Are video games as good as they used to be?

[trollrogue]

Jun 18, 2017 12:56:50 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

No

Because back in the day, when you bought a game, you got the full game. No one was asking you to buy additional parts of it.

I'm super pissed after getting the 'plain' 60-dolla version of Tekken 7 cause it doesn't have Anna Williams or Lei in it (for some reason they are in every Tekken game but this one and Tekken4/Tekken1 respectively) but if you pay another 30 bucks to get the 'Season Pass' bs you will be able to download more characters (not Anna or Lei though) I blame Street Fighter V for this bullshit

[Bo Rida]

Completely agree with the pick up and play part, consoles are ruining their main advantage over PCs.

The greedy business part is shit, the shift to "games as service" while still charging full price for it initially in particular.

Bu things seem to have balanced out a bit, niche titles are back in force, there have been some solid and mostly complete single-player titles lately, it turns out forgotten genres are still wanted, Nintendo are seemingly on their way back (albeit with them adopting many of the same flaws as the rest of the industry).

The games are still there too. I prefer Spelunky to most old platformers, Guacamelee to most metriodvanias, Rocket League to old sport games....

The PS4 has the old PS2 vibe, not just with re-releases but with TLG, P5 and quirkier stuff like Gravity Rush.

Plus if all the commercial shit does get too much there's DRM free games via GoG on Linux.

[Mozenrath]

I think the answer is a little more nuanced than this, but I would say they're in many cases better, but it's a bit like films. There are simply more of them now, especially given the indies scene. The mainstrream ones can be a little homogynous, but that isn't new, trends have always existed.

Still, think of any genre, just about, and you can find examples of it getting made. The choices are more numerous, because the barrier of entry is simply lower. It does mean having to sift through the crap, though.

[Eunös ✈]

Honestly, the only modern games I still play are racers.

There was a time I could happily have stayed indoor and played Video Games all day.

But out of nowhere I have just completely lost interest in it.

Most modern games do nothing for me..

If it wasn't for racing games I probably wouldn't own a modern day console.

I'm sure I'm one of the odd ones out here but that's just how I am.

[xCompackx]

Sure they are. The criticisms regarding DLC, microtransactions, and pre-order bonuses are completely justified (though I've never seen an instance where you had to purchase them in order to play a game's campaign or whatever), there's still plenty of good stuff being released. Granted, I use GameFly for most of my gaming so there's less risk involved with something being disappointing and more options for experimentation, but I'm still happy with a lot of what's out there.

[Red Impact]

As far as FFXV goes, I absolutely agree with the critique that the game requires you to view alternative materials to understand the plot, and I think that's one of Square's issues. They've had a lot of problems making a single, cohesive self-contained experience that doesn't require a lot of supplemental materials, and that's because they're trying to make the stories and villains more complex than they were back in the old days of "I'm going to destroy the world to remake it in my own image/save it/for undisclosed reasons."

One element I actually liked about FFXV's storytelling is Square experimenting in how they told the story, with much more subtlety than before, requiring the players to read between the lines and figure things out in ways that old-school FF games didn't really do well. For example, the Pitioss Ruins supposedly telling you the backstory of Ifrit and why he's working with Ardyn. That sort of thing that requires you think and analyze appeals to me more.

I mean, let's face it, even in the great games of the series the plots were pretty basic melodrama, with villains all wanting to destroy the world to remake it/save it/*insert reason later*. Square just hasn't figured out how to tell that story well without requiring you to have a lot of subsequent material like other have. I think there was some ambition in how they made the game that's not there in the series, and I appreciate it, even if the delivery was flat in parts.

Jun 18, 2017 12:56:50 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

No

Because back in the day, when you bought a game, you got the full game. No one was asking you to buy additional parts of it.

I almost never buy DLC for a game, and the ones I do I find, outside of fighting games, mostly superfluous. If a game company is intentionally withholding important parts of the game for the sake of DLC, then they absolutely should be reamed for it, but I can't say I find it to be the case often. Most often, with old games, that's all just cut content never to be seen.

[The Captain]

A couple of points here.

$60 for a game now is fairly affordable compared to the days when cartridges were the norm, even when you don't adjust for inflation. The average NES game was about $50 while a lot of SNES and N64 games ran $60-70. Then you had the even more expensive games (mostly RPG's) that retailed for even higher than that. The Genesis game Phantasy Star IV originally retailed for $100, for example.

Then the PSX came out and because CD-ROM's were significantly cheaper to make than cartridges, games also became cheaper on that system. Considering the massive budgets of most AAA games, it's a small wonder that they aren't even more expensive than $60 these days.

Is it an expensive hobby? Absolutely. But that's always been the case. And thanks to digital distribution platforms and their enabling of independent and smaller studio development, gaming is also the most affordable it's ever been. Not to mention things like the insane Steam or GOG sales or Humble Bundles that allow you to even buy the big budget AAA games at significantly cheaper prices, assuming you have patience and don't have to absolutely buy them on Day 1.

Though I will say this: the embrace of the internet and large capacity storage on modern consoles has allowed console game publishers to take many of the same shortcuts and adopt similar business practices that PC games have done for decades before. QA isn't as vigorous as patching is just as commonplace on console as they are on PC (though it certainly beats games having crippling bugs and not being able to do a thing about them, as has happened in a number of console games). And today's DLC and episodic content is the modern, more capitalistic take on expansion packs and shareware.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

Jun 18, 2017 15:40:24 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

Sure they are. The criticisms regarding DLC, microtransactions, and pre-order bonuses are completely justified (though I've never seen an instance where you had to purchase them in order to play a game's campaign or whatever), there's still plenty of good stuff being released. Granted, I use GameFly for most of my gaming so there's less risk involved with something being disappointing and more options for experimentation, but I'm still happy with a lot of what's out there.

I'd say Arkham City counts as one that tried to get you pay to complete the campaign with the Catwoman missions been DLC.

Already included in the disc, a good chunk of the map been blocked off unless you pay for it, half the Riddler trophies unobtainable without getting it and, the first part of the Catwoman missions and the story with Two Face is started early on in the main campaign so you don't buy the DLC a plot point is unresolved.

I'd also say Battlefront was half a game without the DLC. Pre DLC you only had I think 4 planets and a handful of maps (some of which were basically smaller versions than the full map) but once you bought the DLC you had what appeared to be a full games worth of maps and game modes.

[hashtagdaley/JudasDay]

Absolutely. I think a lot of people who look back and say older games were better than what's available today are looking through massive nostalgia glasses.

Is Secret of Mana a great game? Hell yes. One of my favorites of all time that I go back and play time to time.... Then ask yourself, Is Dragon Age Inquisition better in every way imaginable? Pretty much, yes.

[Kevin Hamilton]

There is some nostalgia sure, but like I said, I do think older games are still more fun.

Take for example a few weeks back, my best friend came over and I popped in an old arcade compilation disc and we played through Smash TV. That was the most fun I've had playing video games in forever.

I love say the God of War series or the Arkham games etc. They're entertaining as all hell, but they're not as FUN as game in the 8 bit era.

[bigalbass86 AKA Smokin Vokoun]

I think for me it comes down to personal preference, with a hint of nostalgia. I've pretty much stayed exclusively with the SNES/Genesis and I've never really cared to advance on. Sure, the games today are far more advanced than the games I play, and I'm fine with people loving those games. But I never was interested in them, and I'm pretty happy living under this nostalgia rock.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Jun 18, 2017 21:46:35 GMT -5 The Captain said:

$60 for a game now is fairly affordable compared to the days when cartridges were the norm, even when you don't adjust for inflation. The average NES game was about $50 while a lot of SNES and N64 games ran $60-70. Then you had the even more expensive games (mostly RPG's) that retailed for even higher than that. The Genesis game Phantasy Star IV originally retailed for $100, for example.

Adjusted for inflation, that would've retailed for a shade under $170 in today's money, while the average $60 SNES game would be around $102.

Games are still expensive, but they take a much smaller chunk out of our wallets than they used to. If you reverse the numbers, a $60 game from today would retail at $36 in 1993.

[2coldMack is even more baffled]

Let's see: Run through Horizon: Zero Dawn, a game with an engaging story, incredible graphics, and super fun fights? Or go back and play....I dunno, Ninja Warriors, and beat up the same guy in 3 different shades of clothes across an entire level? Nah, I'm good with games now. Games now are good. Nostalgia sucks.

[The Ichi]

Jun 19, 2017 1:28:36 GMT -5 2coldMack is even more baffled said:

Let's see: Run through Horizon: Zero Dawn, a game with an engaging story, incredible graphics, and super fun fights? Or go back and play....I dunno, Ninja Warriors, and beat up the same guy in 3 different shades of clothes across an entire level? Nah, I'm good with games now. Games now are good. Nostalgia sucks.

Let's see: Run through Final Fantasy VI, a game with an engaging story, an incredible cast of characters, and a super fun battle system? Or pop in....I dunno, Mass Effect: Andromeda and talk to the same boring character with different ugly facial animation across an entire boring planet?

Sorry, felt like picking some cherries too.

I don't get questions like this because it's the same as all media. There's good and bad, no matter what time period. All that's changed is the technology and business practices.

[Banjo Is Broken]

Is there a game out now that was as revolutionary as "The Adventures of Gilligan's Island" for the NES? No? Hmmm I think we have our answer now don't we?

[hashtagdaley/JudasDay]

Jun 19, 2017 2:26:25 GMT -5 Banjo Is Broken said:

Is there a game out now that was as revolutionary as "The Adventures of Gilligan's Island" for the NES? No? Hmmm I think we have our answer now don't we?

(Language)

[El Cokehead del Knife Fight]

They are better quality wise but when was the last game that was game changing? Things aren't wowing us as much and nothing feels potentially groundbreaking.

[Welfare Willis]

Are the games made by Nintendo?


Then yes.

[Deleted]

I think nearly everything seems better back when you were younger, had less responsibilities, (likely) had more energy, etc.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug, it makes you forget just the sheer amount of terrible games that came out in the past too.

So the answer is yes and no.

there are good games now that I would put as fun as some of the older ones and a ways better than the terrible ones.

and there are bad games now that are just as broken or unplayable as the old bad games too.