I enjoyed games more when I was a child than I do now. But I still feel that games should reward me as much as they did when I was a child. It's not necessarily that new games are not as good as old games. It's not that I have a rose tinted view of the past. Even if I play an old computer game, it doesn't really entertain me as much as it once did. It is simply that I've grown up.
They don't make them like they use to...
- Thread starter Islander
- Start date
Of course several MP games are amuzing, but only because the players you play against are. Try playing against a 5 year old or someone with a debilitating mental illness and the game may not be as interesting. As I stated, one of my favorite games in the recent years is from the Rainbow six series playing coop anti-terrorist mode. But playing this game with AI playing my parnters isn't the same.
I was thinking that too but like I said, I do enjoy playing old games over and over again. In fact, I sometimes enjoys them even more as they often get slightly easier (and we stated how hard some old games were).
This is one of these "eye of the beholder" things because I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing more frustrating to me than to have to play a section of a game over and over and over just to get to the difficult spot that actually gives you the trouble. I find that very few console games actually let you save at ANY point. (PC games might be different, I don't know.)
Actually this is the one thing that's a bit of contradiction for me. I like the GTA series games, but they're some of the worst when it comes to saves and having to replay long, boring, meaningless parts of the game over and over and over.
I'm 28, and I've been gaming since 1985 when we got an Atari 7800 for Christmas.
Definitely an "eye of the beholder" thing. Finally finishing a frustrating section after dying countless times is the reason I am a gamer. There is nothing more satisfying than finally conquering an extremely challenging boss or level.
Anyway, as for the quality of games, it has been scientifically proven that games were best when you were 12 years old. Yes, that's right, when YOU, the person reading this, was 12 years old. The best console ever made was your favourite when you were 12. The best game ever made was your favourite when you were 12.
No AI will ever be as good as playing against or alongside other actual people.
That's what some people say pretty much every generation. When the 16-bit generation came out people were nostalgic for their 8 bit games. Then the 64 bit systems came out, people were nostalgic for the 16 bit era. The older games feel better than they actually are because you're be influenced by the memories of when you first played them.
Just off of the top of my head I can tell you that no classic action game has ever delivered the entertainment that Modern Warfare did for me. Was I more impressed by playing Doom? Maybe, since it was a whole new experience, but to say that Doom was better? No way. Ocarina of time was great as a game but lacked characterization of a game like Knights of the old Republic or even the new Dragon Age has, and ultimately delivered a more shallow experience for me. Is there anything even close to Portal in the classic era? I don't think so.
The only genre's that were better for me back then are the ones that are ignored in the modern age, like the tie-fighter/x-wing games or the old point and click adventure games.
Just off of the top of my head I can tell you that no classic action game has ever delivered the entertainment that Modern Warfare did for me. Was I more impressed by playing Doom? Maybe, since it was a whole new experience, but to say that Doom was better? No way. Ocarina of time was great as a game but lacked characterization of a game like Knights of the old Republic or even the new Dragon Age has, and ultimately delivered a more shallow experience for me. Is there anything even close to Portal in the classic era? I don't think so.
The only genre's that were better for me back then are the ones that are ignored in the modern age, like the tie-fighter/x-wing games or the old point and click adventure games.
One place where this thinking is true is in ratings. When a game is rated 98% and given a gold stamp, it is usually reflective of the year it is rated, and not supposed to be compared with a 93% game made 10 years later, which would suggest the latter is slightly inferior.
There have been plenty of good games in the last decade (most of my favourite games are early 00s and mid-to-late 90s), but most of the games in the last 2-3 years have been complete trash.
The last 2-3 years in gaming have consisted of:
- Crappy sequels to good games
- Endless crappy CoD sequels (see above, the first game was great but now it's just turned into another generic war FPS franchise)
- Endless Guitar Hero/Guitar-Hero-like games that are all identical apart from the song choices (don't see above, Guitar Hero was NEVER good)
- Crappy consoles that rely on gimmicks rather than good games (Wii has THAT controller, 360 has Live, PS3 doubles up as a cheap BluRay player)
- "Sandbox" games where the sandbox is actually a small bucket with a lid on it and the sand is actually just dirt, and mediocre dirt at that, not that fancy store bought dirt
- "Cinematic gaming experience" titles where the only interaction is occasional button mashing
I can't see any of these games being considered "classics" in 10 years time like the Quake series, Unreal series, Diablo series, Half-Life series, Warcraft series, and all the old-school console platformers are. Just like the music, the games of the last couple of years will remembered as a big blur/haze of mediocrity.
The last 2-3 years in gaming have consisted of:
- Crappy sequels to good games
- Endless crappy CoD sequels (see above, the first game was great but now it's just turned into another generic war FPS franchise)
- Endless Guitar Hero/Guitar-Hero-like games that are all identical apart from the song choices (don't see above, Guitar Hero was NEVER good)
- Crappy consoles that rely on gimmicks rather than good games (Wii has THAT controller, 360 has Live, PS3 doubles up as a cheap BluRay player)
- "Sandbox" games where the sandbox is actually a small bucket with a lid on it and the sand is actually just dirt, and mediocre dirt at that, not that fancy store bought dirt
- "Cinematic gaming experience" titles where the only interaction is occasional button mashing
I can't see any of these games being considered "classics" in 10 years time like the Quake series, Unreal series, Diablo series, Half-Life series, Warcraft series, and all the old-school console platformers are. Just like the music, the games of the last couple of years will remembered as a big blur/haze of mediocrity.
Not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but I'm not sure how being able to save at any spot diminishes this feeling of satisfaction. To me, saving at any spot allows you the eliminate the replaying of the sections over and over that you DIDN'T have trouble with.
EDIT TO ADD AN EXAMPLE: In GTA IV, there was a mission where you rob a bank (Called 4 leafed clover perhaps?) and the first part of the mission involved going across town to pick up your associates, and then driving forever to get back across town to actually start the mission of robbing the bank. If you fail, you have to start the whole LONG BORING driving sequence of picking up the brothers and getting back across town to the bank.
If you were allowed to save at any spot, you could save right before entering the bank, right before the actual mission starts. That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about "saving at any spot." Eliminating the replaying of the non-essential parts of a mission so you can restart from the hard part.
I disagree with this one. When I was 12 I had an Atari 2600. It had some good games but the console was simply not powerful enough (in terms of cartridge memory) to make games as we define them today. Even the NES was a bit limited. The SNES is the first console that I can think really stand out and is still being remembered, by different generations.
Such as?
Space sim for the PC, widely regarded as close to a dead genre.
Indeed. Back in the 90s, a few of these would be in my top ten.
As for more recent games, there are a few taht would be in my top ten right now though whether they'd remain there in another five or more years is the question.
As for the 12 year old thing, mine would have been the spectrum. There are one or two games (Dan Dare for one) I'll replay on that as they were fun. Doubt they'd be in my top ten though
Mostly disagree, but it depends on the game. If you can save before a difficult jump, fail the jump 15 times, and then make it across on your 16th attempt you can't say you mastered the jump; you merely got lucky. FPS games in particular butcher the "save anywhere" feature by giving you the ability to save in between enemies, shots, corners, etc. I remember getting bored fighting the helicopters in Half-Life 2 so I simply saved in between every successful rocket attack and reloaded if I got hit. That wasn't skill.
The best method for saving is 3 lives and infinite continues. You still need to be good enough to beat the entire level without just getting lucky, but you don't have to replay stages 1-6 if you only fail on stage 7.
I can relate to that. When I discovered that some games can be won by abuse of the save/reload function, it changed how I felt about games. You can make winning the game a lot easier, and avoiding that function becomes a self imposed penalty, which affects the feeling one has about completing the game.
I'm more inclined to like games that use levels, where you can only save between levels and not during. And don't have any level too long ~ 10-20 minutes. Otherwise "going back to the start" becomes too discouraging if I'm having to repeat an hour of progress. 10-20 minutes is long enough to be challenging but short enough to be tolerable.
I also like a small degree of choice, so that you can choose between level 3A or 3B, say. And also the option of skipping a section if you have the password (or equivalent) for it.
There are various features I like in games, but levels is an important one for me I think, because of how it regulates progress and save points.
I know I'm resurrecting this discussion, but with what you wrote in my 'next decade' thread in misc, I'm seeing a little pattern
Have you considered directing your feeling about modern entertainment into creativity?
What I mean is, that you seem to understand what is good and bad in entertainment, and that you're not easily seduced by hype and mass marketing of mediocre products.
You could direct this skill of yours into designing/creating. Such as designing/making your own little computer games, writing your own music, or a story/plot/script for a movie.
Rather than waiting for society to get their act together, and produce something decent for you to enjoy, you can show society what makes good entertainment.
I find the process of creating things according to my own tastes is far more rewarding than being an end user of something purchased. Creating things is fun.
The alternative is to be dissatisfied consumer for the rest of your life.
I know that's true in a lot of cases, but I know it isn't in my case. It isn't so much older games that I prefer, but the style of them. I've been playing a lot of recent freeware games that are so much better than any professional game you can get nowadays. Games are trying so hard to be more like movies that they just aren't designed to be fun or challenging any more.
A Game with a Kitty
An Untitled Story
Cave Story
Eversion
I Wanna Be The Guy (and I Wanna Be The Fan Game)
Jumper 2
The Spirit Engine
Touhou Series
All these games are so much better than what's on the market today. Games such as Braid or Trine interest me far more than Bioshock 3 or Wii Sports 2. There's also this really cool looking platformer coming out for the PC (and Xbox Live I believe) that uses the 2D/3D gimmick of Super Paper Mario. I can't remember the name of it, but it looks fantastic.
I know I'm resurrecting this discussion, but with what you wrote in my 'next decade' thread in misc, I'm seeing a little pattern
Have you considered directing your feeling about modern entertainment into creativity?
What I mean is, that you seem to understand what is good and bad in entertainment, and that you're not easily seduced by hype and mass marketing of mediocre products.
You could direct this skill of yours into designing/creating. Such as designing/making your own little computer games, writing your own music, or a story/plot/script for a movie.
Rather than waiting for society to get their act together, and produce something decent for you to enjoy, you can show society what makes good entertainment.
I find the process of creating things according to my own tastes is far more rewarding than being an end user of something purchased. Creating things is fun.
The alternative is to be dissatisfied consumer for the rest of your life.
I love doing creative things, but I also have an unfortunate habit of leaving things unfinished
Similar threads
