Case in point, you can still play all of these old games. If you are willing to pirate, you can get access to thousands of games, most you never even played before, for free. You never have to pay for another game as long as you live and a still be playing new games from this era of “better” games.
I’ve done this myself. Played for like a month, and then for bored. And basically noone does that. I have the Nintendo switch access to old nes games. My kids never touch it. No one can really say because there is no novelty.
You know why? Modern games are way better. This isn’t to say these isn’t some annoying shit that goes along with them. But the old days weren’t some magical time of gaming. It seems magical because it was new, especially to the people living during that time, and simply due to nostalgia.
I know I won’t be popular, but I love modern gaming. I throw a game I’m interested in in my steam wish list. I wait for it to drop to below 20 dollars, and then I buy it.
The most recent games that I’ve put a ton of hours into are bg3 and anno 1800. No micro transactions, unless I missed something.
I also played a ton of supercell games: coc, cr, and bs. Many entertaining hours over years. Never spent a dime. Micro transactions other people paid allowed me to play for free. How is this not amazing?
I’m open to hearing competing ideas, but if you do you disagree with me, expect me to ask why you don’t do the things above, and just answer the question in your post. If that’s ignored, it will just indicate to me that you realize I’m right.
I also think there’s a genuine drop in satisfaction when people are presented with more options. I limit myself and only buy new-ish games when I feel like I’ve extracted as much enjoyment out of the last one I bought as I can. I think this helps a lot.
Because what I see a lot of people doing is jumping to the game-of-the-week and then getting numb and saying “there’s no good games” even as they continue to buy new ones every week.
Good games are good games no matter the era. I don’t think you can find many serious people claim that Barbie’s Horse Adventures is better than Red Dead Redemption 2 just because it’s retro. And No serious person is going to claim that Suicide Squad is better than A Link to the Past, just because it’s a modern game
Depends a lot on the games for me. I can spend a lot of time on old games, if they were mechanically well made. But if the controls are clunky (like e.g. in old adventure games) I am out.
I think the early 3D era is the worst for this. We really had no idea how movement or cameras should work, and there was a lot of flailing trying to get it right, and people didn’t even realise when it was right.
I was there 3000 years ago when Alien Resurrection came out and you used the left stick to walk and sidestep, and the right stick to pan and tilt, and it felt like utter unplayable madness.
That’s one of the reasons Mario 64 still holds up. Despite being so early in 3D platforming it did a really good job with the controls and camera choices. It’s a real mixed bag to go back to that era of gaming, Generation V, but I kinda like that. There wasn’t preconceived notions of what 3D games should be so they tried everything.
Agreed. Although that’s not what anyone actually says. Just read the comments in this thread. You would think they rdr2 was completely unplayable shit hole of micro transactions.
But what about rdr2 to link to the past? Removing the “considering the era” part of the equation, just 1 to 1.
I think it’s really hard to quantify. They are both masterpieces even if you just consider the state they are today and not just the era they are made in.
Sure Red Dead Redemption 2 has “better graphics” but Link to the Past looks great in its 16 bit art style. I wouldn’t want to change the graphics. I don’t think A Link Between Worlds or the switch remake of Link’s Awakening improved the graphics for instance.
Red Dead Redemption 2 might have “deeper” gameplay mechanics but I don’t actually care for them very much. The cores system I think distract from the game, and Arthur is honestly a bit slow and clunky to control during fights; unlike A Link to the Past where fighting with the sword is smooth, blocking with the shield is easy to understand and the items add a element of strategy to the combat.
Ultimately I think that red dead redemption 2 is the better game and part of it is because the modern era it is in allowed the developers to tell an story and create a character that I was invested in more than any other in gaming. But ultimately I think it comes down to personal taste. Earthbound is another game that made me feel similar to RDR2 as far as story beats go. And if I had to pick one game to play for the rest of eternity, I’d be fine with either choice.
Competitive NES Tetris exemplifies this. The game was already retro when most current top players were fetuses, which completely eliminates nostalgia as a possible factor.
I mean, I do still play these games. I also play new games, so I don’t agree with the comic. Still, Chrono Trigger, FFT WoL, Secret of Mana, Parasite Eve, Xenogears, and some others are still on my PS Vita and I’ve been replaying them. I need to find Megaman X as well, as I loved that game.
We all have to be very specific about how you’re defining “better” here. To me, it’s people being very bad at explaining what they mean by it when they say that, making it easy to dismiss as nostalgia. I think you’re mostly right though.
People have become used to better graphics and smoother gameplay. You can’t go back after that. People like having other people to play with too. So, I think those are unfair criticisms. They mean, old style made with the new tech. However, there a whole host of things that have gotten better with modern games. I think we can agree on the last part at least.
Having lived through both, old games were not “better” per se but there is something modern games have lost, in amongst all of the improvements. Games “back in the day” weren’t made with algorithms designed to mess with your psychology to keep you playing, even if you hate the game. They didn’t design the games into evergrinds that only a few sweaty types and professionals can genuinely enjoy either. Old games had a logical, satisfying end where you would put them down afterwards.
Despite all the crap you get with old games, you can tell that so many of them were made to be as much fun as possible. Like, that was the main aim and not “engagement at all costs, even enjoyment.” They were labours of love, warts and all.
That’s why they’ll never remake morrowind as it was but with better graphics, mechanics etc. because it’ll be so apparent imo. I mean, you start off fighting rats in a basement with a toothpick and eventually end up being able to make game breaking gear, just for the hell of it. You had to earn it but it was just really fun. Powerstone 2 was just pure, silly fun.
Fun doesn’t generate as much permanent engagement as whatever the hell they’re using now. I’m not saying modern games aren’t fun, just to be clear. But they’re not made, from the ground up, to be as much fun as possible anymore imo. That’s what I think they’ve lost. But I agree, that doesn’t make old games better, despite their being so old.
Games “back in the day” weren’t made with algorithms designed to mess with your psychology to keep you playing, even if you hate the game. They didn’t design the games into evergrinds that only a few sweaty types and professionals can genuinely enjoy either. Old games had a logical, satisfying end where you would put them down afterwards.
Well, many old games were. Arcade games specifically were often designed to get coins from players, with extreme difficulty encouraging grinds and sweaty playthroughs to achieve mastery.
If anything, multiplayer and GaaS brought us back there.
Many new games, especially single player games, are still designed with “fun” in mind, or with even loftier goals and themes, many without exploitative gameplay loops, yet still with distinct, pleasing graphics, art styles, and polished gameplay.
I don’t think anyone was talking about arcade games but I agree that they weren’t excluded either. Even then, you had versions you could own that were very different.
The major labels have lost that and those that are built the way you describe are so few and far in between, they’re barely worth mentioning.
Games in general used to all be like that. Now, the vast majority have to gouge as much as possible. Again, I don’t agree they were better back then but its not improved in every single way either, when looking at them collectively.
I am in full agreement with this statement, and would like to add that I think that older games often have a much greater artistic value. They were concerned with crafting an intricate plot, super immersive environments, powerful and transformative music, memorable characters, etc. One game where in my opinion you really feel the volume of love and artistic expression as well as perfectionism put in is the first Risen, and it’s fairly obscure, but I find it to be so captivating that I’d easily play it with greater enthusiasm than any new Ubisoft copy-and-paste title or Valorant / Overwatch / CS:GO. Still, I think that this art / passion approach of quantifying a game’s “goodness” produces just as many contemporary candidates for great games, like The Witcher 3, Baldur’s Gate 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2. The things I like about old RPGs / adventure games are probably not specific to the past, but instead heavily developer dependent. Developers that love their work and are given enough time and money will produce great works of art in the same way that they have 20 years ago.
People have become used to better graphics and smoother gameplay. You can’t go back after that. People like having other people to play with too.
This is what it ultimately comes down to for me: the games are better, and they can’t go back. If the games from back then were actually better, then people would be playing them all the time. But the reality is that people seem to pull more enjoyment from modern games, which is why they keep going back to them despite the constant “they suck!” complaints.
Despite all the crap you get with old games, you can tell that so many of them were made to be as much fun as possible. Like, that was the main aim and not “engagement at all costs, even enjoyment.” They were labours of love, warts and all.
And I feel that’s true now, like with the games I mentioned (BG3 and Anno 1800). And back then there were definitely cash grabs, like ET jumps to mind as the most famous example, but almost every NES game that was based on some kind of movie or other pop culture thing. It’s just they are better at grabbing cash now. But there are also plenty of modern games that don’t implement these addictive features, in order to keep siphoning money off of you, they are just fun and people play them infinitely more than going back to the olden days.
And, again, I don’t want people to get me wrong. I definitely agree that there is a lot of shit, especially dirty shit, where they abuse human psychology to keep people playing and siphoning off money. But I feel like it’s ridiculously overstated and people are also ridiculously blind to how much better gaming is now than it was “back in the good old days.”
I somewhat disagree about being “unable to go back”, but I will say it’s sheerly the style of game itself.
Take a game like A Link to the Past. Now look at a game like Retro City Rampage. Despite some 30+ years difference, they are visually nearly identical. Or any of the 2D Sonic games, them being 30 years apart is effectively meaningless.
But yeah, trying to play old Tomb Raider? If you’re expecting even PS3 graphics, boy are you in for a surprise.
However I think there is also an annoying amount of push for “better graphics or bust”. That was the main debate for the console wars, the Wii sucked because its graphics weren’t good and it’s a baby console, Gears of War and Lost Planet for the XBox are the pinnacle of gaming!1! What! No the God of Wa- sorry I got caught in a flashback.
But there are plenty of games you can emulate that can be upscaled and remove the archaic visuals, then it’s just the game design and control scheme. Red Dead Revolver looks and plays great, there’s no reason for anyone to stop playing outside of it just being a little less “AAA”. Similarly, pretty much any of the PS2 exploration games - Jak and Daxter, Spyro, Sly, Ty, Crash - hold up wonderfully today. They’re a bit slower, but they are the foundation that modern games of that genre use.
I don’t think them being slower, clunkier, less “AAA” makes them bad games. I think it makes them older games, and that is not inherently bad. In fact, I would argue that it’s gamers being bad at them, and that games today in many ways are easier to keep people engaged. The D&D arcade game is great, difficult, and would be absolutely dunked on by gamers today for all of its awkward gameplay.
This reminds me of an article I read about “Blade Runner, and old movies in general, are harder to watch because contemporary audiences have gotten used to movies that are faster, which makes them better.” The whole article was effectively trying to state that because new movies have shaped audiences, old movies are becoming unwatchable. In some respects, I’m sure there’s merit to that. In many other respects, I completely disagree. Just because something is in a different language does not remove its value. I see that as a reflection of the viewer, not a reflection of the art.
With that in mind, old video games are a different language. We have to play them with the mindset that things will not be familiar. That does not make them bad, it makes them something to learn, and it’s going to force you to learn things that are uncomfortable because it’s unfamiliar to what you would rather be doing. Old movies are a different language.
Just because you may not understand it does not mean it is worse. Likewise, just because you are familiar with modern games doesn’t make them better either. And finally, better is subjective for the most part anyway. (None of this is directed at you btw, lol not at all trying to say that you don’t understand things!)
Skill issue on your part, you got duped by pretty lights. Super Mario is to this day playable. Megaman X is still one of the thightest platformer games ever made, the controls nearly feel like they read your mind.
Also notice how the few games that are better than these classics were either made by the same people (Igarashi’s “Bloodstained” reboot of Castlevania) or were HEAVILY inspired by them (Hollow Knight, Shovel Knight, 30XX etc)
I regularly play 90’s and 00’s FPS games. All the new release ones I play follow old design philosophies with the hindsight of knowing what doesn’t work. There’s not much in the way of modern, triple-A FPS titles without some form of microtransactions or whatever the hell “seasonal content” is. I wont touch anything that’s a “live service” game. Hell, Epic shutdown the Unreal Tournament servers and even delisted the single player stuff.
Kinda just game up on multiplayer. Right now, I’m replaying Postal Brain Damaged. The last episode is so good. Probably do Turbo Overkill or try and get American McGee’s Alice running.
My old lan party friends are playing some BF game or another. I tried military shooters, but they’re all so flat. I think they were more interested roleplay then combat.
I collect games, mostly PS2 and PS3, and you’re largely correct. Games from back then had just as many issues, we were just more willing to look over them.
It is just nostalgia. Like it or not, that’s the first gamers’ generations saying “everything was better in the good ol’ days”. It was not, we just choose to remember the good stuff.
Its the same with film and anime ,probably also aplies to comics and books Everyone remembers a few good titles from the ‘old times’ ( and the old times depend on the person complaining ) and comapres it to every modern production convieniently forgeting about the garbage and medicore stuff that was put at that time.
And then there is the case of some genres falling put of favor. Whetewer we are talking about western in film or RTS in computer games . That actually is pretty reasonable complain since the way it usualy goes we have a massive oversupply of certain genres followed by a drought because as it turns out there is a limit to how much harem school anime horny teenagers and middle aged corporate workers will watch per year.
But there is also how games have aged over time. Some game mechanics still work and are fun.
I just recently bought "Populous" on steam for 2$. After learning how to use DosBox the game is still as addictive as it was on my Atari-STE ... but now I have bad old PC sound.
Compare this with "Command & Conquer Tiberium Wars" I should have skipped buying that. The conversion is so faithful that it still has the same stupid unit movements.
I just recently bought “Populous” on steam for 2$.
It’s funny because I was explicitly thinking of populous at some point when thinking about replayability. What a great game. Although I played it on SNES. Countless hours on that game. Almost as bad as Tetris.
Well I mean, it’s not really like that in this case. Every story expansion just requires you to have cleared the previous parts of the game.
The base game/before the first expansion isn’t bad per se, I had a fun time with the game at that point. But there happens to be a remarkable step up in quality starting with the first expansion, and the game pretty much keeps getting better from there.
Also during the last few years they have been revamping the early-game extensively, adding modern visuals and refreshing the design of the dungeons and boss fights. But having played before these changes, I still wouldn’t call the beginning of the game “filler”. I found it quite charming, and the multiplayer aspect is also fun in its own respect at that point.
Just my 2c, I’m not one to defend large corporations but I don’t think the trope really applies to XIV
Perhaps the confusion is my fault for acknowledging that the game did indeed improve over the course of its ten year run, which is…obviously…the best possible case scenario.
But if you read my comment again, you may notice that my point is the exact opposite of what you’re joking about. I don’t believe there really is a multi hundred hour “rite of passage” to get to “the good part”. Not only is the beginning already pretty good, but, as I said, they are actively modernizing it to bring it more in line with the later parts (which are even better).
Is there a subtlety here that I have simply failed to convey? Is the idea of a decent game becoming a masterpiece really indistinguishable from the idea of a fundamentally worthless game dangling the hope of a better game out in front of you like a carrot on a stick? Really help me out here
If someone says to you that they tried playing the game for a couple hours, but it was kind of boring and the quests have a lot of filler, what would your response be?
The meme pokes fun at the idea that many people who love the game would encourage that person to continue until they reach the first expansion so they could experience that, as you call, masterpiece.
It’s not so much that they find the first part fundamentally worthless, just even if you don’t like it, you should maybe keep playing because it gets so much better.
If someone says to you that they tried playing the game for a couple hours, but it was kind of boring and the quests have a lot of filler, what would your response be?
At the end of the day we are talking about like a 600 hour story driven RPG, the actual structure of the game doesn’t change much as it goes on so you can tell pretty quickly if you’ll like the game in general (hey, that kind of sounds like, the opposite of what the meme is saying, right?).
With that in mind I would say if you aren’t thrilled with the story straight off but you otherwise enjoy the game, you may as well keep playing, and if things pick up later then hey, bonus. If you don’t like the moment-to-moment gameplay I am here to tell you that it does not get better lol. So no worries, the free trial is the way it is for a reason.
In summary, I understand what the meme is saying, but have I said that? Let’s step away from such massive games for a second. I believe the best part of Horizon Zero Dawn is the ending few hours, by far. Story just really hits for me then, as it should, because we want things to get better as we play them. Is this perspective, “the best is yet to come”, the same as, “it’s worth slogging through the boring part until then?” Have I called the beginning boring, actually? Have I suggested anyone should slog through it?
That’s my personal estimate for the game if you simply sit down at the beginning, and progress the single-player* storyline from start to finish, up to the end of the current expansion (a new one is coming out in a few months actually lol). Reading the dialogue and cutscenes, playing through the required quests, dungeons, and trials, and also playing through some of the optional (but also story driven and highly recommended) content.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “story”, there’s dialogue and important story content happening during the actual fights most of the time. But in general I would say the vast majority of that time is pure story, to the point where I wouldn’t recommend the game to someone who didn’t like visual novels. Some players probably could do it in like 300 hours if they skim or even just read really fast, and I know many players who have taken well over 1000 hours as they took their time and did lots of side content.
*the vast majority of the game has optional multiplayer. I think the best way to play is with others but many people feel the opposite lol
Yes I can see how funny it would be were it directed at somebody who embodied in any way the sentiment of the original meme. It seems to me that I have repeatedly argued the opposite, care to share any insight as to why you so easily imagine otherwise?
Maybe me and the other guy are the only ones but you feel like the person from the OP to us. The extremely serious attitude about a joke just adding to the humour of it.
Oh, well, as long as that’s just how you feel, no worries. The heart wants what the heart wants. Others have read and engaged with the actual words that I said, which is normally why I comment, so it seems like everyone gets to walk away with something today
Fuck all the corpo fucks involved here with their plausible deniability attempt. If you truly felt any remorse, you’d talk about how you’ll disengage this AI chum service, or demand that requests are extremely precise or hyper targeted at specific direct issues. This story of blanket action helps the big company with monkey and always hurts the little guy that gets swept up in their ravenous wake.
Also, educate the next month of your online presence you boosting the brand you wronged with your reach. But you won’t do shit, you aren’t remorseful.
Personally I want to see the criminal shield removed for corporations. All C-Level executives become personally liable for any illegal actions, malfeasance, slander/liable, or injurious action perpetrated or instigated by the company with the ONLY defense being proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt (not just reasonable doubt) that an actor within or without the company caused the action with the express intent of harming the C-Level executives, either specific or generally.
Fuck corporate personhood. Fuck people making a LLC and doing whatever the fuck they want under the guise of the company then the company declares bankruptcy while they run off like a cartoon character with bags of money. Leadership liability and culpability should be the norm, not the exception.
Essentially, unless they are personally doing it, they are protected. Embezzle millions and you go to jail, poison a water supply, kill thousands, give birth defects, cancer, and a myriad of other health issues to a community at large and only the corporation is liable/culpable.
I miss the Warcraft II and StarCraft days. You could tell they were serious by their cutscenes, but also knew they were having fun, and wanted the player to as well, by the gameplay and Easter eggs. “Line must go up” took over, now it’s all cash grabs. I will not buy a game from them at full price again.
Grinding hours on steam aka using s.a.m. , archi steam farm or similar programs to emulate playing the games for hours while the games are actually not running.
Yeah, like DNU said, something more grindy. Or something difficult. So more like PoE where you can play thousands of hours without seeing everything or knowing everything. Or like Black Desert Online with its afk mechanics. Or a game with a lot rng like dwarf fortress or rimworld.
Or speedrunning stuff. But some kind of idle… 😅 indeed unexpected.
Well maybe it is because said games are my timesinks… Even though I haven’t played any game as long as he/she did.
The solution is for everyone else to act like school kids and treat the guy like he has a crush and make fun of him. No one likes to be told they’re sitting in a tree.
I don’t get this. I would love it if my kids did that to my PS5. In fact, I might actually have them do it. Custom PS5 that is made specifically for me sounds awesome…
Right? As long as there are no crayons jammed in the disc slot, game on!
I mean, I would definitely give the kids a talk about not drawing on things that are not meant to be drawn on, but better this than the TV or something.
I have a pretty high end gaming computer with glass sides and they put stickers on it and draw on it. I think it’s fun. They also put stickers all over the inside of my Jeep which remind me of them. They draw on some walls too and sometimes with me alongside since it’s nothing a future coat of paint and primer can’t fix.
Once I assumed that my kid could and would destroy everything that she touched, my outlook on life got a lot better. She’s actually not all that destructive at all, so most of the time I’m pleased with how well she’s doing, and when she does destroy something, I simply acknowledge that the truth I had previously assumed is being confirmed.
99.999999% they gonna get external dev to remaster it so the art direction will be incoherent and jarring, 0.000001% they get modder that does all the cool texture/shader mod onto the team.
It could be. It doesn’t say what studio is working on it. If it’s BSG then yeah. If it’s contracted out to another studio then I wouldn’t be surprised to see a version with the newer rendering tech and things like that.
Part of it is because games have multi-year development cycles. And, for most of covid, WFH/remote was not something people really understood how to do (having kids around did not help). So basically all games lost 1-2 years of development time.
And for a major studio (like MS), you have limited support teams and resources. So if Ghostwire needed one of the support studios, DOOM Year Zero (!?!?!?!) would have to wait and so forth.
And then you just have release windows. It matters less in a digital distribution world, but you want your big games to hit for holidays and known good selling weeks. So if Starfield is end of Summer, DOOM can’t be.
And as you add on delays you need to improve the game because something else came out with a similar bit and you will come across as “derivative”.
Most companies froze during the start of COVID. During the first few months, we didn’t know if COVID was spread through air or by blinking. Companies scrambled for WFH, trying to keep workers alive while other companies scrambled to create 6-ft distances. People died. Less people went out to buy things.
You would think so, but for an industry where almost all of the work is location-agnostic, they sure love forcing people to work in offices and cubicles.
I think it’s part Covid but also part that they just underestimated how much time they needed. Clearly it still could have baked a little longer. It feels like it was only fully playable at the very end because so much QoL stuff needs to be added, in my opinion. I think it would have been smart to at least have the mod tools ready at launch, or at least weeks later. It looks like it’s going to be months for those though.
Well we all knew that much at least. It was originally announced to be released in 2022 but they pushed it back almost a full year to 2023. Guessing when development slowed due to salvage work needed for Fallout 76 and then likely a mandate from Microsoft to polish it more before release.
It also says FY which I assume means Fiscal Year. It seems like Microsoft's fiscal years end in June and start in July based on browsing a few investor pages (like this one saying fourth quarter ended in June). Not that that completely solves for the time difference but wanted to mention it
This is late stage capitalism, execs are judged on how much money they managed to squeeze out before the company died. They’ll be hired immediately specifically to do it again somewhere else.
lemmy.world
Ważne