Opinion on 'modern' games

[Deleted member 1381]

is it just me that finds modern games to be pretty shit? not the gameplay or storyline or whatever the game is about, but just modern games as a whole with great graphics and mechanics. just doesnt feel as fun as they used to arond 7-9 years ago

e.g



feels far more fun to play than




another example, id much rather play cod WaW any day than cod WW2



/




i cant pinpoint exactly what it is but i just dont enjoy modern games as much as i used to enjoy games from like 2009-2013, anyone else the same?

 

[axido]

mass effect 1 vs mass effect andromeda perfect example

 

[Ond]

what do most of the old games have in common

the majority of the story was told through gameplay rather than cutscenes

cutscenes take you out of the game and turn the game into something it isn't, a movie

previously cutscenes were used to elaborate on plot established through gameplay or to disguise loading screens, now it just feels forced through unskippable cutscenes and filler

 

[cns - he/him/his]

indie games are basically the way to go at this point, very few triple a big hitters

 

[mårten]

they stopped making fun and entertaining CoD games a long time ago, maybe it is because we grew up idk.

not to mention how companies are dropping historical accuracy to fit their games into some fragile person's safespace

 

[Nova_]

Consumers want more for less. More impact, less time spent.

People are stupid and their attention spans dumb.

 

[Blackquill]

Let me break down what, in my opinion - has led to the disconnect and sense of quality difference that a lot of us notice and experience within modern games.

To get the elephant out of the room, let's begin with content, DLC and the ever-so-beloved microtransactions:
Back in the times of Free-ware and 'Expansion packs', additional content created for a specific game or franchise would usually be sold seperately at a cheaper price without any proper connection to the source material; serving as a standalone experience (Main point of contention: HL1 and its expansions). From this beginning you see that you have the full experience and additional content go along side it. Some of these additional contents started as potential ports to other systems (Blue:Shift was originally going to be a dreamcast exclusive).

Then you move on to a slightly more modern era of DLC, where they are physically connected to the source material I.e you download the DLC and access it from said game - a lot of game companies used this as a method of providing additional content that was outside the budget of the original game - think examples like; Halo & Call of Duty Map Packs, GTA 4 expasions, Fallout 3 & NV DLCs. Content that adds onto rather than subtracts from the original experience - one could enjoy NV without any of the expansions for example. However another example I'd like to bring up is the way that Microsoft handled certain DLC - Namely in L4Ds case. All additional content for L4D1 and L4D2 was provided for free to people who owned the game on steam however on all other platforms you had to pay in order to get that content. Other games at the time, namely in microsofts case had kept 'microtransactions' to cosmetic shit that, again, could easily be ignored.

I'd trace the start of microtransactions in non-freemium titles to Microsoft as their now defunct 'Microsoft points' system has been mimiced by others for their own microstransaciton currency: (Content Club for an example).

Now, we're in the age of microtransactions and lootboxes (an idea I attribute to Blizzard for Overwatch is what popularised it despite it existing before Overwatch) - With Triple A titles including these systems not for the sake of the consumer or using profit to further support the game, but to line the pockets of the publisher. The Triple-A market feels very anti-consumer because many of us remember when we purchased a game and felt like we had a good experience without needing to shell out an extra whatever amount for content locked behind xyz which brings me to another point of contention:

The 'Casual' Market:
It's no secret to anyone that the casual gaming market is much more lucrative and profitable than any hardcore gaming market - Popcap and those who make facebook games and apple games realised this early on and bankrolled thousands because they had capitalised on an audience that gamed more as a simple stress burner. Not that games like this are bad - but the now triple A market is, and has been trying to for quite a while - gain the casual market for more profitable results. When you feel like a game has been 'dumbed down' or isn't as complex as it could be - this is almost certainly why.

Consumers want more for less. More impact, less time spent.

People are stupid and their attention spans dumb.

And this, I heavily disagree with - as a consumer I want a game that:

1. Doesn't have publishers that cut content from the base game to sell for almost the same price as the main game (See: Sims, Mass Effect 3)
2. A game that wasn't made in some committee to appeal to as many people as possible for profit rather than being made by people who want to actually do something well (Notice how the recent God of War did exceptionally well?)
   
3. Doesn't slap me in the face with bullshit practices that are intrusive and prey on those who are prone to spend more on microtransactions (Not that they are inherently bad, mind you)
4. Is actually polished and had QA to ensure it actually works (See; Mass effect andromeda, among other buggy triple A games)

 

[All Adm*ns are Bastards]

i'd say you're viewing the games of yore through rose tinted glasses. maybe the big franchises aren't as good as they were some time ago but there are still loads of utterly wank games that got released back then. there are definitely some very solid older titles but personally when i think back to the games of the late 00s and early 10s i'd say that era was defined by loads of grey and brown shooters that were quite frankly shit and forgettable

 

[MaXenzie]

what do most of the old games have in common

the majority of the story was told through gameplay rather than cutscenes

cutscenes take you out of the game and turn the game into something it isn't, a movie

previously cutscenes were used to elaborate on plot established through gameplay or to disguise loading screens, now it just feels forced through unskippable cutscenes and filler

ngl

this is why i thought max payne 3 was a bit of a shitstain


gameplay was fantastic but it dragged you out of it every fuckin 30 seconds

 

[Zarail]

I feel like the game devs got more and more interested in earning money for as little effort as possible over time.
What do the developers want? Money from the consumers, obviously. That's the point of most if not all game companies.
I feel like DLC is a good example. As Blackquill mentioned, these "expansion packs" weren't needed. You could still enjoy the game without them. Now a lot of DLC is almost restricting the main game in my opinion.
Imagine a game you bought because you wanted a super cool experience.
Now imagine your disappointment as you realize that, despite being sold as a full game (also a lot modern games are mostly overpriced imo), you're restricted to maybe a few items and areas or whatever unless you purchase the DLC, which the developer encourages you to do for extra money.

And don't get me started on microtransactions. They've been there for a while, yes, but they've spread and are in a lot of famous triple A games now. Like Blackquill once again said, most microtransactions were just cosmetics and optional, but it slowly went over to what is what some would consider gambling with the lootbox system; you can spend maybe 2-3 euros on a key to open a box where you might get an extremely valuable item, but covered behind a bigger risk of getting a 0.03 euro skin, and a lot of games make it so you cannot buy the thing you want directly, or in Overwatch's case, you have to open enough lootboxes to either get the hard-to-get skin you want, or enough duplicates to get the money for the skin you want. If someone fucks up and doesn't get the item they want from one crate, they may purchase and try another one instead of spending more time ranking up for a new one. Companies implement it because they know it will earn them more money than letting the player buy the skin directly, despite the fact it's a mostly anti-consumer strategy and a shit move.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I feel about the modern video game industry.


EDIT: also not ALL modern DLC is bad. Blood and Wine or Hearts of Stone from Witcher 3 is a good example.

 

[Ond]

ngl

this is why i thought max payne 3 was a bit of a shitstain


gameplay was fantastic but it dragged you out of it every fuckin 30 seconds

i feel that gunplay makes up for the drag that is the cutscenes

thats why i never could do it in one sitting, it just got tiresome

 

[swagile]

factorio, rimworld

"early access" games / indie games that have more content than most games nowadays

dwarf fortress, free and if you can get past the clunky AI, is the same thing

Gmod still holds strong despite it being held together by ducttape due to the passion behind it

thats what these "modern games" are missing; the passion and drive to innovate and expand as well as experiment on new grounds that no one else dares to tread because failure means a loss of profits; and triple A companies are all about profits nowadays

its why they just release sequels of original content nowadays; because they can bankroll on the nostalgia of the old games creativity

 

[Blackquill]

its why they just release sequels of original content nowadays; because they can bankroll on the nostalgia of the old games creativity

Not even that

Look at the 'Remastered' trend - some have gone above and beyond like the Crash Bandicoot remasters (Which includes all 3 games) then you get the ones that are barely noticable and only selling point is 60FPS which, is great but is it worth buying a game twice for full price

 

[Kerim]

unpopular opinion but i'm actually relatively happy with where the industry is at the moment. sure it's become less about the devs having fun and developing a game that they love but that's all cause of money. you should expect corporations to cut shit because it's gonna sell anyway. however, i feel like there's a simple solution - just don't buy their shit

if you move past the triple-A industry-sort of shenanigans then you've got an untapped reservoir of indie games with great gameplay, stories, you just gotta do a tiny bit of research into it; pretty much the only games i play nowadays are indie (except league lol). but i do agree that there should be a change forced in the bigger picture but that'd be tough as fuck to enforce

is the big gaming industry an utter shitfest that's only focused on cash? yes
does it hold monopoly on vidya gaems? no

 

[Blackquill]

if you move past the triple-A industry-sort of shenanigans then you've got an untapped reservoir of indie games with great gameplay, stories, you just gotta do a tiny bit of research into it; pretty much the only games i play nowadays are indie (except league lol). but i do agree that there should be a change forced in the bigger picture but that'd be tough as fuck to enforce

You know what usually happens to successful indie studios?

They end up bought by publishers - like EA or activision. Then you know what happens?

 

[Kerim]

You know what usually happens to successful indie studios?

They end up bought by publishers - like EA or activision. Then you know what happens?

yeah i'm aware, ea is just a meme at this point. and this might be a naive argument but if an indie company does agree to getting bought off by a giant publisher with a notorious past like electronic arts, then that's natural selection at this point

again, we as consumers don't actually have a real way of influencing it - just boycotting the giants' games which won't really result to anything since the normie media doesn't give a crap about quality

 

[MaXenzie]

You know what usually happens to successful indie studios?

They end up bought by publishers - like EA or activision. Then you know what happens?

dont forget visceral games

:(

 

[Deleted member 93]

You know what usually happens to successful indie studios?

They end up bought by publishers - like EA or activision. Then you know what happens?

damn i miss pandemic
i spent so many hours on their battlefront series,
played the saboteur
played mercenaries
played destroy all humans
their games were the fucking shit.
I prefer the pandemic battlefront to EA's remake, and its a joke because its supposed to be better considering its modern.
it's not only micro transactions that ruin the games, but EA's creative team having zero idea/passion in what justifies a good game.
Look at how they butchered the battlefront series, far more content in battlefront 2 pandemic than EA's battlefront.
I remember Ubisoft spitting out assassin creed after AC3, most of them were shit, and the same thing.
They then took a break in releasing AC sequels and used that time to make AC origins.
through that break, they invested a lot of time into the game, and made something amazing.

 

[ddæ]

i think there's a certain charm to seeing the real attention that comes to having a small dev team and a tighter budget aka the indie scene

it really shows that its quality over quantity, as they aim to deliver as much as they can whilst being accurate other than overflooding a game with useless shit

 

[Kafe]

in my opinion, the most damaging thing that has happened to video games was the extremes their budgets have gone to.
It's hard for the AAA industry to try risky new ideas, create new IP or enter a niche genre, because half of the companies sink so much money into those projects, that selling millions of copies can still be a disappointment to them.

Which is why the indie scene gave me a lot of hope, before Valve killed off any standards or barriers to entry in their marketplace, so now I'm not willing to try unknown or risky games until they become mainstream, because I don't have any trust in the storefront I use.