey these are complete crap also! It seems the quality of most games made is the same today as yesteryears. Its just that with how quickly we can get information now allowed us to pump more games out now. The quality levels seem the same. If the counter argument is "They were good for their time," that is true, but this is not that time. Most of those same games if made today would not live up to their old praises. Living in the past helps no one.

Edited by H Minus, 18 August 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Dymitry]

H Minus, on 18 August 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

"Nostalgia is a liar.." - Benny Hill

I'm considered an old gamer, and I too thought that newer games are of a lesser quality than older games. So I tried playing many older games I used to like and found out, hey these are complete crap also! It seems the quality of most games made is the same today as yesteryears. Its just that with how quickly we can get information now allowed us to pump more games out now. The quality levels seem the same. If the counter argument is "They were good for their time," that is true, but this is not that time. Most of those same games if made today would not live up to their old praises. Living in the past helps no one.

As a vintage gamer myself, I really do not think so. Make examples please!

[DarkBazerker]

H Minus, on 18 August 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

"Nostalgia is a liar.." - Benny Hill

I'm considered an old gamer, and I too thought that newer games are of a lesser quality than older games. So I tried playing many older games I used to like and found out, hey these are complete crap also! It seems the quality of most games made is the same today as yesteryears. Its just that with how quickly we can get information now allowed us to pump more games out now. The quality levels seem the same. If the counter argument is "They were good for their time," that is true, but this is not that time. Most of those same games if made today would not live up to their old praises. Living in the past helps no one.

Oh what sweet irony. The thing is if those games where made today by the same people with the same ideas, but with our technology, it would ackully be very different. The simple fact is the guys & girls that worked on games bad then are pretty much retiring, and the younger generation is taking over. It just so happens that this generation has a different way of looking at things.

Back in the old days they made games cause that was there passion. Now they make games for the paycheck. We need more people with passion to make games.

[Void2258]

It's about repairability. In the old days, if you released a game with bugs it had bugs forever. If it was really bad you could en up having to run a massive recall campaign to manually replace all the discs that had been bought. Even in the early days of the net, patching was a rare thing.

Unfortunately as net speed increased and patching tools became integrated in development software, it became trivial to issue patches. It was no longer a case of it being a hassle to fix things after the release. It became easier and more economical to release the game and let the user base do the stress testing after the fact. If the public had fought back, the trend could have been reversed, but instead people not only didn't complain much, but actually signaled a willingness to let this practice go forward in exchange for getting their games faster.

[H Minus]

Dymitry, on 18 August 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

As a vintage gamer myself, I really do not think so. Make examples please!

Strider, bionic commando, hell the original Metal Gear would be horrible if released today using the exact same design. Even Super Mario Brothers, if released now, would just be a mediocre time waster while waiting for a better game to be released. Most were extremely short and flashy with no actual substance even for their time, just like today's sub par games (yes I know about resource limitations also). There were few games made considering what was out that screamed quality.

Even most of the original Atari games were repackaged from another atari game. Think of games like Combat and the such.


My whole point is that too many people cry about change, and its just flat out nonsense to think that way. You can find awesome gems from the past and find just as many if not more now. The quality of games hasn't changed one bit.

[H Minus]

DarkBazerker, on 18 August 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Back in the old days they made games cause that was there passion. Now they make games for the paycheck. We need more people with passion to make games.

They made games back then to make money. Sure there were people that enjoyed it enough to do it for free, but most companies back then are the same as companies now. All about the quarter profit.