277 replies to this topic

[Project Dark Fox]

Quote

I would say that good games are as much gameplay as it is graphics if not more so.
If you could make a game like they did back in the 90's and combine it with the graphics of today, how do you think that would be?
Imagine having both great graphics and great gameplay.

Makes me look forward to Rise of the Triad, too...

[Komaru]

This is a topic very near and dear to my heart. I have a couple of thoughts on why this happened, and I will outline them below:



1) Profit vs. Quality
In the old days, the people who designed these games we now yearn for were indeed out to make some money on the endeavor. We can't ignore that. But they were a different kind of people than the ones making the decisions today. In the old days, people wanted to put together a good product that matched the dream they had in their heads. If it sold well, AWESOME! They could make another game. Maybe a sequel or a prequel, or something entirely new. If it didn't sell, then they either tried again, or went and did something else. They dared, and either succeeded or failed.

Today, the big decisions makers are generally part of a business team. While they may not be involved in the game creation directly, (because they don't understand concepts like balance, risk and reward, etc.) they dictate what the game must do to maintain profitability. I firmly believe that the current game market is the result of business people getting their hands into things they should have stayed out of, but that's a rant for another time. The goal of business people is to maintain a profitable business, and if making a game is the means, they will make whatever game will guarantee them another quarter. Herein lies the problem of never taking a risk.


2) Risk vs. Reward
No one wants to take risks. It's that simple. American society at this point is EXTREMELY risk-averse, and no where is this more true than in our beloved gaming industry. Even those of you pointing to Kickstarter should realize one of it's key points is that there is NO RISK to backing a product. I'm not saying this is BAD, but just keep it in mind. Games used to be (relatively) purely creative products. They had a spirit and a dream, and were an attempt to realize a story or game mechanic and share it with people who would enjoy it. Now, games cannot risk being flops (yet so many are), because they must support massive companies. The more people are affected by any given risk, the more likely we are to not take that risk.

These days, it is all about rewards for minimal effort. Now I love some games like MWO, or Blacklight, where you are guaranteed good credits for every game played and it is literally impossible to dig yourself so far into debt that you can't play anymore. But that's what old single-player games used to do. Look at the Armored Core series, where you could suck so badly that you couldn't afford to repair you AC and had to start the game over from the beginning. Look at Steel Battalion, where if you died, you were DEAD, and had to start the game over from the beginning. These games were challenging and required you to learn, to risk everything for a reward that was not guaranteed.

TLBFestus and Squeak made some excellent points concerning the market these games are marketed to , which is us, my friends. We also like rewards with no risk. To a point. Who doesn't? Games like MWO, Blacklight, World of Tanks, even non "MMO" games like BF3 all offer rewards instantly after every battle. Granted this is a characteristic that has been in RPGs since forever, but when it was applied to games with 10 minute rounds, things went crazy.

3) Oh, look, is that the topic over there?

I got a bit side-tracked, and I apologize for that. Let me offer some solutions and hope to close this out.

4) iOS, Android, Kickstarter, and the Future of Good Games
We're back to square one. Or rather, square 1.2. We are back in the days where a group of dedicated individuals can make the game they want without marketers or investors leaning over their shoulder demanding changes. I'll be the first to admit, I have RAGED about the mobile games market as "horrible" and "an atrocity to gaming that does not deserve to share the name 'gaming'". This was perhaps three years ago. Since then, hardware has come out that allow us to play amazing games on mobile devices. Three guys can get together to build the game of their dreams and nearly anyone in the world willing to plunk down $5 can play it.

We have reached a renaissance in gaming. The OP asked what happened to the games of old. Well, what happened was they went away when business people invaded our hobby. But that's fine. Like a well-played game of C&C, we let them take our base, build over our refineries and declare victory. But enough of us saw it coming. We took a couple of tanks, and that MCV they didn't even think we had, and we're building a new one. One where the kind of man who thought "Hey, what if I made a game about a plumber fighting dinosaurs to rescue a princess?" and wasn't immediately countered with "Does it have guns? Is he ex-special ops? How are there dinosaurs? That's not going to sell." can dream and design to his heart's content.

[Bansheedragon75]

Valaska, on 13 August 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Glad I read your post mate I was about to buy Legends of Pegasus!

Its a good game, and I think its worth it.
Dont let my post or the bugs scare you from buying the game
But I suggest waiting a few weeks until they fixed the current issues, and then get it.

[Bansheedragon75]

WhenKatzComes, on 13 August 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

XCOM (the original), XCOM: Terror from the deep, MW2, MW2:Mercs, MW3, Doom 1 and 2.

Kings Quest IV, and the Quest For Glory series were absolutely fantastic. If you guys like XCOM: UFO Defense (the old one, the new one looks like puke to me) check out Xenonauts, going into open beta soon, its a fantastic clone of the original.

I loved those Xcom games, my all time favorite is the Original.
When I bought it the first time it was called UFO Enemy unknown.
There are 3 other UFO games that a ok if you like the series.

Newer Xcom trilogy:
Aftermath
Aftershock
Afterlight

You can find them on GOG.com (Good Old Games)
Here you can buy old classics DRM free at prices of no more than $10.

[Caboose30]

Rixx, on 13 August 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

What happened is no simple question, it's a combination of issues.

1. Graphics. Graphics are now the answer to every problem. Bigger, prettier, sharper, more color, more explosions, more details! Course that kills your budget for every other element of the game such as quality control, writing, etc. Chris Hartman's recent statements point to this. They've given up doing anything creative because they believe graphics are the hurdle to creativity. Once the graphics are good enough, the games will just improve on their own! Make the game pretty and no one will notice the glitches.

2. $$$. QC costs money, a lot of money. On top of that, it takes time, lots of time. That's time you are not making money. Ship it out as fast as possible, get some income going and fix anything that turns up. Internet makes that easy enough to do, but it's still bad form. It's better to spend that money and time developing sharper, crisper graphics!

3. Rushed production. Big companies push products out early and half finished to meet arbitrary deadlines so they have numbers to show at board meetings and to hopefully push stock prices higher. Suits that are higher up, and have no idea what it takes to make a game, are the ones making these kind of descisions.

4. Status quo. Gamers, in general, are so fanatic about their hobby that they never demand better. Heck, Blizzard could put together a trailer for Diablo 4 tomorrow, release a stick figure based character creation screen the next day, threaten always on requirements, threaten a monthly fee (for a basically single player game) and promise that if you buy now they'll eventually get a game put together sometime before 2020 and they'd probably sell 2 million copies in the first 48 hours. As long as we keep throwing money at them for half baked manure, they'll keep shoveling it to us.

I definitely could see this happening. As far as I'm concerned, StarCraft 2 just got out of the beta stage within the last week. They just released a massive 1.3gb "patch" for it that would "optimize your installation". Yeah, right. When Diablo 3 is out for a year and it's down to $20 or $30, I'll buy a copy.

[Algorhythmic]

Dragonlord, on 13 August 2012 - 07:36 AM, said:

It truly saddens me to see that the gaming industry has taken such a nosedive.
The games promise many hours of fun and lots of replayability, yet many games that are released today I can complete in a few hours and never play again because the are boring.
I see games that are promised to have background story and rich storylines, yet they barely the background and storylines are so shallow and lacking that you barely notice it at all.

Truly wish that at least one developer and one publisher would actually be willing to take a risk just once, and try to create a game that dont just focus on great graphics, but have a compelling storyline and good entertaining gameplay.

I think instead of blaming the developers you don't like, you should find ones you do. Distribution and marketing channels have changed and if you don't adapt, you will get stuck with stagnation.

Some sources: reddit.com/r/games
go install Steam
always watch Let's Play ____ on youtube before you buy.

Check out Crusader Kings 2
Dayz
Mount and Blade Warband
Terraria

Edited by IlIlI, 13 August 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Games now are all about fancy graphic's not quality game play, coupled with developers promising the earth to publishers so they get funding, then publishers turning the screws for results.

This often means games are released broken or buggy, harming the MMO world further.

SOE and EA have proven themselves untrustworthy with funding and support for their stable of games, and their staff..

Game developers are turning to smaller publishers, which worked 20 years ago, but now I think its clutching at straws, as smaller publishers means less money to start with.

I threw $120 at this title for old times sake, I like the idea of mechwarriors and it happend to catch my attention at the same time a work bonus was burning a hole in my bank account.

Fact the this title is selling closed beta acounts screams to anyone with a bit of money sense, and some knowledge of history, (bankrupt monarchs often sold titles to the nobility to raise money for wars, extra castles a bit of hot stuff for that trip to the northern provices, with out having to beg to the merchant classes for a loan) that the coffers are nearly empty, and I can see this being the next title going live, before its ready

[Bansheedragon75]

All these responses here has given me some good insight into what and where things went downhill.

But it brings up another question.

Is there anything we as gamers can do about it?
Some way to influence the market to get the big guys to see that there could be an even bigger reward that would be well worth it if the are just willing to take the risk?

[Python46]

honestly, i think you can blame 2 parties for lack of quality in the games today. obviously, the developers are partly to blame, as they choose cost over quality. keep cost down and sell at a high price and get your dev costs back in the first round of sales. everything else is just gravy, then. secondly, the consumer. the game consumer market is turning into a group primarily comprised of the "console kiddies", as some refer to them. people who buy PS3s, Xbox 360s, Wiis, etc, and the games that come out for them. well, those games are good for about a month, then you get bored, so you buy another game. all of them are more about splash than substance, so the "kiddies" get hooked into the big splash mentality. then they move onto computer gaming, because the content runs out so fast on their beloved consoles, and they want the same thing on the computer. their attention span for new games is about 1-3 months for average games and 3-6 months for "better" games. either way, within 6-9 months, they have moved on to their next big splash. if you've ever run an online game server, such as CoD, BF2 or whatever, you've seen it happen. buy a server, build it for a couple of months, then begin to see many of the regulars just stop playing. pick another game, same life cycle. they just don't have any desire to stick with a game, because no game has ever engaged them enough to keep them.

the only way this sort of thing will ever get fixed is by developers, like PGI, developing strictly for PC again. if they do that and are successful, they will begin to develop game titles that will have staying power with us PC players. and who knows. one day, maybe some of the console bunch will begin to see the value, again, in quality products, with real story lines an worthy gameplay, that will keep them entertained for longer.

one other thing that can lead to rapid development and release of flaky or buggy product is the desire to keep the audience you already have. some games, such as the original diablo and, to a lesser degree diablo 2, the MW stuff, etc, just hooked a fanbase that wanted the next game in the series as soon as they had played half way through the most recent one. companies realize there's a limited window before their audience finds something else that makes them happy, rather than their baby. there just aren't many titles that can go 8 to 10 years between releases, and still hold onto the gamers they really need at the core, to keep a game viable. so, when they think they are getting close enough, they push for release, saying to themselves "we'll fix the bugs after release, with patches". rather than "get it right before it goes out the door, so customers are happy".

[Crankwerk]

I have to admit I agree with most of the criticism, yet I can't say it is all bad. But the market share of conventional gaming is actually not growing but somewhat stagnating atm, but the mobile/portable game market is growing insanely. So risk taking is propably going to be less of...

So intead of only focusing on the negative sides of gaming industry atm I rather give examples of companies doing it right!

A game based on multiplayer and to them it's important not to separate the player base hence they released all the DLC to the game for free (Wargame European Escalation) It is also challenging and different than other RTS

The Witcher a challenging and rewarding RPG game, they continued to develop on the game and made a better prettier version and gave it to their customer for free. Then they did the same with Witcher 2.

The Book of Unwritten Tales a brilliant and humorous adventure game with some challenging puzzles.

Batman Arkham City, a fresh take on the superhero genre by a major company.

The Secret World, the first MMO in a long time upping the difficulty of the game by quite a bit. It has puzzles you can tinker with and have to search for clues. You can't walk in and expect to clear trash mobs, you have to adapt to the area, etc.

Also there seem to be new genres developing and actually we might get fresh breathe of life with titles like FORGE, CLANG and the CYBERPUNK.

Edited by Crankwerk, 13 August 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[Komaru]

Dragonlord, on 13 August 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

All these responses here has given me some good insight into what and where things went downhill.

But it brings up another question.

Is there anything we as gamers can do about it?
Some way to influence the market to get the big guys to see that there could be an even bigger reward that would be well worth it if the are just willing to take the risk?

Dragonlord, we can't really influence the big guys, but what we can do is support the little guys. If you're unhappy with a publisher, don't buy their games. I highly recommend looking through Kickstarter and checking the Play Store/ App Store periodically and finding games you like and purchasing those.

The best thing we can do to influence the "big guys" is to not buy their stuff.

Crankwerk, on 13 August 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

I have to admit I agree with most of the criticism, yet I can't say it is all bad. But the market share of conventional gaming is actually not growing but somewhat stagnating atm, but the mobile/portable game market is growing insanely. So risk taking is propably going to be less of...

So intead of only focusing on the negative sides of gaming industry atm I rather give examples of companies doing it right!

A game based on multiplayer and to them it's important not to separate the player base hence they released all the DLC to the game for free (Wargame European Escalation) It is also challenging and different than other RTS

The Witcher a challenging and rewarding RPG game, they continued to develop on the game and made a better prettier version and gave it to their customer for free. Then they did the same with Witcher 2.

The Book of Unwritten Tales a brilliant and humorous adventure game with some challenging puzzles.

Batman Arkham City, a fresh take on the superhero genre by a major company.

The Secret World, the first MMO in a long time upping the difficulty of the game by quite a bit. It has puzzles you can tinker with and have to search for clues. You can't walk in and expect to clear trash mobs, you have to adapt to the area, etc.

Also there seem to be new genres developing and actually we might get fresh breathe of life with titles like FORGE, CLANG and the CYPERPUNK.

Crankwerk, thanks for bringing up the Witcher series. Fantastic games, fantastic books. I also picked up Wargame, but I'm having trouble getting the hang of it. Know of any good communities for it?

[RotaryRockStar]

Not an argument settler but.... I'd like to bring Homeworld and Homeworld 2 to the table as some of the greatest games ever made. The graphics are STILL gorgeous and if you get the "complex mod", I would hold it up against any game today or since it was made nearly 10 years ago. So.... dig out your homeworld 2 cd's... reinstall, patch to 1.1, add resolution dimensions to your command line and, install the complex mod. Then.... close all the blinds, turn off the phone, grab all your snacks and enjoy hours/days of being a fleet commander.

GAMES OF OLD!

[Bansheedragon75]

Oh yeah Homeworld.
I would say one of the absolute bets space RTS games around.
I have all the games in that series, and really really wish someone would make a Homeworld 3.

Now I'm gonna have to dig out my old discs again and reinstall that game.
You made me want to play it again.

[Pht]

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

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?

Eye-candy expectations and killer costs driving adversity to risk-taking (making new genres, being different), IMO, has killed the old spirit of video gaming.


Let's face it, all the old-school geeks who produced the games of yore that kicked butt are retired by now, and the industry is pretty much fully standardized and industrialized.

we used to have the equivalent of hand-made products from craftsmen who knew their product from top to bottom.

...now we have assembly line product made by horribly overworked people treated like cogs who come out of standardized education systems; who don't have much attachment to the overall product because it's so *bleeping* complex no single person COULD know it well enough to be that invested into it.

[Steven Dixon]

I'm an old school gamer but I don't necessarily agree that games were much better quality back in the day. Nostalgia and a lack of expectations can color a lot of our opinions.

Obviously games are much more advanced graphically now, there's no point in discussing that issue, the question is are they better quality? Games are often more buggy now, this is partially due to the fact that patches allow developers to release games sooner and take less time with quality control. However it is also partially due to the fact that games are often far longer and much more complicated now, with longer development cycles. However I certainly wouldn't call old school computer games reliable.

In the 90's I would frequently expect to have to read the manuals and perform troubleshooting just to get a lot of games to work. Mouse problems, sound problems, installation problems, ect were very common. I learned basic programing just so I could get several games to play. So they might be different problems but they are still problems.

Many people decry that games are now shorter and lack replayablity, but that completely depends on the game. Yes some are only good for a few hours but others are very fun for weeks or even months. Many old school games were terribly short, they just seemed long because they were so difficult that you had to replay a level countless times to get passed it. I used to love that, but I don't think it's necessarily 'better' than a game like Skyrim that is pretty easy but has a ton of content.

Many AAA games are less innovative than they used to be. This is unfortunately due to the expense of making these games, back in the day a AAA game could be made for tens of thousands of $ now it can easily take over a hundred million $s. With that kinda money on the line developers really can't afford to take many risks. Indie games don't get as much press but they are low budget so they can be very innovative and their are plenty of creative games out there.

Some games are junk, some are great, that has always been true, nothing has changed. A lot of games in the 80's and 90's were complete junk. A lot of what's changed are our expectations. If MWO had come out in the 80's my jaw would have literally dropped in awe of the graphics, now it's just kinda pretty. The same is true of size, scope, features, storytelling, ect. The ability to move backwards was once an innovative feature; a 30 word, poorly written speech was once a riveting storyline; 20 levels was once epic. We expect far more from games now so it's much easier to be disappointed.

[Crankwerk]

Dragonlord, on 13 August 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Is there anything we as gamers can do about it?
Some way to influence the market to get the big guys to see that there could be an even bigger reward that would be well worth it if the are just willing to take the risk?

We as consumer have a voting power , selecting what we buy and when we buy it. Vote with your wallet. Try not to support chain run games like Call of Duty, etc..

Pre-order gives additional funding and help the developer release a product. It denies us as a consumer to educate us on the game and we only get the developers point of view. Do not do it.

Metacritic - Remove the scoreboard on metacritic, or develop a industry standard for rating games. Companies bases an entire IP success on that scoreboard. Some companies wont even hire you unless you have worked on an IP that have scored to low. Only use metacritic to find reviews of a game and read the reviews. DO NOT use the score to decide to buy a game.Voice concern with metacritic and try to get them to either take away average rating or make an universal standard that IGN and other review sites can use.

Kickstarter is a two edged sword, on one side it is a great way for unheard developers to fund their ideas and get them financed as the recognized developers tend to focus on the safe model, but it is also used now as free PR for almost or finished products..

Console developers should probably band together and make a unified console and then Sony, Nintendo and MSN could focus on making a unique gaming experience. Mobile gaming market is the fastest growing one and believe biggest soon. Hence making a gaming experience unique and brilliant on console and PC works in favor of us gamers and will also ease the development for the developers as there is a standard.
Hence we as gamers should realize if the mainstream market gets more users, the niche market will also get more users hence we can see more original titles thrive in different genres.

We as consumer should hold developers accountable for crap products, if you get a product that flat out doesn't work or delivers a crap experience due to bugs. Raise a complaint and go for refund. By not making it a hassle for the developer, we as the consumer accept their business model and more will do it. Make an educated post on forums explaining why you choose to abandon the title and warn others.

As consumers we want to see new and fresh titles and not the same rehash over and over again. We want a new fresh engaging experience, Yet our wallets seem to support the publisher train of tought as we buy CoD1 , CoD2 and so on. Hence try to only support titles that deserve to continue. A game were the story has a right of life.

We want games with rich and engaging gameplay. Not new shiny graphics or even better both. By buying games that is different challenging and not graphical pretty we tell the developers we want that, by communicating with the team through their forums we get a chance to influence the development process, yet it is their creative work, so they might not decide our ideas are what is appropriate for that title, but maybe they use it in another title.

So returning to your original question, how can we influence the game industry. We do so by being a proactive consumers, voting with our wallets, being interactive and communicating to the individual developer team as a interest group not as an individual. Also communicating with MetaCritic so ratings aren't skewered or removed entirely.

Komaru, on 13 August 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Crankwerk, thanks for bringing up the Witcher series. Fantastic games, fantastic books. I also picked up Wargame, but I'm having trouble getting the hang of it. Know of any good communities for it?

I have to admit I don't know of any good communities in it, I tend to play it with a group of friends. But if you want we can team up and play. Just shoot me and invite on steam Clockwork is the handle.

[Vohveli]

RotaryRockStar, on 13 August 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

I'd like to bring Homeworld and Homeworld 2 to the table as some of the greatest games ever made. The graphics are STILL gorgeous and if you get the "complex mod", I would hold it up against any game today or since it was made nearly 10 years ago. So.... dig out your homeworld 2 cd's... reinstall, patch to 1.1, add resolution dimensions to your command line and, install the complex mod. Then.... close all the blinds, turn off the phone, grab all your snacks and enjoy hours/days of being a fleet commander.

It's a bit shame that the gameplay is a bit shallow as I really liked the series from every other standpoint. That and the installer of HW2 failing to work for some reason on my current system. ;__;



About games in general these days and the graphical advances... In addition to the typical lack of focus on other aspects of games' development, I've been really bothered by how confusing the visuals are becoming. Realistic graphics don't typically make a game any more playable. Compare UT2K4 and UT3 for instance. In UT2K4 textures, models and map design are all really clear and you can figure out everything happening one the screen in a split second, while in UT3 its all blur of special effects, shiny metal and lines of little light elements everywhere.

[Algorhythmic]

Dragonlord, on 13 August 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

All these responses here has given me some good insight into what and where things went downhill.

But it brings up another question.

Is there anything we as gamers can do about it?
Some way to influence the market to get the big guys to see that there could be an even bigger reward that would be well worth it if the are just willing to take the risk?

I wouldn't call a lot of these comments insightful. Ain't it awful is just an excuse for laziness. Distribution and marketing channels have changed and if you don't adapt, you will get stuck with stagnation. If you allow yourself to be locked in to buying only from companies like EA because that's what you know, THEN IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT.

Frankly all you guys going, 'ain't it awful' really need to put the effort in to switch to distribution channels and information sources that satisfy your needs. Gaming is a large part of how you spend your time. Make sure you don't waste it.

I'll say it again. Always watch a Let's Play ___ on youtube before you buy. Low involvement purchases like buying a cup of coffee sure you don't take a sip first. But if you are going to spend time on it?

Edited by IlIlI, 13 August 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Telecleez]

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.

i think u basically hit the nail on the head here...

i also think most of the companies think "Oh well we'll just fix it later and send out a patch the customers will just have to deal with it"
or at least it seems that way some times...
i just bought Dead Space 2 and it took 3 days just to get it to work right cuz almost no one had an idea on how to fix the control issues it had i finnaly found a couple of obscure blogs on how to fix one problem then i had to figure out the other. Instead of the company making it work right from the get go...

Quality has definitely fallen off on some game makers but from what i've seen so far the devs here seem to be working hard on avoiding the low quality money grabber game so if i had the money i would definitely give some cash over for a founders so they could keep up the good work

Edited by Telecleez, 13 August 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[Crankwerk]

Steven Dixon, on 13 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

I'm an old school gamer but I don't necessarily agree that games were much better quality back in the day. Nostalgia and a lack of expectations can color a lot of our opinions.

Obviously games are much more advanced graphically now, there's no point in discussing that issue, the question is are they better quality? Games are often more buggy now, this is partially due to the fact that patches allow developers to release games sooner and take less time with quality control. However it is also partially due to the fact that games are often far longer and much more complicated now, with longer development cycles. However I certainly wouldn't call old school computer games reliable.

Naturally our expectations grow as technology advances, it is natural as things progress. That games are longer and more complicated now isn't necessarily true. Several games are released with less expected game time than older games. But that is fine.

What isn't good on other hand is in the FPS genre were the AI script in some games have been made easier or simplified. Or in other titles were the AI script is the same as when the original game was released in 98. Yet graphics are better. Games in 2000 could do environmental destruction yet most games today don't do it, or in a very restricted form.

Steven Dixon, on 13 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

Many AAA games are less innovative than they used to be. This is unfortunately due to the expense of making these games, back in the day a AAA game could be made for tens of thousands of $ now it can easily take over a hundred million $s. With that kinda money on the line developers really can't afford to take many risks. Indie games don't get as much press but they are low budget so they can be very innovative and their are plenty of creative games out there.

Naturally cost of making the product has gone up, money value has changed, it's gone from a low gross income industry to a high grossing massive industry. Naturally the publisher is interested in putting more money in for a bigger return. Also it is now at least according to companies like EA a saturated market, hence taking risk has less rewards. And their focusing more on mobile gaming. I don't think we'll game as we do now in 20 years. But somewhat irrelevant for this discussion.

Us the Old School Gamers and Hardcore players want more challenging games yet the most dominant gaming growd want to relax and have fun. Be entertained, hence why IPs that have simple mechanics and hollywood cutscenes are so popular I believe. We just have to accept that we are minority now and not the majority.